Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nature experience, recreation activity and health benefits of visitors in mountain and urban forests in Vienna, Zurich and Freiburg

  • Published:
Journal of Mountain Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Mountain forests are managed for various purposes. Of these, recreation, leisure, and ecotourism are increasingly gaining prominence. Yet, with the development of new techniques for creating and managing urban forests, the perception of the public with regard to mountain forests and such urban forests is narrowing. For the purpose of this study, eight mountain forests and urban forests located in Zurich (Switzerland), Vienna (Austria) and Freiburg (Germany) were shortlisted. These places are renowned for their well-functioning management of mountain forests and creation of urban forests. As the study was to focus on the comparison of the perceptions of visitors in terms of their satisfaction in urban and mountain forests, the interview covered the following questions: (i) how satisfactory was the nature experience; (ii) how satisfactory were the outdoor recreational activities; (iii) whether the nature experiences influenced the mental and physical health of visitors. Responses thus received for each of the mountain forests and urban forests were assessed, with the total number of respondents being 247. Tourists visiting the selected areas were randomly chosen for a one-on-one interview survey. Results of the survey show that there is a clear perceptions of visitors differed between urban and mountain forests. However, the gap is insignificant or almost nonexistent with respect to satisfaction level of outdoor recreational activities and health benefits. These results are contrary to the findings of previous studies, which argued that the natural landscape of mountain areas is superior to other artificially built green spaces. Visitors did not perceive significant differences in outdoor recreational activities and health effects between the two spaces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abello RP, Bernaldez FG, Galiano EF (1986) Consensus and contrast components in landscape preference. Environment and Behavior 18: 155–176. DOI: 10.1177/0013916586182001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allendorf DT, Aung M, Songer M (2012) Using residents’ perceptions to improve park-people relationships in Chattin Wildlife Sanctuary, Myanmar. Journal of Environmental Management 99: 36–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson K, Lindgren M, Lundgren P (2005) Customer and stakeholder analysis [Kund-och intressent analys]. In: Slutrapport, (Final report). Kairos Future AB (Kairos Future Inc.) (In Swedish)

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnberger A (2006) Recreation use of urban forests: An interarea comparison. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 4(3-4): 135–144. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnberger A, Eder R (2012a) Exploring coping behaviours of Sunday and workday visitors due to dense use conditions in an urban forest. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 11: 439–449. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2012.08.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnberger A, Eder R (2012b) The influence of green space on community attachment of urban and suburban residents. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 11: 41–49. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.11.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beza B (2010) The aesthetic value of a mountain landscape: A case study of the Mt. Everest Trek. Landscape and Urban Planning 97: 306–317. DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björk J, Albin M, Grahn P, et al. (2008) Recreational values of the natural environment in relation to neighbourhood satisfaction, physical activity, obesity and wellbeing. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 62: e2. DOI: 10.1136/jech.2007.062414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown TJ, Kaplan R, Quaderer G (1999) Beyond accessibility; preference for natural areas. Therapeutic recreation journal 33(3): 209–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buijs A (2009) Public Natures: Social representations of nature and local practices. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colvin B. (1990) Trees in the Countryside. In: Clouston B (ed.), Landscape design with plants. 2nd ed. Architectural Press, Oxford, UK. p 448.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Chant T, Hernando Gallego A, Velazquez Saornil J, Kelly M (2010) Urban influence on changes in linear forest edge structure. Landscape and Urban Planning 96: 12–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly AH, Chaiken S (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, California, USA. p 794.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards D, Jay M, Jenson F, et al. (2012) Public preferences across Europe for different forest stand types as sites for recreation. Ecology and Society 17(1): 1–11. DOI: 10.5751/ES-04520-170127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson L, Nordlund A, Olsson O, Westin K (2012) Beliefs about urban fringe forests in Sweden. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 11(3): 321–328. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2012.02.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson L, Nordlund A (2013) How is setting preference related to intention to engage in forest recreation activities? Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 12: 481–489. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2013.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eyer H (1960) The forest as a counterweight to the damage by civilization [Der Wald als Gegengewicht gegen die Zivilisationsschäden unserer Zeit]. Jahresbericht des Bayerischen Forstvereins. pp 40–53. (In German)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske ST (1981) Social cognition and affect. In: Harvey JH (ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the environment. Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey, USA. p 624.

    Google Scholar 

  • GALK [Ständige Konferenz der Gartenamtsleiter beim Deutschen Städtetag] (2010) Results of the 3rd nationwide internet survey for visitors satisfaction in urban green areas [Ergebnisse der dritten bundesweiten Internet-befragung zur Messung der Bürgerzufriedenheit mit kommunalen Grünflächen]. KGSt IKO-Netz, Koln, Germany. p 22 (In German)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson VS, Frivold LH (2008) Public preferences for forest structures: a review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 7: 241–258. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2008.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guduric I, Tomicevic J, Konijnendijk CC (2011) A comparative perspective of urban forestry in Belgrade, Serbia and Freiburg, Germany. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 10: 335–342. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.08.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann R, Hug S-M, Seeland K (2007) Restoration and stress relief through physical activities in forests and parks. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 6: 213–225. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2007.08.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartig T, Evans GW, Jamner LD, et al. (2003) Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23: 109–123. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00109-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann M, Westermann RJ, Kowarik I, van der Meer E (2012) Perceptions of parks and urban derelict land by landscape planners and residents. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 11: 303–312. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2012.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen FS, Koch NE (2004) Twenty-five years of forest recreation research in Denmark and its influence on forest policy. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 19 (Suppl. 4): 93–102. DOI: 10.1080/14004080410034173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karjalainen E, Sarjala T, Raitio H (2010) Promoting human health through forests: overview and major challenges. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 15: 1–8. DOI: 10.1007/s12199-008-0069-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney AR, Bradley GA (2011) The effects of viewer attributes on preference for forest scenes: contributions of attitudes, knowledge, demographic factors, and stakeholder group membership. Environment and Behavior 43: 147–181. DOI: 10.1177/0013916509353523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellomaki S (1978) Recreational potential of a forest stand. Silva Fennica 12(3): 179–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy JJ, Dombeck MP, Koch NE (1998) Values, beliefs and management of public forests in the Western world at the close of the twentieth century. Unasylva 49(192): 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konijnendijk CC (2003) A decade of urban forestry in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics 5(2): 173–186. DOI: 10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00023-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konijnendijk CC (2006) Defining urban forestry - A comparative perspective of North America and Europe. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 4(3-4): 93–103. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2005.11.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Küster H (1999) History of landscape in Central Europe [Geschichte der Landschaft in Mitteleuropa]. Verlag C.H.Beck, München, Germany. p 423. (In German)

    Google Scholar 

  • Küster H (2008) History of the forest [Geschichte des Waldes]. Verlag C.H.Beck, München, Germany. p 266 (In German)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindhagen A, Hornsten L (2000) Forest recreation in 1977 and 1997 in Sweden: Changes in public preferences and behaviour. Forestry 73(2): 143–153. DOI: 10.1093/forestry/73.2.143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee JH (2011) Understanding the Healing Function of Urban Forests in German Cities. Journal of Korean Institute of Forest Recreation 15(3): 81–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee JH (2013) A Comparison of Perspectives on Urban Green Spaces in European Countries and South Korea. Journal of Korean Institute of Forest Recreation 17(4): 41–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loesch G (1980) Typology of forest visitors - a cross-sectional study by visitor’s behavior, motivation and attitude towards forest [Typologie der Waldbesucher - Betrachtung eines Bevölkerungsquerschnitts nach dem Besucherverhalten, der Besuchsmotivation und der Einstellung gegenüber Wald]. PhD thesis, Universität Göttingen, Goettingen, Germany. (In German)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo AYH, Jim CY (2012) Citizen attitude and expectation towards greenspace provision in compact urban milieu. Land Use Policy 29: 577–586. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.09.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maller C, Townsend M, Pryor A, et al. (2005) Healthy nature healthy people: contact with nature as an upstream health promotion intervention for population. Health Promotion International 21(1): 45–54. DOI: 10.1093/heapro/dai032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandler G (1984) Mind and Body: Psychology of emotion and stress. W W Norton & Co, New York, USA. p 346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuoka RH, Kaplan R. (2008) People needs in the urban landscape: Analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landscape and Urban Planning 84(1): 7–19. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meuser M, Nagel U (2010) Experteninterviews - wissenssoziologische Voraussetzungen und methodische Durchführung [Expert interview - sociology of knowledge and implementation method]. In: Friebertshäuser B, Langer A, Prengel A, (eds.), Qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft [Qualitative analysis method of education]. JuventaVerlag, München, Germany. pp 457–473. (In German)

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller MD (2012) The impacts of Atlanta’s urban sprawl on forest cover and fragmentation. Applied Geography 34: 171–179. DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.11.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mottet A, Ladet S, Coque N, Gibon A (2006) Agricultural landuse change and its drivers in mountain landscapes: a case study in the Pyrenees. Agricultural, Ecosystem and Environment 114: 296–310. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuvone M, Sievänen T, Tönnes S, Koskela T (2007) Access to green areas and the frequency of visits - a case study in Helsinki. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 6: 235–247. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2007.05.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ode A, Fry G, Tveit M, Messager P, Miller D (2009) Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 375–383. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottitsch A, Krott M (2005) Urban forest policy and planning. In: Konijnendijk CC, Nilsson K, Randrup TB, Schipperijn J (eds.), Urban Forests and Trees. Springer, Berlin, Germany. pp 119–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto HJ (1998) Urban forests - more understandable forest management? [Stadtnahe Wälder - Kann die Forstwirtschaft sich noch verständlich machen?] Forst und Holz 53: 19–22. (In German)

    Google Scholar 

  • Peckham SC, Duinker PN, Ordonez C (2013) Urban forest values in Canada: Views of citizens in Calgary and Halifax. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 12: 154–162. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2013.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purcell AT, Lamb RJ (1998) Preference and naturalness: an ecological approach. Landscape and Urban Planning 42: 57–66. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00073-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin J, Zhou X, Sun C, et al. (2013) Influence of green spaces on environmental satisfaction and physiological status of urban residents. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 12: 490–497. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2013.05.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribe RG (1989) The aesthecis of forestry: what has empirical preference research taught us? Environmental Management 13: 55–74. DOI: 10.1007/BF01867587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribe RG (1994) Scenic beauty perceptions along the ROS. Journal of Environmental Management 42: 199–221. DOI: 10.1006/jema.1994.1069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roovers P, Hermy M, Gulinck H (2002) Visitor profile, perceptions and expectations in forests from a gradient of increasing urbanization in central Belgium. Landscape and Urban Planning 59: 129–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan RM, Weinstein N, Bernstein J, et al. (2010) Vitalizing effects of being outdoors and in nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30: 159–168. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp. 2009.10.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schipperijin J, Stigsdotter UK, Randrup TB, Troelsen J (2010) Influences on the use of urban green space - a case study in Odense, Denmark. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 9(1): 25–32. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2009.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schirpke U, Tasser E, Tappeiner U (2013) Predicting scenic beauty of mountain regions. Landscape and Urban Planning 111: 1–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.11.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serpa A, Muhar A (1996) Effects of plant size, texture, and color on spatial perception in public green areas - cross-cultural study. Landscape and Urban Planning 36: 19–25. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(96)00330-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin WS, Kwon HG, Hammitt WE, Kim BS (2005) Urban forest park use and psychosocial outcomes: a case study in six cities across South Korea. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 20: 441–447. DOI: 10.1080/02827580500339930

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyrvainen L, Pauleit S, Seeland K, de Vries S (2005) Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees. In: Konijnendijk CC, Nilsson K, Randrup TB, Schipperijn J (eds.), Urban Forests and Trees. A Reference Book. Springer, Berlin, Germany. pp 81–114.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich RS (1986) Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 13: 29–44. DOI: 10.1016/0169-2046(86)90005-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Berg AE, Koole SL (2006) New wilderness in the Netherlands: an investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 78: 362–372. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.11.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltert F, Schulz T, Schlapfer F (2011) The role of landscape amenities in regional development: Evidence from Swiss municipality data. Land Use Policy 28(4): 748–761. DOI: 10.1016/0169-2046(86)90005-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White MP, Alcock I, Wheeler BW, Depledge MH (2013) Would you be happier living in a greener urban area? a fixed-effects analysis of panel data. Psychological Science 24(6): 920–928. DOI: 10.1177/0956797612464659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkie S, Stavridou A (2013) Influence of environmental preference and environment type congruence on judgments of restoration potential. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 12: 163–170. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2013.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang H, Chen B, Sun Z, Bao Z (2013) Landscape perception and recreation needs in urban green space in Fuyang, Hangzhou, China. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 12: 44–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2012.11.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zirnstein G (1996) The history of ecology and environment [Ökologie und Umwelt in der Geschichte]. Metropolis Verlag, Marburg, Germany. p 416. (In German)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forest Resources, Faculty of Natural Resources, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, 38541, South Korea

    Ju-hyoung Lee

  2. Department of Forest Resources, College of Life & Environmental Science, Daegu University, Gyeongsan, 38453, South Korea

    Duk-jae Lee

Authors
  1. Ju-hyoung Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Duk-jae Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Duk-jae Lee.

Additional information

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5614-8851

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0514-1414

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, Jh., Lee, Dj. Nature experience, recreation activity and health benefits of visitors in mountain and urban forests in Vienna, Zurich and Freiburg. J. Mt. Sci. 12, 1551–1561 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-014-3246-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-014-3246-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation