Investigation of visitors’ motivation, satisfaction and cognition on urban forest parks in Taiwan

Published Date
December 2016, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 261–270

Original Article

First Online: 

05 October 2016

DOI: 10.1007/s10310-016-0543-4

Cite this article as: 

Wang, YC., Lin, JC., Liu, WY. et al. J For Res (2016) 21: 261. doi:10.1007/s10310-016-0543-4

Abstract

This study conducts a survey on the urban forest parks in Taiwan to assess the benefits and affecting factors. The results show that the larger the area of the park, the higher the degree of satisfaction with the landscape and the status of the plants, and the higher the density of trees, the lower the degree of satisfaction with the scenic view. The shading effect is positively correlated with the diameter of plants at breast height, canopy cover area, and proportion of green coverage. However, higher green coverage is associated with lower satisfaction regarding the scenic view and the uniqueness of the landscape. Most visitors are less satisfied with the area of plants and landscape attractiveness. The study results can be used to evaluate the impacts of setting up urban forest parks. The outcomes also provide guidance for the relevant authorities for sustainable management and future policy making.

References

1. Akbari H (2002) Shade trees reduce building energy use and Co2 emissions from power plants. Environ Pollut 116:S119–S126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
2. Chen JR, Lin YJ (1996) Factors affecting satisfaction level of neighborhood park visitors. J Outdoor Recreat Stud 9(2&3):1–22 (Chinese with English summary)Google Scholar
3. Chen YC, Lin YJ (2003) Relationship of green space maintenance cost and planting composition. J Chin Soci Hortic Sci 49(4):383–394Google Scholar
4. Chu RKS, Choi T (2000) An importance-performance analysis of hotel selection factors in the Hong Kong hotel industry: a comparison of business and leisure travelers. Tour Manag 21:363–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Cook DI (1978) Trees, solid barriers, and combinations: alternatives for noise control. In: Hopkins G (ed) Proceedings of the National Urban Forestry Conference. USDA Forest Service, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, New York, pp 330–339
6. Crompton JL (2004) The proximate principle: the impact of parks, open space and water features on residential property values and the property tax base. National Recreation and Park Association, AshburnGoogle Scholar
7. Dombrow J, Rodriquez M, Sirmans CF (2000) The market value of mature trees in single family housing markets. Apprais J 68:39–43Google Scholar
8. Gold SM (1986) User characteristics and response to vegetation in neighborhood park. J Arboric 10:275–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Grahn P, Stigsdotter UA (2003) Landscape planning and stress. Urban For Urban Green 2:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Hawes JM, Rao CP (1985) Using importance-performance analysis to develop health care marketing strategies. J Health Care Mark 5(4):19–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
11. Hornsten L (2000) Outdoor recreation in Swedish forests. Doctoral dissertation, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala
12. Jim CY, Chen WY (2010) External effects of neighbourhood parks and landscape elements on high-rise residential value. Land Use Policy 27(2):662–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
14. Konijnendijk CC, Sadio S, Randrup TB, Schipperijn J (2004) Urban and peri-urban forestry in a development context-strategy and implementation. J Arboric 30(5):269–276Google Scholar
15. Luttik J (2000) The value of trees, water, and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands. Landsc Urban Plan 48:161–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. More TA, Stevens T, Allen PG (1988) Valuation of urban parks. Landsc Urban Plan 15:139–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Ode Åsa K, Fry GLA (2002) Visual aspects in urban woodland management. Urban For Urban Green 1:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Price C (2003) Quantifying the aesthetic benefits of urban forestry. Urban For Urban Green 1:123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Rowntree RA, Nowak DJ (1991) Quantifying the role of urban forests in removing atmospheric carbon dioxide. J Arboric 17:269–275Google Scholar
20. Sanders RA (1986) Urban vegetation impacts on the hydrology of Dayton, Ohio. Urban Ecol 9:361–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Schroeder HW (1991) Preference and measuring of arboretum landscape: combining quantitative data. J Environ Psychol 11:231–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Sethna BN (1982) Extensions and testing of importance-performance analysis. Bus Econ 20(9):28–31Google Scholar
23. Tyrvainen L (1999) Monetary valuation of urban forest amenities in Finland. Academic dissertation. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Research papers 739. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vantaa
24. Tyrvainen L, Silvennoinen H, Kolehmainen O (2003) Can ecological and aesthetic values be combined in urban forest management? Urban For Urban Green 1(3):135–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. USDA Forest Service (1994) Landscape aesthetics: a handbook for scenery management 701st edn. USDA Forest Service, Athens, GA

For further details log on website :
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10310-016-0545-2