Opportunities and Barriers to Integrating Urban Grasslands into Green Infrastructure: A Socio-Institutional Assessment of Latvian Cities

Abstract

Natural grasslands are among the most endangered habitats in Northern, Central and Eastern Europe due to the agricultural intensification, land abandonment and afforestation, urban expansion, and the loss of traditional low-intensity management, on which their biodiversity depends. One way to increase the number of natural grasslands is by integrating them into urban green infrastructure as a nature-based solution to enhance ecological resilience and urban livability: diverse grassland systems support pollinators, improve soil structure and stormwater infiltration, mitigate urban heat and provide restorative, experience-rich public spaces. The aim of the study is to explore opportunities and barriers to integrating different types of grasslands into the green infrastructure of Latvian cities, with a primary focus on public perceptions and institutional aspects of urban grassland implementation and management. A mixed-methods approach was applied, combining resident surveys, interviews with municipal experts—territorial development specialists, planners and maintenance managers—and comparative policy analysis. Results show that although residents acknowledge the ecological benefits of urban grasslands, they prefer them in peripheral or underused areas rather than in city centres and residential zones, as these areas are often aesthetically perceived as “untidy” or neglected, conflicting with cultural norms that favour short, intensively mown lawns and raising concerns about insects. Acceptance increases through communication and participatory practices. Municipal approaches range from structured maintenance guidelines, including delayed mowing, biomass removal, and invasive species control, to flexible experimentation. The study contributes scientifically grounded insights into governance, perception, and management interfaces critical for mainstreaming socially accepted urban grasslands.

1. Introduction

1.1. From Natural Grassland Loss to Urban Biodiversity Enhancement: Socio-Institutional Challenges of Urban Grassland Implementation

Natural grasslands in Latvia are among the most endangered habitats, covering only 0.7% of the national territory, and their persistence depends directly on continued human management [1]. Similar trends are observed across Northern, Central and Eastern Europe [2]. Their decline is primarily the result of long-term land-use change: agricultural intensification in productive areas and land abandonment followed by afforestation in marginal regions. Historically, species-rich grasslands were maintained through low-intensity mowing and extensive grazing; without such management, rapid shrub encroachment and succession occur [1]. Despite favourable climatic conditions, the management-dependent character of these habitats makes them highly vulnerable.

In parallel, urban green space management in Latvia and also in other Central and Eastern Europe countries remains dominated by intensively maintained lawns characterised by low species diversity and structural uniformity. Such management regimes limit ecological resilience and reduce the adaptive capacity of cities to climate-related risks, including flooding, heatwaves, and increasing pest and disease pressures affecting urban tree species [3,4,5]. European case studies indicate that lawns may occupy up to approximately 22.5% of total city area in comparable contexts [6], demonstrating the spatial dominance of simplified green cover and reinforcing aesthetic and maintenance norms favouring short-cut vegetation.

Urban grasslands have been proposed as an ecologically functional alternative capable of enhancing biodiversity and strengthening urban green infrastructure [7,8]. Ecological benefits are well documented in the literature; however, implementation remains limited. This discrepancy indicates that constraints are primarily socio-institutional rather than ecological. The introduction of urban grasslands frequently conflicts with established aesthetic expectations, routine mowing practices, and fragmented governance arrangements that shape planning and long-term maintenance decisions. Although biodiversity-oriented initiatives are broadly supported in principle, grasslands are often perceived as unmanaged or neglected when they diverge from conventional lawn aesthetics [7,9,10].

In Latvia, urban grasslands represent a relatively recent practice. Municipal green space planning has historically prioritised intensive lawn management, and only in recent years—partly influenced by European sustainability and resilience agendas—has attention shifted toward nature-based solutions. Since 2017, initiatives led by the Latvian Nature Fund have promoted the introduction of native grassland species into urban green infrastructure, combining ecological restoration goals with structured community engagement and educational activities [11,12,13]. Nevertheless, implementation outcomes vary. Existing policy documents, maintenance standards, and deeply embedded landscape preferences continue to influence municipal decisions and public responses.

Previous research provides extensive ecological validation of urban grasslands but insufficiently examines how governance structures, planning cultures, regulatory frameworks, and social norms condition their adoption. The interaction between biodiversity objectives, administrative capacity, institutional routines, and public perception remains under-analysed. This gap limits understanding of why ecologically justified measures are not systematically integrated into urban green infrastructure. Addressing this discrepancy requires a socio-institutional perspective that evaluates how policy frameworks, management systems, and societal expectations enable or constrain the practical implementation of urban grasslands.

1.2. Aim and Scope of the Study

Building on the preceding discussion, the objective of the present study is to assess the socio-institutional opportunities and barriers to integrating urban grasslands into green infrastructure in Latvian cities, which represent conditions comparable to those found in Northern, Central and Eastern Europe. By combining analysis of public perception, municipal governance practices, and local policy frameworks, the study seeks to identify how social attitudes, institutional capacity, and regulatory conditions interact to shape the feasibility and long-term implementation of urban grasslands. Specifically, the research addresses the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (Public perception): 

Residents’ acceptance of urban grasslands is spatially and aesthetically context-dependent; support is higher in peripheral or underutilised areas and increases when grasslands are accompanied by visible management cues (e.g., mown edges), while concerns about neglect, safety, or pests reduce acceptance in high-use urban spaces.

Hypothesis 2 (Governance and management): 

Municipalities with clearly defined management regimes, established maintenance protocols, and adequate technical capacity (including appropriate equipment, biomass handling systems, and invasive species control) demonstrate more consistent and scalable implementation of urban grasslands than those operating without formalised management frameworks or relying on non-systematic management practices.

Hypothesis 3 (Policy framework): 

The presence of explicit policy provisions and planning instruments that define urban grasslands as a component of green infrastructure increases institutional support and reduces implementation barriers compared to municipalities where grasslands lack formal recognition.

Together, these hypotheses frame a socio-institutional assessment that clarifies the conditions under which urban grasslands can be effectively integrated into urban green infrastructure.

2. Theoretical Background and Previous Research

Research on urban grasslands emerged in the late twentieth century, alongside growing recognition of the need to reintroduce nature into urban areas, promote biodiversity, and apply nature-based solutions [7]. Early studies primarily focused on biodiversity enhancement, pollinator attraction, and the use of urban grasslands as alternatives to conventional lawns [4,7,14]. This phase established a strong ecological rationale: urban grasslands were shown to increase species richness, diversify habitat structure, and reintroduce ecological processes into highly managed urban environment. More recently, research has expanded to include aesthetic quality [15], cultural ecosystem services, and environmental education, thereby shifting the focus from strictly ecological performance toward a broader socio-ecological integration perspective. Despite this conceptual expansion, implementation outcomes reveal a persistent tension. While ecological benefits are well documented, urban grasslands often diverge visually and structurally from conventional lawns, challenging entrenched aesthetic norms and maintenance traditions. Their successful integration therefore depends not only on ecological design but also on public perception and acceptance, institutional routines, and governance capacity. Studies indicate that participatory planning and resident involvement in establishment and maintenance can enhance acceptance by fostering ecological literacy and a sense of ownership [11,12,13]. However, such participatory approaches are unevenly applied, and institutional inertia frequently constrains wider adoption.

2.1. Terminological Framework

A review of the existing literature on urban grasslands reveals the use of diverse terminology in urban contexts, largely reflecting different conceptual and management approaches. The term “semi-natural grasslands” is applied to both urban and rural environments and primarily refers to the use of plant species characteristic of natural grasslands in human-created grasslands in both rural and urban areas [7,8]. The scientific literature also frequently employs the term “urban meadows”, which may include, in addition to species typical of natural grasslands, ornamental perennials, annual or biennial plants, and grasses, or may be composed entirely of such species. The broader term “urban grasslands” encompasses a wide range of grassland types in urban environments, including semi-natural grasslands based on regionally characteristic species as well as urban meadows composed of mixed plant assemblages incorporating ornamental perennials and grasses [1,3,16]. While terminological diversity reflects methodological and design flexibility, it also complicates comparative analysis and policy translation, particularly when ecological objectives differ from aesthetic or maintenance-driven approaches.

2.2. Ecological Dimensions of Urban Grasslands

Analysis of research trends indicates that studies on urban grasslands are predominantly grounded in ecological assessments, with comparatively less emphasis on socio-institutional dimensions. Within an ecosystem service framework, urban grasslands are frequently evaluated against conventional lawns [4,5,7,8], consistently demonstrating superior biodiversity performance. Vegetation structurally and compositionally similar to natural grasslands creates new habitats within anthropogenically altered environments and increases overall plant and animal diversity [4,8]. Structurally heterogeneous grasslands support higher plant species richness and provide nesting and foraging resources for insects, birds, and small vertebrates. This is particularly relevant in the context of expanding urban gardening, where cultivated plants depend on wild pollinators. Urban grasslands resembling semi-natural systems sustain significantly greater abundance and species richness of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) compared to intensively managed lawns [17], while also supporting predatory insects such as ground beetles (Carabidae), which contribute to biological pest regulation [18]. These findings collectively confirm that vegetation structure and plant diversity are decisive determinants of faunal diversity in urban contexts.

Beyond biodiversity, urban grasslands contribute to microclimate regulation. Compared to conventional lawns, they exhibit greater structural complexity, higher biomass, and deeper root systems, enhancing evapotranspiration, soil moisture retention, and thermal buffering. Empirical evidence shows improved drought resilience and more stable ecosystem functioning under extreme weather conditions. Vegetation-mediated cooling through shading and latent heat flux reduces peak air temperatures and improves outdoor thermal comfort. Additionally, structurally diverse grasslands capture greater amounts of particulate matter, including during winter, thereby supporting year-round air purification [5,19].

However, ecological research addressing soil microbiology and pollution mitigation remains comparatively limited. Evidence suggests that species-rich urban grasslands support more diverse soil microbial communities due to multi-layered root systems and symbiotic associations [20], improving soil quality in compacted and contaminated urban substrates [21]. When implemented in roadside verges and traffic islands, urban grasslands reduce mowing frequency while contributing to reductions in traffic-related soil pollution [19,22]. Taller and structurally complex vegetation enhances the capture of airborne dust and particulate matter, including CO₂, exceeding the filtration capacity of conventional lawns [22]. These findings strengthen the multifunctional justification for urban grasslands but also highlight the need for more integrated soil–vegetation–pollution assessments in further studies.

2.3. Socio-Economic Aspects of Urban Grasslands

Public perception studies conducted across different countries reveal recurring patterns. Urban grasslands are frequently perceived as neglected or poorly maintained when their ecological purpose is not clearly communicated. Conversely, when interpretive information emphasises biodiversity benefits, ecosystem services, and maintenance cost savings, public attitudes become more favourable. Acceptance is strongly influenced by spatial context, including functional zoning, intensity of use, and surrounding built form [9,10,14,15]. These findings suggest that aesthetic judgement is socially constructed and mediated by information, design framing, and governance practices. However, such insights are often treated descriptively rather than analytically, with limited integration into planning frameworks.

Economic assessments similarly compare urban grasslands with conventional lawns, demonstrating reduced long-term maintenance costs due to lower irrigation, mowing, fertilisation, and pest control requirements [5,23]. Reduced mowing also lowers fuel consumption and emissions and may decrease allergen exposure associated with mowing activities. While these economic arguments support implementation, cost savings alone rarely drive systemic change when institutional policy frameworks, regulatory standards, and green space maintenance practices remain aligned with conventional lawn management.

2.4. Policy and Institutional Context for Urban Grasslands

Several international initiatives, strategies, and policy documents further highlight the relevance of this topic. The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 [2] emphasises not only the enhancement of biodiversity for the benefit of people, the climate, and the planet, but also the obligation for cities with more than 20,000 inhabitants to develop Urban Greening and Green Infrastructure Plans. These plans are expected to include measures aimed at establishing biodiverse and accessible urban green spaces, as well as green roofs and walls, streetscapes, and other elements (e.g., urban grasslands) of urban green infrastructure. Furthermore, they should support improved green infrastructure connectivity, the elimination of pesticide use, a reduction in excessive mowing in green spaces, and the discontinuation of other practices harmful to biodiversity. Similar principles are reflected in the EU Green Infrastructure Strategy [24] and the European Green Deal [25], both of which promote the implementation of sustainable and nature-based solutions to enhance urban ecosystems and mitigate climate change impacts.

Alongside ecological considerations related to climate change adaptation, increasing attention is given to public participation in decision-making and urban planning processes, fostering greater awareness and alignment between ecological objectives and societal needs. The New European Bauhaus (NEB) initiative [26] strengthens this approach by promoting sustainability, inclusiveness, and aesthetics as interconnected principles in spatial development. It emphasises co-creation processes, interdisciplinary collaboration, and citizen engagement in designing resilient and liveable environments. In this context, involving residents in the planning and management of urban green spaces, including urban grasslands, operationalizes NEB principles by linking biodiversity goals with social acceptance, place identity, and perceived landscape quality.

However, while these strategies set ambitious objectives at the European level, their translation into local practice frequently generates governance challenges, institutional constraints, and social tensions. Municipalities must reconcile biodiversity targets with limited financial resources, existing policy documents and regulations, fragmented administrative responsibilities, and established public expectations regarding orderly and short-cut lawns. This gap between strategic ambitions and practical implementation underlines the importance of socio-institutional factors in the development of new practices based on structured requirements and meaningful public involvement, aimed at enhancing broader acceptance of nature-based solutions, including urban grasslands, in urban environments.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Areas

To identify the key factors influencing the integration potential of grasslands in urban environments, this study employed a public survey to examine social factors and interviews with municipal experts to identify institutional factors. The study area for the public survey was the city of Jelgava, where the implementation of urban grasslands has only recently begun, making it necessary to assess the most suitable locations from the perspective of social factors, particularly public perception and acceptance. The study areas for the municipal expert interviews were Latvian cities in which urban grasslands have already been implemented—Rīga, Cēsis, Sigulda, Tukums, Salaspils, Jūrmala, Liepāja, and Ventspils (Figure 1)—with the aim of identifying institutional factors influencing the integration of grasslands into urban environments. The cities selected for expert interviews were those in which urban grassland implementation had already begun at both the institutional (policy and planning) and practical (pilot sites, management measures) levels. Given the early stage of urban grassland development in Latvia, this approach ensured inclusion of all relevant early adopters during the study period. The selection enabled the identification of current opportunities and barriers associated with integrating urban grasslands into municipal practice.

Table 1. Summary of the main parameters of the study areas.

Study Areas Area/Population (1 January 2025) [27,28]	City Landscape Characteristics	Implemented Projects or Activities Related to Urban Grasslands	Aspects Considered in the Implementation of Urban Grasslands in Current Projects or Activities
			Ecological	Economic	Social
Rīga * Area: 304.05 km2 Population: 595,053	- Latvia’s capital city. - 58 neighbourhoods. - Diverse spatial, cultural, and architectural fabric. - UNESCO-listed Historic Centre. - Daugava River (Latvia’s largest river). - Baltic Sea coastline [29].	- Initiative branded as “Urban Meadows”. - Developed since 2021 by the Latvian Fund for Nature (LDF) with Rīga City Council and neighbourhood associations. - Network of 42 sites across the city, covering 13.7 ha. - Created by enhancing existing grasslands with native perennial and grass species (incl. LIFE project activities). - Managed through annual site-specific plans (early mowing, invasive species control). - Supported by a publicly accessible digital map of urban meadows [11,12].	The grasslands are established by sowing locally sourced native perennial and grass species.	Reduced mowing (compared to conventional lawns) is part of the management approach.	Residents join seed-collection and sowing workshops, propose meadow sites, monitor them, and report to LDF. Informational boards are placed next to urban meadows.
Jūrmala * Area: 100.00 km2 Population: 52,001	- Seaside resort city with coastal landscapes. - Nature reserve “Lielupe River floodplain grassland” with rare floodplain grassland habitats along the Lielupe River [30].	- The nature reserve was established in 2004 to protect natural grassland. habitats along both banks of the Lielupe River. - 6 separate protected grassland areas located within Jūrmala city, total area—261 ha. - Managed to support diverse ecosystem services [31].	The reserve protects coastal and Lielupe River floodplain grasslands, encompassing multiple biotopes and species.	No information on economic aspects is provided.	Visitor infrastructure (trails and recreation areas) is integrated into the nature protection plan to support public awareness and education.
Liepāja * Area: 68.00 km2 Population: 67,421	- A coastal city. - Seaside landscape with natural forests and coastal grasslands. - A long history as an industrial and port city [32].	- Meadow-like plantings. - Established as a municipal initiative. - Additional sites planned as part of an air quality improvement project [33].	Meadow-like plantings are designed to naturalise and self-propagate.	More cost- and labour-efficient meadow-style plantings compared to traditional flowerbeds.	No targeted or specific activities are described.
Ventspils * Area: 58.00 km2 Population: 32,723	- A coastal port city. - Rich in natural and cultural heritage. - A popular tourist destination for families with children [34].	- Management of existing natural coastal grasslands. - Increased municipal focus on diverse perennial, annual, and bulb flowering plantings to enhance urban biodiversity.	Protection of natural coastal grasslands.	No information on economic aspects is provided.	No information on social aspects is provided.
Cēsis * Area: 19.00 km2 Population: 15,020	- One of Latvia’s oldest towns. - Medieval castle complex and preserved historic street layout. - Vibrant cultural life - The landscape of the Gauja River valley [35].	- Developed local regulations (2023) introducing “landscape meadows”. - 6 areas selected to integrate natural grasslands in the urban environment. - The approach includes modifications of current grassland management practices—mowing only once per season. - Nationally funded project supporting grassland habitat restoration and maintenance [36].	Landscape/natural grasslands managed to support biodiversity.	Reduced mowing (once per season) compared to conventional lawn maintenance.	No targeted or specific activities are described.
Sigulda * Area: 18.20 km2 Population: 14,757	- Well-known destination in the Gauja River valley. - Nature tourism and outdoor recreation [37].	- Since 2019, Sigulda Municipality has established and maintained 10 naturalistic urban meadows promoted as a nature-friendly practice. - Enhanced biodiversity in existing grasslands through the overseeding of native perennial and grass species. - Creating new urban meadows using locally sourced plant seeds or mixed seed mixtures of diverse origins [38].	Natural-looking meadows (using mixed seed sources).	No information on economic aspects is provided.	Positive attitude from residents and visitors.
Tukums * Area: 13.50 km2 Population: 16,182	- A town with historic and cultural heritage [39].	- Natural grassland development in Ziedonis Garden under a municipal initiative. - Municipal specialists and grassland experts assessed site conditions and planned modifications to existing grassland management (7 ha) [40].	Developing grassland areas through targeted management of existing grasslands.	No information on economic aspects is provided.	No information on social aspects is provided.
Salaspils * Area: 12.60 km2 Population: 17,865	- Town near Rīga, located along the Daugava River. - Soviet-era residential development. - Urban greenery influenced by the Salaspils Botanical Garden [41].	- “Natural meadow” established in the city centre for public education - Enhanced species diversity in existing grassland through overseeding native perennials and grasses. - Expert guidance provided by the Latvian Fund for Nature [42].	Seeded/established natural grassland (seed mixture).	No information on economic aspects is provided.	Involvement of children and youth from an art studio in creating seed-mix species illustrations for an on-site educational display.
Jelgava ** Area: 60.30 km2 Population: 54,834	- City in the central part of Latvia, close to Rīga - Shaped by the Lielupe River, Jelgava Palace, and Soviet-era development - The state nature reserve “Lielupe Floodplain Grassland” (Natura 2000 site important for birds) [43].	- Municipality launched pilot restoration of natural grassland through overseeding of native perennial and grass species and modifications to existing grassland management practices. - Three pilot urban grassland plots established at the Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies to assess impacts on biodiversity and soil quality. - Floodplain grasslands managed under specific regimes, including low-intensity grazing by semi-wild horses [44].	Enhanced biodiversity through the overseeding of native perennials and grasses and the modification of existing grassland management practices.	Reduced management intensity, allowing grasslands to develop naturally.	No information on social aspects is provided.

* Study areas for the assessment of economic factors (interviews with municipal specialists). ** Study area for the assessment of social factors (public questionnaire).

presents a description of the study areas for both expert interviews and the public survey, based on criteria related to the existing or planned integration of urban grasslands in each city. The description of the study areas is based on a pre-survey of the cities, conducted through an analysis of publicly available information from municipal websites and strategic planning documents. The applied criteria include the total area of the city, population size, and a brief characterisation of the city in the context of its core values, as well as the ecological, institutional, and social aspects of existing grassland initiatives, where such aspects are addressed within the respective initiatives.

The description of ecological aspects includes grassland types and the composition of plant seed mixtures (locally sourced native species or mixed-origin seed mixtures), as well as the implementation of grasslands as nature-based solutions in the urban environment. Institutional aspects primarily relate to grassland management and maintenance practices; however, for many cities, this information is not available in publicly accessible sources and therefore requires supplementation through interviews with municipal specialists. Social aspects describe the level and forms of public participation in the establishment of urban grasslands, as well as elements for environmental education and awareness raising.

Existing grassland integration initiatives and projects employ a range of approaches, including the following:

• The establishment of grasslands through modifications of existing grassland management practices (e.g., reduced mowing frequency and removal of cut biomass);
• The enhancement of plant species diversity in existing grasslands through the overseeding of native perennial and grass species;
• The creation of new urban meadows using either locally sourced plant seeds or mixed seed mixtures of diverse origins to form visually attractive meadow landscapes;
• The establishment of meadow-like plantings composed of perennials and grasses;
• The management and promotion of existing protected grassland habitats.

3.2. Methods

The study applied two complementary methods: expert (municipal specialists) interviews to identify policy framework and institutional factors related to the integration of urban grasslands into practical urban planning and governance documents, including issues of grassland management and resident involvement; and a resident survey to identify social factors associated with public perception and the acceptance of urban grassland establishment in specific urban locations. Given the involvement of human participants, ethical considerations were carefully addressed. Formal ethics approval (IRB review) was not required under the institutional regulations of the authors’ institution, as the research qualified as minimal-risk social research. Data collection was voluntary, anonymous, and non-sensitive, and no personally identifiable information was collected.

3.2.1. Expert (Municipal Specialist) Interviews for the Identification of Institutional Factors

The interviews with municipal specialists were conducted using an expert interview methodology [45], beginning with the selection of municipalities and relevant specialists (interviewed experts), followed by the implementation of semi-structured, in-depth interviews and the compilation of the responses obtained. The interviews were intentionally limited to municipal representatives, as the study specifically aimed to examine governance structures, regulatory frameworks, and implementation practices related to urban grasslands. While this focus ensured analytical depth within the institutional domain, future research could usefully expand the scope to include additional stakeholder groups in order to capture a broader multi-actor perspective. Eight experts from Latvian cities—Rīga, Cēsis, Sigulda, Tukums, Salaspils, Jūrmala, Liepāja, and Ventspils—whose characteristics are presented in the Study Area section (Table 1), and in which urban grasslands had already been initiated, were selected. The expert interviews were based on purposive sampling. The experts were identified based on their direct involvement in planning, implementation, or management processes of urban greenery, including urban grasslands. As the institutional structures of Latvian municipalities differ according to city size and specific development profiles (e.g., coastal and port cities, the capital city, tourism-oriented cities), responsibility for urban green structures—including the introduction and management of grasslands—is distributed across different municipal departments. In small and medium-sized municipalities (Cēsis, Sigulda, Tukums, Salaspils, Jūrmala), these responsibilities are typically assigned to environmental or landscape specialists, whereas in larger cities (Rīga, Liepāja, Ventspils) they are managed by centralised administrative units, such as city development departments. The interviewed experts included an environmental specialist, a spatial planner, a senior specialist in greening, an urban management department specialist, a municipal gardener, and three landscape architects representing the greenery management, spatial development, and municipal utility management departments.

Interviews with municipal representatives were conducted within their professional roles, at their workplaces, and during regular working hours. Informed consent was obtained from all interviewees. The information collected related exclusively to professional opinions and institutional practices. The selected municipal specialists were interviewed by telephone and in person, using a consistent data collection approach. Responses to the interview questions were recorded and compiled by the interviewer. The interview data are presented anonymously and were collected through open-ended discussions, reflecting the early stage of urban grassland implementation in Latvia.

The conceptual framework of the expert interviews is presented in Figure 2. The primary aim of the interviews was to document municipal experience with urban grassland establishment, capturing both enabling and constraining factors for further research in this field.

In relation to grassland implementation and management within each municipality, interviewees were asked to address key thematic areas—regulatory and policy framework, maintenance factors, social factors, future plans, and limiting aspects—without detailed sub-structuring of each topic, thereby allowing respondents to provide expanded and reflective insights within each thematic block. The main focus of the municipal expert interviews was the integration potential of urban grasslands within urban green infrastructure from a governance and practical implementation perspective, including an assessment of relevant strategic, regulatory, and binding policy documents governing these processes. Particular attention was given to identifying municipal motivations and objectives for grassland implementation and management, including whether these initiatives are primarily driven by environmental quality improvement projects (including those supported by EU funding), by economic considerations such as reduced green space maintenance costs through less frequent mowing, or by technological and design approaches that lower establishment costs (e.g., reduced requirements for fertile soil or irrigation). In addition, the interviews explored the role of urban grasslands in public education and community engagement related to environmental quality and biodiversity enhancement.

Although the primary focus of the municipal specialist interviews was on institutional and policy-related issues, the interviews also incorporated perspectives and experiences regarding the role of urban grasslands in shaping public attitudes, fostering community involvement in urban development, and supporting environmental education. A key objective was to identify both motivating factors and constraints influencing the continued implementation of urban grasslands from the perspective of municipal practitioners. The expert interviews were analysed using qualitative thematic content analysis. Transcripts were inductively coded and grouped into thematic categories (regulatory framework, objectives, management and costs, public attitudes, and risks), with economic factors identified through references to funding mechanisms, maintenance practices, and cost-related uncertainties, and interpreted descriptively.

3.2.2. Public Survey for the Identification of Social Factors

To identify social factors influencing the integration of urban grasslands, an online, semi-structured public survey was conducted, incorporating general and targeted questions as well as scenario-based questions designed to elicit public preferences [46]. The online public survey was entirely voluntary and anonymous and focused on perceptions and attitudes toward urban grasslands. It did not include sensitive personal data or topics posing psychological, social, or legal risks. The purpose of the study was clearly explained to participants prior to participation.

The survey consisted of several main thematic blocks: respondent profile and connection to the city of Jelgava; public understanding and attitudes towards urban grasslands; selection of proposed urban grassland scenarios depending on their potential implementation locations; and the perceived benefits and constraints associated with the introduction of urban grasslands. In total, the survey included 17 questions, the majority of which were multiple-response questions, allowing respondents to select more than one response option. The survey questions and scenario design were informed by a literature review identifying key ecological, economic, social, and institutional benefits and challenges of urban grasslands [3,4,5,7,8,9,10,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23], as well as by existing Scandinavian experience in defining potential implementation scenarios for different urban zones [4,7,9,14,15]. The structure and questions of the public survey are presented in

Table 2. Structure and questions of the public survey.

No	Survey Question	Question Type	Predefined Response Options
	I Respondent Profile and Connection to the City of Jelgava
1.	Age	Demographic/multiple-choice question	(a) <18; (b) 18–25; (c) 26–45; (d) 46–60; (e) >60
2.	Occupation	Demographic/multiple-response question	(a) environmental protection, biology, forestry, ecology; (b) spatial planning, architecture, landscape architecture, urban planning; (c) horticulture, territory management; (d) education, science; (e) culture, art; (f) state or municipal institution; (g) private sector; (h) pupil, student; (i) retiree
3.	Frequency of presence in Jelgava	Multiple-choice question	(a) every day, I live in Jelgava; (b) almost every day, I work in Jelgava; (c) I visit for leisure or as a tourist less than once a month; (d) I have not been to Jelgava
	II Respondents’ understanding and general attitude towards urban grasslands
4.	Indicate how much attention you pay to urban greenery in your daily life	Likert scale responses	point scale—0 (do not pay attention at all) to 5 (pay very close attention)
5.	Understanding of the concept “urban grasslands”	Multiple-response/open-ended question	(a) extensively maintained (mown) existing grassland; (b) established (sown) flowering urban grassland; (c) planted perennial and grass species; (d) other
6.	Would you like urban grasslands to be established in Jelgava city?	Multiple-choice/open-ended question	(a) yes; (b) yes, but only in certain locations; (c) no; (d) other
7.	In which parts of Jelgava city do you think the establishment of urban grasslands would be most appropriate?	Multiple-response/open-ended question	(a) in low-use peripheral areas of the city with lower pedestrian traffic; (b) along roadsides; (c) in underused and abandoned areas; (d) in all urban green spaces; (e) in private gardens; (f) in no areas; (g) other
	III Selection of urban grassland scenarios and their suitability for different urban areas
8.	Types of urban areas: residential areas	Multiple-response question	Scenarios/Photoshop models for each type of urban areas based on photographs of the existing situation: (a) intensively maintained lawn; (b) extensively maintained existing grassland *; (c) sown or planted a flowering urban meadow *
9.	riverbanks/slopes
10.	technical areas
11.	roundabouts
12.	shaded roadsides
13.	open, sun-exposed roadsides
14.	underused green spaces, abandoned areas
	IV Benefits and constraints
15.	Main benefits of establishing urban grasslands	Multiple-response question	(a) enhancing biodiversity and attracting pollinators; (b) attracting (beneficial insects to control pests; (c) improving air quality by reducing dust and pollution; (d) improving soil quality and helps remediate contamination; (e) rainwater accumulation; (f) creating new, engaging experiences and educating the public about nature; (g) improving the overall urban environment; (h) promoting tourism development; (i) reducing green space management costs; (j) no benefits
16.	Limitations of establishing urban meadows	Multiple-response question	(a) existing public perceptions and previous experience, associating urban meadows with “weed fields,” overgrown lawns, or neglected areas; b) fear of the presence of insects and ticks, or the risk of Spanish slug (Arion vulgaris) invasion; (c) allergic reactions to plant species found in grasslands; (d) urban regulations not adapted to grassland management, for example restrictions on permissible grass height; (e) high establishment costs; (f) high maintenance costs
17.	Are you aware of any other examples of urban meadow development? If yes, please specify the cities	Open-ended question

* included insect houses and other environmental features in scenarios of residential areas, along riverbanks, and within underused green spaces.

.

The survey was designed using Google Forms and distributed via social media platforms targeting residents familiar with Jelgava’s urban context. A non-probability voluntary response sampling approach was adopted due to practical constraints, including limited access to a comprehensive sampling frame as well as time and resource considerations [47]. In line with the exploratory aim of the study—to identify attitudinal trends and factors shaping public acceptance of urban grasslands rather than to estimate precise population parameters—this approach resulted in a self-selected sample of 116 respondents. Sample sizes of this magnitude are commonly reported in pilot and exploratory survey research in the social sciences, particularly where the objective is hypothesis generation or the preliminary identification of perception patterns rather than statistical generalisation [48,49]. Furthermore, statistical reasoning emphasises that the informative value of survey-based insights depends primarily on the absolute sample size rather than on the proportion of the total population surveyed [50]. Although voluntary online recruitment may limit statistical representativeness in relation to the approximately 54,000 inhabitants of Jelgava and introduce potential self-selection bias, the dataset provides robust exploratory insights into prevailing perception patterns among actively engaged residents. Accordingly, the findings should be interpreted as indicative rather than population-representative estimates. Nevertheless, the results offer empirically grounded insights into key drivers of public attitudes towards urban grassland implementation and provide a valuable evidence base for informing locally relevant urban planning decisions as well as future studies employing larger or probability-based sampling designs. The questionnaire was anonymous and conducted in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements [51].

Within the respondent profile and connection to the city of Jelgava section, demographic questions were intentionally limited to those strictly necessary for achieving the objectives of the study, taking into account data protection considerations and the potential sensitivity of personal information. The survey did not aim to provide a broad socio-demographic profiling of respondents but instead focused on variables directly relevant to the analytical framework.

Within the respondent profile and connection to the city of Jelgava section, respondents were asked to provide information on their age, divided into age groups (<18; 18–25; 26–45; 46–60; >60), reflecting different life stages and associated roles and responsibilities (e.g., education, employment status, tax-paying status, or involvement in property and neighbourhood maintenance) without requiring detailed information in the survey. Age was considered important for identifying potentially differing interests and perspectives related to urban green space management. An important component of the profile concerned the respondent’s occupation, with specific options highlighting professions related to environmental protection, biology, forestry, ecology, spatial planning, architecture, landscape architecture, urban planning, horticulture, and land management. These categories enabled subsequent comparison between respondents professionally involved in environmental fields and those without such backgrounds, allowing assessment of whether education and knowledge are key factors influencing more positive attitudes towards urban grasslands. The respondent profile also included a question on the frequency of presence in Jelgava, which is essential for interpreting responses related to the scenario-based evaluation of urban grassland integration in real urban locations. In addition, respondents were asked about their overall attitude towards urban green spaces and their perceived importance.

Given the diversity of terminology related to grasslands in the scientific literature, the survey included a question assessing respondents’ understanding of the term “urban grasslands”. The relevance of this question has also been emphasised by previous studies [7], as urban grasslands are often perceived by residents as unmanaged or abandoned areas. Subsequently, respondents were asked about their attitude towards the implementation of urban grasslands in the city of Jelgava—whether negative, neutral, or positive—and about the urban areas or zones where the establishment of urban grasslands would be acceptable. The response options included the following: city outskirts with lower pedestrian flow; roadsides; underused areas; all urban green spaces; private gardens; and no areas.

The next section consisted of scenario-based evaluations of urban grasslands grounded in real urban contexts within Jelgava. Three main scenarios were presented: intensively maintained lawn; extensively maintained and enhanced existing grassland through overseeding with native grassland plant seeds; and flowering urban meadow, which could be composed not only of flowering meadow species but also of perennial plantings (Figure 3). In certain scenarios (for residential areas, along riverbanks, and within underused green spaces), additional environmental elements were included, such as insect hotels and educational information boards, as well as combinations of scenarios (e.g., semi-natural grasslands with mown edges, or flowering urban meadows combined with intensively maintained lawns). The three scenarios were developed for different types of urban areas based on their functional characteristics, including street landscape spaces (shaded and open and sun-exposed roadsides, roundabouts, slopes); riverbanks; technical areas; courtyards of residential areas; and underused green spaces (Figure 3).

Following the section on the selection of the most appropriate scenarios for different urban areas in the city of Jelgava, the survey concluded with questions addressing the benefits and constraints associated with urban grasslands from economic, ecological, and social perspectives.

Concerning the potential benefits of urban grassland implementation, respondents were asked to select from the following ecological benefits: enhancement of biodiversity and attraction of pollinators; attraction of insects that contribute to pest control; improvement in urban air quality through the removal of dust and pollutants; improvement of soil quality and reduction in soil contamination; and support for rainwater retention and runoff regulation. Economic benefits included overall improvement in the urban environment; contribution to tourism development; and reduction in maintenance costs for urban green spaces. Social benefits included the creation of new and engaging experiences and the enhancement of public environmental education. In addition, the options “no benefits” and “other” were provided, allowing respondents to further supplement the list of perceived benefits.

Regarding the main constraints on the implementation of urban grasslands, respondents were offered a range of options. Ecological constraints included public concerns such as fear of insects and ticks, the potential spread of invasive species (e.g., Arion vulgaris), and allergic reactions to grassland vegetation. Economic constraints included urban regulations that are not adapted to grassland-based management (e.g., restrictions on permissible grass height), high establishment costs, and high maintenance costs. Social constraints related to existing public perceptions and experiences, including the association of urban grasslands with “weed fields,” overgrown grasslands, or neglected spaces. Respondents were also allowed to add additional constraints.

The collected data were analysed using descriptive statistical methods, as the primary aim of the survey was to identify key social factors, motivations, and constraints related to the implementation of urban grasslands in cities, providing a foundation for further research and the development of new planning and management approaches. Data processing and statistical calculations were carried out using Microsoft Excel, which was employed for data organisation, coding, and the computation of summary statistics.

4. Results

4.1. Socio-Institutional Factors Influencing Grassland Implementation from the Perspective of Municipal Authorities

Interviews with municipal specialists indicate that institutional experience with urban grassland implementation and management outside specially protected areas in Latvia is recent and still evolving, typically limited to the past three to four years. Earlier initiatives undertaken 10–15 years ago were not sustained, and current efforts are characterised by gradual adaptation of existing planning instruments and regulatory frameworks rather than the introduction of entirely new governance models.

4.1.1. Regulatory Framework and Terminology

A central issue identified by interviewees concerns the formal integration of urban grasslands into municipal planning frameworks. Urban grasslands are explicitly addressed only in the planning documents of Rīga and Cēsis [52,53], while other municipalities are still in the process of updating and adapting their urban green infrastructure planning, implementation, and management frameworks. In several municipalities, the practical implementation of grasslands currently conflicts with existing binding municipal regulations, such as those defining maximum allowable grass height in urban areas and associated penalty mechanisms. These regulations were originally developed for intensively managed urban lawns and do not distinguish urban grasslands as a separate green space category with different ecological and maintenance requirements. At the same time, urban grasslands do not fall under the management frameworks for natural grasslands, which are governed by nature management plans for specially protected nature areas, within which most urban grasslands are not included. This creates a regulatory gap between the management practices of conventional lawns, urban grasslands, and protected natural grasslands.

Terminological inconsistency further complicates institutional integration. In Rīga and Cēsis, different concepts are used in official documents: “urban meadows” [53] in Rīga, with a stronger emphasis on native grassland plant communities, and “landscape meadows” [52] in Cēsis, defined as nature-oriented grassland types dominated by vegetation similar to natural grassland habitats and free from invasive alien species. Across municipalities, no unified terminology is applied, and interviewees noted that this lack of conceptual clarity affects both regulatory drafting and practical implementation.

Although the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 calls for cities with more than 20,000 inhabitants to develop green infrastructure plans, only the municipality of Rīga currently has dedicated thematic plans addressing landscape and green infrastructure issues. Four of the eight interviewed municipalities have initiated, or plan to initiate in the near future, the preparation of urban green infrastructure plans in which grasslands are intended to be included, while the remaining municipalities acknowledge the need for such plans but are not yet prepared to develop them.

Specific binding regulations governing the establishment and management of urban grasslands have been adopted only in Rīga and Cēsis. In Cēsis, urban grasslands have been implemented as a municipal initiative that reflects the city’s natural and cultural heritage context within a specially protected nature area—Gauja National Park. The binding regulations define the concept of “landscape meadows” and establish management requirements applicable to property owners and land managers [52], including mowing once per season without mulching, removal of cut biomass, intensified mowing (four times per season) in buffer zones near pedestrian areas and parking spaces, installation of informational displays according to unified visual standards, and obligations to prevent invasive species, herbicide use, and dry biomass accumulation.

In Rīga, “urban meadows” were implemented within the LIFE programme project LIFEcircles, aimed at enhancing urban biodiversity and increasing the overall area of semi-natural grasslands in Latvia. Rīga developed specific binding regulations governing planning, establishment, and management [53], prescribing two mowing events per year (early summer and early autumn), removal of cut biomass, intensified management near publicly used areas, a defined width of buffer strips (2 m), and a maximum grass height of 20 cm. However, neither Rīga nor Cēsis regulations include technical recommendations regarding soil composition or plant species selection.

Overall, the findings indicate that while certain municipalities have developed formal regulatory instruments enabling urban grassland integration, institutional frameworks across Latvia remain uneven and still evolving. Regulatory mechanisms primarily address maintenance parameters and visual standards, whereas comprehensive technical and planning integration is still under development.

4.1.2. Objectives of Grassland Establishment

Across all municipalities, biodiversity conservation and the provision of ecosystem services constitute the primary objectives of urban grassland establishment. However, the emphasis varies by municipal context. Larger cities (e.g., Rīga, Liepāja) additionally highlight public education and aesthetic enhancement, whereas smaller municipalities (e.g., Jūrmala, Cēsis, Valmiera) [31,54,55,56] more strongly associate grassland implementation with habitat restoration and the preservation of natural grasslands within or adjacent to specially protected areas located in urban environments.

In several municipalities, objectives remain weakly formalised, and grassland initiatives have originated from individual development or research projects (e.g., Rīga’s urban meadows), later assumed by municipalities for continued management and sometimes in cooperation with the Latvian Nature Fund [42]. Conversely, in municipalities with extensive protected coastal grasslands (e.g., Ventspils, Jūrmala), urban grasslands are not considered a strategic priority. These differences indicate that implementation is largely driven by local ecological context and institutional motivation rather than a uniform national framework.

4.1.3. Grassland Management Approaches and Maintenance Costs

Management approaches include late mowing, removal of cut biomass, and, in some cases, grazing. Larger municipalities tend to apply standardised regimes, often shaped by outsourced maintenance contracts, while smaller municipalities adopt more flexible, site-specific practices. Although nature-based methods such as grazing are increasingly considered, their applicability depends on spatial and infrastructural conditions.

Funding structures reflect institutional capacity. Larger municipalities (e.g., Rīga, Liepāja) often rely on EU projects or national co-financing during the initial phase of urban grassland implementation, while smaller municipalities depend primarily on municipal budgets [11,13]. Despite expectations that grasslands may reduce long-term maintenance costs, no municipality currently applies a standardised cost-calculation model. Interviewees consistently identified uncertainties regarding long-term maintenance regimes, lack of adapted technical equipment—particularly for biomass collection—and experimental management practices (e.g., grazing and community involvement) as core constraints limiting institutional confidence and broader scaling.

4.1.4. Public Attitude and Participation

Public participation is regarded as an important governance instrument supporting implementation. Municipalities have organised campaigns, educational events, and awareness initiatives, particularly in Rīga and Salaspils [57], while informational signage has been installed in Cēsis, Rīga, and Sigulda. The “Natural Meadow Product” label introduced by the Latvian Nature Fund in 2023 [58] further promotes grassland values, although primarily in rural contexts.

Interviewed specialists report that public attitudes are generally positive; however, resistance is more frequently encountered in larger cities, often due to stereotypical perceptions of grasslands as unmanaged or neglected spaces, leading to public complaints. Acceptance is closely linked to communication and educational measures. In response, the municipality of Cēsis has installed informational signage at meadow sites, while Rīga has introduced similar signage within the LIFE project framework, including descriptions of plant species present in urban meadows. In Rīga’s neighbourhoods, residents are actively involved in seed collection, meadow establishment, and maintenance. These participatory mechanisms function not only as educational tools but also as instruments for legitimising and facilitating acceptance of changes in urban grassland maintenance regimes.

4.1.5. Future Potential and Possible Risks

Municipal representatives identify fire hazards, invasive slug species, and litter accumulation as the most common risks; however, these are generally considered manageable. More significant constraints relate to institutional uncertainty regarding long-term management approaches, technical solutions, and maintenance implications. While most municipalities plan to expand grassland areas and continue educational activities, the absence of stable technical standards and predictable management models reduces administrative motivation and complicates decision-making processes.

The interrelationships of socio-institutional factors influencing urban grassland implementation identified through expert interviews are shown in Figure 4.

4.2. Public Perception of Grassland Implementation in Urban Areas

In light of Jelgava’s initiative to establish new urban grasslands, a public survey was conducted to identify socially acceptable solutions for grassland implementation, including preferred grassland types, potential combinations of management regimes and their placement within different urban areas. A total of 116 respondents participated in the survey, primarily reflecting perspectives of individuals familiar with or engaged in issues related to Jelgava’s urban environment. Given the early stage of urban grassland implementation, the survey was designed to generate exploratory insights into public perceptions, preferences, and potential concerns. The responses therefore represent indicative views of engaged community members and help in identifying socially relevant factors influencing urban grassland integration. These findings complement the institutional perspective derived from expert interviews and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of opportunities and challenges associated with biodiversity-oriented landscape management in the city. All age groups were represented, with the largest proportion comprising respondents aged 18–44 years (66%), reflecting the most socially active group in terms of engagement with initiatives aimed at improving quality of life. Smaller proportions were recorded for the 45–64 age group (29%) and respondents under 18 (5%), largely due to the survey’s distribution via social media.

Of the respondents, 56% reside in Jelgava, while the remainder either work or study in Jelgava (22%) or visit the city occasionally as tourists or for other purposes (22%). Approximately 28% of respondents are professionally involved in environmental or landscape-related fields, enabling analysis of the influence of environmental education on the understanding and perceived role of urban grasslands. The relationship between prior environmental knowledge and perception is reflected in responses to questions such as “How do I understand the term ‘urban grassland’?” and “Do I want urban grasslands to be established in the city of Jelgava?” For the question on understanding the term “urban grassland”, respondents could select multiple response options (Figure 5). Respondents with professional backgrounds in environmental and landscape planning tended to perceive urban grasslands as encompassing multiple implementation approaches, including reduced mowing of existing grasslands as well as meadows established through sowing or planting flowering species. In contrast, respondents without such backgrounds more often selected a single grassland type, and less frequently recognised the diversity of possible urban grassland forms.

Overall, public support for the establishment of urban grasslands in the city of Jelgava is high (96%), with 51% of respondents indicating conditional support, provided that grasslands are implemented in specific locations considered suitable for this purpose. Only 4% of respondents opposed the establishment of urban grasslands. Notably, none of the respondents expressing opposition were professionally involved in environmental or landscape-related fields.

In the subsequent question, respondents were asked to identify urban locations where they considered the establishment of urban grasslands to be appropriate. The majority of respondents identified currently underused urban areas as suitable locations, followed by peripheral urban zones, while private gardens were least frequently selected (Figure 6).

In the next step, eight urban locations, each represented by three modelled grassland scenarios, were presented to respondents, who were asked to select the scenario they considered most suitable for each specific location (Figure 7). The results of the scenario selection reflected the same overall trend observed in the previous question regarding the most suitable locations for urban grassland implementation. The highest level of support for grassland establishment was associated with underused and abandoned areas, as well as technical urban spaces.

Intensively maintained lawn was not selected as the most suitable option in any of the analysed locations. Its highest level of support (16%) was recorded in residential areas, while the lowest (4%) occurred in underused areas. Among the three scenarios, the urban meadow scenario—including flowering sown meadows or meadow-like perennial plantings—was the most popular. This preference highlights the importance of designing urban grasslands that are not only biologically diverse but also aesthetically attractive. For technical and underused areas, respondents also identified extensively managed existing grasslands as an appropriate solution.

Based on the selected scenarios that include an intensively managed buffer strip between urban grasslands and pedestrian zones, it can be concluded that respondents favour a regularly mown lawn strip separating grasslands from streets and pedestrian paths, as it provides a clear visual structure and a sense of safety.

The final survey questions focused on the benefits of urban grasslands (Figure 8) and the barriers to their implementation (Figure 9).

Respondents primarily highlighted ecological benefits, particularly biodiversity enhancement (89.7%), improved air quality and dust reduction (63.8%), and pest control (56%). Economic and social benefits were perceived as less significant; however, respondents most frequently emphasised public education and the creation of new, positive experiences (59.5%), as well as reduced maintenance costs (46.6%), as the main advantages in these domains.

As limiting factors, respondents most frequently identified previous experience and perceptions associating urban grasslands with neglect and abandonment (79.3%). Equally significant were concerns about ticks, insects, and the potential spread of invasive species, particularly the Spanish slug (Arion vulgaris), within grassland areas. Respondents indicated that such risks could reduce opportunities to use and enjoy these spaces and might also increase the risk of pest invasions in private gardens. Similar concerns were also expressed during the municipal expert interviews, indicating convergence between public perception and professional experience.

5. Discussion

5.1. Institutional Perspective for Integration of Urban Grasslands into City Green Infrastructure

In line with the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 [2] and related European policy frameworks [24,25] promoting urban greening and nature-based solutions, the findings from Latvian cities illustrate an uneven but emerging institutional transition toward integrating urban grasslands into green infrastructure. Only two of the eight analysed cities have approved greening plans (Rīga) or are currently in the process of developing them (Liepāja). The role of these plans extends beyond the creation of a coherent network of green spaces to include the implementation of nature-based solutions, such as urban grasslands, which can enhance urban ecological quality by increasing biodiversity, improving soil, water and air quality, mitigating urban overheating, and promoting more effective rainwater infiltration, among other benefits. While strategic ambitions at the EU level emphasise biodiversity enhancement and ecosystem service provision [2,24,25], the results of the present study demonstrate that practical implementation remains strongly conditioned by municipal regulatory instruments and planning cultures.

A key issue identified in the Latvian context—terminological inconsistency—mirrors broader challenges noted in the literature. As previously highlighted by several researchers [1,4,5,7,8,16], the conceptual diversity surrounding “urban grasslands,” “urban meadows,” and “semi-natural grasslands” reflects methodological flexibility but complicates policy translation. The present study confirms that inconsistent terminology at the municipal level directly affects regulatory drafting and implementation clarity. Unlike in Scandinavian contexts, where lawn alternatives have been systematically theorised and implemented [4,6,7,14], Latvian municipalities are still negotiating definitional and legal distinctions between conventional lawns and biodiversity-oriented grasslands.

The findings are consistent with previous studies [4,7], which argue that rewilding-oriented lawn alternatives require formal integration into governance frameworks in order to achieve scalability. Such binding regulations define both terminology and the conditions governing grassland establishment (e.g., objectives, criteria defining urban grasslands, recommended plant species, and soil conditions) as well as management regimes (e.g., mowing frequency and the removal and disposal of cut biomass), and provide the legal basis for municipalities to apply differentiated maintenance regimes across urban areas. In Latvia, only Rīga and Cēsis have adopted binding regulations specifying mowing regimes and buffer-zone management [52,53], while other municipalities continue to operate under lawn-based maintenance standards. This confirms the observation by other researchers [9,21,23] that institutional inertia and existing maintenance contracts often constrain systemic change.

The economic dimension observed in this study also corresponds with empirical findings from Watson et al. [23], who demonstrated measurable cost reductions (approximately 36%) under reduced mowing regimes. Municipal expert interviews in Latvia similarly indicate that an extensive mowing regime (one to two cuts annually) represents the most economically favourable management approach. However, the disposal of grassland cuttings remains a logistical and financial challenge, as municipalities are often not yet structurally adapted to this process in terms of collection logistics, transport arrangements, and appropriate treatment or recycling pathways. The logistical challenge of biomass disposal identified in this study echoes broader discussions on circular economy integration in urban green space management [21]. Although initial establishment costs for sown meadows—such as site preparation, seed mixtures, and early-stage weed control—are higher than for conventional lawns, these costs are typically offset within several years by reduced maintenance requirements. This is consistent with international case studies demonstrating that establishment costs represent a short-term investment, whereas maintenance savings accrue over the medium to long term [3,7,23]. While ecological multifunctionality is well documented—including air purification [19,22], soil enhancement [20,21,22], and biodiversity support [4,5,8,16,17,18]—the present findings highlight that technical infrastructure and operational capacity remain decisive limiting factors at the municipal level. In contrast to the quantitative cost–benefit modelling applied in Watson et al. [23], Latvian municipalities lack standardised economic assessment tools, resulting in cautious administrative decision-making. This supports researchers [8,23] who note that economic arguments alone rarely drive transformation without institutional adaptation.

Overall, this study extends existing ecological and economic evidence by demonstrating that the primary barriers to urban grassland mainstreaming in Latvia are institutional rather than ecological. The gap between strategic biodiversity objectives and operational municipal frameworks confirms that socio-institutional alignment—terminology, binding regulations, technical standards, and maintenance routines—is a prerequisite for scaling nature-based lawn alternatives. Without such integration, urban grasslands risk remaining pilot-based or project-driven initiatives rather than becoming embedded components of urban green infrastructure systems.

5.2. Social Challenges for Urban Grasslands

Social acceptance remains a key constraint on scaling urban grasslands, consistent with European evidence that meadow-like vegetation can be valued for biodiversity yet contested in everyday urban settings [4,7,9,10]. Particular public survey results show the same pattern: respondents generally recognised ecological benefits but preferred urban grasslands in peripheral, road-verge, underused, or technical spaces rather than in residential courtyards or representative city-centre areas. Such spatial preferences align with studies demonstrating that acceptance of “wilder” vegetation is strongly context-dependent and tends to be lower where people expect highly controlled and tidy landscapes [9,10].

This tendency is widely linked to the persistence of the short-cut lawn norm, where mown lawns are interpreted as signals of order, safety, and care, while meadow-like structures may be read as neglect [4,7,14]. In the study, perceived risks—particularly ticks, insects, invasive species (e.g., Spanish slug), and reduced visibility—were among the most frequently reported barriers, reinforcing earlier findings that perceived “messiness” and uncertainty can outweigh acknowledged ecological value in public judgement [4,7,9,10,14]. Importantly, this confirms the recurring mismatch between ecological evidence and public perception, implying that implementation success depends not only on ecological performance but also on managing symbolic and safety-related meanings attached to urban vegetation [9,14].

The literature also shows that acceptance can be improved when grassland interventions combine biodiversity goals with visible cues of intentional management—such as defined edges with mown strips, and clear informational framing—often conceptualised as “cues to care” [9]. Scenario results from the public perception study support this: respondents consistently favoured options that included an intensively managed buffer strip between grasslands and pedestrian zones, suggesting that spatial framing and legibility are central to perceived appropriateness and safety. Similarly, participatory and communication measures (e.g., signage, campaigns, resident involvement) described by municipal specialists correspond with evidence that engagement and interpretive framing can increase perceived legitimacy and reduce “neglect” interpretations, particularly in highly visible urban locations [9].

By integrating municipal expert perspectives with a location-specific scenario survey conducted in an early-adoption context, the study provides empirically informed insights into how social acceptability in Latvian cities is shaped by spatial placement and the signalling of management intent. The findings demonstrate that public concerns (e.g., pests, invasive species, and safety) converge with municipal experience, suggesting that social barriers cannot be reduced to perceptual bias alone. Rather, they interact with governance decisions, including design standards, edge management, and communication strategies, which collectively influence whether urban grasslands remain confined to pilot initiatives or become institutionalised as routine components of urban green infrastructure.

6. Conclusions

This study assessed the socio-institutional opportunities and barriers to integrating urban grasslands into green infrastructure in Latvian cities. Designed as an exploratory assessment of public perceptions, the research provides empirically informed insights into factors that may shape acceptance of urban grassland implementation in a medium-sized urban context. By identifying dominant attitudinal patterns and potential drivers of support or concern, the study offers a useful foundation for context-sensitive urban planning and for the design of future research employing larger samples or probability-based sampling strategies. In this sense, the findings represent an initial step towards a more comprehensive understanding of public responses to biodiversity-oriented landscape management approaches in urban environments. The findings suggest that successful implementation is likely to depend on the interaction between public perception, institutional capacity, and formal regulatory frameworks rather than on ecological arguments alone.

Evidence from the exploratory survey indicates that acceptance of urban grasslands tends to be conditioned by spatial and aesthetic context (first hypothesis). Although overall support appears relatively high, preferences vary systematically by location, with respondents favouring grasslands in peripheral, underused, and technical areas rather than in residential neighbourhoods or central urban spaces. Acceptance also seems to increase when grasslands are accompanied by visible management cues—such as mown buffer strips—that communicate intentional maintenance and perceived safety. At the same time, persistent concerns regarding neglect, insects, and invasive species continue to influence public attitudes and potentially constrain broader implementation.

The findings related to the second hypothesis suggest that institutional capacity plays a decisive role in determining the scalability of urban grassland implementation. Municipalities with clearly defined management regimes and binding regulations (e.g., Rīga and Cēsis) exhibit more structured and systematic approaches. Nevertheless, expansion remains constrained by technical capacity limitations, particularly in relation to biomass collection, equipment availability, and the absence of standardised cost-assessment frameworks. These constraints indicate that institutional readiness depends not only on regulatory clarity and political willingness but equally on operational and logistical capacity.

In line with the third hypothesis, the analysis further demonstrates that explicit policy recognition and planning instruments defining urban grasslands as components of green infrastructure enhance institutional legitimacy and reduce regulatory ambiguity. Where such formalisation is absent, implementation tends to remain fragmented, project-based, and dependent on individual initiatives rather than embedded within routine municipal practice.

The study further reveals the absence of a shared typology and unified terminology for urban grasslands in Latvia, creating regulatory and planning inconsistencies. Developing a clearly defined typological framework—specifying grassland functions, spatial suitability, and management parameters—emerges as a critical next step for policy coherence at both municipal and national levels.

Future research should prioritise the development of standardised cost–benefit assessment tools capable of supporting evidence-based municipal decision-making, alongside systematic evaluations of the long-term ecological and social performance of different grassland types across diverse urban contexts. In addition, greater attention should be devoted to analysing participatory governance models that can enhance institutional legitimacy and strengthen public acceptance, particularly in high-use urban areas where social expectations and aesthetic norms are more pronounced. Comparative research across Northern and Central Europe would further contribute to understanding how differing institutional legacies and administrative traditions shape the transition from intensively managed lawns toward biodiversity-oriented urban grassland systems.