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

Abstract

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

Introduction

As people often engage in recreational activities within walking distance of their homes, urban green spaces have become important recreation sites in cities (Konijnendijk et al. 2004). An urban forest park refers to a collection of trees that grow within a city featuring both urban forest and green space. Urban forest parks have benefits in several respects, including (1) recreational, cultural, and historic values, (2) aesthetic values for the neighboring architecture, (3) physical values for micro-weather adjustment, (4) biological values for planting in urban settings, and (5) economic values from the planting (Tyrvainen 1999). Specifically, urban forest parks improve air quality (Akbari 2002; Rowntree and Nowak 1991), retain underground water resource (Sanders 1986), reduce noise (Cook 1978), and offer an enjoyable environment to enhance spiritual and physical health (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Ode and Fry 2002; Price 2003).

It has been observed that visitors of different ages have different preferences regarding the forest style (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). For example, youngsters prefer primitive, dense forests, while adults and children like open landscapes. For children, the diversity of the natural scene is inspiring and can stimulate their imagination. The young and well-educated also have preferences for biology-oriented management in urban forest parks. Management plans for urban forest parks are also strongly affected by nearby communities. In the context of the relationship between a park’s environmental factors and the degree of overall satisfaction of the residents, a study by Chen and Lin (1996) showed that visual satisfaction is the most important factor. Hence, visual design requires attention, in addition to facilities.

The literature shows that the distance between a house and a park affects the frequency of use of urban forest parks (Tyrvainen et al. 2003). In Europe, urban forest parks are typically utilized by those living within 1–2 km (Hornsten 2000). Urban green spaces also have an important beneficial effect in that they can relieve life stresses (Grahn and Stigsdotter 2003). Additionally, green spaces positively affect the price of nearby houses (More et al. 1988; Crompton 2004). Several studies have indicated price increase for the houses adjacent to parks: 16.88 % higher in Hong Kong (Jim and Chen 2010); 2 % higher in Louisiana (Dombrow et al. 2000); and 5–12 % higher in The Netherlands (Luttik 2000).

This study surveys visitors of urban forest parks in Taiwan to investigate their state, assess the recreational benefits for visitors, and determine the degree of satisfaction of visitors via a questionnaire. Analytical results, which quantify the recreational benefits of such parks for authorities, will serve as a reference for future decision making.

Methodology

This study conducted sampling surveys to investigate the opinions and behavior of visitors to urban forest parks located north of Taichung, Taiwan. These surveys consisted of on-site questionnaire-guided interviews. To ensure that the items were easy to answer, a pre-test was conducted using experts and members of the general public with different socioeconomic characteristics. A sample of 98 urban forest parks were randomly chosen from a total of 537 urban forest parks. Considering the required planting data, only 15 of the 98 urban forest parks were selected as research sites. The other 83 parks were not selected because of the lack of complete information. The 15 parks are located in the four large cities (Taipei, New Taipei, Taoyuan, and Taichung) in Taiwan. Photographs of some of the parks are shown in Fig. 1. The study was conducted between April and June 2014. This period was chosen mainly because this is the time of the best condition of tree coverage and of comfortable weather attracting the most visitors. Subjects were acquired using a random sampling approach. A total of 406 valid questionnaires were obtained.

Fig. 1

Some of the selected parks

Effective questionnaires were analyzed through SPSS. Each item’s statistics, including mean and standard deviation, were used to identify visitor characteristics and awareness of urban forest parks. Prior to factor analysis, Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy were applied to analyze the suitability of items selected for factor analysis. Sphericity test results were significant, and KMO values exceeding 0.8 were appropriate for factor analysis. After determining appropriate question items, principal components analysis was used to select common factors with eigenvalues larger than 1. The common factors were then extracted from the perpendicular axis using the verimax method. With factor loadings exceeding 0.4 as the criterion for selecting items, reliability analysis was then conducted using Cronbach’s α coefficient to verify the degree of internal consistency of items. As a rule of thumb, Cronbach’s α should be greater than 0.8.

Stepwise regression analysis was used to determine whether, based on personal experience, the overall degree of satisfaction was affected by different indices of degree of satisfaction for several items. The items are categorized into plant landscape and visual quality. In this study, plant landscape is related to the status of the planting, such as the height of the trees. Visual quality is “the potential for a landscape to produce varying degrees of satisfaction among viewers” (USDA Forest Service 1994), which is related to personal feeling, such as the attractiveness of the landscape to visitors. This study then analyzed personal experience in terms of the value placed on, and the use of, urban forest parks through importance–performance analysis (IPA). The IPA method has been widely adopted to assess the advantages and disadvantages of products and services (Chu and Choi 2000; Hawes and Rao 1985; Sethna 1982).

Results and discussion

The level of recognition of the rationale for the establishment of urban forest parks was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 from “strongly disagree” to 5 for “strongly agree.” As shown in Table 1, of the 11 rationales listed for establishing urban forest parks, most respondents recognized the following rationales: “to improve air quality, thus enhancing people’s health and well-being” (4.21), “to absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen” (4.19), and “because they are environmentally aesthetic and delightful places” (4.15). Respondents had a relatively low degree of recognition for “greening of open spaces to eliminate garbage” (3.86), “noise barrier effect of vegetation planted in the parks” (3.87), and “water purification effect of aquatic vegetation in the parks” (3.89).

Table 1 Degree of recognition of the urban forest parks

Table 2 describes the degree of importance and degree of satisfaction for 17 items that are related to plant landscape and visual quality. Using the degree of satisfaction as the horizontal axis and the degree of importance as the vertical axis with the overall average value as coordinates, 17 items were divided into four quadrants, as shown in Fig. 2. The location in Quadrant I indicates that both the importance of and experience with these items were high, such that the status quo should be maintained. The location in Quadrant II shows that the importance attached to these items was high, but that the degree of satisfaction was low. Management should prioritize these items. The location in Quadrant III demonstrates that the degree of satisfaction was poor and that the importance attached to these items was not high. Therefore, after strengthening and improving management focus, these items with low priorities can be addressed. Quadrant IV had one item: (4) overall height of trees. This item being located in Quadrant IV shows that, although the degree of satisfaction was high, the importance attached to this item was low. Therefore, as far as the respondents were concerned, tree height was sufficient.

Table 2 Degree of importance and degree of satisfaction for items that are related to plant landscape and visual quality

Fig. 2

Importance–performance analysis for items related to plant landscape and visual (numbers 1–17 correspond to items 1–17 in Table 2)

Regression analysis was applied to identify the impact of different indices of plant status on overall satisfaction with the visual quality based on the experience of respondents. With the overall degree of satisfaction as the dependent variable, nine items for degree of satisfaction with plants (items 1–9) were possible predictor variables (independent variables). Regression analysis retained four independent variables in order of their ability to affect the dependent variable and each unit of increase in these indices can increase the degree of overall visual quality satisfaction by 0.270, 0.230, 0.179, and 0.127 units, respectively: (1) park has enough green area; (7) naturalness of plants; (4) overall height of trees; and (9) flowering status of trees and other plants. The four representative, predictive variables in this model explain roughly 40 % of overall visual quality satisfaction. The results are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 Stepwise regression analysis for satisfaction and items related to plant landscape

Another analysis of overall degree of satisfaction based on respondents’ experience was influenced by the indices of visual quality characteristics. With overall degree of visual quality satisfaction as the dependent variable, 8 items (items 10–17) for degree of satisfaction with visual quality characteristics were the independent variables. Analytical results retained five independent variables in order of their ability to affect the dependent variable, and each unit of increase in these indices can increase degree of overall satisfaction by 0.267, 0.192, 0.190, 0.153, and 0.152 units, respectively: (13) comfort and pleasantness; (14) view in the park; (17) complexity of the visual quality; (15) uniqueness of the visual quality; and (10) manmade facilities in harmony with the natural environment. With an overall R ² of 0.621, the five representative, predictive variables in this model explain approximately 60 % of overall visual quality satisfaction, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Stepwise regression analysis for satisfaction and items related to visual quality

Research on parkland is typically biased toward assessment of aesthetic preferences. In addition to cognitive models, psychophysical models have recently been more common, in which relationships between aesthetic landscape preferences of subjects and essential attributes of parks are analyzed [e.g., area occupied by plants, diameter at breast height (DBH), plant density, canopy, trees, shrubs, lawns, and water bodies] (Gold 1986; Schroeder 1991). This study applied correlation analysis on the following six factors to determine whether these characteristics were related to degree of satisfaction with various characteristics of urban forest parks: average number of trees per hectare; number of tree species per hectare; average tree height (m); average DBH (cm); canopy coverage area per hectare (CW²/ha), and green cover rate (%). The canopy coverage per hectare indicates the total canopy coverage of trees in the unit area (hectare). In contrast, green cover rate equals (plantation projection area/base area) × 100 %.

Note that the overlapped canopy coverage between trees only counts once when accounting for green cover rate. As an illustration, Table 5 lists the characteristics of the urban forest parks shown in Fig. 1.

Table 5 Characteristics of the urban forest parks shown in Fig. 1

Table 6 shows the correlation between the degrees of satisfaction of several important factors. The results show that large urban forest parks elicited a great degree of recognition of their green space and were rated high in visual quality characteristics of attractiveness, aesthetics, comfort, view in the park, and uniqueness. As the density of trees increased, the degree of satisfaction with the view in the park decreased. In terms of the status of plants, no direct correlation existed between species diversity, quantity of plants, overall height of trees, variability in tree shapes, and manmade facilities in harmony with the natural environment and average canopy cover area per hectare. The results also indicate that, as the proportion of green cover increases, the degree of satisfaction with the shading effect increases, but the degree of satisfaction with views in the park and the uniqueness of the visual quality decrease. Note that the shading effect is season- and temperature-dependent.

Table 6 Correlation between items related to plant landscape and visual quality and current status of plants

The results indicate that the degree of satisfaction with shading effects of plants and DBH, canopy cover area, and proportion of green cover were correlated. Chen and Lin (2003) studied combinations of plants in parks. Their survey results showed that people’s preference for a particular plant or landscape increased as the area of visible trees increased. A positive correlation existed between the degree of satisfaction with views in the park and the area of plants, and a negative correlation existed between density, tree height, and the proportion of green cover. Therefore, it is suggested that trees should be planted in an appropriate spatial configuration to balance their shading effect and scenic views.

Conclusions

This study assessed the satisfaction of visitors at 15 urban forest parks. Values placed by respondents on the level of satisfaction with the plant landscape and visual quality characteristics of urban forest parks were highest for the following seven characteristics: comfort and pleasantness; views in the park; enough green area; shading effect of plants; flowering status of trees and other plants; manmade facilities in harmony with the natural environment; and the attractiveness of the landscape. The quantity of the plants and the attractiveness of the landscape were highly valued by respondents, but satisfaction was low. Survey results showed that respondents did not value visual quality complexity as a landscape characteristic.

The degree of satisfaction with the shading effect of plants was positively correlated with DBH, canopy cover area, and the proportion of green cover. Further, satisfaction with views and the area of plants were positively correlated, while density, tree height, and the proportion of green cover were negatively correlated. Therefore, it is suggested that trees should be planted in an appropriate spatial configuration to achieve a balance between theirshading effects and the views in the park.

As the area of an urban forest park increased, most of the indicators for the degree of satisfaction with plant status and landscape characteristics also increased. Every increase in the hectarage of treed areas decreased the degree of satisfaction with the scenic views. Increasing the proportion of green cover improved the degree of satisfaction with the shading effect, but decreased the degree of satisfaction with views in the park and with landscape uniqueness. Therefore, authorities have to plan tree densities in order to provide an appropriate proportion of green cover and to achieve optimal plant status and visual characteristics. The study results can be used as a reference for authorities for sustainable management and future policy making. One matter that was not considered here is the influence over visitor satisfaction caused by seasonal and other differences in the vegetation, such as deciduous or evergreen, which will be investigated in future research.

Appendix: Questionnaire

Part I: Understanding of urban forest parks

• 1. Do you realize the idea of an urban forest park?

  □ Yes □ No

• 2. Do you know this park is one of the urban forest parks in Taiwan?

  □ Yes □ No

• 3. Taiwan government built urban forest parks since 1995 in order to improve air quality, to enhance living environment, and to support sustainable development. For each item, rate on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 from “strongly disagree” to 5 for “strongly agree.”

Feature of the urban forest park		Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neural	Agree	Strongly agree
		1	2	3	4	5
1.	Absorption of carbon dioxide and release of oxygen	□	□	□	□	□
2.	Interception of suspended dust particles and modification of air temperature and humidity	□	□	□	□	□
3.	Purification of air quality and enhancement of people’s health and well-being	□	□	□	□	□
4.	Reduction of waste, noise, water, and other anthropogenic environmental pollution	□	□	□	□	□
5.	Greening of open space and elimination of garbage	□	□	□	□	□
6.	Provision of noise barrier effect by planted vegetation	□	□	□	□	□
7.	Provision of water purification by aquatic vegetation	□	□	□	□	□
8.	Provision of venues for ecological modeling and education	□	□	□	□	□
9.	Enhancement of public environmental and ecological protection awareness by associated educational facilities	□	□	□	□	□
10.	Provision of venues for environmental, ecological, and biodiversity protection	□	□	□	□	□
11.	Provision of environmental aesthetics and delightful places	□	□	□	□	□

Part II: Visit habits

• 1. How often do you visit this park per month?

  □ First time □ 1–4 times □ 5–10 times □ 11–12 times □ 20 times and above

• 2. How often do you visit this park per week?

  □ First time □ Once □ Twice □ 3–6 times □ Everyday

• 3. Generally, you visit this park on

  □ Weekdays □ Weekend □ Both

• 4. Generally, you visit this park in which time slot?

  □ Morning (before 9 a.m.) □ 9 a.m.–12 p.m. □ 12–5 p.m. □ After 5 p.m. □ No regular time slots

• 5. Your transportation to this park?

  □ Walking □ Bicycle □ Motorcycle □ Car □ Public transportation □ Other_______

• 6. How many people coming with you, including yourself? __________

  Your company (choose any items applied)

  □ Families □ Friends □ Neighbors □ Others

• 7. The average stay (hours)

  □ Below 1 □ 1–2 □ 2–4 □ 4–6 □ 6–8 □ Above 8

• 8. The purpose of this visit (choose any items applied)

  □ Sport □ Companion with families/friends □ Field study □ Kill time □ Sightseeing □ Take a walk □ Others

Part III: Degree of importance and satisfaction

Please check the following items regarding this urban forest park and choose how important/satisfied you feel on a five-point scale.

		Degree of importance					Degree of satisfaction
		5	4	3	2	1	5		4	3	2	1
1.	Enough green area in the park	□	□	□	□	□	□	□		□	□	□
2.	Species diversity of plants	□	□	□	□	□	□	□		□	□	□
3.	Quantity of plants	□	□	□	□	□	□	□		□	□	□
4.	Overall height of trees	□	□	□	□	□	□	□		□	□	□
5.	Shading effect of plants in the park	□	□	□	□	□	□	□		□	□	□
6.	Variability in tree shape	□	□	□	□	□	□	□		□	□	□
7.	Naturalness of plants	□	□	□	□	□	□	□		□	□	□
8.	Growth status of trees and plants	□	□	□	□	□	□	□		□	□	□
9.	Flowering status of trees and other plants	□	□	□	□	□	□	□		□	□	□
10.	Manmade facilities in harmony with the natural environment	□	□	□	□	□	□	□		□	□	□
11.	Attractiveness of landscape	□	□	□	□	□	□	□		□	□	□
12.	Landscape aesthetics of the park	□	□	□	□	□	□	□		□	□	□
13.	Comfort and pleasantness of the park	□	□	□	□	□	□	□		□	□	□
14.	View in the park	□	□	□	□	□	□	□		□	□	□
15.	Uniqueness of the visual quality	□	□	□	□	□	□	□		□	□	□
16.	Consistency of the visual quality	□	□	□	□	□	□	□		□	□	□
17.	Complexity of the visual quality	□	□	□	□	□	□	□		□	□	□

Part IV: Personal information

• 1. Gender: □ Male □ Female

• 2. Age: □ Below 20 □ 20–24 □ 25–29 □ 30–39 □ 40–49 □ 50–59 □ 60–64 □ Above 65

• 3. Status: □ Single □ Married

• 4. Occupation: □ Student □ Government employee □ Industrial □ Agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry and fisheries □ Business □ Service □ Housing □ Self-employment □ Others_______

• 5. Education: □ Junior high school □ Senior high school □ College □ Graduate school

• 6. Average monthly income (NT$): □ No income □ Below 10 k □ 10–30 k □ 30–50 k □ 50–70 k □ 70–100 k □ 100 k

• 7. Your overall degree of satisfaction with the urban forest park?

  □ Very unsatisfied □ Unsatisfied □ Neural □ Satisfied □ Very satisfied

• 8. Your current residency: □ Local □ Nearby cities □ Other cities