THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BASIC COMFORT FEATURES IN THE AESTHETIC PERCEPTION OF PARK ENVIRONMENTS

The study presents the results of a comprehensive analysis of the aesthetic perception of park landscapes in Mariinsky Park and Slava Park (Kyiv) involving 76 respondents. The research was conducted four times (in spring, summer, autumn, and winter) using different approaches—direct evaluation in the park environment and remote evaluation through photographs. The application of different research methods allowed for a comparative analysis of the negative impact of environmental factors related to recreational comfort on landscape perception and aesthetic evaluation. A review of scientific literature revealed significant contributions by scholars in the study of aesthetic landscape perception, the identification of factors influencing its aesthetic qualities, and the modeling of aesthetically appealing landscapes. Contemporary researchers focus primarily on determining urban park visitors’ needs and aesthetic preferences, emphasizing a subject-oriented approach. While identifying and considering visitors’ needs through the assessment of environmental quality characteristics that enhance aesthetic perception is essential, the issue of determining factors that negatively impact recreational comfort remains largely overlooked. Experimental research identified substantial differences in the frequency of mentions of environmental features depending on the research method across all seasons. Mentions were more frequent when the study was conducted directly in the park, with the smallest seasonal differences observed in summer and the largest in autumn for both locations. During autumn, a very weak correlation was found in Mariinsky Park, whereas a moderate correlation was observed in Slava Park. Additionally, in summer, when evaluating Slava Park in situ, the correlation between the frequency of mentions of negative comfort-related environmental features and aesthetic evaluation was the strongest. Furthermore, a relationship was found between environmental comfort and respondents’ attention to park space components when assessments were conducted directly in the park. Under deteriorating comfort conditions, attention to the unsatisfactory state of both natural and artificial park elements decreased. Conversely, under comfortable conditions, respondents focused more on material components, including their poor condition, which significantly affected the aesthetic evaluation of park landscapes. The negative impact of artificial components on aesthetic evaluation was primarily determined by the volumetric-spatial structure of the park and the condition of plantings, with less influence from the research method used. This is evidenced by a stronger correlation between artificial components and the aesthetic evaluation of Slava Park, where monumental objects dominate the spatial composition, compared to Mariinsky Park, where vegetation is the dominant feature. The greater species diversity and compositional role of plantings in Mariinsky Park resulted in a stronger influence on aesthetic evaluation, as well asґ seasonal variability in this effect.