D E PA RT M E N T O F G E O S C I E N C E S A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U RC E M A N A G E M E N T

university of copenhagen

Karin Kragsig Peschardt

Health Promoting Pocket Parks in a Landscape Architectural Perspective

D E PA RT M E N T O F G E O S C I E N C E S A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U RC E M A N A G E M E N T

university of copenhagen

Karin Kragsig Peschardt

Health Promoting Pocket Parks in a Landscape Architectural Perspective

Title

Health Promoting Pocket Parks in a Landscape Architectural Perspective

Author

Karin Kragsig Peschardt

Citation

Peschardt, K.K. (2014): Health Promoting Pocket Parks in a Landscape Architectural Perspective. IGN PhD Thesis May 2014. Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg. 172 pp

Publisher

Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management University of Copenhagen Rolighedsvej 23 DK-1958 Frederiksberg C +45 3533 1500 [email protected] www.ign.ku.dk Responsible under the press law

Niels Elers Koch

ISBN

978-87-7903-658-1 (paper) 978-87-7903-659-8 (internet)

Cover photo

Michelle Lauritzen

Lay-out

Inger Grønkjær Ulrich

Printed by

Prinfo Aalborg, Denmark

Number printet

75

Order

Single issues are available from Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management. Also published at www.ign.ku.dk.

Summary This thesis is based on research conducted at the Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, the Section for Landscape Architecture and Planning at the Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen. The thesis deals with the health potential of pocket parks in Copenhagen in a landscape architectural perspective. In developed countries, the densification of cities is a widespread tendency which often results in a compact city planning structure. Public transport efficiency, higher economic growth and shorter distances are some of the positive outcomes of this. However, people who live in dense cities have become detached from nature and live most of their daily life indoors where sedentary work and physical inactivity characterise everyday life. It has been suggested that this inactivity has resulted in a rapid increase in obesity, diabetes II, osteoporosis and stress related illnesses such as heart disease, depression and mental fatigue. Urban green spaces (UGS) have been shown to have a positive influence on these types of lifestyle related diseases, although only limited research suggests how the various green spaces in the urban green infrastructure (UGI) can benefit health. Especially knowledge about the role of pocket parks is lacking. An onsite case study, including a questionnaire survey, landscape analysis and interviews, was conducted in nine pocket parks in Copenhagen. The study evaluated the use and users of the pocket parks, the association between the characteristics of the parks and the users’ perceived restorativeness, as well as the relationship between specific features and the two primary types of use of the pocket parks. Finally, the subjective perception of one pocket park was studied before and after a redesign, in which the preference for certain features in relation to use were further evaluated. The results of the thesis indicate the health promoting potential of pocket parks as they support the two health issues ‘socialising’ and ‘rest and restitution’. Furthermore, the results identify the restorative potential of the pocket parks showing that pocket parks which only contain a limited amount of greenery also have restorative potential. The park characteristics and specific features of the pocket parks also seem to be related to perceived restorativeness as well as to the preferred types of use. The research evidence of this thesis adds to the evidence based health design (EBHD) process where research evidence and valid practical experience, aesthetic and practical landscape architectural skills and experiences and the user´s special needs wishes and preferences contribute to more sustainable planning processes and design of health promoting pocket parks. This new knowledge may also lead to an increased political focus on the benefits of pocket parks and thereby the importance of increasing the provision of UGS in dense city areas.

3

Resumé Denne ph.d.-afhandling er baseret på forskning udført på Institut for Geovidenskab og Naturforvaltning i Sektion for Landskabsarkitektur og Planlægning på det Natur- og Biovidenskabelige Fakultet, Københavns Universitet. Afhandlingen omhandler sundhedspotentialet af lommeparker i København fra et landskabsarkitektonisk perspektiv. I de vestlige lande er fortætning af byer en udbredt tendens, og dette resulterer ofte i en kompakt byplanlægningsstruktur. Offentlig transport, økonomisk vækst og korte afstande er nogle af de positive effekter af denne type by. Men indbyggerne i de tætte byer afkobles samtidig fra naturen og hverdagen er ofte præget af indendørs ophold, stillesiddende arbejde og fysisk inaktivitet. Konsekvenserne af dette kan i værste fald medføre livsstilssygdomme så som fedme, diabetes II, osteoporose og stress relaterede sygdomme så som hjerte-kar sygdomme, depression og mental udmattelse. Urbane grønne områder har vist sig at have en positiv indflydelse på forebyggelse af disse livsstilsrelaterede sygdomme. Men kun begrænset forskning indikerer, hvordan de forskellige typer af grønne områder i den urbane grønne infrastruktur kan bidrage til sundhedsfremme. Specielt er viden om rollen af lommeparker begrænset. En undersøgelse af ni lommeparker bestående af spørgeskemaundersøgelse, landskabsanalyser og interviews på stedet er blevet udført i København. Studiet evaluerer brug og brugere af lommeparkerne, sammenhængen mellem park-karakteristikker og potentialet for restitution i lommeparkerne. Desuden evalueres relationen mellem fysisk udtryk ogside4 to primære typer af brug af lommeparkerne. Slutteligt evalueres den subjektive opfattelse af en lommepark før og efter ombygning hvor præferencen for specifikt indhold i relation til brug evalueres yderligere. Resultaterne viser at lommeparker har et sundhedsfremmende potentiale, da de støtter de to typer af sundhedsfremmende brug ’socialisering’ og ’restitution’. I forhold til hvorvidt lommeparkerne understøtter potentialet for restitution viser resultaterne, at en lommepark, der kun har begrænset indhold af grønt, også kan være et sted hvor folk kan restituere. Specifikke park-karakteristikker er også relateret til potentialet for restitution, ligesom det fysiske udtryk af lommeparkerne er relateret til de foretrukne typer af brug. Forskningsresultaterne fra denne ph.d. afhandling kan bidrage til evidens-baserede designprocesser. Processer hvor forskning og velbegrundet praktisk erfaring, æstetiske og praktiske landskabs arkitektoniske færdigheder og erfaringer, samt brugernes særlige behov, ønsker og præferencer skaber en mere bæredygtig planlægnings- og designproces af sundhedsfremmende lommeparker. Denne nye viden kan ligeledes medføre øget politisk fokus på fordelene ved lommeparker, og dermed betydningen af at øge udbuddet af grønne områder i den tætte by. 4

Abstract The densification of cities has led to a change in the way people live in the industrialised world. Sedentary work and physical inactivity may be related to the increasing prevalence of life style diseases such as obesity, diabetes II and stress related illnesses. A number of studies have suggested that urban green space (UGS) can have a positive effect on human health. However, the various types of UGS may support different types of use and may have different effects on health. Especially the role of pocket parks is unknown. The main hypothesis of this thesis is that pocket parks are a latent resource in promoting human health in dense city areas. Nine pocket parks in Copenhagen were investigated. In study I, the use and users of the pocket parks were studied based on an on-site questionnaire survey and observations. In study II, the association between the users’ perceived restorativeness (measured on the perceived restorativeness scale, PRS) and the characteristics of the pocket parks (the perceived sensory dimensions, PSD) were investigated. In this relation, the preference for the PDS´s were identified for users who reported average levels of stress and for the 25% who reported high levels of stress. Study III investigated how a number of specific features within the pocket parks were related to the two most preferred types of use. Finally, study IV investigated users’ perceptions of a pocket park before and after a redesign. The results of study I show that the main reasons for using the pocket parks are ‘socialising’ and ‘rest and restitution’. Factors such as distance from home, distance travelled and the context in which the users use the pocket parks influence frequency of use and the reason for use. Study II shows that also pocket parks with a limited amount of greenery may have restorative potential. The results of study II furthermore show that users with an average level of stress prefer the PSDs ‘social’ and ‘serene,’ but for the 25% most stressed users ‘nature’ becomes important in addition to ‘social’ and ‘serene’. The results of study III show that for the type of use called ‘socialising’ in pocket parks, it is important to include features which support the possibility of gathering, which may enhance the feeling of belonging to a certain space. Green surroundings are preferred for the type of use called ‘rest and restitution,’ and especially enclosed niches where people can feel safe and undisturbed are preferred. The findings from study IV add to the findings from study III with increased knowledge on features supporting ‘rest and restitution’. Especially variation in terrain and plantings as well as the experience of sun, shade and lights are important for ‘rest and restitution’. The results of this thesis add valuable knowledge to the existing research on UGS. It may be useful in future planning processes, thereby contributing to increase health promoting UGS in dense city areas.

5

Contents SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 3 RESUMÉ ............................................................................................................................. 4 ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... 5 CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... 6 STRUCTURE OF THESIS ................................................................................................... 9 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 10 HYPOTHESIS AND AIM OF THESIS................................................................................ 11 Research questions ......................................................................................................................................................... 11 List of manuscripts ......................................................................................................................................................... 12

THE PROCESS OF THE PH.D. PROJECT....................................................................... 13 DEFINITIONS OF CONCEPTS ......................................................................................... 14 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 18 Human health and city planning – a brief historical overview ................................................................................... 18 Liveable landscapes ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 The compact city .......................................................................................................................................................... 19 The relationship between human health and natural environments .......................................................................... 19 Psychological benefits of nature – a theoretical perspective ........................................................................................ 19 Research on the relationship between stress reduction and urban green space ............................................................ 21 The relationship between urban green space and social interaction............................................................................. 21 Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI) ............................................................................................................................... 22 Research on UGS – state-of-the-art ............................................................................................................................. 22 Pocket Parks................................................................................................................................................................. 23 More focus on the smaller units ................................................................................................................................... 25

6

METHODS ......................................................................................................................... 27 The setting ....................................................................................................................................................................... 27 The study design ............................................................................................................................................................. 27 Multiple case study ......................................................................................................................................................... 28 Defining the cases ........................................................................................................................................................ 28 Questionnaire survey ...................................................................................................................................................... 35 Identifying the park characteristics .............................................................................................................................. 36 Identifying the Physical Elements ................................................................................................................................. 40 Greenery ...................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Shape & Size................................................................................................................................................................ 41 Identifying specific features ......................................................................................................................................... 42 Noise ............................................................................................................................................................................ 43 Natural experiment......................................................................................................................................................... 44 Semi-structured interviews ............................................................................................................................................ 47 Data analyses ................................................................................................................................................................... 47

SUMMARY OF RESULTS................................................................................................. 49 The users of the Pocket Parks ........................................................................................................................................ 49 General use of Pocket Parks .......................................................................................................................................... 50 Demographic factors associated with use of Pocket Parks.......................................................................................... 51 The context of use of the Pocket Parks ......................................................................................................................... 52 The restorative potential of the nine different Pocket Parks ...................................................................................... 52 The health potential of Pocket Parks in relation to self-perceived levels of stress .................................................... 53 Features related to the primary reasons for use: Socialising and Rest & Restitution .............................................. 54 Use and subjective perception of Dantes Plads ............................................................................................................ 55

DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................57 Discussion of results........................................................................................................................................................ 57 The users and their use of the pocket parks ................................................................................................................. 57 Factors influencing the use of pocket parks ................................................................................................................. 58 How do the users assess the restorative potential of pocket parks? ............................................................................. 59 The association between nature characteristics (PSDs) and average and stressed users’ perceived restorativeness ... 61 Features of Pocket Parks related to the preferred types of use ..................................................................................... 61

7

The users’ subjective perception of a pocket park before and after a redesign ............................................................ 63 Perspectives to the discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 64 From research to practice .............................................................................................................................................. 65 Considerations for future planning and design processes of health promoting pocket parks....................................... 65 Methodological and theoretical discussion ................................................................................................................... 74 The case study approach .............................................................................................................................................. 74 Data collection ............................................................................................................................................................. 76 Data analysis ................................................................................................................................................................ 77 Theoretical discussion.................................................................................................................................................. 77 Literature used ................................................................................................................................................................ 78

FUTURE RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ........................................................................... 80 The Users ......................................................................................................................................................................... 80 The non-users .................................................................................................................................................................. 80 More knowledge on features supporting primary types of use................................................................................... 80 Pocket parks in the UGI ................................................................................................................................................. 81

CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................82 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................. 83 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 84 QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................................................................98 

8

Structure of thesis Overall the thesis consists of an introductory part and four papers. To introduce the central topic of the study, this thesis begins with a short background description, which forms the basis for the research gap identified, while the hypothesis and the aim of the study are also introduced. In the following section, the process of the Ph.D. project is presented as this explains the timeline for the various parts of the study. Central concepts are described afterwards as they are useful to the further reading of the thesis. The introductory part first of all describes the history of the development of cities and how humans have related to green spaces through time. Theories on how humans act and respond to their surroundings are included. Furthermore, an introduction to the urban green infrastructure (UGI) is presented. Pocket parks are put into a larger perspective where they are not considered solitary units, but as part of the overall UGI. The last part of the background introduces the history of pocket parks as well as the state-of-the-art on pocket parks from which the research gap is identified. In the method section, I try to clarify why and how the included methods are used and I introduce and describe why and how various measurements are conducted. The summary of results highlights the main results of the study. The results are discussed in the last part of the introductory section on a more general basis, where the purpose has been to put the conclusions of this thesis into a larger perspective. The discussion ends with considerations for future design and planning processes of health promoting pocket parks which may be useful for future planning and research projects. Finally, future research perspectives are discussed. After the introductory part, the four papers are included. Paper I was published in Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, while paper II was published in Landscape and Urban Planning. Paper III has been accepted for publication in Landscape Research, while paper IV has been submitted to the International Journal of Architectural Research.

9

Introduction Modern cities are characterized by dense, often multiple cores, and this structure is associated with greater energy efficiency, higher income and greater rates of innovation (e.g. Combes, Duranton, Gobillon, Puga, & Roux, 2012). However, it has also been linked to the occurrence of lifestyle and stress related disorders such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease and depression and mental fatigue (Ulrich, 2006; Mitchell & Popham, 2008; Martinez-Gonzalez et al., 2001). Another result of city densification is a decreased number of urban green spaces (UGS) per capita (James et al., 2009). Several recent studies indicate the positive benefits of UGS in relation to health (e.g. Schipperijn, Bentsen, Troelsen, Toftager, & Stigsdotter, 2013; Stigsdotter et al., 2010; Nordh & Østby, 2013; Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010; van den Berg, Maas, Verheij, & Groenewegen, 2010; Stigsdotter & Grahn, 2003b). Nevertheless, the health related effects of individual green space units (e.g. larger parks, smaller parks as pocket parks, boulevards, green corridors, green streets, urban forests, rooftop gardens and private gardens) are poorly understood, and especially with respect to pocket parks there is a research gap. If pocket parks are a resource for general health benefits, they could be attractive in a city planning context, as they can be more easily incorporated into the dense city structure than large green spaces. They may, therefore, also increase the quality of the urban green infrastructure by acting as stepping stones between other types of urban green spaces. And as a landscape architect, I found that we have now reached a point where research on the benefits of urban green spaces needs to be taken a step further in order to understand how we as designers can improve our outdoor spaces in dense cities. ‘Designers need to be informed about people´s uses and experience of landscape and then respond to this in design’

10

(Dee, 2009pp. 14)

Hypothesis and Aim of thesis The hypothesis of this thesis is that pocket parks are a latent resource for human health in dense city areas. The aim of the study is to describe individual use and the association with the psychological restorative potential of pocket parks, as well as the characteristics and features supporting the preferred types of use.

Research questions This hypothesis and aim led to the following six main research questions: x

How are pocket parks used and who are the users? (paper I)

x

Which factors influence the use of pocket parks? (paper I)

x

How do users assess the restorative potential of pocket parks? (paper II)

x

How are the nature characteristics (perceived sensory dimensions) associated with average and stressed users’ perceived restorativeness? (Paper II)

x

How are features of the pocket parks correlated to the preferred types of use? (Paper III)

x

What is the users’ subjective perception of a pocket park before and after a redesign? (Paper IV)

The research questions have been addressed in four papers that constitute the basis of this thesis. The papers are listed on the following page.

11

List of manuscripts

1. Peschardt, K.K., Schipperijn, J., Stigsdotter, U.K., 2012. Use of Small Public Urban Green Spaces (SPUGS). Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 11 (3), pp. 235-244. 2. Peschardt Kragsig, K., Stigsdotter, UK. 2013. Associations between park characteristics and perceived restorativeness of small public urban green spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning. 112, pp. 26-39. 3. Peschardt, K.K., Stigsdotter, K.U. & Schipperijn, J. (2014): Identifying Features of Pocket Parks that May Be Related to Health Promoting Use, Landscape Research, DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2014.894006 4. Peschardt, K.K., Stigsdotter, U.K. Evidence for designing health promoting pocket parks. Submitted to International Journal of Architectural research (IJAR)

The papers are not included in this version of the thesis due to copyright.

12

The process of the Ph.D. project This Ph.D. project started in October 2009. During the first months, the study was planned, the cases were selected and the questionnaire was developed. During the summer of 2010, the first part of the data collection took place. This included the questionnaire survey, noise measurements, registration of physical features, and landscape analysis of the perceived sensory dimensions (PSD). During autumn 2010, the data from the questionnaires were analysed and the writing of paper I began. From January 2011 until December 2011, I was on maternity leave. After that (end 2011 till beginning of 2012), the data for paper II were analysed and the writing of paper II began. During the summer of 2012, data for the natural experiment were collected. At the same time, data for paper III were analysed and the paper was subsequently written. In autumn 2012, I began to analyse the data for paper IV. In November 2012, I took my second maternity leave until October 2013. Afterwards, papers III and IV, as well as the introductory part of the thesis, were written more or less simultaneously.

Figure 1 – A schematic presentation of the process

13

Definitions of concepts In the following, I define some of the concepts that are used throughout the thesis. Pocket Parks A pocket is something we use to put our hands in and get a feeling of warmth, security and secrecy. A pocket park may be considered a ‘hand-made warm space’ which creates a small oasis for people (Hajime, 1988). Some describe pocket parks as small spaces in dense city areas surrounded by multi-storey buildings and only open to one side (Gollwitzer, 1968), which is also how the first pocket park, Paley Park in New York from 1967 was described. Others describe them as natural areas in the countryside, which are looked after by the local community and where the purpose is to protect wildlife (Northamptonshire city council, 2012). Several studies and projects have created their own definitions (e.g. Nordh, 2010; City of Copenhagen, 2009), which causes some uncertainty concerning the actual definition of a pocket park. Initially, I found this confusing, and the broader term ‘small public urban green spaces’ (SPUGS) is therefore used in papers I and II. However, after reconsidering the term in papers III and IV, I decided to use pocket parks to mean a small public park in a city, as the term is commonly used and easier to say. The defining criteria for pocket parks in this thesis follow those established by the City of Copenhagen (2009): Maximum size of 5000 m2, some vegetation should be present, and it should have its own entrance and distinguishable boundaries which separate it from the surrounding public space. Urban Green Space (UGS) Urban green space (UGS) refers to publically owned and accessible open spaces covered by greenery. The character may be natural or designed and the amount of greenery may vary from lush vegetation, to the presence of only a few solitary trees in a space with hardscape surfaces. Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI) Urban green infrastructure (UGI) is described as a tool for integrated spatial planning and governance to solve urban and climatic challenges by building with nature. Management of storm water, heat stress, biodiversity and the more anthropocentric functions such as increased quality of life through recreation and providing shade and shelter in and around towns and cities are some of the main components of this approach (Colding, 2007; Benedict & McMahon, 2002; Gill et al., 2008; Tzoulas et al., 2007). According to Cameron et al. (2012), UGI consists of: parks, public 14

green space, allotments, green corridors, street trees, urban forests, roof and vertical greening and private gardens. In this thesis, UGI refers to the anthropocentric understanding of UGS supporting use for recreational purposes. Restorative environments Restorative environments have been described in a number of studies as environments providing opportunities to restore from mental fatigue (Kaplan, 1995; Berto, 2005; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). In the psycho-evolutionary theory, Ulrich et al. (1991) describe a restorative environment as a place where one feels safe. In his theory, this is related to natural surroundings (further descriptions see page 21). Psychological restoration In general, psychological problems are caused by the influence of environmental factors or social circumstances. Psychological restoration has been related to the process of recovering from mental fatigue (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan, 1995), or from stressful situations, e.g. caused by unnatural surroundings such as urban areas (Ulrich et al., 1991) (further descriptions see pages 2021). In later studies on the restorative potential of outdoor environments, psychological restoration is described as, ‘The process of renewing, recovering, or re-establishing physical, psychological, and social resources or capabilities diminished in on-going efforts to meet adaptive demands’ (Hartig, 2004). This thesis investigates the potential for psychological restoration in pocket parks. However, as this term cannot be translated to a generally used term in Danish, it made most sense to define psychological restoration as ‘Rest and Restitution’. Socialising In this thesis, ‘socialising’ refers to the mechanisms behind the act of meeting for social purposes and health. Although research within the field of social contact, health and UGS is limited (Konijnendijk, Annerstedt, Busse, & Maruthaveeran, 2012), some studies point towards the health benefits of social contact in UGS (e.g. Maas, van Dillen, Verheij, & Groenewegen, 2009; Coley, Sullivan, & Kuo, 1997).

15

Human health Human health has been addressed through a number of research disciplines during recent decades. In 1948, the World Health Organisation (WHO) defined health as, ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’ (WHO, 1948). During the past 60 years, this definition has been criticized especially because of the requirements of ‘complete health’ which may leave some of us unhealthy most of the time (BMJ 2011;343:d4163). A discussion of the definition of health, therefore, led to the conclusion that health should be interpreted more dynamically, leaving room for the ability to adapt or self-manage despite limitations (e.g. caused by chronic diseases) (BMJ 2011;343:d4163). The concept ‘salutogenic,’ introduced by Antonovsky (1996), refers to the possibility of supporting human health and well-being based on the factors, health, stress and coping. He describes how people are able to achieve health despite exposure to pathogenic biological or psychologically stressful experiences (Antonovsky, 1996). In this relation, good health may be individually defined (BMJ 2011;343:d4163). In this thesis, health refers to human health and the environments referred to are described as Health promoting Pocket Parks or Health promoting environments. Evidence Based Health Design (EBHD) This thesis has been conducted within the field of landscape architecture where beliefs, general concepts and aesthetics have been the fundamental way of working for many years, and where there has been no tradition of reporting and evaluating existing projects (Brown & Corry, 2011). However, research areas within the fields of landscape architecture and climate change/ storm water management, transplanting of trees, etc. (Brown & Corry, 2011), as well as landscape architecture and health have realized the value of evidence based design (EBD) within the last years. Brown & Corry (2011) suggest that evidence based landscape architecture will become a common way of thinking about the design of landscape in the future. This process should support the decisions in a design process with knowledge based on methodologically studied experiments (Brown & Corry, 2011). According to Biesta (2010), evidence based practice (EBP) may be insufficient as we can never be certain about the relationships investigated in lab-like settings. EBP may also be supported by experience and intuition and the rules may be open for interpretation. Rubin (2010) takes this a little further and suggests that research, practitioners’ expertise and the client’s attributes should be closely connected to form the basis of the practitioners’ decision-making.

16

Health design is based on the idea that a landscape can be designed to improve and support people’s health and well-being (Stigsdotter, Møller, Corazon, & Lygum, 2012). This process is described as evidence based health design (EBHD) and builds on the same ideas as those introduced by Rubin (2010). It is within EBHD that this thesis makes its contribution

Figure 2 model of EBHD describing the three components that are important in the EBHD process. Adapted from Rubin (2010) and Stigsdotter (2014)

Within EBHD, studies on the healing aspects of, e.g. hospital gardens, residential homes for elderly people, crisis shelters, therapy gardens as well as preventive aspects of, e.g. playgrounds and public parks have been conducted. Ideally a post occupancy evaluation (POE) should always be conducted in order to optimize future designs based on experiences and new research results (Stigsdotter, 2014). Although the use of EBHD is still limited, there is a gradual recognition amongst practitioners that research can add valuable information to design processes and thereby optimize the quality of the built landscape (Lygum, Stigsdotter, Konijnendijk, & Højbjerg, 2013; Stigsdotter, 2014).

17

Background Human health and city planning – a brief historical overview Since early history, green environments have been part of the urban development. The Greeks introduced gardens in urban areas as they had a predilection for natural settings; especially fountains and grottoes were preferred in their urban gardens (Van Zuylen, 1999). The first rapidly growing city in history where densification took place to such an extent that people started complaining about noise, dirt, lack of greenery, beauty and relaxation was ancient Rome. To alleviate these problems, the Roman Empire was forced to construct several public parks (Mumford, 1968). In the first of his ‘Ten books on architecture’ Vitruvius wrote that the choice of a healthy site for the fortified city is the most important requirement (Pollio, 2011). It may therefore seem self-evident that green space should be considered an essential part of urban development, especially because of the positive benefits it provides the city dwellers. However, during the industrial revolution (1760 – 1840), history repeated itself. Cities grew rapidly, and as a result of poor hygiene, malnutrition and bad housing conditions, people became ill and contagious diseases spread easily. In 1833, a member of the British Parliament encouraged the House of Commons ‘to consider the best means of securing open spaces in the immediate vicinity of populous towns, as public walks calculated to promote the health and comfort of the inhabitants’ (Walker & Duffield, 1983). Throughout Europe, this led to comprehensive attempts to create more liveable landscapes by introducing grids of boulevards and tree-lined avenues in order to replace old neighbourhoods (Svedberg, 1994). Liveable landscapes

The importance of liveable landscapes has since been discussed by many architects and planners. One of the pioneers of modern city planning, Le Corbusier (1887 – 1965), dedicated most of his life to improving the living conditions of people in dense cities. Large parks, beautiful views and roof gardens were among his requirements for modern houses (Rasmussen, 1951; Corbusier, Mikkelsen, & Buhl, 1945). However, Le Corbusier’s work has also been criticized especially by Jane Jacobs for being too dramatic and unrealistic as, e.g. the parks in his city plans would become lifeless, unsafe and deserted (Jacobs, 1961). Many have contributed to the discussion of the human oriented responses to urban design. Among those with particular significance are Kevin Lynch (1960) and Jane Jacobs (1961). More recently, the Danish architect Jan Gehl has been a central figure in relation to the importance of the human scale in urban areas (Gehl, 2010; Gehl, 2003). Despite these 18

well-meant thoughts, there has been a tendency in planning processes that economy and aesthetics are prioritized over social values (Thwaites, Mathers, & Simkins, 2013). The compact city

Many of today’s planning principles underlie the compact city concept which promotes high residential density, higher economic growth, efficient public transport systems and short distances (Rogers, 2005; Rérat, 2012). The world population has passed 7 billion people and more than half live in urban areas (Greene, Joshi, & Robles, 2012). The city has become a new habitat for modern people and the general needs for physical exercise, social interaction and psychological restoration must be stimulated within the city. Paradoxically, our modern lifestyle, often consisting of sedentary and inactive work, is associated with less connectedness to green environments, which has been shown to support social activity and psychological restoration (e.g. Maas et al., 2009; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Some would even argue that a disconnection is taking place between urban dwellers and the nature outside the cities (Louv, 2005; Beatley, 2011). As a possible consequence, an increasing number of people are suffering from lifestyle and stress related diseases such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease, depression and mental fatigue (Ulrich, 2006; Mitchell & Popham, 2008; Martinez-Gonzalez et al., 2001), a problem that has been recognised by the WHO (WHO, 2012). The relationship between human health and natural environments A number of theories describe the relationship between human health and green environments (Appleton, 1975; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Ulrich et al., 1991). Furthermore, several studies have stated the benefits of green environments in reducing the number of lifestyle diseases (Mitchell & Popham, 2008; van den Berg et al., 2010; Ulrich et al., 1991). In relation to this, a large body of evidence points towards psychological restoration (Kaplan, 1995; Kaplan, 2001; Berto, 2005; Hartig, Evans, Jamner, Davis, & Gärling, 2003), the facilitation of social contacts (e.g. Sullivan, Kuo, & Depooter, 2004; Maas et al., 2009) and physical activity (Coombes, Jones, & Hillsdon, 2010; Hug, Hartig, Hansmann, Seeland, & Hornung, 2009) as three factors contributing to the health benefits of exposure to green environments. Psychological benefits of nature – a theoretical perspective

Historically, people and nature have been inseparable. Originally, nature was our habitat in which it was necessary to perform hunting and gathering, as described in Appleton’s (1975) prospect/ refuge 19

theory. A refuge such as a cave provided safety due to opportunities to hide, whereas a prospect such as a hilltop provided an overview of the surroundings. Although human beings have been distanced from the hunter/gatherer concept for many years, the theory may still be adapted to our modern habitat in which positive or negative social obligations replace the hunter-gatherer behaviour. Prospect/refuge experiences are also today considered very important for pleasurable experiences (Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010) where exposure and enclosure, views and screening stimulate certain feelings and needs (Robinson, 2004). This also implies that modern humans still need restorative environments for sensory stimulation (Appleton, 1975; Robinson, 2004; Dee, 2009). The tendency seen today with urban dwellers becoming distanced from nature has also been problematized in the Psycho Evolutionary Theory by Ulrich et al (1991). This theory states that humans have adapted to a certain natural environment throughout their evolution as a species. Urban habitats are considered an unnatural environment in which humans cannot trust their spontaneous reactions. Due to constant exposure to heavy traffic, noise, buildings, etc. there is a constant requirement to think logically, and if there is no opportunity to relax and recover in natural environments there is a risk of becoming stressed (Ulrich et al., 1991). The relationship between human beings, nature and urban areas has also been described from a cognitive perspective in the Attention Restoration Theory (ART) by Kaplan (1995). ART suggests that humans have two types of attention; directed attention and soft fascination. In modern society, humans use directed attention to concentrate on important things while sorting out the distracting things which demand much effort. Over time, one can become mentally fatigued, and, in order to recover our directed attention, we need exposure to fascinating stimuli. ART describes how humans have adapted to nature as a species and therefore perceive nature as areas with high potential for recovering directed attention. In nature, the opportunity for reflection is provided which thereby stimulates the soft fascination (Kaplan, 1995). According to the Kaplans, a restorative environment can be described by four components each of which provides a certain restorative experience (Kaplan 1995 pp. 172-173). Fascination should not require mental effort, but instead involves stimuli and processes of exploration. This process is also what the Kaplans describe as soft fascination. The feeling, either psychological or physical, of being distant from daily routines and demands where directed attention capacity is used is described as Being away; Extent is the capacity of an environment to provide scope for exploration and a sense of coherence, which refers to the 20

ability to organise and structure a scene in the environment (Hartig, Korpela, Evans, & Gärling, 1997). Compatibility is the match between what a person wants to do, what the environment supports and what the person is expected to do in the environment (Kaplan, 1995). The presence of some or all four components may lead to the possibility of stress prevention in green environments. Research on the relationship between stress reduction and urban green space

A number of cross sectional studies have investigated the relationship between stress reduction and urban green space (e.g. Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2003; Stigsdotter et al., 2010). In their study from 2003, Grahn & Stigsdotter found that individuals who lived more than 300 meters away from a green space were more likely to experience stress than individuals who lived less than 300 meters from a green space. Additionally, those living more than 1 km away from a green space had poorer health and health related quality than those living closer to green spaces (Stigsdotter et al., 2010). Furthermore, non-stressed individuals were more likely to visit a green space than stressed individuals, while women are slightly more stressed than men. However, more stressed individuals stated that the most important reason for visiting green spaces was to rest and relax (Stigsdotter et al., 2010), which indicates that people perceive green space as beneficial in relation to good health. In Danish surveys on the relationship between access to and use of green space and experienced stress and obesity, it was found that short distances to green spaces were associated with less stress and a lower likelihood of obesity (Nielsen & Hansen, 2007; Toftager et al., 2011). The relationship between urban green space and social interaction

A number of studies suggest that there is a positive relationship between social integration and interaction and outdoor areas (Fan, Das, & Chen, 2011; Chiesura, 2004; Gehl, 2010; Gehl, 2003; Whyte, 1980; Coley et al., 1997; Sullivan et al., 2004; Maas et al., 2009). Maas et al. (2009) studied the possible health benefits of the relationship between social contacts and green space. They found that loneliness and a lack of social support were negatively related to people’s self-perceived health. Additionally, proximity to green space in the living environment limited the feeling of loneliness and people experienced more social support. As there was no indication that people had more contact to neighbours or friends in the green space, they suggested that place attachment (referring to the process of bonding to a specific place) might be related to a sense of community promoted by the presence of green space (Maas et al., 2009). Coley et al. (1997) suggest that the presence of trees and grass in open spaces may encourage people to go outdoors, which thereby enhances the possibility for social interaction. 21

Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI) In 1903, the brothers John Olmsted and Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. made the following assertion about the linking of UGS and its benefit for humans: ‘A connected system of parks and parkways is manifestly far more complete and useful than a series of isolated parks’ (Benedict & McMahon, 2002). Various units, e.g. larger or smaller parks, boulevards, green corridors, green streets, urban forests, roofs and private gardens can be seen as the connected system that constitutes the UGI (Benedict & McMahon, 2002; Kaplan, Kaplan, Ryan, & Robert L., 1998; Tzoulas et al., 2007). From a planning perspective, strategic and knowledge based planning is required in order to meet the individual needs, wishes and expectations people have regarding everyday outdoor exposure to green surroundings. In this relation, much research on the role of larger UGS and physical activity has been conducted (e.g. Björk et al., 2008). Furthermore, playgrounds and multipurpose courts also play an important role as everyday outdoor environments (Refshauge, Stigsdotter, & Cosco, 2012; Kural, 1999), just as private gardens have shown to be beneficial for socialising and mental wellbeing, which underlines their importance in many people’s lives in general (Cameron et al., 2012; Stigsdotter & Grahn, 2003a). Research on UGS – state-of-the-art

Existing research suggests how use of UGS is significantly associated with factors such as age, gender, education level and health status (Schipperijn, Stigsdotter, Randrup, & Troelsen, 2010). In addition to this, people’s health status has also been shown to influence the preference for certain park characteristics (serene, social, prospect, refuge, nature, space, rich in species and culture) described as the perceived sensory dimensions (PSD) in Grahn & Stigsdotter (2010) and Stigsdotter & Grahn (2011). Features such as grass, trees and bushes have been documented to be positively related to restoration (e.g. Nordh & Østby, 2013), a finding that is supported by other studies indicating that greenery leads to reduced stress in humans (Kaplan, 1995; Stigsdotter, 2004). Furthermore, several studies indicate that size and shape influence the perception of an UGS (GilesCorti et al., 2005; Kaczynski, Potwarka, & Saelens, 2008; Van Herzele & Wiedemann, 2003; Berggren-Bärring & Grahn, 1995). Also the presence of facilities such as, e.g. benches, tables, paved or unpaved paths and playgrounds affects the use and perception of a UGS (Schipperijn et al., 2013; Kaczynski et al., 2008; Sullivan et al., 2004). Finally, a number of studies have investigated the relationship between experience of an 22

UGS and sound, and have found that natural sounds are preferred over mechanical sounds, and that preference for certain sounds may be related to demographic background (e.g. Kang & Zhang, 2010; Yu & Kang, 2010; Raimbault, Lavandier, & Berengier, 2003; Torija et al., 2010; Alvarsson, Wiens, & Nilson M., 2010; Watts G.R, Phasant R.J, & Horoshenkov K.V, 2011; Yu & Kang, 2010). However, most of this research is related to larger green areas, while existing research on pocket parks is very limited. Pocket Parks

The notion of small sized environments as restorative ‘pockets’ in dense city areas began at an exhibit in 1963 entitled New Parks for New York where Robert Zion proposed the idea of a network of pocket parks in New York. The first pocket park ‘Paley Park’ was built in 1967 and has since been the blueprint for pocket parks around the world (Frankel & Johnson, 1991).

Figure 3 (left). The first Pocket Park in New York, Paley Park, built in 1967 (Photo: Karin Peschardt) Figure 4 (right). The first Pocket Park in Copenhagen, Odins Lomme, built in 2009 (Photo: Karin Peschardt)

In 1969, the following vision was stated: ‘For such parks to contribute effectively to city life, they must be readily available. Further, they should not be looked upon as mere amenities. They have 23

become necessities, and necessities must, by definition, be close at hand, easily come by. Their presence should be felt everywhere throughout the area – on the way to work, on the way home, as well as during the lunch hour. If such a system of parks is to succeed, there must be proximity, as well as profusion – one such park for each square block’ (Seymour, 1969 p. 3). From a political perspective there seems to be an increasing focus on the benefits of UGS. The European Landscape Convention, which was ratified in 2013 by almost all European countries, aims to promote landscape as an important part of people´s surroundings in both rural and urban areas (Council of Europe, 2000). The council states that the landscape is a key element of individual and social well-being (Council of Europe, 2000). The urban landscape has been put on the political agenda, but politicians and planners’ individual interests are also of great importance when making a final decision on a more local basis. During recent years, the urban landscape has also received increased focus in the City of Copenhagen. In the vision for Green Growth, the City of Copenhagen stated the importance of green space in relation to health, climate and biodiversity (City of Copenhagen, 2013). They furthermore stated that 90 % of the citizens of Copenhagen should have a maximum of 15 minutes walking distance to a park, beach or nature area, and that the frequency of visits should be doubled by 2015 (City of Copenhagen, 2013). According to the city of Copenhagen (2013 p. 45), ‘Local parks, and ‘pocket parks’, reduce distances to recreation areas and provide space for sports and social activities’. One step towards this goal was defined in 2009 in their Pocket Park Program where the goal was to establish 14 new pocket parks by 2015 (City of Copenhagen, 2009). Five of these have now been established and more are in the pipeline (The City of Copenhagen, 2013). The increasing political interest and the increasing amount of money that is being put into pocket parks underscores the importance of research on the possible health benefits of such areas. If pocket parks can be documented as health promoting UGS, the argument for increasing the provision of UGS is more convincing, just as the argument which states that funding should be awarded to the project is justified. Generally, pocket parks limit the type of activities possible (Forsyth & Musacchio, 2005) as, e.g. physical activities demand larger open areas. According to de Vries (2010), proximity of green environments might be more relevant for mental and social health than physical health. In Copenhagen, however, a number of pocket parks are specifically designed to support physical activity such as skate parks and areas for ball games (basketball, etc.), although such areas may 24

limit other activities. Other pocket parks are designed to support a broader group of users and the type of use is not specifically given.

Figure 5 (left). Multi-court area in Copenhagen (Photo: Karin Peschardt) Figure 6 (right). Skating area in Copenhagen (Photo: Karin Peschardt) More focus on the smaller units

Although the political focus on the benefits of UGS has increased during recent years, it still seems to be on a very general basis, with more detailed knowledge lacking on the role of the individual units in the UGI as well as on the design. Furthermore, the existing knowledge on the benefits of UGS in relation to use, users and preference for certain features, size, shape and sound seems to be focusing primarily on larger UGS. As densification has caused a decrease in per capita green space (Fuller & Gaston, 2009), as well as an increasing distance to larger UGS (James et al., 2009), the focus on the development of new potential sites such inner-city brownfield sites such as parcels of industrial or commercial land that have been abandoned or underused may receive increased attention. Up to now, the potential of pocket parks to contribute to health and well-being has been based on assumptions (e.g. Thwaites, Helleur, & Simkins, 2005; Baur & Tynon, 2010; Forsyth & Musacchio, 2005; Talbot & Kaplan, 1986; Gehl, 2010). Only very recently did researchers at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB) publish results which document the restorative potential of pocket parks and how design may influence the restorative experience of such areas (Nordh, Hartig, Hagerhall, & Fry, 2009; Nordh, 2010; Nordh & Østby, 2013). In their study, the findings were based on visual assessments of quantified park photos, where respondents rated the stimuli of presented photos on a scale including ‘preference’, ‘fascination’, ‘being away’ and ‘restoration likelihood’. Furthermore, an eye tracking technique was used where an eye tracker 25

apparatus registered how the respondent’s eye moved over a shown photo. The photos were evaluated by students at Oslo’s University College. The main findings from their study suggest that pocket parks may contribute to psychological restoration despite their limited size. Furthermore, natural features, seating and limited disturbance from surroundings support the need for restoration and may enhance social interaction (Nordh et al., 2009; Nordh, 2010; Nordh & Østby, 2013). However, the study does have limitations as evaluations of photos may leave the observer passive and limit the information the respondents can extract from the areas such as: noise, context and overview of the entire area (Heft, 2010; Schroeder, 1982). In this thesis, we therefore hypothesize that pocket parks are a latent resource for human health in dense city areas. The aim of the study is to describe individual use and the association with the psychological restorative potential of pocket parks, as well as the characteristics and features supporting the preferred types of use. The hypothesis and aim are addressed by increasing knowledge on: users, how the pocket parks are used; the restorative potential of pocket parks; preference for certain park characteristics in relation to the restorative potential; and how specific features of the pocket parks may support the preferred types of use.

26

Methods The setting In order to answer the research questions, data were collected in the City of Copenhagen where the same densification tendencies are seen as in other developed countries (Danmarks Statistik, 2012). In their ‘Pocket Park Project,’ the city of Copenhagen introduced a list of potential and existing pocket parks which could be used in the further case selection process. The study design The overall approach taken in this study is a multiple-case study design. In addition to this, a longitudinal single-case study was conducted. In order to answer the research questions, a triangulation approach was used which combines theory, multiple observers (landscape architects and park users) and different sources of data collected through quantitative methods (questionnaire, measures: greenery, size, shape, noise, features and perceived restorativeness of the area) and qualitative methods (interviews and measures: PSD) (Bryman, 2008).

Figure 7. Schematic presentation of the study design

27

Multiple case study A multiple case study offers the possibility of on-site evaluations. Gillham (2000) suggests that the interaction between human behaviour and feelings is partly determined by the context, so in order to understand this interaction, it is important to study people in their context. Additionally, an on-site study ensures that the answers from the respondents reflect the immediate experience of the pocket parks (Chiesura, 2004). A multiple case study should lead to a better understanding of a larger population of cases (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). Furthermore, the results from a multiple case study are more generalizable (Francis, 2001) and are considered to be more robust compared to single case designs (Yin, 2009). Defining the cases

In this study, the selection of cases was based on the definition criteria made by the City of Copenhagen (2009) (see definitions of concepts page 14) as this was essential when describing the population from which the final samples were selected. Using GIS (Geographical information system) and aerial photos, a total of 101 potential pocket parks were identified. After this selection, an area of interest was drawn around the inner city areas, representing the densest parts of Copenhagen which resulted in a total of 79 pocket parks. The 79 pocket parks were visited and photographed and a stratification was then completed, whereby the total population was divided into subgroups before sampling (Agresti & Finlay, 1997). The stratification was based on landscape architectural criteria, which included physical characteristics and the design of the pocket parks. This resulted in thirteen categories (table 1, step 1) from which eight were excluded (table 1, step 2) due to a lack of relevance to the study. The remaining five sub-groups consisted of 27 cases. Due to practical constraints in terms of time and resources, it was not possible to include them all and therefore a relative allocation in proportion to the total of the five subgroups was conducted (Agresti & Finlay, 1997). The final selection of cases ensured a ‘maximum variation’ regarding size and the amount of vegetation, as well as the features within the pocket parks. This allowed us ‘to obtain information about the significance of various circumstances for case process and outcome’ (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p.230). Furthermore, in order to obtain credible knowledge on use and users, the sampling process of the cases ensured that the final five subgroups were a more homogenous group with respect to use. This also meant that the category ‘sports area’ was not included. This was because the use of such areas is very specifically determined and may limit other types of use. The use of other pocket parks not specifically designed for physical activity is more indistinct which 28

was the reason those areas were in focus in this study. The final cases are presented in table 1 and described in paper I. Total observed spaces

N=79

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Divided into categories N

Excluded at selection round one Remaining

Definition:

Exclusion criteria:

categories Final

Description:

Cases (n)

No content

26

No users, empty lots, building sites

Too large

7

Exceeded 5000 m2, inappropriate for use

Bunker

3

Bunker dominating whole area

Passage

7

Indefinite borders, many people passing by

Transportation hub

3

High complexity caused by many different functions, e.g. metro station, bus stop

Sports area

2

Designed for certain activities, i.e. skating and basketball

Private appearance

3

Could be perceived as being private

Geometric design

7

South European Square 3 Multi characteristic

10

Design geometric

2

Hardscape surface, few trees

1

Playground,

seating,

spaces,

albeit for limited activity

4

Cafe/ history

3

Cafe area, historical context

1

Traffic

4

Closely connected to main road

1

Table 1. The case selection process: In step 1, all identified pocket parks were grouped into twelve categories. In step 2, seven categories were excluded and in step 3, a proportional sampling was made from the last five groups.

29

Figure 8. Aerial photo of the location of the nine pocket parks in Copenhagen

Figure 9. Location, aerial photo and graphical illustration of Bopa Plads

30

Figure 10. Location, aerial photo and graphical illustration of Gråbrødre Torv

Figure 11. Location, aerial photo and graphical illustration of Hauser Plads

31

Figure 12. Location, aerial photo and graphical illustration of Julius Thomsens Plads

Figure 13. Location, aerial photo and graphical illustration of Rosenhaven

32

Figure 14. Location, aerial photo and graphical illustration of Odins Lomme

Figure 15. Location, aerial photo and graphical illustration of Scandic

33

Figure 16. Location, aerial photo and graphical illustration of Tove Ditlevsens Plads

Figure 17. Location, aerial photo and graphical illustration of Dantes Plads

34

Questionnaire survey The first part of the questionnaire was inspired by other studies on use and users of UGS (Schipperijn, 2010; National Institute of public health, 2010; Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010). The questionnaire is attached as an appendix. The respondents were asked: a) how they had travelled to the pocket park (open question), b) why they had visited the pocket park (multiple answers possible), c) the estimated distance from their home to the pocket park, d) how far they had travelled to get to the pocket park, e) the frequency of visits to the pocket park over the months (April – September), f) the preferred time of day for visiting the pocket park (multiple answers possible), g) how long they typically stayed in the pocket park, h) where they came from when entering the pocket park (open question) i) where they went after leaving the pocket park (open question). The following part was the perceived restorativeness scale (PRS) which was originally developed as a tool for landscape architects and planners to evaluate the restorative effect of designs of existing and proposed settings (Hartig et al., 1997). The scale is based on the four components defined in Kaplan’s Attention Restoration Theory (1995). The components have been developed into a set of items or questions from which a restorative environment can be evaluated. Several studies have since validated the scale (Nordh et al., 2009; Tenngart Ivarsson & Hagerhall, 2008; Hartig, Kaiser, & Bowler, 1997; Korpela & Hartig, 1996; Hartig et al., 1997; Hartig, Kaiser, & Bowler, 2001; Korpela, Hartig, Kaiser, & Fuhrer, 2001; Berto, 2005; Bodin & Hartig, 2003). The version used for this study was developed by Bodin & Hartig (2003) and consists of 24 items. In this version being away is measured by five items (e.g., ‘Spending time here gives me a break from my day-to-day routine’). Fascination is measured by five items (e.g., ‘My attention is drawn to many interesting things here’). Extent is measured by eight items (e.g., ‘This place is large enough to allow exploration in many directions). And the remaining five items measure compatibility (e.g., ‘Being here fits with my personal inclinations’). One item was added on preference (‘I like this place’). Respondents indicate their answers on an 11 point lickert scale (0 = not at all; 10 = completely). The answers reflect the degree to which the statements apply to the experience the respondents have had in the given environment. The final part of the questionnaire included questions regarding self-estimated health status within the last four weeks (evaluated on a 0-10 point scale, with 0 = low and 10 = high). Questions on demographic background (civil status, dependents, most recent completed education, classified

35

according to The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED), and gender, age and nationality) were also asked. The questionnaire was approved by the Danish data protection agency. The questionnaire survey was conducted on-site and respondents were encouraged to ask for elaboration if questions were unclear to reduce the risk of misunderstanding or misinterpreting the questions. Data were collected from April – September 2010. As the purpose was to reach as many users as possible, this period of the year was chosen as the weather would most likely be best during this period and it was assumed that bad weather would limit the number of visitors to the areas (Nielsen & Hansen, 2007). Furthermore, all pocket parks were visited in the morning, at noon, in the evening and at weekend in each month. Each visit had a duration of 1½ - 2 hours. During each visit, a registration was conducted dividing users into different ‘types’ (single individuals, couples, smaller groups and larger formal groups, e.g. groups from day-care centres or pre-schools) and into ‘activities’ (passing through, running, walking the dog, cycling, visiting playground, visiting café, physical activity, stationary use). Potential respondents were approached and asked to participate (users below the age of 15 were not included and neither were people passing by, running or cycling through the areas due to their very limited stays). Gender, estimated age, number of approached respondents and the number of respondents were also recorded by the observer. When many people were performing the same activity, an overall count was made and the number was noted as (> xx). Date, time and weather conditions were recorded for all the data collection periods. A variety of potential respondents were approached in order to get as many different respondents as possible. Identifying the park characteristics A number of research projects have tried to classify nature characteristics (e.g. Clark, 1968; Penning-Rowsell, 1973; Shafer, Hamilton, & Schmidt, 1969; Gyllin & Grahn, 2005; Feste & Oterholm, 1973; Appleton, 1975; Grahn & Sorte, 1985; Tyrväinen, Mäkinen, & Schipperijn, 2007). Grahn & Sorte (1985) developed the first generation of the eight park characteristics, now called Percieved Sensory Dimensions. Berggren-Bärring & Grahn (1995) developed the second generation, based on data from organisations. The third generation was developed by Grahn and Stigsdotter (2010) based on data from 953 randomly selected respondents representative of the Swedish population. The respondents reported their preference for nature qualities. Grahn and Stigsdotter (2010) identified eight different ‘perceived sensory dimensions’ (PSD); ‘serene’, ‘space’, ‘nature’, ‘rich in species’, ‘refuge’, ‘culture’, ‘prospect’ and ‘social’ which describe the characteristics of an environment (Stigsdotter & Grahn, 2011). The interaction between preferences for certain PSDs of the outdoor environment and certain types of outdoor activities has shown to be 36

positively related to stress levels (Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010). The PSDs can be used to analyse an existing setting, they can be used as a planning tool or be part of the design process of future landscape architectural projects. Originally, the PSDs were developed with reference to larger urban and peri-urban green environments (Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010). Some of the factors which describe each PSD could therefore not be transfered to the pocket parks included in this study either due to restricted size or contextual differences (e.g. football fields or restrooms). The modified version was used as a landscape analysis tool to evaluate the existing characteristics of the pocket parks. Two landscape architects familiar with the tool, evaluated each PSD in the nine pocket parks and rated the PSDs on a scale from 0 – 3, with the possibility of awarding 7 different grades (0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, etc.) with 0 indicating that the PSDs were not present at all, and 3 indicating that the PSDs were present to a very high degree. We chose to introduce this rating scale in order to achieve variation in the evaluation. Furthermore, this evaluation adopts a qualitative approach where the rating of each environment is based on a discussion about the degree of the presence of the specific PSDs based on the factors that generate the PSDs (Grahn & Stigsdotter 2010).

37

38

Figure 18. The eight perceived sensory dimensions (Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010). The descriptions have been adapted to pocket parks. The illustrations are used with permission from Berit Ipsen Hansen and Maja Steen Møller.

39

Identifying the Physical Elements Landscape architects work with different elements when arranging new projects. The composition of the various elements is central to the final product and thereby to the experience (Hauxner, 2009). In the following, the elements investigated in the nine cases are described. Greenery

The overall reason for measuring ‘greenness’ in the pocket parks is due to the positive relations between green surroundings and health shown in several previous research projects (e.g. Stigsdotter, 2004; Kaplan, 1995; Nordh & Østby, 2013). According to Dee (2009), there are three dimensions in a space consisting of the ‘ground plane’, ‘the walls’ and the ‘sky plane’. In this study, I describe these three levels as ‘green ground-cover’, ‘eye-level greenery’ and ‘tree canopy,’ respectively. The different levels may influence the way in which a particular space is perceived (Robinson, 2004). Green ground-cover such as grass and lower ground vegetation has been positively related to the restorative experience of urban spaces (Nordh & Østby, 2013). Lawns may promote the desire to sit and relax. Ground cover in terms of shrubs below knee height can prevent movement and create patterns (Robinson, 2004). Shrubs can be used to create niches where people can sit and get a feeling of privacy (Forsyth & Musacchio, 2005). It can create a physical and visual barrier which furthermore can provide enclosure and a feeling of distance to possible disturbing surroundings (Robinson, 2004; Nordh & Østby, 2013).

Figure 19. Using planting to create rooms in the urban space

40

The tree canopies can create spaces, shade and a feeling of protection (Whyte, 1980; Robinson, 2004). Furthermore, urban spaces with trees seem to be preferred over urban spaces with no trees, while the shape of the trees also seems to influence the perception of an urban space (Lohr & Pearson-Mims, 2006). Green ground cover (lawns, flower beds), eye-level greenery (bushes and hedges) and tree canopy were identified and calculated in percent using the Geographical Information System ‘ArcGIS 10’ in combination with photos from the individual sites. The results of the calculation are described in detail in paper III. Shape & Size

As the cases in this study are rather small (< 5000 m2), the size and shape is of great importance for the experience of the areas (Forsyth & Musacchio, 2005). Berggren-Bärring & Grahn (1995) indicate that the ratio between circumference length and area size, of especially smaller parks is of importance. When the shape becomes too elongated or scattered (see figure 22), the experience and use declines dramatically (Berggren-Bärring & Grahn, 1995). However, others suggest how linear parks may also promote social integration among people (Forsyth & Musacchio, 2005; Whyte, 1980). The area and the shape of the areas were defined as the total area and the circumference of each pocket park. ‘ArcGIS 10’ was used to obtain this information. The compactness of the shape of each pocket park was calculated as the ratio of the area of the pocket park to the area of a circle (the most compact shape) with the same circumference, and is represented by a number between 0 and 1, the closer to 1 the more compact the shape of the pocket park. In city planning however, a circular space is rarely seen, and therefore a square area is considered the most coherent type of space in this study.

Figure 20. The different shapes of an environment , going from linear/oblong (A) to scattered (B) to more compact but still somewhat scattered (C) to compact (D). The figure is adapted from (Berggren-Bärring & Grahn, 1995)

41

Identifying specific features

In order to describe the specific features of the pocket parks, the Environmental Assessment of Public Recreation Spaces tool (EAPRS) has been used (Saelens, Frank, Auffrey, Whitaker, & Burdette, 2009). A number of other tools have also been developed with the purpose of identifying features of UGS (Moudon & Lee, 2003), but the EAPRS tool has been validated in previous studies (Kaczynski et al., 2008; Schipperijn et al., 2013) and was therefore chosen for this study. The version of the EAPRS tool used for this study is based on the study by Schipperijn (2010). But as in previous studies using the EAPRS tool (Kaczynski et al., 2008; Saelens et al., 2009), the study by Schipperijn also focused primarily on larger UGS. Therefore, the tool was evaluated and further adapted for use in the pocket parks included in this thesis.

42

Figure 21. Flowchart showing the adaption process of the EARPS tool to pocket parks Noise

Although landscape architects typically cannot change external influences, such as noise, they should still be taken into consideration in the design process. A number of studies indicate that noise has an influence on the perception of an urban space (e.g. Kang & Zhang, 2010; Raimbault et al., 2003). As previously mentioned, natural sounds are the most preferred (Yu & Kang, 2010; Yang & Kang, 2005; e.g.Watts G.R et al., 2011; Alvarsson et al., 2010). However, noise levels exceeding 65-70 dB annoy people regardless of what the sound is (Zhang and Kang 2007). 43

The noise levels were measured twice during each data collection period. Each measuring period had a duration of 10 minutes. A Casella CEL-24X noise level meter (model CEL-242) was used. The measuring range was 30-100 dB, and sampling was performed at one second intervals. All noise levels were imported into Microsoft Office Excel 2003. In addition to each measurement, the type of sounds were identified by the researcher, e.g. traffic, people, children, kindergarten and birds. Natural experiment The methodological approach was a longitudinal single case study where the same single case (Dantes Plads) was investigated at two different time periods (Yin, 2009). This case was one of the nine cases included in the multiple case study. However, as this case was about to undergo a redesign, it was a unique opportunity to conduct a natural experiment on this specific site. The data collected on this site in 2010 was included as baseline data in this longitudinal study. Due to time constraints, peak periods were calculated for baseline responses and these periods defined the data collection periods in 2012. The following questions were added to the 2012 questionnaire: Did you use this area before the change? If yes, what did you use it for?

44

Figure 22. Illustration of Dantes Plads before the change (Karin Peschardt)

Figure 23 and 24. Photos of Dantes Plads before the change (Karin Peschardt)

45

Figure 25. Illustration of Dantes Plads after the change. (Karin Peschardt, Adapted from GHB Landscape Architects) (Dantes Plads - GHB Landscape Architects, 2012)

Figures 26 and 27. Pictures from Dantes Plads after the change (Karin Peschardt)

46

Semi-structured interviews All respondents who answered that they had used the area before the change were asked to participate in a semi-structured interview consisting of questions on their experience of the area before and after the change. In total, six interviews were conducted. The semi-structured interview allowed the interview questions posed by the interviewer to differ slightly from the interview guide if something relevant was said by the interviewee (Bryman, 2008). The semi-structured interviews of the park users are used to illustrate findings from the questionnaire (Bryman 2009, p. 613). Furthermore, the semi-structured interviews provide valuable additional information on the design and appearance of the restorative characteristics which complete the questions from the questionnaire and give a first-hand description that can be useful for explaining the findings to practitioners (Bryman, 2008). The questions asked were: ‘Do you use Dantes Plads differently today than before the change?’(Q1), ‘Do you realize changes have been made in this area?’(Q2), ‘Are there any specific features about the new design of Dantes Plads that you notice?’(Q3), ‘How do these changes influence your experience of Dantes Plads?’(Q4), ‘What parts of Dantes Plads suit your needs the most?’(Q5), ‘Are there any special reasons that you visit Dantes Plads?’(Q6), ‘Does the big road next to the park influence your experience of Dantes Plads?’(Q7) and ‘What influence did the road have on your experience before the change?’(Q8). Data analyses The questionnaire data were processed and analysed in IBM SPSS versions 18, 19, 20 and 21. The analyses conducted for paper I were frequency analyses and logistic regression analyses. For the logistic regression analysis, post-hoc Hosmer and Lemeshow ‘goodness of fit’ tests were carried out (for a detailed description, see paper I). For paper II, a post hoc Duncan method was used to evaluate the PRS scores for each case, and a linear regression analysis was conducted to test the association between the PSDs and the perceived restorativeness of the area according to the average and 25% most stressed users. In order to test whether the B-values were significantly different, a two sample z-test was performed. When subset of alpha is 0.05, the z-score is +/- 1.96 (Agresti & Finlay, 1997). To test the suitability of the PSDs for the further analysis, a cross tabulation was conducted on the PSD scores in relation to each pocket park, and a factor analysis was conducted to reduce the PRS items into the four ART components (for a detailed description of the analysis see paper II). The data analysis for paper III included Pearson Correlations (PC), as well as a cluster analysis using Wards Method which is a hierarchical cluster algorithm (Agresti & Finlay, 1997). 47

The significance level of the analysis was set to the 0.05 level (for a more detailed description see paper III). For paper IV, a frequency analysis was conducted to identify the demographic background of the respondents before and after the redesign, while all interviews were transcribed and analysed with a focus on the themes addressed in the interviews about use, as well as perception of the design before and after the change (for further descriptions see paper IV).

48

Summary of results The users of the Pocket Parks A total of 10,654 people were observed in the study, and of these, 3,572 people were potential respondents, not including people who were passing through, running or cycling. Of the 1,157 approached individuals, 686 answered the questionnaire, which gave a response rate of 59.3%. The registrations made during the data collection showed that slightly more women (53.2%) than men (46.8%) used the areas.

Total population (15-100 years)

Case areas (%)

Copenhagen & Frederiksberg (%)

n = 686

n = 350,922

48.4

46.4

89.2

80.2

Gender Male (15-100) Nationality Danish

(15-69 years)

Education < 10 years

9.6

10.8

10-15 years

33.1

27.8

>15 years

52.3

28.3

15-29

28.3

27.6

30-49

48.1

33.8

50-65

16.1

13.9

66-100

7.5

11.2

Age

Table 2 the demographic background of respondents compared to the population of Copenhagen and Frederiksberg 0107-10 (Danmarks Statistik, 2012)

In general, the gender and nationality of the respondents reflect the general population well as shown in table 2, where the demographic background of the respondents is presented in relation to the demographic background of the population of Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, the two municipalities within the study area (Danmarks Statistik, 2012; Københavns Kommune, 2011). However, well-educated respondents and respondents aged between 30- 49 seem to be overrepresented in this study.

49

General use of Pocket Parks As seen in table 3, the pocket parks are primarily used for ‘socialising’ and ‘rest and restitution’. The activity ‘other purposes’ relates to (e.g. smoking, reading, photography, talking on the phone or geocaching). More than half of the respondents walk to the pocket parks and 21.7% come by bike. Most respondents visit the pocket parks in the afternoon, although late mornings/midday are also preferred and the visits last for approximately 15-60 minutes for the majority of respondents. The time people spend in the pocket parks differs according to activity. Looking at the time spent in the pocket parks, 89.9% of the people who ‘socialise’ spend approximately 30 – 120 minutes, while 65.3% of the respondents who use the pocket parks for ‘rest and restitution’ spend approximately 15 - 30 minutes. Why did you come here? (%)

Socialising

30.6 %

Passage

16.3 %

Walk the dog

5.5 %

Rest & Restitution

31.2 %

Play

16.9 %

Food / drinks

9.5 %

Other

9.6 %

Table 3 the percentage of visitors that came for a certain purpose

The results show that frequency of use is related to distance travelled (see table 4). Those travelling 0-300 metres are five times more likely to visit a pocket park once a week than those travelling 2,000 metres or more. The same pattern is seen for frequency of use and distance living from the pocket parks. Respondents living within a distance of 500 metres are twice as likely to visit the pocket parks at least once a week as those living further away. However, relatively many respondents travel more than 2,000 metres to visit the pocket parks (32.1%), and more than half of the respondents travel more than 500 metres to the pocket parks. More than half of the respondents live more than 1,000 metres away, and only 19.0 % of the respondents live within 300 metres from the pocket parks. Only 21.9 % of respondents have access to a private garden, and 82.2 % also visit other green areas frequently (several times a month or more).

50

How often do you visit this place during the summer months? Combined factors 95% C.I.for EXP(B) Background

Sig.

OR

Lower

Upper

How far have you travelled to get

0-300

158 64.2%

0.00

5.05

2.50

10.22

here?

300-500

79

44.0%

0.04

2.54

1.06

6.04

500-1000

92

32.1%

0.08

2.14

0.92

4.97

1000-2000

79

27.1%

0.01

2.33

1.20

4.53

more

193 17.3%

0.00

1.00

How far from here do you think you 0-300

114 70.6%

0.01

2.59

1.27

5.27

live?

300-500

84

46.2%

0.05

2.20

1.00

4.85

500-1000

88

33.7%

0.71

1.15

0.54

2.49

over 1000

315 23.9%

0.02

1.00

15-29

168 26.9%

0.02

1.00

30-49

292 38.0%

0.01

1.92

1.15

3.20

50-65

99

50.0%

0.00

2.49

1.34

4.62

66 -100

42

34.7%

0.09

2.09

0.89

4.88

< 10 år

53

54.5%

0.00

3.42

1.69

6.91

10 - 15 år

210 32.6%

0.72

1.08

0.70

1.68

> 15 år

338 35.7%

0.00

1.00

Socialising

151 28.1%

0.49

1.00

1.00

1.01

Rest and

129 39.7%

0.20

1.00

0.99

1.00

Age

Education

Purpose of visit

N

Crude %

restitution Table 4 Logistic regression analysis of demographic factors, purpose of visit as well as distance travelled and distance from home as predictors for using pocket parks at least once a week. The regression analysis has been controlled for gender, civil status and nationality.

Demographic factors associated with use of Pocket Parks Age is associated with the frequency of use of pocket parks (see table 4); older respondents visit the pocket parks more frequently than younger respondents. Furthermore, respondents with less than 10 years of education are more likely to visit the pocket parks at least once a week than those with more than 15 years of education. For the use ‘rest and restitution,’ the 50 – 60 year old respondents are more than twice as likely to visit the pocket parks as the 15 – 29 year olds. Additionally, women are less likely to visit the pocket parks than men for ‘rest and restitution,’ whereas the opposite 51

pattern is seen for ‘socialising’. There is a pattern in that the older people are, the less likely they are to use the pocket parks for ‘socialising’. Nationality and civil status do not seem to predict the use of pocket parks. The context of use of the Pocket Parks Different patterns are seen in the relationship between reason for use and the context of use of the pocket parks. For ‘socialising’, the pocket parks are primarily visited from A (not including home) and on the way home (28.9 %) or coming from home and going home (25.4 %). In relation to rest and restitution the primary visits take place on the way home (27.5%) or ‘en route’ (from A to B) (25.8%). As expected, the shorter distances travelled to the pocket parks are related to ‘coming from home and going home’ or ‘coming from A and going home’ and the longer distances are related to ‘en route’. However, as also seen in table 5 quite a few respondents have travelled ‘1,000 – 2,000 metres’ (24.7%) or ‘more’ (26.0%) when ‘coming from A and going home’.

Coming from home and Coming from A Coming from home En route going home and going home and going to B

Coming from A going to A (work, school)

Why did you come here? Socialising

25.4%

28.9%

17.8%

19.3%

8.6%

Passage

11.1%

14.8%

24.7%

35.8%

13.6%

Walk the dog

49.0%

26.5%

14.3%

6.1%

4.1%

Rest and restitution

19.7%

27.5%

16.3%

25.8%

10.7%

Play

24.5%

28.7%

22.4%

13.3%

11.2%

Food

25.5%

21.3%

12.8%

34.0%

6.4%

Other

14.5%

25.5%

20.0%

23.6%

16.4%

How far have you travelled to get here? 0 - 300 m

30.5%

26.4%

16.1%

16.1%

10.9%

300 - 500 m

32.9%

26.0%

20.5%

15.1%

5.5%

500 - 1000 m

24.8%

27.5%

20.2%

14.7%

12.8%

1000 - 2000 m

13.6%

24.7%

19.8%

30.9%

11.1%

More

11.6%

26.0%

19.2%

32.2%

11.0%

Dont know

4.8%

28.6%

9.5%

33.3%

23.8%

Table 5 showing the percent of visitors that came for a certain purpose, from a certain distance, grouped by the context of their visit. (A and B does not include home)

The restorative potential of the nine different Pocket Parks The average score of the PRS-components compatibility, coherence, being away, fascination and preference shows that the pocket parks, Rosenhaven and Gråbrødre Torv, have the highest scores for all components. The two pocket parks have a very contrasting physical appearance and their 52

high restorative potential may therefore support previous findings which suggest that different scene types can have different restorative values.

Figure 28. Gråbrødre Torv, a ‘grey’ area with a high average score on the PRS-scale. (Karin Peschardt) Figure 29. Rosenhaven, a ‘green’ area with a high average score on the PRS-scale. (Karin Peschardt)

Figure 30. Tove Ditlevsens Plads, an area with a low average score on the PRS-scale. (Karin Peschardt) Figure 31. Scandic, an area with a low average score on the PRS-scale. (Karin Peschardt)

There is no clear pattern as to which pocket parks have the lowest score on the PRS-components, although Tove Ditlevsens Plads and Scandic scored among the lowest for all components (see table 4 in paper II). The health potential of Pocket Parks in relation to self-perceived levels of stress When looking at the association between the PSDs and the user-reported average level of stress, a number of the PSDs were significantly associated with all ART components.

53

The results of the study show that ‘serene’ and ‘social’ were the two primary characteristics predicting the perceived restorativeness of the pocket parks for all of the ART components, which means that the individuals first and foremost expected to find silent and calm surroundings (‘serene’) and room for social interaction (‘social’). When testing if the association between the PSDs and the user-perceived restorativeness differed between the 25% most stressed users of pocket parks and the 75 % remaining users, the PSD ‘nature’ was significantly associated with the component ‘being away,’ which indicates that the most stressed users might get a stronger feeling of being distant from everyday pressure and obligations if nature is present in pocket parks. In addition to this, ‘space’, ‘nature’, ‘refuge’ and ‘social’ were significantly associated with the component preference, which means that stressed individuals prefer environments with a stronger presence of these characteristics in particular. Features related to the primary reasons for use: Socialising and Rest & Restitution The results of paper III showed that ‘paved trail’, ‘table’, ‘other seating than benches’ and ‘café’ were positively correlated whereas ‘green ground cover, ‘eye-level greenery’, ‘unpaved trail’ and ‘flowerbeds and special shrubs’ were negatively correlated with the activity ‘socialising’. The significant relationship between café’, ‘tables’ and ‘paved trails’ and ‘socialising’ could indicate that it makes the pocket parks easily accessible and provides opportunities for gathering. Furthermore, the presense of a playground may also support ‘socialising’. For ‘rest and restitution,’ ‘green ground cover’ is positively correlated. Additionally, further qualitative intrepretations point towards the importance of ‘eye-level greenery’ as this is present in many pocket parks with a high number of users using the areas for ‘rest and restitution’. ‘Noise level’, ‘tables’, ‘view outside the park’ as well as ‘playground’ are negatively correlated to ‘rest and restitution’ which indicates that disturbing features should be avoided.

54

Figure 32. Avoid views to the outside of the park and prevent noise when designing a pocket park for ‘rest and restitution’

Use and subjective perception of Dantes Plads The results from the natural experiment show that Dantes Plads is primarily used for ‘rest and restitution’ before (35%) and after (40%). In general, all interviewees were positive about the new design of the area, whereas the perception of the area before the change could be characterized as split. One respondent for instance mentioned: ‘It was nice, but in a completely different way which cannot be compared’. And another: ‘…before it was just a flat piece of ground…it was designed to be some kind of parking area…’ In the new design the variation in terrain and the materials used catch the users’ interest. The planting (trees, and herbaceous planting) create variation in the area and provide shade when needed. One subject mentioned: ‘The raised terrain…that’s very characteristic for this little pocket park. The tile surface is also new and the planting…the planting is definitely defining the space and you can sit in different places and see different things’. Furthermore, sun, shade and the experience of light has a positive influence on the users: ‘I think it was nice before but judged on the light I think this is better’. and‘…you can sit where the trees create shadow and shelter but also if you want sun you can sit where the sun is shining upon you’. Noise levels seem to be differently perceived as some accept noise from heavy traffic: ‘…Sometimes it can have an almost calming effect that there is traffic with a monotonous noise level repeating itself. Then I know it is there and then I can more easily exclude it, whereas if I hear only a few cars then it would be more difficult to exclude them’. On the contrary, some find it very 55

disturbing: ‘…The road is disturbing, that’s the only thing that’s a shame, I would have taken all the cars away’. Benches and visual angles must not face disturbing surroundings, one respondent mentioned: ‘….the benches have been moved into the space and then you get a little further away from the road….’. Finally, the proximity to work also seems to have a positive influence first of all because many people pass Dantes Plads and the companies are thereby exposed to people: ‘it also means a lot to us as a company…it means that we chose this situation for our company…we get more exposed to the passing traffic’ and second because the employees use Dantes Plads during breaks: ‘Now I can sit out here quietly and peacefully and just get five minutes break before I have to go up again, right’.

56

Discussion Discussion of results In the following, I discuss the results of the study in relation to the six main research questions. The users and their use of the pocket parks The respondents

As shown in the results section, 686 respondents completed the questionnaire. Overall, the respondents reflect the general population of the two municipalities well, which suggests that pocket parks are used by a broad user group including men and women of all age groups and education levels. However, the number of well-educated respondents included in this study compared to the general population of the two municipalities was higher, which has also been found in previous studies where a higher education level is significantly related to increased use of UGS (Yilmaz, Zengin, & Yildiz, 2007; Schipperijn et al., 2010). Previous studies have also found that the age group 36 – 50 years use urban green spaces the most (Genc, Gul, Atken, & Kucuk, 2000 in; ;Yilmaz et al., 2007), which supports the high number of respondents aged 30 – 49 years. The registrations made during the data collection showed that women use the pocket parks more than men. Many respondents seem to walk or travel to the pocket parks by bike, which may indicate the value of pocket parks in close relation to the places people move about in the city (e.g. work, home other business in the city). The reasons for use

As expected, a high number of users visited the pocket parks for ‘socialising’ and ‘rest and restitution,’ which is in line with previous research on use of other UGS (e.g. Nilsson et al., 2011; Schipperijn et al., 2010; Stigsdotter et al., 2010; Gehl, 2010). The fact that ‘rest and restitution’ was a preferred type of use supports earlier findings on the likelihood of restoration in pocket parks as found by Nordh et al. (2010). Furthermore, the high number of people visiting pocket parks for the purpose of ‘socialising’ confirms the importance of pocket parks in relation to social interaction. There are various other studies which suggest that nature may promote social contact (e.g. Maas et al., 2009; Coley et al., 1997; Kaplan, 2004), but the hypothesis has not received much attention in the literature (Konijnendijk et al., 2012) especially in relation to pocket parks.

57

The time spent in the pocket parks was shorter when people used the areas for ‘rest and restitution’ compared to when they used the areas for ‘socialising’. One reason for this may be that socialising involves interacting and conversing with others, which is more time consuming than ‘rest and restitution’ because of the solitary nature of the latter. Furthermore, the time spent and the reason for use may also be related to the context of use. The results showed that the majority of the respondents who used the pocket parks for ‘rest and restitution’ where ‘coming from A and going home’ or ‘en route’ (from A to B), which may indicate that people need a short break when moving around the city. And for this purpose they may choose a pocket park. This finding is also in line with the theories on the relationship between psychological restoration and mental well-being, which suggest that people need a break from disturbing influences from, e.g. urban environments (Ulrich et al., 1991; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Compensation behaviour

A large proportion of respondents (80%) reported that they did not have access to a private garden while more than 80% of the respondents also said that they used other UGS frequently. First of all, this may indicate that people prioritize the use of pocket parks when moving around the city. However, it might also be explained by compensation behaviour due to a lack of green space near to their homes (e.g. private garden), indicating that people use public parks when they need access to green spaces for different purposes. This may, for instance, be to ‘walk their dog’ which was mainly related to ‘coming from home and going home’ or to visit a playground, which most users did either when coming from home or when going home from somewhere else (e.g. kindergarten). Nevertheless, earlier studies have found that people do not seem to compensate for a lack of green space in their local surroundings (Maat & de Vries, 2006; Ottosson & Grahn, 1998). This might not apply to pocket parks and may therefore be an interesting issue for future studies on the use of pocket parks.  Factors influencing the use of pocket parks Age, education, gender

Older respondents visit pocket parks more frequently than younger respondents. Furthermore, older people seem to visit the pocket parks more for ‘rest and restitution’ than for social purposes. There is no obvious explanation for this, although younger people may tend to use pocket parks more for social purposes. The fact that women are less likely to visit pocket parks for ‘rest and restitution’ may be related to time issues. First of all, women often feel that they are ‘too busy’ to go outdoors 58

(Lottrup, Stigsdotter, Meilby, & Corazon, 2012; Hitchings, 2010). And second women report higher stress-levels than men (Stigsdotter et al., 2010), and younger women with children, in particular, report high stress levels (Stigsdotter & Grahn, 2011; Nielsen, Curtis, Kristensen, & Rod Nielsen, 2008) so they may not feel like they have the time to visit pocket parks for ‘rest and restitution’. Yilmaz et al (2007) suggest that women often visit parks at weekends and while on vacation together with their children, so their use may be more socially related, which may then explain the higher number of women who use the pocket parks for ‘socialising’. The fact that fewer people with more than 15 years of education use the pocket parks at least once a week compared to those with less than 10 years of education contradicts previous findings on the use of UGS in Denmark (Schipperijn, 2010). Furthermore, this finding is unexpected as the registrations showed that the number of well-educated respondents included in the study was higher than the general population. Distance to pocket parks in relation to frequency of use

In line with previous studies on other UGS (Schipperijn, 2010; Nielsen & Hansen, 2007; Stigsdotter et al., 2010; Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2003), shorter distances were related to an increased frequency of use. This pattern was seen for both distance travelled to the pocket parks as well as for distance living from the pocket parks. However, quite a few users travelled more than 2,000 metres and lived more than 1,000 metres away, which may be explained by the context of use (‘en route’, ‘coming from home’ or ‘going home’). This could also indicate that having pocket parks in proximity to work, or other destinations in the city is of value for those who move around the city every day. The fact that shorter visits were related to ‘rest and restitution,’ and that pocket parks were primarily visited for this purpose on the way home or on the way from A to B, could indicate that people often visit the pocket parks for this purpose alone, and that they were in need of short breaks from their work, or other business in the city. How do the users assess the restorative potential of pocket parks?

The ‘greenest’ and the ‘greyest’ pocket parks were the most restorative areas in this study, which indicates that a high level of greenery is not crucial for a restorative experience in pocket parks. Although other research indicates the restorative potential of green space (e.g. Stigsdotter et al., 2010; van den Berg et al., 2010; Coombes et al., 2010; Kaplan, 1995), other issues may also be important regarding the restorative potential of an environment.

59

Studies (e.g. Scopelliti & Giuliani, 2004) indicate that both built and natural environments, as well as mixed natural and built environments, may have restorative potential due to a high correlation between restorativeness and preference for a certain environment (Tenngart Ivarsson & Hagerhall, 2008). As the spatial arrangement of UGS varies according to size, extent of greenery, form and content (Rogers, 2005), individuals may perceive and use places differently depending on its appearance (Gehl, 2003; Francis, 2003; Forsyth & Musacchio, 2005). Memories, thoughts, values and preferences may be incorporated cognitively into people’s conception of a place (Scannell & Gifford, 2010; Proshansky, 1978). Furthermore, people may feel more attached to the type of environment they grew up in (Adevi & Grahn, 2011), something which, unfortunately, was not investigated in this study. For instance, city dwellers may perceive themselves as ‘city people’ and may therefore have a preference for urban settings (Wilkie & Stavridou, 2013), which in turn may enhance their possibility to restore in an urban environment. According to Scopelliti & Giuliani (2004), the ART component which is most important for a restorative experience is compatibility, which means that the environment is compatible with what people expect to find (Scopelliti & Giuliani, 2004). The high restorative value of Gråbrødre Torv might therefore be explained by the fact that it attracts urban dwellers who identify themselves with the city, so Gråbrødre Torv provides an experience that is compatible with what they expect to find in a place for social interaction, relaxation or excitement. Gråbrødre Torv is a historical area located in proximity to many people who move around the city every day. ‘Location and proximity’ is one of three categories of spatial sensations described by Thwaites et al. (2005). They suggest that for a spatial arrangement to create a restorative experience it must: ‘induce reflective contemplative sensations; combine mental and physical worlds; allow the mind to wander; stimulate wonderment; and be compatible with expectations’ (Thwaites et al., 2005 p. 545). This may also explain why some of the greener areas had a low score on the PRS scale, and why some of the less green areas had a high score. Based on the results from this study, less green areas may be seen as potential health promoters in the UGI. However, other studies indicate that the presence of greenery may stimulate social contact (Maas et al., 2009) and improve mood and cognition (van den Berg, Hartig, & Staats, 2007; van den Berg, Koole, & van der Wulp, 2003; van Dillen, de Vries, Groenewegen, & Spreeuwenberg, 2011; Berman et al., 2012).

60

The association between nature characteristics (PSDs) and average and stressed users’ perceived restorativeness

In this thesis, I have made an initial attempt to relate the perceived sensory dimensions (PSDs) to the perceived restorativeness scale (PRS) to try to understand which physical components of an environment support restoration. In line with previous research (Stigsdotter & Grahn, 2011; Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010), the PSD ‘serene’ was one of the most preferred characteristics of a restorative environment. Furthermore, ‘nature’ was also preferred by the group of most stressed users. However, in contrast to previous studies which find that ‘social’ is negatively associated with stress reduction (Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010), ‘social’ was equally preferred as ‘serene’ in this study. The size of the pocket parks differs from the previous studies of the PSDs, and the urban context may, therefore, be more dominant when visiting a pocket park, which in turn may cause a variation in the way people perceive and use the areas. As social interaction has been shown to be of crucial importance for city dwellers (Maas et al., 2009; Gehl, 2003; Thompson, 2002), the use of pocket parks may be more spontaneous than larger UGS for this specific purpose, which in turn may explain the high ranking of the PSD ‘social’ in relation to peoples’ perceived restorativeness. A central finding of this study is that ‘social’ seems to be directly related to the perceived restorativeness of pocket parks, thus underscoring the presence of the need for social interaction in relation to the health outcome of pocket parks. Features of Pocket Parks related to the preferred types of use Socialising

The specific content that was associated with ‘socialising’ in this study, café, tables, seating, paved trails, playground, is not unexpected. The variables describing the PSD ‘social’ (page 39) and the features which are significantly correlated to socialising found in this study are very similar. The need for places where people can gather (tables, benches), amuse themselves (playground, café), which are easily accessible (paved trails) (Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010; Gehl, 2003) may be one way to describe these positive relationships. ‘Socialising’ in the included pocket parks is therefore defined by non-physically active social interaction (talking, sitting with friends, etc.), which could explain the presence of both ‘social’ and ‘serene’ at the same time in study II. However, the opposing relationship between features supporting ‘socialising’ and ‘rest and restitution’ may indicate that pocket parks cannot always support both uses simultaneously and planners should therefore consider what main purpose the park should be designed for.

61

Rest and Restitution

With regards to ‘rest and restitution,’ the results show that ‘green ground cover’ and ‘eye-level greenery’ were preferred, as also found in previous research (e.g. Nordh et al., 2009; Nordh, 2010; Nordh & Østby, 2013; Stigsdotter & Grahn, 2003a). The presence of ‘eye-level greenery’ and providing ‘enclosed niches’ may support the ability to escape from the city pulse which fits well with the ART and the Prospect/refuge theories which describe how people need places that provide them with a feeling of being away (Kaplan, 1995) and the possibility to hide (Appleton, 1975). These theories also describe how disturbance from the outside is a threat towards the possibility for restoration (Appleton, 1975; Kaplan, 1995), which is supported by the findings in this study and a study by Nordh et al. (2013) suggesting that disturbing features (high noise levels, view outside park) should be avoided. The features supporting ‘rest and restitution’ may also be supported by the results of study II where ‘serene’ was found to be one of the most preferred characteristics in pocket parks. The variables describing ‘serene’ were: ‘silent and calm surroundings’, ‘no traffic noise’ and ‘feeling of safety’ (Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010). Those variables are similar to the features that were positively correlated with ‘rest and restitution’ in this study. Watts et al. (2011) reported that finding acceptable noise levels was not possible in areas smaller than 1 hectare due to high traffic noise. However, they also suggested that increasing the amount of natural features as well as using water features could dampen the disturbing noises. Psychoevolutionary theory (Ulrich et al., 1991) states that there has to be an absense of disturbing features such as high noise levels before humans can relax and recover. This seems to be supported by the findings of this study indicating that acceptable noise levels are essential for the possibility of ‘rest and restitution’. The fact that features such as ‘tables’ and ‘playgrounds’ were negatively correlated to ‘rest and restitution’ seems to contradict the findings from study II which suggest that the PSD ‘social’ was higly preferred in relation to restoration in pocket parks. One reason may be that the respondents are divided into two groups in study III, and the findings were more specifically related to the two types of use, whereas study II combined all the PRS evaluations in one group, thereby not distinguishing between the PRS evaluations of those using the pocket parks for ‘socialising’ and those using the pocket parks for ‘rest and restitution’. This furthermore may indicate that some users connect a restorative experience with social interactions, whereas others prefer the avoidance of disturbing features when in need of restoration. 62

Other features may also promote or prevent ‘socialising’ and ‘rest and resitution’. Nevertheless, because of the limited size of the pocket parks, and due to the fact that some features were only present in one or all cases, features that potentially could be related could not be studied. Other research for instance indicates the positive influence of water on the perception and experience of a pocket park (e.g. Nordh & Østby, 2013; Laumann, Gärling, & Stormark, 2001; White et al., 2010; Völker & Kistemann, 2013; Völker & Kistemann, 2011). Although water was not found to be one of the most important features for restoration in pocket parks by Nordh (2010), it could be interesting to investigate in future studies along with the influence of other features such as flowers, lights, sculptures, etc. The users’ subjective perception of a pocket park before and after a redesign

The interviewees included in the longitudinal study were all using the area for ‘rest and restitution.’ Therefore, the conclusions drawn from this study only add to the results found in study III on the features which support ‘rest and restitution’. First of all, benches and views should preferably avoid facing disturbing surroundings, which also supports the theories suggesting how people need distance from disturbance. Furthermore, the interviewees had a preference for plants, sun-light, shade and lights. The preference for especially sun and plants is in accordance with a previous definition of a well-designed outdoor space by Gehl (2010), who suggested that sun-light, grass, water and trees is important. A few of the respondents mentioned that the terrain did catch their interest which could indicate some sort of fascination of the new design as described in the attention restoration theory (Kaplan, 1995). Curiously, the most preferred use of Dantes Plads was ‘rest and restitution’. This is despite the fact that the area is quite exposed to traffic noise and the surroundings, which seems to contradict the theories which suggest that enclosure and screening as well as distance to disturbing factors is necessary in order to recover from mental fatigue (Appleton, 1975; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). However, the area does not offer many opportunities for engaging in activities other than ‘rest and restitution.’ In general, the study supports the previous findings indicating a preference for greenery and views away from disturbing surroundings. But the positive relationship between the subject and the environment may also encourage a positive perception of a space. This may, for instance, explain why some of the subjects interviewed were not disturbed by the heavy traffic passing the area. The findings from this study underline the importance of the EBHD approach where practitioners’ expertise, client attributes and best research evidence should all be equally combined in order to achieve the best results when designing health promoting spaces for people. 63

Perspectives to the discussion Recent research reports the health benefits of nature and stresses that it is important that UGS are located in close proximity to our homes and our daily movements around the city (Schipperijn et al., 2010; Stigsdotter et al., 2010). Nature can prevent healthy people from becoming stressed or suffering from other lifestyle diseases (Nilsson et al., 2011) by supporting health promoting types of use such as ‘socialising’ and ‘rest and restitution’, as found in this study. However, a UGS is not by definition health promoting. If knowledge about health promoting characteristics is lacking, there is a risk that future planning and design processes may not take advantage of the health promoting potential of UGS. One way to prevent this from happening is to base future projects on facts rather than beliefs (Brown & Corry, 2011). As also found in this study, the presence of specific features may contribute to health promotion, while the feeling of belonging to a certain space may also influence the way people use and perceive such areas. As a landscape architect and a researcher, I am convinced that integrating EBHD into future city planning processes is essential in order to create liveable cities that contribute to improved human health by enhancing social, mental and physical activities. However, achieving human oriented design also requires an understanding of the expectations, needs and wishes of the users, which emphasizes that the three components mentioned in the EBHD process should be equally prioritized. As this study finds that the users use pocket parks as a part of their daily movement in the urban space, while the parks support the users by giving them health promoting experiences in relation to home, work or other business in the city, this study suggests that pocket parks should not be seen as discrete open spaces providing the users with isolated experiences. It is important to bear in mind that there are limitations to what people can extract from pocket parks, which means that all types of spaces, and the links between them, should constitute an interwoven holistic network of UGS that can contribute to improving health by providing city inhabitants with different health promoting experiences. Critical voices on today’s urban development state that there is an imbalance where form based solutions are placed before social benefits (Thwaites et al., 2013). In his book Biophilic Cities (2011), Beatley underlines the importance of the role of nature in urban design – especially based on the recent research which documents that exposure to nature brings health benefits. While Thwaites et al. (2013) are concerned about the lack of focus on human oriented design, Beatley suggests that especially planners and policymakers have lagged behind when thinking about city planning, whereas architects and designers have begun to prioritize nature in their work (Beatley, 2011). 64

From research to practice Considerations for future planning and design processes of health promoting pocket parks

Most landscape architects have a creative approach to design processes and do not have a tradition for reading articles on the latest research prior to new design proposals. Therefore, an aim of this research is to transfer the results into practical guidelines for the design of pocket parks. A number of studies have attempted to do just that (e.g. in Marcus & Sachs, 2014). However, a number of challenges make the transferral of research into practice more difficult, e.g. professionals of practice may lack awareness about their role in research applications, or the difficulties of translating research evidence into practical guidelines due to character of the research (Van Herzele, Bell, Hartig, Podesta, & van Zon, 2011). The aim of landscape architectural research is to learn more about the way people interact with their surroundings and why some parks and places work better than others, which is really the concept of EBHD. However, translating theory into practical guidelines is difficult, and like many others, I experienced that was not as easy as I had expected. In her dissertation, Nordh (2010) suggested that knowledge on structural levels such as the meaning of enclosure or openness, may provide a framework of tools to be used by individual designers. Although research on pocket parks is very limited, cities such as London, Copenhagen and New York have started to realize that pocket parks can contribute to making the cities greener thereby improve the health of their inhabitants and projects on increasing the provision of pocket parks have been launched (DAC&CITIES, 2014; London.gov.uk, 2014; City of Copenhagen, 2013). In her forthcoming book based on three years’ research on pocket parks in New York, Rosemary O’Brien presents the best pocket parks in New York based on criteria that makes them special such as seating, greenery, waterfalls and art (O´Brien, 2014). In future research and planning of pocket parks, we need to take advantage of the experience of such projects that can add valuable knowledge, which does not only have a health promoting perspective, for use in the future design of pocket parks. The following leaflet is a summary of the main results of this thesis and the results from Norway (Nordh et al., 2009; Nordh, 2010; Nordh & Østby, 2013). The leaflet should be seen as an attempt to list some overall considerations for researchers and practitioners to reflect upon in future research, design and planning processes of health promoting pocket parks. It is important to be aware of the fact that the conclusions are only based on two existing research projects on health promoting pocket parks. 65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

Methodological and theoretical discussion The case study approach

Nine pocket parks in Copenhagen were included in this study all representing a variety of the cases considered suitable. The pocket parks included constituted an example of the pocket parks in Copenhagen and was investigated on-site which is considered a strength of this study. Furthermore, the multiple case study approach adopted here means that the evidence extracted is more compelling than if derived from a single case study (Yin, 2009). The decision to exclude the sub group ‘sports area’ may be criticised as it reduces the variation. Initially, the reason for the exclusion was that considerable research already points towards the benefits of UGS for physical activity and that the suitability for physical activity in pocket parks which are not specifically designed for this purpose is very limited due to their limited size. Therefore, we decided to focus on the more passive activities assumed to take place in pocket parks. Pocket parks specifically designed for physical activity are very different from the studied parks and their use is very specifically determined. However, in retrospect, it might have been relevant to include such areas as physical activity in pocket parks has hardly been investigated and it might have provided new and interesting findings regarding the use of pocket parks. The subgroups were based on the characteristics of the pocket parks in order to achieve variance in the landscape architectural appearance. This may have biased the sampling of the study areas as the categorization could have been based on other themes such as contextual relations or specific use. The natural experiment was a longitudinal study including a case before and after a redesign. The intention was not to draw overall conclusions from this study as this may be related to some weakness due to the limited data extracted (Yin, 2009). Instead, we attempted to identify the users’ perceptions of the redesigned park, which provided useful knowledge on the use and perception of the park, which led to further interpretations of the results from the multiple case studies. One could argue that ‘in-depth interviews’ or ‘focus group interviews’ should have been conducted as this would have provided more in-depth knowledge. Future studies could include following the ‘new design’ over a longer period of time in order to reduce the ‘novelty’ effect and shed light on a more normalized use. The suitability of Dantes Plads for the longitudinal study may also be questioned. First of all, the inclusion of the parking area as a part of the new design led to an increase in the size of the area that could be used for other purposes than parking, and one might argue that the area before and after was not comparable in this respect. Second, it turned out that the interviewees all used the area for 74

‘rest and restitution,’ which did not allow an evaluation of the subjective perception of features supporting ‘socialising’. It would have been desirable to include more cases in the longitudinal study. One example of such an area to include is Hauser Plads, which is situated in the densest part of the city centre. Hauser Plads was reconstructed in 2011 into a distinct urban space providing a completely different atmosphere to the local area. The ‘wild growing’ plants have been replaced by homogenous vegetation in the form of pine trees. And the feeling of enclosure and privacy has been replaced by exposure and openness to the surroundings.

Figure 33 (left). Hauser Plads, before the change. Figure 34 (right). Hauser Plads, after the change (photos: Karin Peschardt)

Three more areas were rebuilt during the course of this Ph.D. project. However, two were hardly used before the change and were therefore unsuitable for data collection prior to the redesign of the areas, while the third was only finished shortly before the finalization the thesis, which made it impossible to collect data. Another aspect that could be discussed is the generalizability of this study. The study might have profited from a case study conducted in a different country with denser cities where people may perceive or use UGS differently. Furthermore, issues such as cultural differences and different weather conditions may influence user patterns of outdoor spaces. But again this was not possible to investigate due to time and geographical constraints. Generally, the very limited research on pocket parks raises many questions and this was also the case in this study. This required many different methods (questionnaire, registration, analysis), which to a large extent make the analysis stronger. In retrospect, the statistical analysis could have benefited from the inclusion of more cases, hereby 75

providing even stronger statistical analysis which may have identified more interrelations, e.g. between the features and certain types of use. Some of the results from this study may therefore need more evidence in order to confirm their suitability for other geographical locations. However, this should not prevent people from using the results where possible as long as the limitations and weaknesses are taken into consideration. Data collection

Using a multiple methods approach meant that I was able to collect a broad variety of data from which a rich amount of information could be extracted (Yin, 2009). The decision to conduct a case study where data was collected on-site was based on the assumption that there was be no limitation to what the respondents could extract from the area (Karmanov & Hamel, 2008). This was of high value especially in relation to the response to the PRS where engagement in the actual environment, described as extent in the ART theory (Kaplan, 1995) is important in order to achieve a complete restorative experience. In a study conducted by Schroeder (1982), people evaluated preferred features in recreational sites based on photographs. The respondents in this study mentioned that they needed additional information in order to make their final decisions. The most common responses to this were related to the context in which the environments were situated (Schroeder, 1982). A photo represents an interpretation of the area by the photographer and does not include sound, which also seems to influence the perception of a certain environment. Research indicates that the reliability of on-site studies is the same as video or photo studies (Hartig et al., 1997; Nordh, 2010). Other studies have criticized video or photo studies as the observer is passive (Heft, 2010) and cannot obtain more ‘indepth’ information about the environment when it is only visually presented (Gyllin, 2004). Others again have found that a natural environment and a simulation of the same natural environment both provided possibility for stress reduction. However the natural environment provided higher rating of energy and degree of altered states of consciousness compared to a simulated natural environment (Kjellgren & Buhrkall, 2010). Karmanov & Hammel (2008) claim that the physical characteristics of an environment depend on, e.g. time and weather conditions and that this does not necessarily lead to an objective representation of an environment. The methods used to identify the specific park characteristics (PSDs) and the features (EAPRS) of the pocket parks have been developed for larger UGS. Due to the limited size of pocket parks, the number of features in the EAPRS tool was significantly reduced, while the identification of the PSDs also had to be adapted. 76

A strength of this study is the fact that data were collected during approximately 40 hours in each pocket park during different times of the day from May - September, which facilitated the accumulation of detailed information about the use of all the included pocket parks. For future studies, it would be interesting to evaluate the use and perception of pocket parks in the colder months of the year. The long winters with defoliation and low temperatures would probably result in different perceptions and use of the pocket parks. The data collection was performed by one person in order to follow the same sampling method during the period. The availability of more than one researcher might have provided a higher response rate in the most used areas. Data analysis

We focused our analysis on the users and design specific characteristics of the pocket parks, and because few prior studies have been conducted on such parks, this study provides valuable information about pocket parks. In retrospect, information from more cases could have strengthened the results related to the physical characteristics and features supporting the preferred uses. Furthermore, the results of study II might have been more precise if the users were divided into those who used the pocket parks for socialising, and those who used the pocket parks for rest and restitution in an attempt to clarify the contradicting findings of study II and III. However, in study II, all types of users were included, meaning that those who used the pocket parks, e.g. to walk their dogs were also included. And thus the findings from study II include the preference for certain park characteristics in relation to the restorative potential for all types of users. It is important to keep in mind that our results only apply to the pocket parks included in the study. We were careful to include many different parks with different characteristics, but it is a matter of debate as to how generalizable our results are. The statistical analysis was conducted in cooperation with a statistician to ensure accuracy. Theoretical discussion

The theories on which my hypotheses for this study were based all concern the relationship between humans and nature. Throughout the study, the discussion about the size of the areas included seems to have been an issue, because the majority of the existing research on the relationship between human health and nature has been conducted based on larger green areas (e.g. large parks, city forests). But as Kaplan et al. (1998) describe: ‘Even a small space, if it has extent, can constitute a whole different world’ (Kaplan et al., 1998 p. 71). Therefore, I assumed that the theories were applicable to pocket parks as well. Especially the positive results of the users’ evaluation of the 77

perceived restorativeness scale seemed to confirm the suitability of ART in relation to pocket parks. Furthermore, the fact that the users did find opportunities to ‘escape’ from the city pulse into enclosed niches in order to distance themselves from the surroundings also supported the assumed suitability of the included theories. Nevertheless, I think it is very important to be aware of the difference in the experience people get in a small environment, such as a pocket park, compared to an urban forest for instance. Overall, I think that people often have a prejudiced understanding of what experience they can obtain in a certain environment. By this I mean that people do not expect to have a forest-like experience in a pocket park, the characteristics of which are very different to a forest. Furthermore, the context of a pocket park (e.g. traffic, passing people, and buildings in close proximity) has a much greater influence on the experience of the area than in an urban forest. However, people may be aware of the potentially disturbing features of a pocket park. Indeed, the results from this study indicate that visual or physical distance to disturbing features is preferred. As described in the prospect/refuge theory, people need places to escape or hide (Appleton, 1975), which may explain the need for enclosed ‘rooms’ and shielding from disturbing surroundings (referring to ‘view outside the park’) as found in this study. According to psycho-evolutionary theory, humans have adapted to a certain environment as a species (Ulrich et al., 1991). This is furthermore described as natural environments, and I believe that humans do have a fundamental need for exposure to natural environments, hence the theories and existing literature indicating this relation. However, I also think that restorativeness can be achieved in other more urban environments to which people may feel a certain kind of belonging, which has been suggested in a number of studies (e.g. Korpela & Hartig, 1996; Scopelliti & Giuliani, 2004; Tenngart Ivarsson & Hagerhall, 2008). The results of this thesis add to these earlier findings and suggest that restorativeness may be possible as long as the users accept and expect the contextual influence (e.g. noise from nearby roads). Urban areas have been the new habitat for many people through decades, and the health benefits of urban spaces is not only reduced to urban natural settings, but may also be achievable through social interaction, which furthermore may provide restorative benefits (Cattell, Dines, Gesler, & Curtis, 2008). Literature used It is important to mention that landscape architecture research lies in-between research and practical experiences. In parts of the thesis, I therefore found it necessary to use sources of information that were based on non-peer-reviewed publications. As the amount of research on the topic of this thesis is limited, especially in relation to the use of physical elements within the design, I found that 78

experience-based literature with descriptions of design were useful in order to understand the relationship between perception and certain features in urban/natural environments. Overall, experience-based literature could be regarded as ‘valid practical experience’ as mentioned in the triangulation describing the EBHD process. It is of course important to use such sources of information with caution, but if no other clear evidence is available, such literature may be very informative (Viets, 2009).

79

Future research perspectives During this Ph.D. project, I have reached some conclusions that indicate how pocket parks are used and perceived and what specific characteristics and features may support the primary types of use. However, I have also found that more questions have emerged the further I progressed with the study. As mentioned in the discussion, there are a number of aspects that would be interesting for future research. The Users In this study, knowledge on the users of the pocket parks was central in order to understand the role of the pocket parks in the dense city and what type of activity they support. But I also experienced that much information could be extracted on the users specifically, and that many more questions arose when trying to understand their use of the pocket parks. In this present study for instance, there was no contextual analysis of the functions of the surrounding buildings. Such an analysis could be included in future studies as it may improve understanding of the type of users, as well as the number of people using the specific areas. Future studies could also include more research on the users in relation to preferred types of use, e.g. whether the respondents were alone or with others when visiting the pocket parks for certain purposes, and whether the users feel a certain connection or relation to the areas could also be investigated. Future studies could also include more analysis on use in relation to gender and time of the week. The non-users In this study, I did not include the ‘non users,’ and therefore, I do not know why some people do not visit pocket parks. A postal questionnaire sent out to people living in proximity to selected pocket parks in the city, possibly supported by in-depth interviews of selected respondents, would further elaborate user patterns and perception of pocket parks. First of all, this might explain why some pocket parks are used less than others, while it would also shed more light on how people perceive the design of pocket parks (Baur, Tynon, & Gómez, 2013). More knowledge on features supporting primary types of use Another issue to consider for future studies is related to the specific features supporting the health promoting uses ‘socialising’ and ‘rest and restitution’. If more specific design recommendations are to be made, data from a larger number of cases is needed. Technically, this could either be done by ‘preference studies,’ where people evaluate a greater number of cases in relation to certain features 80

on, e.g. photos or by on-site evaluations which would allow more comprehensive statistical analysis, from which more certain conclusions could be extracted. Furthermore, future studies on features related to the use of pocket parks should include the full list of 21 EAPRS items found suitable for pocket parks. In this present study, only 9 of the 21 items were inluded, which leaves much uncertanty about the influence of the remaining 12 features on the use of pocket parks for ‘socialising’ and ‘rest and restitution.’ Finally, a more comprehensive natural experiment including more cases would supply more qualitative knowledge on how people perceive certain areas before and after a redesign. Such a study would also lead to a better understanding of how preferences for a certain environment is related to use. Pocket parks in the UGI As this study had a landscape architectural approach with primary focus on design in relation to use, the role of the pocket parks in the UGI on a more overall level was not investigated. However such research could also be an interesting subject for future research. A GPS tracking system of people living near pocket parks would be one way of improving understanding about how people use pocket parks. Such data could be supported by a diary recording system, which would provide more qualitative information on the reason for choosing different areas. A GPS study in combination with questionnaires would provide information on the use of various units in the UGI. On a more overall level further investigations on the role of pocket parks to facilitate social cohesion would first of all be valuable for the research on the social benefits of UGS. Furthermore such studies would also make important contributions to the research on urban ecosystem services.

81

Conclusion This thesis provides information on use, users, the restorative potential of pocket parks as well as the features supporting the use of pocket parks. The first main finding to highlight is related to the types of use with ‘socialising’ and ‘rest and restitution’ being the two main reasons for visiting pocket parks in Copenhagen. This finding also confirms the hypothesis that pocket parks are a resource in promoting human health in dense city areas. The second main finding is related to the fact that this study has made a first attempt to investigate the association between the perceived sensory dimensions and the perceived restorativeness scale in relation to the user’s self- perceived stress level. The results indicate that the PSDs can be used as a tool to improve the restorative potential of pocket parks. The third main finding is that features within the pocket parks influence the use and perception of the area by preventing or promoting ‘socialising’ or ‘rest and restitution’. These results could potentially lead to more focused design processes where the health potential of pocket parks is optimized, thereby contributing to increased health promoting UGI. Many of the results from this thesis confirm the results of the Norwegian study, which raises two interesting points. First of all, it suggests that the conclusions drawn in this study may be more generalizable than at first expected. Second, the various methods used in both studies (photo studies and on-site studies) suggest that conclusions may be reliable despite the methodological approach. In this thesis, I have tried to interpret the results into practical implications, and although this is difficult, I hope that the conclusions presented in the leaflet will contribute to the discussion of EBHD as an integrated part of future planning and research processes of health promoting pocket parks.

82

Acknowledgements Writing this thesis would not have been possible without the input, support and understanding of my colleagues, friends and family. First of all, I would like to thank my principal supervisor, Ulrika K. Stigsdotter, who is also the coauthor of all my manuscripts. Thank you Ulrika for being supportive and critical of my work and for believing in the project! It has been important to me as a landscape architect that the outcome of the project be valuable for practitioners within my own profession. Thank you for keeping me on track and for encouraging me during the whole process with insightful comments and enthusiasm. Secondly, thanks to my co-supervisor, Jasper Schipperijn, who is the co-author of paper I and III. Without your help I would not have managed to finalize much of my statistical work. Thank you also for giving me constructive feed-back on my work and thanks for always being available when I needed a little push. Also a big thank you to the City of Copenhagen for giving me a lot of valuable information at the beginning of the process. My thanks also to Morten Pedersen without whom my statistical analysis would never have been finished. My fellow Ph.d students in the division; Anne, Ulrik, Maja, Natalie, Lene, Julie, Dorthe, Shureen and Victoria, who have ensured that every day in the office was filled with fun, discussions, valuable comments and commitment. Without you I would not have come so far. Thanks to all my friends and family for your support during the past five years. To my beloved children Mads and Ingrid and my husband Nils, who have given me all the support I could wish for. Thank you Nils, for believing in my decision to write a Ph.D. and thank you for encouraging me all the way through!

83

References Adevi, A. A., & Grahn, P. (2011). Attachment to Certain Natural Environments: A Basis for Choise of Recreational Settings, Activities and Restoration from Stress? Environment and Natural Resources Research, 1(1). Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences (Third Edition ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Alvarsson, J. J., Wiens, S., & Nilson M., E. (2010). Stress Recovery during Exposure to Nature Sound and Environmental Noise. Internationsal Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7, 1036-1046. Antonovsky, A. (1996). The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion. Heal Promot Int, 11(1), 11. 10.1093/heapro/11.1.11. Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. London: Wiley Baur, J. W. R., & Tynon, J. F. (2010). Small-Scale Urban Nature Parks: Why Should We Care? Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 32(2), 195-200. Baur, J. W. R., Tynon, J. F., & Gómez, E. (2013). Attitudes about urban nature parks: A case study of users and nonusers in Portland, Oregon. Landscape and Urban Planning, 117(0), 100111. Beatley, T. (2011). Biophilic Cities. Integrating Nature Into urban design and Planning. Washington DC: Island Press Benedict, A. M., & McMahon, T. E. (2002). Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st Century. Renewable Resources Journal, 20(3), 12-17. Berggren-Bärring, A.-M., & Grahn, P. (1995). Grönstrukturens betydelse för användingen: en jämförande studie av hur människor i barnstugor, skolor, föreningar, vårdinstitutioner m fl organisationer utnyttjar tre städers parkutbud (The significance of the green structure for people's use). Published Dissertation for Berggren-Bärring (Department of Landscape Planning, Ultuna, The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences). (95:3). Retrieved from [in Swedish]. Berman, M. G., Kross, E., Krpan, K. M., Askren, M. K., Burson, A., Deldin, P. J. et al. (2012). Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 140(3), 300-305. Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 249-259. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.07.001. 84

Biesta, G. (2010). Why 'What Works' Still Won't Work: From Evidence-Based Education to ValueBased Education. Stud Philos Educ, 29(5), 491-503. Björk, J., Albin, M., Grahn, P., Jacobsson, H., Ardö, J., Wadbro, J. et al. (2008). Recreational values of the natural environment in relation to neighbourhood satisfaction, physical activity, obesity and wellbeing. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62(4), e2. Bodin, M., & Hartig, T. (2003). Does the outdoor environment matter for psychological restoration gained through running? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4(2), 141-153. doi: 10.1016/S1469-0292(01)00038-3. Brown, R. D., & Corry, R. C. (2011). Evidence-based landscape architecture: The maturing of a profession. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 327-329. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.01.017. Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (Third ed.). London: Oxford university Press Cameron, R. W. F., Blanusa, T., Taylor, J. E., Salisbury, A., Halstead, A. J., Henricot, B. +. et al. (2012). The domestic garden  Its contribution to urban green infrastructure. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(2), 129-137. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2012.01.002. Cattell, V., Dines, N., Gesler, W., & Curtis, S. (2008). Mingling, observing, and lingering: Everyday public spaces and their implications for well-being and social relations. Health & Place, 14(3), 544-561. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.10.007. 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 Copenhagen. (2009). Lommeparker, Træer og andet grønt (Pocket Parks, Trees and other green elements) Retrieved December 1st, 2010 from http://www.kk.dk/Borger/ByOgTrafik/GroenneOmraader/Storbyhaver/~/media/7F9CA2193 25949DC9351D180ABAC3F36.ashx. [in Danish]. City

of Copenhagen. (2013). Green Growth strategy. Retrieved from http://subsite.kk.dk/sitecore/content/Subsites/CityOfCopenhagen/SubsiteFrontpage/Business /Growth_and_partnerships/Strategy.aspx

Clark, S. B. K. (1968). Landscape survey and analysis on a national basis. Planning Outlook, 4(12), 15-29. doi: 10.1080/00320716808711394. Colding, J. (2007). Ecological land-use 'complementation' for building resilience in urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(1-2), 46-55.

85

Coley, R. L., Sullivan, W. C., & Kuo, F. E. (1997). Where Does Community Grow? Environment and Behavior, 29(4), 468-494. Combes, P. P., Duranton, G., Gobillon, L., Puga, D., & Roux, S. +. (2012). The Productivity Advantages of Large Cities: Distinguishing Agglomeration From Firm Selection. Econometrica, 80(6), 2543-2594. Coombes, E., Jones, A. P., & Hillsdon, M. (2010). The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Social Science and Medicine, 70(6), 816-822. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.11.020. Corbusier, L., Mikkelsen, G., & Buhl, O. (1945). Menneskenes bolig Nyt Nordisk Forlag Arnold Busck [In Danish] Council of Europe. (2000). The European Landscape Convention. Retrieved from Council of Europe http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/Landscape/default_en.asp DAC&CITIES. (2014). Copenhagen: Pocket Parks - Green Lungs in the city. Retrieved from http://www.dac.dk/da/dac-cities/baeredygtige-byer/alle-cases/groen-by/koebenhavnlommeparker--groenne-aandehuller-i-byen/ Danmarks Statistik. (2012). Befolkning og valg (Population and elections) Retrieved 20 march 2012 from http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1680. de Vries, S. (2010). Nearby nature and human health: looking at the mechanisms and their implications. In C. Ward Thompson, P. Aspinall, & S. Bell (Eds.), Open Space: People Space 2. Innovative Approaches to Researching Landscape and Health (pp. 75-94). Abingdon: Routledge. Dee, C. (2009). Form and Fabric in Landscape Architecture. A Visual Introduction. New York: Spoon Press Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2003). Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry (Second edition ed.) Sage Publications Emmersen, T. D. (2012). Dantes Plads - GHB Landscape Architects. Fan, Y., Das, K. V., & Chen, Q. (2011). Neighborhood green, social support, physical activity, and stress: Assessing the cumulative impact. Health & Place, 17(6), 1202-1211. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.08.008. Feste, J., & Oterholm, A. I. (1973). Landskapskarakter: Vurdering av fattbarhet og estetisk kvalitet i naturlandskapet (Landscape characteristics. Estimating of understanding and aesthetical qualities in the natural landscape) Research Report. The Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. [in Norwegian]. 86

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. Forsyth, A., & Musacchio, L. (2005). Designing Small Parks: A Manual Adressing Social and Ecological Concerns. New York: Wiley Francis, M. (2001). A Case Study Method For Landscape Architecture. Landscape Journal, 20(1), 15-29. Francis, M. (2003). Urban Open space, Designing for user needs. Washington: Island Press Frankel, F., & Johnson, J. (1991). Modern Landscape architecture: Redefining the Garden. New York: Abbyville Press Fuller, R. A., & Gaston, K. J. (2009). The scaling of green space coverage in European cities. Biology Letters, 5(3), 352-355. Gehl, J. (2003). Life Between buildings (5 ed.). Copenhagen: The Danish Architectural Press Gehl, J. (2010). Byer for mennesker (1. udgave, 1. oplag ed.). Copenhagen: Jan Gehl og Bogværket Genc, M., Gul, A., Atken, M., & Kucuk, V. (2000). Recreational behaviour of urban people in Isparta. Congress of Landscape Architecture [In Turkish]. Giles-Corti, B., Broomhall, M. H., Knuiman, M., Collins, C., Douglas, K., Ng, K. et al. (2005). Increasing walking: how important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? Am J Prev Med, 28(2), 169-176. Gill, S. E., Handley, J. F., Ennos, A. R., Pauleit, S., Theuray, N., & Lindley, S. J. (2008). Characterising the urban environment of UK cities and towns: A template for landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 87(3), 210-222. Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. London: Continuum Gollwitzer, G. (1968). Ein Westentaschenpark im zentrum von New York. Garten und Landschaft, 10, 346-347. Grahn, P., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2010). The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(3-4), 264-275. Grahn, P., & Sorte, G. J. (1985). Hur används parken? Om organiserade gruppers bruk av grönomräden. Del 1 = How is the park beeing used? A survey on organized groups usage of public green areas. Part 1. Stad & land (Alnarp. 1982), 0280-4549 ; 39. Alnarp. [in Swedish].: 87

Grahn, P., & Stigsdotter, U. A. (2003). Landscape planning and stress. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2(1), 1-18. doi: 10.1078/1618-8667-00019. Greene, M., Joshi, S., & Robles, O. (2012). State of World Population UNFPA. Gyllin, M. (2004). Biological Diversity in Urban Environments (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Landscape Planning Alnarp, Alnarp, Sweden). Gyllin, M., & Grahn, P. (2005). A semantic model for assessing the experience of urban biodiversity. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 3(3-4). Hajime, I. (1988). Pocket Park. Process Architecture ; 78. Tokyo: Process Architecture Publ. Co., 1988 Hartig, T. (2004). Restorative Environments. In Editor-in-Chief:-á-á Charles Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology (pp. 273-279). New York: Elsevier. Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Bowler, P. A. (1997). Further development of a measure of percieved environmental restorativeness. Working Paper No 5. Uppsala University, Institute for Housing Research, Gävle, Sweden. 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., Kaiser, F. G., & Bowler, P. A. (2001). Psychological Restoration in Nature as a Positive Motivation for Ecological Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 590-607. Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G. W., & Gärling, T. (1997). A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 14(4), 175-194. doi: 10.1080/02815739708730435. Hauxner, M. (2009). Drawing & Reading: Integration of academic and artistic work. Heft, H. (2010). Affordances and the perception of landscape: an inquiry into environmentaæ perception and aesthetics. In C.W. Thompson, P. Aspinall, & S. Bell (Eds.), Innovative Approaches to Researching Landscape and Health (pp. 9-32). Oxon: Routledge. Hitchings, R. (2010). Urban greenspace from the inside out: An argument for the approach and a study with city workers. Geoforum, 41(6), 855-864. Hug, S. M., Hartig, T., Hansmann, R., Seeland, K., & Hornung, R. (2009). Restorative qualities of indoor and outdoor exercise settings as predictors of exercise frequency. Health & Place, 15(4), 971-980. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.03.002. 88

Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. [New York: Random House James, P., Tzoulas, K., Adams, M. D., Barber, A., Box, J., Breuste, J. et al. (2009). Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8(2), 65-75. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2009.02.001. Kaczynski, A. T., Potwarka, L. R., & Saelens, B. E. (2008). Association of Park Size, Distance, and Features With Physical Activity in Neighborhood Parks. American Journal of Public Health, 98(8), 1451-1456. Kang, J., & Zhang, M. (2010). Semantic differential analysis of the soundscape in urban open public spaces. Building and Environment, 45(1), 150-157. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.05.014. Kaplan, R. (2004). 2004. The social values of forests and trees in urbanized societies. In C. C. Konijnendijk, J. Schipperijn, & K. H. Hoyer (Eds.), Vol. IUFRO World Series Vol. 14. Forestry serving urbanised societies (pp. 167-178) Vienna, Austria. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of Nature [A Psychological Perspective]. New York: Cambridge University Press Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., Ryan, & Robert L. (1998). With people in mind. Washington DC 20009: Island Press, 1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 300 Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169-182. doi: 10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2. Kaplan, S. (2001). Meditation, Restoration, and the Management of Mental Fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 480-506. Karmanov, D., & Hamel, R. (2008). Assessing the restorative potential of contemporary urban environment(s): Beyond the nature versus urban dichotomy. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86(2), 115-125. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.01.004. Kevin Lynch. (1960). The Image of The City. England: The M.I.T press London Kjellgren, A., & Buhrkall, H. (2010). A comparison of the restorative effect of a natural environment with that of a simulated natural environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 464-472. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.011. Københavns Kommune. (2011). Befolkning og Fremskrivninger (People and extrapolations) Retrieved 20 march 2012 from www.kk.dk/FaktaOmKommunen/KoebenhavnITalOgOrd.aspx.

89

Konijnendijk, C. C., Annerstedt, M., Busse, A., & Maruthaveeran, S. (2012). Benefits of Urban Parks, a systematic review of evidence. IFPRA world, 2012(6). Korpela, K., & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(3), 221-233. doi: 10.1006/jevp.1996.0018. Korpela, K. M., Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Fuhrer, U. (2001). Restorative Experience and SelfRegulation in Favorite Places. Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 572-589. Kural, R. (1999). Playing Fields - Alternative Spaces for Sports, Culture and Recreation School of Architecture Publishers Laumann, K., Gärling, T., & Stormark, K. M. (2001). Rating scale measures of restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(1), 31-44. doi: 10.1006/jevp.2000.0179. Lohr, V. I., & Pearson-Mims, C. H. (2006). Responses to Scenes with Spreading, Rounded, and Conical Tree Forms. Environment and Behavior, 38(5), 667-688. London.gov.uk. (2014). Pocket Park Projects. Retrieved from http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/greening-london/improving-londonsparks-green-spaces/pocket-parks Lottrup, L., Stigsdotter, U. K., Meilby, H., & Corazon, S. S. (2012). Associations between use, activities and characteristics of the outdoor environment at workplaces. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(2), 159-168. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.12.006. Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods : saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill Lygum, V. L., Stigsdotter, U. A., Konijnendijk, C. C., & Højbjerg, H. (2013). Outdoor environments at Crisis Shelters: User needs and preferences with respect to design and activities. Archnet-IJAR : International Journal of Architectural Research, 7(1), 21. Maas, J., van Dillen, S. M. E., Verheij, R. A., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2009). Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health. Health & Place, 15(2), 586-595. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.09.006. Maat, K., & de Vries, P. (2006). The influence of the residential environment on green-space travel: testing the compensation hypothesis. Environment and Planning A, 38(11), 2111-2127. Machteld, H., Knottnerus, J. A., Lawrence, G., Henriëtte, v. d. H., Alejandro, R. J., Daan, K. et al. (2011). How should we define health? BMJ: Vol. 343. BMJ 2011;343:d4163.

90

Marcus, C. C., & Sachs, N. A. (2014). Therapeutic Landscapes. An Evidence-Based Approach to designing Healing gardens and Restorative Outdoor Spaces. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & sons Martinez-Gonzalez, M. A., Varo, J. J., Santos, J. L., De Irala, J., Gibney, M., Kearney, J. et al. (2001). Prevalence of physical activity during leisure time in the European Union. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33(7), 1142-1146. Mitchell, R., & Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. The Lancet, 372(9650), 1655-1660. doi: 10.1016/S01406736(08)61689-X. Moudon, A. V., & Lee, C. (2003). Walking and Bicyckling: An Evaluation of Environmental Audit Instruments. American Journal of Health Promotion, 18(1). Mumford, L. (1968). The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects Harvest Books National Institute of public health. (2010). Hvordan har du det? En undersøgelse af trivsel, helbred og sygdom blandt voksne danskere 2010 (How are you? An survey on thrive, health and illnesses among adult danes 2010) Statens Institut for folkesundhed: Danish Health and Medicines Authority [In Danish]. Nielsen, L., Curtis, T., Kristensen, T. S., & Rod Nielsen, N. (2008). What characterizes persons with high levels of perceived stress in Denmark? A national representative study. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 36(4), 369-379. Nielsen, T. S., & Hansen, K. B. (2007). Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health & Place, 13(4), 839-850. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.02.001. Nilsson, K., sangster, M., Gallis, C., Hartig, T., de Vries, S., Seeland, K. et al. (2011). Forests, Trees and Human Health (1 ed.) Nordh, H. (2010). Restorative components of small urban parks (Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Landscape Architcture and Spatial Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Aas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences). Nordh, H., Hartig, T., Hagerhall, C. M., & Fry, G. (2009). Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8(4), 225-235. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2009.06.003. Nordh, H., & Østby, K. (2013). Pocket parks for people - A study of park design and use. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 12-17. 91

Northamptonshire city council. (2012). Pocket Parks. Retrieved from Retrieved march 23, 2012 www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/en/councilservices/Leisure/pocket-parks/Pages/default.aspx Ottosson, J., & Grahn, P. (1998). Utemiljöns betydelse för äldre med stort vårdbehov, 'Med Ögon känsliga för grönt' (The importance of gardens for old people in need of care and attention) [In Swedish]. Alnarp: MOVIUM, Alnarp O´Brien, R. (2014). Best Pocket Parks of NYC (1 ed.). NYC: Pocket Parks Publishing Penning-Rowsell, E. C. (1973). Alternative approaches to landscape appraisal and evaluation (11). Enfield: Middlesex Polytechnic. Pollio, V. (2011). The Ten Books on Architecture. Empire Books Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The City and Self-Identity. Environment and Behavior, 10(2), 147-169. Raimbault, M., Lavandier, C., & Berengier, M. (2003). Ambient sound assessment of urban environments: field studies in two French cities. Applied Acoustics, 64(12), 1241-1256. doi: 10.1016/S0003-682X(03)00061-6. Rasmussen, S. E. (1951). Towns and buildings described in drawings and words / Steen Eiler Rasmussen. [Liverpool]: University Press of Liverpool Refshauge, A. D., Stigsdotter, U. K., & Cosco, N. G. (2012). Adults motivation for bringing their children to park playgrounds. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,(0). doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2012.06.002. Rérat, P. (2012). Housing, the Compact City and Sustainable Development: Some Insights From Recent Urban Trends in Switzerland. International Journal of Housing Policy, 12(2), 115136. doi: 10.1080/14616718.2012.681570. Robinson, N. (2004). The Planting Design Handbook (second ed.). England: Ashgate Publishing Limited Rogers, R. (2005). Urban Task Force, Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance London: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Rubin, A. (2010). Statistics for Evidence-Based Practise and Evaluation. Belmont, CA 940023098, USA: Brooks/Cole Saelens, Frank, Auffrey, Whitaker, & Burdette. (2009). Guidebook for EAPRS Direct Observation Tool. Generel Instructions, version 7.0 Active Living Research Program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

92

Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1-10. Schipperijn, J. (2010). Use of urban green space (Forest & Landscape, University of Copenhagen, Denmark). Schipperijn, J., Bentsen, P., Troelsen, J., Toftager, M., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2013). Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 109-116. Schipperijn, J., Ekholm, O., Stigsdotter, U. K., Toftager, M., Bentsen, P., Kamper-Jørgensen, F. et al. (2010). Factors influencing the use of green space: Results from a Danish national representative survey. Landscape and Urban Planning, 95(3), 130-137. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.12.010. Schipperijn, J., Stigsdotter, U. K., Randrup, T. B., & Troelsen, J. (2010). Influences on the use of urban green space - A case study in Odense, Denmark. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9(1), 25-32. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2009.09.002. Schroeder, H. W. (1982). Preferred features of urban parks and forests. Journal of Arboriculture, 8(12). Scopelliti, M., & Giuliani, M. V. (2004). Choosing restorative environments across the lifespan: A matter of place experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 423-437. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.11.002. Seymour, W. N. (1969). Small urban spaces : the philosophy, design, sociology and politics of vest - pocket parks and other small urban open spaces. New York: [s.n.] Shafer, E. L., Hamilton, J. F., & Schmidt, E. A. (1969). Natural landscape preferences: A predictive model. Journal of Leisure Research, 1(1). Stigsdotter, U. (2014). Nacadia Healing Forest garden, Hoersholm Arboretum, Copenhagen, Denmark. In Therapeutic Landscapes. An Evidence-Based Approach to Designing Healing Gardens and Restorative Outdoor Spaces (pp. 198-205). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Stigsdotter, U. K. (2004). A garden at your workplace may reduce stress. Design and Health III, Health Promotion through Environmental Design (pp. 147-157) International Academy for Design and Health. Stigsdotter, U. K., Møller, M., Corazon, S. S., & Lygum, V. L. (2012). Terapihaven Nacadia: Evidensbaseret Sundhedsdesign. Landskab, 3, 88-91.

93

Stigsdotter, U. K., & Grahn, P. (2003a). A Garden at Your Doorstep May Reduce Stress - Private Gardens as Restorative Environments in the City. Healthy places / Health and well-being. Stigsdotter, U. K., Ekholm, O., Schipperijn, J., Toftager, M., Kamper-Jørgensen, F., & Randrup, T. B. (2010). Health promoting outdoor environments - Associations between green space, and health, health-related quality of life and stress based on a Danish national representative survey. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 38(4), 411-417. Stigsdotter, U. K., & Grahn, P. (2003b). Experiencing a garden. Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture, 14, 38-48. Stigsdotter, U. K., & Grahn, P. (2011). Stressed individuals' preferences for activities and environmental characteristics in green spaces. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 10(4), 295-304. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.07.001. Sullivan, W. C., Kuo, F. E., & Depooter, S. F. (2004). The Fruit of Urban Nature. Environment and Behavior, 36(5), 678-700. Svedberg, O. (1994). Arkitekternas århundrade. europas Arkitektur i 1800-talet. Stockholm: Talbot, J. F., & Kaplan, R. (1986). Judging the Sizes of Urban Open Areas: Is Bigger Always Better? Landscape Journal, 5(2), 83-92. Tenngart Ivarsson, C., & Hagerhall, C. M. (2008). The perceived restorativeness of gardens Assessing the restorativeness of a mixed built and natural scene type. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 7(2), 107-118. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2008.01.001. The

City of Copenhagen. (2013). Lommeparker. Retrieved from http://www.kk.dk/da/brugbyen/brug-steder-i-byen/groenne-omraader/lommeparker

Thompson, C. W. (2002). Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(2), 59-72. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00059-2. 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. Thwaites, K., Mathers, A., & Simkins, I. M. (2013). Socially Restorative Urbanism, The theory, process and practice of Experiemics. Glasgow: Routledge, Tayler and Francis Group Toftager, M., Ekholm, O., Schipperijn, J., Stigsdotter, U., Bentsen, P., Grønbæk, M. et al. (2011). Distance to green space and physical activity: A Danish national representative survey. Journal of Physical Activity & Health,(8), 741-749.

94

Torija, A. J., Genaro, N., Ruiz, D. P., Ramos-Ridao, A., Zamorano, M., & Requena, I. (2010). Priorization of acoustic variables: Environmental decision support for the physical characterization of urban sound environments. Building and Environment, 45(6), 14771489. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.12.011. Tyrväinen, L., Mäkinen, K., & Schipperijn, J. (2007). Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(1), 5-19. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.03.003. Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kazmierczak, A., Niemela, J. et al. (2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(3), 167-178. Ulrich, R. S. (2006). Evidence-based health care architecture. The Lancet, 368(Supplement 1), S38S39. Ulrich, R. 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, 201-230. 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7. van den Berg, A. E., Hartig, T., & Staats, H. (2007). Preference for Nature in Urbanized Societies: Stress, Restoration, and the Pursuit of Sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 79-96. van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S. L., & van der Wulp, N. Y. (2003). Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 135-146. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00111-1. van den Berg, A. E., Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2010). Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health. Social Science & Medicine, 70(8), 1203-1210. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.002. van Dillen, S. M. E., de Vries, S., Groenewegen, P. P., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2011). Greenspace in urban neighbourhoods and residents' health: Adding quality to quantity. J Epidemiol Community Health. 10.1136. Van Herzele, A., Bell, S., Hartig, T., Podesta, M. T. C., & van Zon, R. (2011). Health Benefits of Nature Experience: The challenge of Linking Practice and Research. In K. Nilsson, M. sangster, C. Gallis, T. Hartig, S. de Vries, K. Seeland, & J. Schipperijn (Eds.), Forests, Trees and Human Health. London. Van Herzele, A., & Wiedemann, T. (2003). A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 63(2), 109-126. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00192-5.

95

Van Zuylen, G. (1999). The Garden: Visions of Paradise. London: Thames and Hudson/new Horizons Viets, E. (2009). Lessons From Evidence-Based Medicine: What Healthcare Designers Can Learn From the Medical Field. Herd-Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 2(2), 7387. Völker, S., & Kistemann, T. (2011). The impact of blue space on human health and well-being  Salutogenetic health effects of inland surface waters: A review. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 214(6), 449-460. Völker, S., & Kistemann, T. (2013). "I'm always entirely happy when I'm here!" Urban blue enhancing human health and well-being in Cologne and Düsseldorf, Germany. Social Science & Medicine, 78(0), 113-124. Walker, S. E., & Duffield, B. S. (1983). Urban parks and open spaces *Çö an overview. Landscape Research, 8(2), 2-12. doi: 10.1080/01426398308706060. Watts G.R, Phasant R.J, & Horoshenkov K.V. (2011). Predicting perceived tranquillity in urban parks and open spaces. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design,(38), 585-594. White, M., Smith, A., Humphryes, K., Pahl, S., Snelling, D., & Depledge, M. (2010). Blue space: The importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 482-493. WHO. (1948). Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference New York, 19-22 June, 1946, signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the World Health Organization,no.2,p.100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948. WHO. (2012). Putting Health at the heart of sustainable development. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/hia/green_economy/health_sust_development/en/ Whyte, W. H. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Sixth Printing 2009 ed.). New York: Project for Public Spaces Wilkie, S., & Stavridou, A. (2013). Influence of environmental preference and environment type congruence on judgments of restoration potential. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(2), 163-170. Yang, W., & Kang, J. (2005). Soundscape and Sound Preferences in Urban Squares: A Case Study in Sheffield. Journal of Urban Design, 10(1), 61-80.

96

Yilmaz, S., Zengin, M., & Yildiz, N. D. (2007). Determination of user profile at city parks: A sample from Turkey. Building and Environment, 42(6), 2325-2332. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research, Design and methods (four ed.). California: Sage Yu, L., & Kang, J. (2010). Factors influencing the sound preference in urban open spaces. Applied Acoustics, 71(7), 622-633. doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2010.02.005.

97

QUESTIONNAIRE

99

100

101

102

103

104

1

FORMER ISSUES

May 2013 August 2013 August 2013

Landskabsbyens æstetik. En undersøgelse af fikmmediet som redskab til belysning af forstadens omgivelseskarakter Mads Farsø ISBN 978-87-7903-614-7 Smallholder tree farming systems for livelihood enchancement and carbon storage James Michael Roshetko ISBN 978-87-7903-629-1 Translating Harbourscape. Site-specific Design Approaches in Contemporary European Harbour Transformation Lisa Diedrich ISBN 978-87-7903-626-6

January 2014

Changing heathlands in a changing climate. Climate change effects on heathland plant communities Johannes Ransijn ISBN 978-87-7903-644-4 April 2014

Deriving harmonised forest information in Europe using remote sensing

methods. Potentials and limitations for further applications Lucia Maria Seebach ISBN 978-87-7903-651-2 May 2014

Health Promoting Pocket Parks in a Landscape Architectural perspective Karin Kragsig Peschardt ISBN 978-87-7903-658-1

PhD Thesis May 2014 ISBN 978-87-7903-658-1 Karin Kragsig Peschardt

Health Promoting Pocket Parks in a Landscape Architectural Perspective department of geosciences and natural resource management university of copenhagen rolighedsvej 23 dk-1958 Frederiksberg tlf +45 35 33 15 00 [email protected] www.ign.ku.dk