Content uploaded by Marcel Hunziker
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marcel Hunziker on Mar 25, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Leisure Sciences, 34: 350–365, 2012
Copyright C!Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0149-0400 print / 1521-0588 online
DOI: 10.1080/01490400.2012.687644
Psychosocial Outcomes as Motivations for Visiting
Nearby Urban Green Spaces
ROBERT HOME
SocioEconomics Group
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture
Frick, Switzerland
MARCEL HUNZIKER
NICOLE BAUER
Social Sciences in Landscape Research Group
Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL
Birmensdorf, Switzerland
High-density urban living means that urban green spaces are important nodes of contact
with nature. This study examines expected outcomes that motivate people to seek green
spaces in urban settings. A sample of Swiss residents were presented with Shin, Kwon,
Hammitt, and Kim’s (2005) psychosocial outcomes scale and asked which activities they
choose to undertake in nearby natural areas. The most important motivations for visiting
nearby green spaces were related to restoration, with social bonding as a desirable side
benefit. There were few observable differences between urban and rural residents and
level of education attained. Older people are motivated to visit nearby green spaces by
the wish to seek social contact while younger people are motivated by the wish to seek
escape and to reflect. This study contributes to the understanding of the psychosocial
outcomes that residents expect from engaging in an activity in an urban green space.
Keywords motivations, psychosocial outcomes, urban green spaces
Introduction
We live in a rapidly urbanizing world. It is estimated that 47% of the world’s population
lived in urbanized areas in 2005, and this amount is expected to rise to 60% by 2030 (United
Nations, 2005). In Switzerland, 75% of today’s population lives in cities or towns with an
expected increase to 83% in 2030 (United Nations, 2005). As the urban population increases
and urban planners are understandably reluctant to allow urban spread into the surrounding
areas, cities and towns increase in density. This in turn brings pressure on decision makers to
Received 13 October 2009; accepted 8 February 2012.
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Competence Center Environmentand Sustainability
of the ETH, Zurich Switzerland for supporting the project ENHANCE, of which this study is a part. We are also
indebted to the Swiss National Fund and in particular the National Research Program 54 for supporting the
BiodiverCity (www.biodivercity.ch) interdisciplinary project led by Marco Moretti at the Swiss Federal Research
Institute, WSL, and especially to the survey respondents who freely gave their time.
Address correspondence to Robert Home, SocioEconomics Group, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture,
Ackerstrasse, 5070 Frick, Switzerland. E-mail: robert.home@fibl.org
350
Downloaded by [Robert Home] at 00:53 22 June 2012
Psychosocial Outcomes from Urban Green Spaces 351
release green spaces within urban areas for development to meet the growing population’s
needs for housing and services. Wilson’s (1984) “biophilia” hypothesis proposes that human
possess a deep-seated biological need for the connections with the rest of life that are gained
contact with nature. The higher density urban living that results in the loss of green spaces to
development has potentially significant implications for citizens because of the importance
of urban green spaces as nodes of contact with nature (Barthel, Colding, Elmqvist, & Folke,
2005).
Preservation and management of urban green spaces require commitment of resources,
and there is an increasing demand for evidence of tangible outcomes to justify the resource
commitment (Allen & Cooper, 2003). This need to justify the existence and maintenance
of areas that enable recreation and leisure experiences led to the concept of benefits-based
management (Friedt, Hill, Gomez, & Goldenberg, 2010). Benefits describe an improved
condition of an individual, a group, society, or nature (Driver, Brown & Peterson, 1991)
and include human, natural, and economic benefits (Friedt et al., 2010). Human benefits
include those at an individual level, such as improved physical and mental health, and
at a societal level, such as strengthened bonds with family and friends and decreased
delinquency (Stein & Lee, 1995).
Urban green spaces are an important component of public health because of the positive
psychological and physical health effects (Newton, 2007) and the psychosocial outcomes
that result from contact with urban nature. Psychosocial outcomes are defined as the re-
sponses to a stimulus, in this case urban nature, that involve or relate to both the social
and psychological aspects of a person’s life. Psychosocial outcomes are a subset of psy-
chological outcomes that specifically relate to an individual’s psychological development
in a social environment and to the results of interactions within that social environment.
Such outcomes can be positive, such as family bonding, or negative, such as loneliness
(Steed, Cook, & Newman, 2003). This study is explicitly interested in the outcomes that
are sought by urban residents and so will concentrate on positive outcomes. The psychoso-
cial outcomes that motivate people to visit urban green spaces and the relationships between
individuals’ expected outcomes and the likelihood of their engaging in an activity in an
urban green space to achieve those outcomes remain largely unknown. Such knowledge
is increasingly vital in the rapidly changing urban environment since the ability of urban
green spaces to deliver expected outcomes can influence use frequency and consequent
wellbeing of residents by motivating people to engage in activity in the green spaces.
The aim of this paper is to identify psychosocial outcomes that motivate people in
Switzerland to seek urban green spaces in which to engage in specific activities. A further
aim is to examine how the outcomes may be related to demographic characteristics such as
age, educational level, and gender, since Payne, Mowen, and Orsega-Smith (2002) found
these to be important factors in preferences for outdoor recreation participation. Finally,
we seek to identify whether specific activities are preferred when residents seek to attain
particular psychosocial outcomes in an urban green space.
Outcomes from Contact with Urban Nature
Among the beneficial outcomes that people receive from contact with urban nature is the
restorative contrast to the built environment that it provides (Hartig & Staats, 2005). Contact
with nature can reduce stress (Ulrich, Simons, Losito, Miles, & Zelson, 1991; Ulrich,
1983), restore attention (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989), and create restorative experiences (van
den Berg, Hartig, & Staats, 2007; Hartig & Staats, 2005). Several studies have shown that
natural environments are more restorative than urban environments (Ulrich, 1983), although
most have contrasted stark urban environments with natural scenes (Staats, Kieviet, &
Downloaded by [Robert Home] at 00:53 22 June 2012
352 R. Home et al.
Hartig, 2003; Ulrich et al., 1991; van den Berg & Vlek, 1998) or compared the effects of
natural views with the effects of windowless rooms (Hartig, Korpela, Evans, & G¨
arling,
1997). Hernandez and Hidalgo (2005), in examining the restorative effects of nature within
cities, found that respondents viewing urban scenes with natural elements returned higher
scores on a measure of restorativeness than did those viewing the same scenes without the
natural elements. Peron, Berto, and Purcell (2002) found that mixed environments are often
perceived as being as restorative as purely natural environments. Common to these studies
is that the characteristics of the green spaces provide the vehicle for restoration.
Direct physical health benefits have also been reported from physical activity that
results from engaging in contact with nature, (Pretty, Peacock, & Hine, 2006), including
contributing to reductions in obesity (Department of Health, 2004), increased life ex-
pectancy (Takano, Nakamura, & Watanabe, 2002), and general good health (Maas, Verheij,
Groenewegen, de Vries, & Spreeuwenberg, 2006). A substantial body of evidence suggests
that contact with urban green spaces is beneficial to urban society as a whole. Coley, Kuo,
and Sullivan (1997) found that natural elements, such as trees, in semipublic spaces sur-
rounding urban housing promote increased use by, and interaction among, residents. Urban
green spaces that are well used have been shown to encourage bonding among neighbors
(Kuo, Bacaicoa, & Sullivan, 1998), to provide a greater sense of safety (Kuo et al., 1998),
and to reduce urban ills such as crime and violence (Kuo & Sullivan, 2001). Furthermore,
Ward Thompson (2002) points out the importance of nature to the individual by claiming
that access to some form of nature is a fundamental human need. The implication is that
individuals gain some positive outcomes from contact with nature. However, few studies
have differentiated between active and passive experiences of urban nature and the desire
to obtain beneficial outcomes as a motivation for people to seek urban nature to engage
in activities has been considerably less studied. Urban parks tend to be overlooked in dis-
cussions and analyses of leisure participation (Veal, 2006), and urban green spaces outside
recognized parks tend to be even more overlooked.
Motivation for engaging in leisure activities has long been a topic of interest in leisure
research and an approach linking settings, activities and outcomes, known as the “experi-
ential approach,” was pioneered by Driver and Tocher (1970). Specifically, the experiential
approach suggested that recreation should be understood as an experience in which activi-
ties are undertaken in an appropriate setting with the aim of achieving certain psychological
and physical goals (Manfredo, Driver, & Tarrant, 1996). Following this theoretical frame-
work, the recreation experience is described as the “bundle” of psychological outcomes
that the participant gains from engaging in a particular activity (Manfredo et al., 1996).
However the approach taken by Driver and Tocher (1970) and in the following studies in
the 1970s and 1980s searched for one-to-one linkages between activities and bundles of
psychological outcomes. These studies generally found weak, if any, relationship due to an
analysis strategy that precluded finding complex and multiple linkages (Manfredo et al.,
1996). Furthermore, many of the studies were undertaken in what Manfredo et al. (1996)
describe as “highly natural settings,” which cannot be expected to be the case in urban
green spaces. Weber and Anderson (2010) included both regional and urban parks in their
case study of experience preferences of visitors and found a core group of common prefer-
ences that included enjoying nature, escaping personal/social pressures, escaping physical
pressures, and enjoying the outdoor climate.
In their study of visitors to urban green spaces in South Korea, Shin, Kwon, Hammitt,
and Kim (2005) sought to examine the outcomes that people receive from the use of urban
forest park settings. In addition, their study also aimed to examine how the outcomes may be
related to park visitors’ personal characteristics such as age, educational level, and gender
by following a similar strategy to that of previous examinations, namely by performing a
Downloaded by [Robert Home] at 00:53 22 June 2012
Psychosocial Outcomes from Urban Green Spaces 353
principal components analysis and then seeking to identify group differences according to
demographic variables. They classified the psychosocial outcomes that respondents expect
to gain by visiting the urban green spaces according to the categories of “learning and
self/other relations,” “social and self-development,” and “enjoying nature.” They found that
age and level of attained education were positively correlated with the importance of the
16 items while there were no significant differences according to the gender of visitors
(Shin et al., 2005). That study, however, has not been replicated in another context, and
there was no attempt to link the expected psychosocial outcomes with specific activities
undertaken in the green spaces that could lead to the desired outcomes. The psychosocial
outcomes that motivate people in Switzerland to seek urban green spaces in which to engage
in specific activities remain unknown although benefits based management demands the
identification, measurement and documentation of the benefits enabled by recreation areas
(Allen & Cooper, 2003; Friedt et al., 2010) including urban green spaces.
Methods
Participants
To addresses this knowledge gap, a study was undertaken in Switzerland using a randomly
drawn sample of the Swiss population. Since the aim of the study is to relate expected
psychosocial outcomes to demographic variables and use frequencies of activities in urban
green areas, a quantitative approach was adopted. Resource restrictions, along with the
need for a large and representative sample, meant that a mail-out survey method of data
collection was chosen. A survey package, containing a cover letter, the survey instrument
(which included sections of questions in addition to those reported in this paper), and a
preaddressed and prepaid return envelope was sent to 4,000 households that were randomly
selected by the Federal Office of Statistics from across Switzerland, including each of the
language regions. The first person in the household aged 16 or over to have a birthday
in the calendar year was asked to take part in the survey. The mean age of respondents
was 49.5 (std. dev. 21). The place of residence of the respondents was large city, 12.5%;
agglomeration of a large city, 18%; small city, 23.2%; town, 22.3%; and out of town, 22.8%.
From the 4,000 questionnaires sent, 902 completed questionnaires were returned and
61 were undeliverable, giving an overall response rate of 22.9%. Chi square tests revealed no
significant differences between the distribution of the place of residence of the respondents
(p =0.37) and that of the Swiss population (Swiss Federal Statistical Office, 2011a) or
between the age (p =0.10) and gender (p =0.68) distributions of the sample and that of
the Swiss population (Swiss Federal Statistical Office, 2011b). Because the study did not
include a nonrespondent follow-up, we cannot be certain that the results are representative.
Generalizations from these data must therefore be made with caution.
Measures
A scale is needed to measure the positive outcomes that people might expect from visiting
green spaces. Notable among the scales developed to measure the outcomes expected
from contact with nature is Driver’s (1983) Recreation Experience Preference scale, which
is oriented towards recreation in natural areas. However, many people living in urban
environments receive the majority of their contact with nature within the city as they go
about their lives. Shin et al. (2005) noted that visitors’ outcomes from contact with urban
forest parks have been studied less than those resulting from contact with wilderness. Shin
and colleagues were unable to find a suitable scale that would be applicable to contact
Downloaded by [Robert Home] at 00:53 22 June 2012
354 R. Home et al.
with urban nature. Therefore, they developed the Psychosocial Outcomes Scale to enable
them to examine whether desired outcomes from contact with nature may be gained in
urban areas and thereby integrated with daily living or work situations. The Psychosocial
Outcomes Scale measures the expected positive outcomes of visiting an existing nearby
urban green space.
Shin et al.’s (2005) psychosocial outcomes scale was derived from a comprehensive
study of relevant literature and consultation with recreation professionals. The scale con-
sisted of 16 statements that were considered to represent the range of individual outcomes
that could be gained from visits to local green spaces. Shin et al.’s (2005) items were derived
from an initial set of 40 items that they had isolated from previous studies, including Driver
(as cited in Shin et al., 2005, p. 442), Hartig et al. (1997), Kaplan and Kaplan (1989), and
Manfredo et al. (1996). In a transdisciplinary approach, their list was refined in consultation
with recreation professionals, park managers, and park administrators to give the final 16
items.
Shin et al.’s (2005) scale was included in the survey instrument, except that the status
item, which refers to the satisfaction of a person’s need to express their social status, was
omitted since it was deemed to be not culturally relevant in the Swiss context. Respondents
were asked to indicate, on a 5-point Likert scale, their degree of agreement with statements
that were presented in the form “I look for natural places near to where I live . . . ,” followed
by the psychosocial outcomes, which are shown in Table 1. The scale was coded from a
rating of 1, which indicates strong disagreement to a rating of 5, which indicates strong
agreement.
To allow deductions as to the activities leading to the desired outcomes, the survey
instrument also included a section in which participants were asked to indicate whether
TABLE 1 Principal Components Analysis of Responses to Psychosocial Outcomes Scale
Item wording: I look for natural 1∗2∗3∗
Outcome places near to where I live . . . . (23.5) (17.6) (14.5) Mean S/D
Helping others to be of assistance to others. .836 2.73 1.20
Affiliation to socialize with others. .836 2.84 1.28
Self-enhancement to use and develop my talents. .762 2.94 1.26
Solitude to do things alone without feeling
threatened.
.684 2.83 1.38
Family bonding to experience family togetherness. .546 3.44 1.23
Natural scenery to experience natural beauty. .792 4.72 0.58
Learning nature to learn something about nature. .353 .699 3.97 1.09
Sensitivity for stimulation of my senses. .350 .636 3.91 1.14
Compensation to experience something new,
fresh or unusual.
.522 .530 3.43 1.22
Exercise for physical exercise. .485 4.12 1.12
Pleasure seeking to experience fun outdoors. .394 4.37 0.92
Escape challenge to escape from routine life. .845 3.95 1.17
Escape duty to escape from work pressure. .778 3.76 1.26
Tranquility to experience peace or calm. .368 .649 4.50 0.85
Introspection to think about myself. .402 .326 .444 3.78 1.21
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
∗The number in brackets represents the percentage of variance explained by this component.
Downloaded by [Robert Home] at 00:53 22 June 2012
Psychosocial Outcomes from Urban Green Spaces 355
and how often they seek nearby green areas to engage in each of a list of 11 possible
activities that could be undertaken in such areas. The response options were “always,”
“often,” “now and then,” and “never.” This section measures a conditional frequency and
provides information on the relationship between engaging in an activity and the frequency
of looking for a green space as a location to do so rather than on the frequency of green space
visitation. An additional option of “I do not do this activity” was provided to distinguish
people who never seek a nearby green area to engage in the activity from those who do not
engage in the particular activity at all. The list of activities included spending time with
children, Nordic walking, cycling, walking, dog walking, jogging, doing nothing, reading,
picnicking, ball games, and passive games. Furthermore, respondents were asked a series
of demographic questions including age, level of education, and in which settlement type
they live.
Procedure
Completed questionnaire forms were scanned and read electronically into a database using
Remark Office software. All statistical calculations were performed using SPSS version 18.
The mean responses to Shin et al.’s (2005) psychosocial outcomes scale were calculated
and a principal components analysis with varimax rotation was undertaken. Respondents
were asked whether they seek out green spaces when they want to carry out a particular
activity and the psychosocial outcomes scale was used for each activity to predict the
odds that they would seek green areas to practice that activity. Respondents who do not
engage in the particular activity were removed from the analysis (indicated in the Table 2
by the participation rate). Those who do participate in each activity were divided into
those who “always” or “often” seek a green space to engage in the activity and those
who “never” or “now and then” do so. Eleven logistic regression models were developed
to identify relationships between responses to the psychosocial outcomes scale and the
frequency of engaging in each activity. A linear regression analysis was used to identify
relationships between responses to the psychosocial outcomes scale and the “age” and
“place of residence” demographic variables. Analysis at the component level rather than at
the individual item level would have reduced the number of tests and thereby reduced the
likelihood of type 1 error, but is an analysis strategy that brings the disadvantage identified
by Manfredo et al. (1996) of masking possible complex and multiple linkages. An aim of
this paper is to explore the existence of such linkages so tests were conducted at the item
level.
Results and Discussion
The mean responses, organized in descending order, to each scale item in this study and the
mean responses found by Shin et al. (2005) are shown in Figure 1. The standard deviations
of the item means in this study range from 0.58 to 1.38.
Testing for the significance of differences between means was deemed not to be sensible
because there was no reason to assume that any central tendency bias will be consistent
across both samples. If one of the samples was more reluctant than the other to use the
strong agreement rating, the mean may be comparatively lower, but as an artifact of the bias
rather than reflecting less agreement. This bias, however, can be expected to be constant
within each sample, so the means are useful in ranking the degree of agreement with the
items. Notable in this result is that the ranking of the items according to agreement is similar
to the ranking in Shin et al.’s (2005) study. Differences, however, stand out in four items.
In the Korean sample, the relative importance of sensitivity and introspection was found
Downloaded by [Robert Home] at 00:53 22 June 2012
TABLE 2 Frequency of Choosing Natural Areas to Practice Activities Predicted by Expected Psychosocial Outcomes of Visiting Natural Areas
H/L P Std
Activity (% participation) (Nagelkerke’s R2) value Exp(B) error Motivation variable
Time with children (43.5%) 0.732 (0.15) 0.001 1.81 0.11 to experience family togetherness.
0.042 0.81 0.12 to experience something new, fresh or unusual.
0.012 0.70 0.14 to be of assistance to others.
Nordic walking (13.5%) 0.495 (0.20) 0.001 2.15 0.18 for physical exercise.
0.027 1.40 0.18 to experience fun outdoors.
0.040 1.39 0.16 to think about myself.
0.003 0.64 0.15 to escape from work pressure.
Cycling (35.3%) 0.289 (0.07) 0.001 1.44 0.09 for physical exercise.
0.004 1.39 0.11 to experience fun outdoors.
0.037 0.94 0.09 to think about myself.
Walking (79.4%) 0.792 (0.08) 0.040 1.25 0.12 to experience peace or calm.
0.049 1.17 0.08 for physical exercise.
0.016 1.51 0.17 to experience natural beauty.
0.037 0.80 0.11 to experience something new, fresh or unusual.
Dog walking (20.2%) 0.268 (0.15) 0.016 1.54 0.18 to learn something about nature.
0.006 0.65 0.16 to experience family togetherness.
0.002 0.60 0.16 to socialize with others.
356
Downloaded by [Robert Home] at 00:53 22 June 2012
Jogging (18.6%) 0.553 (0.19) 0.001 2.04 0.15 for physical exercise.
0.039 1.30 0.13 to think about myself.
0.023 1.35 0.12 to experience fun outdoors.
0.030 0.79 0.11 to do things alone without feeling threatened.
Doing nothing (41.5%) 0.150 (0.07) 0.021 1.21 0.12 to experience peace or calm.
0.001 1.31 0.08 to think about myself.
0.004 0.81 0.07 for physical exercise.
Reading (46.8%) 0.758 (0.10) 0.011 0.83 0.07 for physical exercise.
0.050 0.84 0.08 to experience fun outdoors.
0.013 1.25 0.09 for stimulation of my senses.
0.004 1.23 0.07 to do things alone without feeling threatened.
Picnicking (35.9%) 0.668 (0.11) 0.010 1.40 0.13 to experience peace or calm.
0.004 1.35 0.10 to experience fun outdoors.
0.002 1.27 0.08 to experience family togetherness.
0.010 1.25 0.09 to think about myself.
0.046 0.82 0.10 to be of assistance to others.
Ball games (17.2%) 0.169 No significant differences
(0.09)
Passive games (17.4%) 0.060 No significant differences
(0.06)
357
Downloaded by [Robert Home] at 00:53 22 June 2012
358 R. Home et al.
FIGURE 1 Ranking of agreement with psychosocial outcomes scale items by mean
response.
to be lower than family bonding, while the relative importance of escaping challenge and
escaping duty were found to among the highest rated items.
A principal component analysis with varimax rotation was carried out to test the
dimensionality of the scale. The results of the rotated analysis are shown in Table 1.
Examining the results of the principal components analysis, we found that the Helping
others,Affiliation,Self-enhancement,Solitude, and Family bonding items loaded against
this first component, which was labeled “self/other relations.” This result is reasonably
consistent with Shin et al.’s (2005) “learning and self/other relations” component, although
the Learning nature item did not load against this component in this analysis. Respondents
indicated less agreement with the items forming this factor as motivations for going to
natural places nearby to where the respondent lives, with mean responses ranging from 2.73
to 3.44. Although this factor explains the most variance (23.5%), it is the least important
motivation for visiting green spaces, and was the component with the lowest means in both
this study and in that of Shin et al. (2005).
The second factor revealed in this study was labeled “being stimulated by nature” and
shares a degree of overlap with Shin et al.’s (2005) third component: “enjoying nature”
and with Weber and Anderson’s (2010) “enjoying nature” experience preference. The
items (Natural scenery, Learning nature, Sensitivity, Compensation, Exercise, and Pleasure
seeking) loaded against this component although the Escape challenge item, which Shin
et al. included in their “enjoying nature” factor, did not. This study supports the concept of
an “enjoying nature” component and this “being stimulated by nature” component is the
most important grouping of motivations with mean responses ranging from 3.43 to 4.72.
This result can be interpreted as supporting the biophilia hypothesis in which Wilson (1984)
proposes that seeking stimulation by nature is a fundamental human need.
The Tranquility,Escape challenge,Escape duty, and Introspection items loaded against
the third component identified in this analysis, which can be labeled “escaping” and is the
component containing the items with the second highest mean ratings. The Tranquility
and Introspection “pull” factor items in this component suggest that there is the contrast
inherent in the term escape, since there is an implication of escape to and not just escape
Downloaded by [Robert Home] at 00:53 22 June 2012
Psychosocial Outcomes from Urban Green Spaces 359
from. This escape component is reminiscent of Kaplan and Kaplan’s (1989) “being away”
dimension of attention restoration and is in agreement with Hartig and Staats (2005) benefits
of urban ecosystems as the restorative contrast to the built environment that urban nature
provides. Weber and Anderson (2010) similarly identified “escaping social pressure” as
an experience preference in their case study of park use. This result suggests that people
actively seek to escape to the natural environments that Ulrich (1983), Ulrich et al. (1991),
Staats et al. (2003), and van den Berg et al. (2007) found to be more restorative than urban
environments.
These results show what outcomes people expect to gain from contact with nearby na-
ture but shed little light on how people achieve these outcomes. The psychosocial outcomes
that were found in the regression analysis to be significantly related to particular activities
are shown in Table 2. The activities column denotes the activity and the proportion of
respondents who frequently seek nearby natural areas in which to engage in the activity.
The Exp(B) statistic is the exponentiation of the B coefficient and is effectively the measure
of effect size in logistic regression (Garson, 2011). An Exp(B) greater than 1 indicates an
increase in being motivated by the expectation of gaining a particular psychosocial out-
come will increase the odds that respondents will frequently seek a nearby natural area to
engage in the associated activity. The magnitude of Exp(B) is interpreted as the change in
the odds ratio associated with a one-unit change in the predictor variable (Garson, 2011).
For example, a unit increase in the response to the motivating item “to experience family
togetherness” is associated with an increase in the odds to 1.8:1 (0.64/0.36) that people
who spend time with children will look for a green space in which to do it frequently. The
magnitude of the Exp (B) less than 1 is interpreted similarly. For example, a unit increase
in the response to the motivating item “to experience something new, fresh or unusual” is
associated with a decrease in the odds to 0.81:1 (0.45/0.55) that people who spend time
with children will look for a green space in which to do it frequently.
The proportions of respondents who do not engage in the particular activity at all are
indicated in the Table 2 by the participation rate. The goodness of fit for each model is
indicated by the nonsignificant (>0.05) results of the Hosmer and Lemeshow test (in the
H/L (R2) column) and the strength of association indicated by Nagelkerke’s R2in the same
column (in brackets). Hosmer and Lemeshow (2001) report that Low R2values in logistic
regression are the norm and Nagelkerke’s R2values around 0.1 have been measured in well-
fitted models (Garson, 2011). If an adjustment for multiple testing was carried out so that
the probability of overall type I error were held at 0.05, the threshold P value would change
from 0.05 to 0.003 and the probability of type II error would approach 1. No adjustment
was done because the increase in type II error resulting from an adjustment was deemed
to outweigh the consequences of any possible type I error: the probability of which is 0.54
without adjustment.
Predictive Value of Motivations
The predictive value of the motivations to visit nearby green areas for the relative frequency
with which green areas are selected as the location to perform the activity can be determined
by examination of the results presented in Table 2. Although the activities undertaken in
a nearby natural area correlate with specific psychosocial outcomes, the activities are
associated with the satisfaction of more than one need. Examining the activities for which
respondents are likely to seek an urban green space to achieve a particular psychosocial
outcome shows some consistencies. For example, people who are more likely to visit nearby
natural areas to engage in the energetic activities of jogging, cycling or Nordic walking
tend to be motivated by an expectation of a physical exercise outcome and also by an
Downloaded by [Robert Home] at 00:53 22 June 2012
360 R. Home et al.
expectation to experience fun outdoors. Both of these outcomes belong to the component
“being stimulated by nature.” In other words, some activities are linked to more than one
outcome belonging to the same component. This result supports the findings of Driver and
Knopf (1976) who defined the recreation experience as a “bundle” of conceptually similar
psychological outcomes desired from engaging in recreation.
The findings also show however that respondents are sometimes motivated by expec-
tations of gaining outcomes from more than one component, and which are related to the
activities they undertake. For example, people who engage in walking and are motivated
by an expectation of achieving the outcome to experience natural beauty, which belongs
to the component “being inspired by nature,” are more likely to choose a nearby natural
area in which to walk. At the same time, however, they are also motivated to do so to
experience peace or calm, which belongs to the component “escape.” Another example is
that people who engage in reading and are motivated by the outcome for stimulation of
their senses, which belongs to the component “being inspired by nature,” are more likely to
choose a nearby natural area to read while they are also motivated to do so by the outcome
to do things alone without feeling threatened, which belongs to the component “self/other
relations.”
The motivation to satisfy more than one psychosocial outcome was found to be related
to the frequency of visiting an urban green space to engage in each of the activities with
the exceptions of spending time with children and dog walking. Respondents who engage
in spending time with children and who are motivated by the expectation of experiencing
family togetherness are more likely to visit an urban green space. However, respondents
who engage in spending time with children and are motivated by the outcomes to experience
something new, fresh, or unusual or to be of assistance to others are less likely to visit an
urban green space to engage in that activity. This suggests that people who are spending
time with their children and are motivated by these outcomes will seek another setting to do
so. Similarly, dog walkers who are more motivated by the outcomes to experience family
togetherness or to socialize with others will seek a setting other than urban green spaces to
walk their dog.
The results show that there are purposeful relationships that have systematically moti-
vated respondents to visit urban green spaces to engage in their chosen activities. However,
while there are distinct multidimensional relationships found in this study, not all outcomes
are linked to all activities and some outcomes are not specifically linked to any. For example,
the desire to escape, although an important psychosocial outcome, was not attached to any
particular activity. Furthermore, there was no specific link between motivations to achieve
any of the listed outcomes by visiting a nearby green area and the likelihood of visitation to
urban green areas for people who engage in some activities, namely ball games and passive
games.
Influence of Demographic Variables
A regression analysis of the relationship between the responses of the Psychosocial Out-
comes Scale and where the respondent lives on the urban/rural gradient revealed that there
was no significant relationship with any of the scale variables with the exception of item 10:
to experience something fresh or unusual (p =0.015, Beta =.114). People are motivated
by the desire to achieve essentially the same psychosocial outcomes from contact with
nearby nature, regardless of whether they live inside or outside a city. This has implications
for how natural nearby green spaces need to be to provide desired outcomes, since those
living further from the cities could be expected to have more natural places nearby. That
no differences were found indicates that the relative contrast provided by the nearby nature
Downloaded by [Robert Home] at 00:53 22 June 2012
Psychosocial Outcomes from Urban Green Spaces 361
provides the psychosocial outcomes rather than a generalizable set of characteristics. This
logic is supported by the finding of a significant relationship between the place of residence
and the item to experience something fresh or unusual, which indicates that people who live
in urban areas are more likely to be motivated by the idea of experiencing something new
than people who live in the country. This makes intuitive sense since people who live in the
country are likely to have a greater degree of familiarity with natural areas than those who
live in the cities, so even more natural areas may be seen as not fresh or unusual, despite
the attraction created by their relative contrast.
A further regression analysis found that level of education was significantly related to
only items 7 (to learn something about nature,p=0.03, Beta =0.101) and 13 (to socialize
with others, p=0.006, Beta =0.145). Respondents who had attained a higher education
level were more likely to be motivated by the desire to learn something about nature and
to socialize with others than people with lower education levels. This result is in contrast
to the findings of Shin et al. (2005), who found significant differences in all of the outcome
items between visitors who had attained different levels of education.
A regression analysis of the relationship between the responses of the psychosocial
outcomes scale and the age of respondents found that age was significantly related to the
items shown in Table 3.
Payne et al. (2002) and Yilmaz, Zengin, and Yildiz (2007) found that younger people are
more likely to visit city parks in Cleveland, Ohio (United States) and Turkey, respectively,
and concluded that age plays a significant role in the frequency of park use. Similarly,
Shin et al. (2005) found age to be a significant predictor of responses to the psychosocial
outcomes scale and stated that older visitors to urban forests were more likely to rate the
outcomes as important than those who were younger. The significance of age has been
supported by this study; however, the positive correlation between age and each of the
items on the psychosocial outcomes scale was not found. The results of this study show that
older people are more likely than younger people to be motivated to visit a nearby green
space by the desire to learn something about nature,be of assistance to others,socialize
with others, and do things alone without feeling threatened. On the other hand, older people
are less likely than younger people to be motivated to visit a nearby green space by the
desire to escape from routine life, escape from work pressure, experience fun outdoors,
experience family togetherness, and to think about themselves. We can conclude that older
people tend to be motivated to visit nearby green spaces by the wish to seek self/other
relations while younger people tend to seek escape in both senses of the word.
TABLE 2 Significant Items in a Regression Analysis of Age and Responses to the
Psychosocial Outcomes Scale
Item No. Item P value Beta
2 to escape from routine life 0.002 −0.127
5 to escape from work pressure 0.001 −0.198
6 to experience fun outdoors 0.001 −0.153
7 to learn something about nature 0.001 0.213
8 to experience family togetherness 0.028 −0.081
11 to think about myself 0.001 −0.176
12 to be of assistance to others 0.001 0.155
13 to socialize with others 0.003 0.138
15 to do things alone without feeling threatened 0.001 0.131
Downloaded by [Robert Home] at 00:53 22 June 2012
362 R. Home et al.
The life cycle of visitors may be responsible, in part, for the results obtained in this
study and it is possible that these are related to the work phase of the people. The minimum
age for participation in this study was 16 while there was no upper limit, so all of the
respondents were of working age or older and many of the participants may have been
retired. An explanation for the relationships between age and motivations may be that
working people may seek escape from their everyday stresses, while retired people seek
more of a social function in urban green spaces.
Conclusions
The study of motivation for engaging in leisure activities has a long tradition in the outdoor
recreation literature initiated by Driver and colleagues in the 1970s with the experiential
approach that links settings, activities, and outcomes. The topic has attracted less research
in recent years, perhaps due to discouragement by the difficulties in finding correspondence
between bundles of outcomes and activities. Attention to psychosocial outcomes was given
by Shin et al. (2005) in their study of visitors to urban forest parks although there has been
little attempt to link expected psychosocial outcomes with specific activities undertaken
in the green spaces that could lead to such outcomes. This study addresses the knowledge
gap by exploring the relationships between each of a range of 11 activities and a set of
15 possible psychosocial outcomes by developing 11 linear regression models to examine
relationships between expected outcomes and the frequency of participation in an activity
in an urban green space.
This study has shown that people engaging in a particular activity will choose a green
space in which to do it with the aim of achieving multiple outcomes simultaneously. While
this result supports the findings of Driver and Knopf (1976) in that participants seek bundles
of psychological outcomes from their recreation experience as desired from engaging in
recreation, it also shows that the relationships are complex and multidimensional. The
results of this study show that respondents are motivated to visit urban green spaces by the
expectation of achieving psychosocial outcomes that are both varied and specific to their
chosen activities.
Similarities were found between this Swiss sample and the Korean sample studied by
Shin et al. (2005) in both the order of the outcomes that were rated as being most important
and in the categories revealed by the principal components analysis. Three categories of
outcomes—stimulation by nature,escape, and self/other relations—summarize outcomes
that motivate people to visit nearby green spaces and were identified in this study. The
most highly rated category of outcomes was to be stimulated by nature, while self/other
relations was the lowest rated category in both samples. These similarities possible reflect
that both samples stem from highly industrialized countries and application of the scale in
other contexts may shed light on whether the similarities are indeed universal or simply
common to respondents from industrialized countries.
A further limitation of this study is that, while we have assessed the importance, relative
to each other, of selected psychosocial outcomes that people expect to obtain by visiting a
nearby green space, it was beyond the scope of this study to examine actual outcomes that
people receive upon visitation. The study was based on self-reported visitation frequency,
and no data were collected on actual visitation. It will be the challenge of future research
to measure outcomes that people actually achieve rather than assessing outcomes that
they expect to achieve. Similarly, this study did not examine the outcomes that nearby
green spaces are unable to deliver but that could be provided if nearby natural places
were designed differently. In other words, a future research aim could be to determine
which landscape elements provide the optimum characteristics for satisfying the desired
Downloaded by [Robert Home] at 00:53 22 June 2012
Psychosocial Outcomes from Urban Green Spaces 363
psychosocial outcomes. A further limitation of the study is that no data were collected on
the work status of the respondents. The results of this study identified differences in the
expected outcomes that motivate people to visit urban green spaces according to the age
of the respondents. However, it is possible that the age responses in this study may have
been a proxy for employment status and the reported difference may have been a difference
between working and nonworking people.
These limitations notwithstanding, this study contributes to the understanding of the
psychosocial outcomes that residents expected from engaging in an activity in an urban
green space. This knowledge could inform managers of urban green spaces so that the
multiplicity of expected outcomes from engaging in activities in natural settings can be
considered in attempts to optimize the spaces for recreation. When urban green spaces
provide a setting in which positive psychosocial outcomes can be achieved, people will be
more motivated to visit them to engage in their chosen activities, which is likely to result
in an increase in the use frequency and consequently in the wellbeing of residents.
References
Allen, L., & Cooper, N. (2003). Benefits based programming curriculum manual. Ashburn, VA:
National Recreation and Park Association.
Barthel, S., Colding, J., Elmqvist, T., & Folke, C. (2005). History and local management of a
biodiversity-rich, urban cultural landscape. Ecology and Society,10(2), 10. Retrieved from
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art10
Coley, R., Kuo, F., & Sullivan, W. (1997). Where does community grow? The social context created
by nature in urban public housing. Environment and Behavior,29(4), 468–492.
Department of Health. (2004). At least five a week: Evidence on the impact of physical ac-
tivity and its relationship to health. A report from the Chief Medical Officer. Retrieved
from http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAnd
Guidance/DH 4080994
Driver, B. (1983). Master list of items for recreation experience preference scales and domains. Fort
Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Retrieved from http://www.wilderdom.com/html/DriverREPScales.doc
Driver, B., Brown, P., & Peterson, G. (1991). Benefits of leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Driver, B., & Knopf, R. (1976). Temporary escape: One product of sport fisheries management,
Fisheries,1(2), 21–29.
Driver, B., & Tocher, S. (1970). Toward a behavioral interpretation of recreational engagements,
with implications for planning. In B. L. Driver (Ed.), Elements of outdoor recreation planning:
Proceedings of a national short course held in Ann Arbor, Michigan, May 6–16, 1968 (pp. 9–31).
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Friedt, B., Hill, E., Gomez, E., & Goldenberg, M. (2010). A benefits-based study of Appalachian
Trail users: Validation and application of the benefits of hiking scale. PHEnex,2(1). Retrieved
from http://ojs.acadiau.ca/index.php/phenex/issue/view/122/showToc
Garson, G. D. (2011). Logistic regression: Statnotes: Topics in multivariate analysis. Retrieved from
http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/statnote.htm
Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G., & G¨
arling, T. (1997) A measure of restorative quality in environ-
ments. Scandinavian Housing & Planning Research,14, 175–194.
Hartig, T., & Staats, H. (2005). Linking preference for environments with their restorative quality.
In B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry, & P. Opdam (Eds.), From landscape research to landscape plan-
ning: Aspects of integration, education and application (pp. 279–292). Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Springer.
Hernandez, B., & Hidalgo, M. (2005). Effect of urban vegetation on psychological restorativeness.
Psychological reports,96(3), 1025–1028.
Hosmer, D., & Lemeshow, S. (2001). Applied logistic regression. publisher>Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley and Sons.
Downloaded by [Robert Home] at 00:53 22 June 2012
364 R. Home et al.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kuo, F. E., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Transforming inner-city neighborhoods: Trees,
sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior,30(1), 28–59.
Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce
crime? Environment and Behavior,33(3), 343–367.
Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., deVries, S., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2006). Green space,
urbanity, and health: How strong is the relation? Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health,
60(7), 587–592.
Manfredo, M. J., Driver, B., & Tarrant, M. (1996). Measuring leisure motivation: A meta-analysis of
the recreation experience preference scales. Journal of Leisure Research,28(3), 188–213.
Newton, J. (2007). Well-being and the natural environment: A brief overview of the evidence. Retrieved
from http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/what/documents
Payne, L., Mowen, A., & Orsega-Smith, E. (2002). An examination of park preferences and behaviors
among urban residents: The role of residential location, race, and age. Leisure Sciences,24(2),
181–198.
Peron, E., Berto, R., & Purcell, T. (2002). Restorativeness, preference and the perceived naturalness
of places. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano,3(1), 19–34.
Pretty, J., Peacock, J., & Hine, R. (2006). Green exercise: The benefits of activities in green places.
The Biologist,53(3), 143–148.
Shin, W., Kwon, H., Hammitt, W., & Kim, B. (2005). Urban forest park use and psychosocial out-
comes: A case study in six cities across South Korea. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research,
20(5), 441–447.
Staats, H., Kieviet, A., & Hartig, T. (2003). Where to recover from attentional fatigue: An expectancy-
value analysis of environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology,23(2),
147–157.
Steed, L., Cook, D., & Newman, S. (2003). A systematic review of psychosocial outcomes follow-
ing education, self-management and psychological interventions in diabetes mellitus, Patient
Education Counselling,51(1), 5–15.
Stein, T., & Lee, M. (1995). Managing recreation resources for positive outcomes: An application of
benefits-based management. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,15(5), 52–70.
Swiss Federal Statistical Office. (2011a). Population size and population composition-data:
Indicators-age overview (end of 2010). Retrieved from http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/
index/themen/01/02/blank/key/alter/gesamt.html
Swiss Federal Statistical Office. (2011b). Population size and population composition-data:
Indicators-agglomerations (end of 2010). Retrieved from http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/
en/index/themen/01/02/blank/key/raeumliche verteilung/agglomerationen.html
Takano, T., Nakamura, K., & Watanabe, M. (2002). Urban residential environments and senior
citizens’ longevity in mega-city areas: The importance of walkable green space. Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health,56(12), 913–916.
Ulrich, R. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environments. In A. Altman & J. F.
Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85–125). New York, NY: Plenum
Press.
Ulrich, R., Simons, R., Losito, B., E., Miles, M., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure
to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology,11(3), 201–230.
United Nations. (2005). World urbanization prospects: Urban and rural population estimates and
projections. New York, NY: United Nations Publications Board.
van den Berg, A., Hartig, T., & Staats, H. (2007). Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Stress,
restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues,63(1), 79–96.
van den Berg, A., & Vlek, C. (1998). The influence of planned-change context on the evaluation of
natural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning,43(1–3), 1–10.
Veal, A. J. (2006). The use of urban parks. Annals of Leisure Research,9(4), 245–276.
Ward Thompson, C. (2002). Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning,
60(2), 59–72.
Downloaded by [Robert Home] at 00:53 22 June 2012
Psychosocial Outcomes from Urban Green Spaces 365
Weber, D., & Anderson, D. (2010). Contact with nature: Recreation experience preferences in Aus-
tralian parks. Annals of Leisure Research,13(1–2), 46–49.
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yilmaz, S., Zengin, M., & Yildiz, N. (2007). Determination of user profile at city parks: A sample
from Turkey. Building and Environment,42(6), 2325–2332.
Downloaded by [Robert Home] at 00:53 22 June 2012
