Landscape and Urban Planning 79 (2007) 5–19

Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas
Liisa Tyrväinen a,∗ , Kirsi Mäkinen b , Jasper Schipperijn c
a Finnish Forest Research Institute, P.O. Box 16, 96300 Rovaniemi, Finland
bUniversity of Helsinki, Department of Forest Ecology, P.O. Box 27, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
c Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, KVL Rolighedsvej 23, Frederiksbeg C, Denmark

Received 15 February 2005; received in revised form 24 February 2006; accepted 1 March 2006
Available online 23 May 2006

Abstract
Since the social values of urban woodlands are not always sufficiently taken into account in decision-making on urban land-use and green space
planning, new means of collecting the experienced values of urban green areas and integrating this information into the planning processes are
needed. The main aim of this study was to develop a simple method to describe the experienced qualities of green areas for strategic green area
planning purposes. In a postal survey conducted in Helsinki, Finland, general attitudes towards and benefits felt to be derived from green areas as
well as site specific information about the experience values were gathered. Local residents were asked to identify, those areas on a map of the
study area that had particular positive qualities, such as beautiful scenery, peace and quiet and the feeling of being in a forest as well as those areas
with negative features. These results were compiled in map form using GIS software. The results highlight the most valued sites as well as problem
areas within the study area. The most important features associated with favourite places were: tranquillity, the feeling of being in a forest, and
naturalness. The results suggest that the method is communicative and relatively easy to use in both collaborative green area planning and land-use
planning.
© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Amenity benefits; Green area experience; Green area planning; Land-use planning; Residential information; Urban forest

1. Introduction existing residential areas is great, leading to construction often

How much and what kinds of green area should be pro-
vided for residents in urban areas? Do suburban green areas
provide high-quality benefits for residents? Where do residents
find attractive and meaningful green areas and what are the char-
acteristics of these areas? These are becoming more and more
important questions in urban land-use and green area planning.
There are presently no up-to-date quantity and quality criteria
for planning green areas. In Finland previous guidelines stating
the quantity of different types of green areas in a housing district
date back to the 1970s (Jalkanen et al., 1997). These standards
are increasingly difficult to apply in current planning policy in
which infill of existing housing areas is seen as a general solu-
tion to achieving the goals of sustainable development: savings
in transportation costs and energy use. The demand for new
construction sites in the Helsinki Metropolitan area within the
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 10 211 4553; fax: +358 10 211 4401.
E-mail address: liisa.tyrvainen@metla.fi (L. Tyrväinen).
being permitted on green areas (Helsinki General Plan, 2003).
Since the current land-use legislation (Land Use and Building
Act, 1999) emphasizes the participation of citizens and their role
in quality control in planning processes at the local level, new
tools and approaches to collecting social values of urban green
areas and integrating this information into various planning pro-
cesses are needed.
Green areas contribute to the quality of life in cities (Bonaiuto
et al., 2003; Chiesura, 2004). Their benefits are primarily deter-
mined by the quantity and quality of these areas as well as
their accessibility (Tyrväinen et al., 2005). The social and aes-
thetic benefits of urban green areas are generally acknowledged
as key functions of open space for local residents, including
recreational opportunities, improvement of the home and work
environment, impacts on physical and mental health as well as
cultural and historic values (Tyrväinen et al., 2005).
The role and importance of green areas have previously been
researched largely through structured questionnaires. Previous
studies included the perceived quality of green areas (Bonaiuto
et al., 2003), equal accessibility to green areas compared to

0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.03.003
6 L. Tyrväinen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 79 (2007) 5–19
demographic and socioeconomic characteristics (Lindsey et
al., 2001), and economic valuation of urban forest benefits
(Tyrväinen, 2001). This research has, however, had limited links
between particular qualities associated with particular green
areas.
Coles and Caserio (2001) have suggested a set of social cri-
teria and indicators to measure the supply and quality of green
spaces. Data dealing with perceived positive qualities or negative
features such as fear of crime related to green spaces needs to
be collected from the theoretical user population from the catch-
ment area using surveys. These criteria and indicators, however,
have not been tested empirically. De Ridder et al. (2004) have
also tried to develop a methodology to assess the impact of green
space and settlement patterns on urban environmental quality
and social well-being. From the social point of view, special care
is given to issues of the accessibility of green areas and people’s
perceptions of green structures. The role of green spaces in the
perception of quality of life and social well-being has been inves-
tigated using quantitative and qualitative interviews and mental
maps.
Some earlier research has been linked to spatial planning;
at the city level the accessibility and quality of urban green
areas was assessed by experts using GIS (Van Herzele and
Wiedemann, 2003), and individual attitudes towards green areas
have been measured in a collaborative planning situation using
it (Balram and Dragicevic, 2005). Moreover, physical design
parameters for urban woodland were investigated by Coles and
Bussey (2000) in the UK. An area of 2 ha was identified as the
smallest wood that people wish to visit regularly. Shape became
particularly important in small woods less than 5 ha in size.
According to Coles and Caserio (2001), green spaces should
ideally be so close that they can be accessed within 5 min walk-
ing time.
Research on how various green area qualities are perceived
and preferred by people is also important in the context of
the present study. Zube et al. (1982) divide the large variety
of landscape perception research into expert, psychophysical,
cognitive and experiential paradigms. Preferences for urban for-
est management practices have been studied using photographs
produced by digital image editing (Tyrväinen et al., 2003), and
virtual field trips created by landscape simulators have been
used to predict movement and path choices (Bishop et al., 2001;
Bishop, 2001). The point of these studies, however, was identi-
fying general preferences for different landscape features rather
than specific or locally known landscape.
The relations between green area qualities and experiences,
perceptions and activities across landscapes have received rel-
atively little attention (Dwyer and Childs, 2004; Balram and
Dragicevic, 2005). While experiences remain personal, they
are the most crucial part of how people perceive, utilise,
or live their green areas (Relph, 1976). As such, personal
meanings are the most important characteristics of a place
for local people. Personal experiences may be based on aes-
thetic and social characteristics as well as cultural values and
meanings.
Various participation methods have been developed to facil-
itate involvement of people’s personal experiences in urban
woodland planning in Europe (see Van Herzele et al. (2005)
for an overview). A range of methods including collaborative
planning groups, field visits, public meetings and household sur-
veys intended to involve local residents and other stakeholders in
strategic planning of green areas has been used in planning and
managing municipally owned woodlands and other green space
in Helsinki since 1995 (Sipilä and Tyrväinen, 2005). Although
residents were satisfied with the opportunity to participate, the
green area planning authorities felt that the process had been
too costly and time-consuming. The questions of how to involve
‘silent groups’ more in planning, and how to combine social
information with other existing planning information was also
raised. These combined factors interested the Helsinki Green
Area Division in developing their participation methods and
testing a method to systematically collect information on the
experienced qualities of green areas.
The theoretical background for this study lies primarily in
environmental psychology and research related to park charac-
teristics (Bechtel and Churchman, 2002; Kaplan and Kaplan,
1989; Grahn, 1991). For example, the relationship between
green areas and well-being has previously been examined by
determining what environments are favourite places for resi-
dents. Favourite places are restorative, intriguing, and help in
balancing a person’s emotional control (Kaplan and Kaplan,
1989; Korpela and Hartig, 1996). Moreover, these places are
usually aesthetically appreciated and provide an opportunity for
self-expression.
In developing this study, the previous experiences from pilot
studies in mapping the social values of open space conducted in
Stockholm, Sweden, were analysed. The classification of social
values in the first study conducted in a suburban area was based
on in-depth interviews conducted by a consultant (Regionplane-
och trafikkontoret, 2001). The method was further developed in
the inner city of Stockholm where social value maps were com-
piled by experts using information collected from a relatively
small number of local residents by questionnaires and inter-
views (Ståhle and Sandberg, 2002). In Helsinki it was decided
to gather the values in a more representative way, using a postal
questionnaire sent to a large number of randomly selected resi-
dents living within the study area.
This study tested a systematic approach to collecting social
values as experienced by residents in urban green areas in
Helsinki, Finland. The main study questions were:
(i) What kinds of green area benefits are important to people?
(ii) How can the green area qualities experienced be identified
and linked to particular areas for planning purposes?
(iii) What kinds of quality do the current green areas provide?
The study provided information for collaborative green-area
planning and was conducted in cooperation with the Helsinki
Green Area Division, the broader aim being to bring information
on the experiences and values of residents to the decision-makers
and planners in an appropriate map form. The goal was to con-
struct a simple and effective tool for gathering local information
associated with green areas for various decision-making pro-
cesses.
 L. Tyrväinen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 79 (2007) 5–19
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Case study area
Helsinki, the capital of Finland, situated on the south coast of
Finland (25◦ 3 E, 60◦ 15 N), is home to approximately 560,000
inhabitants. The city covers ca. 18,535 ha of land and lies in the
hemiboreal forest vegetation zone. The average annual tempera-
ture is 5.4 ◦ C. The city of Helsinki owns 5510 ha of green areas,
the majority of all publicly accessible green space. The majority
of green space, 3570 ha, consists of woodland (Helsinki Green
Area Division, 2002).
The case study area was located in east Helsinki, ca. 10 km
from the city centre (Fig. 1). The area was chosen together with
the city authorities among the planning sub-units in which strate-
gic green area plans were about to be revised. As regards green
area planning, the municipal region is divided into 50 sub-units.
Strategic green area plans contain objectives and management
strategies for forests and other green areas over a 10-year period.
The plans are drawn up for a small number of sub-units at
a time.
The study area included the housing areas of southern Kon-
tula, Mellunmäki, northern Vartioharju, South-East Puotinharju
and eastern Myllypuro, with approximately 20,000 inhabitants
(Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council, 2002). Kontula, Puotin-
harju and Mellunmäki are dominated by blocks of flats built in
the 1960s and 1970s. Vartioharju and eastern Myllypuro, built
Fig. 1. The case study area in Eastern Helsinki © City Survey Division, Helsinki.
7
mainly between the 1950s and 1970s, were dominated by single
family houses. The total case study area consisted of 570 ha of
which ca. 200 ha (35%) was green space owned by the city of
Helsinki. The border of the case study area was determined by
a number of major roads, which were seen as barriers to people
using green space on the other side, and the municipality border.
The green areas in the study area are mainly young forests,
former agricultural lands and narrow forested belts (Fig. 1). The
majority of all green areas (ca. 65%) are urban woodlands situ-
ated within housing areas. Older woodlands, over 100-years old,
are rare in the area, only 3% in all. The majority of the wood-
land is less than 60-years old. The landscape is dominated by
Scots pine (Pinus silvestris) and silver birch (Betula pendula)
(Helsinki Green Area Division, 2002).
2.2. Data collection
In March 2003, a postal questionnaire was sent to 1000
residents aged 15–75, randomly sampled by the Finnish Pop-
ulation Register Centre. Younger residents were not taken into
account in this questionnaire as the survey would probably need
some modification to be more interesting to them. Preferences
of younger residents were to be considered in a separate study
within the research project later on. The questionnaire was trans-
lated into Swedish for Swedish-speaking residents. A follow-up
letter was sent to those respondents who had not returned the
survey within 2 weeks.
8 L. Tyrväinen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 79 (2007) 5–19
The questionnaire was developed in cooperation with the
Helsinki Green Area Division to provide information for the
ongoing strategic green area planning process in the case study
area. The survey consisted of four parts in which general atti-
tudes towards and benefits felt to be derived from green areas
as well as site specific information about the experience val-
ues were gathered. There were questions asking respondents for
general personal information (age, gender, etc.), their views and
opinions about the role of green space in their living environment
and their views on its current management. A set of questions
also dealt with how well respondents knew their green areas,
how often they used them and what the main activities in the
green areas were. The supply, function and importance of green
areas were also inquired about.
The main part of the questionnaire discussed in this paper
dealt with mapping the social values of green areas, a map of
the case study area with pre-identified and numbered green areas
being included in the questionnaire for this purpose. The vari-
ous green areas were identified by a planner from the Helsinki
Green Area Division, primarily based on how the areas were
defined in the local green space management system; however,
in some cases areas were joined or separated to better reflect the
areas most likely to be felt to be a single green area. Respon-
dents were asked to identify areas with the following positive
values: beautiful landscape, valuable nature site, the feeling of
forest, space and freedom, attractive park, peace and quietness,
opportunities for activity and history and culture. Furthermore,
they were asked to identify areas with the negative values of
unpleasantness, scariness and noise. This meant that the respon-
dents had to respond to given words (expressions) instead of
pictures/photographs or real landscapes. It also meant that the
expressions were open to interpretation and only slightly pre-
coded (brief explanations, illustrations).
The social values were presented on a one-page list
(Appendix 1) and respondents were asked to identify areas for
each value by writing down the number of the area to which they
felt the value was applicable. Respondents could also answer
that a certain value did not exist within the case study area or
that they did not know. The latter response was added to pro-
vide some indication of how well the values were understood by
the respondents. A high percentage of ‘do not know’ answers
was thought likely to indicate that the value was less well
understood.
The green area values used in this study were prompted by
values used in earlier studies in Stockholm (Regionplane-och
trafikkontoret, 2001), which in turn were based on other Swedish
studies (Grahn, 1991). Inspiration was also derived from a study
in Belgium (Van Herzele and Wiedemann, 2003). However, the
values in all these previous studies were primarily to be identified
by planning professionals and were sometimes used a differ-
ent spatial scale, and could not be used directly in this study.
The values had to be adapted to the specific scale and Finnish
situation so that they could to be identified by local residents.
Values were presented in a way expected to be understood by
most respondents. The terms used were illustrated with cartoon-
or caricature-like images of green area experiences to stimulate
responses to the mapping part of the questionnaire (Appendix 1).
Along with questions dealing with various social qualities
of green areas, respondents were also asked to identify their
favourite and most used areas. When identifying such an area,
they were also asked to describe what qualities it has in order to
get information on the kind of environment or landscape features
people appreciate and looked for.
2.3. Data compilation and analysis
The questionnaire results dealing with attitudes, values, and
use intensities were compiled and analysed using SPSS statis-
tical software. The influence of the background characteristics
was determined by the χ2 -test and a Fisher test. The reported
differences are statistically significant with a probability smaller
than 5%. A Mann–Whitney U-test and a Kruskal–Wallis vari-
ance analysis was used to test the ordinal scale variables. Factor
analysis was also used in compiling the data for testing back-
ground characteristics. The majority of these results have been
reported in a separate case study report (Tyrväinen et al., 2004).
The social values of green areas identified by each respondent
were compiled into a database per unit area, which produced
the number of times an area had been identified as having a
specific social quality. For example, area number 29 could be
identified by 50 respondents as one with a ‘sense of a forest’,
having received 50 votes for ‘sense of a forest’. Because respon-
dents could identify each social value in more than one area, and
because not all respondents identified areas for each value, the
absolute scores have been transformed into relative values by
dividing the absolute number of votes one area received for one
social value by the total number of votes per value, e.g., area 29
received 50 votes for ‘sense of a forest’, while the value ‘sense
of a forest’ was identified 500 times (i.e., it received 500 votes)
in total, thus giving area 29 a relative score of 10% of all votes
for this social value.
The database with social value scores was imported into a GIS
(ArcView 3), making it possible to present the results on a map,
combine it with other geographical information, and perform
further analyses. Because a lot of other data on the urban green
space was available in the same GIS format, it became possible
to compare and relate the results of this study with the actual
landscape, vegetation and forest characteristics recorded, as well
as with management classes for the various areas used by the
Helsinki Green Area Division. This type of comparisons were
conducted by municipal green area planners as a part of their
strategic green area planning process.
The response rates differed between different green area qual-
ities, which made it necessary to adjust the scale of each thematic
map manually to obtain four reasonable value classes. There
were usually many green areas that got no votes and typically a
few areas received the majority of the votes. In the second phase
of the analysis, synthesis maps of both positive and negative
values were compiled by selecting the areas of the highest score
classes from every thematic map. The synthesis maps showed
the highlights and most unpleasant and problematic green areas
in the study area.
The verbal descriptions of favourite places were analysed
by identifying and classifying key attributes in the text. Three
 L. Tyrväinen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 79 (2007) 5–19
attributes were picked out from each description. The researcher
had to choose common descriptors to represent freer and more
personal expressions than the respondent had used. For example,
the chosen descriptors from the description “Open, natural, few
people, quiet. The hares and squirrels of Kontula thrive there.
Also the people” were open, peaceful and natural.
3. Results
3.1. Respondents
The response rate to the questionnaire was moderately high at
42% (421 answers), varying between 39% and 59% from hous-
ing area to area. The most active respondents lived in Myllypuro
and Vartioharju, both areas with a relatively high proportion of
single family houses. A follow-up letter increased the response
rate from 28% to 42%. The representativeness of the respondents
in respect to the whole population could not be tested. Since the
borders of the study area did not follow the administrative bound-
aries used by the Finnish Population Register Centre, key figures
for the whole population living in the area were not available.
Women (61%) were more active respondents than men
(39%). The mean age of respondents was 49 years. People
between 30 and 60 years of age answered more actively than
other age groups. Only 14% of respondents were under 30. On
average, residents had lived relatively long in eastern Helsinki,
the mean residential time in the study area being 17 years. The
majority of respondents, almost 9 out of 10, had lived in Helsinki
for more than a decade, the average time being 33 years. The
most typical childhood environment had been a suburban area
(42%). The countryside (23%) as well as a town or city (18%)
were also quite typical childhood environments.
Half the respondents lived in large blocks of flats, 24% of peo-
ple living in one-family houses and 20% in row houses. Only
8% of the respondents lived in a small block of flats. One-third
of the households (33%) had children living at home. One fam-
ily in 10 had children under school age and 12% had school
children at home. A fifth of the respondents had completed only
lower elementary school education. Almost a third (31%) had a
high school education and almost a quarter (23%) held a univer-
sity degree, while 13% of the respondents had no professional
qualification.
3.2. Attitudes towards and the use of green areas
In general, the green areas are very important to local res-
idents. In eastern Helsinki, over 80% thought that green areas
made a very important contribution to the quality of the envi-
ronment and 17% thought they made a relatively important con-
tribution. The most important benefits were outdoor recreation
opportunities, contacts with nature, stress relief and aesthetic
experiences. This outcome reflects the residents’ general expec-
tations and the relative importance of various green area benefits.
Women and new-comers, as well as better educated residents
(a college or university degree), emphasized recreational and
health benefits more than other groups. Environmental bene-
fits (pollution and noise control, shade, etc.) were considered
9
slightly less important than the social benefits mentioned. These
functions of green areas were, however, more important to
women, retirees and residents who had lived in Helsinki more
than 25 years. In general, the importance of environmental ben-
efits increased with age (Fig. 2).
Residents appreciated relatively sparsely built and green city
structure in suburbs, and infilling the existing housing areas was
strongly disapproved of (Fig. 3). The infill of the current city
structure is most strongly opposed by new-comers and families
with small children. The respondents agreed that forests are an
inseparable part of the image of housing areas in the suburbs.
Moreover, the naturalness of green areas and contacts with wild
animals are expected and appreciated. Rural landscapes (mead-
ows pastures and fields) existing in the area were also highly
appreciated. Although specially designed and constructed parks
were present in the study area, they were generally considered to
be less important than other types of more natural green areas.
Planned parks were relatively desired more by retired people
and lower-educated residents.
Residents of the study area use woodlands and other green
areas actively both in summer and winter. In summer, over 80%
of respondents visit their areas at least two to three times a week
(Fig. 4) while this number falls to 70% in winter. A third use
green areas daily in summer and a fifth in winter. The most active
users are residents between 31 and 45 years of age and families
with small children. Students and school children use the green
areas less than other groups, especially during winter.
3.3. Social value maps
About 70% of the respondents claimed that they knew their
green areas at least relatively well and 17% felt that they knew
their local green areas very well. Less than a quarter knew the
areas relatively poorly. Negative values were identified less often
within the planning area than positive. The most frequently iden-
tified positive values were ‘opportunities for activity’ and ‘beau-
tiful landscape’. Furthermore, places for ‘freedom and space’,
‘a feeling of forest’ as well as ‘peace and quiet’ were indicated
fairly frequently (Fig. 5). The ‘history and culture’ and ‘attrac-
tive park’ values were least often identified. From the relatively
small number of ‘can’t say’ answers, it can probably be con-
cluded that respondents generally understood the social values
presented to them and thus identified green area qualities on the
map (Fig. 5).
A thematic map for each quality was plotted from the votes
received per area. These maps illustrate where each value was
found within the study area. The maps indicate that the respon-
dents have somewhat different ideas of the kind of environments
in which these values can be found. For example, 70% of respon-
dents indicated areas with the feeling of a forest. A fifth stated,
however, that woodlands in the case study area do not provide
the experience of being in a forest environment. Typically, the
feeling of forest is found in larger natural forest areas with natu-
ral ground vegetation. The tree stands are mature and relatively
dense, but topographical variation is also important. Proba-
bly owing to the scarcity of larger mature forest areas within
the study area, half-open areas with pine forests (rocky out-
10 L. Tyrväinen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 79 (2007) 5–19

Fig. 2. Main benefits of urban green areas. Scale: (1) not important, (2) not very important, (3) relatively important, and (4) very important. Missing responses:
1.4–2.4%.

Fig. 3. Residents’ opinions concerning management of green areas. Scale: (1) totally opposed opinion, (2) partly opposed opinion, (3) partly agreed, and (4) totally
agreed. Missing responses: 1.9–3.3%.
 L. Tyrväinen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 79 (2007) 5–19 11

Fig. 4. The use of green areas in summer and winter. (Missing answers: summer 7.1%, winter 10.2%.)

crops) were also pointed out as places experienced as a forest
(Fig. 6).
About two-thirds had experienced peace and quiet some-
where in the case study area (Fig. 7). A fifth considered that the
study area did not provide these qualities. Peacefulness is often
connected to large green area networks with tranquil surround-
ings, often near detached-house areas, and where large roads are
situated further away. The landscape types are a mixture of open
landscapes and diverse forest vegetation with mature tree stands.
A synthesis map revealing the highlights of the area is based
on the areas scoring highest, suggested as regionally valuable
areas and acknowledged by many users. These are large, natu-
ral ones with open landscapes and diverse forest (Fig. 8). These
areas form a continuum in the landscape and are easy to reach
along recreational routes. The areas also provide a lot of land-
scape variation: an allotment plot area, an attractive pasture area
recalling historical land use and high cliffs to climb and watch
the scenery from. The network and connections between them
is probably a key to their appreciation, although the whole envi-
ronment and neighbouring land-use types influence the general
appreciation of these areas.
A synthesis map of negatively experienced areas was also
compiled to give an idea of the main problem areas (Fig. 9).
The problems and claims were written in the comments part
of the questionnaire. Dissatisfaction with green areas is usually
caused by untidiness, in particular litter and dog faeces, but van-
dalism and noise also decrease the experienced social quality of
areas. On the one hand, some respondents felt that unmanaged
areas with abundant understorey vegetation were unpleasant and
lacked control. On the other hand, unmanaged areas were highly
valued by other residents, which meant that in some cases pos-
itive and negative qualities were found to a certain extent in
the same area. In addition, lack of management causes irrita-
tion and the areas are seen as neglected and uncontrolled. The
most problematic areas are located mostly along main roads
with noise problems and some areas within the suburb of Kon-
tula, which has acquired the image of a lower status housing
with and associated social problems.
3.4. Favourite places
In eastern Helsinki, a relatively small proportion of resi-
dents, 42%, identified a favourite place within the study area.
This was typically situated within a kilometre of home, the
most important being a former horse-pasture and two high open
rock outcrops with old pine stands. The descriptors most used

Fig. 5. Relative degree of green area qualities, that have been identified in the study area (proportion of respondents, %).
12 L. Tyrväinen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 79 (2007) 5–19

Fig. 6. Areas in which the respondents experience the sense of being in a forest (share (%) of all scores).

Fig. 7. Peaceful areas within the study area (share (%) of all scores).
 L. Tyrväinen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 79 (2007) 5–19 13

Fig. 8. A synthesis map of the areas with the highest scores on various social value classes. Explanation of numbers: (1) beautiful landscape, (2) valuable nature site,
(3) the feeling of forest, (4) space and freedom, (5) peace and quiet, (6) attractive parkland, (7) opportunity for activities and (8) history and culture.

Fig. 9. A synthesis map of the most negatively experienced areas. Explanation of numbers: (1) noisy areas, (2) unpleasant areas and (3) scary areas.
14 L. Tyrväinen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 79 (2007) 5–19

Table 1
Most used expressions in favourite place descriptions
Adjective No. of mentions

Peaceful 69
Feeling of the forest 67
Natural (in natural state) 42
Functional, physical exercise 30
Open 29
High elevation, rocky 25
Beautiful 18
Tidy 14
Marinea 13
Rich with bird-life 10
Countryside-like 9
Managed 7
Cultural landscape 6
Hilly 5
Close to water 5
Wooded 5
Green 4
Safe 4
Unmanaged 3
Variable 2
Meadow-like 2
Full of flowers 2
Historical 2
Good lighting (evening, dark season) 2

Number of adjectives for the entire data.

a Not related to case study area characteristic.

to describe favourite places were peacefulness, the feeling of

forest, naturalness and functionality (Table 1). These qualities
are also suggested as the key qualities that most people desire
to experience in their home environment in the suburbs. Con-
sequently, people appreciated peaceful, relatively large, natural
areas as well as open landscapes with a rural sense of space
(Fig. 10).
Favourite areas, however, were not necessarily the most used
in this study area, one reason perhaps being that high landmarks
with steep slopes are not easily accessible. Moreover, since one
of the main expectations of residents is to find peace and quiet
(Table 1), intensively used areas are not often mentioned among
favourite places. Nor are they necessarily situated very close to Fig. 10. Examples of green areas appreciated by residents. On the top, a large
residential areas, but are still an important part of the scenery, recreational forest. On the bottom, an old pasture area that was a favourite place
the mindscape and the geographical identity of the area. of many respondents. Photographs: Jasper Schipperijn.
The relatively low attractiveness of green areas within the
study area is highlighted by the fact that two-thirds of respon- the quality of the living environment (e.g., Tyrväinen et al.,
dents named a favourite place outside the study area, against the 2005). A household survey in the whole of eastern Helsinki also
42% that named one within it. Most often mentioned was the reported that local people consider urban nature and daily out-
Mustavuori nature conservation area, which is largely forested door recreation opportunities to be the main factors enhancing
and located close to the study area in the north-east. Moreover, their everyday well-being (Eronen et al., 2002). Although green
forested recreation areas near the Baltic located further south areas seem to be important to all income classes (see Tyrväinen,
were also popular. These areas got 41% of all the votes. 2001) allowing construction on existing green areas is, how-
ever, easier to push through in lower income areas in municipal
4. Discussion land-use and policy processes than in better-off areas.
Residents in the study area appreciated the relatively sparsely
This study area comprised several housing areas, some of built city structure and infilling of existing housing areas was
which experience social problems such as high unemployment strongly disapproved of, which highlight the gap in values and
and a low-quality built environment. The results confirm pre- goals between local residents and compact city policies defined
vious findings that green areas are recognized as improving by politicians and planners. The implementation of the current
 L. Tyrväinen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 79 (2007) 5–19
general land-use plan anticipates Helsinki receiving 40,000
new inhabitants by 2020, which will decrease substantial
amounts of urban woodlands and green areas during the next
10–15 years (Helsinki General Plan, 2003). This highlights the
quality requirements of the remaining green areas. In practice,
permission for construction on existing green areas has pro-
voked conflict and created movements among local residents
to oppose the plans, which are frequently discussed in the local
media.
The main aim of this study was to develop a simple method
to describe the experienced qualities of green areas for strate-
gic green area planning purposes. Most expressions used in the
survey such as ‘beautiful landscape’ or ‘valuable nature’ were
formulated in colloquial language and were well understood
judged by the small number of ‘can’t say’ answers. Compared to
favourite place descriptions, the same expressions were repeated
in many of their own descriptions: “peacefulness, quiet places to
think, rich in birds, animals, flowers, a lot of trees, moss and the
feeling of forest, open landscapes and nice views.” Furthermore,
the understandability of the social values was probably enhanced
by the use of small drawings on the questionnaire form; however,
the form of drawings might have influenced how respondents
interpreted a certain value, thus affecting the result.
Mapping of the social values of open space are based on the
experiences of residents who have often used their neighbour-
hood woodlands and other green areas over many years. On the
one hand, residents have to adapt to local circumstances and
supply, because having to go too far has been one of the main
reason not to use green areas (see Tyrväinen, 1999; DeVries
and Goossen, 2002). Walking, jogging and cycling are the most
popular outdoor recreations in Finland and the majority of recre-
ational visits take place near home (Pouta and Sievänen, 2001).
On the other hand, values and qualities of green areas are to
a certain extent independent of the area and land-use type,
because some activities may be pursued and expectations ful-
filled in various environments. Moreover, while many residents
thrive in natural areas, others long for more luxurious and mani-
cured parks, especially in traditional wooded suburbs (Kopomaa,
1995). Many activities, however, require playing fields and spe-
cial equipment.
In the synthesis map several qualities often seem to be found
within the same area. Multi-dimensionality and interdependence
between human relations and the landscape has previously been
addressed by Gobster and Westphal (2004), who looked at six
interdependent “human dimensions” of the landscape in the
Chicago River area: cleanliness, naturalness, aesthetics, safety,
access and appropriateness of development. They suggested that
aesthetics and naturalness usually go hand-in-hand, and safety
accords with cleanliness. In our case study area, peace and quiet
and the feeling of forest were often combined, showing that a
strictly single-value framework may lead to misinterpretation.
This study concentrated on the values of suburban residents,
which are probably different to values in the inner city. Gobster
and Westphal (2004) also concluded that human values varied
substantially with culture and location. Moreover, the interpre-
tation of green areas depends on personal environmental images
and preferences as well as a person’s way of life. A small wood-
15
land can be a forest to one person, but for someone else real
forests cannot be found in a city. Some values are probably
also more collective and some more personal than others, which
could be seen in our results. Values such as opportunities for
activity (there were less playing-field users than remarks about
this value), may be interpreted more collectively than person-
ally in contrast to the feeling of being in a forest or freedom
and space. Moreover, an open space may be accessible or exclu-
sive in different ways to different social groups (Koskela, 1997;
Lindsey et al., 2001).
The demand for various green-area qualities is culturally
dependent and varies throughout Europe. In Finland, as in Swe-
den and Norway, people have relatively close bonds with nature
and are familiar with using and experiencing relatively large
forest areas, even in urban areas (Tyrväinen, 2001; Pouta and
Sievänen, 2001). Moreover, people’s expectations and demands
for recreational use are closely related to previous environmental
experience. Positive responses and the values of environments
may be lost because of disturbances such as noise, litter and con-
gestion as well as the fragmentation of green areas into smaller
units. In this study, the sense of being in a forest was mentioned
as a highly valued feature, which probably indicates that forest
landscapes are typical in Finland. Values most strongly appreci-
ated, for example, in an Amsterdam city park, were to relax and
to experience nature (Chiesura, 2004).
Identifying the social values for particular green areas on a
map revealed some weaknesses of the map used. Although the
map resembled a well-known guide map of Helsinki with all
open areas, built-up areas and street names, recreational routes
were not identified, making it more difficult for people to recog-
nise the areas. This information, however, was not available at
the city administration. Moreover, pre-defining green area units
and numbering them for identification purposes is challenging.
A small park may be easily understood as one unit by most
respondents, whereas larger green areas might have several sub-
areas for one respondent, while another respondent sees it as
part of an even larger area.
Compared to the approach that was used in Stockholm, where
interviewees could speak freely about both the areas and their
values (Regionplane-och trafikkontoret, 2001), the method as
used in this study had both advantages and disadvantages. Since
the selected list of social value maps was mainly based on ear-
lier studies (especially Grahn, 1991; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989),
there was less freedom for respondents to identify areas and val-
ues, which might reduce the relevance of the outcome but, at the
same time, the more systematic approach makes statistical anal-
yses and generalisations possible, thus increasing the usability
of the results in current planning systems.
For green area planners, the thematic maps reveal what val-
ues a particular green area possesses and where those areas are
located. The results need to be interpreted in a local context
reflecting the existing supply situation and the quality of the
areas. In particular, the research shows areas with important
qualities that should be saved as well as areas that are less valu-
able from a social point of view and whose quality should be
improved. Moreover, the synthesis map of values highlights a
rough image of regionally acknowledged and used green areas
16 L. Tyrväinen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 79 (2007) 5–19
known beyond the housing areas as well. In general, the size of
the study area, however, affects what areas are revealed in the
final analysis. If the study area is very large, only areas that are
attractive even at greater distances are highlighted and areas that
are important to few residents remain undiscovered.
Although this study was linked to strategic green area plan-
ning at local level, the city-level approach is also essential in
dealing with quantity and quality of green areas. Van Herzele
and Wiedemann (2003) made a comparative analysis of supply
and quality of green areas both at inner-city and city level in Bel-
gium. In Finland, the use of the social value mapping method
has also recently been tested at city-level in a joint project with
city planners related to general land-use planning in Vantaa City,
in the Helsinki metropolitan area.
The survey method used also allows collection of other useful
information; for example, regarding use motives and frequencies
of visits as well as green-area benefits perceived by residents.
This tool could also be used in a participatory planning process.
As different participation methods complement each other, the
best way to integrate diversified interests in planning is to use
several methods during a single planning process (Sipilä and
Tyrväinen, 2005). For green-area planning, the qualitative infor-
mation on green areas in map-form provide new perspectives
on analysing expectations and demands made of nature areas.
What is unpleasant in this area? Why is there no forest feeling
in this woodland? Could a network with a new spatial structure
be identified? Where are peaceful areas located and where not?
The results have been used and assessed in the collabora-
tive green area planning by the Helsinki Green Area Division.
Assessment of the method by administrators, planners and resi-
dents has been positive and has already influenced routine green
area planning in the city. The maps have been used to establish a
dialogue with local communities and provide basic understand-
ing for planning professionals about the perceived qualities of
the current green areas.
The GIS tool was only used for mapping in this study. To fur-
ther analyse the perceived values, either environmental analysis
and/or more extensive inquiry about the valuation are needed.
Further GIS analyses can be conducted to extend the expert
approaches to such areas, for example, numerical assessment of
the parameters predicting landscape preferences, accessibility,
and demand. Our results were given to the city authorities, who
used the material as part of their planning work.
5. Conclusions
Information concerning the social values and meanings of
green areas to urban residents is scarce nowadays. This infor-
mation should be made available in a usable form for urban land
use and green area planning. It is increasingly important that the
fewer remaining green areas be of high quality and provide the
desired qualities. This does not necessarily mean built-up parks
with lawns and tree plantations, since this study suggests that in
Finland people appreciate the existing natural areas, especially
forests. Understanding the values of green areas for local people
in real-life contexts reveals an important resident-based aspect
of the greenness of the city and its interpretation.
Social value mapping is a tool designed to capture the valu-
ations of local green area characteristics. This makes it possible
to bring the values of residents into the decision-making pro-
cess in such a way that they become more comparable to other
values. Social information in map form provides an opportunity
for multiple analyses and comparisons with other inventories
and expert assessments. The social value maps indicate where
the most valued green areas are situated, as well as giving a
good impression of how people respond to the current supply of
green space. Moreover, the method has been shown to offer a
comprehensive basis for understanding perceived values within
the study area, mainly because of the non-technical language
and systematic approach to collecting and analysing the data.
The method is a mixture of both qualitative (personal expe-
riences, memories) and quantitative aspects (numerical social
value maps) permitting examination of residential information
spatially. The core of knowledge presented in social value maps
is based on soft data, but is processed in a GIS, which is a tool
often used for routine planning purposes. As a simplified set of
questions, the social value mapping could work well to examine
perceived environmental qualities in local contexts, especially in
combination with other available methods: surveys, interviews,
and numerical analysis of the perceived values.
The main strength of this method is that social (aesthetic,
cultural, and health benefits) values of green areas are acknowl-
edged and systematically collected for the planning process. The
practical strength is also to get better insight into the local values
that influence the use and perceptions of existing green areas.
The proposed method applied on a larger scale early enough
in the planning process may decrease conflicts over land-use
if local information is used as one of the criteria in decision-
making. Since the method is linked with GIS, it can be easily
integrated into current municipal planning systems.
The use of questionnaires may, however, increase current
planning costs. Moreover, it seems that young people in par-
ticular are difficult to reach via mail surveys, so that other ways
of reaching residents, such as the Internet, should be consid-
ered. The design of a good questionnaire also requires expertise,
because each area has its local features that should be taken into
account.
The key concluding points:
• If recorded systematically, social aspects can well be made
equally visible in a GIS as, and more comparable with, eco-
logical and technical aspects of planning, thus allowing for
more balanced and sustainable city planning.
• The method facilitates communication of green area values,
and otherwise silent groups can also express their opinions.
• The maps show areas with qualities that should also be sus-
tained in the future as well as development areas where values
are currently missing.
• For land-use planning, the results show the highlights of green
areas that should be protected from being developed for other
land-uses.
The approach seems to emphasize outdoor use aspects and
larger green areas compared to more passive use (views from
 L. Tyrväinen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 79 (2007) 5–19
the window, etc.), and smaller green areas. These small areas
include traffic belts, tree-lines and alleys or fragments of wooded
areas, and remained largely unmentioned or seldom mentioned
in this study. These areas might however, have local importance
in contributing to the environmental and aesthetic quality of the
immediate housing environment. In the future, the methodology
should be improved to capture this type of green area function
better.
Since green area values and meanings change over time like
urban cultures, leisure time activities and environmental knowl-
edge change, information related to residential attitudes, values
and activities should be updated regularly. This type of research
is biased towards the opinions and values of middle-aged peo-
ple, who are usually active in answering mail surveys. One of the
future challenges is to develop methods of canvassing different
age group valuations more effectively and understanding better
how different phases of life influence green-area valuations and
17
relationships. Moreover, it is important to identify the physical
parameters in terms of area size, and vegetation structure which
define the desired environmental qualities.
Acknowledgements
The study was a part of the NeighbourWoods project,
financed by the European Union’s 5th Framework Programme
(QLK5-CT-2001-00165). The NeighgourWoods research group
and especially its coordinator, Cecil Konijnendijk, have our grat-
itude for helping us during the case study. The study could
not have been done without the support of the Helsinki Green
Area Division. Anders Sandberg and Alexander Ståhle from
the City Planning Department of Stockholm, and Bette Malm-
ros from The Office of Regional Planning gave us valuable
knowledge of how to implement the social value mapping in
Helsinki.
18 L. Tyrväinen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 79 (2007) 5–19

Appendix 1. What qualities do the green areas have in your housing environment? (Southern Kontula, mellunmäki ja
Northern vartioharju)

On this page we ask your views about the different characteristics of green areas in the planning area. We ask you to point out
various qualities of green areas that you find pleasant (or unpleasant). Please indicate the green areas by using numbers from the
map (light green area on the attached map). Instructions for answering: e.g., ‘Beautiful landscape’: Areas: 1 and 6b. It is possible to
give more than one quality for one area if necessary.
 L. Tyrväinen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 79 (2007) 5–19
References
Balram, S., Dragicevic, S., 2005. Attitudes toward urban green spaces: inte-
grating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve
attitude measurements. Landsc. Urban Plan. 71, 147–162.
Bechtel, R., Churchman, A. (Eds.), 2002. Handbook of Environmental Psychol-
ogy. John Wiley, New York, pp. 607–628.
Bishop, I.D., Wherrett, J.R., Miller, D.R., 2001. Assessment of path choices on
a country walk using a virtual environment. Landsc. Urban Plan. 52, 225–
237.
Bishop, I., 2001. Predicting movement choices in virtual environments. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 56, 97–106.
Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., Bonnes, M., 2003. Indexes of perceived residential
environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in urban environments:
a confirmation study on the city of Rome. Landsc. Urban Plan. 65, 41–52.
Chiesura, A., 2004. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 68, 129–138.
Coles, R.W., Bussey, S.C., 2000. Urban forest landscapes in the UK: progressing
the social agenda. Landsc. Urban Plan. 52, 181–188.
Coles, R., Caserio, M., 2001. Social criteria for the evaluation and development
of urban green spaces. URGE—Development of Urban Green Spaces to
Improve the Quality of Life in Cities and urban Regions. Project Deliverable
7. http://www.urge-project.ufz.de/PDF/D7 Social Report.pdf.
De Ridder, K., Adamec, V., Banuelos, A., Bruse, M., Bürger, M., Damsgaard,
O., Dufek, J., Hirsch, J., Lefebre, F., Pérez-Lacorzana, J.M., Thierry, A.,
Weber, C., 2004. An integrated methodology to assess the benefits of urban
green space. Sci. Tot. Environ. 334/335, 489–497 (Short communication).
DeVries, S., Goossen, M., 2002. Modelling recreational visits to forests and
nature areas. Urban Forest. Urban Green. 1, 5–15.
Dwyer, J.F., Childs, G.M., 2004. Movement of people across landscape: a blur-
ring distinction between areas, interests, and issues affecting natural resource
management. Landsc. Urban Plan. 69, 153–164.
Eronen, A., Luomala, J., Paju, E., 2002. Metron tuomat. Itähelsinkiläisten koke-
muksia hyvinvoinnistaan. Sosiaali- ja terveysturvan keskusliitto ry, Helsinki,
2002 (in Finnish). Summary: people’s experiences of their own welfare in
Eastern Helsinki.
Gobster, P.H., Westphal, L.M., 2004. The human dimension of urban greenways:
planning for recreation and related experiences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 68,
147–165.
Grahn, P., 1991. Om parkens betydelse. Dissertation. Stad och Land 93. Göteborg
(in Swedish).
Helsinki General Plan, 2003. http://www.hel.fi/ksv/kaavoitus/katsaus 2004/
yleiskaava.html.
Helsinki Green Area Division, 2002. Forest Data.
Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council (YTV), 2002. SeutuCD’02. Data package
with register and metadata. Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council, Finland.
Jalkanen, R., Kajaste, T., Kauppinen, T., Pakkala, P., Rosengren, C., 1997. Plan-
ning of Housing Districts. Rakennustieto Oy, Tampere, p. 216.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature. A Psychological Per-
spective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
19
Kopomaa, T., 1995. The use of urban parks. Helsingin tietokeskuksen julkaisuja,
vol. 5, Helsinki.
Korpela, K., Hartig, T., 1996. Restorative qualities of favorite places. J. Environ.
Psychol. 16 (3), 221–233.
Koskela, H., 1997. Tilapuoli sukupuoli. In: Haarni, T., Karvinen, M., Koskela,
H., Tani, S. (Eds.), Tila, paikka ja maisema. Tutkimusretkiä uuteen maanti-
eteeseen. Vastapaino, Tampere (in Finnish).
Lindsey, G., Maraj, M., Kuan, S., 2001. Access, equity, and urban greenways:
an exploratory investigation. Prof. Geogr. 53 (3), 332–346.
Land Use and Building Act, 1999. Original title: Maankäyttö-ja rakennus-
laki 132/1999. http://www.finlex.fi/english/laws/index.php. Accessed May
2006.
Pouta, E., Sievänen, T., 2001. Luonnon virkistyskäytön kysyntätutkimuksen
tulokset—Kuinka suomalaiset ulkoilevat? (The results of a recreation de-
mand survey—how do Finns participate in outdoor recreation?) In:
Sievänen, T. (Ed.), Luonnon virkistyskäyttö 2000. Metsäntutkimuslaitok-
sen tiedonantoja, vol. 802, pp. 32–76, 195–196. (in Finnish).
Regionplane-och trafikkontoret, 2001. Upplevelsevärden, Sociala kvaliteter I
den regionala grönstrukturen. Rapport 4. Katarina Tryck AB, Stockholm.
ISSN 1104-1604 (in Swedish).
Relph, E., 1976. Place and Placelessness. Pion, London.
Sipilä, M., Tyrväinen, L., 2005. Evaluation of collaborative urban forest planning
in Helsinki, Finland. Urban Forest. Urban Green. 4 (1), 1–12.
Ståhle, A., Sandberg, A., 2002. Sociotop som redskap i grönomarå-
deplaneringen. Stockholms Stadsbyggnadskontor, Rapport 2002:4.
Tyrväinen, L. 1999. Monetary valuation of urban forest amenities in Finland.
Academic dissertation. Finnish Forest Research Institute. Research papers
739, 1999. pp. 53, 76.
Tyrväinen, L., 2001. Use and valuation of urban forest amenities in Finland. J.
Environ. Manage. 62, 75–92.
Tyrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H., Kolehmainen, O., 2003. Ecological and aes-
thetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forest. Urban Green. 1 (3),
135–149 (15).
Tyrväinen, L., Mäkinen, K., Schipperijn, J., Silvennoinen, H., 2004. Mapping
social values and meanings of green areas in Helsinki, Finland. Univer-
sity of Helsinki, Department of Forest Ecology, p. 45. http://www.sl.kvl.dk/
euforic/nbw.htm.
Tyrväinen, L., Pauleit, S., Seeland, K., De Vries, S., 2005. Benefits and uses
of urban forests and trees. In: Konijnendijk, C., Nilsson, K., Randrup, T.,
Schipperijn, J. (Eds.), Urban Forests and Trees in Europe: A Reference Book.
Springer Verlag, pp. 81–114.
Van Herzele, A., Wiedemann, T., 2003. A monitoring tool for the provision of
accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landsc. Urban Plan. 966, 1–18.
Van Herzele, A., Collins, K., Tyrväinen, L., 2005. Involving people in urban
forestry—a discussion of participatory practices throughout Europe. In:
Konijnendijk, C., Nilsson, K., Randrup, T., Schipperijn, J. (Eds.), Urban
Forests and Trees in Europe: A Reference Book. Springer Verlag, pp.
207–228.
Zube, E.H., Sell, J.L., Taylor, J.G., 1982. Landscape perception: research, appli-
cation and theory. Landsc. Plan. 9, 1–33.