recommenDations
In this chapter conclusions will be drawn, and an answer will be given to the research question. Besides the conclusions, recommendati-ons for further research are provided.
6.1 Conclusions
The research is about the development of an instrument for a systematic, consistent and ‘rela-tively easy’ way of categorizing green elements of urban greenscapes (green configurations not designed for recreation, like parks) in cities. The literature study shows that there are several aspects that possibly influence the perception of public space. These aspects can be charac-teristics of the individual or the environment, but the combination of these two leads to the way the environment is perceived. Professionals, scientists and laymen can use the instrument in order to improve communication about green elements in public space by using the same terms concerning green elements. The instru-ment makes it possible to make inventories of green elements in terms of the amount, size and relative size, type of appearance, state of main-tenance and possible visual coherence with other green elements at a location. Additional to this instrument, a survey is conducted to measure peoples’ memory and perceived restoration concerning urban greenscapes in order to relate these effects to the categorized green elements.
The hypothesis for this survey was that there is a correlation between perceived restoration and (the amount of) green elements at a location.
The interaction between the green elements at
a location and the effects these elements have on perception are the main reason for the con-ducted neighborhood survey, in relation to the developed instrument. This instrument is used to do an inventory of the present green elements and the survey makes it possible to relate per-ceived restoration and general appreciation of a location to these green elements. This leads to the following research question:
“How to systematically, consistently and ‘relatively easy’ categorize urban greenscapes?
Development of an instrument
In order to answer this research question, an instrument is developed. With this instrument, professionals and laymen are able to do an inventory of different kinds of green elements present in an urban greenscape.
By doing literature research and conducting a questionnaire, basic green categories for the instrument were found. This led to ten categories of urban green elements; Trees, scrub, shrubs, low vegetation, hedges, grass fields, façade green, flowerbeds/flower boxes, surface water and front yards. With this result, the secondary questions “What green elements & configura-tions of greenscapes are distinguished in urban environments?” and “What terminology do peo-ple generally use to describe green elements in certain greenscapes?” could be answered.
In order to get the community more involved into the design process, the instrument could be useful to improve interaction between dif-ferent types of users of public space. In this case, professionals, scientists and laymen can com-municate on the same level concerning specific green elements. Because everybody uses the same categories of green, it improves interaction between people concerning (design of) public space and green in particular. By using the same terms, an instrument that engages citizens in the evaluation process of green space has become available Besides improvement of communica-tion and integracommunica-tion of citizens into the proces, the use of this tool can provide urban designers information about the green elements present at a location. With additional information about the (health and restorative) effect of specific green elements, the instrument can be used to opti-mize design with restorative qualities. Important to notice in this case, is that additional research to ‘perceived restorative qualities’ of a location and its green elements is an important aspect when using the instrument. This could result
in the addition of green elements that lead to positive restorative effects. With this conclusion, the secondary question “In what way can the instrument be used to upgrade the (design of) public space?” could be answered.
Neighborhood survey
The developed instrument is used to do an inven-tory in Gestel and Woensel, two neighborhoods in Eindhoven. This inventory resulted in a dataset containing all present green elements at these locations. In addition to the development and use of the instrument, a neighborhood survey is conducted in order to investigate inhabitants’
memory concerning greenscapes and the pos-sible relationship between the presence of green and the restorative quality of the location. Using an online questionnaire, inhabitants were asked about the perceived restorative qualities of a location and their opinion about the green set-ting and green elements of the location. These questions are (partly) based on the ‘Perceived Restorative Scale’ (Hartig et al., 1996; Hartig et
Figure 6.1 - Conceptual model for analyzing relations between the different datasets Physical characteristics / elements
of urban greenscape
Memory of urban greenscape;
‘How do people describe green’
Stress Reduction
Evaluation of urban greenscape;
‘How do people experience/valuate’
C A B
3
2 4
1 Research model
the presence of trees and perceived restora-tion. When analyzing relationship C (between factual amount of green elements and people’s memory) some weak correlations can be found between the factual amount of trees, shrubs and of low vegetation and the estimated amount of these elements.
It can be seen that green has a positive influ-ence on perception of a location, but it is hard to generalize the results. No specific effects of green elements or typical reactions to “speci-fic greenscapes” can be found. This can only answer the secondary question “How do peo-ple perceive greenscapes?” partly.
Also, there can be seen that people find it very hard to estimate size and square meters and do not remember exact amounts of green elements.
Unfortunately, possibly due the small number of respondents, it cannot be concluded that estima-tions are somehow related to the factual amount of green elements present at the location. With these results, the secondary question “How do people remember the urban greenscape, compared with what is actually there?” can be answered in general.
al., 1997). In addition to the dataset gathered with the use of the instrument, this survey led to two more datasets, concerning a dataset with information about ‘perceived restorative quali-ties of a location’ and a second dataset containing
‘peoples memory concerning green’. Using these three datasets, relationships between memories concerning green, factual amount of green and
‘perceived restorative qualities’ could be analy-zed.
Results of analyses
As shown in figure 6.1, three relationships between the datasets can be analyzed. In general, when analyzing relationships A, B & C, a mode-rate number of correlations were found. Looking to relationship A (between people’s memory and perceived restoration), general appreciation of a location and general appreciation of green can be correlated with perceived restoration. This corresponds with literature, where it is stated that presence of green has a positive influence on restoration. Regarding to relationship B (between perceived restoration and factual amount of green elements) strong correlations between the factual amount of green elements and the PR-statements cannot be found. So, despite of the fact that a correlation between
‘general appreciation of green’ and perceived restoration is found, correlation between spe-cific green elements and perceived restoration cannot be found. This means that, different than expected from literature, there cannot be found any evidence for a (strong) relationship between
6.2 Recommendations
For the further development of the instrument, it should be taken into account that most people find it very hard to estimate amounts, lengths and square meters. It is important to be clear about the boundaries of the setting. This could be done, for example, with the use of a clear description of the boundaries including a small map. The participants should be guided with references (like the average size of a car, the width of a average street or the dimensions of a soccer field).
Regarding the online questionnaire, two remarks should be made. It should be noted that both the small number of participants and the unclear boundaries of some locations possibly influenced the results negatively. The fact that for quite some statements referring to the perceived res-toration no relation with specific green elements could be found might have to do with the small sample size. When more participants could be mobilized to participate, more relations may be found. This could be done with the help of the municipality or some local (neighborhood) organizations. Besides this, including more diverse streets may improve the results as well because a larger number of green settings could be analyzed.
Altogether the developed instrument could lead to better communication, evaluation and (re)-design concerning urban greenscapes. Because a categorization of green elements is introduced that is useful for both professionals and laymen,
the communication about “the green in public space” is taken to a next level. Besides better communication, a step is taken in the evaluation of the effects specific green elements could have on restoration (and general health and well-being). The results of the survey could be a useful starting point for further research, related to the restorative effect of specific green elements.
References
Antrop, M., 2004, Landscape change an the urbanization process in Europe, Landscape & Urban Planning, 67, pp. 9–26
Armstrong, D., 2000, A survey of community gardens in upstate New York: Implications for health promotion and community development, Health & Place, 6, 319-327
Beatley, T., 1999, Green urbanism: Learning from European Cities, Island Press, Washington, DC Bedimo-Rung, A.L., Gustat, J., Tompkins, B.J., Rice, J., Thomson, J., 2006, Development of a Direct Observation Instrument to Measure Environmental Characteristics of Parks for Physical Activity, Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3, S176-S189
Bell, P.A., Greene, T.C., Fisher, J.D., Baum, A., 1996, Environmental psychology - fourth edition, Belmont, CA, Wadsworth
Berg, van den, A., Hartig, T., Staats, H., 2007, Preference for nature in urbanized societies: stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability, Journal of Social Issues, Volume 63, Issue 1, pages 79–96 Biner P, Kidd H., 1994, The interactive effects of monetary incentive justification and questionnaire length on mail survey response rates. Psychology & Marketing, 11(5), 483-492
Bird, W., 2007, Natural Thinking A report for the RSPB: Investigating the links between the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Mental Health, RSPB
Brady, K., Myrick, H. & McElroy, S., 1998, The relationship between substance abuse disorders, impulse control disorders and pathological aggression”, American Journal of Addiction, 7, 221-230 Brownson, R., Hoehner, C., Day, K., Forsyth, A., Sallis, J., 2009, Measuring the Built Environment for Physical Activity: State of the Science Review Article, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 36, Issue 4, Supplement, April 2009, Pages S99-S123.e12
Byrne, J. Wolch, J. Swift, J. Ryan, C., 2005, Systematic Audit Of Green-Space Environments (SAGE) Audit form and instructions, Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California Center for Sustainable Cities and GIS Research Laboratory
Cavnar, M., Kirtland, K., Evans, M., Wilson, D., Williams, J., Mixon, G., Henderson, K., 2004, Evaluating the Quality of Recreation Facilities: Development of an Assessment Tool. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 22(1):96-114
Coccaro, E., Bergeman, C., Kavoussi, R. & Serocynski, A., 1997, Heritability of aggression and irritability: a twin study of Buss-Durkee aggression scales in adult male subjects, Biological Psychiatry, 41, 273-284
Coley, R., Kuo, F. & Sullivan, W., 1997, Where does community grow: the social context created by nature in urban public housing, Environmental Behaviour, 29, 468-494
Dodge, K. & Crick, N., 1990, Social information-processing bases of aggressive behaviour in children, Personality and social psychology bulletin, 16, 8-22
Dwyer, J.F., Schroeder, H.W., Gobster, P.H., 1991, The significance of urban trees and forests. Journal of Arboriculture, 17, 276-284
Frumkin, H., 2003, Healthy places: exploring the evidence, American Journal of Public Health, 93:9, 1451-1456
Gifford, R., 1997, Environmental Psychology: principles and practice – second edition, Optimal Books, Canada
Golledge, R.G. & Stimson, R.J., 1987, Analytical Behavioural Geography London: Crook Helm Ltd Hartig, T., 2004. Toward understanding the restorative environment as a health resource, Uppsala University, Gavle, Sweden
Henwood, K., 2003, Environment and health: is there a role for environmental and countryside agencies in promoting benefits to health, Issues in health development, NHS
Herzog, T. R., Black, A. M., Fountaine, K. A., & Knotts, D. J., 1997, Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 165–170 Herzog, T., Maguire, C., Nebel, M., 2003, Assessing the restorative components of environments.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23-2,159–170
James, P, 2009, Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8 (2) , pp. 65-75
Kaczynski, Andrew T. PhD, Sonja A. Wilhelm Stanis, PhD, Gina M. Besenyi, 2012, Development and Testing of a Community Stakeholder Park Audit Tool, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 42(3):242–249
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature: a Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Kaplan, S., 1987a, aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective, Environment and Behavior, 19:3-32
Kaplan, S., 1987b, Mental fatigue and the designed environment, Public environments (pp. 55-60) Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research association
Kaplan, S., 1995, The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15, 169-183
Kaplan, S., 2001, Meditation, restoration, and the management of mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 33, 480–506
Knopf, R., 1987, Human behavior, cognition, and affect in the natural environment, Handbook of environmental psychology, Vol. 1. (pp. 787–825). New York: Wiley
Korpela, K., Hartig, T., 1996. Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology 16, 221–233
Kuo & Sullivan, 2001, Environment and crime in the inner city – Does vegetation reduce crime?
Environment & Behavior, 33 (2001), pp. 343–367
Kuo, 2003, F., The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology. Journal of Arboriculture 29(3):148-155
Kuo, F., 2001, Coping with poverty: impacts of environment and attention in the inner city, Environment
& Behaviour, 33:1, 5-34
Kuo, F., Sullivan, W., 2001a, Aggression and violence in the inner city: effects of environment via mental fatigue, Environment & Behaviour, 33:4, 543-571
Kuo, F., Sullivan, W., 2001b, Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation reduce Crime, Environment & Behaviour, 33:3, 343-367
Kuo, F., Sullivan, W., Coley, R., Brunson, L., 1998, Fertile ground for community: inner-city neighbourhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology 26, 823–851
Lee, R., Booth, K., Reese-Smith, J., Regan, G., Howard, H., 2005, The Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument: Evaluating features, amenities and incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity Volume 2-13
Lohr, V.I., 2006, Responses to scenes with spreading, rounded and conical tree forms, Environment &
Behavior 38(5):667-688
Milligan, C., Gatrell, A., Bingley, A., 2004, Cultivating health. Therapeutic landscapes and older people in northern England, Social Science and Medicine, 58, 1781-1793
Misgav, A., 2000, Visual preference of the public for vegetation groups in Israel. Landscape and Urban planning, 48, 143-159
Neilan, C., 2008, CAVAT: Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees. Revised edition, London Tree Officers.
Association
Newton, J., 2007, Wellbeing and the Natural Environment: A brief overview of the evidence.
Sustainable Development Unit: London
Nordh, H., Hartig, T., Hagerhall, C.M., Fry, G., 2007, Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration, Urban Forestry Urban Greening, 8(4), 225-235
Nordh, H., Alalouch, C., Hartig, T., 2011, Assessing restorative components of small urban parks using conjoint methodology , Urban Forestry Urban Greening, 10(2), 95-103
Polis, Urbanism week 2012, Delft, www.urbanismweek.nl/about/theme (October 2012)
Saelens, B., Frank, L., Auffrey, C., Whitaker, R., Burdette, H., Colabianchi, N., 2006, Measuring Physical Environments of Parks and Playgrounds: EAPRS Instrument Development and Inter-Rater Reliability, Journal of Physical Activity and Health 2006;3(suppl 1):190–207
Thwaites, K., Helleur, E., Simkins, I., 2005, Restorative urban open space: exploring the spatial configuration of human emotional fulfillment in urban open space, Landscape Research, 30, 525–547 Tyrväinen, L., 2001, Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland, Journal of Environmental Management 62, 75–92
Ulrich, R.S., 1984, View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224, 420-421 Ulrich, R.S., 2002, Health benefits of gardens in hospitals. Paper for conference: Plants for People, International Exhibition Floriade
Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M.A.., Zelson, M., 1991, Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 11, 201-230 Valadez, J., 1984, Diverging meanings of development among architects and three other professional groups, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4(3), 223-228
Velarde, D., Fry, G., Tveit, M., 2007, Health effects of viewing landscape – landscape types in environmental psychology , Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 6: 199-212
Vemuri, A., 2004, The contribution of natural capital to quality of life: a multiscale analysis at the country region and global scale, Digital Repository at the University of Maryland
University of Maryland (College Park, Md.) - http://hdl.handle.net/1903/2004
Vermuri, A., Grove, M., Wilson, M., Burch, W., 2011, A tale of two scale: evaluating the relationship among life satisfaction, social capital, income and the natural environment at individual and
neighborhood levels in metropolitan Baltimore. Environment and behavior 43, 1, 3-25
Vries, S., De, 2010, Nearby nature and human health; looking at mechanisms and their implications,
Innovative Approaches to Researching Landscape and Health; Open Space: People Space
Ward Thompson, C., 2002, Urban open space in the 21st century, Landscape & Urban Planning, 60, 59-72
Warm, J., Dember,W., 1986, Awake at the switch, Psychology Today, 20:4, 46-53