Native vs. Non-Native Plants: Public Preferences, Ecosystem Services, and Conservation Strategies for Climate-Resilient Urban Green Spaces

Abstract

Climate change is reshaping urban environments, intensifying the need for resilient green space design and management that supports biodiversity, improves ecosystem services, and adapts to changing conditions. Understanding the trade-offs between native and non-native species selection is important for developing climate-resilient urban green spaces. This review examines public preferences for native versus non-native plant species and their implications for urban green space design and management. We critically analyse the ecosystem services and biodiversity benefits provided by both native and non-native plants in urban spaces, highlighting the complex trade-offs involved. Our findings indicate that while native plants can be underrepresented in urban landscapes, they offer significant ecological benefits including support for local wildlife and pollinators. Some studies have highlighted the climate resilience of native plants; however, they are likely to be more affected by climate change. Therefore, conservation strategies are needed, especially for endemic and threatened plant species. Several studies suggest a more flexible approach that integrates plant species from diverse climatic origins to improve resilience. We also explore conservation gardening (CG) as a socio-ecological strategy to integrate endangered native species into urban landscapes, promoting biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. This review stresses the importance of informed plant species selection and community involvement in creating climate-resilient urban green spaces.

1. Introduction

Urban green spaces—including forests, meadows, parks, lawns, and rain gardens—play a vital role in mitigating the negative effects of rapid urbanisation by delivering essential ecosystem services (ESs), such as climate regulation, air purification, stormwater management, and cultural benefits, while also supporting biodiversity and enhancing human well-being [1,2,3,4,5]. Past studies have demonstrated that urban green spaces, both formal (i.e., those formally designated or managed for recreation, conservation, or other specific purposes) and informal (e.g., street verges, vacant lots, gaps between buildings, railway verges, brownfields) [6,7,8,9], contribute to health and human well-being, both mental and physical, by improving quality of life, enhancing thermal comfort, strengthening food security, and mitigating the impacts of climate change [10,11,12,13,14]. Despite these benefits, urban green spaces are increasingly threatened by urban densification, poor municipal management, land clearance, and climate-related challenges like drought and extreme weather [15,16,17,18,19]. Additional biotic stressors, such as invasive pests and pathogens, have further degraded urban ecosystems and contributed to the loss of tree cover [20,21,22,23]. In the United States (U.S.) alone, urban tree cover is declining by approximately four million trees annually [24], while global urban tree cover fell modestly but significantly from 2012 to 2017 [25]. This trend is occurring alongside rising impervious surface cover and increasing climate risks to tree species globally, with nearly one-third now considered threatened [26].

These losses reduce ecosystem functions including carbon storage and heat mitigation, exacerbating urban vulnerabilities [27,28]. For example, the loss of green areas due to urban expansion in metropolitan regions such as São Paulo and Mexico City have altered the spatial distribution of the urban heat island effect and increased surface runoff, exacerbating the risk of flooding during periods of heavy rainfall [29]. While some European cities have expanded greenery in new developments, access to quality green spaces remains unequal, particularly in southern Europe [30]. Moreover, the impacts of urbanisation on green space quantity, quality, and access are not uniform but vary significantly across regions and stages of urban development [31]. Marked urban green space inequities have been consistently reported across cities worldwide [32].

Addressing these disparities and ensuring equitable access to high-quality green spaces under changing climatic conditions is therefore an urgent priority [16]. In this context, plant species selection has become a key element in the sustainable design and management of urban green spaces [33].

Planting design styles, driven by the need to create resilient and sustainable landscapes adaptable to climate change, are evolving in cities worldwide, with new approaches being implemented in recent urban projects [34]. However, the literature offers conflicting opinions on which species are best suited for a changing climate [35,36,37,38,39]. The use of native versus non-native plants in urban environments remains a critical issue, influencing both conservation efforts and public preferences [39,40]. In some countries, native plants are frequently underrepresented in urban green spaces [41,42]. For example, in Faro (Algarve, Portugal), native species comprise only 10% of the city’s vegetation, with even lower percentages (as low as 6%) found in some areas such as public squares [42]. Similarly, a study of 46 urban parks in Spain found that 82.3% of the woody species were non-native [43]. The prevalence of non-native species was positively correlated with larger cities and an older median age of residents but negatively correlated with parks that featured species adapted to a wider range of hardiness zones [43]. Additionally, parks with a lower continentality of climate conditions exhibited a higher percentage of non-native species capable of establishing themselves in natural ecosystems [43]. A study of urban tree populations in 10 Nordic cities further supports these findings, revealing that a higher proportion of non-native species were found in both street and park environments [44]. While native species were more numerous overall, non-native species were more prevalent in certain parks and urban areas [44]. A study of urban forests in Minas Gerais, Brazil, also highlighted this trend, where 56% of the 407 identified species were non-native [45].

This scarcity of indigenous flora is a widespread trend in urban environments, largely due to biotic homogenisation [46]. At the same time, urban environments include a range of hybrid and novel ecosystems that have emerged through anthropogenic influences including land-use change, species introductions, and altered environmental conditions [47,48,49]. These include brownfield sites, abandoned development areas, degraded river corridors, and managed green spaces such as parks and gardens, which often support a mix of native and non-native species [47]. Urbanisation and anthropogenic influences promote the proliferation of species adapted to human-modified landscapes [46]. These “urban-adaptable” species, often synanthropic, become dominant, leading to a decline in local species diversity [46]. This shift in urban flora composition, characterised by the dominance of non-native and synanthropic species, is not merely a result of random processes, but is closely tied to human activities and preferences in urban environments [46,50]. The interplay between anthropogenic factors and urban plant diversity has been a subject of recent scientific inquiry, shedding light on the complex dynamics shaping urban ecosystems [46,51].

Public preferences, including the design and composition of urban green spaces, plant typologies (e.g., lawns, shrubs, ground cover, trees), the choice between native or non-native species, and management aspects (e.g., a wild, less managed appearance versus a highly trimmed aesthetic, and irrigation practices), play a key role in influencing plant diversity [52,53]. This influence can manifest in several ways including the availability of specific species in nurseries and the influence exerted on local authorities regarding the species composition of urban green spaces [54,55]. A major challenge in conserving, designing, and managing urban green spaces is finding a balance between human preferences, needs, and activities and the ecological requirements necessary for maintaining and promoting biodiversity [50].

Furthermore, as previous studies have shown, urban green spaces are integral to socio-ecological systems, and therefore, community involvement in the design of climate-resilient green infrastructure is important, highlighting the need for a bottom–up approach [56]. Citizen engagement is not only important for understanding preferences regarding native or non-native species and the ESs they provide, but also for the long-term conservation and efficient management of these spaces. Positive perceptions and preferences among the public are vital for encouraging and attracting visitors to urban green spaces, fostering a sense of stewardship and encouraging active participation in conservation efforts [53,57,58]. A bottom–up approach that incorporates citizen feedback and perspectives is therefore critical for ensuring that urban green spaces meet the needs of the community, promote biodiversity, and contribute to climate resilience. However, the debate over native versus non-native species in urban green spaces remains controversial [40], as illustrated by the Bosco di Neofite (Neophyte Forest) project in Prato, Italy. This project has drawn criticism from national and regional botanical experts, including the Italian Botanical Society, for conflating ecological and social issues, particularly by drawing misleading parallels between neophyte plants and human migration [59]. While some proponents argue that non-native species can integrate into local ecosystems much like human migrants integrate into new societies, critics caution against this analogy, warning that non-native species, especially if invasive, can threaten native biodiversity and require costly management, as evidenced by species like Eucalyptus spp., Quercus rubra, and Robinia pseudoacacia, which have been introduced outside their native distributions [59].

While many conservationists agree that non-native species generally have a negative ecological impact, some researchers have challenged the extent of this impact and advocate for a shift in management strategies [40,60,61]. They argue that long-standing conservation approaches, which aim to preserve historical plant and animal communities, should adapt to the realities of urbanisation and climate change [40]. The use of non-native species can also contribute to increased biodiversity [61]. However, despite the acknowledged importance of both public and professional preferences and perceptions, and the debate surrounding native versus non-native species, a critical gap remains in our understanding of how plant nativeness specifically influences the provision of ESs within urban environments, particularly in the context of climate change adaptation. In addition, large-scale urban afforestation projects are being implemented or planned across the globe [62,63,64,65] including initiatives such as the Los Angeles Million Trees project [66,67,68,69]. These projects, which involve the planting of millions of trees, aim to significantly increase tree cover due to the recognised environmental and health benefits they provide [65,69]. These worldwide afforestation efforts highlight the need to understand the role of plant nativeness in such initiatives, particularly in terms of their ability to meet the specific requirements for urban tree growth, resilience, and maintenance in the face of climate change. Traditional assumptions about species efficiency in meeting the environmental factors essential for plant growth and survival—such as the belief that native species require fewer resources (e.g., water) than non-natives—are not consistently supported by empirical data and remain significant limiting factors in evaluating the effectiveness of large-scale urban tree planting programs [69]. Considering the rapid rate of urbanisation and the escalating impacts of climate change, coupled with the response of cities through large-scale afforestation projects and the implementation of nature-based solutions, it is critical to develop a comprehensive understanding of how urban green spaces can be designed. This includes carefully selecting the right species to ensure long-term ecosystem resilience and effectiveness.

This review seeks to fill this gap by examining the role of plant nativeness in the provision of ESs, an area that has not yet been fully explored within the context of urban climate adaptation strategies. Addressing these discrepancies and better understanding the trade-offs between native and non-native species selection is important for the development of climate-resilient urban green spaces. The findings of this review can inform policy decisions on species selection, urban planning guidelines, and broader conservation strategies in cities around the world. Specifically, this review critically examines the role of plant nativeness in urban green spaces by exploring three interconnected dimensions: (1) public and professional preferences and perceptions, and their impact on plant selection; (2) the comparative ecosystem services and disservices (e.g., increasing allergies) provided by native and non-native species including support for urban biodiversity and pollinators; and (3) recent conservation strategies (i.e., conservation gardening (CG)), with a particular focus on the potential of this framework for integrating endangered native species into urban landscapes.

2. Materials and Methods

This study used a narrative synthesis approach, utilising thematic analysis [70,71] to investigate the role of native and non-native plants in climate-resilient urban green spaces.

The synthesis followed a four-stage process [70]:

• Development of a thematic framework: A thematic framework was established to guide the search and synthesis, focusing on three key areas: (1) public preferences and perceptions; (2) comparative analysis of ESs and ecosystem disservices (EDSs); and (3) conservation strategies for integrating native species. This framework provided a structured approach to organising and interpreting diverse literature.
• Literature search: A targeted literature search was conducted using four academic databases: Scopus, ProQuest, Science Direct (Elsevier), and Google Scholar. An initial search on Scopus for a period of 20 years (2005 until February 2025) found 490 results. These were screened to identify relevant papers based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. To ensure comprehensive coverage, we incorporated citation tracking and reference list screening of the relevant studies [72]. The search focused on peer-reviewed journal articles, review papers, and book chapters published in English. For each theme, specific keywords and Boolean operators (“or”–“and”) were used to refine the search, as presented in

  Table 1. Keywords utilised with Boolean operators (“or”–“and”) to refine the literature search.

  Themes	Keywords
  Public preferences and perceptions	public preferences, public perception, attitudes, native plants, non-native plants, urban green spaces, urban parks, urban forest, green infrastructure, green-space, native, exotics, plant choice, alien, plant origin, climate change, neophyte, indigenous, endemic, cities, aesthetics
  Comparative analysis of ecosystem services and disservices including their ability to support urban faunal biodiversity	ecosystem services, native plants, non-native plants, allergy, exotic urban, green spaces, ecosystem disservices, invasive, biodiversity, pollinators, neophyte, indigenous, endemic, climate change
  Conservation strategies for integrating native species	native species, native vegetation, urban green spaces, urban forests, conservation strategies, climate change, conservation gardening, neophyte, assisted migration, indigenous, endemic, climate change

  . Studies were excluded if they were not conducted in urban areas, were not related to urban green spaces, or did not have the full text available in English. Studies related to building-integrated vegetation, such as green roofs and green walls, were excluded as they do not align with the operational definition of greenspace focused on ground-level urban parks, street verges, wetlands, and urban and peri-urban woodlands/forests, which are directly accessible to the public [73]. Titles and abstracts were scanned first, followed by the full text.
• Synthesis of findings through thematic analysis: The documents included were analysed using a thematic synthesis approach [71], guided by the framework established in stage one. Subsequently, through an iterative and interpretative process [74], the data were categorised under three predefined themes: 26 papers addressed public preferences and perceptions; 16 examined ecosystem services and disservices including support for urban biodiversity and pollinators; and 43 discussed conservation strategies for integrating native species into urban green spaces including literature related to native versus non-native plants in the context of a changing climate.
• Interpretation and presentation of synthesised evidence: The prevailing patterns and knowledge gaps identified through the thematic analysis were discussed, and implications for future research, policymakers, and local governments were highlighted.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Public Preferences for Native Versus Non-Native Plants

Contrasting results in the literature show that perceptions of native versus non-native species vary by country, cultural factors, and individual backgrounds including ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, and age [75,76,77]. This complexity is reflected in the diverse themes emerging from the research, which can be synthesised as people background, aesthetic naturalness, climate context, nativeness dimensions, and aesthetic preferences. The definition of “nativeness” is often contested and can be confusing, as a species considered native in one region may not have originated from the local area [78]. The concept of nativeness is shaped by cultural factors and has varying meanings depending on context, thus contributing to differences in how native species are understood and valued [78].

Common across multiple studies is the growing environmental appeal of native plants, particularly among younger, educated, and sustainability-oriented populations [75,79]. These groups associate native plants with ecological benefits, adaptability to local conditions, and a sense of place [75]. However, challenges persist in mainstream adoption due to factors such as lower aesthetic appeal in certain contexts, lack of availability in nurseries, and contested definitions of “nativeness” [78,80]. In the U.S., for example, native plants are often underrepresented in the market despite increasing consumer interest [80]. This mismatch between demand and supply is partly attributed to hesitancy among growers and a lack of policy incentives [80]. Municipal planting programmes tend to favour native species, especially in parks [81], but wider adoption remains uneven.

Perceptions also vary depending on planting design and visual characteristics. In the UK, native biodiversity was more readily recognised in complex, layered plantings than in simplified, non-native-dominated ones, while colourful flower displays were preferred aesthetically regardless of plant origin [82]. This highlights the importance of balancing ecological function with visual appeal.

In another study, Hoyle et al. (2019) explored how people perceived the naturalness of different types of woodland, shrub, and herbaceous plantings in designed and managed settings [76]. They found a link between people’s subjective experiences of nature and the observable structure of vegetation, with perceived naturalness correlating with the perceived biodiversity value of the planting [76]. Nature-associated plantings were considered attractive and restorative, although they were not viewed as designed. Although their participants may have been more nature-focused than the general UK population, these findings are relevant for planners and policymakers aiming to optimise urban green infrastructure to improve human health and biodiversity. The study suggests prioritising plantings with a moderately natural structure and some colourful flowers that support pollinators and invertebrates. Additionally, the study found a significant relationship between perceived naturalness and gender, with female participants rating naturalness higher than male participants [76].

In the context of a changing climate, Hoyle, Hitchmough, and Jorgensen (2017) found that while public perceptions of non-native planting were shaped by aesthetics, context, and concerns over invasiveness, acceptance increased significantly when species were better adapted to future climate conditions [83]. This suggests that climate resilience, rather than nativeness alone, could be a key factor in shaping public attitudes toward urban planting [83]. Another UK-based study by McCarthy and Russo (2023) found that most people preferred native plantings, and mixed native planting was perceived as more beneficial for biodiversity [57]. Similarly, a study on urban road verges by Ligtermoet et al. (2022) examined the perspectives of various stakeholders in Perth, Australia, revealing a consensus on the importance of ESs provided by road verges such as temperature regulation and water management [84]. Stakeholders acknowledged challenges including the need for greater knowledge in managing native species and engaging with local governments [84]. Recent studies by Doll et al. (2023, 2024) [85,86] explored public preferences for groundcovers in parks and verges, revealing support for mixed planting. In parks, the optimal composition included 44% watered grass and 56% native vegetation, suggesting that incorporating at least 38% drought-tolerant natives can enhance both water efficiency and public satisfaction [85]. On verges, preferences were split between those who favoured traditional watered grass and those who preferred native, low-water vegetation, with social norms strongly influencing acceptance [86].

Another study in Western Australia found that both native and non-native plants contributed to urban bee populations, with ecologists favouring natives and practitioners highlighting the value of adaptable non-native species [87]. In the Netherlands, the lay public perceives non-native species through the lens of their broader visions of nature, with risk perception, engagement, and support for control measures depending on ecological and health concerns, while opposition to eradication is stronger for species with a high “cuddliness factor” such as certain mammals and birds [88].

Recent studies from diverse global contexts highlight the complex and often contrasting public and professional perceptions surrounding the use of native and non-native plant species in urban green spaces. In Iran, Rahnema et al. (2019) found that while 62.3% of urban park users preferred native species, visual appeal—especially flower-bearing plants with red blooms—played a stronger role in shaping preferences [89]. In Portugal, Teixeira et al. (2023) reported that green space professionals favoured a mixed approach—accepting both native and non-native plants, especially cultivated natives, for enhancing biodiversity and climate resilience [90]. Meanwhile, in Singapore, Jaung et al. (2020) revealed that the public prioritised ESs like temperature and pollution mitigation over biodiversity gains, suggesting that immediate climate-related concerns may outweigh ecological considerations in tropical urban settings [91].

In Europe, debate around non-native species has revealed deeper concerns about ecological integrity and risk. Beckmann-Wübbelt et al. (2023) noted resistance among German experts and NGOs for the use of non-native trees in urban forests, citing their reduced value to native wildlife [38]. Similarly, Swiss horticulturists in Humair et al.’s study (2014) perceived non-native plants as riskier, although economic incentives often complicated these concerns [92]. Interestingly, familiarity with certain species reduced the perceived risk, indicating a potential communication gap between the scientific definitions of invasiveness and public or professional understanding [92].

These studies underline the complexity of public and expert attitudes toward native and non-native plants, highlighting how perceptions are shaped by context-specific priorities such as climate adaptation, biodiversity conservation, cultural preferences, and planting typologies. Design choices, including vegetation structure and composition, can also influence perceptions of nativeness, with different trends emerging for herbaceous plants, shrubs, and trees [82]. Additionally, spontaneous native grasslands and other informal plantings are often viewed as “untidy” and undesirable by local communities and decision-makers, leading to their ecological value being overlooked due to their seemingly “messy” aesthetics [93,94]. This preference for tidiness is deeply rooted in the Anglo-European cultural concept of nature, which is influenced by the picturesque tradition [94,95,96]. Originating from eighteenth-century English aesthetic theory, the picturesque ideal promotes an appreciation of nature that aligns with artistic composition, particularly landscape painting [34,94,95,97]. As a result, landscapes that do not conform to this structured, picture-like aesthetic may be perceived as less desirable, despite their ecological benefits [94,95,96].

3.2. Ecosystem Services (ESs) and Disservices (EDSs) of Native and Non-Native Plants

Similar to Tartaglia and Aronson’s review (2024), we found that there were few studies specifically comparing the ESs and EDSs provided by native and non-native plants [98]. However, Potgieter et al. (2017) examined the global role of non-native plant species in urban ESs and EDSs with a review of 335 studies covering 58 cities in 27 countries, identifying 337 non-native plant species linked to 39 ESs and 27 EDSs [99]. Most species (310) contributed to ESs, while 53 were associated with EDSs. A few non-native taxa provided multiple ESs, with the ten most frequently recorded species accounting for 21% of all reported ESs. Some of these species also caused significant EDSs, with three species responsible for 30% of recorded disservices. In developed countries, cultural services, particularly aesthetic value, were the most commonly reported ESs, whereas provisioning services, such as food production, were predominant in developing nations [99]. The most frequently studied EDS was the impact on human health, especially allergic reactions [99].

Our literature review indicates a shift from initially focusing on the negative impacts of non-native species to a new discourse on their benefits (i.e., ESs) [100]. Three recurring themes emerged from the reviewed studies: (1) the need for comparative, context-specific evidence; (2) the continued prioritisation of native species in policy and guidelines; and (3) growing interest in functional traits and species diversity as alternative or complementary criteria to nativeness.

For example, Rahmi et al. (2025) challenged the prevalent emphasis on native species in bioretention systems, particularly in North American and Australian-New Zealand guidelines [101]. The authors suggest that selecting plants based on functional traits and promoting species diversity may be more effective than focusing solely on native species and recommend that future stormwater guidelines prioritise ecological functionality over species origin [101].

De Quadros and Mizgier (2023) highlighted that extreme atmospheric humidity levels, whether too high or too low, can influence the evapotranspiration rates, potentially diminishing the cooling benefits of native vegetation [102] and suggest selecting species—regardless of origin—based on their suitability to local microclimates [102]. On the other hand, native vegetation may strengthen both the ecological and aesthetic functions [103]. A comparative analysis of native and non-native species of Aksu’s urban green spaces in northwest China found that native species were particularly effective in dust retention, and some species demonstrated their effectiveness in mitigating wind and sand erosion [103].

Decisions regarding the planting of native or non-native species involve trade-offs between priorities such as providing ESs and minimising EDSs [104] (e.g., the cooling benefits of tree canopies versus the potential for roots to damage infrastructure). Furthermore, the existing literature has not explored whether cultivars or varieties of native species can be selected to improve their performance in urban environments.

In Geneva, Switzerland, Schlaepfer et al. (2020) examined the contributions of native and non-native trees to biodiversity and ESs based on a database of 115,686 non-forest trees representing 1025 species [105]. Non-native trees comprised 90% of the species and 40% of the individual trees [105]. The study assessed five regulating ESs, including air filtration, carbon storage, rain interception, microclimate cooling, and pollinator support, along with cultural ESs such as aesthetic and recreational value, and two EDSs: allergenicity and invasiveness. The results showed that native and non-native trees provided similar regulating services on a per-tree basis, as these services were largely determined by tree morphology rather than origin. However, non-native trees delivered higher cultural services, with 79% of trees identified as “remarkable” by the canton of Geneva [105]. In terms of EDSs, native species were associated with allergenic risks, whereas non-native species were solely linked to invasiveness, posing a threat to biodiversity and ecosystem stability. These findings highlight that non-native trees can play a significant role in delivering ecosystem services, but at the same time, EDSs should not be underestimated [105].

Despite their ecological risks, non-native species can hold value in urban ecosystem management, particularly by supporting urban foraging practices that foster social cohesion, provide sustenance, and strengthen connections to nature [106].

Arrington (2021) examined urban foraging in New York City focusing on five non-native plant species: Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Norway maple (Acer platanoides), and white mulberry (Morus alba) [106]. These species were introduced in the 18th and 19th centuries and later contributed to both ESs and socio-economic and cultural benefits for urban communities [106]. Conway et al. (2019) examined how urban forest management plans in Ontario, Canada, balanced ESs and ecological integrity [107]. While municipal plans highlighted the importance of native species planting, they often lacked clear strategies in implementation and addressing the role of non-native species [107]. The authors argued that recognising the potential benefits of non-native species could help reconcile the conflict between prioritising ESs and maintaining ecological integrity and align management strategies with current urban forestry practices. They suggested shifting the focus from strict nativeness to overall species diversity as a more effective approach in urban forest planning [107].

3.3. The Role of Native and Non-Native Plants in Supporting Urban Biodiversity and Pollinators

Studies from diverse regions highlight the critical role of urban vegetation in supporting biodiversity, particularly for arthropods and pollinators. In Germany, Mody et al. (2020) demonstrated that replacing non-native roadside woody plants with native herbaceous vegetation significantly boosted arthropod populations, independent of green space size or isolation, while factors like meadow age and mowing frequency strongly influenced species presence [108]. Similarly, Sánchez Sánchez and Lara (2024) in Tlaxcala, Mexico, found that both native and non-native plants contributed to pollinator networks, with non-native species producing more flowers annually and driving high connectance and nestedness in plant–hummingbird interactions [109].

In Poland, research on urban bumblebee species (Bombus spp.) revealed a preference for native perennial plants with violet or pink flowers of papilionaceous or bilabiate structure, emphasising the importance of native flora as valuable resources for pollinators in urban green spaces. Collectively, these findings underscore the importance of tailored urban vegetation strategies to enhance biodiversity resilience in cities [110].

Further reinforcing these findings, a growing body of research highlights the role that native plants play in sustaining greater faunal abundance and diversity compared with non-native species in urban landscapes [98]. For example, Berthon et al. (2021) examined the influence of native and non-native plant species on urban biodiversity, highlighting the complex and context-dependent nature of ‘nativeness’ [111]. Their systematic review found that while native plants generally supported greater biodiversity, particularly for urban-dwelling animal species, the definition and application of ‘nativeness’ remained inconsistent in both literature and policy. The study emphasised that the ecological benefits of a plant species depend more on the resources it provides rather than their origin alone. Prioritising native species remains a useful approach for promoting urban biodiversity and native fauna [111]. Similarly, Laux et al. (2022) found that while native pedunculate oaks (Quercus robur) supported greater biodiversity, including bat activity and microhabitats, non-native red oaks (Quercus rubra) were healthier in urban environments [112]. Their study suggests that planting non-native species in harsher urban settings, such as streets, while preserving native species in parks, may offer a balanced approach to urban biodiversity and tree health [112]. Chalker-Scott (2015) found that homeowner associations and municipalities were increasingly requiring a percentage of native plants in landscape projects [61]. While native species are often claimed to enhance biodiversity, non-native species are unfairly grouped with invasives and criticised for harming ecosystems. However, their research indicates that factors beyond species nativity have a greater impact on urban biodiversity, suggesting that a more inclusive, science-based approach to selecting tree and shrub species could better enhance landscape diversity [61].

3.4. Native Versus Non-Native Species, Ecological Risks, and Conservation Strategies in a Changing Climate

We identified the following themes in the literature related to native versus non-native plants in a changing climate: (1) the evolving role of non-native species in providing ecosystem services; (2) the risks of ecological homogenisation from widespread non-native plantings; and (3) the potential of conservation-based strategies, such as conservation gardening (CG) and assisted migration, to support biodiversity in urban landscapes.

Firstly, the role of non-native species in urban greening is evolving in response to climate change. Some studies suggest that non-native species are better adapted to future urban climates, increasing their suitability for urban green spaces including street trees [113,114]. However, some non-native species are considered invasive, leading to negative effects or EDSs including economic costs and human health impacts (i.e., allergies) [114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122].

Some studies have examined the suitability of native species in adapting to future climate conditions. For example, a South African study assessed the performance of nine native grassland plant species in urban environments in Gauteng [123]. The study monitored plant health over six months, finding that all nine studied species thrived in the current urban conditions. Two forb species, Haplocarpha lyrata and Scabiosa columbaria, showed exceptional resilience, likely due to their winter dormancy and adaptability. The study concluded that these species’ ability to withstand fluctuating temperatures and moisture levels, combined with their attractive flowering, makes them promising candidates for urban greening projects and potential climate adaptation strategies [123].

While the ecological design literature and the Sustainable Sites Initiative (a ranking system for developing sustainable landscapes in the U.S.) advocate for the use of native plants and native plant communities [124,125,126], there exists a contrasting perspective from the climate change literature. Some researchers suggest that, in the face of climate change, many species currently incorporated into public planting schemes may no longer be viable [127]. As increasing climatic pressures affect urban flora, researchers argue that urban-planting strategies must adapt to shifting environmental conditions [127,128]. Consequently, urban landscape planning will require a more flexible approach that integrates species from diverse climatic origins to improve resilience [36,127,128,129]. This perspective emphasises the inclusion of non-native plant species alongside native ones, not only to mitigate the impacts of climate change, but also to increase species diversity and aesthetic value [127,128,129]. For example, in England, Alizadeh and Hitchmough (2020) studied the impact of climate change on native and non-native meadow species and concluded that integrating temperate and near-Mediterranean species could enhance urban vegetation resilience in future warmer climates [128]. Similarly, Jiang and Yuan (2024) examined how increased precipitation affected urban meadow plant communities in Beijing, China, and found that incorporating both native and non-native species increased species richness and resilience to future climate conditions [130].

In contrast, Burley et al. (2019) assessed the distribution of climatically baseline and future suitable habitat for 176 tree species native to Australia, commonly planted across Australian cities and found that by 2070, the climatically suitable habitat is predicted to decline for 73% of species assessed [131]. At the city level, Nitschke et al. (2017) highlighted concerns regarding the current composition of European deciduous species (non-native) in Melbourne, Australia [132]. Their research indicates that this mix is particularly vulnerable to future climate change such as increased temperatures and prolonged droughts [132].

In a literature review, De Carvalho et al. (2022) found that non-native species often exhibited higher survival rates in resource-limited environments, making them more adaptable to climate change [133]. However, their study also highlighted the ecological risks of non-native flora, as their differing phenology and resource-use strategies can disrupt ecosystem processes including soil nutrient cycles and biotic interactions [133]. The ecological risks associated with non-native species are particularly pertinent when creating urban green spaces, as these often involve replacing native species with introduced ones. This practice can lead to the homogenisation of plant communities across cities [46,134,135].

As noted by several authors [54,133,136,137], horticultural trade is a major vector for the introduction of non-native species, many of which escape cultivation and pose ecological risks to natural ecosystems. For example, Rusterholz et al. (2023) investigated the invasive potential of the garden plant Lamium galeobdolon subsp. argentatum (variegated yellow archangel) near Basel, Switzerland. Researchers tracked its spread in semi-natural habitats over several decades and compared its performance to the native subspecies, Lamium galeobdolon subsp. galeobdolon, using field surveys and controlled experiments [136]. They also examined the subspecies’ effects on native forest vegetation and soil characteristics. Results showed a threefold increase in L. g. argentatum occurrence in local forests over the past 40 years [136]. The cultivated subspecies exhibited greater growth and regeneration, reduced native plant diversity, altered ground vegetation composition, and modified several soil properties within deciduous forests [136]. Another Swiss study investigated the role of urban areas in the spread of invasive trees and their pests [137]. Researchers compared tree species composition in public and private urban spaces as well as in tree nurseries. While no significant difference was found between public and private urban tree composition, the urban tree species closely resembled those offered in nurseries, with larger cities showing a greater overlap in composition [137].

The potential for non-native species to outcompete native biota raises questions regarding the efficacy of diverse, but non-native-dominated, urban landscapes in delivering ESs [138]. In response to these challenges, conservation strategies for native and endemic species are increasingly necessary. One such approach is conservation gardening (CG), a socio-ecological strategy aimed at reversing the decline in native plant species by seeding and planting native species in green spaces and transforming the gardening industry into a tool for conservation [139]. CG can address both abiotic and biotic factors contributing to species decline through active human involvement [140]. By creating suitable habitats, manipulating soil conditions, and utilising spaces like parks and informal green spaces, humans can support threatened plants [140]. Furthermore, CG facilitates the survival of slower-growing native species by managing competition from invasive plants, thereby enhancing urban biodiversity [140].

Beyond individual gardening efforts, broader conservation-oriented urban planning is necessary to preserve native biodiversity at a larger scale. Therefore, citizen science and community-led conservation projects play a key role in maintaining native species. In addition, some local authorities are focusing on renaturing with native species [141] or implementing programs that utilise native plants. For example, in Australia, the Brisbane City Council’s “Free Native Plants” program is part of a broader urban greening initiative, offering diverse native species to enhance the city’s urban forest and support wildlife [142]. This effort aligns with the Natural Assets Local Law 2003, which protects urban trees, bushland, and waterways. The council promotes renaturing with native species through community participation initiatives including bush care volunteer programs and events like the Mountain to Mangrove Festival (Figure 1) [142].

Nitoslawski and Duinker (2016) emphasised the significance of maintaining remnant forest patches and incorporating native species into urban tree management strategies [143]. Their study compared suburban development in Halifax and London, Canada, examining how pre-urbanised landscapes influenced urban tree diversity. The findings indicated that newer neighbourhoods exhibited greater species richness and contained more native trees in public streetscapes, but private properties continued to favour non-native species [143]. Older neighbourhoods in Halifax with remnant forests retained the highest proportion of native trees on private land, emphasising the role of residual forest buffers in maintaining naturalness [143]. This study suggested that monitoring species movement between green spaces during and after development could support native tree establishment and improve urban forest diversity [143]. Building on this perspective, Delavaux et al. (2019) found that both ecological and social factors shape non-native tree invasions [144]. Their global analysis revealed that greater native diversity generally reduces invasion severity; however, human activities—such as proximity to shipping ports—can weaken these ecological patterns, creating opportunities for invasive species to spread [144].

With climate change adding pressures to native species survival, assisted migration has been implemented as an adaptation strategy. Also known as assisted colonisation, this approach involves relocating species to areas where future climatic conditions are expected to be more suitable, either within or beyond their historical range [145,146,147,148,149,150]. The concept has been widely discussed in the literature as conservation efforts shift from preservation and restoration towards adaptation and resilience strategies [149,150,151,152]. However, assisted migration remains contentious, as it challenges traditional conservation values and raises ecological and ethical concerns [150,151,153].

3.5. Reassessing Plant Selection and Resilience Strategies in Response to Climate Change: Recommendations

This review emphasises the critical need to reassess plant selection strategies in urban greening projects, especially in light of climate change impacts. Specifically, this review critically examined the role of plant nativeness in urban green spaces by exploring three interconnected dimensions: (1) public preferences and perceptions; (2) comparative analysis of ESs and EDSs including their ability to support urban faunal biodiversity; and (3) conservation strategies for integrating native species particularly the potential of conservation gardening (CG) as a framework for integrating endangered native species into urban landscapes.

Climate change may negatively affect ecosystems, driving shifts in ecoregions and biomes due to rising temperatures and altered precipitation patterns [154,155]. In urban areas, species distributions will also shift, and some species will be at risk of extinction [156]. These changes have direct implications for urban greening projects, necessitating a reassessment of species selection to ensure long-term resilience. One of the most prominent consequences of climate change is the poleward migration of tree species to more suitable climatic conditions [157]. However, this movement is constrained by the species’ dispersal limitations and anthropogenic barriers [157]. Urban environments, particularly those experiencing the urban heat island effect, may serve as refugia, enabling the establishment of both native and non-native species beyond their historical ranges [157]. In this context, cities could function as stepping stones for species migration, supporting their survival and facilitating their expansion in response to climatic shifts [157]. However, while these warmer urban conditions may benefit heat-tolerant species, they can also pose risks to cold-origin species, potentially limiting their viability in urban settings. This dynamic highlights the necessity of proactive conservation strategies to safeguard native vegetation. A holistic approach, incorporating advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and remote sensing, is needed for monitoring and managing urban vegetation [158]. The regular assessment of tree health is essential not only for maintaining ESs, but also to ensure public safety, as climate-induced stressors may increase the risk of tree failure [158]. Tubby and Webber (2010) highlighted how rising temperatures and shifting moisture levels exacerbated tree vulnerability to pests and diseases, thereby disrupting established plant–pest interactions [159]. Furthermore, the introduction of non-native pests through infected planting materials remains a significant risk, exacerbated by inadequacies in existing plant trade and health regulations [159].

In response to these challenges, the debate concerning native versus non-native species must extend beyond binary classifications to incorporate resilience-based strategies such as diversifying species and functions [160]. Hunter (2011) advocates for an approach that prioritises resilience rather than rigidly matching species to projected climatic conditions [36]. This entails selecting species based on ecological principles such as plasticity, functional redundancy, response diversity, and structural diversity. By integrating these criteria, urban planting schemes can balance ecological integrity with aesthetic, cultural, and financial considerations [36]. The successful implementation of this approach requires the development of a comprehensive catalogue of horticultural and plasticity traits for commercially available species suitable for urban environments [36], and better knowledge and communication on invasive species. Furthermore, frameworks may integrate existing knowledge of plant traits and species distributions to overcome gaps in information on tolerance to multiple stressors [161].

3.6. Caveats and Limitations

While this review aims to be comprehensive, we only included studies published in English, potentially excluding relevant findings in other languages. Therefore, a multilingual literature review is needed [162] including policy documents or local government reports that could offer additional information on resilient planting in a changing climate. Additionally, although this was a qualitative literature review with a thematic synthesis that provided a structured analysis, it did not incorporate a quantitative meta-analysis, which could strengthen the quantification of native versus non-native species effects in terms of ESs and EDSs and the impact of climate change.

Our review covered studies from different time periods, which may introduce variability due to evolving environmental policies, green space management practices, and socioeconomic factors over time. There may have been inconsistencies in how different studies measured and reported outcomes related to urban green spaces, making it challenging to compare results across studies. Most studies on urban green space interventions used short time horizons (e.g., less than 6 years), which may not capture the long-term impacts of climate change and the full range of ESs provided by different plant species. Additionally, our review may have been limited by focusing on specific geographical areas, potentially overlooking unique challenges and solutions in other urban contexts worldwide [163]. The complex nature of urban greening and climate resilience may require insights from multiple disciplines, which might not be fully captured in a single review [163]. This review may not comprehensively capture the varying ways in which people from different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds perceive and use urban green spaces, as these factors can significantly influence how effective native and non-native planting strategies are in practice [164,165]. The absence of a universally accepted classification system for urban green spaces [73] may lead to inconsistencies in how different studies categorise and analyse native and non-native plants.

4. Conclusions

This review highlights contrasting and complex findings regarding public preferences for native versus non-native plant species and their respective implications for urban green space design and management. In our review, we found that in a changing climate, several studies provided evidence for the use of non-native species due to their potential resilience benefits. However, these species can also pose significant ecological risks including competition with native flora, disruption of ecosystem dynamics, and the potential for invasive behaviour [122]. Non-native plants may exhibit increased climate resilience under certain conditions, particularly in regions experiencing high temperatures, reduced precipitation, or extreme weather events (e.g., heatwaves, floods). In areas subject to frequent droughts or heatwaves, non-native species that are drought-tolerant or heat-resistant may perform better than native species. Given these uncertainties, more research is needed, both through monitoring, modelling and field studies, to assess the long-term ecological consequences of introducing non-native species into urban environments. Such studies will provide a stronger evidence base for informed decision-making in urban greening projects. Knowledge of where and when to use non-native species will ensure that their potential benefits do not come at the cost of ecological integrity [166].

Concurrently, conservation strategies such as CG and the protection of remnant native vegetation offer viable means of sustaining biodiversity and preserving ecosystem services in urban areas. However, in some contexts, public preferences often favour non-native species, highlighting the need to raise awareness of the biodiversity benefits of native vegetation. Increasing the public understanding of these benefits can foster greater engagement in conservation-oriented urban greening projects [80]. To navigate these challenges, the use of native plants in urban greening projects could be promoted through the formulation of relevant policies or regulations.

As CG provides a socio-ecological framework for integrating native and endangered species into urban landscapes [139,140], improving public awareness can help these spaces function as conservation tools while maintaining their visual and recreational appeal. To strengthen ecological resilience in cities facing climate challenges, participatory planning and public education must be actively promoted. Future research should also focus on identifying alternative species better suited to warmer, drier climates, requiring an understanding of how these species have historically responded to climate variability [132].