The impact of plants offering cover on female students’ perception of danger in urban green spaces in crime hot spots

Abstract

Urban parks and forests are important for wellbeing, but feelings of unsafety limited their usage. Removal of vegetation from hotspots of fear is sometimes recommended as a means of boosting safety. However such actions should be approached with caution. One explanation, based on prospect-refuge theory, is that plants increase perceptions of danger because of their contribution to a setting’s effectiveness in concealing criminals. It is also believed that people do not like urban green spaces parks containing trees and shrubs that can act as hiding places because of the sense of danger that this vegetation evokes. To test this explanation, participants rated 57 photos of urban parks and forest parks settings park settings on perceived danger, effectiveness of concealment, and landscape preference. In addition, the effectiveness of concealment in the photos was measured assuming that the value of this variable is expressed by the percentage of the pixels occupied by trees and shrubs offering concealment in a photograph. Results confirmed that concealment and danger are highly correlated mediation analysis confirmed that the impact of concealment on preferences can be explained by perceived danger. When the danger was controlled, the efficiency of concealment had no influence on preferences.

Full text

Page 1
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Landscape Online
open access peer reviewed
Landscape Online – transdisciplinary journal bridging science, policy and practice
Supported by the International Association for Landscape Ecology and its community
Open Access Arcle distributed under the terms of the Creave Commons Aribuon 4.0 Internaonal License (CC BY 4.0),
which permits unrestricted use, distribuon, and reproducon in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Landscape Online – www.Landscape-Online.org
Landscape Online | Volume 91 | 2021 | Pages 1-14 | DOI 10.3097/LO.202191
Submitted: 7 March 2021 | Accepted in revised version: 27 July 2021| Published: 7 August 2021
Aleksandra Lis1*, Łukasz Pardela1,
Paweł Iwankowski2, Antal Haans3
1) Instute of Landscape
Architecture, The Faculty of
Environmental Engineering and
Geodesy, Wrocław University of
Environmental and Life Sciences,
Wrocław, Poland
2) Independent researcher, Gdańsk,
Poland
3) Eindhoven University of
Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands
*Corresponding author: Lis
Alesandra, Instute of Landscape
Architecture, The Faculty of
Environmental Engineering and
Geodesy, Wrocław University of
Environmental and Life Sciences,
Grunwaldzka 55; 50-357 Wrocław,
Poland, Email: aleksandra.lis@upwr.
edu.pl
Abstract
Urban parks and forests are important for wellbeing, but feelings of
insecurity limit their usage. Removal of vegetation from hotspots of fear
is sometimes recommended as a means of boosting safety. However,
such actions should be approached with caution. One explanation,
based on prospect-refuge theory, is that plants increase perceptions
of danger because of their contribution to a setting’s effectiveness in
concealing criminals. It is also believed that people do not like urban
parks containing trees and shrubs that can act as hiding places because of
the sense of danger that this vegetation evokes. To test this explanation,
participants (female students) rated 57 photos of urban parks settings in
terms of perceived danger, effectiveness of concealment, and landscape
preference. In addition, the effectiveness of concealment in the photos
was measured, assuming that the value of this variable is expressed
by the percentage of the pixels occupied by trees and shrubs offering
concealment in a photograph. Results confirmed that concealment and
danger are strongly correlated. Mediation analysis confirmed that the
impact of concealment on preferences can be explained by perceived
danger. When danger was controlled, the efficiency of concealment had
no influence on preferences.
Keywords:
Fear, Safety, Environmental preference, Prospect-refuge, Concealment
The impact of plants oering cover on female students’
percepon of danger in urban green spaces in crime hot spots

Landscape Online – supported by the Internaonal Associaon for Landscape Ecology and its community
Lis et al. Landscape Online 91 (2021) - Page 2
1 Introduction
The importance of urban green spaces for health
and well-being have been well established (Chang et
al. 2021; Ayala-Azcárrag et al. 2019; Gramkow et al.
2021; Stier-Jarmer et al. 2021). Moreover, research
has demonstrated that people generally prefer and
benefit from trees and other types of greenery in
various situations (e.g. Ayala-Azcárrag et al. 2019;
Bringslimark et al. 2009; Hedblom et al. 2019; Kaplan
and Kaplan 1989; Kuo and Sullivan, 2001; Scopelliti
et al. 2018; Ulrich 1984; 1986; White and Gatersle-
ben 2011). A number of studies based on the Bio-
philia hypothesis (Wilson 1984), Attention Restora-
tion Theory (ART) (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989) and the
Stress Reduction Theory (Ulrich 1983) provided em-
pirical evidence that wildlife has multiple benefits
for human health and well-being (Berto 2005; Hartig
et al. 2014; Jarvis et al. 2020; Laumann et al. 2001;
Qiu et al. 2021). The importance of nature for people
is also taken into account by programs and strategies
related to urban policy (Hoyle et al. 2017; Evensen et
al. 2021). Significant research has been devoted to
ecosystem services (ES), which refer to the benefits
people derive from nature (Constanza et al. 2017).
Much less research on negative emotions related to
the influence of nature, or more broadly, research
on ecosystem disservices (EDS), has been conduct-
ed and has received far less discussion (Taylor 2019).
EDS is defined as the negative impact of nature on
human well-being – functions or properties of eco-
systems that produce effects that are perceived as
harmful, unpleasant or unwanted (Wu et al. 2020;
Blanco et al. 2019).
One example of EDS is the sensation of fear that city
parks can evoke (Lyytimäki 2019). Researchers point
out that perceived danger in urban parks acts to the
detriment of wellbeing (Fisher et al. 2021) and limits
the use of such parks (Magde 1997). In situations of
increased threat, safe-related environmental charac-
teristics are of particular importance – hence, many
other studies on the impact of hiding places also
looked at hotspots of fear and crime (Fisher and Na-
sar 1992; Nasar et al. 1993; (Nasar and Jones 1997)
or night-time periods when the sense of danger in-
creases (Blöbaum and Hunecke 2005; van Rijswijk et
al. 2016; (van Rijswijk and Haans 2018). Women are
found to experience higher levels of insecurity than
men (Blöbaum and Hunecke 2005; Fisher and Na-
sar 1992; Jansson et al. 2013; Jorgensen et al. 2002;
Loewen et al. 1993; Rišová and Madajová 2020; Jor-
gensen et al. 2007; van Rijswijk et al. 2016). That is
why our research, like a range of others that focus
on the issue of fear and danger (e.g. Evensen et al.
2021; Haans and de Kort 2012; Koskela and Pain
2000; Nasar and Jones 1997), was conducted on this
particular group of respondents.
Perceived danger is often associated with the pres-
ence of plants, which may constitute a prospect
blocker or a hiding place for potential offenders (Lis
et al. 2016a; 2016b). It was also found that dense
vegetation can create places that criminals are keen
to use (Michael and Hull 1994) and provides opportu-
nities facilitating criminal acts (Michael et al. 2001).
Kuo and Sullivan (2001) recall a number of studies
describing active programs for removing greenery
that was considered to facilitate crime. This was in
spite of the fact that the researchers point out that
the impact of vegetation on the fear of crime or per-
ceived danger depends on the characteristics and
location (Fisher and Nasar, 1992; Nasar et al. 1993;
Herzog and Chernick 2000; Lis et al. 2016b; Evensen
et al. 2021). Although there have been many studies
in this area, the exact relation between vegetation,
crime, and the fear of crime remains ambiguous (see
e.g. Bogar and Beyer 2016; Kuo and Sullivan, 2001;
Maas et al. 2009; Wolfe and Mennis 2012). There-
fore, the removal of trees and other vegetation
should not be taken lightly. Instead, it should be a
justified decision taking into account the cause and
conditions behind. The present study aims to con-
tribute to a better understanding of the mechanisms
behind the influence of trees and shrubs on per-
ceived danger and landscape preferences.
Research on the effect of physical characteristics on
danger is often based on Appleton’s (Appleton 1975;
1984) prospect-refuge theory concerning landscape
preferences. According to Appleton, the ability to
see (i.e., prospect) without being seen (i.e., refuge)
was an intermediate step in satisfying biological
needs. This is why we prefer landscapes that afford-
ed such opportunities. This theory was adapted for
studying fear of crime and safety perceptions. Fish-

Landscape Online – supported by the Internaonal Associaon for Landscape Ecology and its community
Lis et al. Landscape Online 91 (2021) - Page 3
er and Nasar (1992) argued that vantage points that
offer both prospect and refuge are beneficial also to
criminals since they offer a good place for them to
hide. Expanding considerations on how environmen-
tal features influence perceived danger. Some re-
searchers (Fisher and Nasar 1992; Nasar, Fisher and
Grannis 1993) select three key factors. The first two
are prospect and refuge, based on Aplleton’s theo-
ry. The third is escape – features of the environment
that facilitate escape in the event of an assault and/
or access to help.
The role of prospect, concealment, and escape (and
derivatives such as enclosure, entrapment, etc.) in
the formation of safety perceptions has received
much empirical support (Blöbaum and Hunecke
2005; Haans and de Kort 2012; Herzog and Chernick
2000; Lis and Iwankowski 2021a; 2021b; Lis et al.
2019a; 2019b; 2019c; Nasar and Jones 1997; van Ri-
jswijk et al. 2016) – Figure 1. Van Rijswijk and Haans
(2018) recently demonstrated that prospect, con-
cealment, and entrapment can robustly explain 70%
of variation in perceived safety within a large and
representative set of nocturnal urban environments.
The possible negative effects of trees and shrubs
in urban parks (Baran et al. 2018; Jorgensen et al.
2002) may thus be explained from prospect-refuge
theory: Greenery can block prospect and offer con-
cealment to potential criminals (e.g. Fisher and Na-
sar 1992; Herzog and Chernick 2000; Lis et al. 2016a;
2016b; 2019a; 2019c; Nasar et al. 1993). Thus, we
argue that the negative effect of trees and other veg-
etation on perceptions of safety is not due to their
mere presence, but to their contribution in making
the setting effective as a hiding place for criminals.
Since studies have reported on a negative correla-
tion between perceptions of danger and landscape
preference (e.g. Herzog and Flynn-Smith 2001; Her-
zog and Kutzli 2002; Herzog and Kutzli 2002) dense
vegetation is expected to affect negatively landscape
preferences, also because of their concealing prop-
erties. However, at the same time, the results of
research on the impact of safety-related plant char-
acteristics (e.g. vegetation density) on preferences
are not conclusive. Most often, researchers assume
or conclude from studies that parks allowing un-
obstructed views are preferred, featuring no dense
shrubbery or other visual obstructions (Campagna-
ro et al. 2020; Jorgensen et al. 2002). It was also
found that such parks are safe, as opposed to parks
containing a dense understorey that may, inter alia,
offer a potential place of concealment (Michael et
al. 2001; Jorgensen 2004). In contrast, other studies
have shown that dense vegetation is strongly pre-
ferred (Harris et al. 2018). This may be because the
areas that contain it have enhanced ecological values
(Fuller et al. 2007), and as such are valued, especial-
ly by those who are ecologically inclined (Kurz and
Baudains 2012). Cultural differences between the
areas researched may also be the reason. Another
possible reason for the positive assessment of dense
vegetation may be found in Appleton’s aforemen-
tioned shelter-view theory. Considering the double
role of hiding places postulated by Fisher and Nasar
(1992), we can suppose that places associated with
concealment can also be perceived positively since
they provide desired privacy (Altman 1975). Recent
studies by Lis and colleagues (Lis et al. 2019) have
shown that hidden, intimate places are sometimes
liked despite the danger they evoke. Unfortunately,
studies applying prospect-refuge theory to natural
environments, including urban parks, remain rare
(but see Andrews and Gatersleben 2010; Herzog and
Kutzli 2002; Lis and Iwankowski 2021a; 2021b; Lis et
al. 2019a; 2019b; 2019c; Maruthaveeran and Koni-
jnendijk van den Bosch 2014).
To sum up, the influence of plant characteristics
that may make them good for concealment is not,
in the light of research, cut and dried. Researchers
Figure 1. The influence of environmental features on danger
and preference – the concept presented by our research
against the background of the theories discussed.

Landscape Online – supported by the Internaonal Associaon for Landscape Ecology and its community
Lis et al. Landscape Online 91 (2021) - Page 4
assume that the features of trees and shrubs asso-
ciated with their potential role as places of conceal-
ment (e.g. plant density) are disliked because they
evoke a sense of danger (Rouquette and Holt 2017).
However, there is a lack of research that tests such
a mechanism – e.g. by mediation analysis. Our re-
search makes an attempt to do so (Figure 1).
1.1 Research aims
In this study, we examined the role of perceived
threat as a mediator in relation to two variables: (1)
features of vegetation that facilitate human conceal-
ment (effectiveness in masking) and (2) landscape
preferences. The study involved public municipal
parks. In particular, we were interested in empiri-
cally investigating such mediation effects in areas
perceived to be hotspots of fear and crime. Consid-
ering three basic variables influencing an increased
perception of danger (entrapment, prospect and
concealment), we focused solely on concealment as
a possible mediator, which we expected to be most
important in explaining the relationship between
vegetation and safety perceptions. Research cover-
ing all three variables was most often conducted in
urban settings (like a street or an academic campus).
There are a lot of architectural obstacles in such ar-
eas, which create screens and cut off escape routes.
These obstacles increase the role of prospect and en-
trapment in shaping perceived danger. Parks contain
fewer forms that create long visual obstructions, but
more plants are planted alone or in groups that can
offer a hiding place for a potential assailant. There-
fore, a place of concealment may influence sense of
danger in parks more significantly than in an urban
environment.
We formulated the following hypotheses:
H1: For urban parks, the perceived danger of a spe-
cific setting depends heavily on the extent in which
the physical features of the environment allow for
the effective concealment of criminals. In other
words, we expected a strong correlation between
ratings of a settings’ effectiveness of concealment
and its perceived danger.
H2: Perceived danger mediates or explains the im-
pact of effectiveness of concealment on landscape
preference. In particular, we expected that after ac-
counting for their contribution to perceived danger,
the characteristics of plants that affect their ability
to conceal someone will not be related to landscape
preference.
2 Methods
2.1 Experiment design
We conducted a survey study in which photos of
landscapes were evaluated according to perceived
danger, preference, and the effectiveness of con-
cealment. Each of these variables was assessed sep-
arately by a different group of respondents to reduce
spurious correlations between the various evalua-
tions (e.g. van Rijswijk and Haans 2018). The photos
were evaluated in the same random order, but this
order was modified by interchanging the halves of
the original order for sessions 12 to 22.
A total of 177 people, all female, participated in the
study. All were students of Landscape Architecture
at Wrocław University of Environmental and Life
Sciences; 146 were undergraduates and 31 were
graduate students. Their mean age was 20.56 (SD =
1.68; range 19–25 years). Of the 177 participants, 67
(i.e., 37.9%) rated the photos according to perceived
danger, 37 (20.9%) for preference, and 73 (41.2%)
for effectiveness of concealment.
The stimulus material consisted of 57 colour photos
taken in various urban parks presented on a projector
screen (BenQ 800 x 600 SVGA, 4:3 format, 121 inch
diagonal). All photos were taken in the summer or
late spring. No photos contained people. The sample
was selected to include photos of trees and shrubs
that could serve as a place of concealment to vary-
ing degrees. Among others, the height and width of
the shrubs, their density or transparency as well as
the shape of the crown, the thickness of trunks, and
the height of their crowns were differentiated (Lis et
al. 2016a; 2016b). We took a random sample from
a large number of the photos that we took, which
we divided beforehand into three groups according
to the level of the concealment offered: landscapes
with vegetation featuring high, medium and low
possibilities of concealment.

Landscape Online – supported by the Internaonal Associaon for Landscape Ecology and its community
Lis et al. Landscape Online 91 (2021) - Page 5
2.2 Data collection
Perceived danger and preference were evaluated
with a single item using a 5-point scale, ranging from
“a great deal” (coded with a 5) to “not at all” (coded
with a 1). Both items were taken from Herzog and
colleagues (e.g. Herzog and Chernick 2000; Herzog
and Flynn-Smith 2001; Herzog and Kutzli 2002). For
perceived danger, the item read: “How dangerous is
this setting? Please imagine you are walking along
such a path. How likely is it that you could be harmed
in this setting?” For preference, the item read: “How
much do you like the setting? This is your own per-
sonal degree of liking for the setting, and you don’t
have to worry about whether you’re right or wrong
or whether you agree with anybody else.”
Previous research has not established one consist-
ent definition of an operating place of concealment
or methods of measuring it. Most often, the place
of concealment was measured using the respond-
ents’ assessments (e.g. Blöbaum and Hunecke 2005;
Haans and de Kort 2012) or categorised by research-
ers according to perceptual-cognitive judgement
(Fisher and Nasar 1992; Andrews and Gatersleben
2010). Exceptions include measurements based on
physical data. This measurement was carried out
by Nasar et al. (1993) by recording the space occu-
pied by each tree, shrub and mass of shrubs in the
study area. Taking into account the limitations of
each method, we decided to use two measurements
based on different methods. The first measurement
method – the traditional one – was analogous to the
measurement perceived danger and preference. The
variable was assessed by respondents on a 5-point
scale. The item read: ‘Please imagine that a person
might be lurking behind the shrubs or trees that you
see. How do you rate such a hiding place in terms
of effectiveness?’ We asked the respondents, while
issuing the assessment, to try to determine how
easily they could hide themselves behind the trees
or shrubs visible in the picture if they were look-
ing to conceal themselves effectively (for whatever
purpose). We explained that the effectiveness of a
hiding place is determined by the ease with which a
person or a group of people can hide and remain un-
seen, irrespective of their body position (standing,
bent or crouched).
Because the question about the variable could, de-
spite our best efforts, suggest to the respondents an
association with danger and cause spurious correla-
tions between the various evaluations, we adopted
an additional measurement method independent of
the respondents’ assessments. We used the photo-
graphs to make the measurement. With the use of
Coreldraw X6 we outlined all the trees and shrubs
on the photos that may be a place of concealment in
an area not exceeding the height of a person. Since
the pictures were taken from a standing position,
this area was located, approximately, below the line
of the horizon. Next we used the Image Histogram
function in Adobe Photoshop CS 6 to measure areas
previously indicated (trees and shrubs as the places
in the photo offering concealment). Next, we iden-
tified the number of pixels contained in the entire
photo in the area below the line of the horizon. The
effectiveness of concealment is the percentage of
the pixels occupied by trees and shrubs constituting
a place of concealment in a photograph (see Figure
2).
The method of measurement we used to calculate
the percentage of vegetation in the photo frame has
already been used by other researchers, for exam-
ple to measure vegetation density (Jiang et al. 2015;
2017; Lis and Iwankowski 2021a; 2021b). We first
selected areas of trees and shrubs constituting ef-
fective concealment in the photo and identified the
number of pixels in those areas. It is worth under-
lining that the operationalisation and measurement
method we adopted in this way indirectly takes into
account the distance of trees and shrubs from the
observer (potential victim) – as the distance increas-
es, it decreases in the photo due to the principles of
perspective. As a result, this variable measurement
takes into account not only the characteristics of the
plant itself, but also its location, which plays a sig-
nificant role in the impact of concealment on dan-
ger (Fisher and Nasar 1992; Lis et al. 2016b; Lis and
Iwankowski 2021a; 2021b).
The study was conducted in a reading room in which
the landscape photos were depicted on a projector
screen. Participants arrived in groups of 8 to 18 par-
ticipants. After taking a seat, the task was explained
to the participant. Depending on the session they
were in, they were instructed to evaluate each scene

Landscape Online – supported by the Internaonal Associaon for Landscape Ecology and its community
Lis et al. Landscape Online 91 (2021) - Page 6
on one of three criteria (perceived danger, prefer-
ence, or effectiveness of concealment). Respond-
ents evaluating scenes on target variables (perceived
danger and preference) were asked to imagine, with
each photo, that the depicted environment was lo-
cated in a dangerous district of a city, and that they
were walking along a path in it. Next, the partici-
pants were presented with twelve practice photos,
followed by the 57 photos comprising our stimulus
set. Each photo was shown on the screen for 15 sec-
onds, during which the participant would evaluate
the photo. After 29 photos, there was a five-minute
break.
The study lasted approximately 20 minutes.
To sum up: we measured the dependent variables
(danger and preference) via the respondents’ evalu-
ations using the survey tool. We measured the var-
iable effectiveness of concealment using two meth-
ods: (1) by assessing the respondents’ assessments
of the landscapes presented in the photos, and (2)
by measuring the share of trees and shrubs consti-
tuting the place of concealment in the same photos.
2.3 Data analysis
All analyses were performed with a setting (land-
scape on the photo) as the unit of analysis. For this
purpose, we calculated, for each setting, a single
score for each variable by averaging the respond-
ents’ responses. As a measure of the absolute agree-
ment among respondents, we calculated intraclass
correlations (ICCs) using a two-way random model
(randomly selected raters from larger population of
assessors, (Koo and Li 2016). These ICCs ranged from
0.912 and 0.987, indicating satisfactory agreement
among the respondents. Thus, it was appropriate to
use aggregated scores in our analyses.
The statistical analysis was carried out using IBM
SPSS Statistics version 23. For mediation analyses,
we used PROCESS version 2.16.2 (Hayes 2013). Me-
diation analysis tests the existence of an interme-
diary relationship by performing a series of regres-
sion analyses – between the independent variable
and the mediator (path a), between the mediator
and the dependent variable (path b), between the
independent variable and the dependent variable
(path c), and between the independent variable and
the dependent variable, but while taking into ac-
count the mediator in the model, i.e. the interme-
diary variable (path c‘) (Baron and Kenny 1986). In
this approach, when path c’ ceases to be statistical-
ly significant next to the current statistically signif-
icant path c, the mediator can be considered as an
intermediary variable explaining why there is a rela-
tionship between the independent variable and the
dependent variable. This method is complemented
by the Sobel test and the superior bootstrap method
(Hayes 2009). We used the bootstrap method with
a random sampling of n = 5000 samples. The 95%
confidence interval constructed on its basis does not
contain the value 0.
Figure 2. Representation of the method of measuring the effectiveness of concealment for a sample site: the effectiveness of
concealment. The trees and shrubs constituting potential concealment (highlighted in yellow) divided by the total number of pixels
in the photo.

Landscape Online – supported by the Internaonal Associaon for Landscape Ecology and its community
Lis et al. Landscape Online 91 (2021) - Page 7
3 Results
First, we checked the distributions of measured vari-
ables. Table 1 provides descriptive statistics. The val-
ue of skewness and kurtosis shows slight deviations
from the normal distribution.
Next, we examined the correlations between the
effectiveness of concealment rated and measured
in the photos, perception of danger, and landscape
preference (see Table 2 for an overview). We found
the effectiveness of concealment to correlate very
strongly with the perception of danger – both when
it was assessed by the respondents and when it was
measured in the photos (respectively: r = 0.90 and r
= 0.85, p <0.001). The more effective a landscape is
in providing a hiding place, the bigger the perception
of danger was. This finding supports our H1. With
respect to landscape preferences, we found moder-
ate correlations with effectiveness of concealment
and perception of danger. The more effective a land-
scape is in providing a hiding place or the bigger its
perceived danger, the less the landscape is preferred.
It is worth noting that the effectiveness of con-
cealment measured by participants’ evaluation is
correlated more strongly with danger than the ef-
fectiveness of concealment measured based on
photographs. This is important from the point of
view of a further analysis (mediation analysis) aimed
at testing the H2 hypothesis. In the case of path b
(mediator influence on dependent variable with si-
multaneous control of independent variable), the
collinearity manifested by the effectiveness of con-
cealment measured in the photographs with danger
is below the relatively conservative threshold set by
Sheather (Sheather 2009) of 5 (VIF = 3.51), while the
collinearity for the assessed effectiveness exceeds
this threshold (VIF = 5.19). Hence, the decision was
made to use only the assessment of effectiveness
measured in the photographs for mediation analysis.
During the next stage, a mediation analysis was per-
formed (see Table 3, Figure 3). The analysis showed
a statistically significant mediation effect. According
to the classic approach of Baron and Kenny (Baron
and Kenny 1986), the assumptions regarding rela-
tionships between variables in the model were met.
Mean Median Min. Max. Standard Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
danger 2.77 2.54 25 0.800 0.675 -0.285
preference 3.12 3.11 1 4 0.583 -0.184 0.528
effectiveness of concealment (photo) 13.28 10 0 43 11.101 0.866 0.140
effectiveness of concealment (rated) 2.57 2.52 150.941 0.510 -0.699
Table 1. Basic descriptive statistics of the variables measured.
Note: Units of measure: for danger, preference, effectiveness of concealment (rated) - averaged responses on Likert scale;
for effectiveness of concealment (photo) – the percentage of the pixels occupied by trees and shrubs constituting a place of
concealment in a photograph.
danger preference effectiveness of
concealment (photo)
effectiveness of
concealment (rated)
danger Pearson’s r -
Significance
preference Pearson’s r -0.42 -
Significance 0.001
effectiveness of concealment (photo) Pearson’s r 0.85 -0.32 -
Significance <0.001 0.014
effectiveness of concealment (rated) Pearson’s r 0.90 -0.40 0.85 -
Significance <0.001 0.002 <0.001
Table 2. Correlations between the rated effectiveness of concealment, the effectiveness of concealment measured on the photos,
perceived danger and landscape preference.

Landscape Online – supported by the Internaonal Associaon for Landscape Ecology and its community
Lis et al. Landscape Online 91 (2021) - Page 8
The independent variable (effectiveness of conceal-
ment) statistically and significantly influences the
mediator (danger) (β = 0.85, p <0.001) (path a), the
mediator coincides statistically and significantly with
the dependent variable (preference) (β = -0.50; p =
0.037) (path b) while the statistically significant rela-
tionship between the independent variable and the
dependent variable without the presence of a medi-
ator in the model (β = -0.32; p = 0.014) (path c) be-
came statistically insignificant after the introduction
of an intermediate variable in the form of danger (β
= 0.10, p = 0.108) (path c’). Therefore, it represents
a total mediation. Supplementing this approach with
the Sobel test indicates a statistically significant in-
termediary effect.
4 Discussion
4.1 Operationalization of the effectiveness of
concealment variable
The concealment measurements obtained from the
respondents’ assessments proved to be strongly cor-
related with danger in terms of influence on prefer-
ences. This correlation is lower in the case of the ef-
fectiveness of concealment measured in the photos.
Probably the reason is that our question about con-
cealment could have suggested to the respondents
that a place of concealment is dangerous. This result
indicates that research methods should be treated
carefully, whereby the operationalisation of a place
of concealment is based on perceptual-cognitive
judgement (Lis et al. 2019a; 2019c). The factors in-
fluencing spurious correlations between the various
evaluations should be reduced. In our study, each of
these variables was assessed separately by a differ-
ent group of respondents, although this precaution
proved insufficient. Another operational question
or other measurement methods should be found.
It seems both appropriate and relevant to look for
methods to quantify the physical characteristics of a
space such as a potential hiding place that may yield
more objective results. Our method of measuring a
variable from photos constitutes an alternative sug-
gestion, albeit one that requires further testing.
4.2 The correlation of concealment and
danger, the mediating role of danger in the
influence of concealment on preferences
In the present study, we examined the role of per-
ceived danger in explaining the relation between
effectiveness of concealment and landscape pref-
erence in urban park settings. The study showed a
strong correlation between how the respondents
evaluated a setting’s effectiveness of concealment
and the perception of danger, despite both eval-
uations being made by a different group of partic-
ipants. A strong correlation between the two vari-
ables also occurs in the case of the measurements
taken from photos. It suggests that the effectiveness
of concealment, as hypothesised in H1, is a particu-
larly significant predictor of the perception of dan-
ger in urban parks. The correlation is stronger than
that obtained in earlier studies, but several aspects
should be pointed out.
First, the stronger relationship confirmed in our
study compared with others may be explained, in
part, by differences in the nature of the depend-
ent variables. Whereas as Blöbaum and Hunecke
(2005) used a similar concept of ‘perceived danger’,
other studies focused on related but perhaps differ-
ent concepts, such as fear of crime (e.g. Fisher and
Bootstrap 95% CI (n
= 5000)
indirect
effect
SE Z LL UL
mediation
effect of
danger
-.02 .01 -2.10* -.042 -.003
Table 3. The mediation effect of danger in the relation between
the effectiveness of concealment and preference.
SE – standard error; Z – Sobel test; 95%CI – confidence interval;
LL – lower limit; UL – upper limit * p < .05
Figure 3. Non-standardized regression analysis coefficients that
reveal danger as a mediator of the effectiveness of concealment
and preference (direct effect in boldface).

Landscape Online – supported by the Internaonal Associaon for Landscape Ecology and its community
Lis et al. Landscape Online 91 (2021) - Page 9
Nasar 1992) or perceived safety (Haans and de Kort
2012; van Rijswijk et al. 2016; van Rijswijk and Haans
2018).
Second, differences in study outcomes may result
from differences in the type of settings considered.
Most studies to date were concerned with urban set-
tings (e.g. streets or university campuses); settings
consisting predominantly of architectural forms (e.g.
Blöbaum and Hunecke 2005; Fisher and Nasar 1992;
Haans and de Kort 2012; van Rijswijk et al. 2016;
van Rijswijk and Haans 2018). Perhaps, the effect of
concealment on danger is bigger in parks than in ur-
ban settings, perhaps because park settings and its
inherent abundance of natural elements provide a
wider variation in hiding places across settings. More
research is needed to confirm such an explanation.
Since effect sizes are influenced by often arbitrary
choices with respect to the range of a variable in the
stimulus materials, future research ideally should
use random samples of urban park environments.
This would ensure that stimulus materials reflect
the naturally occurring variation in concealment
between such environments, and thus more eco-
logically valid effect size estimates (van Rijswijk and
Haans 2018).
The correlation between the effectiveness of con-
cealment and preference turned out to be negative,
which is in line with the majority of research (Mi-
chael et al. 2001; Jorgensen, 2004). Most important,
however, was the confirmation of the assumptions
and estimations of the researchers (Rouquette and
Holt 2017) that the weaker preferences for plants
that offer concealment result from the sense of dan-
ger that these plants evoke.
Our research was limited to one predictor, but the
results allow us to assume that a similar role may
be played by danger in how it influences the prefer-
ences of the other two safety-related environmental
characteristics proposed by Nasar et al. (Fisher and
Nasar 1992; Nasar et al. 1993) – prospect and es-
cape. Additionally, for a more complete picture of
the mechanisms related to the interaction of these
traits, it is worth conducting future research by
checking a range of variables such as specific plant
characteristics, their composition patterns, the de-
gree of naturalness, etc.
5 Limitations
There were several limitations to the present study.
First, we included in our regression models no other
predictors apart from the effectiveness of conceal-
ment. We thus excluded not only prospect and en-
trapment (escape), but also how well-kept a particu-
lar place looked (Herzog 1989; Herzog and Chernick
2000; Nasar et al. 1993; Talbot and Kaplan 1984).
Therefore, future research needs to examine the
predicting role of these and perhaps other variables.
Secondly, the research was carried out on students.
Some researchers believe that there are indeed
grounds to generalise the results of research con-
ducted on students across the population as a whole
(Stamps 1999). Many, however, think differently (e.g.
Balling and Falk 1982; Herzog i et al. 2000). Addition-
ally, the questionnaires were completed by students
of areas related to landscape architecture. Some re-
searchers found differences between the respons-
es of students of landscape architecture and other
fields of study (Kaplan 1973); (Herzog et al. 2000). It
can be assumed that this may have influenced the
answers to some questions, especially those regard-
ing preferences.
6 Conclusions
Despite these limitations, practical conclusions can
be drawn based on the results of our study. Studies
demonstrating a negative impact of vegetation on
the sense of safety have frequently advised to avoid
using plants that limit visibility (Hami et al. 2014;
Kuo et al. 1998). Similarly, researchers have argued
that the optimal types of plant forms to use are
trees with high crowns, and plain grass areas with
no dense shrubs (Donovan and Prestemon 2012;
Kuo and Sullivan 2001). In the light of our research,
such recommendations seem justified, although
they call for some complementation and fine-tun-
ing. First, the observed very strong influence of the
effectiveness of concealment on the perception of
danger indicates that one should avoid plant forms
that may offer concealment for a potential attacker.
Our analyses did not determine the relationship be-

Landscape Online – supported by the Internaonal Associaon for Landscape Ecology and its community
Lis et al. Landscape Online 91 (2021) - Page 10
tween specific plant features, such as height, width,
crown formation, etc. However, some such features
can be associated with the effectiveness of a place of
concealment, referring to their impact on the result
of measuring the degree of plant coverage of an area
that might conceal someone (up to human height).
Therefore, in our opinion, it can be considered that
in parks it is acceptable to introduce low shrubs,
shrubs with a low density (i.e., a lattice-like struc-
ture), as well as plants with a very narrow crown (e.g.
column-like shrubs), even in hotspots of fear and
crime. This is because the perception of danger is
exacerbated not by the very presence of shrubs, but
by their concealing properties. Secondly, plants that
offer concealment are disliked because they create a
sense of danger. This means that in places where us-
ers have no reason to be worried about their safety
(e.g. in fenced, guarded, very quiet areas), the pres-
ence of dense bushes and other covering plants is
acceptable and will not, in all probability, have a det-
rimental effect on landscape assessment. This gives
designers greater opportunities to shape attractive
and diverse spatial compositions.
References
Altman, I. 1975. The Environment and Social
Behavior. Brooks/Cole Pub. Co.
Andrews, M., Gatersleben, B. 2010. Variations in
perceptions of danger, fear and preference in
a simulated, natural environment. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 30, 473–481. DOI:
10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.001
Appleton, J. 1975. The experience of landscape. John
Wiley & Sons, London.
Appleton, J. 1984. Prospect and refuge re-visited.
Landscape Journal 3, 91–103. DOI: 10.3368/
lj.3.2.91
Ayala-Azcárrag, C., Diaz, D., Zambrano, L. 2019.
Characteristics of urban parks and their
relation to user well-being. Landscape &
Urban Planning, 189, 27–35. DOI: 10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2019.04.005
Balling, J.D., Falk, J.H. 1982. Development
of preference for natural environments.
Environment & Behavior 14, 5–28. DOI:
10.1177/0013916582141001
Baran, P.K., Tabrizian, P., Zhai, Y., Smith, J.W., Floyd,
M.F. 2018. An exploratory study of perceived safety
in a neighborhood park using immersive virtual
environments. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
35, 72–81. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2018.08.009
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A. 1986. The moderator–
mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic,
and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology 51, 1173–1182.
DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Berto, R. 2005. Exposure to restorative environments
helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 25(3), 249–259. DOI:
10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.07.001
Blanco, J., Dendoncker, N., Barnaud, C., Sirami, C.
2019. Ecosystem disservices matter: Towards
their systematic integration within ecosystem
service research and policy. Ecosystem Services
36, 100913. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100913
Blöbaum, A., Hunecke, M. 2005. Perceived danger in
urban public space: The impacts of physical features
and personal factors. Environment & Behavior 37,
465–485. DOI: 10.1177/0013916504269643
Bogar, S., Beyer, K.M. 2016. Green space,
violence, and crime: A systematic review.
Trauma, Violence and Abuse 17, 160–171. DOI:
10.1177/1524838015576412
Bringslimark, T., Hartig, T., Patila, G.G. 2009. The
psychological benefits of indoor plants: A critical
review of the experimental literature. Journal
of Environmental Psychology 29, 422–433. DOI:
10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.001
Campagnaro, T., Vecchiato, D., Arnberger, A.,
Celegato, R., De Re, R., Rizzetto, R., Sementazo, P.,
Tempesta, T., Cattaneo, D. 2020. General, stress
relief and perceived safety preferences for green
spaces in the historic city of Padua (Italy). Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening 52, 126695. DOI:
10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126695

Landscape Online – supported by the Internaonal Associaon for Landscape Ecology and its community
Lis et al. Landscape Online 91 (2021) - Page 11
Chang, D.H.F., Jiang, B., Wong, N., H.L., Wong, Jing.
J., Webster, C., Lee, T., M.C. 2021. The human
posterior cingulate and the stress-response
benefits of viewing green urban landscapes.
NeuroImage 226, 117555. DOI: 10.1016/j.
neuroimage.2020.117555
Constanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski,
I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S., Grasso, M.
2017. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How
far have we come and how far do we still need
to go? Ecosystem Services 28, Part A, 1–16. DOI:
10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008
Donovan, G.H., Prestemon, J.P. 2012. The
effect of trees on crime in Portland, Oregon.
Environment & Behavior 44, 3–30. DOI:
10.1177/0013916510383238
Evensen, K.H., Hemsett, G., Nordh, H. 2021.
Developing a place-sensitive tool for park-safety
management experiences from green-space
managers and female park users in Oslo. Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening 60, 127057. DOI:
10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127057
Fisher, B., Nasar, J.L. 1992. Fear of crime in relation
to three exterior site features: Prospect, refuge,
and escape. Environment & Behavior 24, 35–65.
DOI: 10.1177/0013916592241002
Fisher, J.C., Irvine, K.N., Bicknell, J.E., Hayes, W.M.,
Fernandes, D., Mistry, J., Davies, Z.G. 2021.
Perceived biodiversity, sound, naturalness
and safety enhance the restorative quality
and wellbeing benefits of green and blue
space in a neotropical city. Science of the Total
Environment 755, Part 2, 143095. DOI: 10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2020.143095
Fuller, R., Irvine, K., Devine-Wright, P., Warren,
P., Gaston, K. 2007. Psychological benefits of
greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology
Letters 3, 390–394. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149
Gramkow, M.C., Sidenius, U., Zhang, G., Stigsdotter,
U.K. 2021. From Evidence to Design Solution—On
How to Handle Evidence in the Design Process
of Sustainable, Accessible and Health-Promoting
Landscapes. Sustainability 13(6), 3249. DOI:
10.3390/su13063249
Haans, A., de Kort, Y.A.W. 2012. Light distribution
in dynamic street lighting: Two experimental
studies on its effects on perceived safety,
prospect, concealment, and escape. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 32, 342–352. DOI:
10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.05.006
Hami, A., Maulan, S., Mariapan, M., Muhammad,
M. 2014. The relationship between landscape
planting patterns and perceived safety in
urban parks in Tabriz. Iran African Journal of
Environmental Science and Technology 8, 107–
113. DOI: 10.5897/AJEST2013.1486
Harris, V., Kendal, D., Hahs, A.K., Threlfall, C.G. 2018.
Green space context and vegetation complexity
shape people’s preferences for urban public parks
and residential gardens. Landscape Research 43,
150–162. DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2017.1302571
Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., Frumkin, H. 2014.
Nature and health. Annual Review of Public
Health 35, 207–228. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-
publhealth-032013-182443
Hayes, A.F. 2009. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical
Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium.
Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420.
DOI: 10.1080/03637750903310360
Hayes, A.F. 2013. Introduction to mediation,
moderation, and conditional process analysis.
Guilford Press, New York.
Hedblom, M., Gunnarsson, B., Iravani, B., Knez, I.,
Schaefer, M., Thorsson, P., Lundström, J., N. 2019.
Reduction of physiological stress by urban green
space in a multisensory virtual experiment. Sci
Rep, 9, 10113. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-46099-7
Herzog, T.R. 1989. A cognitive analysis of preference
for urban nature. Journal of Environmental
Psychology 9, 27–42. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-
4944(89)80024-6
Herzog, T.R., Chernick, K.K. 2000. Tranquility and
danger in urban and natural environments.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 20, 29–39.
DOI: 10.1006/jevp.1999.0151
Herzog, T.R., Flynn-Smith, J.A. 2001. Preference and
perceived danger as a function of the perceived
curvature, length and width of urban alleys.

Landscape Online – supported by the Internaonal Associaon for Landscape Ecology and its community
Liset al. Landscape Online 91 (2021) - Page 12
Environment & Behavior 33, 655–668. DOI:
10.1177/00139160121973179
Herzog, T.R., Herbert, E.J., Kaplan, R., Crooks, C.L.
2000. Cultural and Developmental Comparisons
of Landscape Perceptions and Preferences.
Environment & Behavior 32, 323–346. DOI:
10.1177/0013916500323002
Herzog, T.R., Kutzli, G.E. 2002. Preference and
perceived danger in field/forest settings.
Environment & Behavior 34, 858–874. DOI:
10.1177/00139160121973179
Hoyle, H., Hitchmough, J.D., Jorgensen, A. 2017.
All about the ‘wow factor’? The relationships
between aesthetics, restorative effect and
perceived biodiversity in designed urban planting.
Landscape & Urban Planning 164, 109–123. DOI:
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.03.011
Jansson, M., Fors, H., Lindgren, T., Wiström, B. 2013.
Perceived personal safety in relation to urban
woodland vegetation: A review. Urban Forestry
& Urban Greening 12, 127–133. DOI: 10.1016/j.
ufug.2013.01.005
Jarvis, I., Gerger, S.E., van den Bosch, M. 2020.
Different types of urban natural environments
influence various dimensions of self-reported
health. Environmental Research 186, 109614.
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109614
Jiang, B., Larsen, L., Deal, B., Sullivan, W.C. 2015. A
dose-response curve describing the relationship
between tree cover density and landscape
preference. Landscape &Urban Planning 139, 16-
25. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.018
Jiang, B., Mak, C.N.S., Larsen, L., Zhong, H. 2017.
Minimizing the gender difference in perceived
safety: Comparing the effects of urban back
alley interventions. Journal of Environmental
Psychology 51, 117–131. DOI: 10.1016/j.
jenvp.2017.03.012
Jorgensen, A., 2004. The social and cultural context of
ecological plantings. In: Dunnett, N., Hitchmough,
J. (eds.), The Dynamic Landscape: Design, Ecology
and Management of Naturalistic Urban Planting,
London, F&FN Spon. pp. 293–325.
Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J., Calvert, T. 2002.
Woodland spaces and edges: Their impact on
perception of safety and preference. Landscape
& Urban Planning 60, 135–150. DOI: 10.1016/
S0169-2046(02)00052-X
Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J.D., Dunnet, N.P. 2007.
Woodland as a setting for housing appreciation
and fear and the contribution to residential
satisfaction and place identity in Warrington new
town, UK. Landscape & Urban Planning 79, 273-
287. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.02.015
Kaplan, R. 1973. Some Psychological Benefits of
Gardening. Environment & Behavior 5, 145–162.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001391657300500202
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. 1989. The experience of nature.
New York, Cambridge University Press.
Koo, T.K., Li, M.Y. 2016. A Guideline of Selecting
and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients
for Reliability Research. Journal of Chiropractic
Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. DOI: 10.1016/j.
jcm.2016.02.012
Koskela, H., Pain, R. 2000. Revisiting fear and place:
Women’s fear of attack and the built environment.
Geoforum 31, 269–280. DOI: 10.1016/S0016-
7185(99)00033-0
Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C. 2001. Environment and
crime in the inner city. Environment & Behavior
33, 343–367. DOI: 10.1177/0013916501333002
Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., Coley, R.L., Brunson, L.
1998. Fertile ground for community: Inner city
neighborhood common spaces. American Journal
of Community Psychology 26, 823–851. DOI:
10.1023/A:1022294028903
Kurz, T., Baudains, C. 2012. Biodiversity in the Front
Yard: An Investigation of Landscape Preference in a
Domestic Urban Context. Environment & Behavior
44, 166–196. DOI: 10.1177/0013916510385542
Laumann, K., Garling, T., Stormark, K.M. 2001.
Rating scale measures of restorative components
of environments. Journal of Environmental
Psychology 21, 31–44. DOI: 10.1006/jevp.2000.01
Lis, A., Iwankowski, P. 2021a. Where do we want to
see other people while relaxing in a city park?

Landscape Online – supported by the Internaonal Associaon for Landscape Ecology and its community
Lis et al. Landscape Online 91 (2021) - Page 13
Visual relationships with park users and their
impact on preferences, safety and privacy. Journal
of Environmental Psychology 73, 101532. DOI:
10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101532
Lis, A., Iwankowski, P. 2021b. Why is dense vegetation
in city parks unpopular? The mediative role
of sense of privacy and safety. Urban Forestry
and Urban Greening, 126988. DOI: 10.1016/j.
ufug.2021.126988
Lis, A., Pardela, Ł., Can, W., Katlapa, A., Rąbalski,
Ł. (2019a). Perceived Danger and Landscape
Preferences of Walking Paths with Trees and
Shrubs by Women. Sustainability 11(17), 4565.
DOI: 10.3390/su11174565
Lis, A., Pardela, Ł., Iwankowski, P. 2019b. Impact of
vegetation on perceived safety and preference
in city parks. Sustainability 11(22), 6324. DOI:
10.3390/su11226324
Lis, A., Weber-Siwirska, M., Ziemiańska, M. (2016a).
Method of assessment and verification of plant
selection in space safety aspect. Space & Form
26, 213–228. DOI: 10.21005/pif.2016.26.D-05
Lis, A., Weber-Siwirska, M., Ziemiańska, M. 2016b.
The role of dendroflora in preventing crime in
public green space.: T. CXCVII. Wrocław University
of Environmental and Life Sciences Publishing.
Lis, A., Zalewska, K., Iwankowski, P. 2019c. Why do
we choose fear-evoking spots in parks? The role of
danger and privacy in the model of dependence
between spatial attributes and preference. Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening 38, 193–204. DOI:
10.1016/j.ufug.2018.12.012
Loewen, L.J., Steel, D.G., Suedfeld, P. 1993. Perceived
safety from crime in the urban environment.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 13, 323–
331. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80254-3
Lyytimäki, J. 2019. Ecosystem disservices: Embrace
the catchword. Ecosystem Services 12, 136. DOI:
10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.008
Maas, Spreeuwenberg, P., van Winsum-Westra,
M., Verheij, R.A., de Vries, S., Groenewegen, P.P.
2009. Is green space in the living environment
associated with people’s feelings of social safety?
Environment & Planning A 41, 1763–1777. DOI:
10.1068/a4196
Magde, C. 1997. Public parks and the geography
of fear. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale
Geografie 88, 237–250. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-
9663.1997.tb01601.x
Maruthaveeran, S., Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C.C.
2013. A socio-ecological exploration of fear of
crime in urban green spaces: A systematic review.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13, 1–18. DOI:
10.1016/j.ufug.2013.11.006
Michael, S.E., Hull, R.B. 1994. Effects of vegetation
on crime in urban parks. Arborist News, 1pp.
Michael, S.E., Hull, R.B., Zahm, D.L. 2001.
Environmental factors influencing auto burglary:
A case study. Environment & Behavior 33, 368–
388. DOI: 10.1177/00139160121973034
Nasar, J.L., Fisher, B., Grannis, M. 1993. Proximate
physical cues to fear of crime. Landscape &
Urban Planning 26, 161–178. DOI: 10.1016/0169-
2046(93)90014-5
Nasar, J.L., Jones, K. 1997. Landscapes of fear and
stress. Environment & Behavior 29, 291–323.
DOI: 10.1177/001391659702900301
Qiu, L., Chen, Q., Gao, T. 2021. The Effects of Urban
Natural Environments on Preference and Self-
Reported Psychological Restoration of the Elderly.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18(2), 509. DOI:
10.3390/ijerph18020509
Rišová, K., Madajová, S.M. 2020) Gender differences
in a walking environment safety perception: A
case study in a small town of Banská Bystrica
(Slovakia). Journal of Transport Geography 85,
102723. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102723
Rouquette, R.J., Holt, A.R. 2017. The benefits to
people of trees outside woods (TOWs). Report for
the Woodland Trust. Natural Capital Solutions.
https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/ [Accessed 6
March 2021]
Scopelliti, M., Carrus, G., Bonaiuto, M. 2018.
Is it Really Nature That Restores People? A
Comparison With Historical Sites With High

Landscape Online – supported by the Internaonal Associaon for Landscape Ecology and its community
Lis et al. Landscape Online 91 (2021) - Page 14
Restorative Potential. Front Psychol. 9, 2742. DOI:
10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02742
Sheather, S. 2009. A modern approach to regression
with R. Springer, New York.
Stamps, A.E. 1999. Demographic effects in
environmental aesthetics: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Planning Literature 14, 155–175.
Stier-Jarmer, M., Throner, V., Kirschneck, M., Immich,
G., Frisch, D. 2021. The Psychological and Physical
Effects of Forests on Human Health: A Systematic
Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18(4), 1770. DOI:
10.3390/ijerph18041770
Talbot, J.F., Kaplan, R. 1984. Needs and fears: The
response to trees and nature in the inner city.
Journal of Arboriculture 10, 222–228.
Taylor, D.E. 2019. College Students and Nature:
Differing Thoughts of Fear, Danger, Disconnection,
and Loathing. Environmental Management 64,
79-96. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-019-01172-9
Ulrich, R.S. 1983. Aesthetic and affective response
to natural environment. In: Altman I., Wohlwill
J.F. (eds.), Behavior and the Natural Environment.
Human Behavior and Environment (Advances in
Theory and Research), vol 6. Springer, Boston,
MA. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4613-3539-9_4
Ulrich, R.S. 1984. View through a window may
influence recovery from surgery. Science 224,
420–421. DOI: 10.1126/science.6143402
Ulrich, R.S. 1986. Human responses to vegetation
and landscapes. Landscape & Urban Planning 13,
29–44. DOI: 10.1016/0169-2046(86)90005-8
van Rijswijk, L., Haans, A. 2018. Illuminating for
safety: Investigating the role of lighting appraisals
on the perception of safety in the urban
environment. Environment & Behavior 50, 889–
912. DOI: 10.1177/0013916517718888
van Rijswijk, L., Rooks, G., Haans, A. 2016. Safety in
the eye of the beholder: Individual susceptibility to
safety-related characteristics of nocturnal urban
scenes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 45,
103–115. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.006
White, E.V., Gatersleben, B. 2011. Greenery on
residential buildings: Does it affect preferences
and perceptions of beauty. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 31, 89–98. DOI:
10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.11.002
Wilson, E.O. 1984. Biophilia. Harvard University
Press.
Wolfe, M.K., Mennis, J. 2012. Does vegetation
encourage or suppress urban crime? Evidence
from Philadelphia, PA. Landscape & Urban
Planning 108, 112-122. DOI: 10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2012.08.006
Wu, S., Huang, J., Li, S. 2020. Classifying ecosystem
disservices and comparing their effects with
ecosystem services in Beijing, China PREPRINT.
DOI: org/preprint arXiv:2001.01605