Cited by 272Urban Green Space and HealthUrban and spatial planningPlace Attachment and Urban Studies

Biodiverse perennial meadows have aesthetic value and increase residents’ perceptions of site quality in urban green-space

Open access
Southon, Georgina E., Jorgensen, Anna, Dunnett, Nigel, Hoyle, Helen, Evans, Karl L.·2017·Landscape and Urban Planning

Abstract

We used photo-elicitation studies and a controlled perennial meadow creation experiment at ten urban green-spaces in southern England (five experimental sites and five control sites) to assess green-space visitors’ responses to urban meadows. Multiple meadows, which varied in their structural diversity (height) and plant species richness, were created at each experimental site. Photo elicitation demonstrated that meadows were generally preferred to herbaceous borders and formal bedding planting. Moreover, our experimental meadows had higher preference scores than a treatment that replicated mown amenity grassland, and meadow creation improved site quality and appreciation across a wide range of people. Meadows that contained more plant species and some structural diversity (i.e. were tall or of medium height) were most preferred. The magnitude of these preferences was lower amongst people that used the sites the most, probably due to a strong attachment to the site, i.e. sense of place. People with greater eco-centricity (i.e. those who used the countryside more frequently, had greater ability to identify plant species and exhibited more support for conservation) responded more positively to meadow vegetation. Crucially a wide range of respondents was willing to tolerate the appearance of meadows outside the flowering season, especially when provided with information on their biodiversity and aesthetic benefits and potential cost savings (from reduced cutting frequencies). Re-designing urban green-spaces and parks through the creation of species rich meadows can provide a win–win strategy for biodiversity and people, and potentially improve connections between the two.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.08.003

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most stakeholders favour varied flower designs of vegetation components such as bioswales and shrubs, which can potentially gain more acceptance from the public.

    “A key aspect is that most stakeholders favour varied flower designs of vegetation components such as bioswales and shrubs, so it can potentially gain more acceptance from the public, as demonstrated in the studies of Hoyle et al. [36] and Southon et al. [50].”

    From Challenges and Stakeholder Perspectives on Implementing Ecological Designs in Green Public Spaces: A Case Study of Hue City, Vietnam (2023) · cites this paper as Southon et al. [50]

    The Conclusion (page unavailable) reports widespread support for urban meadows, with the highest preference scores for meadows containing more plant species and structural diversity. Section 4.3 (page unavailable) also reports a preference for species-rich meadow plots, but the study does not establish that most stakeholders favour varied flower designs for bioswales or shrubs. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 66 · Cited by 272

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Ahern, J., & Boughton, J. (1994). Wildflower meadows as suitable landscapes. In R. H. Platt, R. A. Rowntree, & P. C. Muick (Eds.), The ecological city: Preserving and restoring urban biodiversity (pp. 172-187). Amherst: University of Massuchusetts Press.
  2. Altman, & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 279-304). US: Springer.
  3. Liu, Y. (2002). Chinese attitudes towards meadows. MA Thesis. UK: The University of Sheffield.
  4. Manzo, L. C., & Perkins, D. D. (2006). Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment. Journal of Planning Literature, 20, 335-350.
  5. Meurk, C. D., Blaschke, P. M., & Simcock, R. C. (2013). Ecosystem services in New Zealand cities. In J. R. Dymond (Ed.), Ecosystem services in New Zealand-conditions and trends. New Zealand: Manaaki Whenua Press.
  6. Schroeder, H. W. (1991). Preference and meaning of arboretum landscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 231-248.
  7. Sheng, Y.P., Thuzar, M. (Eds.), (2012). Urbanisation in Southeast Asia: Issues and Impacts. ISEAS Publishing. Singapore.

Authors
Southon, G. E., Jorgensen, A., Dunnett, N., Hoyle, H., & Evans, K. L.
Affiliations
University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Southon, Georgina E.
Venue
Landscape and Urban Planning
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-02
Volume
158
Pages
105-118
ISSN
0169-2046 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2556069606
Cited by
272
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 11
FWCI
11.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Landscape and Urban Planning (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  • Natural Environment Research Council (NE/J015369/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Urban Green Space and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Urban and spatial planning
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Place Attachment and Urban Studies
Keywords
urban green space, tourist preferences, aesthetic value, plant species richness, structural diversity, sense of place, biodiversity conservation, photo-elicitation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review