Бюллетень Московского общества испытателей природы. Отдел биологический
Bulletin of Moscow Society of Naturalists.<br /> Biological Series
Перейти в оглавление выпуска:
2018. T. 123. Vyp. 6.
Go to the issue table of contents:
2018. T. 123. Vyp. 6.

Данные статьи

Description

DOI

No

Авторы:

Authors:

Zakharov K.V.

Ключевые слова:

Keywords:

environment in cities, recreation, quality of citizens life.

Скачать pdf статьи:

Download the article:

Ссылка для цитирования:

For citation:

Zakharov K.V., The attitude citizens to wildlife: objective choice or subjective wishes // Byul. MOIP. Otd. biol. 2018. T. 123. Vyp. 6. S. 3-11

The attitude citizens to wildlife: objective choice or subjective wishes

The role of environment is emphasized in modern science about cities. The modern researchers highlight ecological, social, economic and system functions urban green spaces in megacities. Also citizens perception these spaces often as places for the entertainment vacation. The statement and appearance of wildlife in a city still is a subject of discussion. Therefore, we must answer the question: What sort has to be Nature in city? The review of modern scientific literature shows the citizen’s prefer of nature areas with natural structure of vegetation and small recreation development.

References

  • Abkar M., Schariff M., Kamal M., Mariapan M., Maulan S., Sheybani M. The role of urban green spaces in mood change // Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2010. N 4. Р. 5352–5361.
  • Abu-Ghazzeh T.M. Reclaiming public space: the ecology of neighborhood open spaces in the town of Abu-Nuseir, Jordan // Landscape and Urban Planning. 1996. Vol. 36. Р. 197–216.
  • Adinolfi C., Suárez-Cáceres G.P., Cariñanos P. Relation between visitors, behaviour and characteristics of green spaces in the city of Granada, south-eastern Spain // Urban-Forestry and Urban Greening. 2014. Vol. 13. Р. 534–542.
  • Al-Hathloul S., Mughal M.A. Creating identity in new communities: case studies from Saudi Arabia // Landscape and Urban Planning. 1999. Vol.  44. Р. 199–218.
  • Appleton J. The experience of  landscape. L., 1975.
  • Baris M.E., Satris S., Yargon M.E. The contribution of trees and green spacesto the urban climate: the case of Ankara // African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2009. Р. 791–800.
  • Barlam S., Dragićević S. Attitude toward urban green spaces: integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2005. Vol. 71. Р. 147–162.
  • Berman M.G., Jonides J., Kaplan S. The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature // Psychological Science. 2008. Vol. 19. Р. 1207–1212.
  • Bixler R.D., Floyd M.F. Nature is scary, disgusting and uncomfortable // Environmental Behavior. 1997. Vol. 29. P. 443–467.
  • Breuste J.H. Decision making, planning and design for the conservation of indigenous vegetation within urban development // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2004. Vol. 68. P. 439–452.
  • Buchecker M., Hunziker M., Felix K. Participatory Landscape development: overcoming social barriers to public involvement // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2003. Vol. 64. N 1–2. P. 29–46.
  • Burgess J., Harrison D., Limb M. People, parks and urban green: A study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city // Urban Studies. 1988. Vol. 25. Р. 455–573.
  • Carlson A. The aesthetic appreciation of environmental architecture under different conceptions of environment //  The journal of aesthetics education. 2006. Vol. 40. N 4. P. 77–88.
  • Carrus G., Lafortezza R., Colangelo G., Dentamaro I., Scopelliti M., Sanesi G. Relations between naturalness and perceived restorativeness of different urban green spaces // Psyecology. 2013. Vol. 4. N 3. Р. 227–244.
  • Chen B., Adino O.A., Bao Z. Assessment of aesthetic quality and multiple functions of urban green spaces for the users’ perspective: the case of Hangzhouflower garden, China // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2009. Vol. 93. Р. 76–82.
  • Chiesura A. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city // Landscape and Urban Planning, 2004. Vol. 68. Р. 129–138.
  • Conway H. Parks and people: the social functions // The Regeneration of Public Parks / Woudstra J., Fieldhouse K. (eds.). L., 2000. 340 p.
  • Cosgrov D.E. Seminar discussion // Landscape theory (The Art Seminar) / Ed. Rachael Ziady Delue and James Elkins. N.Y., 2008. P. 128.
  • COST E12. Memorandum of understanding for the implementation of a European concerted research action designed as COST Action E12 “Urban forests and trees”. European Comission. Brussels. 1997. 14 p.
  • Crow T., Brown T., DeYoung R. The Riverside and Berwyn experience: contrasts in landscape structure, perceptions of the urban landscape, and their effects on people // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2006. Vol. 75. Р. 282–299.
  • Daniel T.C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001. Vol. 54. P. 267–281.
  • Dearden P. Factors influencing landscape preferences: an empirical investigation // Landscape Planning. 1984. Vol. 11. P. 293–306.
  • Dobbs C., Escobedo F.J., Zipperer W.C. A framework for developing urban forest ecosystem services and good indicators // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2011. Vol. 99. P. 196–206.
  • Duhme F., Pauleit S. Naturschutzprogramm für München. Landschaftsökologisches Ramenkonzept // Geographische Rundschau. 1992. Vol. 44. N 10. S. 554–561.
  • Ellison A. The suffocating embrace of landscape and picturesque conditioning of ecology // Landscape Journal. 2013. Vol. 32. N 1. P. 79–94.
  • Fraser E.D.G., Kenney W.A. Culture background and landscape history as factors affecting perceptions of the urban forest // Journal of Arboriculture. 2000. Vol. 26. N 2. P. 106–112.
  • Fuller R.A., Irvine K.N., Devine-Wrigh P., Warren P.H., Gaston K.J. Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity // Biology Letter. 2007. Vol. 3. Р. 390–394.
  • Georgi N.J., Zafiriadis K. The impact of park trees on microclimate in urban areas // Urban Ecosystems. 2006. Vol. 9. P. 195–209.
  • Gidlöf-Gunnarsson A., Öhrström E. Noise and well-being in urban residential environments: The potential role of perceived availability to near green areas // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2007. Vol. 83. P. 115–126.
  • Givoni B. Impact of planted areas on urban environmental quality: a review // Atmospheric Environment. Part B: Urban Atmosphere. 1991. Vol. 25. Р. 289–299.
  • Gobster P. Aldo Leopold’s ecological esthetic: integrating esthetic and biodiversity values // Journal For. 1995. Vol. 93. P. 6–10.
  • Gobster P. Vision of nature: conflict and compatibility in urban park restoration // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001. Vol. 56. P. 35–51.
  • Gobster P. H., Nassauer J.I., Daniel T.S., Fry C. The shared landscapes: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? // Landscape ecology. 2007. Vol. 22. P. 959–972.
  • Gómez F., Gil L., Jabaloyes J. Experimental investigation of the thermal com-fort in the city: relationship with the green areas, interaction with the urban microclimate // Building and Environment, 2004. Vol. 39. Р. 1077–1086.
  • Hartig T., Mang M., Evans G. Restorative effects of natural environments experiences // Environ. Behav. 1991. Vol. 23. Р. 3–26.
  • Hartig T., Mitchell R., de Vries S., Frumkin H. Nature and health // Annu. Rev. of  Public Health, 2014. Vol. 35. P. 207–228.
  • Harvey T. An education 21 programme: orienting environmental education towards sustainable development and capacity building for Rio // Environmentalist. 1995. Vol. 15. P. 2002–2012.
  • Herrington S. The Nature of Ian McHarg,s science // Landscape Journal. 2010. Vol. 29. P. 1–10.
  • Irvine K.V., Warber S.L., Devine-Wright P., Gaston K.J. // Res. Publ. Health. 2013. Vol. 10. P. 417–442.
  • IUCN. The World Conservation Union, United Nation Environmental Program. Worldlife Fund for Nature. Caring for the Earth: a strategy for Sustainable living. Gland (Switzerland). 1991. 228 p.
  • Jellicoe G., Jellicoe S. The landscape of man: Shaping the environment from prehistory to the present day (3rd ed.). L., 1995. 408 p.
  • Jim C., Chen W. Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of urban greenspaces in Guangzhou, China // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2006. Vol. 75. Р. 81–96.
  • Junker B., Bucheker M. Aesthetics preferences versus ecological objectives in river restorations // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2008. Vol. 85. P. 141–154.
  • Kaplan S. The restorative benefits of Nature: toward an integrative framework // Journal of environmental psychology. 1995. Vol. 15. P. 169–182.
  • Kaplan R., Kaplan S. Humanscape: environments for people. North Scituate (USA). 1978. 480 p.
  • Kaymaz I.K. Landscape perception // Landscape Planning,  InTech / Dr. Murat Ozyavuz (Ed.). Rijeka (Croatia). 2012. P. 251–275.
  • Kelsey R. Landscape theory (The Art Seminar) (Ed. R. Ziady Delue and J. Elkins). N.Y., 2008. P. 128.
  • Lafortezza R., Carrus G., Sanesi G., Davies C. Benefits and well-being perceived by people visiting Green spaces in periods of heat stress // Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. 2009. Vol. 8. Р. 97–108.
  • Lee Y.-C., Kim K.-H. Attitudes of citizens towards urban parks and green spaces for urban sustainability: the case of Gyeongsan City, Republic of Korea // Sustainability. 2015. Vol. 7. P. 8240–8254.
  • Lothian A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is the landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? // Landscape and Urban Planning. 1999. Vol. 44. P. 177–198.
  • Lucy W.H., Phillips D.L. The post-suburban era comes to Richmond: city decline, suburban transition, and exurban growth // Landscape and Urban Planning. 1997. Vol. 36. Р. 259–275.
  • Maas J., Verheij R.A., Groenewegen P.P., de Vries S., Spreeuwenberg P. Green space, urbanity, and health: How strong is the relation? // J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 2006. Vol. 60. Р. 587–592.
  • Matsuoka R.H., Kaplan R. People needs in the urban landscape: analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2008. Vol. 84. Р. 7–19.
  • McHarg I. Design with Nature. N.Y., 1971. 198 p.
  • McKinney M.L. Urbanization, biodiversity and conservation // BioScience. 2002. Vol. 52. N 10. P. 883–890.
  • McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R. Potential energy savings in buildings by anurban tree planting programme in California // Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. 2003. Vol. 2. Р. 73–86.
  • Miller J.R. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience // Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 2005. Vol. 20. N 8. P. 430–434.
  • Monzingo L.A. The aesthetics of ecology design: seeing science as culture // Landscape Journal,  1997. Vol. 16. N 1. P. 46–59.
  • Nadenicek D.J., Hastings C.M. Environmental rhetoric, environmental sophism: the words and works of landscape architecture // Environmentalism in landscape architecture / M. Concan (Ed.). Washington, 2000. P. 133–162.
  • Nagendra H., Gopal D. The diversity, distribution, history and change in urbanparks: studies in Bangalore, India // Urban Ecosystem, 2010. Vol. 14. Р. 211–223.
  • Nassauer J.I. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames // Landscape Journal, 1995. 14. N 2. P. 161–170.
  • Nassauer J.I. Monitoring the success of metropolitan wetland restorations: culture sustainability and ecological function // Wetlands, 2004. Vol. 24. P. 756–765.
  • Noralizawati M. Public preferences towards naturalistic and designed landscape pattern in park area. (Master Dissertation, Build Environment, University of Technology MARA, Malaysia). Shah Alam (Malaysia), 2009 [Manuscript inpubl.].
  • Oguz D. User surveys of Ankara’s urban parks // Landscape and Urban Planning, 2000. Vol. 52. Р. 165–171.
  • Oku H., Fukamachi K. The differences in scenic perception of forest visitors through their attributes and recreational activity // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2006. Vol. 75. Р. 34–42.
  • Ozguner H., Kendle A.D. Public attitudes towards naturalistic versus designed landscapes in the city of Sheffield (UK) // Landscape and Urban Planning, 2006. Vol. 74. Р. 139–157.
  • Parsons R. Conflict between ecology suitability and environmental aesthetics: conundrum, canard and curiosity // Landscape and Urban Planning, 1995. Vol. 32. P. 227–244.
  • Pataky D.E., McCarthy H.R., Litvak E., Pincetl S. Transpiration of urban forest in the Los Angeles metropolitan area // Ecological Applications, 2011. Vol. 21. Р. 661–677.
  • Pregio C., Breuste J.-H., Rojas J. Perception and value of nature in urban landscapes: a comparative Analysis of cities in Germany, Chile and Spain // Landscape Online, 2008. Vol. 7. P. 1–22.
  • Roovers P., Hermy M., Gulinck H. Visitor profile, perceptions in forests from a gradient of increasing urbanization in central Belgium // Landscape and Urban Planning, 2002. Vol. 59. Р. 129–145.
  • Rydberg D., Falck J. Urban forestry in Sweden from a silvicultural perspective: a review // Landscape and Urban Planning, 2000. Vol. 47. Р. 1–18.
  • Spronken-Smith R.A., Oke T.R. The thermal regime of urban parks in two cities with different summer climates // International Journal of Remote Sensing. 1998. Vol. 19. Р. 2085–2104.
  • Standish R.J., Hobbs R.J., Miller J.R. Improving city life: option for ecology restoration in urban landscapes and how these might influence interactions between people and nature // Landscape Ecology. 2013. Vol. 28. P. 1213–1221.
  • Steel B., List P., Schindler B. Conflicting values about federal forest: a comparison of national and Oregon public // Soc. Nat. Resour. 1994. Vol. 7. P. 137–153.
  • Stewart W.P., Liebert D., Larkin K.W. Community identities as visions for landscape change // Landscape and Urban Planning, 2004. Vol. 69. Р. 315–334.
  • Tahvanainen L., Tyrväinen L., Ihalainen M., Vuorela N., Kolehmainen O. Forest management and public perception – visual version verbal information // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001. Vol. 53. P. 53–70.
  • Tzoulas K., Korpela K., Venn S., Yli-Pelkonen V., Kaźmierczak A., Niemelä J., James P. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: a literature review // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2007. Vol. 81. P. 167–178.
  • Ulrich R.S. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery // Science, 1984. Vol. 224. Р. 420–421.
  • Ulrich R.S. How Design Impacts Wellness // The Healthcare Forum journal, 1992, September. Р. 20–25.
  • Van den Berg A.E., Koole S. New wilderness in the Netherlands: an investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2006. Vol. 78. P. 362–372.
  • Yang D., Luo T., Lin T., Qui Q., Luo Y. Combining aesthetic with ecological values for landscape sustainability // Plos ONE. 2014. Vol. 9. N 7. P. 1–7.
  • Yu K. Cultural variations in landscape preference. Comparisons among Chinese subgroups and Western design experts // Landscape and Urban Planning, 1995. Vol. 32. P. 107–126.
  • Zhang Y., Zheng B., Laband D. Assessing preferences for and attitudes towards urban forests. Final report to the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Committee. School of Forestry and Wildlife Science, Auburn University, AL 36849. December, 2010. 171 p.
  • Zhang B. The aesthetic attributes of green infrastructure – a study of the perceptions of beauty, ecological significance, and naturalness for a stormwater treatment area by three college populations with different educational backgrounds. A Dissertation presented to the graduate school of the University of Florida in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy. University of Florida, 2013. 164 p.

Список литературы

  • Abkar M., Schariff M., Kamal M., Mariapan M., Maulan S., Sheybani M. The role of urban green spaces in mood change // Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2010. N 4. Р. 5352–5361.
  • Abu-Ghazzeh T.M. Reclaiming public space: the ecology of neighborhood open spaces in the town of Abu-Nuseir, Jordan // Landscape and Urban Planning. 1996. Vol. 36. Р. 197–216.
  • Adinolfi C., Suárez-Cáceres G.P., Cariñanos P. Relation between visitors, behaviour and characteristics of green spaces in the city of Granada, south-eastern Spain // Urban-Forestry and Urban Greening. 2014. Vol. 13. Р. 534–542.
  • Al-Hathloul S., Mughal M.A. Creating identity in new communities: case studies from Saudi Arabia // Landscape and Urban Planning. 1999. Vol.  44. Р. 199–218.
  • Appleton J. The experience of  landscape. L., 1975.
  • Baris M.E., Satris S., Yargon M.E. The contribution of trees and green spacesto the urban climate: the case of Ankara // African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2009. Р. 791–800.
  • Barlam S., Dragićević S. Attitude toward urban green spaces: integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2005. Vol. 71. Р. 147–162.
  • Berman M.G., Jonides J., Kaplan S. The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature // Psychological Science. 2008. Vol. 19. Р. 1207–1212.
  • Bixler R.D., Floyd M.F. Nature is scary, disgusting and uncomfortable // Environmental Behavior. 1997. Vol. 29. P. 443–467.
  • Breuste J.H. Decision making, planning and design for the conservation of indigenous vegetation within urban development // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2004. Vol. 68. P. 439–452.
  • Buchecker M., Hunziker M., Felix K. Participatory Landscape development: overcoming social barriers to public involvement // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2003. Vol. 64. N 1–2. P. 29–46.
  • Burgess J., Harrison D., Limb M. People, parks and urban green: A study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city // Urban Studies. 1988. Vol. 25. Р. 455–573.
  • Carlson A. The aesthetic appreciation of environmental architecture under different conceptions of environment //  The journal of aesthetics education. 2006. Vol. 40. N 4. P. 77–88.
  • Carrus G., Lafortezza R., Colangelo G., Dentamaro I., Scopelliti M., Sanesi G. Relations between naturalness and perceived restorativeness of different urban green spaces // Psyecology. 2013. Vol. 4. N 3. Р. 227–244.
  • Chen B., Adino O.A., Bao Z. Assessment of aesthetic quality and multiple functions of urban green spaces for the users’ perspective: the case of Hangzhouflower garden, China // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2009. Vol. 93. Р. 76–82.
  • Chiesura A. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city // Landscape and Urban Planning, 2004. Vol. 68. Р. 129–138.
  • Conway H. Parks and people: the social functions // The Regeneration of Public Parks / Woudstra J., Fieldhouse K. (eds.). L., 2000. 340 p.
  • Cosgrov D.E. Seminar discussion // Landscape theory (The Art Seminar) / Ed. Rachael Ziady Delue and James Elkins. N.Y., 2008. P. 128.
  • COST E12. Memorandum of understanding for the implementation of a European concerted research action designed as COST Action E12 “Urban forests and trees”. European Comission. Brussels. 1997. 14 p.
  • Crow T., Brown T., DeYoung R. The Riverside and Berwyn experience: contrasts in landscape structure, perceptions of the urban landscape, and their effects on people // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2006. Vol. 75. Р. 282–299.
  • Daniel T.C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001. Vol. 54. P. 267–281.
  • Dearden P. Factors influencing landscape preferences: an empirical investigation // Landscape Planning. 1984. Vol. 11. P. 293–306.
  • Dobbs C., Escobedo F.J., Zipperer W.C. A framework for developing urban forest ecosystem services and good indicators // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2011. Vol. 99. P. 196–206.
  • Duhme F., Pauleit S. Naturschutzprogramm für München. Landschaftsökologisches Ramenkonzept // Geographische Rundschau. 1992. Vol. 44. N 10. S. 554–561.
  • Ellison A. The suffocating embrace of landscape and picturesque conditioning of ecology // Landscape Journal. 2013. Vol. 32. N 1. P. 79–94.
  • Fraser E.D.G., Kenney W.A. Culture background and landscape history as factors affecting perceptions of the urban forest // Journal of Arboriculture. 2000. Vol. 26. N 2. P. 106–112.
  • Fuller R.A., Irvine K.N., Devine-Wrigh P., Warren P.H., Gaston K.J. Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity // Biology Letter. 2007. Vol. 3. Р. 390–394.
  • Georgi N.J., Zafiriadis K. The impact of park trees on microclimate in urban areas // Urban Ecosystems. 2006. Vol. 9. P. 195–209.
  • Gidlöf-Gunnarsson A., Öhrström E. Noise and well-being in urban residential environments: The potential role of perceived availability to near green areas // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2007. Vol. 83. P. 115–126.
  • Givoni B. Impact of planted areas on urban environmental quality: a review // Atmospheric Environment. Part B: Urban Atmosphere. 1991. Vol. 25. Р. 289–299.
  • Gobster P. Aldo Leopold’s ecological esthetic: integrating esthetic and biodiversity values // Journal For. 1995. Vol. 93. P. 6–10.
  • Gobster P. Vision of nature: conflict and compatibility in urban park restoration // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001. Vol. 56. P. 35–51.
  • Gobster P. H., Nassauer J.I., Daniel T.S., Fry C. The shared landscapes: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? // Landscape ecology. 2007. Vol. 22. P. 959–972.
  • Gómez F., Gil L., Jabaloyes J. Experimental investigation of the thermal com-fort in the city: relationship with the green areas, interaction with the urban microclimate // Building and Environment, 2004. Vol. 39. Р. 1077–1086.
  • Hartig T., Mang M., Evans G. Restorative effects of natural environments experiences // Environ. Behav. 1991. Vol. 23. Р. 3–26.
  • Hartig T., Mitchell R., de Vries S., Frumkin H. Nature and health // Annu. Rev. of  Public Health, 2014. Vol. 35. P. 207–228.
  • Harvey T. An education 21 programme: orienting environmental education towards sustainable development and capacity building for Rio // Environmentalist. 1995. Vol. 15. P. 2002–2012.
  • Herrington S. The Nature of Ian McHarg,s science // Landscape Journal. 2010. Vol. 29. P. 1–10.
  • Irvine K.V., Warber S.L., Devine-Wright P., Gaston K.J. // Res. Publ. Health. 2013. Vol. 10. P. 417–442.
  • IUCN. The World Conservation Union, United Nation Environmental Program. Worldlife Fund for Nature. Caring for the Earth: a strategy for Sustainable living. Gland (Switzerland). 1991. 228 p.
  • Jellicoe G., Jellicoe S. The landscape of man: Shaping the environment from prehistory to the present day (3rd ed.). L., 1995. 408 p.
  • Jim C., Chen W. Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of urban greenspaces in Guangzhou, China // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2006. Vol. 75. Р. 81–96.
  • Junker B., Bucheker M. Aesthetics preferences versus ecological objectives in river restorations // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2008. Vol. 85. P. 141–154.
  • Kaplan S. The restorative benefits of Nature: toward an integrative framework // Journal of environmental psychology. 1995. Vol. 15. P. 169–182.
  • Kaplan R., Kaplan S. Humanscape: environments for people. North Scituate (USA). 1978. 480 p.
  • Kaymaz I.K. Landscape perception // Landscape Planning,  InTech / Dr. Murat Ozyavuz (Ed.). Rijeka (Croatia). 2012. P. 251–275.
  • Kelsey R. Landscape theory (The Art Seminar) (Ed. R. Ziady Delue and J. Elkins). N.Y., 2008. P. 128.
  • Lafortezza R., Carrus G., Sanesi G., Davies C. Benefits and well-being perceived by people visiting Green spaces in periods of heat stress // Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. 2009. Vol. 8. Р. 97–108.
  • Lee Y.-C., Kim K.-H. Attitudes of citizens towards urban parks and green spaces for urban sustainability: the case of Gyeongsan City, Republic of Korea // Sustainability. 2015. Vol. 7. P. 8240–8254.
  • Lothian A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is the landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? // Landscape and Urban Planning. 1999. Vol. 44. P. 177–198.
  • Lucy W.H., Phillips D.L. The post-suburban era comes to Richmond: city decline, suburban transition, and exurban growth // Landscape and Urban Planning. 1997. Vol. 36. Р. 259–275.
  • Maas J., Verheij R.A., Groenewegen P.P., de Vries S., Spreeuwenberg P. Green space, urbanity, and health: How strong is the relation? // J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 2006. Vol. 60. Р. 587–592.
  • Matsuoka R.H., Kaplan R. People needs in the urban landscape: analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2008. Vol. 84. Р. 7–19.
  • McHarg I. Design with Nature. N.Y., 1971. 198 p.
  • McKinney M.L. Urbanization, biodiversity and conservation // BioScience. 2002. Vol. 52. N 10. P. 883–890.
  • McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R. Potential energy savings in buildings by anurban tree planting programme in California // Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. 2003. Vol. 2. Р. 73–86.
  • Miller J.R. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience // Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 2005. Vol. 20. N 8. P. 430–434.
  • Monzingo L.A. The aesthetics of ecology design: seeing science as culture // Landscape Journal,  1997. Vol. 16. N 1. P. 46–59.
  • Nadenicek D.J., Hastings C.M. Environmental rhetoric, environmental sophism: the words and works of landscape architecture // Environmentalism in landscape architecture / M. Concan (Ed.). Washington, 2000. P. 133–162.
  • Nagendra H., Gopal D. The diversity, distribution, history and change in urbanparks: studies in Bangalore, India // Urban Ecosystem, 2010. Vol. 14. Р. 211–223.
  • Nassauer J.I. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames // Landscape Journal, 1995. 14. N 2. P. 161–170.
  • Nassauer J.I. Monitoring the success of metropolitan wetland restorations: culture sustainability and ecological function // Wetlands, 2004. Vol. 24. P. 756–765.
  • Noralizawati M. Public preferences towards naturalistic and designed landscape pattern in park area. (Master Dissertation, Build Environment, University of Technology MARA, Malaysia). Shah Alam (Malaysia), 2009 [Manuscript inpubl.].
  • Oguz D. User surveys of Ankara’s urban parks // Landscape and Urban Planning, 2000. Vol. 52. Р. 165–171.
  • Oku H., Fukamachi K. The differences in scenic perception of forest visitors through their attributes and recreational activity // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2006. Vol. 75. Р. 34–42.
  • Ozguner H., Kendle A.D. Public attitudes towards naturalistic versus designed landscapes in the city of Sheffield (UK) // Landscape and Urban Planning, 2006. Vol. 74. Р. 139–157.
  • Parsons R. Conflict between ecology suitability and environmental aesthetics: conundrum, canard and curiosity // Landscape and Urban Planning, 1995. Vol. 32. P. 227–244.
  • Pataky D.E., McCarthy H.R., Litvak E., Pincetl S. Transpiration of urban forest in the Los Angeles metropolitan area // Ecological Applications, 2011. Vol. 21. Р. 661–677.
  • Pregio C., Breuste J.-H., Rojas J. Perception and value of nature in urban landscapes: a comparative Analysis of cities in Germany, Chile and Spain // Landscape Online, 2008. Vol. 7. P. 1–22.
  • Roovers P., Hermy M., Gulinck H. Visitor profile, perceptions in forests from a gradient of increasing urbanization in central Belgium // Landscape and Urban Planning, 2002. Vol. 59. Р. 129–145.
  • Rydberg D., Falck J. Urban forestry in Sweden from a silvicultural perspective: a review // Landscape and Urban Planning, 2000. Vol. 47. Р. 1–18.
  • Spronken-Smith R.A., Oke T.R. The thermal regime of urban parks in two cities with different summer climates // International Journal of Remote Sensing. 1998. Vol. 19. Р. 2085–2104.
  • Standish R.J., Hobbs R.J., Miller J.R. Improving city life: option for ecology restoration in urban landscapes and how these might influence interactions between people and nature // Landscape Ecology. 2013. Vol. 28. P. 1213–1221.
  • Steel B., List P., Schindler B. Conflicting values about federal forest: a comparison of national and Oregon public // Soc. Nat. Resour. 1994. Vol. 7. P. 137–153.
  • Stewart W.P., Liebert D., Larkin K.W. Community identities as visions for landscape change // Landscape and Urban Planning, 2004. Vol. 69. Р. 315–334.
  • Tahvanainen L., Tyrväinen L., Ihalainen M., Vuorela N., Kolehmainen O. Forest management and public perception – visual version verbal information // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001. Vol. 53. P. 53–70.
  • Tzoulas K., Korpela K., Venn S., Yli-Pelkonen V., Kaźmierczak A., Niemelä J., James P. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: a literature review // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2007. Vol. 81. P. 167–178.
  • Ulrich R.S. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery // Science, 1984. Vol. 224. Р. 420–421.
  • Ulrich R.S. How Design Impacts Wellness // The Healthcare Forum journal, 1992, September. Р. 20–25.
  • Van den Berg A.E., Koole S. New wilderness in the Netherlands: an investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2006. Vol. 78. P. 362–372.
  • Yang D., Luo T., Lin T., Qui Q., Luo Y. Combining aesthetic with ecological values for landscape sustainability // Plos ONE. 2014. Vol. 9. N 7. P. 1–7.
  • Yu K. Cultural variations in landscape preference. Comparisons among Chinese subgroups and Western design experts // Landscape and Urban Planning, 1995. Vol. 32. P. 107–126.
  • Zhang Y., Zheng B., Laband D. Assessing preferences for and attitudes towards urban forests. Final report to the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Committee. School of Forestry and Wildlife Science, Auburn University, AL 36849. December, 2010. 171 p.
  • Zhang B. The aesthetic attributes of green infrastructure – a study of the perceptions of beauty, ecological significance, and naturalness for a stormwater treatment area by three college populations with different educational backgrounds. A Dissertation presented to the graduate school of the University of Florida in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy. University of Florida, 2013. 164 p.

Бюллетень МОИП (отд. биол.) не входит в Web of Science Core Collection, но индексируется в пяти продуктах компании Thomson Reuters на платформе Web of Science —  Russian Science Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews, BIOSIS Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Zoological Record.

 

Бюллетень МОИП (отд. биол.) входит в число журналов из списка RSCI, в связи с чем, согласно Рекомендациям ВАК от 26.10.2022 г. (пункт 5), приравнен к журналам Перечня ВАК из К1.

Bulletin of the MOIP (ed. biol.) It is not included in the Web of Science Core Collection, but is indexed in five Thomson Reuters products on the Web of Science platform — Russian Science Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews, BIOSIS Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Zoological Record.

The Bulletin of the MOIP (otd. biol.) is one of the journals from the RSCI list, and therefore, according to the Recommendations of the Higher Attestation Commission of 10/26/2022 (item 5), it is equated to the journals of the Higher Attestation Commission List from K1.