Abstract

Abstract In recent times, the focus in urban park management has shifted from mere aesthetics to the difficult task of striking a balance between ecology and the aesthetic outlay of those parks. Park managers design the spatial arrangement, the structure and the ecological diversity of vegetation to mimic natural ecosystems. However, the ecological benefit is often associated with a decrease in the aesthetic value for users. To better understand this trade-off, we eye-tracked 196 users in Rennes (France) to test if ‘ecological’ management of woody edges was in accordance with their aesthetic preferences and ecological perception. We identified which were the visual areas of interest for users in four types of managed woody edges and analysed which were considered as the most aesthetic and the most ecologically valuable. Finally, we analysed if both aesthetic user preferences and ‘ecological’ management of woody edges were compatible. Based on a classification of increasing management complexity of woody edges, we showed that users’ aesthetic preferences were mainly focused on tree and shrub layers, while users identified the herb and shrub layers as the most favourable area for maintaining biodiversity. Thus, the more complex the edge, the more the relationship between aesthetic preferences and ecological management is for park management. More precisely, in complex woody edge structures, some vegetation layers such as shrub could represent a specific lever to fulfil both aesthetic and ecological purposes.

Highlights

  • Over 54% of the total global population lives in cities since 2014 and the figure is predicted to rise to over 70% within 30 years (World Health Organisation 2016)

  • In the city of Rennes (France), park management distinguished four kinds of edges according to their structure

  • Materials In order to understand the complex relations between aesthetic preferences of users, ecological management carried out by park management on public woody edges and their perception by users, we developed a participative eye-tracking experiment based on 196 users in Rennes (France)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Over 54% of the total global population lives in cities since 2014 and the figure is predicted to rise to over 70% within 30 years (World Health Organisation 2016) Facing this increase of the urban world’s population, urban parks supporting nature are identified as important landscape elements providing ecosystem services (Russo et al 2017) and could support biodiversity (Kowarik 2011). The need for urban parks to foster physical and psychological well-being, became a key focus of urban policy (Dong and Qin 2017; Hoyle, Hitchmough, and Jorgensen 2017). Relationships between human preferences and biodiversity are complex (Dong and Qin 2017; Southon et al 2017); ‘wild-looking’ parks with the highest biodiversity are generally negatively perceived aesthetically compared to ornamental woodland park style with the lowest biodiversity (Qiu, Lindberg, and Nielsen 2013; Hoyle et al, 2017)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call