4.7 Article

General, stress relief and perceived safety preferences for green spaces in the historic city of Padua (Italy)

期刊

URBAN FORESTRY & URBAN GREENING
卷 52, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126695

关键词

Green infrastructure; Visitor perception; Urban planning; Discrete choice experiment; Cultural ecosystem service

资金

  1. Dept. TESAF [35, 2010/2017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Public urban green spaces are crucial for citizens' wellbeing and are an important part of daily life in cities. To maximize their benefits to quality of life a thorough knowledge of citizens' preferences and preference heterogeneity is crucial in the planning and design of urban green spaces. This study investigated visitors' perception of typical green spaces, with a focus on vegetation structure and the presence of typical historic city walls, as well as preferences within the context of perceived stress and safety. We conducted this study in the historic city of Padua in north-eastern Italy. In 2017, face-to-face interviews of citizens were held and choice sets, based on modified images of different green space scenarios, were used to test users' preferences connected to both stress relief and safety perception. The study highlighted that general, stress relief and safety perception related preferences of the respondents depend on different site characteristics. Respondents preferred a complex but not too wild scenario with sparse trees and aesthetically appealing features such as colourful flowers. Historic walls had a negative effect on general preferences. While general preferences were very similar to stress relief preferences, preferences within the context of safety differed for some attributes. It seems that the vegetation structure and the presence of features linked to human recreational uses are important factors in planning and designing urban green spaces. Management and planning should take into consideration what users demand from green spaces as this will influence their suitable design.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据