IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i3p341-d758694.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perception of the Vegetation Cover Pattern Promoting Biodiversity in Urban Parks by Future Greenery Managers

Author

Listed:
  • Janina Borysiak

    (Department of Integrated Geography, Faculty of Human Geography and Planning, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, ul. B. Krygowskiego 10, 61-680 Poznań, Poland)

  • Małgorzata Stępniewska

    (Department of Integrated Geography, Faculty of Human Geography and Planning, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, ul. B. Krygowskiego 10, 61-680 Poznań, Poland)

Abstract

Urban greening should consider solutions that meet the needs of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, such as enhancing biodiversity. Urban parks can realize these needs. They often have a large area for designing greenery compositions with elements at the population, biocenosis, and landscape biodiversity levels. The research was carried out on plant diversity in parks with different gardening styles. The results were published. The analyses have shown which elements of greenery composition play the role in the conservation of plant biodiversity and which gardening practices they depend on. These results were used to develop a vegetation cover pattern to be applied by the managers of park greenery. The concept of this pattern has been characterized in detail. Its main principle is the coexistence of spontaneously occurring vascular flora and its patches with complexes of ornamental plants. The structure of the pattern is to be controlled by gardening practices varied in terms of the method and intensity of maintenance. A relatively high level of biodiversity should be provided by autogenous (tall tree-cluster, thicket, tall herb fringe community) and anthropogenic seminatural (flower meadow) elements. It was assumed that the applicability of the proposed pattern may depend on its perception by both green infrastructure managers and park users. To investigate this, a questionnaire study was conducted. The respondents were university students, i.e., future managers of greenery. They were also users of parks. The aims of this questionnaire were to investigate: (1) perception of greenery composition in relation to utility functions of urban parks; (2) perception of the proposed vegetation cover pattern; (3) perception of gardening practices to maintain the proposed vegetation cover pattern; and (4) applicability prognosis of the proposed vegetation cover pattern based on the results of research on perception. Most of the respondents accepted the proposed pattern and the gardening measures needed to maintain it. This was concluded as a chance to implement the pattern in parks, and at the same time to meet the needs of the EU Strategy 2030.

Suggested Citation

  • Janina Borysiak & Małgorzata Stępniewska, 2022. "Perception of the Vegetation Cover Pattern Promoting Biodiversity in Urban Parks by Future Greenery Managers," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:3:p:341-:d:758694
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/3/341/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/3/341/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kronenberg, Jakub, 2015. "Why not to green a city? Institutional barriers to preserving urban ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 218-227.
    2. Virginia Harris & Dave Kendal & Amy K. Hahs & Caragh G. Threlfall, 2018. "Green space context and vegetation complexity shape people’s preferences for urban public parks and residential gardens," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 150-162, January.
    3. Buchel, Sophie & Frantzeskaki, Niki, 2015. "Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 169-177.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cao, Xiang & Luo, Yuying & Chen, Xiaolan & Xie, Qiuyue & Yao, Zhenyu, 2024. "Spatial valuation of urban green lungs: Unveiling the true worth of urban parks through MGWR in Chengdu, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    2. Saranathan Pragati & Radhakrishnan Shanthi Priya & Chandramouli Pradeepa & Ramalingam Senthil, 2023. "Simulation of the Energy Performance of a Building with Green Roofs and Green Walls in a Tropical Climate," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, January.
    3. Stefania Toscano & Daniela Romano & Valerio Lazzeri & Luca Leotta & Francesca Bretzel, 2025. "How Can Plants Used for Ornamental Purposes Contribute to Urban Biodiversity?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-31, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Busch, Christin & Specht, Kathrin & Inostroza, Luis & Falke, Matthias & Zepp, Harald, 2024. "Disentangling cultural ecosystem services co-production in urban green spaces through social media reviews," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    2. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305231, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    4. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    5. Arturo Sanchez-Porras & María Guadalupe Tenorio-Arvide & Ricardo Darío Peña-Moreno & María Laura Sampedro-Rosas & Sonia Emilia Silva-Gómez, 2018. "Evaluation of the Potential Change to the Ecosystem Service Provision Due to Industrialization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    6. Bayarmaa Enkhbold & Kenichi Matsui, 2022. "A Study on Policy and Institutional Arrangements for Urban Green Space Development in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-15, December.
    7. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-Related and Socio-Demographic Variations in Urban Green Space Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    8. Cécile Hérivaux & Philippe Le Coent, 2021. "Introducing Nature into Cities or Preserving Existing Peri-Urban Ecosystems? Analysis of Preferences in a Rapidly Urbanizing Catchment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-34, January.
    9. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-related and socio-demographic variations in urban green space preferences," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/326192, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    10. Oleg Sizov & Roman Fedorov & Yulia Pechkina & Vera Kuklina & Maxim Michugin & Andrey Soromotin, 2022. "Urban Trees in the Arctic City: Case of Nadym," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, April.
    11. Dou, Yuehan & Zhen, Lin & De Groot, Rudolf & Du, Bingzhen & Yu, Xiubo, 2017. "Assessing the importance of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas of Beijing municipality," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 79-90.
    12. Hadi Alizadeh & Abolfazl Meshkini, 2025. "On the road to urban sustainability: identifying major barriers to urban sustainability in Iran," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 45(2), pages 351-376, June.
    13. Elena Prioreschi & Nici Zimmermann & Michael Davies & Irene Pluchinotta, 2024. "Interrelationships and Trade-Offs between Urban Natural Space Use and Biodiversity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-29, May.
    14. Sy, Mariam Maki & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Simier, Monique & Pasqualini, Vanina & Figuières, Charles & De Wit, Rutger, 2018. "Identifying Consensus on Coastal Lagoons Ecosystem Services and Conservation Priorities for an Effective Decision Making: A Q Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 1-13.
    15. Potschin-Young, M. & Haines-Young, R. & Görg, C. & Heink, U. & Jax, K. & Schleyer, C., 2018. "Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: Reading the ecosystem service cascade," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 428-440.
    16. Alicia Thomas & Muntazar Monsur & Carol S. Lindquist & Thayne Montague & Catherine R. Simpson, 2024. "Impacts of Landscape Types and Flower Colors on the Emotional Perceptions of Military Service Members," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, December.
    17. Stępniewska, Małgorzata, 2021. "The capacity of urban parks for providing regulating and cultural ecosystem services versus their social perception," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    18. Maria Ignatieva & Duy Khiem Tran & Rosangela Tenorio, 2023. "Challenges and Stakeholder Perspectives on Implementing Ecological Designs in Green Public Spaces: A Case Study of Hue City, Vietnam," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-18, September.
    19. Thomas G. Kuijpers & H. Susan J. Picavet & Jeroen Lakerveld & Johannes Mark Noordzij & G.C. Wanda Wendel-Vos & Barbara A. M. Snoeker, 2025. "Physical Activity Friendliness of Neighborhoods: Do Subjective and Objective Measures Correspond Within a Mid-Sized Dutch Town?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 22(4), pages 1-16, April.
    20. Halkos, George & Leonti, Aikaterini & Sardianou, Eleni, 2021. "Activities, motivations and satisfaction of urban parks visitors: A structural equation modeling analysis," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 502-513.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:3:p:341-:d:758694. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.