The design of landscapes in botanical gardens varies between more structured habitats (engineered habitats [EHs]) and nature-orientated habitats (NOHs). Little is known so far about young people’s perception of NOH and EH landscapes in botanical gardens. To address this question, the authors took 28 adolescents to two differently designed settings in an exemplary botanical garden. The authors assessed landscape preferences through marks that the test persons placed on the landscapes photographs, scenic beauty estimates, and accompanying interviews. As a result, the authors found a general preference for more structured landscapes among young people. Implications for biodiversity education in botanical gardens will be discussed.
AppletonJ. (1975). The experience of landscape. New York, NY: John Wiley.
2.
BallingJ. D.FalkJ. H. (1982). Development of visual preferences for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14, 5-28.
3.
BalmfordA.CleggL.CoulsonT.TaylorJ. (2002). Why conservationists should heed Pokémon. Science, 295, 2367.
4.
BebbingtonA. (2005). The ability of A-level students to name plants. Journal of Biological Education, 39, 62-67.
5.
BleekerW. (2007). Artenvielfalt, Biotopmanagement und naturpädagogische Bedeutung eines aufgelassenen Kalksandsteinbruchs in Osnabrück. [Species diversity, biotop-management and relevance for environmental education of an abandoned limestone quarry in Osnabrück.] Osnabrueck, Germany: Botanical Garden of Osnabrueck University.
6.
BMU—Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. (2007). National strategy on biological diversity. Berlin, Germany: BMU.
7.
Botanic Gardens Conservation International. (2004). 2nd World Botanic Gardens Congress (Barcelona, Spain in April, 2004). 2010 Targets for Botanic Gardens. Retrieved from http://www.bgci.org/ourwork/2010_bgtargets/
8.
Convention on Biological Diversity. (1992). The Convention on Biological Diversity. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
9.
DanielT. C. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 267-281.
10.
DanielT. C.BosterR. S. (1976). Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method (Forest Service Research Paper RM 167). Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mt. Forest and Range Experiment Station.
11.
FischerM. A.ShroutP. E. (2006). Children’s liking of landscape paintings as a function of their perceptions of prospect, refuge and hazard. Environment and Behavior, 38, 373-393.
12.
GobsterP. H.NassauerJ. L.DanielT. C.FryG. (2007). The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology?Landscape Ecology, 7, 959-972.
13.
HeffernanM. (1994). The children’s garden project at river farm. Children’s Environments, 11, 221-231.
14.
HerzogT. R.MillerE. J. (1998). The role of mystery in perceived danger and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 429-449.
15.
HesterR. T.Jr.McNallyM. J.HaleS.LancasterM.HesterN.LancasterM. (1988). “We’d like to tell you. . .”: Children’s views of life in Westport, California. Small Town, 18, 19-24.
16.
HullR. B.StewartW. P. (1992). Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 101-114.
17.
KaplanR.KaplanS. (2002). Adolescents and the natural environment: A time out? In KahnP. H.KellertS. R. (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations (pp. 227-257). Cambridge: MIT Press.
18.
KaplanS. (1992). Environmental preference in a knowledge-seeking, knowledge-using organism. In BarkowJ. H.CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 581-598). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19.
KorpelaK. (1991). Adolescents’ and adults’ favourite places. In NiitT.RaudseppM.LiikK. (Eds.), Environment and social development. Proceedings of the East-West Colloquium in Environmental Psychology, Estonia (pp. 76-83). Tallinn, Estonia: Tallinn Pedagogical Institute.
20.
KorpelaK. (1992). Adolescents’ favourite places and environmental self-regulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 249-258.
21.
LekiesK.Eames-SheavlyM.WongK.CeccariniA. (2006). Children’s garden consultants: New model of engaging youth to inform garden design and programming. Hort Technology, 16, 139-142.
22.
LouvR. (2005). Last child in the woods. New York, NY: Workman Publishing.
23.
LückmannK.MenzelS. (2009). Objective profile for nature-orientated habitats (NOH) in botanical gardens. Unpublished manuscript.
24.
MenzelS.BögeholzS. (2009). The loss of biodiversity as a challenge for sustainable development: How do pupils in Chile and Germany perceive resource dilemmas?Research in Science Education, 39(4), 429-447.
25.
MenzelS.BögeholzS. (2010). Values, beliefs, and norms that foster Chilean and German pupils’ commitment to protect biodiversity. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 5(1), 33-49.
26.
MumcuS.DüzenliT.ÖzbilenA. (2010). Prospect and refuge as the predictors of preferences for seating areas. Scientific Research and Essays, 5, 1223-1233.
27.
OriansG. H.HeerwagenJ. H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes. In BarkowJ. H.CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 555-579). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
28.
OwensP. E. (1988). Natural landscapes, gathering places, and prospect refuges. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 5, 17-24.
29.
OwensP. E. (1994). Teen places in Sunshine, Australia: Then and now. Children’s Environments, 11, 292-299.
30.
RusoB. (2003). Von der Savanne ins Paradies: Evolutionspsychologische Grundlagen der Landschaftswahrnehmung [From the savanna to paradise: Evolutionary psychological foundations of landscape perception] In LiedtkeM. (Ed.), Naturrezeption (pp.11-20). Graz: Austria Medienservice.
31.
SandersD. N. (2007). Making public the private life of plants: The contribution of informal learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 1209-1228.
32.
TaylorJ. G.ZubeE. H.SellJ. L. (1987). Landscape assessment and perception research methods. In BechtelR.MaransR.MichaelsonW. (Eds.), Methods in environment and behavioral research (pp. 361-393). New York, NY: Van Nostrans Reinhold.
33.
UlrichR. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In AltmanI.WohlwillJ. F. (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85-125). New York, NY: Plenum.
34.
WeilbacherM. (1993). The renaissance of the naturalist. Journal of Environmental Education, 25, 4-7.
35.
WhirenA. (1995). Planning a garden from a child’s perspective. Children’s Environments, 12, 250-255.
YangB. E.BrownT. J. (1992). A cross-cultural comparison of preferences for landscapes styles and landscape elements. Environment and Behavior, 24(4), 471-501.
38.
ZubeE. H.SellJ. L.TaylorJ. G. (1982). Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 1, 1-33.
