Landscape and Urban Planning 186 (2019) 79–90

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan

Research Paper

Personal and environmental drivers of resident participation in urban public T

woodland management – A longitudinal study
Hanna Forsa, , Björn Wiströma, Anders Busse Nielsenb
⁎

a
Department of Landscape Architecture, Planning and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 66, SE-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden
b
Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Woodlands are a core component of urban green infrastructure in terms of both ecosystem service provision and
Involvement areal cover, with particular relevance and potential for engaging citizens in co-management approaches. Despite
Green space management widespread agreement on the importance of user participation, there is still a lack of comprehensive knowledge
Co-management zones on the underlying drivers. Extending existing knowledge is important for efforts by local authorities to facilitate
Gardening
and sustain participation. The present longitudinal mixed-method study investigated residents’ drivers for
Motives
participating in the management of urban woodland bordering their gardens in a so-called co‐management zone
in the Danish residential area Sletten, Holstebro. Repeated field surveys of physical signs of participation were
combined with a field survey of woodland vegetation characteristics and demographic data on residents. Mixed
generalised linear modelling was performed to identify the dominant personal, physical environmental and
social environmental variables explaining level of resident participation. The statistical analysis was com-
plemented by interviews with residents. Both personal and environmental drivers explained participation.
Interest in gardening, stand height and residents inspiring their neighbours helped explain participation in 2010,
while increase in participation between 2010 and 2015 was supported by forest edge type and length of re-
sidence. Thus, a stronger focus on the temporal dimension is recommended for future studies. Green space
managers wanting to facilitate co-management can encourage participation by identifying people interested in
gardening who inspire others, combined with strategic woodland vegetation design and management aimed at
increasing visual and physical accessibility, i.e. establishing one-step and semi-open forest edges and sufficient
tree height.

1. Introduction user participation is promoted worldwide and across multiple phases of

As a consequence of sprawling post-industrial cities, woodlands
have become a core component of urban green infrastructure in terms
of both ecosystem service provision and areal cover (e.g. Haase et al.,
2016; Nielsen, Hedblom, Olafsson, & Wiström, 2017). That urban
woodland has particular relevance for participatory management ap-
proaches is e.g. visible in UK forest strategies and policies, where
community woodlands are encouraged, being seen as a way to deliver a
wide range of benefits to users (e.g. community cohesion) and bio-
physical qualities (e.g. increased woodland biodiversity) (Lawrence &
Ambrose-Oji, 2015). However, since the many studies evaluating
community forestry cases in the UK predominantly have focused on
biophysical output, e.g. number of planted trees, there is still little
empirical evidence of community empowerment or meaningful parti-
cipation in decision-making (Lawrence & Ambrose-Oji, 2015). Today,
green space planning and management. Factors contributing to this
development are the Local Agenda 21 Action Plan (UNCED, 1992), the
European Landscape Convention (Council of Europe, 2000) and the
EU’s Aarhus Convention (Stec, Casey-Lefkowitz, & Jendrośka, 2000), all
of which aim to involve citizens more closely in decisions regarding the
local places and services they use. User participation in public green
space management (e.g. through communal urban gardening) may
enhance the cultural ecosystem services provided by public green
spaces (Middle et al., 2014; Van der Jagt et al., 2017). Encouraging
organised and confined participation could potentially also be a way of
preventing undesirable residential encroachment into urban wood-
lands, such as those observed in Canada by McWilliam, Brown, Eagles,
and Seasons (2014). However, despite widespread agreement on the
importance of participation and its potential benefits, there is still a lack
of knowledge on how to facilitate co-management processes (Enengel,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hanna.fors@slu.se (H. Fors), bjorn.wistrom@slu.se (B. Wiström), abn@ign.ku.dk (A.B. Nielsen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.017
Received 19 March 2018; Received in revised form 28 January 2019; Accepted 8 February 2019
0169-2046/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
H. Fors, et al.
Penker, Muhar, & Williams, 2011).
Here the term ‘co-management’ is used to describe the practice
whereby local authorities and residents manage the local landscape
jointly on the operational level, i.e. by maintaining and developing the
physical green space from day to day (Randrup & Persson, 2009). The
drivers of participation are important aspects of co-management. An
understanding of these and how they affect participation is essential to
facilitate and sustain participation (Measham & Barnett, 2008). Penner
(2002) states that the factors making people choose to engage in vo-
lunteerism differ from those that sustain their participation. This sug-
gest that longitudinal studies could provide insight into the dynamics of
drivers over time and ideally also identify both users’ key drivers for
choosing to participate and drivers that sustain their participation. Yet
such longitudinal studies remain rare within the field of co-manage-
ment of urban green spaces, and particularly urban woodlands. If the
drivers of participation can be identified, the process can be designed in
such a way that inspires specific types of participation or reaches spe-
cific groups of citizens, which will ultimately result in better use of
public resources (e.g. money and property) and private resources (e.g.
citizen’s time and local knowledge).
According to the psychologist Kurt Lewin (1936) famous and often-
cited equation (B = f(P,E)), human behaviour (B), such as participation
in the co-management of urban green space, is the result of a combi-
nation of person (P) and environment (E), where environment com-
prises the properties of the physical and social environment. The person
side of Lewin’s equation has been thoroughly investigated for the pre-
diction of behaviour in general (i.e. not participation specifically),
whereas the environment part has been neglected, thereby disregarding
the interrelatedness of the two (Horstmann & Ziegler, 2016). A review
by Fors, Molin, Murphy, and Konijnendijk van den Bosch (2015)
showed that this bias also emerges in studies of user participation in
public green spaces, most studies not assessing how the properties of
the physical landscape influence participation, or how participation
may directly change (and benefit) urban green spaces. Therefore, little
is known about the interaction of the physical landscape with the social
environment and the personal motives driving co-management of local
landscapes. Consequently, possible changes in the influence of these
three groups of drivers over time on user participation in urban green
space management are also under-investigated. Together, this suggests
a need for further studies of the components of Lewin’s equation within
the specific behavioural context of co-management.
1.1. Aim and research questions
The present article builds on a seven-year mixed-method study,
where we applied Lewin’s equation on human behaviour as a theore-
tical lens for studying drivers of participation in the Danish residential
area of Sletten, in Holstebro. In Sletten, individual households partici-
pate in diverse management of the edge zone of a public urban
woodland, through a so-called co‐management zone. The aim of the
study was to advance the knowledge on personal and environmental
(distinguishing the social and physical environment) drivers of co-
management of public urban woodlands. The study was guided by the
following research questions:
1. Which personal and environmental variables drive residents’ parti-
cipation in the co-management zone in Sletten, and how have they
changed over time?
2. Which are the drivers of different types of participation, i.e. changes
to the physical environment, and do these change over time?
1.2. Drivers of user participation
The literature on factors driving user participation is extensive, and
participation in urban green spaces intertwines with issues of planning,
design, management and governance (Jansson & Lindgren, 2012).
80
Landscape and Urban Planning 186 (2019) 79–90
Therefore, the following description of drivers of user participation is
restricted to a selective review introducing the concepts and variables
of relevance for studying the Sletten case.
1.2.1. Physical environment
The affordance concept (Gibson, 1979) provides a frame for
studying variables of the influence of the physical landscape in Lewin’s
equation. Affordances are physical features of the environment that
make valued activities, such as co-management, possible for a person or
a user group. For example, distinctive properties such as access, secure
perimeter fencing and the size and location of the area where user
participation takes place have been found to affect the level of com-
munity participation in the operational management of green commons
(Dennis & James, 2016). The key to understanding the affordance
concept is that it is relational and characterises the suitability of the
environment for the observer, and thus depends on their motives and
capabilities. This notion explains how properties of the physical land-
scape can initiate actions such as co-management, so as to take ad-
vantage of the affordances of the landscape or to change the landscape
towards desired affordances (e.g. prune dense vegetation to improve
visual and physical accessibility). The latter possibly explains why users
participate in local green spaces that they find inaccessible or un-
attractive.
Empirical studies have confirmed that participants are often moti-
vated by how the physical outcomes of their efforts are perceived, so
the characteristics of the physical environment play a role in retaining
people in local participation (Speller & Ravenscroft, 2005; Young,
2011). In relation to this, good visual (i.e. at eye level) and physical
accessibility have been found to increase people’s recreational pre-
ference for woodland use in several studies (e.g. review by Gundersen &
Frivold, 2008). Visual accessibility was also found to be important by
Jorgensen, Hitchmough, and Calvert (2002) in a study of perceived
safety and preference for woodland, among local residents in Sheffield,
UK, who perceived dense, shrubby woodland edges as less safe than
open edges. It is plausible that the association between these distinctive
woodland properties and perceived safety and preferences for wood-
land also influences participation in co-management. A deeper under-
standing of, for example, the potential importance of tree height, forest
edge type and garden enclosure as drivers of residents’ participation is
needed, since these variables are likely to affect visual and physical
accessibility.
1.2.2. Social environment
The length and success of a participatory process can also be in-
fluenced by several factors in the social environment, here defined as
influence from other people, both users and professionals. Several
studies have shown that changing municipal contact persons and am-
biguous communication structures may hinder participation in public
green space management, whereas stable (green space) policies, clearly
communicated long-term participation contracts and continuous com-
munication support and inspiration from green space managers support
and sustain participation over time (Jones, 2002; Mathers, Dempsey, &
Frøik Molin, 2015; Mattijssen et al., 2017; Young, 2011). Straka,
Marsinko, and Childers (2005) found, for example, that non-participa-
tion in community forestry programmes is often rooted in a lack of
awareness of the possibility to participate.
Residents can also influence each other’s participation. For example,
Mathers et al. (2015) identified social reasons, such as meeting new
people, as drivers of participation in green space management. In re-
lation to this, Jorgensen, Hitchmough, and Dunnett (2007) found that
signs of individual and collective care in the landscape contribute to
communal place identity. However, it is not known whether partici-
pants (or non-participants) affect each other in other ways, for example,
by inspiring or discouraging next-door neighbours to participate, or
whether other social environment factors affect participation levels.
H. Fors, et al.
1.2.3. Drivers related to the person
Turning to the person side of Lewin’s equation, Jorgensen et al.
(2007) found that people generally have a desire for orderly, well-kept
landscapes in their immediate residential environment, but also for
more nature-like areas nearby; the former partly explaining why re-
sidents participate in the management of green spaces to change its
affordances to better suit them. Similarly, a desire to improve one’s
neighbourhood or local green space has been identified as an important
driver for urban forestry volunteers and friends of parks groups
(Mathers et al., 2015; Still & Gerhold, 1997).
Furthermore, demographic variables have been found to influence
participation; age in particular being well studied, although the find-
ings are not unequivocal. In a study in Philadelphia and New York City
(US) by Still and Gerhold (1997), nearly half of urban forestry volun-
teers (43%) were aged 35–50 years. Similarly, Straka et al. (2005)
found that participants in urban and community forestry programmes
in South Carolina (US) were younger than non-participants; most par-
ticipants being 30–49 years old. In contrast, the working population, i.e.
a group in the similar age span 18–65 years, participated less in such
programmes than children, adolescents and elderly people, according to
Wall, Straka, and Miller (2006). The age of participants was included in
the present study, in order to provide more information on this vari-
able.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. The co-management zone in Sletten
Housing in the Danish residential area of Sletten in Holstebro is
integrated in a matrix of woodland and pastures. The woodland was
designed to be a ‘landscape laboratory’, i.e. an experimental urban
woodland in a local landscape context where innovative design and
management concepts are demonstrated and studied in full scale
(Tyrväinen, Gustavsson, Konijnendijk, & Ode, 2006). There are 201
housing units in the woodland, arranged in eight so-called forest villages,
i.e. a group of houses centred around an elongated green space with
private gardens in the back, facing towards the woodland. The wood-
land was established in three phases, in parallel with residential
housing development during the years 1999–2004 (visible in Fig. 2).
Three widely differing afforestation models were implemented, one for
each phase, resulting in 52 stand types and a total of 85 tree and shrub
species. Accordingly, the woodland varies markedly in appearance (e.g.
stand height, plant spacing, species composition and edge type), see
online supplementary material for planting plans. In 2018, Holstebro
municipality had 58,444 inhabitants and covered an area of
801.55 km2. Sletten was established at the fringe of Holstebro city.
However, at the time of the study, the city had expanded even more
towards east, making Sletten an unusually green residential district
inside the urban body.
Early on, individual Sletten residents with gardens bordering di-
rectly onto the afforested area on their own initiative started to weed
around the planted seedlings or to grow flowers and vegetables at the
woodland edge. As the tree canopy closed in, residents started to prune
and thin among the trees, plant their own plants, provide nesting and
feeding boxes for birds, hang up hammocks, put out garden furniture,
and make trails or huts for play, etc.
These activities were encouraged by the municipal green space
manager at the time, who often visited the neighbourhood and had led
the novel woodland development in collaboration with a Swedish
professor and now initiated a verbally communicated, unique co-man-
agement approach as response to resident initiatives. When he retired
in 2005, a local authority–resident communication “vacuum” ensued
until the new manager (appointed in 2008) formalised the approach as
a ‘co-management zone’ in 2010, developing the following guidelines:
• The co-management zone extends 4 m into the woodland (three
81
Landscape and Urban Planning 186 (2019) 79–90
planting rows) and must be accessible to the public.
• Each household may choose whether, and to what extent, it wants to
participate in the section of woodland edge that borders its property
(i.e. the width of its garden).
• A minimum of 30% of the originally planted trees and shrubs
(planted with a spacing of 1.5 m × 1.5 m) must be retained.
• Up to 40% of the trees may be replaced with other trees or shrubs.
• Up to 30% of the trees may be replaced with herbaceous plants, etc.
• Weeding, pruning of trees and shrubs, removal of field layer vege-
tation and other maintenance activities should respect and maintain
a forest character.
• Establishment of permanent structures, such as sheds and green-
houses, is not permitted, nor is storage space for firewood, tools,
garden compost, etc.
The guideline document also provides inspiration in the form of a
list of suitable woody plants, summer flowers, vegetables and woodland
herbs (see online supplementary material). Procedures for guideline
enforcement are not described; rather, residents are encouraged to
contact the local authority when in doubt about whether a specific
management action is allowed. Paper copies of the guidelines were
distributed to all residents and discussed at meetings late in the summer
of 2010 to which all residents were invited. Since then, manager pre-
sence in the neighbourhood and enforcement of the co-management
zone guidelines have been limited, and information on the co-man-
agement zone has not been distributed to newcomers. Participation in
Sletten is organised as an ‘open co-governance arrangement’ (Arnouts,
van der Zouwen, & Arts, 2012), where involved actors mostly work
individually and only occasionally collaborate, e.g. green space man-
agers marking trees that residents fell.
2.2. Methods
In order to include the time aspect when exploring drivers, data
were collected in field studies on three different occasions and com-
plemented with resident interviews, the entire mixed-method study
spanning seven years. In June and July 2010, the co-management zone
bordering each individual household’s garden (n = 201) was surveyed
for physical signs of participation in woodland management. The type
of boundary between garden and co-management zone was also noted,
and the character of the garden was assessed. This field survey was
guided by a template developed in dialogue with the green space
managers responsible for the management of the woodland in Sletten,
ensuring that their knowledge and experiences were integrated. Field
notes were supported by photographic documentation of a selection of
residents’ management inputs and garden characteristics. The 2010
field survey was conducted before the co-management zone was for-
malised and guidelines distributed to all residents. In 2015, a post-
formalisation field survey was conducted, using the same methodology
as in 2010.
A field survey of woodland vegetation characteristics was carried
out in 2013, i.e. between the field studies in 2010 and 2015. The
growth of young trees and shrubs in the region has been reported to be
approximately linear (Henriksen, 1988), which was confirmed by field
observations and photos. Thus, the vegetation data provided an in-
dication of characteristics and stand height for 2010 and 2015. Forest
edge types were considered to be more or less stable over the timespan
studied, based on previous studies on forest edges in the same ecoregion
(Wiström & Nielsen, 2014; Wiström, Nielsen, Klobučar, & Klepec,
2015). This was verified by vegetation observations made during the
field survey of resident participation in 2015. As a supplement to the
field survey data, demographic data on age of the residents in house-
holds with a garden bordering the co-management zone were obtained
from the local authority for 2010 and 2015. All data were compiled in
Microsoft Office Excel. The data variables are described in greater detail
below, sorted according to the response and explanatory variables
H. Fors, et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 186 (2019) 79–90

Table 1
Summary of response and explanatory variables included in the analyses. Ordinal, binary and nominal variables are presented with frequencies for the different
categories. For binary variables, 0 corresponds to No and 1 to Yes.
Variable Variable category Variable type Data from % of 0 % of 1 % of 2 % of 3

Participation 2010 Response Binary Derived from field survey 2010 variables 59.20 40.80
Plant maintenance 2010 Response Ordinal (4 levels) Field survey 2010 30.85 35.32 20.40 13.43
Plant establishment 2010 Response Ordinal (4 levels) Field survey 2010 55.22 23.38 12.94 8.46
Function establishment 2010 Response Ordinal (4 levels) Field survey 2010 48.26 30.35 12.94 8.46
Misuse 2010 Response Ordinal (4 levels) Field survey 2010 10.45 81.59 6.97 1.00
Participation 2015 Response Binary Derived from field survey 2015 variables 35.32 64.68
Plant maintenance 2015 Response Ordinal (4 levels) Field survey 2015 17.41 25.87 34.83 21.89
Plant establishment 2015 Response Ordinal (4 levels) Field survey 2015 43.50 22.50 16.50 17.50
Function establishment 2015 Response Ordinal (4 levels) Field survey 2015 36.82 34.83 19.90 8.46
Misuse 2015 Response Ordinal (4 levels) Field survey 2015 17.00 28.00 40.00 15.00
Stand height Physical environ. Continuous Vegetation survey 2013 Mean 4.83 m (SE = 0.161 m)
Forest edge type Physical environ. Nominal (3 levels) Vegetation survey 2013 Shrub 67.2%, Semi 19.4%, One-step 13.4%
Physically enclosed garden 2010 Physical environ. Binary Field survey 2010 68.16 31.84
Physically enclosed garden 2015 Physical environ. Binary Field survey 2010 63.00 37.00
Visually enclosed garden 2010 Physical environ. Binary Field survey 2015 84.08 15.92
Visually enclosed garden 2015 Physical environ. Binary Field survey 2015 87.50 12.50
Neighbour effect 2010 Social environ. Binary Derived from field survey 2010 variables 42.29 57.71
Neighbour effect 2015 Social environ. Binary Derived from field survey 2015 variables 17.91 82.09
New/same owner 2015 Social environ. Binary Derived from demographic data 2010 and 2015 86.80 13.20
Mean age per household 2010 Person Continuous Derived from demographic data 2010 Mean 42.1 yr (SE = 1.459 yr)
Mean age per household 2015 Person Continuous Derived from demographic data 2015 Mean 46.8 yr (SE = 1.491 yr)
Horticultural richness 2010 Person Ordinal (4 levels) Field survey 2010 24.88 31.34 27.36 16.42
Minimalistic 2010 Person Ordinal (4 levels) Field survey 2010 51.24 13.43 12.94 22.39
Order 2010 Person Ordinal (4 levels) Field survey 2010 51.74 39.30 7.46 1.49
Play 2010 Person Ordinal (4 levels) Field survey 2010 59.70 18.41 16.42 5.47
Horticultural richness 2015 Person Ordinal (4 levels) Field survey 2015 22.73 17.68 32.32 27.27
Minimalistic 2015 Person Ordinal (4 levels) Field survey 2015 59.09 8.59 14.14 18.18
Order 2015 Person Ordinal (4 levels) Field survey 2015 69.70 21.21 7.58 1.52
Play 2015 Person Ordinal (4 levels) Field survey 2015 69.70 14.65 8.08 7.58

included in the statistical analysis (see also Table 1 for a summary of the
variables).
The statistical analysis of quantitative data was complemented with
16 semi-structured interviews, conducted with Sletten residents in their
homes during four consecutive days in October 2017. Residents were
approached in each of the eight forest villages, in order to obtain an
even spatial distribution over the neighbourhood, and to capture po-
tential local variations caused, for example, by differences in woodland
attributes. Eventually, residents from one to three households from
each forest village were interviewed. The number of family members at
home during the interviews varied between one and two. Because of
this, some of the interviews were conducted with two family members
in the household, resulting in 21 interviewees in all. The interviewees
were between 31 and 79 years old, with a mean age of 55.1 years.
Interviews increased the construct validity of the study (Yin, 2009),
since residents as key informants were asked about their opinions on
the importance of the drivers identified based on quantitative data,
thereby reviewing the conclusions from the statistical analysis.
2.3. Collected data
representing limited, moderate and major input to the overall character
of the co-management zone, respectively. As is typical in ‘expert as-
sessments’, the scores were determined by the three researchers car-
rying out the field survey, who first made independent assessments and,
if the assessments differed, discussed the score and cross-evaluated it
backwards, i.e. when necessary, the specific assessment was compared
with earlier border-line assessments.
Participation: Based on the assessment of the type and level of par-
ticipation, the summarising binary variable ‘participation’ was created,
where 0 indicates no or limited participation, and 1 indicates moderate
or major participation. In other words, households that had obtained
scores of 2 or 3 in one or more of the positive types of participation, i.e.
‘plant maintenance’, ‘plant establishment’ and ‘function establishment’,
were grouped as moderate and major participation (1), whereas
households scoring 0 or 1 for all the positive types of participation were
grouped as no or limited participation (0). Misuse was excluded from
the summarising variable in order to differentiate it from the three
potentially more conscious, constructive and desirable types of parti-
cipation. Thus, a household could, for example, participate moderately
through plant establishment, while also misusing the zone.

2.3.1. Response variables 2.3.2. Explanatory variables – physical environment characteristics

Type and level of participation: An assessment of the type and level of
participation was conducted based on observed traces of resident par-
ticipation in the co-management zone. Four main types of resident
input were distinguished: (1) Plant maintenance (e.g. weeding, grass
mowing and tree pruning), (2) plant establishment (e.g. introduction of
vegetables, perennials, shrubs and trees), (3) function establishment
(such as putting up bird boxes or garden furniture and play equipment)
and (4) misuse (i.e. activities prohibited in the guidelines; e.g. not
maintaining the forest character and keeping storage space in the
woodland). For each household, the part of the co-management zone
bordering the garden was given a separate ordinal score for each of the
four types of input: 0 indicating absence of the aspect, and 1, 2 and 3
Stand height: The height (in metres) of eight randomly selected in-
dividual trees in a representative part of each woodland stand outside
the co-management zone, along the four different points of the compass
(two in each direction), was measured, and the mean height of the
stand calculated.
Forest edge type: The forest edge of each stand was classified as one
of the following types: (a) one-step forest edge; (b) shrub forest edge; or
(c) semi-open forest edge with a mosaic of trees and shrubs (Fig. 1).
Classification was supported by original planting plans, and participa-
tion in the forest edge was disregarded in cases when this had occurred.
Physically/visually enclosed garden: The boundary chosen by re-
sidents between their garden and the co-management zone was

82
H. Fors, et al.
Fig. 1. Forest edge types: (a) one-step forest edge; (b) shrub forest edge, where
the field survey distinguished shrub forest edge without canopy dripline, shrub
zone inside canopy dripline, and shrub zone outside canopy dripline; (c) semi-
open forest edge with a mosaic of trees and shrubs. In plan view, circles re-
present trees and grey-coloured plants represent shrubs.
classified into the two explanatory variables ‘physically enclosed
garden’ and ‘visually enclosed garden’, based on Robinson (2004). In a
physically enclosed space, vegetation is well below average eye level, but
a low hedge or fence forms a barrier to movement, creating a clearly
defined and separate room, yet with an open prospect. The boundaries
of a physically and visually enclosed space, on the other hand, consist of
impenetrable vegetation (hedge) to above eye level, resulting in a
completely separate room (Robinson, 2004).
2.3.3. Explanatory variables – social environment characteristics
Neighbour effect: The explanatory variable ‘neighbour effect’ was
created to examine whether neighbours’ actions inspired or discouraged
participation, where 1 indicated that at least one next-door neighbour
participated positively in the co-management zone, while 0 indicated
that none of the next-door neighbours participated.
New/same owner 2015: Length of residence could potentially influ-
ence the level of participation, not least because the co-management
zone guidelines have not been sent to residents who moved to Sletten
after 2010. This is a result of the local authorities’ attitude towards
participating residents, which is one of several possible social en-
vironment factors that could influence participation. The variable ‘new/
same owner 2015’ was created, where 1 indicates a new owner at the
address, and 0 indicates the same owner as in 2010.
2.3.4. Explanatory variables – personal characteristics of residents
Mean age per household: The age of all members of the individual
households, including children, were compiled into the explanatory
variable ‘mean age per household’ which was included in the analysis.
83
Landscape and Urban Planning 186 (2019) 79–90
Garden character: Four basic garden owner characters identified in
other studies were used as a framework for aspects to be included in the
field survey, distinguishing gardens where:
A. owners have created horticultural richness by growing vegetables,
fruit trees and/or shrubs, or planted colourful arrangements of
flowers, ornamental trees and shrubs (Van den Berg & van Winsum-
Westra, 2010);
B. avoidance of laborious elements have resulted in rather minimalistic
gardens dominated by lawns, and limited in content and plant di-
versity (Marckmann, 2005);
C. a high need for order and the perception that free-growing plants are
disorganised have resulted in a rather static and controlled garden
appearance (Marckmann, 2005); and
D. the focus is on children’s play; for many families with young chil-
dren, the garden’s main function is as a play area, and is dominated
by different play elements (Jansson & Persson, 2010).
Most gardens are combinations of the different characters described
above (Marckmann, 2005), and thus individual gardens in Sletten were
given a separate ordinal score for each of the following aspects: (A)
horticultural richness, (B) minimalism, (C) order and (D) play. A four-
point ordinal scale was developed, where 0 indicates absence of the
character, 1 a minor contribution to the overall character, 2 a moderate
contribution, and 3 that it is the dominating character of the garden.
The garden character levels were determined as an expert assessment
by the researchers carrying out the field survey, following a similar
process to that in the determination of participation levels described
above.
2.4. Data analysis
All statistical analyses were performed in SAS 9.4, using mixed
generalised linear modelling in PROC GLIMMIX with cumulative logit
link function for ordinal responses and logit link function for binary
variables, using the Laplace likelihood approximation to allow com-
parison using an information criterion. To incorporate the aspects of
change and interrelations, analyses were performed separately for
participation in 2010 and in 2015, and the change between 2010 and
2015. The change between 2010 and 2015 was modelled by including
the different participation levels from 2010 in the model of 2015 as
baseline measures (see, e.g. Olsson, 2011). In order to test whether
different drivers of participation resulted in different types of partici-
pation, separate models were constructed for the different specific types
of resident participation, i.e. ‘plant maintenance’, ‘plant establishment’,
‘function establishment’ and ‘misuse’, as response variables for 2010,
2015 and the change between them.
The possibly explanatory variables listed in Table 1 were included in
the model construction procedure for all analyses. The variable ‘new/
same owner 2015’ was not included in the analyses of the 2010 dataset.
The model construction approach used was that different competitive
models using manual stepwise selection with entry and removal level of
0.05 were constructed and compared using the Bayesian information
criterion (BIC), where a change of 2 was seen as a threshold for in-
clusion of none significant variables (Raftery, 1995). The three different
woodland establishment phases were included as a random variable in
all models. Two different inclusion orders of variables were used,
starting either with environmental variables or personal variables, re-
flecting the theoretical two-sidedness of Lewin’s equation of human
behaviour. Additional models, using backward screening and a full
saturated model (Raftery, 1995), were also constructed. When single
variables varied between the different models, hybrids between com-
peting models were also constructed. Finally, the most parsimonious
model based on BIC (Raftery, 1995) was selected and odds ratios (ORs)
and 95% Wald confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for this
model.
H. Fors, et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 186 (2019) 79–90

Fig. 2. Resident participation in 2010 and 2015. White shading indicates households with no or limited participation, while green shading indicates households with
moderate to major participation in the co-management zone. The coloured areas in the varied woodland correspond to 52 different types of vegetation. Based on
orthophoto, ®GST. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

3. Results value below 1 indicates a negative relationship, where the explanatory

A comparison of the binary response variable ‘participation’ in 2010
and in 2015 showed an increase in residents’ overall participation, from
41% of all households in 2010 to 65% in 2015. A particularly large
increase in participation was found in the newest, eastern part of the
neighbourhood with the youngest woodland vegetation (Fig. 2).
The mixed generalised linear modelling identified ten variables with
a significant impact on overall resident participation, and/or a specific
type of participation, and/or changes in participation between 2010
and 2015 (Table 2). Variables explaining participation were found in all
of the three groups Physical environment characteristics, Social environ-
ment characteristics and Personal characteristics of residents.
OR is a measure of effect size, describing the strength of the asso-
ciation between an explanatory variable and the response variable. A
variable decreases the probability of resident participation, while when
the OR is greater than 1, a larger absolute value indicates a stronger
effect, and the explanatory variable indicates an increased probability
of participation (Table 3).
Variables associated with several types of participation provide
more explanation than variables only explaining a single type of par-
ticipation. For this reason, only the main patterns of the analysis will be
in focus in the following sections.
3.1. Participation in 2010
Resident participation in 2010 was explained by three variables,
two of which increased the probability of resident participation. These
were households with gardens dominated by ‘garden character –

84
H. Fors, et al.
Table 2
Overview of variables and their p-values included in the final models, explaining overall resident participation and specific types of participation in 2010 and 2015,
and the change between 2010 and 2015. The variable in italics had no significant impact in the modelling of resident participation.
horticultural richness’, i.e. a personal variable, and increasing ’stand
height’, being a physical environment variable. ‘Visually enclosed
garden’, on the other hand, was associated with a lower probability of
participation, i.e. a physical environment variable.
The variables ‘stand height’ and garden character ‘horticultural
richness’ were positively associated with all specific types of partici-
pation in 2010, except misuse. Having a next-door neighbour who
participated in woodland management increased plant maintenance,
i.e. ‘neighbour effect’, whereas ‘visually enclosed garden’ was asso-
ciated with a lower level of plant maintenance. Misuse in 2010 was
partly explained by ‘neighbour effect’, supplemented by ‘forest edge
type’ towards the garden, with a higher probability of misuse in the
one-step forest edges compared with shrub edges and semi-open edges.
Furthermore, the probability of misuse in 2010 was higher for house-
holds with a lower ‘mean age per household’.
3.2. Participation in 2015
‘Stand height’ and garden character ‘horticultural richness’, vari-
ables which were positively associated with overall participation in
2010, still helped explain participation in 2015. In addition, the phy-
sical environmental variable ‘forest edge type’ mattered, with one-step
edges and/or semi-open edges in relation to shrub forest edges being
positively associated with overall participation and all specific types,
except function establishment. Lastly, households with a lower ‘mean
age per household’ increased the probability of misuse in 2015, but also
of participation in plant maintenance and function establishment.
3.3. Change in drivers between 2010 and 2015
The models in Table 2 for 2010 and 2015 provide snapshots of the
participation drivers in 2010 and 2015. However, in order to explain
the increase and changes in participation between 2010 and 2015, the
models on the far right of Table 2 are needed. The changes in all par-
ticipation types was consequently supported by ‘forest edge type’, with
a lower probability for participation in shrub forest edges than in one
step and/or semi-open edges. The changes in all participation types
except plant establishment were partly due to the variable ‘new/same
owner’, where the probability of resident participation was lower for
residents living at an address having a new owner in 2015 compared
85
Landscape and Urban Planning 186 (2019) 79–90
with 2010. Furthermore, increases in overall participation, plant
maintenance and function establishment were supported by ‘garden
character – play’, which was also significant, but unordered, in its ef-
fect. Lower ‘mean age per household’ helped explain the increases in
plant maintenance and misuse.
3.4. Residents’ views on drivers of participation
The results of the 16 resident interviews, summarised in Table 4,
largely confirmed the importance of the drivers identified through
statistical analysis. Interviewees are hereinafter referred to by ‘I’ for
interview, followed by a number, e.g. I14. All except one interviewee
thought that an interest in gardening could lead to participation in
woodland management (i.e. garden character ‘horticultural richness’).
A majority of the interviewees (14 out of 16) believed that residents
could inspire each other to participate and share ideas through their
own participation (i.e. ‘neighbour effect’). One of them found it difficult
to visualise participation ideas beforehand, and therefore needed in-
spiration, while her participating husband, who had an interest in
gardening, did not share that need (I2). Four of them reported having
inspired other residents (I10, I11, I12, I16). Many interviewees (11 out
of 16) thought that ‘tree height’ drove participation, but did not simply
state “the taller the trees the better”. Rather, they were of the opinion
that there was a lower threshold for tree height before it became in-
teresting to participate (I9), and that the woodland had to be perceived
as a “real forest” before being driven to participate (I8). They found a
woodland with taller trees more useful, while low, thicket-like wood-
land was deemed uninviting, messy and affording fewer activities (I3,
I4, I10, I16). Many interviewees (10 out of 16) thought that shrub
‘forest edges’ favoured less participation than one-step forest edges,
with the exception of two interviewees who thought the opposite,
considering shrubs easier to prune and in greater need of pruning than
trees (I10, I13). The results from interviews regarding length of re-
sidence were more ambiguous (i.e. ‘new/same owner 2015’). Some
interviewees confirmed the findings of the statistical analysis, believing
that newer residents did not participate due to a lack of information
from the local authority (I3, I7, I14), and that long-term residents
participated more than newer ones, as they had followed the growth of
the trees over the years (I1, I8, I11, I15). Regarding the interest that the
local authority had shown in Sletten, 10 out of 16 were of the opinion
H. Fors, et al.
Table 3
Estimated parameter values for final models with standard errors in brackets, together with odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals, in brackets, below. Odds ratios
were modelled as the probability of ‘Yes’ (1) for the binary variables and as ‘Positive/Increasing rankings’ for ordinal variables. Variables in italics had no significant
impact in the modelling of resident participation. Categorical variables are compared against a reference level indicated by 0. Pairwise comparisons were also
performed for nominal categorical variables, where treatment levels that do not share a letter are significantly different from each other.
Explanatory variable
Stand height
Forest edge type
Physically enclosed garden
Visually enclosed garden
Neighbour effect
Mean age per household
Garden character - horticultural
richness
Garden character – minimalistic
Garden character - order
Garden character - play
Explanatory variable
Stand height
Forest edge type
Physically enclosed garden
Visually enclosed garden
Neighbour effect
Mean age per household
Garden character – horticultural
richness
Garden character – minimalistic
Garden character – order
Garden character – play
New/same owner 2015
Landscape and Urban Planning 186 (2019) 79–90
Participation 2010 Plant maintenance 2010 Plant establishment 2010 Function establishment Misuse 2010
2010
0.2525 (0.1005) 0.2331 (0.0787) 0.2218 (0.0815) 0.2895 (0.07684)
1.287 (1.056–1.570) 1.263 (1.081–1.475) 1.248 (1.063–1.466) 1.336 (1.148–1.554)
One-step: 0 a
Semi: −1.3524 (0.6423)
0.259 (0.073–0.918) b
Shrub: −1.3177 (0.5441)
0.268 (0.092–0.783) b
1: −1.2457 (0.5289) 1: −0.8131 (0.4034)
0.288 (0.101–0.817) 0.443 (0.200–0.983)
1: 0.6691 (0.3060) 1: 1.0431 (0.4110)
1.953 (1.068–3.571) 2.838 (1.262–6.383)
−0.02086 (0.007594) −0.01813 (0.009597)
0.979 (0.965–0.994) 0.982 (0.964–1.001)
0: 0 0: 0 0: 0 0: 0
1: 0.4850 (0.4874) 1: 0.0293 (0.5787) 1: 0.5320 (0.4302) 1: −0.1801 (0.5716)
1.624 (0.621–4.247) 1.030 (0.329–3.225) 1.702 (0.729–3.977) 0.835 (0.270–2.579)
2: 1.0882 (0.4918) 2: 1.2653 (0.7099) 2: 1.1416 (0.4247) 2: 1.4023 (0.7373)
2.969 (1.125–7.832) 3.544 (0.874–14.380) 3.132 (1.355–7.237) 4.065 (0.949–17.404)
3: 2.1221 (0.5970) 3: 1.5853 (0.7656) 3: 2.2655 (0.5111) 3: 1.7150 (0.7931)
8.348 (2.572–27.102) 4.881 (1.078–22.101) 9.636 (3.517–26.405) 5.557 (1.162–26.56)
0: 0 0: 0
1: 1.1104 (0.5430) 1: 1.0525 (0.5626)
3.036 (1.040–8.860) 2.865 (0.944–8.692)
2: 1.3421 (0.5683) 2: 1.5430 (0.6233)
3.827 (1.247–11.741) 4.679 (1.368–16.001)
3: 0.4440 (0.6871) 3: 0.7053 (0.6980)
1.559 (0.402–6.047) 2.024 (0.511–8.021)
Participation 2015 Plant maintenance 2015 Plant establishment 2015 Function establishment Misuse 2015
2015
0.1767 (0.09805) 0.2136 (0.08012) 0.1467 (0.08271) 0.1397 (0.07658)
1.193 (0.983–1.448) 1.238 (1.057–1.450) 1.158 (0.984–1.363) 1.150 (0.989–1.337)
one step: 0 a one step: 0 a one step: 0 b One-step: 0 a
Semi: 0.7985 (1.0077) Semi: 0.1538 (0.7495) Semi: 1.9561 (0.7040) Semi: −1.0967 (0.4989)
2.222 (0.304–16.225) a 1.166 (0.266–5.118) a 7.072 (1.764–28.359) a 0.334 (0.125–0.894) b
Shrub: −1.353 (0.6617) Shrub: −1.223 (0.4899) Shrub: 0.3295 (0.4710) Shrub: −1.3397 (0.431)
0.258 (0.070–0.953) b 0.294 (0.112–0.774) b 1.390 (0.549–3.521) b 0.262 (0.112–0.613) b
−0.02256 (0.008625) −0.03393 (0.007815) −0.01807 (0.006639)
0.978 (0.961–0.994) 0.967 (0.952–0.982) 0.982 (0.969–0.995)
0: 0 0: 0 0: 0 0: 0
1: −0.01313 (0.5183) 1: −0.5338 (0.4406) 1: 0.4651 (0.4428) 1: −0.2875 (0.4542)
0.987 (0.355–2.744) 0.586 (0.246–1.399) 1.592 (0.665–3.814) 0.750 (0.306–1.838)
2: 0.3987 (0.4590) 2: 0.1553 (0.3833) 2: 0.1175 (0.3889) 2: 0.8104 (0.3828)
1.490 (0.602–3.685) 1.168 (0.548–2.488) 1.125 (0.522–2.422) 2.249 (1.057–4.786)
3: 1.0908 (0.5060) 3: 0.6483 (0.4233) 3: 1.9648 (0.4281) 3: 1.4650 (0.4347)
2.977 (1.097–8.078) 1.912 (0.829 4.409) 7.133 (3.065–16.600) 4.327 (1.835–10.203)
0:
1: −0.3590 (0.4521)
0.698 (0.286–1.704)
2: 0.6498 (0.5827)
1.915 (0.606–6.047)
3: −1.4737 (0.5768)
0.229 (0.073–0.715)
1: −1.1528 (0.5166) 1: −1.1738 (0.4683) 1: −0.7387 (0.3902)
0.316 (0.114–0.875) 0.309 (0.123–0.779) 0.478 (0.221–1.032)
(continued on next page)
86
H. Fors, et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 186 (2019) 79–90

Table 3 (continued)

Explanatory variable Participation change Plant maintenance change Plant establishment change Function establishment Misuse change
2010–2015 2010–2015 2010–2015 change 2010–2015 2010–2015

Stand height
Forest edge type
Physically enclosed garden
Visually enclosed garden
Neighbour effect
Mean age per household
Garden character –
horticultural richness
Garden character – minimalistic
Garden character – order
Garden character – play
New/same owner 2015
Participation levels of 2010
One-step: 0 a
Semi: 0.3198 (0.7647)
1.377 (0.305–6.224) a
Shrub: −1.9732 (0.635)
0.139 (0.040–0.487) b
0: 0
1: −0.3919 (0.5463)
0.676 (0.230–1.985)
2: 1.0933 (0.7556)
2.984 (0.672–13.249)
3: −1.5996 (0.7024)
0.202 (0.051–0.807)
1: −1.2741 (0.5516)
0.280 (0.094–0.830)
0: 0
1: 2.7178 (0.4655)
15.147 (6.046–37.942)
One-step: 0 a
Semi: −0.7083 (0.5270)
0.492 (0.174–1.393) a
Shrub: −1.8989 (0.4629)
0.150 (0.060–0.373) b
−0.02390 (0.008722)
0.976 (0.960–0.993)
0: 0
1: 0.7935 0.3525
2.211 (1.103–4.433)
2: 1.4982 0.5702
4.474 (1.452–13.783)
3: 0.08815 1.0702
1.092 (0.132–9.026)
0: 0
1: −0.1962 (0.4617)
0.822 (0.330–2.044)
2: 0.8238 (0.6073)
2.279 (0.688–7.555)
3: −1.8474 (0.5823)
0.158 (0.050–0.497)
1: −0.9411 (0.4358)
0.390 (0.165–0.922)
0: 0
1: 0.8692 (0.3524)
2.385 (1.190–4.781)
2: 2.4536 (0.4362)
11.631 (4.918–27.508)
3: 2.9476 (0.5062)
19.061 (7.019–51.764)
One-step: 0b
Semi: 1.4834 (0.5146)
4.408 (1.597–12.165) a
Shrub: −0.0468 (0.4354)
0.954 (0.404–2.253) b
0: 0
1: 0.8412 (0.4524)
2.319 (0.950–5.661)
2: 0.03566 (0.4031)
1.036 (0.468–2.296)
3: 1.3736 (0.4349)
3.950 (1.675–9.315)
0: 0
1: 1.2361 (0.3382)
3.442 (1.766–6.709)
2: 2.6480 (0.4750)
14.125 (5.533–36.060)
3: 3.9788 (0.6918)
53.455 (13.65–209.28)
One-step: 0 ab
Semi: 0.5436 (0.5145)
1.722 (0.624–4.753) a
Shrub: −0.5118 (0.4355)
0.599 (0.254–1.415) b
0: 0
1: 0.9889 (0.3977)
2.688 (1.227–5.892)
2: 1.0755 (0.5135)
2.931 (1.064–8.074)
3: −0.3285 (0.5444)
0.720 (0.246–2.108)
1: −0.9337 (0.4625)
0.393 (0.158–0.979)
0: 0
1: 1.4219 (0.3399)
4.145 (2.120–8.106)
2: 3.2575 (0.4972)
25.985 (9.742–69.309)
3: 3.4049 (0.5718)
30.111 (9.744–93.051)
One-step: 0 a
Semi: −0.8771 (0.6382)
0.416 (0.118–1.465) ab
Shrub: −1.058 (0.478)
0.347 (0.135–0.891) b
1: 0.8915 (0.4375)
2.439 (1.029–5.782)
−0.01616 (0.006919)
0.984 (0.971–0.997)
1: −0.7879 (0.4001)
0.455 (0.207–1.002)
0: 0
1: 1.3297 (0.4676)
3.780 (1.502–9.509)
2: 2.6550 (0.7412)
14.225 (3.295–61.402)
3: 2.3517 (1.7519)
10.503 (0.331–333.128)

that providing residents with information and inspiration regarding the participants found it somewhat difficult to answer the question re-
co-management zone could affect participation. Two interviewees who garding drivers (I5, I6). In addition to the drivers identified through
had not experienced any interest on the part of the local authority statistical analysis, interviewees mentioned personality, interest in
consequently did not consider this a driver (I1, I2). Interviewed non- nature, and period in life and, related to this, the amount of energy,

Table 4
Interviewees’ views on the relevance of drivers for participation identified through statistical analysis.
Interview Gender (female/ Age (years) Length of Interest in Neighbour Tree Forest edge Length of Local authority/researchers
male) residence gardening effect height type residence showing interest

1 Female 74 From the start Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

2 Female; Male 31; 33 2.5 years Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
3 Female; Male 45; 39 2 years Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
4 Female 44 From the start Yes No Yes Yes No Yes
5 Female 74 From the start Yes Yes – – – No
6 Male 79 From the start Yes Yes – Yes Yes –
7 Female 63 5 years Yes – No Yes Yes Yes
8 Female 46 From the start Yes Yes Yes – Yes No
9 Male 43 From the start Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
10 Female 47 10 years Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
11 Female; Male 63; 64 From the start Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
12 Male 75 12 years Yes Yes No – No Yes
13 Female 44 11 years Yes Yes No Yes No Yes
14 Female 64 From the start No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
15 Female; Male 69; 62 From the start Yes Yes Yes – Yes No
16 Female; Male 49; 50 From the start Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

87
H. Fors, et al.
Fig. 3. Example of resident participation in the co-management zone, where a transparent boundary between the garden and the woodland, combined with high tree
growth, supports extensive visual and physical accessibility, encouraging long-term residents to increase their participation between 2010 and 2015.
time and physical strength required for participation, as possible ad-
ditional drivers.
4. Discussion
The marked increase in residents’ participation in the co-manage-
ment zone between 2010 and 2015 suggests general appreciation of the
possibility to participate, driven by both personal and environmental
variables. While this general result can be argued to ‘simply’ confirm
Lewin’s equation for human behaviour, the main contribution of the
present study is rather knowledge on how development of driver
composition has determined and changed type and extent of partici-
pation over time. This was made possible through the repeated field
surveys, which provided a rare opportunity for longitudinal compar-
isons and interpretations. To the best of our knowledge, longitudinal
observational studies of drivers of participation in green space man-
agement are rare, and existing longitudinal studies tend to be retro-
spective (e.g. Mattijssen et al., 2017). The current literature is thus only
helpful to a limited extent in understanding the increase in participa-
tion in the co-management zone in Sletten between 2010 and 2015.
4.1. Drivers of participation and their development over time
Regarding the person side of Lewin’s equation, the strong relation-
ship between horticultural richness and participation demonstrates that
the 41% of the households that participated in 2010 became first
movers, being mainly driven by their personal interest in gardening,
participating in places where the woodland had grown sufficiently high
(i.e. driven by the physical environment variable ‘stand height’).
However, these residents were not only the first to participate, but their
participation was also sustained over time. The fact that gardens
dominated by a ‘horticultural richness’ character were positively asso-
ciated with all positive participation types in both 2010 and 2015 in-
dicates that this group of residents not only participated in preserving
maintenance, but also in management, developing the woodland by
adding plants and functions such as nesting and feeding boxed for birds,
etc. at their own expense. Moreover, this, combined with the significant
‘neighbour effect’ for plant maintenance 2010, indicates that these re-
sidents’ co-management actions inspired next-door neighbours to par-
ticipate, i.e. their actions changed the social environmental dimension
of Lewin’s equation. This interpretation is supported by statements from
the interviewees, describing how they had inspired other residents. As
indicated by one interviewee, first movers did not need any inspiration
to start participating, while residents lacking an interest in gardening
88
Landscape and Urban Planning 186 (2019) 79–90
did.
Regarding the physical environment side of Lewin (1936) equation,
the fact that distinct woodland properties drive overall participation, all
positive participation types in 2010 and 2015 as well as change in
participation, suggests the concept of affordance (Gibson, 1979) as yet
another lens for the interpretation of participation drivers. Residents in
Sletten have had – and still have – a rare opportunity to follow the
growth and development of the neighbouring woodland, from its es-
tablishment between 1999 and 2004 and the gradual development of
stand height. Taller trees usually mean that an interior is created below
the canopy. However, the finding that interviewees believed a wood-
land with taller trees to be more useful than lower woodland and
wanting a “real forest” before participating, suggests that the re-
lationship between stand height and participation is not linear. Rather,
it seems that trees need to reach a minimum height to afford partici-
pation, but once that threshold has been passed, other variables drive
the change in participation between 2010 and 2015. Regarding the
development of drivers over time, the increase in overall participation,
from 41 to 65% between 2010 and 2015, and the change in all parti-
cipation types were supported by the forest edge type, where one-step
and semi-open forest edges provided visual and physical access. That
shrub edges hindered participation was confirmed by the results of the
interviews. One explanation of the importance of tree height and edge
type as drivers of participation could be that the affordance of the
woodland edge zone for co-management “grew” in parallel with tree
and shrub growth, or, more precisely, with increasing visual and phy-
sical accessibility associated with increasing tree height. Expressed
simply, participation seems to have been encouraged where residents
could see the suitability of the zone for co-management and could enter
the zone physically (Fig. 3). The forest edges are more often semi-open
in the newest, easternmost part of the neighbourhood, which makes
forest edge type a valid explanation of the marked increase in partici-
pation in this part of Sletten. Degree of visually and physically acces-
sible woodland edges and interiors has also been found to positively
influence recreational preferences for woodlands (see e.g. Gundersen &
Frivold, 2008 for a review) and perceived safety of woodland
(Jorgensen et al., 2002). Thus, aesthetic merits and perceived safety
could be additional explanations of the increased levels of participation
prompted by open stand and edge types.
In addition to the importance of forest edge type, there was a ten-
dency for residents who enclosed their gardens visually, for example, by
planting a high hedge, to participate less than other residents in 2010
(overall participation and plant maintenance) and they were also re-
sponsible for a degree of the increase in misuse between 2010 and
H. Fors, et al.
2015. Visually enclosed gardens obstruct residents’ views of the co-
management zone, disconnecting them visually from the woodland,
thereby making them less likely to participate in its maintenance. This
can be seen as an affirmation of the affordance of visual and physical
accessibility to the co-management zone as a driver of participation.
One reason why visually enclosed gardens increased misuse could be
that residents with such gardens did not have to look at the rubbish or
compost heaps they had dumped in the woodland, as they were hidden
behind the high hedges they had chosen to plant. In relation to this, the
association between one-step forest edges and increasing misuse of the
co-management zone suggests that the visual and physical accessibility
afforded by this specific edge type increased not only positive partici-
pation, but also undesirable misuse. A Canadian study by McWilliam
et al. (2014) reported similar undesirable residential encroachment in
urban woodland, despite strict municipal enforcement. This suggests
that the misuse observed in Sletten is not unique or provoked by the
local authority’s permissive attitude, but simply a bad habit.
The increase in overall participation between 2010 and 2015, and
the changes in all participation types except for plant establishment,
were partly explained by new owners at certain addresses in 2015
compared with 2010. Looking further into the social side of Lewin’s
equation, findings by Mattijssen et al. (2017) suggest formalisation, for
example, the establishment of rules within the participant group, as
another key variable supporting and sustaining participation in public
green space management. In the same vein, the formalisation of the co-
management zone and associated distribution of guidelines to all re-
sidents provide another plausible explanation of the increase in parti-
cipation between 2010 and 2015. This interpretation is supported by
Straka et al. (2005), who found lack of awareness to be a variable ex-
plaining non-participation in urban and community forestry pro-
grammes. Interviewees said that guidelines were not distributed to
newcomers after 2010, and that long-term residents who had followed
the growth of the woodland over the years participated more than
newer ones, which may be two reasons why newer residents were less
engaged in the co-management zone than those who lived in Sletten
also in 2010.
Households with a lower mean age misused the woodland to a
higher degree than households with a higher mean age. Lower ‘mean
age per household’ also partly explained the increased resident parti-
cipation in plant maintenance in 2015. This could be because plant
maintenance such as tree felling becomes too strenuous for older re-
sidents, as also mentioned by interviewees. Another reason could be the
increase in overall participation, plant maintenance and function es-
tablishment in 2015 performed by residents with gardens characterised
by play, i.e. mainly families with children and the associated lower
mean age of the household. However, ‘mean age per household’ did not
influence overall participation levels, suggesting that other variables
had a greater influence on participation. This interpretation is sup-
ported by the inconsistent age patterns of participants in urban and
community forestry found across other empirical studies (Still &
Gerhold, 1997; Straka et al., 2005; Wall et al., 2006).
4.2. Perspectives for future research
While this study presents a comprehensive picture of the drivers of
resident participation in public urban woodland management in the
Sletten neighbourhood, other drivers may have been overlooked.
Moreover, the present study was confined to a specific landscape con-
text and a restricted number of people, as is typical for place-based
research (Flyvbjerg, 2006). Thus, in many ways the drivers identified
and the proposed explanations are only as important as the avenues for
future research prompted by them. The results presented here indicate
two possible ways of improving our understanding of the drivers of
participation. First, the marked increase in participation in the co-
management zone in Sletten between 2010 and 2015 and the associated
shift in drivers suggest that the temporal dimension is far from
89
Landscape and Urban Planning 186 (2019) 79–90
negligible and merits much more attention, as also suggested by Penner
(2002). We argue that this calls for re-focusing of research on partici-
pation in urban green space management in favour of longitudinal
studies. Second, most of the empirically substantiated knowledge tends
to provide results and conclusions mainly for the person and social (in
particular governance aspects) dimensions of participation (e.g.
Mattijssen et al., 2017; Straka et al., 2005), thereby disregarding the
interrelatedness of the two as regards the physical environment. Sup-
ported by Lewin’s equation of human behaviour, we propose broad-
ening future empirical studies to include all three dimensions on equal
terms, and focusing specifically on how they interact and come together
in driving participation in the co-management of urban woodlands (e.g.
young and old woodlands) and in other types of green space across
various governance set-ups and sociodemographic groups.
4.3. Perspectives for practice
The importance of both personal and environmental drivers iden-
tified here confirms that co-management of urban woodlands requires
green space managers to focus on both well-functioning communication
with users and conscious woodland design and management. Regarding
users, our findings suggest that green space managers wanting to fa-
cilitate co-management can benefit from identifying people interested
in gardening as important first movers who inspire others to participate.
Regarding design and management, our results point to the extended
visual and physical accessibility associated with one-step and semi-open
forest edges alongside gardens and trees of a minimum height as dis-
tinctive woodland properties that stimulate co-management. As a de-
rivate of this, the development of dense shrub-dominated edges in
places where housing borders woodland of high conservational value
could be a better nature-based alternative to limit residential en-
croachment, while simultaneously supporting important ecosystem
services (e.g. Wiström et al., 2015), than fences and inspection roads, as
suggested by McWilliam et al. (2014). Furthermore, the strategic
management models employed should incorporate changes over time in
both vegetation and participants. Some residents have a higher
threshold for initiating participation than others, and some types of
environments are more difficult for people to engage in.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank Märit Jansson for valuable comments on
the manuscript, Jan-Eric Englund for statistical advice, Stefan Darlan
Boris for field assistance and Martin Meisler Elmholdt-Svendsen for
practical assistance. This research was financially supported by a
partnership project between Holstebro municipality and Movium,
project no. 9112.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.017.
References
Arnouts, R., van der Zouwen, M., & Arts, B. (2012). Analysing governance modes and
shifts – Governance arrangements in Dutch nature policy. Forest Policy and Economics,
16, 43–50.
Council of Europe (2000). European landscape convention. Florence: Strasbourg: Council of
Europe.
Dennis, M., & James, P. (2016). User participation in urban green commons: Exploring
the links between access, voluntarism, biodiversity and well being. Urban Forestry and
Urban Greening, 15, 22–31.
Enengel, B., Penker, M., Muhar, A., & Williams, R. (2011). Benefits, efforts and risks of
participants in landscape co-management: An analytical framework and results from
two case studies in Austria. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 1256–1267.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative
Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.
Fors, H., Molin, J. F., Murphy, M. A., & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. (2015). User
H. Fors, et al.
participation in urban green spaces - For the people or the parks? Urban Forestry and
Urban Greening, 14, 722–734.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, Mass.: Houghton
Mifflin.
Gundersen, V. S., & Frivold, L. H. (2008). Public preferences for forest structures: A re-
view of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban Forestry and
Urban Greening, 7(4), 241–258.
Haase, D., Kabisch, N., Strohbach, M., Klemen, E., Železnikar, Š., Cvejić, R., & Pintar, M.
(2016). Inventory of quantitative and qualitative functional linkages between UGI
components, BCD and impact, Milestone NR MS 25. Green Surge.
Henriksen, H. A. (1988). Skoven og dens dyrkning. Copenhagen: Dansk Skovforening.
Horstmann, K. T., & Ziegler, M. (2016). Situational perception: Its theoretical foundation,
assessment, and links to personality. The Wiley Handbook of Personality Assessment,
31–43.
Jansson, M., & Lindgren, T. (2012). A review of the concept 'management' in relation to
urban landscapes and green spaces: Toward a holistic understanding. Urban Forestry
and Urban Greening, 11(2), 139–145.
Jansson, M., & Persson, B. (2010). Playground planning and management: An evaluation
of standard-influenced provision through user needs. Urban Forestry & Urban
Greening, 9, 33–42.
Jones, R. (2002). Enticement: The role of community involvement in the management of
urban parks. Managing Leisure, 7, 18–32.
Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J., & Dunnett, N. (2007). Woodland as a setting for housing-
appreciation and fear and the contribution to residential satisfaction and place
identity in Warrington New Town, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79, 273–287.
Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J., & Calvert, T. (2002). Woodland spaces and edges: Their
impact on perception of safety and preference. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60,
135–150.
Lawrence, A., & Ambrose-Oji, B. (2015). Beauty, friends, power, money: Navigating the
impacts of community woodlands. Geographical Journal, 181(3), 268–279.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Marckmann, B. (2005). Haven - Paradis eller slagmark (the garden – Paradise or battle-
field). Gyldendal in cooperation with Det Danske Haveselskab.
Mathers, A., Dempsey, N., & Frøik Molin, J. (2015). Place-keeping in action: Evaluating
the capacity of green space partnerships in England. Landscape and Urban Planning,
139, 126–136.
Mattijssen, T. J. M., van der Jagt, A. P. N., Buijs, A. E., Elands, B. H. M., Erlwein, S., &
Lafortezza, R. (2017). The long-term prospects of citizens managing urban green
space: From place making to place-keeping? Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 26,
78–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.015.
McWilliam, W., Brown, R., Eagles, P., & Seasons, M. (2014). Barriers to the effective
planning and management of residential encroachment within urban forest edges: A
Southern Ontario, Canada case study. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 13, 48–62.
Measham, T. G., & Barnett, G. B. (2008). Environmental volunteering: Motivations, modes
and outcomes. Australian Geographer, 39(4), 537–552.
Middle, I., Dzidic, P., Buckley, A., Bennett, D., Tye, M., & Jones, R. (2014). Integrating
community gardens into public parks: An innovative approach for providing
90
Landscape and Urban Planning 186 (2019) 79–90
ecosystem services in urban areas. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 13(4),
638–645.
Nielsen, A. B., Hedblom, M., Olafsson, A. S., & Wiström, B. (2017). Spatial configurations
of urban forest in different landscape and socio-political contexts: Identifying pat-
terns for green infrastructure planning. Urban Ecosystems, 20, 379–392.
Olsson, U. (2011). Statistics for life science 2. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Penner, L. A. (2002). Dispositional and organizational influences on sustained vo-
lunteerism: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 447–467.
Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological
Methodology, 25, 111–163.
Randrup, T. B., & Persson, B. (2009). Public green spaces in the Nordic countries:
Development of a new strategic management regime. Urban Forestry and Urban
Greening, 8(1), 31–40.
Robinson, N. (2004). The planting design handbook. Ashgate Publishing.
Speller, G., & Ravenscroft, N. (2005). Facilitating and evaluating public participation in
urban parks management. Local Environment, 10, 41–56.
Stec, S., Casey-Lefkowitz, S., & Jendrośka, J. (2000). The Aarhus convention: An im-
plementation guide. United Nations Pubns.
Still, D. T., & Gerhold, H. D. (1997). Motivations and task preferences of urban forestry
volunteers. Journal of Arboriculture, 23, 116–129.
Straka, T. J., Marsinko, A. P., & Childers, C. J. (2005). Individual characteristics affecting
participation in urban and community forestry programs in South Carolina. Journal of
Arboriculture, 31, 129–135.
Tyrväinen, L., Gustavsson, R., Konijnendijk, C., & Ode, A. (2006). Visualization and
landscape laboratories in planning, design and management of urban woodlands.
Forest Policy and Economics, 8, 811–823.
UNCED (1992). The earth summit: The united nations conference on environment and de-
velopment. Graham & Trotman London.
Van den Berg, A. E., & van Winsum-Westra, M. (2010). Manicured, romantic, or wild? The
relation between need for structure and preferences for garden styles. Urban Forestry
and Urban Greening, 9, 179–186.
Van der Jagt, A. P. N., Szaraz, L. R., Delshammar, T., Cvejic, R., Santos, A., Goodness, J., &
Buijs, A. (2017). Cultivating nature-based solutions: The governance of communal
urban gardens in the European Union. Environmental Research, 159, 264–275.
Wall, B. W., Straka, T. J., & Miller, S. E. (2006). An econometric study of the factor
influencing participation in urban and community forestry programs in the United
States. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry, 32, 221–228.
Wiström, B., Nielsen, A. B., Klobučar, B., & Klepec, U. (2015). Zoned selective coppice – A
management system for graded forest edges. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14,
156–162.
Wiström, B., & Nielsen, A. B. (2014). Effects of planting design on planted seedlings and
spontaneous vegetation 16 years after establishment of forest edges. New Forests,
45(1), 97–117.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). London: SAGE.
Young, R. F. (2011). Planting the living city: Best practices in planning green infra-
structure - Results from major U.S. cities. Journal of the American Planning Association,
77, 368–381.