Stakeholder feedback on perspective renderings indicate broad support for no-mow management of campus greenspaces

IF 6.7 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Corey Dawson, Alexe Indigo, Paul Manning
{"title":"Stakeholder feedback on perspective renderings indicate broad support for no-mow management of campus greenspaces","authors":"Corey Dawson,&nbsp;Alexe Indigo,&nbsp;Paul Manning","doi":"10.1016/j.ufug.2025.129111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>No-mow management of greenspaces is becoming a popular intervention to conserve biodiversity and balance other human functions (e.g. aesthetic qualities, accessibility) through integrating the concept of “cues to care” (CTC). Here, visible signs of human intention and maintenance were featured by varying degrees of CTC, where three “no-mow” design approaches were created for greenspaces on a university campus. Next, we surveyed a cross-section of campus stakeholders to provide insight into how these no-mow options were perceived. There was broad support for no-mow management of campus greenspaces, with a design centred around a matrix of no-mow “islands” within a mowed lawn finding the most support across each of the three sites. A design composed of a more extensive no-mow patch with a well-defined border, and an no-mow patch featuring a mowed bisecting linear path were selected less frequently as preferred designs. Thematic analysis of qualitative comments revealed that no-mow designs were preferred based on higher aesthetic quality, perceived human use of the space and accessibility, and the value for biodiversity conservation. We found demographics, site familiarity, and the geometry of patch features were likely contributors to the social acceptance of no-mow design, where a moderate degree of CTC out-performed alternative management options. Affiliation, gender, and age demographics showed students who identified as women and under the age of 30 were most responsive to no-mow designs compared to high-frequency mowing. No-mow management was more strongly preferred for unfamiliar sites, as compared to familiar sites. The curvature of no-mow island features were also preferred over linear mowed strips, supporting a fundamental human preference for more-natural geometry. Findings demonstrate that designed greenspaces that facilitate human uses, feature moderate CTC, and provide habitat may improve public perceptions, and thus the uptake of no-mow management.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49394,"journal":{"name":"Urban Forestry & Urban Greening","volume":"113 ","pages":"Article 129111"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Forestry & Urban Greening","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866725004455","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

No-mow management of greenspaces is becoming a popular intervention to conserve biodiversity and balance other human functions (e.g. aesthetic qualities, accessibility) through integrating the concept of “cues to care” (CTC). Here, visible signs of human intention and maintenance were featured by varying degrees of CTC, where three “no-mow” design approaches were created for greenspaces on a university campus. Next, we surveyed a cross-section of campus stakeholders to provide insight into how these no-mow options were perceived. There was broad support for no-mow management of campus greenspaces, with a design centred around a matrix of no-mow “islands” within a mowed lawn finding the most support across each of the three sites. A design composed of a more extensive no-mow patch with a well-defined border, and an no-mow patch featuring a mowed bisecting linear path were selected less frequently as preferred designs. Thematic analysis of qualitative comments revealed that no-mow designs were preferred based on higher aesthetic quality, perceived human use of the space and accessibility, and the value for biodiversity conservation. We found demographics, site familiarity, and the geometry of patch features were likely contributors to the social acceptance of no-mow design, where a moderate degree of CTC out-performed alternative management options. Affiliation, gender, and age demographics showed students who identified as women and under the age of 30 were most responsive to no-mow designs compared to high-frequency mowing. No-mow management was more strongly preferred for unfamiliar sites, as compared to familiar sites. The curvature of no-mow island features were also preferred over linear mowed strips, supporting a fundamental human preference for more-natural geometry. Findings demonstrate that designed greenspaces that facilitate human uses, feature moderate CTC, and provide habitat may improve public perceptions, and thus the uptake of no-mow management.
利益相关者对透视图效果图的反馈表明,对校园绿地管理的广泛支持
通过整合“提示关怀”(CTC)的概念,对绿色空间的“no - now”管理正在成为一种流行的干预措施,以保护生物多样性和平衡其他人类功能(例如美学品质、可达性)。在这里,人类意图和维护的可见标志以不同程度的CTC为特征,在大学校园的绿色空间中创建了三种“no-mow”设计方法。接下来,我们调查了校园利益相关者的横截面,以深入了解这些不现在的选择是如何被感知的。校园绿地的禁割管理得到了广泛的支持,在修剪过的草坪内,围绕禁割“岛屿”矩阵的设计在三个场地中都得到了最大的支持。由具有明确边界的更广泛的禁割补丁组成的设计,以及具有刈割平分线性路径的禁割补丁被较少地选择为首选设计。定性评价的主题分析显示,基于更高的审美质量、感知到的人类空间使用和可达性以及生物多样性保护价值,no- now设计更受青睐。我们发现,人口统计数据、站点熟悉度和斑块特征的几何形状可能是社会接受no- now设计的原因,其中适度的CTC优于其他管理方案。隶属关系、性别和年龄统计数据显示,与高频刈割相比,女性和30岁以下的学生对无刈割设计最敏感。与熟悉的网站相比,不熟悉的网站更倾向于不现在管理。与线性修剪过的条形建筑相比,不修剪过的岛屿的曲率也更受欢迎,这支持了人类对更自然几何形状的基本偏好。研究结果表明,设计方便人类使用的绿地,具有适度的CTC,并提供栖息地,可以改善公众的认知,从而接受禁入管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.70
自引率
12.50%
发文量
289
审稿时长
70 days
期刊介绍: Urban Forestry and Urban Greening is a refereed, international journal aimed at presenting high-quality research with urban and peri-urban woody and non-woody vegetation and its use, planning, design, establishment and management as its main topics. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening concentrates on all tree-dominated (as joint together in the urban forest) as well as other green resources in and around urban areas, such as woodlands, public and private urban parks and gardens, urban nature areas, street tree and square plantations, botanical gardens and cemeteries. The journal welcomes basic and applied research papers, as well as review papers and short communications. Contributions should focus on one or more of the following aspects: -Form and functions of urban forests and other vegetation, including aspects of urban ecology. -Policy-making, planning and design related to urban forests and other vegetation. -Selection and establishment of tree resources and other vegetation for urban environments. -Management of urban forests and other vegetation. Original contributions of a high academic standard are invited from a wide range of disciplines and fields, including forestry, biology, horticulture, arboriculture, landscape ecology, pathology, soil science, hydrology, landscape architecture, landscape planning, urban planning and design, economics, sociology, environmental psychology, public health, and education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信