Next Article in Journal
The Role of Food Markets in Urban Sustainable Tourism: A Case Study from Bucharest (Romania)
Previous Article in Journal
Gender-Responsive Research and Innovation: Issues and Initiatives
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 13
10.3390/su17136216
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Urban Allotment Gardens with Turf Reduce Biodiversity and Provide Limited Regulatory Ecosystem Services

by
Marta Melon
1,*,
Tomasz Dzieduszyński
2,
Beata Gawryszewska
1,
Maciej Lasocki
2,
Adrian Hoppa
1,
Arkadiusz Przybysz
3,* and
Piotr Sikorski
1
1
Institute of Environmental Engineering, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—SGGW, Nowoursynowska 159, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland
2
Faculty of Architecture, Warsaw University of Technology, ul. Koszykowa 55, 00-659 Warsaw, Poland
3
Centre for Climate Research, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—SGGW, Nowoursynowska 159, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(13), 6216; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17136216
Submission received: 13 May 2025 / Revised: 21 June 2025 / Accepted: 27 June 2025 / Published: 7 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Urban and Rural Development)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Urban gardens, including family allotment gardens (FAGs) and community gardens (CGs), play an increasingly important role in urban resilience to climate change—particularly through the delivery of regulatory ecosystem services. They occupy as much as 2.6% of Warsaw’s land area and thus have a tangible impact on the entire metropolitan system. These gardens are used in different ways, and each use affects the magnitude of the provided ecosystem services. This preliminary study explores how different types of allotment garden uses affect biodiversity and ecosystem services, addressing a critical knowledge gap in the classification and ecological functioning of urban gardens. We surveyed 44 plots in Warsaw, categorizing them into five vegetation use types: turf, flower, vegetable, orchard, and abandoned. For each plot, we assessed the floristic diversity, vegetation structure (leaf area index, LAI), and six regulatory services: air and soil cooling, water retention, humidity regulation, PM 2.5 retention, and nectar provision. Flower gardens had the highest species diversity (Shannon index = 1.93), while turf gardens had the lowest (1.43) but the highest proportion of native species (92%). Abandoned plots stood out due to the densest vegetation (LAI = 4.93) and ecological distinctiveness. Principal component analysis showed that the selected ecosystem services explained 25% of the variation in vegetation types. We propose a use-based classification of urban gardens and highlight abandoned plots as a functionally unique and overlooked ecological category.

1. Introduction

In this preliminary study, urban gardens are understood as both family allotment gardens (FAGs) and community gardens (CGs), which are a key component of cities’ green infrastructure. Their growing importance becomes particularly relevant in the context of climate change adaptation in urban areas [1,2,3]. Demand for FAGs is evident across many European cities and diverse age groups, including young couples and families [4,5,6]. CGs are being created in housing estates and next to community centers [7,8]. This trend became especially pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic, when gardens provided space for physical activity and safe access to food [4,9,10].
During this time, there has been an increase in the use of parks and gardens as places to access nature daily [11,12]. At the same time, we can observe a declining importance of urban gardens as places of traditional food production [13], with a growing importance of organic farming [14]. Allotment and community garden users mostly consider the fruits and vegetables they produce to be of better quality and taste than supermarket food, which encourages greater consumption [4,15]. In a typical UK city, local vegetable production in community garden plots can provide more than 2% of the demand for fruits and vegetables [16]. In addition to social gardening, the most preferred activities in allotment gardens are getting together with friends and celebrating small occasions such as birthdays [4]. It is also important for allotment gardeners to be able to identify with the place—they treat it as a second home and a space of respite from the hustle and bustle of the city [13].
The presence of gardens in cities supports biodiversity and regulatory services [17,18]. Locally, they improve microclimates and are important in improving air and soil quality, reducing noise, hydrological and biogeochemical cycles, and protecting biodiversity through the plants grown there [19,20,21]. They are particularly important for pollinators, providing a relatively safe habitat and a rich source of nectar and pollen [17,22]. The diversity of flowering plants and the complexity of habitats in urban gardens is positively correlated with the diversity of bumblebees and solitary bees [23,24,25].
In the case of Warsaw, allotment gardens currently cover 2.6% of the total city area, a substantial proportion in terms of ecological potential. Historically, these areas were primarily used for productive gardening. However, as functions shift toward recreation, there is a risk that their contribution to biodiversity and regulating services may decrease. We argue that this 2.6% represents a critical component of the city’s green infrastructure—one that could significantly enhance biodiversity and ecosystem service provision if managed through low-intensity, nature-based practices. Given the strategic placement of many gardens near city centers, their multifunctional potential deserves closer attention in planning for climate resilience.
The functions provided by urban gardens are strongly influenced by their land use type [17]. Nowadays, two main uses of allotment gardens are distinguished: recreational (turf and flower growing) and productive (orchard and vegetable growing). In the case of the former, the dominant landscape feature is turf, which is an important component of urban greenery around the world [26,27,28]. Studies on the role of grasslands in providing ecosystem services highlight a positive correlation between grassland areas and the extent of ecosystem services provided [29], with some also considering the impact of mowing [30]. However, these studies concern grassland areas in open spaces and land management in larger areas. There is a lack of research on the use of greenery in urban areas for recreational purposes.
In Poland, as many as 21.2% of gardens are used exclusively for recreation [31]. However, such intensively manicured lawns are floristically poor [32,33], and their prevalence is not a result of the need for free space penetration but largely the result of cultural norms [34]. There is a danger that keeping with this trend could reduce the ecosystem services provided and decrease urban biodiversity [24,35]. In the face of climate change, there is growing support for reducing maintenance intensity and increasing biodiversity by incorporating native species into lawns—plants that are often more drought-resistant [27]. Such solutions can significantly support local ecosystems by providing habitat and food sources for insects and other organisms.
An analysis of the scientific literature preceded the choice of data collection and processing methods. The researchers combined scenario modeling, GIS tools, a simulation model of land use change, and methods of economic valuation of ecosystem services to capture the relationships between interventions and ecosystem effects and to examine the consequences of future planning decisions [29,30,36]. Urban gardens provide ready-made ‘scenarios’ for comparing different types of cultivation and land use.
Assessing the biodiversity of urban gardens has been a subject of recent interest [17,21]. In allotment gardens, a more or less intentional process of vegetation abandonment is spreading. Fragments of spontaneous greenery appear on the properties. The ecosystem services and biodiversity they provide can be equal to or greater than in formal green spaces [37,38,39,40]. Importantly, such low-use places with dense vegetation despite the lack of infrastructure are perceived positively among people [41,42], so these “wild” enclaves are projected to become increasingly important in the urban landscape [39].
The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between the most common types of green urban gardens (turf, flower, vegetable, orchard, abandoned) and the ecosystem services they provide. The main novelty is the inclusion of abandoned plots with spontaneous vegetation in this study. This is a type of greenery previously marginalized in analyses but potentially important for the biodiversity and resilience of urban ecosystems. We examined how the ecosystem services performed by such enclaves compare to other types.
The results presented in this paper may be key to future policies for shaping urban greenery, especially in light of ongoing climate change and urbanization, and highlighting the value of “informal” forms of greenery such as abandoned plots is an important new research direction and may contribute to more sustainable urban planning. They can also provide an important argument in the debate over the relocation of gardens beyond urban boundaries—a process that could significantly alter their existing functions and accessibility.

2. Materials and Methods

In Poland, the majority of allotment gardens (95%) are located within the administrative borders of cities and serve as leisure activities for 17% of the country’s adult population [43]. In Warsaw, their area is about 2.6% of the city’s total area [31].
This study was carried out in the left-bank part of Warsaw—in 6 locations (Figure 1) differing in soil type and groundwater level. The gardens also differed in size, date of establishment, and distance from pollution emitters. Large sources of pollution such as roads, the airport, heavily built-up housing estates, and industrial facilities were located close to the gardens. At the selected FAGs and CGs, the properties were randomly selected for measurements during the in situ research, with the number of areas surveyed depending on the area of the site. Three to ten plots in each garden were eventually selected during the in situ surveys. A total of 44 research plots (not including reference lawns) were surveyed, which are located in the area: FAG “Fort Szczęśliwice” [10], FAG “Arkadia” [10], and FAG “Bohaterów Westerplatte” [10] (Appendix A) and in three community gardens (CGs): “Motyka i Słońce” [7], CG “Miła 22” [4], and Hub of Intergenerational Activity Muranów—“CG Muranów” [3] (Appendix B).
The selected locations are considered representative of Warsaw’s broader allotment structure. According to the Study of Conditions and Directions for Spatial Development of the Capital City of Warsaw, allotment gardens are recognized city-wide as important urban green areas serving mixed recreational and productive functions. This supports the generalizability of the studied gardens to the wider urban context of Warsaw.
On the inside of the surveyed gardens, there were properties/plots of homogeneous use. The properties represented an area of 2 m × 2 m. In allotment gardens, they were parts of selected allotment plots, and in community gardens, where there were no clear boundaries and divisions, areas were selected that were located in different parts of the garden.
Based on literature assumptions [17,26], we initially expected the plots to be classified into two main use types: recreational (mainly turf and flowers) and productive (orchards and vegetables). However, field observations and analyses revealed greater diversity in plot use.
Therefore, relying on detailed floristic surveys recording all vascular plant species along with their vertical vegetation layers (tree, shrub, herbaceous, ground cover), we refined the classification into five exclusive land-use types reflecting the dominant usage: vegetable (I), flower (II), abandoned (III), turf (IV), and orchard (V) (Table 1). The selected types reflect similar uses while excluding atypical cases. Each plot was assigned to a single category to avoid overlap. This approach enabled capturing the full complexity of plant assemblages and management intensity within the gardens.
Table 1. Classification of gardens based on their use.
Table 1. Classification of gardens based on their use.
Type of UseCharacteristics of Greenery and Dominant Vegetation TypeNumber of PlotsLiterature
Ivegetable (Figure 2I)dominated by vegetable crops growing in the ground, as well as elevated crops or tunnels (class Stellarietea)5[44]
IIflower (Figure 2II)dominated by flower crops in the form of flower beds or elevated crops (class Stellarietea)13[17,25]
IIIabandoned (Figure 2III)no signs of maintenance and introduced cultivation, spontaneous vegetation is present, and no human activity is visible (class Robinietea, Artemisietea)8[42]
IVturf (Figure 2V)dominated by low mowed lawn or turf, current equipment for user recreation (class Polygono arenastri-Poëtea annuae)12[45,46]
Vorchard (Figure 2IV)presence of various species of low-fruit trees and shrubs that occupy most of the plot area (class Polygono arenastri-Poëtea annuae i Artemisietea)6[47,48]
Dominant species closely aligned with the functional use types, providing a robust biological basis for the classification:
  • Vegetable plots were dominated by cultivated species such as Cucurbita pepo, Allium cepa, and Beta vulgaris.
  • Flower plots primarily contained ornamental herbaceous species including Paeonia officinalis, Helianthus annuus, and Tagetes patula, as well as ornamental shrubs such as Spiraea japonica.
  • Abandoned plots were colonized by spontaneously emerging synanthropic and ruderal species, including Dactylis glomerata, Glechoma hederacea, and Setaria pumila, indicative of minimal or no recent human management.
  • Turf plots consisted predominantly of managed grasses and lawn-associated species such as Lolium perenne, Festuca rubra, and Bellis perennis.
  • Orchards featured characteristic fruit trees (Malus domestica, Prunus domestica) in the canopy layer, accompanied by understory species such as Fragaria vesca, Taraxacum officinale, and Poa annua.
The “abandoned” category was introduced to capture plots undergoing natural vegetation succession in the absence of ongoing human intervention.
Unequal sample sizes across these land-use types reflect the actual distribution of plot management within the studied gardens and should be considered when interpreting the results and designing future research.
Sustainability 17 06216 g002
Figure 2. Type of use of the garden: (I)—vegetable (FAG Arkadia sampling plot no. 10); (II)—flower (FAG Arkadia sampling plot no. 7); (III)—abandoned (FAG Arkadia sampling plot no. 9); (IV)—turf (FAG Arkadia sampling plot no. 6); (V)—orchard (FAG Arkadia sampling plot no. 3).
Figure 2. Type of use of the garden: (I)—vegetable (FAG Arkadia sampling plot no. 10); (II)—flower (FAG Arkadia sampling plot no. 7); (III)—abandoned (FAG Arkadia sampling plot no. 9); (IV)—turf (FAG Arkadia sampling plot no. 6); (V)—orchard (FAG Arkadia sampling plot no. 3).
Sustainability 17 06216 g002

2.1. In Situ Regulatory Services Examined

The regulatory services survey (Table 2) was planned and conducted in the second half of the 2023 growing season.
Physico-chemical variables were measured 2–3 times per patch and averaged to obtain representative plot-level values. This replication reduced within-plot variability and increased the reliability of the results.

2.2. Statistical Analyses

To evaluate biodiversity across garden types, we extracted relevant data from the gathered dataset, including species diversity (Shannon index), the number of species, and the average proportion of native species. These metrics were averaged for each garden type and visualized on scatter plots complemented by 95% confidence interval bars. Individual data points for each type were overlaid. The y-axis was set to a linear scale. This visualization allowed for a clear comparison of biodiversity attributes across garden types.
The measured indicators affecting ecosystem service delivery were compiled into an Excel spreadsheet and categorized into six key groups: particulate filtering (measured PM 2.5 value subtracted from the reference value outside of the garden), air cooling (average temperature in the whole complex subtracted from the measured temperature in °C), soil water retention (measured soil moisture), soil cooling (measured soil temperature subtracted from the reference point soil temperature), air humidity regulation (average air humidity in the whole complex subtracted from the measured air humidity), and nectar provision for pollinators (measured nectar potential in kg/ha).
We analyzed the compiled data by standardizing numerical values and sanitizing data formatting. Key traits were selected, averaged by garden type, and normalized using MinMaxScaler. Radar plots were then generated to visualize the normalized trait profiles for each garden type, with consistent trait ordering and customized visuals to enhance clarity and comparability.
Next, we analyzed whether the level of regulatory ecosystem services differed significantly between garden types. To do this, a Fisher NIR groups test was performed using Statistica software version 13, and the data were then presented in graphs.
In addition, we conducted a multivariate analysis to evaluate the independent contributions of ecosystem service indicators to the classification of garden types. Ecosystem service metrics were first standardized using z-score normalization to ensure the comparability of effect sizes across variables. Garden types were one-hot encoded to allow for binary logistic regression modeling using Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) for each type individually. This approach enabled the identification of variables most strongly associated with each garden type.
Regression models were fitted using standardized predictor variables representing six quantified ecosystem services: particulate filtering, air cooling, soil water retention, soil cooling, air humidity regulation, and nectar provision. For each garden type, the regression coefficients and their 95% confidence intervals were visualized to illustrate the relative importance of each ecosystem service in predicting garden classification. Model fit was assessed using R2 values.
A Pearson correlation heatmap of the standardized ecosystem service variables was generated to explore potential multicollinearity and reveal underlying relationships between indicators. To further explore the multidimensional relationships, principal component analysis (PCA) was performed on the standardized variables. The first two principal components were extracted and visualized in a biplot, displaying both the positions of individual garden plots and loadings of the original variables. Arrows were used to represent the contribution and direction of each ecosystem service metric in the reduced dimensional space. Garden types were color-coded to facilitate visual differentiation.

3. Results

3.1. Biodiversity Across Different Allotment Garden Types

Biodiversity levels varied markedly among garden types. The Shannon index reached its lowest values in turf gardens (IV) and its highest in flower gardens (II) (Figure 3a). Although the number of species per sample ranged widely from 7 to 17, the average species richness was comparable across all garden types (Figure 3b). Turf gardens exhibited significantly lower diversity indices (p < 0.05), yet 92% of their species were native, indicating a relatively ecologically stable composition. In contrast, flower gardens—despite their higher biodiversity—contained a floristic composition with almost 40% non-native species, suggesting a trade-off between richness and ecological origin.

3.2. Leaf Area Index and Regulating Services

The highest values of the leaf area index (LAI) measured near the ground were observed in the abandoned garden type (Figure 4). All other types—vegetable, flower, turf, and orchard—exhibited similar and notably lower LAI values, suggesting a denser understory in unmanaged areas.

3.3. Regulatory Services of Different Types of Green Allotment Gardens

Regulating ecosystem services also differed substantially among garden types (Figure 5). Flower gardens and orchards provided the most comprehensive regulatory benefits, including air and soil cooling, improved water retention, and elevated air humidity. Turf gardens showed the lowest measured concentrations of PM 2.5. However, this does not necessarily indicate that turf vegetation is effective in filtering airborne pollutants. Abandoned gardens showed limited service delivery overall, with moderate capacities for soil moisture retention and localized cooling. Vegetable gardens performed well in terms of water retention and air cooling, though their contribution to other services was limited. With respect to pollination potential, measured by nectar production, the vegetable gardens outperformed all other types, while abandoned gardens scored the lowest.
Orchards demonstrated the strongest cooling effect on air temperature, while abandoned gardens showed the weakest (Figure 6a). Flower, turf, and vegetable gardens exhibited intermediate and statistically indistinguishable cooling effects. In terms of soil cooling, orchards again performed best, while vegetable gardens ranked lowest. No statistically significant differences were observed among garden types for PM 2.5 filtration or for air and soil humidity (Figure 6b,c).

3.4. Statistical Models of Garden Type Differentiation

Regression analyses revealed varying degrees of explanatory power across garden types, with the highest OLS R2 observed for orchards (0.17), followed by abandoned gardens (0.15), vegetable gardens (0.14), flower gardens (0.11), and a notably low value for recreational gardens (0.02) (Figure 7a–e). This suggests that the selected ecosystem service indicators better differentiate certain garden types—particularly abandoned and orchards —than others. Among the variables, the strongest standardized coefficients for the abandoned type were associated with air cooling, followed closely by soil water retention, air humidity regulation, and nectar provision. Flower gardens were mainly associated with air humidity regulation and soil water retention, while orchards showed relatively strong relationships with air cooling, air humidity regulation, soil cooling, and water retention. In contrast, the recreational garden type lacked any strong associations with individual indicators. For vegetable gardens, the key contributors were air humidity regulation and soil cooling, with a slightly weaker influence from air cooling.

3.5. Relationships Among Ecosystem Service Indicators

The correlation analysis of ecosystem service indicators (Figure 8) revealed notable relationships. The strongest positive correlation was observed between air cooling and air humidity regulation (r = 0.45), indicating that gardens that more effectively reduced air temperature also tended to enhance atmospheric moisture. A moderate positive correlation (r = 0.15) was also found between air cooling and soil cooling, suggesting a shared cooling effect on both air and soil environments in some garden types. Conversely, a negative correlation was identified between air humidity regulation and particulate filtering (r = −0.16), which may reflect a trade-off between vegetation structures that retain particles and those that transpire moisture more efficiently. These associations help explain overlapping ecosystem service functions and may indicate competing plant functional traits across garden designs.
Principal component analysis (Figure 9) revealed that the first two components accounted for 25.8% (PC1) and 19.4% (PC2) of the total variance. PC1 was primarily driven by air cooling and air humidity regulation (both with high positive loadings), indicating that this axis reflects variation in microclimatic regulation. In contrast, PC2 was negatively influenced by soil cooling, nectar provision for pollinators, and particulate filtering, representing variation in functions related to belowground regulation, pollinator support, and air purification. These results suggest that while PC1 and PC2 together explain a limited proportion of the total variability (45.2%), they nonetheless reveal meaningful patterns in the differentiation of garden types based on ecosystem service provision. Abandoned gardens tended to cluster on the negative side of PC1, often associated with lower microclimatic benefits, with several forming a distinct group in the upper-left quadrant. Orchards were more distinctly separated along PC2, reflecting stronger contributions to soil-related and pollinator-related services. In contrast, recreational gardens appeared more dispersed, with their centroid located near the origin, suggesting relatively undifferentiated ecosystem service profiles across this garden type.

4. Discussion

Allotment gardens were mainly established for food production and social purposes [52], particularly during economic hardship [13,14]. With social and economic changes, their function began to expand to include recreational functions, community integration and support for physical and mental health [4,53]. Biodiversity initially played a minor role, with food production and recreation dominating the provision of ecosystem services. However, with increasing environmental awareness and changes in urban policy, their importance for biodiversity conservation and human contact with nature began to be recognized [54]. Nowadays, allotment gardens are rarely perceived as places of real contact with nature [55], which may be a result of their enclosed structure, ‘home garden’ aesthetics or the predominance of utility functions over nature. This means that the potential of these areas in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem services remains untapped, especially in the case of abandoned or extensively managed gardens. In contemporary cities, community gardens are taking over the role of productive gardens. Researchers point to growing awareness among gardeners regarding biological diversity and ecosystem services [3,56,57].
Our findings confirm that the type of garden use strongly influences biodiversity indicators, particularly species richness and the proportion of native species, whereas differences in ecosystem service provision were less pronounced. This supports earlier studies showing that vegetation structure and maintenance shape ecological functions [58]. Importantly, differences in the Shannon index do not translate directly into the scale of ecosystem services provided, which may be due to the fact that many services are the sum effect of the entire vegetation structure and density, not just species diversity.
We observe high standard deviations for ecosystem services in our data, which means that although there are differences between garden types, the within-group variability is large enough to weaken the statistical significance. This indicates that there is a great deal of variation in the management of individual plots—within one type (e.g., a vegetable garden) you can find both intensively tended and extensively managed plots. Thus, the type of use is only one factor influencing the functioning of the garden.
Turf gardens showed the lowest species diversity (Shannon = 1.43, group A) and lowest species number (8.92), yet they had the highest proportion of native species (92%, group B). This points to a simplified plant community dominated by a few resilient native species, likely due to regular mowing and low habitat heterogeneity. Although turf has been associated with pollutant dispersion through its effect on airflow in urban landscapes [59], its low leaf area index (LAI = 1.92) and minimal vertical structure mean it offers limited direct services such as cooling or particulate matter retention [60].
Flower gardens displayed the highest biodiversity (Shannon = 1.93, group B) and supported a wide range of ecosystem services, including humidity regulation and moderate water retention. However, they also had the lowest fraction of native species (62%, group C). This reflects the dominance of ornamental and exotic species, valued for their aesthetics and extended blooming periods [61] but often less beneficial for native fauna and ecological networks [53,54,55,56]. This points to a trade-off between biodiversity quantity and ecological quality [54,57,58,59,60,61]. Despite the high value of ecosystem services, the species structure of flower gardens is strongly dependent on human activity—systematic planting, maintenance, and regular plant replacement make biodiversity here dynamic and susceptible to change.
Abandoned plots had the highest vegetation density (LAI = 4.93, group B) and a high share of native species (87%, group AB), consistent with low disturbance and natural succession processes [40]. Yet they did not outperform other plot types in most ecosystem services. This likely reflects the short duration of abandonment (1–3 years), which limits the development of mature, stratified vegetation that would enhance functions such as air purification or water retention [62,63].
Orchards delivered the strongest performance in air and soil cooling and provided consistent nectar availability. With moderate biodiversity (Shannon = 1.71) and a high native species fraction (87%, group AB), orchards acted as stable, multifunctional systems. Their structure and moderate management may support microclimate regulation and regular flowering patterns, especially in spring.
Vegetable gardens had moderate biodiversity (Shannon = 1.81) and a relatively low proportion of native species (70%, group AC). The presence of non-native species is due to the deliberate introduction of useful plants. Although the vegetable type has relatively high biodiversity, it offers limited ecosystem services. Intensive use, such as regular digging of the soil and removal of so-called weeds [64], can reduce biodiversity through the elimination of native plant species and the creation of areas with “bare soil”, which negatively affects the microclimate and water retention capacity. Such practices can lead to a simplification of habitat structure and a reduction in biodiversity. The use of the garden for vegetables also shows a high dependence on irrigation. For services such as cooling the air or improving soil moisture, orchards performed better, which—thanks to their crown structure and perennial plantings—create more stable microclimatic conditions.
The results indicate that the vegetable gardens provided moderate air cooling and water retention potential, but only for air cooling was significance observed. However, their greatest ecosystem value was the high availability of food for pollinators during the flowering period of some useful species, which is consistent with observations on community gardens.
According to correlation analysis, some services showed associations, suggesting shared mechanisms or functional trade-offs. In particular, air cooling and humidity regulation were positively correlated (r = 0.45), indicating a common influence of transpiration and plant structure. In contrast, the negative correlation between humidity and dust retention (r = −0.16) may stem from plant architecture—plants with efficient transpiration may have a lower particle retention capacity.
To better understand ecosystem service patterns, a principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted. The first two components explained 45.2% of the variability. PC1 was mainly associated with air cooling and humidity regulation (microclimate), while PC2 reflected soil cooling, nectar availability, and dust retention. Abandoned gardens clustered on the negative side of PC1 (poor microclimate regulation), while orchards separated along PC2 (soil and pollination functions). Recreational gardens were dispersed, confirming their low service specialization. However, the relatively low explanatory power of the PCA suggests that much of the variation in ecosystem services stems from other factors—such as soil structure, landscape context, or management intensity.
Surprisingly, there was little difference between garden types in terms of services such as PM 2.5 filtration or moisture retention. Despite functional and structural differences (e.g., between a compact turf and a tree-lined orchard), homogeneous groups were obtained, which may suggest that garden type does not fully capture the essence of ecosystem processes. One possible explanation is the varying age and stage of vegetation succession, which in many cases was quite early—young vegetation does not yet form a layered, stable structure that promotes retention. Abandoned gardens are of particular concern in this respect. Although their potential for biodiversity is high, no statistically significant differences were shown in any of the ecosystem services analyzed. A likely reason for this is the short time of abandonment (1–3 years)—during this period, succession is still at an early stage and vegetation structure is not very complex. This suggests that it is only after a longer period of leaving without interference that an increase in the diversity and quality of services can be expected. It would be useful to carry out a study that shows how, depending on the length of abandonment of property maintenance, there is an increase in ecosystem services. It would be worth conducting such a study on the edges of plots that are left unmown.
Values for each garden plot were averaged from multiple vegetation patches and replicated physico-chemical measurements. This approach reduced the within-sample variability and increased the reliability. Nevertheless, limitations include the small number of plots per type and short observation duration. Consequently, our conclusions are cautious and emphasize patterns rather than strong generalizations.
The optimal use of urban gardens requires a balanced approach, taking into account both biodiversity needs and socio-economic aspects. Individual plots in allotment gardens as small spaces create numerous ecotones that form transition zones between different types of habitats—vegetable crops, flowers, hedges, abandoned areas, and urban infrastructure. The boundaries between them can support an “edge effect” with unique conditions for both plants [65] and animals [66], which promotes greater species richness. The quality of these ecotones depends on the intensity of management and proximity to other zones. A patchwork structure of plots with nectar-producing plants near vegetable and fruit crops can support pollinators and increase regulatory ecosystem services.
We recommend a mixed use of gardens, avoiding only recreational turf and introducing native plants and fruit trees. Leaving patches of greenery undisturbed for years can significantly improve biodiversity, creating rich microhabitats [17,40,67].
This research fills a gap in the analysis of the role of urban gardens in the urban system, especially in terms of their classification and the assessment of the quality of these ecosystems. Our results confirm that the type of garden use significantly influences the level of biodiversity, although differences in the ecosystem services provided were statistically insignificant—a result of the large variation in the results within groups. This suggests that garden type does not uniquely determine the quality of ecosystem services, but rather, indicates the complexity and interdependence of multiple factors [68].

5. Limitations

Although our study did not directly account for management intensity (e.g., watering, pruning), previous research indicates a high frequency of allotment and community garden use in Poland—29.7% of gardeners visit their plots daily and 54.2% several times per week—suggesting that routine maintenance is performed as often as these visits occur [9]. The garden typology proposed in our study indirectly reflects different levels of management effort, as flower and vegetable plots typically require frequent care to maintain healthy crops. Therefore, even though management intensity was not quantitatively included in the statistical models, it is likely closely associated with garden type and should be incorporated into future research.
Additionally, the uneven sample sizes across the five garden types, which reflect the actual distribution of land uses in the studied gardens, may limit the statistical power for comparisons between certain categories, especially vegetable and orchard plots. Nonetheless, the sample size of 44 plots is substantial for this type of field research and allows meaningful insights into garden typologies and their ecological characteristics. Future studies could benefit from including larger and more balanced samples to confirm and extend our findings.
Given these limitations, our interpretations remain cautious, and key constraints related to sampling scope and plot heterogeneity are explicitly acknowledged. Further research should focus on developing strategies to support biodiversity in urban gardens, which may increase their ecosystem and social value, especially in the context of abandoned plots.

6. Conclusions

This study examined how different types of urban garden use affect biodiversity and the provision of regulatory ecosystem services in Warsaw’s allotment gardens. The findings highlight both functional differences and trade-offs between vegetation types, particularly in relation to species composition, vegetation structure, and microclimatic regulation. Key conclusions and implications include the following:
  • The type of garden use significantly influences species diversity and the proportion of native species while having a weaker and more variable impact on the provision of regulatory ecosystem services.
  • Turf gardens had the lowest biodiversity (Shannon = 1.43) and the highest proportion of native species (92%, group B), indicating simplified vegetation dominated by a few resilient native species. They showed limited performance in ecosystem services, although they may facilitate pollutant dispersion due to open structure.
  • Flower gardens showed the highest species diversity (Shannon = 1.93) and supported a broad range of ecosystem services but had a lower fraction of native species (62%). This suggests a trade-off between biodiversity quality and quantity, reflecting the dominance of ornamental and exotic plants.
  • Abandoned plots exhibited the highest vegetation density (LAI = 4.93) and a high native species share (87%), consistent with early natural succession. However, they did not significantly outperform other garden types in ecosystem services, likely due to the short abandonment period (1–3 years) and still-developing vegetation structure.
  • Orchards provided the strongest cooling effects (air and soil) and stable nectar availability while maintaining moderate biodiversity (Shannon = 1.71) and a high native species share (87%). These features highlight their multifunctional role and service stability.
  • Vegetable gardens had moderate diversity (Shannon = 1.81), a relatively low share of native species (70%), and limited regulatory services. High human input—such as tilling and irrigation—may simplify habitat structure and influence ecological balance.
  • Future designs should promote a mosaic layout combining native flowering plants, fruit trees, and unmanaged patches to enhance biodiversity and pollination services while maintaining productive functions. Due to the large within-type variability and the lack of a strong statistical separation in ecosystem services, future research should incorporate direct indicators of management intensity and landscape context to better predict ecosystem functioning.

Author Contributions

M.M. conceptualization and methodology, field measurement, formal analysis, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, project administration; T.D. visualization, software, field measurement, formal analysis and data curation; B.G. writing—review and editing, funding acquisition; M.L. writing—review and editing, funding acquisition; A.H. field measurement; A.P. methodology, writing—review and editing, P.S. conceptualization and methodology, writing—review and editing, supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research was funded by the National Science Centre, Poland, within the EN-UTC Program that has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Grant Agreement No. 101003758 (agreement with NCN No. UMO-2021/03/Y/HS4/00201).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

For source data, please write to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the members of the Polish team who collaborated on the grant: Magdalena Grochulska-Salak, Kinga Zinowiec-Cieplik, Damian Derewońko, Maria Kaczorowska.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
FAGsFamily Allotment Gardens
CGsCommunity Gardens
LAILeaf Area Index

Appendix A. Characteristics of Selected Study Sites—Family Allotment Gardens

FAG FORT SZCZĘŚLIWICEFAG ARKADIAFAG BOHATERÓW WESTERPLATTE
DATE OF GARDEN ESTABLISHMENT1963 *1953 **1964 ***
AREA [HA]21.19.89 **>6
NUMBER OF PLOTS>250177Ok. 150
DIRECT LINE DISTANCE FROM THE CITY CENTER3–5 km5–8 km>8 km
DISTANCE FROM AIRPORT~4 km~5 km~1 km
EXTENT OF HEAT ISLAND (YES/NO)yesyesno
SOIL ****Podzolic or brown earth soilDegraded chernozemChernozem
GROUND WATER ****5–10 m2–5 m>10 m
SITE SURROUNDINGSROD is located near a major railway junction and the S7 expressway with high traffic intensity. Warszawa Zachodnia railway station lies approx. 1.5 km away. To the east, the site borders Szczęśliwicki Park. Within a 1 km radius are large shopping centers such as Atrium Reduta and Blue City. The northeast vicinity includes dense residential development of the Ochota district. (https://www.google.com/maps; 15.10.2024 r.).The allotment gardens surround the Piłsudski Fort and the Arkadia Park with the Królikarnia on the Warsaw escarpment. In the nearby Arkadia Park, at a distance of 100 m from the entrance gate to the ROD in question, there are water reservoirs. Another reservoir is located in the vicinity of Fort Piłsudski separated from the Arkadia ROD by Idzikowskiego Street. Approximately 0.5 km away is Pulawska Street with heavy traffic. To the west of the ROD are the dense developments of Wierzbno, Stary Mokotow, and Sluzewiec. To the east of the Garden are numerous green areas and the Siekierki Power Station, with the Vistula River approximately 5 km away. The south-west is mainly the densely populated Sadyba and Wilanów Wysoki. (https://www.google.com/maps; 15.10.2024 r.).In the neighborhood, on the north-eastern side, there is Chopin Airport (approx. 1 km). To the west, it is bordered by the dense built-up area of the town of Raszyn. To the south, it is surrounded by agricultural areas. ROD on the outskirts of the city.
* https://pzd.pl/archiwum/strona.php?3265 (access 20 October 2024 r.) ** http://pzd.pl/artykuly/17650/61/Arkadia-kraina-szczesliwosci.html.(access 20 October 2024 r.) *** https://rodbohwesterplatte.pl/historia-ogrodu/ (access 20 October 2024 r.) **** Ecophysiographic Atlas 2018—https://architektura.um.warszawa.pl/documents/12025039/26223617/atlas_ekofizjograficzny.pdf/94816176-87cd-2d9b-5bf8-79e37a12dea0?t=1634497935335 (access 20 October 2024 r.)

Appendix B. Characteristics of Selected Research Sites—Community Gardens

CG MOTYKA I SŁOŃCECG MIŁA 22CG MURANÓW
DATE OF GARDEN ESTABLISHMENT201420002018–2020
AREA [HA]0.07 ha0.3 ha0.2 ha
NUMBER OF PLOTS111
DIRECT LINE DISTANCE FROM THE CITY CENTER~2 km~2 km~1–2 km
DISTANCE FROM AIRPORT~6 km~8 km~7 km
EXTENT OF HEAT ISLAND (YES/NO)YesYes Yes
SOIL ****AnthropogenicAnthropogenicAnthropogenic
GROUND WATER ****5–10 m5–10 m5–10 m
SITE SURROUNDINGSThe vegetable and herb garden was born out of the need to introduce the cultivation of edible plants to the city and to address the theme of food self-sufficiency. The garden is used by about 40 gardeners who come to the area twice a week on specific days. The garden is an open space and is used as the site of nature, cooking, and gardening workshops.Flower and vegetable garden, with fruit trees; neighborhood garden managed by a community of residents at 22 Miła Street.A garden with raised herbs, vegetables, and flowers; created on the premises of the Centre for Intergenerational Activity on Nowolipie Street in Warsaw. Anyone interested can join in the collective seasonal planting or sowing of herbs, flowers, vegetables, and fruit. The aim of establishing this garden is to strengthen the activities of seniors and intergenerational groups through neighborhood and city integration. The initiative is part of the Design-led Innovations for Active Ageing project.
**** Ecophysiographic Atlas 2018—https://architektura.um.warszawa.pl/documents/12025039/26223617/atlas_ekofizjograficzny.pdf/94816176-87cd-2d9b-5bf8-79e37a12dea0?t=1634497935335 (access: 20 October 2024 r.)

References

  1. Dymek, D.; Wilkaniec, A.; Bednorz, L.; Szczepańska, M. Significance of Allotment Gardens in Urban Green Space Systems and Their Classification for Spatial Planning Purposes: A Case Study of Poznań, Poland. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Spilková, J.; Vágner, J. The Loss of Land Devoted to Allotment Gardening: The Context of the Contrasting Pressures of Urban Planning, Public and Private Interests in Prague, Czechia. Land Use Policy 2016, 52, 232–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Noori, S.; Benson, M.; Gawryszewska, B.; Hardman, M.; Kasemets, K.; Partalidou, M.; Pikner, T.; Willman, K. Urban Allotment Gardens in Europe; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; ISBN 978-1-138-92109-2. [Google Scholar]
  4. Haase, D.; Gaeva, D. Allotments for All? Social–Environmental Values of Urban Gardens for Gardeners and the Public in Cities: The Example of Berlin, Germany. People Nat. 2023, 5, 1207–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pawlikowska-Piechotka, A. Active Recreation Space ’for All’: Family Gardens in Poland. Stud. Phys. Cult. Tour. 2011, 18, 18–27. [Google Scholar]
  6. Pourias, J. Urban Allotment Gardens in the City in Crisis. Insights from Sevilla (Spain). In Proceedings of the COST Action Urban Allotment Gardens Short Term Scientific Mission Sevilla, Andalucía, Spain, 7 April–3 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
  7. Janowska, B.; Łój, J.; Andrzejak, R. Role of Community Gardens in Development of Housing Estates in Polish Cities. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gray, T.; Tracey, D.; Truong, S.; Ward, K. Community Gardens as Local Learning Environments in Social Housing Contexts: Participant Perceptions of Enhanced Wellbeing and Community Connection. Local Environ. 2022, 27, 570–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Maćkiewicz, B.; Szczepańska, M.; Kacprzak, E.; Fox-Kämper, R. Between Food Growing and Leisure: Contemporary Allotment Gardeners in Western Germany and Poland. Die ERDE J. Geogr. Soc. Berl. 2021, 152, 33–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Schoen, V.; Blythe, C.; Caputo, S.; Fox-Kämper, R.; Specht, K.; Fargue-Lelièvre, A.; Cohen, N.; Poniży, L.; Fedeńczak, K. “We Have Been Part of the Response”: The Effects of COVID-19 on Community and Allotment Gardens in the Global North. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 732641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bell, S.; Fox-Kämper, R.; Keshavarz, N.; Benson, M.; Caputo, S.; Noori, S.; Voigt, A. (Eds.) Urban Allotment Gardens in Europe; Routledge: London, UK; Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-1-315-68660-8. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chalmin-Pui, L.S.; Roe, J.; Griffiths, A.; Smyth, N.; Heaton, T.; Clayden, A.; Cameron, R. “It Made Me Feel Brighter in Myself”—The Health and Well-Being Impacts of a Residential Front Garden Horticultural Intervention. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 205, 103958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mokras-Grabowska, J. Contemporary Trends in Urban Allotment Gardening: The Example of Family Plots in Warsaw. KWOM 2021, 34, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Breuste, J.H.; Artmann, M. Allotment Gardens Contribute to Urban Ecosystem Service: Case Study Salzburg, Austria. J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2015, 141, A5014005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sovová, L. Self-Provisioning, Sustainability and Environmental Consciousness in Brno Allotment Gardens. Sociální Stud./Soc. Stud. 2015, 12, 11–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Edmondson, J.L.; Childs, D.Z.; Dobson, M.C.; Gaston, K.J.; Warren, P.H.; Leake, J.R. Feeding a City—Leicester as a Case Study of the Importance of Allotments for Horticultural Production in the UK. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 705, 135930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Borysiak, J.; Mizgajski, A.; Speak, A. Floral Biodiversity of Allotment Gardens and Its Contribution to Urban Green Infrastructure. Urban Ecosyst. 2017, 20, 323–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cabral, I.; Keim, J.; Engelmann, R.; Kraemer, R.; Siebert, J.; Bonn, A. Ecosystem Services of Allotment and Community Gardens: A Leipzig, Germany Case Study. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 23, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Goddard, M.A.; Dougill, A.J.; Benton, T.G. Scaling up from Gardens: Biodiversity Conservation in Urban Environments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lin, B.B.; Philpott, S.M.; Jha, S. The Future of Urban Agriculture and Biodiversity-Ecosystem Services: Challenges and next Steps. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2015, 16, 189–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Speak, A.F.; Mizgajski, A.; Borysiak, J. Allotment Gardens and Parks: Provision of Ecosystem Services with an Emphasis on Biodiversity. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 772–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Baldock, K.C. Opportunities and Threats for Pollinator Conservation in Global Towns and Cities. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2020, 38, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ahrné, K.; Bengtsson, J.; Elmqvist, T. Bumble Bees (Bombus Spp) along a Gradient of Increasing Urbanization. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e5574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fetridge, E.D.; Ascher, J.S.; Langellotto, G.A. The Bee Fauna of Residential Gardens in a Suburb of New York City (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2008, 101, 1067–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Smith, R.M.; Warren, P.H.; Thompson, K.; Gaston, K.J. Urban Domestic Gardens (VI): Environmental Correlates of Invertebrate Species Richness. Biodivers. Conserv. 2006, 15, 2415–2438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ignatieva, M.; Haase, D.; Dushkova, D.; Haase, A. Lawns in Cities: From a Globalised Urban Green Space Phenomenon to Sustainable Nature-Based Solutions. Land 2020, 9, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ignatieva, M.; Hedblom, M. An Alternative Urban Green Carpet. Science 2018, 362, 148–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Robbins, P. Lawn People: How Grasses, Weeds, and Chemicals Make Us Who We Are; Temple University Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2007; ISBN 978-1-59213-578-3. [Google Scholar]
  29. Liu, S.; Ward, S.E.; Wilby, A.; Manning, P.; Gong, M.; Davies, J.; Killick, R.; Quinton, J.N.; Bardgett, R.D. Multiple Targeted Grassland Restoration Interventions Enhance Ecosystem Service Multifunctionality. Nat. Commun. 2025, 16, 3971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jin, G.; Chen, K.; Liao, T.; Zhang, L.; Najmuddin, O. Measuring Ecosystem Services Based on Government Intentions for Future Land Use in Hubei Province: Implications for Sustainable Landscape Management. Landsc. Ecol 2021, 36, 2025–2042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bartłomiejski, R.; Kowalewski, M. Polish Urban Allotment Gardens as ‘Slow City’ Enclaves. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Aronson, M.F.; Lepczyk, C.A.; Evans, K.L.; Goddard, M.A.; Lerman, S.B.; MacIvor, J.S.; Nilon, C.H.; Vargo, T. Biodiversity in the City: Key Challenges for Urban Green Space Management. Front. Ecol Env. 2017, 15, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kowarik, I. Novel Urban Ecosystems, Biodiversity, and Conservation. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 1974–1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nassauer, J.I.; Wang, Z.; Dayrell, E. What Will the Neighbors Think? Cultural Norms and Ecological Design. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 92, 282–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ignatieva, M.; Ahrné, K.; Wissman, J.; Eriksson, T.; Tidåker, P.; Hedblom, M.; Kätterer, T.; Marstorp, H.; Berg, P.; Eriksson, T.; et al. Lawn as a Cultural and Ecological Phenomenon: A Conceptual Framework for Transdisciplinary Research. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 383–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Magurran, A.E. Measuring Biological Diversity; Blackwell Pub: Malden, MA, USA, 2004; ISBN 978-0-632-05633-0. [Google Scholar]
  37. Luo, S.; Patuano, A. Multiple Ecosystem Services of Informal Green Spaces: A Literature Review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 81, 127849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Robinson, S.L.; Lundholm, J.T. Ecosystem Services Provided by Urban Spontaneous Vegetation. Urban Ecosyst. 2012, 15, 545–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Threlfall, C.G.; Kendal, D. The Distinct Ecological and Social Roles That Wild Spaces Play in Urban Ecosystems. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 29, 348–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vereecken, N.J.; Weekers, T.; Marshall, L.; D’Haeseleer, J.; Cuypers, M.; Pauly, A.; Pasau, B.; Leclercq, N.; Tshibungu, A.; Molenberg, J.; et al. Five Years of Citizen Science and Standardised Field Surveys in an Informal Urban Green Space Reveal a Threatened Eden for Wild Bees in Brussels, Belgium. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2021, 14, 868–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gawryszewska, B.J.; Łepkowski, M.; Pietrych, Ł.; Wilczyńska, A.; Archiciński, P. The Structure of Beauty: Informal Green Spaces in Their Users’ Eyes. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sikorski, P.; Gawryszewska, B.; Sikorska, D.; Chormański, J.; Schwerk, A.; Jojczyk, A.; Ciężkowski, W.; Archiciński, P.; Łepkowski, M.; Dymitryszyn, I.; et al. The Value of Doing Nothing—How Informal Green Spaces Can Provide Comparable Ecosystem Services to Cultivated Urban Parks. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 50, 101339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. CBOS. Opinions on Allotment Gardens; CBOS Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej: Warszawa, Poland, 2012. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  44. Pradhan, P.; Callaghan, M.; Hu, Y.; Dahal, K.; Hunecke, C.; Reusswig, F.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Kropp, J.P. A Systematic Review Highlights That There Are Multiple Benefits of Urban Agriculture besides Food. Glob. Food Secur. 2023, 38, 100700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ribeiro, A.; Madureira, L.; Carvalho, R. Evidence on How Urban Gardens Help Citizens and Cities to Enhance Sustainable Development. Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2023, 236, 104766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zutter, C.; Stoltz, A. Community Gardens and Urban Agriculture: Healthy Environment/Healthy Citizens. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs. 2023, 32, 1452–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kimic, K. The Orchard as a Distinctive Element of an Urban Park—History and Modernity; Urbanity and Architecture Files; Wydział PAN: Krakow, Poland, 2023; (In Polish). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pająkowski, J.; Sobieralska, R. (Eds.) Traditional Home Orchards; Society of the Friends of the Lower Vistula: The Chełmiński and Nadwiślański Landscape Parks Complex: Świecie, Poland, 2009; ISBN 978-83-61821-02-1. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  49. Mirek, Z.; Piękoś-Mirkowa, H.; Zając, A.; Zając, M. Flowering Plants and Pteridophytes of Poland a Checklist. In Biodiversity of Poland; Biernacki, L., Mirek, Z., Eds.; W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences: Krakow, Poland, 2002; Volume 1; ISBN 978-83-85444-83-1. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  50. Baude, M.; Kunin, W.E.; Boatman, N.D.; Conyers, S.; Davies, N.; Gillespie, M.A.K.; Morton, R.D.; Smart, S.M.; Memmott, J. Historical Nectar Assessment Reveals the Fall and Rise of Floral Resources in Britain. Nature 2016, 530, 85–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Sulborska-Różycka, A.; Konarska, A.; Weryszko-Chmielewska, E.; Dmitruk, M. Nectar Guides and Floral Nectary in Lamium Album L. Subsp. Album: Structure and Histochemistry in Light, Fluorescence, and Electron Microscopy. Micron 2023, 171, 103474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Poniży, L.; Latkowska, M.J.; Breuste, J.; Hursthouse, A.; Joimel, S.; Külvik, M.; Leitão, T.E.; Mizgajski, A.; Voigt, A.; Kacprzak, E.; et al. The Rich Diversity of Urban Allotment Gardens in Europe: Contemporary Trends in the Context of Historical, Socio-Economic and Legal Conditions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Nordh, H.; Wiklund, K.T.; Koppang, K.E. Norwegian Allotment Gardens—A Study of Motives and Benefits. Landsc. Res. 2016, 41, 853–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Venn, E.J. Community Gardens in Urban Areas: A Critical Reflection on the Extent to Which They Strenghten Social Cohesion and Provide Alternative Food; Wageningen University: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  55. Melon, M.; Sikorski, P.; Archiciński, P.; Łaszkiewicz, E.; Hoppa, A.; Zaniewski, P.; Zaniewska, E.; Strużyński, W.; Sudnik-Wójcikowska, B.; Sikorska, D. Nature on Our Doorstep: How Do Residents Perceive Urban Parks vs. Biodiverse Areas? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2024, 247, 105059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Clarke, L.W.; Jenerette, G.D. Biodiversity and Direct Ecosystem Service Regulation in the Community Gardens of Los Angeles, CA. Landsc. Ecol 2015, 30, 637–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jha, S.; Egerer, M.; Bichier, P.; Cohen, H.; Liere, H.; Lin, B.; Lucatero, A.; Philpott, S.M. Multiple Ecosystem Service Synergies and Landscape Mediation of Biodiversity within Urban Agroecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 2023, 26, 369–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tresch, S.; Frey, D.; Bayon, R.-C.L.; Mäder, P.; Stehle, B.; Fliessbach, A.; Moretti, M. Direct and Indirect Effects of Urban Gardening on Aboveground and Belowground Diversity Influencing Soil Multifunctionality. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 9769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wang, X.; Zhou, Z.; Xiang, Y.; Peng, C.; Peng, C. Effects of Street Plants on Atmospheric Particulate Dispersion in Urban Streets: A Review. Environ. Rev. 2024, 32, 114–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Abhijith, K.V.; Kumar, P.; Gallagher, J.; McNabola, A.; Baldauf, R.; Pilla, F.; Broderick, B.; Di Sabatino, S.; Pulvirenti, B. Air Pollution Abatement Performances of Green Infrastructure in Open Road and Built-up Street Canyon Environments—A Review. Atmos. Environ. 2017, 162, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Di Pietro, R.; Azzella, M.M. Sustainable and Together: Between Ecology, Health and Governance. In Beyond the Garden; Dal Falco, F., Ed.; Designing Environments; Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 39–56. ISBN 978-3-031-50566-9. [Google Scholar]
  62. Neumann, A.E.; Conitz, F.; Karlebowski, S.; Sturm, U.; Schmack, J.M.; Egerer, M. Flower Richness Is Key to Pollinator Abundance: The Role of Garden Features in Cities. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2024, 79, 102–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Schmack, J.M.; Egerer, M. Floral Richness and Seasonality Influences Bee and Non-Bee Flower Interactions in Urban Community Gardens. Urban Ecosyst. 2023, 26, 1099–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Doody, B.J.; Perkins, H.C.; Sullivan, J.J.; Meurk, C.D.; Stewart, G.H. Performing Weeds: Gardening, Plant Agencies and Urban Plant Conservation. Geoforum 2014, 56, 124–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Erdős, L.; Krstonošić, D.; Kiss, P.J.; Bátori, Z.; Tölgyesi, C.; Škvorc, Ž. Plant Composition and Diversity at Edges in a Semi-Natural Forest–Grassland Mosaic. Plant Ecol. 2019, 220, 279–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Martínez-Falcón, A.P.; Zurita, G.A.; Ortega-Martínez, I.J.; Moreno, C.E. Populations and Assemblages Living on the Edge: Dung Beetles Responses to Forests-Pasture Ecotones. PeerJ 2018, 6, e6148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Shahidan, M.F. Effects of Tree Shading in Modifying Tropical Microclimate and Urban Heat Island Effect. In Urban Forestry and Arboriculture in Malaysia; Maruthaveeran, S., Chen, W.Y., Morgenroth, J., Eds.; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2022; pp. 223–235. ISBN 978-981-19541-7-7. [Google Scholar]
  68. Stępniewska, M.; Mizgajski, A. (Eds.) Ecology 2000, 81. Ecosystem Services in Environmental System Management; Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe: Poznań, Poland, 2023; ISBN 978-83-7986-469-0. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 17 06216 g001
Figure 1. Location of facilities on the map of Warsaw [own elaboration].
Figure 1. Location of facilities on the map of Warsaw [own elaboration].
Sustainability 17 06216 g001
Sustainability 17 06216 g003
Figure 3. (a) Biodiversity of different types of allotment garden greenery (p < 0.05); (b) number of species according to garden type; (c) share of non-native species in different types of gardens.
Figure 3. (a) Biodiversity of different types of allotment garden greenery (p < 0.05); (b) number of species according to garden type; (c) share of non-native species in different types of gardens.
Sustainability 17 06216 g003
Sustainability 17 06216 g004
Figure 4. LAI values in relation to garden use types (values measured near the ground).
Figure 4. LAI values in relation to garden use types (values measured near the ground).
Sustainability 17 06216 g004
Sustainability 17 06216 g005
Figure 5. Ecosystem services provided by different types of gardens.
Figure 5. Ecosystem services provided by different types of gardens.
Sustainability 17 06216 g005
Sustainability 17 06216 g006
Figure 6. (a–c) Average values of air and soil cooling, PM 2.5 pollutant absorption and average values of air and soil humidity for different types of use with standard deviation (all sites overall)—positive results indicate a better cooling and pollutant filtration effect.
Figure 6. (a–c) Average values of air and soil cooling, PM 2.5 pollutant absorption and average values of air and soil humidity for different types of use with standard deviation (all sites overall)—positive results indicate a better cooling and pollutant filtration effect.
Sustainability 17 06216 g006
Sustainability 17 06216 g007
Figure 7. (a–e) Standardized coefficients from multivariate linear regressions predicting each garden type (a–e) based on multiple environmental and design variables. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 7. (a–e) Standardized coefficients from multivariate linear regressions predicting each garden type (a–e) based on multiple environmental and design variables. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.
Sustainability 17 06216 g007
Sustainability 17 06216 g008
Figure 8. Correlation matrix of ecosystem service indicators. Colors represent strength and direction of Pearson correlations.
Figure 8. Correlation matrix of ecosystem service indicators. Colors represent strength and direction of Pearson correlations.
Sustainability 17 06216 g008
Sustainability 17 06216 g009
Figure 9. Principal component analysis.
Figure 9. Principal component analysis.
Sustainability 17 06216 g009
Table 2. Methods of measuring indicators—plant species diversity and their regulatory services.
Table 2. Methods of measuring indicators—plant species diversity and their regulatory services.
IndicatorIndicator Measurement Method
Plant species diversityNumber of speciesNumber of vascular plant species per plot, nomenclature according to Mirek et al. (2002) [49]
Shannon indexThe Shannon index was calculated following Magurran (2004) [36], based on the list of species and their relative cover in the undergrowth, using the standard formula:
− ∑ p i ln p i
where pi is the proportion of individuals of the i-th species relative to the total in the plot.
Leaf area index (LAI)LAI value measured near the ground, after calibrating the device at a height of 1 m. The LAI was measured with the SunScan Canopy Analysis System (Delta-T Devices).
Regulatory ecosystem servicesSoil retention [%]Measurement of soil moisture 0–10 cm by the HH2 device with W.E.T. probe in % relative to reference lawn **
Soil cooling [°C]Measurement of soil temperature 0–10 cm by the HH2 device with W.E.T. probe relative to reference lawn *
Air humidity [%]Measured air temperature with the Sniffer4DMapper relative to the average outside the facility **
Air cooling [°C]Measured air temperature with the Sniffer4DMapper relative to the average air quality measured outside the facility **
Nectar and pollen production [kg/ha]Food potential for pollinators based on established vegetation, taking the values of pollen and nectar produced by each species in kg/ha [50,51]
∑ ( n e c t a r   p r o d u c t i o n   k g / h a + p o l l e n   p r o d u c t i o n   k g / h a ∗ C i ) C t o t a l
where C i − p r o p o r t i o n a l   c o v e r   o f   s p e c i e s   i n   t h e   p l o t
C t o t a l − t o t a l   v e g e t a t i o n   c o v e r   i n   t h e   p l o t .
Reduction of PM 2.5Air pollution of PM 2.5 particulate matter was measured using the Sniffer4DMapper. Measurements taken every 1 s on the sample area were averaged. Dust reduction is calculated as the difference between the measurement at the point and the average outside the site boundary **.
* Reference lawn—a lawn located in the same facility, close to the plot under study, but outside its boundary. Reference lawns were part of an alley that provided access to the plots. Measurements were taken on the same day. ** Off-site averages represent averaged results, which were surveyed along traffic routes and close urban development, within a radius of up to 500 m from the ROD boundary.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Melon, M.; Dzieduszyński, T.; Gawryszewska, B.; Lasocki, M.; Hoppa, A.; Przybysz, A.; Sikorski, P. Urban Allotment Gardens with Turf Reduce Biodiversity and Provide Limited Regulatory Ecosystem Services. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6216. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17136216

AMA Style

Melon M, Dzieduszyński T, Gawryszewska B, Lasocki M, Hoppa A, Przybysz A, Sikorski P. Urban Allotment Gardens with Turf Reduce Biodiversity and Provide Limited Regulatory Ecosystem Services. Sustainability. 2025; 17(13):6216. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17136216

Chicago/Turabian Style

Melon, Marta, Tomasz Dzieduszyński, Beata Gawryszewska, Maciej Lasocki, Adrian Hoppa, Arkadiusz Przybysz, and Piotr Sikorski. 2025. "Urban Allotment Gardens with Turf Reduce Biodiversity and Provide Limited Regulatory Ecosystem Services" Sustainability 17, no. 13: 6216. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17136216

APA Style

Melon, M., Dzieduszyński, T., Gawryszewska, B., Lasocki, M., Hoppa, A., Przybysz, A., & Sikorski, P. (2025). Urban Allotment Gardens with Turf Reduce Biodiversity and Provide Limited Regulatory Ecosystem Services. Sustainability, 17(13), 6216. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17136216

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop