Next Article in Journal
Introducing the Occupational Health and Safety Potential Midpoint Impact Indicator in Social Life Cycle Assessment
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Varying Olive Mill Wastewater Concentrations on Soil Free-Living Nematode Communities and Lettuce Growth
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 9
10.3390/su16093849
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Assessment of Residents’ Perception of Possible Benefits and Challenges of Home Vertical Gardens in Kigali, Rwanda

by
Rahman Tafahomi
1,*,
David Nkurunziza
2,
Gatoni Gwladys Benineza
2,
Reihaneh Nadi
3 and
Regis Dusingizumuremyi
1
1
Department of Architecture and Design, School of Architecture and Built Environment, College of Science and Technology, The University of Rwanda, Kigali P.O. Box 3900, Rwanda
2
Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatics Engineering, School of Engineering, College of Science and Technology, The University of Rwanda, Kigali P.O. Box 3900, Rwanda
3
Independent Researcher, Kigali P.O. Box 3527, Rwanda
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(9), 3849; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093849
Submission received: 18 November 2023 / Revised: 10 January 2024 / Accepted: 23 January 2024 / Published: 3 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Urban and Rural Development)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper aimed to provide a new insight into the application of home vertical gardens in Kigali, the capital of Rwanda, through a pre-assessment of the inhabitants’ perceptions. There are several studies that indicated the awareness of the way residents think about the potential benefits and challenges of home gardens could make a considerable difference in designing and implementing these gardens. The Likert-scaled questionnaire (n = 558) was employed to evaluate how residents perceive vertical gardens, and what issues concern them most. The findings revealed that dwellers are almost familiar with the vertical garden concept and its possible effects on urban environments. The respondents mostly regarded vertical gardens as nice spots to socialize, relax, and interact with nature, and an opportunity for beautification, and recreation by growing ornamental and edible plants. However, they were rather apprehensive about some issues, more importantly, the extra expenses, the complicated operation and maintenance, and the type of structure installed on walls. In conclusion, small-scale and low-cost vertical gardens with lightweight structures and easy-to-use technologies are more likely to encourage householders to embrace home gardens. It is recommended that the vertical garden projects should be integrated into the urban green network strategy, leading to facilitating the processes of decision-making and financing.

1. Introduction

While global warming, climate change, and urban resiliency are the key issues of urban life in recent years, several studies argued that even small green spaces such as kitchen gardens [1], living walls [2], roof gardens [3], vertical gardens [4], and green courtyards could positively affect the global issues at macro level [5]. As many parts of the world have encountered rapid urbanization and concerns about urban sustainability, it is thought that residents should be encouraged to take measures, like home (vertical) gardens, to mitigate environmental problems [6]. In addition, the psychological factors of home-based green spaces such as physical health [7], mental health [8], users’ mood [9], positive memory about location [10], the relief of stress [11], sense of belonging [12], and aesthetic and beautification [13] are regarded as benefits of kitchen and vertical gardens on small scales.
Vertical gardens and living walls were discussed widely based on the application on facade, roof, and floor structures [14] to maximize the use of spaces for growing plants [15] with effects on food circulation [16], cooling of cities, and framing up in the cities [17]. From a wide perspective, not only the green aspects of landscape design include benefits for users [18,19] but also the buildings benefit from green spaces such as decreased temperatures, improved cooling, and reduced albedo effect [5,20]. In addition, some studies listed other aspects of the benefits of green and natural elements on social interaction, well-being, and community quality [21,22]. For example, Miller [23] revealed that rich green areas could reduce the level of social disturbance and increase resiliency in unexpected situations in cities [24]. Nonetheless, a major part of the studies took place in developed countries [18,25].
While the major parts of the studies took place in the formal landscapes in recent years that were registered in terms of public spaces such as parks, open spaces, and natural resources [21], the evidence showed that informal and small green spaces such as vertical gardens, kitchen gardens, decorative plants, follower boxes [26], and native plants [27] include benefits for social interactions even in temporal forms [4]. As a piece of evidence, Tafahomi [18] highlighted that both private and public landscapes contribute to the urban temperature and cooling of the buildings in three different layers, including green spaces in courtyards, trees in liner forms alongside streets to provide shading for buildings, and the climber vines and shrubs to cover walls.
While the development of urban landscapes was recommended widely by urban development documents [28,29,30], the implementation and application in small scales, particularly households, faced challenges due to the absence of clear guidelines [18,31]. In fact, on the one hand, the development of urban landscapes failed due to the low level of knowledge about arboriculture to reduce the urban landscape into wood trees [32,33,34]. On the other hand, the small-scale gardens have been integrated into the ethno-botanical aspects of society [18] and socio-ecological interaction along the time [35], which resulted in gaps between inhabitants and natural environment [12] that have reduced gardens globally in a household scale. This problem of the application of landscape on a household scale was mentioned in terms of “cultural landscape” [36]. The cultural landscape reveals the level of interest and passion among inhabitants to apply, maintain, and even invest in home scale landscapes such as vertical gardens.
The problems of this research are elaborated in the way that inhabitants use gardens as a portion of the land on the ground, which, in congested areas, gardens are replaced with hardscapes such as parking and paved courtyards for daily activities. However, vertical garden concepts reduce dependency on the soil of the land and the portion of the plot for growing plants. Analyzing the opinions of inhabitants in cities through questionnaires and interviews has led both researchers and urban managers to deal with urban green spaces on different scales [25,37]. For this reason, exploring the ideas of the inhabitants about vertical gardens and their beliefs on this topic have been one of the trends in studies in many countries [38] due to the changing process of lived experience inhabitants and relationships between people, plants, and location [18]. Therefore, the research questions are formulated as:
What kinds of green spaces do the inhabitants prefer to use in vertical gardens?
What are the opinions of the inhabitants about the effects of vertical gardens on the city climate?
What are the inhabitants’ concerns about the possible risks of implementing vertical gardens?
Regarding the research problems and questions, the main objective of this research was to discover the opinions of the inhabitants in Kigali about the potential benefits and challenges of home vertical gardens to improve green landscape, and therefore the quality of urban life. This was based on a systematic survey [18,25,37] to facilitate the implementation of urban landscape at micro level [25]. The city was originally located in a forest area with a tropical climate, however, rapid urbanization, new development, and unplanned settlements have gradually changed the forest into an urban fabric, and the hardscape in houses developed as a fashion [39]. To explore the research questions and objectives about vertical gardens and their effects on the quality of life in both households and urban areas, this research began with a literature review, followed with designing questionnaire, and analyzing the collected data to highlight the findings, discussion, conclusion, and recommendations.

2. Vertical Gardens and Opinions of Inhabitants

From an ontological perspective, gardens were the first attempt of inhabitants to bring the forest into order for fruit production [1,40] as a primitive aspect of horticulture. Tzoulas [41] highlighted kitchen gardens, courtyards, and house greenery as a significant part of the urban green infrastructure to contribute the climate stabilization of cities. While the classification did not present any specific scale or quality, it can be assumed that all categorical gardens in houses could be part of the urban ecosystem to create urban green infrastructure [38] that supports the ecosystem and biodiversity in cities [42].
Vertical gardens in the field of landscape design are classified into two general categories, including vertical gardens and living walls [43,44]. The vertical gardens include specific structures such as flower boxes, roof gardens, and green terraces that can be used as containers for the plants to keep them independent from the ground for growing [2,45,46]. The living walls refer to the vine’s structure with a direct connection to the ground for nutrition. The plants on the living walls could be hosted by the walls directly or indirectly through supportive structures such as fences, wires, and scaffolders [47]. Loh [48] showed some examples of the application of both living walls and vertical gardens in indoor and outdoor spaces through panel, flat, and container systems. Nonetheless, the living walls with the climber vines are common to observe in urban areas due to the low maintenance costs. In addition, the study highlighted the application of living walls in Kigali based on the covering fences and walls for more privacy and a reference point for the area of the land [39].
The living wall could extend and expand over the walls, fences, and buildings due to the stems of plants and connection to the ground based on the growing system of the climber plants [18]. However, the growth of plants in vertical gardens is limited to the size of the containers due to the specification of soils, water, and plants. Despite the limitations of applying vertical gardens in homes due to the structure, maintenance, and the size of growth, a variety of vertical garden concepts could be observed in the household scales due to the culture and context [4]. The report highlighted that the landscape in different locations is constructed based on the cultural factors among inhabitants over time [49]. This transformation of the urban landscape referred to the socio-economic aspects in developing countries to modify the spaces for the new generations [39]. Through this process, people change the urban elements and functions to adapt the urban environment to their needs [50].
There are differentiations between the vertical garden concept in terms of household scale for self-consumption and urban farming concerning urban agriculture and food production through industrialization and commercial activities [4,17]. Urban farming refers to the new technology conceptualized to answer food production in urban metropolitan areas through the construction of multistory buildings for mechanized farming on large scales [16,17]. While the urban farming concept attempts to solve the food shortage, climate change, and water systems in urban areas, green walls and vertical gardens support food production for self-consumption, beautification, the creation of hangout spots, and increasing interaction with nature on a small scale [18,28,51].
The studies revealed the clusters of benefits for vertical gardens and green spaces in urban areas. For example, there is a set of studies on individuals that focused on the benefits to humans and users such as the improvement of mental and physical health and overall well-being [7,9,11,52]. The second cluster referred to the beautification, sense of place, connection to the location, and cultural values [12,19,25,26,37,53]. The third cluster is concerned with climate change, urban environment, and urbanization levels [21,25,30,54,55,56]. The fourth cluster mentioned the food support system through urban gardening and farming [4,14,17]. In addition, another group of studies preferred to classify the benefits of urban green into environmental, economic, and social [57], which are more dimensional categories than thematic ones.
To achieve the benefits, the residents’ awareness of home vertical gardens is of a great importance. Filor [58] argued that a developed landscape could represent the concerns of inhabitants about the landscape. However, people might perceive landscapes in various ways, so there are differences and even gaps in the official recommendations and applications in urban environments [59]. These gaps could result in passivity among dwellers in regard to developing landscapes [18], which would reveal a contradiction between socio-culture and built environment policies, and actions [60]. Nonetheless, Barker [61] stated that culture includes a wide range of meanings, even contradictive ones. Culture is under reconstruction based on the daily activities of inhabitants [62]. For this reason, a new terminology of culture refers to the “mapping of meanings” [61], p. 87. It refers to the perspective of the user to interpret and apply vertical gardens. For example, Coupaye [12] highlighted that users make assumptions about the patterns of vertical gardens due to the behaviors of plants. Moreover, the study mentioned that the level of anthropological relationships between users and plants on a small scale, like home gardens, was higher than it was in urban farms. In this regard, many factors influence the opinions of users to select plants for planning, cultivation, and application in vertical gardens due to social, cultural, and anthropological aspects depending on time and location [12]. This background constructed symbolic meanings for plants in different cultures due to lived experiences based on beliefs and customs [40] and even mythology [63].
However, there are concerns about possible challenges, cost-benefit considerations, and motivations to implement home gardening such as vertical gardens [64]. Despite the increasing value of properties with green spaces [65,66], some issues are considered to discourage dwellers to develop home vertical gardens, such as knowledge, costs, and maintenance [25]. For example, Zahir [67] discussed that limited knowledge of practical issues, particularly the technical aspects of implementation, deters residents from the application of vertical gardens [68]. Another study in Cyprus indicated that economic and technological complications posed barriers in relation to embracing the concept of home vertical gardens by inhabitants [69].
In summary, vertical garden concepts and ideas are a reaction to the limited land in the houses due to the congestion and density in the urban areas that need to be advertised and celebrated. Benefits of the vertical gardens include psychological aspects (relaxation, view of green spaces, and places to sit), health qualities (mental, physical, and interpersonal), visual qualities (aesthetics and beautifulness), food production (fruits, vegetables, and herbs), environmental qualities (air quality, cooling, and biodiversity). On the opposite side, there are some concerns about vertical gardens, especially the concept of vertical gardens (living walls versus vertical gardens), technical issues (structure, construction, maintenance), and budget (cost of construction and maintenance). Table 1 presents the detailed aspects of vertical gardens. To discover the level of awareness and concerns of the inhabitants in Kigali city, the research methodology is discussed in the following section.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Methodology

Questionnaires were applied widely to discover the common understanding, level of satisfaction, and general opinions of users [78,79], such as green infrastructure in cities [80,81] and vertical gardens and living walls [25,38,68]. A major part of the questionnaires applied the Likert scale [82,83] as a tool for analyzing the user’s perception in social research [84,85].
The Likert questionnaire has been applied widely by research to discover perceptions of people about topics, products, lifestyles [79,82], and landscape design [25,86]. The simple arrangement of questions, weights of values, similarity of the structure, and the speed of filling up the questionnaire were mentioned as the key advantages of applying the Likert scales in the research [11,81,82]. In addition, analyzing the results in the Likert scales included some level of interpretation [87,88], particularly in landscape research [89,90,91].

3.2. Conceptual Framework for Research Design

To evaluate the opinions of the inhabitants about the vertical gardens, a Likert questionnaire in five scales was designed to discover how inhabitants reacted to the questions. The questionnaire was designed to ask the opinions of the users and inhabitants in the city about the application of vertical gardens in their homes to discover their level of concern and knowledge [12,58]. The questionnaire was designed in four main sections. First, there were some introductory questions, including age, gender, education, and occupations of the respondents [78]. Second, two questions were asked to know the respondents’ general knowledge about vertical gardens and whether they had applied some forms of home vertical gardens [79]. Third, it was the main body of the questionnaire, arranged in five clusters to discover how participants perceive the purposes of creating vertical gardens [14,39,58,59], the possible challenges/risks for householders [25,67,68], the main effects of vertical gardens on urban environments [21,25,30,54,55,56], the common interests of residents to learn more about vertical gardens [4,14,57,58,59], and the preferences or concerns about the technology [2,4,46,47] and costs [64,69] of vertical gardens [25,67,68]. Fourth, as the last part, an open question was put to receive any suggestions and recommendations.
Table 2 presents the locations of the survey across the city.

3.3. Research Process

The locations of the survey were selected according to boundaries of cells, districts, and main roads in Kigali city (Table 2) to carry out interviews and to fill out the questionnaires. A group of researchers was trained for the survey during three days. The process of training encompassed four aspects: 1. how to approach the respondents, 2. how to start the questioning, 3. how to show the pictures of the vertical gardens to respondents, and 4. how to fill in the questionnaires.
The hard copies of the questionnaires were distributed to conduct a survey of residents in Kigali. Although it was supposed that the survey team would fill out the questionnaires within 11 days, the survey took them around two months. The selection of the respondents was randomly based on the respondents’ interest in the research. Therefore, there were some cases that the requests of the survey team were either refused or faced with demand for compensation by the passersby. The survey team attempted to maintain the gender balance among the respondents, however, this concern was not fully addressed.
In each location, the survey team filled up between 10 and 15 questionnaires, based on an attempt to keep the gender balance in the survey. In total, 558 questionnaires were completed across districts in Kigali. To increase the level of knowledge about vertical gardens among respondents [58,59] some images of living walls and vertical gardens were shared on the cellphones of the survey team members to show the participants (Table 3 shows some of those photos).

4. Results

To collect a sample of the inhabitants, living in Kigali city, 40 spots were chosen across the city. There was no limitation on gender and age. The sample consisted of 600 residents, however, the completed questionnaires for analysis were 558. The survey took place between December 2022 and January 2023 to discover the opinions of the inhabitants in Kigali city about home vertical gardens. It was after the rainy season, so the survey team had the opportunity to meet participants in public spaces. The fact is that the survey was carried out outdoors. The collected data were analyzed through SPSS version 26, and arranged in two parts, namely general information and the perception of participants of vertical gardens.

4.1. Information of Participants

This section shows the general information of the respondents, including gender, age, education, and occupation. According to the Table 4, females made up a larger proportion of the participants (just over 60%).
Most of the respondents were middle-aged between 29 and 42 years old, and had primary/secondary school education. A third of them had higher education backgrounds (Table 5).
The respondents introduced themselves under different titles of occupation. The major group was involved in local business (38.9 percent), and around 20% of participants were workers that formed the second largest group (Table 6).
In addition, a total of 336 respondents (68.6 percent) were almost familiar with the concept of vertical gardens, while 175 respondents (31.4 percent) had no idea about it. However, only 112 respondents (20.1 percent) had used home gardens, and 446 respondents (79.9 percent) stated that they did not apply vertical gardens in their homes.

4.2. Opinions of the Respondents

The questionnaire was developed in five sections, including potential benefits, possible challenges, urban effects, interests of the respondents, and technological concerns. The following parts represent the participants’ perception of each cluster of questions.
The respondents answered homogenously to the first cluster of questions. They generally agreed with the landscape and beautification of their homes. In contrast, the question about medical plants was responsible for the lowest figure. The respondents were happy with the possibility of developing fruit and vegetables at home (Figure 1 and Table 7).
The respondents answered to the first cluster of questions in a similar way. They generally agreed with having a beautiful landscape at their homes. However, the lowest figure was associated with the medical plants for vertical gardens. Respondents were also happy with planting fruit and vegetables at their home gardens (Figure 1 and Table 7).
With regard to the possible challenges of applying home vertical gardens, the respondents opined a difference between the physical aspects and a dramatic increase in garden insects and animals. According to Figure 2, the level of the agreement in the physical factors was higher than others (Figure 2 and Table 8).
The participants emphasized the probability of damage to external walls of their buildings. Additionally, they were little concerned about garden insects, small animals, and birds.
The respondents’ views about the effects of vertical gardens on urban areas were almost similar. They agreed with the positive impacts, such as reduced temperature, improved landscape, and beautification of the city. (Figure 3 and Table 9).
The respondents had common sense about the positive impacts of home vertical gardens on the climate. This section of responses had more similarity among residents with a lower rate of variances and standard deviation. They were interested in learning more about vertical gardens in practice than by educational work. This is why the figure for participating in workshops and receiving catalogs was lower than other options (Figure 4 and Table 10).
The cost reduction and easy-to-use maintenance were the most significant factors in the technical part from the respondents’ perspective (Figure 5 and Table 11).

5. Discussion

As the vertical gardens and living walls are globally growing in popularity, local governments tend to raise awareness of these concepts. The participants in Kigali, therefore, were familiar with the idea of vertical gardens, and interested in visible practices. This could play an important role in facilitating further actions [58,59]. Some residents of and African cities, including Kigali, have already implemented home vertical gardens and living walls, showing home gardens are paid attention by householders [38]. This level of awareness contradicted the results of the transitional process of changing gardens in Kigali [39]. People were interested in decorative and beatification and fresh sense in their homes, revealing a high level of attention to green elements [54], landscaping [39], well-being [19], and mental health [21].
Application of the vertical gardens on a home scale included a variety of decorative aspects that were discussed by earlier studies [12,19,25,26,37,53]. In a similar result, the respondents were more interested in decorative plants in terms of aesthetics and beautification through landscaping [12,25,26] than kitchen gardens and edible plants as part of small-scale urban farming systems [4,17]. This result supported the theories on changing the process of productive gardens to decorative gardens in Kigali [39]. Despite the interest in fruit vertical gardens, the respondents revealed that the application of vertical gardens needs to be simple, beautiful, and decorative as discussed by [4,14] to support the requirements of the inhabitants in which the level of the selection of herbs as a component for vertical gardens was low. In spite of poverty in some parts of African cities, inhabitants had concerns about environmental and social qualities [25,57,76,90,91,92].
The quality of people’ daily life was discussed by a number of studies [4,51,60,68,76]. Similar qualities were emphasized such as a sense of relaxation, creating a nice spot, interaction with nature, and making the home beautiful through landscaping. Reference was made to the psychological effects of the vertical gardens [7,9,52] that mentioned previous results, based on mental health [8], positive mood [9], good memory about the place [10], and a sense of belonging among users [12]. Urban life conditions have led users to pay more attention to psychological qualities [7,9,52] than food support systems and urban farming [14,17]. These qualities in the urban environment support both the physical [7,19] and mental health [9,52] of the inhabitants on a small scale. The connection between the small-scale health quality and larger scale in urban areas was discussed widely by studies [20,71,72,73].
The finding was in the same alignment with other studies’ results, showing the positive effects of the small vertical gardens on urban sustainability [54], green infrastructure [41], climate [21], pollution [55], urban beautification [12,25,26], and green aspects of urban design [5,51]. This similarity demonstrated the common knowledge among the general public about the global problems that were discussed by [25,26,40,58]. The ecosystem concerns [93,94], the green aspect of development [28,29,30], landscape design through small projects [5,41,70] were highlighted by the inhabitants in the whole city, and some keywords such as landscape [12,58], beatification [8,63,94,95], and air qualities in the city are no longer jargon words for the dwellers but rather point to beliefs [12], understanding [62], and actions [21,54].
However, the technical aspects of the implementation of vertical gardens were highlighted by earlier studies [58,70] which also were part of the concerns of the respondents about the implementation of vertical gardens and relationships with the living spaces. In detail, some factors such as visibility [21], transparency [18], and safety [57] were indicated by the users as factors to cover up the walls. On the opposite, biodiversity quality [76] was part of the quality of life for the inhabitants who were open-minded regarding the biodiversity of the vertical gardens [6,62] in their homes, particularly for birds and small animals [74,76,77]. The contextual effects of lived experience in tropical climates have adapted the inhabitants to the local biodiversity [12,18,25]. In other words, to be open to biodiversity refers to the social and cultural aspects in terms of beliefs and costumes [40,61,63].
Home-based small gardens [28,29,30,31] are considered to be in alignment with the enhanced quality of urban climate and environment, mainly presented in masterplans [21,25,30,54,55,56]. These projects could be also connected with a range of measures to tackle environmental problems, such as ecosystem issues [70], climate change [25], urban resiliency [20], and urban equity. On the other hand, it makes a positive contribution to raising the residents’ awareness of socio-ecological interventions [35], livable neighborhoods [72], and the relationship between environmental qualities and inhabitants’ health [9].

6. Conclusions

It is argued that vertical gardens, living walls, landscape design, and environmental issues have recently received more attention in developing countries. As international lessons continue to proliferate around the world, most respondents in Kigali were familiar with the importance of green infrastructure and relevant concepts like home-based vertical gardens and their possible effects as well.
There is a collective concern about the possible impacts of climate change among policymakers, practitioners, and inhabitants in Kigali. In this way, the participants associated home vertical gardens with efforts to mitigate climate change on a larger scale. Moreover, a range of advantages, including having a nice quiet spot, interacting with nature, and recreation by growing ornamental plants and edible vegetables at home, are key reasons for the application of home vertical gardens from the residents’ perspective in Kigali. The results demonstrate that the inhabitants attach more importance to decoration, beauty, and landscape in gardens in comparison to food production.
The possibility of access to the walls and installed structures for the observation and maintenance of climbing plants is seen as a significant issue that designers should assure residents who would like to have a vertical garden at their houses. Another issue that might disturb householders is a group of plants that would attract insects and little animals. There are key considerations to make home vertical garden concepts more feasible in Kigali. This research indicates that small-sized, on-budget vertical gardens in which easy-to-use technologies are applied will be more likely to be embraced by householders.

7. Recommendations

It is recommended that the low-cost home gardens, designed with lightweight structures and user-friendly technology have priority over other factors in Kigali. Using local and affordable material and equipment would encourage inhabitants to have home gardens. Furthermore, if householders cope with (re) planting, watering, weeding, trimming plants, and other jobs relating to garden improvements, the issue of operation and maintenance of vertical gardens would be less of a concern.
Learning more about the typology of houses and residents’ preferences for garden plants will enable designers to prepare appropriate guidelines, and small-sized prototypes in Kigali. This is an effective way to bring stakeholders together to find out much more innovative alternatives and receive helpful feedback on the performance of vertical gardens.
Apart from the perception of residents, it is necessary for municipal authorities to integrate development of vertical gardens into urban green network policies. To obtain an integrated approach to development of green spaces could support the shared goals and the allocation of financial resources more efficiently. Moreover, it will be a good idea for the local government to arrange public events in order to introduce green development projects and raise the citizens’ awareness of the positive implications of green actions on their living environment.

8. Further Research

To conduct further research into the feasibility of home gardens in Kigali would support urban sustainability-promoting strategies, as well as the citizens’ involvement in creating livable neighborhoods. In this way, we suggest several studies as listed below:
Typology of home gardens in Kigali: the ways of the inhabitants apply kitchen gardens, vertical gardens, or living walls might be examined. Analyzing the typology, and forms of the gardens could contribute to making recommendations for improving the green infrastructure in the city.
Mapping the physical form of the houses and walls in the city: learning about the size of the houses and walls will help the researchers and designers to design prototypes of vertical gardens, leading to developing real-world projects. To study the typology of the houses will also support preparation of handbooks to represent various types of vertical gardens in proportion to the size, height, and orientation.
Spatial mapping of home gardens in the city: locate potential gardens through GIS could illustrate the priority spots that need updating policies, practices, and research to develop vertical garden concepts.
A discovery about the inhabitants’ personal preference for the garden plant species: the preferences of the residents for the plants such as the color, scent, shape, and size could help designers to draw up guidelines on the use of preferred plants in home gardens.

Author Contributions

R.T. conceptualization of the research, studies, methodology, development, and revision of the paper; R.N. data analysis, revision, and editing of the paper; and D.N., G.G.B. and R.D. data collection. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by REMA (Rwanda Environment Management Authority) and the University of Rwanda on the EBA (Ecosystem-Based Adaptation) policy under the project entitled “Vertical Gardens through Landscape Design to Protect the Climate Changing and Food Supporting of Residents in Kigali City”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the support of the University of Rwanda and REMA (Rwanda Environment Management Authority) to carry out this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Boults, E.; Sullivan, C. Illustrated History of Landscape Design; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  2. Riley, B. The State of the Art of Living Walls: Lessons Learned. Build. Environ. 2017, 114, 219–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Coutts, A.M.; Daly, E.; Beringer, J.; Tapper, N.J. Assessing practical measures to reduce urban heat: Green and cool roofs. Build. Environ. 2013, 70, 266–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hou, J. Governing urban gardens for resilient cities: Examining the ‘Garden City Initiative’ in Taipei. Urban Stud. 2020, 57, 1398–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tafahomi, R. Qualities of the green landscape in primary schools, deficiencies and opportunities for health of the pupils. J. Fundam. Appl. Sci. 2021, 13, 1093–1116. [Google Scholar]
  6. Benke, K.; Tomkins, B. Future food-production systems: Vertical farming and controlled-environment agriculture. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2017, 13, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tafahomi, R.; Nadi, R. Insight into the missing aspects of therapeutic landscape in psychological centers in Kigali, Rwanda. Cities Health 2022, 6, 136–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dramstad, W.; Tveit, M.S.; Fjellstad, W.; Fry, G. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 78, 465–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Li, D.; Sullivan, W.C. Impact of views to school landscapes on recovery from stress and mental fatigue. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 148, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lindal, P.J.; Hartig, T. Effects of urban street vegetation on judgments of restoration likelihood. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 200–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, Q. A novel Likert scale based on fuzzy sets theory. Expert Syst. Appl. 2013, 40, 1609–1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Coupaye, L. Gardens between above and below: Cosmotechnics of generative surfaces in Abulës-speaking nyamikum. Anthr. Forum 2021, 31, 414–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bell, S. Landscape: Pattern, Perception and Process, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  14. Al-Kodmany, K. The vertical farm: A review of developments and implications for the vertical city. Buildings 2018, 8, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Steege, G.; Madigan, C.; Hiley, L.H. Vertical Vegetables and Fruit; Versa Press: North Adams, MA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  16. Despommier, D. The Vertical Farm: Feeding the World in the 21st Century; Thomas Dunne Books: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  17. Despommier, D. Farming up the city: The rise of urban vertical farms. Trends Biotechnol. 2013, 31, 388–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Tafahomi, R. Revitalization of cultural values in urban landscape through street tress design. METU JAF 2022, 39, 215–236. [Google Scholar]
  19. Thompson, C.W.; Aspinall, P.; Roe, J.; Robertson, L.; Miller, D. Mitigating stress and supporting health in deprived urban communities: The importance of green space and the social environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Twohig-Bennett, C.; Jones, A. The health benefits of the great outdoors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of green-space exposure and health outcomes. Environ. Res. 2018, 166, 628–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Baka, A.; Mabon, L. Assessing equality in neighborhood availability of quality greenspace in Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom. Landsc. Res. 2022, 47, 584–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Thompson, C.W.; De Oliveira, E.S.; Tilley, S.; Elizalde, A.; Botha, W.; Briggs, A.; Cummins, S.; Leyland, A.H.; Roe, J.J.; Aspinall, P.; et al. Health impacts of environmental and social interventions designed to increase deprived communities’ access to urban woodlands: A mixed-methods study. Public Health Res. 2019, 7, 1–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Miller, S. Greenspace after a disaster: The need to close the gap with recovery for greater resilience. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2020, 86, 339–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Walker, B.H. Resilience: What it is and is not. Ecol. Soc. 2020, 25, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Madushanka, W.; Samarasekara, G.; Ellawala, K. Strategies to promote greenery in urban boundary wall facades: A case study in residential areas of Colombo district, Sri Lanka. Int. J. Built Environ. Sustain. 2022, 9, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Rupprecht, C.D.; Byrne, J.A. Informal urban green-space: Comparison of quantity and characteristics in Brisbane, Australia and Sapporo, Japan. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e99784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Kaltsidi, M.P.; Bayer, I.; Mitsi, C.; Aros, D. Potential use of Chilean native species in vertical greening systems. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Evans, R. Urban Design Compendium II; English Partnerships: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  29. Yeang, L.D. Urban Design Compendium I; English Partnerships: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  30. Consulting Services. Analysis and Vision, Kigali Master Plan for 2050; City of Kigali: Kigali, Rwanda, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  31. Miller, R.W. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Green Spaces; Waveland Press: Long Grove, IL, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  32. GreenBlue, U. Street Tree Cost Benefits Analysis; GreenBlue Urban Ltd.: East Sussex, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  33. Nadel, I.B.; Oberlander, C.H.; Bohm, L.R. Trees in the City; Pergamon Press Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  34. Sjöman, H.; Östberg, J.; Bühler, O. Diversity and distribution of the urban tree population in ten major Nordic cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. LaGro, J.A., Jr. Site Analysis: A Contextual Approach to Sustainable Land Planning and Site Design; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  36. Atha, M. Ephemeral landscapes. In The Routledge Companion to Landscape Studies; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; pp. 113–126. [Google Scholar]
  37. Tafahomi, R.; Nadi, R. Derivation of a design solution for the conservation of a historical Payab in the redevelopment of Doloeei, Gonabad. Int. J. Built Environ. Sustain. 2020, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tsantopoulos, G.; Varras, G.; Chiotelli, E.; Fotia, K.; Batou, M. Public perceptions and attitudes toward green infrastructure on buildings: The case of the metropolitan area of Athens, Greece. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 34, 181–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tafahomi, R. Transition process of landscape through changing tropical gardens from productive function into recreational purpose. Turk. J. Landsc. Res. 2021, 4, 45–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Spirn, A.W. The Language of Landscape; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  41. Tzoulas, K.; Korpela, K.; Venn, S.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Kaźmierczak, A.; Niemela, J.; James, P. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 81, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Fagerholm, N.; Torralba, M.; Moreno, G.; Girardello, M.; Herzog, F.; Aviron, S.; Burgess, P.; Crous-Duran, J.; Ferreiro-Domínguez, N.; Graves, A.; et al. Cross-site analysis of perceived ecosystem service benefits in multifunctional landscapes. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2019, 56, 134–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Besir, A.B.; Cuce, E. Green roofs and facades: A comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 915–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nugroho, A.M. The effect of vertical gardens on temperature and CO2 levels in urban housing. J. Tek. Arsit. 2020, 5, 401–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cuce, E. Thermal regulation impact of green walls: An experimental and numerical investigation. Appl. Energy 2017, 194, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Medl, A.; Stangl, R.; Florineth, F. Vertical greening systems—A review on recent technologies and research advancement. Build. Environ. 2017, 125, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bustami, R.A.; Belusko, M.; Ward, J.; Beecham, S. Vertical Greenery Systems: A Systematic Review of Research Trends. Build. Environ. 2018, 146, 226–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Loh, S. Living Walls Away to Green the Built Environment; Environment Design Guide TEC (technology); Royal Australian Institute of Architects: Canberra, Australia, 2008; Volume 26, pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  49. Resources Inventory Committee. Culturally Modified Trees of British Columbia; Resources Inventory Committee: Victoria, BC, Canada, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  50. Pieterse, E. Cityness and African urban development. Urban Forum 2010, 21, 205–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Moughtin, C.; Shirley, P. Urban Design: Green Dimensions, 2nd ed.; Architectural Press: Oxford, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  52. Thompson, C.W. Linking landscape and health: The recurring theme. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 99, 187–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Thompson, C.W.; Aspinall, P.; Montarzino, A. The Childhood Factor Adult Visits to Green Places and the Significance of Childhood Experience. Environ. Behav. 2008, 40, 111–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Byrne, J.; Ambrey, C.; Portanger, C.; Lo, A.; Matthews, T.; Baker, D.; Davison, A. Could urban greening mitigate suburban thermal inequity? The role of residents’ dispositions and household practices. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016, 11, 095014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Croese, S.; Cirolia, L.R.; Graham, N. Towards Habitat III: Confronting the disjuncture between global policy and local practice on Africa’s ‘challenge of slums’. Habitat Int. 2016, 53, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Habitat III. New Urban Agenda; United Nation: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  57. Akreim, M.A.; Suzer, O. Motivators for green buildings: A review. Environ. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 7, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Filor, S.W. Notions, philosophies and definitions of landscape planning and landscape design: The nature of landscape design and design process. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1994, 30, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Castello, L. Rethinking the Meaning of Place: Conceiving Place in Architecture and Urbanism; Ashgate Publishing Limited: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  60. Gustafson, P. Meanings of place: Everyday experience and theoretical explanations. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Barker, C. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice; Sage: New Delhi, India, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  62. Cetina, K.K. Culture in global knowledge societies: Knowledge cultures and epistemic cultures. In The Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Culture; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Malden, MA, USA, 2005; pp. 65–80. [Google Scholar]
  63. Cihanger, D. Trees in the Urban Context: A Study on the Relationship between Meaning and Design. Master’s Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Türkiye, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  64. Talhinhas, P.; Ferreira, J.C.; Ferreira, V.; Soares, A.L.; Espírito-Santo, D.; Paço, T.A.D. In the search for sustainable vertical green systems: An innovative low-cost indirect green façade structure using Portuguese native ivies and cork. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Peck, S.W.; Callaghan, C.; Kuhn, M.E.; Bass, B. Greenbacks from green roofs: Forging a new industry in Canada status report on benefits, barriers and opportunities for green roof and vertical garden technology diffusion. In Environment; Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1999; p. 78. Available online: https://commons.bcit.ca/greenroof/files/2012/01/Greenbacks.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2024).
  66. Rosasco, P. Economic benefits and costs of vertical greening systems. In Nature Based Strategies for Urban and Building Sustainability; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK; Elsevier Inc.: London, UK, 2018; pp. 291–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zahir, M.H.M.; Raman, S.N.; Mohamed, M.F.; Jamiland, M.; Nopiah, Z.M. The Perception of Malaysian Architects towards the Implementation of Green Roofs: A Review of Practices, Methodologies and Future Research. In Emerging Technology for Sustainable Development Congress (ETSDC 2014); EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  68. Koraim, Y.A.; Elkhateeb, D.M. Resident’s Perceptions towards the Application of Vertical Landscape in Cairo, Egypt. Int. J. Archit. Environ. Eng. 2017, 11, 993–997. [Google Scholar]
  69. Papadopoulou, G. Green Walls as Element of Bioclimatic Design in Mediterranean Urban Buildings. 2013. Available online: http://repository.ihu.edu.gr/xmlui/handle/11544/401 (accessed on 3 March 2023).
  70. Tafahomi, R.; Nadi, R. Protection of natural wetlands through landscape design in Kigali City. Rwanda J. Eng. Sci. Technol. Environ. 2021, 4, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. De Vries, S.; Verheij, R.A.; Groenewegen, P.P.; Spreeuwenberg, P. Natural environments-healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environ. Plan 2003, 35, 1717–1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sugiyama, T.; Thompson, C.W. Older people’s health, outdoor activity and supportiveness of neighborhood environments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 83, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Takano, T.; Nakamura, K.; Watanabe, M. Urban residential environments and senior citizens’ longevity in mega city areas: The importance of walkable green spaces. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 2002, 56, 913–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. 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]
  75. Chatzidimitriou, A.; Yannas, S. Street canyon design and improvement potential for urban open spaces; the influence of canyon aspect ratio and orientation on microclimate and outdoor comfort. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 33, 85–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Guerry, A.D.; Smith, J.R.; Lonsdorf, E.V.; Daily, G.C.; Wang, X.; Chun, Y. Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Turrini, T.; Knop, E. A landscape ecology approach identifies important drivers of urban biodiversity. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015, 21, 1652–1667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Creswell, J.W.; Creswell, D.J. Research Design, Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches; SAGE Publications, Inc.: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  79. Frankfort-Nachmias, C.; Nachmias, D.; DeWaard, J. Research Methods in the Social Sciences, 8th ed.; SAGE Publisher Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  80. Balram, S.; Dragićević, S. Attitudes toward urban green spaces: Integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2005, 71, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. de Campos, C.I.; Pitombo, C.S.; Delhomme, P.; Quintanilha, J.A. Comparative analysis of data reduction techniques for questionnaire validation using self-reported driver behaviors. J. Saf. Res. 2020, 73, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Hartley, J. Some thoughts on Likert-type scales. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2014, 14, 83–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Joshi, A.; Kale, S.; Chandel, S.; Pal, D.K. Likert scale: Explored and explained. Br. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2015, 7, 396–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Xi, L.; Yuan, Z.; YunQui, B.; Chiang, F.-K. An investigation of university students’ classroom seating choices. J. Learn. Spaces 2017, 6, 13–22. [Google Scholar]
  85. Yang, Z.; Becerik-Gerber, B.; Mino, L. A study on student perceptions of higher education classrooms: Impact of classroom attributes on student satisfaction and performance. Build. Environ. 2013, 70, 171–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Woolfolk, A. Educational Psychology; Pearson: Boston, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  87. Krippendorff, K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology; Sage Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  88. Millsap, R.; Maydeu-Olivares, A. The SAGE Handbook of Quantitative Methods in Psychology; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  89. Silva, E.A. Quantitative methods’ expertise—A diverse landscape in Europe and around the world. In The Routledge Handbook of Planning Research Methods; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 251–254. [Google Scholar]
  90. REMA. Rwanda: State of Environment and Outlook Report 2017; REMA: Kigali, Rwanda, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  91. OZ ARCHITECTURE. Conceptual Master Plan of Kigali City; City of Kigali: Kigali, Rwanda, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  92. Jianga, B.; Chang, C.-Y.; Sullivan, W.C. A dose of nature: Tree cover, stress reduction, and gender differences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 132, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. King, V.J.; Davis, C. A case study of urban heat islands in the Carolinas. Environ. Hazards 2007, 7, 353–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. McPherson, G.E.; Doorn, N.; Goede, J. Structure, function and value of street trees in California, USA. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 17, 104–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. McBride, J.R.; Douhovnikoff, V. Characteristics of the urban forests in arctic and near-arctic cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 113–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 03849 g001
Figure 1. Potential benefit of vertical gardens in homes.
Figure 1. Potential benefit of vertical gardens in homes.
Sustainability 16 03849 g001
Sustainability 16 03849 g002
Figure 2. Possible risks for vertical gardens.
Figure 2. Possible risks for vertical gardens.
Sustainability 16 03849 g002
Sustainability 16 03849 g003
Figure 3. Urban climate and vertical gardens.
Figure 3. Urban climate and vertical gardens.
Sustainability 16 03849 g003
Sustainability 16 03849 g004
Figure 4. The respondents’ interest in vertical gardens.
Figure 4. The respondents’ interest in vertical gardens.
Sustainability 16 03849 g004
Sustainability 16 03849 g005
Figure 5. The technical aspect of the vertical gardens from the inhabitants’ point of view.
Figure 5. The technical aspect of the vertical gardens from the inhabitants’ point of view.
Sustainability 16 03849 g005
Table 1. The key criteria for the vertical garden concepts.
Table 1. The key criteria for the vertical garden concepts.
ConceptsTopicsExamplesReferences
Purpose-based Psychological aspectsRelaxation
View of the green
Place to sit 		[5,7,8,9,10,11,18,19,20,23,24,31,37,53,59,60,61,62,70]
Health Mental health
Physical health
Interpersonal health 		[5,7,9,10,11,18,19,20,37,52,70,71,72,73]
Aesthetics and cultural aspects Beautification
Greenery
and nice spot		[1,2,5,7,8,10,13,18,21,22,33,34,36,38,40,41,42,49,51,58,63,70,74,75]
Food Fruits
Vegetables
Herbs 		[1,4,5,6,7,10,12,15,18,26,27,31,37,39,49]
General effects Environment Green spaces
Biodiversity
Urban development 		[4,5,6,10,12,16,18,21,22,26,27,28,30,31,37,39,41,42,44,45,48,50,55,56,70,75,76,77]
Climate Air
Temperature
Humidity 		[3,5,16,18,21,22,28,29,30,41,43,44,45,54]
Landscape Landscape
Gardens		[1,2,4,6,14,27,35,36,39,43,46,47,48,65,66,67,68,69]
challenges Technical Construction
Maintenance 		[1,2,3,6,8,12,14,17,32,35,42,43,46,47,51,57,64,65]
Concerns Perception about risks[6,12,14,17,32,35,42,43,46,47,51,57,64,65]
Technology and cost Structure and Technology Structure
Technology		[1,2,3,6,8,12,14,17,32,35,42,43,46,47,51,57,64,65]
Budget Cost of construction
Maintenance 		[2,6,14,17,32,35,37,64,65,66]
KnowledgeLearningInterest to know
Cultural background 		[7,9,14,18,21,22,25,30,70,73]
Table 2. The mapping process of the selected locations to survey.
Table 2. The mapping process of the selected locations to survey.
DescriptionMapDescriptionMap
Adapted Rwanda mapSustainability 16 03849 i001Points on the map Sustainability 16 03849 i002
Development process of the citySustainability 16 03849 i003Highlighted points on the map and boundary of the city Sustainability 16 03849 i004
Kigali city districts Sustainability 16 03849 i005Inhabitants points and the boundary of the city Sustainability 16 03849 i006
Method: to select critical points for questionnaire in each district of the city Sustainability 16 03849 i007Just points of the questionnaire survey on the city Sustainability 16 03849 i008
Table 3. Images to help the respondents recognize vertical gardens and living walls.
Table 3. Images to help the respondents recognize vertical gardens and living walls.
Images for the Application of Vertical Gardens in KigaliImages for Application of Living Walls in Kigali
Sustainability 16 03849 i009Sustainability 16 03849 i010
Sustainability 16 03849 i011Sustainability 16 03849 i012
Table 4. Gender.
Table 4. Gender.
TitleFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative Percent
Male 222 39.8 39.8 39.8
Female 336 60.2 60.2 100.0
Total 558 100.0 100.0
Table 5. The level of education.
Table 5. The level of education.
TitleFrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative Percent
Illiterates 8 1.4 1.4 1.4
Primary School 81 14.5 14.5 15.9
Secondary School 142 25.4 25.4 41.4
High School 136 24.4 24.4 65.8
College 40 7.2 7.2 72.9
University 151 27.1 27.1 100.0
Total 558 100.0 100.0
Table 6. The occupations of the respondents.
Table 6. The occupations of the respondents.
Title FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative Percent
unemployed 54 9.7 9.7 9.7
Labor 113 20.3 20.3 29.9
Farmer 37 6.6 6.6 36.6
Gardener 13 2.3 2.3 38.9
Business, retail, sales- 217 38.9 38.9 77.8
Public Services-Clerk 47 8.4 8.4 86.2
Transport 21 3.8 3.8 90.0
Housework 5 0.9 0.9 90.9
Higher Job 51 9.1 9.1 100.0
Total 558 100.0 100.0
Table 7. Potential benefit of vertical gardens in homes.
Table 7. Potential benefit of vertical gardens in homes.
Title of QuestionsNSumMeanStd. DeviationVariance
1—To have a landscape with vertical gardens in my home 558 2289.00 4.1022 0.96916 0.939
2—To create a nice spot (hangout) in my home 558 2140.00 3.8351 0.96699 0.935
3—To feel a fresh scent in my home 558 2259.00 4.0484 0.93380 0.872
4—To have an interaction with nature 558 2231.00 3.9982 0.95218 0.907
5—To create a sense of relaxation 558 2191.00 3.9265 1.02744 1.056
6—To grow vegetables in my home 558 2213.00 3.9659 1.05534 1.114
7—To produce fruits in my home 558 2239.00 4.0125 1.00351 1.007
8—To plant medical herbs in my home 558 2056.00 3.6846 1.17307 1.376
9—To make my home beautiful with flowers 558 2265.00 4.0591 1.00184 1.004
Table 8. Possible risks for vertical gardens.
Table 8. Possible risks for vertical gardens.
Title of QuestionsNSumMeanStd. DeviationVariance
10—To cover walls in your home 558 2202.00 3.9462 1.05537 1.114
11—To damage walls in your home 558 2172.00 3.8925 1.10617 1.224
12—To moisturize walls in your home 558 2113.00 3.7867 1.00593 1.012
13—To attract some obtrusive insects in your home 558 2078.00 3.7240 1.10450 1.220
14—To attract some obtrusive birds in your home 558 1874.00 3.3584 1.14506 1.311
15—To attract some obtrusive animals in your home 558 1922.00 3.4444 1.26674 1.605
Table 9. Urban climate and vertical gardens.
Table 9. Urban climate and vertical gardens.
Title of QuestionsNSumMeanStd. DeviationVariance
16—To improve the air quality in the city558 2458.00 4.4050 0.77258 0.597
17—To make the city cooler558 2363.00 4.2348 0.83703 0.701
18—To adjust the humidity in the city558 2213.00 3.9659 0.98312 0.967
19—To make city more green558 2390.00 4.2832 0.82080 0.674
20—To make the city more beautiful558 2397.00 4.2957 0.86235 0.744
16—To improve the air quality in the city558 2458.00 4.4050 0.77258 0.597
Table 10. The respondents’ interest in vertical gardens.
Table 10. The respondents’ interest in vertical gardens.
Title of QuestionsNSumMeanStd. DeviationVariance
21—To learn about vertical gardens 558 2251.00 4.0341 0.96096 0.923
22—To visit the vertical gardens project 558 2069.00 3.7079 1.17070 1.371
23—To have vertical gardens in my home 558 2255.00 4.0412 1.06693 1.138
24—To participate in have vertical gardens workshops 558 1966.00 3.5233 1.15044 1.324
25—To receive catalogs or handbooks on applying vertical gardens in my home 558 1981.00 3.5502 1.20151 1.444
Table 11. The technical aspect of the vertical gardens from the inhabitants’ point of view.
Table 11. The technical aspect of the vertical gardens from the inhabitants’ point of view.
Title of Questions NSumMeanStd. DeviationVariance
26—To have low-cost vertical gardens in my home5582296.004.11470.921180.849
27—To have easy technology for vertical gardens in my home5582262.004.05380.983150.967
28—To have automatic water irrigation system for vertical gardens in my home5582136.003.82801.044331.091
29—To easily maintain vertical gardens in my home5582161.003.87281.002661.005
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tafahomi, R.; Nkurunziza, D.; Benineza, G.G.; Nadi, R.; Dusingizumuremyi, R. The Assessment of Residents’ Perception of Possible Benefits and Challenges of Home Vertical Gardens in Kigali, Rwanda. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3849. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093849

AMA Style

Tafahomi R, Nkurunziza D, Benineza GG, Nadi R, Dusingizumuremyi R. The Assessment of Residents’ Perception of Possible Benefits and Challenges of Home Vertical Gardens in Kigali, Rwanda. Sustainability. 2024; 16(9):3849. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093849

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tafahomi, Rahman, David Nkurunziza, Gatoni Gwladys Benineza, Reihaneh Nadi, and Regis Dusingizumuremyi. 2024. "The Assessment of Residents’ Perception of Possible Benefits and Challenges of Home Vertical Gardens in Kigali, Rwanda" Sustainability 16, no. 9: 3849. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093849

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop