Article

The Riverside and Berwyn experience: Contrasts in landscape structure, perceptions of the urban landscape, and their effects on people

USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC 20090, USA; School of Natural Resources & Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
Landscape and Urban Planning (Impact Factor: 2.31). 01/2006; DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.04.002

ABSTRACT Humans not only structure the landscape through their activities, but their perceptions of nature are affected by the spatial and temporal arrangements (structure) in the landscape. Our understanding of these interactions, however, is limited. We explored the relationship between landscape structure and peoples’ perceptions of nature in the Chicago, IL, USA, suburbs of Riverside and Berwyn because they offer contrasting paradigms of an urban landscape. Designed in the 1800s by Frederick Law Olmsted, Riverside has several unique design elements (curvilinear streets, ample setbacks, parkways of variable width with mowed grass and naturalistic groupings of trees) that define the structure and composition of this landscape. The urban forest was the keystone of Olmsted's desire to create a harmonious community characterized by “refined sylvan beauty”. In contrast, the adjacent community of Berwyn has right-angled streets with small lots and narrow setbacks for houses. Differences in landscape structure between the two communities produced differences in the diversity, size, and composition of woody vegetation. As measured by patch-size distribution, Riverside had greater diversity in landscape structure than Berwyn, and in turn, Riverside had greater diversity in the composition and size of the woody vegetation compared to Berwyn. Riverside tended toward a “natural” appearance with vegetation, while yards in Berwyn tended to be trimmed and edged. Significant differences between the mean ratings of Riverside and Berwyn respondents were found for six of seven community attribute categories. Riverside participants reported receiving greater benefit from the visual and nature-related features of the urban forest than did Berwyn respondents. Berwyn residents ranked social atmosphere for the community and locomotion (wayfinding) highest among the seven community attribute categories. Despite differences between the two communities, residents valued the green residential environment provided by vegetation. However, the more diverse urban landscape as measured by built structures, woody vegetation, and lot size and shape proved to be more satisfying to the residents of these two communities. The design concepts developed and implemented by Olmsted more than century ago in Riverside are still relevant to city planners striving to develop living environments that are satisfying to urban and suburban residents.

1 Bookmark
 · 
72 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Urban green spaces (UGS) denote the chief representative of biodiversity and provider of ecosystem services (especially social and cultural) in urban landscapes. Socio-economic circumstances of individuals are significantly derived from their psychometric settings–which ultimately affect their preferences in urban landscapes–more so for multicultural and multifaceted social environments. This paper investigates the coupling of distinct socio-economic (life quality) standards and urban natural spaces (and their content) in the megacity of Karachi, Pakistan. The main research question was how the socio-economic conditions of the differentiated and multicultural community influence their preferences of urban green spaces. It was tested at three systematically selected research sites of distinct structural and functional characteristics but the results and discussion are presented in an integrative form. The study sites were selected using Karachi’s urban-rural gradient to deduce representative samples from different land use and urbanization zones. Public interviews of 340 respondents were conducted with a structured questionnaire. The findings contradict generalizations made in other international studies. Results show that the presumption of tightly coupled social settings and nature space preferences could not be validated empirically for varying types of cities in the world. This is because people perceive their heterogeneous natural and artificial environment differently in different regional settings. The multicultural environment dissembles the choices of people and vice versa. This is true regardless of the sampling strategy for such studies that had been the focus in the past. Community revitalization is deemed necessary for better design, facilities and functions of UGS to foster social wellbeing of residents as well as sustainable urban development.
    Urban Ecosystems 01/2013; 16:853–870. · 1.74 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Residential landscapes are a common setting of human-environment interactions. These ubiquitous ecosystems provide social and ecological services, and yard maintenance leads to intended and unintended ecological outcomes. The ecological characteristics of residential landscapes and the human drivers of landscape management have been the focus of disciplinary studies, often at a single scale of analysis. However, an interdisciplinary examination of residential landscapes is needed to understand the feedbacks and tradeoffs of these complex adaptive social-ecological systems as a whole. Our aim is to synthesize the diversity of perspectives, scales of analysis, and findings from the literature in order to 1) contribute to an interdisciplinary understanding of residential landscapes and 2) identify research needs while providing a robust conceptual approach for future studies. We synthesize 256 studies from the literature and develop an interdisciplinary, multi-scalar framework on residential landscape dynamics. Complex human drivers (attitudinal, structural, and institutional factors) at multiple scales influence management practices and the feedbacks with biophysical characteristics of residential landscapes. However, gaps exist in our interdisciplinary understanding of residential landscapes within four key but understudied areas: 1) the link between social drivers and ecological outcomes of management decisions, 2) the ecosystem services provided by these landscapes to residents, 3) the interactions of social drivers and ecological characteristics across scales, and 4) generalizations of patterns and processes across cities. Our systems perspective will help to guide future interdisciplinary collaborations to integrate theories and research methods across geographic locations and spatial scales. KeywordsResidential landscapes–Social-ecological systems–Urban–Yard management–Scale–Lawn
    Urban Ecosystems 01/2012; 15(1):19-52.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: By 2050, 70% of the world's population will live in urban areas. In many cases urbanization reduces the richness and abundance of native species. Living in highly modified environments with fewer opportunities to interact directly with a diversity of native species may adversely affect residents' personal well-being and emotional connection to nature. We assessed the personal well-being, neighborhood well-being (a measure of a person's satisfaction with their neighborhood), and level of connection to nature of over 1000 residents in 36 residential neighborhoods in southeastern Australia. We modeled these response variables as a function of natural features of each neighborhood (e.g., species richness and abundance of birds, density of plants, and amount of vegetation cover) and demographic characteristics of surveyed residents. Vegetation cover had the strongest positive relations with personal well-being, whereas residents' level of connection to nature was weakly related to variation in species richness and abundance of birds and density of plants. Demographic characteristics such as age and level of activity explained the greatest proportion of variance in well-being and connection to nature. Nevertheless, when controlling for variation in demographic characteristics (examples were provided above), neighborhood well-being was positively related to a range of natural features, including species richness and abundance of birds, and vegetation cover. Demographic characteristics and how well-being was quantified strongly influenced our results, and we suggest demography and metrics of well-being must be considered when attempting to determine relations between the urban environment and human well-being.
    Conservation Biology 04/2011; 25(4):816-26. · 4.36 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
35 Downloads
Available from
May 30, 2014