Next Article in Journal
Genome-Wide Association Studies and QTL Mapping Reveal a New Locus Associated with Resistance to Bacterial Pustule Caused by Xanthomonas citri pv. glycines in Soybean
Previous Article in Journal
Impacts of Elevated CO2 and a Nitrogen Supply on the Growth of Faba Beans (Vicia faba L.) and the Nitrogen-Related Soil Bacterial Community
Previous Article in Special Issue
Inheritance of Some Traits in Crosses between Hybrid Tea Roses and Old Garden Roses
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 13
Issue 17
10.3390/plants13172485
plants-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

Perception of the Vegetation Elements of Urban Green Spaces with a Focus on Flower Beds

by
Miroslav Poje
1,*,
Anton Vukelić
2,
Vesna Židovec
1,
Tatjana Prebeg
1 and
Mihael Kušen
1
1
Department of Ornamental Plants, Landscape Architecture and Garden Art, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Svetošimunska cesta 25, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
2
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, Ivana Lučića 3, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2024, 13(17), 2485; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13172485
Submission received: 17 June 2024 / Revised: 25 August 2024 / Accepted: 3 September 2024 / Published: 5 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Ornamental Plants and Urban Gardening II)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Urban vegetation plays a crucial role in meeting the challenges posed by rapid urbanization and climate change. The presence of plants and green spaces in urban areas provides a variety of environmental, social, and economic benefits. Understanding how users perceive ornamental plants in public green spaces and what their preferences are for certain vegetation elements is extremely important for planning and designing functional and aesthetically interesting urban landscapes. Although landscape experts sometimes use their creativity to create new trends, it is important not to ignore the attitudes and preferences of the public, who sometimes have a different opinion from that of the experts. The aim of the study was to determine the perceptions and preferences of the public and landscape experts for different vegetation elements and the differences in attitudes between these two groups. The study was conducted in Croatia in April 2012 using an online survey (n = 348). The results showed that trees were the most preferred vegetation element and that the public preferred flower beds and lawns to a greater extent than the professionals. All respondents perceived vegetation elements as volumes (trees, shrubs, and hedges) and plains (flower beds and lawns). In addition, respondents perceived two basic types of flower beds according to the features that characterize them: conventional and sustainable. The results show that users perceive the functional and spatial characteristics of the different vegetation elements, which is very important for the design of functional and sustainable urban green spaces.

1. Introduction

Urban green spaces are important components of the urban environment and are critical to meeting the challenges posed by rapid urbanization and climate change. They provide significant environmental [1,2,3,4,5,6,7], psychological [8,9,10,11,12,13], social [14,15,16,17,18,19], and economic [20,21,22,23] benefits that improve the quality of life in urban areas. The strategic planning and management of urban green spaces is therefore crucial for strengthening the resilience and sustainability of cities.
The design and composition of urban green spaces, particularly the type and arrangement of vegetation elements such as trees, shrubs, lawns, hedges, and flower beds, have a significant impact on public perceptions and preferences. Understanding these perceptions and preferences is vital to designing urban green spaces that are more attractive, functional, and inclusive [24,25].
Perceptions of urban vegetation and preferences for certain types of vegetation are not uniform but vary between different demographic groups. Factors such as age, gender, cultural background, socioeconomic status, or personal experiences with nature play a decisive role in how urban greenery is perceived [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. For example, older people prefer more accessible and well-maintained green spaces with sufficient seating and shade, while younger people prefer spaces that offer opportunities for physical activity and social interaction [34]. In some cultures, certain plants or green spaces have a symbolic meaning that increases their perceived value [35]. In addition, different cultures have different traditions and values regarding nature and landscape esthetics [36]. Personal experiences and familiarity with nature can also affect preferences for vegetation elements [37,38]. Perceptions and preferences are also influenced by expertise, i.e., the level of knowledge between the general public and experts [39,40,41,42].
People’s perceptions are influenced by various characteristics of vegetation, including species diversity, color, shape, and seasonal changes [43,44,45,46]. Trees are often the most conspicuous and appreciated vegetation elements in urban green spaces. People prefer the presence of trees in urban areas as they provide shade, reduce urban heat islands, and improve air quality [47,48]. Trees are also associated with aesthetic and psychological benefits, such as stress reduction and increased well-being [49]. The presence of mature, healthy trees can increase the attractiveness of green space and encourage more frequent use by the public [50]. Shrubs and understory vegetation contribute to the structural diversity and visual complexity of urban green spaces. These elements can form layers of vegetation that provide habitats for wildlife and increase biodiversity [51,52]. Shrubs are commonly used in landscaping to delineate spaces, create privacy, and provide seasonal interest through flowers and foliage. People generally perceive shrubs positively, especially when they are well maintained and strategically placed to enhance the aesthetics of urban spaces [53]. Hedges are often valued for their role in defining spaces, creating boundaries, and maintaining privacy. Hedges also serve functional purposes such as noise reduction, windbreaks, and providing habitat for birds and insects [54]. Properly designed green screens can also improve the aesthetic quality of streetscapes and public spaces. However, the perceptions of hedges can vary depending on their maintenance and species; poorly maintained hedges can be perceived as untidy and uninviting [55]. Flower beds are celebrated for their vibrant colors and seasonal interest and enhance the overall attractiveness of urban parks and gardens, making them one of the key elements in urban landscaping to improve aesthetics [56]. They serve as eye-catchers in gardens and parks, attracting attention and providing visual pleasure. The dynamic nature of flower beds with seasonally changing blooms can attract visitors and encourage repeat visits to urban green spaces [57]. Flower preferences are often influenced by the diversity and arrangement of plant species as well as the cultural and personal significance of the flowers used [58]. Flower beds are not only aesthetically pleasing but also contribute to urban biodiversity by providing habitats for pollinators [59]. Lawns serve as multifunctional areas for recreation, socializing, and relaxation in the urban environment [60]. People generally have a positive perception of lawns due to their versatility and the sense of openness they convey. Spending time in green play areas, which include lawns, can improve attention and reduce symptoms of attention deficit disorder in children [61]. However, the ecological value of lawns is limited compared to more diverse vegetation types [62]. The maintenance of lawns can be resource intensive and requires significant amounts of water, fertilizer, and pesticides [63]. Despite these drawbacks, cultural norms and expectations often lead to a preference for manicured lawns, reflecting ideals of order and tidiness in urban landscapes.
Despite the overwhelming benefits, urban vegetation is sometimes perceived negatively. Maintenance issues, safety concerns, and potential allergens are common challenges. Overgrown or poorly maintained green spaces can become havens for pests and criminal activity, leading to a sense of danger [64]. In addition, the presence of certain plants can aggravate allergies and cause discomfort and health problems in sensitive individuals [65]. Economic factors also play a role in negative perceptions. In low-income neighborhoods, green spaces can be underfunded and poorly maintained, exacerbating socioeconomic inequalities. These communities may perceive urban green space as a luxury rather than a necessity, especially when basic services are lacking [66,67].
It is important for urban planners and landscape architects to understand the perception of and preferences for vegetation elements in urban green spaces. By taking these preferences into account, they can design and manage green spaces. The integration of different vegetation elements can enhance the ecological value and aesthetic appeal of green spaces, increasing their use and appreciation by the public. Taking user preferences into account when designing green spaces can also encourage greater public engagement and stewardship. When people feel that their preferences and needs are taken into account, they are more willing to use and care for these spaces [68]. This participatory approach can lead to a more sustainable and resilient urban environment, as well-maintained and well-used green spaces contribute to the overall health and well-being of the community.
The objectives of this study were to identify preferences for the most common vegetation elements of public green spaces and their perceptions in a spatial context, identify preferences for the characteristics of flower beds and perceptions of different types of flower beds, and determine whether there are differences between preferences and perceptions between the general public and landscape experts.

2. Results

2.1. Perception and Preferences for Different Vegetation Elements of Green Spaces

Of the most common vegetation elements in public green spaces, respondents liked trees, flower beds, and lawns the most, while they liked shrubs and hedges to a relatively lesser extent (Table 1).
A t-test for two independent samples was used to test the statistical significance of differences in mean ratings of five selected vegetation elements of public green spaces between two types of respondents. No statistically significant difference was found in the mean results of trees, shrubs, and hedges between landscape experts and the general public.
A statistically significant difference was found between landscape experts and the general public in the evaluation of flower beds and lawns, with the public rating these two elements as more desirable than the experts (Table 2).
In an attempt to determine the latent dimensions, a factor analysis of the measurement factor was carried out according to the component model (Table 3).
The first factor, which explains 40.89% of the variance, is saturated by the following items: shrubs, hedges, and trees. Based on the content of the items, the first extracted factor can be interpreted as ‘vegetation volumes’.
The second factor is saturated by the following two items: flower beds and lawns. According to the content of the items, the second extracted factor is intended to measure the perception of ‘vegetation plains’ within green spaces. This factor explains 30.10% of the variance.
Two additively weighted indexes were constructed on the basis of the factor structure obtained, with the weights representing the factor loadings of the respective items on the reference factor. Although respondents perceived both types of structures positively, they showed a relatively greater preference for vegetation plains (Table 4).
A t-test was used to test the statistical significance of the differences between the average results of the public and the landscape experts for the weighted indexes. While no statistically significant difference was found between the average results of the public and the experts for the VVI (vegetation volumes index), a statistically significant difference was found in the average values for the VPI (vegetation plains index), with the general public showing a greater preference for flower beds and lawns than the experts (Table 5).

2.2. Importance of Certain Features of Flower Beds

The level of the arrangement was important for 87.3% of respondents, followed by the position of the flower bed in the space (71.8%) and the shape of the bed (71%). Of the features analyzed, the scent of the flowers was the least important to respondents. In fact, 21.8% of respondents said that the scent of the flowers was not important to them, and 31.3% of respondents said it was neither important nor unimportant.
The trends described were consistent with the average reference values of the characteristics analyzed. The average value of the most important feature of the flower bed according to the respondents (the level of the arrangement of the flower bed) was 4.29, while the average value of the least important feature (flower scent) was 3.38 (Table 6).
By factorizing the measurement factor, a statistically significant dimension was extracted to measure the importance of the selected features of the flower bed using the GK criterion. In other words, the factor is unidimensional as it measures only one item, which means that the evaluation of the importance of the individual flower bed features is not structurally differentiated (Table 7).
An additively weighted index was created based on the determined factor structure, whereby the scale weights represent the factor loadings of the respective items on the reference factor (Table 8).
A t-test was used to test whether there was a statistically significant difference between the mean values of the two groups of respondents with regard to the importance of the selected features of the flower beds.
No statistically significant difference was found between the mean values of the two groups in the evaluation of the importance of species diversity, the position of the flowerbed in the space, and the scent of the flowers.
A statistically significant difference was found in the evaluation of the importance of the color of the flowers, the shape of the flower bed, the height of the flowers, the change in the color of the bed over the course of the year, and the level of arrangement. For landscape experts, the color of the flowers, the shape of the bed, and the height and the change in the color of the bed over the course of the year are more important, while the general public places more importance on the level of the arrangement (Table 9).

2.3. Perception and Preferences for Certain Types of Flower Beds

Respondents liked multicolored flower beds with several types of flowers and those with a combination of low and tall flowers the most, while they liked monochrome flower beds and those with a single type of flower the least (Table 10).
In order to try to determine the latent dimensions, a factor analysis of the measurement factor was carried out. By factorizing the measurement factor, two statistically significant latent dimensions were extracted (Table 11).
The first factor is saturated by the following types of flower beds: with several types of flowers, multicolored, flower beds with a combination of low and tall flowers, and those characterized by organic shapes. According to the content of the items, the first extracted factor can be interpreted as a ‘sustainable flower bed’. This factor explains 32.25% of the variance.
The second factor, which explains 27.58% of the variance, is saturated by the following types of flower beds: monochromatic flower beds, those with one type of flower, and those with a geometric shape. Based on the content of the items, the first extracted factor can be interpreted as a ‘conventional flower bed’.

3. Discussion

3.1. The Perception of Vegetation Elements as Volumes and Plains

Of the vegetation elements most commonly found in green spaces, respondents preferred trees, flower beds, and lawns the most, while the group that liked shrubs and hedges was to a relatively lesser extent. As in numerous other studies, trees were the preferred vegetation element in public green spaces [69,70,71,72,73,74,75]. When comparing the results of the landscape experts and the general public, it was found that the latter preferred flower beds and lawns to a greater extent than the experts.
Factor analysis has identified two factors that influence the perception of vegetation elements: volumes and plains. Volumes include shrubs, hedges, and trees, while plains include flower beds and lawns. This division corresponds to the theoretical division of the basic elements of landscape design into point, line, volume, and plain [76,77,78]. Of course, this division can be considered in a broader context, as it includes all physical elements around us. In principle, any object or scene can be described with combinations of these elements. It is rare for an element to exist in isolation, and usually, they occur in various combinations [29,79].
The plain is defined as a fundamental, predominant, and inalienable component of the landscape [77]. The perception of vegetation as a plain emphasizes the visual and spatial aspects of green spaces. A well-manicured lawn in a park, for example, provides a large green space that conveys a sense of openness and continuity. The flatness of lawns provides a visually coherent background against which other elements of the landscape can stand out. Plains serve as platforms for recreational activities, gatherings, and leisurely strolls but sometimes also as focal elements (flower beds). Due to their two-dimensionality, their design possibilities are limited. Although they are not examined in this study, the category of vegetation plains could also include ground cover plants.
In contrast to the plains, the volumes are landscape elements that have a clearly pronounced or prominent third dimension, the height. Morphologically, they are relatively simple punctual phenomena or consist of densely grouped, often linear compositions such as avenues or hedges [77]. Trees, with their towering trunks and sweeping canopies, embody this concept and play a central role in defining the spatial experience of a landscape. Individual trees can form a focal point in the urban environment or in the landscape [80]. Their verticality adds vertical elements to the scenery, breaking the monotony of flat surfaces and creating diverse micro-environments beneath their canopies. Shrubs and hedges may be smaller, but they too have a certain volume that occupies a three-dimensional space.
The general public showed a greater preference for vegetation plains, i.e., flower beds and lawns. There are several hypothetical explanations for this result. First, it could be that the public perceives the above elements as ones that are appropriately maintained. After all, most flower beds with seasonal flowers have a representative character and are therefore regularly maintained, regardless of whether they are located in the city center or in more remote parts of the city. The lawns are mowed regularly and are therefore also characterized by a high degree of cleanliness. This suggests that the public prefers a more conventional design with an emphasis on a neat and tidy appearance, which is also suggested by other studies [44,81]. On the other hand, it is assumed that the experts consider flower beds and lawns to be too simple elements of public green spaces. Furthermore, the experts are more critical in their assessments because the overall context is important to them so they do not tend to single out individual elements from the whole.
By looking at vegetation in terms of plains and volumes, landscape planners and architects can better understand and influence the spatial qualities of green spaces. They can use this perspective to create balanced and harmonious compositions that effectively integrate both flat surfaces and vertical elements. By strategically placing flat plains of vegetation next to voluminous trees and shrubs, designers can manipulate spatial relationships, control views, and evoke specific emotional responses. This encourages consideration of scale, texture, and rhythm in the landscape, creating a varied and visually appealing environment. This view also contributes to sustainable practices by encouraging the conservation of existing vegetation and the careful incorporation of new planting. By recognizing the dual nature of vegetation—its expansive flatness as plains and its dynamic three-dimensionality as volumes—we gain insight into the spatial, visual, and functional aspects of landscapes. This perception not only influences landscape design and planning, but also fosters a deeper connection to nature, enriches our experience of green spaces, and promotes environmental stewardship.

3.2. The Perception of Certain Features of Flower Beds

The degree of arrangement proved to be the most important feature of the flower beds studied, while the scent of the flowers was the least important to the respondents. While the color of the flowers, the shape of the bed, the height, and the change in color of the bed over the course of the year are more important to the expert, the level of arrangement is more important to the general public. This can possibly be explained by the perceptual orientation of the respondents, with the general public paying the most attention to the visual-aesthetic impression and maintenance requirements when evaluating a flower bed, while the expert public attaches more importance to other form and functional aspects of a flower bed.
In the context of preferences for the color and height of flowers, Todorova et al. [57] indicate that the height of flowers is more important to respondents than the color, while this study came to different conclusions. In this study, a statistically significant difference was found between the assessment of the importance of flower color and flower height (t (347) = 2.198, p = 0.029). The difference in the results can be explained in two ways. First, Todorova and colleagues’ study was based on visual preferences, i.e., photomontage simulations were used for the study, whereas the present study was based on rating preferences for abstract conceptual categories. Moreover, in the aforementioned study, respondents were shown Althea rosea L., a flower species of exceptional height (1.5 to 2.5 m), but which can be evaluated as a species with weaker aesthetic qualities, even if this is a subjective impression. In other words, there is a possibility that different results would have been obtained if respondents had been offered a different flower of the same height but with more aesthetic qualities.

3.3. The Perception of Flower Beds as Conventional and Sustainable

The survey revealed that respondents liked flower beds with multiple flower varieties, multi-colored beds, and those with a combination of low and tall flowers the most, while they liked monochromatic flower beds with a single flower variety the least. Based on the expressed preferences regarding the features that characterize the types of flower beds, the results showed that respondents perceive two types of flower beds that can be interpreted as sustainable and conventional. This categorization was also mentioned in another study that examined the sustainability of flower beds with perennials [82].
Sustainable flower beds are characterized by a variety of flower types, which usually means more colors and different heights of flowers as well as an organic shape. Conventional flower beds, on the other hand, are characterized by the monochrome use of a single type of flower and a geometric shape. Although the shape of a flower bed itself is not a measure of its conventionality or sustainability, it is an indication of respondents’ perceptions, with a preference for an organic shape indicating a preference for more natural flower beds that are inherently more sustainable. On the other hand, regularity of shape does not necessarily define a flower bed as conventional, as a sustainable flower bed can also have a geometric shape. Nevertheless, the results suggest that respondents associate such a shape with beds of seasonal flowers, which are most commonly found in green spaces and have a conventional character.
Currently, the guidelines for the design of flower beds in urban areas are based on the assumption that citizens like them as they are seasonal flowers. Since such flower beds are conventional in nature, the results of this research suggest that the public is more inclined towards a sustainable type of flower beds because users prefer diversity and species richness [83,84,85,86]. With this in mind, it is necessary to reconsider the appropriateness of the practice that still favors flower beds with seasonal flower species rather than using more perennials that would make them aesthetically acceptable but immeasurably more sustainable.

3.4. Limitations of the Study

The main limitation of this study is a convenience sample. Another limitation is the gender structure of the respondents. Although the higher participation of women in the survey can be explained by the fact that they are more inclined to complete surveys [87] and that most experts were female at the time of the survey, the results were verified in a later procedure. The Rim Iterative Method (RIM) was used for weighting in order to compare the socio-demographic structure of the realized sample (gender structure of respondents) with the parameters of the population in order to ensure the representativeness of the sample for the reference target population. Data from the national statistical office were used for the weighting. Therefore, the trends observed in the realized sample can serve as an indicator of the population parameters.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Sample

The study was conducted in Croatia in April 2012 on a convenient sample (n = 348) using the online survey method. The advantages and disadvantages of the online survey method have been discussed by many authors [88,89,90].
The sample comprised a proportion of the general (non-professional) public (n = 243) and a proportion of landscape experts (n = 105). This sample was selected to determine the difference between the perceptions and preferences of experts and the general public.

4.2. Data Collection

The invitation to participate in the study was sent to landscape experts via the Croatian Society of Landscape Architects and the Croatian Chamber of Architects-Committee for Landscape Architecture, while the invitation to the general public was sent via e-mail and social networks. The data collection period for this survey was April 2012. The survey took about 15 min to complete. The answers were collected using the SurveyGizmo platform. The responses were automatically saved in a .csv file and then imported into the SPSS software for processing. All participants gave their informed consent to take part in the study and participation was completely voluntary.

4.3. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents

The sample comprised 348 people, of whom 68 were male (19.5%) and 280 were female (80.5%). In terms of age structure, the respondents were divided into three groups: up to 25 years old (n = 151), from 26 to 35 years old (n = 138), and over 35 years old (n = 59). In terms of the education level, the sample did not include any respondents with a lower level of education. Thus, 42.2% of respondents had completed secondary education, 6.9% of respondents had completed upper secondary education, 41.7% of respondents had completed tertiary education, and 9.2% of respondents had completed postgraduate studies (Masters or PhD). Of the total number of respondents, 50.3% were employed, 4.9% were unemployed, 43.4% were students, and 1.4% were retired. The self-assessed wealth status of the immediate family was rated as very high by 4.9% of respondents, high by 28% of respondents, average by 57.5% of respondents, low by 9.2%, and very low by 0.6%.

4.4. Survey Questionnaire

The questionnaire consisted of the following factors:
-
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.
The factor for measuring preferences for individual vegetation elements in public green spaces consisted of five groups that were offered for evaluation: trees, shrubs, hedges, flower beds, and lawns. A five-point rating scale was assigned to the evaluation groups, with the lowest value (1) indicating that the subjects did not like the content offered for evaluation at all, while the highest value on the scale (5) indicated that the subjects liked the content offered for evaluation very much.
The factor for measuring the importance of certain characteristics of flower beds consisted of eight groups: the color of flowers, variety of flower species, the shape of the flower bed, position of flower bed in space, height of flower species, scent of flowers, level of arrangement, and change in color of flowerbed over the year. The groups were indicated on an ordinal rating scale with five levels. The lowest value (1) meant that the feature of the flower bed was not at all important to the respondents, while the highest value (5) meant that the feature was very important to the respondents.
The factor for measuring preferences for certain types of flower beds consisted of ten groups expressing the shape of the flower bed (a geometric shape, an organic shape, and a combination of geometric and organic shapes), the variety of flower species in the bed (flower beds with one flower species, flower beds with several flower species), the height of the flower species in the flower bed (a combination of tall and low flowers), and the color of the flowers in the bed (monochromatic flower beds, colorful flower beds). The groups were assigned an ordinal rating scale with five levels. The lowest value (1) meant that the respondents did not like the group offered at all, while the highest value (5) meant that the respondents liked the group offered very much.
In addition, certain socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents were examined. A series of questions to measure the aforementioned characteristics included the following variables: gender, age, education level, work status, and wealth status of the respondent’s immediate family.
The measurement factors (factor for measuring preferences for certain vegetation elements of public green spaces, factor for measuring the importance of certain features of flower beds, and factor for measuring preferences for certain types of flower beds) were subjected to the factor analysis procedure. The initial solutions were subjected to orthogonal transformation using the Varimax rotation criterion in the context of multidimensional measures, while the final factor structure was guided by the attempt to comply with the principle of Thurstone’s simple structure. Based on the factor solutions obtained, an appropriate number of additive weighted indexes were constructed for each measurement factor. In the case of a unidimensional measurement item, one index was constructed, while in the case of a multidimensional measurement item, as many indexes were constructed as statistically significant latent dimensions were extracted. At the same time, the weights of the indicators were represented by the factor loadings of the individual indicators on the latent reference dimension.

4.5. Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics software (version 27). The data were analyzed to identify differences between the landscape experts and members of the general, non-expert public.
The empirical data were analyzed using the methods and procedures of descriptive, inferential, and multivariate statistics. Within the framework of descriptive statistics, the variables were analyzed using univariate techniques and appropriate descriptive statistical indicators (frequency distributions, percentage distributions of responses, mean modal and median values, and standard deviation). As part of the inferential statistical analysis of the data, a t-test was performed for two independent samples [91]. The multivariate technique (principal component analysis) was used to test the factor structure of a multilevel factor measuring preferences for different types of vegetation elements, the importance of different features of flowerbeds, and perceptions and preferences for different types of flower beds. The factor solution was determined using the GK criterion to extract statistically significant latent dimensions [92] and was subjected to an orthogonal transformation using the Varimax rotation criterion [93].
All statistical tests were performed at a 5% level of significance.

5. Conclusions

Users’ preferences for urban vegetation are shaped by a complex interplay of environmental, psychological, and social factors. Trees, shrubs, hedges, flower beds, and lawns each offer unique benefits and pose different challenges in urban landscapes. By understanding and accommodating these preferences, urban planners and designers can create green spaces that improve the livability and sustainability of cities and ultimately contribute to the well-being of city dwellers. The integration of different vegetation types combined with community engagement is key to successful urban greening initiatives that match the preferences and values of the population.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.P. and A.V.; methodology, A.V.; software, M.P.; validation, M.P. and A.V.; formal analysis, M.K.; investigation, M.P.; resources, T.P.; data curation, V.Ž.; writing—original draft preparation, M.P.; writing—review and editing, A.V., T.P., V.Ž. and M.K.; visualization, M.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The publication was supported by the Open Access Publication Fund of the University of Zagreb Faculty of Agriculture.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Mirna Krivokuća for her valuable statistical advice.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bolund, P.; Hunhammar, S. Ecosystem Services in Urban Areas. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 29, 293–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. 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]
  5. Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Barton, D.N. Classifying and Valuing Ecosystem Services for Urban Planning. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. 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]
  7. Zhang, F.; Qian, H. A Comprehensive Review of the Environmental Benefits of Urban Green Spaces. Environ. Res. 2024, 252, 118837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Ulrich, R.S. View through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery. Science 1984, 224, 420–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kaplan, S. The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward an Integrative Framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 1995, 15, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Berman, M.G.; Jonides, J.; Kaplan, S. The Cognitive Benefits of Interacting with Nature. Psychol. Sci. 2008, 19, 1207–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hartig, T.; Mitchell, R.; De Vries, S.; Frumkin, H. Nature and Health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2014, 35, 207–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. 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]
  13. 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]
  14. 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]
  15. 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]
  16. 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]
  17. 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]
  18. 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]
  19. 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]
  20. 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]
  21. 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]
  22. 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]
  23. 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]
  24. Gobster, P.H. Visions of Nature: Conflict and Compatibility in Urban Park Restoration. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 56, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chiesura, A. The Role of Urban Parks for the Sustainable City. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Abello, R.P.; Bernaldez, F.G. Landscape Preference and Personality. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1986, 13, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. 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]
  28. Jorgensen, A.; Tylecote, M. Ambivalent Landscapes—Wilderness in the Urban Interstices. Landsc. Res. 2007, 32, 443–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. 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]
  30. 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]
  31. 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]
  32. 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]
  33. 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]
  34. Thompson, C.W. Urban Open Space in the 21st Century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 60, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. 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]
  36. 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]
  37. 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]
  38. 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]
  39. 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]
  40. 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]
  41. 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]
  42. 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]
  43. 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]
  44. Nassauer, J.I. Messy Ecosystems, Orderly Frames. Landsc. J. 1995, 14, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. 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]
  46. 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]
  47. 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]
  48. 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]
  49. 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]
  50. Schroeder, H.; Green, T. Public Preference for Tree Density in Municipal Parks. AUF 1985, 11, 272–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. 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]
  52. 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]
  53. 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]
  54. 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]
  55. 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]
  56. 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]
  57. 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]
  58. Clayton, S. Domesticated Nature: Motivations for Gardening and Perceptions of Environmental Impact. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Rollings, R.; Goulson, D. Quantifying the Attractiveness of Garden Flowers for Pollinators. J. Insect Conserv. 2019, 23, 803–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. 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]
  61. 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]
  62. 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]
  63. 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]
  64. 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]
  65. 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]
  66. 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]
  67. 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]
  68. Ryan, R.L. Exploring the Effects of Environmental Experience on Attachment to Urban Natural Areas. Environ. Behav. 2005, 37, 3–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. 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]
  70. 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]
  71. 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]
  72. Misgav, A. Visual Preference of the Public for Vegetation Groups in Israel. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 48, 143–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wolf, K. Freeway Roadside Management: The Urban Forest Beyond the White Line. AUF 2003, 29, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. 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]
  75. 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]
  76. 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]
  77. Ogrin, D. Krajinska Arhitektura; Oddelek za Krajinsko Arhitekturo, Biotehniška Fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2010; ISBN 978-961-6833-02-8. [Google Scholar]
  78. 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]
  79. 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]
  80. 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]
  81. Ford, L. The Spaces Between Buildings; JHU Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2000; ISBN 978-0-8018-6331-8. [Google Scholar]
  82. 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]
  83. 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]
  84. 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]
  85. 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]
  86. 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]
  87. 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]
  88. 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]
  89. 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]
  90. 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]
  91. Student. The Probable Error of a Mean. Biometrika 1908, 6, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Thurstone, L.L. Multiple Factor Analysis; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1947. [Google Scholar]
  93. Kaiser, H.F. The Varimax Criterion for Analytic Rotation in Factor Analysis. Psychometrika 1958, 23, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Selected descriptive statistical indicators of the analyzed vegetation elements of public green spaces (n = 348).
Table 1. Selected descriptive statistical indicators of the analyzed vegetation elements of public green spaces (n = 348).
Vegetation ElementsMeanMdnModSD
Trees4.48550.68
Flower beds4.16450.91
Lawns4.15450.94
Shrubs3.79441.02
Hedges3.56441.03
Table 2. Preferences for vegetation elements where a statistically significant difference was found between the average results of landscape experts and the general public (n = 348).
Table 2. Preferences for vegetation elements where a statistically significant difference was found between the average results of landscape experts and the general public (n = 348).
VariablePublic TypenMSDFt
Flower bedsGeneral public2434.350.7711.241 **t(157) = 5.806 ***
Landscape experts1053.701.03
Total3484.160.91
LawnsGeneral public2434.420.804.344 *t(168) = 8.424 ***
Landscape experts1053.520.96
Total3484.150.94
Note: *, significant at p < 0.05; **, significant at p < 0.01; ***, significant at p < 0.001.
Table 3. Factor analysis of the different vegetation elements of green spaces.
Table 3. Factor analysis of the different vegetation elements of green spaces.
ItemsFactor Loadings
12
Shrubs0.849
Hedges0.808
Trees0.770
Flower beds 0.871
Lawns0.2630.812
Eigenvalue2.041.51
% of variance40.8930.10
Total explained variance86.17%
Table 4. Selected descriptive statistical indicators of the weighted indexes.
Table 4. Selected descriptive statistical indicators of the weighted indexes.
IndexMinMaxMMdnModSDSkewnessKurtosisM*
Vegetation volumes3.2012.149.549.7110.481.85−0.690.153.94
Vegetation plains1.688.426.997.548.421.34−1.091.014.16
Note: M*, The average value of the arithmetic means of the reference particles.
Table 5. The difference in the average preference for vegetation plains between two types of respondents (n = 348).
Table 5. The difference in the average preference for vegetation plains between two types of respondents (n = 348).
Public TypenMSDFt
General public2434.390.6611.009 **t (165) = 8.565 ***
Landscape experts1053.610.81
Note: **, significant at p < 0.01; ***, significant at p < 0.001.
Table 6. Selected descriptive statistical indicators of the analyzed characteristics of flower beds (n = 348).
Table 6. Selected descriptive statistical indicators of the analyzed characteristics of flower beds (n = 348).
Characteristics of the Flower BedsMMdnModSD
The level of the arrangement4.29450.86
The shape of the bed3.86441.08
The position of the bed in the space3.82441.02
The color of the flowers3.73441.11
Changing colors of the flower bed throughout the year3.60451.27
Variety of flower species3.58441.07
Height of the flowers3.54441.13
The scent of the flowers3.38331.16
Table 7. Factor analysis of the importance of selected features of flower beds.
Table 7. Factor analysis of the importance of selected features of flower beds.
ItemsFactor Loadings
1
The shape of the bed0.768
The position of the bed in the space0.743
Height of the flowers0.659
Color of the flowers0.650
Changing colors of the flower bed throughout the year0.635
Variety of flower species0.606
The level of the arrangement0.469
The scent of the flowers0.443
Eigenvalue3.18
Total explained variance39.81%
Table 8. Selected descriptive statistical indicators of the weighted index (n = 348).
Table 8. Selected descriptive statistical indicators of the weighted index (n = 348).
IndexMinMaxMMdnModSDSkewnessKurtosisM*
The importance of the characteristics of flower beds4.9724.8718.5318.7724.873.49−1.283.073.73
Note: M*, The average value of the arithmetic means of the reference particles.
Table 9. Indicators for the conducted test of the difference in the average importance of selected features of the flower bed between two groups of respondents (n = 348).
Table 9. Indicators for the conducted test of the difference in the average importance of selected features of the flower bed between two groups of respondents (n = 348).
A Characteristics of Flower BedsPublic TypenMSDFt
Color of the flowersGeneral public2433.631.147.488 **t(220) = 2.504 *
Landscape experts1053.941.02
Total3483.731.11
The shape of the bedGeneral public2433.661.1312.511 ***t(271) = 6.209 ***
Landscape experts1054.320.80
Total3483.861.08
Height of the flowersGeneral public2433.351.15
Landscape experts1053.980.9610.379 **t(233) = 5.264 ***
Total3483.541.13
The level of the arrangementGeneral public2434.460.80
Landscape experts1053.890.850.130t(346) = 6.028 ***
Total3484.290.86
Changing colors of the flower bed throughout the yearGeneral public2433.391.31
Landscape experts1054.101.0120.111 ***t(252) = 5.416 ***
Total3483.601.27
Note: *, significant at p < 0.05; **, significant at p < 0.01; ***, significant at p < 0.001.
Table 10. Selected descriptive statistical indicators of preference for certain types of flower beds (n = 348).
Table 10. Selected descriptive statistical indicators of preference for certain types of flower beds (n = 348).
Characteristics of the Flower Bed TypesMMdnModSD
With more types of flowers4.00440.75
Multicolored flower bed3.99440.80
A combination of low and tall flowers3.81440.97
Organic shape3.53440.88
Geometric shape3.48440.89
With a single type of flower3.47440.90
Monochrome flower bed3.36440.91
Table 11. Factor analysis of the typology of flower beds according to respondents’ preferences (n = 348).
Table 11. Factor analysis of the typology of flower beds according to respondents’ preferences (n = 348).
ItemsFactor Loadings
12
With more types of flowers0.872
Multicolored flower bed0.861
A combination of low and tall flowers0.670
Organic shape0.543
Monochrome flower bed 0.894
With a single type of flower 0.827
Geometric shape 0.621
Eigenvalue2.261.93
% of variance32.2527.58
Total explained variance59.84%
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

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

AMA Style

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 Style

Poje, 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

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