Use of small public urban green spaces (SPUGS)

Full text

Urban
Forestry
&
Urban
Greening
11 (2012) 235–
244
Contents
lists
available
at
SciVerse
ScienceDirect
Urban
Forestry
&
Urban
Greening
jou
rn
al
h
omepage:
www.elsevier.de/ufug
Use
of
Small
Public
Urban
Green
Spaces
(SPUGS)
Karin
K.
Peschardta,∗, Jasper
Schipperijnb, Ulrika
K.
Stigsdottera
aDepartment
of
Forest
&
Landscape,
Faculty
of
LIFE
Sciences,
University
of
Copenhagen,
Denmark
bInstitute
of
Sport
Science
and
Clinical
Biomechanics,
University
of
Southern
Denmark,
Denmark
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Keywords:
Dense
city
Distance
Health
Parks
Rest
and
restitution
Social
interaction
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
During
recent
years,
the
use
of
urban
green
space
(UGS)
has
received
increased
attention
within
several
research
fields,
as
well
as
politically,
especially
in
relation
to
the
benefits
it
provides
for
human
health.
Much
research
on
larger
green
areas
has
shown
that
they
are
beneficial
to
people’s
health,
physically,
socially
and
mentally.
However,
because
of
densification
tendencies
in
cities
in
Western
countries,
large
green
areas
are
a
limited
resource
and
many
people
live
in
city
areas
where
the
distance
to
larger
green
areas
reduces
the
possibility
for
frequent
use.
Small
Public
Urban
Green
Spaces
(SPUGS)
in
dense
city
areas
might
contribute
to
satisfy
the
need
for
everyday
experiences
of
outdoor
areas,
but
research
on
SPUGS
is
limited.
In
this
paper,
we
describe
how
nine
SPUGS
in
Copenhagen
are
used
by
the
citizens
based
on
data
from
686
respondents
who
completed
on-site
questionnaires
during
their
visit.
The
results
show
that
SPUGS
are
primarily
used
for
‘socialising’
and
‘rest
and
restitution’.
Furthermore,
they
are
mainly
used
by
well-educated
people
between
the
ages
of
30
and
49.
For
‘socialising’,
SPUGS
are
primarily
used
on
the
way
home.
For
‘rest
and
restitution’,
SPUGS
are
primarily
used
‘en
route’
or
on
the
way
home.
More
than
half
of
the
respondents
reported
living
more
than
1000
m
from
the
SPUGS,
and
more
than
half
of
the
respondents
reported
that
they
travel
more
than
500
m
to
get
to
the
SPUGS.
People
aged
50–65
are
more
likely
to
visit
the
SPUGS
for
‘rest
and
restitution’
than
the
younger
age
groups.
Furthermore
the
older
people
are,
the
less
likely
they
are
to
visit
SPUGS
to
socialise.
These
results
show
that
SPUGS
are
an
important
asset
in
citizen’s
everyday
lives,
and
the
results
may
provide
inspiration
for
landscape
architects,
city
planners
and
policy
makers
for
the
future
planning
of
dense
city
areas.
© 2012 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Cities
in
the
Western
world
are
growing
and
the
world
popula-
tion
is
increasing.
In
2011
the
world
population
reached
7
billion
people.
Today
one
in
two
live
in
towns
and
cities
and
this
number
is
expected
to
rise
to
two
in
three
in
only
35
years
(UNFPA,
2011).
This
urbanisation
causes
a
decrease
in
per
capita
space
and
thereby
a
loss
of
per
capita
urban
green
space
(UGS)
(James
et
al.,
2009),
which
furthermore
causes
a
decrease
in
daily
exposure
to
more
natural
environments
(Barton
and
Pretty,
2010).
Lower
exposure
to
natu-
ral
environments
is
associated
with
a
number
of
lifestyle
diseases
such
as
obesity,
diabetes
II,
osteoporosis
and
stress-related
illnesses
such
as
depression,
heart
diseases
and
mental
fatigue
(Ulrich,
2006;
Mitchell
and
Popham,
2008).
Social
contact
is
considered
to
be
one
possible
mechanism
behind
the
relationship
between
green
space
and
health
(Maas
et
al.,
2009).
Based
on
these
findings,
UGS
is
thought
to
contribute
to
health,
as
defined
by
the
World
Health
Organisation
(WHO)
as
‘a
state
of
complete
physical,
mental
and
∗Corresponding
author.
Tel.:
+45
28341981.
E-mail
address:
karin-p@life.ku.dk
(K.K.
Peschardt).
social
well-being
and
not
merely
the
absence
of
disease
or
infirmity’
(WHO,
1948).
The
WHO,
therefore,
encourages
local
administrators
to
increase
the
provision
of
UGS
(WHO,
2006).
However,
providing
more
UGS
is
challenging
in
increasingly
dense
cities.
Finding
space
for
new
UGS
is
often
difficult
and
expensive,
especially
for
larger
areas.
Because
direct
access
to
private
gardens
may
be
limited
in
dense
city
areas,
smaller
public
UGS
which
are
close
to
people’s
homes,
or
are
otherwise
integrated
in
their
daily
use
of
the
city,
may
perhaps
provide
some
of
the
desired
green
space.
However,
only
limited
research
is
available
on
small
UGS
and
how
they
are
used
by
people
who
potentially
lack
other
green
space
in
their
daily
surroundings
(Chiesura,
2004;
James
et
al.,
2009).
Several
studies
report
significant
differences
in
the
use
of
UGS
for
different
population
segments.
In
a
recent
Danish
study
(Schipperijn
et
al.,
2010b),
age,
gender,
education
level
and
health
status
were
found
to
be
significantly
associated
with
differences
in
use
of
UGS.
Furthermore,
the
same
study
also
found
that
size
and
distance
from
the
home
are
associated
with
differences
in
use
of
UGS;
with
larger
areas
closer
to
home
being
used
more
frequently.
This
does
not
mean
that
a
large
park
is
necessarily
preferred
over
a
small
park
(Talbot
and
Kaplan,
1986),
but
it
seems
logi-
cal
to
assume
that
small
UGS
are
different
in
use
and
appearance
1618-8667/$
–
see
front
matter ©
2012 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.04.002

236 K.K.
Peschardt
et
al.
/
Urban
Forestry
&
Urban
Greening
11 (2012) 235–
244
compared
to
large
UGS.
Small
UGS
might
be
areas
that
people
pass
on
their
way
from
one
place
to
another,
they
may
function
as
a
small
outdoor
room
where
people
can
eat
their
lunch
(Forsyth
and
Musacchio,
2005),
or
they
may
be
locally
available
‘nature
parks’
where
the
natural
setting
can
provide
some
peace
and
quiet
away
from
the
hustle
and
bustle
of
the
city
(Baur
and
Tynon,
2010).
A
recent
study
by
Nordh
(2010)
documents
that
‘small
urban
parks’
have
the
ability
to
stimulate
mental
restoration.
Baur
and
Tynon
(2010)
suggest
that
‘small-scale
urban
nature
parks’
might
be
areas
that
contribute
to
health
and
wellbeing.
Furthermore,
‘small-scale
green
areas’
with
natural
features
may
encourage
the
use
of
out-
door
areas
and
thereby
increase
social
integration
and
interaction
among
people
(Whyte,
1980;
Gehl,
2010).
Based
on
these
studies,
it
seems
that
small
UGS
have
the
potential
to
be
areas
for
social
interaction
and
mental
restoration;
however
research
on
this
spe-
cific
use
is
limited.
In
this
study,
we
are
interested
in
investigating
the
use
and
experience
of
small
UGS.
We
do
not
focus
on
small
UGS
specifically
designed
for
physical
activity
due
to
the
fact
that
such
small
UGS
(e.g.
a
skateboard
park)
often
seem
to
have
limited
possibilities
for
other
activities
due
to
their
restricted
size.
Denmark’s
larger
cities
are
witnessing
the
same
densification
tendency
as
in
other
developed
countries
and
the
population
is
increasing
each
year
(Danmarks
Statistik,
2010).
By
2015,
the
city
of
Copenhagen
aims
to
increase
the
provision
of
urban
green
environ-
ments
and
plans
to
establish
14
new
‘Pocket
Parks’.
In
this
paper,
we
describe
the
various
small
urban
parks
as
‘Small
Public
Urban
Green
Spaces’
(SPUGS).
SPUGS
are
defined
based
on
existing
criteria
from
the
City
of
Copenhagen
in
relation
to
their
“Pocket
Park’
project
(Københavns
Kommune,
2009).
They
must
not
exceed
5000
m2in
size,
they
must
have
at
least
some
vegetation,
their
own
entrance,
and
distinguishable
boundaries
which
separate
them
from
sur-
rounding
public
space.
The
aim
of
this
study
is
to
describe
the
use
of
SPUGS
and
to
obtain
an
understanding
of
the
factors
associated
with
this
use;
we
therefore
ask
the
following
questions:
•Who
uses
SPUGS
and
how
are
they
used
in
Copenhagen?
•What
are
the
main
motivations
for
using
SPUGS?
•Is
distance
to
SPUGS
related
to
frequency
of
use?
•Which
individual
demographic
factors
are
associated
with
the
use
of
SPUGS?
Methodology
Sampling
Based
on
the
definition
mentioned
in
‘Introduction’
section,
a
‘population’
of
all
potential
SPUGS
within
the
densest
housing
areas
in
Copenhagen
was
identified
(N
=
79).
This
was
achieved
using
a
Geographical
Information
System,
ArcGIS
9.3,
utilising
aerial
pho-
tos
and
a
list
of
pocket
parks
provided
by
the
City
of
Copenhagen.
The
list
included
both
existing
SPUGS
and
areas
that
today
only
exist
as
empty
lots.
The
study
area
was
delineated
by
the
bor-
ders
between
areas
with
multi
story
buildings
and
single
family
houses.
All
identified
SPUGS
were
visited
and
photographed
before
final
selection
of
study
sites.
With
our
landscape
architectural
back-
ground
in
mind,
we
divided
all
areas
into
thirteen
categories
based
on
dominant
physical
characteristics
and
design.
From
these,
eight
categories
were
excluded
in
the
first
selection
round.
Some
areas
had
been
identified
as
potential
pocket
parks
by
the
municipal-
ity,
but
were
currently
building
sites
or
empty
lots
and
therefore
had
no
users;
‘no
content’
(n
=
26).
Other
areas
proved
to
be
‘too
large’
(n
=
7)
in
that
they
exceeded
5000
m2,
or
were
inappropriate
for
use,
e.g.
‘bunker’
(n
=
3),
a
bunker
from
World
War
II
dominating
the
whole
area.
Some
areas
did
not
fit
our
primary
interest
in
use
for
socialisation
and
rest
and
restitution;
‘passage’
(n
=
6)
was
excluded
because
the
borders
were
indefinite,
and
after
the
first
observation
it
was
concluded
that
almost
all
visitors
were
only
passing
through.
‘Square’
(n
=
3)
was
excluded
because
of
high
complexity
caused
by
many
different
functions,
e.g.
a
metro
station
and
bus
stop.
‘Sports
area’
(n
=
2)
was
designed
for
certain
activities,
i.e.
skating
and
bas-
ketball
which
are
not
the
focus
of
this
study.
‘Private
appearance’
(n
=
3)
was
situated
close
to
dominant
buildings
such
as
churches
and
could
be
perceived
as
being
private.
And
finally,
a
‘borderless
area’
(n
=
1)
was
excluded
as
it
was
difficult
to
identify
its
borders.
The
remaining
27
SPUGS
are
categorised
into
the
following
five
categories:
‘Geometric
design’
(n
=
7),
characterised
by
a
geomet-
rical
design;
‘South
European
Square’
(n
=
3),
characterised
by
a
hardscape
surface
and
a
few
trees;
‘Multi-characteristic’
(n
=
10),
an
area
with
seating,
a
playground,
and
space
for
impulsive
albeit
limited
activity;
‘Café/history’
(n
=
3),
characterised
by
a
café
area
and
a
historical
context
and
finally
‘Traffic’
(n
=
4),
closely
connected
to
a
main
road.
Due
to
practical
constraints
in
terms
of
time
and
resources,
not
all
27
SPUGS
could
be
included.
We
aimed
at
ensuring
that
all
the
categories
were
proportionally
represented
in
the
final
selection
round,
while
we
also
tried
to
maximise
the
variation
regarding
size
and
the
amount
of
vegetation,
as
well
as
architectural
design.
Two
areas
were
chosen
from
the
‘Geometric
appearance’
(n
=
7)
category,
one
from
the
‘South
European
Square’
(n
=
3)
category,
one
from
‘Café/history’
(n
=
3),
one
from
‘Traffic’
(n
=
4),
and
4
areas
were
selected
from
the
‘Multi-characteristic’
(n
=
10)
category.
The
nine
SPUGS
included
in
this
study
are
described
in
Table
1.
Data
collection
All
data
were
collected
during
the
summer
of
2010.
Each
SPUGS
was
visited
four
times
a
month
for
five
months,
from
1st
of
May
until
1st
of
October.
Each
visit
was
1½–2
h
in
duration.
The
four
visits
took
place
at
different
times
of
day,
in
the
morning,
around
midday,
in
the
evening,
and
at
the
weekend
during
each
month
in
order
to
reach
as
many
different
users
as
possible.
The
summer
months
were
chosen
as
it
was
assumed
that
the
weather
would
be
best
during
this
period
and
would
therefore
increase
the
likelihood
of
people
visiting
the
SPUGS.
All
the
people
who
were
observed
in
the
SPUGS
during
each
data
collection
session
were
counted.
The
counting
procedure
divided
people
into
different
‘types
of
users’
(single
individuals,
couples,
smaller
groups
and
larger
formal
groups,
e.g.
groups
from
day-care
centres
or
pre-schools)
and
into
‘activities’
(passing
through,
run-
ning,
walking
the
dog,
cycling,
visiting
playground,
visiting
café,
physical
activity,
stationary
use).
Individuals
who
were
passing
through,
running
or
cycling
were
not
approached
due
to
their
very
limited
stay
in
the
SPUGS,
and
were
therefore
not
considered
to
be
potential
respondents.
Also
gender,
estimated
age,
number
of
approached
respondents
and
the
number
of
respondents
were
recorded.
In
situations
in
which
many
people
were
performing
the
same
activity,
an
estimation
was
made
and
the
number
was
noted
as
(>xx).
The
date,
time
and
weather
conditions
were
recorded
for
all
the
data
collection
periods.
During
each
visit,
potential
respondents
were
approached.
The
questionnaires
were
handed
out
and
the
approached
respondents
asked,
who
agreed
in
participating
in
the
survey,
to
complete
the
questionnaire
on-site
so
that
their
immediate
experiences
would
be
reflected
in
their
answers
(Chiesura,
2004).
In
order
to
get
at
variety
of
users
of
the
SPUGS,
many
different
potential
respon-
dents
were
approached.
If
time
permitted,
more
users
who
were
engaged
in
the
same
activity
were
asked.
However,
the
fact
that
only
one
person
was
handing
out
the
questionnaires
meant
there
was
a
natural
limit
on
what
was
practically
possible.
During
some
data
collection
periods,
it
was
possible
to
approach
almost
all
users

K.K.
Peschardt
et
al.
/
Urban
Forestry
&
Urban
Greening
11 (2012) 235–
244 237
Table
1
Description
of
the
nine
SPUGS
included
in
the
study
(all
photos
taken
by
1st
author
unless
otherwise
mentioned).
Bopa
Plads
1127
m2
Category:
Multi
characteristic.
Area
consisting
of
trees,
hedges
and
pavement.
Many
benches.
A
small
playground,
cafe
zone
and
boules
zone
Dantes
Plads
932
m2
Category:
Traffic.
Area
defined
by
lawn,
hedges,
pavement
and
flowerbeds.
Hedge
making
the
border
towards
the
parking
zone.
Flowerpots
between
area
and
pedestrian
path.
Benches
along
the
flowerbeds
in
front
of
the
hedge.
Trees
and
bushes
in
the
lawn
zone
Table
1
(Continued)
Gråbrødre
Torv
2569
m2
Category:
Café/History.
Paved
area
defined
by
houses.
Cafe
zones
all
along
the
edge.
One
big
tree
in
the
middle
of
the
square
as
well
as
a
water
fountain
Hauser
Plads
995
m2
Category:
Multi
characteristic.
Fenced
area
defined
by
hedges
and
bushes.
Trees
inside.
Area
divided
in
two
zones,
one
for
sitting
one
for
play

238 K.K.
Peschardt
et
al.
/
Urban
Forestry
&
Urban
Greening
11 (2012) 235–
244
Table
1
(Continued)
Julius
Thomsens
Plads
3913
m2
Category:
Multi
characteristic.
Green
area
divided
into
different
zones.
Playground,
sitting,
lawns,
flowerbeds
Odins
Lomme
1797
m2
Category:
Multi
characteristic.
Area
divided
in
two
main
zones.
One
for
sitting
and
watching,
one
for
children’s
play.
Trees
and
plants
in
the
upper
zones.
Has
a
landscape
architectural
appearance
Table
1
(Continued)
Rosenhaven
1803
m2
Category:
Geometric
design.
Green
area
with
many
roses
and
hedges.
Lawn
between
all
flowerbeds,
benches
and
paths.
Small
playground
for
small
children
Scandic
1442
m2
Category:
Geometric
design.
Area
defined
by
hedges
in
a
geometric
pattern,
creating
small
private
zones
each
supplied
by
a
bench.
Trees
creating
a
roof
over
part
of
the
area
(photo
taken
by
P.N.
Hansen,
City
of
Copenhagen)

K.K.
Peschardt
et
al.
/
Urban
Forestry
&
Urban
Greening
11 (2012) 235–
244 239
Table
1
(Continued)
Tove
Ditlevsens
Plads
627
m2
Category:
South
European
Square.
Small
area
framed
by
hedges
and
trees
creating
an
inner
circular
square
with
benches.
Fences
are
surrounding
the
hedges
of
the
SPUGS,
whereas
at
other
times,
there
were
too
many
users.
Table
2
presents
an
overview
of
the
users
who
were
observed
in
the
SPUGS.
Potential
respondents
and
approached
respondents,
as
well
as
the
response
rate
have
been
calculated.
In
general,
the
response
rate
of
50.5–68.8%
is
quite
high;
however,
the
response
rate
for
Dantes
Plads
was
lower
at
31.0%.
This
is
explained
by
the
fact
that
this
SPUGS
is
situated
in
a
part
of
town
which
is
domi-
nated
by
tourists,
which
meant
that
many
of
the
approached
users
did
not
speak
Danish,
which
was
a
requirement
for
answering
the
questionnaire.
The
questionnaire
used
in
the
study
consisted
of
different
parts
inspired
by
several
other
studies.
The
first
part
of
the
question-
naire
consisted
of
general
questions
about
the
use
of
the
area,
which
were
in
line
with
questions
used
in
a
Danish
study
by
Schipperijn
et
al.
(2010b).
Respondents
were
asked
how
they
had
travelled
to
the
SPUGS,
for
which
the
possible
answer
categories
were:
‘by
car’,
‘by
bus’,
‘by
bike’,
‘walking’
or
‘running’.
Respon-
dents
were
also
asked
why
they
had
visited
the
SPUGS.
In
Danish,
it
made
most
sense
to
define
social
interaction
as
‘socialising’
and
mental
restoration/well-being
as
‘rest
and
restitution’.
The
other
possible
answer
categories
for
this
question
were:
‘walking
the
dog’,
‘passage’
and
‘other’;
multiple
answers
were
possible.
Fur-
thermore,
respondents
were
asked
to
estimate
the
distance
from
their
home
to
the
park.
The
possible
answer
categories
were:
‘0–300
m’,
‘300–500
m’,
‘500–1000
m’,
‘further’.
Respondents
were
also
asked
how
far
they
had
travelled
to
get
to
the
SPUGS:
‘0–300
m’,
‘300–500
m’,
‘500–1000
m’,
‘1000–2000
m’,
‘further’,
‘don’t
know’.
Additionally,
the
respondents
were
asked
about
their
frequency
of
visits
to
the
SPUGS
over
the
summer
months
(April–September)
which
had
the
following
possible
answers:
‘several
times
a
day’,
‘daily’,
‘several
times
a
week’,
‘weekly’,
‘several
times
a
month’,
‘monthly’,
‘more
seldom’
or
‘the
first
time’.
Also
questions
about
their
preferred
time
of
day
to
visit
where
posed,
for
which
the
answer
categories
were:
‘morning’,
‘midday’,
‘afternoon’,
‘evening’,
‘weekdays’,
‘weekends’.
Multiple
answers
were
possible
for
this
question.
Additionally,
the
respondents
were
asked
how
long
they
typically
stayed
in
the
area
with
the
following
answer
cat-
egories:
‘less
than
5
min’,
‘approximately
15
min’,
‘approximately
half
an
hour’,
‘approximately
one
hour’,
‘a
couple
of
hours’,
‘more
than
a
couple
of
hours’.
In
two
open
questions
the
respondents
were
asked
where
they
came
from
when
entering
the
SPUGS
and
where
they
went
after
leaving
the
SPUGS.
The
last
part
of
the
questionnaire
dealt
with
the
respondents’
demographic
back-
ground.
The
respondents
answered
questions
about
their
civil
status
and
whether
they
had
children.
They
were
also
asked
about
their
most
recent
completed
education,
classified
according
to
The
International
Standard
Classification
of
Education
(ISCED),
as
well
as
questions
concerning
their
gender,
age
and
national-
ity.
Other
parts
of
the
questionnaire,
not
used
in
this
study,
included
questions
inspired
by
Grahn
and
Stigsdotter’s
study
on
the
Per-
ceived
Sensory
Dimensions
of
natural
areas
(Grahn
and
Stigsdotter,
2010),
as
well
as
questions
on
other
characteristics
of
the
SPUGS.
Questions
on
the
‘Perceived
Restorativeness
Scale’,
originally
devel-
oped
by
Hartig
et
al.
(1996),
were
also
included.
The
version
used
for
this
study
consisted
of
24
questions
and
was
developed
by
Bodin
and
Hartig
(2003).
Finally,
the
last
part
of
the
questionnaire
included
questions
regarding
self
estimated
health
status
within
the
last
four
weeks.
A
pilot
test
of
the
questionnaire
was
conducted
with
10
selected
respondents
who
were
not
included
in
the
main
sample.
Their
comments
were
taken
into
consideration
and
a
final
version
was
completed.
The
questionnaire
survey
was
approved
by
the
Danish
Data
Protection
Agency.
Frequency
analysis
was
used
to
investigate
the
general
use
of
the
nine
areas.
Logistic
regression
analyses
were
used
to
inves-
tigate
the
association
between
predicting
demographic
factors
and
motives
for
visiting
the
SPUGS.
For
the
logistic
regression
analyses,
post
hoc
Hosmer
and
Lemeshow
‘goodness
of
fit’
tests
were
carried
out
and
all
models
were
found
to
fit
the
data
ade-
quately.
The
statistical
analyses
were
conducted
using
SPSS
version
18.
Results
Response
and
overall
use
of
the
nine
case
areas
In
total,
10,654
people
were
observed
in
the
study.
Of
these,
3572
people
were
potential
respondents,
not
including
people
who
were
passing
through,
running
or
cycling.
In
all,
1157
poten-
tial
respondents
were
approached
and
686
people
answered
the
questionnaire
which
resulted
in
response
rate
of
59.3%.
Based
on
the
registrations
made
during
the
data
collection
(data
not
shown)
we
found
that,
slightly
more
women
(53.2%)
than
men
(46.8%)
used
the
areas.
47.3%
used
the
SPUGS
for
stationary
use
(standing,
lying,
sitting).
37.4%
visited
a
café,
7.9%
visited
a
play-
ground,
5.7%
walked
their
dog
and
1.6%
used
the
SPUGS
for
physical
activity
(e.g.
playing
frisbee,
boules
or
just
playing
games
on
the
lawns).
In
Table
3,
the
demographic
background
of
the
respondents
is
presented
in
relation
to
the
demographic
background
of
the
population
Copenhagen
and
Frederiksberg,
the
two
municipalities
within
the
study
area
(Københavns
Kommune,
2011;
Danmarks
Statistik,
2012).
The
gender
and
nationality
of
the
respondents
reflect
the
general
population
well,
but
there
seems
to
be
an
over-representation
of
well-educated
respondents,
as
well
as
respondents
aged
between
30
and
49.

240 K.K.
Peschardt
et
al.
/
Urban
Forestry
&
Urban
Greening
11 (2012) 235–
244
Table
2
Potential
and
approached
respondents
as
well
as
response
rate
pr
area.
Bopa
Plads
Dantes
Plads
Gråbrødre
Torv
Hauser
Plads
Julius
Thomsens
Plads
Odins
Lomme
Rosenhaven
Scandic
Tove
Ditlevsens
Plads
Total
(N)
Response
Total
observed
(n) 2737
387
4069
208
1159
253
649
517
675
10,654
Potential
respondents
(n)
915
278
1044
200
483
191
173
164
124
3572
Approached
(n)
154
155
162
127
195
92
113
97
62
1157
Respondents
(n)
106
48
111
83
125
54
76
49
34
686
Response
rate
(%) 68.8
31.0
68.5
65.4
64.1
58.7
67.3
50.5
54.8
59.3
Table
3
Demographic
background
of
respondents
compared
to
the
population
of
Copen-
hagen
and
Frederiksberg
20-03-12
(Danmarks
Statistik,
2012).
Case
areas
(%) Copenhagen
and
Frederiksberg
(%)
Total
population
(15–100
years)
n
=
686
n
=
350,922
Gender
Male
(15–100)
48.4 46.4
Nationality
Danish
89.2
80.2
Education
(15–69
years)
<10
years
9.6
10.8
10–15
years
33.1 27.8
>15
years
52.3
28.3
Age
15–29
28.3
27.6
30–49
48.1
33.8
50–65
16.1
13.9
66–100
7.5 11.2
General
information
on
use
of
the
nine
case
areas
The
two
main
reasons
why
respondents
visit
the
SPUGS
were
‘socialising’
(30.6%)
and
‘rest
and
restitution’
(31.2%),
which
is
illus-
trated
in
Table
4.
9.6%
selected
the
category
‘other’
(e.g.
smoking,
reading,
photography,
talking
on
the
phone,
geocaching).
60.7%
of
all
respondents
walked
to
the
SPUGS,
whilst
21.7%
came
by
bike.
The
afternoon
was
the
most
preferred
time
of
the
day
to
visit
the
SPUGS,
but
the
areas
were
also
quite
well
used
in
the
late
mornings/midday.
Most
respondents
(74.3%)
stayed
for
15–60
min.
Only
21.9%
of
the
visitors
had
access
to
a
private
garden,
and
82.2%
also
visited
other
green
areas
frequently
(several
times
a
month
or
more).
The
time
people
spent
in
the
SPUGS
differs
according
to
activity
(data
not
shown).
Looking
at
the
two
most
popular
activities
‘social-
ising’
and
‘rest
and
restitution’;
89.9%
of
the
people
who
socialise
spent
approximately
30–120
min
in
the
SPUGS,
while
of
those
who
visit
the
SPUGS
for
‘rest
and
restitution’,
65.3%
spent
approximately
15–30
min.
In
Table
5,
the
relationship
between
context
of
use
and
pur-
pose
of
use,
as
well
as
distance
travelled
is
presented.
For
those
who
used
the
SPUGS
for
‘socialising,’
28.9%
of
the
people
did
so
on
their
way
home
and
25.4%
did
so
when
coming
from
home
and
going
home.
Not
surprisingly,
people
who
walked
their
dogs
had
either
just
come
from
home,
or
were
on
their
way
home
and
the
same
pattern
was
found
for
people
who
used
the
playgrounds.
For
‘rest
and
restitution’
the
SPUGS
were
used
most
‘en
route’
or
on
the
way
home.
Not
surprisingly,
the
context
of
use
by
distance
trav-
elled
shows
that
the
shorter
distances
were
related
to
‘coming
from
home
and
going
home’
or
‘coming
from
A
and
going
home’
and
the
longer
distances
were
related
to
‘en
route’.
However,
also
quite
a
few
respondents
had
travelled
‘1000–2000
m’
(24.70%)
or
‘more’
(26.00%)
when
‘coming
from
A
and
going
home’.
Table
4
Frequency
analysis
on
general
use
of
the
SPUGS.
Why
did
you
come
here?
(%)
Socialising
30.6
Passage
16.3
Walk
the
dog
5.5
Rest
and
restitution 31.2
Play
16.9
Food/drinks
9.5
Other
9.6
How
did
you
get
here?
(%)
Car
8.4
Bus 8.7
Bike
21.7
By
foot 60.7
Run
0.4
When
do
you
prefer
to
come
here?
(More
answers
possible)
(%)
Morning
12.4
Late
morning/midday 36.6
Afternoon
60.5
Evening 18.5
Weekdays
40.1
Weekends
32.7
For
how
long
do
you
normally
stay
here?
(%)
Less
than
5
min 6.5
About
15
min
20.8
About
half
an
hour 31.1
About
an
hour
22.4
A
couple
of
hours
16.7
More
2.5
Do
you
have
access
to
any
of
following
areas?
(%)
Private
garden
21.9
Courtyard 46.8
Balcony
13.7
None
of
those
17.7
Frequency
of
visit
of
other
green
areas?
(%)
Several
times
a
month
or
more
82.2
Once
a
month
or
less
10.3
Relationship
between
frequency
of
use
and
demographic
background
of
park
users,
purpose
of
use
and
distance
travelled
As
seen
in
Table
6,
the
frequency
of
use
of
the
SPUGS
can
be
predicted
by
the
distance
people
travelled
to
the
SPUGS,
how
far
they
lived
from
the
SPUGS,
as
well
as
age
and
education.
Those
who
travelled
0–300
m
were
five
times
more
likely
to
visit
the
SPUGS
at
least
once
a
week
(OR
5.05)
than
those
who
lived
more
than
2000
m
away.
Those
who
lived
within
a
distance
of
500
m
were
twice
as
likely
to
visit
the
SPUGS
at
least
once
a
week
as
those
who
lived
further
away.
The
older
people
got,
the
more
likely
they
were
to
visit
the
SPUGS
at
least
once
a
week,
however,
as
indicated
by
the
large
confidence
interval,
there
was
much
variation
within
the
age
group
66–100,
which
means
that
it
did
not
differ
significantly
from
the
age
group
15–29
year
olds.
Those
who
had
less
than
10
years
of
education
were
3.4
times
more
likely
to
visit
the
SPUGS
at
least
once
a
week
than
those
with
more
than
15
years
of
education.

K.K.
Peschardt
et
al.
/
Urban
Forestry
&
Urban
Greening
11 (2012) 235–
244 241
Table
5
Relation
between
purpose
of
visit,
distance
to
SPUGS
and
context
of
visit.
Coming
from
home
and
going
home
Coming
from
A
and
going
home
Coming
from
home
and
going
to
B
En
route
Coming
from
A
going
to
A
(work,
school)
Why
did
you
come
here?
Socialising 25.40%
28.90%
17.80%
19.30%
8.60%
Passage
11.10%
14.80%
24.70%
35.80%
13.60%
Walk
the
dog
49.00%
26.50%
14.30%
6.10%
4.10%
Rest
and
restitution
19.70%
27.50%
16.30%
25.80%
10.70%
Play
24.50%
28.70%
22.40%
13.30%
11.20%
Food 25.50%
21.30%
12.80%
34.00%
6.40%
Other 14.50%
25.50%
20.00%
23.60%
16.40%
How
far
have
you
travelled
to
get
here?
0–300
m
30.50%
26.40%
16.10%
16.10%
10.90%
300–500
m
32.90%
26.00%
20.50%
15.10%
5.50%
500–1000
m
24.80%
27.50%
20.20%
14.70%
12.80%
1000–2000
m
13.60%
24.70%
19.80%
30.90%
11.10%
More 11.60%
26.00%
19.20%
32.20%
11.00%
Don’t
know 4.80%
28.60%
9.50%
33.30%
23.80%
However,
based
on
Table
6,
the
share
of
respondents
who
trav-
elled
‘more
than
2000
m’
to
visit
the
SPUGS
can
be
calculated
to
be
32.1%.
And
more
than
half
of
the
respondents
travelled
more
than
500
m
to
the
SPUGS.
The
majority
(52.4%)
reported
that
they
live
more
than
1000
m
from
the
SPUGS.
Only
19.0%
of
the
respondents
lived
within
300
m
of
the
SPUGS.
Relationship
between
‘rest
and
restitution’/‘socialising’
and
demographic
background
of
park
users
We
attempted
to
obtain
a
better
understanding
of
the
demo-
graphic
factors
associated
with
the
two
main
reasons
for
visiting
a
SPUGS;
‘socialising’
and
‘rest
and
restitution’.
We
performed
logistic
regression
analyses
with
‘rest
and
restitution’
and
‘social-
ising’
as
the
dependent
variables,
and
used
age,
education,
nationality,
civil
status
and
gender
as
the
potential
predictors
(Table
7).
‘Age’
and
‘gender’
seem
to
be
good
predictors
of
using
the
SPUGS
for
‘rest
and
restitution’.
Respondents
in
the
age
group
50–65
were
more
likely
(OR
2.20)
to
visit
the
SPUGS
for
‘rest
and
restitution’,
which
differs
significantly
from
the
15–29
year
olds.
Furthermore,
the
results
show
that
women
were
less
likely
(OR
0.65)
to
visit
the
SPUGS
for
‘rest
and
restitution’.
Nationality
and
civil
status
did
not
seem
to
predict
the
use
of
SPUGS
for
‘rest
and
restitution’.
In
relation
to
‘socialising’,
age’
and
‘gender’
again
seem
to
be
good
predictors
of
using
the
SPUGS
for
this
particular
reason.
All
age
groups
differed
from
the
youngest
age
group
(reference
group)
in
relation
to
‘socialising’
in
a
SPUGS.
We
can
see
that
the
older
people
were,
the
less
likely
they
were
to
visit
SPUGS
to
socialise.
Furthermore,
women
were
more
likely
to
visit
SPUGS
to
‘socialise’
than
men.
Table
6
Logistic
regression
analysis
of
demographic
factors,
purpose
of
visit
as
well
as
distance
travelled
and
distance
from
home
as
predictors
for
using
SPUGS
at
least
once
a
week.
The
regression
analysis
has
been
controlled
for
gender,
civil
status
and
nationality.
Background N
How
often
do
you
visit
this
place
during
the
summer
months
Combined
factors
Crude
%
Sig.
OR
95%
C.I.
for
EXP(B)
Lower
Upper
How
far
have
you
travelled
to
get
here?
0–300
158
64.2
0.00
5.05
2.50
10.22
300–500
79
44.0
0.04
2.54
1.06
6.04
500–1000
92
32.1
0.08
2.14
0.92
4.97
1000–2000
79
27.1
0.01
2.33
1.20
4.53
More
193
17.3
0.00
1.00
How
far
from
here
do
you
think
you
live?
0–300
114
70.6
0.01
2.59
1.27
5.27
300–500
84
46.2
0.05
2.20
1.00
4.85
500–1000
88
33.7
0.71
1.15
0.54
2.49
Over
1000
315
23.9
0.02
1.00
Age
15–29
168
26.9
0.02
1.00
30–49
292
38.0
0.01
1.92
1.15
3.20
50–65
99
50.0
0.00
2.49
1.34
4.62
66–100
42
34.7
0.09
2.09
0.89
4.88
Education
<10
years
53
54.5
0.00
3.42
1.69
6.91
10–15
years
210
32.6
0.72
1.08
0.70
1.68
>15
years
338
35.7
0.00
1.00
Purpose
of
visit
Socialising
151
28.1
0.49
1.00
1.00
1.01
Rest
and
restitution 129
39.7
0.20
1.00
0.99
1.00

242 K.K.
Peschardt
et
al.
/
Urban
Forestry
&
Urban
Greening
11 (2012) 235–
244
Table
7
Logistic
regression
analysis
of
demographic
factors
as
predictors
for
rest
and
restitution
and
socialising
as
main
reasons
for
visiting
SPUGS.
Background
N
Rest
and
restitution
Socialising
Combined
factors
Combined
factors
Crude
% Sig.
OR
95%
C.I.
for
EXP(B)
Crude
%
Sig.
OR
95%
C.I.
for
EXP(B)
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Age
15–29
180
24.2
0.01
1
49.5
0.00
1
30–49
303
30.4
0.68
1.10
0.70
1.73
28.2
0.00
0.45
0.30
0.68
50–65
102 44.3
0.00
2.20
1.30
3.73
16.0
0.00
0.21
0.12
0.40
66–100
45 38.8
0.12
1.76
0.87
3.57
12.2
0.00
0.16
0.07
0.41
Education
<10
years
59
30.3
0.44
0.78
0.41
1.48
22.7
0.71
0.88
0.44
1.75
10–15
years
217
28.2
0.21
0.78
0.52
1.16
38.3
0.1
1.41
0.94
2.10
>15
years
354
33.7
0.42
1
27.6
0.16
1
Nationality
Danish
564
30.4
1
31.5
1
Other
66
36.6
0.09
1.60
0.93
2.73
26.8
0.3
0.73
0.40
1.33
Civil
status
In
a
relationship/married
422
32.4
1
29.5
1
Single 208
28.1
0.32
0.82
0.56
1.21
33.0
0.73
1.10
0.72
1.58
Gender
Men
267
36.0
1
25.1
1
Women
363
27.4
0.01
0.65
0.56
1.21
35.4
0.01
1.71
1.18
2.48
Discussion
Main
reasons
for
using
SPUGS
In
this
study
we
found
that
the
primary
reasons
for
visiting
the
SPUGS
were
‘socialising’
and
‘rest
and
restitution’,
which
seems
to
support
prior
research
and
assumptions
(Maas
et
al.,
2009;
Nordh
et
al.,
2009;
Baur
and
Tynon,
2010).
Although
these
results
might
not
seem
surprising
according
to
the
SPUGS
studied,
previ-
ous
research
on
SPUGS
is
limited
and
thus
the
primary
reasons
for
use
of
SPUGS
were
not
a
given.
According
to
Gehl
(2010),
a
well
designed
outdoor
space
should
include
access
to
sun-light,
grass,
water
and
trees
or
at
least
some
of
it.
Such
a
space
contributes
to
an
attractive
atmosphere
in
the
city
and
creates
space
for
spontaneous
social
life.
Furthermore,
a
natural
setting
can
provide
the
possibil-
ity
to
enjoy
the
sun
or
lie
on
the
grass
at
lunch
time
(Whyte,
1980).
This
could
explain
why
the
SPUGS
in
this
study
were
so
attractive
for
social
interaction
and
mental
restoration,
as
they
all
had
some
of
the
mentioned
features.
The
people
who
visited
the
SPUGS
for
‘rest
and
restitution’
appeared
to
spend
less
time
in
the
area
than
those
who
were
there
for
‘socialising’.
The
reason
for
this
is
unclear,
though
it
seems
logical
to
assume
that
people
who
‘socialise’
often
visit
a
SPUGS
together
with
others,
whereas
those
who
are
in
need
of
‘rest
and
restitution’
often
visit
the
SPUGS
alone.
Unfortunately
this
hypoth-
esis
was
not
investigated
in
this
study.
The
reason
for
use
might
be
related
to
the
context
in
which
people
use
the
SPUGS.
The
largest
group
of
people
who
visited
the
SPUGS
for
‘rest
and
restitution’
were
‘coming
from
A
and
going
home’
as
well
as
‘en
route’
(i.e.
going
from
A
to
B),
which
perhaps
suggests
that
people
who
have
just
been
in
the
city
centre
or
are
moving
about
in
city
centre
need
a
shorter
break
and
therefore
spend
some
time
in
the
SPUGS
for
this
purpose.
Use
of
SPUGS
in
relation
to
context
and
use
of
larger
green
urban
areas
In
relation
to
size,
SPUGS
are,
to
a
certain
degree,
different
from
other
urban
green
areas,
as
it
limits
the
type
of
activity
pos-
sible.
However
‘socialising’
and
‘rest
and
restitution’
seem
to
be
important
activities
in
both
large
and
small
UGS
(Schipperijn
et
al.,
2010a).
Furthermore,
of
those
who
used
the
SPUGS,
almost
80%
reported
that
they
did
not
had
access
to
a
private
garden,
while
more
than
80%
used
other
green
areas
frequently.
The
high
num-
bers
of
respondents
who
did
not
have
access
to
private
green
space
and
who
seemed
to
visit
other
green
areas
quite
frequently
could
be
characterised
by
the
context
in
which
they
used
SPUGS.
This
means
that
people
prioritised
to
use
SPUGS
when
moving
about
in
the
city
centre
and
that
the
purpose
of
use
varied
according
to
the
context
of
use.
This
could
furthermore
indicate
compensation
behaviour
for
not
having
direct
access
to
green
space.
However
according
to
Maat
and
de
Vries
(2006)
people
do
not
seem
to
compensate
for
lack
of
green
space
available
in
the
local
surroundings.
However,
as
both
play
and
walking
the
dog
were
mainly
related
to
contex-
tual
use
including
‘home’,
this
could
indicate
that
the
amount
of
green
space
available
in
the
respondents’
local
surroundings
was
limited
and
that
they
therefore
used
the
SPUGS
for
those
matters.
This
could
also
partly
explain
that
the
age
groups
30–49
and
50–65
seemed
to
visit
the
SPUGS
most
frequently,
as
they
were
the
respon-
dents
most
likely
to
visit
the
SPUGS
for
the
purpose
of
using
the
playgrounds.
Distance
to
SPUGS
in
relation
to
frequency
of
use
In
relation
to
distance
and
use
there
was
a
clear
tendency
that
shorter
distances
‘from
home
to
the
SPUGS’
and
‘travelled
to
the
SPUGS’
were
related
to
higher
frequencies
which
reflect
previous
studies
from
e.g.
Denmark
and
Sweden
(Grahn
and
Stigsdotter,
2003;
Nielsen
and
Hansen,
2007;
Schipperijn
et
al.,
2010a).
How-
ever,
the
results
indicate
a
different
pattern
in
the
use
of
SPUGS
compared
to
larger
UGS.
Many
respondents
reported
that
they
had
travelled
quite
far
to
the
SPUGS
and
many
respondents
also
lived
quite
far
from
the
SPUGS.
Again,
the
context
in
which
people
used
the
SPUGS
(‘en
route’
or
‘coming
from
home’
or
‘going
home’),
together
with
the
reason
for
the
visit,
could
be
the
explanation
for
this.
This
might
emphasise
the
need
for
SPUGS
in
dense
city
areas
as
natural
meeting
points
for
social
interaction
and
as
small
areas
where
‘rest
and
restitution’
is
possible
as
a
break
from
busy
everyday
life.

K.K.
Peschardt
et
al.
/
Urban
Forestry
&
Urban
Greening
11 (2012) 235–
244 243
Demographic
factors
influencing
the
use
of
SPUGS
We
see
a
clear
pattern
that
especially
men
and
older
people
in
the
age
group
50–65
used
the
SPUGS
for
‘rest
and
restitution’.
We
do
not
have
a
good
explanation
for
this,
however,
we
assume
that
espe-
cially
younger
people
seem
to
visit
the
SPUGS
together
with
others
and
thereby
tend
to
use
the
SPUGS
more
for
social
reasons.
These
results
provide
us
with
knowledge
on
main
user
groups
for
the
two
primary
types
of
use,
which
is
important
to
take
into
account
when
evaluating
and
discussing
the
purpose
of
SPUGS.
Furthermore,
the
results
provide
us
with
knowledge
on
the
distance
travelled
to
the
SPUGS,
which
is
useful
when
examining
the
role
of
SPUGS
in
the
green
morphological
structure
of
the
city.
Policy
implications
This
study
of
nine