Understanding How Generation Z Students in Forest Sciences and Landscape Architecture Perceive Ecosystem Services in Urban Garden Forests

Abstract

This study investigates how university students perceive the ecosystem services provided by gardens, utilizing Q methodology to categorize subjective viewpoints and analyze distinct perception types. Thirty-two students majoring in forest and landscape architecture at Wonkwang University (Iksan, Republic of Korea) participated, sorting 30 Q-statements each for provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services. Principal component analysis identified three factors for provisioning and regulating services, and two factors for cultural and supporting services. The findings reveal that students’ perceptions are primarily based on generalized, idealized expectations, while their understanding of specific practices, such as food production, distribution, and community economic integration, remains insufficient. This indicates that their perceptions are more conceptual than practical, reflecting themes such as eco-friendly resource sharing, environmental regulation, nature experience, biodiversity enhancement, and sustainability. These results suggest the need for enhanced educational efforts to improve students’ understanding of the role of ecosystem services in urban contexts. The study highlights the importance of bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical recognition to foster more comprehensive perceptions, ultimately informing future garden design, management strategies, and environmental education programs.

1. Introduction

Ecosystem services refer to the benefits provided through interactions between humans and nature, and are typically classified into four categories: provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services [1,2]. This concept has gained increasing significance in modern society as urbanization and climate change accelerate [3]. Green spaces and gardens within urban environments have emerged as key elements in addressing environmental challenges and improving the quality of life for citizens [4,5].

With the increasing frequency of climate crises and natural disasters, strengthening the resilience of urban ecosystems has become a pressing priority [6,7]. Consequently, improving urban environments based on ecosystem services has been emphasized worldwide [8]. Moreover, as the positive impacts of green spaces and gardens on human physical and mental health have become more widely recognized, the need for policy approaches that reflect these benefits has also grown [9,10]. In South Korea, government agencies, such as the Korea Forest Service, have actively pursued various policies to enhance ecosystem services through urban forest creation and garden expansion, thereby contributing to environmental well-being and the overall quality of urban life [11,12].

Gardens serve as aesthetic landscape elements and spaces where people can directly experience ecosystem services [13,14]. Urban gardens, for instance, help mitigate the urban heat island effect, reduce acceptable dust levels, and provide cultural benefits such as emotional well-being, performing multiple layered functions [15,16]. In particular, ecosystem service gardens are evaluated as effective spaces where urban residents can interact with nature, experience the value of ecosystem services, and raise awareness about environmental conservation and sustainability [17]. Moreover, urban green spaces, particularly gardens, constitute a critical medium for providing nature experiences to younger generations, thereby mitigating the extinction of experience. As such, they represent an important agenda in urban policy and play a pivotal role in both educational and policy contexts [18]. However, the general public’s understanding, especially that of university students, regarding the various ecosystem services provided by gardens has not yet been sufficiently explored.

University students, as key members of future generations, possess the potential to shape environmental awareness and contribute to conservation activities [19]. Although the participants were limited to forestry and landscape architecture students, their perspectives provide meaningful insights given their relevance to future green space planning and ecosystem service implementation. Investigating their perceptions of ecosystem service gardens holds significant value, as it provides foundational data for improving garden design and management strategies, as well as developing environmental education programs and policies [20,21].

In this study, the Q methodology was employed to systematically categorize the subjective perceptions of university students regarding ecosystem service gardens and to analyze the characteristics and implications of each identified perception type. Q methodology, which is well-suited for analyzing participants’ subjective viewpoints in depth, has been widely applied across various fields, including political decision-making [22], urban redevelopment [23], environmental journalism [24], international ecological regulation discourse [25], and cultural ecosystem services in marine environments [26].

Through this research, the study identified and analyzed the perception types of university students regarding ecosystem service gardens, confirming that gardens function not merely as ornamental spaces but as environments where ecosystem services can be tangibly experienced. Furthermore, in the context of the growing recognition of the importance of ecosystem services amid accelerating urbanization and climate change [7], exploring the multifaceted roles and social value of gardens provides critical insights for enhancing urban environments and advancing sustainable garden development.

Objective: To systematically classify and analyze South Korean university students’ perceptions of ecosystem service gardens using Q methodology, and to provide foundational insights for garden design, environmental education, and urban policy development.

Hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1.

University students perceive gardens not merely as aesthetic or leisure spaces but as multifunctional areas linked to socio-ecological values such as community connection, ecosystem protection, psychological well-being, and sustainability.

Hypothesis 2.

Some perceptions will diverge from the essential concept of ecosystem service gardens—for example, emphasizing agricultural production, local festivals, and food culture—due to limited practical experience and insufficient internalization of the ecosystem service framework.

In this study, we adopt the term “ecosystem service gardens” to emphasize gardens as spaces that explicitly provide and highlight multiple ecosystem services. While the literature widely documents that gardens contribute to provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services [18,27,28,29], there is no single authoritative definition of “ecosystem service gardens.” For the purposes of this study, we therefore establish an operational definition: ecosystem service gardens are designed or managed garden spaces that intentionally deliver diverse ecosystem services and allow urban residents to directly experience and internalize ecological values in everyday life.

This conceptualization distinguishes ecosystem service gardens from related forms such as urban gardens and community gardens. Urban gardens generally emphasize leisure, aesthetics, or food production within cities [28], while community gardens highlight collective use, social interaction, and local identity [30]. In contrast, ecosystem service gardens integrate these functions but place particular emphasis on the explicit recognition, communication, and institutionalization of ecosystem services as a guiding framework. This distinction provides a clear benchmark for evaluating whether university students’ perceptions align with or deviate from the essential concept of ecosystem service gardens.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Q Methodology

The Q methodology was developed to study human subjectivity using quantitative tools, such as factor analysis, to systematically analyze subjective perspectives, making it a method capable of objectively identifying subjectivity [22,31]. This methodology has been applied across various fields, including analyses of newspaper subscribers’ satisfaction, usage, attitudes, television viewing behavior, consumer preference types, and musical preferences [32]. Notably, as a systematic mixed-methods approach that integrates quantitative and qualitative research [33,34,35], it is particularly suitable for applying ecosystem services to garden spaces.

In this study, the Q methodology was employed to analyze correlations among participants and identify differences in subjective perceptions [36], classifying distinct subjectivity structures among individuals [22]. The research proceeded through the following steps: development of Q statements, selection of the P sample, administration of the Q survey [37,38], sorting of responses, and analysis of the results (

Table 1. Overview of Q Methodology Process.

Step	Category	Details
Step 1	Q Set Development	Expert interviews (6), literature review (15)
Step 2	Q Sample	Expert review, FGIs with 32 students, selected 30 Q statements from ~100
Step 3	P Sample	Selected 32 forest landscape architecture students, Analyzed perception types and ensured reliability
Step 4	Q Sorting	Conducted via interviews, phone, and email using forced distribution
Step 5	Data Analysis	Performed Q sorting and PCA in R, analyzed key statements, compared types, and derived implications
Step 6	Interpretation	Used interview data, validated interpretations with Q experts

).

2.2. Research Process

2.2.1. Construction of Q-Concourse

The Q-concourse refers to the collection of statements gathered for conducting Q methodology research [39]. Literature reviews and interviews are the primary methods used to compile the Q-concourse, with interviews often providing more statements [40,41]. This study constructed the Q-concourse by analyzing prior research and interviews with experts in related fields. First, 30 statements were collected from previous studies that focused on ecosystem services and garden design and management, particularly those that included focus group interviews. Additionally, 100 statements were extracted through interviews with six experts who had experience working on ecosystem services at organizations such as the Korea Forest Service and the Ministry of Environment, as well as through the insights of the researcher, who had similar professional experience. To finalize the Q-concourse, 30 representative statements were selected for each of the following categories: provisioning, regulation, cultural, and supporting services.

2.2.2. Selection of Q-Sample

The Q-sample refers to the set of statements that research participants in the P-sample sort [40]. Compared to a structured approach, where the researcher directly constructs the Q-sample based on theoretical frameworks, an unstructured approach, where the researcher categorizes the Q-population through prior research analysis and interviews, followed by external validation, is more commonly used. This study likewise adopted the unstructured approach [42]. The researcher first reviewed the Q-population repeatedly, focusing on clarifying the content and wording of each statement and eliminating redundant or ambiguous items. The statements were then reviewed with a Q methodology expert to revise or remove unclear expressions, enhance readability, and balance the proportion of positive, negative, and neutral statements [42]. Finally, when selecting the P-sample, social variables such as students’ academic year, experience, and level of garden use were taken into consideration [43]. A final check was conducted to confirm that no duplicate or overlapping statements remained and that no category was disproportionately represented. Through this process, 30 representative statements were ultimately selected for each of the four ecosystem service types—provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting—as the final Q-sample (

Table 2. List of Q-Sample Statements (Provisioning and Regulating Services).

No	Provisioning Services	No	Regulating Services
1	Gardens provide fresh food for residents.	1	Gardens help reduce the urban heat island effect.
2	Gardens offer spaces for cultivating a diverse range of vegetables and fruits.	2	Plants in gardens purify the air.
3	Gardens allow access to pesticide-free, healthy produce.	3	Gardens absorb and store rainwater.
4	Gardens provide valuable resources like herbs.	4	Gardens mitigate natural disasters like floods.
5	Crops grown in gardens contribute to the local economy.	5	Garden trees serve as windbreaks.
6	Gardens offer opportunities to grow seasonal crops.	6	Gardens lower the surrounding area’s temperature.
7	Garden resources can be shared with residents.	7	Plants in gardens help reduce fine dust.
8	Gardens can serve as good examples of urban agriculture.	8	Gardens help reduce urban noise.
9	Crops grown in gardens can be sold at local festivals.	9	Gardens help maintain ecological stability in the area.
10	Garden resources can be used for donation activities.	10	Garden trees protect buildings from wind and rain.
11	Gardens can supply agricultural products for school meals.	11	Gardens help ensure safe living environments.
12	Harvested crops can be consumed or sold directly.	12	Gardens prevent soil erosion.
13	Garden resources have potential as local specialty products.	13	Gardens regulate climate change by season.
14	Gardens provide spaces for practicing sustainable farming.	14	Gardens increase urban carbon absorption.
15	Gardens help improve food self-sufficiency.	15	Gardens maintain local moisture levels.
16	Gardens can be part of local economic models.	16	Plants in gardens reduce harmful airborne substances.
17	Gardens are suitable for eco-friendly agricultural production.	17	Gardens mitigate the impact of natural disasters.
18	Crops grown in gardens can be consumed at home.	18	Gardens regulate local climates, making areas more livable.
19	Gardens provide a reliable and affordable food supply for residents.	19	Regulated gardens are more commonly found in suburban areas, rather than in urban centers.
20	Gardens maintain crop diversity by cultivating a variety of products.	20	Large-scale regulating gardens are needed for feasibility.
21	Garden crops can be sold through fair trade.	21	Gardens improve air quality.
22	Gardens can serve as a foundation for direct local trade.	22	Selecting plant species is key to regulating gardens.
23	Garden products can support social enterprise activities.	23	Gardens make urban environments more natural.
24	Gardens cultivate crops using eco-friendly methods.	24	Garden designs adapt to regional climate changes.
25	Gardens can increase local agricultural productivity.	25	Regulating gardens should be operated at the national level.
26	Gardens act as bridges between urban and rural areas.	26	Plants in gardens help preserve soil nutrients.
27	Garden crops can become vital resources during disasters.	27	Gardens help connect urban life to nature.
28	Garden resources can link to local food cultures.	28	Gardens provide cool spaces during heatwaves.
29	Gardens provide sustainable resources for future generations.	29	Gardens help maintain ecosystem health.
30	Garden crops can serve as valuable resources for local communities.	30	Gardens play a role in protecting people from natural disasters.

and

Table 3. List of Q-Sample Statements (Cultural and Supporting Services).

No	Cultural Services	No	Supporting Services
1	Gardens are spaces that reduce stress.	1	Gardens provide habitats for a diverse range of plants and animals.
2	Gardens are good places to have conversations with friends.	2	Gardens play a crucial role in protecting the local ecosystem.
3	Gardens stimulate creativity.	3	Gardens play an important role in preserving biodiversity.
4	Gardens offer valuable places to experience nature.	4	Promoting biodiversity should be a primary goal of gardens.
5	Gardens are suitable for learning and educational activities.	5	Gardens help restore natural habitats.
6	Gardens provide opportunities to connect with nature.	6	Cities without biodiversity gardens are considered ecologically incomplete.
7	Gardens are great places for photography.	7	Gardens help facilitate interactions among local plant and animal species.
8	Gardens are suitable venues for local festivals.	8	Gardens provide environments that adapt to climate change.
9	Gardens raise awareness of the importance of conservation.	9	Biodiverse gardens are effective for education and environmental awareness.
10	Gardens are ideal for outdoor activities.	10	Garden trees store carbon within the local ecosystem.
11	Gardens serve as spaces where residents can connect with one another.	11	Gardens help raise environmental awareness within communities.
12	Gardens provide spaces for reading or meditation.	12	Gardens support water circulation.
13	Gardens reflect local history and culture.	13	Gardens support sustainable ecosystems.
14	Gardens provide people with opportunities to connect with nature.	14	Gardens provide environments where local plant and animal species can reproduce.
15	Cultural gardens should offer a variety of programs.	15	Biodiverse gardens effectively address urban environmental issues.
16	Gardens offer experiences of being close to nature.	16	Nature observation activities provide joy and learning opportunities.
17	Gardens are designed more for human experience than for display.	17	Gardens contribute to regenerating natural resources.
18	Gardens help strengthen local communities.	18	Gardens increase the stability of local ecosystems.
19	Gardens provide a peaceful nature retreat, allowing people to find relaxation.	19	Gardens serve as places to study biodiversity.
20	Gardens add the value of nature to cities.	20	I am willing to participate in activities related to biodiversity gardens.
21	Gardens provide mental stability within urban life.	21	Gardens play a crucial role in maintaining the health of local ecosystems.
22	Gardens nurture respect for nature.	22	Gardens create sustainable natural environments.
23	Gardens offer artistic inspiration.	23	Gardens connect urban and natural environments.
24	Gardens help people feel bonded with nature.	24	Biodiverse gardens become essential components of future urban environments.
25	Gardens are valuable places to experience nature within cities.	25	Garden plants help protect local species.
26	Gardens provide spaces for emotional healing.	26	Urban gardens do not significantly affect my life.
27	Gardens teach residents to respect nature.	27	The environmental impact of biodiversity gardens is often exaggerated.
28	Cultural gardens should focus on education.	28	Gardens are spaces where humans and nature coexist harmoniously.
29	Cultural gardens are more experiential than other gardens.	29	Gardens play a crucial role in preserving ecosystems for future generations.
30	Gardens are important spaces for learning to coexist with nature.	30	Gardens play a crucial role in maintaining the sustainability of natural environments.

).

2.2.3. Selection of P-Sample

The P-sample refers to the research participants who perform the Q-sorting. While some scholars suggest random or stratified sampling, it is generally considered sufficient if participants relevant to the research purpose are adequately represented [44]. Moreover, since Q methodology is based on the small-sample doctrine, there are no strict limitations on the number of participants in the P-sample [45,46]. Indeed, previous studies using Q methodology have often employed small samples, including 3 participants [47], 12 participants [48], and 18 participants [49]. Accordingly, this study selected 32 undergraduate students from Wonkwang University (Iksan, Republic of Korea) majoring in forest sciences and landscape architecture as the P-sample. Q methodology is a qualitative and exploratory approach designed specifically to reveal patterns in subjective viewpoints. It is widely recognized for its ability to yield meaningful insights with small sample sizes, since its primary aim is not statistical generalization but to identify and interpret typologies of perception. Therefore, a sample size of 32 participants is considered sufficient for meaningful interpretation using Q methodology. Before participation, as noted by Cuddeback et al. [50] and Opsahl et al. [51], it is essential to explain to participants in advance the study’s purpose, procedures, assurance of data anonymity, and the fact that the data will not be used for any purpose other than the research. In line with this, the research team provided clear explanations either face-to-face or by phone and subsequently obtained written consent from all participants. Data were collected from August 11 to August 22, 2025, and the research protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Wonkwang University (IRB No. WKIRB-202508-SB-062). All procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee.

2.2.4. Q-Sorting

Q-sorting refers to the process in which the selected P-sample participants place the Q-sample statements on the Q-sheet, typically using a forced distribution approach [52,53]. In this study, separate Q-grids were prepared for each ecosystem service type: provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting. The 32 P-sample participants were asked to read 30 statements per category and distribute them according to their level of agreement on a nine-point scale, following a forced regular distribution pattern (Figure 1).

2.2.5. Data Processing and Analysis Methods

To analyze the Q-sorting results from the 32 P-sample participants, each statement was coded on a scale from −4 (strongly disagree) to +4 (strongly agree). The transformed scores were then entered into the Ken-Q Analysis program, where principal component analysis and Varimax rotation were performed. As a result, three distinct factors were derived. All quantitative analyses were performed using R (v4.4.1; R Core Team, Vienna, Austria, 2024). Factor extraction was based on principal component analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation to maximize interpretability. The number of factors was determined by retaining those with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and cumulative explained variance exceeding 25%. Participants were considered to represent a factor if their factor loading was at least 0.40 and their statistical significance was established at p < 0.05. Inter-factor correlations, explained variance, and standard errors were also calculated to assess reliability and internal consistency of the results.

3. Results

3.1. Factor Structure

The eigenvalues extracted for the provisioning services were 5.75 for Factor 1, 3.98 for Factor 2, and 3.65 for Factor 3. For regulating services, the eigenvalues were 5.15 for Factor 1, 4.92 for Factor 2, and 4.19 for Factor 3. Cultural and supporting services showed eigenvalues of 7.07 and 6.71 for Factors 1 and 2, respectively. Regarding reliability and standard error, the two-factor cultural and supporting services models demonstrated more stable results (

Table 4. Eigenvalues and Explained Variance Ratio.

Division	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3
Provisioning Services
Eigenvalue	5.75	3.98	3.65
% Explained Variance	17.98%	12.45%	11.42%
Cumulative % Explained Variance	17.98%	30.43%	41.85%
Regulating Services
Eigenvalue	5.15	4.92	4.19
% Explained Variance	16.08%	15.37%	13.10%
Cumulative % Explained Variance	16.08%	31.45%	44.55%
Cultural Services
Eigenvalue	7.07	6.71
% Explained Variance	22.09%	20.97%
Cumulative % Explained Variance	22.09%	43.06%
Supporting Services
Eigenvalue	6.73	4.76
% Explained Variance	21.02%	14.86%
Cumulative % Explained Variance	21.02%	35.88%

). Generally, in Q factor analysis, factors are determined based on an eigenvalue threshold of 1.0 [54], and an explanatory power of at least 25% is considered sufficient [55]; thus, the results of this study were deemed to have adequate explanatory power.

The correlation coefficients between provisioning service factors were 0.3135 for Factors 1 and 2, 0.0905 for Factors 1 and 3, and 0.0171 for Factors 2 and 3, all of which were below 0.5. For regulating services, the correlations were 0.1925 between Factors 1 and 2, 0.1840 between Factors 1 and 3, and 0.1403 between Factors 2 and 3, showing low inter-factor correlations below 0.4. Cultural services exhibited a relatively high correlation of 0.5075 between Factors 1 and 2, whereas supporting services showed a low correlation of 0.1811 between Factors 1 and 2 (

Table 5. Inter-factor Correlations.

Division	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3
Provisioning Services
Factor 1	1
Factor 2	0.3135	1
Factor 3	0.0905	0.0171	1
Regulating Services
Factor 1	1
Factor 2	0.1925	1
Factor 3	0.1840	0.1403	1
Cultural Services
Factor 1	1
Factor 2	0.5075	1
Supporting Services
Factor 1	1
Factor 2	0.1811	1

). High inter-factor correlations in Q methodology generally indicate substantial similarity between factors, suggesting potential for factor integration [56].

Participants showed generally neutral perceptions toward gardens across provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services. The P-sample distribution was as follows: provisioning services—15 in Factor 1, 7 in Factor 2, and 7 in Factor 3; regulating services—9 in Factor 1, 8 in Factor 2, and 6 in Factor 3; cultural services—17 in Factor 1, 10 in Factor 2; and supporting services—15 in Factor 1, 12 in Factor 2 (

Table 6. P-sample and Factor Weights by Factor.

Division	Factor	P-Sample Numbers	Factor Weights
Provisioning Services	Factor 1	1, 14, 25	0.7975, 0.6760, 0.6649
	Factor 2	13, 32, 28	0.7505, 0.7036, 0.7020
	Factor 3	6, 11, 16	0.6716, 0.6398, 0.6161
Regulating Services	Factor 1	10, 29, 30	0.7890, 0.7590, 0.7208
	Factor 2	15, 9, 23	0.7295, 0.7076, 0.6677
	Factor 3	18, 26, 3	0.7822, 0.7703, 0.5915
Cultural Services	Factor 1	14, 3, 7	0.7230, 0.7141, 0.7098
	Factor 2	16, 6, 1	0.8424, 0.8008, 0.7969
Supporting Services	Factor 1	7, 25, 19	0.8403, 0.8115, 0.7363
	Factor 2	14, 27, 22	0.6929, 0.6872, 0.6667

). According to Kline [57], the minimum unit for classifying a factor is two participants. Previous Q-method studies have reported cases where two participants were classified under a single factor [49,58], suggesting that the factor classification in this study is valid. Additionally, P-sample participants are assigned factor weights, where participants with higher weights are considered prototypical representatives of their respective factors, embodying the key characteristics of the factor [59].

3.2. Factor Analysis Results: Provisioning Services

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on provisioning services revealed three distinct types of perception.

Type 1: Community-based Eco-friendly Resource Sharing Type

This type can be summarized as viewing gardens as spaces for resource sharing and promoting sustainable agriculture, serving as platforms for generating broader social and economic value.

Type 1, labeled “Community-based Eco-friendly Resource Sharing Type,” reflects a strong commitment to sharing resources with the local community and promoting sustainable agriculture through gardens (

Table 7. Type 1: Community-based Eco-friendly Resource Sharing.

Q Item	Statement	Standard Score (Z-Score)
Q7	Garden resources can be shared with residents.	2.0493
Q17	Gardens are suitable for eco-friendly agricultural production.	1.6114
Q2	Gardens offer spaces for cultivating a diverse range of vegetables and fruits.	1.4587
Q3	Gardens allow access to pesticide-free, healthy produce.	1.3883
Q1	Gardens provide fresh food for residents.	1.2639
Q18	Crops grown in gardens can be consumed at home.	1.2447
Q25	Gardens can increase local agricultural productivity.	−1.6054
Q16	Gardens can be part of local economic models.	−1.4804
Q23	Garden products can support social enterprise activities.	−1.3638
Q19	Gardens provide a reliable and affordable food supply for residents.	−1.3269
Q21	Garden crops can be sold through fair trade.	−1.1379

). Participants in this group highly valued the idea that garden produce can be shared beyond personal use to benefit residents (Q7, z = 2.049), emphasized the importance of eco-friendly production (Q17, z = 1.611), and recognized the role of gardens in providing fresh, healthy food (Q3, z = 1.388) (Table 7). They also rated the potential for garden-grown crops to be consumed at home positively (Q18, z = 1.245). However, they disagreed that gardens could become part of local economic models (Q16, z = 1.480) and support social enterprise activities (Q23, z = −1.364). Likewise, they disagreed with the notions that gardens enhance local agricultural productivity (Q25, z = −1.605), provide affordable food sources for residents (Q19, z = −1.327), and promote fair trade (Q21, z = −1.138). In summary, this type defines gardens primarily as community-oriented spaces for sharing resources and promoting ecological sustainability, while showing reluctance toward market-oriented or profit-driven functions.

Type 2: Community Cultural and Traditional Linkage Type

This type can be summarized as perceiving gardens as spaces that preserve local food culture and traditions while strengthening community bonds and promoting eco-friendly practices.

Type 2 was identified as the “Community Cultural and Traditional Linkage Type,” indicating the role of gardens in connecting local communities and promoting environmentally friendly agricultural practices. This type showed a positive perception of the garden’s ability to provide fresh food to residents (Q1, z = 1.836). It recognized the high potential for linking garden resources to local food culture (Q28, z = 1.190). Participants also perceived gardens as spaces for directly growing vegetables and fruits (Q2, z = 1.093) and for providing valuable resources, such as medicinal herbs (Q4, z = 1.064) (

Table 8. Type 2: Community, Cultural, and Traditional Linkage.

Q Item	Statement	Standard Score (Z-Score)
Q1	Gardens provide fresh food for residents.	1.8360
Q28	Garden resources can link to local food cultures.	1.1904
Q2	Gardens offer spaces for cultivating a diverse range of vegetables and fruits.	1.0934
Q4	Gardens provide valuable resources like herbs.	1.0640
Q9	Crops grown in gardens can be sold at local festivals.	1.0372
Q24	Gardens cultivate crops using eco-friendly methods.	−2.3150
Q20	Gardens maintain crop diversity by cultivating a variety of products.	−1.7756
Q25	Gardens can increase local agricultural productivity.	−1.4401
Q23	Garden products can support social enterprise activities.	−1.2529
Q17	Gardens are suitable for eco-friendly agricultural production.	−1.1856
Q6	Gardens offer opportunities to grow seasonal crops.	−1.0807

). Gardens were viewed not merely as spaces for resource production, but also as important venues for community events, such as local festivals (Q9, z = 1.037), which contributed to enhancing connections among residents and strengthening local traditions and cultural ties. However, participants disagreed that they serve as spaces for eco-friendly crop cultivation (Q24, z = −2.315), indicating skepticism about their role in promoting environmental sustainability through cultivation practices with significance in promoting environmental sustainability and maintaining traditional agricultural practices. They also disagreed with the ideas that gardens maintain crop diversity (Q20, z = −1.776), increase local agricultural productivity (Q25, z = −1.440), support social enterprise activities (Q23, z = −1.253), are suitable for eco-friendly agricultural production (Q17, z = −1.186), and provide opportunities to grow seasonal crops (Q6, z = −1.081).

Garden resources were nonetheless identified as holding high value as production spaces and as cultural and environmental assets for the local community. Therefore, this type reflects the function of gardens as spaces for strengthening cultural ties, preserving traditions, and contributing to local sustainability and cultural value.

Type 3: Sustainability and Community Connectivity-Oriented Type

This type can be summarized as seeing gardens as sustainable resources for future generations, emphasizing their role in connecting urban, rural, and community networks.

Type 3 was identified as the “Sustainability and Community Connectivity-Oriented Type,” focusing on the role of gardens in sustainability and local community connections. This type gave the highest evaluation to the garden’s ability to provide sustainable resources for future generations (Q29, z = 2.034) and recognized garden crops as community assets (Q30, z = 1.865) (

Table 9. Type 3: Sustainability and Community Connectivity-Oriented.

Q Item	Statement	Standard Score (Z-Score)
Q29	Gardens provide sustainable resources for future generations.	2.0344
Q30	Garden crops can serve as valuable resources for local communities.	1.8650
Q26	Gardens act as bridges between urban and rural areas.	1.6960
Q8	Gardens can serve as good examples of urban agriculture.	1.2596
Q3	Gardens allow access to pesticide-free, healthy produce.	−1.2432
Q12	Harvested crops can be consumed or sold directly.	−1.0013
Q22	Gardens can serve as a foundation for direct local trade.	−1.1623
Q23	Garden products can support social enterprise activities.	−1.0857
Q27	Garden crops can become vital resources during disasters.	−1.6317
Q17	Gardens are suitable for eco-friendly agricultural production.	−1.1856

). Additionally, participants positively evaluated the garden’s function as a mediator linking urban and rural areas (Q26, z = 1.696), recognizing its contribution to the sustainability and integrated development of local communities. However, they disagreed with the statements that gardens significantly contribute to local direct trade (Q22, z = −1.162), support social enterprise initiatives (Q23, z = −1.086), and serve as critical assets during emergencies (Q27, z = −1.631). Therefore, Type 3 was analyzed as perceiving gardens as spaces that generate long-term social and environmental value by providing sustainable resources for future generations and connecting urban, rural, and community networks. Gardens were found to play an important role beyond mere production spaces, contributing to community development and a sustainable society.

3.3. Factor Analysis Results: Regulating Services

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on regulating services identified three distinct types.

Type 1: Nature Connection and Environmental Regulation Enhancement Type

This type can be summarized as emphasizing the garden’s role in strengthening human–nature connections and enhancing urban ecosystem stability through regulating functions.

Type 1, labeled as the “Nature Connection and Environmental Regulation Enhancement Type,” strongly emphasizes strengthening the connection with nature and recognizing the importance of the garden’s regulating functions within the urban environment. This type highly valued the role of gardens in helping urban residents connect with nature (Q27, z = 1.889) and considered the selection of plant species crucial for realizing regulating functions (Q22, z = 1.561). It also highlighted the importance of maintaining local ecosystem health (Q29, z = 1.399), adapting garden design to local climate change (Q24, z = 1.371), and making the urban environment feel more natural (Q23, z = 1.262) (

Table 10. Type 1: Nature Connection and Environmental Regulation Enhancement.

Q Item	Statement	Standard Score (Z-Score)
Q27	Gardens help connect urban life to nature.	1.8889
Q22	Selecting plant species is key to regulating gardens.	1.5610
Q29	Gardens help maintain ecosystem health.	1.3994
Q24	Garden designs adapt to regional climate changes.	1.3714
Q23	Gardens make urban environments more natural.	1.2615
Q14	Gardens increase urban carbon absorption.	1.0510
Q4	Gardens mitigate natural disasters like floods.	−1.6115
Q19	Regulated gardens are more commonly found in suburban areas, rather than in urban centers.	−1.4332
Q10	Garden trees protect buildings from wind and rain.	−1.3127
Q11	Gardens help ensure safe living environments.	−1.2389
Q12	Gardens prevent soil erosion.	−1.2118
Q18	Gardens regulate local climates, making areas more livable.	−1.0239
Q20	Large-scale regulating gardens are needed for feasibility.	−1.0176

). Additionally, this type recognized the garden’s role in increasing urban carbon absorption (Q14, z = 1.051). However, they disagreed with the claims that gardens can mitigate natural disasters like floods (Q4, z = −1.612) and protect buildings from wind and rain (Q10, z = −1.313). The analysis revealed that gardens play a crucial role in fostering connections with nature, promoting urban well-being and stability, and contributing to the creation of a sustainable urban ecosystem through their regulating functions.

Type 2: Urban Environmental Improvement and Air Quality Enhancement Type

This type can be summarized as focusing on the garden’s functional roles in mitigating urban heat islands, improving air quality, and regulating local climates.

Type 2 was identified as the “Urban Environmental Improvement and Air Quality Enhancement Type,” focusing on the role of gardens in improving urban environments and enhancing air quality. This type highly evaluated the garden’s contribution to reducing the urban heat island effect (Q1, z = 1.765) and emphasized its role in regulating the local climate to create a livable environment (Q18, z = 1.726). Participants also perceived the garden as effectively reducing airborne pollutants (Q16, z = 1.693), mitigating fine dust (Q7, z = 1.571), and lowering surrounding temperatures (Q6, z = 1.445). Additionally, the garden’s capacity to increase carbon absorption in urban areas (Q14, z = 1.116) and purify the air (Q2, z = 1.026) was considered important (

Table 11. Type 2: Urban Environmental Improvement & Air Quality Enhancement.

Q Item	Statement	Standard Score (Z-Score)
Q1	Gardens help reduce the urban heat island effect.	1.7653
Q18	Gardens regulate local climates, making areas more livable.	1.7264
Q16	Plants in gardens reduce harmful airborne substances.	1.6931
Q7	Plants in gardens help reduce fine dust.	1.5710
Q6	Gardens lower the surrounding area’s temperature.	1.4445
Q14	Gardens increase urban carbon absorption.	1.1159
Q2	Plants in gardens purify the air.	1.0261
Q19	Regulated gardens are more commonly found in suburban areas, rather than in urban centers.	−1.9181
Q30	Gardens play a role in protecting people from natural disasters.	−1.5294
Q23	Gardens make urban environments more natural.	−1.1974
Q26	Plants in gardens help preserve soil nutrients.	−1.1417
Q10	Garden trees protect buildings from wind and rain.	−1.0192

). However, participants disagreed with several functions: they did not agree that regulated gardens are more common in suburban rather than urban areas (Q19, z = −1.918), that gardens protect people from natural disasters (Q30, z = −1.529), that gardens make urban environments more natural (Q23, z = −1.197), that gardens preserve soil nutrients (Q26, z = −1.142), or that garden trees protect buildings from wind and rain (Q10, z = −1.019). These results suggest that this type prioritizes the functional aspects of air quality improvement and climate regulation over aesthetic or ecological roles. Therefore, Type 2 highlights the potential of gardens to mitigate urban heat island effects and air pollution problems, thereby contributing significantly to the creation of a comfortable and sustainable urban environment.

Type 3: Nature-Based Harmony and Environmental Restoration Type

This type can be summarized as perceiving gardens as spaces that harmonize urban environments with nature, supporting water management and environmental recovery.

Type 3 is characterized as the “Nature-Based Harmony and Environmental Restoration Type,” emphasizing the role of gardens in harmonizing urban environments with nature and contributing to environmental recovery and stability. The most highly rated aspect was that gardens help make urban environments more natural (Q23, z = 1.573). Participants also recognized that gardens support urban stability by absorbing and storing rainwater (Q3, z = 1.377), strengthen connections between urban life and nature (Q27, z = 1.255), and maintain balance by having trees that serve as windbreaks (Q5, z = 1.182). In contrast, they gave low evaluations to the garden’s role in protecting people from natural disasters (Q30, z = −2.309), its function in regulating local climate (Q18, z = −1.274), and the importance of specific species selection (Q22, z = −1.058) (

Table 12. Type 3: Nature-Based Harmony and Environmental Restoration.

Q Item	Statement	Standard Score (Z-Score)
Q23	Gardens make urban environments more natural.	1.5731
Q3	Gardens absorb and store rainwater.	1.3769
Q27	Gardens help connect urban life to nature.	1.2553
Q5	Garden trees serve as windbreaks.	1.1819
Q1	Gardens help reduce the urban heat island effect.	1.0657
Q2	Plants in gardens purify the air.	1.0216
Q30	Gardens play a role in protecting people from natural disasters.	−2.3090
Q24	Garden designs adapt to regional climate changes.	−1.4794
Q17	Gardens mitigate the impact of natural disasters.	−1.3378
Q18	Gardens regulate local climates, making areas more livable.	−1.2739
Q25	Regulating gardens should be operated at the national level.	−1.1614
Q22	Selecting plant species is key to regulating gardens.	−1.0581

). This suggests that the role of gardens is perceived more broadly as having positive impacts on the entire urban environment rather than just providing localized functions. Therefore, Type 3 focuses on how gardens promote harmony between the urban environment and nature, supporting the restoration and sustainable development of urban ecosystems through effective water management and improved air quality.

3.4. Factor Analysis Results: Cultural Services

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on cultural services identified two types.

Type 1: Education and Nature Experience-Oriented Type

This type can be summarized as perceiving gardens as hubs for learning and nature experiences, essential for strengthening human–nature relationships and fostering environmental awareness.

Type 1, labeled as the “Education and Nature Experience-Oriented Type,” placed the highest importance on the role of gardens as stress-reducing spaces (Q1, z = 1.476) (

Table 13. Type 1: Education and Nature Experience-Oriented.

Q Item	Statement	Standard Score (Z-Score)
Q1	Gardens are spaces that reduce stress.	1.4725
Q5	Gardens are suitable for learning and educational activities.	1.2114
Q4	Gardens offer valuable places to experience nature.	1.1245
Q6	Gardens provide opportunities to connect with nature.	1.1160
Q2	Gardens are good places to have conversations with friends.	1.1100
Q14	Gardens provide people with opportunities to connect with nature.	1.0113
Q28	Cultural gardens should focus on education.	−2.2028
Q8	Gardens are suitable venues for local festivals.	−1.8635
Q27	Gardens teach residents to respect nature.	−1.6331
Q13	Gardens reflect local history and culture.	−1.5836
Q29	Cultural gardens are more experiential than other gardens.	−1.0441

). This type perceives gardens as places that contribute to mental health and psychological well-being while valuing their use as suitable spaces for learning and educational activities (Q5, z = 1.211). Additionally, gardens were considered valuable locations for experiencing nature (Q4, z = 1.125) and providing opportunities to interact with nature (Q6, z = 1.116). They also emphasized that gardens are good places for conversations with friends (Q2, z = 1.110) and provide opportunities for people to connect with nature (Q14, z = 1.011).

In contrast, participants disagreed with the views that cultural gardens should focus exclusively on education (Q28, z = −2.203), that gardens are suitable venues for local festivals (Q8, z = −1.864), and that gardens necessarily teach residents to respect nature (Q27, z = −1.633). They also placed low importance on the role of gardens in reflecting local history and culture (Q13, z = −1.584) and in being more experiential than other gardens (Q29, z = −1.044).

Therefore, Type 1 perceives gardens not merely as leisure spaces but as hubs for education and nature experiences, viewing them as critical tools for strengthening human–nature relationships and fostering learning on environmental conservation and respect for nature. It was found that the expected value of gardens of this type can be maximized when garden design and utilization are aligned with educational purposes and the enhancement of natural experiences.

Type 2: Mental Stability and Experience Enhancement Type

This type can be summarized as valuing gardens as healing and leisure spaces, emphasizing psychological stability, relaxation, and intuitive interactions with nature over educational activities.

Cultural Service Type 2 is characterized as the “Mental Stability and Experience Enhancement Type,” emphasizing the garden’s role in providing mental stability (Q21, z = 1.333), offering opportunities for people to reconnect with nature in urban life (Q14, z = 1.260), and serving as a space where individuals can find relaxation in nature (Q19, z = 1.465) (

Table 14. Type 2: Mental Stability and Experience Enhancement.

Q Item	Statement	Standard Score (Z-Score)
Q26	Gardens provide spaces for emotional healing.	1.8436
Q19	Gardens provide a peaceful nature retreat, allowing people to find relaxation.	1.4653
Q21	Gardens provide mental stability within urban life.	1.3328
Q14	Gardens provide people with opportunities to connect with nature.	1.2597
Q25	Gardens are valuable places to experience nature within cities.	1.1700
Q6	Gardens provide opportunities to connect with nature.	1.0332
Q28	Cultural gardens should focus on education.	−1.9308
Q8	Gardens are suitable venues for local festivals.	−1.4382
Q17	Gardens are designed more for human experience than for display.	−1.1786
Q11	Gardens serve as spaces where residents can connect with one another.	−1.0216
Q10	Gardens are ideal for outdoor activities.	−1.0009

). This type perceives the garden as an essential space that helps overcome the disconnect from nature in modern urban life, supporting psychological stability and recovery. Participants valued the garden’s capacity to allow for interactions with nature (Q6, z = 1.033) and regarded it as a place where people can experience nature in urban areas (Q25, z = 1.170). They especially recognized it as a healing space (Q26, z = 1.844) with the potential to improve mental health and quality of life.

In contrast, participants disagreed with the ideas that cultural gardens should focus on education (Q28, z = −1.931), that gardens are suitable venues for local festivals (Q8, z = −1.438), that gardens are designed primarily for human experience rather than display (Q17, z = −1.179), that gardens serve as spaces for residents to connect with each other (Q11, z = −1.022), and that gardens are ideal for outdoor activities (Q10, z = −1.001).

Therefore, Type 2 emphasizes the garden’s role in fostering human–nature interactions, reconnecting people with nature in urban life, and supporting mental stability and recovery.

3.5. Factor Analysis Results: Supporting Services

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on supporting services identified two types.

Type 1: Biodiversity Enhancement and Ecosystem Protection Type

This type can be summarized as regarding gardens as key instruments for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration, essential for ecological balance and sustainability.

Type 1, labeled as the “Biodiversity Enhancement and Ecosystem Protection Type,” placed the highest importance on the garden’s role in providing spaces where diverse flora and fauna can thrive (Q1, z = 1.954) and in playing a critical role in maintaining biodiversity (Q3, z = 1.565) (

Table 15. Type 1: Biodiversity Enhancement and Ecosystem Protection.

Q Item	Statement	Standard Score (Z-Score)
Q1	Gardens provide habitats for a diverse range of plants and animals.	1.9544
Q3	Gardens play an important role in preserving biodiversity.	1.5645
Q4	Promoting biodiversity should be a primary goal of gardens.	1.2678
Q2	Gardens play a crucial role in protecting the local ecosystem.	1.2273
Q5	Gardens help restore natural habitats.	1.0151
Q26	Urban gardens do not significantly affect my life.	−2.3659
Q27	The environmental impact of biodiversity gardens is often exaggerated.	−2.2234
Q30	Gardens play a crucial role in maintaining the sustainability of natural environments.	−1.3982

). This type believed gardens should prioritize biodiversity enhancement (Q4, z = 1.268) and serve as vital tools for protecting and restoring local ecosystems (Q2, z = 1.227; Q5, z = 1.015). In contrast, participants strongly disagreed with the statement that urban gardens have little impact on personal lives (Q26, z = −2.366) and rejected the notion that the environmental benefits of biodiversity gardens are exaggerated (Q27, z = −2.223). This suggests that this type perceives gardens not merely as spatial or decorative elements but as essential for enhancing biodiversity, maintaining ecosystem health, and ensuring sustainability.

Therefore, Type 1 views gardens as key instruments for ecological restoration and biodiversity conservation, recognizing their crucial role in achieving environmental balance and sustainability. They believe gardens should go beyond simply shaping urban environments to promote ecological value and foster harmony with local ecosystems.

Type 2: Harmony and Sustainability-Oriented Type

This type can be summarized as perceiving gardens as spaces for long-term human–nature coexistence, focusing on sustainability and the transmission of ecosystems to future generations.

Supporting Service Type 2 is characterized as the “Harmony and Sustainability-Oriented Type,” which places the highest importance on the garden’s role as a space where humans and nature coexist harmoniously (Q28, z = 1.603), maintaining the sustainability of the natural environment (Q30, z = 1.527), and playing a crucial role in passing ecosystems on to future generations (Q29, z = 1.515). This type does not see the garden as a tool to address environmental problems. It expects it to be a long-term space for creating sustainable environments and strengthening human–nature interactions.

In contrast, participants strongly disagreed with the statements that urban gardens do not significantly affect personal life (Q26, z = −2.682) and that cities without biodiversity gardens are ecologically complete (Q6, z = −2.128). They also disagreed with the claim that biodiversity gardens have exaggerated environmental improvement effects (Q27, z = −1.341). Lower importance was placed on the garden’s role in providing environments that adapt to climate change (Q8, z = −1.119) or restoring natural habitats (Q5, z = −1.054).

Therefore, Type 2 perceives the garden as a space where humans and nature can coexist and create a sustainable environment, believing it is essential in passing ecosystems to future generations. This type emphasizes the garden’s long-term and macro-level role in balancing humans and nature within urban settings. It recognizes the importance of sustainable design and management in achieving this goal (

Table 16. Harmony and Sustainability-Oriented.

Q Item	Statement	Standard Score (Z-Score)
Q28	Gardens are spaces where humans and nature coexist harmoniously.	1.6026
Q30	Gardens play a crucial role in maintaining the sustainability of natural environments.	1.5266
Q29	Gardens play a crucial role in preserving ecosystems for future generations.	1.5149
Q26	Urban gardens do not significantly affect my life.	−2.6819
Q6	Cities without biodiversity gardens are considered ecologically incomplete.	−2.1283
Q27	The environmental impact of biodiversity gardens is often exaggerated.	−1.3409
Q8	Gardens provide environments that adapt to climate change.	−1.1189
Q5	Gardens help restore natural habitats.	−1.0540

).

In summary, when comparing the four categories of ecosystem services, clear differences emerged in the ways students perceived ecosystem service gardens. In the provisioning category, perceptions were more closely associated with resource use and community-oriented functions, whereas in the regulating category, emphasis was placed on environmental improvement and ecological harmony. Cultural services highlighted personal and collective benefits, such as education, recreation, and psychological well-being, while supporting services emphasized long-term sustainability, biodiversity, and ecosystem protection. Taken together, these differences illustrate that while students recognized multiple functions of gardens, the relative weight placed on material, ecological, cultural, or supportive aspects varied by category, offering valuable insights into how ecosystem service gardens are differentially understood by future professionals.

4. Discussion

This study employed Q methodology to classify and analyze the perceptions of university students regarding ecosystem service gardens. The analysis identified distinct types for each service category: in provisioning services, types such as “Community-based Eco-friendly Resource Sharing,” “Community Cultural and Traditional Linkage,” and “Sustainability and Community Connectivity-Oriented”; in regulating services, types such as “Nature Connection and Environmental Regulation Enhancement,” “Urban Environmental Improvement and Air Quality Enhancement,” and “Nature-Based Harmony and Environmental Restoration”; and in cultural and supporting services, types such as “Education and Nature Experience-Oriented,” “Mental Stability and Experience Enhancement,” “Biodiversity Enhancement and Ecosystem Protection,” and “Harmony and Sustainability-Oriented.” These findings suggest that students perceive gardens as both aesthetic and leisure spaces, as well as multidimensional areas tied to ecological and social values. This overall pattern provides support for Hypothesis 1, confirming that students indeed recognized gardens as multifunctional spaces that extend beyond aesthetics or leisure, linking them to ecological, psychological, cultural, and sustainability-related values. This aligns with Karimi et al. [60], who highlighted the strong synergy between biodiversity and cultural ecosystem services, underscoring that people associate natural areas, such as gardens, with both ecological functions and cultural significance. Similarly, García-Llorente et al. [61] emphasized that urban home gardens provide a range of cultural services, including environmental education, recreational opportunities, local identity, and aesthetic enjoyment, making them key elements of urban social-ecological systems.

However, a deeper reflection on the results reveals that university students’ perceptions are not fully aligned with the essential concept of ecosystem service gardens. For instance, the emphasis on agricultural production, local festivals, food culture, and economic resource sharing in the provisioning service types suggests a somewhat expanded interpretation, diverging from the typical definition of gardens. This finding supports Hypothesis 2, which anticipated that certain perceptions would diverge from the core concept of ecosystem service gardens. This indicates that the concrete concept of “ecosystem service gardens” has not yet been fully internalized or communicated to students.

Similarly, while regulating, cultural, and supporting service types included positive keywords such as “nature harmony,” “psychological healing,” and “sustainability for future generations,” the responses showed limited understanding of how these values can be practically linked to garden management or design strategies. This suggests that while students recognize ecosystem service concepts in a general sense, they lack detailed knowledge or experience in applying these ideas specifically to garden spaces. This observation aligns with findings by Riechers et al. [33], who showed that although urban residents are familiar with cultural ecosystem service terms like aesthetic values or sense of place, they often struggle to translate these into practical management or planning actions, as well as with Hubatová et al. [62], who emphasized that the abstract and subjective nature of cultural ecosystem services frequently hinders their integration into concrete design or management practices, even when acknowledged in planning contexts.

When compared with international research, our findings reveal both similarities and contextual differences. For example, studies from Europe and North America have shown that community and educational gardens are widely perceived as spaces that deliver cultural ecosystem services such as environmental education, social learning, and psychological well-being [63,64]. Similar to our results, these studies highlight the importance of gardens in fostering environmental awareness and mental restoration. However, unlike our participants, who also associated ecosystem service gardens with agricultural production and resource sharing, European and North American studies tend to emphasize social inclusion, urban resilience, and multicultural engagement as central benefits [65,66]. This contrast suggests that cultural and institutional contexts strongly shape how ecosystem services are perceived in gardens, and underscores the need for further comparative work to understand cross-regional differences.

These results highlight important implications for both environmental policy and education. First, the observed perceptional gaps suggest the need for curriculum reforms in higher education—specifically, introducing hands-on learning modules and service-learning tied directly to ecosystem service gardens, as shown effective in other international contexts. Second, garden management practitioners and policymakers should prioritize participatory co-design and stakeholder engagement in urban green space planning, ensuring that the ecosystem services framework is both understood by and tailored to intended users.

It should also be noted that the sample consisted exclusively of students majoring in forestry and landscape architecture. Their professional background may have given them a higher baseline understanding of ecosystem services compared to the general student population. Thus, the perception gaps identified in this study should be interpreted as characteristic of this specific group, rather than representative of all university students or Gen Z youth. For students without such backgrounds, these gaps between theory and practice may be even more pronounced [67].

Beyond the substantive findings, this study also highlights the potential value of Q methodology itself for environmental education and policy communication. As a mixed qualitative–quantitative approach, Q methodology systematically reveals the structure of subjective viewpoints, making it a powerful tool for illustrating the diversity of perceptions among students and stakeholders. In the context of education, it can foster reflection and dialogue by showing learners the variety of perspectives that exist within their own peer group. In policy settings, Q methodology has been shown to support participatory governance and communication by making stakeholder perspectives explicit and comparable [68,69,70]. Incorporating Q methodology into environmental education and policy dialogue could therefore strengthen both awareness-building and decision-making processes related to ecosystem service gardens.

This study has several limitations. First, the sample was small and homogeneous, consisting of 32 students from a single university who primarily majored in forestry and landscape architecture. Although this composition provided a clear baseline for interpreting within-group variations, it limits the generalizability of the findings and may not fully represent the perceptions of all university students or Generation Z youth. Second, while Q methodology is methodologically appropriate for exploring typologies of perception, its small and purposive sampling design restricts statistical generalization. Therefore, the perception types identified here should be interpreted as illustrative patterns within this cohort rather than as population-level distributions. Third, the Q-sample statements, though carefully developed through expert consultation and prior studies, might not capture the entire conceptual range of ecosystem service gardens. Additional statements or alternative framing could reveal further nuances. Finally, contextual and cultural factors—specific to South Korea’s garden and forestry education systems—may influence how ecosystem services are understood. Future studies should include students from diverse academic disciplines and geographic regions and compare perceptions with practitioners or garden experts to assess how professional experience shapes understanding.

Future research should incorporate mixed-methods approaches and larger, more diverse samples—including students from various academic disciplines as well as practitioners—to facilitate comprehensive understanding and generalizability. By addressing these points, ecosystem service gardens can become both practical and social instruments for biodiversity, resilience, and community well-being in Korean urban environments.

Therefore, while this study makes an academic contribution by identifying the baseline perceptions of university students regarding ecosystem service gardens, it also highlights critical tasks for future research, policy, and education. First, targeted education and outreach programs are needed to deepen students’ understanding of ecosystem service gardens at a more practical and applied level. This aligns with Hermelingmeier et al. [71], who emphasized that strengthening local knowledge systems and participatory governance enhances the multifunctionality and resilience of green spaces. Second, there is a need for a paradigm shift, moving beyond viewing gardens merely as spaces for production or economic activities, and instead recognizing their layered functions for biodiversity conservation, climate regulation, psychological well-being, and community strengthening. As Jaligot & Chenal [72] demonstrated, integrating diverse stakeholder perceptions—including utilitarian, cultural, and protective—into planning can ensure that ecosystem services are managed not only for economic outputs but also for social needs and ecological sustainability.

This discussion opens the door to envisioning ecosystem service gardens not merely as environmental spaces but as vital platforms within urban societies for education, participation, governance, and sustainability. The study’s findings can serve as a foundational data source for developing garden designs, educational programs, and participatory management strategies targeted at university students in the future.

5. Conclusions

This study aimed to analyze how university students perceive ecosystem service gardens using Q methodology, systematically categorizing their subjective viewpoints and identifying the key characteristics of each. The analysis revealed ten distinct perception types across the four major ecosystem service categories—provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services. These findings demonstrate that students associate gardens not merely with aesthetics or leisure but with a broader range of socio-ecological values, including community connection, ecosystem protection, psychological well-being, and sustainability.

However, as discussed in the main text, some perception types deviated from the essential concept of ecosystem service gardens. For instance, elements related to agricultural production, food distribution, local festivals, and food culture—while meaningful in other contexts—are not core to the conceptual framework of ecosystem service gardens and may have limited practical relevance in this domain. This discrepancy likely stems from students’ limited hands-on experience or insufficient internalization of the ecosystem service concept as applied to gardens.

This study holds academic significance as the first attempt to systematically classify South Korean university students’ perceptions of ecosystem service gardens. The findings offer foundational data for future garden design, educational program development, and participatory management strategies targeting university students. In particular, they should be actively utilized by the Korea Forest Service and the Korea Arboreta and Gardens Institute as a practical reference when planning and implementing garden design competitions and related educational initiatives aimed at younger generations.

In addition, the findings of this study provide specific implications for the design of educational programs. For example, hands-on modules, service-learning projects, and participatory garden design activities could be integrated into university curricula to help students connect theoretical knowledge with practical applications. Such programs could also be extended to non-specialist students and community participants, thereby broadening awareness of ecosystem service gardens and strengthening their role in environmental education and sustainability initiatives.

Furthermore, in South Korea, the “Act on the Creation and Promotion of Arboreta and Gardens” currently classifies gardens by managing entity (e.g., national, local, or private) and by functional or thematic purposes (e.g., therapeutic, educational, or everyday gardens). In light of this study’s findings, it is hoped that future revisions to this legal framework will incorporate a clear and operational definition of “ecosystem service gardens,” thereby institutionalizing their ecological functions and public value. Such improvements would reflect the educational implications and perception typologies identified herein, contributing to the conceptual and policy advancement of gardens designed with an ecosystem services framework in mind.

Therefore, the findings of this study should be understood as reflecting the cognitive characteristics of students with professional expertise in forestry and landscape architecture. The conclusions are not intended to be generalized to all university students. It is plausible, however, that among students without relevant training, the disconnect between theoretical concepts and practical applications of ecosystem service gardens could be even greater.