Landscaping with Fruits: Citizens’ Perceptions toward Urban Horticulture and Design of Urban Gardens
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Investigation of Citizens’ Familiarity with Food Production in Urban Conditions and Its Benefits—Survey Results
3.2. Urban Spaces’ Designs with Fruit Species and Roses as Edible Alternatives to Inedible Ornamentals
4. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
No. | Question | Possible Answers |
---|---|---|
1 | Gender: | Female Male |
2 | Age: | <25 25–40 41–65 >65 |
3 | Occupation: | Pupil/student Employed Unemployed Retiree |
4 | Education: | Elementary school High school Faculty—bachelor studies Faculty—master studies Faculty—doctoral studies |
5 | Place of residence: | Urban settlement Rural settlement |
6 | Are you familiar with the term urban horticulture? | Yes No |
7 | How did you find out about the mentioned term? | I hear it now for the first time From family member, neighbor, friend Via the internet From the newspaper/journal Via the television/radio Other: (write your answer) |
8 | Explanation in the context of the study: Urban horticulture is the production of partially or fully edible plants in the city environment or suburbs, in collective city gardens or on private balconies, roofs, in yards, gardens, etc. | |
Impact on environment | ||
8-1 | By producing food for my own needs, I contribute positively to the environment and improve the immediate living environment in the city. | 1–4 scale * |
8-2 | By producing food for my own needs, I reduce my negative contribution to climate change. | 1–4 scale |
8-3 | Gardening practicing indicates the fact that an individual respects and highly values nature as an integral part of his environment. | 1–4 scale |
8-4 | The establishment of urban gardens encourages the revival of abandoned and neglected plots in the city and beautifies the environment. | 1–4 scale |
Impact on food safety and economy | ||
8-5 | The food I produce myself is healthier and safer than food bought in stores. | 1–4 scale |
8-6 | By producing food for my own needs, I contribute to food sustainability in my city and/or beyond. | 1–4 scale |
8-7 | By producing food for my own needs, I save money. | 1–4 scale |
8-8 | Urban horticulture provides access to a wider range of healthy, nutritious foods. | 1–4 scale |
Impact on social relations and society | ||
8-9 | Gardening encourages socialization with other people. | 1–4 scale |
8-10 | The establishment of urban gardens increases the safety of previously abandoned locations and reduces the level of legal offenses and crimes in that environment. | 1–4 scale |
8-11 | The establishment of urban gardens increases the chances of employment for the urban population. | 1–4 scale |
8-12 | The establishment of urban gardens connects people of different ages, genders, occupations, interests, financial situations and nations. | 1–4 scale |
Impact on personal health and development | ||
8-13 | Gardening is a great opportunity for recreation/relaxation. | 1–4 scale |
8-14 | Gardening encourages personal development and strengthens self-confidence. | 1–4 scale |
8-15 | Gardening improves the emotional status of an individual. | 1–4 scale |
8-16 | Gardening has a positive effect on a child’s development. | 1–4 scale |
8-17 | Gardening together with family members encourages communication and strengthens family ties. | 1–4 scale |
Impact on learning and play activities | ||
8-18 | By producing food, I improve my gardening skills. | 1–4 scale |
8-19 | Gardening connects the individual with nature and enables observation of nature and understanding of natural processes. | 1–4 scale |
8-20 | Gardening has an educational function. | 1–4 scale |
8-21 | Urban gardens are an ideal place for children’s play. | 1–4 scale |
9 | Do you or your family members engage in food production to meet your own needs, in urban conditions? | Yes (proceed to questions 10 and 11) No |
10 | Which plants do you grow? | Vegetables Fruits Herbs Other: (write your answer) |
11 | Where does the food production take place? | Household yard Balcony Garden Other: (write your answer) |
12 | Are you interested in learning more about the possibilities which urban horticulture has to offer? | Yes No |
13 | Would you like to participate in workshops on this topic? | Yes (please leave your contact if you want to be informed about the workshops) No |
14 | Would you participate in maintaining an urban garden in your neighborhood/part of the city, without monetary compensation? | Yes, if it were possible for me to use produced food. Yes, if the produced food is intended for humanitarian purposes. Yes, I consider it a great opportunity for socializing and relaxation. Yes, if all the resources needed for production were provided (seeds, seedlings, etc.). No, I’m not interested in that. No, I don’t have time. Other: (write your answer) |
Appendix B
Species, Cultivar and Its Characteristics | Author(s) and Year of Publication |
---|---|
Pome Fruits | |
Apple cultivars ‘Ariane’—apple scab (Venturia inaequalis)-resistant, some resistance to fire blight (Erwinia amylovora) and powdery mildew (Podosphaera leucotricha); ‘Crimson Crisp’—moderate-to-low vigor, round habit, resistant to apple scab; ‘Juliet’—moderately vigorous, gene for apple scab resistance, resistant to fire blight and powdery mildew; ‘Rebella’—medium vigor, resistant to apple scab, powdery mildew, fire blight, Pseudomonas syringae, red spider mite; ‘Sundance’—moderate vigor, resistant to apple scab, fire blight, cedar apple rust (Gymnosporangium juniperi-virginianae), moderately tolerant to powdery mildew | Clark and Finn, 2006 [99] |
Apple cultivars ‘Civg198’—moderate to low vigor, resistant to apple scab, very tolerant to mildew and aphids (Aphis L.); ‘Nicoter’—medium vigor, good heat and drought tolerance | Finn and Clark, 2008 [100] |
Apple cultivar ‘Co-op 31’—moderately vigorous, immunity to apple scab, good resistance to fire blight, moderate resistance to powdery mildew | Clark and Finn, 2010 [101] |
Apple cultivars ‘Goldlane’—compact, columnar, resistant to apple scab; ‘Moonlight’—compact, columnar, resistant to apple scab, tolerant to powdery mildew; ‘Smaragd’—compact, columnar, low vigor, suitable as a potted tree | Finn and Clark, 2012 [87] Ognjanov, 2011 [88] |
Apple cultivars ‘JFS-KW207’—compact dwarf ornamental crab apple, resistant to fire blight and apple scab; ‘Lurechild’—low vigor, hardy, resistant to apple scab; ‘Mored’—moderate vigor, hardy, tolerant to powdery mildew and gloeosporium rot | Gašić et al., 2018 [92] |
Apple cultivars ‘A 68-173’—columnar, tolerant to drought, tolerant to apple scab and powdery mildew; ‘CP 101’—low–moderate vigor, tolerant to brown marmorated stink bug (Halyomorpha halys) and fire blight | Gašić et al., 2020 [94] |
Apple cultivars ‘Lilac’, ‘Magenta’—compact, columnar, weak to moderate vigor, resistant to apple scab | Karp and Gašić, 2022 [89] |
Apple cultivars ‘Colmar’, ‘Colonade’—columnar, low vigor, resistant to apple scab; ‘Rustic’—scab- and powdery-mildew-resistant | Branişte et al., 2013 [90] |
Apple cultivar ‘MacExcel’—columnar, moderate vigor, hardy, tolerant to apple scab and resistant to powdery mildew | Khanizadeh et al., 2002 [114] |
Apple cultivar ‘Poesia’—columnar, winter-hardy, resistant to apple scab | Korneeva et al., 2021 [115] |
Pear cultivars ‘Paradox’, ‘Paradise’—tolerance to Erwinia and Psylla sp. | Branişte et al., 2013 [90] |
Pear cultivars ‘HW610’, ‘HW616’—medium vigor, cold-hardy, resistance to fire blight; ‘P448-2’—moderate vigor, fire blight tolerance, recommended for home gardens | Finn and Clark, 2008 [100] |
Pear cultivar ‘Ivanino zlato’—recommended for organic and amateur growing in home gardens, resistant to all fungal diseases and pear flea (Psylla pyri), vigorous but precocious and highly productive with attractive fruits | Ognjanov et al., 2017 [91] |
Pear cultivars ‘Armida’—compact semi-dwarf, resistant to spring frost, tolerant to pear scab (Venturia pirina) and powdery mildew; ‘CH201’—drooping habit, medium-weak growth, resistance to fire blight; ‘Manon’—flat pyramid, medium-dwarf growth, tolerant to scab and mildew; ‘Uta’—compact, low vigor, resistant to scab | Gašić et al., 2018 [92] |
Pear cultivars ‘Moonglow’—upright, vigorous tree, dwarf or small tree, very resistant to fire blight; ‘Red Sensation Bartlett’—dwarf or small tree, rewarding additions to the landscape across the seasons; ‘Anjou’—upright, vigorous, dwarf or small tree, moderately resistant to fire blight | Internet source [116] |
Quince cultivar ‘Leskovačka’—low vigor, high adaptability; ‘Hemus’, ‘Asenica’, ‘Triumph’—moderately vigorous, highly tolerant to fire blight | Radović et al., 2016 [117], Ljubojević et al., 2018 [118] |
Quince cultivar ‘Serbian Gold’—small compact tree, good resistance to leaf blight (Diplocarpon mespili), relatively trouble-free, self-fertile, also worthy of planting in larger numbers | Internet source [119] |
Hawthorn cultivar Crataegus ambigua ‘Meyer ex Becker’—small tree, useful landscaping plant, tolerates drought conditions and difficult sites, resistant to cedar apple rust | Internet source [120] |
Hawthorn cultivar Crataegus x media ‘Punicea Flore Pleno’—highly ornamental and robust, small tree, wet-tolerant, chalk-tolerant | Internet source [119] |
Hawthorn cultivars Crataegus viridis ‘Winter King’—small ornamental tree, for use against an evergreen background, noted for its disease resistance; Crataegus laevigata ‘Punicea’ (English Hawthorn)—small, low-branching deciduous tree, noted for its resistance to leaf spot | Internet source [116] |
Medlar cultivars ‘Dutch’ and ‘Nottingham’—compact trees, self-fertile, ornamental habit | Internet source [121] |
Medlar cultivar ‘Royal’—compact, small tree, very useful for smaller spaces, self-fertile | Internet source [119] |
Rowan cultivars Sorbus aucuparia ‘Asplenifolia’—small, elegant tree, moderate growth, hardy, not affected by Ash disease (Chalara fraxinea); ‘Autumn Spire’—columnar rowan, compact, narrow, upright habit, moderate growth, hardy; ‘Sorbus cashmiriana’—moderate growth, hardy, small garden tree, not affected by Ash disease | Internet source [122] |
Rowan cultivar Sorbus hupehensis ‘Pink Pagoda’—small garden tree, moderate growth, hardy | Internet source [116] |
Rowan cultivar ‘Fastigiata’—columnar to narrowly conical; ‘Nana’—dwarf growth | Ljubojević et al., 2018 [118] |
Common whitebeam cultivar ‘Quercoides’—dense, compact shrub | Fay and Rich, 2022 [123] |
Stone Fruits | |
Peach cultivars ‘Bolero’—moderate–vigorous spreading; leaves and fruit resistant to bacterial spot (Xanthomonas arboricola pv. pruni), medium chilling requirements; ‘Juliepretty’—medium to large, moderately vigorous, half-standing semi-spreading, winter-hardy, spring-frost-resistant; ‘UF ONE’—medium, moderately vigorous, semi-spreading, high leaf and fruit resistance to bacterial spot | Finn and Clark, 2012 [87] |
Peach cultivar ‘Souvenirs’—large flowers, showy, resistant to bacterial spot, hardy with good flower bud survival with mid-winter lows of –17 °C | Gašić and Preece, 2014 [102] |
Peach cultivar ‘GulfAtlas’—medium size, moderate vigor, semi-spreading growth habit, light to medium dense, highly resistant to bacterial spot | Gašić et al., 2018 [92] |
Nectarine cultivars ‘Cakepearl’—medium to high, vigorous, semi-spread and semi-upright, medium dense to dense, hardy, very frost resistant; ‘Cakeredal’—medium to high, vigorous, semi-spread and semi-upright, medium dense to dense, hardy, very frost resistant; ‘Nectardream’—medium, vigorous, semi-spread to semi-upright, hardy, very frost resistant; ‘Amoore Sweet’—resistant to bacterial spot, hardy with good flower bud survival with mid-winter lows of –17 °C; ‘Nectarlove’—medium to high, vigorous, very productive, semi-spread and semi-upright, medium dense to dense, hardy, very frost resistant; ‘Nectarperf’—medium to high, vigorous, semi-spread and semi-upright, medium dense to dense, hardy, very frost resistant | Gašić and Preece, 2014 [102] |
Nectarine cultivar ‘Nectabingo’—moderate vigor, semi-flared to semi-upright shape, cold-hardy | Gašić et al., 2016 [93] |
Almond cultivar ‘Kester’—upright to spreading, moderate vigor, resistance to insects, alternaria leaf spot and scab, low susceptibility to noninfectious bud failure | Gašić at al., 2016 [93] |
Almond cultivars ‘Capella’—upright to slightly open growth habit, tolerant to bacterial spot (Xanthomonas arboricola pv. pruni); ‘Carina’—slightly spreading, bearing primarily on spurs, tolerant to bacterial spot; ‘Maxima’—slightly spreading, tolerant to bacterial spot; ‘Rhea’— growth habit slightly open, tolerant to bacterial spot | Gašić et al., 2020 [94] |
Plum cultivar ‘Dwarf’—very specific columnar shape of tree growth, tolerant to plum pox virus (Potyvirus sp.) | Novotná et al., 2021 [95] |
Plum cultivar ‘Jojo’—very attractive small tree, first-ever plum tree variety fully resistant to plum pox virus | Stefanova et al., 2010 [96] |
Plum cultivar ‘Topend’—medium strong, compact vigor, fruit and tree are tolerant to resistant to plum pox virus, low susceptibility to Monilia and rust (Tranzschelia pruni-spinosae), no fruit rot, no cracking, very good leaf and wood health | Mitre et al., 2015 [124], Internet source [125] |
Plum cultivars ‘Narrabeen’, ‘Santa Rosa’, ‘Satsuma’, ‘Mariposa’—dwarfing trees, low maintenance, ideal for backyards, pots or tubs | Internet source [126] |
Plumcot cultivar ‘Spring Satin™’—dwarf, small tree, tolerant to major plum diseases, like bacterial spot and bacterial canker | Internet source [126] |
Apricot cultivars ‘Apridwarf’—low vigor, resistant to root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.), high tolerance to root asphyxia, resistant to Rosellinia necatrix, sensitive to Agrobacterium tumefaciens; ‘Aprimed’—medium vigor, resistant to root-knot nematode, tolerance to iron chlorosis, high tolerance to root asphyxia, resistant to Phytophora, resistant to Rosellinia necatrix | Gašić et al., 2016 [93] |
Apricot cultivars ‘Rafel’—vigorous, resistance to plum pox virus; ‘Belgida’—vigorous, resistance to plum pox virus | Martínez-Calvo et al., 2010 [127] |
Apricot cultivar ‘Storey’s’—dwarf, low-maintenance tree ideal for backyards, pots or tubs | Internet source [126] |
Sweet cherry cultivars ‘Chelan’—moderate-to-low vigor, rain-crack resistance, resistance to powdery mildew; ‘Ebony Pearl’—vigorous, hardy, good rain-cracking resistance, some resistance to bacterial canker (Pseudomonas syringae) | Long et al., 2007 [97] |
Sweet cherry cultivars ‘Cavalier’—moderately vigorous with a slightly upright growth habit, good cold tolerance and disease resistance, fruits display good resistance to cracking; ‘Hedelfingen’—medium to large, hardy, good resistance to cracking and splitting | Internet source [128] Internet source [129] |
Sweet cherry cultivar ‘Cristalina’—moderate vigor, medium resistance to cracking, splitting or cracking | Internet source [130] |
Sweet cherry cultivar ‘Sweetheart’—medium-sized varietal, uniform, resistance to cracking, good resistance to brown rot (Monilinia fructicola) | Internet source [131] |
Sour cherries ‘Meteor’—medium in size, very hardy, resistant to leaf spot (Blumeriella jaapii); ‘Northstar’—small tree, very hardy, claimed to be resistant to leaf spot | Internet source [128] |
Sour cherry ‘Morina’—small tree, very ornamental, good suitability for canning and processing and is tolerant to brown rot caused by Monilinia laxa | Schuster, 2004 [98] |
Sour cherry ‘English Morello’—small, hardy, self-fertile, very good disease resistance | Internet source [132] |
Sour cherry ‘Fanal’—moderate–vigorous spreading, resistance to brown rot, very hardy (–20 °C) | Internet source [133] |
Cornelian cherries ‘Elegant’—natural dwarf, highly ornamental, self-fertile, pest- and disease-free; ‘Redstone’—very small tree, a bit of a dwarf, pest- and disease-resistant cultivar; ‘Yantarny’—small tree, pest- and disease-free; ‘Red Star’—small tree, highly ornamental, pest- and disease-free; ‘Red Dawn’—small tree, easy-to-grow and disease-resistant cultivar; ‘Vavilovets’—small tree, pest- and disease-free | Internet source [134] |
Berry Fruits | |
Raspberry cultivars ‘Aita’—relatively high yield, moderate vigor, winter-hardy, resistant to anthracnose (Elsinoe veneta); ‘Georgia’—spineless, winter-hardy, field resistance to root rot (Phytophthora fragariae var. rubi); ‘Malling Minerva’—compact habit with spine-free easily managed canes, resistant to biotypes 1 through 4 of Aphis idaei, fairly resistant to cane diseases, moderately susceptible to root rot in glass house pot tests, has remained free of Raspberry bushy dwarf virus (RBDV) for 11 years; ‘Valentina’—new canes are tall and upright with few spines, resistant to biotypes 1 through 4 of Aphis idaei, appears to have field resistance to RBDV, resistant to root rot in glasshouse pot tests | Clark and Finn, 2006 [99] |
Raspberry cultivars ‘Cascade Bounty’—very vigorous, very good field tolerance to root rot; ‘Glen Doll’—spine-free, upright, easily managed compact habit, resistant to biotypes 1 through 4 of the large raspberry aphid (Amphorophora idaei), good tolerance to spur blight (Didymella applanata) and cane botrytis (Botrytis cinerea) | Finn and Clark, 2008 [100] |
Raspberry cultivars ‘Adele’—semi-spineless, upright canes, strong vigor, adapted to low winter chill conditions, resistant to RBDV; ‘Autumn Treasure’—spine-free, upright, resistant to biotypes 1–4 of the large raspberry aphid, highly resistant to phytophthora root rot, higher tolerance to verticillium wilt (Verticillium dahliae) than other primocane-fruiting cultivars; ‘K81-6’—vigorous, moderately spiny canes, resistant to late leaf rust (Pucciniastrum americanum); ‘Rudyberry’—resistant to North American large raspberry aphid (Amphorophora agathonica), some resistance to root rot, moderately susceptible to spur blight (Didymella applanata), cane botrytis and anthracnose | Clark and Finn, 2010 [101] |
Raspberry cultivars ‘Cascade Gold’—vigorous, resistant to common strain of RBDV; ‘Glen Cally’—vigorous cane, spine-free, upright, gene A10 gives resistance to biotypes one through four of the European large raspberry aphid, susceptible to RBDV, very high field tolerance to root rot | Finn and Clark, 2012 [87] |
Raspberry cultivars ‘Cascade Harvest’—upright canes, resistant to RBDV, tolerant to root rot; ‘NR7’—dwarfing canes, ornamental plant particularly suitable to home gardens and containerized patio planting, resistant to RBDV | Gašić and Preece, 2014 [102] |
Raspberry cultivars ‘Glen Dee’—vigorous cane and good root vigor, resistant to main biotypes of European large raspberry aphid, remains free of RBDV for 5 years; ‘Julcsi’—vigor hard, upright growth habit, canes very tall, tolerant to RBDV | Gašić et al., 2018 [92] |
Raspberry cultivars ‘BC92915’—vigorous, resistant to North American aphid (Amphorophora agathonica), moderate field tolerance to root rot; ‘Bountiful’—canes semi-upright, moderately resistant to yellow rust (Phragmidium rubi-idaei), moderately susceptible to powdery mildew (Podosphaera aphanis var. aphanis); ‘Imagine’—canes upright, with strong waxy coating, moderately resistant to yellow rust and powdery mildew; ‘Gleam’—upright growth habit, moderately resistant to yellow rust, moderately susceptible to powdery mildew; ‘NN08002’—vigorous, primocanes upright, may carry resistance to RBDV, moderate field tolerance to root rot | Karp and Gašić, 2022 [89] |
Blackberry cultivar ‘Natchez’—erect to semi-erect; thornless, good vigor, moderately resistant to anthracnose | Finn and Clark, 2008 [100] |
Blackberry cultivar ‘Fruloche’—thornless upright blackberry, suitable for home gardens, no particular susceptibility to pests or diseases | Finn and Clark, 2012 [87] |
Blackberry cultivar ‘APF-190’—erect, thornless, vigorous, moderate resistance to anthracnose, cold-hardy | Gašić et al., 2016 [93] |
Blackberry cultivars ‘APF-122’—erect, strongly primocane-fruiting, highly tolerant to powdery mildew, anthracnose, crown gall (Agrobacterium tumefaciens), and botrytis; ‘APF-236T’—thornless, erect growth habit, dwarf, columnar due to shortened internode length, cold-hardy; ‘Black Cascade’—thornless, dwarf to spreading growth habit, suitable for gardens; ‘Dris Black Sixteen’—high vigor, moderately susceptible to powdery mildew, moderately resistant to drought, high temperatures, and waterlogging; ‘Mizao’—thornless, high vigor, semi-upright growth habit, disease-resistant and has very good field tolerance to root rot | Gašić et al., 2018 [92] |
Blackberry cultivars ‘Caddo’—thornless, erect growth habit, consistently high yield, cold-hardy; ‘Twilight’—vigorous, semi-erect growth habit, crown forming, less susceptible to UV and heat damage, susceptible to red berry mite (Acalitus essigi), cold hardiness very good; ‘Sweetie Pie’—thornless, upright to semi-upright growth habit, resistant to rosette disease (Cercosporella spp.), recommended for home gardens | Gašić et al., 2020 [94] |
Blackberry cultivars ‘A-2454T’—thornless, erect growth habit, cold-hardy, suitable for home gardens; ‘A-2491T’—thornless, erect growth habit, resistant to anthracnose, cold-hardy, recommended for home gardens; ‘DrisBlackEighteen’—thornless, semi-erect growth habit, resistant to fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum), moderately resistant to powdery mildew, winter hardiness, moderate drought tolerance and heat tolerance; ‘DrisBlackTwentyTwo’—thornless, erect growth habit, resistant to fusarium wilt, moderately resistant to verticillium wilt and redberry mite (Acalitus essigi) | Karp and Gašić, 2022 [89] |
Blueberry cultivars ‘DeSoto’—semi-dwarf, moderately spreading, medium vigor, providing insurance against late spring frosts; ‘Native Blue’—low-growing, compact, vigorous | Clark and Finn, 2006 [99] |
Blueberry cultivar ‘Carteret’—very high productivity, very vigorous, upright, broad soil adaptation, flowers self-fertile, abundant pollen | Finn and Clark, 2008 [100] |
Blueberry cultivars ‘Amatsubu-Boshi’—medium vigor, slightly upright, cold-hardy; ‘Celeste’—very vigorous, vase-shaped growth habit, self-fertile; adaptable to growing in different soil types, low chilling requirement; ‘Magna’—vase-shaped, grows well in a dry climate in well-drained sandy soils, low chilling requirement; ‘Ohtsubu-Boshi (Large Star)’—moderate productivity, vigorous, upright, medium in shape and growth, cold-hardy, high chilling requirement | Clark and Finn, 2010 [101] |
Blueberry cultivars ‘Augusta’—vigorous, upright, high-yielding, resistant to anthracnose (Gleosporium fructigenum) and fire blight (Erwinia amylovora), moderately resistant to Phomopsis spp. and Septoria albopunctata; ‘Azur’—vigorous, upright, productive, resistant to anthracnose, fire blight and Phomopsis spp., moderately resistant to S. albopunctata; ‘Prod’—medium vigor, large spreading, resistant to Phomopsis spp., anthracnose, and fire blight, moderately resistant to S. albopunctata; ‘Razz’—vigorous, upright and less willowy, good productivity, very good resistance to mummy berry blight (Monilinia vaccinii-corymbosi) and average resistance to fruit infection; ‘Sky Blue’—medium stature, semi-upright habit, medium to high yield, no noticeable susceptibility to cold damage or main fungal diseases; ‘Vital’—medium vigor, upright; productive, resistant to anthracnose, moderately resistant to S. albopunctata, Phomopsis spp. and E. amylovora | Finn and Clark, 2012 [87] |
Blueberry cultivars ‘Cosmopolitan’—medium vigor, semi-upright growth, high-yielding, productive, requires very little pruning and management in the field and is suitable for home gardens; ‘Lielogu’—vigorous, upright, high-yielding, resistant to anthracnose and fire blight; ‘Overtime’—fairly upright, good tolerance to bacterial canker caused by Pseudomonas syringae; ‘Salaspils Izturıga’—vigorous, upright, high-yielding, resistant to anthracnose and fire blight | Gašić and Preece, 2014 [102] |
Blueberry cultivars ‘C00-09’—vigorous; upright to bushy growth habit, moderate resistance to root disease (Phytophthora spp.), good resistance to blueberry rust and to anthracnose fruit rot, suitable for home gardens; ‘DrisBlueSeven’—medium vigor, semi-erect, very low chilling requirement, high productivity, medium cold hardiness | Gašić et al., 2016 [93] |
Blueberry cultivar ‘DrisBlueFourteen’—high vigor, semi-erect growth habit, good productivity, cold-hardy | Gašić et al., 2020 [94] |
Cranberry cultivar ‘Grygleski’—vigorous vine, winter-hardy | Clark and Finn, 2010 [101] |
Cranberry cultivar ‘BG’—vigorous, winter-hardy | Gašić and Preece, 2014 [102] |
Currant cultivars ‘Ben Avon’—upright growing, vigorous; good resistance to mildew (Sphaerotheca mors-uvae), leaf spot (Drepanopezizia ribis), low susceptibility to leaf curling midge (Dasyneura tetensi), susceptible to gall mite (Cecidophyopsis ribis) and Black currant reversion virus; ‘Ben Dorian’—strong growing, upright, resistant to powdery mildew and leaf spot, low susceptibility to leaf curling midge | Finn and Clark, 2008 [100] |
Currant cultivars ‘Blackcomb’—vigorous, resistance to powdery mildew and white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola); ‘Ores’—medium spreading habit, winter-hardy, resistant to powdery mildew and white pine blister rust, highly resistant to gall mite, moderately susceptible to leaf spot; ‘Ruben’—medium semi-upright, winter-hardy, resistant to powdery mildew and white pine blister rust, moderately susceptible to leaf spot, susceptible to gall mite | Finn and Clark, 2012 [87] |
Currant cultivar ‘Ben Chaska’—compact, upright, cold-hardy, resistant to white pine blister rust, resistant to powdery mildew | Gašić and Preece, 2014 [102] |
Currant cultivars ‘Gofert’—tall, winter-hardy, no noticeable disease or pest issues; ‘Nancy May’—compact, highly winter tolerant, no noticeable pest or disease issues; ‘Polares’—semi-upright habitat, good disease resistance and winter hardiness; ‘Stikine’—upright habitat, resistant to white pine blister rust and powdery mildew, frost-tolerant; ‘Tiben’—tall, resistant to powdery mildew and leaf spot, moderately resistant to white pine blister rust; ‘Tihope’—tall and slightly spreading, cold-hardy, highly resistant to white pine blister rust and powdery mildew | Karp and Gašić, 2022 [89] |
Gooseberry cultivar ‘Hinsel’—medium-to-strong growth, mostly upright with spreading branches, resistant to powdery mildew, moderately susceptible to leaf spot, suitable for home gardens | Finn and Clark, 2012 [87] |
Mulberry cultivar ‘Trader’—spherical crown, very vigorous when young, extremely cold-hardy, resistant to spotted-wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) | Karp and Gašić, 2022 [89] |
Kiwifruit cultivars ‘Cuiyu’—moderate vigor, tolerant to adverse conditions and diseases; ‘Emihoutao No 1’—very vigorous, tolerant to environmental stresses such as drought and waterlogging, cold-hardy, resistant to pests; ‘Ganmi No. 3’—very vigorous, adaptable and tolerant to unfavorable conditions; ‘Huayou’—vigorous, resistant to bacterial canker (Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae Van Hall); ‘Moshan No. 4’— compact growth habit, medium vigor; resistant to pests and diseases; ‘Wuyhi No 3’—very vigorous and productive, tolerant to adverse conditions, well adapted to warmer climates; ‘Yumihoutao’—vigorous, precocious, productive, cold-resistant, disease-resistant, drought-tolerant | Finn and Clark, 2012 [87] |
Kiwifruit cultivar ‘AC1536’—weak-to-medium vigor, winter-cold-tolerant; | Gašić et al., 2020 [94] |
Kiwifruit cultivars ‘Tango’—moderate–vigorous vigor, good winterhardiness; ‘Zes008’—moderate size, medium vigor, tolerant to bacterial flower rot (Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae) | Karp and Gašić, 2022 [89] |
Strawberry cultivars ‘Tamir’—moderately vigorous, no chilling requirement for flowering, good field tolerance to powdery mildew (Sphaerotheca macularis sp. fragariae); ‘Stolo’—vigorous, upright habit, winter-hardy, resistant to root weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), moderately tolerant to powdery mildew, some tolerance to strawberry virus complex transmitted by strawberry aphid (Chaetosiphon fragaefoli), tolerant to some soilborne organisms; ‘PS-4634’—vigorous, tolerant to two-spotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae), aphids (Aphis L.) and flower thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis), moderately tolerant to botrytis fruit rot (Botrytis cinerea), powdery mildew and bacterial angular leaf spot (Xanthomonas fragariae), susceptible to verticillium wilt (Verticillium dahliae); ‘Nora’—moderately vigorous, tolerant to heavy soils, drought and temperature variations, tolerant to main soilborne pathogens, tolerant to powdery mildew and moderately susceptible to anthracnose (Colletotrichum acutatum) and bacterial angular leaf spot; ‘Aguedilla’—vigorous, globose to flat globose, resistance to leather rot (Phytophthora cactorum), verticillium wilt, powdery mildew and anthracnose; ‘BG-959’—tolerant to two-spotted spider mites, aphids and flower thrips, moderately tolerant to botrytis fruit rot and powdery mildew; ‘DPI Rubygem’—strong vigor, globose compact, upright, highly resistant to fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. fragariae) | Finn and Clark, 2008 [100] |
Strawberry cultivars ‘Amelia’—vigorous, resistant to powdery mildew (Podosphaera aphanis) and phytophthora crown rot (Phytophthora cactorum), moderately susceptible to verticillium wilt; ‘Argentera’—vigorous, very productive, tolerant to main soilborne pathogens and powdery mildew, low susceptibility to anthracnose and angular leaf spot; ‘Eves Delight’—medium-to-strong vigor, moderate yield, erect, upright and open growth habit, resistant to powdery mildew, phytophthora crown rot and verticillium wilt; ‘Evie 2’—strong vigor, some tolerance to high temperatures, good tolerance to verticillium wilt, phytophthora crown rot and powdery mildew, high yield, flat globose habit; ‘Zet’—very vigorous, very productive, tolerant to abiotic stress, main soilborne pathogens and powdery mildew, medium susceptibility to anthracnose and angular leaf spot, can be grown in non-fumigated soils and organic production systems | Clark and Finn, 2010 [101] |
Strawberry cultivars ‘Glory’—medium vigor, globose, moderately susceptible to two-spotted spider mite, flower thrips (Frankliniella spp.), powdery mildew, botrytis fruit rot and angular leaf spot; ‘Herriot’—vigorous and spreading, resistant to powdery mildew, tolerant to replant diseases; ‘Portola’—medium-to-strong vigor, globose, resistant to phytophthora crown rot and common leaf spot (Ramularia tulasnei), moderately resistant to powdery mildew, anthracnose crown rot and verticillium wilt, tolerant to two-spotted spider mite | Finn and Clark, 2012 [87] |
Strawberry cultivars ‘Benicia’—moderate vigor, moderately resistant to powdery mildew, tolerant to two-spotted spider mite and local strawberry viruses, moderately susceptible to anthracnose crown rot (Colletotrichum acutatum), phytophthora crown rot and common leaf spot; ‘Joly’—vigorous, globose, semi-upright, resistant to local leaf and root diseases; ‘Malwina’—vigorous, globose, resistant to rain cracking, sunburn, verticillium wilt, local root diseases, moderately resistant to botrytis fruit rot and powdery mildew | Gašić and Preece, 2014 [102] |
Strawberry cultivars ‘AAC Lila’—medium vigor, semi-upright, moderately resistant to common leaf spot and leaf scorch (Diplocarpon earlianum), tolerant to red stele (Phytophthora fragariae), susceptible to powdery mildew (Podosphaera macularis); ‘BBB PO 01’—strong vigor; upright mounded, tolerant to phytophthora crown rot; ‘Buddy’—medium vigor, semi-erect, resistance to phytophthora crown rot and verticillium wilt; ‘Grandarosa’—strong vigor, upright globose, resistant to powdery mildew and strawberry spider mite (Tetranychus lambi), tolerant to verticillium wilt; ‘Linosa’—medium vigor, semi-upright, tolerant to phytophthora crown rot, powdery mildew, poor soils and general root and leaf diseases; ‘Merced’—medium vigor, resistant to phytophthora crown rot and common leaf spot, moderately resistant to powdery mildew and anthracnose crown rot | Gašić et al., 2016 [93] |
Strawberry cultivars ‘Yambu’—medium vigor, compact and semi-upright growth habit, resistant to botrytis fruit rot and phytophthora crown rot, somewhat resistant to powdery mildew; ‘Cabrillo’—strong vigor, upright growth habit, moderately resistant to powdery mildew, verticillium wilt, phytophthora crown rot and common leaf spot, tolerant to two-spotted spider mite and California strawberry viruses, moderately susceptible to anthracnose fruit rot; ‘Archer’—vigorous, spreading growth habit, resistant to powdery mildew, moderately tolerant to replant diseases | Gašić et al., 2018 [92] |
Strawberry cultivars ‘Allegro’—moderate-to-high vigor, compact and upright habit, moderately resistant to phytophthora crown rot; ‘Emilia’— high vigor, upright growth habit, moderately tolerant to charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseolina) and verticillium wilt; ‘Florida Brilliance’—moderate vigor, semi-upright growth habit, resistant to rain, powdery mildew, anthracnose fruit rot and charcoal rot, moderately susceptible to botrytis fruit rot | Gašić et al., 2020 [94] |
Strawberry cultivars ‘American Aroma 10’—strong vigor, globose growth habit, resistant to anthracnose crown rot and anthracnose fruit rot; ‘CIVN260’—strong vigor, upright growth habit, highly resistant to powdery mildew, generally resistant to leaf and root diseases; ‘Cordial’—moderate-to-strong vigor, compact, upright and globose growth habit, resistant to rain and anthracnose fruit rot, moderately resistant to bacterial angular leaf spot, powdery mildew, leaf scorch and leaf blight (Paraphomopsis obscurans) | Karp and Gašić, 2022 [89] |
Nuts | |
Persian walnut cultivar ‘Sexton’—moderate vigor, suitable for hedgerows, low occurrence of blight (Xanthomonas campestris pv. juglandis) | Finn and Clark, 2008 [100] |
Walnut cultivars ‘Chandler’—moderately vigorous, semi-upright, tolerant to blackline disease, less likely to be affected by frost, walnut blight and codling moth (Cydia pomonella) because of late leafing; ‘Fernor’—cold-resistant, grows in a semi-upright manner, tolerant to blackline disease, less likely to be affected by frost, walnut blight and codling moth because of late leafing | Internet source [135] |
Walnut cultivars ‘Franquette’—small tree, very resistant to frost, resistant to blight and codling moth; ‘Europa’—compact growth habit and dwarf variety, making it perfect for small gardens and limited spaces, good pest and disease resistance | Internet source [136] |
Hazelnut cultivars ‘Sacajawea’—moderately vigorous, high level of resistance to eastern filbert blight (Anisogramma anomala), resistant to big bud mites (Phytoptus avellanae and Cecidophyopsis vermiformis); ‘Santiam’—moderately vigorous, complete resistance to eastern filbert blight, moderately resistant to big bud mites | Finn and Clark, 2008 [100] |
Hazelnut cultivar ‘Dorris’—low vigor, very highly resistant to eastern filbert blight, highly resistant to bud mite | Gašić et al., 2018 [92] |
Hazelnut cultivar ‘Somerset’—low vigor, very highly resistant to eastern filbert blight | Karp and Gašić, 2022 [89] |
Hazelnut cultivars ‘Hunterdon’—vigorous, upright tree with a slightly spreading growth habit, high level of tolerance to eastern filbert blight (quantitative resistance); ‘Monmouth’—moderately vigorous tree with a slightly spreading growth habit, very high level of tolerance to eastern filbert blight (quantitative resistance) | Internet source [137] |
Hazelnut cultivars ‘Closca Molla’, ‘Ratoli’, ‘Grand Traverse’, ‘Medium Long’, Potomac’, and ‘Yoder 5’—all have ‘Gasaway’ gene for resistance to eastern filbert blight | Lunde et al., 2000 [138] |
Hazelnut cultivar ‘Webb’s Prize Cobb’—moderate-to-vigorous growth, hardy | Internet source [122] |
Chestnut cultivar ‘Jianding Youli’—semi-erect, resistant to chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitica) and chestnut weevil (Curculio sp.) | Karp and Gašić, 2022 [89] |
Chestnut cultivars ‘Marigoule’—medium-growing, upright, resistance to root rot (Phytophthora cinnamomi), winter-cold-resistant to −30 °F; ‘Maraval’—fast-growing, upright, with open interior, resistant to root rot and chestnut blight; ‘Marsol’—very upright growth, resistant to root rot, winter-cold-resistant to −30 °F; ‘Mollissima’—highly valued tree, autumnal beauty to any landscape, blight-resistant | Internet source [139] |
References
- FAO. Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. In World Food Summit 13–17 November 1996; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Ericksen, P.J. Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. Glob. Environ. Change 2008, 18, 234–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Sustainable Urbanization for Global Progress and Security; USAID: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
- Eigenbrod, C.; Gruda, N. Urban vegetable for food security in cities. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 483–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, A.J.D.; Guilherme, R.I.M.M.; Ferreira, C.S.S. Urban agriculture, a tool towards more resilient urban communities? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2018, 5, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattarai, K.; Adhikari, A.P. Promoting urban farming for creating sustainable cities in Nepal. Urban Sci. 2023, 7, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cattivelli, V. Review and analysis of the motivations associated with urban gardening in the pandemic period. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Leeuwen, E.; Nijkamp, P.; de Noronha Vaz, T. The multifunctional use of urban greenspace. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2010, 8, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lovell, S.T. Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land use planning in the United States. Sustainability 2010, 2, 2499–2522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pourias, J.; Aubry, C.; Duchemin, E. Is food a motivation for urban gardeners? Multifunctionality and the relative importance of the food function in urban collective gardens of Paris and Montreal. Agric. Hum. Values 2016, 33, 257–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, C.; Dickinson, K.J.; Porter, S.; Van Heezik, Y. “My garden is an expression of me”: Exploring householders’ relationships with their gardens. J. Environ. Psychol. 2012, 32, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chalmin-Pui, L.S.; Griffiths, A.; Roe, J.; Heaton, T.; Cameron, R. Why garden?—Attitudes and the perceived health benefits of home gardening. Cities 2021, 112, 103118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Church, A.; Mitchell, R.; Ravenscroft, N.; Stapleton, L.M. ‘Growing your own’: A multi-level modelling approach to understanding personal food growing trends and motivations in Europe. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 110, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldstein, B.; Hauschild, M.; Fernández, J.; Birkved, M. Testing the environmental performance of urban agriculture as a food supply in northern climates. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 984–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scheromm, P. Motivations and practices of gardeners in urban collective gardens: The case of Montpellier. Urban For. Urban Gree. 2015, 14, 735–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UN General Assembly. Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015; United Nations General Assembly: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Bokan, N.; Lay, V. Sociological aspects of urban gardens: Trends and progress of food production in cities. Soc. Ekol. 2018, 27, 141–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poštek, A.; Kisić, I.; Cerjak, M.; Brezinščak, L. Social aspect of urban agriculture with examples from Croatia. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2021, 22, 881–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ančić, B.; Domazet, M.; Župarić-Iljić, D. “For my health and for my friends”: Exploring motivation, sharing, environmentalism, resilience and class structure of food self-provisioning. Geoforum 2019, 106, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Istenič, S.P.; Hribar, M.Š.; Kozina, J. Nexus of urban gardening and social sustainability in European postsocialist cities. In Urban and Regional Agriculture; Droege, P., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2023; pp. 179–205. [Google Scholar]
- Zlatkova, M.I. Gardening the city: Neighbourliness and appropriation of the common spaces in Bulgaria. Colloq. Humanist. 2015, 4, 41–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matijevic, P. Searching for the plot: Narrative self-making and urban agriculture during the economic crisis in Slovenia. Agric. Hum. Values 2022, 39, 301–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glavan, M.; Schmutz, U.; Williams, S.; Corsi, S.; Monaco, F.; Kneafsey, M.; Rodriguez, P.A.G.; Čenič-Istenič, M.; Pintar, M. The economic performance of urban gardening in three European cities–examples from Ljubljana, Milan and London. Urban For. Urban Gree. 2018, 36, 100–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikolić, A.; Uzunović, M.; Mujčinović, A. Perspectives and limitations of urban agriculture in transition economies: A case study in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Handbook of Climate Change across the Food Supply Chain; Leal Filho, W., Djekic, I., Smetana, S., Kovaleva, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 55–80. [Google Scholar]
- Anthopoulou, T.; Nikolaidou, S.; Partalidou, M.; Petrou, M. The emergence of municipal allotment gardens in Greece in times of crisis. Governance challenges for new urban gardening practices. In Toward Sustainable Relations between Agriculture and the City; Urban Agriculture; Soulard, C.T., Perrin, C., Valette, E., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 181–199. [Google Scholar]
- Apostolopoulou, E.; Kotsila, P. Community gardening in Hellinikon as a resistance struggle against neoliberal urbanism: Spatial autogestion and the right to the city in post-crisis Athens, Greece. Urban Geogr. 2022, 43, 293–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borčić, L.S.; Cvitanović, M.; Lukić, A. Cultivating alternative spaces–Zagreb’s community gardens in transition: From socialist to post-socialist perspective. Geoforum 2016, 77, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Djokić, V.; Trajković, J.R.; Furundžić, D.; Krstić, V.; Stojiljković, D. Urban garden as lived space: Informal gardening practices and dwelling culture in socialist and post-socialist Belgrade. Urban For. Urban Gree. 2018, 30, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Čepić, S.; Tomičević-Dubljević, J.; Živojinović, I. Is there a demand for collective urban gardens? Needs and motivations of potential gardeners in Belgrade. Urban For. Urban Gree. 2020, 53, 126716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Narandžić, T.; Ljubojević, M. Urban space awakening–identification and potential uses of urban pockets. Urban Ecosyst. 2022, 25, 1111–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ninkov, J.; Mihailović, A.; Banjac, D.; Živanov, M.; Stanivuković, I.; Jakšić, S.; Marinković, J. The quality of agricultural soils near industrial zones of the City of Novi Sad. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference Ecology of Urban Areas 2016, Zrenjanin, Serbia, 30 September 2016; pp. 201–206. [Google Scholar]
- Ninkov, J.; Marinković, J.; Banjac, D.; Červenski, J.; Jakšić, S.; Živanov, M.; Banjac, B. Urban garden soil pollution caused by fertilizers and copper-based fungicides application. Ratar. Povrt. 2018, 55, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ljubojević, M.; Narandžić, T.; Ostojić, J.; Božanić Tanjga, B.; Grubač, M.; Kolarov, R.; Greksa, A.; Pušić, M. Rethinking horticulture to meet Sustainable Development Goals—The case study of Novi Sad, Serbia. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statute of the City of Novi Sad. Official Gazette of the City of Novi Sad; The City of Novi Sad, The City Administration for Regulations of the City of Novi Sad: Novi Sad, Serbia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Serbia. 2017. Available online: https://publikacije.stat.gov.rs/G2020/pdfE/G20202053.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2023).
- Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. Municipalities and Regions of the Republic of Serbia. 2022. Available online: https://www.stat.gov.rs/en-US/publikacije/?d=13&r= (accessed on 10 August 2023).
- Kalfas, D.; Kalogiannidis, S.; Chatzitheodoridis, F.; Toska, E. Urbanization and land use planning for achieving the sustainable development goals (SDGs): A case study of Greece. Urban Sci. 2023, 7, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clayton, S. Domesticated nature: Motivations for gardening and perceptions of environmental impact. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunnett, N.; Qasim, M. Perceived benefits to human well-being of urban gardens. HortTechnology 2000, 10, 40–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pollard, G.; Roetman, P.; Ward, J.; Chiera, B.; Mantzioris, E. Beyond productivity: Considering the health, social value and happiness of home and community food gardens. Urban Sci. 2018, 2, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kortright, R.; Wakefield, S. Edible backyards: A qualitative study of household food growing and its contributions to food security. Agric. Hum. Values 2011, 28, 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Červenski, J.; Vasić, M.; Gvozdanović-Varga, J.; Takač, A.; Bugarski, D.; Popović, V.; Stojanović, A.; Medić-Pap, S.; Danojević, D.; Savić, A. Assortment of vegetables for sowing in 2015. In Proceedings of the 49th Conference of agronomists of Serbia, Zlatibor, Serbia, 25–31 January 2015; pp. 65–71, ISBN 978-86-80417-59-2. [Google Scholar]
- Bell, S.; Fox-Kaemper, R.; Keshavarz, N.; Benson, M.; Caputo, S.; Noori, S.; Voigt, A. (Eds.) Urban Allotments Gardens in Europe; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Chari, F.; Muzinda, O.; Novukela, C.; Ngcamu, B.S. Pandemic outbreaks and food supply chains in developing countries: A case of COVID-19 in Zimbabwe. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2022, 9, 2026188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindsay, J.; Lane, R.; Raven, R.; Reynolds, D. Bread baking, food growing, and bicycle riding: Practice memories and household consumption during the COVID-19 lockdowns in Melbourne. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2022, 18, 466–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandstrom, G.M.; Dunn, E.W. Social interactions and well-being: The surprising power of weak ties. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2014, 40, 910–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gross, H.; Lane, N. Landscapes of the lifespan: Exploring accounts of own gardens and gardening. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 225–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duś, E. Recreational use and health functions of allotments gardens in the Katowice conurbation, Poland. Environ. Socio-Econ. Stud. 2014, 2, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Genter, C.; Roberts, A.; Richardson, J.; Sheaff, M. The contribution of allotment gardening to health and wellbeing: A systematic review of the literature. Brit. J. Occup. Ther. 2015, 78, 593–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rappe, E.; Kolvunen, T.; Korpela, E. Group gardening in mental outpatient care. Ther. Communities 2008, 29, 273–284. [Google Scholar]
- Sia, A.; Tan, P.Y.; Wong, J.C.M.; Araib, S.; Ang, W.F.; Er, K.B.H. The impact of gardening on mental resilience in times of stress: A case study during the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore. Urban For. Urban Gree. 2022, 68, 127448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, D.L. The seeds of learning: Young children develop important skills through their gardening activities at a midwestern early education program. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 2007, 6, 49–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acharya, S.S. Sustainable agriculture and rural livelihoods. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev. 2006, 19, 205–218. [Google Scholar]
- Barron, C.; Emmet, M.J. Back gardens and friends: The impact of COVID-19 on children and adolescents use of, and access to, outdoor spaces. Ir. Geogr. 2020, 53, 173–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghanem, S.; Ahmad, A.F.; Aboualy, S. COVID-19 bringing Cairenes back to their streets. J. Urban Manag. 2021, 10, 393–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venter, Z.S.; Barton, D.N.; Gundersen, V.; Figari, H.; Nowell, M.S. Back to nature: Norwegians sustain increased recreational use of urban green space months after the COVID-19 outbreak. Landscape Urban Plan. 2021, 214, 104175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sovová, L.; Veen, E.J. Neither poor nor cool: Practising food self-provisioning in allotment gardens in the Netherlands and Czechia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sikorska, D.; Wojnowska-Heciak, M.; Heciak, J.; Bukowska, J.; Łaszkiewicz, E.; Hopkins, R.J.; Sikorski, P. Rethinking urban green spaces for urban resilience. Do green spaces need adaptation to meet public post-covid expectations? Urban For. Urban Gree. 2023, 80, 127838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cruz-Cárdenas, J.; Oleas, N.H. Private urban garden satisfaction and its determinants in Quito, Ecuador. Sage Open 2018, 8, 2158244018767242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wakefield, S.; Yeudall, F.; Taron, C.; Reynolds, J.; Skinner, A. Growing urban health: Community gardening in South-East Toronto. Health Promot. Int. 2007, 22, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Partalidou, M.; Anthopoulou, T. Urban allotment gardens during precarious times: From motives to lived experiences. Sociol. ruralis 2017, 57, 211–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, S. ‘If I want safe food, I have to grow it myself’: Patterns and motivations of urban agriculture in a small city in Vietnam’s northern borderlands. Land Use Policy 2020, 96, 104681. [Google Scholar]
- Pourais, J.; Duchemin, E.; Aubry, C. Products from urban collective gardens: Food for thought or for consumption? Insights from Paris and Montreal. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2015, 5, 175–199. [Google Scholar]
- Vitiello, D.; Nairn, M.; Grisso, J.; Swistak, N. Community Gardening in Camden, NJ Harvest Report: Summer 2009; Penn’s Center for Public Health Initiatives: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- da Cunha, M.; Paraguassú, L.; Assis, J.; Silva, A.; Cardoso, R. Urban gardening and neglected and underutilized species in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2020, 16, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kiesling, F.M.; Manning, C.M. How green is your thumb? Environmental gardening identity and ecological gardening practices. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 315–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Home, R.; Vieli, L. Psychosocial outcomes as motivations for urban gardening: A cross-cultural comparison of Swiss and Chilean gardeners. Urban For. Urban Gree. 2020, 52, 126703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jagganath, G. The transforming city: Exploring the potential for smart cities and urban agriculture in Africa. Orient. Anthropol. 2022, 22, 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whittinghill, L.; Sarr, S. Practices and barriers to sustainable urban agriculture: A case study of Louisville, Kentucky. Urban Sci. 2021, 5, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ju, J.-H.; Yoon, Y.-H.; Shin, S.-H.; Ju, S.-Y.; Yeum, K.-J. Recent trends in urban agriculture to improve bioactive content of plant foods. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramaiah, M.; Avtar, R. Urban green spaces and their need in cities of rapidly urbanizing India: A review. Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, P. The Self-Sustaining Garden: The Guide to Matrix Planting; Timber Press: Portland, OR, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Badenes, M.L.; Byrne, D.H. (Eds.) Fruit Breeding; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2012; Volume 8. [Google Scholar]
- Granatstein, D.; Kupferman, E. Sustainable horticulture in fruit production. Acta Hortic. 2008, 767, 295–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, T.L.; Lakso, A.N.; Ren, Z. Modifying apple tree canopies for improved production efficiency. HortScience 1991, 26, 1005–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scorza, R.; Miller, S.; Glenn, D.M.; Okie, W.R.; Tworkoski, T. Developing peach cultivars with novel tree growth habits. Acta Hortic. 2006, 713, 61–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laužikė, K.; Uselis, N.; Samuolienė, G. The influence of rootstock and high-density planting on apple cv. Auksis fruit quality. Plants 2021, 10, 1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Morandi, B.; Manfrini, L.; Lugli, S.; Tugnoli, A.; Micheli, A.; Boini, A.; Perulli, G.; Bresilla, K.; Corelli Grappadelli, L. Physiological responses to rootstocks vigor in cherry: Why dwarfing is efficient? Acta Hortic. 2020, 1281, 487–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ljubojević, M.; Narandžić, T. Roots before branches: Evidence of the Prunus root cambial responses to the environmental stimuli. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2023, 42, 4240–4252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahkoomahally, S.; Chang, Y.; Brecht, J.K.; Chaparro, J.X.; Sarkhosh, A. Influence of rootstocks on fruit physical and chemical properties of peach cv. UFSun. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 9, 401–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iordănescu, O.A.; Radulov, I.; Dascălu, I.; Berbecea, A.; Camen, D.; Orboi, M.D.; Călin, C.C.; Gal, T.E. Comparative study on the behavior of some old apple varieties before and after their grafting, with potential for use in urban horticulture. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Narandžić, T.; Ljubojević, M. Breeding size-controlling cherry rootstocks for changing environmental conditions. Hortic. Environ. Biotechnol. 2022, 63, 719–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Narandžić, T.; Ljubojević, M. Autochthonous cherry rootstock germplasm in the context of sustainable sweet cherry production. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diekmann, M.; Putter, C.A.J. (Eds.) Stone Fruits; No. 16; Bioversity International: Rome, Italy, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Ljubojević, M. Horticulturalization of the 21st century cities. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 288, 110350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farinati, S.; Betto, A.; Palumbo, F.; Scariolo, F.; Vannozzi, A.; Barcaccia, G. The new green challenge in urban planning: The right genetics in the right place. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finn, C.E.; Clark, J.R. Register of new fruit and nut cultivars list 46. HortScience 2012, 47, 536–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ognjanov, V. ‘Smaragd’ Apple. HortScience 2011, 46, 952–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karp, D.; Gašić, K. Register of New Fruit and Nut Cultivars List 51. HortScience 2022, 57, 1174–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Branişte, N.; Budan, S.; Butac, M.; Militaru, M. Recently achievements in fruit breeding at the research institute for fruit growing Pitesti, Romania. Hortic. Vitic. Şi Vinif. Silvic. Şi Grădini Publice Protecţia Plantelor 2013, 36, 9–13. [Google Scholar]
- Ognjanov, V.; Ljubojević, M.; Barać, G.; Dulić, J.; Miodragović, M.; Narandžić, T. Varieties and selections of pome and stone fruit species selected at the Faculty of Agriculture in Novi Sad. In Proceedings of the XXXI Conference of Improvement in Fruit and Grape, Institute PKB Agroekonomic, Grocka, Serbia, 28 July 2017; Volume 23, pp. 9–16. [Google Scholar]
- Gašić, K.; Preece, J.E.; Karp, D. Register of New Fruit and Nut Cultivars List 49. HortScience 2018, 53, 748–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gašić, K.; Preece, J.E.; Karp, D. Register of new fruit and nut cultivars list 48. HortScience 2016, 51, 620–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gašić, K.; Preece, J.E.; Karp, D. Register of new fruit and nut cultivars list 50. HortScience 2020, 55, 1164–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Novotná, I.; Danková, V.; Pravcová, G.; Vávra, R. Fruit characteristic of new plum cultivars bred in Czech Republic. Acta Hortic. 2021, 1322, 109–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stefanova, B.; Dragoyski, K.; Dinkova, H.; Dzhuvinov (Djouvinov), V. The plum cultivar ‘Jojo’ grown under the conditions of the Central Balkan Mountains in Bulgaria. Acta Hortic. 2010, 874, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Long, L.E.; Whiting, M.; Nunez-Elisea, R. Sweet Cherry Cultivars for the Fresh Market; Oregon State University Extension Service: Corvallis, OR, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Schuster, M. Investigation on resistance to leaf spot disease (Blumeriella jaapi) in cherries. J. Fruit Ornam. Plant Res. 2004, 12, 275–279. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, J.R.; Finn, C.E. Register of new fruit and nut cultivars list 43. HortScience 2006, 41, 1101–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finn, C.E.; Clark, J.R. Register of New Fruit and Nut Cultivars List 44. HortScience 2008, 43, 1321–1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, J.R.; Finn, C.E. Register of New Fruit and Nut Cultivars List 45. HortScience 2010, 45, 716–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gašić, K.; Preece, J.E. Register of new fruit and nut cultivars list 47. HortScience 2014, 49, 396–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchioni, I.; Pistelli, L.; Copetta, A.; Dimita, R.; Descamps, S.; Cambournac, L.; Ruffoni, B. Edible roses as novel food with healthy value. Acta Hortic. 2021, 1331, 239–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nybom, H. Introduction to Rosa. In Genetics and Genomics of Rosaceae. Plant Genetics and Genomics: Crops and Models; Folta, K.M., Gardiner, S.E., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009; Volume 6. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, C.; Pacier, C.; Martirosyan, D.M. Rose hip (Rosa canina L): A functional food perspective. Funct. Foods Health Dis. 2014, 4, 493–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandes, L.; Casal, S.; Pereira, J.A.; Saraiva, J.A.; Ramalhosa, E. An overview on the market of edible flowers. Food Rev. Int. 2020, 36, 258–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hegde, A.S.; Gupta, S.; Sharma, S.; Srivatsan, V.; Kumari, P. Edible rose flowers: A doorway to gastronomic and nutraceutical research. Food Res. Int. 2022, 111977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumari, P.; Bhargava, B. Phytochemicals from edible flowers: Opening a new arena for healthy lifestyle. J. Funct. Foods 2021, 78, 104375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Morais, J.S.; Cabral, L.; Bezerril, F.F.; Uhlmann, L.O.; dos Santos Lima, M.; Noronha, M.F.; dos Santos, S.A.; Madruga, M.S.; Olegario, L.S.; Wagner, R.; et al. Farming system impacts the bioactive compounds, microbial diversity, aroma and color in edible red mini-roses (Rosa chinensis Jacq.). Food Res. Int. 2023, 173, 113233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butcaru, A.C.; Stănică, F. Cultivation technology of organic roses for petal production. Sci. Papers Ser. B. Hortic. 2018, 62, 203–210. [Google Scholar]
- Butcaru, A.C.; Stănică, F.; Petra, S.A. Influence of organic technology on vegetative growth and production of three climbing edible roses (Rosa sp.). Not. Bot. Horti Agrobo. 2020, 48, 692–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedman, H.; Agami, O.; Vinokur, Y.; Droby, S.; Cohen, L.; Refaeli, G.; Resnick, N.; Umiel, N. Characterization of yield, sensitivity to Botrytis cinerea and antioxidant content of several rose species suitable for edible flowers. Sci. Hortic. 2010, 123, 395–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Božanić Tanjga, B.; Ljubojević, M.; Đukić, A.; Vukosavljev, M.; Ilić, O.; Narandžić, T. Selection of garden roses to improve the ecosystem services they provide. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khanizadeh, S.; Cousineau, J.; Granger, R.; Groleau, Y.; Rousselle, G.; Spangelo, L.P. ‘MacExcel’ apple. HortScience 2002, 37, 222–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korneeva, S.A.; Sedov, E.N.; Yanchuk, T.V. Evaluation of economically valuable traits of the columnar variety Poesia and the prospects of its use in breeding. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 254, 01004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gardenia—Creating Gardens. Available online: https://www.gardenia.net (accessed on 31 August 2023).
- Radović, A.; Nikolić, D.; Milatović, D.; Rakonjac, V.; Bakić, I. Growth and yield characteristics of quince cultivars. Acta Hortic. 2016, 1139, 209–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ljubojević, M.; Ognjanov, V.; Sentić, I.; Dulić, J. Fruit Species in Landscape Design (In Serbian: Voćne vrste u Pejzažnom Projektovanju); University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Agriculture: Novi Sad, Serbia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Frank P Matthews. Available online: https://www.frankpmatthews.com (accessed on 31 August 2023).
- International Dendrology Society—Trees and Shrubs Online. Available online: https://www.treesandshrubsonline.org (accessed on 31 August 2023).
- Daleys Fruit. Available online: https://www.daleysfruit.com.au (accessed on 31 August 2023).
- Bluebell Arboretum and Nursery. Available online: https://www.bluebellnursery.com (accessed on 31 August 2023).
- Fay, M.F.; Rich, T.C. 1042. SORBUS ARIA: Rosaceae. Curtis’s Bot. Mag. 2022, 39, 655–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitre jr, I.; Tripon, A.; Mitre, I.; Mitre, V. The response of several plum cultivars to natural infection with Monilinia laxa, Polystigma rubrum and Stigmina carpophila. Not. Sci. Biol. 2015, 7, 136–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horticulture Limbach. Available online: https://www.shop.zahradnictvolimbach.sk (accessed on 31 August 2023).
- PlantNet. Available online: https://plantnet.com.au (accessed on 31 August 2023).
- Martínez-Calvo, J.; Llácer, G.; Badenes, M.L. ‘Rafel’ and ‘Belgida’, two apricot cultivars resistant to sharka. HortScience 2010, 45, 1904–1905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cherry cultivars: Sweet and Tart. Available online: https://www.ontario.ca/page/cherry-cultivars-sweet-and-tart (accessed on 31 August 2023).
- My Garden Life. Available online: https://mygardenlife.com (accessed on 31 August 2023).
- Excelentes Precios. Available online: https://en.excelentesprecios.com (accessed on 31 August 2023).
- Specialty Produce. Available online: https://specialtyproduce.com (accessed on 31 August 2023).
- Chew Valley Trees—Specialist Growers of Trees. Available online: https://www.chewvalleytrees.co.uk (accessed on 31 August 2023).
- Balkan Ecology Project. Available online: https://www.balkep.org/sour-cherry-cultivars.html (accessed on 31 August 2023).
- Cricket Hill Garden. Available online: https://www.treepeony.com (accessed on 31 August 2023).
- WalTree—Our Walnut Tree Varieties. Available online: https://www.waltreeturkey.com/walnut-tree-varieties (accessed on 31 August 2023).
- The Walnut Tree Co. Available online: https://www.walnuttrees.co.uk (accessed on 31 August 2023).
- Choosing Plants for a Hazelnut Orchard in New Jersey. Available online: https://njaes.rutgers.edu/e368/ (accessed on 31 August 2023).
- Lunde, C.F.; Mehlenbacher, S.A.; Smith, D.C. Survey of hazelnut cultivars for response to eastern filbert blight inoculation. HortScience 2000, 35, 729–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Washington Chestnut Company. Available online: https://www.washingtonchestnut.com/chestnutcultivars.html (accessed on 31 August 2023).
Total Share of Respondents per Category (%) * | Chi-Square Test ** | Familiarity with the Term Urban Horticulture (%) * | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2023 | ||||||||
2019 | 2023 | α = 0.01 | α = 0.05 | Familiar | Not Familiar | Familiar | Not Familiar | ||
Gender | Male | 12.31 | 30.88 | Yes | Yes | 8.41 | 3.90 | 20.74 | 10.14 |
Female | 87.69 | 69.12 | 57.66 | 30.03 | 50.69 | 18.43 | |||
Age | <25 | 17.12 | 10.60 | No | No | 12.61 | 4.50 | 6.91 | 3.69 |
25–40 | 56.46 | 59.91 | 34.53 | 21.92 | 40.09 | 19.82 | |||
41–65 | 26.42 | 28.57 | 18.92 | 7.51 | 23.50 | 5.07 | |||
>65 | 0 | 0.92 | 0 | 0 | 0.92 | 0 | |||
Occupation | Pupil/Student | 16.52 | 8.29 | No | Yes | 11.11 | 5.41 | 5.07 | 3.22 |
Employed | 67.87 | 78.34 | 44.74 | 23.12 | 56.22 | 22.12 | |||
Unemployed | 14.71 | 10.60 | 9.31 | 5.40 | 7.37 | 3.23 | |||
Retired | 0.90 | 2.76 | 0.90 | 0 | 2.76 | 0 | |||
Education | Elementary school | 1.80 | 0.92 | Yes | Yes | 1.20 | 0.60 | 0 | 0.92 |
High school | 26.43 | 22.58 | 18.02 | 8.41 | 17.97 | 4.61 | |||
Bachelor studies | 40.84 | 34.56 | 27.63 | 13.21 | 20.28 | 14.29 | |||
Master studies | 23.12 | 27.19 | 14.11 | 9.01 | 19.35 | 7.83 | |||
Doctoral studies | 7.81 | 0 | 5.11 | 2.70 | 0 | 0 | |||
Place of residence | Rural | 19.22 | 18.89 | No | No | 14.71 | 4.50 | 13.36 | 5.53 |
Urban | 80.78 | 81.11 | 51.35 | 29.43 | 58.06 | 23.04 |
2019 | 2023 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wants to Learn (%) * | Does Not Want to Learn (%) | Wants to Learn (%) | Does Not Want to Learn (%) | ||
Gender | Male | 9.91 | 2.40 | 23.04 | 7.83 |
Female | 65.16 | 22.52 | 54.38 | 14.75 | |
Age | <25 | 12.31 | 4.80 | 7.83 | 2.76 |
25–40 | 40.24 | 16.22 | 46.08 | 13.82 | |
41–65 | 22.52 | 3.90 | 22.58 | 5.99 | |
>65 | 0 | 0 | 0.92 | 0 | |
Occupation | Pupil/Student | 12.31 | 4.20 | 6.45 | 1.84 |
Employed | 50.45 | 17.42 | 60.83 | 17.51 | |
Unemployed | 11.71 | 3.00 | 7.83 | 2.76 | |
Retired | 0.60 | 0.30 | 2.30 | 0.46 | |
Education | Elementary school | 1.20 | 0.60 | 0.46 | 0.46 |
High school | 21.02 | 5.40 | 16.59 | 5.99 | |
Bachelor studies | 28.23 | 12.61 | 25.35 | 9.22 | |
Master studies | 19.22 | 3.90 | 22.12 | 5.07 | |
Doctoral studies | 5.40 | 2.40 | 0 | 0 | |
Place of residence | Rural | 13.51 | 5.71 | 10.60 | 8.29 |
Urban | 61.56 | 19.22 | 66.82 | 14.29 |
2019 | 2023 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total Number of Respondents | Produce Food (%) * | Do Not Produce Food (%) | Total Number of Respondents | Produce Food (%) | Do Not Produce Food (%) | ||
Occupation | Pupil/Student | 45 | 64.44 | 35.56 | 11 | 54.54 | 45.46 |
Employed | 185 | 52.43 | 47.57 | 144 | 53.47 | 46.53 | |
Unemployed | 38 | 60.53 | 39.47 | 16 | 62.50 | 37.50 | |
Retired | 1 | 100 | 0 | 5 | 100 | 0 | |
Education | Elementary school | 4 | 50 | 50 | 1 | 100 | 0 |
High school | 64 | 67.19 | 32.81 | 32 | 62.50 | 37.50 | |
Bachelor studies | 106 | 60.38 | 39.62 | 64 | 56.25 | 43.75 | |
Master studies | 70 | 42.86 | 57.14 | 49 | 44.90 | 55.10 | |
Doctoral studies | 25 | 44 | 56 | 30 | 63.33 | 36.37 |
Level of Agreement * | Difference in Means | Tests ** | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2023 | Mann- Whitney | Chi-Square | |||||
Statement on Urban Horticulture | Mean | Median | Mean | Median | α = 0.05 | α = 0.01 | α = 0.05 | |
Impact on environment | ||||||||
| 3.64 | 4 | 3.72 | 4 | −0.08 | |||
| 3.34 | 4 | 3.43 | 4 | −0.08 | |||
| 3.65 | 4 | 3.68 | 4 | −0.02 | |||
| 3.78 | 4 | 3.76 | 4 | 0.02 | |||
By category: | 3.61 | 3.65 | −0.04 | |||||
Impact on food safety and economy | ||||||||
| 3.54 | 4 | 3.63 | 4 | −0.09 | |||
| 3.15 | 3 | 3.35 | 4 | −0.19 | Sign. | Sign. | |
| 3.34 | 3 | 3.45 | 4 | −0.10 | |||
| 3.50 | 4 | 3.65 | 4 | −0.15 | Sign. | Sign. | Sign. |
By category: | 3.38 | 3.52 | −0.13 | |||||
Impact on social relations and society | ||||||||
| 2.83 | 3 | 3.02 | 3 | −0.19 | Sign. | ||
| 3.36 | 4 | 3.35 | 4 | 0.01 | |||
| 3.23 | 3 | 3.28 | 4 | −0.04 | |||
| 3.57 | 4 | 3.64 | 4 | −0.08 | |||
By category: | 3.25 | 3.32 | −0.075 | |||||
Impact on personal health and development | ||||||||
| 3.70 | 4 | 3.82 | 4 | −0.12 | |||
| 3.36 | 4 | 3.54 | 4 | −0.18 | Sign. | ||
| 3.08 | 3 | 3.23 | 4 | −0.15 | Sign. | ||
| 3.61 | 4 | 3.76 | 4 | −0.15 | Sign. | Sign. | |
| 3.51 | 4 | 3.61 | 4 | −0.10 | |||
By category: | 3.45 | 3.59 | −0.14 | |||||
Impact on learning and play activities | ||||||||
| 3.74 | 4 | 3.82 | 4 | −0.09 | Sign. | Sign. | |
| 3.78 | 4 | 3.87 | 4 | −0.09 | |||
| 3.75 | 4 | 3.82 | 4 | −0.07 | |||
| 3.24 | 3 | 3.18 | 3 | 0.06 | |||
By category: | 3.63 | 3.67 | −0.045 |
% of Respondents from Rural Settlements * | % of Respondents from the City | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Statement on UH No. | Disagree | Not sure | Partly Agree | Agree | Mean | Disagree | Not Sure | Partly Agree | Agree | Mean | Difference in Means |
1 | 0 | 4.76 | 25.71 | 69.53 | 3.65 | 0.45 | 4.94 | 20.9 | 73.71 | 3.68 | −0.03 |
2 | 1.9 | 12.38 | 27.62 | 58.09 | 3.42 | 3.15 | 14.16 | 25.39 | 57.3 | 3.37 | 0.05 |
3 | 0.95 | 2.86 | 27.62 | 68.57 | 3.64 | 1.35 | 3.6 | 21.8 | 73.25 | 3.67 | −0.03 |
4 | 0 | 2.86 | 13.33 | 83.81 | 3.81 | 1.57 | 2.47 | 13.71 | 82.24 | 3.77 | 0.04 |
5 | 0.95 | 2.86 | 27.62 | 68.57 | 3.64 | 0.45 | 4.94 | 33.03 | 61.57 | 3.56 | 0.8 |
6 | 4.76 | 18.09 | 34.28 | 42.86 | 3.15 | 5.17 | 16.63 | 26.74 | 51.46 | 3.24 | −0.09 |
7 | 2.86 | 4.76 | 41.9 | 52.58 | 3.4 | 2.47 | 9.43 | 35.51 | 52.58 | 3.38 | 0.02 |
8 | 1.9 | 6.67 | 23.81 | 67.62 | 3.57 | 0.67 | 6.07 | 30.34 | 62.92 | 3.55 | 0.02 |
9 | 4.76 | 25.71 | 49.52 | 20 | 2.85 | 7.41 | 24.49 | 37.08 | 31.01 | 2.92 | −0.07 |
10 | 0.95 | 20.95 | 22.86 | 55.24 | 3.33 | 2.92 | 16.18 | 22.7 | 58.2 | 3.36 | −0.04 |
11 | 1.9 | 14.29 | 26.67 | 57.14 | 3.39 | 3.15 | 19.55 | 29.66 | 47.64 | 3.22 | 0.17 |
12 | 1.9 | 5.71 | 22.86 | 69.52 | 3.6 | 0.67 | 8.09 | 22.02 | 69.21 | 3.6 | 0.00 |
13 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 18.09 | 80 | 3.77 | 0.67 | 2.47 | 19.32 | 77.53 | 3.74 | 0.03 |
14 | 1.9 | 12.38 | 28.57 | 57.14 | 3.41 | 2.02 | 11.01 | 28.09 | 58.88 | 3.44 | −0.03 |
15 | 4.76 | 24.76 | 29.52 | 40.95 | 3.07 | 4.94 | 20.45 | 28.09 | 46.52 | 3.16 | −0.09 |
16 | 0.95 | 10.48 | 20 | 68.57 | 3.56 | 0.45 | 7.19 | 14.83 | 77.53 | 3.69 | −0.13 |
17 | 1.9 | 9.52 | 26.67 | 61.9 | 3.49 | 2.47 | 6.97 | 22.47 | 68.09 | 3.56 | −0.08 |
18 | 2.86 | 0.95 | 17.14 | 79.05 | 3.72 | 0.45 | 3.37 | 13.48 | 82.7 | 3.78 | −0.06 |
19 | 0 | 2.86 | 16.19 | 80.95 | 3.78 | 0.45 | 1.35 | 13.48 | 84.72 | 3.82 | −0.04 |
20 | 0.95 | 1.9 | 24.76 | 72.38 | 3.69 | 0.22 | 2.02 | 15.28 | 82.47 | 3.8 | −0.11 |
21 | 6.67 | 12.38 | 31.43 | 49.52 | 3.24 | 4.04 | 13.93 | 38.65 | 43.37 | 3.21 | 0.02 |
Characteristic of Respondent | % of Respondents in 2019 (n = 333) | % of Respondents in 2023 (n = 217) |
---|---|---|
Familiar with UH and wants to learn more * | 53.45 | 58.06 |
Not familiar with UH but wants to learn more ** | 21.62 | 19.35 |
Wants to learn more about UH and to participate in workshops *** | 50.15 | 35.94 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Narandžić, T.; Ružičić, S.; Grubač, M.; Pušić, M.; Ostojić, J.; Šarac, V.; Ljubojević, M. Landscaping with Fruits: Citizens’ Perceptions toward Urban Horticulture and Design of Urban Gardens. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 1152. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9101152
Narandžić T, Ružičić S, Grubač M, Pušić M, Ostojić J, Šarac V, Ljubojević M. Landscaping with Fruits: Citizens’ Perceptions toward Urban Horticulture and Design of Urban Gardens. Horticulturae. 2023; 9(10):1152. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9101152
Chicago/Turabian StyleNarandžić, Tijana, Sanja Ružičić, Milica Grubač, Magdalena Pušić, Jovana Ostojić, Veljko Šarac, and Mirjana Ljubojević. 2023. "Landscaping with Fruits: Citizens’ Perceptions toward Urban Horticulture and Design of Urban Gardens" Horticulturae 9, no. 10: 1152. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9101152
APA StyleNarandžić, T., Ružičić, S., Grubač, M., Pušić, M., Ostojić, J., Šarac, V., & Ljubojević, M. (2023). Landscaping with Fruits: Citizens’ Perceptions toward Urban Horticulture and Design of Urban Gardens. Horticulturae, 9(10), 1152. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9101152