'It's real, not fake like a park': Residents' perception and use of informal urban green-space in Brisbane, Australia and Sapporo, Japan

Abstract

Urban parks and gardens may be failing to meet the diverse "nature needs" of a growing global urban population. Informal urban greenspace (IGS) such as vacant lots, street or railway verges and riverbanks may provide space for unstructured recreation and nature contact. Yet we know little about residents' relationship with IGS outside of Europe and North America, what factors influence IGS use and evaluation, or what role geographic and cultural context play.Our paper combines qualitative and quantitative methods to examine how residents in Brisbane, Australia (n=123) and Sapporo, Japan (n=163) perceive, evaluate and use IGS. Using statistical methods (e.g. correlation analysis) we analyzed what factors influence how respondents interact with IGS, including the amount of formal greenspace within 500m of survey locations using a GIS buffer analysis. Results were tested for differences and similarities between the cities.We found that respondents knew of IGS in their neighborhood (>80%), appreciated and used it (>30%), but more respondents in Brisbane used and appreciated IGS. The influence of demographic factors and local formal

Full text

1
‘It’s real, not fake like a park’: Residents’ perception and use of informal
urban green-space in Brisbane, Australia and Sapporo, Japan
Authors’ manuscript, accepted at Landscape and Urban Planning July 11, 2015.
Version of record: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.07.003
Citation: Rupprecht, C.D.D., Byrne, J.A., Ueda, H., Lo, A.Y.H. (2015). “It’s real, not fake
like a park’: Residents’ perception and use of informal urban green-space in Brisbane,
Australia and Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning 143, 205-218.
Christoph D. D. RUPPRECHT1,2 (Corresponding author)
Email: christoph.rupprecht@griffithuni.edu.au
Address: Room 3.16, Building G31, Griffith University QLD 4222, Australia
Phone: +61 7 5552-9340
Jason A. BYRNE1,2 (jason.byrne@griffith.edu.au)
Hirofumi UEDA3 (h.ueda@scu.ac.jp)
Alex Y. LO4 (alexloyh@hku.hk)
Affiliations
1. Environmental Futures Research Institute, Griffith University, Nathan QLD 4111,
Australia
2. Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University, Gold Coast QLD 4222, Australia
3. School of Design, Sapporo City University, Sapporo 005-0864, Japan
4. The Kadoorie Institute, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Abstract:
Urban parks and gardens may be failing to meet the diverse "nature needs" of a growing
global urban population. Informal urban greenspace (IGS) such as vacant lots, street or
railway verges and riverbanks may provide space for unstructured recreation and nature
contact. Yet we know little about residents' relationship with IGS outside of Europe and
North America, what factors influence IGS use and evaluation, or what role geographic and
cultural context play.Our paper combines qualitative and quantitative methods to examine
how residents in Brisbane, Australia (n=123) and Sapporo, Japan (n=163) perceive, evaluate
and use IGS. Using statistical methods (e.g. correlation analysis) we analyzed what factors
influence how respondents interact with IGS, including the amount of formal greenspace
within 500m of survey locations using a GIS buffer analysis. Results were tested for
differences and similarities between the cities.We found that respondents knew of IGS in
their neighborhood (>80%), appreciated and used it (>30%), but more respondents in
Brisbane used and appreciated IGS. The influence of demographic factors and local formal

2
greenspace area was limited, but respondents' attitude towards urban nature was correlated
with IGS evaluation. Littering was perceived as IGS' most common problem (90% of
respondents), but was reported by <20% of IGS users. Geographic (e.g., IGS type
prevalence) and cultural (e.g., human-nature relationship) contexts represented potential
influence factors. We argue that the liminal nature of IGS (e.g., liability) management poses a
challenge traditional greenspace planning. To address this problem, further research should
explore participatory management approaches.
Research highlights:
•!Over 80% of respondents knew of informal greenspace in their neighborhood 
•!52% of respondents in Brisbane and 31% Sapporo used IGS for recreation 
•!Reasons for use: proximity, diverse flora/fauna, no use restrictions or crowding 
•!Influence of demographic factors on IGS use and evaluation was limited 
•!Cultural and geographic context may explain different IGS evaluation and use 
Keywords: wildscape; city; landscape; recreation; GIS; mixed methods
1.!Introduction
Do parks and gardens in cities meet the diverse ‘nature needs’ of growing global urban
populations? An increasing body of recent research suggests the answer may be ‘no.’ Urban
residents’ greenspace needs include contact with nature, encountering beauty, relaxation, and
recreation (Matsuoka & Kaplan, 2008). Recent research suggests that ‘formal greenspaces’
(like parks) may not be sufficient to meet some residents’ needs, especially in more dense
environments (Byrne, Sipe, & Searle, 2010; Ward Thompson, 2012). In such circumstances,
city dwellers can be forced to travel long distances if they want to access regional open
spaces to compensate for deficient local greenspace (Næss, 2005). Yet some residents will be
unable to travel due to time, financial cost, or disability (Maat & de Vries, 2006). Moreover,
local governments may lack the finances and/or space necessary to develop new urban parks.
Although researchers have shown that small pocket parks can be valuable, some cities may
lack even these spaces. And pocket parks cannot satisfy active recreation needs (Nordh &
Østby, 2013; Peschardt, Schipperijn, & Stigsdotter, 2012). What options are available then to
address the problem of greenspace deficiency?

3
Scholars have recently begun looking towards what might be called informal urban
greenspace (IGS), urban wildscape or ‘terrain vague’ – in other words ‘ambiguous spaces of
the city’ – for potential solutions (Barron & Mariani, 2013). IGS includes for example vacant
lots, brownfields, street or railway verges (i.e. nature strips) (Campo, 2013; Jonas, 2007;
Jorgensen & Keenan, 2012; Kremer, Hamstead, & McPhearson, 2013; Rupprecht & Byrne
2014a; Schneekloth, 2007). In a recent special issue on vacant urban land in the journal
Cities, researchers have discussed the socio-cultural and ecological opportunities of
abandoned or left-over spaces, including the Petite Ceinture railway circuit in Paris (Foster,
2014), community gardens and vacant lands in the USA (Drake & Lawson, 2014), and
opportunities to use private property in North Denver for public purposes (Langegger, 2013).
In a recent systematic review (Rupprecht & Byrne, 2014b), we discuss the character of IGS
and note that the informal, often unintentional formation of these spaces, and their uncertain
legal, socio-economic, and ecological status gives them a liminal quality. We have found that
IGS nevertheless appears to play an important role for urban residents and is emerging as an
important topic in urban greenspace research. Our review shows that residents can distinguish
between IGS and formal greenspace, and cherish the unique features of IGS. Some residents
use IGS as recreation spaces (Platt, 2012; Unt, Travlou, & Bell, 2013), benefiting from the
flexibility and freedom of restrictions conferred by the ‘indeterminacy of loose space’
(Franck & Stevens, 2007). However, we also note that researchers have found that residents’
relationship with IGS is complex and sometimes contradictory – negative cultural
associations of ‘vacancy’ and/or decrepitude (Corbin, 2003) may mean that the full potential
of IGS to meet urban residents’ needs remains unrealized (Rink & Herbst, 2011). Residents
appear to prefer a medium level of human influence, because they dislike uniform and highly
artificial spaces, but may also prefer a certain level of maintenance (Rupprecht & Byrne,
2014b). However, IGS is relatively understudied and our understanding of the factors and
processes underlying recreational use of IGS are not well understood.
A number of gaps exist in the recreational IGS literature (Rupprecht & Byrne, 2014b). We
know little about how residents outside of Europe and the US perceive and use IGS, or what
specific factors influence their interactions with IGS. We also lack knowledge about how IGS
use, perception, and influencing factors may differ between different geographical and
cultural contexts. Quantitative studies that examine multiple IGS types are scarce. Better
understanding such aspects of IGS use, perception, and factors influencing IGS interactions

4
may improve our ability to ‘tap into’ the potential of IGS to satisfy the recreational needs of
rapidly increasing urban populations globally. Such an understanding could assist planners by
exploring alternative, cost-effective land management approaches to traditional park space
provision (Campo, 2013), both in growing cities (where high land prices prohibit large public
space acquisitions) and in shrinking cities with growing areas of vacant land (Haase, 2008).
Finally, a better knowledge of residents’ relationship with IGS may also have implications
for environmental conservation outside of cities. The opportunities for local nature contact
that these spaces offer could foster residents’ interest in plants and animals and in turn
engender support for protected areas (Dunn, Gavin, Sanchez, & Solomon, 2006).
This paper reports the results of a study that asked the following three research questions. (1)
How do urban residents perceive, evaluate and use IGS? (2) What factors might influence
their IGS interactions? (3) How do IGS interactions and their influencing factors differ
between cities in different cultural settings? To address these questions, we combined a
quantitative-qualitative mixed methods questionnaire and a GIS analysis conducted in two
locations, Brisbane, Australia and Sapporo, Japan (see Methods). We have found that over
80% of respondents knew of IGS in their neighborhood. Fifty-two (52) percent of
respondents in Brisbane and 31% in Sapporo used IGS for recreation, with respondents
choosing IGS over formal greenspace because it was closer, featured more diverse flora and
fauna, and had no use restrictions. The influence of demographic factors on IGS use and
evaluation is limited, but we identify cultural and geographic factors as potential drivers of
difference in IGS evaluation and use between the two study locations.
To better understand the recreational potential of IGS as an alternative to formal greenspace,
we need to look at the reasons why residents choose to use such greenspaces. The factors
influencing such choices are best examined by visualizing their relationship in a conceptual
model. We propose a model based on previous work by Byrne and Wolch (2009), which we
have extended to account for different types of greenspace and factors previously overlooked
(Figure 1). Specifically, our model includes ecological aspects in the context of greenspace as
well as in the characteristics of greenspace itself, and adds private as well as informal
greenspace as types of space potential users may choose to visit. Researchers have shown that
ecological aspects (e.g., the presence of vegetation and/or wildlife) can play an important role
in influencing how users perceive and appreciate greenspace (Gobster & Westphal, 2004;
Qiu, Lindberg, & Nielsen, 2013; Nassauer, 1993; Özgüner & Kendle, 2006).

5
Figure 1 Conceptual model of factors influencing greenspace use choices
As we discuss above, the influence of natural elements on user preferences is particularly
complex for IGS (Rupprecht & Byrne, 2014b), which is why we include ecological
characteristics of greenspace alongside social characteristics in the conceptual model. We

6
have also added restrictions on utilization as an important element of social greenspace
characteristics, because the lack of restrictions is potentially part of what makes IGS
attractive (Campo, 2013). The central place of greenspace perception in our model recognizes
how feelings of not-belonging can influence park use (Byrne, 2012) – an aspect that also
applies to IGS due to its liminal nature (see above). We enriched the conceptual model with
different types of greenspace to further draw attention to the heterogeneity of recreational
greenspace options that are potentially available to urban residents. Finally, the
comprehensive nature of our extended conceptual model allows us to consider the full
complexity of factors involved in greenspace use decisions in our analysis.
2.!Methods
2.1.!Definition of informal greenspace (IGS)
For this study we have defined IGS as an explicitly socio-ecological rather than solely
biological or cultural entity, following the definition we have employed elsewhere
(Rupprecht & Byrne, 2014a & 2014b). IGS consists of any urban space with a history of
strong anthropogenic disturbance that is covered at least partly with non-remnant,
spontaneous vegetation. It is not formally recognized by governing institutions or property
owners as greenspace designated for agriculture, forestry, gardening, recreation (either as
parks or gardens), or for environmental protection (the typical purposes of most greenspace).
Neither is the vegetation contained therein managed for any of these. IGSs differ in their
management (e.g., access, vegetation removal, stewardship), land use and site history, their
scale and shape, soil characteristics and local urban context. In this study we consider seven
different subtypes of IGS: street verge (nature strip), vacant lot, brownfield, power line,
railway verge, waterside and structural (Supplementary Material 1). Such a typology
recognizes the variety of informal greenspace and provides a more useful conceptual basis to
analyze the implications of IGS for recreation and planning than broad terms such as
“wasteland” or “derelict land”.
2.2.!Study area
Brisbane (Queensland, Australia) and Sapporo (Hokkaidō, Japan) were selected as case study
cities. As we describe elsewhere (Rupprecht & Byrne, 2014a), these two cities have
similarities and differences that enable comparison (Table 1). They provide excellent

7
opportunities for cross-cultural research. Both cities are relatively young (being founded in
the 19th century) and they saw most of their growth during the 20th century, especially in the
post-second world-war period. Their close geographical size is complemented by a similar
urban morphology. Both cities have planning systems that zone urban areas by land use,
including greenspace areas designated for recreation. They are built around a dense core with
outlying residential areas, are situated near to the coast and upland regions, and are bisected
by a central river (Figure 2). These similarities contrast with differences in population
density, population growth forecasts, and available parks and greenspace. While Sapporo has
seen rapid growth throughout the second half of the 20th century and currently has a
population of about 1.9 million, its population is now stagnating and is predicted to decline in
the future. In contrast, Brisbane has a population of around 1 million but is still growing
relatively quickly (Table 1). This difference in population change is of particular interest as
both expanding cities (Byrne et al., 2010) and shrinking cities (Haase, 2008) have important
impacts on urban greenspace.
In both cities, formal greenspace consists of networks of over 2,000 public parks, many of
them small local parks. Brisbane has 3,290 ha of local parkland (32m²/capita), whereas
Sapporo has 2,345 ha (12.3m²/capita) (Table 1). All parks in Brisbane comprise an area of
11,840ha (115m²/capita), while those in Sapporo combine to form an area of 5,508 ha (28.9
m²/capita). Even though Sapporo has less greenspace, research has shown that residents form
their image of Sapporo by perceiving its greenspaces in daily life (Ueda & Rupprecht, 2014).
These greenspaces include forested hillsides in the southwest of both cities, providing
residents with additional recreation space. However, access to such spaces can be restricted
due to bushfires in Brisbane (Queensland Government, Department of National Parks
Recreation Sport and Racing, 2012) and bear sightings in Sapporo (Sapporo Kankyōkyoku
Midori No Suishinbu, 2013).

8
Table 1: Comparison of cities selected for case study
City of Brisbane (LGA)
Sapporo
Founded
1824, city status 1902
1868, city status 1922
Population
1,089,743 (2011) (2031: 1,27 million)
1,936,189 (2013) (2030: 1,87
million)
Area
1,338 km²
1,121.12 km2
Pop. density
814/km²
1,699/km2
Peak density
>5,000/km²
>8,000/km²
Climate
Humid subtropical (Cfa)
Humid continental (Dfa)
Industry
Tourism, resources, retail, financial
services, agriculture hub, education
Tourism, retail, IT, agriculture hub,
resources, education
Greenspace
Local parks: 3,290 ha (32m²/capita)
All parks: 11840ha (115m²/capita)
Parks: 2,345 ha (12.3m²/capita)
All greenspace: 5,508 ha (28.9
m²/capita)
Park area
planned
40m²/capita, minimum 20m²/capita
“No greenspace loss, park
renovation”
Source: (Rupprecht & Byrne, 2014a)

9
Figure 2 Map of Sapporo and Brisbane study areas with example IGS photographs. Sapporo:
a) Waterside IGS on the banks of Shin River; b) Gap IGS used for informal storage; c) Large
vacant brownfield IGS with structural IGS on fence in foreground; d) Railway IGS on verge
next to rail track; e) Lot IGS on vacant residential lot, remains of garden present. Brisbane: f)
Railway IGS on cliff next to rail track; g) Street verge IGS, unused and highly maintained; h)
Inner-city brownfield IGS; i) Lot IGS on vacant residential lot with structural IGS on fence;
j) Powerline IGS in industrial area.
Japan
Sapporo
Sapporo
Sample plots
Railway
River
Highway
Primary road
0 21 Kilometers
a)
b)
c) d)
e)
Brisbane
Australia
0 21Kilometers
Brisbane
Sample plots
Railway
River
Highway
Primary road
f)
g)
h) i)
j)

10
2.3.!Data collection
Data collection was undertaken as part of a larger study on IGS (Rupprecht & Byrne, 2014a;
Rupprecht, Byrne & Lo, 2015). A letterbox-drop, reply-paid mail-back questionnaire kit was
distributed to a sample of 1,910 households in Brisbane and 1,980 in Sapporo (the small
variation resulted from site accessibility). The households were located within a 400m radius
(easy walking distance) of 121 sampling sites (Figure 2). Questionnaires were only
distributed at sites where IGS was located within a 400m radius, to maximize potential
respondents’ IGS interaction. The 121 sampling sites were placed on the intersecting lines of
a 10km by 10km grid centered on the city centers, using a systematic grid sampling design
(Rupprecht & Byrne, 2014a). There was a one-kilometer distance between any two adjacent
sampling sites. This allowed us to cover most of the densely populated area (Rupprecht &
Byrne, 2014a). We devised the questionnaire distribution plan with the help of the home
institution’s research methodologist.
The questionnaire consisted of three parts: in the first part, residents were asked about their
IGS perception, evaluation, and use. This section employed several multiple-choice questions
and one open comment question (Veal, 2011). We asked respondents about IGS in their
vicinity to learn how familiar they were with it from everyday life. Questions about IGS use
were included so we could understand quantity and quality of IGS use, as well as
respondents’ reasons for using it. These questions included some on respondents’ IGS use as
children or teenagers, which we have discussed elsewhere (Rupprecht, Byrne & Lo, 2015).
To analyze the complex nexus of how respondents perceived and evaluated IGS, we opted for
a three-pronged approach.
First, we asked respondents about perceived benefits (e.g., leisure, environmental) and
problems related to IGS (e.g., aesthetic, security-related). Following these questions, which
prompted respondents to consider positive and negative aspects of IGS, we enquired whether
respondents thought IGS made their daily life better, worse, both, or whether they felt neutral
about the issue. We used this question to capture a larger spectrum of respondents’
evaluations than simpler questions might (e.g., ‘better’ or ‘worse’, Likert scale). Finally, we
followed up by asking respondents to explain in their own words why they had chosen their
answer in the previous question, and provided a 7cm by 15cm open comment box for this
purpose (survey instrument available from first author on request).

11
In the second part, nine five-point Likert scales (“1” representing “strongly agree” through
“5” representing “strongly disagree”) were used to measure agreement with statements on
three topics: residents’ disposition towards local greenspace; their knowledge of plants,
animals and birds in their neighborhood; and the value of urban nature. Statements on the
latter topic were derived from La Trobe and Acott’s (2000) version of Dunlap’s New
Environmental Paradigm (NEP) question set (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000),
and were modified to specifically address urban nature.
The last section contained socio-demographic questions. In Brisbane, this section also
contained a question on the participant’s racial/ethnic background, whereas in Sapporo the
question asked where participants had grown up (given the ethno-racial homogeneity of
Japan). The questionnaire kits included an IGS typology with color photography examples
for every IGS type (see Supplementary Material 1). Additionally, the questionnaires started
with a non-technical explanation of IGS and how it is different from formal greenspace to
ensure respondents understood the definition of IGS we used. Open comment responses
indicated participants could distinguish formal and informal greenspace. All material was
initially written in English, then translated into Japanese and edited by native speakers to
ensure it was correct and easy to read. The instrument was approved by the home institution’s
human subjects research ethics committee (ENV/28/12/HREC), and both versions were pilot
tested. Minor variations were made to the questionnaires based on the feedback received,
including modifying the consent instrument in Japan to accommodate cultural differences.
To avoid bias in the selection of households, we distributed survey kits by walking from the
site center, starting in westerly direction (if possible; north, east, or south in this order if the
previous direction was unavailable), taking a right turn at every corner, but avoiding already
walked streets. Survey kits were distributed to every residential letterbox, but body corporate
letterboxes and vacant residential dwellings were skipped. In Brisbane, respondents had the
additional option of completing the questionnaire online, but this option was dropped in
Sapporo because distribution was combined with a second questionnaire on the role of
greenspace for the image of the city (Ueda & Rupprecht, 2014), for which online completion
was technically not feasible.

12
2.4.!Data analysis
To analyze the quantitative data, we used SPSS (v. 21 & 22, OSX) to perform descriptive and
inferential statistical analyses. Frequency tables were used to describe respondents’
perception, evaluation, and use of IGS. Initial analyses indicated that the sample data was not
normally distributed (P-P plots, skewness and kurtosis tests). Following Field (2009), we
therefore chose non-parametric statistical tests (Spearmann correlation, Kruskal-Wallis,
Mann-Whitney U, point-biserial correlation, Chi-square/Fisher’s exact) to analyze factors
influencing respondents’ evaluation and use of IGS. Mann-Whitney U tests were also used to
test for significant differences between the two samples. As we conducted a self-selected
mail-back survey without asking for information that would allow identification of
households (a condition of the research ethics approval), and because census data is not
accessible for individual households, we were unable to determine the socio-demographic
characteristics of non-respondents and thus could not check non-response data for potential
bias. Instead, we compared the demographic characteristics of our samples with city-level
population census data from Brisbane and Sapporo to check the representativeness of the
samples. A p-value of 0.05 or smaller was interpreted as the significance limit.
For the qualitative data, open-ended comments provided by the respondents in the instrument
section on IGS appreciation were qualitatively analyzed using coding and content analysis to
identify key concepts (Sproule 2006). In the first round, all comments were screened and
categorized based on their main topic (e.g., ‘Concerns’, ‘IGS use’) with implicit coding
(Sproule 2006). We then identified key concepts (e.g. ‘aesthetics’, ‘future use’) employing a
conceptual content analysis approach (Sproule 2006). Based on these key concepts, the
comments were drawn upon to provide a qualitative context when discussing the quantitative
results of the survey. For direct quotations, respondents were assigned pseudonyms, chosen
from popular names during their time of birth in their respective cultures, to protect
anonymity.
To understand whether residents used IGS merely as a substitute for formal (and thus more
maintained) greenspace, we examined the possible influence that formal greenspace within
walking distance of residents’ dwellings might have upon their use of IGS, IGS evaluation,
and reported number of IGSs in their neighborhoods. We used ArcGIS (v. 10.1) to perform a
buffer analysis to measure the amount of formal greenspace within a 500m radius around the

13
sampling sites. This data was extracted from formal greenspace datasets provided by the
Brisbane Council and the Sapporo Department of Environment. Responses were assigned to
sampling sites based on the name of the nearest road intersection that residents reported, and
were used to calculate values for IGS use, evaluation and number of IGS for each sampling
site. We then used Spearmann and point-biserial correlation analysis to test for possible
relationships.
3.!Results
3.1.!Sample characteristics
A total of 123 valid responses (11 online) were collected in Brisbane, 163 in Sapporo
(response rate: Brisbane 6.4%, Sapporo 8.2%). Five responses in Brisbane and seven in
Sapporo were classified as invalid (e.g., questionnaires returned empty or with only one
question answered; valid response rate: Brisbane 96.1%, Sapporo 95.9%). Brisbane and
Sapporo samples show some differences (Table 2). Significant differences are demonstrated
using nonparametric tests for all demographic variables other than sex. Respondents in
Sapporo are older than in Brisbane, have lower income and lower levels of tertiary education,
and fewer live in houses with a garden. Compared to general population census data from
their respective cities, respondents in both cities tend to be older and include a lower
percentage of the sub-$25k/¥2 million annual household income bracket (lower income
earners) and a higher percentage of the over-$150k/¥12.5 million bracket (higher income
earners). The percentages of respondents who had not finished high school are lower in
comparison to the overall city population, while the percentages of respondents with
university degrees are higher. Brisbane respondents include more women than the city
average. In Brisbane, 94% of respondents identified themselves as White, Caucasian or
European, while the remaining responses include Asian, Aboriginal or Torres Straits Islander,
or declined to answer. In Sapporo, 36% of respondents grew up in Sapporo, 45% grew up in
other areas of Hokkaidō, and the remaining respondents (19%) grew up in other areas of
Japan.

14
Table 2: Sample population characteristics and comparison with census data
Variables
Brisbane (LGA)
Sapporo
p*
City
Sample
City
Sample
Age
Median
34
54
45
58
<0.05
Sex
Females (%)
50.7
62.7
53.0
53.2
n. s.
Education
Did not finish high school
10.5
2.5
11.0
3.8
<0.001
(in %)
High school
25.1
18.6
36.6
42.5
University
30.7
78.9
32.2
53.8
Income**
(annual house-
hold, in %)
Less than $25k/¥2 million
18.1
5.8
21.7
11.2
<0.001
$25k-$50k/¥2-4 million
14.7
13.2
32.2
34.2
$50k-$75k/¥4-6 million
15.9
13.2
19.0
15.5
$75k-$100k/¥6-8 million
13.1
13.2
9.8
14.3
$100k-$125k/¥8-10 million
10.4
9.1
6.2
6.8
$125k-$150k/¥10-12.5 million
11.5
13.2
3.6
2.5
>$150k/¥12.5 million
16.3
21.5
3.4
2.5
Do not wish to answer
10.70
13.0
Housing
(in %)
House (detached, duplex,
town/row/terrace house) with garden
81.3
54.7
<0.001
House (detached, duplex,
town/row/terrace house) without garden
2.4
4.3
Apartment or unit with shared greenspace
10.6
9.9
Apartment or unit without shared
greenspace
5.7
31.1
*Significant difference level between Brisbane and Sapporo questionnaire sample means using Mann-
Whitney U tests.
**Note: Brisbane City income categories do not correspond exactly with the categories used in the table
(vary between +$600 for lowest category and +$6000 for highest category).
Sources: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Sapporo City Statistics Department
According to the mean ratings of the nine disposition questions (Table 3), respondents
generally desired more greenspace in their neighborhood and highly valued it. They did not
see themselves as very knowledgeable about local nature. Most respondents had pro-
environmental value orientations (La Trobe & Acott, 2000). While respondents were hesitant
in their willingness to contribute money to urban nature preservation, they agreed that urban
nature is valuable. They also agreed that people have an obligation to preserve urban nature
for future generations, and agreed that urban animals and plants have as much right as
humans to exist. Except for the statements regarding the intrinsic value of urban nature and
the contribution of money for its preservation, Brisbane respondents agreed significantly
more with the value statements than did those in Sapporo (Table 3).

15
Table 3: Means of residents’ views on close greenspace, their knowledge about nature, and
disposition towards urban nature
Topic
Questions asked (1=str. agree, 5=str. disagree)
Brisbane
Sapporo
p*
Greenspace in
neighborhood
There should be more green space in my neighborhood.
2.11
2.40
<0.01
The green space in my neighborhood is very important to me.
1.68
1.85
<0.05
Knowledge about
neighborhood
nature
I know a lot about the wild plants in my neighborhood.
3.18
3.71
<0.001
I know a lot about the wild animals in my neighborhood.
2.84
3.67
<0.001
I know a lot about the birds in my neighborhood.
2.75
3.66
<0.001
Attitude towards
urban nature
(derived from
NEP)
Urban nature has value within itself, regardless of any value
humans may place on it.
1.66
1.76
n.s.
We have an obligation to preserve urban nature for future
generations.
1.60
1.66
n.s.
I would contribute money to preserve urban nature.
2.51
2.92
<0.001
Urban animals and plants have as much right as humans to
exist.
2.04
2.31
<0.01
* Significant difference level between Brisbane and Sapporo sample means using Mann-Whitney U tests.
3.2.!Respondents’ perception, evaluation and use of IGS
Most respondents in Brisbane (91.9%) and Sapporo (82.1%) knew of at least one to five IGS
sites in their neighborhood (Table 4). The most commonly known IGS types in both cities
were vacant lots, riverbanks and road verges (Table 4). Brisbane respondents knew of more
IGS in their neighborhood, and mentioned several IGS types significantly more frequently
than respondents in Sapporo did (Table 4). Over 40% of respondents in both cities believed
many or very many species of animals and plants live in IGS.
Table 4: IGS knowledge and perception
Question asked
Responses
Brisbane
Sapporo
p*
%
%
How many informal
greenspaces do you know
of in your neighborhood?
(Please check only one)
None
8.1
17.9
<0.001
Few (1-5)
52.0
61.1
Some (5-10)
27.6
16.0
Many (over 10)
12.2
4.9
What kind of informal
greenspace do you know of
in your neighborhood?
Please check only those
places that have vegetation
but are not parks, gardens
or remnant bushland etc.
(Please check all that
apply)
Railway tracks
44.2
11.7
<0.001
Overgrown walls or fences
42.5
26.3
<0.01
Trails, foot paths
52.2
33.6
<0.01
Roofs with wild plants
15.0
5.1
<0.01
River banks
65.5
55.5
<.05
Vacant or abandoned lots
71.7
76.6
n.s.
Road verges
61.1
54.0
n.s.
Brownfields (former industrial areas)
19.5
15.3
n.s.
Power line corridors
15.9
15.3
n.s.
Other
7.1
4.4
n.s.
* Significant difference level between the two samples, bold numbers represent sample with higher
percentage.
The most frequently reported potential benefits of IGS (Table 5) were provision of wildlife
habitat in Brisbane (89.3%) and contribution to city greenspace in Sapporo (67.1%). Other
commonly perceived benefits included the air filtration and oxygen production provided by

16
plants in IGS, the pleasure of looking at grasses, trees and flowers in IGS, and the
opportunities for play and nature experience it can provide to children. Brisbane respondents
reported all IGS benefits significantly more frequently. In contrast, the most frequently
reported potential problems of IGS (Table 5) in Brisbane were littering (87.1%), vandalism,
weed infestation and graffiti. In Sapporo, littering (90.9%), weed infestation, unkempt visual
appearance, and IGS as a source of pest animals were most frequently reported (Table 5).
When asked if IGS “made their daily life better, worse, both or neutral”, the majority of
respondents in Brisbane answered “better” (64.8%) followed by “neutral” (18.9%), compared
with “both” (47.1%) followed by “neutral” (27.1%) in Sapporo (Figure 3).
Table 5: Perceived potential benefits and problems of IGS
Question asked
Response options
Brisbane
Sapporo
p*
%
%
What kind of
benefits do you
think informal
greenspace can
have?
The grasses, trees and flowers are nice to look at
73.0
46.2
<0.001
Wildlife can live in them
89.3
38.6
<0.001
It makes the neighborhood more interesting
66.4
24.1
<0.001
It can be used for leisure activities
46.7
16.5
<0.001
The plants filter the air and produce oxygen
73.8
48.7
<0.001
It provides a place for nature experience
57.4
35.4
<0.001
It provides a place to relax
38.5
26.6
<.05
It provides a place to escape the city
45.1
13.9
<0.001
We can grow food
31.1
3.8
<0.001
We can find food (wild herbs, berries etc.)
22.1
9.5
<0.01
Children can use it to play
53.3
38.0
<0.01
Children can experience nature in the city
67.2
27.8
<0.001
The green space helps to cool the city
54.1
35.4
<0.01
The plants help to capture carbon and mitigate
climate change
58.2
17.7
<0.001
The plants and animals contribute to urban
biodiversity
67.2
23.4
<0.001
Great chance to observe birds and other wildlife
62.3
34.2
<0.001
Every bit of green in the city is good
74.6
67.1
n.s.
Other
7.4
3.2
n.s.
What kind of
problems do you
think informal
greenspace can
pose?
Waste of space and should be developed
5.2
9.1
n.s.
Littering
87.1
90.9
n.s.
Vandalism
57.8
17.5
<0.001
Graffiti
48.3
18.2
<0.001
Children and teenagers there make noise
3.4
5.8
n.s.
Criminals may use it
29.3
25.3
n.s.
Looks filthy and unorderly
26.7
42.9
<0.01
Unsafe for children
n/a
27.3
n/a
Breeding ground for pest animals
38.8
35.7
n.s.
Full of weeds
57.8
59.1
n.s.
Attracts unwanted individuals
31.9
30.5
n.s.
Fire hazard
21.6
15.6
n.s.
Prostitutes may use it
7.8
1.9
<.05
Gangs may use it
13.8
3.9
<0.01
Liability (e.g. insurance) conflicts
9.5
14.9
n.s.
Other
8.6
1.9
<.05
* Significant difference level between the two samples, bold numbers represent sample with higher
percentage.

17
Figure 3 Respondents’ evaluation of IGS influence on daily life
More than half of the respondents used IGS for recreational activities in Brisbane (52.2%),
and almost a third (30.7%) in Sapporo (Figure 4) – a significant difference between the two
samples. In contrast, use frequency did not significantly differ between the two cities, as
more than half of the respondents used IGS daily or weekly in Brisbane (62.7%) and more
than a third (40.5%) in Sapporo (Figure 4). The most popular activities were walking
(81.4%), enjoying the view (49.2%) and dog walking (33.9%) in Brisbane, and walking
(60.5%), enjoying the view (32.6%) and wildlife or plant observation (23.3%) in Sapporo
(Table 6). Walking and exploring were the only activities with significant differences
between the two cities, and both were more popular in Brisbane. The most common reasons
why respondents in both Brisbane and Sapporo used IGS instead of a park or garden was
because it was near their home (87.9% and 75.0% respectively), was not crowded (44.8%,
30.0%), had more or different animals or plants (31.0%; 22.5%), and had no use restrictions
(e.g., “no dogs”; “no ball play”) (24.1%; 20.0%; Table 6). Most respondents in Brisbane
(78.6%) and Sapporo (81.4%) had not experienced any problems while using IGS. When
respondents reported issues, the most commonly reported were litter (10.7% of respondents
in Brisbane, 18.6% in Sapporo) followed by risk of injury (5.4% and 11.6% respectively;
Table 6).
!"#$%&
"#'%&
((#)%&
($#'%&
(*#"%&
$#"%&
"*#(%&
+*#(%&
0%#
10%#
20%#
30%#
40%#
50%#
60%#
70%#
,-.-/& 01/2-& ,134& 5-63/78&
In#general,#would#you#say#informal#greenspace##
makes#your#daily#life#be@er#or#worse?##
Brisbane#
Sapporo#

18
Figure 4 Respondents’ use and use frequency of IGS
!"#"$%
&'#($%
)(#*$%
&&#)$%
""#+$%
)!#,$%
,+#'$%
*-#,$%
",#($%
)*#'$%
"*#"$%
,,#,$%
0.0%$
10.0%$
20.0%$
30.0%$
40.0%$
50.0%$
60.0%$
70.0%$
80.0%$
./0% 12% 34/56%786% 34/56%9//:% 34/56%;2<=>% ?%@/9%A;/0%B/5%
6/85%
C2%62D%D0/%E<@25;8F%G5//<0B8H/%@25%
5/H5/8A2<8F%8HA4EA/0I%
J29%2K/<%72%62D%D0/%E<@25;8F%G5//<0B8H/0%@25%5/H5/8A2<8F%8HA4EA/0I%
Brisbane$
Sapporo$

19
Table 6: Activities, reasons for use, and problems related to IGS use
Question asked
Response options
Brisbane
%
Sapporo
%
p*
What kind of
activities do you
use informal
greenspace for?
Walking
81.4
60.5
<0.05
Picnicking
8.5
0.0
n.s.
Mountain biking/BMX
6.8
2.3
n.s.
Photography
6.8
11.6
n.s.
Wildlife or plant observation
28.8
23.3
n.s.
Enjoying the view
49.2
32.6
n.s.
Educate children about nature
13.6
4.7
n.s.
Escape the city
11.9
4.7
n.s.
Exploring (including urban exploration)
16.9
0.0
<0.01
Walking dog(s)
33.9
20.9
n.s.
Outdoor games and sports
11.9
20.9
n.s.
Sunbathing
0.0
9.3
n.s.
Dancing
0.0
2.3
n.s.
Reading
3.4
2.3
n.s.
Tai Chi, Yoga etc.
1.7
2.3
n.s.
Hanging out
10.2
7.0
n.s.
Growing vegetables
5.1
0.0
n.s.
Growing flowers or other plants except vegetables
5.1
7.0
n.s.
Treasure hunting (looking for items)
5.1
2.3
n.s.
Other
6.8
11.6
n.s.
Why do you use
informal
greenspace and
not a park or
garden?
It's near my home
87.9
75.0
<0.05
It's wild and exciting
22.4
10.0
n.s.
It's not crowded
44.8
30.0
n.s.
There are more or different animals or plants
31.0
22.5
n.s.
It has better privacy (nobody watching)
5.2
5.0
n.s.
There are no use restrictions (e.g. no dogs, no ball
play)
24.1
20.0
n.s.
It can be used for many things (e.g. gardening)
12.1
0.0
<0.05
There are no nice parks near my home
10.3
15.0
n.s.
I don't have a garden or similar greenspace
12.1
12.5
n.s.
Other
13.8
5.0
n.s.
Do you
experience any
problems when
using informal
greenspace?
I have not experienced problems
78.6
81.4
n.s.
Hard to access (fence, signs etc.)
5.4
2.3
n.s.
I am scared to use it
1.8
2.3
n.s.
Dangerous animals
1.8
0.0
n.s.
Dangerous plants
1.8
0.0
n.s.
Danger of injury
5.4
11.6
n.s.
Lots of litter
10.7
18.6
n.s.
Conflict with other users
1.8
0.0
n.s.
Other
5.4
7.0
n.s.
*Of difference between the two samples, bold numbers represent sample with higher percentage.
3.3.!Factors influencing respondents’ IGS evaluation and use
Tests suggest that demographic characteristics (sex, age, income and education) had only
limited influence on respondents’ evaluation and use of IGS (Table 7). Sex of the respondents
is not correlated with IGS evaluation, use or use frequency in either city. Age of the
respondents is not correlated with IGS evaluation or use frequency, but it is positively

20
correlated with the use of IGS in both cities. Income and level of educational attainment are
not correlated with IGS evaluation, use, or use frequency in either city. IGS users evaluated
IGS significantly more positively in both cities (Table 7). The only difference in the influence
of demographic factors between the cities is a larger effect size in the Sapporo sample for the
correlations between respondent age and IGS use, as well as IGS use and IGS evaluation. In
Brisbane, the sample size for non-White respondents is too small to test for differences
between ethno-racial groups.
Table 7: Influence factors of IGS evaluation and use
Predictor
Outcome variable
Analysis type
Brisbane Results
Sapporo Results
Sex
IGS evaluation
Mann-Whitney U
n.s.
n.s.
IGS evaluation
(unranked)
Chi-square
n.s.
n.s.
IGS use
Chi-square
n.s.
n.s.
IGS use frequency
Mann-Whitney U
n.s.
n.s.
Age
IGS evaluation
Spearmann rho
n.s.
n.s.
IGS use
Point-biserial
positive* (rpb=-.194)
positive** (rpb=-.290)
IGS use frequency
Spearmann rho
n.s.
n.s.
Income
IGS evaluation
Kruskal-Wallis
n.s.
n.s.
IGS use
Fisher’s Exact
n.s.
n.s.
IGS use frequency
Kruskal-Wallis
n.s.
n.s.
Education
IGS evaluation
Kruskal-Wallis
n.s.
n.s.
IGS use
Fisher’s Exact
n.s.
n.s.
IGS use frequency
Kruskal-Wallis
n.s.
n.s.
Use
IGS evaluation
Mann-Whitney U
positive** (r=-0.273,
Z=-2.633, U=832.00
N=93)
positive** (r=-0.351,
Z=-3.460, U=634.50
N=97)
Note: * denotes significance level of p<.05, ** denotes significance level of p<.01, n.s. denotes ‘not
significant’ at the p<.05 level. rpb denotes the effect strength of the point-biserial correlation.
For our spatial analysis, the area of formal greenspace within 500m of the respective
sampling sites does not significantly correlate with IGS use, nor does it correlate with IGS
evaluation or the number of IGS reported in the neighborhood in either city (p>.05 for all
correlation analyses). We will discuss the implications of this finding later in the paper.
IGS evaluation and use is linked with respondents’ environmental disposition and self-
reported knowledge of local nature in a variety of ways (Table 8). Desire for more
greenspace is correlated with higher IGS evaluation in both cities (Brisbane r=.28; Sapporo
r=.19). The importance of neighborhood greenspace is correlated with higher IGS evaluation
and use in both cities (Brisbane: r=.42, r=.29; Sapporo: r=.22, r=.3). IGS use is correlated
with self-reported knowledge of plants and birds in the neighborhood in Brisbane (r=.25,
r=.3), but only with plant knowledge in Sapporo (r=.22). Self-reported knowledge of plants,

21
animals, and birds is correlated with IGS evaluation in Sapporo (r=.22, r=.27, r=.23), but not
in Brisbane. Stronger agreement with the statement that urban nature possesses intrinsic value
is correlated with higher IGS evaluation in both cities (Brisbane r=.4; Sapporo r=.19). A
sense of obligation to preserve urban nature for future generations is correlated with higher
IGS evaluation only in Brisbane (r=.35). Willingness to contribute money for urban nature
preservation is highly correlated with higher IGS evaluation in both cities (Brisbane r=.34;
Sapporo r=.29). The belief that urban animals and plants have as much right as humans to
exist is also correlated with higher IGS evaluation in both cities (Brisbane r=.29; Sapporo
r=.2; Table 8).
Table 8: Correlation of attitude factors with IGS evaluation and use
Sapporo
Brisbane
Topic
Correlation variables
IGS Evaluation
IGS Use
IGS Evaluation
IGS Use
Greenspace in
neighborhood
There should be more
green space in my
neighborhood.
positive* (r=.19)
n.s.
positive** (r=.28)
n.s.
The green space in my
neighborhood is very
important to me.
positive* (r=.22)
positive**
(r=.3)
positive** (r=.42)
positive** (r=.29)
Knowledge
about
neighborhood
nature
I know a lot about the
wild plants in my
neighborhood.
positive* (r=.22)
positive*
(r=.22)
n.s.
positive** (r=.25)
I know a lot about the
wild animals in my
neighborhood.
positive**
(r=.27)
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
I know a lot about the
birds in my
neighborhood.
positive* (r=.23)
n.s.
n.s.
positive** (r=.3)
Attitude
towards urban
nature (derived
from NEP)
Urban nature has value
within itself, regardless
of any value humans
may place on it.
positive* (r=.19)
n.s.
positive** (r=.4)
n.s.
We have an obligation to
preserve urban nature for
future generations.
n.s.
n.s.
positive** (r=.35)
n.s.
I would contribute
money to preserve urban
nature.
positive**
(r=.29)
n.s.
positive** (r=.34)
n.s.
Urban animals and
plants have as much
right as humans to exist.
positive* (r=.2)
n.s.
positive** (r=.29)
n.s.
Note: * denotes significance level of p<.05, ** denotes significance level of p<.01, n.s. denotes ‘not significant’.
Correlation with attitude factors was tested using Spearmann rho for IGS evaluation and point-biserial for IGS
use (see Data analysis).

22
4.!Discussion
4.1.!Contributions to knowledge and survey limitations
This study contributes new knowledge in two ways. First, previous research has mostly used
small participant groups to gather qualitative data on one or a few different types of IGS
(Campo, 2013; Rink & Emmrich, 2005; Unt et al., 2013). Our study presents the first
comprehensive, quantitative and qualitative examination of how residents interact with a
wide variety of IGS types. Second, while previous research has focused mostly on Europe
(Rink & Herbst, 2011; Unt et al., 2013), the USA and Canada (Campo, 2013; Foster &
Sandberg, 2010; Platt, 2012), this study compares two culturally distinct settings from outside
these regions. This provides insights into possible cultural influences on IGS use.
The comparatively low response rates (Brisbane 6.4%, Sapporo 8.2%) represent a limitation
of our study, and thus care is necessary when analyzing and interpreting our results. Survey
response rates have generally declined in recent years (Kohut, Keeter, Doherty, Dimock, &
Christian, 2012), and such low response rates are a known problem with postal surveys (Veal,
2011). Our results are similar to the response rate of 9.3% reported for a postal survey of
national parks in South-East Queensland (Rossi, Pickering, & Byrne, 2013). Resource
constraints also prevented us from using techniques for improving response rates, such as
financial incentives or follow-up post cards (Dillman, 1978).
Nonetheless, the survey provides a usable dataset for the exploratory research undertaken in
this paper. Kohut and colleagues (2012) have demonstrated that for telephone surveys
response rates below 10% did not necessarily influence the results, as the tendency to respond
was not strongly related to a wide variety of respondents’ views. The average age,
educational level of attainment and income in our samples is similar to the general population
census data, but less pronounced than results reported for a recent greenspace survey
(Madureira, Nunes, Oliveira, Cormier, & Madureira, 2015). As we mentioned earlier, we
have used this comparison of respondents’ demographic data with city-level census data to
test for representativeness. Finally, the predominance of qualitative research on the topic of
IGS use and perception makes comparison of our quantitative results challenging.

23
4.2.!Perception, evaluation, and use of IGS
Our results suggest that IGS is a prosaic part of everyday life and a feature of the urban
landscape our respondents lived in. Most respondents knew of IGS in their neighborhood
(Table 4). Most also reported that IGS influenced their daily life in a positive (Brisbane), or
both in positive and negative ways (Sapporo, Figure 3). This finding contrasts with the
depiction of IGS as spaces that only occur in urban ‘interstices’ (Jorgensen and Tylecote,
2007), or as anomalies rather than the norm. Vacant lots, road verges and river banks appear
to be familiar elements of the urban landscape for our respondents (Table 4). Yet Unt and
colleagues (2013) report that larger IGS sites such as brownfields, are often shown as blank
or empty patches on city maps, which tends to strip these spaces of their diverse qualities
(Qviström, 2012). Smaller spaces like verges or gaps tend to disappear altogether. This
suggests that the liminal quality of IGS stems from their construction as marginal or
transitory spaces in urban planning discourse. Yet respondents did not perceive IGS as
merely empty space (Corbin, 2003), rather they perceived IGS to possess a quality that
formal greenspace lacks:
“It’s real, not fake like a park.” (John, 41, male, from Brisbane)
“Unlike maintained greenspace, it has something you can grasp with all five senses,
and I don’t want it to disappear.” (Midori, 35, female)
Fewer than 10% of respondents saw IGS as a ‘waste of space’, or believed that it should be
developed (Table 5). This has implications for planning and management of urban
greenspace, which we will return to later.
Surprisingly, a larger number of respondents than we expected (over 50% in Brisbane, and
30% in Sapporo) reported they already used IGS for a variety of recreational activities
(Figure 4). IGS use has been commonly reported (e.g., Campo, 2013; Unt et al., 2013), but
the scarcity of quantitative data on IGS use in the literature has made it difficult to compare
our findings. For example, Rall and Haase (2011) reported that 54% of respondents in a
resident questionnaire were using brownfields that were already slightly modified (e.g., holes
filled, paths installed) as part of an interim use program by the city of Leipzig, Germany.
Given that our survey targeted spaces not managed for recreation, our results suggest IGS use
could be more common than previously thought, but more research is needed to validate this
finding.

24
Our respondents’ evaluation and use of IGS corroborates some findings from our literature
review (e.g., benefits of IGS, preference for naturalness and cleanliness; Rupprecht & Byrne,
2014b), but also provides new insights into the reasons why respondents use and value IGS.
Respondents reported a wide variety of perceived potential benefits, including recreational,
emotional and environmental benefits as well as ecosystem services (Table 5). For example,
IGS users chose to use IGS rather than a park or garden because they felt it was less crowded
and had no restrictions on use, in contrast to restrictions on formal greenspace (Figure 1).
Similar to the findings of prior research on the challenges young people face in this regard
(Ward Thompson, 2012), one respondent remarked:
“Today, there’s no place for young teenagers to go, other than hanging out in front of
convenience stores. Even in Doraemon (a famous Japanese cartoon, Authors’ note)
the children play in vacant lots every day. And parks are so over-maintained there’s
nothing except a few ants.” (Akiko, 42, female, from Sapporo)
Respondents also chose to use IGS because it featured ‘more or different animals or plants’
(Table 6), suggesting that users value the sense of naturalness these places provide (Gobster
& Westphal, 2004). This is evidenced by the fact that 40% of respondents believed that IGS
is species rich. This finding suggests that IGS may not only provide residents with
opportunities for nature contact, but could also play a role in conservation efforts in – and
beyond – cities (Dunn et al., 2006). While these results indicate that respondents chose IGS
to satisfy needs perhaps unmet by formal greenspace, the most common reason given for
choosing IGS was proximity. This finding has also been reported by Platt (2012) in a study of
children’s recreation in Milwaukee (USA), but has otherwise not featured prominently in the
IGS literature, even though researchers have shown that the frequency of residents’ visits to
formal greenspace is closely related to its proximity (e.g., Schipperijn et al., 2010).
Our findings regarding the common problems posed by IGS suggest a gap exists between
perception and use of IGS. The potential problems of IGS that respondents perceived (e.g.
littering, ‘filthy and unorderly (sic) look’; Table 5) corroborate findings from prior research.
For example, in a study of the Chicago River corridor, Gobster and Westphal (2004) found
residents have a strong preference for cleanliness. Comments from respondents emphasize
this point:
“A vacant lot full of weeds, with limited access and full of used needles wouldn't be a
good thing.” (Jessica, 32, female, from Brisbane)

25
“Whilst I like nature, I also like things aesthetically pleasing. There is nothing
pleasant, calming or relaxing in looking at/encountering a bit of a mess that looks
neglected. The space could be used for growing veggies, community lots etc. It's the
abandoned element I don't like.” (Trudy, 55, female, from Brisbane)
Litter was the most common problem for respondents who used IGS for recreation (Table 6).
Yet, in contrast to the 90% of respondents who reported litter as a problem, less than 20% of
IGS users reported actually encountering litter. This gap between perception and experience
may be related to socially constructed expectations of greenspace aesthetics (Nassauer, Wang
& Dayrell, 2009; Rink & Emmrich, 2005). This can lead to sites with less active management
being regarded as uncontrolled and unsafe spaces (Madge, 1997), rather than as ecologically
valuable nature spaces (as is the case with Cranz and Bolund’s ‘sustainable parks’) (Cranz &
Boland, 2004). It also has implications for managing IGS, which we discuss later.
4.3.!Factors influencing respondents’ evaluation and use of IGS
Three different factors appear to influence how respondents interacted with IGS besides
geographic and cultural context: (i) respondent age, (ii) IGS use, and (iii) respondent attitude
toward and self-reported knowledge of urban nature. The lack of quantitative studies on IGS
again makes comparisons to the literature difficult. The positive correlation between
respondent age and IGS use (Table 7) has been previously been reported for formal
greenspace (Schipperijn et al., 2010), but has received little attention in the IGS literature.
Our finding is that respondents who used IGS for recreation were likely to evaluate it more
positively. This may be related to the gap between perceived IGS problems and problems
encountered when using it. Because most IGS users reported no problems (Table 6), it seems
likely that the benefits they derived from using IGS in turn contributed to their appreciation
of IGS. This interaction is also noteworthy, as we did not originally consider it in our
conceptual model (Figure 1). Respondents’ attitude towards greenspace in their
neighborhood, and towards urban nature in general, as well as their self-reported knowledge
about local nature is correlated positively with IGS evaluation, and to a lesser degree with
IGS use (Table 8). For the correlations between IGS use and attitude, the benefits IGS use
offers may provide an explanation – respondents who value greenspace in their neighborhood
and who possess knowledge about local nature could seek out IGS to satisfy their particular
nature needs.

26
On the other hand, to explain the connection between respondents’ attitudes towards nature
and IGS evaluation, we turn to respondents’ qualitative comments. As discussed above, many
respondents perceived IGS as species-rich and beneficial to animals and plants. However, in
their comments, respondents also drew a connection between their emotional well-being and
the presence of nature in the city in the form of IGS (including plants and animals):
“The changing colors of greenspace from season to season are pleasant to the eye
and make you feel comforted. The air is delicious, and the wide space lets you feel
relieved and satisfied. As a habitat and playground for wild animals, it gives a real
feeling of living on this earth together.” (Kenji, 79, male)
“I'm using it for walks (including with my grandchildren), and it’s scenery changing
with the seasons, the plants and animals you meet – it fills me with joy.” (Yoko, 67,
female)
“It makes suburbia seem less regimented. I feel better knowing that wildlife at least
has a small sanctuary from over-development.” (Aileen, 53, female)
While we cannot statistically establish a causational direction for the correlations, it seems
plausible that respondents who assign intrinsic value to urban nature and/or see themselves as
knowledgeable about local plants, animals or birds, may appreciate spaces that can provide
habitat. Such respondents may feel that the benefits of IGS outweigh potential problems.
In our study the socio-demographic characteristics of respondent – sex, educational level of
attainment and income – did not influence their evaluation or use of IGS. This contrasts with
research on formal greenspace in Denmark that found differences in greenspace visits
between men and women, and between respondents with longer or shorter education
(Schipperijn, 2010). It also contrasts with research from the USA (Mowen, Payne, and Scott,
2005), which associated lower respondent income with perceptual constraints to formal
greenspace access such as fear of crime, physically constrained access (either through lack of
public transport, distance, or cost of transport), and with no interest in outdoor recreation.
The area of greenspace within 500m of the respective sampling sites is not correlated with
IGS use, evaluation, or number of IGS known in the neighborhood. A negative correlation
between the area of formal greenspace within 500m of our survey locations and respondents’
use of IGS would have suggested it served as a substitute where formal greenspace was
absent. A positive correlation could be interpreted as a result of respondents mistaking formal
greenspace for IGS, or having become acculturated to using greenspace frequently due to its

27
ample availability. However, because we found no such correlation, we suggest it may be
more likely that respondents made a conscious choice to use IGS instead of formal
greenspace. This would imply that IGS for them fulfilled a distinctive recreational role, an
interpretation supported by the different reasons respondents provided for choosing IGS over
formal greenspace (besides proximity) (Table 6).
4.4.!Differences between geographic and cultural contexts
Our study reveals significant differences between respondents’ perception, evaluation and use
of IGS in Brisbane and Sapporo. However, differences between the two cities in factors
influencing these interactions are limited. Brisbane respondents knew more IGS in their
neighborhood, evaluated IGS’ influence on their daily life more positively, and included
more IGS users. One possible reason for these differences may be the different cultural
context of the two cities. In a recent study on the dimensions of the human-nature
relationship (Flint, Kunze, Muhar, Yoshida, & Penker, 2013), researchers have suggested that
differences exist in the way this relationship is interpreted. For example, in the Japanese
literature these researchers reviewed, the human-nature dichotomy was less present. Rather, a
reliance of humans on nature was shown to be connected with a long tradition of stewardship,
but also respect for nature’s destructive force. Such an image of the human-nature
relationship could favor ‘tended’ nature over the intrinsic value of ‘wild’ nature, which is
often linked with biodiversity. This difference in cultural context could also explain why
Brisbane respondents had stronger ecocentric attitudes (Table 3). Moreover, their attitudes
towards urban nature are correlated stronger with IGS evaluation than those of Sapporo
respondents (Table 8). Another possible cultural difference could be how respondents
spatially interpreted the term ‘neighborhood’. Because Sapporo is more densely populated
(Table 1), living in walking distance of amenities such as supermarkets or parks is likely
more common than in Brisbane. As a result, the area that Sapporo respondents considered
their neighborhood could be smaller, which in turn could mean it contained less IGS. Such
cultural factors have implications for planning and management of IGS we will discuss in the
next section.
Geographic context could also explain why respondents in Brisbane and Sapporo perceived,
evaluated and used IGS differently. For example, residents in both cities have access to
different amounts of greenspace (Table 1). In particular, how much IGS is present in
respondents’ vicinity, what types of IGS are present, the vegetation structure of local IGS,

28
and its accessibility could be potential influence factors. In a survey of IGS quantity and
characteristics in Brisbane and Sapporo (Rupprecht & Byrne, 2014a), we showed that the
amount of IGS in the surveyed area was not significantly different between both cities.
However, IGS in Brisbane was dominated by street verges, while Sapporo had a wider
diversity of IGS types – with vacant lots making up most of the IGS area. Sapporo IGS was
more often covered by a herb vegetation layer, while Brisbane IGS had higher tree layer
coverage. Fully accessible IGS was higher in Brisbane (78%) than in Sapporo (68%), but this
could be compensated by a larger partially accessible IGS area in Sapporo (21%) compared
to Brisbane (7%). All of these differences could play a role in influencing how respondents
valued and used IGS in the two cities – a challenge to planning and management that we will
now address.
4.5.!Implications for planning and management
Our results corroborate the findings from our literature review (Rupprecht & Byrne, 2014b)
that IGS plays a role for recreation. Respondents did not perceive IGS as ‘empty space’ that
should be developed. Planners may thus need to re-think their negative view of ‘vacancy’ in
the urban landscape (Corbin, 2003). The goals and expectations for parks, as sole providers
of greenspace benefits for those residents who lack gardens, might need to be reevaluated
(Wolch, Byrne, & Newell, 2014). For example, our study suggests that many cities could
integrate IGS into their greenspace strategies, because the wide variety of IGS in cities
already seems to be used and appears to play a different role from parks. However, since
most IGS are not publicly owned and thus not simply ‘available’ for improved planning and
design – many are legally (due to liability issues), historically, politically and financially
constrained. Planners may be limited in their ability to directly influence IGS. Moreover,
planners should retain a delicate balance between intervention and non-intervention.
Researchers have found that residents may resent the application of formal planning tools to
IGS (Qviström, 2012) and both residents and IGS may be best served by a lack of ‘hard
management’ from public administration (Hard, 2001). Campo (2013) has argued that
replacing IGS with formal greenspace may not serve the original users, while Wolch and her
colleagues (2014) have pointed out the danger of eco-gentrification associated with
formalizing IGS. Yet, planners could work on identifying and reducing barriers to using these
spaces (e.g. fencing off vacant lots; Hayashi, Tashiro, & Kinoshita, 1999), and could provide
nearby residents with information about the potential and availability of IGS (e.g. an IGS

29
guide or map). Simply periodically reducing litter or making other small modifications (e.g.,
trimming vegetation along sight-lines; Rall & Haase, 2011) may provide another way to
improve residents’ valuing of IGS and their perception of safety, as it would indicate that the
place is cared for (Nassauer, 1988). Moreover, there may be opportunities for planners to
work with community initiatives such as 596acres (“596 Acres: About Us,” n.d.), a New
York NGO that maps publicly owned vacant land and assists local residents in converting it
to community gardens. The medium level of human influence needed to make IGS attractive
might also be provided by users themselves, as a respondent to our survey suggested:
“Depending on the informal greenspace, it would be great to use it as a small
playground or so. But because of litter problems it needs some management; we
should make them into “talking spaces” people can have fun looking after and using
them together, even use public funding for it!” (Akira, 71, male, from Sapporo)
Participative approaches to IGS management could provide alternative, cost-effective land
management approaches. Residents involved could decide whether they prefer a more tended
or ‘wild’ look, thus adapting management to the local cultural and geographic context.
However, we still know little about how such approaches might succeed in the context of IGS
– an important topic for further research.
5.!Conclusion
In this study we have examined how residents perceived and used IGS in Brisbane, Australia
and Sapporo, Japan. We used a mail-back questionnaire to collect data and analyzed factors
that influenced respondents’ interactions with IGS, as well as differences between the study
cases. The study has broken new ground by combining qualitative and quantitative methods
to compare residents’ interaction with IGS across different continents and cultures, and has
demonstrated that cross-cultural mixed method studies can provide rich and valuable insights.
Limitations of our study include a comparatively low sample size and response rate of 123
valid responses (6.4%) in Brisbane and 163 (8.2%) in Sapporo, suggesting the need for
follow-up studies with a larger sample size and better response rate, to verify whether the
results of this exploratory study reflect perception and use of IGS in the general populations.
We found respondents in both cities knew, appreciated and used IGS in their neighborhood.
They were attracted by its proximity, natural features and absence of use restrictions, but also
valued a certain level of human influence. More than 30% of the respondents used IGS for

30
recreational activities, irrespective of the amount of formal greenspace in their vicinity. This
suggests that IGS plays an important role in recreation, different to that of traditional
greenspace. While respondents differed in some aspects of IGS knowledge, evaluation and
use, the functional role that IGS plays in respondents’ lives was very similar in both cities we
assessed. How respondents used and evaluated IGS was linked with their environmental
disposition.
We propose several directions for future research. Both quantitative and qualitative methods
should be applied further. The current lack of quantitative studies means we know little about
the extent to which IGS is used, and it poses a challenge for drawing comparisons between
quantitative and qualitative results. In-depth qualitative research, in the form of interviews,
focus groups, participant observation, ethnography or participant photography could provide
crucial information about what level and form of human influence residents consider is
optimal, and what role they are able and willing to play in maintaining such levels. The
potential for resident-led IGS management should be examined in greater detail by future
research.
The role of IGS in relation to informality in urban planning also merits discussion, especially
with regard to ambiguous semi-formal elements of the urban landscape (e.g. street verges,
river banks). Moreover, cultural and geographic context as potential influence factors could
prove vital in selecting appropriate management goals for IGS, a topic of particular
importance in cities that are home to residents from diverse cultural backgrounds. Given that
education and income were not significant influence factors in our study, further research
could examine the potential of IGS as an alternative to eco-gentrification. Taking into
account the ethno-racial homogeneity of our sample, future research could investigate a
possible influence of race and ethnicity on IGS use and perception, in multicultural cities
such as Melbourne, Los Angeles, Amsterdam, Sao Paulo, London or Toronto. Finally,
identifying ways of integrating the social and ecological heterogeneity of IGS into urban
greenspace systems generally could directly and indirectly improve support for biodiversity
conservation and bolster the ecological structure and function of urban greenspace systems in
the future.

31
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the HDR research fund of the Griffith School of
Environment, Griffith University, and by a grant by the Japan Society for the Promotion of
Science (grant number 24658023). The authors are deeply grateful to Yumi Nakagawa for
invaluable help with data collection, the Japanese survey instrument and data entry, to
Kumiko Nakagawa for assistance with the Japanese survey instrument and Japanese
qualitative responses, to Dr Jenni Garden, Prof Dr Jean-Marc Hero and Dr Bill Metcalf
(Griffith University) for advice on research design, to the Brisbane and Sapporo councils for
providing greenspace GIS datasets, and to all questionnaire respondents for participating in
this study. This study was approved by Griffith University’s human subjects research ethics
committee (ENV/28/12/HREC).
References
596 Acres. (n.d.). 596 Acres: About Us. 596acres.org. Retrieved August 13, 2013, from
http://www.596acres.org/en/about/about-596-acres/
Barron, P., & Mariani, M. (Eds.). (2013). Terrain Vague. Abingdon: Routledge.
Byrne, J. (2012). When green is White: The cultural politics of race, nature and social
exclusion in a Los Angeles urban national park. Geoforum, 43(3), 595–611.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.10.002
Byrne, J., & Wolch, J. (2009). Nature, race, and parks: Past research and future directions for
geographic research. Progress in Human Geography, 33(6), 743–765.
doi:10.1177/0309132509103156
Byrne, J., Sipe, N., & Searle, G. (2010). Green around the gills? The challenge of density for
urban greenspace planning in SEQ. Australian Planner, 47(3), 162–177.
doi:10.1080/07293682.2010.508204
Campo, D. (2013). The Accidental Playground. New York: Fordham University Press.
Corbin, C. I. (2003). Vacancy and the landscape: Cultural context and design response.
Landscape Journal, 22(1), 12–24. doi:10.3368/lj.22.1.12
Cranz, G., & Boland, M. (2004). Defining the Sustainable Park: A Fifth Model for Urban
Parks. Landscape Journal, 23(2), 102–120.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys (Vol. 3). Wiley New York.
Drake, L., & Lawson, L. J. (2014). Validating verdancy or vacancy? The relationship of
community gardens and vacant lands in the U.S. Cities, 40, Part B, 133–142.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.04.007
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in
measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological
Paradigm: a revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442.
doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176
Dunn, R. R., Gavin, M. C., Sanchez, M. C., & Solomon, J. N. (2006). The Pigeon Paradox:
Dependence of Global Conservation on Urban Nature. Conservation Biology, 20(6),
1814–1816. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00533.x
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE.
Flint, C. G., Kunze, I., Muhar, A., Yoshida, Y., & Penker, M. (2013). Exploring empirical
typologies of human–nature relationships and linkages to the ecosystem services
concept. Landscape and Urban Planning, 120, 208–217.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.002
Foster, J. (2014). Hiding in plain view: Vacancy and prospect in Paris’ Petite Ceinture. Cities,

32
40, Part B, 124–132. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.09.002
Foster, J., & Sandberg, L. A. (2010). Friends or Foe? Invasive Species and Public Green
Space in Toronto. Geographical Review, 94(2), 178–198. doi:10.1111/j.1931-
0846.2004.tb00166.x
Franck, K. A., & Stevens, Q. (Eds.). (2007). Loose space: Possibility and diversity in urban
life. Abingdon: Routledge.
Gobster, P., & Westphal, L. (2004). The human dimensions of urban greenways: Planning for
recreation and related experiences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68, 147–165.
doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00162-2
Haase, D. (2008). Urban ecology of shrinking cities: An unrecognized opportunity? Nature
and Culture, 3(1), 1–8. doi:10.3167/nc.2008.030101
Hard, G. (2001). Natur in der Stadt? (Nature in the city?) Berichte Zur Deutschen
Landeskunde, 75(2/3), 257–270.
Hayashi, M., Tashiro, Y., & Kinoshita, T. (1999). A study on vacant lots enclosed by fences
in relation to urbanization. Journal of the Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture,
63(5), 667–670. doi:10.5632/jila.63.667
Jonas, M. C. (2007). Private use of public open space in Tokyo A study of the hybrid
landscape of Tokyo's informal gardens. Journal of Landscape Architecture, 2(2), 18–
29.
Jorgensen, A., & Keenan, R. (Eds.). (2012). Urban Wildscapes. Abingdon: Routledge.
Jorgensen, A., & Tylecote, M. (2007). Ambivalent landscapes—wilderness in the urban
interstices. Landscape Research, 32(4), 443–462.
http://doi.org/10.1080/01426390701449802
Kohut, A., Keeter, S., Doherty, C., Dimock, M., & Christian, L. (2012). Assessing the
representativeness of public opinion surveys. Pew Research Center, Washington, DC.
Kremer, P., Hamstead, Z. A., & McPhearson, T. (2013). A social–ecological assessment of
vacant lots in New York City. Landscape and Urban Planning, 120(0), 218–233.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.05.003
La Trobe, H. L., & Acott, T. G. (2000). A Modified NEP/DSP environmental attitudes scale.
The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(1), 12–20.
doi:10.1080/00958960009598667
Langegger, S. (2013). Emergent public space: Sustaining Chicano culture in North Denver.
Cities, 35, 26–32. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.04.013
Maat, K., & de Vries, P. (2006). The influence of the residential environment on green-space
travel: Testing the compensation hypothesis. Environment and Planning A, 38, 2111–
2127.
Madge, C. (1997). Public parks and the geography of fear. Tijdschrift Voor Economische en
Sociale Geografie, 88(3), 237–250. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9663.1997.tb01601.x
Madureira, H., Nunes, F., Oliveira, J. V., Cormier, L., & Madureira, T. (2015). Urban
residents’ beliefs concerning green space benefits in four cities in France and Portugal.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(1), 56–64.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.11.008
Matsuoka, R. H., & Kaplan, R. (2008). People needs in the urban landscape: Analysis of
Landscape And Urban Planning contributions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84(1),
7–19. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.009
Mowen, A. J., Payne, L. L., & Scott, D. (2005). Change and Stability in Park Visitation
Constraints Revisited. Leisure Sciences, 27(2), 191–204.
http://doi.org/10.1080/01490400590912088
Nassauer, J. I. (1988). The Aesthetics of Horticulture: Neatness as a Form of Care.
HortScience, 23(6), 973–977.

33
Nassauer, J. I., Wang, Z., & Dayrell, E. (2009). What will the neighbors think? Cultural
norms and ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92(3–4), 282–292.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.010
Nordh, H., & Østby, K. (2013). Pocket parks for people–A study of park design and use.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 12–17. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2012.11.003
Næss, P. (2005). Residential location affects travel behavior—but how and why? The case of
Copenhagen metropolitan area. Progress in Planning, 63(2), 167–257.
doi:10.1016/j.progress.2004.07.004
Özgüner, H., & Kendle, A. (2006). Public attitudes towards naturalistic versus designed
landscapes in the city of Sheffield (UK). Landscape and Urban Planning, 74(2), 139–
157. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.10.003
Peschardt, K. K., Schipperijn, J., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2012). Use of Small Public Urban
Green Spaces (SPUGS). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(3), 235–244.
doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2012.04.002
Platt, L. (2012). “Parks are dangerous and the sidewalk is closer”: Children's use of
neighborhood space in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Children Youth and Environments,
22(2), 194–213.
Qiu, L., Lindberg, S., & Nielsen, A. B. (2013). Is biodiversity attractive?—On-site perception
of recreational and biodiversity values in urban green space. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 119, 136–146. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.07.007
Queensland Government, Department of National Parks Recreation Sport and Racing.
(2012). QPWS monitors fire near Brisbane's D'Aguilar National Park. Department of
National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing. Retrieved 2012, from
http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/mediareleases/2012-12-qpws-monitors-fire.html
Qviström, M. (2012). Taming the wild: Gyllin's Garden and the urbanization of a wildscape.
In A. Jorgensen & R. Keenan (Eds.), Urban Wildscapes (pp. 187–200). Abingdon:
Routledge.
Rall, E. L., & Haase, D. (2011). Creative intervention in a dynamic city: A sustainability
assessment of an interim use strategy for brownfields in Leipzig, Germany. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 100(3), 189–201. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.12.004
Rink, D., & Emmrich, R. (2005). Surrogate nature or wilderness? Social perceptions and
notions of nature in an urban context. In I. Kowarik & S. Körner (Eds.), Wild Urban
Woodlands (pp. 67–80). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/3-540-26859-6_4
Rink, D., & Herbst, H. (2011). From wasteland to wilderness - aspects of a new form of
urban nature. In M. Richter & U. Weiland (Eds.), Applied Urban Ecology: A Global
Framework (pp. 82–92). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
doi:10.1002/9781444345025.ch7
Rossi, S. D., Pickering, C. M., & Byrne, J. (2013). Attitudes of local communities: Assessing
the social impacts of the South East Queensland Horse Riding Trail Network.
Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Brisbane.
Rupprecht, C. D. D., Byrne, J. A., & Lo, A. Y. H. (2015). Memories of vacant lots: How and
why residents used informal urban greenspace as children and teenagers in Brisbane,
Australia and Sapporo, Japan. Children’s Geographies.
http://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2015.1048427
Rupprecht, C. D. D., & Byrne, J. (2014a). Informal urban green-space: comparison of
quantity and characteristics in Brisbane, Australia and Sapporo, Japan. PLoS ONE,
9(6), e99784. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099784
Rupprecht, C. D. D., & Byrne, J. A. (2014b). Informal urban greenspace: a typology and
trilingual systematic review of its role for urban residents and trends in the literature.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(4), 597–611.

34
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.09.002
Sapporo Kankyōkyoku Midori No Suishinbu. (2013). Bear sighting information. City of
Sapporo. Retrieved October 20, 2013, from
http://www.city.sapporo.jp/kurashi/animal/choju/kuma/syutsubotsu/index.html
Schipperijn, J., Ekholm, O., Stigsdotter, U. K., Toftager, M., Bentsen, P., Kamper-Jørgensen,
F., & Randrup, T. B. (2010). Factors influencing the use of green space: Results from a
Danish national representative survey. Landscape and Urban Planning, 95(3), 130–
137. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.12.010
Schneekloth, L. (2007). Unruly and robust: An abandoned industrial river. In K. A. Franck &
Q. Stevens (Eds.), Loose space: Possibility and diversity in urban life (pp. 253–270).
Abingdon: Routledge.
Sproule, W. (2006). Content analysis. In M. Walter (Ed.), Social research methods: An
Australian perspective (pp. 114–133). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Unt, A.-L., Travlou, P., & Bell, S. (2013). Blank space: exploring the sublime qualities of
urban wilderness at the former fishing harbour in Tallinn, Estonia. Landscape
Research, 39(3), 267–286.
Ueda, H., & Rupprecht, C. D. D. (2014). The Role of Green Spaces in the City Image of
Sapporo. Journal of The Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture, 77(5), 487–490.
Veal, A. J. (2011). Research Methods for Leisure & Tourism. Harlow: Financial Times
Prentice Hall.
Ward Thompson, C. (2012). Places to be wild in nature. In A. Jorgensen & R. Keenan (Eds.),
Urban Wildscapes (pp. 49–63). Abingdon: Routledge.
Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and
environmental justice: The challenge of making cities “just green enough.” Landscape
and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244.

35
Supplementary Material 1 – Questionnaire IGS typology
1 of 2
Informal greenspace survey: Overview of seven informal urban greenspace types
Type%
Examples%
Description%
Management%
Size,%
shape%
Example%photographs%
Street%verges%
!"#$%&$'(
)'*+'%,(
*"-.$#/"-0%,(
0*''(*&.+%,(
&.1"*2#3(0*#&3%(
#.$(1""04#05%
6'+'0#0'$(#*'#(7&05&.(82(
1*"2(4#)'$(%0*''0(."0(&.(
#."05'*(9:;(<#0'+"*=>(2"%03=(
2#&.0#&.'$(0"(4*')'.0(5&+5(
#.$($'.%'()'+'0#0&".(+*"705(
"05'*(05#.(%0*''0(0*''%>(4-/3&<(
#<<'%%(-.*'%0*&<0'$,(-%'(
*'%0*&<0'$?(
!'+-3#*()'+'0#0&".(
*'2")#3(@AB(".<'(
4'*(2".05C>(
+")'*.2'.0#3(#.$(
4*&)#0'(
%0'7#*$%5&4(
;2#33D(
EFGG2H,(
3&.'#*(
(
Lots%
6#<#.0(3"0%,(
#/#.$".'$(
3"0%(
6'+'0#0'$(3"0(4*'%'.03=(."0(
-%'$(1"*(*'%&$'.0&#3("*(
<"22'*&#3(4-*4"%'%>(&1(
2#&.0#&.'$,(-%-#33=(
)'+'0#0&".(*'2")'$(0"(+*"-.$(
<")'*>(4-/3&<(#<<'%%(#.$(-%'(
*'%0*&<0'$?(
9**'+-3#*()'+?(
*'2")#3,(2'$&-2(
0"(3".+(*'2")#3(
&.0'*)#3%>(4*&)#0'(
%0'7#*$%5&4((
;2#33I
2'$&-2D(
EF5#,(
/3"<J(
(
Brownfields%
K#.$1&33,(4"%0I
-%'(1#<0"*=(
+*"-.$%(
6'+'0#0'$(#*'#(4*'%'.03=(."0(
-%'$(1"*(&.$-%0*&#3("*(
<"22'*<&#3(4-*4"%'%>(-%-#33=(
."("*()'*=(&.1*'L-'.0(
)'+'0#0&".(*'2")#3(#.$(
2#&.0'.#.<'>(4-/3&<(#<<'%%(
#.$(-%'(2"%03=(*'%0*&<0'$?(
9**'+-3#*()'+?(
*'2")#3,(3".+(
*'2")#3(&.0'*)#3%>(
<"*4"*#0'(#.$(
+")'*.2'.0#3(
%0'7#*$%5&4(
M'$&-2
I3#*+'D(
AF5#,(
/3"<J(
3FNPWFEGPS
DPQZSJHIUSFBTPOT

36