Urban Nature: Perception and Acceptance of Alternative Green Space Management and the Change of Awareness after Provision of Environmental Information. A Chance for Biodiversity Protection
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. The Biodiversity Crisis and the Role of Urban Areas to Lessen the Loss
1.2. A University Student and Staff Initiative to Reduce Biodiversity Loss
1.3. Aesthetics and Perception of Urban Green Spaces
1.4. Research Questions and Hypotheses
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Structure of Questionnaire
2.2. Participants
2.3. Analyses and Statistics
3. Results
3.1. Demographics of Participants
3.2. Description Meadow/Lawn
3.3. Results after Provision of Additional Information
3.4. Demographic Data and Personal Attitude Towards Nature and Conservation Issues
I. Age:
II. Perception of nature:
III. Access to a garden:
IV. Nature as a place for relaxation:
V. Observation of plants and animals:
VI. Knowledge of insects:
VII. Involvement in nature protection:
3.5. Benefits for Biodiversity
Sex
Age
Perception of nature
Observation of animals or plants
3.6. Willingness to Change Public Urban Green Spaces
4. Discussion
4.1. Participants
4.2. Evaluation of the First Intuitive Impressions of the Presented Images
4.3. Impact of Additional Expert Information on Evaluation of Urban Green Spaces
4.4. Demographic and Behavioural Data and Estimation of Biodiversity (Hypothesis 2)
4.5. Support of Urban Nature Protection and Ideas for Change
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kompakt, B.-B. Auf Dem Weg, Aber Noch Nicht am Ziel–Trends der Siedlungsflächenentwicklung; Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt und Raumforschung im Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung: Bonn, Germany, 2011. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Russell, K.; Ikerd, H.; Droege, S. The potential conservation value of unmowed powerline strips for native bees. Biol. Conserv. 2005, 124, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statistisches Bundesamt. Flächennutzung. 2016. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/Wirtschaftsbereiche/LandForstwirtschaftFischerei/Flaechennutzung/Tabellen/Bodenflaeche.html (accessed on 21 July 2017).
- BMU. Flächenverbrauch und Landschaftszerschneidung; Zeitbild Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2008. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Klaus, V.H. Urban grassland restoration: A neglected opportunity for biodiversity conservation. Restor. Ecol. 2013, 21, 665–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sattler, T.; Obrist, M.K.; Duelli, P.; Moretti, M. Urban arthropod communities: Added value or just a blend of surrounding biodiversity? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 103, 347–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ineichen, S.; Klausnitzer, B.; Ruckstuhl, M. Stadtfauna; Haupt Verlag: Bern, Switzerland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, L.; Broyles, M.J.; Larzleer, H.; Fellowes, M.E. Adding ecological value to the urban lawnscape. Insect abundance and diversity in grass-free lawns. Biodivers. Conserv. 2015, 24, 47–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albrecht, M.; Schmid, B.; Obrist, M.K.; Schüpbach, B.; Kleijn, D.; Duelli, P. Effects of ecological compensation meadows on arthropod diversity in adjacent intensively managed grassland. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 642–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bischoff, I. Die Bedeutung städtischer Grünflächen für Wildbienen, untersucht am Beispiel des botanischen Gartens und weiterer Grünflächen im Bonner Stadtgebiet. Decheniana 1996, 149, 162–178. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Threlfall, C.G.; Mata, L.; Mackie, J.A.; Hahs, A.K.; Stork, N.E.; Williams, N.S.; Livesley, S.J. Increasing biodiversity in urban green spaces through simple vegetation interventions. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burri, J. Bestandslenkung mit Sense und Terminkalender. Available online: http://www.ufasamen.ch/files/ufa-brochure/Bestandeslenkung-mit-Sense-und-08_20082.pdf (accessed on 21 July 2017).
- Hahs, A.K.; McDonnell, M.J.; McCarthy, M.A.; Vesk, P.A.; Corlett, R.T.; Norton, B.A.; Clemants, S.E.; Duncan, R.P.; Thompson, K.; Schwartz, M.W. A global synthesis of plant extinction rates in urban areas. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12, 1165–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aronson, M.F.J.; La Sorte, F.A.; Nilon, C.H.; Katti, M.; Goddard, M.A.; Lepczyk, C.A.; Warren, P.S.; Williams, N.S.G.; Cilliers, S.; Clarkson, B.; et al. A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers. Proc. R. Soc. B 2014, 281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Unterweger, P.; Braun, A.; Boeß, R.; Koltzenburg, M.; Betz, O. Langfristige Etablierung extensiver Grünflächenpflege in Stadtgebieten. Vorstellung der Initiative ”Bunte Wiese” der Stadt Tübingen. DGaaE-Nachrichten 2015, 29, 73–80. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Unterweger, P.; Braun, A. Die Initiative Bunte Wiese: Machen wir’s bunt. Nat.Gart. 2015, 1, 6–11. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Hiller, D.; Betz, O. Auswirkungen verschiedener Mahdkonzepte auf die Heuschreckenfauna städtischer Grünflächen. Naturschutz Landsch. 2014, 46, 241–246. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Unterweger, P.A.; Rieger, C.; Betz, O. The influence of urban lawn mowing regimes on diversity of heteroptera (Hemiptera). Heteropteron 2017, 48, 7–21. [Google Scholar]
- Wastian, L.; Unterweger, P.A.; Betz, O. Influence of the reduction of urban lawn mowing on wild bee diversity (Hymenoptera, Apoidea). J. Hymenopt. Res. 2016, 49, 51–63. [Google Scholar]
- Ade, J.; Wolf-Schwenninger, K.; Betz, O. Auswirkungen der Wiesenmahd auf verschiedene Käferarten ausgewählter Grünflächen im Stadtgebiet Tübingens. Jahresh. Ges. Naturkunde Württ. 2012, 168, 199–216. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Kricke, C.; Bamann, T.; Betz, O. Einfluss städtischer Mahdkonzepte auf die Artenvielfalt der Tagfalter. Naturschutz Landsch. 2014, 46, 52–58. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Convention on Biological Diversity. CBD Handbook; Convention on Biological Diversity: Montreal, QC, Canada, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Convention on Biological Diversity. Global Biodiversity Outlook 4; Convention on Biological Diversity: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Mata, L.; Threlfall, C.G.; Williams, N.S.G.; Hahs, A.K.; Malipatil, M.; Stork, N.E.; Livesley, S.J. Conserving herbivorous and predatory insects in urban green spaces. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 40970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hall, D.M.; Camilo, G.R.; Tonietto, R.K.; Ollerton, J.; Ahrné, K.; Arduser, M.; Ascher, J.S.; Baldock, K.C.; Fowler, R.; Frankie, G. The city as a refuge for insect pollinators. Conserv. Biol. 2017, 31, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hoyle, H.; Hitchmough, J.; Jorgensen, A. All about the ‘wow factor’? The relationships between aesthetics, restorative effect and perceived biodiversity in designed urban planting. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 164, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Southon, G.E.; Jorgensen, A.; Dunnett, N.; Hoyle, H.; Evans, K.L. Biodiverse perennial meadows have aesthetic value and increase residents’ perceptions of site quality in urban green-space. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 158, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harris, V.; Kendal, D.; Hahs, A.K.; Threlfall, C.G. Green space context and vegetation complexity shape people’s preferences for urban public parks and residential gardens. Landsc. Res. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soini, K.; Aakkula, J. Framing the biodiversity of agricultural landscape: The essence of local conceptions and constructions. Land Use Policy 2007, 24, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Botzat, A.; Fischer, L.K.; Kowarik, I. Unexploited opportunities in understanding liveable and biodiverse cities. A review on urban biodiversity perception and valuation. Glob. Environ. Change 2016, 39, 220–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiersbinski, N. Zur Gesellschaftlichen Akzeptanz von Naturschutzmaßnahmen: Materialienband; Bundesamt für Naturschutz: Bonn, Germany, 1998. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Chevallerie de la, H. Pflege und Benutzbarkeit von öffentlichen Grünflächen. Das Gartenamt 1980, 29, 773–776. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Wu, J. Urban ecology and sustainability: The state-of-the-science and future directions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 209–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niemelä, J. Ecology of urban green spaces: The way forward in answering major research questions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 298–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- BMU. Naturbewusstsein 2015, Bevölkerungsumfrage zu Natur und biologischer Vielfalt; Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit: Berlin, Germany, 2016. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Threlfall, C.G.; Kendal, D. The distinct ecological and social roles that wild spaces play in urban ecosystems. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smardon, R.C. Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: Review of the role of vegetation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1988, 15, 85–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cameron, R.W.; Blanuša, T.; Taylor, J.E.; Salisbury, A.; Halstead, A.J.; Henricot, B.; Thompson, K. The domestic garden–Its contribution to urban green infrastructure. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maller, C.; Townsend, M.; Brown, P.; St Leger, L. Healthy Parks, Healthy People: The Health Benefits of Contact with Nature in A Park Context: A Review of Current Literature; Parks Victoria, Deakin University Faculty of Health & Behavioural Sciences: Melbourne, Australia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Kistemann, T. Gesundheit durch Naturschutz? Good health through nature conservation? Schweiz. Z. Forstwes. 2010, 161, 69–74. (In German) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schröder, J.-N.; Menzel, S. Die Erhaltung der biologischen Vielfalt geht mit Wohlbefinden einher—die Rolle von Wertdisposition und Naturbezug. Treffpkt. Biol. Vielfalt XIV 2014, 397, 163–169. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Kardan, O.; Gozdyra, P.; Misic, B.; Moola, F.; Palmer, L.J.; Paus, T.; Berman, M.G. Neighborhood greenspace and health in a large urban center. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bauer, N.; Martens, D. Die Bedeutung der Landschaft für die menschliche Gesundheit—Ergebnisse neuster Untersuchungen der WSL. Available online: http://www.wsl.ch/dienstleistungen/publikationen/pdf/10742.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2017).
- Cox, D.T.C.; Shanahan, D.F.; Hudson, H.L.; Plummer, K.E.; Siriwardena, G.M.; Fuller, R.A.; Anderson, K.; Hancock, S.; Gaston, K.J. Doses of Neighborhood Nature: The Benefits for Mental Health of Living with Nature. BioScience 2017, 67, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gobster, P.H.; Nassauer, J.I.; Daniel, T.C.; Fry, G. The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22, 959–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bröring, U.; Brux, H.; Gebhardt, M. Grünanlagen zwischen Naturnähe und Erholungsfunktion—eine floristisch-faunistische Untersuchung. Verh. Ges. Ökol. 1989, 17, 689–693. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Obrist, M.K.; Sattler, T.; Home, R.; Gloor, S.; Bontadina, F.; Nobis, M.; Braaker, S.; Duelli, P.; Bauer, N.; Della Bruna, P. Biodiversität in der Stadt-für Mensch und Natur; Eidg. Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft: Birmensdorf, Switzerland, 2012. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Junge, X.; Matthies, D. The influence of plant diversity on people’s perception an aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Bose, E. How Many Species Are There? Public Understanding and Awareness of Biodiversity in Switzerland. Hum. Ecol. 2008, 36, 731–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Home, R.; Bauer, N.; Hunziker, M. Cultural and biological determinants in the evaluation of urban green spaces. Environ. Behav. 2010, 42, 494–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, D.T.C.; Gaston, K.J. Likeability of Garden Birds: Importance of Species Knowledge & Richness in Connecting People to Nature. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0141505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, D.T.C.; Hudson, H.L.; Shanahan, D.F.; Fuller, R.A.; Gaston, K.J. The rarity of direct experiences of nature in an urban population. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 160, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fechner, G.T. Vorschule der Ästhetik; Breitkopf & Härtel: Wiesbaden, Germany, 1876; Volume 1. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Glaser, B.; Strauss, A. The Discovery Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Inquiry; Aldine Transaction: New Brunswick, London, UK, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Strauss, A.L.; Corbin, J.M.; Niewiarra, S. Grounded Theory: Grundlagen Qualitativer Sozialforschung; Beltz, Psychologie-Verlag-Union: Weinheim, Germany, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Bogner, F.X.; Wiseman, M. Toward measuring adolescent environmental perception. Eur. Psychol. 1999, 4, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiseman, M.; Bogner, F.X. A higher-order model of ecological values and its relationship to personality. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2003, 34, 783–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogner, F.X. Empirical evaluation of an educational conservation programme introduced in Swiss secondary schools. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1999, 21, 1169–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Junge, X.; Schüpbach, B.; Walter, T.; Schmid, B.; Lindemann-Matthies, P. Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 133, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Briegel, R. Ästhetische Wertschätzung der Agrarlandschaft im Schweizerischen Berggebiet und im Mittelland; Geographisches Institut der Universität Zürich: Zürich, Switzerland, 2007. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Junge, X.; Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Hunziker, M.; Schüpbach, B. Aesthetic preferences of non-farmers and farmers for different land-use types and proportions of ecological compensation areas in the Swiss lowlands. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 1430–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Marty, T. Does ecological gardening increase species richness and aesthetic quality of a garden? Biol. Conserv. 2013, 159, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kovacs, Z.I.; LeRoy, C.J.; Fischer, D.G.; Lubarsky, S.; Burke, W. How do aesthetics affect our ecology? J. Ecol. Anthropol. 2006, 10, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kondo, M.C.; Rivera, R.; Rullman Jr, S. Protecting the idyll but not the environment: Second homes, amenity migration and rural exclusion in Washington State. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 106, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farnsworth, E.J.; Rosovsky, J. The ethics of ecological field experimentation. Conserv. Biol. 1993, 7, 463–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, A. The good, the bad and the ugly: Science, aesthetics and environmental assessment. Biodivers. Conserv. 1995, 4, 758–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norton, B.A.; Evans, K.L.; Warren, P.H. Urban Biodiversity and Landscape Ecology: Patterns, Processes and Planning. Curr. Landsc. Ecol. Rep. 2016, 1, 178–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Junge, X.; Jacot, K.A.; Bosshard, A.; Lindemann-Matthies, P. Swiss people’s attitudes towards field margins for biodiversity conservation. J. Nat. Conserv. 2009, 17, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Bose, E. Species richness, structural diversity and species composition in meadows created by visitors of a botanical garden in Switzerland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 79, 298–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robert-Koch-Institut. Lebenszeitprävalenz von Heuschnupfen in Deutschland nach Altersgruppe im Jahr 2011; Statista, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2011. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- BMU. Naturbewusstsein 2009: Bevölkerungsumfrage zu Natur und biologischer Vielfalt; Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit: Berlin, Germany, 2010. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. The influence of attitudes on behavior. In The Handbook of Attitudes; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2005; pp. 173–221. [Google Scholar]
- Löbl, I. Overestimation of molecular and modelling methods and underestimation of traditional taxonomy leads to real problems in assessing and handling of the world’s biodiversity. Zootaxa 2014, 3768, 497–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Total (n = 424) | Contribution (%) | Total (n = 424) | Contribution (%) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sex | I. Perception of nature | ||||||
male | 116 | 27.36 | 1 | I strongly appreciate, enjoy and protect nature | 239 | 56.37 | |
female | 306 | 72.17 | 2 | Nature is importent to me | 102 | 24.06 | |
n.a. | 2 | 0.47 | 3 | I appreciate nature | 75 | 17.69 | |
4 | Nature does not interest me | 6 | 1.42 | ||||
Age | 5 | Nature frightens me | 0 | 0.00 | |||
0–20 | 35 | 8.25 | 6 | “Nature is just the forest” | 2 | 0.47 | |
21–40 | 255 | 60.14 | |||||
41–60 | 100 | 23.58 | |||||
older than 60 | 27 | 6.37 | II. Access to a garden | ||||
n.a. | 7 | 1.65 | 1 | daily | 115 | 27.12 | |
2 | often | 135 | 31.84 | ||||
Education | 3 | sometimes | 106 | 25.00 | |||
abitur | 153 | 36.08 | 4 | rarely | 45 | 10.61 | |
diploma (University) | 89 | 20.99 | 5 | never | 23 | 5.42 | |
bachelor | 57 | 13.44 | |||||
doctoral thesis | 35 | 8.25 | |||||
master | 33 | 7.78 | III. Nature as place for relaxation | ||||
state examination | 17 | 4.01 | 1 | always | 121 | 28.54 | |
secondary school level 1 | 10 | 2.36 | 2 | often | 236 | 55.66 | |
diploma (technical college) | 9 | 2.12 | 3 | sometimes | 57 | 13.44 | |
postdoctoral qualification | 8 | 1.89 | 4 | rarely | 9 | 2.12 | |
vocational training | 6 | 1.42 | 5 | never | 1 | 0.24 | |
general school | 1 | 0.24 | |||||
n.a. | 6 | 1.42 | |||||
IV: Observation of animals or plants | |||||||
Discipline | 1 | daily | 126 | 29.72 | |||
natural science | 175 | 41.27 | 2 | often | 182 | 42.92 | |
social science | 71 | 16.75 | 3 | sometimes | 86 | 20.28 | |
linguistics | 42 | 9.91 | 4 | rarely | 24 | 5.66 | |
service sector | 36 | 8.49 | 5 | never | 6 | 1.42 | |
medicine | 27 | 6.37 | |||||
teaching | 20 | 4.72 | |||||
historian | 17 | 4.01 | V. Knowledge of entomology | ||||
economics | 10 | 2.36 | 1 | yes | 50 | 11.79 | |
law | 9 | 2.12 | 2 | limited | 184 | 43.40 | |
theology | 5 | 1.18 | 3 | no | 190 | 44.81 | |
education | 4 | 0.94 | |||||
n.a. | 8 | 1.89 | |||||
VI. Involvement in nature protection | |||||||
1 | I provide money and time for nature protection | 98 | 23.11 | ||||
2 | I sometimes provide money and time for nature protection | 104 | 24.53 | ||||
3 | I support people that protect nature | 106 | 25.00 | ||||
4 | I do not provide money or time for nature protection | 115 | 27.12 | ||||
5 | Nature does not play a role for me | 1 | 0.24 |
(n = 522) | Meadow | Lawn | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Insects | ||||||
positive | mean (SD) | 45.80 | (±17.92) | 0.50 | (±0.50) | |
% | 8.77 | 0.10 | ||||
negative | mean (SD) | 3.40 | (±2.73) | 8.00 | (±6.00) | |
% | 0.65 | 1.53 | ||||
Flowers | ||||||
positive | mean (SD) | 43.80 | (±16.27) | 0.00 | (±0.00) | |
% | 8.39 | 0.00 | ||||
negative | mean (SD) | 9.00 | (±8.27) | 14.50 | (±4.50) | |
% | 1.72 | 2.78 | ||||
Nature | ||||||
positive | mean (SD) | 40.20 | (±14.88) | 0.00 | (±0.00) | |
% | 7.70 | 0.00 | ||||
negative | mean (SD) | 4.40 | (±4.08) | 14.50 | (±6.50) | |
% | 0.84 | 2.78 | ||||
Beauty | ||||||
positive | mean (SD) | 236.40 | (±34.12) | 122.00 | (±101.00) | |
% | 45.29 | 23.37 | ||||
negative | mean (SD) | 28.40 | (±10.61) | 153.50 | (±26.50) | |
% | 5.44 | 29.41 | ||||
Colour | ||||||
positive | mean (SD) | 39.80 | (±25.53) | 10.00 | (±4.00) | |
% | 7.62 | 1.92 | ||||
negative | mean (SD) | 22.00 | (±19.76) | 13.50 | (±2.50) | |
% | 4.21 | 2.59 | ||||
Value for Nature | ||||||
positive | mean (SD) | 11.40 | (±10.33) | 0.50 | (±0.50) | |
% | 2.18 | 0.10 | ||||
negative | mean (SD) | 1.60 | (±1.85) | 13.50 | (±5.50) | |
% | 0.31 | 2.59 | ||||
Ecology | ||||||
positive | mean (SD) | 8.80 | (±6.73) | 0.00 | (±0.00) | |
% | 1.69 | 0.00 | ||||
negative | mean (SD) | 0.80 | (±1.73) | 9.00 | (±4.00) | |
% | 0.15 | 1.72 | ||||
Value for Humans | ||||||
positive | mean (SD) | 35.40 | (±27.53) | 28 | (±16.00) | |
% | 6.78 | 5.36 | ||||
negative | mean (SD) | 16.80 | (±8.61) | 15.5 | (±7.50) | |
% | 3.22 | 2.97 |
Meadow | Lawn | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Positive | Negative | Positve | Negative | ||||||
Focus nature | mean total (SD) | 30.00 | (±21.44) | 3.84 | (±5.27) | 0.20 | (±0.40) | 10.90 | (±5.97) |
% | 5.75 | 0.74 | 0.04 | 2.09 | |||||
Anthropocentric focus | mean total (SD) | 103.86 | (±98.20) | 22.40 | (±14.66) | 53.33 | (±76.33) | 60.83 | (±67.45) |
% | 19.90 | 4.29 | 10.22 | 11.65 |
Sig. ANOVA | Bonferroni Tests | ||
---|---|---|---|
Age | attractiveness of meadow | 0.338 | none |
spruceness of meadow | 0.002 | 0–20 has higher values than 60+ (p = 0.058); 20–40 has higher values than 60+ (p = 0.015); 40–60 has higher values than 60+ (p = 0.001) | |
enriching effect of meadow | 0.153 | none | |
attractiveness of lawn | 0.000 | 0–20 (p = 0.021) and 20–40 (p = 0.000) have higher values than 40–60 | |
spruceness of lawn | 0.000 | 0–20 (p = 0.012) and 20–40 (p = 0.000) have higher values than 40–60; 20–40 has higher values than 60+ (p = 0.009) | |
enriching effect of lawn | 0.000 | 0–20 has higher values than 40–60 (p = 0.010) and 60+ (p = 0.026); 20–40 has higher values than 40–60 (p = 0.000) and 60+ (p = 0.008) | |
Perception of nature | attractiveness of meadow | 0.000 | Highest category has higher values than category 2 (p = 0.024), category 3 (p = 0.000) and category 4 (p = 0.036) |
spruceness of meadow | 0.001 | Highest category has higher values than category 3 (p = 0.003) | |
enriching effect of meadow | 0.000 | Category 1 has higher values than category 3 (p = 0.000) and category 4 (p = 0.014); category 2 has higher values than category 3 (p = 0.000) | |
attractiveness of lawn | 0.000 | Category 2 (p = 0.000) and category 3 (p = 0.000) higher values than category 1 | |
spruceness of lawn | 0.270 | none | |
enriching effect of lawn | 0.002 | Category 1 has lower values than category 2 (p = 0.030) and category 3 (p = 0.006) | |
Access to a a garden | attractiveness of meadow | 0.697 | none |
spruceness of meadow | 0.115 | none | |
enriching effect of meadow | 0.137 | none | |
attractiveness of lawn | 0.006 | Category 1 has lower than category 3 (p = 0.006) | |
spruceness of lawn | 0.001 | Category 3 has higher than category 1 (p = 0.002) and lower values than category 4 (p = 0.014) | |
enriching effect of lawn | 0.001 | Category 1 has lower values than category 3 (p = 0.001) | |
Nature as place for relaxation | attractiveness of meadow | 0.037 | Category 1 has higher values than category 3 (p = 0.034) |
spruceness of meadow | 0.056 | none | |
enriching effect of meadow | 0.000 | Category 1 has higher values than category 3 (p = 0.000) and category 4 (p = 0.001); category 2 has higher values than category 4 (p = 0.010) | |
attractiveness of lawn | 0.001 | Category 1 has lower values than category 3 (p = 0.020) and category 4 (p = 0.009) | |
spruceness of lawn | 0.029 | none | |
enriching effect of lawn | 0.030 | none | |
Observation of plants and animals | attractiveness of meadow | 0.000 | Category 1 (p = 0.000), category 2 (p = 0.000), category 3 (p = 0.002) and category 4 (p = 0.020) have higher values than category 5 |
spruceness of meadow | 0.000 | Category 1 has higher values than category 3 (p = 0.003) and category 5 (p = 0.024); category 2 has higher values than category 3 (p = 0.017) and category 5 (p = 0.044) | |
enriching effect of meadow | 0.000 | Category 1 has higher values than category 3 (p = 0.005), category 4 (p = 0.002) and category 5 (p = 0.000); category 2 has higher values than category 3 (p = 0.004), category 4 (p = 0.002) and category 5 (p = 0.000) | |
attractiveness of lawn | 0.000 | Category 1 has lower values than category 2 (p = 0.003), category 3 (p = 0.000), category 4 (p = 0.000). category 2 has lower values than category 4 (p = 0.007) | |
spruceness of lawn | 0.000 | Category 1 has lower values than category 2 (p = 0.000), category 3 (p = 0.000) and category 4 (p = 0.004) | |
enriching effect of lawn | 0.000 | Category 1 has lower values than category 2 (p = 0.000), category 3 (p = 0.000), category 4 (p = 0.001) and category 5 (p = 0.046) | |
Knowledge of insects | attractiveness of meadow | 0.005 | Category 1 has higher values than category 2 (p = 0.004) and category 3 (p = 0.004) |
spruceness of meadow | 0.000 | Category 2 has higher values than category 3 (p = 0.000) | |
enriching effect of meadow | 0.000 | Category 2 has higher values than category 3 (p = 0.000) | |
attractiveness of lawn | 0.005 | Category 3 has higher values than category 1 (p = 0.021) and category 2 (p = 0.030) | |
spruceness of lawn | 0.141 | none | |
enriching effect of lawn | 0.010 | Category 1 has lower values than category 3 (p = 0.010) | |
Involvement in nature protection | attractiveness of meadow | 0.000 | Category 4 has lower values than category 1 (p = 0.003), category 2 (p = 0.003) and category 3 (p = 0.001) |
spruceness of meadow | 0.000 | Category 4 has lower values than category 1 (p = 0.000), category 2 (p = 0.001) and category 3 (p = 0.016) | |
enriching effect of meadow | 0.000 | Category 4 has lower values than category 1 (p = 0.000), category 2 (p = 0.000) and category 3 (p = 0.000) | |
attractiveness of lawn | 0.000 | Category 1 has lower values than category 3 (p = 0.007) and category 4 (p = 0.000). category 2 has lower values than category 4 (p = 0.015) | |
spruceness of lawn | 0.001 | Category 1 has lower values than category 3 (p = 0.000) and category 4 (p = 0.020) | |
enriching effect of lawn | 0.000 | Category 1 has lower values than category 3 (p = 0.004) and category 4 (p = 0.000) |
© 2017 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Unterweger, P.A.; Schrode, N.; Betz, O. Urban Nature: Perception and Acceptance of Alternative Green Space Management and the Change of Awareness after Provision of Environmental Information. A Chance for Biodiversity Protection. Urban Sci. 2017, 1, 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci1030024
Unterweger PA, Schrode N, Betz O. Urban Nature: Perception and Acceptance of Alternative Green Space Management and the Change of Awareness after Provision of Environmental Information. A Chance for Biodiversity Protection. Urban Science. 2017; 1(3):24. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci1030024
Chicago/Turabian StyleUnterweger, Philipp Andreas, Nicolas Schrode, and Oliver Betz. 2017. "Urban Nature: Perception and Acceptance of Alternative Green Space Management and the Change of Awareness after Provision of Environmental Information. A Chance for Biodiversity Protection" Urban Science 1, no. 3: 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci1030024