Perceptions and Preferences of Urban Forest Users

Benefits of urban forest vegetation

When people are asked why they value urban parks, the perceived benefits generally fall into two main categories: “passive” benefits involving esthetic enjoyment and relaxation; and “active” benefits involving sports and social contact (8, 34). Although park programs frequently emphasize active sports, passive aesthetic enjoyment may actually be the greatest benefit of urban forests. This enjoyment can give city residents a sense of relief and escape from urban life (8, 33). Infrequent users of parks and nonusers also obtain benefits by observing parks from the street or through windows, and by just knowing the parks are there to use if needed (10, 11, 34).

Vegetation can have beneficial effects on people’s moods and emotional states. For example, in one study nature scenes created higher levels of attentiveness and interest in viewers, while urban scenes tended to increase sadness and fear (31). Studies of physiological responses to the visual environment have shown that scenes with vegetation can produce more relaxed and less stressful states than can highly artificial environments (31, 35). Hospital patients with a view of a wooded scene recovered from surgery more quickly and with fewer complications than patients whose windows looked out onto a brick wall (32).

Preferences and perceptions

Environmental perception studies seek to identify the characteristics and features that enhance the perceived quality of urban forests. In general, natural elements such as trees and water in landscapes are highly preferred over artificial elements (31, 9). Trees and forested areas, water, good maintenance, and peace and quiet were among the most preferred features of urban parks and forests in several studies (19, 22, 37). The most widely preferred kind of park environment seems to be a well-maintained open stand of large trees with evenly mowed grass and water (12).

Features that detract from the attractiveness of a park include manufactured objects (e.g. buildings, fences, and parking lots), poor condition of vegetation, urban surroundings adjoining the park, litter, graffiti, crowding, and large, monotonous fields (19, 22). Either too many or too few trees in a park can reduce visual preference (24). Sounds that are incongruous with the character of the setting can also make a forest or park less attractive (1).

Safety

Crime and social conflict are a serious concern in some urban parks and forests. Social conflict includes a wide range of behaviors, from violent crimes to “nonviolent” offenses such as drug use, to behaviors that, although not illegal, may be threatening or offensive to other users (2). Interviews in three parks in Michigan and Minnesota showed that although most users thought the parks were generally safe, more than 40 percent reported experiencing fear or engaging in avoidance behavior at some time (36).

People’s perceptions of safety play an important role in their choices of whether and how to use urban forest recreation sites. Dense vegetation, graffiti, and litter decrease the perceived safety of a site; long view distances, open grassy areas, and water create a perception of high safety (22). Undeveloped, heavily forested environments are perceived as the most scenically attractive but the least safe sites; and open athletic fields are perceived as least scenic but most safe. Sites with trees that provide substantial overhead canopy but little foliage at ground level may be perceived as both safe and scenically attractive.

Variations in perception and preference

Not everyone likes the same kind of places. There are variations in urbanites’ perceptions of urban forest settings, especailly with respect to the degree of naturalness versus development. For example, Schroeder and Anderson (22) found that most of the participants in their research thought that natural-appearing parks with dense vegetation were the most attractive, but a few people preferred highly developed, “manicured” parks. Also, most participants thought that heavily wooded parks were the most dangerous, but some felt that densely wooded parks were among the most safe.

Variations in preference appear to be related to residential and ethnic background, age, sex, education, and activity preference (14, 26). Blacks and people with urban residential backgrounds tend to be less oriented toward nature and less knowledgeable about environmental concerns than white people with suburban or rural backgrounds (13). Interviews with low- and moderate-income blacks suggest, however, that blacks differ from whites not so much in a lack of interest in enjoying the outdoors, as in the kind of outdoor environments they enjoy. Blacks in inner-city Detroit prefer orderly settings with built features and well-maintained vegetation over more natural and densely wooded areas, a preference that may be associated with fear of physical danger (29).

Recreational use of urban forests

People’s preferences for urban forest environments are expressed in their choices of which sites to visit and how to use those sites. Knowledge of how urban forest sites are used is essential for deciding how the sites should be managed and maintained. A detailed observational study of two northeastern urban parks revealed not only that the parks are heavily used, but also that they are used at all times of the day and night and in all kinds of weather. The parks are used by a broad cross section of the urban populace, usually engaging in simple activities such as walking, conversing, and observing their surroundings (16).

The numbers of users entering Chicago-area forest preserves follow a stable and predictable pattern over the day, week, and year. The amount of use for a particular site can be accurately predicted knowing the month, the day of the week, and the weather (5).

People’s choices of which urban forest sites to visit are strongly influenced by travel distance to the sites. For example, 37 percent of Chicago-area forest preserve visitors travel 2 miles or less from home or work to the forest, and about half report a travel time of 10 minutes or less (37). Distance has consistently appeared as a dominant factor in models of recreation site choice (18, 26, 14), but this relationship is complicated by urbanites’ lack of information about many of the parks available to them (27).

Applications of research

Research on urban forests is useful only to the extent that it can contribute to the planning and management of vegetation in cities. In this section, I will give some examples of how perception and preference research has been or could be applied to planning and managing urban forests.

Surveys can provide information on how the public perceives the importance of management objectives and the performance of the manager in meeting those objectives (17). Surveys have been used to document the importance of urban trees to residents, to identify opinions about where trees should be located, what kinds of trees are preferred, and what services should be provided, and to reveal sources of dissatisfaction with tree management programs (6, 23). Surveys have also been used to assess the success of park design after the park is completed (10,11).

A survey of public motives and perceptions provided a basis for publicity efforts to correct misinformation and lack of information in the public’s image of a park (7). Research has also identified weaknesses in existing planning and zoning mechanisms (28, 4), and has measured the benefits of preserving vegetation in planning for urbanization (3).

Visual preference models have been linked with computer data bases for urban street trees. Inventories that record the location, size, and species of street trees can provide data for predicting the visual quality of urban streets (15). A “scenic beauty equation” can easily be built into a streettree data base to help managers locate streets in need of aesthetic improvement and predict the visual impact of changes in street tree populations.