The comparison of public perception and preference between regular-geometrical and natural-organic urban parks (Case study: Laleh park and Daneshjoo park)

Apart from providing homes for native wildlife, parks have many values. The last few decades of the 20th century have seen a rapid change in approaches towards nature in the urban environment, which reflects more familiarity with nature amongst the general public and landscape professionals. Benefits and values of contact with nature have been investigated by environmental psychologists. It can be said that such contact is necessary for human health and existence of natural and open spaces have many psychological and aesthetic benefits. Evidence regarding the influence of nature on the health and well-being of individuals and communities has emerged from a number of traditional disciplines such as psychology and in recent fields of research like recreation and leisure. Although much emphasis has been put on urban nature from different perspectives and on preferences of urban natural areas in comparison to built-up areas, studies focusing on perception and preferences of different forms of nature are rather scarce. For increasing use of urban green spaces, it is better that these spaces be designed based on the public’s preferences and needs. There is proof which show that some people do not respond to natural landscapes in urban areas, and view them as messy, worthless or even frightening, and prefer formal and designed landscapes. This research paper examines public attitudes towards urban naturalistic in contrast to designed landscapes. Public opinions was evaluated using site-based questionnaire and random sampling in natural and designed spaces (Lale and Daneshjoo Parks, respectively) and these two methods were then compared. The survey sites should be in the same area and approximately similar in size in order to eliminate possible effect of population differences, distance, and size on perceptions and preferences. Following site selection, a questionnaire was designed to measure public perception and preferences of contrasting landscapes. The questionnaires were conducted on a face-to-face basis with 200 park users (100 per site) at the survey sites. In the next stage, researchers asked them to classify 16 photos of different parks with varied landscape characteristics into 5 groups (very elegant, beautiful, simple, ugly, very ugly). Results demonstrated that the study population did not have a clear understanding of natural and organic design patterns, prefered regular and plaid patterns for urban green spaces and derived more benefits and values from them. Laleh and Daneshjoo Park were appraised as more attractive and safer, respectively. It can be concluded that peace and quiet, safety, nature observation, experiencing seasonal changes and social interactions are rated higher in designed parks (Daneshjoo) and other factors such as contact with nature and being beneficial for wildlife are superior in natural parks (Laleh). Furthermore, natural parks are more effective in creating excitement and sense of freedom in users. On the other hand, designed parks (Daneshjoo) are more calming and have more positive effect such as relief from stress and sense of renewal. Recognizing public perception of landscape design styles and paying attention to their preferences and needs in green spaces can help landscape designers in designing such places and enhancing their use.