Conflict between ecological sustainability and environmental aesthetics: Conundrum, canärd or curiosity

Parsons, Russ

doi:10.1016/0169-2046(95)07004-e

Cited by 107 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, these landscapes do not necessarily provide the best habitat for biodiversity. These preferences could in part be influenced by a perception that safety decreases as vegetation cover increases (Parsons 1995;Bjerke et al 2006); this is despite evidence that crime, including gun assaults, robbery and burglary, can decrease as vegetation increases (Branas et al 2011;Troy et al 2012). A second possibility is that there is a mismatch between perceived levels of nature and reality.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Depending on the ecological context of a city such landscapes are not necessarily the most biodiverse or natural. On the other hand, dense vegetation in parks has been associated with safety concerns (Parsons 1995;Bjerke et al 2006) and is not necessarily conducive to some recreational uses of parks (such as ball or other sports, and some forms of children's playgrounds; Ferré et al 2006;McCormack et al 2010). Furthermore, some people have a conscious aversion to natural experiences (Bixler and Floyd 1997).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What is the role of trees and remnant vegetation in attracting people to urban parks?

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public parks commonly contain important habitat for urban biodiversity, and they also provide recreation opportunities for urban residents. However, the extent to which dual outcomes for recreation and conservation can be achieved in the same spaces remains unclear. We examine whether greater levels of (i) tree cover (i.e. park 'greenness') and (ii) native remnant vegetation cover (i.e. vegetation with high ecological value) attract or deter park visitors. This study is based on the park visitation behaviour of 670 survey respondents in Brisbane, Australia, detailing 1,090 individual visits to 324 urban parks. We first examined the presence of any clear revealed preferences for visiting parks with higher or lower levels of tree cover or remnant vegetation cover. We then examined the differences between each park visited by respondents and the park closest to their home, and used linear mixed models to identify socio-demographic groups who are more likely to travel further to visit parks with greater tree cover or remnant vegetation cover. Park visitation rates reflected the availability of parks, suggesting that people do not preferentially visit parks with greater vegetation cover despite the potential for improved nature-based experiences and greater wellbeing benefits. However, we discovered that people with a greater orientation towards nature (measured using the nature relatedness scale) tend to travel further for more vegetated parks. Our results suggest that to enhance recreational benefits from ecologically valuable spaces a range of social or educational interventions are required to enhance people's connection to nature.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the role of trees and remnant vegetation in attracting people to urban parks?

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since there may be a potential conflict between biodiversity and visual esthetics [37], the second issue addressed in this study concerns how the level of biodiversity influences preference and intention to engage in forest activities. Settings with low and high levels of biodiversity (rated by an expert) were compared.…”

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To accommodate both environmental and social values in the forest, it is essential to understand the relation between biodiversity and preference. People have been found to prefer low biodiversity scenes of open areas with groups of bushes and trees rather than high biodiversity scenes of dense vegetation, leading several researchers to suggest that there is a conflict between biodiversity and visual esthetics and that people would be less likely to visit low biodiversity settings [36][37][38]. For example, Gundersen and Frivold [39] found that a respondent sample in Norway rated forest scenes with dead wood lower compared to scenes with little or no visible dead wood, indicating that people may prefer forests with lower levels of biodiversity.…”

Section: Biodiversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Recreation in Different Forest Settings: A Scene Preference Study

Eriksson

Nordlund

Olsson

et al. 2012

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recreation activity preferences in forest settings were explored in a scene preference study. The importance of type of human intervention and the level of biodiversity for preference and intention to engage in recreation activities were examined in a sample of forestry and social science students in Sweden. Results showed that forestry students displayed an almost equally strong preference for natural-looking scenes as for scenes with traces of recreation (e.g., paths), whereas social science students preferred recreational scenes the most. Least preferred were scenes with traces of forest management. Different forest settings were furthermore preferred for different recreation activities. Recreational settings were favored for walking and going on outings, and natural-looking settings were more appreciated for picking berries or mushrooms. Respondents displayed a stronger intention to study plants and animals in high biodiversity settings and the intention to exercise was stronger in low biodiversity settings. Implications for future land use planning and forest management are discussed.

show abstract

“…Identifying high aesthetic landscapes in recreational areas can also be informative for management, especially when such landscapes correspond with areas of high sensitivity and wildlife value (Parsons, 1995). Despite the possible human well-being benefits from recreating in areas of both high aesthetic and wildlife value, recreational crowding can decrease the aesthetic and acceptability value of an area.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Human-Environment Systems Approach to Outdoor Recreation, Human Biological Stress, and Landscape Aesthetics

Opdahl¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Outdoor recreation, as the intersection between physical exercise and nature, provides a multitude of psychological and physiological benefits to human well-being.Though many studies have reported qualitative stress reduction from outdoor recreation, few have focused on quantitative measurements of stress across recreational activity types, intrapersonal differences, and environmental variables. To determine whether outdoor recreation affects physiology, we collected 190 paired salivary cortisol and testosterone samples and 157 surveys from 88 hikers, 81 mountain bikers, and 44 offhighway vehicle (OHV) motorists. After recreation, cortisol concentrations were significantly reduced in hikers and OHV motorists, but cortisol and testosterone concentrations increased in mountain bikers. These three recreational activity types also significantly differed in motivation and wildlife observations, which could be additional mechanisms of physiological change. Out of all three recreation types, hikers were most motivated by environmental variables. To test how the environment could be affecting hikers, we evaluated the impact of landscape aesthetic perceptions and land cover types on hiker spatial movement and stress relief. Using data from 58 GPS tracks, we found that salivary cortisol was significantly reduced when hikers walked through riparian areas. Hiker cortisol also decreased after recreating in areas they perceived as aesthetically pleasing. Aesthetic quality influenced hiker spatial movement, with hikers choosing to recreate in high-aesthetic high-wildlife observance riparian areas. Though hiker movement and stress were not related to the intensity of visitor use, wildlife vi observations decreased with greater recreational utilization. Hikers, however, did not perceive any negative impact from their recreational activities. Despite the different forms of recreational activity, outdoor recreation has potential to benefit human wellbeing. In addition, managing recreational land for ecosystem health and wildlife may enhance well-being benefits, as well as serving a role in the conservation of wildlands.

show abstract

Conflict between ecological sustainability and environmental aesthetics: Conundrum, canärd or curiosity

Cited by 107 publications

References 37 publications

What is the role of trees and remnant vegetation in attracting people to urban parks?

What is the role of trees and remnant vegetation in attracting people to urban parks?

Recreation in Different Forest Settings: A Scene Preference Study

A Human-Environment Systems Approach to Outdoor Recreation, Human Biological Stress, and Landscape Aesthetics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About