Green space context and vegetation complexity shape people’s preferences for urban public parks and residential gardens

Abstract

Landscape preferences shape decision-making and drive the ecological outcomes of urban landscapes. We investigate how people’s landscape preferences are shaped by the green space context (public park vs private residential garden landscapes) and by physical features such as vegetation complexity. A postal questionnaire was sent to households near seven urban parks in Melbourne, Australia. Results showed that landscapes were grouped into four categories based on patterns of preference response. Landscapes with moderate vegetation complexity were placed in separate categories distinguished by green space context (parks vs gardens), while very simple and very complex landscapes were placed in different categories irrespective of green space context. Surprisingly, dense vegetation was highly preferred by respondents. As areas of dense vegetation also provide complex habitats for wildlife, this highlights the possibility of developing policies and designing landscapes that can benefit both people and nature.

Full text

Greenspacecontextandvegetationcomplexityshapepeople’spreferencesforurbanpublicparksand
residentialgardens

VirginiaHarris1,DaveKendal*1,2,AmyHahs2,CaraghGThrelfall1

1UniversityofMelbourne,DepartmentofEcosystemandForestSciences,500YarraBoulevard,Richmond
2AustralianResearchCentreforUrbanEcology,RoyalBotanicGardensVictoria,c/oSchoolofBiosciences,
TheUniversityofMelbourne,Parkville3010,Australia
*Correspondingauthordkendal@unimelb.edu.au

Abstract
Thepublic’slandscapepreferencesshapedecisionmakinganddrivetheecologicaloutcomesofurban
landscapes.Existingpreferencestudieshavemainlybeenconductedwithinasinglegreenspacecontext.Yet
differentkindsofgreenspaceafforddifferentkindsofusesandexperiencesanditislikelythisinfluences
preferences.Weinvestigatehowpeople’slandscapepreferencesareshapedbythegreenspacecontext
(publicparkvsprivateresidentialgardenlandscapes)andbyphysicalfeaturessuchasvegetationcomplexity.
ApostalquestionnairewassenttohouseholdsnearsevenurbanparksinMelbourne,Australia.Results
showedthatlandscapesweregroupedintofourcategoriesbasedonpatternsofpreferenceresponse.
Landscapeswithmoderatevegetationcomplexitywereplacedinseparatecategoriesdistinguishedbygreen
spacecontext(parksvsgardens),whileverysimpleandverycomplexlandscapeswereplacedindifferent
categoriesirrespectiveofgreenspacecontext.Surprisingly,densevegetationwashighlypreferredby
respondents.Asareasofdensevegetationalsoprovidecomplexhabitatsforwildlife,thishighlightsthe
possibilityofdevelopingpoliciesanddesigninglandscapesthatcanbenefitbothpeopleandnature.

Introduction

Urbanvegetationinpublicparksandprivategardensprovidesmanybenefitstopeople(Tzoulasetal.,2007).
Exposuretogreener,morenaturalenvironmentscanhavepositiveeffectsonpsychologicalwellbeing
(Kaplan,1995;vandenBergetal.,2003;Fulleretal.,2007;Lucketal.,2011),longevity(Takanoetal.,2002),
communityattachment(KimandKaplan,2004),physicalhealth(Pereiraetal.,2012)andmorbidity(Maaset
al.,2009).Atthesametime,urbangreenspacesalsoplayakeyroleintheecologicalfunctioningofcitiesby
maintainingbiodiversity(KurzandBaudains,2010;Thompsonetal.,2003)andprovidingecosystemgoods
andservices,suchasairandwaterpurification,pollinationandinsectregulation(BolundandHunhammar,
1999;Chiesura,2004).Humanperceptionofvegetationisimportantasitcanmediatesomeofthesepositive
effects(e.g.vandenBergetal.,2003),influenceperceivedappropriatenessofgreenspaceforcertain
activities(Bjerkeetal2006)andinfluencethelandmanagementdecisionspeoplemake(e.g.Kendaletal.,
2012a)thatshapeecologicalfunctioningandultimately,theongoingexistenceofthelandscape(Gobsteret
al.,2007).Understandingtherelationshipsbetweenthesocialandecologicalrolesofvegetationingreen
spacesisimportantforurbanplannersanddesignersseekingtoprovidespacesthatmeettheneedsofthe
communityandhavepositiveecologicaloutcomes.

Thecharacterofurbangreenspacesisdeterminedbytheactionsandinteractionsofnaturalandhuman
influences(CouncilofEurope,2000;Kendaletal.,2012b;Zube,1987).Whiletheeffectofnaturalinfluences
suchastemperatureandrainfallonvegetationarereasonablywellunderstood,socialinfluencesareless
wellstudied.Landscapepreferenceisthemeasurementofhowmuchpeople‘like’theappearanceofa
landscape(Scherer,2005).Itisausefulframeworkforinvestigatingthehumanrelationshipwiththesesocial
andecologicalsystems,andhasbeenwidelyusedtostudyrelationshipsinmanydifferentkindsofurban
landscapes.Forexample,peoplehavebeenshowntoconsistentlyprefernaturallandscapestobuilt
environments(KaplanandKaplan,1989),andpark‐likelandscapes(thatcontainspecificfeaturessuchas
scatteredtreeswithminimalunderstorey)areoftenhighlypreferred(Bjerkeetal.,2006;Kaltenbornand
Bjerke,2002;Ulrich,1993).Preferenceforlandscapehasbeenexplainedusingbothevolutionary(Kaplan

2
andKaplan,1989;Ulrich,1993),andculturaltheories(Nassaueretal.,2009;VandenBergandKoole,2006).
EvolutionarytheoriessuggestthatpreferenceisanevolvedresponsethataidedsurvivalintheAfrican
savannahlandscapeswhereearlyhominidslived(e.g.Appleton,1975).Culturaltheoriessuggestthat
preferenceislearnedandthatculturaltraditions(e.g.Gobster,1995),demographicvariables(suchasage,
education,gender),expertise(Hoffmanetal.,2012),personalexperienceorcognitivefactors(suchasvalues
andbeliefs)canallinfluenceanindividual’spreferencefordifferentlandscapes(Howley,2011;Lyons,1983;
VandenBergandKoole,2006;YangandBrown,1992;Yu,1995).Recently,thereisgrowingconsensusand
evidencethatsuggestsbothmodesoperateindetermininglandscapepreference(Bourassa,1990;Gobster,
1999;Kendaletal.,2012a).

Preferenceforlandscapesisdeterminedinpartbythecontextandspatialarrangementoffeatureswithina
landscape(Odeetal.,2009).Studiesexploringtheinfluenceofvegetationfeatureshaveshownthat
elementssuchastreesandshrubs(JimandChen,2006;KurzandBaudains,2010;Schroeder,1987),the
neatnessofvegetation(vandenBergandvanWinsum‐Westra,2010),andvegetationcharacteristicssuchas
colour(KaufmanandLohr,2004;Kendaletal.,2012a)andleaftexture(WilliamsandCary,2002)canshape
people’spreferences.Thediversityofvegetationpresentinalandscapecanbeaccuratelyperceivedby
people(Fulleretal.,2007;Qiuetal.,2013).However,thereisnotalinearrelationshipbetweendiversityand
preference,andmoderatelydiverselandscapescanbemorepreferredthanhighlydiverselandscapes(Qiuet
al.,2013).Preferencefordensevegetationalsovariesbyexpertise,forexample,landscapedesignerscan
havequitedifferentpreferencesthanthegeneralpublic(Hoffmanetal.,2012).Severalstudieshave
exploredpreferenceforlandscapefeatureswithinaspecificcontext.Inparks,featuressuchastrees,shrubs
andwaterarepreferred(Bjerkeetal.,2006;Schroeder,1987)whiledensevegetationnearpathsisnot
preferred(Jorgensenetal.,2002).Inresidential/allotmentgardens,featuressuchasthecomplexityand
structureofvegetationinfluencepreference,butthedirectionoftheeffectisinfluencedbyaspectsof
peoplespersonality(vandenBerg&vanWinsumWestra,2010)andtheirattitudestowardsnative
vegetation(KurzandBaudain,2010).

Togetherparksandgardenscontainmostofthevegetationthatexistswithinmanycities(Lorametal.,
2007).Urbanpublicparksareprimarilymanagedbygovernmentagencies,arelarger,andexistforpublic
use,whileresidentialgardensaretypicallysmaller,existprimarilyforprivateuseandaremoreintensively
managedbyindividualhouseholdersorcontractors(Goddardetal.,2010).Aspublicgreenspaces,urban
parksprovidespaceforresidentstoundertakephysicalactivitythroughactiverecreation(Groenewegenet
al.,2006;Leslieetal.,2010),andenhancecommunitycohesionandinteractionbetweenresidents
(ArnbergerandEder,2012;Homeetal.,2010;Westphal,2003).Incontrast,residentialgardensare
generallynotopentothepublic,andarerecognisedasplacesforcreativeexpression(DunnettandQasim,
2000;Kirkpatricketal.,2009),forimprovingpropertyandneighbourhoodappearance(LarsenandHarlan,
2006),forphysicalactivitythroughgardening(Bhatti,2006)andforrelaxation(Headetal.,2004).Cultural
preferencetheoriessuggestthatthesocialandphysicalcontextofthesedifferenttypesofgreenspacemay
leadtodifferencesinpeople’spreferences(CoolenandMeesters,2011;Gibson,1979;Hadavietal.,2015).
Thissuggeststhatitislikelythatpeople’spreferencesvarybetweenpublicparksandresidentialgardens,
andthesedifferencescouldhaveimportantimplicationsformanagementofdifferentkindsoflandscapes.A
fewstudieshavesuggestedthatlandscapetypecouldbeanimportantfactorinfluencingpreference(Bulut
andYilmaz,2008;SevenantandAntrop2009).Thishasbeenexploredinsomegeneralcontextssuchaswild
vsmorehumanlandscapes(deGrootandVandenBorn2003),vandenBergandKoole,2006),andithas
beenshownthatlandscapeelementsareperceiveddifferentlyindifferentlandscapecontexts(Filovaetal.,
2015).

Thisstudyinvestigateshowpeople’spreferencesvaryacrosspublicurbanparkandprivateresidential
gardengreenspaces,withvaryinglevelsofstructuralcomplexityofvegetation.Usingimagesofresidential
gardensandpublicparks,weinvestigatethehypothesisthatpeople’spreferenceswillberelatedtoboth
greenspacecontexts,andtophysicalfeatures(suchasthestructuralcomplexityofvegetation)withinthose

3
contexts.Specifically,weexplorewhetherpublicparksandprivategardensarepreferreddifferentlyby
people,andwhetherpreferenceforstructurallysimplevegetation(lawns)andmorestructurallycomplex
vegetation(trees,shrubsandflowers)isconsistentacrossparksandgardens.Understandingtherelationship
betweengreenspacecontexts,landscapepreference,andphysicalsite‐levelfeatureswillhelpurban
plannersanddesignerstobettermanagepotentiallyconflictingsocialandecologicalfunctionsandusesof
urbangreenspace.

Methods 
Studylocation
Mosturbanlandscapepreferencestudieshavebeenconductedinthenorthernhemisphere,particularlyin
EuropeandNorthAmericaandmorestudiesarerequiredinotherplacestodevelopamorecomprehensive
understandingoflandscapepreferenceacrossdifferentsocialandphysicalenvironments.Herewe
conductedthestudyinMelbourne,thelargestcityandcapitalofthestateofVictoriainsouth‐eastern
Australia(37.7833°S,144.9667°E),withapopulationofalmost4millionpeople(AustralianBureauof
Statistics,2013).FourmajorbioregionsoccurwithinthegreaterMelbournearea,andthisstudyfocuseson
asinglebioregioninthecity’ssouth‐east.Thesouth‐easternregionofMelbourneincludesseveralolder,
establishedsuburbsaswellassuburbsthathavebeenrecentlydevelopedasMelbourne’spopulation
expands.AsseenthroughoutAustralia,themajorityofhousinginboththeolderandnewersuburbs
consistsoflowdensitydetachedhouseswithbothfrontandreargardens(Kellett,2011;Kirkpatricketal.,
2011).Gardensinsouth‐eastMelbourne’soldersuburbsareoftenlargerandmorelikelytocontaintrees,
whilethoseinnewersuburbsaregenerallysmaller,lessestablishedandincludeshrubsandgroundcovers
ratherthanlargerplantforms(GhoshandHead,2009).

Siteselectionandsurveymethodology
Sevenpublicneighbourhoodparksmanagedbytherelevantlocalgovernmentauthority,andfourteen
nearbyprivateresidentialgardens(twoperpark)managedbyresidentswerepurposivelychoseninsouth‐
easternMelbournetoensurerepresentationofarangeofgreenspacefeatures,includingavaryingamount
oftrees,understoreyshrubsandflowers,andlawn.Multiplephotographsweretakenwithineachpublic
parkandprivategardentocapturetherangeofformspresent.Thephotographsweretakeninovercast
conditionsandadjustedusingphotographicsoftware(GIMPDevelopmentTeam,2004)sothattheywere
consistentinbrightnessandcolour.Thefinalsetofimageswereselectedtoprovidearepresentative
sampleofthedifferentpublicparkandprivategardenlandscapesprevalentthroughoutsouth‐eastern
Melbourne,andthosephotographscontainingvehiclesandwaterbodieswererejectedduringthisselection
process,aspreviousstudieshaveshownthatthesearepowerfuldriversofpreference(Howley,2011;
Kaplan,2001;KaplanandKaplan,1989;YangandBrown,1992).

Aquantitativepostalquestionnairewassentto755randomlyselectedhouseholdsfromwithinthecensus
collectiondistrictscontainingthesevenparks(AustralianBureauofStatistics,2006).Respondentswere
givencolourphotographsrepresenting26differentfrontgardenandparklandscapes,andaskedhowmuch
theylikedeachlandscapeusinga7‐pointLikertscale(from‘Don’tlikeitatall’to‘Likeitverymuch’).This
methodhasbeenwidelyusedinlandscapepreferencestudies(e.g.DanielandMeitner,2001;Kaplanand
Kaplan,1989;Trentetal.,1987;Ulrich,1977).FourimagesperA4pagewereprovidedtoresidentstoallow
foreasierviewing,andtwodifferentrandomsequencesofphotographswereusedtoreduceeffects
associatedwithorderofpresentation(Bryman,2008).

Thephysicalattributesofeachlandscapeweremeasuredasrelativecoverofthreevegetationlayers(lawn,
shrubsandflowers,andtrees)andthepresenceofrecreationalfeatures.Quantificationofvegetationcover
wasachievedbyplacinga10x10gridovereachlandscapeimageandcountingthenumberofgridcells
representedbylawn,shrubsandflowers,andtrees(Tveit,2009).Treesweredefinedastaller,canopy
formingplantstypicallygrowinggreaterthanfivemetrestall;mownlawn;andshrubsandflowerswere
consideredtobeanyplantthatwasnotlawnoratree(Kirkpatricketal.,2011).

4

StatisticalAnalysis
SurveydatawasanalysedusingSPSSStatisticsv20.0(IBM,2012)andRv3.2.3(RDevelopmentCoreTeam,
2007).TherewasalowrateofmissingLikertscores(1.4%ofpreferenceratings)andthesedatawere
replacedwithrespondentmeans(TabachnickandFidell,2001).Overallrelationshipsbetweenpreference
andgreenspacetype(parksorgardens)andtheproportionoflawnandotherplants(shrubs,treesand
flowers)wasassessedusingpolynomialregressions.Preferenceandproportionofotherplantswere
normallydistributed,andwhilelawnwasnot,itwastransformedbyaddingpolynomialtermsandthe
assumptionsoftheregressionwereconfirmedbycheckingthedistributionoftheresiduals(Tabachnickand
Fidell,2001).Theinfluenceofdemographicfactors(gender,ageandeducationlevel)onpreferencewasalso
testingusingthemultiplecomparisonTukey’sHSDtest.

Followingthecategoryidentificationmethod(CIM)developedbyKaplan&Kaplan(1989)andwidelyusedin
landscapepreferenceresearch(e.g.Williams,2002),PrincipalComponentsAnalysis(PCA)withVarimax
rotation,conductedusingtheprincipalfunctioninthepsychpackageinR,wasusedtogrouplandscapes
withsimilarpreferencescores,bysummarisingpatternsofcorrelationsamongtheseobservedvariablesinto
asmallersetofcomponents.AsordinaldatafromLikertscaleswasusedintheanalysis,thePCAwas
performedonasimilaritymatrixgeneratedusinganon‐parametricSpearman’scorrelationonpreference
scoresforthe26landscapesinthestudy(TabachnickandFidell,2001).Ascreeplotwasgeneratedto
determinethenumberofcomponentstoextractforthePCA.AllphotographswereassignedtothePCA
componenttheyloadedmosthighlyon,andeachcomponentwasgivenadescriptivenamebasedonthe
similarityofthephotographsassignedtothatcomponent.Asthecomponentsweredistinguishedby
patternsofpreferencevariability,averagepreferencescoreswerecalculatedforeachcomponentbasedon
themeanLikertscoreacrossallrespondents,anddifferencesinrespondentpreferencebetween
componentswastestedusingTukey’sHSDtestasthepreferencedataweredistributednormally.

Inordertodeterminewhetherthestructuralcomplexityofvegetationinfluencedthecategorisationof
photosintothedifferentprincipalcomponents,therelationshipbetweenpreferenceandtheproportionof
simplevegetation(lawn)andmorestructurallycomplexvegetation(shrubs,flowersandtrees)was
examinedforeachcomponent.Thesevariablesdidnotmeettheassumptionsofnormalityorhomogeneous
variance,andhencenon‐parametricKruskal‐Wallisonewayanalysisofvariance(ANOVA)testswereused
andpairwisecomparisonswereemployedtotestthedifferenceinphysicalattributesbetweenanytwo
components(SokalandRolhf,1995).

Results  
Intotal,21%(159of755)ofsurveyswerereturned,aresponseratewhichiscomparabletoorhigherthan
recentsimilarstudiesinthisgeographicregion(e.g.Ives&Kendal,2013,Shawetal.,2013).The
respondentswerebroadlyrepresentativeofsouth‐easternMelbourne,withover87%ofallrespondents
owningtheirownhouseandthemajorityofhouseholdsconsistingofeitheracouplewithchildren(29.6%),a
couplewithnochildren(28.9%)orasingleperson(23.3%).Abroadrangeofeducationlevels,
socioeconomicstatusandagegroupswererepresented(Table1).Incomparisontothepopulationaverage
forthecensuscollectiondistrictscoveredbythissurvey(CityofCasey,FrankstonCityCouncilandBayside
CityCouncil),therespondentswereslightlyolder,hadahigherfemalerepresentation,weremorelikelyown
theirhouseandlesslikelytospeakalanguageotherthanEnglishathome(Table1).

LandscapePreferenceComponents
ThePCAofpreferencescoresidentifiedfourcomponentsthatexplained56.6%ofthevariation(Table2,
supplementarymaterial).Imagesofgardensandparkswereseparatedinthefirsttwocomponents,and
combinedintheothercomponents.Component1(labelledEnglishLandscapes)accountedfor15.8%ofthe
variationandcontainedphotosofpublicparklandscapeswithscatteredtrees,lawnandcontainedallphotos
showingrecreationalfacilities.Component2(labelledSuburbanGardens)consistedofphotographsoflow

5
vegetation(shrubsandgroundcovers)andlawninprivateresidentialgardensandexplained14.9%ofthe
variation.PhotographsloadingonComponent3(labelledOpen)explained13.6%ofthevariationand
includedgrassylandscapesinbothpublicparksandprivategardenswithlittleothervegetation,whilethose
inComponent4(labelledDense)containedlandscapesinpublicparksandprivategardenswithahigher
proportionofshrubsandflowers,explaining12.2%ofthevariation(Table2).

Thereweresignificant(Tukey’sHSDp<0.05)differencesinpreferencescoresforthefourdifferent
components.EnglishLandscapeswerethemostpreferred(meanLikertscore5.3,Figure1),followedby
Denselandscapes(meanLikertscore4.5)andSuburbanGardens(meanLikertscore3.9).Openlandscapes
weretheleastpreferred(meanLikertscore3.2).Therewerenosignificantdifferencesinpreferencebased
ondemographicfactors(Tukey’sHSDp>0.05).

PhysicalFeatureswithinLandscapes
Significantdifferenceswerefoundintheproportionofstructurallysimple(lawn)andstructurallycomplex
(trees,shrubsandflowers)vegetationinthedifferentpreferencecomponents(Fig2).Non‐parametric
pairwisetestsindicatedthattherewassignificantlymorelawninOpenlandscapesthanDenselandscapes
(K=18.7,p<0.001,Figure2a).Likewise,therewassignificantlylessshrubandflowercoverinOpen
landscapescomparedtobothDenselandscapes(K=‐15.0,p<0.01,Figure2b)andSuburbanGarden
landscapes(K=15.8,p<0.001,Figure2b).EnglishLandscapescontainedsignificantlymoretreesthan
SuburbanGardens(K=14.9,p<0.001,Figure2c)andOpenorDenselandscapes.

Whileoveralllevelsofpreferencewerehigherinparks(p<0.001),therelationshipbetweenthestructural
complexityofvegetationandpreferencewassimilarinbothparksandgardens(Figure3,Table3).Theeffect
ofstructurallysimplevegetation(lawn)onpreferencewasbestexplainedbyincludingaquadraticterm;
preferenceincreasedslightlyuntiltheproportionoflawnreachedabout20%,afterwhichpreference
declinedsharply(p<0.001forthelinearandquadraticterms).Theeffectofstructurallycomplexvegetation
(e.g.trees,shrubsandflowers)onpreferencewasalsobestexplainedbyincludingaquadraticterm;
preferenceincreaseduntiltheproportionoftheseplantsreachedabout70%,afterwhichitremainedsteady
(p<0.001forthelinearandquadraticterms).Themostpreferredcomponent,EnglishLandscapes,contained
thehighestpercentageoftrees(46%)andsecondhighestproportionoflawn(31%)alongwithallthe
landscapesthatcontainedrecreationalinfrastructure.Bycontrast,theleastpreferredcomponent,Open
landscapes,containedthehighestpercentageoflawn(58%),norecreationalfacilitiesandfewtrees(15%).

Discussion
Overallwefoundthattherespondent’spreferenceswereinfluencedbybothgreenspacecontext(public
parkvsprivateresidentialgarden)andbythestructuralcomplexityofvegetation.Privateresidential
gardensandpublicparksweredistinctlyseparatedacrossthefirsttwooffourprincipalcomponents,and
overalllevelsofpreferencewerehigherforparks.However,amixofpublicparksandprivateresidential
gardensloadedontheremainingtwoprincipalcomponents,whichdifferedbyhavingveryhighorverylow
levelsofstructuralcomplexityinthevisiblevegetation.Thestructuralcomplexityofvegetationwashighly
associatedwithresidents’preferencesacrossalllandscapes,withnon‐lawnvegetationexertingagenerally
positiveinfluenceonpreferenceandlawnexertingagenerallynegativeinfluence.Toourknowledge,oursis
thefirststudytodemonstratethatdifferenttypesofurbangreenspacesplayaroleinshapingpreferences
forlandscapes,andthisknowledgecanbeusefullyappliedtothedesignandmanagementofvegetationin
urbangreenspaces.

Itisclearthatgreenspacecontextinfluencedparticipant’sresponsestopublicparkandprivateresidential
gardenlandscapestosomeextent,asthisdistinctioncomprisedthefirsttwocomponentsofthePCA
explaining30.7%ofthevariabilityinthedata(Table2).Whilethereweresomephysicaldifferencesbetween
landscapesinthetwogreenspacecontexts(e.g.parkshadmoretrees),thelandscapesloadingonthe
EnglishLandscapeandSuburbanGardencomponentswerenotstrictlybasedonphysicalfeatures(e.g.there

6
wereanumberofSuburbanGardenlandscapesthatalsocontainedbothtreesandlawn).Thisshowsthat
respondentspreferencesdistinguishedbetweenpublicparksandprivateresidentialgardenlandscapes.

Thesepatternsmaybeexplainedbythedifferentaffordancesavailableinthesegreenspacecontexts.
Affordancesaretherelationalpossibilitiesofferedbyalandscapeorfeatureswithinit,asperceivedbya
person(ormorecorrectly,ananimal:Gibson,1979).Forexample,apathaffordswalking,largetreesafford
shadeandfloweringshrubsaffordbeauty(andperhapsasenseofprideforthegardener).Todate,therole
ofaffordanceshasbeenlargelyabsentfromstudiesofurbangreenspacepreference(Hadavietal.,2015).
Differentaffordancesmaybedrivingpreferenceforpublicparksandprivategardens.Forexample,itiswell
understoodthatpathswithinparklandscapesaffordmovementthroughthelandscape,andtheprospectof
surveillanceleadstoenhancedfeelingsofpersonalsafetyandincreasedpreferenceinpublicspaces
(Jorgensenetal.,2002)thatmaynotbemirroredinprivategardens.Thepresenceofrecreational
infrastructuresuchasbarbeques,playequipment,shadestructuresandpathwaysinfluencesthe
affordancesavailabletopeopleintheselandscapes,andisalsolikelytoalsoinfluencepreferencefor
landscapeswithintheseparksasdemonstratedbyHadavietal.(2015).Childrenareakeydriverof
preferenceforurbanpubliclandscapes,wheretheneedsofchildrenfeaturehighlyinpreferenceresponses
inqualitativestudies(Burgessetal.,1988).Ourresultswereconsistentwiththeideathatpreferenceis
alignedwiththeseaffordances;scatteredtrees,recreationalinfrastructureandplayequipmentwereall
preferredelements(Hadavietal.,2015).

However,ingardens,itispossiblethatdifferentaffordancesaredrivingpreference.Gardensareusedfor
manythingsincludingpublicdisplay,foodproductionandentertainment(Kendaletal,2012a;Bhatti,2004;
Daniels&Kirkpatrick,2006).Gardenersdescribetheirgardensasnature,butalsoasaplaceforbeautyand
recreation(Dahmus&Nelson,2014).Inthefrontgardenlandscapesincludedinthisstudy,therewasno
evidenceofutilitarianactivitiessuchasfoodproductionandpreferenceresponsesweremorelikelytobe
relatedtoaestheticandecologicaluses.Ingardens,factorssuchasfloweringandfoliagecolourandtexture
(Kendaletal.,2012a),vegetationcomplexity(KurzandBaudains,2010)orcompliancewithsocialnorms
(Nassaueretal.,2009)maybebetterpredictorsofpreferencethanthepresenceofrecreational
infrastructureortheprospectofsurveillance.

Thegroupingofthetwoadditionallandscapes(principalcomponents3and4,Table2),suggeststhatin
somelandscapesthephysicalfeaturesofthelandscapesuchasthestructuralcomplexityofvegetationmay
bemoreimportantthangreenspacecontext.TheDenseandOpenlandscapeswerelesstypicalpublicparks
andprivategardens,anditispossiblethatthesewerejudgedmoreonobservablephysicalattributes.For
example,theDenselandscapesincludeddenseshrubsandtreesingardenbedsinparks,ordense(mostly
native)vegetationinfrontyards.PreferenceforDenselandscapesmaybeassociatedwithpeople’s
preferencefornativevegetation,orwhethertheyperceivethisvegetationtobebeneficialforurbanwildlife
(Kendaletal.,2012a;KurzandBaudains,2010).Somewhatsurprisingly,Denselandscapeswerehighly
preferred,almostasmuchastheEnglishLandscapecomponent(averagepreferencescores4.7and5.3
respectively),andtheDensecomponentcontainedthemostpreferredphotograph(Photo.1inTable2).This
findingisnotconsistentwithmanyotherstudiesthathavegenerallyfoundthatspatiallyrestrictedsettings
areperceivedlessfavourably(Ulrich,1993)althougharecentstudyfoundnosignificantdifferenceinthe
restorativeeffectsofgreenspacelandscapeswithvaryingdensityofvegetation(vandenBergetal.,2014).
Thereareseveralexplanationsforourfindings.Previousstudieshavelargelylookedatpreferencefordense
vegetationnearpathswheresafetybecomesamajorconcern,whileourstudyexploreddensevegetationin
gardenbedsandalongfencelinesawayfrompaths.Itmaybethatawayfrompaths,densevegetationcan
beapreferredfeatureoflandscapes.Anumberofstudieshaveshownthatpeoplewhoindicateahigher
concernfornaturearelikelytoprefermorebiodiverseandecologicallysustainablelandscapes(Kurzand
Baudains,2010;Zhengetal.,2011),andthismaybereflectedinpreferencefordensevegetationawayfrom
paths.Alternatively,thispreferencefordensevegetationmayalsoreflectthefavourableaesthetic
propertiestheyprovide,suchasscreeninglessinterestingareasofthelandscapealongboundaryfencesor

7
adjacentroads.Thissuggeststhatwithcarefuldesign(e.g.placedawayfrompathsandaccompaniedbycues
tocare),densenaturalisticvegetationcouldbeincorporatedintopublicparkswithoutcompromisingtheir
perceptionassafeareas.

Openlandscapesweretheleastpreferredofthefourlandscapecomponents,whichisconsistentwiththe
resultsofpreviousstudies(ArnbergerandEder,2012;Burgessetal.,1988).Inourstudy,lawnwas
negativelyrelatedtopreference,particularlyforthesuburbangardencomponent.Itispossiblethatvery
openlandscapesmaynotprovidetherangeofaffordancesorvegetationfeaturestoattractandcaterforthe
rangeofsocialactivitiesthatresident’sdesirewithintheirgreenspaces.Whileveryopenlandscapesprovide
someaffordancessuchasthepotentialtoplayballsports,itislikelythattherangeofaffordancesprovided
byveryopenlandscapesismorelimitedthanthosewithmorevegetationcomplexity.Wefoundthatpeople
preferlandscapeswhentheyhavemorevegetationcomplexityandtrees,aswellasfeaturesthatallowfora
broadermixofrecreationalactivitiestooccur.Thispreferenceisconsistentacrosspublicparksandprivate
residentialgardensinthisstudy,andechoesfindingsfromotherstudies(Bjerkeetal.2006).

PracticalImplications
Unsurprisingly,EnglishLandscapestylepublicparkswerethemostpreferredlandscapesinthisstudy.These
aremulti‐purposelandscapesandcanbeusedinmanywaysbythecommunitywhileprovidingafeelingof
safety.Butourresultsalsoprovidesomeimpetusforconsideringtheincorporationofdensepatchesof
vegetationintheplanningandmanagementofurbangreenspaces,includingformalEnglishLandscapestyle
publicparks.Previousstudieshavefoundindividualpsychologicalbenefitsfromurbangreenspaceincreases
asafunctionofperceivedplantandanimalspeciesrichness(Fulleretal.,2007;Lucketal.,2011),whichare
expectedtobegreaterinmoredenselyvegetatedlandscapes;positivecorrelationshavebeenfound
betweendenselyvegetatedlandscapes,andthespeciesrichnessofbirdsandactivityofbats(Threlfalletal.,
2016).Previousresearchfindingsonthenegativeeffectsofdensevegetationonsafetyandpreferencehave
beenincludedinlandscapedesignguidelines(e.g.HumeCityCouncil,2003).Ourstudyinsteadsuggeststhat
intherightcontext,densevegetationcanalsobepreferredbypeople.Inlightofthesefindings,theremay
beopportunitiesforlandscapedesignersandmanagerstodiversifythestructureoflandscapesbeing
providedinpublicparks.Areasofdensevegetationcouldbeincorporatedintopublicparksinorderto
increasebiodiversityvaluesandpublicpreference,withoutcompromisingsafety,preferenceorvalueas
multi‐usespaces.Wherefeelingsofsafetycanbemaintainedusinglongviewsprovidedbybroadareasof
lawnbetweenthetreesandshrubs(Jorgensenetal.,2002),anddensevegetationcanbeframedinits
presentationthroughcuestocare(Nassauer,1995)itshouldbepossibletoeffectivelydevelopmulti‐
functionallandscapesfrombothsocialandecologicalperspectives(Pauleitetal.,2011).

Therangeofpreferenceresultsobservedinthisstudyindicatethaturbangreenspacesneedtoperform
multiplerolesbyprovidingmulti‐functionallandscapestoaccommodatethemajorityofresidents,an
outcomesupportedbythequalitativeresearchofBurgess(1988).A‘onesizefitsall’approachtolanduse
policymaynevermeetthegeneralpublic’sdesires(Howley,2011)andthereisincreasingrecognitionofthe
needforadequatepublicparticipationindecisionsaroundurbangreenspaceplanningtoensurethe
developmentofeffectiveurbanplanningpolicies.Swanwick(2009)expandsontheideaofthesediverse
needsbyfocussinginsteadontheindividual,proposingthatapersonneedsaccesstoa‘portfolioofplaces’,
includingdifferenttypesoflandscapesatdifferenttimesandfordifferentpurposes.Thereforeeach
individual,aswellaseachcommunity,requirescontactwitharangeoflandscapesthatcancaterforeachof
thosedifferentlandscapeexperiences,fromwhichtheycanselectsitesthatappealtotheirindividual
preferences(Schroeder,1987).Anumberofstudieshaveshownthatgreenspaceisunequallydistributedin
cities(e.g.Kendal,2012c)andfutureresearchshouldexplorethepreferencesandneedsalonggradientsof
socialdisadvantage.

Theintensepressuresplacedonbothprivateandpublicurbangreenspaceascitiesgrowinsizemeanthat
theselandscapesareoftenatriskfromcontinuedurbandevelopment(Jim,2004),despitebeinghighly

8
valuedbysomesectorsofsocietyfornon‐marketvalues.Rapidurbanisationandincreasingurbansprawl
canresultinareductionofgreenspaceandincreasedrecreationpressureonthepublicspacethatremains
(ArnbergerandEder,2012).Thiscanhavenegativeeffectsonurbanecosystemsandonurbanresidents,
suchasisolatingpeoplefromexperiencesofnature(Miller,2005).Thedevelopmentofawider,more
diverserangeofurbangreenspacelandscapeswouldencourageawiderrangeofusers,andthereforemay
increaserecognitionofthesocio‐economicvalueofthesespacesandassistintheirretentionandprotection
fromfutureurbandevelopment.


Acknowledgements
ThisstudyformspartoftheAustralianResearchCouncilLinkageprojectLP110100686.Fundingwasalso
receivedfromtheFrankKeenanTrust.Theauthorswouldalsoliketothankthesurveyparticipants.DKand
AKHwouldalsoliketoacknowledgefinancialsupportfromTheBakerFoundation.DKisfundedbytheClean
AirandUrbanLandscapehuboftheNationalEnvironmentalScienceProgramme.Wewouldliketothank
threeanonymousreviewerswhosecommentshaveresultedinagreatlyimprovedmanuscript.


References
Appleton,J.(1975).TheExperienceofLandscape,Wiley,London.
Arnberger,A.,&Eder,R.(2012).Theinfluenceofgreenspaceoncommunityattachmentofurbanand
suburbanresidents,UrbanForestry&UrbanGreening11(1),41‐49.
AustralianBureauofStatistics(2006).VicMapAddress2006databaseAustralianBureauofStatistics,
CommonwealthofAustralia.
AustralianBureauofStatistics(2013).2011CensusQuickStats,AustralianBureauofStatistics,
CommonwealthofAustralia.
Bhatti,M.(2006).‘WhenI’minthegardenIcancreatemyownparadise’:Homesandgardensinlaterlife,
TheSociologicalReview54,318–341.
Bjerke,T.,Østdahl,T.,Thrane,C.,&Strumse,E.(2006).Vegetationdensityofurbanparksandperceived
appropriatenessforrecreation,UrbanForestry&UrbanGreening5(1),35‐44.
Bolund,P.,&Hunhammar,S.(1999).Ecosystemservicesinurbanareas,EcologicalEconomics29(2),293.
Bourassa,S.C.(1990).Aparadigmforlandscapeaesthetics,EnvironmentandBehavior22,787‐812.
Bryman,A.(2008),SocialResearchMethods,OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford.
Burgess,J.,Harrison,C.M.,&Limb,M.(1988),People,parksandtheurbangreen:Astudyofpopular
meaningsandvaluesforopenspacesinthecity,UrbanStudies25,455‐473.
Bulut,Z.,&Yilmaz,H.(2008).“DeterminationofLandscapeBeautiesThroughVisualQualityAssessment
Method:ACaseStudyforKemaliye(Erzincan/Turkey).”EnvironmentalMonitoringandAssessment
141,121‐129.
Chiesura,A.(2004).Theroleofurbanparksforthesustainablecity,LandscapeandUrbanPlanning68(1),
129‐138.
CouncilofEurope(2000).TheEuropeanLandscapeConvention,Strasbourg.
Coolen,H.&Meesters,J.(2011).Privateandpublicgreenspaces:meaningfulbutdifferentsettings.Journal
ofHousingandtheBuiltEnvironment27,49–67
Dahmus,M.E.,&Nelson,K.C.(2014).NatureDiscoursesintheResidentialYardinMinnesota,Landscape
andUrbanPlanning,125,183–87
Daniel,T.C.,&Meitner,M.M.(2001).Representationalvalidityoflandscapevisualizations:Theeffectsof
graphicalrealismonperceivedscenicbeautyofforestvistas,JournalofEnvironmentalPsychology
21(1),61‐72.
deGroot,W.T.,&VandenBorn,R.J.G.(2003).“VisionsofNatureandLandscapeTypePreferences:An
ExplorationintheNetherlands.”LandscapeandUrbanPlanning63(3),127‐138.
Dunnett,N.,&Qasim,M.(2000).Perceivedbenefitstohumanwell‐beingofurbangardens,Horttechnology
10,40‐45.

9
Filova,L.,Vojarb,J.,Svobodovab,K.,&Sklenicka,P.(2015).Theeffectoflandscapetypeandlandscape
elementsonpublicvisualpreferences:waystouseknowledgeinthecontextoflandscapeplanning,
JournalofEnviornnmentalProtectionandManagement(inpress).
Fuller,R.A.,Irvine,K.N.,Devine‐White,P.,Warren,P.H.,&Gaston,K.J.(2007).Psychologicalbenefitsof
greenspaceincreasewithbiodiversity,BiologyLetters3,390‐394.
Ghosh,S.,&Head,L.(2009).Retrofittingthesuburbangarden:Morphologiesandsomeelementsof
sustainabilitypotentialoftwoAustralianresidentialsuburbscompared,AustralianGeographer
40(3),319‐346.
GIMPDevelopmentTeam(2004).GIMP:TheGNUImageManipulationProgram.
Gobster,P.H.(1995).AldoLeopold’secologicalesthetic:Integratingestheticandbiodiversityvalues,Journal
ofForestry93(2),6‐10.
Gobster,P.H.(1999).Anecologicalaestheticforforestlandscapemanagement,LandscapeJournal18(1),54.
Goddard,M.A.,Dougill,A.J.,&Benton,T.G.(2010),Scalingupfromgardens:Biodiversityconservationin
urbanenvironments,TrendsinEcology&Evolution25(2),90‐98.
Groenewegen,P.P.,vandenBerg,A.E.,deVries,S.,Verheij,R.A.(2006).VitaminG:effectsofgreenspace
onhealth,well‐being,andsocialsafety,BMCPublicHealth6,149.
Hadavi,S.,Kaplan,R.,&Hunter,M.C.R.,(2015).Environmentalaffordances:Apracticalapproachfordesign
ofnearbyoutdoorsettingsinurbanresidentialareas.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning134,19–32.
Head,L.,Muir,P.&Hampel,E.(2004).Australianbackyardgardensandthejourneyofmigration,
GeographicalReview94(3),326.
Hofmann,M.,Westermann,J.R.,Kowarik,I.&vanderMeer,E.(2012).Perceptionsofparksandurban
derelictlandbylandscapeplannersandresidents.UrbanForestryUrbanGreening11,1–10
Home,R.,Bauer,N.,&Hunziker,M.,(2010).CulturalandBiologicalDeterminantsintheEvaluationofUrban
GreenSpaces,EnvironmentandBehavior42(4),494‐523.
Howley,P.(2011).Landscapeaesthetics:Assessingthegeneralpublics'preferencestowardsrural
landscapes,EcologicalEconomics72,161‐169.
HumeCityCouncil(2003).OpenSpaceandLandscapeguidelines,HumeCityCouncil.
IBM,(2012).SPSSStatisticsVersion20.0,Ireland.
Jim,C.Y.(2004).Green‐spacepreservationandallocationforsustainablegreeningofcompactcities,Cities
21(4),311‐320.
Jim,C.Y.,&Chen,W.(2006).PerceptionandattitudeofresidentstowardurbangreenspacesinGuangzhou
(China),EnvironmentalManagement38(3),338‐349.
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.
Kaltenborn,B.P.,&Bjerke,T.,(2002).Associationsbetweenenvironmentalvalueorientationsandlandscape
preferences,LandscapeandUrbanPlanning59(1),1‐11.
Kaplan,S.(1995).TheRestorativeBenefitsofNature:TowardanIntegrativeFramework,Journalof
EnvironmentalPsychology,15,169–82
Kaplan,R.,(2001).Thenatureoftheviewfromhome:Psychologicalbenefits,Environment&Behavior33,
507‐542.
Kaplan,R.,&Kaplan,S.,(1989).TheExperienceofNature:APsychologicalPerspective,CambridgeUniversity
Press,Cambridge.
Kaufman,A.J.,&Lohr,V.I.,(2004).Doesplantcoloraffectemotionalandphysiologicalresponsesto
landscapes?,ActaHorticulturae639,229‐233.
Kellett,J.(2011).TheAustralianquarteracreblock:thedeathofadream?,TPR:TownPlanningReview
82(3),263‐284.
Kendal,D.,Williams,K.J.H.,&Williams,N.S.G.,(2012a).,Planttraitslinkpeople'splantpreferencestothe
compositionoftheirgardens,LandscapeandUrbanPlanning105,34‐42.
Kendal,D.,Williams,N.S.G.,&Williams,K.J.H.,2012b,Acultivatedenvironment:exploringtheglobal
distributionofplantsingardens,parksandstreetscapes,UrbanEcosystems15,637‐652.

10
Kendal,D.,Williams,N.S.G.,&Williams,K.J.H.(2012c).Driversofdiversityandtreecoveringardens,parks
andstreetscapesinanAustraliancity.UrbanForestry&UrbanGreening,11,257–265.
Kim,J.,&Kaplan,R.,(2004).Physicalandpsychologicalfactorsinsenseofcommunity‐newurbanist
KentlandsandnearbyOrchardVillage,EnvironmentandBehavior36,313‐340.
Kirkpatrick,J.,Daniels,G.,&Davison,A.,(2009).Anantipodeantestofspatialcontagioninfrontgarden
character,LandscapeandUrbanPlanning93(2),103‐110.
Kirkpatrick,J.,Daniels,G.,&Davison,A.,(2011).Temporalandspatialvariationingardenandstreettreesin
sixeasternAustraliancities,LandscapeandUrbanPlanning101(3),244‐252.
Kurz,T.,&Baudains,C.,(2010).Biodiversityinthefrontyard:Aninvestigationoflandscapepreferenceina
domesticurbancontext,EnvironmentandBehavior44(2),166‐196.
Larsen,L.,&Harlan,S.L.(2006),Desertdreamscapes:Residentiallandscapepreferenceandbehavior,
LandscapeandUrbanPlanning78(1–2),85‐100.
Leslie,E.,Sugiyama,T.,Ierodiaconou,D.,&Kremer,P.(2010).Perceivedandobjectivelymeasuredgreenness
ofneighbourhoods:Aretheymeasuringthesamething?,LandscapeandUrbanPlanning95,28‐33.
Loram,A.,Tratalos,J.,Warren,P.,&Gaston,K.,(2007).Urbandomesticgardens(X):theextent&structure
oftheresourceinfivemajorcities.,LandscapeEcology22(4),601‐15.
Luck,G.W.,Davidson,P.,Boxall,D.,&Smallbone,L.(2011).RelationsbetweenUrbanBirdandPlant
CommunitiesandHumanWell‐BeingandConnectiontoNature.ConservationBiology,25(4),816–
826.
Lyons,E.(1983).DemographicCorrelatesofLandscapePreference,EnvironmentandBehavior15(4),487‐
511.
Maas,J.,Verheij,R.A.,Vries,S.d.,Spreeuwenberg,P.,Schellevis,F.G.,&Groenewegen,P.P.(2009).
Morbidityisrelatedtoagreenlivingenvironment,JournalofEpidemiologyandCommunityHealth
(1979‐)63(12),967‐973.
Miller,J.R.(2005).Biodiversityconservationandtheextinctionofexperience,TrendsinEcology&amp;
Evolution20(8),430‐434.
Moore,D.S.,&McCabe,G.P.,2003,Introductiontothepracticeofstatistics,W.H.FreemanandCompany,
NewYork.
Nassauer,J.I.(1995).Messyecosystems,orderlyframes.LandscapeJournal,14(2),161–170.
Nassauer,J.,Wang,Z.,&Dayrell,E.,(2009).Whatwilltheneighborsthink?Culturalnormsandecological
design,LandscapeandUrbanPlanning92,282‐292.
Pauleit,S.,Liu,L.,Ahern,J.,&Kazmierczak,A.(2011).Multifunctionalgreeninfrastructureplanningto
promoteecologicalservicesinthecity,inNiemelä,J.,Breuste,J.,Elmqvist,T.,Guntenspergen,G.,
James,P.,McIntyre,N.E.(eds)UrbanEcology:Patterns,processesandapplications.Oxford
UniversityPress,NewYork,pp.272‐285.
Pereira,G,Foster,S.,Martin,K.,Christian,H.,Boruff,B.J.,Knuiman,M.,&Giles‐Corti,B.,(2012).The
associationbetweenneighborhoodgreennessandcardiovasculardisease:anobservationalstudy,
BMCPublicHealth12,466.
Ode,Å.,Fry,G.,Tveit,M.S.,Messager,P.,&Miller,D.(2009).Indicatorsofperceivednaturalnessasdrivers
oflandscapepreference,JournalofEnvironmentalManagement90(1),375‐383.
Peschardt,K.K.,Stigsdotter,U.K.,Schipperrijn,J.,2014.IdentifyingFeaturesofPocketParksthatMayBe
RelatedtoHealthPromotingUse.LandscapeResearch1–16.
Qiu,L.,Lindberg,S.,&Nielsen,A.B.(2013).Isbiodiversityattractive?—On‐siteperceptionofrecreational
andbiodiversityvaluesinurbangreenspace.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning.119,136–146
RDevelopmentCoreTeam,(2007).R:Alanguageandenvironmentforstatisticalcomputing,RFoundation
forStatisticalComputing,Vienna,Austria.
Scherer,K.R.(2005).Whatareemotions?Andhowcantheybemeasured?,SocialScienceInformation44,
695‐729.
Schroeder,H.W.(1987).Dimensionsofvariationinurbanparkpreference:Apsychophysicalanalysis,
JournalofEnvironmentalPsychology7(2),123‐141.

11
Sevenant,M.,&Antrop,M.(2009).“CognitiveAttributesandAestheticPreferencesinAssessmentand
DifferentiationofLandscapes.”JournalofEnvironmentalManagement90,2889‐2899.
Shaw,A.,Miller,K.,&Wescott,G.(2013).WildlifeGardeningandConnectednesstoNature:Engagingthe
Unengaged,EnvironmentalValues,22,483–502
Sokal,R.R.,&Rolhf,F.J.(1995).Biometry:ThePrinciplesandPracticesofStatisticsinBiologicalResearch,
W.H.Freeman,NewYork.
Swanwick,C.,(2009).Society'sattitudestoandpreferencesforlandandlandscape,LandUsePolicy26,S62‐
S75.
Tabachnick,B.G.,Fidell,L.S.,(2001).UsingMultivariateStatistics,AllynandBacon,Boston.
Takano,T.,Nakamura,K.,Watanabe,M.,(2002).Urbanresidentialenvironmentsandseniorcitizens’
longevityinmega‐cityareas:theimportanceofwalk‐ablegreenspace,JournalofEpidemiologyand
CommunityHealth56,913‐6.
Thompson,K.,Austin,K.C.,Smith,R.M.,Warren,P.H.,Angold,P.G.,&Gaston,K.J.(2003),Urbandomestic
gardens(I):Puttingsmall‐scaleplantdiversityincontext,JournalofVegetationScience14,71‐78.
Threlfall,C.G.,Williams,N.S.G.,Hahs,A.K.,&Livesley,S.J.(2016).Approachestourbanvegetation
managementandtheimpactsonurbanbirdandbatassemblages.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning,
153,28–39.
Trent,R.B.,Neumann,E.,&Kvashny,A.(1987).Presentationmodeandquestionformatartifactsinvisual
assessmentresearch,LandscapeandUrbanPlanning14,225‐235.
Tveit,M.S.(2009).Indicatorsofvisualscaleaspredictorsoflandscapepreference;acomparisonbetween
groups,JournalofEnvironmentalManagement90,2882‐2888.
Tzoulas,K.,Korpela,K.,Venn,S.,Ylipelkonen,V.,Kazmierczak,A.,Niemela,J.,&James,P.(2007).Promoting
ecosystemandhumanhealthinurbanareasusinggreeninfrastructure:Aliteraturereview,
LandscapeandUrbanPlanning81,167‐178.
Ulrich,R.(1977).Visuallandscapepreference:Amodelandapplication,Man‐EnvironmentSystems7(5),279‐
293.
Ulrich,R.(1993).Biophilia,biophobiaandnaturallandscapes,in:TheBiophiliaHypothesis(S.Kellert,E.
Wilson,eds.),IslandPress,Washington,pp.73‐137.
vandenBerg,A.E.,Jorgensen,A.,&Wilson,E.R.(2014).Evaluatingrestorationinurbangreenspaces:Does
settingtypemakeadifference?Landscape&UrbanPlanning127,173–181
vandenBerg,A.E.,&Koole,S.L.(2006).NewwildernessintheNetherlands:aninvestigationofvisual
preferencesfornaturedevelopmentlandscapes,LandscapeandUrbanPlanning78(4),362‐372.
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&UrbanGreening9(3),179‐
186.
Westphal,L.M.(2003).Urbangreeningandsocialbenefits:astudyofempowermentoutcomes,Journalof
Arboriculture29(3),137‐147.
Williams,K.J.H.,&Cary,J.(2002).Landscapepreferences,ecologicalqualityandbiodiversityprotection,
Environment&Behavior34(2),257‐274.
Williams,K.(2002).ExploringresidentpreferencesforstreettreesinMelbourne,Australia.Journalof
Arboriculture,28(4),161–170.
Yang,B.E.,Brown,T.J.,(1992).Acrossculturalcomparisonofpreferencesforlandscapestylesand
landscapeelements,EnvironmentandBehavior24(4),471‐507.
Yu,K.J.,(1995).Culturalvariationsinlandscapepreference‐comparisonsamongChinesesubgroupsand
westerndesignexperts,LandscapeandUrbanPlanning32(2),107‐126.
Zheng,B.,Zhang,Y.,Chen,J.,(2011).Preferencetohomelandscape:wildnessorneatness?,Landscapeand
UrbanPlanning99(1),1‐8.
Zube,E.H.,(1987).Perceivedlandusepatternsandlandscapevalues,LandscapeEcology1,37‐45.


12
Figures



Figure1:AverageLikertscore(±standarderror)perrespondentforphotographswithinlandscapeeach
preferencecomponent.Componentswithdifferentlettersaresignificantlydifferent(Tukey’sHSDp<0.05).




Figure2:Percentageofa)lawn,b)shrubsandflowersandc)trees(±standarderror)inphotographed
landscapesofeachpreferencecomponent.Valueswiththesameletterwerenotsignificantlydifferent
(KruskalWallisANOVAp<0.05).

13


Figure3:Therelationshipbetweena)lawnandb)treesandshrubs(includinglinearandquadraticterms)
andpreference,forbothparksandgardens.Noteregressionswereperformedusingrespondentleveldata,
butsymbolsindicatemeanpreferenceandproportioncoverforeachlandscape.Standarderrorbarsare
shown.


14
Tables
Table1:Demographicqualitiesofsurveyrespondentscomparedtothebroaderpopulationaverage
withintheLocalGovernmentAreascoveredbythesurvey.
DemographicQuality SurveyRespondents
AverageforthreeLocal
GovernmentAreas(Australian
BureauofStatistics,2013)
Owntheirhouse 87% 74%
Female 60% 51%
Age(median) Between45and54years 37years
Speaklanguageotherthan
Englishathome 11% 22%
IndexofSocioeconomic
AdvantageandDisadvantage
decile
2‐10 7


15
Table2:Sampleofthephotographswithineachpreferencecomponent.Thecomponentloadingscorefor
eachphotographisshowninbrackets.
EnglishLandscape SuburbanGarden Open Dense

Photo.12(0.75)
Photo.22(0.72) 
Photo.7(0.86) 
Photo.8(0.85)

Photo.3(0.74) 
Photo.13(0.71) 
Photo.16(0.68) 
Photo.27(0.73)

Photo.10(0.70) 
Photo.2(0.68) 
Photo.21(0.68) 
Photo.9(0.73)

Photo.15(0.68) 
Photo.20(0.61) 
Photo.19(0.65) 
Photo.5(0.70)

Photo.17(0.66) 
Photo.26(0.60) 
Photo.25(0.57)


Table3:Regressionsofvegetationformonaveragepreferencescores.xisthepercentageofeachvegetation
form,Parkisabinaryvariablesetto1forparksand0forgardens.
Vegetationform Regressionequation
%Lawn
y=3.9+1.1*Park+0.025x‐0.0007x2,R2=0.18
Standarderrors:Intercept=0.06,Park=0.05,x=0.004,x2=0.00006

%Shrubs&Trees
y=1.9+1.0*Park+0.055x‐0.0003x2,R2=0.20
Standarderrors:Intercept=0.10,Park=0.05,x=0.004,x2=0.00005



16
Supplementarymaterial
Componentloadingmatrix
Thecomponentloadingsofeachlandscapeoneachprincipalcomponent,sortedinloadingorderoneach
component.
Landscape English
Landscape
Suburban
Garden Open Dense
Photo.12 0.75 0.17 0.11 ‐0.16
Photo.3 0.74 0.07 ‐0.15 0.04
Photo.10 0.70 0.11 0.18 ‐0.14
Photo.15 0.68 0.03 0.13 0.30
Photo.17 0.66 0.02 0.17 0.04
Photo.28 0.64 0.07 0.01 0.13
Photo.23 0.52 ‐0.17 0.27 0.26
Photo.22 ‐0.16 0.72 0.06 ‐0.05
Photo.13 0.22 0.71 ‐0.23 0.17
Photo.2 0.15 0.68 0.04 ‐0.03
Photo.20 0.10 0.61 0.27 ‐0.15
Photo.26 0.12 0.60 0.11 0.05
Photo.4 ‐0.14 0.56 0.07 0.22
Photo.6 0.02 0.55 0.02 0.05
Photo.11 0.36 0.52 ‐0.15 0.07
Photo.18 0.02 0.49 0.44 ‐0.04
Photo.7 0.18 ‐0.11 0.86 ‐0.05
Photo.21 ‐0.27 0.32 0.68 0.07
Photo.16 0.32 0.12 0.68 ‐0.16
Photo.19 0.12 ‐0.03 0.65 0.18
Photo.25 ‐0.12 0.18 0.57 0.27
Photo.8 ‐0.20 0.05 0.03 0.85
Photo.27 ‐0.14 0.13 0.11 0.73
Photo.9 0.25 0.03 ‐0.12 0.73
Photo.5 0.32 ‐0.11 ‐0.05 0.70
Photo.14 0.24 ‐0.01 0.17 0.48
Proportion
Var
0.16 0.15 0.14 0.12
Cumulative
Var
0.16 0.32 0.45 0.57
Eigenvalue
7.7 3.0 2.5 1.6



