Pedestrians’ and Cyclists’ Preferences for Street Greenscape Designs
In recent years, the public’s interaction with street green spaces has been increasing, leading to much more concern about its design. By using stated preference data from a discrete choice experiment and the multinomial logit model, this study investigates pedestrians’ and cy-clists’ landscape preference regarding street green space through an online survey based on a virtual street envi-ronment. The results show that trees are the most suitable to be planted symmetrically between the cycle track and sidewalk. Large size trees with large crown width and tall height are more preferred than common size trees. There are considerable differences in preferences for lo-cations of shrubs, hedges, flowers, and grass between cy-clists and pedestrians. Cyclists prefer grass by the cycle track the most and grass by the sidewalk the least. But for pedestrians, flowers, hedges, and grass by the sidewalk are positively significant. Buildings with green plants in their front yards are preferred over a monotonous facade or coffee seats. This study enriches the understanding of the public’s landscape preferences for streets sharing non-motorised lanes. The results also play a guiding role in people-oriented street green space designs of land-scape architects and governments.
Mullaney J, Lucke T, Trueman SJ. A review of benefits and challenges in growing street trees in paved urban environments. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2015;134: 157-166. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.013.
Lindal PJ, Hartig T. Effects of urban street vegetation on judgments of restoration likelihood. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2015;14(2): 200-209. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2015.02.001.
Zhao J, Wu J, Wang H. Characteristics of urban streets in relation to perceived restorativeness. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology. 2019;30(2): 1-11. doi: 10.1038/s41370-019-0188-4.
Boulange C, et al. Examining associations between urban design attributes and transport mode choice for walking, cycling, public transport and private motor vehicle trips. Journal of Transport & Health. 2017;6: 155-166. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2017.07.007.
Wang Y, Chau CK, Ng WY, Leung TM. A review on the effects of physical built environment attributes on enhancing walking and cycling activity levels within residential neighborhoods. Cities. 2016;50: 1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2015.08.004.
Lu Y, Sarkar C, Xiao Y. The effect of street-level greenery on walking behavior: Evidence from Hong Kong. Social Science & Medicine. 2018;208: 41-49. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.05.022.
Weber F, Kowarik I, Saumel I. A walk on the wild side: Perceptions of roadside vegetation beyond trees. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2014;13(2): 205-212. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2013.10.010.
Akbar KF, Hale WHG, Headley AD. Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in northern England. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2003;63(3): 139-144. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00185-8.
Todorova A, Asakawa S, Aikoh T. Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2004;69(4): 403-416. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.11.001.
Weber R, Schnier J, Jacobsen T. Aesthetics of streetscapes: Influence of fundamental properties on aesthetic judgments of urban space. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 2008;106(1): 128-146. doi: 10.2466/PMS.106.1.128-146.
Sarkar C, et al. Exploring associations between urban green, street design and walking: Results from the Greater London boroughs. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2015;143: 112-125. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.06.013.
Lusk AC, Wen X, Zhou L. Gender and used/preferred differences of bicycle routes, parking, intersection signals, and bicycle type: Professional middle class preferences in Hangzhou, China. Journal of Transport & Health. 2014;1: 124-133. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2014.04.001.
Panek J, Benediktsson K. Emotional mapping and its participatory potential: Opinions about cycling conditions in Reykjavík, Iceland. Cities. 2017;61: 65-73. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2016.11.005.
Vedel SE, Jacobsen JB, Skov-Petersen H. Bicyclists’ preferences for route characteristics and crowding in Copenhagen: A choice experiment study of commuters. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2017;100: 53-64. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2017.04.006.
Mertens L, et al. The effect of changing micro-scale physical environmental factors on an environment’s invitingness for transportation cycling in adults: An exploratory study using manipulated photographs. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2014;11: 88. doi: 10.1186/s12966-014-0088-x.
Etminani-Ghasrodashti R, Paydar M, Ardeshiri A. Recreational cycling in a coastal city: Investigating lifestyle, attitudes and built environment in cycling behavior. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2018;39: 241-251. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2018.02.037.
Mertens L, et al. Differences in environmental preferences towards cycling for transport among adults: A latent class analysis. BMC Public Health. 2016;16, 782. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3471-5.
Verhoeven H, et al. Which physical and social environmental factors are most important for adolescents’ cycling for transport? An experimental study using manipulated photographs. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2017;14: 108. doi: 10.1186/s12966-017-0566-z.
Ghekiere A, et al. An experimental study using manipulated photographs to examine interactions between micro-scale environmental factors for children’s cycling for transport. Journal of Transport Geography. 2018;66: 30-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.11.005.
Nawrath M, Kowarik I, Fischer LK. The influence of green streets on cycling behavior in European cities. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2019;190: 103598. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103598.
Evans-Cowley JS, Akar G. StreetSeen visual survey tool for determining factors that make a street attractive for bicycling. Transportation Research Record. 2014;2468: 19-27. doi: 10.3141/2468-03.
Wang KL, Akar G. Street intersection characteristics and their impacts on perceived bicycling safety. Transportation Research Record. 2018;2672(46): 41-54. doi: 10.1177/0361198118801349.
Van Dongen RP, Timmerman HJP. Preference for different urban greenscape designs: A choice experiment using virtual environments. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2019;44: 126435. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126435.
Ng WY, Chau CK, Powell G, Leung TM. Preferences for street configuration and street tree planting in urban Hong Kong. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2015;14(1): 30-38. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2014.11.002.
Lusk AC, da Silva DF, Dobbert L. Pedestrian and cyclist preferences for tree locations by sidewalks and cycle tracks and associated benefits: Worldwide implications from a study in Boston, MA. Cities. 2020;106(11): 102111. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2018.06.024.
Badland HM, et al. Can virtual streetscape audits reliably replace physical streetscape audits? Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. 2010;87(6): 1007-1016. doi: 10.1007/s11524-010-9505-x.
Liu YN, Yang DJ, Timmermans HJP, de Vries B. Analysis of the impact of street-scale built environment design near metro stations on pedestrian and cyclist road segment choice: A stated choice experiment. Journal of Transport Geography. 2020;82: 102570. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.102570.
McFadden D. Quantitative methods for analyzing travel behaviour on individuals: Some recent developments. London, UK: Croom Helm; 1978. https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d04/d0474.pdf [Accessed 16th Apr. 2021].
Clark MD, et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: A review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(9): 883-902. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0170-x.
Pikora T, et al. Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling. Social Science & Medicine. 2003;56(8): 1693-1703. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00163-6.
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. [Code for urban pedestrian and bicycle transport system planning and design]. 2021. p. 6-18. Chinese. http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/wjfb/202105/W020210519024129.pdf [Accessed 18th July 2021].
Ye F, Lord D. Comparing three commonly used crash severity models on sample size requirements: Multinomial logit, ordered probit and mixed logit models. Analytic Methods in Accident Research. 2014;1: 72-85. doi: 10.1016/j.amar.2013.03.001.
Gerstenberg T, Hofmann M. Perception and preference of trees: A psychological contribution to tree species selection in urban areas. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2016;15:103-111. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2015.12.004.
Camacho-Cervantes M, Schondube JE, Castillo A, MacGregor-Fors I. How do people perceive urban trees? Assessing likes and dislikes in relation to the trees of a city. Urban Ecosystems. 2014;17(3): 761-773. doi: 10.1007/s11252-014-0343-6.
Zhao JW, Xu WY, Li RJ. Visual preference of trees: The effects of tree attributes and seasons. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2017;25: 19-25. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.04.015.
Ja’afar NH, Sulaiman AB, Shamsuddin S. The contribution of landscape features on traditional streets in Malaysia. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012;50: 643-656. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.067.
Kang L, Xiong YG, Mannering F. Statistical analysis of pedestrian perceptions of sidewalk level of service in the presence of bicycles. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2013;53: 10-21. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2013.05.002.
White EV, Gatersleben B. Greenery on residential buildings: Does it affect preferences and perceptions of beauty? Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2011;31(1): 89-98. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.11.002.
Lo AY, Byrne JA, Jim CY. How climate change perception is reshaping attitudes towards the functional benefits of urban trees and green space: Lessons from Hong Kong. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2017;23: 74-83. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.03.007.
Fernandes CO, da Silva IM, Teixeira CP, Costa L. Between tree lovers and tree haters. Drivers of public perception regarding street trees and its implications on the urban green infrastructure planning. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2019;37:97-108. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2018.03.014.
Copyright (c) 2022 Alin LIN, Jiankun LOU
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).