Table of contents:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Introduction
Research question
Hypothesis
Methodology
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.

5.
6.

Summary of Demographic data

Results compilation
i.

ii.
iii.

7.

Scope Context
Variable /Determinants
Research Model
Questionnaire Design
Data Collection, Analysis and Presentation

Detailed Description of Results

a)
Preferences
b)
Acceptance
c)
Differences
d)
Appreciation
Respondent Personal Comments
Recommendations
a)
Questionnaire
b)
Internationalism

Conclusions

2|P a g e

1. INTRODUCTION
Our world is changing every day and lapse of time and space is shrinking quickly. Todays human
being is living on an information highway. We learn from each other much more quickly than
ever before. Trends changes are measured in minutes and seconds rather decades and years.
This is called global village and human out reached has become enormous. In this age of
globalization, internationalism is taking a new shape and its new dimensions are emerging. In the
process of change, ultimately globalization has to replace internationalism. Learning
internationalism means opening of new folds and giving it space to transform in to globalization.
This project in field of landscape architecture is an attempt to unfold the folds of nationalism and
bringing together some information and the people from distant geographies.
The topic of this research Project is Internationalism in Landscape Architecture, where
Germany is considered as a host and foreigners as guest. Keeping in view this host guest
relationship some research question is developed and from there a hypothesis. The
methodology of project was based on an online questionnaire which then published on social
media to approach respondents living in various cities of Germany. Some earlier researches
were also consulted in the field of socio-psychological area, spatial and environmental sciences.
Environmental Perception and Spatial Cognition
Environmental psychologists emphasize understanding how individuals respond to complex
everyday scenes (e.g., Ittelson, 1978). A persons level of awareness, degree of adaptation, and
necessary selectiveness in attending to environmental cues within complex real scenes mean
that people sometimes miss important elements of a scene resulting in negative consequences
for health or safety (e.g., Stamps, 2005).Environmental perception varies importantly with
personal and cultural differences; People often see and interpret the same scene differently.
Brunswiks (1956) probabilistic functionalism (see Figure 1.), Gibsons (1976) theory of
affordances, Berlynes

Figure 1: Brunswiks lens model, adapted for environmental perception (Gifford, 2007a)

3|P a g e

2. Research Question:
What is the contemporary use of an Open Space in an internationalized urban
environment in Germany?
3. Hypothesis
There are basically two kinds of research questions: testable and non-testable. Neither is
better than the other, and both have a place in applied research.
The Preferences/ Acceptances/ Differences in the use of a park (Open Space) changes with the
change of peoples background.

4. Methodology
Methodology to handle this project is unique in the sense that no existing method has been
adopted. Scope of project is defined and variables were identified. In order to reach results,
scope and variables were simply multiplied.
Main approach to handle this project is based on two aspects:
Scope
Variables

Scope X Variable= Results

i.

Scope Context

In project this project scope is designed on the basis of three elements:

a) Demographic
b) Geographical
c) Historical
a) Demographic:
In the demographic element main target areas and groups are:

International students
Immigrants
Tourists
Age
Gender
Ethnic background
Cultural background

4|P a g e

b) Geographical:
In the geographic element main target areas and groups are:
Germany as a host and all nations, living in Germany from other geographical locations as
guest.

c) Historical:
Historical element in this project is considered in a context as a time in space that is the
present time contemporary.

Figure 2: Scope context model

ii.

Variables/ Determinants:

Independent variables:

People
Open Space

5|P a g e

Dependent Variables

Preferences
Acceptance
Difference
Appreciation

Figure 3: Variable interaction model

Independent variables
People
Open Space

Dependent variables
Preferences

Acceptances

Differences

Appreciation

Figure 4: Table of variables

6|P a g e

iii.

Research Model:

Figure 5: Basic research model

Detailed Research Model

Figure 6: Detailed research model

7|P a g e

iv.

Questionnaire Design:

A questionnaire was designed on the basis of given variables and published online to collect
responses. It was a limited time publishing about one week. Sample questionnaire is shown in
the following pages:

8|P a g e

9|P a g e

10 | P a g e

11 | P a g e

12 | P a g e

13 | P a g e

iv.

Data Collection, Analysis and Presentation:

Data has been collected from a questionnaire based survey from target group living in
different cities in Germany on a random sampling criteria and has been measured and
presented on matric scales in percentages.
5. Summary of Demographic Data:
i.

Age
Respondents belong to different age groups mentioned in chart.
Age
2%
14%

84%

20- 30 Years

ii.

30-40 Years

40 Years and above

Gender
Respondents belong to both genders and are analyzed on regional basis.
Gender

120%
100%
100%

89%
78%

80%

71%
58%

60%

42%
40%

29%

22%
20%

11%

0%
Male

Female

Eastern Europe and

Russia

Male

Female

Far East

Male

Female

Middle Eastern

Male
South
American

Male

Female

South Asian

Figure 7 Gender Regional analysis

14 | P a g e

iii.

Nationality

The survey was conducted on 26 nationalities and then reduced to 5 regions to analyze the data.

Figure 8 World map showing respondents country of origin

Regions
Eastern Europe and Russia

Nationality
Albanian
Armenian
Austrian
Belarussian
Russian
Turkish
Ukrainian

Regions
Middle Eastern

South American

Nationality
Iranian
Iraqi
Syrian
Jordanian
Egyptian
Mexican

South Asian

Far East

China
South Korean
Vietnam

Bangladeshi
Indian
Pakistani
Sri Lankan
Figure 9 Countries to region reduction table

15 | P a g e

iv.

Residence status(in Germany)

Most of respondents are student and tourists.
4%

0%

0%

Student
Tourist
Immigrants
Refuguees
96%

Figure 10 Resident status chart

v.

Education and Professions

All respondents are university students, few in orientation stage of PhD in Germany in different
fields. Here is chart for their professions;
Professions
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

39%

20%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

4%

5%

9%

13%

Figure 11 Chart showing professions of respondents

vi.

Presence in Germany
Respondents are living in Germany from 3months to three and half years mostly are
students, living in 13 different cities of Germany. Some responses of tourists are also included
in the data. Some students arrived in last three months and are in orientation process for PhD
in Germany. Longest staying respondents in Germany are three and half years.

16 | P a g e

vii.

City Of Residence
Respondents belong to thirteen different cities but mostly belonging to Saxony Anhalt
state.

Figure 12 Respondents cities of residence in Germany

17 | P a g e

6. Results Compilation
i. Detailed Description of Results
a) Preferences
1. How many times do you visit a park?
Analysis Description:
Middle Eastern have 6% more trend to visit
parks often than South Asians but Far
Eastern and Eastern European less
occasionally Visit Park or not at all on daily
basis.
One possibility could be that Middle East
have least opportunities for such facilities
and south have lots of management issues.
This could be the reason that when they
find this opportunity they tried to avail it.

Figure 13 Group of charts on Regional basis showing frequency of park visit

2. Do you like to visit alone or with family or friends?

Analysis Description:
Almost all respondents are without families
in Germany when they were asked that how
they would like to visit a park, Most of
Eastern European and Russian wanted to
visit alone that is 25% and least that is 12%
wanted to visit with families. Never the less
most of them with any regional background
wanted to visit a park in some company of
friend or family.

Figure 14 Chart showing accompany in park visit on regional basis

18 | P a g e

3. What is the distance of nearest Parks?

Park Distance from Home
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%

Eastern Europe and Russia

Far East

Middle Eastern

less than 250m

500m and more

250m-500m

less than 250m

500m and more

250m-500m

less than 250m

500m and more

250m-500m

less than 250m

500m and more

250m-500m

0%

South Asian

Figure 15 Distance of nearest park for different regional respondents

Analysis: Park distance vs Frequency of visit by people from different regions.

Park Distance vs Frequency of Visit
80%
68%

70%
60%
50%

58%

57%

56%
44%

43%

40%
25%

30%

17%

20%
10%

0%

20%
12%

0%

0%
weekly monthly
44%

22%

daily
33%

weekly monthly
29%

57%

daily
14%

weekly monthly
25%

daily

58%

17%

weekly monthly
41%

daily

44%

15%

250m- 500m less than 250m- 500m less than 250m- 500m less than 250m- 500m less than
500m and more 250m
500m and more 250m
500m and more 250m
500m and more 250m
Eastern Europe and Russia

Far East

Middle Eastern

South Asian

Figure 16 Region vs Distance vs frequency of Park visit analysis chart

19 | P a g e

4. What is the distance of your Favorite Parks from your place?

Distance of Favourit Park vs Frequency of Visit

80%
68%

70%

50%

58%

57%

56%

60%

44%

43%

40%
30%

25%
20%

17%

20%

12%

10%
0%

0%

0%
daily
38%

weekly monthly
13%

50%

daily
14%

weekly monthly
14%

71%

daily
15%

weekly monthly
23%

daily

62%

19%

weekly monthly
42%

38%

less than 500m- 1000m less than 500m- 1000m less than 500m- 1000m less than 500m- 1000m
500m 1000m and more 500m 1000m and more 500m 1000m and more 500m 1000m and more
Eastern Europe and Russia

Far East

Middle Eastern

South Asian

Figure 17 Favorite Park vs Distance vs Frequency of visit analysis

Regions

Park Distance

Response

Frequency

Response

Eastern Europe and Russia

less than 500m

38%

daily

0%

500m-1000m

13%

weekly

56%

1000m and more

50%

monthly

44%

less than 500m

14%

daily

0%

500m-1000m

14%

weekly

43%

1000m and more

71%

monthly

57%

less than 500m

15%

daily

17%

500m-1000m

23%

weekly

25%

1000m and more

62%

monthly

58%

less than 500m

19%

daily

12%

500m-1000m

42%

weekly

20%

1000m and more

38%

monthly

68%

Far East

Middle Eastern

South Asian

20 | P a g e

5. Choose what activities you like to do in a park? You can choose more than one
option:

Favourit Activity in Park

70%

60%
60%

50%

41%
40%
40%
32%
30%
23%

21%
20%

18%

21%
20%

16%
15%

15%
10%

18%
15%

10%

10%
5%

4%
0% 0% 0%

5%
0% 0% 0%

5%
0% 0% 0%

2%

4%
0%

0%
For Relaxing

For Socializing

For a stroll

For Kids

Eastern Europe and Russia

To view nature

South Asia

Studying

Far East

To walk my dog

For Exercise

Middle East

Figure 18 Activities in Park chart regional basis analysis

Region

For
Relaxing
40%

For
Socializing
15%

For a
Stroll
15%

41%

18%

Far East

60%

Middle East

32%

Eastern Europe
and Russia
South Asia

For
Kids
0%

To view
Nature
5%

Studying
5%

To walk my
Dog
5%

For
Exercise
15%

16%

0%

0%

0%

2%

23%

10%

10%

0%

0%

0%

0%

20%

21%

18%

4%

0%

0%

4%

21%

21 | P a g e

6. Please Rate the elements (In case of planting preferences).

Figure 19 Rating chart for planting preferences

22 | P a g e

Please rate the elements (In case of material used in German parks; preferences).

Figure 20 Rating chart for material preferences

23 | P a g e

Please rate the elements (In case of hardscape in German parks; preferences).

Figure 21 Rating chart for hardscape element preferences

24 | P a g e

Please rate the elements (In case of seasonal look of German parks; preferences)

Figure 22 Rating chart for seasonal look preferences

25 | P a g e

Please rate the elements (In case of time look in German parks; preferences)

Figure 23 Rating chart for time look preferences

26 | P a g e

Please rate the elements (In case of space concentration in German parks; preferences).

Figure 24 Rating chart for space concentration preferences

27 | P a g e

Please rate the elements (In case of Quality in German parks; preferences).

Figure 25 Rating chart for quality preferences

28 | P a g e

Please rate the elements (In case of use in German parks; preferences).

Figure 26 Rating chart for use of park preferences

29 | P a g e

7. Which will be your preferred park type from the following images:

Prefrence of Park Type

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

86%
75%

44%

44%

41%

30%
14%17%

11%

8% 7%
0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

11%

11%

0% 0% 0%

Eastern Europe and Russia

0% 0% 0%

D
Far East

Middle Eastern

South Asian

Figure 27 Preferred park type in Germany

Region

Eastern Europe and Russia

44%

0%

0%

11%

0%

44%

Far East

14%

0%

0%

0%

0%

86%

Middle Eastern

17%

8%

0%

0%

0%

75%

South Asian

30%

7%

11%

0%

11%

41%

Figure 28 Preferred park type choices

30 | P a g e

b) Acceptance
1. Visiting a park has a value for your time?

Figure 29 visiting park vs value for the time chart

2. Do you like enclosure in a parks?

Enclosure in Park
120%
100%
100%

83%

78%

80%

81%

60%
40%
22%

19%

17%

20%
0%
0%
no

yes

no

Eastern Europe and

Russia

yes
Far East

no

yes

Middle Eastern

no

yes

South Asian

Figure 30 Enclosure in park choice chart

31 | P a g e

3. Do you like stairs or ramps in a parks?

Eastern Europe and

Russia

Far East

no
11%

some
times
45%

Middle Eastern

no
43%

yes
43%

yes
44%
some
times
14%

South Asian

no
8%

no
22%

yes
42%
yes
59%

some
times
50%

some
times
19%

Figure 31 Stairs in park choice analysis

4. Do you like children play places in parks?

Children Play Places in Park
86%

90%
80%

85%

83%

78%

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%

22%

17%

14%

20%

15%

10%
0%
no

yes

no

Eastern Europe and Russia

yes
Far East

no

yes

Middle Eastern

no

yes

South Asian

Figure 32 Children play places in a park analysis chart

32 | P a g e

5. Do you like a Big or small parks?

S I Z E O F PA R K
90%

85%

83%

80%

71%

70%
60%

56%

50%
40%

29%

30%

22%

20%

11%

17%

11%

11%

10%

4%

0%
big

small

both

medium

Eastern Europe and Russia

big

small

Far East

big

small

Middle Eastern

big

small

Depends

South Asian

Figure 33 Size of park choice analysis

6. Do you like levels in parks?

Levels in Park
120%
100%
100%

86%

80%

85%

67%

60%
40%

33%
15%

14%

20%

0%

0%

0%
no

yes

Eastern Europe and

Russia

no

yes
Far East

no

yes

no

Middle Eastern

no

yes

South Asian

Figure 34 Levels in a park choice analysis

33 | P a g e

7. Do you like multicultural urban elements in a parks?

Figure 35 Multicultural elements in a park choice analysis

8. Do you like more natural or more manmade landscape?

Natural or Man made Landscapes

120%
100%
100%

96%

86%
78%

80%
60%
40%
22%

14%

20%

4%

0%
0%
Man made Natural Man made Natural Man made Natural
Eastern Europe and
Russia

Far East

Middle Eastern

Natural

both

South Asian

Figure 36 Choice between natural and manmade landscape chart

34 | P a g e

c) Differences
1. What design element you find missing in German park

Figure 37 Design elements find missing

Region

Reduced

Response

Comments

Eastern Europe
and Russia

Design

11%

I dont really want to put something in our parks from other

cultures. They have their own style,
I would prefer to save this individuality

Elements

11%

sport elements

Levels

11%

Ramp

No Comment

11%

No Comment

Nothing

11%

nothing

Planting

11%

shading trees

Play Areas

11%

Playing areas

Relaxing Area

11%

The Relaxing area

Sitting areas

11%

Sitting areas

Design

25%

Every Park has its different aesthetics and user

Far East

35 | P a g e

Everything

13%

Maintenance

13%

I like parks in Germany more than in Russia. Of course I wasn't

in every park in Russia.
Well maintained and more trees

Material

13%

the use of different materials

No Comment

13%

No Comment

Nothing

13%

There is no big difference

Planting

13%

Well maintained and more trees

Design
Middle Eastern

reasonable design

Elements

6%

Elements and pathways

Handicap

6%

disabled facilities

Levels

12%

Levels & Water

No Comment

12%

No Comment

Nothing

12%

nothing

Pathways

6%

Elements and pathways

Planting

6%

Large old trees with no annoying security Gard in it.

Play Areas

6%

safe play places for children

Safety

12%

safe play places for children

Statues

6%

Statues

Water

18%

Levels & Water

Levels

a lot of fountains and high-low level parks

No Comment

No Comment

Nothing

Nothing

Safety

Large old trees with no annoying security Gard in it.

Water

a lot of fountains and high-low level parks

Water

lakes

South American

Maintenance

3%

they have good maintenance

South Asian

Design

9%

Better design for sitting area

Elements

3%

seating elements

Maintenance

15%

Openness & maintenance

Man Made

6%

manmade architecture

Material

3%

Usage of materials, plants, pathways and Maintenance.

No Comment

21%

No Comment

Nothing

3%

Nothing

Pathways

6%

Usage of materials, plants, pathways and Maintenance.

Planting

15%

Usage of materials, plants, pathways and Maintenance.

Playing areas

3%

More Greenery, More Lively & More playing area

Statues

6%

Temperature

3%

Trees placement are not symmetrical and people don't use

sculptures in my homeland.
Cold

Planting

9%

Design

Trees placement are not symmetrical and people don't use

sculptures in my homeland.
decent and clean design

Design

Arrangement in Proper order

Maintenance

Usage of materials, plants, pathways and Maintenance.

36 | P a g e

Maintenance

Cleanliness & Discipline

Maintenance

cleanliness

Maintenance

Maintenance and flowers

Man Made

It's more artificial

No Comment

No Comment

No Comment

No Comment

No Comment

No Comment

No Comment

No Comment

No Comment

No Comment

No Comment

No Comment

Pathways

Well Maintained Plants and Jogging tracks

Planting

More Greenery, More Lively & More playing area

Planting

Greenery.

Planting

Well Maintained Plants and Jogging tracks

Planting

Maintenance and flowers

Statues

Sculptures and statues

Trees

different types trees

Trees

big trees

2. What design element you find missing in German parks?

37 | P a g e

d) Appreciation
i.

What do you admire most in a German park?

Figure 38 Elements they admire in a park on regional basis

38 | P a g e

2. Which element is a must for you in a park?

Figure 39 Element must in a park analysis

South Asian
Benches
Green
Maintenance
No answer
Open Sky
Pathways
Planting
Water
Ambiguous
Gathering Space
Design

Middle Eastern
14%
14%
3%
14%
3%
8%
22%
11%
3%
3%
6%

Benches
Green
Maintenance
Pathways
Planting
Design
Facilities

27%
13%
13%
7%
27%
7%
7%

Far East
Benches
Green
Open Space
Pathways
Planting
Fountains

25%
25%
13%
13%
13%
13%

Eastern Europe and

Russia
Benches
30%
Green
20%
Maintenance
10%
Playing Areas
10%
Water
20%
Drinking Water
10%

39 | P a g e

3. What do you dislike in German parks?

Figure 40 Dislike in a German park analysis

Dislike in German Park

Region
Eastern Europe
and Russia

Reduced topic

Response

Answer

Activities

11%

Missing of activities

Children
Playground
Large Scale

11%

Some type of children's playgrounds

11%

Large scale

Life Style

11%

People are not much friendly.

Material

11%

Artificial materials

No Lighting

11%

Lack of light for night walk

No Sand

11%

No sand

Nothing

11%

Nothing

Pavement

11%

Pavement
40 | P a g e

Far East

Middle Eastern

Life Style

29%

Drunkard

Maintenance

14%

Dirty

Night

14%

Dark in night useless at night

No Direction

14%

Its not a lot maps in the parks, when there are huge.

Pavilion

14%

There is no pavilion

Soggy soil

14%

Soggy soil

Design

8%

Design

Enclosed Areas

8%

less enclosure areas

Options

8%

No options

Pathway

8%

Pathway

Statues

8%

Lots of sculptures and statues

No Answer

25%

No Answer

Nothing

33%

Nothing

South American

Nothing

Nothing

South Asian

Artificiality

4%

Loneliness

4%

No Drinking
Water
No Lighting

4%

No Toilets

4%

Maintenance

7%

Very few places has bathroom facilities and no drinking

water facility.
Lack of maintenance

Nothing

18%

Nothing

Life Style

21%

People with dogs

No Answer

36%

No Answer

4%

Some of the parks are extremely organized, i prefer nature

being preserved without hint of artificiality.
Loneliness
Very few places has bathroom facilities and no drinking
water facility.
No Lighting

41 | P a g e

4. If you dislike something is it because of your cultural background?

Figure 41 Influence of cultural background analysis

42 | P a g e

ii.

i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.

i.

ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.

i.
ii.

i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.

Respondent Personal Comments

What different Elements do you notice in German parks, missing in your home country?
Every Park has its different aesthetics and user..
Trees placement are not symmetrical and people don't use sculptures in my homeland.
I dont really want to put something in our parks from other cultures. They have their
own style, I would prefer to save this individuality.
I like parks in Germany more than in Russia. Of course I wasn't in every park in Russia.
My home country parks have More Greenery, More Lively & More playing area.
Arrangement in Proper order.
What design element you find missing in German parks?
I dont think something is missing, I believe every park is different and you cant compare
as sometimes it might be citizens preference or sometimes designers intuition. You cant
really be sure about it.
Having some special place for relaxing within comfort bench
Put bubbler (drinking fountains) will be very convenient.
Playgrounds for kids and furnishing for BBQ in the outdoors
Public drinking water tap. Water fountain.
When I walk throw the parks I don't think about it I just breathe and think about my
dreams.
Do you like to visit alone or with family or friends?
Depends but usually both friends & family..
Depend on my mood.
Which element is a must for you in a park?
I cant really answer that, Im
Well-designed sitting and resting area with greenery..
Benches in front of the sculptures and small lakes.
Lake and kind of harbors
Green elements like trees, grasses and flowers.
Places for sitting with friends and ballot boxes
43 | P a g e


i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.

What do you dislike in German parks?

Missing of activities.
Lots of sculptures and statues
Dark in night useless at night.
Some of the parks are extremely organized, I prefer nature being preserved without hint
of artificiality.
Very few places has bathroom facilities and no drinking water facility..
Lack of light for night walk..
Its not a lot maps in the parks, when there are huge parks...
No Separate area for families..
Drunken men..
People with pets
Nothing as such..

44 | P a g e

Recommendations:
While working on internationalism in any field there are few general understandings which we
learned during the course of our research. In internationalism there is a host guest relationship like in our
case between Germany and other nationalities. Guest nations may have certain background like ethnic,
cultural, educational, religious, their local law or type and quality of governance in their home country. All
these factors may reflect in their response of any questionnaire about externalism in any public sector
and scope field specially landscape architecture. We have worked out some socio-psychological factors
which may have some impression on our research work. Some of these factors are described as following;

Ownership; A guest is after all a guest and may have hesitation to show sense of ownership.
Ownership vs Criticism; without having a sense of ownership one cannot criticize but can
recommend.
Recommendation; One can recommend only when one has experienced better conditions in
comparison.

Based on above three factors we come up with some recommendations for handling a research project
in field of internationalism in any field. Some recommendations are specifically for designing of such a
research questionnaire theoretically and practically.
We can divide these research recommendations in to two parts
a. Questionnaire
b. Internationalism

a. Questionnaire:
Here are some recommendations about designing and handling of such questionnaire.
1. Design simple questions which are easy to understand for respondents.
2. There are certain question types which can be analyzed and some types are very difficult to
analyze or cant be analyzed at all. Design only such questions which can possibly be analyzed.
3. Design a beta version and take some extra time to analyze, a designed questionnaire on virtual
values so that may not face problem after complete response collection.
4. Questions should be very short some people dont like to spend much time on such things.
5. Questions should be MCQ so that respondents have only attempt to choose.
6. MCQ type is not comprehensive because respondents are left to that narrowed choice of
researcher and cant express their approach.
7. MCQ problem (In 4.) can be handled by adding an extra choice like; Other____________
Where respondents can express their very own approach. Which in the end is the most valuable
information.
8. The choice type mentioned in (in 7.) can later be narrowed down by shrinking based on similar
minded responses.

45 | P a g e

9. Some people dont like to use pen and paper to attempt a questionnaire. It took lot of time to
outreach personally and ask someone to attempt in our presence.
10. Some people like to have it digitally or online. Online outreach is enormous and is entertained
very quickly.
11. We calculated time for online and on paper and same questionnaire took five 3-4 minutes
online and 15 minutes on paper.

b. Internationalism
Internationalism has some intrinsic challenges to negotiate and which are pertinent to
phenomena. People come from different culture, religion, geography, ethnicity and hence
psychology, which may ride their behavior to finally express themselves.
Here are some recommendations on the basis of research on internationalism.
1. Some people may feel bothered to attempt questionnaire in presence of concerned
persons sometimes, even other respondents. To harvest better response provide some
privacy to respondents. Some are very open and confident and not bound to time and
space concerns.
2. Some student respondents may take it as an exam, they may discuss with you, its ease
and difficulty. Best way is to explain them and stay around to help them understand
what exactly you want from them as they want you to explain.
3. People always bear different psychology and hence respond differently. Some people
may take it less serious and some very serious. Always take some time in explaining the
concept before handing over opportunity actually to them.
4. In context to regional background, south Asians are shy but smart, it means they
hesitate to refuse someone. It is very easy to outreach them earliest to get your first
responses. They usually dont bother about their time and you can approach them at
any time.
5. Middle eastern people more stubborn and need more time to involve them in any such
extracurricular activity.
6. Iranian respondents are median of Middle Eastern and south Asian respondents.
7. Chinese and far eastern respondents are a bit shy but very nice respondents, they may
need your presence in some cases to explain what actually you mean about that
particular question.
8. Eastern European and Russian may have English language problem and they may need
maximum time to understand and respond, therefore you should be prepared for to
give them more time and secondly, these respondents may give some response and
may leave few responses.

46 | P a g e

7. Conclusion:
Human is the most complicated living being on the face of this earth, their behaviors change
quiet often and they may have behavioral similarities among different background people and
behavioral differences belonging to the same region. It is quite tedious job to measure human
behavior because behavioral tendencies keep on changes from time to time from instance to
instance.
According to Brunswiks (1956) Environmental perception varies importantly with personal and
cultural differences; People often see and interpret the same scene differently.
However this research project is a tiny effort with insight into human behavior towards
environmental reception.
It is complicated to analyze fifty eight People from twenty different nationalities and five regions
who are subjected to this research experiment and results are quite shocking. Although individual
human behavior can be read and translated but it is tedious to compare multiple behaviors and
extract mathematical trend out of it.
When we subject people to such an experiment some very important factor must be considered
that may have contributed to their behavior.
South Asia:
This region is with highest population growth in the world. The region has bad governance
problem, pseudo democracies and military rules, scarcity of fiscal flows, high rate of illiteracy,
disrupted social system by the virtue of cast system in India and sectarianism in Pakistan and
Bangladesh. There are also menace of linguistic issues in these countries. All these factors
contribute to poor physical development in these countries and result is that people from this
region have least been facilitated in environmental sense. People from this region may have
experienced one of the most attractive and beautiful natural Landscapes but hardly any
manmade landscapes. They have some sense to dislike natural landscapes but mostly appreciate
manmade landscapes. They have experienced modern landscapes in their home countries.
Middle East:
This region is located on equator and has extreme weather conditions and the least water
resource. This region need more management efforts to facilitate their people on environmental
grounds. This region may not have cast and linguistic issues and are oil rich societies but they
have low literacy rate and technical education. This region mainly depends on south Asia and rest
of the world for technical labor. There are lack of initiative for local development, therefore the
people are deprived of environmental awareness. People from this region like and appreciate
and utilize such facilities as shown in the results.
They like, admire but reluctant to criticize, the reason could be that they have not experienced
such landscape in their life and in their home countries.

47 | P a g e

Far East:
This region is in a take off stage from developing to developed nations. They have high literacy
rate, finest democracies least corruption and plenty of resources. They are already working on
and developing environmental infrastructure and people have reasonable sense for such
development. They have unique cultural background and influences. They are learning from the
west while living in local culture. They follow international trends and therefore they sometimes
ignore some elements when they observe abroad.
They like, admire but dont like to criticize German Landscape developments, reason could be
they feel themselves as guests and find no reason to criticize what they dont own.
Eastern Europe and Russia:
This has been under communist influence and weak link to the capitalist and democratic western
world. They have reasonable literacy rate and handsome technical knowledge but focused on
agricultural based societies. They have exposure to the natural landscapes but manmade
landscapes are not developed enough.
They like almost all manmade environmental development and wish to have in their home
countries. They like and admire but are not taking much advantage of landscape facilities of
Germany.
In straightforward reply (Yes) 25% respondents accepted that their response has something to
do with their cultural background and 14% did not reply mean they dont figure it out what to
reply and 57% people replied in (No), but it has something to do with their overall socio economic
background if not just the cultural background as shown in chart analysis results.
The variation of response analysis and from acceptance of people we can conclude that people
background has something to do with use of park and use of park changes with the change of
people background.

48 | P a g e

References:
Ittelson, W. H. (1978). Environmental perception and urban experience. Environment and
Behavior, 10, 193213.
Ittelson, W. H., Proshansky, H. M., Rivlin, L. G., & Winkel, G. H. (1974). An introduction
to environmental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.
German map source:
http://www.worldatlasbook.com/germany/germany-political-map.html
World map source:
http://printable-maps.blogspot.de/2008/07/printable-blank-world-map.html
Park images source:

http://travelerfolio.com/munich-olympic-park/
http://us.123rf.com/450wm/ingaj/ingaj1311/ingaj131100032/23397155-the-lustgarten--pleasure-garden--a-fountain-in-front-of-a-berlinerdom-berlin-cathedral-a-park-on-mu.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/m8sXe0qrjEheC87SqSZu2oeu3rvIQUns6mM4jrWWgDlPQufAU4KrPvhrZEN9SZj7i9f3Pg=s118
https://aboutarchitecture.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/sanssouci.jpg?w=584
https://theartofthegarden.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/straight-view.jpg?w=831
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTOKhXezn2GSIQQCITf6x05_Ee-E1fmx3pd5Ur97aGQK5co-9eU3WTo8g

49 | P a g e