Ukr. Geogr. Ž. No. 1. 15–22
Language of publication: 
Full text: 
Grodzynskyi, M., 
Korohoda, N.,
Grodzynska, O.,
Svidzinska, D.,
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

Living in an urban environment poses additional risks to human health and psychological comfort. Green and blue zones of the city, providing ecosystem services, in particular cultural services (CES), reduce such risks. In our opinion, the consumption of CES to the maximum extent requires, among other things, that green areas are perceived as attractive to humans. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to find out the factors of perception and identify the reasons that underlie the choice of green areas for visiting, as well as limit the possibilities of their usage. The empirical material of the study was the data collected in the framework of the project Transnational partnership towards academic integration in Europe: Urban blue-green infrastructure in Europe’s East and West (LINC). To collect the data, an unlimited online survey and a direct survey of Kyiv residents in the form of individual interviews were used. The survey revealed the main factors of residents’ positive perceptions of green spaces. Kyiv inhabitants consider the spaces with woody vegetation and water bodies to be the most attractive. The nature of the green areas usage indicated that the most popular are the CEPs for recreation (87%), maintenance of moral and psychological (64%) as well as physical (52%) health. Thus, the areas that are able to provide them are chosen by Kyiv citizens as attractive for visiting. Also, the study identified problems that limit visiting green areas. Most of them are related to poor maintenance and lack of time for visiting. Littering was identified as the main problem (83.5%). However, the overall level of satisfaction of residents with the condition, quantity, and accessibility of green areas, which had above average and high scores, indicate that the problems related to individual areas, and not to the blue-green infrastructure of the city in general.

Key words: 
green zones, landscape perception, landscape functions, social survey, the city of Kyiv
1. Harting, T., & Kahn, P. (2016). Living in cities, naturally. In Science, 352, 938–940.
2. Department of Ecology and Natural Resources of Kyiv City State Administration. (2021). Integrated city target program of environmental well-being of Kyiv for 2022–2025. URL: [In Ukrainian].  [Управління екології та природних ресурсів Київської міської державної адміністрації. Комплексна міська цільова програма екологічного благополуччя міста Києва на 2022–2025 роки. .  
3. Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. In Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1), 129–138.
4. Herzog, T.R. (1995). A cognitive analysis of preferences for urban nature. “Landscape Perception. Readings in Environmental Psychology.” In A. Sinha (ed.) London: Academic Press, 65–81.
5. Ghofrani, Z., Sposito, V., & Faggian, R. (2017). A comprehensive review of blue-green infrastructure concepts. In International Journal of Environment and Sustainability 6 (1), 15–36. DOI:
6. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. Retrieved from:
7. Cultural Ecosystem Services. (2022). Biosphere Reserves for Climate Adaptation in Ukraine. Retrieved from:
8. Taylor, L., & Hochuli, D. (2017). Defining greenspace: multiple uses across multiple disciplines. In Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, 25–38. DOI:
9. Grodzynska, O. (2008). Human perception of urban landscapes (on the example of cities of southern Ukraine and Kyiv). In Scientific Notes of the V. I. Vernadsky Tavrichesky National University. Geography, 21 (60), 155–163.  [in Ukrainian].  [Гродзинська О. Ю. Сприйняття людиною міських ландшафтів (на прикладі міст півдня України та Києва). Ученые записки Таврич. нац. ун-та им. В. И. Вернадского. География. 2008, т. 21(60), № 2. С. 155–163.] 
10. Ulrich, R.S. (1981). Natural Versus Urban Scenes: Some Psychophysiological Effects. Environment and Behavior, 13, 523–556.
11. Elbakidze, M., Dawson, L., Milberg, P., Mikusiński, G., Hedblom, M., Kruhlov, I., Yamelynets, T., Schaffer, C., Johansson, K-E., & Grodzynskyi, M. (2022). Multiple factors shape the interaction of people with urban greenspace: Sweden as a case study. In Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 74, 127672. DOI: 
12. Dinda, S., & Ghosh, S. (2021). Perceived benefits, aesthetic preferences and willingness to pay for visiting urban parks: A case study in Kolkata, India. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 9(1), 36–50. DOI: 
13. Tsyhanok, Ye. (2021). Landscape and ecological organization of natural protected areas of urbanized zones (City of Kyiv case study). (Doctoral dissertation in specialty 106 Geography). Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine.  [in Ukrainian].  [Циганок Є. Ю. Ландшафтно-екологічна організація природоохоронних територій урбанізованих зон (на прикладі міста Києва). Дис. … д. філософ. за спец. 106 «Географія». Київський національний університет імені Тараса Шевченка, Київ, 2021.]
14. Ciecko, L., Tenneson K., Dilley J., & Wolf, K.W. (2012). Seattle’s forest ecosystem values: Analysis of the structure, function, and economic benefits. Seattle, WA: Green Cities Research Alliance.
15. Mexia, T., Vieira, J., Príncipe, A., Anjos, A., Silva, P., Lopes, N., Freitas, C., Santos-Reis, M., Correia, O., Branquinho, C., & Pinho, P. (2018). Ecosystem services: Urban parks under a magnifying glass. Environmental Research, 160, 469–478. DOI:
16. Pretzsch, H., Moser-Reischl, A., Rahman, M.A. et al. (2021). Towards sustainable management of the stock and ecosystem services of urban trees. From theory to model and application. DOI:
17. Korohoda, N., Halahan, O., & Kovtoniuk, O. (2022, November). The use of GIS and Remote Sensing Data in Determining the Condition of Green Areas in Kyiv. In 16th International Conference Monitoring of Geological Processes and Ecological Condition of the Environment (Vol. 2022, No. 1, pp. 1–5). EAGE Publications BV. DOI: