IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/clarxx/v41y2016i5p555-568.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How heterogeneous are adolescents’ preferences for natural and semi-natural riverscapes as recreational settings?

Author

Listed:
  • Renate Eder
  • Arne Arnberger

Abstract

Recent research has indicated that the younger generations may be disconnected from nature and even show some dislike for natural conditions. This study addressed adolescents’ preferences for riverscapes with varying fluvial dynamics as recreational settings. A stated choice survey with digitally calibrated river scenarios asked Austrian pupils (N = 281) about their preferences for several physical and social characteristics of a floodplain landscape. Pupils perceived riverscapes with a high water dynamic as best for recreation, while water bodies with low water levels and algae, dry river sites, floods and littered trails were disliked. Heterogeneity among the pupils was found with one smaller segment preferring settings with high water dynamic and low human impact, while the larger one preferred settings with more human impact and low water dynamic. This segment that shows some dislike for natural conditions had less experience with rivers and scored lower on natural river-related attitudes and perceptions. Implications for recreational river planning and aesthetic assessments are derived.

Suggested Citation

  • Renate Eder & Arne Arnberger, 2016. "How heterogeneous are adolescents’ preferences for natural and semi-natural riverscapes as recreational settings?," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(5), pages 555-568, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:clarxx:v:41:y:2016:i:5:p:555-568
    DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2015.1117063
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01426397.2015.1117063
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01426397.2015.1117063?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arne Arnberger & Renate Eder, 2011. "The influence of age on recreational trail preferences of urban green-space visitors: a discrete choice experiment with digitally calibrated images," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(7), pages 891-908, November.
    2. Arne Arnberger & Renate Eder, 2011. "Exploring the Heterogeneity of Rural Landscape Preferences: An Image-Based Latent Class Approach," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 19-40, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nicolás Ruiz, Néstor & Suárez Alonso, María Luisa & Vidal-Abarca, María Rosario, 2021. "Contributions of dry rivers to human well-being: A global review for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    2. Theano S. Terkenli & Tryfon Daras & Efpraxia-Aithra Maria, 2019. "Landscape Notions among Greek Engineering Students: Exploring Landscape Perceptions, Knowledge and Participation," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-19, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ling Qiu & Qujing Chen & Tian Gao, 2021. "The Effects of Urban Natural Environments on Preference and Self-Reported Psychological Restoration of the Elderly," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-14, January.
    2. van Zanten, Boris T. & Zasada, Ingo & Koetse, Mark J. & Ungaro, Fabrizio & Häfner, Kati & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 87-98.
    3. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    4. Liu, Zhaoyang & Hanley, Nick & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Linking urban air pollution with residents’ willingness to pay for greenspace: A choice experiment study in Beijing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    5. Nadine Schuurman & Leah Rosenkrantz & Scott A. Lear, 2021. "Environmental Preferences and Concerns of Recreational Road Runners," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-19, June.
    6. Arnberger, Arne & Eder, Renate & Allex, Brigitte & Preisel, Hemma & Ebenberger, Martin & Husslein, Maria, 2018. "Trade-offs between wind energy, recreational, and bark-beetle impacts on visual preferences of national park visitors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 166-177.
    7. Xin Xu & Jing Hu & Li Lv & Jiaojiao Yin & Xiaobo Tian, 2022. "Research on the Matching Relationship between the Supply of Urban Ecological Recreational Space and the Demand of Residents—A Case Study of an Urban Development Area in Wuhan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-19, January.
    8. Elin P. Sundevall & Märit Jansson, 2020. "Inclusive Parks across Ages: Multifunction and Urban Open Space Management for Children, Adolescents, and the Elderly," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-17, December.
    9. Piaggio, Matías, 2021. "The value of public urban green spaces: Measuring the effects of proximity to and size of urban green spaces on housing market values in San José, Costa Rica," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    10. Marianne Lefebvre & Masha Maslianskaia-Pautrel & Pauline Laille, 2022. "Alternative adaptation scenarios towards pesticide-free urban green spaces: Welfare implication for French citizens," Post-Print hal-03694169, HAL.
    11. Eija Pouta & Ioanna Grammatikopoulou & Timo Hurme & Katriina Soini & Marja Uusitalo, 2014. "Assessing the Quality of Agricultural Landscape Change with Multiple Dimensions," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-19, July.
    12. van Zanten, Boris T. & Koetse, Mark J. & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "Economic valuation at all cost? The role of the price attribute in a landscape preference study," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 289-296.
    13. Mai-Thi Ta & Léa Tardieu & Harold Levrel, 2022. "Characterizing the Demand Side of Urban Greening to Inform Urban Planning – A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Paris Metropolitan Region," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 132(6), pages 907-949.
    14. Svobodova Kamila & Monteiro Luis & Vojar Jiri & Gdulova Katerina, 2019. "Can trail characteristics influence visitor numbers in natural protected areas? A quantitative approach to trail choice assessment," Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, Sciendo, vol. 7(2), pages 10-20, June.
    15. Mehdi RAKHSHANDEHROO & Mohd Johari MOHDYUSOF & Osman Mohd TAHIRHOLDER & Mohd Yazid Mohd YUNOS, 2015. "The Socialbenefits Of Urban Open Green Spaces: A Literature Review," Management Research and Practice, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 7(4), pages 60-71, December.
    16. Fancello, Giovanna & Congiu, Tanja & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2020. "Mapping walkability. A subjective value theory approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    17. Carme Miralles-Guasch & Javier Dopico & Xavier Delclòs-Alió & Pablo Knobel & Oriol Marquet & Roser Maneja-Zaragoza & Jasper Schipperijn & Guillem Vich, 2019. "Natural Landscape, Infrastructure, and Health: The Physical Activity Implications of Urban Green Space Composition among the Elderly," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-14, October.
    18. Andrés Caballero-Calvo & José Luis Serrano-Montes, 2020. "Influence of Logos on Social Attitudes toward the Landscape of Protected Areas: The Case of National and Natural Parks in Spain," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-15, April.
    19. van Zanten, Boris T. & Verburg, Peter H. & Scholte, S.S.K. & Tieskens, K.F., 2016. "Using choice modeling to map aesthetic values at a landscape scale: Lessons from a Dutch case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 221-231.
    20. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:clarxx:v:41:y:2016:i:5:p:555-568. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/clar20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.