Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

Perceptions and Preferences of Urban Forest Users

Herbert W. Schroeder
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) March 1990, 16 (3) 58-61; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1990.017
Herbert W. Schroeder
USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, 5801-C N. Pulaski Road, Chicago, IL 60646
Roles: Research Social Scientist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Urban forest resources provide many important benefits to people who live in cities. This paper reviews research from social science and design disciplines that is intended to guide management of urban forests. Research studies have examined benefits of urban forest vegetation, preferred features and characteristics of urban forest settings, and recreational use of these settings.

Trees and related vegetation are a substantial and important component of the urban environment. According to one estimate, 30 percent of the average city in the United States is covered with trees, a proportion larger that the average tree cover for countryside. These forest resources provide many important benefits to urban populations.

In recent years, urban forest managers have been caught between the increasing demand for esthetic and recreational use of urban forest resources and the decreasing budgets for managing those resources. This dilemma has created a need for more efficient ways to manage urban forests for the benefit of urban residents. In response to this need, the social science and design disciplines have undertaken studies of the human perceptual and behavioral aspects of the urban forest (21). This paper reviews perception and preference research intended to guide the management of urban forests, and suggests some future directions that this work could take.

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.

Directions for Future Research

Continuing research on perceptions and preferences for urban forests should emphasize those topics and issues that will most increase the ability of urban forest managers to use vegetation to improve urban living. There are several useful areas of future research and application.

We need a better understanding of the influence of vegetation on the quality and experience of everyday life in cities. Research should study people’s preferences and experiences in their real-world daily activities, where even brief and casual encounters with vegetation may have significant impacts on the quality of life.

In-depth interviews could reveal the subjective meaning of trees and their associations to individuals’ significant life events. The quality of life is partly a function of the emotional attachments that people form to specific places and to special features of their surroundings. Individual trees may be associated with memories of significant places and events and may thus become the objects of strong feelings (30). For some people, trees and nature are symbolic links to deeply held spiritual values (20).

At the same time, quantitative research can yield better measures of benefits, including the physiological and health effects of vegetation. Research on the relation of urban vegetation to community health and well-being would greatly strengthen the arguments for spending public funds to manage urban trees.

The growing use of microcomputers in management and research offers many opportunities for making research results usable by and accessible to managers. Interactive programs that predict levels of use at urban forest preserves (5) and the distribution of choices over sets of parks (25) have been effective in conveying research results to managers who are unfamiliar with the technical details of statistical models. Researchers should be alert for opportunities to tie their research into existing or proposed computerized management and planning systems for urban forests.

Researchers in urban forestry should provide managers not only with information but also with methods for obtaining their own information. Urban resources and populations are so diverse and rapidly changing that the research results from one situation may often not apply in other situations. Managers should be involved in research on their own sites, so that they can answer specific questions and evaluate the consequences of alternative management actions. The best future prospects for useful research on perceptions and preferences of urban forest users will be found in a close partnership between researchers and managers that identifies, studies, and ultimately solves problems of urban forest management.

Footnotes

  • ↵1. Presented at the annual conference of the International Society of Arboriculture in St. Charles, Illinois in August 1989.

  • © 1990, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.↵
    1. Anderson, L.M.,
    2. B.E. Mulligan,
    3. L.S. Goodman, and
    4. H.Z. Regen
    . 1983. Effects of sounds on preferences for outdoor settings. Environment and Behavior 15(5):539–566.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    1. Chubb, M. and
    2. T.N. Westover
    . 1980. Antisocial behavior: typology, messages, and implications for recreation resource managers. In Proceedings of Land-Use Allocation: Processes, People, Politics, Professionals (Spokane, WA).
  3. 3.↵
    1. Coughlin, R.E. and
    2. A.L. Strong
    . 1983. Forests, fields, and urban development: planning as though vegetation really mattered. University of Pennsylvania, Dept. of City and Regional Planning, Research Report Series no. 2.
  4. 4.↵
    1. Coughlin, R.E.,
    2. D.C. Mendes, and
    3. A.L. Strong
    . 1984. Private trees and public interest: programs for protecting and planting trees in metropolitan areas. University of Pennsylvania, Dept. of City and Regional Planning, Research Report Series no. 10.
  5. 5.↵
    1. Dwyer, J.F.,
    2. H.W. Schroeder, and
    3. R.L. Buck
    . 1985. Patterns of use in an urban forest recreation area. In Proceedings of the 1985 National Outdoor Recreation Trends Symposium, vol. 2 (Myrtle Beach, SC).
  6. 6.↵
    1. Getz, D.A.,
    2. A. Karow, and
    3. J. J. Kielbaso
    . 1982. Inner city preferences for trees and urban forestry programs. J. Arboric. 8(10):258–263.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Hayward, D.G. and
    2. W.H. Weitzer
    . 1983. Understanding urban park users: a key to effective planning and management. Parks and Recreation Resources 2(2):24–27.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Hayward, D.G. and
    2. W.H. Weitzer
    . 1984. The public’s image of urban parks: past amenity, present ambivalence, uncertain future. Urban Ecology 8:243–268.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.↵
    1. Herzog, T.R.,
    2. S. Kaplan, and
    3. R. Kaplan
    . 1982. The prediction of preference for unfamiliar urban places. Population and Environment 5(1):43–59.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    1. Kaplan, R.
    1980. Citizen participation in the design and evaluation of a park. Environment and Behavior 12(4): 494–507.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    1. Kaplan, R.
    1981. Evaluation of an urban vest-pocket park. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NC-195 (St. Paul, MN).
  12. 12.↵
    1. A.S. Devlin and
    2. S.L. Taylor
    1. Kaplan, R.
    1984. Dominant and variant values in environmental preference. In A.S. Devlin and S.L. Taylor (eds.), Environmental Preference and Landscape Preference. New London: Connecticut College.
  13. 13.↵
    1. Kellert, S.R.
    1984. Urban American perceptions of animals and the natural environment. Urban Ecology 8:209–228.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.↵
    1. Lieber, S.R. and
    2. D.J. Allton
    . 1983. Modelling trail area evaluations in metropolitan Chicago. Leisure Research 15(3):184–202.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Lien, J.N. and
    2. G.J. Buhyoff
    . 1986. Extension of visual quality models for urban forests. Environ. Management 22(3):245–254.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. More, T.A.
    1985. Central city parks: a behavioral perspective. Burlington: University of Vermont School of Natural Resources.
  17. 17.↵
    1. O’Leary, J.T.
    1982. Managing urban river corridors: implications for urban forestry. In Proceedings of the 1982 Convention of the Society of American Foresters (Cincinnati, OH).
  18. 18.↵
    1. Peterson, G.L.,
    2. J.F. Dwyer, and
    3. A.J. Darragh
    . 1983. A behavioral urban recreation site choice model. Leisure Sciences 6(1):61–81.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    1. Schroeder, H.W.
    1982. Preferred features of urban parks and forests. Arboric. 8(12):317–322.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    1. Schroeder, H.W.
    1988. Psychological and cultural effects of forests on people. In Proceedings of the 1988 Convention of the Society of American Foresters (Rochester, NY).
  21. 21.↵
    1. E.H. Zube and
    2. G.T. Moore
    1. Schroeder, H.W.
    1989. Environment, behavior, and design research on urban forests. In E.H. Zube and G.T. Moore (eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design, vol. 2. New York: Plenum.
  22. 22.↵
    1. Schroeder, H.W. and
    2. L.M. Anderson
    . 1984. Perception of personal safety in urban recreation sites. Leisure Research 16(2): 178–194.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    1. Schroeder, H.W. and
    2. P. Appelt
    . 1985. Public attitudes toward a municipal forestry program. J. Arboric. 11(1):18–21.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    1. Schroeder, H.W. and
    2. T.L. Green
    . 1985. Public preference for tree density in municipal parks. J. Arboric. 11(9):272–277.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Schroeder, H.W. and
    2. J.J. Louviere
    . 1986. A model for predicting distribution of recreational use over a system of parks. In Proceedings of the Forestry Microcomputer Software Symposium (Morgantown, WV).
  26. 26.↵
    1. Schroeder, H.W.,
    2. J.J. Louviere, and
    3. D.H. Anderson
    , 1988. Factors affecting users’ choices of Chicago-area forests and parks. In Proceedings of the 1988 Convention of the Society of American Foresters (Rochester, NY).
  27. 27.↵
    1. Stynes, D.J.,
    2. D.M. Spotts, and
    3. J.R. Strunk
    . 1985. Relaxing assumptions of perfect information in park visitation models. Professional Geographer 37(1):21–28.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. 28.↵
    1. Talbot, J.F.
    1982. Zoning reconsidered: The impacts of environmental aesthetics in urban neighborhoods. In Proceedings of EDRA 13: Knowledge for Design (Washington, DC).
  29. 29.↵
    1. Talbot, J.F. and
    2. R. Kaplan
    . 1984. Needs and fears: the response to trees and nature in the inner city. J. Arboric. 10(8):222–228.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    1. Tyznik, A.
    1981. Trees as design elements in the landscape. J. Arboric. 7(2):53–55.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    1. Ulrich, R.S.
    1981. Natural versus urban scenes: some psychophysiological effects. Environment and Behavior. 16(5):523–556.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    1. Ulrich, R.S.
    1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224:420–421.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Ulrich, R.S.
    1986. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 16:29–44.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    1. Ulrich, R.S. and
    2. D.L. Addoms
    . 1981. Psychological and recreational benefits of a residential park. J. Leisure Research 16(1):43–65.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    1. Ulrich, R.S. and
    2. R.F. Simons
    . 1986. Recovery from stress during exposure to everyday outdoor environments. In Proceedings of EDRA 17 (Washington, DC).
  36. 36.↵
    1. Westover, T.N.
    1985. Perceptions of crime and safety in three midwestern parks. Professional Geographer 37(4):410–420.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.↵
    1. Young, R.A. and
    2. M.L. Flowers
    . 1982. Users of an urban natural area: their characteristics, use patterns, satisfactions, and recommendations. University of Illinois, Department of Forestry, Forestry research report 82-4.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 16, Issue 3
March 1990
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Perceptions and Preferences of Urban Forest Users
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Perceptions and Preferences of Urban Forest Users
Herbert W. Schroeder
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Mar 1990, 16 (3) 58-61; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1990.017

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Perceptions and Preferences of Urban Forest Users
Herbert W. Schroeder
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Mar 1990, 16 (3) 58-61; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1990.017
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Benefits of urban forest vegetation
    • Preferences and perceptions
    • Safety
    • Variations in perception and preference
    • Recreational use of urban forests
    • Applications of research
    • Footnotes
    • Literature Cited
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Perceived Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Private-Sector Urban and Community Forestry in the Southern United States
  • London Plane Bark Exfoliation and Tree-Ring Growth in Urban Environments
  • Evaluating the Reproducibility of Tree Risk Assessment Ratings Across Commonly Used Methods
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2023 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire