JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Landscape Preferences for Greenspace Structures
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Landscape Preferences for Greenspace Structures
Jo, Hyun-Kil; Ahn, Tae-Won;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
There is little information about appropriate greenspace structures to satisfy aesthetic function in Korea. The purpose of this study was to analyze Korean's aesthetic preferences for greenspace structures concerned with urban tree plantings of an areal type to explore desirable greenspace landscapes. The study considered 5 structural variables of greenspace which were species composition, tree density, tree size, vertical and horizontal structure, and tree layout pattern. A photo-questionnaire was prepared through color simulations of different landscape types for each structural variable. Preference responses of an interval-scale rating from 214 respondents were statistically analyzed between landscape types and between respondent groups. Respondents preferred greenspace landscapes with diverse tree species to single species, higher tree density to lower density, larger trees to many smaller trees, multilayered and grouped plantings to single-layered and sparse plantings, and informal pattern to formal pattern. These preferences tended to be relatively higher for educated specialist and student groups than for other generalist group. Thus, multilayered and dense plantings in natural pattern including larger trees of diverse species, which are similar to ecological plantings, are recommended to increase aesthetic function of greenspace.
 Keywords
species composition;tree density;tree size;vertical structure;tree layout pattern;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
1.
수변구역 조성 녹지의 모니터링을 통한 식재방안 모색 - 가평군 시공지를 대상으로 -,조현길;박혜미;

Journal of Environmental Science International, 2016. vol.25. 12, pp.1689-1699 crossref(new window)
 References
1.
Cho W, Lee KJ. 1998. Planting of Urban Environmental Forest and Community Planting Area. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 26: 70-82. (in Korean with English abstract)

2.
Choi JY. 2002. Water Quality Management for Ecological Restoration of Aquatic Environments: Focused on Management of Riparian Buffer Zone. Korean Journal of Environmental Biology 20: 20-29. (in Korean with English abstract)

3.
Daniel TC, Boster RS. 1976. Measuring Landscape Aesthetics: The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method, USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-167, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Ranger Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, Colorado.

4.
Daniel TC, Schroeder H. 1979. Scenic Beauty Estimation Model: Predicting Perceived Beauty of Forest Landscapes. National Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource, Incline Village, Nevada.

5.
David HA. 1988. The Method of Paired Comparisons. Oxford University Press, New York.

6.
Gundersen VS, Frivold LH. 2008. Public Preferences for Forest Structures: A Review of Quantitative Surveys from Finland, Noway, and Sweden. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 7: 241-258. crossref(new window)

7.
Huang J, Ritschard R, Sampson N, Taha H. 1992. The Benefits of Urban Trees. In: Cooling Our Communities (Akbari H, Davis S, Dorsano S, Hung J, Winnet S, eds). Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-31587, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., pp 27-42.

8.
Hull RB, Buhyoff GJ, Daniel TC. 1984. Measurement of Scenic Beauty: The Law of Comparative Judgement and Scenic Beauty Estimation Procedures. Forest Science 30: 1084-1096.

9.
Im SB. 1984. Visual Preferences in Enclosed Urban Spaces, Environment and Behavior 16: 235-262. crossref(new window)

10.
Jo HK. 2009. Riparian Forest Structures in Korea and their Applications to Greenway Design. International Symposium on Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration. Korea Ministry of Environment, Center for Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Chuncheon. pp 221-244.

11.
Jo HK, Ahn TW. 2010. A Study on Greenspace Planning Strategies for Thermal Comfort and Energy Savings. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 38: 23-32. (in Korean with English abstract)

12.
Jo HK, Lee KE. 2000. Energy Saving and Reduction of Atmospheric $CO_2$ Concentration by, and Planning Guideline for Urban Greenspace. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 27: 38-47. (in Korean with English abstract)

13.
Lien JN, Buhyoff GJ. 1986. Extension of Visual Quality Models for Urban Forests. Journal of Environmental Management 22: 245-254.

14.
Miller RW. 1997. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

15.
Park EY, Yoo BR. 2004. Design and Planning Criteria for the Green Buffer Zone. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 32: 25-35. (in Korean with English abstract)

16.
Raedeke DAM, Raedeke KJ. 1995. Wildlife Habitat Design in Urban Forest Landscapes. In: Urban Forest Landscapes: Integrating Multidisciplinary Perspectives (Bradley GA, ed). University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, pp 139-149.

17.
Saaty TL. 1999. Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

18.
Schroeder HW. 1986. Estimating Park Tree Density to Maximize Landscape Aesthetics. Journal of Environmental Management 23: 325-333.

19.
Ulrich RS. 1981. Natural versus Urban Scenes: Some Psychophysiological Effects. Environment and Behavior 13: 523-556. crossref(new window)

20.
Ulrich RS. 1986. Human Responses to Vegetation and Landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 13: 29-44. crossref(new window)