The ability to choose how to interact with other people in the park space and its role in terms of perceived safety and preference

Abstract

City parks are appreciated as spaces conducive to social interactions, but they are less often considered in the context that they might satisfy a need for privacy. There is a lack of research that tests the impact of various spatial features of parks (including vegetation features) on fulfilling this need and explaining the mechanisms of such impact, including the role played by sense of safety. This article fills this research gap.

The key variable whose role we tested in three models was the ability to choose whether or not to interact with other people in a park space. We tested two hypotheses. In the first, we checked whether the ability to choose to interact with other people and sense of safety are variables, that explains how the quantity of greenery constituting a viewing obstruction (high and medium) in a park space impacts preference. The second hypothesis assumed that safety explains how and why desired privacy and the ability to choose social interactions with other people in a park space affect preferences towards this space. We analysed correlations between variables and mediating effects. For this purpose, we employed a within-subjects design in which 243 participants evaluated a set of 120 eye-level photographs of park landscapes according to perceived safety, desired privacy, landscape preference and the ability to choose to interact with other people. We calculated the quantity of greenery in the photos as the percentage coverage of the frame with high and medium greenery.

We tested the hypotheses by analysing a number of mediation models. Both hypotheses were partially confirmed. The positive relationship between quantity of greenery and preferences is mediated by the ability to choose to interact with other people in a given space but not because of safety. At the same time, safety explains the positive impact of desired privacy on preferences by weakening it, but does not explain the impact of interaction choice on preferences. This means, inter alia, that spaces offering a choice of interactions are preferred – and the fact that they may be accompanied by reduced safety is not significant.