EXAMINING THE PREFERENCES AND PERCEIVED PYSCHOLOGICAL BENEFITS OF
URBAN PARKS BY SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS:
A CASE STUDY IN LANSING, MICHIGAN
By
Jeremy McWhorter

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Geography- Master of Science
2013

ABSTRACT
EXAMINING THE PREFERENCES AND PERCEIVED PYSCHOLOGICAL BENEFITS OF
URBAN PARKS BY SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS:
A CASE STUDY IN LANSING, MICHIGAN

By
Jeremy McWhorter
Urban parks offer opportunities for physical activity, enjoyment of nature, and social
interaction. Access to nearby parks has been shown in studies to improve perceived
psychological health. However, research has indicated that not all styles of parks are perceived
in the same way.

Studies have investigated the relationship between preference for park

landscapes and gender, age and race and have shown that different park characteristics appeal to
different population groups. Few studies have investigated the relationship between
socioeconomic status/social class and landscapes, both natural and developed, and how they are
perceived. In this study, perceptions of resident visitors were surveyed in three
socioeconomically (SES) stratified (high, medium, and low) neighborhoods in Lansing,
Michigan in the summer of 2013. Interviews (n=90) were conducted in 6 parks across the city
(i.e., one natural and one developed park-pair for each of the three neighborhoods). Park visitors
from each neighborhood were asked about their perceived psychological benefits in the park they
were visiting and then asked the same questions while viewing photos of the paired-park. Results
showed that residents in the high-SES neighborhoods preferred natural parks; residents from the
medium-SES neighborhood preferred natural and developed parks; and residents from low-SES
neighborhoods preferred developed parks. Future data collection methods assessing public
attitudes towards urban parks should include SES-stratified neighborhoods in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Above all, I would like to thank my program advisor Dr. Sue Grady. Dr. Grady was there
for me in the very beginning when I was searching for thesis ideas as a confused and lost first
semester graduate student searching for an identity. By discussing ideas pertaining to what my
research interests were and what she was currently working on, we were able to propose idea
after idea, eventually coming up with a solid thesis topic. Dr. Grady‟s helpful advice, welcoming
personality, and constant optimism gave me the confidence to believe that what I was doing was
feasible, realistic, and had value. Perhaps her greatest contribution to my project was the constant
encouragement and toleration of my countless questions and comments.
I would also like to acknowledge the other professors whom form my thesis committee,
those being Drs. Igor Vojnovic and Sarah Nicholls. Dr. Vojnovic was extremely positive
throughout my thesis process and guided me early on to warmer waters and a more realistic idea
of what a thesis could be and how it could be conducted. Dr. Nicholls provided superb expertise
on all things urban parks. Her critiques and comments during the proposal phase of my research
saved me countless hours of work and stress. Helping me bounce off ideas and consider
alternative questions and methods were Dr. David Campbell and all members of our Research
and Design course as well as Dr. Gold and the students from his Qualitative Field Research
course. I can easily say that these courses have been the most useful courses that I have ever
taken. In addition to these resources, my project would have never come to fruition had it not
been supported by funding from the Geography Department at Michigan State University.

iii

Helping me throughout this whole process were my loving parents. Like with everything
in life, they are always there to support me and have influenced my life in a myriad of ways. In
addition, accomplishing this research would have been impossible had it not been for the
benevolent and receptive residents of Lansing in their respective neighborhoods. Entering this
project I had serious reservations while considering how I would get people to conduct
interviews with me. After the fact, I was quite surprised by the excellent participation that
resulted from this study and for that I am in debt to their servitude and contribution. Finally, I
would like to thank God for giving me every opportunity in life that I have had and using
projects like this as a teaching point for facing my fears and forcing myself to become a more
driven and productive individual.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Statement of Problem
1.2a Scholarly Research Problem
1.2b Local Research Problem: Lansing, Michigan and the History of Its Parks
1.3 Research Goals
1.4 Research Objectives
1.5 Research Questions
1.6 Study Hypotheses

1
5
5
5
10
11
11
12

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Health and the Environment
2.2 Public Health and the Built Environment
2.3 The Rise of Urban Parks
2.4 Park Benefits: Health
2.5 Park Benefits: Social
2.6 General Landscape Preferences as Applied to Urban Parks
2.7 Park and Leisure Participation: A Disentangling Between Class and Race
2.8 Landscape Preferences and Theory

13
13
14
16
19
20
21
25

CHAPTER 3: METHODS
3.1 Conceptual Framework
3.2 Research Variable Definitions
3.3 Study Area
3.4 Selection of Parks
3.5 Survey Data Collection and Methods
3.6 Survey Sampling Approach
3.7 Survey Questionnaires
3.8 Sample Size
3.9 Quantitative Analysis
3.10 Qualitative Analysis

27
30
31
31
38
40
41
43
43
44

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
4.1 Overview of Results
4.2 Quantitative Survey Data Results
4.3 Qualitative Survey Data Results
4.4 2010-2015 Parks Master Plan and Landscape Architect Interview Results

45
50
63
63

v

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
5.1 Field Notes/Observations
68
5.2 Findings: Research Question 1: Do park visitors from high, medium and low 69
socioeconomic zones prefer similar or different types of parks –i.e.,
natural or developed urban parks?
5.3 Research Question 2a: Do park visitors from high, medium, and low
70
socioeconomic neighborhoods perceive psychological benefits from the parks
that they prefer?
5.4 Research Question 2b: What are the emotions and feelings that park residents 72
have toward the park landscapes that they prefer?
5.5 Research Question 2c: Which physical urban park landscape elements
72
are viewed as aesthetically pleasing in natural and developed park types?
5.6 Research Question 2d: Are certain natural and/or developed urban parks
74
visited more or less frequently than others?
5.7 Research Question 3: Should park modifications and specific
74
data collection methods for assessing the park needs of these populations in
Lansing be reconsidered by the Parks and Recreation Department?
5.8 Contribution
77
5.9 Limitations
82
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
6.1 Conclusions
6.2 Policy and Management Implications
6.3 Future Research

85
86
89

APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Lansing Parks and Recreation Department Park Facilities Inventory
Appendix 2: In Situ Park Survey
Appendix 3: Photo Park Survey
Appendix 4: Research Participation Statement
Appendix 5: Survey Results
Appendix 6a: High Socioeconomic Zone Responses to Open-ended Question 1
Appendix 6b: High Socioeconomic Zone Responses to Open-ended Question 2
Appendix 6c: Medium Socioeconomic Zone Responses to Open-ended Question 1
Appendix 6d: Medium Socioeconomic Zone Responses to Open-ended Question 2
Appendix 6e: Low Socioeconomic Zone Responses to Open-ended Question 1
Appendix 6f: Low Socioeconomic Zone Responses to Open-ended Question 2
Appendix 7: Interview Written Transcript with Landscape Architect
Appendix 8: Photos

91
92
93
94
95
96
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119

BIBLIOGRAPHY

125

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Demographic Comparison of Park Survey Sample and City of Lansing

47

Table 4.2: Demographic Results by Socioeconomic Zone

48

Table 4.3: Park Visitation Frequency by Socioeconomic Zone

49

Table 4.4: Mean Difference in Survey Responses (Questions 1-10) Between Natural and
Developed Parks Across All Socioeconomic Zones, Lansing, Michigan, 2012.

53

Table 4.41: Mean Difference in Survey Responses (Questions 1-10) for Residents of
Natural and Developed Parks in High Socioeconomic Zones, Lansing, Michigan, 2012

54

Table 4.42: Mean Difference in Survey Responses (Questions 1-10) for Residents of Natural 55
and Developed Parks in Medium Socioeconomic Zones, Lansing, Michigan, 2012
Table 4.43: Mean Difference in Survey Responses (Questions 1-10) for Residents of Natural 56
and Developed Parks in Low Socioeconomic Zones, Lansing, Michigan, 2012
Table 4.51: Mean Difference in Survey Responses (Questions 1-10) Between High and
Medium Socioeconomic Zone Natural Parks, Lansing, Michigan, 2012

57

Table 4.52: Mean Difference in Survey Responses (Questions 1-10) Between High and
Medium Socioeconomic Zone Developed Parks, Lansing, Michigan, 2012

58

Table 4.53: Mean Difference in Survey Responses (Questions 1-10) Between High and
Low Socioeconomic Zone Natural Parks, Lansing, Michigan, 2012

59

Table 4.61: Mean Difference in Survey Responses (Questions 1-10) Between High and
Low Socioeconomic Zone Developed Parks, Lansing, Michigan, 2012

60

Table 4.62: Mean Difference in Survey Responses (Questions 1-10) Between Medium
and Low Socioeconomic Zone Natural Parks, Lansing, Michigan, 2012

61

Table 4.63: Mean Difference in Survey Responses (Questions 1-10) Between Medium
and Low Socioeconomic Zone Developed Parks, Lansing, Michigan, 2012

62

Table 4.7: Lansing Parks and Recreation Department Park Facilities Inventory

92

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Conceptual Framework Model

29

Figure 3.2: Lansing Parks

34

Figure 3.3: Median Household Income Distribution and Classifications

35

Figure 3.4: Lansing Parks by Median Household Income

36

Figure 3.5: Selected Park Sites for Study Area

37

Figure 3.6: Fairview Park, Northeast view, May 25, 2012, source: J McWhorter

119

Figure 3.7: Fairview Park, Western View, May 25, 2012, source: J McWhorter

119

Figure 3.8: Kimberley/Slater Park, Western View, May 29, 2012, source: J McWhorter

120

Figure 3.9: Kimberley/Slater Park, Southern View, May 9, 2012, source: J McWhorter

120

Figure 3.10: Moores Park, Northern View, June 16, 2012, source: J McWhorter

121

Figure 3.11: Moores Park, Western View, June 16, 2012, source: J McWhorter

121

Figure 3.13: Riverside Park, Northeast View, June 23, 2012, source: J McWhorter

122

Figure 3.12: Riverside Park, Northwest View, June 23, 2012, source: J McWhorter

122

Figure 3.14: Scott Park, Western View, July 29, 2012, source: J McWhorter

123

Figure 3.15: Scott Park, Southern View, July 29, 2012, source: J McWhorter

123

Figure 3.16: Hunter Park, Eastern View, August 5, 2012, source: J McWhorter

124

Figure 3.17: Hunter Park, Southeastern View, August 5, 2012, source: J McWhorter

124

viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
Mankind‟s observation of scientific phenomena and the principles of nature have long
been a fascination and curiosity. This awareness of humans and attention given to the natural is
evident in everyday life. As humans, regardless of our location we are always in touch with the
natural in some way or form. The world we live in is compromised of untouched spaces and
human constructions constituting the natural realm. These spaces both natural and human form
the landscapes in which we view and experience on a daily basis.
Our interaction with both worlds and their visual imprint brings about questions
concerning our adaption to and comfort with these two forces. Our perceptions and preferences
have been the basis for the fields of environmental psychology (Ulrich, 1983 and Kaplan and
Kaplan, 1989), and landscape perception as evidenced by pioneering work by Zube et al. (1982)
and extensive research by Roger Ulrich (1979-2002) and Steven and Rachel Kaplan (1972-1989).
Research has shown that contact with natural settings increases psychological well-being,
improves mood, (Ulrich, 1984), increases pleasure, (Hartig et al., 2003) and leads to better health
(Laumann et al., 2003). In a groundbreaking study, Ulrich (1984) revealed that hospital patients
with views of nature had remarkably higher recovery rates than patients without scenic views.
However, additional research shows that in addition to the natural realm, exposure to social
settings and places lead to greater psychological health and benefits (Ulrich 1979, Kaplan, 1994,
and Gesler, 2003).
Historically, research on landscapes has separated ecological research from social
science research. Today ecological and social science research on landscapes has become
1

integrated. Ecological studies on the “human dimension” of landscapes are also referred to as
landscapes of “place” with its meanings and contributions to societal identity. This “humandimension” research deals with the multi-faceted interrelationship between landscape and society
or individuals (Hunziker et al., 2007). The major impetus for systematic analyses and studies of
landscape beauty and amenity took place during the 1960s up until the early 1970s (Zube et al.,
1982). After this time, important work from Tuan (1974), Sack (1980), Entrkin (1990) and others
st

emerged into the 21 century exemplifying the human aspects of landscapes.
The social aspect of landscape research has become increasingly important during recent
years and it will become even more important in the future (Hunziker et al., 2007). Hunziker et al.
(2007) continues to point out that this human-dimension of research is needed for a
comprehensive understanding of the socio-ecological systems that manifest themselves in
landscapes. Knowledge of peoples‟ needs, including the reasons for these needs, is a prerequisite
for designing nature conservation and landscape planning measures that can be accepted by the
public and, thus, have an opportunity for succeeding long-term ( Luz 1993; Stoll 1999; Schenk,
2000; and Hunziker et al. 2001).
Landscape perception and assessment research has engaged the interests of individuals
from an array of disciplines and professions including: environmental studies, recreation,
geography, forestry, landscape architecture, and psychology (Zube et al., 1982). Knowledge
gained through research on landscape aesthetics when applied to public spaces such as urban
parks present opportunities for more effective use of park lands to fit the needs of different
people. Furthermore, people may be unaware of the factors that drive what they desire in a park
landscape because of the social structure in which their daily lives and parks are embedded.
2

Various studies across numerous demographics have researched peoples‟ preferences for
conservation vs. recreation in parks as well as their desires for more developed or nature-based
parks (Payne et al., 2002; Ho et. al 2005; and Elmendorf et. al 2005). Additionally, studies have
looked at residential location and its role in determining landscape preferences (Payne et al.,
2002). More so, residential location and socioeconomic status intertwined with racial/ethnic
identities has been the subject of many studies (Washburne, 1978; Klobus-Edwards; 1981; Floyd
et al, 1994; and Shinew et al., 1994, 1995). International studies have also focused on how urban
parks and green spaces affect peoples‟ values based on class and socioeconomic status (Breuste
et al., 2008 and Jim and Chen 2006).
Questions of race, class, urbanization, and leisure behavior have been an important area
of research (Mueller and Gurin, 1962; Washburne, 1978; Klobus-Edwards, 1981; Stamps and
Stamps, 1985; and Dwyer et al., 1990). Theories such as the marginality hypothesis and the
ethnicity or sub-culture hypothesis have been proposed to explain differing values towards
recreation between races (Floyd et al. 1994). For example, Elmendorf et al. (2005) found that
blacks preferred recreational parks while whites preferred more nature-based park settings.
Furthermore, Schroeder (1983) described how individuals who had spent most of their lives in
urban areas preferred more developed parks while people living in rural and suburban areas had
an inclination towards natural forests. Nonetheless, despite suggestions from literature that race
and place of origin have indicated divisions over park style preference; an investigation has yet
to study the effects of social class on preference and the psychological benefits which
complement these inclinations.

3

To understand these preferences and urban dynamics we must first look at the history of
th

st

urban environments in the United States and how they have evolved from the 20 to 21 century.
th

As the industrial revolution in the 19 century lead to the agglomeration of industry and
resources centered on the city, people moved from the rural hinterlands into the emerging urban
areas. However, as standards of living increased and transportation mobility improved, the
wealthy began to leave the once sought after cosmopolitan city areas to the edge cities and
suburbs. Meanwhile, middle class workers attempted to do the same, while lower class citizens,
often immigrants, took up the old, cheaper areas formerly occupied by the wealthy in the city
th

centers. Throughout the 20 century, urban areas continued to grow as technological advances
engendered an era of industrialization in the nation.
Cities grew in America until the 1950s, when the post-World War II era marked the death
and decay of certain cities, resulting in population migration to suburban communities. As labor
prices were cheaper outside the United States, industry started to move internationally into
developing regions such as Latin America and Asia. As jobs and people left the cities, more
growth occurred in the suburbs. Old industrial cities in the Midwest and Northeast began to
decline as Americans set out not just for the suburbs but for the warmer, more southern regions
of the United States (Jacobs, 1992).
Around the 1960s, industrial cities like Detroit saw employment take a spatial shift,
resulting in the movement of upper and middle-class households to the suburbs and edge cities.
Those staying behind in cities took available low-paying employment. To this end, not all classes
left cities, but the inter-mixing of social class and race in close quarters began to dissipate. As a
4

result of these drastic changes over the past 60 years, cities and in particular metropolitan regions
have witnessed a socio-spatial dynamic where people who move up socially also move out
spatially (Darden, 1986). Therefore, given the social dynamics which have unraveled in
American cities it is important to identify the different urban park needs of people to discover
what is pleasing in both the natural and human environment in cities and how these landscapes
serve a number of social, recreational, and health benefits to their users.
1.2 Statement of Problem
1.2a Scholarly Research Problem
Research pertaining to the psychological benefits perceived from urban parks in general,
particular differences between natural and developed urban parks, and the differences perceived
by individuals based on socioeconomic status or social class remains to be conducted.
Understanding these different park landscape values and their attached psychological benefits by
place of residence and consequential socioeconomic status will be essential to direct the most
efficient use of urban park lands. In doing so, this knowledge will have implications for best
practices and design for urban parks as dictated by aesthetic preference.
1.2b Local Research Problem: Lansing, Michigan and the History of Its Parks
Currently in Lansing, park preferences between natural, uncontrolled parks and
traditional, maintained, developed parks appear as a salient issue throughout the community
(Balaskovitz, 2011). As city and town officials experience budget cuts nationwide, the traditional
values of parks and green spaces are perceived as less of a priority in the maintenance of the city
infrastructure (Tyrvainen and Vaananen, 1998). Due to this financial concern, many cities like
Lansing have cut funding for parks maintenance.
5

In times of economic hardship, the city of Lansing decided to “naturalize” 14 of its 115
urban parks beginning in the year 2011 (adding to its existing natural parks) in an effort to save
$900,000 annually (Balaskovitz, 2011). Moreover, by naturalizing these select urban parks, the
parks essentially have gone natural, meaning maintenance has been cut off, leaving the parks to
return to a less anthropogenic-induced look within the urban environment. City officials and
select residents argue that naturalizing parks will lead to more natural areas where native birds
and animals can live. There are residents of Lansing however, who disapprove of the
naturalization of parks (Ibid). Several residents have cited these changes to the parks as being
public safety issues; claiming that the parks are being abandoned and not naturalized (Ibid).
To assist in answering questions surrounding this debate, the historical trajectory of urban
parks in this cases study must first be presented. By the year 1889, approximately 52 years after
Lansing was settled, there were only two urban parks throughout the city. Fast forward to the
year 1922 and only one additional park was added right as the first master plan for the city was
created (Bartholomew, 1922). In this same year, Harland Bartholomew was contracted to prepare
this first comprehensive plan for the city. As part of his plan, Harland made the preservation of
forests and other unique plants in the area a priority. By 1938, the city had included 300 acres of
new parks in addition to previous land from 1922. Finally in 1944, the Park Board, a citizenbased advisory board was established forming what is now the Parks and Recreation Department.
Today, Lansing has 115 urban parks, which also include golf courses and cemeteries (City of
Lansing, 2012).
The Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for writing the Parks Master Plan
and setting 5 year goals (City of Lansing Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2010-2015, 2010).
6

The most current goal of this plan reads, “To enhance the quality of life through the preservation
and maintenance of park lands, the provision of quality leisure time activities and the provision
of specialty facilities which would otherwise not be available to Lansing residents.” To formulate
a Master Plan, the Parks and Recreation Department uses methods to gather, compile, and
analyze data. These methods include mail and internet-based surveys, public meetings, public
hearings, and interviews with city officials. In addition, the demographics, natural features, and,
park and recreation trends within the Lansing community are also assessed (City of Lansing
Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2010-2015, 2010). With respect to all these measures taken, it
would be assumed that desired park functionality would be evident throughout Lansing
neighborhoods.
Nonetheless, previous research on the Parks and Recreation Department and its practices
has yielded mixed results. Local studies by Spotts and Stynes (1984), Stauffer (2001), and Bruch
(2007), have discussed issues of park awareness, environmental equity, and park resource
perception respectively within Lansing. Research by Spotts and Stynes (1984) revealed minor
issues regarding the Department‟s ability to promote park awareness while Stauffer (2001) cited
similar results with regard to resident awareness of park resources.
However, more important were findings from Bruch (2007). Critiques from Bruch (2007)
indicated that newspaper surveys, committees, focus groups, and public hearings used to defend
past Master Plans were ineffective methods for reaching underserved populations. The author
goes on to explain how the literature supports this claim and that upper-class citizens make up a
vast majority of those involved with public policy participation groups. Alford and Friedland
(1975) describe how people who make up these upper-class groups have higher incomes and
7

social power. In addition, another study found that lower income groups were less-trustful of
local community and political groups as compared to higher income groups (Doherty et al.,
2001).
Specifically, Bruch (2007) identifies how minorities and groups living in poverty had not
been consulted on their park preferences despite there being an objective to do so in both Master
Plans that emphasized Lansing‟s changing demographics. Bruch (2007) also discusses how the
failure of past Park Master Plans “to effectively reach these underserved populations, while
acknowledging their growing existence” was a huge flaw in the Parks and Recreation
Department decision-making process. The 2005-2010 Master Plan confirms these same
guidelines, approaches, and intents as stated in preceding Master Plans. The Plan also describes
the intent for park renovations and additions to be accomplished in the coming years. In order to
conduct these changes, several projects and contractors are mentioned with whom the City will
collaborate (City of Lansing Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2005-2010, 2005).
Given these findings from previous authors‟ research, a more in-depth analysis of the
Parks and Recreation Department‟s Master Plans was needed. As stated previously, the
foundations and rationales for park and recreation decision-making were found in the 2010-2015
Park Master Plan (City of Lansing, 2012). The Plan stated objectives for assuring the
incorporation of demographic trends into park planning. The Plan does not directly highlight a
methodology with exact guidelines and justifiable measurements for meeting these objectives.
Instead, the Plan makes several references to surveys, meetings, public hearings,
commissions, and other documents. Attached to the Plan is a repository of documents meant to
justify the “action plan.” Included within these documents are: newspaper clippings, letters and
8

flyers advertising Master Plan input sessions, board meeting agendas, maps of undefined
demographics by city ward, mail-in surveys, letters from community centers and organizations,
letters from citizens, a website blog for comments, interviews with city officials, park board
members, and an online survey.
The survey displayed in the 2010-2015 Park Master Plan appeared very complete and
concise. In fact, the survey questions narrowed in on income ranges, race, park landscape
preferences, and the creation of more nature elements. However, the dissemination strategy for
issuing these surveys has appeared to be in question. The strategies and methods for examining
these demographic changes, as well as the park preferences of these groups appears to be broadly
stated while lacking substantiated methodologies, albeit being well-intentioned.
The problem is that for one, it is well-known that low income groups due to factors of
time and access are less able to participate in surveys online because of the often “digital divide.”
It is also common knowledge that underprivileged groups may not have the time or convenience
to answer paper or online surveys. Bruch (2007) echoes these conclusions; describing how
Department techniques were unable to reach the park needs of disenfranchised and underserved
populations.
In general, issues of park and recreation equity amongst numerous demographics have
been studied for decades (West and Crompton, 2008, Crompton and Lue, 1992, Wicks and
Crompton, 1986). Mladenka (1978), Jones (1980), Nivola (1979) and others have confirmed that
clientele contact behavior often dictates service allocation. In other words, answering questions
relating to park equity rest heavily on methods aimed at contacting park users and addressing
their perceptions of use and access.
9

Nonetheless, as Wicks and Crompton (1990) observed: “Residents‟ assessments of
service allocation patterns are not always accurate; often they do not know either who receives
the most or least recreation and park services, or how a given service is funded” (p. 34). Thus, in
two well-reported court cases, Berner vs. Washington, D.C. and Midwest Community
Council vs. Chicago Park District, court action was initiated because minority residents of low
income areas felt they were receiving less than their fair share of recreation and park services
(Wicks, 1987). In each case, follow-up investigation showed that at least as many resources were
expended in the minority neighborhoods as were expended in other income areas (West and
Crompton, 2008, p. 428).
Given research from around the nation and past studies on Lansing and its parks, the
researcher speculated that methods used by the Parks and Recreation Department might create
biases that could comprise the results of park studies and fail to provide a representative sample
of Lansing park users. In other words, online and mail-in surveys presented a number of flaws in
reaching a wide range of socioeconomic classes. As a result of skepticism in the Department‟s
survey methods and insight from past local research, more research is required to evaluate the
data collection methods and Park Master Plans for Lansing and other cities. This thesis research
intends to analyze the Department‟s Master Plan in conjunction with its data collection methods
in order to investigate potentially flawed methods and suggest alternatives.
1.3 Research Goals
The first goal of this research is to determine Lansing resident‟s park preferences –i.e.,
preference for natural vs. developed parks and the psychological benefits derived from visiting
those parks to improve our understanding of their needs for future planning. The second goal of
10

this research is to analyze the content within the 2010-2015 Parks Master Plan to scrutinize
possible shortcomings with regard to how the park needs and preferences of socioeconomic
classes in the city are both considered and determined, while providing recommendations for
future methodological advancement to ensure plans are more equitable.
1.4 Research Objectives
The objectives of this research are (1) to examine how natural and developed parks are
perceived based on socioeconomic status through high, medium, and low socioeconomic
neighborhoods; (2) to investigate the perceived psychological benefits gained from experiencing
these parks within similar socioeconomic neighborhoods ; and (3) to suggest new data collection
methods for urban land managers.
1.5 Research Questions
1) Do park visitors from high, medium and low socioeconomic neighborhoods prefer
similar or different types of parks –i.e., natural or developed urban parks?
2a) Do park visitors from high, medium, and low socioeconomic neighborhoods perceive
psychological benefits from the parks that they prefer?
2b) What are the emotions and feelings that park residents have towards the park
landscapes that they prefer?
2c) Which physical urban park landscape elements are viewed as aesthetically pleasing in
natural and developed park types?
2d) Are certain natural and/or developed urban parks visited more or less frequently than
others?

11

3) Should park modifications and specific data collection methods for assessing the park
needs of the residents of Lansing be reconsidered by the Parks and Recreation
Department?
1.6 Hypotheses
The hypotheses of this study are: (1) All residents visiting parks in different
socioeconomic neighborhoods will have similar park preferences; (2) Perceived psychological
benefits from visiting parks will differ for residents living in high, medium, and low
socioeconomic neighborhoods; (3) Perceived psychological benefits will be similar regardless of
respondents‟ connection with social or natural environments; (4) Both natural and developed
physical urban park landscape elements will not be seen as aesthetically pleasing for reasons
connecting to interviewees‟ familiarity with these landscapes; and (5) Natural and developed
parks will be visited similarly based on the assumption that socioeconomic status does not
inform park preferences

12

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Health and the Environment
The health of our human population depends fundamentally on the quality of the
environment in which we reside and upon the capacity of the surrounding environment to
provide goods and services. For these reasons, health and the environment cannot be separated
from one another. In industrialized countries, including the United States, basic improvements in
housing, sanitation, fuel use, and nutrition have been responsible for dramatic improvements in
public health and life expectancy over the past 150 years. Protection of the environment is an
essential public health strategy in order to promote the well-being of our human population
(Kumar, 2007).
The genesis of environmental health debatably began in the 19

th

century with the

“Sanitation Revolution” in response to the control of diseases related to poor sanitary conditions
th

th

(Gochfeld and Goldstein, 1999). Towards the end of the 19 century and beginning of the 20

century around the “Progressive Era,” the environmental health movement took on more issues
specifically concerning cities and reforms for clean water supply, more efficient removal of raw
sewage, and the reduction of crowded and unsanitary living conditions (American History, 2006).
2.2 Public Health and the Built Environment
Public health has been at the forefront of land-use planning and zoning as far back as
1926 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Village of Euclid vs. Ambler Realty Co., cited public
health protection as one of the basic responsibilities of local governments (Village of Euclid,
1926). In the 1960s, pioneers such as Jane Jacobs called for the design of cities to have
13

convenient options for walking, biking, and impromptu social interaction. Additionally, the
1980s engendered the rise of the “Healthy Cities Movement” which began in Europe and the
United States in the form of projects highlighting the roles of health in urban areas (Kochtitzky et
al., 2006).
Over the last few decades, increasing evidence has shown that land-use decisions in the
built environment influence the determinants of environmental health and that where we work
and live affect our overall health (Nelson et al., 2007). Specifically, data reports that physical and
mental health problems relate to the built environment, including human-modified places such as
homes, schools, workplaces, parks, industrial areas, farms, roads, and highways (Srinivasan et al.,
2003). Given that close to 80% of North Americans live in towns and cities and spend 90% of
their time indoors, places such as homes, schools, workplaces, parks, etc are our most important
habitats (Hancock, 2002). In general, these significant findings have led those in the field of
urban planning to firmly believe that the formation of the built environment directly affects the
physical activity of its inhabitants and their resulting physical and mental health (Handy et al.,
2002).
2.3 The Rise of Urban Parks
One such characteristic or entity of the built environment as mentioned are urban parks; a
part of the built environment which has promoted this well-being and access to physical activity
th

for our public health as reiterated by Wells et al. (2010). Since the end of the 19 century‟s
romantic park systems, open space designers have been concerned with guiding, containing or
separating urban growth, distributing recreation, and/or producing scenic amenity, mostly within
the framework of geometric abstractions (Wallace et al., 1970). Parks in America were first
14

designed to improve the urban environments of cities by addressing both community and
individual needs (Woudstra et al., 2000). When discussing urban parks, green spaces, urban
forests, riverfront trails, and many other spaces fall under this umbrella term.
Public health problems occupied an important role in the thinking of Frederick Law
Olmsted. Olmsted believed that low-density residential neighborhoods combined with parks and
open space would help to solve many of the health problems faced by urban America in the 19th
th

century (Szczygiel and Hewitt 2000). During the 19 century, Olmsted also observed that
experiencing and simply viewing nature reduced the stress of daily urban life (Ulrich, 1979 and
Jackson, 2001). It has since been argued that urban parks and open green spaces are of strategic
importance for the quality of life of our increasingly urbanized society (Cheisura, 2004).
During the 1840s, the park movement began to sweep the nation. The basis for this wave
of enthusiasm for parks was reflected in the romanticism occupied by nature in that urban parks
through natural scenery had the power to uplift and restore the human spirit. The belief of
Frederick Olmsted and other park planners was that these urban landscapes would provide
reprieve from the daily grind involved in city life.
Throughout this era, several different urban park styles emerged, including: landscaped
garden, garden cemetery, unplanned open space, and commercial pleasure ground. By the 1920s
and 1930s, a new park function emerged; the recreation facility park. The origin of this style of
park was rooted from the Progressive Movement. Park planners believed that the benefits of
recreation needed to reach urban people and in particular children. Resulting from these concerns,
the playground was created, a unit filled with specialized recreational spaces and equipment
(Low et al., 2005). From here the dichotomy was born between nature-preserving parks and
15

developed, recreation-oriented parks. Within these built environments, natural areas nearby
promote well-being while views of the natural environment have been shown to improve
cognitive functioning and improve recovery from surgery and illness. People who live near parks
and open space are more physically active (Wells et al., 2010). In general, research has shown
that characteristics of the built environment in which we live can directly influence our mental
health (Evans, 2003).
2.4 Park Benefits: Health
Research has shown that those who live closer to parks use them more often (Lopez and
Hynes, 2006). Having this access allows citizens to be more physically active and have improved
contact with the natural environment over those living further away. Backing these claims are
studies which indicate that physically active people have lower risks of developing
cardiovascular disease, cancer, pulmonary diseases, etc ( Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2011). Frumkin (2001) showcases how both physical and mental health benefits may
be derived from contact with natural elements such as plants, animals, landscapes, and
wilderness.
Parks offer a unique setting within the urban landscape, providing opportunities for
physical activity, enjoyment of nature, social interaction, and escape (Hayward and Weitzer,
1984). Additionally, access to nearby parks and natural settings is associated with improved
mental health (Payne et al., 2005 and Sugiyama et al., 2008). In general, there is a growing
recognition that public park opportunities are an important part of the health care infrastructure
system (Crompton, 1999 and Payne, 2002). According to Chesiura (2004), stress reduction,
mood improvement, relaxation, and ability to experience nature and escape from the city are
16

among the most important benefits of parks. A study by More and Payne (1978) established that
park-based leisure experiences were related to an increase in positive moods and a decrease in
levels of sadness and anxiety.
Increasing empirical evidence indicates that the presence of natural assets (i.e. urban
parks and forests, green belts) and components (i.e. trees, water) in urban contexts contributes to
our quality of life in many different ways (Cheisura, 2004). Contemporary research on the use of
urban parks and forests for example, verifies beliefs about stress-reduction benefits and mental
health (Hartig et al., 1991). In a survey among visitors in a studied park, a significant relationship
was found between use of the parks and perceived state of health; those who used local parks
frequently were more likely to report good mental and physical health than those who did not
(Godbey et al., 1992).
Schroeder (1991) has shown that natural environments with vegetation and water induce
relaxed and less stressful states in observers compared with urban scenes lacking these natural
elements. This power exhibited by natural elements to function as “natural tranquillizers” may be
particularly beneficial in urban areas where stress is a mundane aspect of daily living (Van den
Berg et al., 1998). Studies have shown that urban nature fulfils many social functions and
psychological needs of citizens (Chiesura, 2004). According to Ulrich (1981), a park experience
may reduce stress, enhance contemplativeness, rejuvenate the urban city dweller, and provide a
sense of peacefulness and tranquility.
Parks have been found to provide psychological services through a mix of built and
natural assets which are of crucial significance for the livability of modern cities and the wellbeing of urban dwellers (Ulrich, 1981). Parks and gardens have long been noted for their
17

restorative effects on both mental and physical health (Kaplan, 1973; Frumkin, 2001; Johnson
and Hill, 2002). Stress can also negatively affect peoples‟ perceptions of their well-being,
including a poor perception of their own mental health (Orsega-Smith et al., 2004). The U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (1999) indicates that physical activity has been
linked to improvements in mental health and reductions in stress (Paluska and Schwenk, 2000).
Many studies connect urban park use to decreased stress levels and improved moods. In
one study, the longer participants stayed in a park, the less perceived stress they exhibited (Hull
and Michael, 1995). More than 100 studies have shown that relaxation and stress reduction are
significant benefits associated with spending time in green areas (Davis, 2004). Different mental
illnesses, such as depression, can be coped with through improved social connections and
exercise, both of which are promoted by having nearby green outdoor spaces. In one study,
(Anon, 2007), 71% of people found a reduction in depression after going on an outdoor walk
versus a 45% reduction by those who only went on an indoor walk.
Furthermore, Ulrich (1981) has shown that the pure presence of visible parks seen
through windows resulted in faster recovery of hospital patients who were able to view them as
opposed to those who could not. Ulrich (1981) provides a conceptual perspective of emotional
and psychological response to these landscapes, illustrating the relationship between urban parks
and the psychological health benefits achieved by its viewers. Aesthetic preference in visual
landscapes is central to this framework as individuals‟ thoughts, experiences, and behavior are
significantly affected by their preferences and exposure to different landscapes (Ulrich, 2002).
Building off of these ideas, therapeutic landscapes as defined by Gesler (2003) have been
presented as places that have achieved lasting reputations for promoting physical, mental, and
18

spiritual well-being. More so, parks (among other rejuvenating places such as sanctuaries,
gardens, etc.) are therapeutic landscapes as re-creations of traditional healing landscapes. These
therapeutic landscapes and recreation spaces explore how different environments affect physical,
mental, spiritual, social, and emotional healing. The contribution of therapeutic landscapes
applies a renewed interest in humanistic cultural landscapes to health care, demonstrating how
social and spatial are intertwined.
2.5 Park Benefits: Social
One of the initial values and benefits that urban parks were intended to provide were to
serve as places where social tensions would subside and where individuals from different “class”
could learn from one another (Woudstra et al., 2000). Of the most important social and
th

communal benefits during the 20 century in our country, the parks stood for transforming the
rapidly industrializing cities and their pollution into beautiful and uplifting areas (Harnik, 2003).
Nonetheless, as Taylor (1999) indicates, urban parks throughout the 19

th

century although

romanticized for their beauty and health benefits became a contentious issue between class on
the basis of use and purpose.
In spite of social tensions, a study by the California Department of Parks (2005) indicated
that park recreation resulted in lower crime rates, higher self-esteem, and increased community
involvement. Substantiating those findings, a study in Chicago, Illinois discovered that when
collective efficacy was high in a community and community involvement occurred in
neighborhood urban parks, rates of crime and social turmoil became very low (Sherer, 2004).
Other findings coming from the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) in 2002
indicated how peoples‟ individual experiences in parks had a significant impact in increasing the
19

self-confidence of children as well as emphasizing the value of park and recreation departments
(Piatt et al., 2002). Recognizing the gamut of social benefits, research from the “Trust for Land”
has stated that recreation and sports programs through these parks have shown to be a common
sense, cost-effective means of preventing crime and delinquency (Trust for Public Land, 1994).
2.6 General Landscape Preferences as Applied to Urban Parks
In a landmark study on the correlates between landscape preferences and demographics,
Lyons (1983) found that preferences for vegetation biomes were profound across numerous
groups. More specifically, Lyons (1983) described how preferences changed throughout life
cycles; young children displayed the highest interest while elderly the lowest. Differences in
aesthetic preference were also well-pronounced among adolescent males and females. The most
important findings and suggestions from this study were that landscape preferences are not an
inherent or evolutionary quality ingrained within people, but rather a “cumulative process
sensitive to socially differentiating factors.” Supporting these findings, other studies have
concluded that the use and perception of urban park spaces is highly dependent on socio-cultural
distinctions and that more research is needed concerning different social and cultural groups
(Rapoport 1982 and Loukaitou-Sideris, 1995).
Moreover, Schroeder (1983) explains how in his study on urban forestry that when study
subjects viewed pictures of urban forests and recreations sites and were asked to rate their
perceived quality of a wide range of sites, two groups prevailed. Individuals who had spent most
of their lives in urban areas were more likely to prefer developed parks, while individuals who
had spent most of their lives in suburban or rural areas were more likely to prefer natural forests.
Similar in nature, a study by Dearden (1984) indicated that albeit not from place of origin, a
20

person‟s familiarity, travels, and overall exposure show a strong linkage to landscape preference.
A second study by Schroeder (1982) found that natural features such as trees, water, and grass
were more frequently mentioned as features people liked while manmade objects, problems with
vegetation, and poor maintenance were highly disliked features among his study subjects.
Additionally, a study conducted in a Chicago neighborhood by Kuo et al. (1998) explained how
tree density and well-maintained courtyard vegetation had a strong effect on citizen perception of
safety and scenic preference.
Further, research has shown the specific role of vegetation in urban parks and other
landscapes; individuals in high-rise housing complexes have given high ratings to those urban
settings with significant areas of green space ( lawn, shrubs, and trees) (Zoelling 1981; Ulrich
and Addams, 1981). Kaplan (1983) however indicated that not all vegetation is preferred in
residential areas; low ratings were given to grass-filled scenes that lacked trees and shrubs.
Analyzing urban parks in particular, Bjerke et al. (2006) discovered that moderate densities, as
opposed to high and low tree coverage were preferred overall and resulted in greater visual
appeal. Palmer (1989) describes how respondents in a study on vegetation preference highly
disliked overgrown shrubs in urban areas and had mixed views on non-mowed lawns.
2.7 Park and Leisure Participation: A Disentangling Between Class and Race
Since the 1960s, a number of studies on race, social class, and leisure behavior have been
conducted (Mueller et al. 1962; Yancey & Snell, 1976; Washburne, 1978; Klobus-Edwards,
1981; Stamps and Stamps, 1985; and Dwyer et al. 1990). Washburne (1978) provides what is
considered the model study on race, class, and leisure by demonstrating that the underrepresentation of blacks in outdoor/nature-based activities is related to “black sub-culture” rather
21

than class factors. In particular, the study showed that blacks had stronger preferences for fitnessrelated activities, while Whites preferred wildland activities.
Looking at older individuals while still surveying race, McGuire et al. (1987) discovered
differences in leisure activity preferences for blacks and whites age 65 years and older. Models
showed that blacks preferred sporting events, picnicking, and traveling and whites preferred
walking and outdoor activities like hunting. In addition, Payne et al. (2002) found that older
adults and blacks were more likely to prefer recreation-based urban parks as oppose to
conservation based parks. Conversely, younger people and whites preferred conservationoriented.
Again, like park participation research, landscape preferences and perceptions in parks
have been studied mostly within a black and white context (Kaplan & Talbot, 1988). From their
review, Kaplan and Talbot described how blacks and whites both have a penchant for trees and
nature in urban areas. However, blacks generally prefer higher levels of maintenance, more
formal designs, greater openness and visibility. Blacks were also less critical of development or
built elements which whites might consider to be intrusions or nuisances. Studies on recreation
preferences have indicated that minorities have a greater orientation towards developed facility
amenities that promote social interaction (Dwyer et al. 1990; Baas, 1992; Blahana, 1992; and
Dwyer and Gobster, 1992).
In a study looking at numerous racial groups and their preferences for park attributes,
Gobster (2002) reported that blacks were less likely than whites to mention natural features as
preferences while Latinos and Asians were more likely to state natural features as enhancing
their park experience than blacks. On the flip side, other studies confirm that blacks are more
22

likely to state that recreation facilities, traditional park landscapes, and evidence of ethnic
representation/sensitivity are important to them than whites (See Burch et al. 1972; Dwyer et al.
1990; Dwyer 1992; Virden and Walker 1999; Gobster 2002). Elmendorf et al. (2005) display
similar results from their study showing that blacks were less likely to perceive benefits from
urban forests; supporting older studies which indicate that blacks have less interest in natural
park amenities (streams, lakes, animals, birds, etc.) than whites (see Zube and Pitt 1981 and
Shinew et al. 2004).
Subsequent studies have investigated multiple racial groups, finding differences in leisure
preference between Mexican-Americans and Whites (Bass et al., 1993), Caucasians and AfricanAmericans (Dwyer, 1994), Chinese-American, Hispanic, African-American, and Korean (Ho et
al. (2005). Portraying specific details on recreation behavior, Tinsley et al. (2002) showed how
blacks were less likely to visit parks alone as oppose to whites, instead choosing to visit in social
groups. For Asians and Hispanics, an even greater emphasis was placed on park participation as
a social experience meant to be shared in groups.
In later decades, evidence has suggested that race has less of an effect on activity
preference and participation (Hutchison, 1987; Woodward, 1988; Irwin et al., 1990; Floyd et al.,
1993, 1994; Toth & Brown, 1997; and Philipp, 1997, 1999) and that economic level is a greater
factor in determining these park preferences (Shinew et al., 1995 and Juniu, 2000). Woodward
(1988), in his research involving black households in Chicago showed that social class was “an
effective determinant” of participation in urban-oriented leisure. In a similar fashion, Juniu (2000)
also found that not race, but social class and economic level were more important indicators of

23

behavioral changes in leisure behavior through research on the adjustment of immigrants to the
United States.
Few studies from the United States have researched these intertwined issues of social
class, park recreation, and aesthetic preference. In the past decade, Elmendorf et al. (2005)
explained how in their study, when participant income increased among the races, values for
more traditional park landscapes and recreational facilities decreased. Findings suggested that
gender, age, education, and income were all found to influence aspects of urban park and forest
participation and landscape preference. Looking specifically at urban parks, Stodoloska et al.
(2011) showed that Mexican-Americans in Chicago did not exhibit uniform preferences in urban
parks; instead differences were noticed along lines of socioeconomic status.
From the international community, a few studies have been published. In a study
conducted in Ankara, Turkey, Oguz (2000) explained how low, middle, and high income
individuals attended different parks that were distinct with regard to developed structures, water
features, and plant cover. Providing a cross-national study from Spain, Chile, and Germany,
Breuste et al. (2008) illustrate how socioeconomic status was shown to be a determining factor of
preference and use of green spaces in all of these countries. However, a study in China by Chen
and Jim (2006) which examined the attitudes of Chinese people towards green spaces claimed
that no significant statistical correlation could be made between income levels and their
respective attitudes. Given the ambiguity surrounding these suggestions, Swanwick, (2009)
suggests in his review on landscape attitudes in society that there is relatively little academic
evidence concerning the influence of socioeconomic groups on landscape preferences.

24

2.8 Landscape Preferences and Theory
In terms of identifying the psychological connection and link between landscape
perception and preference, various hypotheses have been suggested as to answering these
differences. Ulrich (1993) discusses the existence of the biophilia (an instinctive bond between
human beings and other living systems) and biophobia hypotheses, (an aversion to nature and
other living things) hypotheses which demonstrate a biological perspective on peoples‟
inclinations to different landscapes. Early research suggested that humans had an intrinsic
proclivity for a more open landscape with few trees which resembled that of an African Savanna;
where humans first evolved (Heerwagan and Orians, 1993).
However, this “savanna hypothesis” has been challenged; studies have indicated that the
psychological benefits of green space are positively correlated with the diversity of its internal
plant life (Williams and Cary, 2002). From a quantitative perspective, Fuller et al. (2007) found
that people who spent time in a park with greater plant species richness scored higher on
different measures of psychological well-being than those subjects in parks with less biodiversity.
Studies in the United Kingdom have supported the idea that cities should move away from oldfashioned and biologically impoverished designs to mosaic environments, which contain a
wealth of biodiversity while permitting full-recreational use (Thwaites et al., 2005).
Other hypotheses have surfaced such as the prospect-refugee theory by Appelton (1975)
which stated that humans prefer a sheltered landscape which allows them the ability of “seeing
without being seen.” Empirical evidence in support of this theory has been published (Clamp and
Powell, 1982; Woodcock, 1982), however authors such as Klopp and Mealey (1998) have
concluded that their results did not offer enough evidence in favor of this theory. Furthermore,
25

both theories engaging this biological need for humans to prefer these types of landscapes have
been challenged by Lyons (1983), who states that preferences for these landscape arrangements
are more a matter of social norms and less of an environmentally-induced biological process.
Reviewing the literature on landscape perception, park leisure, participation and the role
that certain demographics have played in suggesting preferences poses several questions that are
still unanswered. As mentioned, a consensus on whether race or social class and/ or economic
level has a greater factor in determining landscape perceptions and attitudes towards nature has
not achieved fruition. More so, a study looking at socioeconomic class that goes beyond simple
preferences has yet to be achieved. Incorporating the perceived psychological benefits and
experiences of individuals separated by income and class level through their park visits has also
not been conducted.
For these reasons, as well as recommendations by other authors, this thesis intends to add
to the existing literature on this topic by further examining park preferences by area-level social
class and individual socioeconomic status. Additionally, this research looks to link knowledge
gained on landscapes as places of healing and restoration through social and natural realms. In
doing so, this research will complement the existing literature in an effort to substantiate claims
that socioeconomic status and social class play an integral role in explaining park preferences;
and to increase our understating of the non-physical health benefits experienced through natural
and developed-oriented landscapes.

26

CHAPTER 3: METHODS

3.1 Conceptual Framework
The framework used in this research builds on a model used by Lindsay and Ogle (1972)
in which the socioeconomic status of a person affects recreation behavior both directly and
indirectly through „conditioned opportunity‟ for participation in leisure activities. This research
proposes that just like leisure activities, an individual‟s inclination and preferences for a certain
leisure setting and its aesthetic landscape qualities, in this case, urban parks are subject to their
opportunities (marginality) and experiences (familiarity) based on their socioeconomic status.
This study employs a conceptual framework of socioeconomic status as being an agent
that imposes a socially-constructed phenomenon for which resulting aesthetic preferences and
perceived psychological benefits develop through a medium of urban parks (Figure 3.1).
Conceptually, individuals are selected into neighborhoods with people of similar social standing
or class. Through social class and spatially distinct neighborhoods, divisions occur between those
who have privilege, access and opportunity (high), those who do not (low), and those who
exhibit some of these factors (medium). An individual‟s mobility is determined by their
socioeconomic status that can be linked to their experiences with the natural and built
environments and their associated landscapes.
Therefore, through the lens of urban landscapes, and in particular, urban parks, it is
theorized that the opportunity and access to all types of landscapes by those with privilege has
resulted in different preferences compared to those surrounded by limited landscapes. An
“opportunity approach” illustrates how those people with fewer limitations and spatial confines
are afforded more exposure to a wider array of landscapes. In contrast, individuals with less
27

mobility and spatial restrain become accustomed to their familiar and proximate landscapes and
their familiar aesthetic qualities, while limiting them from other landscapes on the peripheries of
urban environments.

28

Figure 3.1: Conceptual Framework Model (“For interpretation of the references to color in this
and all other figures the reader is referred to the electronic version of this thesis”)

29

3.2 Research Variable Definitions
In this study, socioeconomic status refers to the socioeconomic level of individuals
interviewed. Social class refers to the area-level characteristics in which parks are located while
the phrase socioeconomic neighborhood is used to depict the area in which people of the same
social class reside. In order to measure the socioeconomic status of individuals interviewed and
the social classes in which they live, income level and subjective social class were used to
confirm these group classifications. Income level was used as an indicator of socioeconomic
status based on methods from previous articles studying urban parks (see Oguz, 2000, Chen and
Jim, 2006, and Bruestre et al., 2008,). The subjective social class technique (Shinew et al., 1995)
was used as a way to confirm interviewees‟ socioeconomic status in neighborhoods falling
within different social classes or socioeconomic neighborhood zones (herein referred to as
socioeconomic zones).
Two park styles are also described in this study (natural and developed). Other design
definitions are found in the literature such as nature-based, natural-looking, and conservationlike for natural parks and recreational, traditional, and maintained for developed parks. For this
study, natural and developed are based on the descriptions used by Gobster (2002); Payne et al.,
2002; Elmendorf et al. (2005); and Ho et al. (2005). Natural parks are defined as those parks
requiring minimal maintenance with trees, grass, vegetation, and water -i.e., natural features
without minimum human impact must be present. Developed parks are defined as those
containing recreational built features, pavement, numerous manmade landscapes, and having a
high level of maintenance with regard to trees, grass, and vegetation. Effectively, natural and
developed parks are easily discernible based on the contrast of heavily-built vs. undisturbed
landscapes respectively.
30

The meaning of preference is defined as the degree of attraction and fondness by
interviewees for certain visual landscape elements and characteristics found in one park over
another. Perceived psychological benefits are defined as the emotional, mental, and
psychological health benefits perceived by an individual within a certain landscape. Since
landscapes possess these qualities, this term is employed to indicate how when the aesthetic
preferences of a person are met in a given landscape, these psychological benefits are observed
and expressed. This definition borrows concepts and observations from literature in the field of
environmental psychology (Ulrich, 1979; Kaplan, 1992, and Gesler, 2003).
3.3 Study Area
The study area for this research was Lansing, Michigan. To validate the study of “urban
parks,” the city was selected because of its urban population of 114,297 people (US Census,
2010). Lansing‟s socioeconomic structure has diverse levels of income, which was necessary to
stratify parks by low, medium and high socioeconomic zones. According to the U.S. Bureau of
the Census, 2005-2009 American Community Survey, the median household income by census
tracts in Lansing was $39,415 (range, $8,836 to $110,000).
3.4 Park Selection Methods
There are 115 parks in Lansing (City of Lansing, 2012). The City‟s 2010-2015 Parks
Master Plan provides an inventory of Lansing‟s parks and their respective amenities (Appendix
1). Using the parks provided in this list, urban parks were separated into natural and developed.
Characteristics were then matched for those parks listed in the inventory with the aforementioned
definitions used for both natural and developed parks in this study; making the selection of parks
easier to discern.
31

The data (shapefile) on Lansing park boundaries (Figure 3.2) was obtained from the City
of Lansing‟s Planning Office and input into ArcGIS v.10.0 (Environmental Science Research Inc.
(ESRI 2012). Data on the median household income by census tract was used to define the
socioeconomic status of census tracts (n=43) in Lansing. This data was obtained from the U.S.
Bureau of the Census American Community Survey (ACS) 2005-2009 (US Census 2012).
Median household income was picked as the variable to represent social class based on what past
authors had applied in studies on the equity of parks by social class and socioeconomic status
(Wolch et al., 2005 and Moore et al. 2008).
To stratify the city by socioeconomic zones, the distribution of median household income
of the 43 census tracts was created using the natural break classification scheme in ArcGIS v.
10.0. Using three classifications, zones of low, medium, and high median household income
were derived. Specifically, the three classifications were: $8,836 to $34,093 (Low), $34,094 to
$58,167, (Medium) and $58,168 to $110,000 (High) (Figure 3.3). A choropleth map was created
using these three socioeconomic zones (Figure 3.4). The parks (natural and developed) were
overlaid onto this socioeconomic status data base layer to explore all possible options for both
park types in each zone.
The distance and access of each park compared to each other within each zone were also
examined. Spotts and Stynes (1984) studied urban park awareness and knowledge in Lansing
illustrating how awareness of parks generally decreased with distance. The assumption in this
study was that residents in one park, whether natural or developed, would have knowledge of the
other park type based on how far it was from the park in which they were recreating. A park pair
was selected within each socioeconomic zone by choosing those qualifying parks closest to each
32

other. All other parks were eliminated from the study. After this process, six parks were selected;
two parks, one natural and developed for each socioeconomic zone. These parks included:
Fairview Park and Kimberley/Slater Park for the high socioeconomic zone, Moores Park and
Riverside Park for the medium socioeconomic zone, and Scott Park and Hunter Park for the low
socioeconomic zone (Figure 3.5).

33

Figure 3.2: Lansing Parks

Sources: 2005-2009 American Community Survey and City of Lansing Planning Office
34

Figure 3.3: Median Household Income Distribution and Classifications

Source: 2005-2009 American Community Survey
35

Figure 3.4: Lansing Parks by Median Household Income

Sources: 2005-2009 American Community Survey and City of Lansing Planning Office
36

Figure 3.5: Selected Park Sites for Study Area

Sources: 2005-2009 American Community Survey and City of Lansing Planning Office
37

3.5 Survey Data Collection and Methods
Qualitative and quantitative methods were used in this study. Schroeder (1992) defends
this mixed-methods approach, stating that “such a combination can provide a more complete
understanding of human response to landscape than either approach used alone.” Also stating
that using just one of these methods is “not sufficient to answer questions regarding peoples‟
preferences and perceived meanings in landscapes” (Ibid, p. 27). Therefore, in this study,
quantitative methods were used to rate a park visitor‟s degree of likeness and preference for a
particular park‟s landscape using a Likert scale.
Qualitative methods were also employed to capture the meanings, experiences, and
psychological benefits of visiting the parks using open-ended questions. To effectively capture
the experiences and feelings observed by participants in Lansing‟s urban parks, an in situ
interview method was implemented. In situ interviews were conducted in urban parks to gauge
peoples‟ leisure preferences and perceptions in a number of studies (Fox, 2000; Orsega et al.,
2005; and Malek and Mariapan, 2009). Originally interviews were going to be conducted in each
of the park pairs within all socioeconomic zones.
After several visits, the interviewer visited all parks to observe the frequencies of visits
prior to the study where it was then decided to conduct interviews only in the more frequently
visited parks (Fairview, Moores and Hunter) in each zone and photos of the less-visited parks
were shown to interviewees. This decision was made based on study time limitations. The
more-frequently visited parks where interviews were conducted were: Fairview Park, Moores
Park, and Hunter Park. The less-frequently visited parks of which interviewees were shown
photos were: Kimberley/Slater Park, Riverside Park, and Scott Park.
38

Photo images were taken in all parks, but only photos of the less-visited parks were
shown to interviewees. Photos allowed for a comparative analysis by acting as a surrogate for the
other park; essentially allowing an interviewee to witness both parks concurrently. Such a
method for replicating natural environments through photos has been validated by Kaplan et al.
(1972) who also added that the method has several advantages over in situ evaluation “in that
larger scenes can be captured and site conditions can be controlled.” Comparing the in situ
experience of one park combined with photos serving as a proxy for the corresponding park
permitted this juxtaposition of parks.
In consideration of atmospheric conditions that could alter the color and aesthetic
qualities of photos, all photos were taken during the summer, on sunny days, limited overcast,
and when flora were in full bloom. Pinto-Correia et al. (2011) in their research on landscape bias
noted the importance of having similar atmospheric conditions when comparing photos for
landscape perception. To make certain that no particular angles of the park were favored,
randomly selected viewpoints were photographed as done by Palmer and Hoffman (2001). In
effect, two photos highlighting different features and aspects for each of the three less-visited
parks were taken. Photos from random angles of the six parks studied can be found in Appendix
8.
Before finalizing the use of these methods, pretesting of the interview questions was
performed by two faculty and two undergraduate students in the Department of Geography at
Michigan State University. As indicated by the participants‟ willingness to describe their selfperceived social class, these four test subjects constituted people from low, medium, and high
socioeconomic statuses. After pretesting, the park survey questionnaires were submitted to the
39

Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Michigan State University for review. Approval by the IRB
was granted on April, 18, 2012 (IRB # i041015) with Dr. Sue Grady (Principal Investigator).
3.6 Survey Sampling Approach
Different approaches to sampling the park visitors were reviewed for selection bias and
for selecting “average” park goers. Interviews were conducted by the interviewer from May to
August 2012, on weekends and weekdays, and from as early as 9am to 7pm. In accordance to
Tinsley et al. (2002), this approach avoided the potential bias of pre-determined times which may
have not accounted for differences in peak and non-peak population participation within the
parks. Also in accordance to methods employed by Orsega et al. (2004), the sampling
methodology consisted of standing by the entrance of each park and waiting for a visitor to
approach this general area.
If the number of visitors declined, the selection of visitors then took place inside the park
to locate the first person observed. To ensure a successful approach and create a non-threatening
environment the interviewer would make eye contact with each individual and greet them,
explaining immediate intentions. In addition, the interviewer wore a city of Lansing Parks and
Recreation shirt and presented their identification as a graduate student via lanyard to show each
interviewee their credibility.
When a park visitor agreed to an interview, they were directed towards the nearest park
bench where the interview was conducted. Before asking any questions, each participant was
presented a brief overview of the research and their rights as an interviewee from a statement
approved by the IRB (Appendix 2). All surveys were conducted in English with the exception of
three interviews which were translated into Spanish due to these respondents‟ inability to
fluently communicate in English and their interviewer‟s competency in both languages.
40

To verify a participant‟s eligibility for the study, a number of general questions not listed
in the survey were asked for initial screening. If the respondent indicated that they were either
not from one of the surrounding neighborhoods (neighborhoods constituting each zone were
known by the interviewer), under 18 years of age, or did not consider themselves to be in the
social class represented by the zone, they were tactfully told that they were ineligible for the
study. To avoid turning people off via sensitive questions, participants were asked to describe
what social class the neighborhood represented and indirectly use their residence there to qualify
them into that zone. Important to note, only residents living in the socioeconomic zone where the
parks were located were selected. The term resident is used to describe those visitors of the park
whom were verified as living in the zone in which the park interview was being conducted.
If a participant passed these preliminary steps an interview was conducted. When all
questions asked were finished, the participant would be thanked and told how useful their time
and participation were. From here, the same procedure would be repeated and the interviewer
would continue to approach those park visitors closest immediately following each interview
attempt. Throughout the summer an average site visit would involve 1-3 hours spent in a park
and the completion of 0-5 interviews. Interviews tended to last between 5-10 minutes on average
while some lasted over an hour.
3.7 Survey Questionnaire
Two forms composing one questionnaire were used in this study. One form for the in
situ park (more-visited park) and one for the photo park (less-visited) (Appendices 3 and 4). Both
forms were used simultaneously to compare the two parks. The in situ form was used to assess a
respondent‟s in place experiences in the more-visited park while at the same time the photo form
41

examined the same experiences from the less-visited park. The questions (same questions used to
compare the two parks) were presented in such a way that the perceived psychological benefits
of the visitor would become evident through their actual presence in the in situ park and
observational viewing of the parks in the photos.
Recorded research questions used a Likert scale based on a 5-point system similar to a
study conducted by Kuo et al. (1998) on tree preferences in the inner-city. Starting from 0 to 4,
this scale gives the following options: 0 (not at all), 1 (a little), 2 (somewhat), 3 (quite), 4 (very
much). Contrary to other scales using a 1-5 range, the 0-4 system was chosen to best represent
the null value of “not at all”, best represented as 0, instead of any positive integer. Appendix 3
highlights these questions as 10-19.
Most of the quantitative questions stem from an influential article by Schroeder (1982)
which discussed preferred features of urban forests and parks. However, the content of questions
concerning perceived health benefits, emotions, and feelings through both photos slides and in
situ experiences can be traced from Kaplan (1972); Ulrich (1979); and Orsega et al. (2004.
Several questions gauging emotions appear to be redundant; however, this was done in order to
track the validity of related responses and awareness of each participant.
Complementing these quantitative questions were the final two open-ended questions
which constituted the qualitative portion of the questionnaire (Appendix 4). These open- ended
questions allowed respondents to express perceived landscape qualities in the parks they viewed.
Six authors‟ (Kaplan 1972, Ulrich 1979, Schroeder, 1982, Kuo et al. 1998, Payne et al., 2002,
and Orsega et al.) survey questionnaires influenced the wording of these questions.

42

3.8 Sample Size
The goal was to sample 30 residents in each socioeconomic zone –i.e., 15 resident
visitors in each park. Thirty interviews for each zone were set as the goal based on the minimum
30 interview sample rule of thumb as established by Mass et al. (2005) in social science research.
Thirty interviews in the three parks provided a total sample size (n=90).
3.9 Quantitative Analysis
Quantitative data from the two-part questionnaire survey included 10 close-ended Likert
scale questions for both the natural and the developed park, comprising a total of 20 responses
(10 from each of the two forms) for each interview. These data were transcribed in Microsoft
Excel and then transferred into SPSS (Hansmann et al, 2007). The means for each of the 20
questions were computed for each socioeconomic zone. Using the 10 questions for the natural
and 10 for the developed park, the mean responses were calculated with their question pairs as a
way to juxtapose the same question asked concerning the natural and developed park in each
socioeconomic zone.
Comparisons of natural and developed parks within each socioeconomic zone were
studied in addition to the same park styles across each zone, i.e., natural (high) and natural
(medium); natural (high) and natural (low) and natural (medium) and natural (low). The same
grouping was studied for developed parks. To assess statistical differences in perceived
psychological benefits the means between the park groups were analyzed using a paired sample
t-test (Hansmann et al, 2007). The paired sample t- test was chosen to simultaneously compare
the responses on paired parks provided by each interviewee.

43

3.10 Qualitative Analysis
Qualitative data were quantified and analyzed descriptively via response narratives for
those open-ended questions. As part of this process, open-ended response quotes and their
quantified categories were elicited to compare with the counterpart quantitative data. This
triangulated methodology allowed for the qualitative evidence to elaborate on the reasoning
behind the quantitative results (Walker, 1985 and Saremba and Gill, 1999).
Finally, qualitative content analyses preformed for both the 2010-2015 Parks Master Plan
and the interview conducted with the Landscape Architect. The Parks Master Plan was
thoroughly reviewed (http://www.scribd.com/doc/29016544/Lansing-City-Council-info-packetfor-March-29-2010-meeting) with respect to content from their objectives, goals, data collection
methods, and data presented from surveys Bruch (2007). Nvivo 9 was used to query rhetoric
from narration and data from surveys. The methods used in this Plan were compared with best
data collection practices from Gobster (2002) and Walker (2004) for those researching in the
parks and recreation field. Notes from my interview with the Landscape Architect were
transcribed (Appendix 7) and summarized into bullet points for complementary analysis.

44

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

4.1 Overview of Results
A majority of park visitors were males (61.10 %) and of White race (63.33%). The
percentages of other racial and ethnic groups included Blacks (21.11%) and other races (3.33%)
and Latino (12.22%). The races of the survey respondents were relatively similar to that of the
2010 census for the city of Lansing (Table 4.1). The demographic composition of park visitors
within the visited parks however, was different. Table 4.2 shows that Fairview Park (high
socioeconomic zone) consisted of females (53.33%) with mostly visitors of white race (96.67%)
and a small presence of Latinos (3.33%). Moores Park (medium) consisted of males (83.33%)
with a mixed racial composition; white (60.00%) black (20.00%) and Latino (13.33%). In
Hunter Park (low) visitors were primarily male (60.00%) and Latino, (43.33%) however the park
displayed a mix of races; white (33.33%) black, (20.00%) and other races (3.33%).
Table 4.3 denotes the neglect and popularity of certain parks. Fairview Park is a clear
favorite in the high socioeconomic zone; 8/30 (26.67%) respondents claimed to visit the park
everyday, 7/30 (23.33%) visited a few times a week and 30/30 (100.00%) had been to the park in
the last month. Conversely, not a single person could say they went to Kimberley/Slater Park on
a daily basis 0/30 (0.00 %), while half or 15/30 (50.00%) mentioned that they had never even
been to the park. Nonetheless, 7/30 (23.33%) respondents did however mention visiting the park
at least once a month.
In the medium socioeconomic zone, Moores Park recorded 9/30 (30.00%) respondents
visiting everyday and indicated that 30/30 (100.00%) visited between everyday and once in the
last month. Much like Kimberley/Slater Park in the high socioeconomic zone, Riverside Park
45

appeared to be severely neglected as evidenced by 0/30 (0.00%) people visiting everyday and
10/30 (33.33%) having never stepped foot in the park. Not being completely abandoned, 7/30
(23.33%) and 9/30 (30.00%) mentioned visiting the park once a month and a once a year
respectively.
However, even more polarizing were the visitation frequencies observed between Hunter
and Scott parks in the low socioeconomic zone. The overwhelmingly popular Hunter Park
witnessed 7/30 (23.33%) respondents everyday and 30/30 (100.00 %) at least once a month. On
the other hand, Scott Park was hardly recognized as even existing as 26/30 (86.67%) people had
never visited its natural park grounds. Only 1/30 (3.33%) people visited monthly and in the last
year, 3/30 (10.00%) visited the natural park.

46

Table 4.1 Demographic Comparison of Park Survey Sample and City of Lansing
Survey Participants (n=90) Study sample (2012) Census (2010)
(%)
(%)
Gender
Male
61.10
48.40
Female
38.90
51.60
Race and Ethnicity
Whites
63.33
61.20
Blacks
21.11
23.70
Latinos
12.22
12.50
Others
3.33
2.60

47

Table 4.2 Demographic Results by Socioeconomic Zone
Low Socioeconomic Zone
Medium Socioeconomic Zone
Developed Park Natural Park
Developed Park
Natural Park
Hunter and Scott
Moores and Riverside
No.
(%)
No.
(%)
Gender
Male
18
60.00
25
83.33
Female
12
40.00
5
16.67
Race/Ethnicity
White
10
33.33
18
60.00
Black
6
20.00
6
20.00
Latino
13
43.33
4
13.33
Other
1
3.33
2
6.67

48

High Socioeconomic Zone
Developed Park
Natural Park
Kimberley/Slater and Fairview
No.
(%)
14
16

46.67
53.33

29
0
1
0

96.67
0.00
3.33
0.00

Table 4.3 Park Visitation Frequency by Socioeconomic Zone
Low Socioeconomic Zone
Developed
Park
Natural Park
Hunter
Scott
No.
(%)
No.
(%)
Response
Everyday
Few times a
week
Once a week
Once a month
Once a year
Once
Never

Medium Socioeconomic Zone
Developed Park
Moores
No.
(%)

Natural Park
Riverside
No.
(%)

High Socioeconomic Zone
Developed Park
Kimberley/Slater
No.
(%)

Natural Park
Fairview
No.
(%)

7

23.33

0

0.00

9

30.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

8

26.67

15
2
6
0
0
0

50.00
6.67
20.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0
1
3
0
26

0.00
0.00
3.33
10.00
0.00
86.67

16
3
2
0
0
0

53.33
10.00
6.67
0.00
0.00
0.00

2
2
7
9
0
10

6.67
6.67
23.33
30.00
0.00
33.33

1
1
7
5
1
15

3.33
3.33
23.33
16.67
3.33
50.00

13
7
2
0
0
0

43.33
23.33
6.67
0.00
0.00
0.00

49

4.2 Quantitative Survey Data Results
The results from the quantitative analysis are provided in Tables 4.4-4.63. Overall,
perceived psychological benefits were lower for natural parks compared to developed parks
across all socioeconomic zones. The one exception was question 8 “Does this make you feel
peaceful?” suggesting that natural parks were viewed as more peaceful. However, across all
socioeconomic zones, residents felt less safe in natural compared to developed parks (mean
difference -0.78, p-value = 0.00) (Table 4.4).
Furthermore, when the responses to questions regarding natural vs. developed parks were
stratified by socioeconomic zone, (Tables 4.4-4.43) there were clear differences in perceived
psychological benefits in natural and developed parks. In the high socioeconomic zone (Table
4.41), visitors of natural parks were significantly more likely to report that natural parks
increased their psychological well-being (mean difference = 1.93, p-value 0.00), made them feel
peaceful (mean difference = 1.90, p-value = 0.00), had an effect of being therapeutic or soothing
(mean difference = 1.90, p-value = 0.00), had an effect of rejuvenating (mean difference = 1.86,
p-value = 0.00), made them feel happy (mean difference = 1.76, p-value = 0.00), and made them
feel free from stress and anxiety (mean difference = 1.76, p-value = 0.00).
In the medium socioeconomic zone, park visitors did not report significant differences in
preferences for natural vs. developed parks, except in regards to safety. In the medium
socioeconomic zone residents were significantly less likely to feel safe in natural parks compared
to developed parks (mean difference = 0.70, p-value = 0.02) and less likely to feel improved
psychological well-being (mean difference = -0.56, p-value = 0.05). In the low socioeconomic
zone, residents preferred developed parks and were significantly less likely to feel that natural
parks improved psychological well-being –i.e., natural parks did not improve their mood (mean
50

difference = -2.06, p-value = 0.00), make them feel safe (mean difference = -2.06, p-value =
0.00), allow them to get away from their troubles (mean difference = -2.03, p-value = 0.00),
increase their psychological well-being (mean difference = -1.93, p-value = 0.00), have the effect
of being rejuvenating (mean difference = -1.90, p-value = 0.00), or being therapeutic or soothing
( mean difference = -1.83, p-value= 0.00).
When natural parks were studied independently across socioeconomic zones it was found
that in natural parks, park visitors in high vs. medium socioeconomic zones (Table 4.52) were
more likely to feel therapeutic and soothing (mean difference = 1.00, p-value = 0.00) more
appealing (mean difference = 0.96, p-value = 0.00), feel peaceful (mean difference = 0.83, pvalue = 0.04), feel safe (mean difference = .766, p-value = 0.02), improved their mood (mean
difference = .73, p-value = 0.09), and increased their psychological well-being (mean difference
= 0.60, p-value = 0.08). In comparison, park visitors in natural parks in the medium vs. the low
socioeconomic zone were more likely to feel happy (mean difference = 1.13, p-value = 0.00), get
away from their troubles (mean difference = 1.13, p-value = 0.00), feel improved their mood,
(mean difference = 1.06, p-value = 0.01). Finally, park visitors in the natural park in the high
socioeconomic zone vs. the low had a greater appeal for natural parks than did low
socioeconomic zone (mean difference = 1.73, p-value = 0.00), felt the park made them much
happier (mean difference = 1.73, p-value = 0.00), and felt their mood was greatly improved
(mean difference = 1.80, p-value= 0.00).
When developed parks were studied independently across socioeconomic zones, it was
found that the greatest difference in perceived psychological benefits was between high and low
socioeconomic visitors (Table 4.61). All questions were statistically significant and mean
51

differences were the greatest between any two compared data sets. High socioeconomic zone
residents gained little happiness from the developed park, while their low socioeconomic zone
counterparts benefited greatly (mean difference = -2.03, p-value = 0.00). In addition, High
socioeconomic zone residents experienced little reduction from stress and anxiety (mean
difference = -2.26, p-value= 0.00), little effect of rejuvenation (mean difference = -2.40, pvalue= 0.00), did not feel increases in psychological well-being (mean difference= -2.36, pvalue= 0.00), and found little assistance in the park‟s ability to quell their troubles (mean
difference = -2.23, p-value =0.00).
When developed parks were compared between high and medium socioeconomic visitors,
it was found that medium socioeconomic visitors indicated all perceived psychological benefits
while high socioeconomic visitors did not (Table 4.62). Medium and high visitors only showed
the same perceived benefits for question 5, “Does this park make you feel safe”? Otherwise,
high visitors lacked strong mood increases (mean difference = -1.50, p-value= 0.00), the park
was not rejuvenating (mean difference =-1.73, p-value= 0.00), did little to increase their
psychological well-being (mean difference = -1.90, p-value= 0.00) and was unable to free them
from their troubles (mean difference= -1.83, and p-value= 0.00). Visitors in developed parks,
medium vs. low socioeconomic zone (Table 4.63) felt less happy (mean difference = -0.63, pvalue = 0.00), less therapy and soothing benefits (mean difference = -0.66, p-value= 0.04), and
less free from stress and anxiety (mean difference = -0.73, p-value = 0.00).

52

Table 4.4 Mean Difference in Survey Responses (Questions 1-10) Between Natural and
Developed Parks Across All Socioeconomic Zones, Lansing, Michigan, 2012.
Mean
Standard
Question Difference Dev.
1
-0.21
1.89
2
-0.16
1.97
3
-0.30
2.00
4
-0.33
1.99
5
1.63
-0.79
6
-0.14
2.03
7
-0.14
2.18
8
0.16
1.77
9
-0.19
2.12
10
-0.30
2.05
1

t
-1.05
-0.75
-1.42
-0.16
-4.58
-0.67
-0.63
0.83
-0.84
-1.38

df
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89

1

p-value
0.29
0.46
0.16
0.88
0.00
0.50
0.53
0.41
0.40
0.17

Statistically significant p-value < 0.05

2

Fairview Park, Kimberly/Slater Park, Riverside Park, Moores Park, Scott Park, and Hunter
Park
3
Questions 1-10 refer to the 5-point Likert-scale questions present in Appendix 3

53

Table 4.41 Mean Difference in Survey Responses (Questions 1-10) for Residents of Natural
and Developed Parks in High Socioeconomic Zone, Lansing, Michigan, 2012.
Mean
Standard
Question Difference Dev.
1
1.60
1.32
2
1.16
1.76
3
1.70
1.14
4
1.35
1.76
5
0.40
1.19
6
1.26
1.90
7
1.22
1.86
8
1.12
1.90
9
1.50
1.93
10
1.63
1.67
1
2
3

t
6.59
8.30
8.10
7.13
1.83
8.20
8.35
9.25
7.02
5.35

df
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29

1

p-value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

Statistically significant p-value < 0.05
Fairview Park and Kimberley/Slater Park
Questions 1-10 refer to the 5-point Likert-scale questions present in Appendix 3

54

Table 4.42 Mean Difference in Survey Responses (Questions 1-10) for Residents of Natural
and Developed Parks in Medium Socioeconomic Zone, Lansing, Michigan, 2012.

Question
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3

Mean
Standard
Difference Dev.
-0.43
1.50
-0.23
1.56
-0.53
1.54
-0.13
1.71
1.51
-0.70
-0.50
1.59
-0.40
2.01
-0.53
1.54
-0.57
1.56
-0.50
1.50

t
-1.58
-0.82
-1.88
-0.43
-2.53
-1.72
-1.09
-1.88
-1.97
-1.82

df
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29

1

p-value
0.13
0.42
0.07
0.67
0.02
0.10
0.29
0.07
0.06
0.08

Statistically significant p-value < 0.05
Riverside Park and Moores Park
Questions 1-10 refer to the 5-point Likert-scale questions present in Appendix 3

55

Table 4.43 Mean Difference in Survey Responses (Questions 1-10) for Residents of Natural
and Developed Parks in Low Socioeconomic Zone, Lansing, Michigan, 2012.
Mean
Standard
Question Difference Dev.
t
-1.80
0.96
-10.25
1
2
-2.00
0.91
-12.04
3
1.08
-10.47
-2.06
4
-1.73
1.04
-9.05
5
1.14
-9.90
-2.06
6
1.08
-9.25
-1.83
7
1.26
-8.20
-1.90
8
-0.90
1.09
-4.50
9
1.08
-9.79
-1.93
10
0.96
-11.54
-2.03
1
2
3

df
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29

1

p-value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

Statistically significant p-value < 0.05
Scott Park and Hunter Park
Questions 1-10 refer to the 5-point Likert-scale questions present in Appendix 3

56

Table 4.51 Mean Difference in Survey Responses (Questions 1-10) Between High and
Medium Socioeconomic Zone Natural Parks, Lansing, Michigan, 2012.
Mean
Standard
Question Difference Dev.
1
1.21
0.97
2
0.60
1.32
3
1.43
0.73
4
0.37
1.24
5
1.25
0.77
6
1.31
1.00
7
0.53
1.56
8
1.44
0.84
9
1.16
0.60
10
0.30
1.36
1
2
3

t
4.35
2.47
2.79
1.61
3.35
4.17
1.86
3.16
2.82
1.20

df
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29

1

p-value
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.10
0.24

Statistically significant p-value < 0.05
Scott Park and Riverside Park
Questions 1-10 refer to the 5-point Likert-scale questions present in Appendix 3

57

Table 4.52 Mean Difference in Survey Responses (Questions 1-10) Between Medium and
Low Socioeconomic Zone Natural Parks, Lansing, Michigan, 2012.
Mean
Standard
Question Difference Dev.
0.77
1.250
1
2
1.33
1.13
3
1.55
1.06
4
0.87
1.67
5
0.83
1.80
6
0.77
1.40
7
0.84
1.59
8
0.07
1.79
9
0.90
1.51
10
1.71
1.13
1
2
3

t
3.35
4.66
3.76
2.83
2.53
2.98
2.85
0.20
3.25
3.61

df
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29

1

p-value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.84
0.03
0.00

Statistically significant p-value < 0.05
Riverside Park and Scott Park
Questions 1-10 refer to the 5-point Likert-scale questions present in Appendix 3

58

Table 4.53 Mean Difference in Survey Responses (Questions 1-10) Between High and Low
Socioeconomic Zone Natural Parks, Lansing, Michigan, 2012.
Mean
Standard
Question Difference Dev.
1
0.77
1.25
2
1.33
1.13
3
1.55
1.06
4
0.87
1.67
5
0.83
1.80
6
0.77
1.40
7
0.83
1.59
8
0.07
1.79
9
0.90
1.51
10
1.71
1.13
1
2
3

t
3.35
4.66
3.76
2.83
2.53
2.98
2.85
.203
3.25
3.61

df
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29

1

p-value
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.08
0.02
0.06
0.08
0.84
0.00
0.00

Statistically significant p-value < 0.05
Fairview Park and Scott Park
Questions 1-10 refer to the 5-point Likert-scale questions present in Appendix 3

59

Table 4.61 Mean Difference in Survey Responses (Questions 1-10) Between High and Low
Socioeconomic Zone Developed Parks, Lansing, Michigan, 2012.
Mean
Standard
1
p-value
Question Difference Dev.
t
df
1
-1.66
1.26
-7.19
29
0.00
2
1.18
-9.37
29
0.00
-2.03
3
-1.96
1.06
-10.10
29
0.00
4
1.20
-10.33
29
0.00
-2.26
5
-0.87
1.19
-3.97
29
0.00
6
-1.96
1.21
-8.85
29
0.00
7
1.30
-10.10
29
0.00
-2.40
8
-1.90
1.12
-9.25
29
0.00
9
1.37
-9.41
29
0.00
-2.36
10
1.27
-9.57
29
0.00
-2.23
1
2
3

Statistically significant p-value < 0.05
Kimberley/Slater Park and Hunter Park
Questions 1-10 refer to the 5-point Likert-scale questions present in Appendix 3

60

Table 4.62 Mean Difference in Survey Responses (Questions 1-10) Between High and
Medium Socioeconomic Zone Developed Parks, Lansing, Michigan, 2012.
Mean
Standard
Question Difference Dev.
1
-1.06
1.25
2
-1.40
1.52
3
1.13
-1.50
4
-1.53
1.40
5
1.60
-.333
6
-1.40
1.58
7
1.65
-1.73
8
-1.60
1.19
9
1.62
-1.90
10
1.44
-1.83
1
2
3

t
-4.64
-5.03
-7.22
-5.96
-1.13
-4.82
-5.72
-7.35
-6.39
-6.97

df
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29

1

p-value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

Statistically significant p-value < 0.05
Kimberley/Slater Park and Moores Park
Questions 1-10 refer to the 5-point Likert-scale questions present in Appendix 3

61

Table 4.63 Mean Difference in Survey Responses (Questions 1-10) Between Medium and
Low Socioeconomic Zone Developed Parks, Lansing, Michigan, 2012.
Mean
Standard
Question Difference Dev.
1
-0.60
0.72
2
0.76
-0.63
3
-0.47
0.63
4
0.87
-0.73
5
-0.53
0.94
6
-0.57
1.04
7
1.18
-0.67
8
-0.30
0.65
9
-0.47
0.90
10
-0.40
0.72
1
2
3

t
-4.53
-4.53
-4.06
-4.62
-3.11
-2.98
-3.08
-2.52
-2.84
-3.02

df
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29

1

p-value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.17
0.08
0.05

Statistically significant p-value < 0.05
Moores Park and Hunter Park
Questions 1-10 refer to the 5-point Likert-scale questions present in Appendix 3

62

4.3 Qualitative Survey Data Results
Two qualitative, open-ended questions were used to record characteristics preferred or
disliked by park visitors (Question 1) and gauge emotions felt from park experiences (Question
2). Comparisons between natural and developed parks when stratified by socioeconomic zone
revealed polarizing results. Question 1 of the qualitative survey shows that high socioeconomic
visitors preferred more natural looking features in urban parks; 30/30 (100.00%) respondents
listed some sort of natural or wildlife feature as being aesthetically pleasing, while 12/30
(40.00%) people stated that any kind of human impact reduced the visual aesthetic appeal. For
the developed park, only 14/30 (46.67%) individuals believed the developed elements were
aesthetically pleasing while 20/30 (66.67%) people claimed that natural features present were
best or that more were needed (Appendix 6a).
Question 2 indicates that 30/30 (100.00%) visitors in the high socioeconomic zone
attributed the natural park with positive emotions such as feeling “relaxed, happy, and peaceful.”
While no negative emotions were associated with the natural park, 3/30 (10.00%) individuals
reported feeling negative emotions from the developed park, such as feeling “stressed and
overwhelmed.” Being unable to decide whether the developed park was beneficial or detrimental,
5/30 (16.66%) respondents said that the park had a neutral effect on their mood and well-being.
24/30 (80.00%) individuals did attribute the developed park with positive emotions, but when
compared to the natural park, it was clear that benefits were far more desired from the latter park
(Appendix 6b).
For medium socioeconomic visitors, question 1 shows that 20/30 (66.66%) linked natural
elements to creating an enhanced aesthetic experience in the natural park while 25/30 (83.33%)
63

listed developed elements as enhancing the aesthetics in the developed park. 16/30 (53.33%)
people stated that more developed elements were needed in the natural park while 6/30 (20.00%)
mentioned the need for more nature in the developed park. In addition, 23/30 (76.67%) believed
the developed park had a good mix of both natural and developed elements (Appendix 6c).
Question 2 shows that the natural park was received differently. 15/30 (50.00%) claimed
the natural park gave them positive feelings and emotions while 12/30 (40.00%) cited negative
emotions from their experience. While positive emotions ranged from “peaceful, happy, and
relaxed” negative emotions included feeling “tired, gloomy, and isolated.” The developed park
shows a much more positive experience as 26/30 (86.67%) referred to the park as being
“peaceful, soothing, and calming,” whereas only 1/30 (3.33%) stated the park had brought them
negative emotions (Appendix 6d).
Low socioeconomic visitors showed in question 1 that although 24/30 (80.00%) visitors
did feel that the natural park provided them with positive emotions, 24/30 (80.00%) also felt that
developed aspects were needed to further enhance the aesthetics. In the developed park, 30/30
(100.00%) people attributed developed elements as being aesthetically pleasing while not one
respondent indicated a need for more natural elements to enhance the visual experience
(Appendix 6e). Data from question 2 show that only 18/30 (60.00%) visitors described the
natural park as bringing them positive emotions while 27/30 (90.00%) believed the developed
park had a positive effect on their moods. 14/30 (46.67%) people associated the park with
negative emotions, making them feel, “alone, bored, unsafe.” (Appendix 6f) However, not one
respondent described the developed park as creating any negative emotions or discomfort.

64

Moreover, when comparing responses from visitors for natural and developed parks
irrespective of socioeconomic strata, results indicated prevailing trends. In question 1, for natural
parks, “trees, water, and nature” were the most prevailing features seen across all socioeconomic
zones (Appendices 6a, 6c, and 6e). For developed parks, “recreational facilities and
maintenance” were the most commonly cited responses (Appendices 6a, 6b, 6e, and 6f).
For question 2, results across all socioeconomic zones show that in general, positive
emotions regarding natural parks tended to make people feel the following emotions, “relaxed,
peaceful, and calm.” Neutral emotions included “neutral, pensive, and curious” while “secluded”
appeared as the most common negative emotional stigma. Similar to positive emotions stemming
from natural parks, developed parks when seen as positive were “relaxing” and made people feel
“happy.” Neutral emotions included “neutral and pensive,” while negative emotions most
commonly were referred to as being “stressful” (Appendices 6a-6f).
4.4 2010-2015 Park Master Plan and Landscape Architect Interview Results
A review of the City of Lansing 2010-2015 Parks Master Plan revealed that public-input
meetings were held in wards monthly throughout the city. Meeting times were advertised on the
department‟s website, posted on flyers at community centers, and emailed to community
organization leaders. The attendance at those meetings was generally 15-20 people including
community leaders representing the community were present. The Plan also explains that localofficials involved in the planning process were contacted and interviewed regarding changes to
the parks. To assess the residents of Lansing‟s preferences in parks an online survey was
administered over the Internet. This survey showed that most residents preferred nature-oriented
recreation. Another survey was taken at Everett High School where 9th to 12th graders were given
65

the same survey and responded that they would like more recreational facilities like pools,
athletic fields, and trails.
In terms of justifying procedures and plans, demographic analyses and their consideration
were unable to clearly indicate how these objectives were carried out. Demographic data from
the American Community Survey are displayed with neighborhood maps, but no clear procedure
with respect to measuring and interpreting is discussed in the Plan. Moreover, the limitations of
online surveys were also not discussed –i.e., whether or not only those with access to the Internet
and dispensable time could have taken the survey is not addressed. The Plan claims that the
survey was representative of all wards within the city, but there is no sampling plan of residents
across Lansing to substantiate this statement.
To find answers to these questions surrounding the Plan, an interview with Richard
Schaefer, the Parks and Recreation Department‟s Landscape Architect, was conducted on
October 12, 2012 at the Foster Community Center. In this interview, Mr. Schaefer was very
open about how politics and power drive the function of parks in the city. In particular, Mr.
Schaefer explained that socioeconomic status and other demographics were not priorities
considered by the Department when planning for parks. Mr. Schaefer also spelled out how “the
squeaky wheel gets the oil,” meaning that those with power and influence decide what is to be
built or modified within the parks (Schaefer, Interview, October 12 2012).
Although Mr. Schaefer did not state that the Department had neglected differences in
park preference on the basis of socioeconomic status he did say that this research may be correct
in its assumption that this may be occurring. When asked about different data collection methods,
such as in-situ surveys, he commented that they could be more effective but could not be
66

completed given the budget and resource limitations. Essentially, he explained that new methods
could improve park land use and better serve the needs of the people across different
socioeconomic status neighborhoods. Nonetheless, he explained that power and politics
ultimately control the system; park creation and design in the city are orchestrated by influential
people not necessarily stakeholders.

67

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION

5.1 Field Notes/Observations
During the past summer, a number of observations were documented while researching in
these six urban parks. It was first found that the vast majority of people were more than happy to
conduct an interview and contribute to this research. The overall success rate was n=90 (88.23%)
of 102 people approached agreed to participate. This high success rate may have been due to the
interviewer‟s professional dress; wearing a City of Lansing Parks and Recreation T-Shirt. In
addition, the interviewer did not feel that race was an inhibiting factor and his status of being
white did not affect whether or not people were willing to participate; both whites and racial
minorities made up the 12 people refusing to take the survey.
When asking people the survey questions, most interviewees did not know how to
interpret “psychological benefits” of parks and thus needed explanation. Interviewees were
asked to think about their mental health benefits gained from their park experience. Interviewees
also struggled with the Likert scale and needed to be instructed or reminded that their answers
had to be quantified on a scale of one to five as oppose to responding with a yes or no.
The greatest obstacle faced while interviewing park visitors was having them to think
about the parks themselves and their own personal observations. Most interviewees reported
good and bad qualities of a park, but when trying to think specifically in terms of the physical
park elements and aesthetics that they preferred in parks was often difficult. Getting respondents
to talk about how the parks served their psychological health and not the psychological health of
their children was also challenging.

68

5.2 Findings: Research Question 1: Do park visitors from high, medium and low
socioeconomic zones prefer similar or different types of parks –i.e., natural or developed
urban parks?
The data from this study do not indicate that a single urban park landscape type is
preferred or provides more perceived psychological benefits by the total sample population in the
city of Lansing (Table 4.4). In fact, data shown in Tables 4.53 and 4.61 make it clear that
perceived psychological benefits are very polarizing between high and low socioeconomic
residents. Likert scores from natural and developed parks demonstrate noticeable mean
differences for all questions.
High socioeconomic residents perceived far greater benefits from natural parks as
evidenced by all questions but stood out significantly for those questions gauging appeal,
happiness, and mood (Table 4.53). Scores from developed parks provided the opposite result
(Table 4.61). High socioeconomic residents recorded significantly lower scores while low
socioeconomic residents portrayed noticeable benefits; particularly in happiness, freedom from
stress and anxiety, rejuvenation, increases in psychological well-being, and elimination of
troubles.
However, data compiled from individuals living in the medium socioeconomic zone
indicate that both park types are conducive to the perceived psychological benefits of residents in
this zone. Table 4.51 shows that medium socioeconomic residents were closer in mean
difference scores with high socioeconomic residents when observing natural parks as compared
to results in Table 4.63 indicating distinct perceptions of developed parks. Data from the low
socioeconomic zone again suggests the opposite. Mean differences from perceptions of natural
69

parks in Table 4.52 are much greater between medium and low residents while Table 4.63 shows
closer means from developed park ratings. For these reasons, it is suggested that results from the
medium socioeconomic zone represent what an average individual may desire in a park; a
balance between both natural and developed elements.
Appendix 6c illustrates this claim, showing that 23/30 people mentioned that the
developed park had a good mix of both natural and developed features. Complementing these
data is Table 4.42 which shows that aside from perceptions of safety, there was no statistical
significance between benefits observed from natural and developed parks within medium
socioeconomic zones. Given these findings, it is believed that as oppose to situating natural or
developed elements as being more important than the other, it is a mix of these elements which is
desired by an average person, such as someone from a medium socioeconomic zone or middleclass setting.
Supporting this claim of an environment with a combination of elements are those
endorsing the idea of mosaic environments. Thwaites et al. (2005) explains how cities in England
have been urged to design parks with multi-use; allowing for full recreation with the co-existence
of high levels in biodiversity. Burgess et al. (1988) advocates a similar position, stating that
parks should embrace an integrative approach in that leisure activities should be incorporated
into the natural world. Adding to their suggestions, it is proposed that based on these findings, an
urban park promoting both natural and developed elements might offer the best perceived
psychological benefits to an average user.
5.3 Research Question 2a: Do park visitors from high, medium, and low socioeconomic
neighborhoods perceive psychological benefits from the parks that they prefer?
70

Differences in perceived psychological benefits from natural and developed parks within
socioeconomic zones or strata are very noticeable throughout the data sets. Tables 4.3-4.63 allow
us to see quantitative data expressing the polarities present between high socioeconomic and low
socioeconomic zones while situating medium socioeconomic zones as the middle ground. Table
4.41 clearly states that natural parks are perceived as providing greater psychological benefits for
high socioeconomic zone residents while Table 4.43 demonstrates the same conclusion for low
socioeconomic zone residents with respect to developed parks.
Referring to qualitative data presented in Appendices 6a-6f; the same conclusions can be
made with regard to distinct perceived psychological benefits observed between high and low
socioeconomic zone persons. The data overwhelmingly states that high socioeconomic zone
residents experience positive emotions from natural parks while citing less positive, more
negative, and occasionally neutral emotions from developed parks. For low socioeconomic zones,
the opposite was true as positive emotions are linked to experiences in developed parks while
natural parks surface more negative and neutral emotions. Adding to the perceived psychological
benefits, developed parks for high socioeconomic zones and natural for low address the
perceived psychological disservices also noted by select respondents.
Again, medium socioeconomic zone responses were emblematic of urban park responses
across the whole citywide sample. Perceived psychological benefits from medium
socioeconomic zone respondents appear as a blend of both high and low socioeconomic zone
preferences where the heterogeneous quality of both natural and developed elements is desired.
Ostensibly, medium socioeconomic status provides a middle ground in this study as it is

71

observed that when socioeconomic level increases in a zone, more natural landscapes are desired
and as the socioeconomic level decreases, developed features are preferred.
5.4 Research Question 2b: What are the emotions and feelings that park residents have
toward the park landscapes that they prefer?
Across all socioeconomic zones, positive emotions associated with natural parks were
generally feelings of: relaxation, peace, and calmness (Appendices 6a-6f). Neutral emotions most
often cited included: neutral, pensive, and curious. For negative emotions, seclusion was the
most frequently mentioned feeling. Results from developed parks again coming from the whole
sample showed that these parks made people happy and relaxed. The most common neutral
emotions were neutral and pensive while negative perceptions and experiences were conveyed as
being stressful.
Residents from all socioeconomic zones can find positive attributes and consequentially
experience positive emotions from certain aspects in both park types. Despite obvious
differences in park landscape preference and perceived psychological benefits by socioeconomic
level, it does not appear that the positive emotions experienced from those preferring natural
parks differ from those preferring the developed. What is noticeable; however, are the negative
psychological perceptions and experiences described by those disliking either natural or
developed parks.
5.5 Research Question 2c: Which physical urban park landscape elements are viewed as
aesthetically pleasing in natural and developed park types?
Qualitative evidence provides evidence that once again, perceived psychological benefits
and consequential preferences for parks vary by socioeconomic zone in this study (Appendices
72

6a-6f). Overall, the data explains that throughout the whole sample, trees, water, and nature were
the most aesthetically pleasing features in natural parks. While in developed parks, recreational
facilities and maintenance were identified. However, the results make it known that certain
elements are preferred over others. Natural features such as wildlife were highly desired by high
socioeconomic zone residents stating their value in natural parks and suggesting their addition to
those developed parks lacking these features. Confronting human elements in the developed
parks, these residents often expressed their disapproval for any human impacts which were
perceived as detracting from the natural appeal.
Again, for the low socioeconomic population, the results were fairly distinct. Residents
did acknowledge that nature and wildlife were aesthetically pleasing; however, their preferences
for developed communal elements including: pools, benches, gazebos, and recreational facilities
greatly overshadowed these qualities. In addition, many residents suggest that in order to
enhance the visual aesthetics of the natural park in their neighborhood, a number of developed
elements should be added.
As expected, medium socioeconomic zone residents tended to view both the
aforementioned natural and developed physical elements as aesthetically pleasing. What can be
concluded from these continuities is that despite overall differences in perceived psychological
benefits, there appears to be some appreciation for both physical elements in each socioeconomic
zone. In other words, the results suggest that an absolutely natural or developed park without the
slightest mix of contrasting elements is not desired by any social class group. Instead, it is argued
that both park styles are aesthetically pleasing and contain landscape features invoking positive
perceived psychological benefits. Albeit, these physical landscape features are pleasing at
73

different magnitudes and mixtures depending on the social class of the observer.
5.6 Research Question 2d: Are certain natural and/or developed urban parks visited more
or less frequently than others?
Given how the data has linked high socioeconomic status with natural parks, low with
developed and medium with both, it is not surprising that certain parks in these socioeconomic
zones are both popular and neglected. The survey results in Table 4.3 demonstrate that in the
high socioeconomic zone, Fairview Park experiences heavy visitation while its developed
counterpart, Kimberley/Slater does not. In the low socioeconomic zone, Hunter Park represents a
community park well-known to local residents, whereas Scott Park demonstrates a lesser-known
and utilized park.
Despite containing a number of landscape aesthetics preferred by medium socioeconomic
zone residents, Riverside Park appears to be isolated by locals, perhaps to the point of
abandonment while Moores Park appears to be a neighborhood, and possibly zone favorite.
Based on these findings, this survey sample provides evidence that park use and visitation in
Lansing is dictated by the relationship between socioeconomic zone and landscape aesthetics.
Therefore, this study contends that it may be evident elsewhere in the city that parks are either
popular or neglected in zones or neighborhoods as a result of a marriage or lack therefore
between these two variables.
5.7 Research Question 3: Should park modifications and specific data collection methods
for assessing the park needs of these populations in Lansing be reconsidered by the Parks
and Recreation Department?

74

This research proposes new ways of looking at urban parks by exploring how
socioeconomic status and social class via income level affect communities and their values
projected into the natural and built environment. The knowledge obtained from this sample case
study equips park planners and policy-makers with the tools to assess the park needs of
communities through an economic and social lens. What is meant by this statement is that the
social class of residents surrounding newly proposed or renovated park sites should be
considered as a variable for determining park characteristics. For parks already created whose
function does not match the local user clientele‟s preferences, greater communication is stressed
and recommended between city planners and neighborhoods to determine what elements are
needed.
The objective of this study did not aim to harshly criticize policies or procedures
conducted by the Parks and Recreation Department. However, due to information from Bruch
(2007) on past Parks Master Plans, a review of the 2010-2015 Master Plan, and an interview with
the Landscape Architect in the Department, suggestions are provided which can be used to
improve park data collection techniques. Starting with work conducted by Bruch (2007), the
author found that Master Plans from within the past 10-15 years had flaws concerning the
consultation of underprivileged groups in the city. Specifically, her work concluded that despite
being a goal of the Department to reach these communities, their outreach methods were
ineffective in reaching these demographics. Consequently, the needs of these populations were
not attained and resulted in the perpetuation of inequitable park and environmental service access.
Wondering if the same could be true for social class, particularly looking at low
socioeconomic status populations with less power, this research assumed that the most recent
75

Parks Master Plan for 2010-2015 might also have these flaws. Looking at the Master Plan, it can
be noticed that just as Bruch (2007) had discussed, the Plan made the evaluation of
demographics and parks and recreation trends an objective. In order to make these evaluations,
an action plan was created to assess needed changes through interviews, surveys, public inputmeetings, city-wide planning efforts, and demographic and land use change analysis. On paper
these data collection techniques appeared to be sufficient, however after viewing the methods,
potential shortcomings were spotted.
A review of the 2010-2015 Parks Master Plan, conclusions from Bruch (2007), and an
interview with the Landscape Architect surfaced a number of concerns with park data collection
strategies. The inability to match park preferences and amenities based on survey results from
socioeconomically distinct groups, data collection methods unable to reach all social classes, and
testimony on City priorities all provide evidence to support this assertion. Consequently, this
study offers potential suggestions which may remedy a system that might not always consider
the park preferences of socioeconomically distinct people. This research advocates that the best
way to assess peoples‟ park needs and preferences is by addressing these questions in the actual
parks themselves. Results from this study suggest that if a park is desired and has the elements
preferred by that zone, then there is a high likelihood that people will be present.
If people care about their parks they will recreate in them and be willing to voice their
opinions when changes are needed. The use of in situ interviews and photo depictions of parks
have proven to be highly effective in my study. In this study for example, an interview success
rate of 90/102 or 88.23% was recorded. By asking important questions about landscape features

76

preferred and the perceived psychological health benefits observed in the parks, respondents
were able to supply important data.
Based on claims from this research that the Department has used ineffective methods of
data collection for reaching all socioeconomic classes, this study supplies a new approach which
outlines a more intimate method. In the study‟s overall assessment, it is felt that the
Department‟s methods are sufficient for gathering general trends but fail to account for
differences in socioeconomic class. As a result, it is possible that a spatial mismatch is present
between users and parks on the basis of park preference.
The main argument of this thesis is that urban parks provide perceived psychological
benefits to different people through distinct landscape features and aesthetic function.
Socioeconomic status and class perception may have morphed these preferences through
peoples‟ experiences and access to both developed and natural landscapes. It is strongly believed
that socioeconomic status and social class have a tremendous bearing on determining an
individual‟s and collective social group‟s aesthetic preference for landscapes. Therefore, it is
recommended that the Department consider these demographics as well as alternative data
collection methods presented in order to determine the best use and management of park lands
for distinct groups within the city.
5.8 Contribution
This research contributes to the fields of urban geography, environmental psychology,
landscape architecture, and parks and recreation. Establishing a niche on socioeconomic
status/social class and the role it plays in determining preferences for natural and/or developed
landscapes is a major addition because of its ramifications for determining the best use of park
77

lands based on socioeconomic characteristics. Other studies (Elmendorf et al., 2005; Breuste et al.
(2008) have looked at socioeconomic status and landscape perception, albeit not with the
intention of discerning between natural and developed urban parks.
Moreover, this study has further advanced the fields of environmental psychology and
landscape perception; challenging the psychological analysis of natural landscapes, (Ulrich and
Addams 1981 and Kaplan, 1995) in that natural scenery landscapes by themselves are not
beneficial universally. Taking suggestions from these authors, this research shows that perceived
psychological benefits and disservices can be experienced from both natural and developed
urban park landscapes. This research provides a new way of looking at these urban landscapes
and the psychological services they deliver to their dissimilar visitors.
In addition to looking at urban landscapes and their benefits in a new light, this research
demonstrates a new and highly effective (88.2% interview rate of success) means of data
collection on park preferences and use. Techniques from this study provide a way of assessing
park preferences through the simultaneous comparison of in situ observation and photo
comparison. Methods for determining social class through subjective social class measures
coupled with census tract delineation offer a useful and tactful measure for identifying social
class in communities. Such techniques can be applied to other social science research efforts.
Another contribution is the theoretical framing of the research and how landscapes may
be viewed. As discussed before in the literature, debates over a marginality hypothesis and subcultural hypothesis explaining variations in leisure participation between race and class have
been contested (Floyd et al., 1995). The marginality hypothesis states that variations in leisure
behavior can be attributed to economic resources. Washburne (1978) discuses this paradigm
78

through the under-representation of African Americans in certain leisure activities as compared
to whites. Alternatively, the sub-cultural or ethnicity hypothesis has been promoted by authors
such as Alison (1998) whom argue that regardless of socioeconomic standing, cultural processes
are more important in explaining variation between blacks and whites in leisure participation
patterns.
Even though this study did not focus per se on park preferences between blacks and
whites, this research did provide new insights into leisure preferences on the basis of
socioeconomic status. While these past studies have focused on leisure participation it is believed
that leisure aesthetics and the evaluation of leisure landscapes like urban parks can be
extrapolated. It is also suggested that socioeconomic status may be a stronger factor in
determining these attractions towards landscapes. Although a direct comparison with race on the
basis of landscape preferences was not performed, the study argues that economic opportunities
shaping an individual‟s contact with landscapes may be more influential.
Moreover, an individual‟s income and consequential socioeconomic status appear to give
them the opportunity to visit and experience more natural and developed landscapes. Using a
study conducted by Dearden (1984), the principles of familiarity appear to justify these results.
In this study, Dearden (1984) asked respondents to list reasons for choosing certain landscapes;
the top four choices were landscape experience, travel, present residential environment, and
recreational activities. The concept of familiarity in this situation can be applied to people
preferring landscape types which align with their comforts and awareness. Individuals may
prefer and perceive greater psychological benefit from an urban park landscape related to
environments to which they are most accustomed.
79

Within an urban context, higher socioeconomic residents will have greater mobility and
experience with natural landscapes outside of the city. Their experience and travel to natural
areas outside of the city have likely shaped their preferences. For low socioeconomic residents,
the opposite can be stressed. Low socioeconomic residents have less mobility and economic
resources to experience different landscapes. If a lower class citizen spends most of their time
living in an urban built environment with more developed than natural elements it would come
as no surprise that they would become accustom to enjoying these features. In the case of low
socioeconomic residents, it is theorized that a sense of community and place is intertwined
within these developed landscapes and therefore results in a greater appreciation.
In this respect, it is imagined that these developed park landscapes serve as a means of
social capital. In actuality, it may not be the developed elements themselves that attract the
people, but it is these elements and their embedded meaning which bring about a sense of place
and attachment to their communities. These built and developed parks may stand for reminders
of social gathering and the social relations attached to these places and landscapes. Taking this
idea into consideration, a limited exposure to natural scenery by those that have spent most of
their life in the city surrounded by development may not see any benefit from natural places. If
an individual is familiar with their developed surroundings, expecting them to embrace a
different type of landscape or scenery would have no basis and imply some sort of proclivity or
inherent attraction.
Such hypotheses as the biophilia hypothesis have claimed just that proclivity in that
humans had an intrinsic desire for open savanna like landscapes (Heerwagan and Orians 1993).
Another hypothesis, the prospect-refugee theory claimed that humans desired a landscape suited
80

for protection and shelter (Appleton, 1975). However, authors including Williams et al. (2002)
and Fuller et al. (2007) have dispelled these hypotheses showing in their studies that greater
psychological well-being and preference has been attributed to greater plant diversity in parks.
Also debunking theories of inclinations towards landscapes is a study by Schroeder (1983) which
indicates that people spending most of their lives in urban areas preferred more developed parks
while rural and suburban people had an inclination towards natural forests. What can be taken
away from these studies and this research is that landscape preferences are not something that is
intrinsic. Instead this research suggests, along with Schroeder (1983), that our experiences and
place of residence mold our preferences for given landscapes. Adding to his study, this research
makes the claim that social class induces place of residence within an urban setting and creates a
similar dynamic for preferences as observed in his study through rural, suburban, and urban
trends.
High socioeconomic residents in the city of Lansing likely had greater mobile access and
experience with the natural environment much like rural and suburbanites do. Low
socioeconomic residents living in the city have most likely been constrained to their known
developed environments because of financial constraints and limited mobility. Schroeder (1983)
states that urban residents generally preferred developed landscapes; however to apply these
findings to this research, it must be known whether the socioeconomic status of all urban
residents was analyzed. Results from this study would lead one to believe that if this metric were
teased out from residents, divisions would emerge concerning preferences over natural and
developed landscapes.

81

Looking at the medium socioeconomic residents from this study, we see that preferences
for both natural and developed features are observed. Again, this research would conclude that
someone living in a medium socioeconomic zone or neighborhood has likely been exposed to
either more developed or natural settings based on their contact with both environment types.
Seeing that people of high socioeconomic status have likely been exposed to more natural
elements and low socioeconomic individuals more developed it can be assumed that medium
socioeconomic people have likely been influenced by a combination of both. Deviations towards
natural or developed preferences in the medium income neighborhood can likely be attributed to
an even closer analysis of income disparity within that income group.
The theoretical framing presented here is that income and class (socioeconomics) in the
city of Lansing have dictated peoples‟ introduction to natural and developed landscapes through
experience and accessibility. If high socioeconomic status residents have had greater economic
opportunities to see national park reserves and pristine environments outside of the urban area
we would assume their places of residence would want to reflect these experiences. The same
can be said of low socioeconomic persons whose economic constraints have limited their
experiences and leisure to the predominantly developed landscapes of city life. This model
assumes that a person will prefer a landscape that is familiar to them. Therefore, on the grounds
of these findings and work from other authors, this research offers this proposed theoretical
framework for interpreting the results of the study.
5.9 Limitations of the Research
There are also limitations to this research. First, median household income by census
tract ranges used to discern low, medium, and high socioeconomic zones were calculated using
82

data on the city of Lansing and therefore, these ranges may not be applicable to other cities in
Michigan or the United States. Second, the sampling method was not in the original study design
but was accommodated because of the short time frame of interviewing over the summer and the
circumstances surrounding the limited number of people located in the non-visited parks.
Third, while the interviewer was exceptionally aware of potential biases during the
recruitment of interviewees and interview process, other personal and unconscious biases may
have been exhibited by the researcher. For example, it is possible that the manner in which the
survey was delivered to respondents on a case by case basis may have persuaded individuals to
select certain answers based on how choices were presented by the interviewer. Based on the
study‟s hypothesis and assumptions regarding what landscapes people were believed to prefer,
the interviewer may have in some cases directed people to certain answers to reinforce these
predictions.
Fourth, while in situ experiences were recorded from visitors within the more-visited
parks, photos were used as a surrogate to simultaneously capture the same experiences in the
less-visited parks. The inability to compare visitors‟ in situ experiences in both landscapes
creates an observational bias. It can be assumed that people would give higher ratings to the park
that they were currently visiting; hence choosing to be there instead of the less-visited park.
However, this observation of a park hierarchy strengthens the evidence put forward that certain
park styles provide greater perceived psychological benefits depending on the socioeconomic
status of the user. Fifth, in order to be civil and comply with my survey, it can be assumed that
the results may be limited by instances where respondents selected the highest or same score
repeatedly to insure a fast completion.
83

Sixth, taking in to consideration whether visitors had heard of a park period vs. whether
they had not visited a park was not accounted through the survey. It is possible that in some
instances, respondents had not visited a park, not because of preference but because they were
not aware of its existence. Seventh, to address local park concerns for neighborhoods and zones,
this method was conducted but can be seen as a limitation because ratings were not compared by
different socioeconomic zones looking at the same parks. An assessment of parks in one
socioeconomic zone by residents from outside socioeconomic zones may have teased out
differences in perceived psychological benefits and rationalized why such parks were not located
in specific areas of the city. Finally, in general, the sample of park visitors interviewed may not
represent the majority views of all residents living in similar socioeconomic zones in Lansing.

84

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION

6.1 Conclusions
This study has shown that urban parks foster opportunities for improved mental and
physical health. Nonetheless, this research shows that variations in urban park landscape function
offer benefits to distinct demographics. The argument here, as outlined through a community
context, is that park design when incorporated into a zone, area, neighborhood, or community,
should match the preferences of that locale‟s clientele. When focusing in on residential areas in
urban cities, parks should reflect the values of the people in those districts. Addressing urban
parks in more public areas that are likely to be visited by all demographics is another issue. Both
Thwaites et al. (2005) and Burgess et al. (1988) have argued for a mosaic approach to park
design in which nature and leisure are integrated.
Ulrich (1981) has shown in his research that parks provide psychological services
through a mix of built and natural assets which are of crucial significance to the well-being of
urban dwellers. Hunziker et al. (2003) claims that we humans see landscapes as a biological need
(space) and also as a need for self-reflection and social integration (place). Given what the
literature has shown on park benefits, it appears that to some degree the mix of both natural and
developed elements are necessary. The question then persists, what combination of elements is
desired by a given population and to what proportion of both features is required?
In the public space realm, Low et al. (2005) has suggested that urban parks have become
more concealed and less open to the general public. Their research contends that urban parks
made available to the public espouse a system of “social sustainability” where diverse people are
able to interact with one another. According to the authors, public urban parks likes these have
85

started to privatize at greater rates, consequentially leading to higher social isolation amongst
diverse populations. As a result of this increased segregation between parks and their visitors,
this study contends that a more informed focus on parks in differing socioeconomic areas will be
necessary.
This study states that a mixed-use approach in public urban parks has the potential to
bring distinct groups together by providing a blend of elements. But the reality is, as parks
become more in touch with neighborhoods and their respective demographics, forming distinct
social zones, a mix-use of elements may not always meet the preferences of locals. The idea of
parks serving all demographics and fostering a sense of social sustainability is a nice thought, but
it can be argued that because of differences existing due to factors like social class, such an urban
park utopia is unlikely.
Like all studies focusing on social constructs like socioeconomic status and class, there is
a need to acknowledge the role of individual factors in shaping peoples‟ behaviors. Nonetheless,
results from this thesis further substantiate arguments made in the literature concerning
demographic differences in park use and preference. In particular, this research provides
evidence in support of socioeconomic status and social class as factors that explain differences in
preference and perceived psychological benefits from distinctly designed urban parks.
6.2 Policy and Management Implications
Determining the best use of land and providing the necessary physical elements within a
park to suit the needs of a given community should be the most critical objective of park
planners. Other research on urban parks has provided useful advice on challenging park use and
preferences (Gobster, 2002), better management for multi-racial use (Elmendorf et al., 2005),
86

and adapting to the changing needs of communities (Payne et al., 2002). With the same intent,
this thesis research serves to provide potential policy implications to the city of Lansing‟s Park
and Recreation Department as well as other cities with similar urban conditions.
In the interest of design practices, this study showed that despite overall differences in
perceived psychological benefit by socioeconomic zone, developed parks were perceived as the
safer parks across all zones. Evidence from this study would recommend that urban designers
consider the addition of developed elements or maintained characteristics in even natural
landscapes in an effort to provide more “defensible spaces”. This research confirms past research
showing that developed or manicured urban landscaped areas are perceived as being safer
(Newman, 1972, Kuo and Sullivan, 2001).
On a local level, this research indicates that several parks within the city have been
isolated to the point of near abandonment and therefore are not being used to the best of their
ability and function. Such a park as Riverside Park clearly is being underutilized as this research
would argue based on a mismatch between the social class in the zone and the park landscape
function. The study‟s methods call for new data collection methods similar to those argued by
Gobster (2002) and Walker (2004), where in place interviews can reach elusive and
disadvantaged populations while gathering a more socioeconomically-stratified sample.
Aside from a disconnection between park style and resident preference, Riverside Park
provides an example of how a city‟s financial investment may be wasted. The misuse of land
without proper attention to neighborhood preferences has dire financial consequences. For cities
like Lansing, who are facing painful budget cuts, investing resources and money into a park with

87

the assumption that a neighborhood or zone‟s demographics will prefer it without proper
assessment can be financially disastrous.
Several data collection methods and strategies have been laid out for better assessing the
park preferences for the city as a whole. The particular use of social class and socioeconomic
status as a new approach in gauging park preferences and perceived psychological benefits is
also mentioned. Research from this study strongly defends that this specific tactic has the
potential to inform park planners and policy officials in a more effective manner.
The study does not claim to say that assessing overall city trends is not a valuable method
for determining the best use of parks in a city. It does however suggest that socioeconomic status
and perceptions of social class may possibly be more useful than data on race when deciding the
best park designs or improvements for a community. With consideration of the low
socioeconomic zone, results showed that perceptions of urban parks could not be separated
between races. Perceived psychological benefits expressed by all races in this zone were not
shown to be distinctly different.
Nonetheless, small sample sizes in general, and the inability to make this same
conclusion in the medium and high socioeconomic zone were inhibited by racial residential
segregation. Therefore, it is encouraged that at least for areas of low socioeconomic status, park
planners consider this demographic as this study has shown that it is highly indicative in
determining peoples‟ perceived psychological benefits towards parks and ultimately, where they
chose to recreate.

88

6.3 Future Research
In hindsight there are a lot of additions and differences that could have made this research
even more informing. Since the literature appears to be contradictory on race and social class
explanations for leisure preferences, future studies might focus at a comparison between these
two demographics. Identifying differences and similarities between races in high, medium, and
low socioeconomic areas may provide further evidence to support the marginality or sub-culture
hypothesis with regard to urban park preferences. This research has brought forward evidence
from low socioeconomic zones showing no differences between races; however data in medium
and high socioeconomic zones with significant racial minority populations are required for
further evaluation. Additionally, sampling from rural, suburban, and urban areas may reveal
interesting conclusions relating to parks in general as oppose to just urban.
Following the same study design and format, further studies might consider more
expansive interview questions. Asking respondents to describe their experiences with natural and
developed landscapes and general access to different environments through travel may provide
further evidence in supporting new conclusions. Studies aimed at explicitly asking respondents if
they feel their individual socioeconomic status or residentially-induced social class have affected
their preferences for various urban parks may provide a final conclusion to this subject matter
and question.
Moving forward, if suggestions made from this research are accurate with regard to
socioeconomics and urban parks and their associated preferences, then what should be changed?
If low socioeconomic zones prefer more developed parks, should greener, more natural parks be
provided? This study argues that their lack of appreciation for natural parks is grounded in their
89

lack of exposure and familiarity with these landscapes, but could this be changed by integrating
these experiences into their zones? Kinzig et al. (2005) has shown that low income areas have far
less biodiversity than medium and high income neighborhoods and therefore planners should
consider providing them with more access given their often limited travel and awareness.
These suggestions surface a number of questions; Hunziker et al. (2004) have posed the
question of how landscape changes over time in a community might affect preferences. Their
study questions whether subtle changes may result in a community adapting to landscape
changes as oppose to blatant and significant changes. These options make us consider what
degree of exposure to new environments may change a community‟s preferences in urban parks.
Future studies might look at experimental landscape changes in communities by implementing
radical designs contrary to assumed preferences of those community members; paving the way
for new research on landscape adaptation.
Finally, in the interest of identifying the best use of urban parks, and urban land in
general, future research should identify other factors affecting not just perceived psychological
benefits, but perception in general. Perceived psychological benefit is only one factor in
answering why people prefer one urban park over another. Issues of urban park utility (Low et al.,
2005) familiarity with landscape types (Dearden, 1984), neighborhood safety (Schoreder, 1982,
1984), and the role of fear in developed and natural urban areas (Brownlow, 2005) must be
considered in a compressive manner. The ability to address these factors and how they relate to
individual level behavior and greater group level behavior will equip park planners and policy
makers with the tools to maintain and develop the best urban parks for all communities across
the nation.
90

APPENDICES

91

Appendix 1: Lansing Parks and Recreation Department Park Facilities Inventory
Table 4.7 Lansing Parks and Recreation Department Park Facilities Inventory

Park Name
1) Fairview Park
2) Hunter Park
3) Kimberley/Slater Park
4) Moores Park
5) Riverside Park
6) Scott Park
.
.
.
.
.
115) Woodcreek Park

Developed

Natural
x

x
x
x
x
x

x

Source: 2010-2015 Parks Masters Plan, City of Lansing Parks and Recreation Department

92

Appendix 2: Research Participation Statement

Department of Geography
East Lansing, Michigan 48823
Dear Participant:
You are being asked to participate in a research study on urban parks in the city of
Lansing. You will be asked a series of questions concerning your feelings and experiences within
certain parks. You will find that the interview takes no more than 10 minutes. In order to qualify
for this study you must be at least 18 years of age. By responding to this survey you are giving
verbal consent to be included as a respondent in this study.
Participation in this research is completely voluntary. You have the right to say “no”. If
you do agree to participate you may also change your mind at any time and withdraw. You may
choose not to answer specific questions and you can stop participating at any time.
For the purpose of this short interview, no payment or compensation will be given to you
the participant. However, your participation will be of benefit to the city of Lansing‟s Parks and
Recreation Department. The information that you provide will not be used in any way to identify
you. All of the information that you provide will be aggregated with all other participant
responses.
If you have any questions, concerns, or comments about this study, please contact myself,
Jeremy McWhorter at: Mcwhor11@msu.edu, (517) 410-2148 or my supervisor, Dr. Sue Grady at:
gradys@msu.edu (517-432-9998). If you have any questions about your role and rights as a
research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a
complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State
University‟s Human Research Protection Program at 517-335-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or email irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

93

Appendix 3: In Situ Park Survey
In Situ Park (circle one): Fairview, Kimberley/Slater, Riverside, Moores, Hunter, Scott
1. Gender (circle one):
M
F
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Age (in years): __________
Race/ethnicity (circle one): White Black Asian Latino Other
Do you live in one of the local neighborhoods surrounding this park?
What socioeconomic class for Lansing would you say surrounds this park and area?
Do you live in an apartment or a house? Response:
_____________________________________________
7. How did you arrive at this park? Response:
____________________________________________________
8. Did you come to the park by yourself or with others? Response:
________________________________
9. How often do you use this park? Response:
_________________________________________________
10. Looking around the park is it appealing to you?
0 (not at all), 1 (a little), 2 (somewhat), 3 (quite), 4 (very much)
11. Does this park make you feel happy?
0 (not at all), 1 (a little), 2 (somewhat), 3 (quite), 4 (very much)
12. Does this park improve your mood?
(0 (not at all), 1 (a little), 2 (somewhat), 3 (quite), 4 (very much)
13. Does this park make you feel free from stress and anxiety?
0 (not at all), 1 (a little), 2 (somewhat), 3 (quite), 4 (very much)
14. Does this park make you feel safe?
0 (not at all), 1 (a little), 2 (somewhat), 3 (quite), 4 (very much)
15. Does this park have the effect of being therapeutic or soothing?
0 (not at all), 1 (a little), 2 (somewhat), 3 (quite), 4 (very much)
16. Does this park have the effect of being rejuvenating?
0 (not at all), 1 (a little), 2 (somewhat), 3 (quite), 4 (very much)
17. Does this park make you feel peaceful?
0 (not at all), 1 (a little), 2 (somewhat), 3 (quite), 4 (very much)
18. Does this park increase your psychological well-being?
0 (not at all), 1 (a little), 2 (somewhat), 3 (quite), 4 (very much)
19. Does viewing this park allow you to get away from your troubles?
0 (not at all), 1 (a little), 2 (somewhat), 3 (quite), 4 (very much)
20. What characteristics of this park are aesthetically or not aesthetically pleasing to you?
21. Viewing this park what types of emotions do you feel?
22. Do you have any other comments about this park?
94

Appendix 4: Photo Park Survey
Photo Park: (circle one): Fairview, Kimberley/Slater, Riverside, Moores, Hunter, Scott
1. Have you been to this park in the photo? (Circle one):
Yes
No
2. If yes, how often have you used it? Response:
_____________________________________________
3. Looking at these photos of the park, is it appealing to you?
0 (not at all), 1 (a little), 2 (somewhat), 3 (quite), 4 (very much)
4. Do these photos of the park make you feel happy?
0 (not at all), 1 (a little), 2 (somewhat), 3 (quite), 4 (very much)
5. Do these photos of the park improve your mood?
0 (not at all), 1 (a little), 2 (somewhat), 3 (quite), 4 (very much)
6. Do these photos of the park make you feel free from stress and anxiety?
0(not at all), 1 (a little), 2 (somewhat), 3 (quite), 4 (very much)
7. Do these photos of the park make you feel safe?
0 (not at all), 1 (a little), 2 (somewhat), 3 (quite), 4 (very much)
8. Does viewing these photos of the park have the effect of being therapeutic or soothing?
0 (not at all), 1 (a little), 2 (somewhat), 3 (quite), 4 (very much)
9. Does viewing these photos of the park have the effect of being rejuvenating?
0 (not at all), 1 (a little), 2 (somewhat), 3 (quite), 4 (very much)
10. Do these photos of the park make you feel peaceful?
0 (not at all), 1 (a little), 2 (somewhat), 3 (quite), 4 (very much)
11. Do you feel that seeing the photos in this park increase your psychological well-being?
0 (not at all), 1 (a little), 2 (somewhat), 3 (quite), 4 ( very much)
12. Does viewing these photos of the park allow you to get away from your troubles?
0 (not at all), 1 (a little), 2 (somewhat), 3 (quite), 4 (very much)
13. What characteristics of this park in these photos are aesthetically or not aesthetically
pleasing to you?
14. Viewing these park photos what types of emotions do you feel?
15. Do you have any other comments about the photos of this park?

95

Appendix 5: Survey Results
Low Socioeconomic Zone: Scott Park (Quantitative)
Q1. Looking around the park is it appealing to you?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=6) (20.0%); Somewhat (n=16) (53.3%); Quite (n=6)
(20.0%); Very Much (n=2) (6.67%); Mean: 2.1.
Q2. Does this park make you feel happy?
Not at all (n=0) (3.33%); A little (n=11) (36.7%); Somewhat (n=9) (30.0%); Quite (n=9)
(30.0%); Very Much (n=1) (3.33%); Mean: 2.0.
Q3. Does this park improve your mood?
Not at all (n=1) (3.33%); A little (n=12) (40.0%); Somewhat (n=8) (26.7%); Quite (n=6)
(20.0%); Very Much (n=3) (10.0%); Mean: 1.9.
Q4. Does this park make you feel free from stress and anxiety?
Not at all (n=1) (3.33%); A little (n=6) (20.0%); Somewhat (n=12) (40.0%); Quite (n=7)
(23.3%); Very Much (n=4) (13.3%); Mean: 2.2.
Q5. Does this park make you feel safe?
Not at all (n=7) (23.3%); A little (n=7) (23.3%); Somewhat (n=9) (30.0%); Quite (n=5)
(16.7%); Very Much (n=2) (6.67%); Mean: 1.6.
Q6. Does this park have the effect of being therapeutic or soothing?
Not at all (n=1) (3.33%); A little (n=9) (30.0%); Somewhat (n=9) (30.0%); Quite (n=9)
(30.0%); Very Much (n=2) (6.67%); Mean: 2.1.
96

Q7. Does this park have the effect of being rejuvenating?
Not at all (n=3) (10.0%); A little (n=9) (30.0%); Somewhat (n=7) (23.3%); Quite (n=6)
(20.0%); Very Much (n=5) (16.7%); Mean: 2.0.
Q8. Does this park make you feel peaceful?
Not at all (n=1) (3.33%); A little (n=2) (6.67%); Somewhat (n=6) (20.0%); Quite (n=8)
(26.7%); Very Much (n=13) (43.3%); Mean: 3.0.
Q9. Does this park increase your psychological well-being?
Not at all (n=2) (6.67%); A little (n=8) (26.7%); Somewhat (n=10) (33.3%); Quite (n=7)
(23.3%); Very Much (n=3) (10.0%); Mean: 2.0.
Q10. Does viewing this park allow you to get away from your troubles?
Not at all (n=1) (3.33%); A little (n=10) (33.3%); Somewhat (n=9) (30.0%); Quite (n=9)
(30.0%); Very Much (n=1) (3.33%); Mean: 2.0.
Low Socioeconomic Zone: Scott Park (Qualitative)
Q1. What characteristics of this park are aesthetically or not aesthetically pleasing to you?
1

Participants responded that natural elements (i.e., nature, trees, water, and green) are
aesthetically pleasing (n=24), that the park is too overgrown or has too much nature and
reduces the aesthetics (n=7); that more developed elements (i.e., maintenance, pathways,
1

Some respondents reported multiple responses
97

benches, community elements, human landscapes, and recreational facilities, and people)
are needed to increase aesthetics (n=24); and that this is not what they think of as being a
park (n=4).
Q2. Viewing this park, what types of emotions do you feel?
1

Participants responded with positive emotions (i.e., calm, peaceful, relaxed, tranquil,
and

in touch with nature) (n=18); negative emotions (i.e., alone, unsafe, not social, solitary,
secluded, bored, unsafe, vulnerable, isolated, alert, closed off, and fearful) (n=14); and
neutral emotions (i.e., neutral and pensive) (n=4).

Low Socioeconomic Zone: Hunter Park (Quantitative)
Q1. Looking around the park is it appealing to you?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=0) (0.00%); Quite (n=2)
(6.67%); Very Much (n=28) (93.3%); Mean: 3.9.
Q2. Does this park make you feel happy?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=0) (0.00%); Quite (n=0)
(0.00%); Very Much (n=30) (100%); Mean: 4.0.
Q3. Does this park improve your mood?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=0) (0.00%); Quite (n=0)
(0.00%); Very Much (n=30) (100%); Mean: 4.0.

98

Q4. Does this park make you feel free from stress and anxiety?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=0) (0.00%); Quite (n=1)
(3.33%); Very Much (n=29) (96.7%); Mean: 4.0.
Q5. Does this park make you feel safe?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=2) (6.67%); Quite (n=6)
(20.0%); Very Much (n=22) (73.3%); Mean: 3.7.
Q6. Does this park have the effect of being therapeutic or soothing?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%) Somewhat (n=0) (0.00%); Quite (n=3)
(10.0%); Very Much (n=27) (90.0%); Mean: 3.9.
Q7. Does this park have the effect of being rejuvenating?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=0) (0.00%); Quite (n=2)
(6.67%); Very Much (n=28) (93.3%); Mean: 3.9.
Q8. Does this park make you feel peaceful?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=0) (0.00%); Quite (n=3)
(10.0%); Very Much (n=27) (90.0%); Mean: 3.9.
Q9. Does this park increase your psychological well-being?

1

Some respondents reported multiple responses

99

Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=0) (0.00%); Quite (n=1)
(3.33%); Very Much (n=29) (96.7%); Mean: 4.0.
Q10. Does viewing this park allow you to get away from your troubles?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=0) (0.00%); Quite (n=0)
(0.00%); Very Much (n=30) (100%); Mean: 4.0.
Low Socioeconomic Zone: Hunter Park (Qualitative)
Q1. What characteristics of this park are aesthetically or not aesthetically pleasing to you?
1

Participants responded that developed elements/aspects (i.e., recreational facilities,
gazebo elements, infrastructure, well-maintained, open spaces, and man-made landscapes)
are aesthetically pleasing (n=30); that the park needs more natural features or less
developed features (n=0); and that the park has a good mix of both natural and developed
elements (n=7).
Q2. Viewing this park, what types of emotions do you feel?
1

Participants responded with positive emotions (i.e., peaceful, happy, good, soothed,
energetic, family-oriented, social, connected, rejuvenated, calm, relaxed, invited, and
tranquil) (n=27); negative emotions (n=0); and neutral emotions (i.e., neutral and pensive)
(n=3).

1

Some respondents reported multiple responses

100

Medium Socioeconomic Zone: Riverside Park (Quantitative)
Q1. Looking around the park is it appealing to you?
Not at all (n=1) (3.33%); A little (n=3) (10.0%); Somewhat (n=7) (23.3%); Quite (n=6)
(20.0%); Very Much (n=13) (43.3%); Mean: 2.9.
Q2. Does this park make you feel happy?
Not at all (n=1) (3.33%); A little (n=4) (13.3%); Somewhat (n=3) (10.0%); Quite (n=4)
(13.3%); Very Much (n=18) (60.0%); Mean: 3.1.
Q3. Does this park improve your mood?
Not at all (n=3) (10.0%); A little (n=4) (13.3%); Somewhat (n=1) (3.33%); Quite (n=4)
(13.3%); Very Much (n=18) (60.0%); Mean: 3.0.
Q4. Does this park make you feel free from stress and anxiety?
Not at all (n=3) (10.0%); A little (n=2) (6.67%); Somewhat (n=2) (6.67%); Quite (n=5)
(16.7%); Very Much (n=18) (60.0%); Mean: 3.1.
Q5. Does this park make you feel safe?
Not at all (n=3) (10.0%); A little (n=3) (10.0%); Somewhat (n=11) (36.7%); Quite (n=4)
(13.3%); Very Much (n=9) (30.0%); Mean: 2.4.
Q6. Does this park have the effect of being therapeutic or soothing?

1

Some respondents reported multiple responses
101

Not at all (n=3) (10.0%); A little (n=2) (6.67%); Somewhat (n=4) (13.3%); Quite (n=9)
(30.0%); Very Much (n=12) (40.0%); Mean: 2.8.
Q7. Does this park have the effect of being rejuvenating?
Not at all (n=3) (10.0%); A little (n=4) (13.3%); Somewhat (n=3) (10.0%); Quite (n=4)
(13.3%); Very Much (n=16) (53.3%); Mean: 2.9.
Q8. Does this park make you feel peaceful?
Not at all (n=3) (10.0%); A little (n=2) (6.67%); Somewhat (n=3) (10.0%); Quite (n=4)
(13.3%); Very Much (n=18) (60.0%); Mean: 3.1.
Q9. Does this park increase your psychological well-being?
Not at all (n=3) (10.0%); A little (n=2) (6.67%); Somewhat (n=4) (13.3%); Quite (n=6)
(20.0%); Very Much (n=15) (50.0%); Mean: 2.9.
Q10. Does viewing this park allow you to get away from your troubles?
Not at all (n=3) (10.0%); A little (n=3) (10.0%); Somewhat (n=0) (0.00%); Quite (n=6)
(20.0%); Very Much (n=18) (60.0%); Mean: 3.1.
Medium Socioeconomic Zone: Riverside Park (Qualitative)
Q1. What characteristics of this park are aesthetically or not aesthetically pleasing to you?

102

1

Participants responded that natural elements (i.e., nature, trees, water, and green) are
aesthetically pleasing (n=20); that the park is too overgrown or has too much nature and
reduces the aesthetics (n=10); that more developed elements (i.e., maintenance, pathways,
community elements, human landscapes, and recreational facilities) are needed to
increase aesthetics (n=16).
Q2. Viewing this park, what types of emotions do you feel?
2

Participants responded with positive emotions (i.e., peaceful, relaxed, calm, happy,
tranquil, in touch with nature, nostalgic, and young) (n=15); negative emotions (i.e., tired,
gloomy, secluded, isolated, lonely, fearful, in danger, and un-welcomed) (n=12);
participants mentioning neutral emotions (i.e., neutral) (n=4).
Medium Socioeconomic Zone: Moores Park (Quantitative)
Q1. Looking around the park is it appealing to you?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=3) (10.0%); Quite (n=14)
(46.7%); Very Much (n=13) (43.3%); Mean: 3.3.
Q2. Does this park make you feel happy?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=1) (3.33%); Somewhat (n=2) (6.67%); Quite (n=12)
(40.0%); Very Much (n=15) (50.0%); Mean: 3.4.

1
2

Some respondents reported multiple responses
Some respondents reported multiple responses
103

Q3. Does this park improve your mood?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=2) (6.67%); Quite (n=10)
(33.3%); Very Much (n=18) (60.0%); Mean: 3.5.
Q4. Does this park make you feel free from stress and anxiety?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=7) (23.3%); Quite (n=9)
(30.0%); Very Much (n=14) (46.7%); Mean: 3.2.
Q5. Does this park make you feel safe?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=9) (30.0%); Quite (n=8)
(26.7%); Very Much (n=13) (43.3%); Mean: 3.1.
Q6. Does this park have the effect of being therapeutic or soothing?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=2) (6.67%); Somewhat (n=3) (10.0%); Quite (n=8)
(26.7%); Very Much (n=17) (56.7%); Mean: 3.3.
Q7. Does this park have the effect of being rejuvenating?
Not at all (n=2) (6.67%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=4) (13.3%); Quite (n=6)
(20.0%); Very Much (n=18) (60.0%); Mean: 3.3.
Q8. Does this park make you feel peaceful?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=3) (10.0%); Quite (n=6)
(20.0%); Very Much (n=21) (70.0%); Mean: 3.6.
104

Q9. Does this park increase your psychological well-being?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=1) (3.33%); Somewhat (n=4) (13.3%); Quite (n=4)
(13.3%); Very Much (n=21) (70.0%); Mean: 3.5.
Q10. Does viewing this park allow you to get away from your troubles?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=1) (3.33%); Somewhat (n=1) (3.33%); Quite (n=7)
(23.3%); Very Much (n=21) (70.0%); Mean: 3.6.
Medium Socioeconomic Zone: Moores Park (Qualitative)
Q1. What characteristics of this park are aesthetically or not aesthetically pleasing to you?
1

Participants responded that developed elements/aspects (i.e., recreational facilities,
gazebo elements, infrastructure, well-maintained, and man-made landscapes) are
aesthetically pleasing (n=25); that the park needs more natural features or less developed
features (n=6); and that the park has a good mix of both natural and developed elements
(n=23).
Q2. Viewing this park, what types of emotions do you feel?

1

Some respondents reported multiple responses

105

1

Participants responded with positive emotions (i.e., peaceful, relaxed, soothed, calm,
happy, social, nostalgic, free from worries, decompressed, and at ease) (n=26); negative
emotions (n=1); and neutral emotions (i.e., neutral) (n=3).
High Socioeconomic Zone: Fairview Park (Quantitative)
Q1. Looking around the park is it appealing to you?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=1) (3.33%); Quite (n=2)
(6.67%); Very Much (n=27) (90.0%); Mean: 3.9.
Q2. Does this park make you feel happy?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=1) (3.33%); Quite (n=6)
(20.0%); Very Much (n=23) (76.7%); Mean: 3.7.
Q3. Does this park improve your mood?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=0) (0.00%); Quite (n=8)
(26.7%); Very Much (n=22) (73.3%); Mean: 3.7.
Q4. Does this park make you feel free from stress and anxiety?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=3) (10.0%); Quite (n=10)
(33.3%); Very Much (n=17) (56.7%); Mean: 3.5.
Q5. Does this park make you feel safe?

1

Some respondents reported multiple responses
106

Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=1) (3.33%); Somewhat (n=7) (23.3%); Quite (n=7)
(23.3%); Very Much (n=15) (50.0%); Mean: 3.2.
Q6. Does this park have the effect of being therapeutic or soothing?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=2) (6.67%); Quite (n=1)
(3.33%); Very Much (n=27) (90.0%); Mean: 3.8.
Q7. Does this park have the effect of being rejuvenating?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=1) (3.33%); Somewhat (n=6) (20.0%); Quite (n=3)
(10.0%); Very Much (n=20) (66.7%); Mean: 3.4.
Q8. Does this park make you feel peaceful?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=1) (3.33%); Quite (n=1)
(3.33%); Very Much (n=28) (93.3%); Mean: 3.9.
Q9. Does this park increase your psychological well-being?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=0) (0.00%); Somewhat (n=5) (16.7%); Quite (n=4)
(13.3%); Very Much (n=21) (70.0%); Mean: 3.5.
Q10. Does viewing this park allow you to get away from your troubles?
Not at all (n=0) (0.00%); A little (n=1) (3.33%); Somewhat (n=5) (16.7%); Quite (n=5)
(16.7%); Very Much (n=19) (63.3%); Mean: 3.4.
High Socioeconomic Zone: Fairview Park (Qualitative)
107

Q1. What characteristics of this park are aesthetically or not aesthetically pleasing to you?
1

Participants responded that nature and wildlife elements are aesthetically pleasing
(n=30); human influence in the park reduces the aesthetics (n=12); the park is too
overgrown and reduces the aesthetics (n=1); and that more developed elements are
needed to increase aesthetics (n=1).
Q2. Viewing this park, what types of emotions do you feel?
2

Participants responded with positive emotions (i.e., relaxed, renewed, happy, peaceful,
soothing, calm, joyful, free, safe, connected with nature, spiritual, and uplifted) (n=30);
negative emotions (n=0); and neutral emotions ( i.e., curious and pensive) (n=2).
High Socioeconomic Zone: Kimberley/Slater Park (Quantitative)
Q1. Looking around the park is it appealing to you?
Not at all (n=3) (10.0%); A little (n=5) (16.7%); Somewhat (n=10.0) (33.3%); Quite (n=5)
(16.7%); Very Much (n=7) (23.3%); Mean: 2.3.
Q2. Does this park make you feel happy?
Not at all (n=5) (16.7%); A little (n=3) (10.0%); Somewhat (n=13) (43.3%); Quite (n=6)
(20.0%); Very Much (n=3) (10.0%); Mean: 2.0.

1
2

Some respondents reported multiple responses
Some respondents reported multiple responses
108

Q3. Does this park improve your mood?
Not at all (n=2) (6.67%); A little (n=8) (26.7%); Somewhat (n=9) (30.0%); Quite (n=9)
(30.0%); Very Much (n=2) (6.67%); Mean: 2.0.
Q4. Does this park make you feel free from stress and anxiety?
Not at all (n=6) (20.0%); A little (n=6) (20.0%); Somewhat (n=10) (33.3%); Quite (n=7)
(23.3%); Very Much (n=1) (3.33%); Mean: 1.7.
Q5. Does this park make you feel safe?
Not at all (n=1) (3.33%); A little (n=2) (6.67%); Somewhat (n=11) (36.7%); Quite (n=4)
(13.3%); Very Much (n=12) (40.0%); Mean: 2.8.
Q6. Does this park have the effect of being therapeutic or soothing?
Not at all (n=3) (10.0%); A little (n=8) (26.7%); Somewhat (n=11) (36.7%); Quite (n=4)
(13.3%); Very Much (n=4) (13.3%); Mean: 1.9.
Q7. Does this park have the effect of being rejuvenating?
Not at all (n=8) (26.7%); A little (n=6) (20.0%); Somewhat (n=10) (33.3%); Quite (n=4)
(13.3%); Very Much (n=2) (6.67%); Mean: 1.5.
Q8. Does this park make you feel peaceful?
Not at all (n=2) (6.67%); A little (n=8) (26.7%); Somewhat (n=12) (40.0%); Quite (n=4)
(13.3%); Very Much (n=4) (13.3%); Mean: 2.0.
109

Q9. Does this park increase your psychological well-being?
Not at all (n=10) (33.3%); A little (n=3) (10.0%); Somewhat (n=10) (33.3%); Quite (n=3)
(10.0%); Very Much (n=4) (13.3%); Mean: 1.6.
Q10. Does viewing this park allow you to get away from your troubles?
Not at all (n=6) (20.0%); A little (n=6) (20.0%); Somewhat (n=11) (36.7%); Quite (n=3)
(10.0%); Very Much (n=4) (13.3%); Mean: 1.8.

High Socioeconomic Zone: Kimberley/Slater Park (Qualitative)
Q1. What characteristics of this park are aesthetically or not aesthetically pleasing to you?
1

Participants responded that developed elements/aspects (i.e., recreational facilities, wellmaintained, and human landscapes) are aesthetically pleasing (n=14); developed
elements/aspects (i.e., pavement, too open, people-oriented, and maintained) in the park
reduce the aesthetics (n=13); and that more natural elements (i.e., trees, vegetation, and
more green) are needed to increase aesthetics or that natural features in the park are the
best quality (n=20).
Q2. Viewing this park, what types of emotions do you feel?

1

Some respondents reported multiple responses

110

1

Participants responded with positive emotions (i.e., friendly, social, energetic, fun, safe,
liberated, lively, peaceful, happy, nostalgic, and relaxed) (n=24); negative emotions (i.e.,
stressed, overwhelmed, and crowded) (n=3); and neutral emotions (neutral) (n=5).

1

Some respondents reported multiple responses
111

1

Appendix 6a High Socioeconomic Zone Responses to Open-ended Question 1
Coded category (n=30)
Natural Park
Nature/Wildlife elements
aesthetically pleasing
Human influence/elements
reducing aesthetics
Park too overgrown
Developed Park
Developed elements needed
for better aesthetics
Developed elements
aesthetically pleasing
Human influence/elements
reducing aesthetics
Natural features the best or
more are needed

1

Examples given

No.

%

30

100.00

12
1

40.00
3.33

1

3.33

“Recreational facilities, well-maintained”
“Pavement, too open, maintained, peopleoriented”

14

46.67

13

43.37

“Trees, vegetation, more green”

20

66.67

“Nature, wildlife, water, trees, animals”
“Trash, homes, development, human
impacts”
“Too overgrown”
“Needs to harmonize with human
elements”"

May include multiple responses per person
112

1

Appendix 6b High Socioeconomic Zone Responses to Open-ended Question 2
Coded category (n=30)

Examples given

No.

%

“Relaxed, happy, peaceful, soothing,
calm, joyful”
“Pensive, curious”

30
2

100.00
6.67

“Friendly, social, energetic, peaceful,
happy”
“Stressed, overwhelmed, crowded”
“ Neutral”

24
3
5

80.00
10.09
16.67

Natural Park
Positive emotions
Neutral emotions
Developed Park
Positive emotions
Negative emotions
Neutral emotions

1

May include multiple responses per person
113

1

Appendix 6c Medium Socioeconomic Zone Responses to Open-ended Question 1
Coded category (n=30)
Natural Park
Nature elements aesthetically
pleasing
Park too overgrown
Developed elements needed for
better aesthetics
Developed Park
Developed elements aesthetically
pleasing
Good mix of both natural and
developed features
Needs more natural features or
less-development

1

Examples given

No.

%

20
10

66.67
33.33

16

53.33

“Recreational facilities, wellmaintained”

25

83.33

“Good mix of both features”

23

76.67

6

20.00

“Nature, trees, water, green”
“Too overgrown”
“Maintenance, pathways, recreational
facilities”

“Needs more trees”

May include multiple responses per person
114

1

Appendix 6d Medium Socioeconomic Zone Responses to Open-ended Question 1
Coded category (n=30)

Examples given

Natural Park
Positive emotions
Negative emotions
Neutral emotions
Developed Park
Positive emotions
Negative emotions
Neutral emotions

1

No.

%

“Relaxed, happy, peaceful, tranquil, calm”
“Tired, gloomy, secluded, isolated”
“Neutral”

15
12
4

50.00
40.00
13.33

“Peaceful, relaxed, soothed, calm, happy”
“Stressed”
“Neutral”

26
1
3

86.67
3.33
10.00

May include multiple responses per person
115

1

Appendix 6e Low Socioeconomic Zone Responses to Open-ended Question 2
Coded category (n=30)

Examples given

Natural Park
Nature elements aesthetically
pleasing

“Nature, trees, water, green”

Park too overgrown
Not what they think of as a park
Developed elements needed for
better aesthetics
Developed Park
Developed elements aesthetically
pleasing
Good mix of both natural and
developed features

1

No.

%

24

80.00

“Too overgrown”
“Not a park”
“ Maintenance, pathways, recreational
facilities”

7
4

33.33
13.33

24

80.00

“Recreational facilities, wellmaintained”

30

100.00

“Good mix of both features”

7

23.33

May include multiple responses per person
116

1

Appendix 6f Low Socioeconomic Zone Responses to Open-ended Question 2
Coded category (n=30)

Examples given

Natural Park
Positive emotions
Negative emotions
Neutral emotions
Developed Park
Positive emotions
Neutral emotions

1

No.

%

“Calm, peaceful, relaxed, tranquil”
“Alone, unsafe, secluded, bored”
“Neutral and pensive”

18
14
4

60.00
40.00
13.33

“Peaceful, relaxed, soothed, calm,
happy, energetic”
“Neutral, pensive”

27
3

90.00
10.00

May include multiple responses per person
117

Appendix 7: Interview Written Transcript with Landscape Architect
Communication between Richard Schaefer and Jeremy McWhorter, October 12, 2012, 10:00 AM,
City of Lansing Parks and Recreation Building, Lansing, Michigan
-States that the needs of the community drive what is present and where it is located.
- Department has looked at trends in communities.
- Mayor and politics play a role in the function of land use, example golf courses, he does not
want them.
- Trails were highest priority from the review in the Master Plan 2010-2015.
- Results from the Plan and the surveys, forums, and other data collection methods indicated that
green space and natural areas were desired. A website was used to collect data for the 2010-2015
Master Plan.
- Held meetings by ward, 4 different 4 wards in Lansing, for the 2005-2010 Plan, did the same
but had people in each ward list the top 5 things that they would like to see in their park
communities.
- 2005-2010 looked at census data for each park, did summaries, but did not lead to any
substantial changes, looked more at ages, decided facilities and their function based on children
and old people.
- Said that low-class and race are not really factored into the park landscape functions and needs.
- “The squeaky wheel gets the oil”, as to say the one that complains or has the power gets what is
needed and done.
- Lansing is mixed as he says; no studies have been conducted on race or SES in terms of
assessing the facilities, park preferences, or aesthetics desired by these groups.
- Dick admits that I could be right, they have not done my study, especially have not looked at
mental/psychological health benefits.
- Time, people, and money are reasons why these studies have not been implemented.
- My interest in underutilized land in these communities has been ignored, look at national
criteria. There are bigger priorities in the city.
- Have been studies on playgrounds, what they wanted by neighborhood, also 2 studies looking
at river trail use, inventoried park user data and preferences, closest thing to my study.
- Agrees with me, people could be pooled or interviewed but there is just no money or resources
to do such a thing. Says other methods like these could collect better data. Says the ultimately
money talks, and that these other considerations are not principle.
118

Appendix 8: Photos
Figure 3.6: Fairview Park, Northeast view, May 25, 2012, source: J McWhorter

Figure 3.7: Fairview Park, Western View, May 25, 2012, source: J McWhorter

119

Figure 3.8: Kimberley/Slater Park, Western View, May 29, 2012, source: J McWhorter

Figure 3.9: Kimberley/Slater Park, Southern View, May 9, 2012, source: J McWhorter

120

Figure 3.10: Moores Park, Northern View, June 16, 2012, source: J McWhorter

Figure 3.11: Moores Park, Western View, June 16, 2012, source: J McWhorter

121

Figure 3.12: Riverside Park, Northwest View, June 23, 2012, source: J McWhorter

Figure 3.13: Riverside Park, Northeast View, June 23, 2012, source: J McWhorter

122

Figure 3.14: Scott Park, Western View, July 29, 2012, source: J McWhorter

Figure 3.15: Scott Park, Southern View, July 29, 2012, source: J McWhorter

123

Figure 3.16: Hunter Park, Eastern View, August 5, 2012, source: J McWhorter

Figure 3.17: Hunter Park, Southeastern View, August 5, 2012, source: J McWhorter

124

BIBLIOGRAPHY

125

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alford, R. R., & Friedland, R. (1975). Political Participation and Public Policy. Annual Review of
Sociology, 1(1), 429–479. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.01.080175.002241
Allison, M. T. (1988). Breaking boundaries and barriers: Future directions in cross‐cultural
research. Leisure Sciences, 10(4), 247–259. doi:10.1080/01490408809512195
American Community Survey. (2010). American Community Survey. Retrieved November 19,
2012, from http://www.census.gov/acs/www/
Anon, K. (2007). Mind Launches Green Agenda for Mental Health (report). Retrieved from
http://www.erpho.org.uk/viewResource.aspx?id=16284
Appleton, J. (1996). The experience of landscape. Wiley.
Baas, J. M. (1992). Identifying service delivery strategies for ethnically diverse users of a wild
land urban recreation site. In D. J. Chavez (Ed.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Social
Aspects and Recreation Research (General Tech. Rep. PSW-132, pp. 40–41). Albany,
New York.
Balaskovitz, A. (2011). Naturalization update: City Council committee to discuss parks
naturalization plan Monday. City Pulse
Bartholomew, H. (1922). The Lansing plan: A comprehensive city plan report for Lansing,
Michigan. Lansing: City of Lansing.
Bedimo-Rung, A. L., Mowen, A. J., & Cohen, D. A. (2005). The significance of parks to
physical activity and public health: A conceptual model. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 28(2, Supplement 2), 159–168. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.024
Bjerke, T., Østdahl, T., Thrane, C., & Strumse, E. (2006). Vegetation density of urban parks and
perceived appropriateness for recreation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5(1), 35–44.
doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.006
Blahna, D. J. (1992). Comparing the preferences of Black, Asian, Latino, and White . Shermen at
Moraine Hills State Park, Illinois. In D. J. Chavez (Ed.), Proceedings of the Symposium
on Social Aspects and Recreation Research (General Tech. Rep. PSW-132, pp. 42–43).
Breuste, J., Priego González de Canales, C., & Rojas, J. (2008). Urban nature perception in
socio-economic different urban neighbourhoods in Germany, Chile and Spain. Capítulo
de libro. Retrieved November 15, 2012, from http://digital.csic.es/handle/10261/24632
126

Bruch, S. P. (2007, January). Environmental equity of Lansing’s urban park policy. Michigan
State University. Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/32/36/3236288.html
Brownlow, A. 2005. A geography of men‟s fear. Geoforum 36:581-592.
Burch, W. R., Cheek, N. H., & Taylor, L. (1972). Social behavior, natural resources, and the
environment. Harper & Row.
Burgess, J., Harrison, C. M., & Limb, M. (1988). People, Parks and the Urban Green: A Study of
Popular Meanings and Values for Open Spaces in the City. Urban Studies, 25(6), 455–
473. doi:10.1080/00420988820080631
California. Dept. of Parks. (2005). The health and social benefits of recreation: an element of the
California Outdoor Recreation Planning Program. California State Parks.
CDC. (2011a). CDC - Workplace Health - Assessment - Site Assessment & Interviews Environmental Assessment. Retrieved November 16, 2012, from
http://www.cdc.gov/workplacehealthpromotion/assessment/assessment_interviews/enviro
nmental-assessment.html
CDC, C. (2011b). Physical Activity for Everyone: The Benefits of Physical Activity | DNPAO |
CDC. Retrieved November 19, 2012, from
http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/health/index.html
Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 68(1), 129–138. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003
City of Lansing. (2012). Parks and Recreation. Retrieved November 19, 2012, from
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/http://www.lansingmi.gov/parks
City of Lansing. (2012). Planning office. Retrieved April 11, 2012, from
http://eportal.cityoflansingmi.com/website/planning/
Clamp, P., & Powell, M. (1982). Prospect‐refuge theory under test. Landscape Research, 7(3),
7–8. doi:10.1080/01426398208706036
Conway, H. (2000). Parks and people: the social functions. The Regeneration of Public Parks’,
E&FN Spon, London.
Conrad, E., Christie, M., & Fazey, I. (2011). Understanding public perceptions of landscape: A
case study from Gozo, Malta. Applied Geography, 31(1), 159–170.
doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.03.009
127

Crompton, J. L. (2009). Financing and Acquiring Park and Recreation Resources. Waveland
Press Inc.
Crompton, J. L.,&Lue, C. C. (1992). Patterns of equity preferences among Californians for
allocating park and recreation resources. Leisure Sciences, 14, 227–246.
Darden, J. (1986) The Residential Segregation of Blacks in Detroit, 1960-1970. Journal of
Comparative Sociology.
Davis, J. (2004). Psychological benefits of nature experiences: An outline of research and theory.
Nuropa University and School of Lost Borders (available at: http://www. johnvdavis.
com/ep/benefits. htm). Retrieved from http://www.soulcraft.co/essays/Pyschological
Benefits of Nature Experiences.pdf
Dearden, P. (1984). Factors influencing landscape preferences: An empirical investigation.
Landscape Planning, 11(4), 293–306. doi:10.1016/0304-3924(84)90026-1
Docherty, I., Goodlad, R., & Paddison, R. (2001). Civic Culture, Community and Citizen
Participation in Contrasting Neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2225–2250.
doi:10.1080/00420980120087144
Dwyer, J. F., Hutchinson, R., & Vining, J. (1990). Outdoor recreation participation and
preferences by black and white Chicago households., 49–67.
Dwyer, John F. (1992). Outdoor Recreation Participation: Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, and Asians
in Illinois (pp. 19–22). Retrieved from http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/28067
Elmendorf, W. F., Willits, F. K., & Sasidharan, V. (2005). Urban park and forest participation
and landscape preference: a review of the relevant literature. Journal of Arboriculture,
31(6), 311–316.
Entrikin, J. N. (1991). The betweenness of place: Towards a geography of modernity (p. 56).
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Evans, G. W., Wells, N. M., & Moch, A. (2003). Housing and Mental Health: A Review of the
Evidence and a Methodological and Conceptual Critique. Journal of Social Issues, 59(3),
475–500. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00074
Floyd, M. F., Shinew, K. J., McGuire, F. A., & Noe, F. P. (1994). Race, class, and leisure
activity preferences: marginality and ethnicity revisited. Journal of Leisure Research,
26(2), 158–173.

128

Floyd, Myron F., Gramann, J. H., & Saenz, R. (1993). Ethnic factors and the use of public
outdoor recreation areas: The case of Mexican Americans. Leisure Sciences, 15(2), 83–98.
doi:10.1080/01490409309513190
Fox, J. (2000). Bylaws and Signage to Encourage Smoke-free. Docstoc.com. Retrieved
November 19, 2012, from http://www.docstoc.com/docs/31465007/Bylaws-and-Signageto-Encourage-Smoke-free
Frank, L., Engelke, P., & Schmid, T. (2003). Health and Community Design: The Impact Of The
Built Environment On Physical Activity. Island Press.
Frumkin, H. (2001). Beyond toxicity: human health and the natural environment. American
journal of preventive medicine, 20(3), 234–240.
Fuller, R. A., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H., & Gaston, K. J. (2007).
Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters, 3(4),
390–394. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149
Gesler, W. M. (2003). Healing Places. Rowman & Littlefield.
Gobster, P. H. (2006, August 11). Managing urban parks for a racially and ethnically diverse
clientele. Retrieved November 19, 2012, from http://nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/2479
Gochfeld, M., & Goldstein, B. D. (1999). Lessons in Environmental Health in the Twentieth
Century. Annual Review of Public Health, 20(1), 35–53.
doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.20.1.35
Godbey, G., Graefe, A. R., James, S. W., National Recreation and Park Association, & National
Recreation Foundation. (1992). The benefits of local recreation and park services : a
nationwide study of the perceptions of the American public. [Arlington, Va.]: National
Recreation and Park Association.
Hancock, T. (2002). Indicators of environmental health in the urban setting. Canadian journal of
public health. Revue canadienne de santé publique, 93 Suppl 1, S45–51.
Handy, S. L., Boarnet, M. G., Ewing, R., & Killingsworth, R. E. (2002). How the built
environment affects physical activity: Views from urban planning. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 23(2, Supplement 1), 64–73. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00475-0
Hansmann, R., Hug, S.-M., & Seeland, K. (2007). Restoration and stress relief through physical
activities in forests and parks. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(4), 213–225.
doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2007.08.004

129

Harnik, P. (2003). The excellent city park system - what makes it great and how to get there.
Parks & Recreation (Ashburn), 38(4), 64–66.
Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Gärling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration
in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 109–123.
doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00109-3
Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative Effects of Natural Environment
Experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23(1), 3–26. doi:10.1177/0013916591231001
Hayward, D. G., & Weitzer, W. H. (1984). The public‟s image of urban parks: Past amenity,
present ambivalance, uncertain future. Urban Ecology, 8(3), 243–268. doi:10.1016/03044009(84)90038-X
Heerwagen, J., & Orians, G. (1993). The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press.
Henderson, Barbara E. Ainsworth, Lisa M. Stolarzcyk, Jennifer M. Hootman, S. L. (1999). Notes
on Linking Qualitative and Quantitative Data: The Cross Cultural Physical Activity
Participation Study. Leisure Sciences, 21(3), 247–255. doi:10.1080/014904099273138
Hill, K. (2001). Design and planning as healing arts: the broader context of health and
environment. Ecology and design: Frameworks for learning, 203-214
Ho, C. H., Sasidharan, V., Elmendorf, W., Willits, F. K., Graefe, A., & Godbey, G. (2005).
Gender and ethnic variations in urban park preferences, visitation, and perceived benefits.
Journal of Leisure Research, 37(3), 281–306.
Hull, R. B., & Michael, S. E. (1995). Nature‐based Recreation, mood change, and stress
restoration. Leisure Sciences, 17(1), 1–14. doi:10.1080/01490409509513239
Hunziker, M., Hoffmann, C. and Wild, S. (2001). Die Akzeptanz von Raubtieren, Gründe und
Hintergründe– Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Umfrage in der Schweiz. Forest Snow
and Landscape Research 76, 1/2: 301-326.
Hunziker, M., Buchecker, M., & Hartig, T. (2007). Space and Place – Two Aspects of the
Human-landscape Relationship. In F. Kienast, O. Wildi, S. Ghosh, H. Décamps, B. Tress,
& G. Tress (Eds.), A Changing World, Landscape Series (Vol. 8, pp. 47–62). Springer
Netherlands. Retrieved from
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u66005116m7mv563/abstract/
Hutchison, R. (1987). Ethnicity and Urban Recreation: Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics in
Chicago‟s Public Parks. Journal of Leisure Research, 19(3), 205–22.

130

Irwin, P. N., Gartner, W. C., & Phelps, C. C. (1990). Mexican‐American/Anglo cultural
differences as recreation style determinants. Leisure Sciences, 12(4), 335–348.
doi:10.1080/01490409009513113
Jacobs, J. (1992). The death and life of great American cities. Vintage.
Jackson, R.J., (2001). What Olmstead [sic] Knew. Western City.
http://www.westerncity.com/Mar01Olmstead.htm [downloaded 22 May 2001
Jim, C. Y., & Chen, W. Y. (2006). Recreation–amenity use and contingent valuation of urban
greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75(1–2), 81–96.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.08.008
Johnson, B., & Hill, K. (2001). Ecology and Design: Frameworks For Learning. Island Press
Jones, B. D. (1980). Service delivery in the city: Citizen demand and bureaucratic rules. New
York: Longman.
Juniu, S. (2000). The impact of immigration: leisure experience in the lives of South American
immigrants. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(3), 358–381.
Kaplan, R. (1973). Some Psychological Benefits of Gardening. Environment and Behavior.
Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ083253
Kaplan, R., & Talbot, J. F. (1988). Ethnicity and preference for natural settings: A review and
recent findings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15(1-2), 107–117. doi:10.1016/01692046(88)90019-9
Kaplan, S. (1972). Image & Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior. Transaction
Publishers.
Kaplan, Stephen. (1983). A Model of Person-Environment Compatibility. Environment and
Behavior, 15(3), 311–332. doi:10.1177/0013916583153003
Kaplan, Stephen. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182. doi:10.1016/02724944(95)90001-2
Kaplan, Stephen, Kaplan, R., & Wendt, J. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural
and urban visual material. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 12(4), 354–356.
doi:10.3758/BF03207221
Kaplan, R. K., Stephen, & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological
Perspective. CUP Archive.
131

Kinzig, A. P., Warren, P., Martin, C., Hope, D., & Katti, M. (2005). The Effects of Human
Socioeconomic Status and Cultural Characteristics on Urban Patterns of Biodiversity.
Ecology and Society, 10(1), 23.
Klobus-Edwards, P. (1981). Race, residence, and leisure style: Some policy implications. Leisure
Sciences, 4(2), 95–112. doi:10.1080/01490408109512954
Klopp, B., & Mealey, L. (1998). Experimental mood manipulation does not induce change in
preference for natural landscapes. Human Nature, 9(4), 391–399. doi:10.1007/s12110998-1016-z
Kochtitzky, C. S., Frumkin, H., Rodriguez, R., Dannenberg, A. L., Rayman, J., Rose, K., Gillig,
R., et al. (2006). Urban planning and public health at CDC. MMWR. Morbidity and
mortality weekly report, 55 Suppl 2, 34–38.
Kumar, S. (2007). History of public health. Public Health Priory lodge education limited,
available online at: http://priory.com/history_of_medicine/public_health.html.
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(6), 823–851. doi:10.1023/A:1022294028903
Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Environment and Crime in the Inner City Does Vegetation
Reduce Crime?. Environment and behavior, 33(3), 343-367.
Lansing Parks and Recreation, M. (1995). City of Lansing, 1995-2000 parks and recreation
master plan. City of Lansing.
Lansing Parks and Recreation, M. (2000). City of Lansing, 2000-2005 parks and recreation
master plan. City of Lansing.
Lansing Parks and Recreation, M (2010). City of Lansing, 2010-2015 parks and recreation
master plan. City of Lansing.
Laumann, K., Gärling, T., & Stormark, K. M. (2003). Selective attention and heart rate responses
to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 125–
134. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00110-X
Lindsay, J., & Ogle, R. (1972). Socioeconomic Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Use Near Urban
Areas. John J. Lindsay and Richard A. Ogle. Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 4, No. 1,
Winter 1972, pp. 19-24. National Recreation and Park Association, 1601 North Kent
Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209. $2.50. Journal of Travel Research, 11(1), 13–13.
doi:10.1177/004728757201100138
132

Lopez, R., & Hynes, H. P. (2006). Obesity, physical activity, and the urban environment: public
health research needs. Environmental Health, 5(1), 25. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-5-25
Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (1995). Urban Form and Social Context: Cultural Differentiation in the
Uses of Urban Parks. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(2), 89–102.
doi:10.1177/0739456X9501400202
Low, S., Taplin, D., & Scheld, S. (2005). Rethinking Urban Parks: Public Space and Cultural
Diversity. University of Texas Press.
Luz, F. (1994). Zur Akzeptanz landschaftsplanerischer Projekte. Lang.
Lyons, E. (1983). Demographic Correlates of Landscape Preference. Retrieved November 19,
2012, from http://www.edra.org/content/demographic-correlates-landscape-preference-0
Malek, A, Mariapan,M. (2009). Visitors perception on vandalism and safety issues in a
Malaysian urban park. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban
Management, 4(13), pp. 93-107
Maas, C. J., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel
modeling.Methodology:European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and
Social Sciences, 1(3), 86-92.
McGuire, F. A., OLeary, J. A., Alexander, P. B., & Dottavio, F. D. (1987). A Comparison of
Outdoor Recreation Preferences and Constraints of Black and White Elderly. Activities,
Adaptation & Aging, 9(4), 95–104. doi:10.1300/J016v09n04_08
Mladenka, K. R. (1978). Organizational rules, service equality and distributional decisions in
urban politics. Social Sciences Quarterly, 59(1), 192–201.
Moore, L. V., Diez Roux, A. V., Evenson, K. R., McGinn, A. P., & Brines, S. J. (2008).
Availability of Recreational Resources in Minority and Low Socioeconomic Status Areas.
American journal of preventive medicine, 34(1), 16–22.
doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.09.021
More, T. A., & Payne, B. R. (1978). Affective responses to natural areas near cities. Journal of
Leisure Research, 10(1), 7–12.
Mueller, E., Gurin, G., Wood, M., & United States. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review
Commission. (1962). Participation in outdoor recreation : factors affecting demand
among American adults : report to the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review
Commission. Washington: [U.S. G.P.O.].
Nelson, A. C., Sanchez, T. W., & Dawkins, C. J. (2007). The social impacts of urban
containment. Ashgate Publishing Company.
133

Nivola, P. S. (1979). The urban service problem. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Oguz, D. (2000). User surveys of Ankara‟s urban parks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 52(2–
3), 165–171. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00130-4
Orsega-Smith, E., Mowen, A. J., Payne, L. L., & Godbey, G. (2004). The Interaction of Stress
and Park Use on Psycho-physiological Health in Older Adults. Journal of Leisure
Research, 36(2). Retrieved from http://js.sagamorepub.com/jlr/article/view/573
Palmer, J. F. (1989). Residents‟ characterization of their residential greenspace resource.
Proceedings of the ... Society of American Foresters National Convention, p. 373-379.
Retrieved from http://agris.fao.org/agrissearch/search/display.do?f=1989/US/US89111.xml;US8914802
Palmer, James F, & Hoffman, R. E. (2001). Rating reliability and representation validity in
scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1–4), 149–161.
doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00133-5
Paluska S.A., & Schwenk T.L. (2000). Physical Activity and Mental Health: Current Concepts.
Sports Medicine, 29(3), 167–180.
Payne, L. L., Mowen, A. J., & Orsega-Smith, E. (2002). An Examination of Park Preferences
and Behaviors Among Urban Residents: The Role of Residential Location, Race, and
Age. Leisure Sciences, 24(2), 181–198. doi:10.1080/01490400252900149
Payne, L., Orsega-Smith, E., Godbey, G. &Roy, M/ (1998, October) Local parks and the
health of older adults: Results from an exploratory study. Parks and Recreation, pp. 6470.
Payne, L., Orsega-Smith, E., Roy, M., & Godbey, G. C. (2005). Local Park Use and Personal
Health Among Older Adults: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 23(2). Retrieved from http://js.sagamorepub.com/jpra/article/view/1433
Philipp, S. F. (1997). Race, gender, and leisure benefits. Leisure Sciences, 19(3), 191–207.
doi:10.1080/01490409709512249
Piatt, J., McLachlin, L., & Eldridge, B. (n.d.). DOCman Ultimate Download Module. Retrieved
from http://www.cprs.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=441:providing-healthy-lifestyles-for-youth-with-disabilities&catid=249:2009-magazinearticles&Itemid=56
Progressive Era. (2006). American History. 2006. ABC-CLIO. 30 Nov. 2006
<http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com>.
134

Rapoport, A. (1982). Meaning of the Built Environment: A Non-Verbal Communication
Approach. University of Arizona Press.
Ryan, R. L. (2005). Exploring the effects of environmental experience on attachment to urban
natural areas. Environment and Behavior, 37(1), 3-42.
Sack, R. D. (1980). Conceptions of space in social thought: A geographic perspective. London:
Macmillan.
Saremba, J., & Gill, A. (1991). Value conflicts in mountain park settings. Annals of Tourism
Research, 18(3), 455–472. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(91)90052-D
Schenk, A. (2000). Relevante Faktoren der Akzeptanz von Natur-und
Landschaftsschutzmassnahmen. St. Gallen: Publikation der Ostschweizerischen
Geographischen Gesellschaft, (5).
Schroeder, H. W. (1992). The spiritual aspect of nature: A perspective from depth psychology.
Retrieved from http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/13473
Schroeder, Herbert W. (1982). Preferred features of urban parks and forests. Journal of
Arboricuture, 8(12), 317–322.
Schroeder, Herbert W. (1983). Variations in the perception of urban forest recreation sites.
Leisure Sciences, 5(3), 221–230. doi:10.1080/01490408309513004
Schroeder, Herbert W. (1991). Preference and meaning of arboretum landscapes: Combining
quantitative and qualitative data. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 231–248.
doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80185-9
Sherer, P. (2004). The Johnson Park Restoration Fund: More on The Importance of Urban Parks.
The Johnson Park Restoration Fund. Retrieved from
http://jprestoration.blogspot.com/2010/03/more-on-importance-of-urban-parks.html
Shinew, K. J., Floyd, M. F., McGuire, F. A., & Noe, F. P. (1995). Gender, race, and subjective
social class and their association with leisure preferences. Leisure Sciences, 17(2), 75–89.
doi:10.1080/01490409509513245
Shinew, k. j., Floyd, m. f., & Parry, d. (2004). Understanding the Relationship between Race and
Leisure Activities and Constraints: Exploring an Alternative Framework. Leisure
Sciences, 26(2), 181–199. doi:10.1080/01490400490432109
Spotts, D. M., & Stynes, D. J. (1984). Public awareness and knowledge of urban parks: a case
study. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 2(4), 1–12.
135

Srinivasan, S., O‟Fallon, L. R., & Dearry, A. (2003). Creating Healthy Communities, Healthy
Homes, Healthy People: Initiating a Research Agenda on the Built Environment and
Public Health. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1446–1450.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1446
Stamps, S. M., & Stamps, M. B. (1985). Race, class and leisure activities of urban residents.
Journal of Leisure Research, 17(1), 40–56.
Stauffer, C. (2001). Space to Play, Resident Assessment of the Social and Recreational
Resources in Lansing Public Housing Neighborhoods (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University. Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism Urban Studies).
Stodolska, M., Shinew, K. J., Acevedo, J. C., & Izenstark, D. (2011). Perceptions of Urban Parks
as Havens and Contested Terrains by Mexican-Americans in Chicago Neighborhoods.
Leisure Sciences, 33(2), 103–126. doi:10.1080/01490400.2011.550220
Stoll, S. (1999). Akzeptanzprobleme bei der Ausweisung von Großschutzgebieten. Lang.
Sugiyama, T., Leslie, E., Giles-Corti, B., & Owen, N. (2008). Associations of neighbourhood
greenness with physical and mental health: do walking, social coherence and local social
interaction explain the relationships? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health,
62(5), e9–e9. doi:10.1136/jech.2007.064287
Swanwick, C. (2009). Society‟s attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. Land Use
Policy, 26, S62–S75. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.025
Szczygiel, B., & Hewitt, R. (2000). Nineteenth-Century Medical Landscapes: John H. Rauch,
Frederick Law Olmsted, and the Search for Salubrity. Bulletin of the History of Medicine,
74(4), 708–734.
Taylor, D. E. (1999). Central park as a model for social control: urban parks, social class and
leisure behavior in nineteenth-century America. Journal of Leisure Research, 31(4), 420–
477.
Thwaites, K., Helleur, E., & Simkins, I. M. (2005). Restorative urban open space: Exploring the
spatial configuration of human emotional fulfilment in urban open space. Landscape
Research, 30(4), 525–547. doi:10.1080/01426390500273346
Tinsley, H. E. A., Tinsley, D. J., & Croskeys, C. E. (2002). Park Usage, Social Milieu, and
Psychosocial Benefits of Park Use Reported by Older Urban Park Users from Four
Ethnic Groups. Leisure Sciences, 24(2), 199–218. doi:10.1080/01490400252900158

136

Toth, J. F., & Brown, R. B. (1997). Racial and gender meanings of why people participate in
recreational fishing. Leisure Sciences, 19(2), 129–146. doi:10.1080/01490409709512244
Trust for Public Land. (1994). Healing America’s Cities: Why We Must Invest in Urban Parks.
Trust for Public Land.
Tuan, Y. F. (1974). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values.
Columbia University Press.
Tyrväinen, L., & Väänänen, H. (1998). The economic value of urban forest amenities: an
application of the contingent valuation method. Landscape and Urban Planning, 43(1–3),
105–118. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00103-0
U.S. Census. (2010). US Census Bureau 2010 Census. Retrieved November 19, 2012, from
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/
Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In S. R. Kellert & E.
O.Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 73–137). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Ulrich, R.S., 2002. Health benefits of gardens in hospitals. Paper for conference: Plants for
People. International Exhibition Floriade.
Ulrich, R S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science (New
York, N.Y.), 224(4647), 420–421.
Ulrich, Roger S. (1979). Visual landscapes and psychological well‐being. Landscape Research,
4(1), 17–23. doi:10.1080/01426397908705892
Ulrich, Roger S. (1981). Natural Versus Urban Scenes Some Psychophysiological Effects.
Environment and Behavior, 13(5), 523–556. doi:10.1177/0013916581135001
Ulrich, Roger S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. Human
Behavior & Environment: Advances in Theory & Research, 6, 85–125.
Ulrich, R. S., & Addams, D. L. (1981). Psychological and Recreational Benefits of a Residential
Park. Journal of Leisure Research, 13(1), 43-65.
Ulrich, Roger S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991).
Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 201–230. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1999. Physical Activity and Health: A Report of
the Surgeon General. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Atlanta GA, 278 pp.
137

Van den Berg, A., van den Top, I. M., & Kranendonk, R. B. (1998). Natuurwensen van
stadsmensen (The demands on nature of urban citizens. In Dutch). IBN-DLO Rapport,
Wageningen.
Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)
Virden, R., & Walker, J. (1999). Ethnic/Racial and Gender Variations Among Meanings Given
to, and Preferences for, the Natural Environment. Leisure Sciences, 21(3), 219–239.
doi:10.1080/014904099273110
Walker, C. (2004, June 21). The Public Value of Urban Parks. Text. Retrieved November 19,
2012, from http://www.urban.org/publications/311011.html
Walker, R. (1985). Applied qualitative research. Gower.
Wallace, D. A., United States. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, New Jersey. Dept. of
Community Affairs, & Pennsylvania State Planning Board. (1970). Metropolitan open
space and natural process. Retrieved November 19, 2012, from
http://books.google.com/books?id=h8ZPAAAAMAAJ
Washburne, R. F. (1978). Black under‐participation in wildland recreation: Alternative
explanations. Leisure Sciences, 1(2), 175–189. doi:10.1080/01490407809512880
Wells, N. M., Evans, G. W., & Yang, Y. (2010). Environments and Health: Planning Decisions
as Public-Health Decisions. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 27(2), 124–
143.
West, S. T., & Crompton, J. L. (2008). A comparison of preferences and perceptions of alternate
equity operationalizations. Leisure Sciences, 30(5), 409-428.
Wicks, B. E. (1987). The allocation of recreation and park resources: The courts‟ intervention.
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 5, 1–9.
Wicks, B. E., & Crompton, J. L. (1986). Citizen and administrator perspectives of equity in the
delivery of park services. Leisure Sciences, 8(4), 341–365.
Wicks, B. E., & Crompton, J. L. (1990). Predicting the equity preferences of park and recreation
department employees and residents of Austin, Texas. Journal of Leisure Research, 22(1),
18–35.
Williams, K. J. H., & Cary, J. (2002). Landscape Preferences, Ecological Quality, and
Biodiversity Protection. Environment and Behavior, 34(2), 257–274.
doi:10.1177/0013916502034002006
138

Wolch, J., Wilson, J., & Fehrenbach, J. (2005). Parks and Park Funding in Los Angeles: An
{Equity-Mapping} Analysis. Urban Geography, 26(1), 4–35. doi:10.2747/02723638.26.1.4
Woodward, M. D. (1988). Class, Regionality, and Leisure among Urban Black Americans: The
Post-Civil Rights Era. Journal of Leisure Research, 20(2), 87–105.
Woodcock, D. M. (1982). A functionalist approach to environmental preference.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Woudstra, J., Fieldhouse, J. W. K., Britain), G. H. S. (Great, & Trust, L. D. (2000). The
Regeneration of Public Parks. Taylor & Francis Group.
Yancey, W., & Snell, J. (1976). State of the knowledge report the association of race ethnicity,
gender, and social class in outdoor recreation experiences. Diane Publishing.
Zoeiling, M.M. 1981. Urban high rise dwellers' visual perceptions of form and space in the
Central Business District of Syracuse. New York. Unpublished Master‟s Thesis
Zube, E. H., & Pitt, D. G. (1981). Cross-cultural perceptions of scenic and heritage landscapes.
Landscape Planning, 8(1), 69–87. doi:10.1016/0304-3924(81)90041-1
Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L., & Taylor, J. G. (1982). Landscape perception: research, application and
theory. Landscape planning, 9(1), 1-33.

139