Dramatically increasing urbanization is observable worldwide and brings pressure on space within urban areas as the built environment intensifies. Considerable evidence suggests that contact with nature is important for city dwellers, although it is not known whether residents’ appreciation of the forms of urban green spaces is constant across different contexts. More specifically, it has not yet been shown whether our appreciation of nature is innate and inherently human, is cultural and something that we learn, or is a mixture of both. This article describes an exploratory study consisting of 17 interviews carried out in Zurich, Switzerland. Kelly’s repertory grid technique is used to identify preferred urban landscapes, which were contrasted with identified rejected landscapes. Principle components analysis and multidimensional scaling reveal a clear separation of cultural and biological modes of landscape assessment in some respondents. The research contributes to an understanding of the meanings of urban green spaces, which would in turn provide planners with a tool to match urban natural resource management with the needs of residents.
Abello, R.P., & Bernaldez, F.G. (1986). Landscape preference and personality. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 19-28.
2.
Appleton, J. ( 1975). The experience of landscape. London : John Wiley.
3.
Balling, J.D., & Falk, J.H. ( 1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments . Environment and Behavior, 14, 5-28.
4.
Balram, S., & Dragicevic, S. (2005). Attitudes toward urban green spaces: Integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements. Landscape and Urban Planning , 71, 147-162.
5.
Barthel, S., Colding, J., Elmqvist, T., & Folke, C. ( 2005). History and local management of a biodiversity-rich, urban cultural landscape. Ecology and Society, 10, article10.
6.
Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. ( 1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics, 29, 293-301.
7.
Bourassa, S. ( 1990). A paradigm for landscape aesthetics. Environment and Behavior, 22, 787-812.
8.
Brady, E. ( 1998). Imagination and the aesthetic appreciation of nature . Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 56, 139-147.
9.
Bunkse, E. ( 1977). Review of "The Experience of Landscape", by Appleton , J. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 67, 149-151.
10.
Chamberlain, A.T. ( 2000). On the evolution of human aesthetic preferences. Assemblage: University of Sheffield Graduate Student Journal of Archaeology, 5.
11.
Clamp, P.P., & Powell, M. ( 1982) Prospect-refuge theory under test. Landscape Research, 7, 7-8.
12.
Coeterier, J. ( 1996). Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch Landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 34, 27-44.
13.
Coley, R., Kuo, F., & Sullivan,W. ( 1997). Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and Behavior , 29, 468-492.
14.
Cosgrove, D. ( 1998). Social formation and symbolic landscape. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
15.
Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253-260.
16.
Daniel, T.C. ( 2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st Century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 267-281.
17.
Daniel, T.C., & Vining, J. ( 1983). Methodical issues in the assessment of landscape quality . In A. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 39-84). New York: Plenum Press.
18.
Danto, A. ( 2003). The abuse of beauty: Aesthetics and the concept of art . Chicago, IL: Open Court.
19.
Dewey, J. ( 1934/1998). Kunst als Erfahrung (3rd edn.) [Art as Experience]. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
20.
Dinsdale, E., & Fenton, D. ( 2006). Assessing coral reef condition: Eliciting community meanings . Society and Natural Resources, 19, 239-258.
21.
Egbert, M. ( 2000). The English landscape garden and the Romantic-era novel: Changing concepts of space. Cardiff Corvey: Reading the Romantic Text (Nov 2000). Retrieved January 28, 2008, from http://www.cf.ac.uk/encap/corvey/articles/cc05_n01.html
22.
Farina, A., & Belgrano, A. ( 2006). The eco-field hypothesis: Toward a cognitive landscape . Landscape Ecology, 21, 5-17.
23.
Foster, C. ( 1998). The narrative and the ambient in environmental aesthetics . Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 56, 127-137.
24.
Fransella, F., & Neimeyer, R. ( 2004). George Alexander Kelly: The man and his theory. In F. Fransella (Ed.), The essential practitioner’s handbook of personal construct psychology (pp. 3-14). Chichester , UK: John Wiley.
25.
Garson, G. ( 2008). Statnotes: Topics in multivariate analysis. Retrieved February 6, 2008, from http://www.2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/statnote.htm
26.
Gobster, P.H. ( 1995). Ecological esthetic: Integrating esthetic and biodiversity values. Journal of Forestry, 93, 6-10.
27.
Gobster, P.H., & Chenoweth, R.E. (1989). The dimensions of aesthetic preference: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 29, 47-72.
28.
Gobster, P., Nassauer, J., Daniel, T., & Fry, G. ( 2007). The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology. Landscape Ecology, 22, 959-972.
29.
Godfrey-Smith, W. ( 1979). The value of wilderness. Environmental Ethics, 1, 309-319.
30.
Hagerhall, C. ( 2000). Clustering predictors of landscape preference in the traditional swedish cultural landscape: Prospect-refuge, mystery, age and management. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 83-90.
31.
Hartig, T., Evans, G., Jamner, L., Davis, D., & Gärling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 109-123.
32.
Hartig, T., & Staats, H. ( 2005). Linking preference for environments with their restorative quality. In B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry , & P. Opdam (Eds.), From landscape research to landscape planning: Aspects of integration, education and application (pp. 279-292). Dordrecht: Springer .
33.
Hernandez, B., & Hidalgo, M. ( 2005). Effect of urban vegetation on psychological restorativeness . Psychological Reports, 96, 1025-1028.
34.
Herzog, T. ( 1989). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 27-43.
35.
Home, R., Bauer, N., & Hunziker, M. ( 2007). Constructing urban greenspaces: An application of Kelly’s repertory grid. Tourism Review, 62, 47-52.
36.
Hunziker, M. ( 1995). The spontaneous reafforstation in abandoned agricultural lands: Perception and aesthetical assessement by locals and tourists. Landscape and Urban Planning, 31, 399-410.
37.
Hunziker, M., Buchecker, M., & Hartig, T. ( 2007). Space and place-Two aspects of the human-landscape relationship . In F. Kienast, S. Ghosh, & O. Wildi (Eds.), A changing world-Challenges for landscape research (pp. 47-62). Landscape Series Springer.
38.
Hunziker, M., & Kienast, F. ( 1999). Impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty: A prototype of an automated rapid assessment technique. Landscape Ecology, 14, 161-176.
39.
Jankowicz, D. ( 2004). The easy guide to repertory grids. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
40.
Jeans, D. ( 1977). Review of "The Experience of Landscape", by Appleton , J. Australian Geographer, 13, 345-346.
41.
Kaltenborn, B., & Bjerke, T. ( 2002). Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, 1-11.
42.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. ( 1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
Kelly, G. ( 1955/1991). The psychology of personal constructs (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
44.
Klopp, B., & Mealey, L. ( 1998). Experimental mood manipulation does not induce change in preference for natural landscapes. Human Nature, 9, 391-399.
45.
Kuo, F.E., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W.C. (1998). Transforming inner-city neighborhoods: Trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 28-59.
46.
Kuo, F.E., & Sullivan,W.C. ( 2001). Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime?Environment and Behavior, 33, 343-367.
47.
Lamb, R., & Purcell, A.T. ( 1990). Perception of naturalness in landscape and its relationships to vegetation structure. Landscape and Urban Planning, 19, 333-352.
48.
Livingston, J. ( 1981). The fallacy of wildlife conservation. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
49.
Matthies, E., & Kroemker, D. ( 2000). Participatory planning-A heuristic for adjusting interventions to the context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 65-74.
50.
Mealey, L., & Theis, P. ( 1995). The relationship between mood and preferences among natural landscapes: An evolutionary perspective. Ethology and Sociobiology , 16, 247-256.
51.
Midgely, M. ( 1978). Beast and man: The roots of human nature. Hassocks, UK: Harvester Press.
52.
Misgav, A. ( 2000). Visual preference of the public for vegetation groups in Israel. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48, 143-159.
53.
Nasar, J. ( 2002). Images of cities. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 1822-1825). Oxford: Pergamon.
54.
Ogunseitan, O. ( 2005). Topophilia and the quality of life. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113, 143-148.
55.
Orians, G.H. ( 1980). Habitat selection: General theory and applications to human behavior. In J. S. Lockard (Ed.), The evolution of human social behavior (pp. 49-66). New York: Elsevier.
56.
Orians, G.H. ( 1986). An ecological evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics . In E. C. Penning-Rowsell & D. Lowenthal (Eds.), Landscape meanings and values. London: Allen and Unwin .
57.
Parsons, R., & Daniel, T.C. ( 2002). Good looking: In defence of scenic landscape aesthetics . Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, 43-56.
58.
Patton, M. ( 1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
59.
Peron, E., Berto, R., & Purcell, T. ( 2002). Restorativeness, preference and the perceived naturalness of places. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 3, 19-34.
60.
Peron, E., Purcell, T., Staats, H., Falchero, S., & Lamb, R. ( 1998). Models of preference for outdoor scenes: Some experimental evidence. Environment and Behavior, 30, 282-230.
61.
Price, C. ( 2004). Forest aesthetics, forest economics, and ecological sustainability . In R. Döring & M. Rühs (Eds.), Ökonomisch rationalität und praktische vernunft (pp. 111-128). Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.
62.
Priskin, J. ( 2003). Tourist perceptions of degradation caused by coastal nature-based recreation. Environmental Management, 32, 189-204.
63.
Purcell, T., Peron, E., & Berto, R. ( 2001). Why do preferences differ between scene types? Environment and Behavior, 33, 93-106.
64.
Staats, H., Kieviet, A., & Hartig, T. ( 2003). Where to recover from attentional fatigue: An expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 147-157.
65.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. ( 1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
66.
Strumse, E. ( 1994). Environmental attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 293-303.
67.
Sullivan, W., Kuo, F., & Depooter, S. ( 2004). The fruit of urban nature: Vital neighborhood spaces . Environment and Behavior, 36, 678-700.
68.
Swanwick, C., Dunnett, N., & Woolley, H. ( 2003). Nature, role and value of green spaces in towns and cities: An overview. Built Environment, 29, 94-106.
69.
Thompson, C. ( 1998). Review of research in landscape and woodland perceptions, aesthetics and experience. Edinburgh: Scottish Forestry Commission.
70.
Ulrich, R. ( 1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment In A. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85-125). New York: Plenum Press.
71.
Ulrich, R. ( 1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 26-44.
72.
Ulrich, R., Simons, R., Losito, B., Miles, M., & Zelson, M. ( 1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-230.
73.
United Nations. (2005). United Nations Population Division, World Urbanization Prospects, Urban and Rural Population Estimates and Projections. New York, NY: United Nations Publications Board.
74.
Van Den Berg, A., Vlek, C., & Coeterier, J. ( 1998). Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: A multilevel approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 141-157.
75.
Vygotsky, L. ( 1978). Mind in society, The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
76.
Wilson, E.O. ( 1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
77.
Wilson, E.O. ( 1993). Biophilia and the environmental ethic In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis. Washington: Island Press.
78.
Winter, C. ( 2005). Preferences and values for forests and wetlands: A comparison of farmers, environmentalists, and the general public in Australia. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 541-555.
79.
Woodcock, D.M. ( 1982). A functionalist approach to environmental preference . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan .
80.
Zube, E.H., Sell, J.L., & Taylor, J.G. ( 1982). Landscape perception: Research, application and theory . Landscape Planning, 9, 1-33.
