Design Center for American Urban Landscape

Design Brief, Number 4/ June 2003

People and Urban Green

Areas: Perception and Use

Photo: Ann Forsyth

Ann Forsyth, Director

This design brief is part of a series entitled Taking Notice: Green Spaces in Urbanized
Settings with a focus on the green spaces of center city and inner suburban communities
in the Twin Cities region. Titles in this series are:

The Diversity of Green Spaces

Urban Green Space: Effects on Water and Climate
People and Urban Green Areas: Perception and Use
Plant and Animal Communities in Urban Green Spaces
Mapping Green Spaces in the Center of the Twin Cities Region
 Design Briefs

People and Urban Green

Areas: Perception and Use
Ann Forsyth, Director

Overview
Humans are the protectors, consumers, and managers of urban green
space. What they think about green space and how they use it is impor-
tant. In the past two decades there has been a great deal of research on
human perceptions of and activities in natural, green, and open space
areas. Four main areas have been particularly helpful for those interested
in green space and human activity. These areas form the main focus of
this design brief:
• Physical and health benefits of green space and natural areas such as
creating more comfortable outdoor environments or providing a
setting for physical activities.
Photo: Patricia McGirr

• Widely shared preferences for specific kinds of scenery.

Overview of Key Points
• Diverse preferences and uses for green areas by groups divided along from Related Design
important dimensions such as age and ethnicity. Briefs
Green spaces are outdoor
• Perceived problems with natural areas, such as safety concerns. settings that contain a
significant amount of
While the topics reviewed in this brief appear to be quite comprehensive vegetation. The Diversity of
there are actually significant areas where little or nothing is known about Green Spaces includes a
description of the over
the human dimensions of green space. For example, we know much more twenty types of green
about how people respond to trees than other kinds of plants. spaces found in the center
of the Twin Cities region.
Key Points
Green space has a role to
• Distance from home is the most important factor in determining play in addressing both of
whether someone will use a green space. From a human use water and air quality issues
perspective, green spaces need to be distributed throughout the in the Twin Cities. Urban
metropolitan area, although each one does not need to be extremely Green Space: Effects on
Water and Climate reviews
large. Large areas are needed for other purposes such as habitat. some of the ways that
vegetation interacts with
• There is a very widely shared public preference for “natural” scenes streams, lakes and the
that are relatively complex and dominated by large trees with open urban heat island.
understory or a smooth lawn. Such scenes generally indicate culti-
We share urban green
vated areas. In contrast, truly natural or wild areas may be treeless or spaces with plants and
have messy understory growth and may be seen as unattractive. migrant or resident animals.
Plant and Animal Commu-
• There are significant differences between various groups of people in nities in Urban Green
terms of how they use parks and green space. However, significant Spaces describes important
variety within groups means that it is vital to have a participatory interactions between urban
flora and fauna.
design process or very flexible green space designs in order to cater
for such internal diversity. Even with participation, however, real
conflicts in preferred activities and styles of green space may remain.
For more detail, supporting facts, and references read on.....

2 Design Center for American Urban Landscape

Design Briefs
Taking Notice: Green Spaces in Urbanized
Settings
Introduction to the Project
This brief is one of a series and part of a
larger project, Taking Notice: Green Spaces in
Urbanized Settings. The goal of this project is
to examine the location of green areas in
relationship to community needs and the
capacity of these green areas to provide
ecological and social benefits. Based in the
Twin Cities, the project has a focus on the
core cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and
on the first and second rings of suburban
cities. However, the findings are meant to be
relevant elsewhere and to help inform public
discussions about how best to invest limited
resources in this critical piece of the urban
fabric.
The Design Briefs written as part of this
project each give an overview of key issues
and controversies in a specific topic,
illustrated by "fine print facts" culled from
Human Factors: Defining Terms
People have an important connection to green
areas and work in such fields as recreation,
environmental psychology, and environmental
education has examined this connection. Because
work comes from a variety of fields
misunderstandings can occur due to the use of
the same word to mean different things.
For this project the term green space refers to
outdoor settings that contain a significant amount
of vegetation. Researchers in different disciplines
have different ways to describe the kinds of green
spaces. The term nature or natural area is
especially charged because of its wide array of
meanings.
Research on human dimensions of open space
and natural areas, defines nature as areas with
significant vegetation (e.g. Kaplan et al. 1998). In
this definition, natural areas include such spaces
mainstream researchers in the wide variety of
disciplines that study different dimensions of
green spaces. They present the core findings of
large bodies of research, rather than an
exhaustive review. They are aimed at people
who deal with green space issues but who do
not have time to delve deeply into the
voluminous and often difficult to read
literature in the area. Such people include
members of city councils, planning
commissions, nonprofit board members,
interested citizens, and staff of parks, planning
and public works departments.
For this project, nature is broadly defined as a
variety of outdoor settings that have significant
amounts of vegetation. This use of the term
reflects work on the human dimensions of open
space. However, we more often use the term
green space. Green space does not include
water bodies, but does include their surround-
ings. Urban refers to the urbanized areas, both
central cities and suburbs.
as urban parks and other green areas that may
have some “natural” looking components but be
actually designed, planted, and maintained by
people. Thus when such researchers find that
people prefer to look at natural areas, they are
often not talking only about wilderness settings
but also parklike areas with short groundcovers,
little understory growth, open stands of trees,
and perhaps some water elements.
In contrast, scientists, researchers, activists, and
professionals who are interested in the physical
and biological aspects of “natural” areas define
them as those areas largely unaltered by modern
human activity (Allmann 1997, 17). Much work
by scientists of course focuses on areas that have
been altered by humans, and there is a great deal
of work done in the partial and full restoration of
such locations. However, among natural
scientists the term nature is narrowly defined
compared with those interested in the human
Design Center for American Urban Landscape 3
 Design Briefs

dimensions of open space.

This means that while the two groups of people
working in the area of green spaces might both
say that they are studying natural areas, the areas
that they are focusing on may be quite different.
This can cause much confusion. As the box on
the previous page explains, this project defines
nature in the broader sense but more commonly
uses the term green space. Different kinds of
green spaces vary greatly--from vacant lots and
utility rights-of-way to community gardens and
Photo: DCAUL
regional parks. This is explained more fully in the Wild area undergoing restoration: Such wild areas are
accompanying paper on “The Diversity of Green considered to exemplify natural areas for those
Spaces,” which provides a classification of over interested in the physical and biological dimensions of
nature.
two dozen types of green spaces found in urban
areas (Bonsignore 2003a).

Photo: DCAUL

Naturalistic yet cultivated area: Such scenes are typical

of the kinds of “natural” areas discussed by those
interested in the human dimensions of open space.

Photo: Ann Forsyth

Active use of park providing health benefits (see
explanation on next page).

4 Design Center for American Urban Landscape

Design Briefs

Human-Focused Environmental and in parks than suburban residents for whom views
Health Benefits of Green Areas were more important (Schroeder 1989, 90, 105).
This is not particularly surprising as suburban
Urban green spaces provide a number of environ- residents are more likely to have large private
mental benefits such as temperature moderation, yards and so many of the active uses of open
air quality, and noise abatement. These factors space would occur in their private yards. How-
improve the lives of people living in built-up ever, in areas such as the Twin Cities where even
areas. Such benefits are derived not just from the urban core areas have relatively low densities,
public parks but also private green spaces such as this finding of a center city/suburban difference
yards, campuses, and green spaces around busi- may be less applicable.
nesses. (See Design Brief 3 on “Urban Green
Space” for more detail on these environmental In general, the issue of people’s enjoyment of
benefits (Bonsignore 2003b).) views, shows a human benefit of conservancy
lands, set aside for such reasons as habitat value
Such green areas are often the settings for physi- or water quality protection. While they are not
cal activities such as walking or bike riding, with physically accessible, they may be visible from
potential human health benefits. In addition, public places providing the kind of pleasant
some studies propose that visits to parks and views that Schroeder describes.
views of natural or green areas improve moods,
and even help with cognitive functioning, mental
fatigue, and stress reduction (e.g. Hull 1992;
Fine Print Facts
Ulrich 1986).
A survey of 3,392 Australians found that people who
A number of studies from Europe and the US thought that their local areas or neighborhoods were
have shown that “distance or walking time from friendly, attractive, and pleasant were more likely to walk
for exercise (Ball et al. 2001, 436).
the home has appeared to be the single most
important precondition for use of green spaces”
(Van Herzele and Wiedemann 2003, 111; Giles-
Corti and Donovan 2002, 1807). Of course people
will certainly be willing to travel long distances
for unique, regionally important, recreational and
green space areas. For auto-oriented locations,
where people drive to green space, issues such as
parking are important. In addition, for pedestrian
access, issues such as street lighting, traffic, and
physical barriers would also have an effect.
However, for daily use distance matters.
While there are certainly recreational and social
benefits from active use of parks and green areas,
people also enjoy “passive aesthetic enjoyment” Views of natural areas can improve moods, a mental
Photo: DCAUL

of urban forests, that is they like to look at green health benefit.

areas rather than use them more actively
(Schroeder 1989, 90). Schroeder argues that these
less active uses are the most important benefits of
parks. Schroeder’s review of research also argued
that residential location mattered as center city
residents were more interested in doing activities

Design Center for American Urban Landscape 5

 Design Briefs
Shared Preferences
Starting with early work in the 1970s and 1980s
researchers examining preferences for outdoor
scenes have found that there was a widespread
preference for “natural” scenes that are moder-
ately complex yet coherently organized, and
include large trees, maintained ground areas,
smooth ground cover, and where buildings do
not dominate (See fine print facts; Kaplan et al.
1998). As I outline in the next section, such per-
ceptions vary with education and involvement in
restoration, but the preference is real and widely
shared.
This research has confirmed the challenge for
land managers seeking a more ecologically
sustainable pattern than the traditional park or
yard landscape. More diverse plant communities
with understory, while better for habitat and
water quality, can be perceived as messy and
unkept (Nassauer 1993; Gobster 1994). Providing
cues to care is an important strategy for increas-
ing broad public acceptance of native landscapes
in highly visible locations (Nassauer 1995).
In terms of perception, people are not good at
estimating the size of open space areas. Well
designed small green spaces can look much larger
than they are and vice versa. (Talbot and Kaplan
1986).
Overall, people often do not prefer to look at
large, wide open spaces devoid of trees even
though such landscapes may be native to an area
or serve useful purposes (e.g. ball fields).
This finding that people perceive small, well-
designed parks as larger than they are, combined
with the finding, outlined in a previous section,
of the importance of distance being important in
determining park use is an argument for smaller,
more accessible open spaces. However, it is not an
argument against large conservancy areas.
Rather, combined with the findings about the
importance of views rather than access to all
green areas, this finding indicates that people can
be well satisfied with access to smaller, nearby
6 Design Center for American Urban Landscape
parks, and views of green spaces of varying sizes.
This takes pressure off larger conservancy lands
to provide access. Instead they can perform other
functions such as habitat and water quality
protection.
However, the studies at the base of these gener-
alizations have limits. A typical study would
show a number of photographs or slides. These
photographs vary on key dimensions such as the
level of complexity or the presence or absence of
trees. However, the people viewing the slides
have generally been Europeans and North Ameri-
cans. We know far more about people’s prefer-
ences for tree shape and understory than other
types of vegetation. In addition, in studies of
green or “natural” areas, such spaces are often
compared with “urban” settings with very little
green, not with a full range of urban settings.
Photo: DCAUL
Moderately complex environment with large canopy
trees, water, high levels of maintenance, and incon-
spicuous buildings typical of the most widely preferred
“natural” scenes.
Fine Print Facts
A comprehensive review of earlier empirical studies and
other reflections on open space found the following
elements in scenes judged to be the most preferred or the
most attractive (Schroeder 1989, p. 90, 94, 96, 101; also
Gobster 1994).
• water
• large trees with dense upper canopy but little eye
level foliage
• high levels of maintenance
• a lack of incongruous structures and
• a lack of urban noises.
Design Briefs
Ulrich (1986) in a separate review came up with similar
findings that unspectacular natural areas are liked if they
have:
• many separate elements (complexity);
• there is “a focal point, and other order or patterning
is also present;”
• “there is a moderate to high level of depth that is
clearly defined;”
• the ground is smooth and looks like people could
move through it which involves having “lush, grassy
or herbaceous ground covers;”
• “a deflected or curving sightline is present, convey-
ing a sense that the new landscape information lies
immediately beyond the observer’s visual bounds;”
• there is little in the way of perceived threat; and
• there is water (Ulrich 1986, 32, 34-35)
Research reviewed by both Ulrich and Schroeder found
that treeless landscapes were much less preferred,
particularly built treeless landscapes. Ulrich’s review also
found that people mildly dislike small trees; and dislike
downed wood and dense understory (Ulrich 1986, 34-35).
Studies of preference for tree shape among college
students from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Estonia, Israel,
Italy, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, Switzerland, the U.S.,
and Zimbabwe found a general preference for spreading
over columnar trees. However, people were also more
positive about trees that they remembered from their
childhoods (Sommer and Summit 1996; Sommer 1997).
A study by Talbot and Kaplan (1986) found that indepen-
dent of size, locations with open grassy areas looked
larger than they were and ones with buildings and fences
looked smaller.
Engagement with open space, such as in tree planting
programs, can promote community identity and sense of
control (Ames 1980, citing C.A. Lewis 1976; Westphal
1993).
Diverse preferences and uses for
green spaces
While the focus of early work on the use and
perception of open spaces was on what people
had in common, more recently researchers have
been examining differences among specific
population groups. These differences include
both how people use space and how they per-
ceive it.
Age is perhaps the most important dimension in
terms of differences in use of open space. Differ-
ent age groups have different physical needs but
may also perceive open space differently. For
example, safety is a key issue for children’s
access to parks and other green spaces beyond
the home. With increasing traffic, or at least
increasing parental concern about it, children’s
mobility has been reduced (Van Herzele and
Wiedemann 2003, 113; also Moore et al 1992).
There are also differences in use and perception
between ethnic groups, center city versus subur-
ban residents, women versus men, people with
different educational backgrounds, those with
environmental training and those without, and
people doing different activities in open space
(e.g. dog walking versus jogging).
While cross cultural work on perception has
shown wide preferences for such elements as
spreading trees there are also regional differences
Photo: Ann Forsyth
Children and youth of different ages have diverse and
often specialized needs. Some of these needs are for
hardscapes along with green areas.
Design Center for American Urban Landscape 7
 Design Briefs
with people generally liking the tree shapes that
they grew up with (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989;
Sommer and Sumit 1996; Sommer 1997).
In the U.S. whites are far less likely to go to parks
in groups than African Americans, Latinos, and
Asians; and are less likely than other groups to
participate in social activities such as festivals,
parties, and watching organized sports (Gobster
and Delgado 1993, 76). Center city residents tend
to prefer a less naturalistic look than those from
the suburbs.
College education is associated with more interest
and concern with nature. Field also matters. The
open space preferences of landscape architecture
students and environmental professionals diverge
from those of the general public (Schroeder 1989,
106; Grove et al 1993, 26; Raffetto 1993, 63; Ryan
2000).
In a survey study combining several dimensions,
Ryan (2000, 212-215) examined three sites in Ann
Arbor Michigan, and found that those who mainly
looked at open spaces preferred a managed or
traditional park look. He compared this to the
contrasting views of active users of the spaces,
such as joggers, who wanted more minimal man-
agement, and natural area experts and restoration
volunteers who favored ecosystem integrity,
which would generally result in a less manicured
appearance.
Photo: Ann Forsyth
Large multi-family Latino group using an urban park
for multiple activities.
8 Design Center for American Urban Landscape
Obviously many of these characteristics overlap
and people have individual personalities so each
group is not homogenous.
Photo: Patricia McGirr/ Ann Forsyth
Participation in design and planning is key in
accommodating the needs of individuals and subgroups as
well as the wider public.
Fine Print Facts
Age
People at different ages both experience their bodies
differently and are likely to have different preferences
about outdoor spaces. Many age differences combine
these physical and social or psychological dimensions.
Teenagers prefer green spaces that cue activity, rather
than providing scenery (Talbot and Kaplan 1993, 96).
At the other end of the age scale, a study of more than
3,000 people in their seventies and over and living in very
high density location in Tokyo, found “walkable green
streets and spaces near the residence” and a “positive
attitude” to one’s community were associated with
increased survival over 5 years even when controlling for
age, sex, marital status, “baseline functional status,” and
socioeconomic factors (Takano et al 2002, 913).
Center city versus suburban residents
Suburban residents have more interest in and under-
standing of wildlife and outdoors than center city
residents; more liking for naturalistic designs; and are
less interested in engaging in activities in parks rather
than treating parks as scenery (Schroeder 1989, 104, 105).
Work from Europe emphasizes that many people value
social, cultural, and historical activities in “smaller, neatly
cultivated parks where people can see and encounter the
cultural expressions and values of society and where they
can see and meet people” (Van Herzele and Wiedemann
2003, 114).
Ethnic groups
Research up to the late 1980s, found African Americans
Design Briefs

are more oriented to using urban environments for park areas reduces boredom for dogs, expends “pent up
recreation than whites and less interested in nature, the energy,” helps in their socialization, and gives exercise to
outdoors, and environmental concerns (Schroeder 1989, their owners (Harlock Jackson et al. 1995, 5). Advocates
103-104). This is a pattern similar to center city residents for dogs emphasize managing potential conflicts between
in general, and so it is hard to disentangle the effects of dogs and other park users through a number of design,
ethnicity versus location. More recent work by Gobster time share, and management strategies (Harlock Jackson
and Delgado (1993, 78) in Chicago has shown variation et al. 1995).
among African Americans depending on their history.
Although their sample size was small, those with
southern roots visited parks more than those from the
north, and they also did so more frequently on foot. This
demonstrates some of the differences between people in
one ethnic group.

Mexican Americans have a pattern of park use with

large multifamily groups; and more stationary and
sports activities than Anglo-Americans (Schroeder 1989,
104; Loukaitou-Sideris 1995). In urban parks Puerto
Ricans have preferences for certain activities such as
dominoes, and for a design palette that includes paving,
shrubs, and bright colors rather than grass (Forsyth et
al. 2001, 75).

Studies in the US have found that groups of Asian

descent are very varied in their use of open space, partly
because the population comes from many different
backgrounds.

Women
In urban areas women use parks more in the middle of
the day, and for activities such as sitting and reading
rather than sports. Women fear crime in parks more
than men (Schroeder 1989, 105). Many ethnic groups
have gender segregated patterns of open space use.

Income
Class differences overlap greatly with ethnicity, residen-
tial location, and education.

Education and Employment

Education affects the perception of open space with
environmental professionals, and restoration volunteers,
having significantly difference views to the general
public (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, 109-111; Ryan 2000).
Even within environmental professions there are
differences. For example, studies have examined how
arboretum staff preferred higher tree density to the staff
of suburban park districts (Schroeder and Green 1985).

Uses and activities

Those doing different activities have different needs e.g.
joggers want wood chip paths and cyclists want paving
(Schroeder 1989, 106). One important and potentially
overlooked use of open space is finding relative quiet—
i.e. quiet relative to the context of the open space (Wan
Herzele and Wiedemann 2003, 114).

Dogs and their owners have particular needs. Access to

Design Center for American Urban Landscape 9

 Design Briefs
Perceived Problems with Green
Spaces
Green spaces are not liked by everyone all the
time. As the title of an article on children’s per-
ceptions of wildland areas declares, for many
“nature is scary, disgusting, and uncomfortable”
(Bixler and Floyd 1997). Key problem areas are
outlined below.
Safety
Many people fear natural areas for safety reasons.
Parks are perceived as risky when they are more
densely vegetated, particularly when that vegeta-
tion is not obviously maintained (Schroeder 1989,
101; Michael and Hull 1994). Parks are also less
liked when perceived to be the setting for drink-
ing, drug use, crime, teenage hangouts, rowdy
behavior, and clashes with rangers (Schroeder
1989, 100-101). However, Ryan (2000, 214) in a
large survey study found that “natural area
experts” were less fearful of “wider natural
areas” than non-expert users of the sites, particu-
larly women.
While some of this fear of crime is related to
perception rather than reality, a study of law
enforcement and park personnel indicated that,
based on their observations of crimes, these
experts considered vegetation to be a problem.
This was the case where it stopped surveillance,
provided concealment for offenders while search-
Walking and biking trail between a forested area and
Photo: Ann Forsyth
the backs of houses is unlit, creating safety concerns
particularly after dark.
10
ing for victims and perpetrating crimes, and
covered escape routes (Michael and Hull 1994).
Some studies, including one of residents in inner
city high rise public housing, have shown that in
some cases people think that more densely
wooded parks are safer than less densely wooded
ones (Schroeder 1989, 103; Kuo et al. 1998).
However, in the public housing study the trees
had clear understory areas planted with grass, a
planting style with much better sight lines and
fewer concealment areas than a natural forest.
Regulation and privatization
Debates about the privatization of public space
and street life deal with outdoor areas and in the
past decade have focused on a perceived increase
in regulation of public spaces, including parks.
One strand strongly criticizes these regulations
that target groups perceived as undesirable such
as youth and homeless people. Others point out
that shared use requires some common
understandings about acceptable behavior. Rules
both allow common use and provoke conflicts
(Forsyth 2000).
Potential conflicts over use may occur in green
areas with public access. In addition, people may
not understand or appreciate limitations on
access which are often needed to promote
conservation values. Minneapolis park planners
use design elements such as roads to clearly
define the boundary between public and private
green space, giving clear cues to the public about
where they are welcome (Ramadhyani 2003, pers.
comm.).
Maintenance
Green spaces in urban areas face challenges in
terms of maintenance, from dealing with litter to
maintaining the health of trees and shrubs.
Earlier sections have also shown that there are
shared preferences for open spaces that have a
fairly manicured appearance, in contrast to the
more messy reality of wild or restored areas. This
has implications for designing green areas in that
ongoing maintenance is an important
consideration.
Design Center for American Urban Landscape
Design Briefs
Photo: Ann Forsyth
Gated subdivision limits access to shared green areas.
In times of fiscal constraint, budgets for open
space maintenance are often one of the first
things to be cut. Some innovative strategies have
been used. A study of Boston’s Southwest Corri-
dor park area recounted how, due to intensive
activism to create the park corridor, and partici-
pation in the design, a constituency of supporters
was created who later weeded, cleaned, and
watched over the park (Crewe 2001, 452). Volun-
teers are not always available, but the example
shows the importance of public support.
Conclusions
Implications of review
While green spaces are very popular in urban
areas, there are significant differences in how
people use and perceive open spaces. The follow-
ing points highlight possible responses to these
findings.
• Many times green space in urbanized areas is
located in left over or challenging building
sites. For maximum benefit in terms of active
use, green spaces need to be distributed near
to people.
• Green spaces that can only be viewed, where
the public cannot enter, still have value to
humans (independent of their value as
habitat, and in terms of air and water
quality).
Common perceptions
• Designers should consider the widespread
preference for complex yet coherently orga-
nized landscape that include large trees,
maintained ground areas, smooth ground
cover, and inconspicuous buildings. Not all
environments need to look like this but this
underlying preference needs to be consid-
ered, particularly in visible places where
public acceptance is important.
• In designing more sustainable and diverse
landscapes in highly visible areas, care must
be taken to employ design strategies to
indicate that they are cared for.
• In terms of human perception, bigger is not
always better. Well designed open spaces
may be perceived as larger than those that
are physically larger but are less well de-
signed. In areas where it is important to use
land intensively this finding is key.
Differences
• There are significant differences in the kinds
of open spaces that people like and use. Not
everyone prefers naturalistic scenery, for
Design Center for American Urban Landscape 11
 Design Briefs

example. but poorly located, poorly planted, poorly

shaped, and possibly even too small for signifi-
• While there are some general preferences for
cant habitat benefits. If interspersed throughout
particular kinds of green areas, designers
the development, such areas may have the
should solicit input and comments from local
additional effect of spreading out development
populations. However, there may not be full
so it is hard to get around by any means other
agreement about issues such as preferred
than the car, a problem for energy use and access
planting styles.
(see Southworth 1997).
• Designers need to understand the popula-
This is not an argument against open space but
tions that they are working with on three
rather an argument for a more complex under-
levels: the general public, subgroups (e.g.
standing of green areas and an argument for the
children, Latinos), and individuals.
importance of good design. Consider two pat-
• The preferences of environmental profession- terns. One has moderate amounts of open space
als and volunteers are likely to be different to and low density residential development, with
those of the general public. This may cause many green spaces dominated by lawns. A
conflicts. second combines built up areas that are in-
tensely enough developed to make walking and
Problem areas
biking viable, small accessible open spaces,
• Care should be taken to design spaces that forested streets and yards, and key green corri-
are not perceived as threatening or unsafe dors. The saving in land can be placed into large
and that minimize real problems of conceal- conservation areas that are outside the neighbor-
ment. hood and at least partially set aside from active
use. The first, though incorporating a higher
• Where green spaces are shared by people in
percentage of open space within the boundaries
terms of uses or views, conflicts can result.
of the neighborhood, may be worse for overall
Careful design can minimize these conflicts,
sustainability and livability than one that has
but probably not eliminate them.
more definition between urbanized and conser-
• Green areas should be designed with ongoing vation areas and more variety in types of open
maintenance in mind. space.
A note on conservation design
In the US almost everyone agrees that open space
is a good thing. Many older cities struggle to find
spaces in which to locate community gardens
and ballfields. Further out, many new suburban
developments are increasingly incorporating
large amounts of shared green space. It is not
unusual to have 30 % of a development given
over to shared green space such as parks and
trails in addition to significant private yards and
buffers around commercial buildings.
However, merely providing a large quantity of
green space does not make better development.
Green spaces allocated for shared use can be very
large in terms of conceivable human activities

12 Design Center for American Urban Landscape

Design Briefs
References
* indicates a helpful summary
Allmann, Laurie. 1997. Natural Areas: Protecting a Vital
Community Asset. St. Paul: Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources.
Ames, Richard G. 1980. “Urban Tree Planting Pro-
grams: a Sociological Perspective.” HortScience 15
(2): 135-137.
Ball, Kylie, Adrian Bauman, Eva Leslie, and Neville
Owen. 2001. Perceived Environmental Aesthetics
and Convenience and Company are Associated
with Walking for Exercise Among Australian
Adults. Preventive Medicine 33: 434-440.
Bixler, Robert and Myron Floyd. 1997. “Nature is
Scary, Disgusting, and Uncomfortable.” Environ-
ment and Behavior 29, 4: 443-467.
Bonsignore, Gina. 2003a. The Diversity of Green Spaces
Where We Live. Design Brief 2. Minneapolis: Design
Center for American Urban Landscape.
Bonsignore, Gina. 2003b. Urban Green Space: Effects on
Water and Climate. Design Brief 3. Minneapolis:
Design Center for American Urban Landscape.
Crewe, Katherine. 2001. “The Quality of Participatory
Design: The Effects of Citizen Input on the Design
of the Boston Southwest Corridor. Journal of the
American Planning Association 67, 4: 437-455.
Fitzgerald, Frank. 2003. Plant and Animal Communities
in Urban Green Spaces Design Brief 5. Minneapolis:
Design Center for American Urban Landscape.
Forsyth, Ann. 2000. “Analyzing Public Space at a
Metropolitan Scale: Notes on the Potential for
Using GIS.” Urban Geography 21 (2): 121-147.
Forsyth, Ann. 2001. “Plazas, Streets, and Markets:
What Puerto Ricans Bring to Urban Spaces in
Northern Climates.” Landscape Journal 20: 62-76.
* Francis, Mark. 1987. “Urban Open Spaces.” In
Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design, ed.
Evin Zube and Gary Moore. New York: Plenum
Press.
Giles-Corti, Billie and Robert Donovan. 2002. The
Relative Influence of Individual, Social, and
Physical Environment Determinants of Physical
Activity.” Social Science and Medicine 54: 1793
Gobster, Paul H. and Antonio Delgado. 1993.
“Ethnicity and Recreation Use in Chicago’s
Lincoln Park: In-park User Survey Findings.” In
Managing Urban and High-Use Recreation Settings,
ed. Paul H. Gobster. St. Paul: United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture, North Central Forest Experi-
ment Station.
Gobster, Paul. 1994. The Urban Savanna. Restoration
and Management Notes 12, 1: 64-71.
Grove, Morgan, Kerry E. Vachta, Maureen H.
McDonough, and William R. Burch, Jr. 1993. “The
Urban Resources Initiative: Community Benefits
from Forestry.” In Managing Urban and High-Use
Recreation Settings, ed. Paul H. Gobster. St Paul:
United States Department of Agriculture, North
Central Forest Experiment Station.
Harlock Jackson PTY LTD, Judith Blackshaw, and Jane
Marriott. 1995. Public Open Space and Dogs: A
Design and Management Guide for Open Space
Professionals and Local Government. South Yarra,
Victoria: Petcare Information & Advisory Service.
Hester, Randolph. 1984. Planning Neighborhood Space
with People. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Hull, R.B. 1992. “Brief Encounters with Urban Forests
Produce Moods that Matter.” Journal of
Arboriculture 18 (6): 322-324.
* Kaplan, Rachel and Stephen Kaplan. 1989. The
Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Kaplan, Rachel, Stephen Kaplan, and Robert Ryan.
1998. With People in Mind: Design and Management
of Everyday Nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kuo, Frances E., Magdalena Bacaicoa, and William C.
Sullivan. 1998. “Transforming Inner City Land-
scapes: Trees, Sense of Safety, and Preference.”
Environment and Behavior 30 (1): 28-59.
Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia. 1995. “Urban Form and
Social Context: Cultural Differentiation in the
Uses of Urban Parks.” Journal of Planning Educa-
tion and Research 14: 89-102.
Michael, Sean E. and R. Bruce Hull. 1994. Effects of
Vegetation on Crime in Urban Parks. Savoy, IL:
International Society of Arboriculture Research
Trust.
Moore, Robin, Susan Goltsman, and Daniel Lacofino.
1992. Play for All Guidelines. Second edition.
Berkeley, CA: MIG Communications.
Nassauer, Joan Iverson. 1993. “Ecological Function
and the Perception of Suburban Residential
Landscapes.” In Managing Urban and High-Use
Recreation Settings, ed. Paul H. Gobster. St Paul:
United States Department of Agriculture, North
Central Forest Experiment Station.
Nassauer, Joan. 1995. “Messy Ecosystems, Orderly
Frames.” Landscape Journal 14 (2):161-170.
Raffetto, John. 1993. “Perceptions of Ecological
Restorations in Urban Parks.” In Managing Urban
and High-Use Recreation Settings, ed. Paul H.
Gobster. St Paul: United States Department of
Agriculture, North Central Forest Experiment
Station.
Ryan, Robert. 2000. “A People-Centered Approach to
Designing and Managing Restoration Projects.” In
Design Center for American Urban Landscape 13
 Design Briefs

Restoring Nature, ed. Paul Gobster and Bruce Hull.

Washington, DC: Island Press.
Schroeder, Herbert W. and Thomas L. Green. 1985.
“Public Preference for Tree Density in Municipal
Parks.” Journal of Arboriculture 11 (9): 272-277.
* Schroeder, Herbert W. 1989. “Environment, Behavior,
and Design Research on Urban Forests.” In
Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design, Vol.
2, eds. Ervin H. Zube and Gary T. Moore. New
York: Plenum Publishing Corporation.
Sommer, Robert and Joshua Summit. 1996. “Cross-
National Rankings of Tree Shape.” Ecological
Psychology 8 (4 ): 327-341.
Sommer, Robert. 1997. “Further Cross-National Photo: Ann Forsyth

Studies of Tree Form Preference.” Ecological

Psychology 9 (2): 153-160.
Southworth, Michael. 1997. “Walkable Suburbs? “
Journal of the American Planning Association 63(1):
28-44.
Takano, T., K. Nakamura, and M. Watanabe. 2002.
“Urban Residential Environments and Senior
Citizens’ Longevity in Megacity Areas: the Impor-
tance of Walkable Green Spaces.” Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health 2002 (56):913-
918.
Talbot, Janet Frey and Rachel Kaplan. 1986. “Judging
the Sizes of Urban Open Areas: Is Bigger Always
Better?” Landscape Journal 5 (2): 83-92.
Talbot, Janet Frey and Rachel Kaplan. 1993. “Prefer-
ences for Nearby Natural Settings: Ethnic and Age
Variations.” In Managing Urban and High-Use
Recreation Settings, ed. Paul H. Gobster. St Paul:
United States Department of Agriculture, North
Central Forest Experiment Station.
* Ulrich, Roger S. 1986. “Human Responses to Vegeta-
tion and Landscapes.” Landscape and Urban
Planning 13: 29-44.
Van Herzele, Ann and Torsten Wiedemann. 2002. “A
Monitoring Tool for the Provision of Accessible
and Attractive Urban Green Spaces.” Landscape and
Urban Planning 63 (2003): 109-126.
Westphal, Lynne M. 1993. “Why Trees? Urban Forestry
Volunteers Values and Motivations.” In Managing
Urban and High-Use Recreation Settings, ed. Paul H.
Gobster. St Paul: United States Department of
Agriculture, North Central Forest Experiment
Station.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Peggy Booth, Katherine Crewe, Hannah
Dunevitz, Harland Hiemstra, Deborah Karasov, Janette
Monear, Gail Nozal, Cordelia Pierson, Sharon Pfeifer,
Rachel Ramadhyani, and Robert Ryan for reading drafts of
this paper. While they might not all agree with all the points
made in this paper, their comments were extremely valuable
and have greatly improved the final version.
Design Center for American Urban Landscape
1 Rapson Hall
89 Church Street
Minneapolis, MN 55455
612.625.9000
www.dcaul.umn.edu
Funding for this project was provided by The McKnight
Foundation.
© 2003
Design Center for American Urban Landscape (DCAUL)
College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
University of Minnesota
Permission is granted for nonprofit education purposes
for reproduction of all or part of written material or
images, except that reprinted with permission from other
sources. Acknowledgment is required and the Design
Center requests two copies of any material thus pro-
duced.

The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy

that all persons shall have equal access to its programs,
facilities, and employment without regard to race, color,
creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status,
disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or
sexual orientation.

14 Design Center for American Urban Landscape