Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Urbanites’ perception of vegetation in landscape-based stormwater management elements (LSM)

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The popularity and use of green infrastructure measures such as green roofs, green walls, and curb extensions is growing, especially in dense urban areas. At the same time, from an ecosystem services perspective, interest in urban nature and reconciliation ecology is underlined. Attempts to introduce more biodiverse vegetation in cities can conflict with the responses of some urbanites to the appearance of “wild” vegetation. Through semi-structured interviews with 47 randomly picked bypassers in Copenhagen, Denmark, this study explored urbanites’ aesthetical perceptions of wild vegetation, especially of three green infrastructure types employed in landscape-based stormwater management: green roofs, green walls and curb extensions. The results confirm the importance of the physical plant properties, especially the color of plants and the presence of flowers; they point also to the strong influence of cultural factors, especially familiarity with a site or a similar project, and knowledge of the project’s environmental value. Interestingly, the results indicate that cultural factors might be capable of garnering support for a project among people whose initial impression of its appearance was negative. Additionally, affective and emotive responses were found to be of significance. Compared to other studies, perceptions of wild vegetation in green infrastructure elements prove to be perceived more positively than reported previously.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study (transcripts of the interviews) are available from the corresponding author [Emilia D. Lausen] upon request.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

References

  • Ballard B et al (2015) ‘Part B, The Philosophy of SuDS, Chap. 1’, in The SuDS Manual. CIRIA, pp. 17–30

  • Botzat A, Fischer LK, Kowarik I (2016) ‘Unexploited opportunities in understanding liveable and biodiverse cities. A review on biodiveristy percepetion and valuation’. Glob Environ Change 39:220–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman A (2012) Social Research Methods, 4th edn. Oxford University Press

  • Buijs AE et al (2008) ‘Looking beyond superficial knowledge gaps: Understanding public representation of biodiversity’. Int J Biodivers Sci Manage 4(2):65–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buijs AE (2009) ‘Lay People’s Images of nature: Comprehensive Frameworks of Values, Beliefs, and Value Orientations’, Society and Natural Resources, pp. 417–432

  • Buijs AE, Elands BHM, Langers F (2009) ‘No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences’. Landsc Urban Plann 91:113–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton S et al (2017) ‘Transformation of Experience: Toward a New Relationship with Nature’. Conserv Lett 10(5):645–651. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig T, Conniff A, Galan-Diaz C (2012) ‘The Influences of Actual and Perceived Familiarity on Environmental Preferences for the Design of a Proposed Urban Square’. 9. Urban Research Studies10.1155/2012/767049

  • Dearden P (1984) ‘Factors influencing landscape preferences: an empirical investigation’. Landsc Plann 11(4):293–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derkzen ML, van Teeffelen AJA, Verburg PH (2017) ‘Green Infrastructure for urban and climate adaptation: How do residents’ views on climate impacts and green infrastructure shape adaptation preferences?’. Landsc Urban Plann 157:106–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn K (2000) ‘Interviewing’. In: Hay I (ed) Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. Oxford University Press, pp 50–82

  • Fernandez-Cañero R et al (2013) ‘Green roof systems: A study of public attitudes and preferences in southern Spain’. J Environ Manage 128:106–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer LK et al (2018) ‘Beyond green: Broad support for biodiversity in multicultural European cities’, Global Environmental Change. Pergamon, 49, pp. 35–45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2018.02.001

  • Francis RA, Lorimer J (2011) ‘Urban reconciliation ecology: The potential of living roofs and walls’. J Environ Manage Acad Press 92(6):1429–1437. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2011.01.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller RA et al (2007) ‘Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity’. Biol Lett 3(4):390–394. doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller RA, Irvine KN (2010) ‘Interactions between people and nature in urban environments’. Urban Ecology. Cambridge University Press

  • Gobster PH et al (2007) ‘The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology?’. Landscape Ecol 22:959–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobster, P. H., & Hull, R. B. (2000). Restoring nature: perspectives from the social sciences and humanities. Island Press

  • Graves RA, Pearson SM, Turner MG (2017) ‘Species richness alone does not predict cultural ecosystem service value’, PNAS, 114(14), pp. 3774–3779. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1701370114

  • Herrington S (2016) ‘Beauty: past and future’, Landscape Research. Routledge, 41(4), pp. 441–449. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2016.1156064

  • Hoyle H et al (2018) ‘Plant species or flower colour diversity? Identifying the drivers of public and invertebrate response to designed annual meadows’. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol 180. Elsevier, pp 103–113. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2018.08.017.

  • Hoyle H, Hitchmough J, Jorgensen A (2017) ‘Attractive, climate-adapted and sustainable? Public perception of non-native planting in the designed urban landscape’. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol 164. Elsevier, pp 49–63. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2017.03.009.

  • Jeremy, Jungels Donald A., Rakow Shorna Broussard, Allred Sonja M., Skelly (2013) Attitudes and aesthetic reactions toward green roofs in the Northeastern United States. Landscape and Urban Planning 11713–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.04.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joan Iverson, Nassauer Zhifang, Wang Erik, Dayrell (2009) What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning 92(3–4):282–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jungels J et al (2013) ‘Attitudes and aesthetic reactions toward green roofs in the Northeastern United States’. Landsc Urban Plann 117:13–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kathryn J. H., Williams John, Cary (2002) Landscape Preferences Ecological Quality and Biodiversity Protection. Environment and Behavior 34(2):257–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502034002006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kommune K (2011) Københavns Klimatilpasningsplan. Available at: www.kk.dk/klima

  • Lee KE et al (2014) ‘Living roof preference is influenced by plant characteristics and diversity’, Landscape and Urban Planning. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.011

  • Lichtman M (2014) Qualitative Research for the Social Sciences. SAGE Publications, Inc

  • Lindemann-Matthies P, Bose E (2007) ‘Species richness, structural diversity and species composition in meadows created by visitors of a botanical garden in Switzerland’. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol 79. Elsevier, pp 298–307. 3–4 doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2006.03.007.

  • Lindemann-Matthies P, Junge X, Matthies D (2010) ‘The influence of plant diversity on people’s perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation’, Biological Conservation. Elsevier, 143(1), pp. 195–202. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2009.10.003

  • Loder A (2014) ‘“There’s a meadoe outside my workplace”: A phenomenological exploration of aestehtics and green roofs in CHicago and Toronto’. Landsc Urban Plann 126:94–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malterud K (2012) ‘Systematic text condensation: A strategy for qualitative analysis’. Scand J Public Health 40(8):795–805. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494812465030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mathey J et al (2018) ‘Public perception of spontaneous vegetation on brownfields in urban areas—Results from surveys in Dresden and Leipzig (Germany)’. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol 29. Urban & Fischer, pp 384–392. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UFUG.2016.10.007.

  • Miljøforvaltningen KKT (2015) og Bynatur i Københan. Strategi 2015–2025

  • Miller JR (2005) ‘Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience’. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(8):430–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monberg RJ et al (2018) ‘Exploring structural habitat heterogeneity in sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) for urban biodiversity support’. Urban Ecosyst 21(6):1159–1170. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0790-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller A et al (2018) ‘“Wild” in the city context: Do relative wild areas offer opportunities for urban biodiveristy?’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 170, pp. 256–265. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.027

  • Nassauer JI (1995) ‘Messy ecosystems, orderly frames’. Landsc J 14(2):161–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyle RM (1978) ‘The extinction of experience’, Horticulture, 56, pp. 64–67

  • Qiu L, Lindberg S, Nielsen AB (2013) ‘Is biodiversity attractive?—On-site perception of recreational and biodiversity values in urban green space’. Landsc Urban Plann 119:136–146. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.07.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rink D, Herbst H (2012) ‘From wasteland to wilderness - aspects of a new form of urban nature’. In: Richter M, Weiland U (eds) Applied Urban Ecology: A Global Framework. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp 82–92

  • Rosenzweig ML (2003) ‘Reconciliation ecology and the future of species diversity’. Oryx 37(2):194–205. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605303000371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saito, Y. (2007) Everyday Aesthetics. Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278350.001.0001.

  • Schwartz A (2012) The interactions between people and biodiversity in the centre of a large metropolis

  • Schwartz A et al (2014) ‘Enhancing urban biodiversity and its influence on city dwellers: An experiment’. Biol Conserv 171:82–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sleegers F, Brabet E (2014) ‘Linear infiltration systems along urban streets: evaluating aesthetic values’. J Landsc Archit 1:48–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soga M, Gaston K (2016) ‘Extinction of experience: theloss of human-nature interactions’. Front Ecol Envion 14:727–734

    Google Scholar 

  • Southon et al (2017) ‘Biodiverse perennial meadows have aesthetic value and increase residents’ perceptions of site quality in urban green-space’. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol 158. Elsevier, pp 105–118. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2016.08.003.

  • Thomas, Kirchhoff Vera, Vicenzotti (2014) A Historical and Systematic Survey of European Perceptions of Wilderness. Environmental Values 23(4):443–464. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327114X13947900181590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkataramanan V et al (2020) ‘Knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and behavior related to green infrastructure for flood management: A systematic literature review’. Sci Total Environ 720:137606. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137606

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weber F, Kowarik I, Samuel I (2014) ‘A walk in the wild side: Perceptions of roadside vegetation beyond trees’. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 13:205–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White EV, Gatersleben B (2011) ‘Greenery on residential buildings: Does it affect preferences and perceptions of beauty?’. J Environ Psychol 31(1):89–98. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The study has been funded by Københavns Universitet and Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark (program MUDP); Grant number: NST-404-00177.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Landscape Technology, Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958, Frederiksberg C, Denmark

    Emilia Danuta Lausen, Marina Bergen Jensen & Emilia Danuta Lausen

  2. gruppe F Landschaftsarchitekten, Gneisenaustraße 41, Eingang II, 10961, Berlin, Germany

    Antje Backhaus

Authors
  1. Emilia Danuta Lausen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antje Backhaus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marina Bergen Jensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emilia Danuta Lausen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Emilia D. Lausen planned and designed the study under supervision of co-authors Marina Bergen Jensen and Antje Backhaus. Emilia D. Lausen conducted the on-site interviews (data collection). Data analysis was done by Emilia D. Lausen with advice of Marina Bergen Jensen and Antje Backhaus. Emilia D. Lausen wrote the manuscript with comments and contributions from both co-authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emilia Danuta Lausen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Ethics approval

consent to participate and consent to publish. All interviewees were politely approached on the street and asked if willing to participate in research study. All data were collected anonymously.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lausen, E.D., Backhaus, A., Jensen, M.B. et al. Urbanites’ perception of vegetation in landscape-based stormwater management elements (LSM). Urban Ecosyst 25, 1577–1588 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01250-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01250-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation