Qualitative Exploration of Perception and Use of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Tree-Based Urban Green Space in the City of Zagreb (Croatia)

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Cultural ecosystem services of urban green spaces are increasingly important and often recognized as such by people living in urban areas. Qualitative studies on perception of cultural ecosystem services from urban green spaces are still rare. Previous studies addressed only certain types of urban green space and often only some services. There is a lack of understanding how people perceive cultural ecosystem services from different types of tree-based urban green spaces. Hence, the purpose of the study was to explore whether and how people perceive and use cultural ecosystem services of different types of tree-based urban green spaces. Materials and Methods: Focus groups were conducted with citizens in each city district. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and transcripts analyzed in MAXQDA software. We used bottom up code-category-theme approach to analyze the data without predefined set of codes or categories. Results: Place attachment, aesthetic and recreational services were more recognized than educational and cultural identity services. For place attachment, most important single attributes were positive memories, and good maintenance, while most important categories were facilities, existence of emotional ties, possibility of experiences, recreational use and access. Presence of specific tree species and presence of trees in general were most important attributes for aesthetic services, while possibility of experiences and trees were the most important categories. Conclusions: People perceived various cultural ecosystem services from tree-based urban green space, even though some services more than others. Recreation may be the underlying goal of our participants when interacting with tree-based urban nature. Forests, parks were recognized as those providing multiple cultural ecosystem services. However, other types of green spaces were also recognized as bearers of these services, albeit with less services and attributes attached. It supports the importance of careful planning of urban green spaces in terms of providing a variety of green space types. The study provides basis for later quantification of cultural ecosystem services (CES) from tree-based urban green space.

Full text



Forests2020,11,876;doi:10.3390/f11080876www.mdpi.com/journal/forests
Article
QualitativeExplorationofPerceptionandUseof
CulturalEcosystemServicesfromTree‐BasedUrban
GreenSpaceintheCityofZagreb(Croatia)
SilvijaKrajterOstoić*,AnaMarijaMarin,MartinaKičićandDijanaVuletić
DepartmentforInternationalScientificCooperationinSoutheastEurope—EFISEE,CroatianForestResearch
Institute,Cvjetnonaselje41,10450Jastrebarsko,Croatia;anamari@sumins.hr(A.M.M.);
martinak@sumins.hr(M.K.);dijanav@sumins.hr(D.V.)
*Correspondence:silvijak@sumins.hr
Received:30June2020;Accepted:6August2020;Published:11August2020
Abstract:BackgroundandObjectives:Culturalecosystemservicesofurbangreenspacesare
increasinglyimportantandoftenrecognizedassuchbypeoplelivinginurbanareas.Qualitative
studiesonperceptionofculturalecosystemservicesfromurbangreenspacesarestillrare.Previous
studiesaddressedonlycertaintypesofurbangreenspaceandoftenonlysomeservices.Thereisa
lackofunderstandinghowpeopleperceiveculturalecosystemservicesfromdifferenttypesoftree‐
basedurbangreenspaces.Hence,thepurposeofthestudywastoexplorewhetherandhowpeople
perceiveanduseculturalecosystemservicesofdifferenttypesoftree‐basedurbangreenspaces.
MaterialsandMethods:Focusgroupswereconductedwithcitizensineachcitydistrict.Interviews
wererecorded,transcribedandtranscriptsanalyzedinMAXQDAsoftware.Weusedbottomup
code‐category‐themeapproachtoanalyzethedatawithoutpredefinedsetofcodesorcategories.
Results:Placeattachment,aestheticandrecreationalservicesweremorerecognizedthan
educationalandculturalidentityservices.Forplaceattachment,mostimportantsingleattributes
werepositivememories,andgoodmaintenance,whilemostimportantcategorieswerefacilities,
existenceofemotionalties,possibilityofexperiences,recreationaluseandaccess.Presenceof
specifictreespeciesandpresenceoftreesingeneralweremostimportantattributesforaesthetic
services,whilepossibilityofexperiencesandtreeswerethemostimportantcategories.Conclusions:
Peopleperceivedvariousculturalecosystemservicesfromtree‐basedurbangreenspace,even
thoughsomeservicesmorethanothers.Recreationmaybetheunderlyinggoalofourparticipants
wheninteractingwithtree‐basedurbannature.Forests,parkswererecognizedasthoseproviding
multipleculturalecosystemservices.However,othertypesofgreenspaceswerealsorecognizedas
bearersoftheseservices,albeitwithlessservicesandattributesattached.Itsupportstheimportance
ofcarefulplanningofurbangreenspacesintermsofprovidingavarietyofgreenspacetypes.The
studyprovidesbasisforlaterquantificationofculturalecosystemservices(CES)fromtree‐based
urbangreenspace.
Keywords:perception;culturalecosystemservices;placeattachment;aesthetics;recreation;
education;culturalidentity;focusgroups;qualitativeapproach;Zagreb;Croatia

1.Introduction
Culturalecosystemservices(CES)arebecomingincreasinglyimportantduetoprevalenceof
peoplelivinginurbanareas[1,2]andduetoprevalenceofculturallandscapes,especiallyinEurope[3].
MillenniumEcosystemAssessmentdefinesCESas“nonmaterialbenefitspeopleobtainfrom
ecosystemsthroughspiritualenrichment,cognitivedevelopment,reflection,recreation,andesthetic

Forests2020,11,8762of22
experiences”[4].Incomparisontoothergroupsofecosystemservicesthesearelessexploreddueto
theiroftenintangiblecharacter[5].EvendifferenttypesofCESareunevenlyexplored.Forinstance,
recreation,ecotourismandaestheticvaluesareamongthosemostexplored[5].Thesamereview
paperfoundotherCES,suchasspiritual,educationalorculturalheritagevaluesaremuchless
presentinthescientificdiscourse.
Urbangreenspace(UGS),inparticularthosetree‐based,providesmanyecosystemservices
tourbanresidentsandhencecontributestotheirwellbeing[6–8].Amonggroupsofecosystem
services,CESareusuallythosehighlyappreciated[9,10].UGS,inparticularurban
woodlands/forestsareconsideredasculturallandscapes,thosethatareproducedintheinteraction
withurbanresidents[11].
Initsdefinitionoflandscape,theEuropeanLandscapeConvention,putsanemphasison
people’sperception,anddefinesitasan“areaasperceivedbypeople”[12].Indeed,human
perceptionsandpreferenceswithregardtonaturalresources,ormoregenerallyhuman–nature
interaction,havebeeninafocusofenvironmentalpsychologyforsometime[13].Inthemeantime,
severaltheoriestryingtoexplainhumanlandscapeperceptionandpreferenceshavebeendeveloped
basedontheirclaimthatpreferencesareeitherinnateorlearned.Ononesidethereareevolutionary
theoriesclaimingthatpreferencesareresultofevolutionandhenceinnate.Ontheothersideare
culturaltheoriesclaimingthatpreferencesarelearned,duetobeingshapedbysocial,culturaland
personalcharacteristics[14].Researchshowssomelandscapepreferencesareuniversalregardlessof
people’sculturalbackground,suchaspositiveresponsetopresenceofwaterbodies[15],whilesome
mightdifferacrosscultures,suchaspreferenceforopenness[16],orperceptionofcrowding[17].
SomestudiesfocusonperceptionofspecificelementsofUGSdesign,forinstanceopenness[16]or
naturalness[18].Otheraddresscertaintraitsoftrees,suchaspreferenceforcolors,size,age,
broadleavesorconifers,crowntreeelements[19–22].
Arecentreview[23]suggeststhattosuccessfullyidentifyCESinUGSavarietyofmethods,
includingbothqualitativeandquantitativeaswellasinductiveapproaches,shouldbeapplied.This
sameworkhighlightsascarcityofstudiesqualitativelyaddressingCES(butsee[24])andoftenthe
investigatedUGStypeisnotspecified.Furthermore,thesestudiesfrequentlyincludeparks[10,25–28]
andforests[29],ratherthanothertypesofUGS(butsee[30–32]).However,thereisaneedtoexplore
howCESarerelatedtodifferenttypesofUGS[29].Itwouldhelpinunderstandinghowpeople
perceivedifferenttypesofUGSwithregardtotheirabilitytoprovidevariousCES.
Themainaimsofthepaperaretopresentresultsofthecity‐widequalitativeexploratoryanalysis
of(a)whetherandhowpeopleperceiveCESoftree‐basedUGS,and(b)whetherandhowperception
andusediffersbasedonthetypeoftree‐basedUGS.Thestudyaddressedplaceattachment,
aesthetics,recreation,educationalandculturalidentityservices.Weassumedthatpeoplewould
perceivesomeCESbetterthanothersandthatCEStheyattachtotree‐basedUGSwoulddifferbased
onthetypeofUGSinasensethatsometypesofUGSwillbeperceivedasprovidingmoreand
differentservicesthantheother.
2.MaterialsandMethods
2.1.StudyArea
ThecityofZagreb,theCroatiancapitalandlargestcitywastakenasacasestudy.Thereason
forthisisexistenceofpreviousstudieselicitingpublicperceptions,attitudesanduseofpublicUGS,
aswellasgovernanceaspects[33–35].Researchersinvolvedareallfamiliarwiththecontextbothas
residentsandthroughtheirpreviousresearchrelatedtothiscity’sUGS.Zagrebcomprises17city
districtsand218communityboardsrepresentinglocalself‐governmentthatiscoordinatedbythe
CityOfficeforLocalSelf‐Administration[36].ThecityofZagrebisalsooneofthe21regional
territorialunits(counties)oftheRepublicofCroatia,henceitactsbothascityandthecounty.General
informationonthecityanditsurbangreenspaceisprovidedintheTable1.


Forests2020,11,8763of22
Table1.GeneralinformationonthecityofZagrebanditsurbangreenspace.Source:Statistical
YearbookoftheCityofZagrebfor2019[36].
CityofZagreb
GeographicallocationLongitude15˚59′East
Latitude45˚49′North
Surfacearea641.32km2
Populationin2018(estimate)Number804
,
507
Populationbygender(2018,mid‐yearestimate)Male47%
Female53%
Populationbyage(2018,mid‐yearestimate)15–2916%
30–4423%
45–5920%
≥6026%
UrbangreenspaceParks59.2ha
Forests(state‐owned)9838ha
Forests(privately‐owned)10,159ha
Grassland1085ha
Botanicalgardens7.1ha
Zoologicalgarden7ha
Tree‐linedroads243km
Publicplaygrounds
N
=760
DogparksN=10
Protectednaturalareas9492.28ha
Accordingtotypesoflanduseaboutthesameproportionisallocatedtoforestarea,agricultural
landandbuiltarea[36].AccordingtoKrajterOstoić [35],UGS,suchasparks,treelinesor
neighborhoodgreen,isresponsibilityofthecityownedcompany,whileforestsandparkforestsare
theresponsibilityofthestateownedforestmanagementcompany.Maintenanceofparkforestsis
coordinatedbythecityadministrationwhichprovidesfundingfortheforestmanagementcompany.
Publicgreenspacemanagement,maintenanceorestablishmentofnewUGSiscompletelyfunded
fromthecitybudget.TheinformationonUGSotherthanforestsprovidedintheTable1refersonly
toUGSthataretheresponsibilityofthecityadministration(intermsofurbanandgreenspace
planning,aswellasfunding)andthecitycompany(intermsofmaintenanceandestablishmentof
newUGS).Informationonprotectednaturalareasincludesallprotectedareasregardlessofthe
categoryofprotection.SinceitisimpossibletodescribeallUGSsinthecityofZagreb,wewillfurther
mentiononlysomethatarewidelyrecognizedbyitsresidentsandbeyond.Thebiggestprotected
areaisNatureParkMedvednica,aforestedareaonthemountainofthesamename,whichaccounts
forapprox.8500hawithinthecityboarders.OneoftheiconicUGSsinthecityofZagrebishistorical
parkMaksimir,thefirstpublicparkintheSoutheastEurope(establishedin1794),andoneofthefirst
ofthekindingeneral,purposelyvisitedbymanyeventhoselivingoutsideZagreb[37].Theother
iconicUGS,GesamtkunstwerkGreenHorseshoe,isactuallyanurbanisticallyplannednetworkof
greenspaces(sevensquareparksandabotanicalgarden)locatedinthecitycenter,whose
developmentstartedinthesecondhalfofthe19thcentury[38].FromotherUGSspecifically
importantisthesportsandrecreationareaJarun,hostingtheartificiallakeofthesamename,and
providingmanycultural,sportsandrecreationalopportunities.Theareawasdevelopedinthe1980s
asastagefortheXIVUniversiade(universitysummerOlympicsevent)thattookplaceinZagrebin
1987.Park‐forestsclosetothecitycenterarelocatedinsomewhateliteresidentialareasandconnect
citycenterwiththeforestsonthemountainMedvednica[39].RiverSavathatrunsthroughZagreb
andsplitsitintotheOldandNewZagreb,hashistoricalandculturalsignificanceforZagrebresidents
[40].AgreenwaylocatedonthebothbanksalongtheriverSavaisnowadaysanimportant
recreationalarea.


Forests2020,11,8764of22
2.2.FocusGroupMethodandDataAnalysis
ThegoaloftheresearchwastoexplorehowpeopleperceiveanduseCESfromtree‐basedUGSs,
aswellaswhetherandhowperceptionandusedifferswithregardtotypeofUGS.Hereweare
presentingresultsofthefirstphaseofalargerprojectaddressingparticipatorymappingofCESand
disservicesfromUGSs.Duetolackofprevioussimilarresearchinthestudyarea,employinga
qualitativeapproach,specificallyfocusgroupmethodology,wasareasonablechoice.Focusgroupisa
qualitativemethod,agroupinterview,particularlyusefulfordeeperunderstandingofhuman
perceptions,attitudes,motivationsorbehavior[41,42].Ithasbeenappliedinvariousdisciplines[42,43].
Themethodisoftenusedincombinationwithquantitativemethods(survey)providingexplanations
forfindingsofquantitativestudies,orwhenconductedpriortosurvey,tofinetunethesurvey
instrument.Thelatteristrueforourstudy.Resultsofthefocusgroupsincombinationwithliterature
reviewwouldserveasaninputforthepublicparticipatoryGeographicInformationSystem(GIS)
surveyquestionnaireinthesecondphaseoftheproject.Focusgroupscanelicitawidevarietyof
responsesinrelativelyshorttime,andresearchercangetagraspofhowpeopletalkaboutthe
phenomenonofinterest[41].Incomparisontoquantitativemethods,suchassurveys,resultsoffocus
groupsdonotallowgeneralizationduetosmallnumberofparticipants[41,42].However,thereisno
consensusontheidealnumberofparticipants.Ruleofthethumbsaysthatitshouldbesmallenough
toalloweachparticipanttoexpresshis/heropinion,butlargeenoughtoallowgroupdynamics
duringtheinterview[42].
FocusgroupprotocolwithquestionsaddressingseveralCESwasdevelopedasaguidefor
moderators(AppendixA).Theprotocolincludedintroductorypartabouttheprojectanditsgoals,
theneedtorecordthesession,howdatawillbeanalyzedandreportedaswellasinformationabout
rightsoftheparticipants.ThequestionswererelatedtotheirdearestUGS,thosetheyusefor
recreationalpurposes,thosetheyconsiderbeautiful,thoseimportantforthedistrict’sorcity’s
culturalidentityandUGStheyavoidforsomereasons.Thequestionswereposedinawayto
encouragediscussionandavoidyesornoanswers.Participantswereencouragednotonlytoname
UGSsbutalsotoexplaintheirchoices(e.g.,whyapersonconsidersacertainUGSbeautiful).Inthe
endofthefocusgroupseachparticipantfilledinashortsociodemographicquestionnaire(Appendix
B).Inadditiontogeneralsociodemographicinformationontheirgender,ageandachievedlevelof
educationweaskedthemaboutwhethertheyliveinahouseoranapartmentbuilding,whetherthey
grewupinthecityoratthecountryside,forhowlongtheyhavebeenlivinginZagrebandintheir
particularcitydistrict,sizeofthehousehold,employmentstatus,numberofchildreninthe
householdandmonthlyincomeortheirhousehold.
ThestudywasapprovedbytheEthicsCommitteeofCroatianForestResearchInstitute.We
conducted20focusgroupscoveringallcitydistricts(atleastonepercitydistrict).Informedconsent
wasachievedatthebeginningofeachfocusgroup.Majorityoffocusgroups(14)tookplacebetween
21Marchand2June2019inthefacilitiesofthelocalself‐governmentoftheCityofZagreb.Therest
wereconductedinthepubliclibrariesoftheZagrebCityLibraries(6)between15Octoberand11
November2019.Participantswererecruitedthroughinvitationspostedonfrequentlyusedpublic
places,thoughe‐mailssenttoelectedrepresentativesatdifferentlocalself‐governmentlevels,aswell
asthroughpersonalcontacts.Bothelectedrepresentativeandpersonalcontactswerekindlyaskedto
participatethemselvesand/ortopasstheinformationtotheircontacts.Wewerealsoinvitedtoseveral
interviewsatthelocalradioandTVchannels.Participantswerenotofferedanyincentivesbesidewarm
drinks(teaorcoffee)atthesite.Sizeofgroupsvariedandonaverageincludedfiveparticipants.
FocusgroupsweremoderatedbytheprincipalinvestigatorandtwoPhDstudentsasteam
members.Ineachfocusgroupateammemberactedasmoderator,andanothertwoteammembers
asassistants.Oneassistantactedasnotetakerandtheotherhelpedparticipantsinfindingcertain
locationsonthemaptheyweretalkingabout.Teammemberstookturnsineachrole.Focusgroup
participantshadacoloredmapoftheirneighborhoodattheirdisposalandanassistant’srolewasto
placecoloredself‐adhesivedotsonplacesonthemapthefocusgroupsparticipantwasreferringto
whenansweringquestions,differentcolorforeachquestion.Focusgroupswereconductedinlocal

Forests2020,11,8765of22
language(Croatian),audio‐recordedandtranscribedverbatim.WetranslatedintoEnglishonly
excerptsreportedinthispaper.
TranscriptswerecodedinMAXQDA10softwarebytheprincipalinvestigator.However,all
resultsandconclusionswerediscussedwithintheteamalongtheway,theprocessassuchbeingin
linewithHarryandothers[44].Codingwasdoneaccordingtocode‐category‐themeanalytical
approachforqualitativedataanalysis[45].Weanalyzedtextualdatasocodesinourcasereferredto
portionsofdatathatrangedfromawordtoashortphrase.Similarcodeswerefurthergroupedor
organizedintocategories,andgroupsofcategorieswereassignedtomajorthemes.Inourstudythose
themesreferredtocertainecosystemservicesweexplored,namelyplaceattachment,aesthetics,
recreation,educationandculturalidentity.Twoadditionalthemeswecoveredweredisservicesand
suggestionsonimprovement,butthereresultsarenotreportedhere.Inordertodescribehowcodes
wereconnectedtocategoriesandthemewewilltaketheplaceattachmentthemeasanexample.
Withinthethemeofplaceattachment,wewereabletoidentifyseveralcategories(e.g.,‘emotional
ties’,‘accessibility’,‘maintenance’,etc.).Tothecategoryemotionaltiesweattributedseveralcodes
(e.g.,‘childhoodspent’,‘resemblancetobirthplace,“Ifeelemotionalconnection”,etc.).Thecoding
processwasbottomupinawaythatitwasnotledbypredefinedsetofcodesandcategories.
However,aliteraturereviewconductedpriortothefocusgroupscertainlyinformedourdecisions
duringtheprocessofcodingintermsofnamingthecodesororganizingthecodesintocategories.
WeidentifiedcodesbycombiningseveralcodingmethodsdescribedinSaldaña[45].Theprocessof
codingstartedwithinitialoropencodingduringwhichresearchercodedeverythingconsidered
usefulforfurtheranalysis,bysplittingthedataintosmallcodableunits,andtheseinitialcodeswere
refinedlaterthroughseveralcodingiterations.Wheneverpossibleandusefulforfurtheranalysiswe
appliedin‐vivocoding,whichmeanscodingwordsorphrasesbyusingexactwordsofparticipants.
Examplesofsuchcodesare“Ifeelemotionalconnection”or“IfeelasIaminparadise”.Sometimes
samepassagesoftextwerecodedseveraltimes,whatisknownassimultaneouscoding.Forinstance
whenaparticipantrefersinthesameportionoftexttohis/herdearestplace(themeofplace
attachment),considersitbeautiful(themeofaesthetics)atthesametimeexplaininghowhe/sheuses
theareaforrecreationalpurposes(themeofrecreation).
SinceoursecondgoalwastoexplorewhichecosystemservicesfromUGSpeopleassociatewith
certaintypesofUGSs,wealsoconnectedourcodes,categoriesandthemestothosetypes.TheUGS
typologywascreatedbyresearchers.SometimesparticipantswereawareofthetypesofUGS,usually
forforestsandparks,butwerenotawareofprofessionalterminology,suchasgreensystemor
greenway,oratleasttheydidnotuseit.Sometimestheyonlydescribedlocation(e.g.,UGSclosetothe
supermarketinthestreetx),becausetheydidnotknowthenameoftheUGSoritdoesnothaveaname.
Wewereinterestedingraspingthediversityofcodesandcategoriesassociatedwitheach
ecosystemservice,andnotinquantifyingtheiroccurrence.Sointheresultswewillnotreportthe
frequencyofcodes,butmerelyconnectionsbetweenthecodeorecosystemservice(theme)andthetype
ofUGS.Thequantificationwillbeinfocusofthesecondstageoftheprojectthroughapplyingpublic
participatoryGISsurveyquestionnaire.
2.3.DescriptionoftheSample
Oursamplewaspurposiveandhencedoesnotallowgeneralization,butthiswasnotthegoal
ofthestudyinthefirstplace.Insteadofbeingabletogeneralize,ourgoalwastocollectdiversityof
responsesfromourfocusgroupparticipantsinordertohelpindevelopingandcalibratingsurvey
instrumentthatwillbeusedlateronthelargersampleofZagrebresidents.Altogether,94adults
participated(Table2).Theonlycriterionforparticipantswasthattheyliveinthecitydistrictinwhich
thefocusgrouptookplace.Weassumedthat,ingeneral,peoplewouldbemoreknowledgeableabout
greenspaceintheircitydistrict.Theotherreasonisthatwewantedtotapintothespecificsofeach
districtandpossiblyunearthinformationonlocallyimportanttree‐basedUGSsthatmaynotbe
evidenttopeoplelivingoutsidethosecitydistricts.Onaverageourparticipantshadbeenlivingin
Zagrebfor43years,andintheircitydistrictfor33years.

Forests2020,11,8766of22
Table2.Sociodemographicinformationonfocusgroupparticipants(n=94).
VariableCategoryPercentageofRespondents(%)
GenderMale43%
Female57%
Age15–294%
30–4422%
45–5934%
≥6040%
EducationElementary3%
Secondary31%
Higher66%
WorkStatusEmployed55%
Unemployed11%
Retired34%
Wedidnotaskthemabouttheirmotivationstoparticipateinthestudy,butsometimesprioror
afterthefocusgroupssomeofthemsaidthattheycametothefocusgrouptoexpresstheirconcern
withsomeobservedpracticesrelatedtoUGSstheyconsiderednegative,suchasperceivedlackof
maintenanceorexcessivetreefelling,ortogiveideasonhowtoimproveexistingUGSs.
Thesociodemographicprofileofourrespondentsonaverageshowsthattheshareofmalesand
femalesinthesamplewasclosetobalancewhencomparedtocensusdata(Tables1and2).Age
distributioncoveredwellworkingpopulationandretirees.Shareofrespondentswithhigher
educationwashigherthaningeneralpopulation.
3.Results
3.1.PlaceAttachment
Focusgroupparticipantsusedavarietyofattributestodescribetheirdearestplace(s)(Table3).
Theseattributesweregroupedintothefollowingcategories:accessibility(whentheytalkedabout
theirfavoritetree‐basedUGSinthecontextofavailabilityofsuchspace),maintenance(whenthey
referredtothequalityofmanagement/maintenanceofUGSs),experiences(whentheytalkedabout
howparticularplacesareexciting,wild,etc.),presenceofotherpeople(whendiscussedinthecontext
ofbeingcrowdedorvisitedbylessornopeople),beauty(whentheyexplicitlysaidthatsomething
intheplaceisbeautiful),presenceofwaterbodies(whenmentioninglakes,rivers,streams,etc.),
emotionalties(whentheymentionedspecificemotionsandconnectednesstotheplace,forinstance
childhoodorotherpreviousmemoriesconnectedtotheplace),recreationaluse(whentheytalkabout
howtheyusetheirfavoriteplaceoraboutitsrecreationalpotential),spiritualandrestorative(when
theydiscussedhowtheplacemakesthemfeelrelaxedorputstheminameditativestate),facilities
(whentheytalkedaboutcertainfacilitiesavailable),presenceofhistoricalandarchitecturalobjects
(e.g.,churches,ruins,bridges),‘trees’(whentheydiscussdifferentfeaturesoftrees,e.g.,type,size,
age,color),naturalness,openness,shade(presenceofshadefromtrees),roleinairquality(when
discussingtheirdearestplaceinthecontextofoxygensupplyandairpurification),placeperceived
asvaluable(whensomeplaceisperceivedasvaluableperseorduetoscarcityofpublicgreenspace
intheneighborhoodorcitydistrict),attributesnon‐relatedtoUGSs(forinstanceabsenceoftraffic).
Attributeswereattachedaswelltothedifferenttypesoftree‐basedUGSs(Table3).


Forests2020,11,8767of22
Table3.Categoriesandattributeswithregardtofavorite/dearesttree‐basedurbangreenspace(UGS).Greenindicatestheassignationofanattributetoparticular
typeofUGS(F—forest,P—park,WP—walkingpathsalongthestreams,TL—treelines,PF—parkforest,GB—greeneryaroundresidentialbuildings,CP—children
playgrounds,SR—greeneryofsportsandrecreationalfacilities,T—trees,PG—privategarden,WV—windowview,C—cemeteries,GS—greensystem,GW—
greenway,O—other).Quotationsrefertoverbatimstatementsoftheparticipants.
CategoryAttributesTypeofTree‐BasedUrbanGreenSpace
FPWPTLPFGBCPSRTPGWVCGSGWO
Accessibility

‐“Thereisnothingelse.”a
‐”Theonlyparkintheneighborhood”
‐TheonlypublicGSinthevicinity
‐Windowview
‐Nearness/proximity

     
    
    
      
Maintenance ‐Wellmaintained  
Experiences



‐Unexplored
‐Wilderness
‐Interesting
‐Pleasantscents
‐Observinghorses
‐Pleasant
‐Greenness/”Itisverygreen”
‐Crowndiversity
‐Colors(leavesotherthangreen)
    
     
    
    
     
      
    
     
     
Presenceofotherpeople ‐Lessornopeople
‐Visitedbymanypeople(positive)
    
       
Beauty
‐Beautifultrees
‐Beautifulgrass
‐Beautifulview
‐“Beautifulineveryseason”
‐Beautifulingeneral
    
 
    
    
      
Presenceofwaterbodies
‐Lake
‐Stream
‐Spring
‐Waterfall
      
    
    
    
Emotionalties
‐“Itisinmybirthplace.”
‐Childhoodspent/positivememories
‐“Ilivehereallmylife.”
‐“Myheartandsoul”
‐“Ifeelemotionalconnection”
‐Resemblancetobirthplace
‐PersonalengagementinUGSpreservation
    
      
      
      
   
     
    

Forests2020,11,8768of22
Recreationaluse

‐Dogwalking
‐Niceplaceforwalking
‐Niceplaceforpicnic
‐Niceplaceforbarbecue
‐Mountainhiking
‐Theplacehasrecreationalpotential
‐“Ivisittheplaceveryoften
     
       
    
    
    
   
     
Spiritualandrestorative

‐Peaceandquiet
‐“Itisgreeneverywhere.”
‐Reststheeyes
‐“Littlegreenoasis”
    
 
 
      
Facilities
‐Presenceoffacilities
‐Presenceofchildrenplaygrounds
‐Suitableforkids
‐Suitableforalltypesofusers/visitors
‐Walkingpaths
‐Pathslongenoughforrunners
     
    
      
     
      
    
Naturalness
‐Trueforest
‐Preservednature
‐Presenceofanimals(birdsofprey)
‐Wild
‐Presenceofforest
      
     
    
      
    
Shade ‐Presenceofshade(fromtrees)     
Openness
‐Nootherobjects(toblocktheview)
‐“Icanbreathefreely”
‐Senseoffreedom
‐Bigopenspace
   
   
   
   
Presenceofhistorical
andarchitecturalobjects
‐Refurbishedoldwatermills

‐Stonepathways

‐(Wooden)bridges
    
    
    
Trees

‐Oldtrees
‐Talltrees
‐Presenceofspecifictreespeciesb
‐Plentyoftrees
      
    
      
     
Roleinair‐purification
‐Filterstheair
‐“Ourlungs”
‐“Lungsoftheentirecitydistrict”
‐“Mini‐lungsoftheneighborhood”
      
      
     
    

Forests2020,11,8769of22
Placeperceivedas
valuable

‐Goodandvaluableplace
‐“Thereasonformovinghere”
‐“Natureisbeautifulandreallyvaluable”
‐“Therestoftheneighborhoodisoverbuilt.”
‐“Waterbodiesarealsoimportant.”
‐“OneofthemostimportantGSintheneighborhoodandthecity”
     
     
    
     
    
      
Non‐relatedtoUGS

‐Notraffic
‐Wellplannedurbanistically
‐Location(inthecontextofthecity(district))
    
  
      
aBeingperceivedastheonlyUGSinthevicinityortheneighborhood;bLimetree(Tilia),nettletree(Celtis),pinetree(Pinus).


Forests2020,11,87610of22
Focusgroupparticipantsreportedintotal82locationsconsideredastheirdearestUGSattaching
altogether80attributestothoselocations.Whenlookingatthetypeoftree‐basedUGS,majorityof
thoselocationsareconnectedwithforests(18locations,22attributesattached),followedbyparks(16
locations,25attributes),treelines(7locations,8attributes),parkforest(6locations,12attributes),
walkingpathsalongthestreams(6locations,10attributes),greeneryaroundresidentialbuildings(4
locations,11attributes),childrenplaygrounds(4locations,6attributes),greeneryofsportsand
recreationalfacilities(3locations,4attributes),privategarden(2locations,1attribute),trees(1
location,2attributes),windowview(1location,4attributes),cemeteries(1location,3attributes),
greensystem(1location,2attributes),greenway(1location,11attributes)andothergreenspace(11
locations,15attributes).By‘other’weconsideredforinstancegreeneryofeducationalobjectsor
greeneryaroundpublicbuildingssuchaslibraries.
Whenlookingatthesingleattribute,themostfrequentwerepositivememoriesandthe
perceptionofplacebeingwellmaintained,bothbeingattachedtosixtypesofUGSs(Table3).These
arefollowedbybeinganiceplaceforwalking(5typesofUGS);aswellasnearness/proximity,
presenceofshade,presenceoffacilitiesandpresenceofwalkingpaths,eachassociatedwithfour
typesofUGSs.Whenlookingintohowmanytimestheirattributeswereassociatedwithdifferent
typesoftree‐basedUGSs,themostprominentcategorieswerepresenceoffacilities(associatedwith
9typesofUGSs),existenceofemotionalties(7),possibilityofexperiences(7),recreationaluse(7),
access(7),presenceoftrees(6),naturalness(6)andmaintenance(6).
IntheendwhenaskedtoreporttheirdearestUGS,somefocusgroupparticipantsprovided
generalanswersnotrelatedtospecificplace,suchas“Allgreenspace”,“MyfavoritesareUGSinmy
neighborhood”and“IcannotnamespecificUGSasbeingmydearestUGS”(negativemeaning).
However,thesequotationswererelatedtoonlythreepeopleoutof94participants.
3.2.AestheticallyAppealingTree‐BasedUGS
Whenaskedtonametree‐basedUGStheyconsidermostbeautiful(aestheticallyappealing)the
respondentsprovided83locationsattachingaltogether53attributes(Table4).Theattributeswere
groupedintothefollowinggroups:accessibility,maintenance,experiences,presenceofotherpeople,
presenceofwaterbodies,emotionalties,recreationaluse,spiritualandrestorative,facilities,
naturalness,shade,openness,presenceofhistoricalandarchitecturalobjects,treesandplaceperceived
asvaluable.Majorityofthoselocationsarerelatedtotreelines(16locations,6attributesattached),
forests(14locations,15attributes),parks(14locations,27attributes)andtrees(13locations,7attributes).
Lessfrequentlyfocusgroupparticipantsmentionedprivategardens(4locations,3attributes),park‐
forests(4locations,7attributes),greeneryaroundresidentialbuildings(3locations,2attributes)and
walkingpathsalongthestreams(3locations,9attributes).Onlyonelocationwasmentionedforeach
ofthefollowingtypesofUGSs:cemeteries(2attributesattached),greeneryofsportsandrecreational
facilities(4attributes),childrenplaygrounds(2attributes),windowviews(1attribute)andgreenways
(8attributes).SevenlocationsweregroupedunderotherUGS(forinstancegreenspaceinthevicinity
ofthepublicbuildingsorgreeneryinthevicinityofurbangardensthatdonotfallintoanyother
category).RespondentsmentionedfiveattributesrelatedtothesetypesofUGSs.

Forests2020,11,87611of22
Table4.Categoriesandattributeswithregardtoaestheticallyappealingtree‐basedurbangreenspace(UGS).Greenindicatestheassignationofanattributeto
particulartypeofUGS(F—forest,P—park,WP—walkingpathsalongthestreams,TL—treelines,PF—parkforest,GB—greeneryaroundresidentialbuildings,
CP—childrenplaygrounds,SR—greeneryofsportsandrecreationalfacilities,T—trees,PG—privategarden,WV—windowview,C—cemeteries,GS—greensystem,
GW—greenway,O—other).Quotationsrefertoverbatimstatementsoftheparticipants.
CategoryAttributesTypeofTree‐BasedUrbanGreenSpace
FPWPTLPFGBCPSRTPGWVCGSGWO
Accessibility ‐“Thereisnothingelse”a              
‐Easilyaccessible             
Maintenance ‐Wellmaintained           
Experiences
‐Greenness
             
‐Colorsb             
‐Colordynamicsthroughtheyear          
‐Beautifulviews              
‐Pleasantscents(lime,jasmine)            
‐Sounds(frogs,water)            
‐Surprisingelements        
‐Contrasts(broadleavesvs.conifers)               
‐Crowndiversity               
‐Presenceofanimals(ducksandsquirrels)      
‐Wilderness               
‐Senseofforest               
‐Combinationofwaterandgreenery(ingeneralandreflectionsof
trees)               
‐“Atunnelmadeoftrees”               
Presenceofother
people ‐Lessornopeople           
Presenceofwater
bodies
‐Lake               
‐River               
‐Stream               
‐Spring               
Emotionalties ‐Positivememories               
Recreationaluse ‐Niceplaceforwalking           
‐“Ioftengothere”              
Spiritualand
Restorative

‐Relaxing/feelingcalm
             
‐Magicalplace               
‐“IfeelasIaminparadise”               

Forests2020,11,87612of22
‐“SobeautifulthatIcanjustsitthereandobserve”               
‐Feelingprotected               
Facilities

‐Presenceofwalkingpaths              
‐Human‐induceddesignofwalkingpaths               
‐Presenceofchildrenplaygrounds               
‐Iceskating               
‐Presenceoffacilities(formountaineers)               
Naturalness
‐Untouchedforest               
‐Preservednature               
‐Presenceofanimals(birdsofprey)      
Shade
‐Presenceofshade(fromtrees)               
Openness‐Openview               
‐Openspace               
Presenceofhistorical
andarchitectural
objects
‐(Wooden)bridges
             
‐Oldchapel              
‐Archaeologicalsite              
Trees

‐Presenceoftrees               
‐Treesperceivedasmighty               
‐Oldtrees               
‐Largecrowns             
‐Largeflowers               
‐Presenceofspecifictreespeciesc              
Placeperceivedas
valuable

‐“Therestoftheneighborhoodisoverbuilt”               
‐“Centeroftheworldforourneighborhood”               
‐Placeperceivedashavingapotential               
aBeingperceivedastheonlyUGSinthevicinityortheneighborhood;bLeavesotherthangreen,flowers;cPinetrees(Pinus),planetrees(Platanus),Japanesecherry
(PrunusserrulataLindl.),nettletree(Celtis),weepingwillow(SalixbabylonicaL.),magnoliatrees(Magnolia),horsechestnuttrees(AesculushippocastanumL.),Sequoia
trees(Sequoiasempervirens(D.Don)Endl.)),cedar(Cedrus),solitaryLombardypoplartrees(Populusnigra‘Italica’).

Forests2020,11,87613of22
Mostpronouncedsingleattributeswerepresenceofspecifictreespecies(relatedto7typesof
UGSs),presenceoftreesingeneral(5),beautifulviews(5)andpresenceofcolorfulleaves(otherthan
green)(Table4).Possibilityofexperienceswastherichestcategory,basedonhowmanytimestheir
attributeswereassociatedwithvarioustypesofUGSs(14attributesappeared30timesacross10types
ofUGSs).Insecondplacewasthetreescategory(6attributesappeared18timesacross11typesof
UGSs).Thesecategorieswerefollowedbyspiritualandrestorativecategory(relevantfor5typesof
UGSs)andpresenceofwaterbodies(4typesofUGSs).Othercategorieswerepresenttoalesserextent
whenlookingathowmanytimestheirattributesappearedacrossvarioustypesofUGSs.
3.3.RecreationalUseofTree‐BasedUGS
Focusgroupparticipantsmentioned11typesofrecreationalactivitiesand12typesofUGSswhere
theypracticethoseactivities(Table5).TypesofUGSstheyreporteddependedontheactivity.For
instance,huntingandmushroompickingwereonlypossibleinforests,whilewalkingasthemost
popularactivitywasexercisedin11typesoftree‐basedUGSs.Resultsshowedthatforestsandgreenery
ofsportsandrecreationalfacilitiesinZagrebprovidemoreopportunitiesforvariousrecreational
activitiesthanothertypesofUGSs.Observingnaturewasmappedonlyinthecontextofwindowview
greenery.Weareawarethatitisalsopartofwalkers’orothertypesofrecreationalusers’activities,
eventhoughtheydidnotspecificallyreportedit.Focusgroupparticipantsreportedaltogether52
locationsforwalkingofwhichforestsandparkwerethemostfrequent(10locationseach);followedby
tree‐lines(8);walkingpathsalongstreams(5);parkforestandchildrenplayground(4locationseach);
greeneryofsportsandrecreationalfacilitiesandgreeneryaroundresidentialbuildings(3locations
each);privategardenandotherUGS(2locationseach);andgreenway(1).Joggingwasreportedin
relationwithfivetypes,whilebicyclingwasrelatedtofourtypesoftree‐basedUGSs.Intwocases
participantsdidnotmentionspecificactivitytheydoinUGSoftheircitydistrict,andstatedthatthey
donotuseUGSsintheircitydistrictsforrecreationalpurposes.
Table5.Recreationaluseoftree‐basedurbangreenspaces(UGSs).Greenindicatestheassignationof
recreationalactivitytoaparticulartypeofUGS(F—forest,P—park,WP—walkingpathsalongthe
streams,TL—treelines,PF—parkforest,GB—greeneryaroundresidentialbuildings,CP—children
playgrounds,SR—greeneryofsportsandrecreationalfacilities,PG—privategarden,WV—window
view,GS—greensystem,GW—greenway,O—other).
CategoryTypesofTree‐BasedUrbanGreenSpaces
F P WPTLPFGBCPSRPGWVG
W
O
Boules          
Bicycling            
Grilling            
Hunting           
J
ogging        
Mountainclimbing           
Mushroompicking           
Observingnature  
Picnicking           
Skating    
Walking           
3.4.EducationalServicesofTree‐BasedUGS
Questionaboutexistingofpotentialtree‐basedUGSsthatareorcouldbeusedforeducational
purposesaboutgreenspaceornatureingeneralelicitedmodestdiscussionamongfocusgroup
participants.Therewerethreegroupsofanswers.Firstgroupofanswerswerethoserelatedmainly
tospecificlocationsthatcouldpotentiallybeusedforeducation,withonlytwolocationsmentioned
thathadalreadybeenusedforsuchpurposes.Thesecondandthirdgroupsofanswerswerethoseof

Forests2020,11,87614of22
generalcharacter.Theformerwasabouthowchildrenlearn(intuitively,bytouching,shouldbe
leftalonetoexplore)andsomewereoftheopinionthatanygreenspacecanpotentiallybean
educationalgroundforchildren.Intheendafewrespondentswerenotawareofsuchlocations,
neverthoughtaboutitorgenerallydidnotperceiveanygreenspaceasbeingsuitableforthepurpose
atthemoment.
Whenlookingintospecificlocationstheymentionedmostofthesearerelatedtoforests(7
location)andparks(5ofwhichtwoarehistoricalparks),andtoalesserextenttogreeneryof
educationalfacilitiessuchasschoolsandkindergartens(3),park‐forests(2),greeneryaround
residentialobjects(1),greeneryofsportsandrecreationalfacilities(1),greensystem(1)andother
greenspace(2).Focusgroupsparticipantsweremainlyunabletoelaboratefurtheraboutwhat
attributesgreenspacesshouldhavetobesuitableforeducationalpurposes.However,therewere
somehintsorpotentialattributesthatcouldbeinterpretedfromthediscussion.Thesewerecloseness
toschoolsandkindergartens,existenceoffacilities(e.g.,huntinglodge),presenceofwaterbodies
(streams,waterfalls)orgeologicalformations(cavesorsignificantrocks),historicalparksandhaving
nametagsontrees.Thecommonalitythatrunsthroughallthefocusgroupswasthatnature
educationwasconsideredonlyforchildren(eitherthoseinkindergartensorinelementaryschools).
3.5.CulturalIdentityServicesofTree‐BasedUGSs
Focusgroupparticipantsprovidedaltogether34locationsperceivedasbeingpartofthecultural
identityoftheirneighborhoodoreventhecitydistrict.Thesewererelatedtoninetypesoftree‐based
UGSs,mainlytoparks(12locations,someofwhichwerehistoricalparks,6attributes),somewhatlesser
toforests(6locations,4attributes),park‐forests(4locations,4attributes),greeneryofsportsand
recreationalfacilities(4locations,2attributes),andrarelytotreelines(2locations,2attributes),walking
pathsalongstreams(2locations,1attribute),greeneryaroundresidentialbuildings(1location,2
attributes),greenways(1location,2attributes)andothergreenspace(2locations,1attribute).
Basedontheinterpretationofdatafromthetranscriptswewereabletoidentifyseveral
attributesrelatedtoUGSperceivedasbearingaculturalidentity(Table6).
Table6.Culturalidentityoftree‐basedurbangreenspace(UGS).Greenindicatestheassignationof
attributestoparticulartypeofUGS(F—forest,P—park,WP—walkingpathsalongthestreams,TL—
treelines,PF—parkforest,GB—greeneryaroundresidentialbuildings,SR—greeneryofsportsand
recreationalfacilities,GW—greenway,O—other).
AttributesTree‐BasedUrbanGreenSpace
FPWPTLPFGBSRG
W
O
Popularmeetingand/orrecreationalplaces         
Asymboloftheneighborhoodorthecity        
Interestingstory        
Presenceofhistoricalandarchitecturalobjects         
Recreationalfacilities         
Oldtrees       
Protectednaturalarea    
EngagementinUGSpreservation         
Well‐designed       
MostlythesewereUGSsthatarepopularmeetingand/orrecreationalplaces(associatedwith6
typesofUGSs),visitedbymanypeoplefromtheneighborhoodorentirecitydistrictorfromother
citydistricts,orUGSbeingwellknownevenforpeopleoutsidethecitydistrict,thoseperceivedas
highlyrecognizedasasymboloftheneighborhoodorthecity(attributeattachedto5typesofUGSs).
Anotherimportantattribute(associatedwith4typesofUGSs)wasexistenceofaninterestingstory—
forinstanceParkofthenewlywedsthatwasestablishedwithdonationsofnewlywedswhohadan
opportunitytochoosethetreespecies,donationswereenteredintoaregisterandtheyreceivedthe
certificateforthedonation[46].Someotherwasrelatedtofolkstoriesandlegends.Forinstance,

Forests2020,11,87615of22
locationKamenisvati(intranslationStonewedding)referstoarockformationintheforestonthe
mountainMedvednica.ThefolkstorybasedinSlavicmythologysaysthatcursewasinflictedonthe
weddingprocessionandtheyturnedintostone[47].Inonecasetheparticulargreenspacewithits
yewtrees(TaxusbaccataL.)wasonthecoverphotoofthepopularNewWaverockband’salbum
fromthe1980s[48].Lastly,aneighborhoodRetkovecinoneofthecitydistrictshasaninteresting
toponymy—allstreetsarenamedaftertreespecies,hencetheMapleAlley,BirchStreet,OakStreet,
etc.Inthe1960s,thosestreetswerelinedwithtreelinesofthesamespeciesthesestreetswerenamed
after.Treeswereplantedvoluntarilybycitizensaspartofthenationaltreeplantingcampaignatthe
time“Everypersoneachyearasingletree”[46].Otherattributesincludedpresenceofhistoricaland
architecturalobjects,however,attachedonlytoforests,forinstancedilapidatedfortressSusedgrad
(alsoappearsinafolklegend)oroldwatermills;havingrecreationalfacilities(attachedtoparks,
parkforestsandgreeneryofsportsandrecreationalfacilities);existenceofoldtrees(attachedtotree
linesandgreeneryaroundresidentialbuildings);aswellasexistenceofprotectednaturalarea(inour
caseornithologicalreserve),engagementinUGSpreservationandUGSbeingperceivedaswell‐
designed,allattachedtosingletypesofUGSs.
3.6.SummaryofPerceivedCESProvidedbyVariousTypesofTree‐BasedUGSs
FocusgroupparticipantsperceivedvarioustypesofUGSsprovideCES,eventhoughsome
wheremostpronouncedbyothers(Table7).Forestsandparks,aswellaspark‐forests,greenery
aroundresidentialbuildingsandgreeneryofsportandrecreationalfacilitieswereconsistently
recognizedbyparticipantsasprovidingvariousCEStourbanresidents.However,placeattachment
wasperceivedinrelationtoall15identifiedtypesofUGSs,14typesofUGSswererecognizedas
aestheticallyappealing,recreationalserviceswereconnectedwith11types,culturalidentitytonine
andeducationalservicestoeighttypesofUGSs.Individualtrees,cemeteriesandgreensystemwere
ingenerallessrecognizedassourcesofrecreationalservices.Itisnosurprisethatparticipantsdid
notassociaterecreationalservicetoindividualtrees.Regardingthegreensystem,itislocatedinthe
busycitycenterwhichmaybethereasonwhyitwasnotrecognizedassourceofrecreationalservices.
Table7.Perceivedculturalecosystemservices(CES)byvarioustypesoftree‐basedurbangreen
spaces(UGSs).GreenindicatestheassignationofCEStoparticulartypeofUGS.(F—forest,P—park,
WP—walkingpathsalongthestreams,TL—treelines,PF—parkforest,GB—greeneryaround
residentialbuildings,CP—childrenplaygrounds,SR—greeneryofsportsandrecreationalfacilities,
PG—privategarden,WV—windowview,GS—greensystem,GW—greenway,O—other).
CESTypesofTree‐BasedUrbanGreenSpaces
FPWPTLPFGBCPSRTPGWVCGSG
W
O
Placeattachment              
Aesthetics             
Recreation            
Education   
      
Culturalidentity            
4.Discussion
Theresultsshowednumerousattributespeopleattachedtovarioustypesoftree‐basedUGSs
(Tables3and4).NumberofattributesdifferedbetweendifferentcategoriesofCES—expectedlythe
mostattributesbeingattachedwiththeirdearestUGS.Somewhatlessattributeswereconnectedwith
UGSconsideredasaestheticallyappealing(beautiful).Theleastnumberofattributeswasrelatedto
educationalandculturalidentityservicesofUGSs,probablybecauseparticipantsingeneral
discussedlessabouttheseservices.Anotherpossiblereasonmightbethattheseserviceshadbeen
lessimportantforthemormoredifficulttograspincomparisontoplaceattachment,aestheticsand
recreationaluseofUGS.

Forests2020,11,87616of22
Whenlookingintoresultsrelatedtotheirdearestplace,unsurprisinglymostimportantattributes
forseveraltypesofUGSswerehavingpreviouspositivememories(e.g.,childhoodspent)andthe
perceptionofplacebeingwellmaintained.Indeedstudiesshowthathumansoftenhaveemotional
responsestotheirnaturalenvironmentthatmaybebothpositiveandnegative[11,19,49].Additionally,
whenlookingatthemostimportantcategories(groupsofattributes)forvarioustypesofUGS,besides
maintenanceandhavingemotionalties,othersweremostlyrelatedtotheutilitariancharacterofUGS,
orinotherwords,possibilityofUGStobeusedforrecreationalandotherexperiences(havingaccess,
facilities,placesuitesrecreationalpurposes,possibilityofvariousexperienceswhilebeingthere).This
isinlinewithmanyotherstudiesstatingthataccess,facilitiesandpropermaintenanceareamongthe
mostfavorablecharacteristicsofUGSs[34,50,51].NearnessofpublicUGSwasconsideredimportant
fortheaccessibilitybyourrespondents.HavingaccessibleUGSwithinthe300mfromhomehas
becomeanurbanplanningmantrasincestudiesshowthatitincreasestheuseofUGSandhuman
wellbeing[52,53].HoweverthereisalsoevidencethatpeoplemaynotusetheirnearestUGSforvarious
reasons[54].Possibilityofvariousexperiencesandsenseofmysteryalsoproveimportantforhuman
landscapepreferences[55].Last,butnotleast,naturalnesswaspronouncedinrelationtoforests,parks
andpark‐forests,butalsogreeneryofsportsandrecreationalfacilities,greenwayandother.The
presenceoftrees,especiallythoseoldortallorevenspecificspecieswerealmostequallypronounced
albeitconnectedwithsomewhatdifferenttypesofUGSs(onlyhavingparksincommon)(Table3).Trees
havesymbolicmeaningstohumans[56].Studiesonhumanpreferencesfortreecharacteristicsshow
thattall,wideanddeciduoustreesaremostpreferred[21].Ourparticipantsexplainednaturalnessas
presenceof“true”forest,wellpreserved,withperceivedbiodiversity.Forestsandparkswerethemost
pronouncedasdearestUGSandparticipantsattachedthemostattributestotheseparticulartypesof
UGSs(Table3).Theyprovidedsomewhatlessattributesforpark‐forests,greeneryaroundresidential
buildings,walkingpathsalongthestreams,greenwaysandotherUGS.Interestingly,onlyone
greenwaycollected11attributesbasedontheperceptionofparticipants.Privategardenswere
mentionedonlytwicebutunfortunatelyinthecontextoflackofaccesstopublicUGS,because“There
isnothingelse”(Table3).SomeothertypesofUGSssuchasgreensystemsorcemeterieswerenotso
muchinfocusofourrespondents.Forcemeteriesitmightbealsoculturalissue,inasensethatpeople
mightnotconsidercemeteriesaspleasantplaces,butwecannotbesure.Aparticipantmentionedthat
peopleavoidcemeteriesofmentalinstitutionsinhiscitydistrictbecauseinhisopiniontheymighthave
negativeconnotations.
SimilartodearestUGS,participantsagainmostlyreportedparksandforestsaslocationsthey
perceivedaestheticallyappealing,andaswellattachedmoreattributestothosethanothertypesof
UGS(Table4).TreelineswerealsoamongmostpronouncedtypesofUGSs,eventhoughwithmuch
lessattributesassociatedincomparisontoparksandforests.Presenceofspecifictreespecieswasthe
mostimportantsingleattribute,followedwithpresenceoftreesingeneralandspecifictreeattributes
suchasoldandmightytrees(participantsreferredtoplanetrees),ortreeswithlargecrownsand
flowers(participantsreferredtoJapanesecherry,horsechestnuttreesandmagnoliatrees).
Additionally,presenceofwatercombinedwithgreenerywaspreferred.Studiesshowthatpresence
oftreesandwaterinlandscapeincreasesaestheticpreferences[57].Planetreesanddeciduoustrees
ingeneralareamongthosemostpreferred[21].Additionally,underthepreferredexperiencesour
participantsreportedcontrastingandsurprisingelements,colordynamics(includingseasonal
changes),greennessandpresenceofcolorsotherthangreen.Thisisinlinewithstudiesshowingthat
colorinthelandscapeimpactsvisualpreferences[58–61].Forinstance,greenandredcolorsoftrees
arepreferredmorethanpurpleandorangish‐browntrees[59].Similarly,presenceofcolorfulflowers
increasesaestheticappealofUGS[61].Whencomparingcategoriesrelatedtodearestand
aestheticallyappealingUGS,weidentifiedlesscategoriesforthelatterservices,withcategoriesof
beauty,roleofUGSinair‐purificationandgroupofattributesnon‐relatedtoUGSomitted.Aesthetic
appreciationwaslessrelatedtorecreationalusethandearestUGS(Tables3and4).However,we
concludesimilartoRiechersandcolleagues[24]thatrecreationwasimportantforourparticipants,
andsomewhatanunderlyinggoaloftheirinteractionwithUGS.Ingeneraltreeswiththeirvarious
features,regardlessofthetypeofUGS,provedimportantforbothplaceattachmentandaesthetics.

Forests2020,11,87617of22
OneoftheimportantattributesforeducationalUGSwasproximitytoeducationalinstitutions
(kindergartensandschools).Thisisalsosupportedinoneofthemostrecentstudiesincluding
preferencesofteachersforpreferredcharacteristicsofUGSforeducationalpurposes[62].Placebeing
popularamongresidentsforsocializingandrecreationalpurposes,recognizedbeyondtheboardsof
thecitydistrictsoreventhecity,aswellashavingagoodstory,weremostimportantattributesof
UGSprovidingculturalidentityservices.
WeidentifiedanoverlapbetweengroupsofCES.Forinstance,thesameUGSsweresometimes
consideredbothdearestandaestheticallyappealing.Furthermore,UGSsusedandperceivedasthose
providingrecreationalservicesweresometimespronouncedasdearestandbeautifulaswell.The
resultisinlinewithresultsofsimilarstudies[24,63].Additionally,tworegulatingservices,air‐
purificationandcoolingeffect(orinourcasecategory‘shade’)wereattachedtodearestUGSand
aestheticservices,whichfurthersupportsoverlapandbundlingofecosystemservicesnotonly
amongCES,butalsobetweenCESandothergroupsofecosystemservices.
5.Conclusions
Thecity‐wideexploratorystudyprovidedinsightsintohowpeopleperceiveandusetree‐based
UGSintermsofwhatCEStheyperceiveanduse,aswellaswhatservicestheyconnecttodifferent
typesoftree‐basedUGSs.ParticipantsperceivedallinvestigatedCES,however,placeattachment,
aestheticsandrecreationalservicesweremorepronouncedthanother.Wewereabletoidentifya
widerangeofattributesaswellasmanyoverlappingcategoriesattachedtobothplaceattachment
andaesthetics.Forestsandparkswereconsistentlythosemostpronouncedinrelationtoinvestigated
CES.However,othertypesofUGSswereprovedimportantaswelleventhoughwithvarious
numbersofattributesandcategoriesattached.Thestudysupportstheneedforcarefullyplanned