Landscape Perception and Preferences in Multi-cultural Settings

  • Anna HöglhammerEmail author
  • Andreas Muhar
  • Thomas Schauppenlehner
  • Fatma Aycim Turer Baskaya
Part of the RaumFragen: Stadt – Region – Landschaft book series (RFSRL)


Peri-urban recreational areas and forests provide important services to enhance the physical and mental wellbeing of the urban population. In Austria, peri-urban forests such as the Wienerwald Biosphere Park around the agglomeration area of the capital city Vienna can be accessed for free. Yet, several barriers can limit the access to these places for some segments of society. Currently, an underrepresentation of people from certain ethnic communities has been recognized by the park management. This paper describes the initial phase of a research project investigating this problem with regard to the Turkish community where stakeholders from relevant organisations and administrative authorities were involved in individual interviews and focus group discussions. Our transdisciplinary approach allowed to consider different notions of outdoor recreation and ethnicity and to specify the research direction for this complex topic. Including stakeholders in the initial phase of the research process also involved difficulties, as external views on the Turkish community can cause the reproduction of stereotypes. Results show that stakeholders emphasized a lack of information and awareness as major impact on outdoor recreation participation of Turkish immigrants.


Urban immigration raises questions about immigrants and city identities. Urban immigration (or migration) brings about a mutual interaction between the host city and incoming people. This study intends to help to understand this relationship between the city and immigrants by asking how their everyday practices reshape the appreciation for the city’s open spaces. The aim of this study is to gain a multi-layered understanding of the urban landscape preferences of Turkish migrants moving to big cities in Turkey and of immigrants moving to German cities. A two-phased approach is developed. The first phase method enables researchers to compare past and present urban open space uses. The second phase method aims to help to understand current perceptions of immigrants and migrants. Two cities, Istanbul in Turkey and Kassel in Germany, are selected for this second phase study. Results reveal that “educational level”, “home region” and “number of generations” appear among the most important parameters that influence current open space perception and preference. Rural or urban attributes of the home region are also relevant.Results also appear to support the assumption that historic spatial circumstances influence perception and preference.

perception and preference. This study highlights the importance of understanding urban open space preferences of immigrants by conducting comparative studies andl discussing results for the benefit of further multi-cultural spatial studies.


Open Space Home Region Outdoor Recreation Turkish Immigrant Public Open Space 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ambrosch M, Biffl G, Skrivanek I, Steinmayr A, Faustmann A, (2010): Migrantinnen und Migranten auf dem niederösterreichischen Arbeitsmarkt. Donau-Universität Krems, Department Migration und Globalisierung, Zentrum für Migration, Integration und SicherheitGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauer N (2010): Gesundheit und Erholung in Wald und Landschaft – ein Rückblick | Health and recreation in forest and landscape – a retrospective. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen, vol 161., pp 120–125Google Scholar
  3. Buijs AE (2009): Lay people’s images of nature: Comprehensive frameworks of values, beliefs, and value orientations. Society and Natural Resources, vol 22., pp 417–432Google Scholar
  4. Buijs AE, Langers F, De Vries S (2006): Een andere kijk op groen. Beleving van Natuur En Landschap in Nederland Door Allochtonen En Jongeren. Rapport, 24Google Scholar
  5. Edwards D, Weldon S (2006): Race equality and the Forestry Comission.–69UJ37 (Accessed 22 Oct 2013)
  6. Enengel B, Muhar A, Penker M, Freyer B, Drlik S, Ritter F (2012): Co-production of knowledge in transdisciplinary doctoral theses on landscape development—An analysis of actor roles and knowledge types in different research phases. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol 105., pp 106–117Google Scholar
  7. Guite HF, Clark C, Ackrill G (2006): The impact of the physical and urban environment on mental well-being. Public Health, vol 120., pp 1117–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hartig T, Böök A, Garvill J, Olsson T, Gärling T (1996): Environmental influences on psychological restoration. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, vol 37., pp 378–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hartig T, Evans GW, Jamner LD, Davis DS, Gärling T (2003): Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol 23., pp 109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Huber, P (2010) Die Arbeitsmarktintegration von Migrantinnen und Migranten in Österreich. Österreichisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, WienGoogle Scholar
  11. Jandl M, Kraler A, (2003): Austria: A Country of Immigration? In: The Migration Information Source: (Accessed 24 Jan 2014)
  12. Jay M, Peters K, Buijs AE, Gentin S, Kloek ME, O’Brien L (2012): Towards access for all? Policy and research on access of ethnic minority groups to natural areas in four European countries. In: Forest Policy and Economics, vol 19., pp 4–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jay M, Schraml U (2009): Understanding the role of urban forests for migrants – uses, perception and integrative potential. In: Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol 8., pp 283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kloek ME, Buijs AE, Boersema JJ, Schouten MGC (2013): Crossing Borders: Review of Concepts and Approaches in Research on Greenspace, Immigration and Society in Northwest European Countries. Landscape Research, vol 38., pp 117–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuo FE, Faber Taylor A (2004): A potential natural treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Evidence from a national study. American Journal of Public Health, vol 94., pp 1580–1586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Martens D, Bauer N (2010): Im Test: Wald als Ressource für psychisches Wohlbefinden- In Test: Forest serving as a resource for psychological well-being. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen, vol 161(3)., pp 90–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morris J, O’Brien E (2011): Encouraging healthy outdoor activity amongst under-represented groups: An evaluation of the Active England woodland projects. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol 10., pp 323–333Google Scholar
  18. O’Brien L, Morris J (2013): Well-being for all? The social distribution of benefits gained from woodlands and forests in Britain. Local Environment, pp 1–28.Google Scholar
  19. Open Society Foundation (2010): Muslims in Europe: A Report on 11 EU Cities.–11-eu-cities (Accessed 25 Dec 2013)
  20. Peters K, Elands B, Buijs A (2010): Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? In: Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol 9., pp 93–100Google Scholar
  21. Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G (2007): Principles for designing transdisciplinary research. Oekom-Verlag, MunichGoogle Scholar
  22. Riesenfelder A, Schelepa S, Wetzel P (2011): Beschäftigungssituation von Personen mit Migrationshintergrund in Wien: Endbericht. (Accessed 10 Jan 2013)
  23. Statistik Austria (2009): Arbeits- und Lebenssituation von Migrantinnen und Migranten in Österreich: Modul der Arbeitskräfteerhebung 2008. Wien: Statistik Austria. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  24. Statistik Austria (2013): Bevölkerungsprognosen. (Accessed 14 Oct 2013)
  25. The Countryside Agency (2005): What about us? Diversity review evidence. Part one. http://publications. (Accessed 14 Oct 2013)Google Scholar
  26. Tirone S, Goodberry A (2011): Leisure, Biculturalism, and Second-Generation Canadians. Journal of Leisure Research, vol 43 (3)., pp 427–444Google Scholar
  27. UNESCO (1996): Biosphere Reserves: The Seville Strategy & the Statutory Framework of the World Network. Man and the Biosphere Programme.Google Scholar
  28. Van den Berg AE, Koole SL, van der Wulp NY (2003): Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol 23 (2)., pp 135–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Armstrong H (2004): Making the Unfamiliar Familiar: Research Journeys toward Understanding Migration and Place. Landscape Research, 29(3):237–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Blizard M A (2008): Architecture- Land Culture Practice. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. DubuqueGoogle Scholar
  31. Hamadeh S (2007): The City’s Pleasures: Istanbul in the Eighteenth Century. University of Washington Press, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  32. Kuban D (1996): Istanbul an Urban History: Byzantion, Constantinopolis, Istanbul. The Economic and Social History Foundation of Turkey, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  33. Rapoport A (1977): Human Aspects of Urban Form: Towards A Man-Environment Approach to Urban Form and Design. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Rishbeth C, Powell M (2013): Place Attachment and Memory: Landscapes of Belonging as Experienced Post-migration. Landscape Research, 38(2):160–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Turer Baskaya F A (2013): Landscape Concepts in Turkey. In: Bruns D, Kühne O (eds): Landschaften: Theorie, Praxis und Internationale Bezüge. Oceano Verlag, Schwerin, pp 101–113Google Scholar
  36. Unlu Yucesoy E (2006): Everyday Urban Public Space: Turkish Immigrant Women’s Perspective. Apeldoorn: Het Spinhuis Publishers, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Höglhammer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andreas Muhar
    • 1
  • Thomas Schauppenlehner
    • 1
  • Fatma Aycim Turer Baskaya
    • 2
  1. 1.WienAustria
  2. 2.IstanbulTürkei

Personalised recommendations