It is being increasingly recognized that the success of efforts to preserve/restore biodiversity in urban areas is highly contingent on the preferences of human urban dwellers. We investigated preference ratings for photos of high- versus low-habitat-providing garden landscapes among residents (n = 487) in two specific areas of Perth, Western Australia, and their relationship with general environmental concern and attitudes toward native plants and urban biodiversity. We also investigated the impact of localized descriptive gardening norms. The findings indicate that the distinction between high-/low-habitat-providing gardens was important to respondents’ landscape preferences. The attitudinal variable with the strongest relationship to garden-type preference was residents’ attitudes toward native plants. Preferences were also highly related to prevailing gardening norms in respondents’ local area. We discuss our findings in relation to the structure and dynamics involved in human perceptions of and interactions with urban landscapes.
AlessaL.KliskeyA.BrownG. (2008). Social-ecological hotspots mapping: A spatial approach for identifying coupled social-ecological space. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85, 27-39.
2.
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Biological Diversity Advisory Committee. (2001). Biodiversity conservation research: Australia’s priorities. Canberra, Australia: Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.
3.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006). How Australians use their time, 2006, Table 4: All persons, primary and secondary activities: By sex, data cube: Excel spreadsheet (Australian Bureau of Statistics Cat. no. 41530DO001). Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4153.02006?OpenDocument
4.
Australian State of the Environment Committee. (2001). Australia state of the environment 2001: Independent report to the commonwealth minister for the environment and heritage. Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO.
5.
BhattiM.ChurchA. (2000). ‘I never promised you a rose garden’: Gender, leisure and homemaking. Leisure Studies, 19, 183-197.
6.
BjerkeT.OstdahlT.ThraneC.StrumseE. (2006). Vegetation density of urban parks and perceived appropriateness for recreation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5, 35-44.
7.
BonnesM.UzzellD.CarrusG.KelayT. (2007). Inhabitants’ and experts’ assessments of environmental quality for urban sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 59-78.
8.
BrushR.ChenowethR.BarmanT. (2000). Group differences in the enjoyability of driving through rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 47, 39-45.
9.
CialdiniR. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 105-109.
10.
DaviesR.WebberL.BarnesG. (2004). Urban wildlife management—It’s as much about people! In LunneyD.BurginS. (Eds.), Urban wildlife: More than meets the eye (pp. 38-43). Mosman, Australia: Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales.
11.
DEFRA. (2002). Working with the grain of nature. London: Author.
12.
DunlapR. E.Van LiereK. D.MertigA. G.JonesR. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425-442.
13.
FeaganR.RipmeesterM. (2001). Reading private green space: Competing geographic identities at the level of the lawn. Philosophy and Geography, 4, 79-95.
14.
FernandezL.BrownD.MaransR.NassauerJ. (2005). Characterizing location preferences in an exurban population: Implications for agent-based modeling. Environmental Planning B, 32, 799-820.
15.
FordT.ArmstrongC.BoxerJ.EdelJ. (2008). More than “just a joke”: The prejudice-releasing function of sexist humor. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 159-170.
16.
FullerR. A.IrvineK. N.Devine-WrightP.WarrenP. H.GastonK. J. (2007). Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters, 3, 390-394.
17.
GärlingT. (1998). Introduction: Conceptualizations of human environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 69-73.
18.
GobsterP. H. (1994). The urban savanna: Reuniting ecological preference and function. Restoration and Management Notes, 12, 64-71.
19.
GobsterP. H. (1995). Aldo Leopold’s ecological aesthetic: Integrating aesthetic and biodiversity values. Journal of Forestry, 93, 6-10.
20.
GoddardM. A.DougillA. J.BentonT. G. (2009). Scaling up from gardens: Biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25, 90-98.
21.
HandsD.BrownR. (2002). Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, 57-70.
22.
HeadL.MuirP. (2004). Nativeness, invasiveness, and nation in Australian plants. Geographical Review, 94, 199-217.
23.
HeadL.MuirP. (2007). Backyard: Nature and culture in suburban Australia. Australia: University of Wollongong Press.
24.
JunkerB.BucheckerM. (2008). Aesthetic preferences versus ecological objectives in river restorations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85, 41-154
25.
KaiserF.WolfingS.FuhrerU. (1999) Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 1-19.
26.
KaltenbornB.BjerkeT. (2002). Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, 1-11.
27.
KaplanR.HerbertE. J. (1987). Cultural and sub-cultural comparisons in preferences for natural settings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, 281-293.
28.
KaplanR.KaplanS. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. UK: Cambridge University Press.
29.
KaplanR.KaplanS.BrownT. (1989). Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and Behavior, 21, 509-530.
30.
KaplanS. (1972).The challenge of environmental psychology: A proposal for a new functionalism. American Psychologist, 27, 140-143.
31.
KaplanS. (1982).Where cognition and affect meet: A theoretical analysis of preference. In BartP.ChenA.FrancescatoG. (Eds.), Knowledge for design (pp. 183-188). Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.
32.
KaplanS. (1988). Perception and landscape: Conceptions and misconceptions. In NascarJ. L. (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics (pp. 45-55). UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
KaplanS. (1992). Environmental preference in a knowledge-seeking, knowledge-using organism. In BarkowJ.CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 581-598). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
34.
KaplanS.KaplanR. (1982). Cognition and environment. New York, NY: Praeger.
35.
KirkpatrickJ.DanielsG.DavidsonA. (2009). An antipodean test of spatial contagion in front garden character. Landscape and Urban Planning, 93, 103-110.
36.
LafortezzaR.CorryR. C.SanesiG.BrownR. D. (2008). Visual preference and ecological assessments for designed alternative brownfield rehabilitations. Journal of Environmental Management, 89, 257-269.
37.
LarsonK. L.CasagrandeD.HarlanS. L.YabikuS. T. (2009). Residents’ yard choices and rationales in a desert city: Social priorities, ecological impacts, and decision tradeoffs. Environmental Management, 44, 921-937.
38.
LarsenL.HarlanS. (2006). Desert dreamscapes: Residential landscape preference and behaviour. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 85-100.
39.
LataneB. (1996). Dynamic social impact: The creation of culture by communication. Journal of Communication, 46, 13-25.
40.
LataneB.LiuJ. (1996). The intersubjective geometry of social space. Journal of Communication, 46, 26-34.
41.
LonghurstR. (2006). Plots, plants and paradoxes: Contemporary domestic gardens in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Social & Cultural Geography, 7, 581-593.
42.
MallerC.TownsendM.StLegerL.Henderson-WilsonC.PryorA.ProsserL.MooreM. (2008). Healthy parks, healthy people. The health benefits of contact with nature in a park context: A review of relevant literature. Melbourne, Australia: Deakin University. Retrieved from http://www.healthyparkshealthypeoplecongress.org/images/stories/hphp%20research.pdf
43.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
44.
MillerJ. R. (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20, 430-434.
45.
MillerJ. R.HobbsR. J. (2002). Conservation where people live and work. Conservation Biology, 16, 330-337.
46.
NassauerJ. (1993). Ecological function and the perception of suburban residential landscapes. In GobsterP. (Ed.), Managing urban and high use recreation settings, general technical report (USDA Forest Service North Central Forest Exp. Sta.), St. Paul, MN.
NassauerJ.WangZ.DayrellE. (2009). What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92, 282-292.
49.
NiemelaJ. (1999). Ecology and urban planning. Biodiversity and Conservation, 8, 119-131.
50.
ÖzgünerH.KendleA. D. (2006). Public attitudes towards naturalistic versus designed landscapes in the city of Sheffield (UK). Landscape and Urban Planning, 74, 39-157.
RobbinsP. (2007). Lawn people: How grasses, weeds, and chemicals make us who we are. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
53.
SeddonG. (1997). Landprints : Reflections on place and landscape. UK: Cambridge University Press.
54.
SolviaR.HunzikerM. (2009). How do biodiversity and conservation values relate to landscape preferences? A case study from the Swiss Alps. Biodiversity Conservation, 18, 2483-2507.
55.
TheobaldD. M.HobbsN. T. (2002). A framework for evaluating land use planning alternatives: Protecting biodiversity on private land. Conservation Ecology, 6. Retrieved from http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art5
56.
ThompsonS.BartonM. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 199-210.
57.
TriggerD.MulcockJ.GaynorA.ToussaintY. (2007). Ecological restoration, cultural preferences and the negotiation of ‘nativeness’ in Australia. Geoforum, 39, 1273-1283.
58.
TzoulasK.KorpelaK.VennS.Yli-PelkonenV.KaźmierczakA.NiemelaJ.JamesP. (2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81, 167-178.
59.
UlrichR. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 29-44.
60.
Van den BergA. E.HartigT.StaatsH. (2007). Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 79-96.
61.
van den BergA. E.KooleS. L.van der WulpN. Y. (2003). Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related?Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 135-146.
62.
van den BergA. E.VlekC. A. J.CoeterierJ. F. (1998). Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: A multilevel approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 141-157.
63.
WilliamsK. J. H.CaryJ. (2002). Landscape preferences ecological quality, and biodiversity protection. Environment and Behavior, 34, 257-274.
64.
YabikuS.CasagrandeD.Farley-MetzgerD. (2008). Preferences for landscape choice in a southwestern desert city. Environment and Behavior, 40, 382-400.
65.
ZubeE. (1991). Environmental psychology, global issues, and local landscape research. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 321-334.
