Perception of the Vegetation Elements of Urban Green Spaces with a Focus on Flower Beds
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Results
2.1. Perception and Preferences for Different Vegetation Elements of Green Spaces
2.2. Importance of Certain Features of Flower Beds
2.3. Perception and Preferences for Certain Types of Flower Beds
3. Discussion
3.1. The Perception of Vegetation Elements as Volumes and Plains
3.2. The Perception of Certain Features of Flower Beds
3.3. The Perception of Flower Beds as Conventional and Sustainable
3.4. Limitations of the Study
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Sample
4.2. Data Collection
4.3. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
4.4. Survey Questionnaire
- -
- A factor measuring preferences for individual vegetation elements of public green spaces.
- -
- A factor measuring the importance of certain features of flower beds.
- -
- A factor measuring preferences for certain types of flower beds.
- -
- A series of questions measuring the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents.
4.5. Statistical Analysis
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bolund, P.; Hunhammar, S. Ecosystem Services in Urban Areas. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 29, 293–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gill, S.E.; Handley, J.F.; Ennos, A.R.; Pauleit, S. Adapting Cities for Climate Change: The Role of the Green Infrastructure. Built Environ. 2007, 33, 115–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowler, D.E.; Buyung-Ali, L.; Knight, T.M.; Pullin, A.S. Urban Greening to Cool Towns and Cities: A Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escobedo, F.J.; Kroeger, T.; Wagner, J.E. Urban Forests and Pollution Mitigation: Analyzing Ecosystem Services and Disservices. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 2078–2087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Barton, D.N. Classifying and Valuing Ecosystem Services for Urban Planning. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowak, D.J.; Hirabayashi, S.; Bodine, A.; Greenfield, E. Tree and Forest Effects on Air Quality and Human Health in the United States. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 193, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, F.; Qian, H. A Comprehensive Review of the Environmental Benefits of Urban Green Spaces. Environ. Res. 2024, 252, 118837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ulrich, R.S. View through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery. Science 1984, 224, 420–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, S. The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward an Integrative Framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 1995, 15, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berman, M.G.; Jonides, J.; Kaplan, S. The Cognitive Benefits of Interacting with Nature. Psychol. Sci. 2008, 19, 1207–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartig, T.; Mitchell, R.; De Vries, S.; Frumkin, H. Nature and Health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2014, 35, 207–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, K.; Zhang, T.; Liu, F.; Zhang, Y.; Song, Y. How Does Urban Green Space Impact Residents’ Mental Health: A Literature Review of Mediators. Int. J. Environ. Public Health 2021, 18, 11746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janeczko, E.; Czyżyk, K.; Korcz, N.; Woźnicka, M.; Bielinis, E. The Psychological Effects and Benefits of Using Green Spaces in the City: A Field Experiment with Young Polish Adults. Forests 2023, 14, 497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maas, J.; van Dillen, S.M.E.; Verheij, R.A.; Groenewegen, P.P. Social Contacts as a Possible Mechanism behind the Relation between Green Space and Health. Health Place 2009, 15, 586–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peters, K.; Elands, B.; Buijs, A. Social Interactions in Urban Parks: Stimulating Social Cohesion? Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, A.C.K.; Maheswaran, R. The Health Benefits of Urban Green Spaces: A Review of the Evidence. J. Public Health 2011, 33, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, A.C.K.; Jordan, H.C.; Horsley, J. Value of Urban Green Spaces in Promoting Healthy Living and Wellbeing: Prospects for Planning. Risk Manag. Healthc. Policy 2015, 8, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kolimenakis, A.; Solomou, A.D.; Proutsos, N.; Avramidou, E.V.; Korakaki, E.; Karetsos, G.; Maroulis, G.; Papagiannis, E.; Tsagkari, K. The Socioeconomic Welfare of Urban Green Areas and Parks; A Literature Review of Available Evidence. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, W.; Lin, G. The Relationship between Urban Green Space and Social Health of Individuals: A Scoping Review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 85, 127969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akbari, H.; Pomerantz, M.; Taha, H. Cool Surfaces and Shade Trees to Reduce Energy Use and Improve Air Quality in Urban Areas. Sol. Energy 2001, 70, 295–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crompton, J.L. The Impact of Parks on Property Values: A Review of the Empirical Evidence. J. Leis. Res. 2001, 33, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, S.-H.; Poudyal, N.C.; Roberts, R.K. Spatial Analysis of the Amenity Value of Green Open Space. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66, 403–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.K.; Peiser, R.B. The Economic Effects of Green Spaces in Planned and Unplanned Communities. J. Archit. Plan. Res. 2018, 35, 323–342. [Google Scholar]
- Gobster, P.H. Visions of Nature: Conflict and Compatibility in Urban Park Restoration. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 56, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiesura, A. The Role of Urban Parks for the Sustainable City. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abello, R.P.; Bernaldez, F.G. Landscape Preference and Personality. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1986, 13, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coles, R.W.; Bussey, S.C. Urban Forest Landscapes in the UK—Progressing the Social Agenda. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 52, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jorgensen, A.; Tylecote, M. Ambivalent Landscapes—Wilderness in the Urban Interstices. Landsc. Res. 2007, 32, 443–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, L.; Lindberg, S.; Nielsen, A.B. Is Biodiversity Attractive?—On-Site Perception of Recreational and Biodiversity Values in Urban Green Space. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 119, 136–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.; Zhao, J. Demographic Groups’ Differences in Visual Preference for Vegetated Landscapes in Urban Green Space. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 28, 350–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoyle, H.; Jorgensen, A.; Hitchmough, J.D. What Determines How We See Nature? Perceptions of Naturalness in Designed Urban Green Spaces. People Nat. 2019, 1, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, H.; Li, C.; Xue, D.; Liu, J.; Jin, K.; Wang, Y.; Gao, D.; Chen, Y.; Li, Y.; Qiu, L.; et al. Lawn or Spontaneous Groundcover? Residents’ Perceptions of and Preferences for Alternative Lawns in Xianyang, China. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1259920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porras-Salazar, J.A.; Flor, J.-F.; Contreras-Espinoza, S.; Soto-Arce, M.; Castro-Salazar, R. The Public Perception of Urban Vegetation in Metropolitan Regions of Costa Rica. Environ. Adv. 2023, 13, 100422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, C.W. Urban Open Space in the 21st Century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 60, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, L.; Tian, L.; Zhou, L.; Jin, C.; Qian, S.; Jim, C.Y.; Lin, D.; Zhao, L.; Minor, J.; Coggins, C.; et al. Local Cultural Beliefs and Practices Promote Conservation of Large Old Trees in an Ethnic Minority Region in Southwestern China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 49, 126584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rishbeth, C.; Finney, N. Novelty and Nostalgia in Urban Greenspace: Refugee Perspectives. Tijdschr. Voor Econ. En Soc. Geogr. 2006, 97, 281–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zagorski, T.; Kirkpatrick, J.B.; Stratford, E. Gardens and the Bush: Gardeners’ Attitudes, Garden Types and Invasives. Aust. Geogr. Stud. 2004, 42, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Brieger, H. Does Urban Gardening Increase Aesthetic Quality of Urban Areas? A Case Study from Germany. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 17, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dupont, L.; Antrop, M.; Van Eetvelde, V. Does Landscape Related Expertise Influence the Visual Perception of Landscape Photographs? Implications for Participatory Landscape Planning and Management. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 141, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muratet, A.; Pellegrini, P.; Dufour, A.-B.; Arrif, T.; Chiron, F. Perception and Knowledge of Plant Diversity among Urban Park Users. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 137, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tempesta, T.; Vecchiato, D. Differenze Nella Valutazione Del Paesaggio Da Parte Di Esperti e Di Non-Esperti. Aestimum 2015, 66, 1–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conrad, E.; Fazey, I.; Christie, M.; Galdies, C. Choosing Landscapes for Protection: Comparing Expert and Public Views in Gozo, Malta. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 191, 103621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1989; ISBN 978-0-521-34139-4. [Google Scholar]
- Nassauer, J.I. Messy Ecosystems, Orderly Frames. Landsc. J. 1995, 14, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jim, C.Y.; Chen, W.Y. Perception and Attitude of Residents Toward Urban Green Spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environ. Manag. 2006, 38, 338–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ding, N.; Zhong, Y.; Li, J.; Xiao, Q. Study on Selection of Native Greening Plants Based on Eye-Tracking Technology. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E.; Stevens, J.C. Air Pollution Removal by Urban Trees and Shrubs in the United States. Urban For. Urban Green. 2006, 4, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fineschi, S.; Loreto, F. A Survey of Multiple Interactions Between Plants and the Urban Environment. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2020, 3, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kardan, O.; Gozdyra, P.; Misic, B.; Moola, F.; Palmer, L.J.; Paus, T.; Berman, M.G. Neighborhood Greenspace and Health in a Large Urban Center. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 11610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schroeder, H.; Green, T. Public Preference for Tree Density in Municipal Parks. AUF 1985, 11, 272–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goddard, M.A.; Dougill, A.J.; Benton, T.G. Scaling up from Gardens: Biodiversity Conservation in Urban Environments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharmin, M.; Tjoelker, M.G.; Esperon-Rodriguez, M.; Katlav, A.; Gilpin, A.-M.; Rymer, P.D.; Power, S.A. Urban Greening with Shrubs Can Supercharge Invertebrate Abundance and Diversity. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 8735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jorgensen, A.; Hitchmough, J.; Dunnett, N. Woodland as a Setting for Housing-Appreciation and Fear and the Contribution to Residential Satisfaction and Place Identity in Warrington New Town, UK. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 79, 273–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hinsley, S.A.; Bellamy, P.E. The Influence of Hedge Structure, Management and Landscape Context on the Value of Hedgerows to Birds: A Review. J. Environ. Manag. 2000, 60, 33–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kendal, D.; Williams, K.; Armstrong, L. Preference for and Performance of Some Australian Native Plants Grown as Hedges. Urban For. Urban Green. 2008, 7, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Todorova, A.; Asakawa, S.; Aikoh, T. Preferences for and Attitudes towards Street Flowers and Trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 69, 403–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clayton, S. Domesticated Nature: Motivations for Gardening and Perceptions of Environmental Impact. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rollings, R.; Goulson, D. Quantifying the Attractiveness of Garden Flowers for Pollinators. J. Insect Conserv. 2019, 23, 803–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jansson, M.; Fors, H.; Lindgren, T.; Wiström, B. Perceived Personal Safety in Relation to Urban Woodland Vegetation—A Review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, A.F.; Kuo, F.E.; Sullivan, W.C. Coping with Add: The Surprising Connection to Green Play Settings. Environ. Behav. 2001, 33, 54–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoyle, H.; Jorgensen, A.; Warren, P.; Dunnett, N.; Evans, K. “Not in Their Front Yard” The Opportunities and Challenges of Introducing Perennial Urban Meadows: A Local Authority Stakeholder Perspective. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 25, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ignatieva, M.; Ahrné, K.; Wissman, J.; Eriksson, T.; Tidåker, P.; Hedblom, M.; Kätterer, T.; Marstorp, H.; Berg, P.; Eriksson, T.; et al. Lawn as a Cultural and Ecological Phenomenon: A Conceptual Framework for Transdisciplinary Research. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 383–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuo, F.E.; Sullivan, W.C. Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime? Environ. Behav. 2001, 33, 343–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Amato, G.; Cecchi, L.; D’Amato, M.; Annesi-Maesano, I. Climate Change and Respiratory Diseases. Eur. Respir. Rev. 2014, 23, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Heynen, N.; Perkins, H.A.; Roy, P. The Political Ecology of Uneven Urban Green Space: The Impact of Political Economy on Race and Ethnicity in Producing Environmental Inequality in Milwaukee. Urban Aff. Rev. 2006, 42, 3–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolch, J.R.; Byrne, J.; Newell, J.P. Urban Green Space, Public Health, and Environmental Justice: The Challenge of Making Cities ‘Just Green Enough’. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, R.L. Exploring the Effects of Environmental Experience on Attachment to Urban Natural Areas. Environ. Behav. 2005, 37, 3–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Talbot, J.; Kaplan, R. Needs and Fears: The Response to Trees and Nature in the Inner City. AUF 1984, 10, 222–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schroeder, H.; Cannon, W. Visual Quality of Residential Streets: Both Street and Yard Trees Make a Difference. AUF 1987, 13, 236–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dwyer, J.; Schroeder, H.; Gobster, P. The Significance of Urban Trees and Forests: Toward a Deeper Understanding of Values. AUF 1991, 17, 276–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Misgav, A. Visual Preference of the Public for Vegetation Groups in Israel. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 48, 143–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolf, K. Freeway Roadside Management: The Urban Forest Beyond the White Line. AUF 2003, 29, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schroeder, H.; Flannigan, J.; Coles, R. Residents’ Attitudes Toward Street Trees in the UK and U.S. Communities. AUF 2006, 32, 236–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Dongen, R.P.; Timmermans, H.J.P. Preference for Different Urban Greenscape Designs: A Choice Experiment Using Virtual Environments. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 44, 126435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, S. Elements of Visual Design in the Landscape, 3rd ed.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2019; ISBN 978-0-367-02447-5. [Google Scholar]
- Ogrin, D. Krajinska Arhitektura; Oddelek za Krajinsko Arhitekturo, Biotehniška Fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2010; ISBN 978-961-6833-02-8. [Google Scholar]
- Gupta, D.A.K.; Sharma, D.S.; Lalji, D.M.K. Importance of Basic Principles of Design in Creating Spaces. Int. J. Trend Sci. Res. Dev. 2021, 5, 911–916. [Google Scholar]
- Lucas, O.W.R. The Design of Forest Landscapes; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1991; ISBN 978-0-19-854280-3. [Google Scholar]
- Dee, C. Form and Fabric in Landscape Architecture: A Visual Introduction, 1st ed.; Taylor & Francis: London, UK.; New York, NY, USA, 2001; ISBN 978-0-415-24638-5. [Google Scholar]
- Ford, L. The Spaces Between Buildings; JHU Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2000; ISBN 978-0-8018-6331-8. [Google Scholar]
- Poje, M.; Židovec, V.; Prebeg, T.; Kušen, M. Does the Use of Perennials in Flower Beds Necessarily Imply Sustainability? Plants 2023, 12, 4113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Junge, X.; Matthies, D. The Influence of Plant Diversity on People’s Perception and Aesthetic Appreciation of Grassland Vegetation. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, L.K.; Honold, J.; Cvejić, R.; Delshammar, T.; Hilbert, S.; Lafortezza, R.; Nastran, M.; Nielsen, A.B.; Pintar, M.; van der Jagt, A.P.N.; et al. Beyond Green: Broad Support for Biodiversity in Multicultural European Cities. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2018, 49, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhuang, J.; Qiao, L.; Zhang, X.; Su, Y.; Xia, Y. Effects of Visual Attributes of Flower Borders in Urban Vegetation Landscapes on Aesthetic Preference and Emotional Perception. Int. J. Environ. Public Health 2021, 18, 9318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, Y.; Zhang, J.; Shen, X.; Chen, L.; Xu, Y.; Fu, R.; Su, Y.; Xia, Y. Designing Perennial Landscapes: Plant Form and Species Richness Influence the Gaze Perception Associated with Aesthetic Preference. Land 2022, 11, 1860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, G. Does Gender Influence Online Survey Participation?: A Record-Linkage Analysis of University Faculty Online Survey Response Behavior; ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 501717; San Jose State University: San Jose, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Wright, K.B. Researching Internet-Based Populations: Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Survey Research, Online Questionnaire Authoring Software Packages, and Web Survey Services. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 2005, 10, JCMC1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Regmi, P.R.; Waithaka, E.; Paudyal, A.; Simkhada, P.; van Teijlingen, E. Guide to the Design and Application of Online Questionnaire Surveys. Nepal. J. Epidemiol. 2016, 6, 640–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Evans, J.R.; Mathur, A. The Value of Online Surveys: A Look Back and a Look Ahead. Internet Res. 2018, 28, 854–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Student. The Probable Error of a Mean. Biometrika 1908, 6, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thurstone, L.L. Multiple Factor Analysis; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1947. [Google Scholar]
- Kaiser, H.F. The Varimax Criterion for Analytic Rotation in Factor Analysis. Psychometrika 1958, 23, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vegetation Elements | Mean | Mdn | Mod | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|
Trees | 4.48 | 5 | 5 | 0.68 |
Flower beds | 4.16 | 4 | 5 | 0.91 |
Lawns | 4.15 | 4 | 5 | 0.94 |
Shrubs | 3.79 | 4 | 4 | 1.02 |
Hedges | 3.56 | 4 | 4 | 1.03 |
Variable | Public Type | n | M | SD | F | t |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Flower beds | General public | 243 | 4.35 | 0.77 | 11.241 ** | t(157) = 5.806 *** |
Landscape experts | 105 | 3.70 | 1.03 | |||
Total | 348 | 4.16 | 0.91 | |||
Lawns | General public | 243 | 4.42 | 0.80 | 4.344 * | t(168) = 8.424 *** |
Landscape experts | 105 | 3.52 | 0.96 | |||
Total | 348 | 4.15 | 0.94 |
Items | Factor Loadings | |
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
Shrubs | 0.849 | |
Hedges | 0.808 | |
Trees | 0.770 | |
Flower beds | 0.871 | |
Lawns | 0.263 | 0.812 |
Eigenvalue | 2.04 | 1.51 |
% of variance | 40.89 | 30.10 |
Total explained variance | 86.17% |
Index | Min | Max | M | Mdn | Mod | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis | M* |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Vegetation volumes | 3.20 | 12.14 | 9.54 | 9.71 | 10.48 | 1.85 | −0.69 | 0.15 | 3.94 |
Vegetation plains | 1.68 | 8.42 | 6.99 | 7.54 | 8.42 | 1.34 | −1.09 | 1.01 | 4.16 |
Public Type | n | M | SD | F | t |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
General public | 243 | 4.39 | 0.66 | 11.009 ** | t (165) = 8.565 *** |
Landscape experts | 105 | 3.61 | 0.81 |
Characteristics of the Flower Beds | M | Mdn | Mod | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|
The level of the arrangement | 4.29 | 4 | 5 | 0.86 |
The shape of the bed | 3.86 | 4 | 4 | 1.08 |
The position of the bed in the space | 3.82 | 4 | 4 | 1.02 |
The color of the flowers | 3.73 | 4 | 4 | 1.11 |
Changing colors of the flower bed throughout the year | 3.60 | 4 | 5 | 1.27 |
Variety of flower species | 3.58 | 4 | 4 | 1.07 |
Height of the flowers | 3.54 | 4 | 4 | 1.13 |
The scent of the flowers | 3.38 | 3 | 3 | 1.16 |
Items | Factor Loadings |
---|---|
1 | |
The shape of the bed | 0.768 |
The position of the bed in the space | 0.743 |
Height of the flowers | 0.659 |
Color of the flowers | 0.650 |
Changing colors of the flower bed throughout the year | 0.635 |
Variety of flower species | 0.606 |
The level of the arrangement | 0.469 |
The scent of the flowers | 0.443 |
Eigenvalue | 3.18 |
Total explained variance | 39.81% |
Index | Min | Max | M | Mdn | Mod | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis | M* |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The importance of the characteristics of flower beds | 4.97 | 24.87 | 18.53 | 18.77 | 24.87 | 3.49 | −1.28 | 3.07 | 3.73 |
A Characteristics of Flower Beds | Public Type | n | M | SD | F | t |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Color of the flowers | General public | 243 | 3.63 | 1.14 | 7.488 ** | t(220) = 2.504 * |
Landscape experts | 105 | 3.94 | 1.02 | |||
Total | 348 | 3.73 | 1.11 | |||
The shape of the bed | General public | 243 | 3.66 | 1.13 | 12.511 *** | t(271) = 6.209 *** |
Landscape experts | 105 | 4.32 | 0.80 | |||
Total | 348 | 3.86 | 1.08 | |||
Height of the flowers | General public | 243 | 3.35 | 1.15 | ||
Landscape experts | 105 | 3.98 | 0.96 | 10.379 ** | t(233) = 5.264 *** | |
Total | 348 | 3.54 | 1.13 | |||
The level of the arrangement | General public | 243 | 4.46 | 0.80 | ||
Landscape experts | 105 | 3.89 | 0.85 | 0.130 | t(346) = 6.028 *** | |
Total | 348 | 4.29 | 0.86 | |||
Changing colors of the flower bed throughout the year | General public | 243 | 3.39 | 1.31 | ||
Landscape experts | 105 | 4.10 | 1.01 | 20.111 *** | t(252) = 5.416 *** | |
Total | 348 | 3.60 | 1.27 |
Characteristics of the Flower Bed Types | M | Mdn | Mod | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|
With more types of flowers | 4.00 | 4 | 4 | 0.75 |
Multicolored flower bed | 3.99 | 4 | 4 | 0.80 |
A combination of low and tall flowers | 3.81 | 4 | 4 | 0.97 |
Organic shape | 3.53 | 4 | 4 | 0.88 |
Geometric shape | 3.48 | 4 | 4 | 0.89 |
With a single type of flower | 3.47 | 4 | 4 | 0.90 |
Monochrome flower bed | 3.36 | 4 | 4 | 0.91 |
Items | Factor Loadings | |
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
With more types of flowers | 0.872 | |
Multicolored flower bed | 0.861 | |
A combination of low and tall flowers | 0.670 | |
Organic shape | 0.543 | |
Monochrome flower bed | 0.894 | |
With a single type of flower | 0.827 | |
Geometric shape | 0.621 | |
Eigenvalue | 2.26 | 1.93 |
% of variance | 32.25 | 27.58 |
Total explained variance | 59.84% |
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. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Poje, M.; Vukelić, A.; Židovec, V.; Prebeg, T.; Kušen, M. Perception of the Vegetation Elements of Urban Green Spaces with a Focus on Flower Beds. Plants 2024, 13, 2485. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13172485
Poje M, Vukelić A, Židovec V, Prebeg T, Kušen M. Perception of the Vegetation Elements of Urban Green Spaces with a Focus on Flower Beds. Plants. 2024; 13(17):2485. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13172485
Chicago/Turabian StylePoje, Miroslav, Anton Vukelić, Vesna Židovec, Tatjana Prebeg, and Mihael Kušen. 2024. "Perception of the Vegetation Elements of Urban Green Spaces with a Focus on Flower Beds" Plants 13, no. 17: 2485. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13172485