journa l h om epage: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /u fug
walk on the wild side: Perceptions of roadside vegetation beyondrees
rauke Webera,∗, Ingo Kowarika,b, Ina Säumela,c
Department of Ecology, Chair of Ecosystem Science/Plant Ecology, Technische Universität Berlin, Rothenburgstr. 12, D-12165 Berlin, GermanyBerlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), 14195 Berlin, GermanyDepartment of Ecology, Chair of Ecological Impact Research and Ecotoxicology, Technische Universität Berlin, Ernst Reuter Platz 1, D-10587 Berlin,ermany
Urban nature is of vital importance for human well-being in an increasingly urbanized world. Despitethe wide variety of urban greenspaces, previous research has mostly focussed on parks and in particularpresence of trees. Although streets are fundamental urban structures and offer an array of green elementsbeyond trees, the perception and valuation of other kinds of roadside vegetation by urban residents isunderstudied so far. This study explores the range of roadside vegetation and associated ecosystem ser-vices perceived by city dwellers in densely populated inner city districts of two German cities. Further, weexplored how wild-grown roadside vegetation is valued by interviewees. Results confirmed the impor-tant role of trees but also demonstrated that city dwellers perceive a variety of cultivated and “wild”green components other than trees. Respondents attached a wide range of meanings and values to road-side greenery and showed a surprisingly high awareness of associated ecosystem services. Wild urbanroadside vegetation met with high approval, although planted and maintained vegetation was preferred.
Our study illustrated that trees and other elements of roadside vegetation fulfil important functions inthe view of the public. For many respondents, ecological and economical functions of roadside vegeta-tion were more important than orderliness. This indicates opportunities for enhancing the biodiversityof urban streetscapes. As public green spaces are in short supply in many cities, enhancing cultivated andwild roadside vegetation could help to deliver ecosystem services in the areas near where people moveand live.
ntroduction
In an increasingly urban world (UN-Habitat, 2008), addressinguman needs in the urban context is essential (Young, 2010).rban greenspaces offer manifold ecosystem services for improv-
ng human well-being and health (Niemelä et al., 2011), fornstance, reducing elevated temperatures (Bowler et al., 2010),rapping airborne pollution (Beckett et al., 1998; Freer-Smitht al., 2004), and improving urban storm water (Bolund andunhammar, 1999). Urban vegetation can positively influence
ocial contact among neighbours (Sullivan, 2004) and allows peo-le to maintain a connection with the natural world (Dunn et al.,006). Even commonplace nearby nature, such as plants in a
Please cite this article in press as: Weber, F., et al., A walk on the wiForestry & Urban Greening (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.20
ourtyard, can have positive effects on human well-being and isell appreciated by the public (Ulrich, 1984; Kaplan and Kaplan,
005; Largo-Wight, 2011). At the very least, urban vegetation
represents a considerable economic resource by increasing themarket values of properties (Lindsey et al., 2004; Saphores and Li,2012).
Recent landscape research has mainly focused on urban parksand greenways, although public urban greenspace comes in manyforms, from large parks to the spaces around public housing, publicfacilities, to the green strips along transportation corridors as wellas the small random areas that are the remnants of urban devel-opment (Williams et al., 2009). As urban growth is projected tocontinue undiminished, the importance of greenspaces beyond thetraditional ones is expected to increase (Fuller and Gaston, 2009).Consequently current landscape research considers rooftop gar-dens (Yuen and Hien, 2005; Oberndorfer et al., 2007), domesticgardens (Goddard et al., 2010), brownfields (Hofmann et al., 2012),pocket parks (Nordh and Ostby, 2013) and fac ade greenery (Köhler,2008). Particularly understudied though, in terms of both ecosys-
ld side: Perceptions of roadside vegetation beyond trees. Urban13.10.010
tem service delivery and perception by the public, is urban roadsidevegetation. This is rather a paradox as road corridors are highly vis-ible habitats where people move and spent a significant amount oftime. Quantitatively, roadside vegetation makes up 10–25% of the
otal urban green space managed by parks departments in Germanities.
Up to now, most studies on roadside vegetation have addressedrees (e.g. Fukahori and Kubota, 2003; Weber et al., 2008;oares et al., 2011). However, roadside vegetation includes aide variety of plants beyond trees owing to the range of cul-
ivated and “wild”, i.e. non-planted, spontaneously emerging,lant assemblages that exists along many road verges and inedian strips, tree planting sites and paving joints. Little infor-ation is available on how urban roadside vegetation is perceived
n general and about preferences for distinct components ofoadside vegetation in particular. A recent nationwide surveyn Germany revealed that 92% of the respondents highly valueoadside trees and greenery (KGST, 2010)—although without spec-fying what type of roadside greenery was valued and in whatespect. A study on how various street planting designs areerceived revealed that trees have the greatest effect on pref-rence, although the space beneath trees, i.e. flowering herbs inombination with trees, can also affect preferences (Todorova et al.,004).
In European cities, design and maintenance of roadside veg-tation are the responsibility of public administrations whosebility to act is hampered by budgeting concerns. Hence oppor-unities for achieving savings and finding low-cost alternativereening measures are in demand. The environmental and eco-omic burden of conventionally managed urban landscapes, inerms of the water, pesticides, and fossil fuels necessary for
aintenance, is becoming increasingly apparent (Skaller, 1981;orman et al., 2001; Kristoffersen et al., 2007). This suggestshat there are opportunities for enhancing biodiversity by allow-ng, or even fostering, elements of “wild” vegetation alongoad corridors. It is an open question, however, whether andow people perceive and value wild vegetation in urban road-capes.
The general public seems to prefer urban landscapes that indi-ate care, control and tidiness and that are managed accordinglyNassauer, 1995; Ford, 2000). In general, studies on public per-eption of wild urban vegetation are scarce and have yieldedontradictory results. Previous work suggests that wild-lookingrban nature is perceived as messy (Hands and Brown, 2002),nsafe (Chiesura, 2004) or scary (Bixler and Floyd, 1997). Othertudies show that city dwellers accept wild urban vegetation inrban parks (Burgess et al., 1988; Özgüner and Kendle, 2006),ormer wastelands (Keil, 2005; Hofmann et al., 2012) or workplacereenery (Kaplan, 2007).
At the same time the potential role of wild urban nature inroviding social and ecological functions and in supporting bio-iversity conservation is increasingly acknowledged (Rink, 2009;el Tredici, 2010; Millard, 2010; Kowarik, 2011). This growingwareness coincides with the emergence of active urban citizen-hip, ranging from sponsorship to guerrilla gardening (Reynolds,009; Müller, 2011), thus possibly signalling a shifting attitude ofome of the public in terms of the management and design of publicrban open greenspace.
Here we aim to explore the role roadside vegetation playsn the everyday lives of city dwellers and the underlying ratio-ales for why certain urban roadside layouts are preferred. Theesearch focuses on roads in highly dense and heavily traffickednner-city residential areas. We thus analyzed (1) the range ofoadside vegetation types perceived by city dwellers, (2) resi-ents’ perceptions of specific types of roadside vegetation, (3)he meanings and values city dwellers attach to roadside vegeta-
Please cite this article in press as: Weber, F., et al., A walk on the wiForestry & Urban Greening (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.20
ion, (4) suggestions for the design and management of roadsideegetation. Results can be used to inform policies and pro-rammes that aim to integrate wild urban vegetation in urbanettings.
Fig. 1. Study site in Cologne.
Methods
To explore the attitudes of city dwellers regarding urban road-side vegetation along a wider geographical range we conductedtwo independent studies in highly dense and heavily traffickedinner-city residential areas of two major German cities (Cologne,Berlin). In each study we used quantitative and qualitative researchmethods to disclose how residents perceive roadside vegetation.Yet as the methodological approaches were different, the studiesare no replicates in a strict sense but complement one another. InCologne, we performed a survey to explore which types of road-side vegetation are significant for residents and which functionsand values residents generally assign to roadside vegetation. InBerlin, we questioned passers-by about their preferences for theexisting wild-grown versus planted and maintained roadside veg-etation and explored underlying motifs and values associated withthose preferences.
Cologne study
The Cologne study was conducted on a lively main arterial roadon the western edge of the inner city of Cologne (81 inhabitants/ha)with a colourful mixture of shops, restaurants, cafés and bars (Fig. 1)(Stadt Köln, 2011). The study was performed on three consecutivetypical summer weekdays, from morning until early evening, in2009.
We asked randomly selected passers-by (N = 108) to answeropen questions presented on a paper form: (1) When you thinkof urban roads, which different plants or vegetation come to mind?(2) How do plants become established along urban roads in youropinion? (3) What activities do you use urban roads for? (4) Whatis vegetation along roads good for in your opinion? and (5) Howshould urban road spaces be designed, what changes would youlike to see? Additionally we asked the respondents their age andgender. More than half of respondents (56%) were younger than 30years, with a slight majority of male respondents (58%) (Table 1).Answers were written down by respondents, or if they had difficul-ties with writing, answers were transcribed word for word by theinterviewer.
Berlin study
ld side: Perceptions of roadside vegetation beyond trees. Urban13.10.010
The Berlin study was conducted on a main arterial road (Fig. 2)in Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg (134 inhabitants/ha), a multiculturalborough with low average age and many cultural attractions (Amt
ig. 2. Study site Warschauer Str. in Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, Berlin, with vegeta-ion in the right forefront presented to the interviewees.
ür Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg, 2010). The study was performedn a typical summer day from morning to late afternoon in 2009.
We asked respondents to fill out a standardized questionnairen-site which was presented on a paper form. The questionnairelso contained open-ended questions and questions relating toocio-demographic data such as age and residence. Around 40% ofespondents were younger than 30 years old, with a nearly balancedender distribution (Table 1). Most (74%) of the respondents livedear the location (40%) or in an inner city borough (33%), and 78%f interviewees were familiar with the place as they were eitherrequently (59%) or occasionally (19%) at this location.
First, we asked which type of roadside vegetation respondentsould prefer for this site: (1) no vegetation at all, (2) planted
nd maintained vegetation, (3) wild-grown vegetation as currentlyxisted (Fig. 1), or (4) does not matter. Second, we asked theespondents to provide keywords to describe the reasons for theirreference. We then asked what associations and thoughts respon-ents had when looking at the existing wild-grown vegetation athe site (Fig. 2) and how much they felt this vegetation beautifiedhe surroundings.
Third, we asked the interviewees what functions, in their opin-on, are generally provided by roadside vegetation. To aid innswering this question, we presented nine items including aes-hetic function, enhancement of well-being, habitat for plants andnimals, and air quality enhancement/filter. Finally, we asked foruggestions for improving the design and management of roadsideegetation.
Please cite this article in press as: Weber, F., et al., A walk on the wiForestry & Urban Greening (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.20
ata analysis
The open-ended questions in the Berlin study and the interviewsn the Cologne study were transcribed and analyzed by content
PRESSn Greening xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3
analysis (Mayring, 2010). In a first pass, a system of generic terms(categories) was developed, based on the respondents’ statements,meaning that statements (words, phrases, paragraphs) with simi-lar content were mapped to a category. For instance, the followingrespondent keywords were mapped to the category “disorder”:“dirty; chaos; ugly; dog droppings; not so beautiful; looks horrible;animals, mice and rats; unkempt; neglected; messy; unhygienic,horrible, antisocial; seedy”. The process of category developmentended when all keywords had been worked through.
In a second pass, each individual keyword was assigned to oneor more of the categories and thereby transformed into an ordinalvariable. Results were than accessible for quantitative analysis.
The statistical software program SPSS 19.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago,IL, USA) was used to test cross-tabulated ordinal data for indepen-dence with the chi-squared test (Kühnel and Krebs, 2010).
Results
Cologne study
Results revealed that respondents (N = 100, 93% valid answers)were aware of various categories of roadside vegetation. The major-ity associated trees (52%) with roadside vegetation. Another 48%thought of a wide range of other plants, ranging from other lifeforms (“shrubs”, “perennials”, “grass”), to specific species (“dan-delion”, “pansies”, “stinging nettles”, “bramble”, etc.) and specificlandscape features such as “flowerbeds”, “planted tree pits”, “smallpatches of grass”, “fac ade greenery”, “balcony plants” and “plantingtubs”.
When asked about the origin of plants along roadsides, themajority of respondents (87%; N = 104, 96% valid answers) believedthey had been planted either by some municipal action (68%) orby private initiatives of various types (“sponsorship”, “proactivegroups”, “guerrilla gardening”; 19%). Only a small fraction (13%)thought of spontaneously occurring vegetation.
Respondents used urban streetscapes for a wide range of leisureand transport purposes (“promenading”, “hanging around”, “streetcafés”, “cycling”, “driving”, and “public transport by buses andtram”). As one respondent put it, urban roads are used “for every-thing, the streets are our living space”.
The significance of roadside greenery for city dwellers was evi-dent in the wide range of values, benefits and functions respondentsattached to it: “Plants are important, without them everything isgrey and ugly”. Roadside vegetation is beneficial “for everything,the climatic situation, for me, for my soul”; “for the flair, memoriesof nature”; “quality of life, nature in the city”, it “lifts the spirit”.Most respondents connected aesthetic functions, well-being andair quality enhancement with roadside vegetation (Table 2). Somerespondents particularly stressed the importance of roadside vege-tation in terms of nature awareness, stating that it “enhances bondswith nature”, “for the eye, so you do not only see stones and cars,[but also] a little nature experience in the city”.
Suggestions for urban road design mostly related to greeningmeasures, including frequent wishes for “more vegetation” and“more trees and plants”. Some respondents particularly wished formore wild-growing vegetation (“some wild vegetation for bees andinsects rather than clean manicured plants”; “more wild plants,alternating wild and cultivated plantings”), or asked for a variety ofplantings (“many plants, not just trees”).
Roadside greenery was strongly connected with the usabilityof urban streets in statements such as “vegetation should create
ld side: Perceptions of roadside vegetation beyond trees. Urban13.10.010
retreats in street spaces” with “more benches, more resting areasand seating that are for free”. “Streets are not ends in themselves;they serve the user and are spaces for communication.” “A lot ofgreenery and plants makes urban spaces lively” and forms “a green
4 F. Weber et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Table 2Ecosystem services provided by roadside vegetation according to respondents in the Cologne study and the Berlin study, multiple replies were possible. In the Berlin studyrespondents were classified as “Urban Devotees”, those who preferred planted and maintained vegetation, or “Wildness Enthusiasts”, those who preferred wild-grownvegetation.
Table 3Beautifying effect of the presented vegetation on the Berlin road corridor according to respondents. Respondents were classified as “Urban Devotees”, those who preferredplanted and maintained vegetation, or “Wildness Enthusiasts”, those who preferred wild-grown vegetation.
How much is the vegetation beautifying it’s surroundings? Urban Devotees Wildness Enthusiasts
N % N %
A lot 14 13 34 37Rather 10 9 24 26Moderate 37 35 23 25Hardly 25 24 11 12
19
105
pswfirpi
B
otwtndpEt
oftaetbpf
firfe“t
Not at all
All
rotective wall between road and sidewalk”. Furthermore, road-ide greenery, street usability and traffic layout for respondentsere strongly interrelated. Hence, some proposals involved traf-c calming measures, a reduction in the number of private carsesulting in a switch to public transport, and improved bicycle andedestrian infrastructure. Surprisingly, orderliness and cleanliness
ssues were of minor importance for respondents.
erlin study
Confronted with the wild-grown vegetation on site, a pluralityf respondents (48%) expressed preference for planted and main-ained vegetation, while 43% of respondents preferred the existingild-grown vegetation. A small minority (8%) indicated that the
ype of roadside vegetation did not matter; one percent preferredo vegetation at all in the road corridor. Based on these results weistinguished two preference groups, the “Urban Devotees”, whoreferred planted and maintained vegetation, and the “Wildnessnthusiasts”, who preferred wild-grown vegetation and kept thewo groups further in our analysis.
Nearly 40% of all respondents stated that the actual vegetationn the site beautified the surroundings “rather” or “a lot”, one-thirdound the beautifying effect “moderate”, while nearly one-thirdhought the vegetation beautified the surroundings “hardly” or “nott all”. Particularly the Wildness Enthusiasts appreciated the veg-tation, whereas the Urban Devotees were less enthusiastic abouthe beautifying effect of the vegetation (Table 3). The perceivedeautifying effect of the vegetation was significantly influenced byreference, while age and gender were independent of preferenceor the roadside vegetation (Table 5).
The open-ended reasons for preferences were assigned tove categories (see Table 4 for examples of keywords given byespondents). “Aesthetic Reasons”, which centred on ideas of the
Please cite this article in press as: Weber, F., et al., A walk on the wiForestry & Urban Greening (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.20
riendlier, more beautiful or attractive appearance of the veg-tation, were mentioned most frequently by all respondents.Nature Reasons”, relating to wildness, biodiversity or nature pro-ection, were stated second-most frequently. Less important were
18 0 055 92 48
“Orderliness Reasons”, which related to care, maintenance andcleanliness, and “economical reasons”, which anticipated lowermaintenance costs of the wild-grown vegetation. “Safety Reasons”,which related to traffic safety concerns of roadside vegetation (e.g.good views at a road junction), were stated least frequently.
Aesthetics and orderliness were most important for the UrbanDevotees, in contrast to reasons associated with nature, which weremost important for the Wildness Enthusiasts. Aesthetics were thesecond most important reason for the latter group, who arguedthat existing wild-growing vegetation was “more natural, morebeautiful and boisterous”. Moreover, economical concerns wereimportant for Wildness Enthusiasts, who felt that the existing vege-tation would be “easier to care for”. The reasons given for preferringa type of vegetation correlated significantly with the preferencegroup (Table 5).
The associations and thoughts respondents offered when pre-sented with the wild-grown vegetation were assigned to fourcategories (Table 4). The category “Disorder” contained rather neg-ative comments about the site including “unkempt”, “untidy” or“neglected”, culminating in hygienic concerns about “rubbish, aller-gies” or “animals, mice and rats”. The category “Ancient Meadow”contained associations of rather romantic scenes such as “countrylanes”, “childhood memories” and “summer meadows”. Thoughtsand associations relating to positive aspects of urban greeningthat enhance human well-being were aggregated to the category“Enjoyable Green”. Associations of the vegetation as being “wild”or “overgrown” were subsumed to the category “Wildness”.
Urban Devotees most frequently associated the scene with dis-order. Although associations given by Wildness Enthusiasts wererather heterogeneously dispersed across all categories, they weregenerally positive. Associations and thoughts relating to “Wildness”revealed an ambivalent connotation, with wildness understoodin a negative sense (“wild, untidy”) or in a positive way (“wild,
ld side: Perceptions of roadside vegetation beyond trees. Urban13.10.010
romantic”). The stated preference for vegetation types significantlyinfluenced associations and thoughts (Table 5).
Asked for ecosystem services of roadside vegetation for boththe Urban Devotees and the Wildness Enthusiasts air quality
Please cite this article in press as: Weber, F., et al., A walk on the wiForestry & Urban Greening (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.20
ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelUFUG-25395; No. of Pages 8
F. Weber et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 5
Table 4(A) Reasons for preferring one landscape type over another. (B) Examples of keywords given by respondents in Berlin to describe their thoughts and associations whenviewing the wild vegetation on the site. (C) Suggestions by respondents in Berlin for improving the design and stewardship of roadside greenspaces and the categoriesto which these responses were assigned with number and percentage of codings. For each category, total entries and percentages are given first, followed by entries andpercentage for “Urban Devotees” (UD) and “Wildness Enthusiasts” (WE) (see Table 2).
Aesthetic reasons 90 40 Disorder 70 37 Greening measures 58 39UD 64 71 UD 53 76 UD 31 53WE 28 31 WE 12 17 WE 27 47Key wordsAesthetics, more aesthetic, beautiful, morebeautiful, better looks, friendlier, inviting, niceappearance, appropriate for the area, always beenlike this around here
Dirty; chaos; ugly; dog droppings; garbage;brownfield, railroad; train station; not nice; not sobeautiful; looks horrible; animals, mice and rats;unkempt; neglected; messy; unhygienic, horrible,antisocial; seedy; inconspicuous, ordinary
Flowering plants; hedges; mixed plantings;flowering shrubs; more trees; more shrubs; moreflowers; more green; flowers, more maintenance;tulips; roses; more wild-growing vegetation; wildherbs; wild but cared for; more lawn, lawn forsunbathing
Nature reasons 55 25 Ancient meadow 29 15 Orderliness 50 33UD 3 5 UD 11 38 UD 26 52WE 47 85 WE 16 55 WE 23 46Key wordsNatural, more natural, nature in the city, nature,true nature, more pristine, animals, biodiversity,area for animals, need of protection, natureprotection, interested in biology, green, greener,more green spaces in the city
Old railway lines, beautiful; English garden; field,spring; field, meadow; country lane; earlychildhood; home attachment; childhoodmemories; romantic; summer meadow; wildgarden; like in former times; wild-romantic;overgrown garden
More maintenance; cleanliness; waste disposal;weeding
Orderliness 36 16 Wild nature 44 23 Usability 26 17UD 32 89 UD 23 52 UD 11 42WE 5 14 WE 18 40 WE 14 54Key wordsCared for, well-kept, less rubbish, orderly, cleaner,fresher
Wild, pristine; wild, jumble; wild, unplanned;overgrown; natural; wild in the city; nature, green;wild nature; biotope; species diversity
More benches; more rubbish bins; more dog areas;fewer cars, more space for people; bicycle paths;playgrounds; trimming in crossing areas
Economical reasons 15 7 Enjoyable green 28 15 Responsibilities 16 11UD 2 13 UD 8 29 UD 10 62WE 12 80 WE 22 79 WE 4 25Key wordsFinancial reasons, inexpensive, cheaper, plantedvegetation will be destroyed
Calm; harmony; relaxation; wild, beautiful; noiseattenuation, security; aesthetic value, beautifulwild green; beautiful green island within thetraffic; more green in the city; appealing; green isgreat; pleasure of urban green; colourful
Local action group; godparenthood; sponsorship;being more proactive; discipline, more publicrelations work; more diversity and more qualifiedpersonnel; spending taxes on maintenance; moremaintenance work by the unemployed
Oxygen production, do not live here, not interested High traffic density; typicaTotal 223 100 Total
Table 5Analysis of independence between stated preference for the existing wild-growingvegetation in the Berlin study (= preference group: Which type of roadside vegeta-tion layout would you prefer for this site?a) and analyzed items, age and gender bychi-squared test. �2, df and p-values are given, chi-square statistics significant on a0.05 level are bold. Items were derived from responses to the following questions:Why do you have this preference?b What do you think of when you look at this veg-etation; do you have any associations?c Which services and functions does roadsidevegetation perform/fulfil in your opinion?d How much is this vegetation beautify-ing the surroundings?e Do you have any suggestions for improving the design andmanagement of roadside vegetation?f.
17 9 Other suggestions 1 1l Berlin; unprotected188 100 Total 150 100
enhancement and aesthetic functions were most important, fol-lowed by psychological well-being and habitat function (Table 2).Chi-squared test showed preferences were associated with theperceived ecosystem services (Table 5).
Respondents’ suggestions concerning roadside design wereassigned to four categories: “Greening Measures”, “Orderliness”,“Usability” and “Responsibilities” (Table 4). Respondents most fre-quently suggested greening measures, ranging from quantitativeproposals such as “more green”, “more shrubs”, “more flowers”,“more wild-growing vegetation” to suggestions for specific species(“tulips”, “roses”; Table 4).
Suggestions related to orderliness were given nearly as fre-quently as the greening measures and mostly related to increasedmaintenance and cleanliness. Propositions for improved usability(“more benches”, “more rubbish bins”, “more bicycle paths” or “dogareas”, “fewer cars”; Table 4) covered a wide spectrum of specificimprovements and specific equipment. Suggestions for assigning
ld side: Perceptions of roadside vegetation beyond trees. Urban13.10.010
responsibility for care yielded various ideas for alternative formsof vegetation maintenance along city streets (“more qualified per-sonnel” or “local action groups for maintenance”; Table 4). The
uggestions brought forward by the two preference groups, therban Devotees and Wildness Enthusiasts, were quite similar.hi-squared test showed that suggestions for improvement were
ndependent of preference (Table 5).
iscussion
This study analysis the range of roadside vegetation beyondtreet trees as perceived by city dwellers and the values and mean-ngs of this vegetation for them. Our study illustrated that (i)esidents perceived a wide range of vegetation elements beyondlanted street trees, (ii) wild roadside vegetation met with a highpproval when presented to city dwellers in Berlin, although thereere clear differences between Urban Devotees and Wildness
nthusiasts, and (iii) people’s awareness of various ecosystem ser-ices provided by roadside vegetation was surprisingly high.
ange of perceived vegetation types
Trees dominated the perception of city dwellers in Cologne. Thisesult confirms other studies on perception of streetscapes (Zhangnd Lin, 2011), urban greenspace (Lo and Jim, 2012) or urban naturen general (Priego et al., 2008). Of course, trees are dominant visibleeatures within the urban matrix analogous to buildings, and theisibility of the urban forest strongly correlates with the canopyover of trees and shrubs (Yang et al., 2009). However, wild urbanature has not been regularly addressed in previous studies. Simi-
arly, studies on the ecosystem services of vegetation along streetsave also mainly focused on trees (Escobedo and Nowak, 2009;cPherson et al., 2011; Nowak et al., 2006; Soares et al., 2011; Yang
t al., 2005; Bowler et al., 2010).Yet the Cologne study also revealed that more than one-third
f respondents perceived a wide variety of roadside vegeta-ion beyond trees. This suggests margins for optimizing roadsidereenery beyond street tree establishment and maintenance. Wild-rown roadside vegetation did not play a major role for respondentsn Cologne, whereas half of respondents in Berlin assessed wildrban roadside vegetation positively when presented with it. Theseontrasting results can be explained by differences in the expo-ure of interviewees in both cities. The long tradition in Berlin ofncorporating wild urban nature into the urban green infrastructureLachmund, 2013) might have influenced perception patterns.
erceptions and valuation
Our study demonstrated that wild urban roadside vegetationresented to city dwellers met with surprising high approval,lthough, overall planted and maintained vegetation was slightlyore preferred. City dwellers’ preferences towards wild roadside
egetation was significantly influenced (Table 5) by cognitive andffective (Table 4) processes. In the Berlin study, we were ableo distinguish two preference groups: the Urban Devotees, whoreferred planted and maintained vegetation, and the Wildnessnthusiasts, who preferred the existing wild-grown vegetation.or the first group aesthetics and orderliness were decisive forreference (Table 4). Preference within the general public forore “traditional” designs with an emphasis on a tidy and orderly
ppearance has been reported in earlier studies, which concludedhat wilder urban nature might appear as unkempt and worthlessNassauer, 1995; Özgüner and Kendle, 2006). Surprisingly though,
considerable number of the Urban Devotees thought the existingild urban roadside vegetation beautified the surroundings. This
Please cite this article in press as: Weber, F., et al., A walk on the wiForestry & Urban Greening (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.20
uggests that a prevailing preference for cultivated vegetation canoexist with a positive view of wild urban vegetation.
Almost half of the respondents in the Berlin study preferred thexisting spontaneous roadside vegetation (Wildness Enthusiasts),
PRESSn Greening xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
which suggests that some urban subgroups value wild roadsidevegetation as a desirable greening alternative. The given reasonsand associations indicate that ecological and economical concernswere more important than orderliness concerns for some of therespondents. Correspondingly, a study on yard choices in a desertmetropolis showed that respondents who prefer xeric yards areaware of the environmental benefits of their choices (Larson et al.,2009).
In contrast to other studies on urban green spaces (Todorovaet al., 2004; Lo and Jim, 2012), age and sex of interviewees hadno significant influence on preference in our study (Table 5). Thisimplies that these basic socio-demographic concepts possibly arenot sufficient to explain landscape preferences in urban areas. Sinceurban populations are expected to become increasingly diverse(for Berlin: SenStadt, 2009; for Germany: Maretzke, 2012), fur-ther research into a wider set of socio-demographic and lifestyledata could clarify how preferences for urban nature are deter-mined. Non-urban studies on wilderness valuation illustrate theimportance of cultural background for determining landscape pre-ferences (e.g. Buijs et al., 2009).
Awareness of ecosystem services
Our results showed that ecosystem services supplied by road-side vegetation were important for most city dwellers in bothstudies (Table 2) stressing the relevance of these comparable smallurban green elements for human well-being and health. Humanhealth and well-being depends on ecosystem services (MEA, 2005)and city dwellers living in a greener urban environment perceivethemselves as healthier than others (De Vries et al., 2003; Maaset al., 2006). Moreover, a Dutch study revealed that roadside veg-etation is as strongly related to the self reported health of citydwellers as parks (Van Dillen et al., 2012). For respondents inCologne, roadside greenery was strongly associated with the usabil-ity of street spaces—a concept that combines aesthetic aspects,safety and well-being—and thus contributing to a pleasant atmo-sphere that makes people want to linger. Analogously, a recentstudy shows that “natural” elements such as grass, flowers and treeswere most frequently associated with perceived restorative experi-ences in pocket parks (Nordh and Ostby, 2013). Further, a pleasantstreetscape could foster the use of active transportation, an issueof growing importance for public health policies (e.g. Cervero andDuncan, 2003; Saelens et al., 2003; Srinivasan et al., 2003).
Roadside vegetation was particularly important for interview-ees in terms of providing an awareness of nature. This illustrates theconnection between conceptual ideas about the social and ecolog-ical functions of urban nature (Dunn et al., 2006; Del Tredici, 2010)and the views of respondents on the functions of (wild) roadsidevegetation. As public green spaces are in chronically short supplyin some cities (Barbosa et al., 2007), enhancing roadside vegetationcould help to deliver ecosystem services in the areas near wherepeople move and live.
Public participation in optimizing roadside design andmanagement
Respondents in both cities provided many suggestions forimproving the usability of streetspaces and connected greenery(Table 4). Suggestions on the management of roadside green-ings suggest an openness of local residents to—and a possibledemand for—alternative forms of vegetation maintenance alongcity streets. These proposals could be used to enhance partic-
ld side: Perceptions of roadside vegetation beyond trees. Urban13.10.010
ipation in the development phase of green roadscapes. Publicparticipation approaches are increasingly acknowledged withinthe field of urban planning (Abu-Ghazzeh, 1996; Hoeppner et al.,2007). A recent Nepalese study emphasized the importance of
nvolving city dwellers in decision making as people were unsatis-ed with existing urban greenery and its management and wishedo be more involved in planning, implementation and managementLamichhane and Thapa, 2012).
mplications for the field of design
Our results showed that attitudes of city dwellers towards wildrban vegetation not only greatly diverged but also showed strongffective responses in some. Since the wild-grown vegetation in theerlin study evoked strong negative feelings in some, such concernseed to be taken seriously if low intervention greening measuresre targeted for roadsides. “Cues to care”, that is, visible indicationsf human intervention (Nassauer, 1995), are critical for providinghe necessary comfort.
Public involvement in the layout of urban ecosystems is impor-ant for gaining information on peoples attitudes and for informinghe public since information (i.e. on the possible benefits of wildrban vegetation) might influence attitudes.
cknowledgements
This study was supported by the Postgraduate Research andtudy Programme (DFG–GRK 780) “Perspectives on Urban Ecology
the Example of the European Metropolis of Berlin”. We thankhristian and Thorsten Weber, Ulrike Rosenfellner and our students
rom the study project on urban roadside vegetation for technicalssistance and Kelaine Ravdin for improving the English.
eferences
bu-Ghazzeh, T.M., 1996. Reclaiming public spaces: the ecology of neighborhoodopen space in the town of Abu-Nuseir, Jordan. Landscape and Urban Planning36, 197–216.
mt für Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg, 2010. Statistisches Jahrbuch 2010, http://www.statistik-berlin-brandenburg.de/produkte/Jahrbuch/jb2010/JB 201001BE.pdf (retrieved 18.02.13).
arbosa, O., Tratalos, J.A., Armsworth, P.R., Davies, R.G., Fuller, R.A., Johnson, P., Gas-ton, K.J., 2007. Who benefits from access to green space? A case study fromSheffield, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning 83, 187–195.
eckett, K.P., Freer-Smith, P.H., Taylor, G., 1998. Urban woodlands: their rolein reducing the effects of particulate pollution. Environmental Pollution 99,347–360.
ixler, R.D., Floyd, M.F., 1997. Nature is scary, disgusting, and uncomfortable. Envi-ronment and Behavior 29, 443–467.
orman, F.H., Balmori, D., Geballe, G.T., 2001. Redesigning the American Lawn: ASearch for Environmental Harmony, 2nd ed. Yale University Press, Newhaven.
owler, D.E., Buyung-Ali, L., Knight, T.M., Pullin, A.S., 2010. Urban greening to cooltowns and cities: a systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landscape andUrban Planning 97, 147–155.
uijs, A.E., Elands, B.H.M., Langers, F., 2009. No wilderness for immigrants: culturaldifferences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape and UrbanPlanning 91, 113–123.
urgess, J., Harrison, C.M., Limb, M., 1988. People, parks and the urban green: a studyof popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city. Urban Studies 25,455–473.
ervero, R., Duncan, M., 2003. Walking, bicycling, and urban landscapes: evi-dence from the San Francisco Bay area. American Journal of Public Health 93,1478–1483.
hiesura, A., 2004. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape andUrban Planning 68, 129–138.
e Vries, S., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., Spreeuwenberg, P., 2003. Natural envi-ronments healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationshipbetween greenspace and health. Environment and Planning 35, 1717–1731.
el Tredici, P., 2010. Spontaneous urban vegetation: reflections of change in a glob-alized world. Nature and Culture 5, 299–315.
unn, R.R., Gavin, M.C., Sanchez, M.C., Solomon, J.N., 2006. The pigeon paradox:dependence of global conservation on urban nature. Conservation Biology 20,
Please cite this article in press as: Weber, F., et al., A walk on the wiForestry & Urban Greening (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.20
1814–1816.scobedo, F.J., Nowak, D.J., 2009. Spatial heterogeneity and air pollution removal by
an urban forest. Landscape and Urban Planning 90, 102–110.ord, L.R., 2000. The Spaces Between Buildings. Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore.
PRESSn Greening xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 7
Freer-Smith, P.H., El-Khatib, A.A., Taylor, G., 2004. Capture of particulate pollutionby trees: A comparison of species typical of semi-arid areas Ficus nitida andEucalyptus globulus with European and North American species. Water, Air, andSoil Pollution 155, 173–187.
Fukahori, K., Kubota, Y., 2003. The role of design elements on the cost-effectivenessof streetscape improvement. Landscape and Urban Planning 63, 75–91.
Fuller, R.A., Gaston, K.J., 2009. The scaling of green space coverage in European cities.Biology Letters 5, 352–355.
Goddard, M.A., Dougill, A.J.H., Benton, T.G., 2010. Scaling up from gardens: biodiver-sity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25,90–98.
Hands, D.E., Brown, R.D., 2002. Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilita-tion sites. Landscape and Urban Planning 58, 57–70.
Hoeppner, C., Frick, J., Buchecker, M., 2007. Assessing psycho-social effects of par-ticipatory landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 83, 196–207.
Hofmann, M., Westermann, J.R., Kowarik, I., van der Meer, E., 2012. Perceptionsof parks and urban derelict land by landscape planners and residents. UrbanForestry and Urban Greening 11, 303–312.
Kaplan, R., 2007. Employees’ reactions to nearby nature at their workplace: the wildand the tame. Landscape and Urban Planning 82, 17–24.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 2005. Preference, restoration and meaningful action in thecontext of nearby nature. In: Barlett, P.F. (Ed.), Urban Place: Reconnecting withthe Natural World. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 271–299.
Keil, A., 2005. Use and perception of post-industrial urban landscapes in the Ruhr.In: Kowarik, I., Körner, K. (Eds.), Wild Urban Woodlands. New Perspectives forUrban Forestry. Springer, Berlin, pp. 117–131.
KGST, 2010. Ergebnisse der dritten bundesweiten Internet-Befragung zur Mes-sung der Bürgerzufriedenheit mit kommunalen Grünflächen, http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/stadtgruen/gruenanlagen/de/umfrage/index.shtml (retrieved 18.02.13).
Köhler, M., 2008. Green facades – a view back and some visions. Urban Ecosystems11, 423–436.
Kowarik, I., 2011. Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity and conservation. Environ-mental Pollution 159, 1974–1983.
Kristoffersen, P., Rask, A.M., Grundy, A.C., Franzen, I., Kempenaars, C., Raisio, J.,Schroeder, H., Spijker, J., Verschwele, A., Zarina, L., 2007. A review of pesticidepolicies and regulations for urban amenity areas in seven European countries.Weed Research 4, 201–214.
Kühnel, S.M., Krebs, D., 2010. Statistik für die Sozialwissenschaften. Rowohlt, Rein-bek.
Lachmund, J., 2013. Greening Berlin: The Co-production of Science, Politics, andUrban Nature. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lamichhane, D., Thapa, H.B., 2012. Participatory urban forestry in Nepal: gaps andways forward. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 11, 105–111.
Largo-Wight, E., 2011. Cultivating healthy places and communities: evidenced-based nature contact recommendations. International Journal of EnvironmentalHealth Research 21, 41–61.
Larson, K.L., Casagrande, D., Harlan, S.L., Yabiku, S.T., 2009. Residents’ yard choicesand rationales in a desert city: social priorities, ecological impacts, and decisiontradeoffs. Environmental Management 44, 921–937.
Lindsey, G., Man, J., Payton, S., Dickson, K., 2004. Property values, recreation val-ues, and urban greenways. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 22,69–90.
Lo, A.Y.H., Jim, C.Y., 2012. Citizen attitude and expectation towards greenspace pro-vision in compact urban milieu. Land Use Policy 29, 577–586.
Maas, J., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., de Vries, S., Spreeuwenberg, P., 2006. Greenspace, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? Journal of Epidemiologyand Community Health 60, 587–592.
Maretzke, S., 2012. Schrumpfend, alternd, bunter? Antworten auf dendemographischen Wandel. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Demographie e.V. DGD,http://www.demographie-online.de/fileadmin/publikationen/dgd-online 012012 Schrumpfend alternd bunter.pdf (retrieved 18.02.13).
Mayring, P., 2010. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Weinheim, Beltz.McPherson, E.G., Simpson, J.R., Xiao, Q.F., Wu, C.X., 2011. Million trees Los Angeles
canopy cover and benefit assessment. Landscape and Urban Planning 99, 40–50.MEA, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends. Findings
of the Condition and Trends Working Group. Island Press, Washington, DC.Millard, A., 2010. Cultural aspects of urban biodiversity. In: Müller, N., Werner, P.,
Kelcey, J.G. (Eds.), Urban Biodiversity and Design. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.Müller, C., 2011. Urban Gardening: Über die Rückkehr der Gärten in die Stadt. oekom,
2011. Urban Ecology: Patterns, Processes, and Applications. Oxford UniversityPress, New York.
Nordh, H., Ostby, K., 2013. Pocket parks for people – a study of park design and use.Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 12, 12–17.
Nowak, D.J., Crane, D.E., Stevens, J.C., 2006. Air pollution removal by urban trees andshrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 4, 115–123.
ld side: Perceptions of roadside vegetation beyond trees. Urban13.10.010
fin, S., Kohler, M., Liu, K.K.Y., Rowe, B., 2007. Green roofs as urban ecosystems:ecological structures, functions, and services. Bioscience 57, 823–833.
Ozguner, H., Kendle, A.D., 2006. Public attitudes towards naturalistic versus designedlandscapes in the city of Sheffield (UK). Landscape and Urban Planning 74,139–157.
Yuen, B., Hien, W.N., 2005. Resident perceptions and expectations of rooftop gardensin Singapore. Landscape and Urban Planning 73, 263–276.
ARTICLEFUG-25395; No. of Pages 8
F. Weber et al. / Urban Forestry &
riego, C., Breuste, J.-H., Rojas, J., 2008. Perception and value of nature in urban land-scapes: a comparative analysis of cities in Germany, Chile and Spain. LandscapeOnline 7, 1–22.
eynolds, R., 2009. On Guerrilla Gardening: A Handbook for Gardening WithoutBoundaries. Bloomsbury, London.
ink, R., 2009. Wilderness: the nature of urban shrinkage? The debate on urbanrestructuring and renaturation in eastern Germany. Nature and Culture 4,275–292.
aelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F., Black, J.B., Chen, D., 2003. Neighborhood-based differences inphysical activity: an environment scale evaluation. American Journal of PublicHealth 93, 1552–1558.
aphores, J.D., Li, W., 2012. Estimating the value of urban green areas: a hedonic pri-cing analysis of the single family housing market in Los Angeles, CA. Landscapeand Urban Planning 104, 373–387.
enStadt, 2009. Demografiekonzept für Berlin, http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/demografischer wandel/downloads/demografiekonzept.pdf(retrieved 18.02.13).
oares, A.L., Rego, F.C., McPherson, E.G., Simpson, J.R., Peper, P.J., Xiao, Q., 2011.Benefits and costs of street trees in Lisbon, Portugal. Urban Forestry and UrbanGreening 10, 69–78.
rinivasan, S., O’Fallon, L.R., Dearry, A., 2003. Creating healthy communities, healthyhomes, healthy people: initiating a research agenda on the built environmentand public health. American Journal of Public Health 93, 1446–1450.
Please cite this article in press as: Weber, F., et al., A walk on the wiForestry & Urban Greening (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.20
koeln.de/mediaasset/content/pdf15/statistisches jahrbuch k ln 2011.pdf(retrieved 18.02.13).
ullivan, W.C., 2004. Forest, savanna, city: evolutionary landscapes and human func-tioning. In: Barlett, P.F. (Ed.), Urban Place: Reconnecting with the Natural World.The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 237–253.
PRESSn Greening xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Todorova, A., Asakawa, S., Aikoh, T., 2004. Preferences for and attitudes towardsstreet flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning 69,403–416.
Ulrich, R.S., 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery.Science 224, 420–421.
UN-Habitat, 2008. State of the World’s Cities 2008/9: Harmonious Cities. Earthscan,London.
Van Dillen, S.M.E., de Vries, S., Groenewegen, P.P., Spreeuwenberg, P., 2012.Greenspace in urban neighbourhoods and residents’ health: adding quality toquantity. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 66, e8.
Weber, R., Schnier, J., Jacobsen, T., 2008. Aesthetics of streetscapes: influence offundamental properties on aesthetic judgments of urban space. Perceptual andMotor Skills 106, 128–146.
Williams, D., Young, C., Hooper, I., Jarvis, P., 2009. Urban small sites – landscape ecol-ogy and contribution to urban green space. In: Catchpole, R., Smithers, R., Baarda,P., Eycott, A. (Eds.), Ecological Networks, Science and Practice. IALE, Edinburgh,UK, pp. 197–200.
Yang, J., McBride, J., Zhou, J., Sun, Z., 2005. The urban forest in Beijing and its role inair pollution reduction. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 3, 65–78.
Yang, J., Zhao, L., McBride, J., Gong, P., 2009. Can you see green? Assessingthe visibility of urban forests in cities. Landscape and Urban Planning 91,97–104.
Young, R.F., 2010. Managing municipal green space for ecosystem services. UrbanForestry and Urban Greening 9, 313–321.
ld side: Perceptions of roadside vegetation beyond trees. Urban13.10.010
Zhang, H., Lin, S.-H., 2011. Affective appraisal of residents and visual elements in theneighborhood: a case study in an established suburban community. Landscapeand Urban Planning 101, 11–21.
