Abstract
Urban nature reserves (UR’s) fulfill unique functions for society and are irreplaceable, satisfying human needs particularly in urban and periurban areas. The aim of this paper was to use a perception based approach to analyze whether the urban nature reserves in the metropolitan area of Buenos Aires, Argentina were principally used by visitors according to their main conservation mission. Five hundred written surveys designed to evaluate users’ profile and their perceptions of the selected reserves were conducted during the summer of 2009 to visitors selected at random. Collected data was analyzed by multivariate analyses. The results discriminated two groups (1 and 2) of reserves showing that people chose to visit a nature reserve for two contrasting motivations: the contemplation of nature (group 1) or active recreation (group 2). Both groups of reserves, the respondents participated in environmental programs. All respondents knew about plants whereas knowledge of the fauna was related to the visitors’ level of education. In all reserves respondents considered that nature enhance the quality of human life in the first place, and valued biodiversity en second place. Visitors in group 1 considered nature as very important, while respondents in group 2 thought that is important as a place for having fun. Our findings can potentially assist administrators to understand better how visitors perceive the reserves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arcuri FA (1990) Environmental attitude and environmental knowledge. Hum Organ 49:300–304
Benayas J, De Lucio JV, Gonzalez Bernaldez F (1987) Environmental attitude shifts as revealed by landscape taste and activity preferences. Environmentalist 7:21–30. doi:10.1007/BF02277202
Björk J, Albin M, Grahn P, Jacobsson H, Ardö J, Wadbro J, Östergren PO, Skärbäck E (2008) Recreational values of the natural environment in relation to neighbourhood satisfaction, physical activity, obesity and wellbeing. J Epidemiol Community Health 62:2
Bujis A, Pedroli B, Luginbühl Y (2006) From hiking through farmland to farming in a leisure landscape: changing social perceptions of the European landscape. Landscape Ecol 21:375–389
Cervantes O, Espejel I, Arellano E, Delhumeau S (2008) Users’ perception as a tool to improve urban beach planning and management. Environ Manag 42:249–264
Chébez JC (2006) Reservas naturales de Buenos Aires. In: Guía de reservas naturales de la Argentina, zona Centro. Ed. Albatros. pp 28
Cochran WG, Cox GN (1965) Diseños experimentales. Trollas, México
Coley RL, Kuo FE, Sullivan WC (1997) Where does community grow? the social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environ Behav 294:468–492
Daniel T (2001) Whither scenic beauty? visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc Urban Plan 54:267–281
Ehrenfeld D (1978) The arrogance of humanism. Oxford University Press, New York
Faggi A, Ignatieva M (2009) Urban green spaces in Buenos Aires and Christchurch. Munic Eng 162:241–250
Gonzalez Bernaldez F (1981) Ecologia y Paisaje. Blume, Madrid, p 250
González Bernáldez F (1985) Invitación a la ecología humana. La adaptación afectiva al entorno. Tecnos, Madrid, p 159
Hartig T (2004) Restorative environments. In: Spielberger C (ed) Encyclopedia of applied psychology, vol 3. Academic, San Diego, pp 273–278
Hartig T, Cooper-Marcus C (2006) Healing gardens–places for nature in health care. Lancet 368:36–37
Heikkilä R, Lindholm T (2000) Conservation of the biodiversity of mires in Finland. In: Rochefort L, Daigle JY (eds) Sustaining our peatlands. Proceedings of the 11th International Peat Congress, vol 2; August 6–12, 2000; Edmonton, Canada: Canadian Society of Peat and Peatlands & International Peat Society, pp 1038–1043
Kaplan S (2001) Meditation, restoration and the management of mental fatigue. Environ Behav 33:480–506
Lafortezza R, Carrus G, Sanesi G, Davies C (2009) Benefits and well-being perceived by people visiting green spaces in periods of heat stress. Urban For Urban Green 8:97–108
Matsuoka R, Kaplan R (2008) People needs in the urban landscape: analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landsc Urban Plan 84:7–19
Mc Neely JA (2001) Cities and protected areas. Parks 11:3
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human wellbeing: synthesis. Island Press, Washington
Mugica M, De Lucio V (1996) The role on-site experience on landscape preferences. A case study at Doñana National Park (Spain). J Environ Manage 47:229–239
Ritterfeld U, Cupchik GC (1996) Perceptions of interior spaces. J Environ Psychol 16:349–360
Shafer CL (2008) Terrestrial nature reserve design at the urban/rural interface. In: conservation in highly fragmented landscapes. Schwartz, MW (ed.) J.M. Marzluff et al., Urban Ecology, Springer, Chapman and Hall 2008, pp 345–378
Stainsby A (2009) Editorial: green spaces. Munic Eng 162:193–194
Thompson CW (2002) Urban open space in the 21 st century. Landsc Urban Plan 60:59–72
Van Leeuwen ES, Vreeker R, Rodenbrurg CA (2006) A framework for quality of life assessment of urban green areas in Europe: an application to District Park Reudnitz Leipzig. Int J Environ Technol Manag 6(1, 2):111–122
Williams S (1985) How the familiarity of a landscape affects appreciation of it. J Environ Manag 28:63–67
Wyse Jackson PS, Sutherland LA (2000) International agenda for botanic gardens in conservation. Botanic Gardens Conservation International, U.K
Zedler J, Leach M (1998) Managing urban wetlands for multiple uses: research, restoration and recreation. Urban Ecosyst 2:189–204
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Perelman, P., Breuste, J., Madanes, N. et al. Use of visitors’ perception in urban reserves in the Buenos Aires metropolis. Urban Ecosyst 16, 841–851 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-0279-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-0279-7