Human acceptance is a prerequisite to habitat modifications for goose redistribution or long-term control. Ironically, the open vista favored by geese is also a primary landscape component preferred by humans. Ulrich (1983) listed a moderate to a high level of visual depth and a low or absent threat level as 2 of 6 primary attributes of landscapes favored by humans. Orians and Heerwagen (1992:557) contend that people "prefer environments in which exploration is easy and which signal the presence of resources necessary for survival", and where the likelihood of detecting danger in the form of "predators or unfriendly conspecifics" is high. Research on human landscape preference strongly indicates that savanna-like environments with water are consistently chosen over other environments (Balling and Falk 1982, Ulrich, 1983, 1986, Orians and Heerwagen, 1992), and that the preference was independent of age and cultural background, thus suggesting it may be innate (Orians and Heerwagen, 1992). The decision to enter a landscape is also known to be high affective--emotionally based--(Zajonc 1980, Ulrich 1983), and to be based on the level of apprehension (Orians and Heerwagen 1992). Clarke and Mayhew (1980), Bennett and Wright (1984), Michael and Hull (1994), and others investigated interrelationships between urban vegetation and crime, finding that surveillance, concealment, escape, and prospect were highly relevant components. Park areas with open visibility discourage criminals, whereas densely vegetated patches provide sites from which the perpetrator can scan undetected for victims, commit the crime, and escape. Michael and Hull (1994) recommended that parks and residential areas be designed or altered to maintain open sight corridors by pruning or removing eye-level vegetation near paths, roads, parking lots, buildings, picnic grounds, etc. They pointed to "thin strips of tree and shrubs separated by grass or low vegetation" as a design that would minimize the "maze-like quality of dense plants that obstructs surveillance and hinders pursuit".
These findings suggest that proposals calling for the wide-scale replacement of expanses of mowed bluegrass lawns in the Metro would be met with strong public concern. While extensive reshaping of existing Twin Cities or other urban landscapes has not been undertaken for goose management, the outcome of a Minneapolis 1995 lawn mowing policy change elicited responses in agreement with Orians and Heerwagen's general hypotheses. In this case, in order to lower costs and sediment input to nearby lakes, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board reduced grass mowing on sections of several parks. Public reaction was strong and negative. The Minneapolis City Council threatened to cite the Park Board for violating the city's grass height restriction ordinance (Daiz 1995). A "Citizens For Mowing Our Parks" group was formed and lobbied for a change in the Minneapolis City Charter to give the City Council the power to direct the Park Board to cut the park grass. No changes were made in the Minneapolis Charter, but the mowing resumed and the proposal was shelved.