8UEDQ)RUHVWU\ 8UEDQ*UHHQLQJ  ²

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ufug

Original article Show me your garden and I will tell you how sustainable you are: Dutch 7 citizens’ perspectives on conserving biodiversity and promoting a sustainable urban living environment through domestic gardening☆

Carijn Beumer

Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, The Netherlands

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper focuses on Dutch perspectives on the issue of gardening for biodiversity and sustainable urban en- Biodiversity conservation vironments. A semi-qualitative survey based on multiple choice, open, and visual questions were conducted with Cultural theory a representative sample of the Dutch population (N = 517). The aim of the survey was to get a better insight into Domestic gardening the way Dutch domestic gardens contribute to urban sustainability and biodiversity conservation. Cultural Public/private dilemma Theory was used as a heuristic framework for survey design and analysis. The results show that the Dutch Urban sustainability population is best represented by the Egalitarian and the Hierarchist perspectives. The Egalitarian perspective has strong ecological ideals, but these ideals are not reflected in how most of them design and maintain their gardens in practice. There seems to be a strong cognitive dissonance in the relation between a majority of the Dutch garden owners and the design and maintenance of their gardens. Only a small group of people with an Autonomous perspective is able to bring their high ecological ideals into practice in their yards. The Individualist perspective group has least ideological and practical concern for gardening, sustainability and biodiversity. The results have been discussed in the context of global goals for sustainable cities and biodiversity, as reflected in the Aichi targets and the Sustainable Development Goals. The paper intends to provide policymakers and urban planners with levers to experiment with incentives to bridge gaps between private space and public interests (the public/private dilemma).

1. Introduction sustainability because of the incredible creativity and human potential that emerges from urban living (Millard, 2010; Beatley, 2011; Mitchell “They paved Paradise, and put up a parking lot – From a song by Joni and Mueller, 2009; Tidball, 2012). Mitchell, 1970” In accordance to this paradoxical role of cities, the sustainable de- velopment and design of cities are becoming a key issue for global What can a tiny urban space such as a domestic garden contribute to policy and civil action for nature in the 21st Century (CBD, 2012; urban sustainability and biodiversity conservation? Urban areas are the United Nations, 2016a,b; TEEB, 2011; ICLEI, 2012). Even though there centres where all the ‘bad’ and all the ‘good’ of human existence come are many possible interpretations of sustainable cities (Beumer, 2017), together (CBD, 2012; Crutzen et al., 2007). On the one hand urban life UN Habitat (2015) defines sustainable urban development as “the is coupled to a great amount of land use change on a global scale, af- spatial manifestation of urban development processes that creates a fecting natural resources and biodiversity (Prokop et al., 2011; Steffen built environment with norms, institutions and governance systems et al., 2005) and inside cities much land is turned into sealed surface for enabling individuals, households and societies to maximize their po- housing, industry and parking lots (Prokop et al., 2011). According to a tential, optimize a vast range of services so that homes and dynamic report by the Environment Agency Austria (Umweltbundesamt) “[t]he neighbourhoods, cities and towns are planned, built, renewed and highest [general soil] sealing rates can be observed in Malta (13%), the consolidated restraining adverse impacts on the environment while Netherlands (8%), Belgium (7.4%), Germany and Luxembourg (5%), safeguarding the quality of life, needs and livelihood of its present and and Cyprus and Denmark (3.6%) (Prokop et al., 2011, p.18).” At the future populations (UN Habitat, 2015).”. other hand, cities provide great opportunity for increasing global Within the focus on sustainable urban development there is much

☆ This article is part of a special feature entitled “Strategic gardens and gardening: Inviting a widened perspective on the values of private green space” published at the journal Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 30C. E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.09.010 Received 30 September 2016; Received in revised form 15 September 2017; Accepted 15 September 2017 $YDLODEOHRQOLQH1RYHPEHU ‹(OVHYLHU*PE+$OOULJKWVUHVHUYHG C. Beumer 8UEDQ)RUHVWU\ 8UEDQ*UHHQLQJ  ² attention for strengthening green infrastructure (Schäffler and Swilling, are also illuminated by the results of this study, which indicate a high 2013; Rudd et al., 2002) as it brings many of the vast range of services, practical popularity of paved courtyards which opposes common ideals such as “water purification, air quality, space for recreation and climate of natured cities and biodiverse gardens. Domestic spaces and the ef- mitigation and adaptation (European Commission, 2017).” The re- fects on their wider environments cannot be separated from the people levance of green infrastructure and habitat connectivity for the pro- who design, maintain, and use them. To enable policymakers to create tection of biodiversity – the variability and variety of life (CBD, 2010) – levers to deal with such gaps between private and public interests (the has been widely confirmed by researchers (Rudd et al., 2002; Maas public/private dilemma) (Haignere, 1999), it is important to gain better et al., 2006; Van den Berg et al., 2014; Stansfeld et al., 2000; Tzoulas understanding of the way people consciously or unconsciously con- and James, 2004; Velarde et al., 2007; Tzoulas et al., 2007; Keune et al., tribute to the public stakes of biodiversity conservation and urban 2013; Mitchell et al., 2013; Beumer, 2014a,b) and is also reflected in sustainability via their own private outdoor spaces. the UN Sustainable Development Goals (Goal 11) and in the Aichi A semi-qualitative survey based on multiple choice-, open-, and Targets of the Convention of Biological Diversity (Targets 1 and 2) (United visual questions was conducted with a representative sample of the Nations, 2016a,b; CBD, 2011). Dutch population (N = 517). World Bank data of 2015 show that over Awareness of the importance of green infrastructure in an urban 90% of the Dutch population lives in an urban environment and the environment slowly trickles down from global research to policymakers percentage is still rising (World Bank Group, 2016). Therefore, the and at citizens’ grassroots level (Beatley, 2011; CBD, 2011; Meijer et al., Netherlands make a suitable country for this study. With the main 2013; Lachmund, 2013; Jorgensen and Keenan, 2012). Many citizens question in mind – how do Dutch domestic gardens contribute to-, and all over the world have been taking up their shovels for greening public reflect public values related to urban sustainability and biodiversity con- spaces: traditional parks are turned into small urban farms to grow servation? – the paper was constructed around four complementary herbs and vegetables; brownfields are turned into colourful meadows; leading research questions: forgotten urban niches and roadsides are decorated with plants and flowers by guerrilla gardeners; insect hotels, green roofs and green 1. How do respondents relate to global sustainability and conservation walls enjoy popularity in commercial gardening centres, and swopping issues in their daily lives? seeds has become a thriving activity in online and offline social net- 2. How do respondents relate to their domestic outside spaces? works (Beatley, 2011; Van Heezik et al., 2012; Miller and Hobbs, 2002; 3. What are respondents’ preferences with regards to yard main- White, 2011; Bell et al., 2016). Such urban greening and gardening tenance, design and trends? practices are increasingly studied and widely supported by research 4. Do respondents connect their gardening activities to ideas of (local from ecologists and conservationists (Lachmund, 2013; McKinney, and global) sustainability and biodiversity conservation? 2002; Mathey and Rink, 2010; Müller et al., 2010; Haase and Schetke, 2010; Müller and Kamada, 2011; Certomà, 2011; Francis and Lorimer, The basic assumption taken in this paper is that individual human 2011; Kowarik, 2011; Cameron et al., 2012; Barton and Tan, 2013; action and public policy are both grounded in particular worldviews. In Beumer, 2014a,b; Beumer and Martens, 2015a,b; Niinemets and this paper these worldviews or perspectives are framed according to Peñuelas, 2008; Ives et al., 2016). Cultural Theory (CT) archetypes (Beumer, 2014a,b; Mamadouh, 1999; Most focus in current research on the relevance of greening cities for Offermans, 2012; Thompson et al., 1990; Verweij et al., 2006). The biodiversity and sustainability has been on the greening of public spaces paper assesses how these CT perspectives lead to certain strategic as they are directly and most obviously linked to ecosystem services of ‘garden-management’ schemes that are connected to higher and lower high public concerns, such as health, storm water run-off, temperature levels of public or private responsibility. The insights gained in this regulation, clean air, food and material provisioning (TEEB, 2011; Maas paper can be useful for conservationists, landscape architects, and et al., 2006; Van den Berg et al., 2014; Mitchell et al., 2013; Beumer policymakers in the field of urban development and planning when and Martens, 2015; Simonis, 2011; Theeuwes et al., 2012; Zwaagstra, seeking to experiment with incentives to bridge any gaps between 2014; Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999; Appleton, 2002; Lyytimäki et al., private space and public interests (public/private dilemma) (Haignere, 2008; Kumar and Kumar, 2008; Ignatieva et al., 2011; Meléndez- 1999; Swedlow, 2013). Ackerman et al., 2014). In order to accommodate increasing insights into the role of green infrastructures in an urbanizing world, the rela- 2. Methodology tively young field of study on the contribution of private spaces – such as domestic gardens − to biodiversity conservation and urban sustain- 2.1. Heuristic framework ability is helpful (Rudd et al., 2002; Cameron et al., 2012; Beumer and Martens, 2015a,b; Niinemets and Peñuelas, 2008; Meléndez-Ackerman Cultural Theory, originally developed by Michael Thompson and his et al., 2014; Galluzzi et al., 2010; Goddard et al., 2010; NWF, 2013; colleagues (Thompson et al., 1990; Verweij et al., 2006; Thompson, Goddard et al., 2013; Dewaelheyns et al., 2014; Larson et al., 2009; 1997; Douglas, 1970) and further developed as a method for perspec- Larson et al., 2010; Chowdhury et al., 2011; Cook et al., 2012; Visscher tive analysis by Offermans (2012) and Beumer and Martens (Beumer et al., 2016; Lindemann-Matthies and Marty, 2013; Lin et al., 2017; and Martens, 2010, 2013), was used as a heuristic framework for the Dewaelheyns et al., 2013; Kendal et al., 2012; Larson et al., 2016; design and interpretation of the survey. As a typology of different Belaire et al., 2016; Dahmus and Nelson, 2014; Cilliers, 2010). This worldviews or perspectives that can occur in a given society (Beumer, paper contributes to this rapidly emerging field of study, aiming to 2014a,b; Mamadouh, 1999; Offermans, 2012; Thompson et al., 1990; bridge the still existing gap in research between the physical con- Verweij et al., 2006; Thompson, 1997), CT aims to represent a holistic tribution of gardens to urban sustainability and the perspectives un- picture of ‘perspective biases’ and their corresponding management derlying the design and maintenance of these spaces. styles. This is done by framing the perspectives on an axis of: 1. high or Private outdoor space can measure up to 40% of the urban en- low commitment to social units (e.g. emphasis on publically carried vironment (Zwaagstra, 2014). This delivers a high opportunity for in- responsibility versus emphasis on individual freedom); 2. high or low creasing biodiversity and sustainability by taking ecological values into compliance to institutional authority (e.g. conformation to role differ- account at the domestic landscape level (Beumer, 2014a,b; Loram et al., entiation, rules and regulations) (Offermans, 2012; Thompson et al., 2008). At the same time, domestic gardens are often beyond the impact 1990; Verweij et al., 2006). The CT typology integrates both rational and reach of (local) policy makers, potentially leading to tensions be- choice theory and post-structuralism (Verweij et al., 2006). Rational tween trends carried out in private spaces versus their impact on issues choice theorists assume that societies and cultures are fundamentally with a public interests (Beumer and Martens, 2015a,b). Such tensions the same because they consist of human beings who share the same

 C. Beumer 8UEDQ)RUHVWU\ 8UEDQ*UHHQLQJ  ²

Box 1 Perspective pitches.

The Hierarchist sees nature as robust within limits. The limits have to be set by regulation and policy. Gardens will follow tradition and are neatly maintained and controlled. Typical Hierarchist gardens are lawn gardens with flowering borders or Versailles type gardens with strong geometrical patterns (Beumer, 2014a,b; Beumer & Martens, 2015). Hierarchists see strong value in publically carried responsibility. The Egalitarian considers nature to be fragile. Nature is a marginalised player in society and needs to be given a voice and protection. The precautionary principle is leading. Gardens will be combining natural values and space for human connection to nature. Typical Egalitarian gardens are colourful English cottage gardens based on semi-structured wildness (Beumer, 2014a,b; Beumer & Martens, 2015). Egalitarians see strong value in publically carried responsibility. Individualists consider nature to be a resilient resource and human nature inventive enough to compensate for any losses. The market is the leading principle of society. State control and governance should be limited. Individual freedom is the key value of this creative optimist. Gardens will be based on trendy design and on principles of comfort and luxury. Typically lounge gardens, preferably with outdoor kitchens and swimming pools (Beumer, 2014a,b; Beumer & Martens, 2015). Individualists see strong value in individual or private responsibility. Fatalists see nature as a capricious source of uncertainty. It is out of human control and any effort to manage it will fail in the end, so why bother? Passive submission to events and coping with (or simply enjoying) surprises are the way of life of a fatalist. Gardens will be untamed and probably not appreciated by the neighbours. The fatalist can enjoy the surprises of unexpected growth though. A typical fatalist garden is a neglected garden (Beumer, 2014a,b; Beumer & Martens, 2015). Nobody can be really responsible, as things happen by chance. Autonomous people see nature as a sacred source of wisdom and well-being. It should be treaded lightly and the best way to care for nature is by retreating from consumption society into a lifestyle of simplicity and minimalism. Gardens will be built around philosophies of life combining the variety of natural elements and spiritual symbols with self-sustenance. A typical autonomous garden is a Feng Shui garden or a Permaculture garden (Beumer, 2014a,b; Beumer & Martens, 2015). Autonomous’ see strong value in individual or private responsibility. The Dynamic Integrator sees nature as a complex system where principles of resilience need to be fostered though adaptation and anticipation based on the diverse array of available perspectives and management styles. People play a strong role in maintaining or affecting the resilience of the system. Therefore, an integrative attitude toward people, planet and prosperity is imperative and co-evolution is the leading management principle. Based on circumstances and contexts, fitting solutions to problems will be developed in cooperation with important stakeholders. Dynamic gardens are typically integrating sustainability features such as water capture and storage devices, PV lighting, water saving irrigation systems and innovative methods of urban farming (Beumer, 2014a,b; Beumer & Martens, 2015). Public and private responsibility should interact in a meaningful way for problem solving.

basic needs. Post-structuralists share the view that every person, culture worldviews and management styles to address internal and external or community is inherently unique (Giddens, 2009). CT is based on the problems (Erez and Gati, 2004). Cultural – or perspective – diversity – notion that although cultures do differ, they do not differ endlessly can also be considered a fundamental capital for cultural or societal (Verweij et al., 2006). In this paper an adapted version of traditional CT resilience: respecting, sharing, integrating and learning about different (Beumer, 2014a,b; Beumer and Martens, 2010, 2013) will be applied. styles and views allows for constructive dialogue (or constructive con- Next to the usual four perspective archetypes (the Hierarchist, the flict) (Cuppen, 2012) and allows for greater socio-ecological creativity Egalitarian, the Individualist and the Fatalist) two additional perspec- and adaptability (Tidball, 2012; Meijer et al., 2013; Olsson and Folke, tives were used (the Autonomous and the Dynamic Integrator) to illu- 2007; Rees, 2010). minate the different ways Dutch citizens think and act in the context of their domestic environment. As these different perspectives have been described more elaborately in other publications (Beumer, 2014a,b; 2.2. Questionnaire design and operationalization Offermans, 2012; Thompson et al., 1990; Verweij et al., 2006; Asselt et al., 1995), a brief pitch is provided of their key characteristics re- The survey contained thirty-four selected content-based questions levant in the context of this paper (Box 1). A more elaborate table with often divided into sub-questions (see Appendix 2 in Supplementary general key characteristics of each perspective can be found in Ap- material). The survey was designed in the context of a broader study on fi pendix 1 in Supplementary material. urban greening for biodiversity of fty-three questions (Beumer, In earlier assessments CT has proven to be a useful tool to identify 2014a,b). The resulting data of this broader study were restructured in ongoing discourses in a variety of societal practices from water-man- order to enable answering the four main questions of this paper, which agement (Offermans, 2012; Valkering, 2009) to climate change gov- focuses on domestic gardening only (See Box 2). The survey consisted of fi ernance (Verweij et al., 2006) and risk management (Asselt et al., two parts. Firstly, questions were designed to enable identi cation of 1995). The adaptation of CT as used in this paper was applied for as- the CT perspectives of the respondents. These were questions about sessing global biodiversity conservation discourses (Beumer, 2014a,b; lifestyle preferences; personal motto and characteristics; view on so- Beumer and Martens, 2010, 2013) and globalisation and global gov- ciety and people; preferred ‘myth’ and image of nature; and preferred problem solving/management strategies. The second step of the ques- ernance discourse (Beumer et al., 2017). CT addresses ‘culture’ on the deeper level of core values and beliefs (Hills, 2002). Limitations to CT tionnaire was designed for answering the four main questions of this fi have been articulated by Offermans (2012). One important limitation is paper. With these questions the identi ed dominant perspectives of step the empirical problem of separating groups or individuals according to 1 were used for cross-tabulation. artificial theoretical dimensions. However, it is not the categorical Questions on gardening trends and styles were constructed through deduction of current key gardening trends and motives based on an ‘boxing’ that matters most, but the dynamics and functional relations academic literature review (Goddard et al., 2010; Larson et al., 2009; between the plurality of dominant and marginal perspectives: no ‘cul- Larson et al., 2010; Chowdhury et al., 2011; Cook et al., 2012; Loram ture’ on any scale level functions well without a diverse array of et al., 2008; Nassauer, 1995a,b; Hemenway, 2009; Iannotti, 2012; Kurz

 C. Beumer 8UEDQ)RUHVWU\ 8UEDQ*UHHQLQJ  ²

Box 2 Design and operationalization of survey in relation to the main research questions.

PART 1 Defining six cultural perspective groups Sixteen questions were used to identify the dominant perspectives of the respondents: ten textual survey-questions (1–6, 8–11) and six visual survey-questions (7, 12–16). PART 2 Q 1. How do respondents relate to global sustainability and conservation issues in their daily lives? Four questions asked respondents about their connections to the planet, planetary-scale problems, biodiversity and sustainability (17–20). Q 2. How do respondents relate to their domestic outdoor spaces? Three questions were formulated to ask people about their relation to gardening and being outside in their daily lives (21–23). Q 3. What are respondents’ preferences with regards to yard maintenance, design and trends? This important question was operationalized into eight questions on how people maintain their yard, about the design of their yard and about respondents’ actual preferences (25–31). One of them (29) was a visual question. Q 4. Do respondents connect their gardening activities to the ideas of sustainability and biodiversity conservation? The respondents had to answer questions about their activities for biodiversity in their yards. The questions about yard maintenance also contributed to answering this question. Furthermore it was asked how respondents estimated (their) yard-work as being beneficial for biodiversity. Q4 contained three questions (32–34).

and Baudains, 2012; Larsen and Harlan, 2006; Marzano, 2008; Szilagy, terms that draw from the deduced gardening trends. Four individual 2011; Hopper, 1981) accompanied by an assessment of popular litera- colleague researchers, all familiar with CT, reviewed the pictures that ture on gardening and landscape architecture and by identifying main were used for the six CT perspectives and assisted with adjusting the gardening trends presented in two Dutch television programmes on picture-choices for the survey. gardening (Eigen Huis & Tuin and Rob’s Grote Tuinverbouwing) for the years 2011 and 2012. Complementarily, study-visits were paid to the 2.3. Validity World Horticulture Expo Floriade in Venlo in the summer of 2012, the Desert Botanical Garden and the Japanese garden in Phoenix, Arizona Face validity of the survey was ensured by review and refinement (for complementary perspectives on the Dutch gardens) in 2013. Also through a test panel of Flycatcher and five colleagues before distribu- some commercial Dutch gardening stores were visited to learn about tion to the final panel. Content validity was ensured by the use of CT as the newest trends. Dutch gardening trend magazines (Groei & Bloei and a heuristic framework and by the extensive preparatory literature re- Home and Garden for 2011 and 2012), two annual magazines published search and fieldwork. Construct validity is based on an extensive for the Dutch gardening branch (Verdonschot, 2011, 2012) and various questionnaire design, combining qualitative, quantitative and visual (non-commercial) webpages on gardening and trends have also been questions. Cross check questions and open questions where respondents included in this qualitative trend assessment. In addition several hun- were given the space to illuminate their answers also contribute to dreds of domestic frontyards in Maastricht (the Netherlands) and construct validity Phoenix, AZ (US) were paid observational visits (Beumer and Martens, 2015a,b). The observational impressions and information about the 2.4. Analysis way people design and maintain their gardens was used to further in- form and design the questionnaire. The resulting questionnaire con- The perspective categories of the respondents are based on the sum cerned questions about yard maintenance, animals in the garden, and of the bi-modal results of the textual and visual questions of step 1 (see garden styles. Deduced trends from literature and observational visits Box 2). Based on the normal curve for these aggregated results, as- were intuitively structured according to the six CT perspectives, leading signing a respondent to a specific perspective group was done as fol- to textual and visual questions with six choice options for garden style lows: a respondent who chose for a specific perspective 5 times or more, preferences (see Appendix 2 in Supplementary material). this person was attributed the respective perspective. This way, 47% of Visual questions have been previously used in various ways, for the respondents were attributed a single dominant perspective and 46% example through visual preference surveys (Ewing, 2001), Q-Metho- of the respondents were attributed a clear double perspective (domi- dology (Cuppen et al., 2010) or Story Card-games (Smith, 2010). Re- nant with undercurrent). A small minority (3%) has three main per- cently, visual preference methodologies have been applied in the con- spectives. Another small minority (5%) have their worldview divided text of urban planning and design (Ewing, 2001; Zheng et al., 2011), over more than three perspectives. Theoretically, these minority groups perceptions on climate change (O'Neill and Nicholson-Cole, 2009) and could have been placed into the Dynamic Integrator category as this perspectives on water management (Offermans, 2012). Combining perspective is characterised by integrating various perspectives. How- textual and visual questions provides a more inclusive ‘measure’ of the ever, the qualitative answers given by the respondents in these minority worldviews of the respondents: this combination involves emotional groups were weighted heavily in order to place the respondents within parts of the brain: “[v]iewing the symbolic photos […] serves to sti- a specific dominant perspective category. In some rare cases this meant mulate a person's subconscious and past experiences and allows those that these respondents received another perspective than their quanti- experiences to emerge as conscious expression (White et al., 2009, tative answers may have suggested. Finally, for clarity reasons, for the p.3).” Visual preferences survey techniques also have the advantage to cross-tabulation of CT (step 1) questions with step 2 questions, it was limit the risk of respondents of giving socially desirable answers and decided to work with the dominant perspectives attributed to the re- they are suitable in situations where respondents may lack knowledge spondents only. of concepts and terminology (Smith, 2010). The theme of this paper is For cross-tabulating the step 1 questions with the step 2 questions, very suitable for using visual questions. The pictures for the visual the Chi-Square test was used. This test is used for nominal/categorical questions were selected through Google-image searches using search variables and it is based on the idea of comparing observed frequencies

 C. Beumer 8UEDQ)RUHVWU\ 8UEDQ*UHHQLQJ  ² in certain categories to the frequencies one may get in those categories by mere chance (Field, 2005). Basically, Chi-Square tests are categorical correlations: they check whether the frequencies of occurrences across any pair of variables (such as being an active or non-active gardener, and dominant cultural perspectives) are correlated (Field, 2005; Gibbons, 1993; Pallant, 2005). Questions delivering data in the form of three-, or five point Likert items were treated as ordered categorical data (Field, 2005; Jamieson, 2004; Carifio and Perla, 2007).

2.5. Sample

The survey covers a representative sample of the Dutch population age 18 and older (average age 50). The Maastricht based survey agency Flycatcher1provided the sample. The questionnaire was distributed in the Dutch language to an ISO certified panel of 850 people. The final sample contains a valid response of 517 people with a response ratio of 62%. The questionnaire was filled in by 271 men and 264 women. Of the respondents 28% has completed studies at a university. The ques- tionnaire was distributed and filled in according to provincial residence Fig. 1. Dominant Perspectives of the respondents N = 517 in Percentage%. percentage data from the CBS (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek). IBM SPSS Statistics 20 was used for the analyses of the data of the survey. individualists are positive about their impact. Fatalists have the stron- gest belief not to have an impact (42.9%). 3. Results Most respondents rarely think about the impact of biodiversity loss on their own lives sometimes (see Fig. 3a) (Question 19a). Only the Au- 3.1. Step 1: defining dominant cultural perspectives tonomous perspective seems different in this respect: 48% thinks about this sometimes and even 19.2% thinks about this issue often. When it The frequency analysis (see Fig. 1) of the Dominant groups resulted comes to the possible impacts of biodiversity loss on the planet (see into a highest representation of the Egalitarian perspective followed by Fig. 3b) (Question 19b). the group of people who think about this often the Hierarchist perspective. The other perspective group score rela- is larger. This suggests that more people think about this issue, but less tively low. The Autonomous perspective group is slightly larger than people feel they have an actual impact. Again especially the Autono- the Individualist group. mous perspective thinks about this most. Also more Egalitarians think about this issue sometimes. For both questions the Dynamic perspective 3.2. Step 2. answering the core questions stands out in rarely thinking about these issues (Fig. 4). A similar pattern exists for thinking about the impact of climate 3.2.1. How do respondents relate to global sustainability and conservation change (Fig. 3a & b) (Question 19c & d). The Dynamic integrator group issues in their daily lives? is least concerned about the impact on their own lives. Again, the Au- The respondents were asked about their connections to the con- tonomous perspective is most concerned. Generally, climate change to servation, planetary-scale problems, biodiversity and sustainability. be more on people’s minds than biodiversity when it comes to thinking This was done in order to gain more insight into how Dutch citizens about sustainability issues. What is interesting to see though, is that generally relate to global environmental issues. The results are dis- people seem to be more concerned of the impacts of biodiversity loss cussed below. and climate change on the planet than on their own lives. This may Firstly, the respondents were asked about their voluntary participa- suggest that they don’t experience direct impacts of these global en- tion in- and financial support of charity organisations for nature and con- vironmental problems (yet). servation (Appendix 2 Question 18 in Supplementary material). The When asking the respondents what type of strategies deserve focus in majority of 79% of the sample says not to be actively volunteering in order to address global environmental problems (Question 17), most of causes for the environment or nature. However, a slight majority in- them indicate the importance of raising awareness in a critical mass to dicates donating money to environmental NGOs or charity organisa- effectuate change. Integrating available knowledge in order to under- tions (51%). People who indicated to do something else than being stand the complexity of global environmental problems (as are strate- practically engaged in organisations in most cases relate to their per- gies of the IPCC, UNEP, and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) sonal lifestyles, like being a vegetarian; buying low-energy light bulbs (UNEP, 2007; MEA, 2005; IPCC, 2013) are considered least promising recycling of waste or living environmentally friendly and aware. People (see Table 1). who indicated not to donate money to charity or nature organisations directly, often mentioned to participate in the National Lottery 3.2.2. How do respondents relate to their domestic outdoor spaces? (Postcodeloterij). This lottery is financially supporting many Dutch and Research Question 2 was formulated to ask people about their re- international NGOs for nature and conservation. There were no statis- lation to gardening and their gardens in their daily lives. First the re- tically significant findings in relation to the Dominant perspectives. spondents were asked about the type of outdoor space they have It was asked whether they think that their own lives and the choices (Table 2) (Appendix 2 Question 21 in Supplementary material). A they make have an impact on the future of our planet (Fig. 2) (Question majority of the respondents have a private backyard (76%) and/or a 20). Almost half of the respondents (48.4%) agree with the idea of frontyard (65%) and therefore make up a large part of Dutch urban having an impact on the future of the planet through their daily lives space. The results can also be considered in this context. Vegetable and choices. Especially the respondents with an Autonomous (76.9%) gardens are owned by 7% of the respondents, and can be an integral perspective and the Dynamic Integrators (57.5%) belief their lifestyles part of the private outside space. Only 1% of the respondents indicate to have an impact on the future of the planet. Also half of the share a garden with others (Table 2). A large majority of 82.2% of the respondents considers the garden in the choice for their present and 1 Flycatcher: www.flycatcher.eu. future home important (82% present home; 81% future home).

 C. Beumer 8UEDQ)RUHVWU\ 8UEDQ*UHHQLQJ  ²

Fig. 2. Believed impact on planet in Dominant perspectives.

Fig. 3. Considered impact of biodiversity loss on (a) daily lives of the respondents, and on (b) the planet.

The respondents were asked about their motivations of being and options available) (see Table 4) (Question 23a). Half of the respondents working in their gardens (Question 23). The results suggest there are indicate to do gardening work to keep the garden tidy. This indicates a differences between what activities people consider important (highly feeling of necessity rather than one of pleasure about doing yard work, valued) and what actually brings them into action in their gardens. The which also confirms the findings that yard work itself is not a nationally most valued activities in the garden are just “being outside to enjoy highly valued activity in the garden. Another large group (40%) is nature” and “relaxing” (see Fig. 5). Intentionally going out to do yard gardening in order to be outdoors. Watching things grow and unfold work is a much less appreciated activity. and finding some peace and quiet time are also important motivations. That gardening itself is not a high motivation for being in the garden A small amount of people do not garden at all. Other reasons for doing is confirmed in Table 3. Most people enter their garden because it yard work mentioned in an open answer space were: “getting some provides them with opportunity to relax. For quite some respondents physical activity”, “having it look nice and tidy for the neighbours”, “it (30%) being outside to enjoy nature is also a reason to enter their is a necessity”, “for nature and animals”. garden. Only (6%) are not using their garden. Other reasons for actually being in the garden were “hanging out the laundry”, “enjoying the 3.2.3. What are respondents’ preferences with regards to yard maintenance, space, the sun and the green”, “studying”, or “doing maintenance be- design and trends? cause I have to”. This research question asked the respondents about the way people We also asked for the motivations for doing work in the yards (multiple maintain their yard, about the design of their yard and about

 C. Beumer 8UEDQ)RUHVWU\ 8UEDQ*UHHQLQJ  ²

Fig. 4. Considered impact of climate change on (a) the daily lives of the respondents and (b) on the planet.

Table 1 choose?” (see Fig. 7) (Question 22). Respondents were able to choose Different focuses to potentially solve global environmental problems. between “a green garden in need of yard work and attention to keep it tidy”, “a low maintenance garden, time efficient, easy to keep tidy but Frequency Valid Percent predominantly paved”, “a wild and lush green garden that grows as it wants to,” or: “I prefer to have no garden”. Most respondents prefer the Clear rules and regulations. 95 18.4 low maintenance yard (49%); the green garden in need of work got ff Raising awareness in a critical mass to e ectuate 110 21.3 22% of the votes and the wild and lush garden got 21% of the votes. change. Only 2% of the respondents prefer to have no garden at all. Only the Developing innovative technologies 86 16.6 Leaning to cope with the unavoidable. New problems 85 16.4 Autonomous perspective prefers a green garden (lush or intensive) will always emerge. above the low maintenance garden. This suggests that this group enjoys Reducing our consumption and changing 89 17.2 doing yard work. consumption patterns. When asking about the quality the respondents consider most im- Integrating available knowledge in order to better 52 10.1 understand the complexity of the global portant in their gardens: the aesthetics, the practical functionality or the environmental problems. ecological functionality (see Fig. 8) (Question 31) all perspective groups Total 517 100 prefer practical functionality above the other qualities. This is seems in line with the high preference percentages for a low-maintenance yard in all the perspective groups. Only the Autonomous perspective and the Table 2 Dynamic perspective seem to be interested in the ecological function- Occurrence of different outdoor space types at the homes of the respondents in %. ality of their yards. The Dynamic group considers ecological function- ality even slightly more important than aesthetic quality. The in- Backyard 76% dividualist perspective group is not interested in ecological Frontyard 65% functionality at all. Balcony 27% When asking about the way of growing plants in the garden (Question Rooftop garden 6% Vegetable garden 7% 25) in order to see how the respondents are appreciating natural pro- Shared garden 1% cesses in their proximate environment, a majority of the respondents Patio (outside space enclosed by home) 3% (55%) prefer to buy grown plants that give immediate results. Quite Veranda 3% some respondents also prefer to buy seeds or seedlings in order to watch them grow (33%). Only 12% of the respondents indicate they never buy respondents actual preferences reflected in their outside spaces and plants or seeds. Fig. 9 shows how the plant purchase patterns diversify ’ ff yard maintenance practices. in the di erent dominant perspectives. Egalitarians and Hierarchists The respondents were asked whether they consider themselves to be score highest when it comes to having immediate results with fully active gardeners (Appendix 2 Question 24 in Supplementary material). grown plants. This may suggest they favour quick aesthetics results, fi Most people consider themselves not so active or inactive with regards which is also being con rmed by the previous results. Seedlings and fi to yard work. In total, a quarter of the respondents think of themselves seeds are signi cantly preferred by the Autonomous respondents as active gardeners (24.8%). Only a very small group consider them- (58%). Also the Fatalist respondents seem to like watching plants grow: selves very active. The Autonomous dominant perspective group has 31.9% of them indicates to prefer to buy seedlings or seeds. Con- the highest amount of active gardeners (36%) compared to the other siderably less interested in natural growth – especially when compared groups. The Individualist group represents most inactive and the to the Autonomous and the Dynamic respondents – are the Hierarchist smallest amount of active gardeners (Fig. 6). (22.2%) and the Individualist (21.4%). The Individualists represent the group with the most people who never buy plants or seeds (28.6%). The The second question asked was: “considering your current situation, your available time and other obligations, what type of garden would you best overall plant-shoppers are the Egalitarians. This statement is con- firmed when the results are recoded into bimodal categories of

 C. Beumer 8UEDQ)RUHVWU\ 8UEDQ*UHHQLQJ  ²

Fig. 5. Activities which are regarded as important (highly valued) by the respondents (N = 517).

Table 3 groups when it comes to native flora (for exotic flora this is not so much Actual reasons indicated by the respondents for being in the garden the case). The Autonomous perspective group scores highest (70%) in (N = 517). confirming the presence of native and exotic plant species in their

Activity outside spaces. The Individualists answers suggest this group knows least about the origin of the plant species in their garden or endemic Relaxing 74% environment. Gardening 24% An issue having much impact on biodiversity is the use of pesticides Growing vegetables 7% Being outside to enjoy nature 30% and fertilizers (Question 26). The respondents were asked whether they Playing with kids/pets 14% use any of such materials (Fig. 12). A majority of 52% of the re- Being together with friends/family 16% spondents indicated to never use pesticides or fertilizers; 34% only use Passing through 10% fertilizers and 2% indicate to use pesticides; 12% of the respondents I am not using the garden 6% mention to use both. The respondents who indicated to use chemicals in Other 4% their yards were asked to further specify this by indicating what type of pesticides or herbicides they use (Fig. 13) (Question 27). These were Table 4 N = 243 respondents (47% of the total sample N = 517). Of them, 44% Reasons indicated by the respondents for doing yard work/gar- indicated to use chemicals with an eco-label; 37% mentioned to buy dening (N = 517). natural organic material; 14% indicated that what they buy is as strong and effectively as possible. The Individualist perspective group prefers Reason using strong and effective solutions (usually the ones having environ- Keeping the garden tidy 50% mental side effects like pollution or collateral deaths of insects or Practicing gardening trends 1% aquatic organisms). The Dynamic perspective group aims to use pro- Peace and time for myself 25% ducts that are as natural as possible and quite some Dynamics are also Being outside 40% Watching growth 26% creative with making homemade solutions. The Hierarchist perspective I don’t garden 2% seems to be divided between the options. People of all groups use eco- Other 5% certified products. This seems to be least relevant to the Individualist and the Dynamic groups. The respondents were asked to pick one option out of twelve that describes their outdoor space best (see Fig. 14) (Question 28). Of the “buying” and “not buying”: 96% of the Egalitarians indicates to buy overall sample most respondents 44% of the respondents indicated their plants or seedlings, 94% of the Autonomous, 92.5% of the Dynamics outside space looks like a courtyard , a largely paved terrace intended and 80% of the Hierarchists. The Fatalists (76.6%) and the Individualist “ ” for sitting outside. This corresponds with the results telling about pre- (71.4%) are the perspectives buying least frequently plants and seeds. ferences for low maintenance and practical functionality. The courtyard However, overall these results indicate that the Dutch are generally is highly prevalent in all perspective groups. The Autonomous and the spoken frequent buyers of plants for their gardens. Dynamic perspective have a smaller peak in the direction of the re- Native plant species are mostly more attractive to local biodiversity “ fuge . compared to exotics (Van Heezik et al., 2012; Lindemann-Matthies and ” The answers provided above were compared to visual garden design Marty, 2013; Burghardt et al., 2008; Lerman et al., 2012). In order to preferences of the respondents (Fig. 15) (Question 29). Respondents get a grasp of what people know about the origin of plants people have in could choose between eight visual options with compilations of dif- their yards (Question 30) the questions were posed whether the re- ferent attractively represented garden design styles (Appendix 3 in spondents generally have native or exotic plants in their yards. To help Supplementary material). Interestingly, most votes in almost all the the respondents defining these categories I described exotic plants as perspective groups (except for the Individualist) went to the wild Mediterranean plants, (sub)tropical plants or cacti and natives as the garden style (29%). The English romantic garden proved to be second plants that grow spontaneously in their gardens. Figs. 10 and 11 show most popular (20%). Both do best with the Egalitarian group. The visual that there are some interesting differences between the perspective

 C. Beumer 8UEDQ)RUHVWU\ 8UEDQ*UHHQLQJ  ²

Fig. 6. Active gardeners in Dominant perspectives.

popularity of these two green style gardens seems to contradict the 3.3. Attracting native animals earlier described results of where the respondents’ yards actually look like courtyards. The modern garden – which visually expresses func- In a series of 16 items the respondents were asked what they do in tionality and low maintenance most – was chosen by only 16% of the their outdoor spaces to attract animals (Appendix 2 Question 32 in respondents. Most of the respondents who chose this preference are Supplementary material). Most of the results were also compatible with Individualists (46%). The edible garden does best with the Autonomous a cross-tabulation with the Dominant perspectives. However, some of perspective. The least preferred garden for each perspective turned out them did not meet the basic assumption of the chi-square test. to be the Healing garden and the Versailles garden (Fig. 15). Nevertheless, I decided to put all the results of the question series in a table (Table 5). The results which did meet the basic assumption of a 3.2.4. Do respondents connect their gardening activities to ideas of minimum expected cell frequency of less than 5 have a grey colour in biodiversity conservation and (urban) sustainability? Table 5. As can be seen in the table, two of the valid results (“hedges & Research Question 4 issues some direct inquiries about what the re- shrubs” and “cats and dogs”) are not significant, meaning that they do spondents do for biodiversity in their yards and how they think about the not say anything about whether the Dominant perspectives are relevant potential contribution of their outside space to local and global biodi- for these items. The other grey boxes are statistically significant and versity. For operationalization the concept of biodiversity was narrowed thus provide information about the items related to the Dominant down through asking the respondents about local animal species and perspectives. Not all the items are discussed extensively, but a few are what their gardening activities contribute to a larger context. Earlier worth highlighting: questions already inquired about native and exotic plant species, and the Feeding wildlife is the activity generally done most (58% of the questions about design preferences and maintenance practices also pro- respondents). The Autonomous and the Egalitarian respondents are the vide (indirect) information on biodiversity in people’s yards. perspective groups feeding the most (respectively 70% and 62.8%

Fig. 7. Garden preferences in dominant perspectives.

 C. Beumer 8UEDQ)RUHVWU\ 8UEDQ*UHHQLQJ  ²

Fig. 8. Functionality preferences in dominant perspectives.

within the perspective groups). The Autonomous (56%) and the respondents thinks this is indeed the case; 21% doesn’t think so, and Dynamic (32.5%) also groups try to attract pollinator insects the most. 12% doesn’t know. Significantly less people believe that greening their Berry and fruit shrubs are distributed mostly by the Autonomous and outside spaces contribute to global biodiversity (Fig. 16b) (Question 33b): the Dynamic respondents as well (respectively 48% and 30%). Half of only 39% believe their yards do; 33% doesn’t believe so and 28% the respondents with an Individualist perspective (50%) indicate to do doesn’t know. nothing for native animals around their homes and contributes least in Of the Individualist group an equal percentage of people are posi- almost all items. The only item where the Individualist scores highest is tive as well as negative about the positive contribution of a green the presence of a stream or fountain. outside space to the local environment (both 45.5%). Relating a green The item “cats and dogs” is – intentionally – a little bit out of range outside space to global biodiversity is especially more difficult for the here, because these bringers of happiness to human beings often con- Individualist group. This can be attributed to the fact that this group tribute significantly to the disturbance of native wildlife. Especially especially favours-, and has paved yards. Only the Autonomous and domestic cats roaming residential yards are an important predatory Dynamic group are very positive about this, even though slightly less threat to urban wildlife (Goddard et al., 2010). In an annual assessment compared to contributing to the local environment. Overall the belief of the Nederlandse Voedingsindustrie Gezelschapsdieren (NVG) and that residential outside spaces can contribute to local and global bio- Dibevo (two Dutch trade organisations for pets and petfoods) a quarter diversity is surprisingly high. The intentional yard design to fit local of Dutch households was reported to have one or more cats in 2015 climate and biodiversity is low though (Fig. 17). Only the Autonomous (Dibevo and NVG, 2015). and Dynamic groups pay some attention to this. The Individualist group In a further question the respondents were asked about their belief is least knowledgeable about whether their yards fit the local en- that greening their outside spaces contributes to biodiversity in the local vironment. environment (Fig. 16a) (Question 33a). A majority of 66% of the Finally, it was asked which parties the respondents consider to be

Fig. 9. Plants purchased in Dominant perspectives.

 C. Beumer 8UEDQ)RUHVWU\ 8UEDQ*UHHQLQJ  ²

Fig. 10. Reported Natives.

most responsible for the urban green in the respondents’ direct living respondents did not consider their yards to be contributors to their environments (Fig. 18) (Question 34). This question was asked to see proximate living environment. whether the respondents consider their yards to be contributing parts of their direct living environment. There seems to be a clear gap between 4. Discussion the Egalitarians, Autonomous and Dynamic groups on the one hand and the Hierarchists, Fatalists and Individualists on the other hand. The first “Show me your garden and I will tell you who you are”, the 19th group indicates an inclusive and cooperative responsibility where all Century British poet Alfred Austin said. Who we need to be now, are actors are involved, whereas the latter group sees the local municipality people who consider sustainability and conservation values in our as the main responsible party. Overall, 41% feels a shared responsibility daily lives and actions (Jackson, 2008; Kurtz, 2002). This paper and 37% indicates the municipality should take care of the green living addressed the main question of how Dutch domestic gardens contribute environment. The latter result suggests that a majority of the to- and reflect public values related to urban sustainability and

Fig. 11. Reported Exotics.

 C. Beumer 8UEDQ)RUHVWU\ 8UEDQ*UHHQLQJ  ²

Fig. 12. Fertilizers and Pesticides in Dominant perspectives (N = 517).

biodiversity conservation. intentionally match their yard design to local biodiversity or climate contexts. The Autonomous perspective group is the only one of six that To summarize the results in response of the four research questions aligns its sustainability and conservation ideals with practices pro- addressed in this paper (see Box 2), the largest groups of respondents moting these. The autonomous perspective leads in attracting wild share Hierarchist and Egalitarian perspectives. Whereas the Hierarchist animals in their yards. Within the Individualist group half of the re- perspective is characterised by a preference for neat and tidy gardens, spondents indicate to do nothing (4). A cognitive dissonance was the Egalitarian perspective is characterised by high environmental va- identified, where green and sustainable garden ideals are not effectively lues and green visual garden style preferences. However, these green realised in the gardens of the respondents. values are not always in line with sustainable and conservation pro- Below some implications of the results presented above will be moting gardening practices (1). The relation of the respondents to their discussed, while expanding them to their value beyond Dutch borders gardens is characterised by being outside and relaxing in the garden and discussing them in the context of the public-private dilemma mainly. Gardening itself is not the highest motivation for being in the (Haignere, 1999; Meulen, 2015; Gray, 2009; Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, garden, but rather a necessity to be carried out in order to keep the yard 2001). neat and tidy (2). The practical preferences of the respondents point out For cities to develop sustainably, much depends on the way citizens towards ease and low maintenance. However, based on visual questions – through their daily activities – co-create their environment together it turned out that the majority of respondents would choose for green with policymakers and planners (Campbell, 1996; United Nations, garden styles, such as English cottage gardens or wild flower gardens 2016a,b). The New Urban Agenda adopted in Quito in 2016 emphasizes (3). People do believe their gardens have an impact on local and global that cultural diversity is a source “of enrichment for humankind and biodiversity. The local influence is considered larger than the global. provides an important contribution to the sustainable development of But, except for the Autonomous perspective, the respondents do not

Fig. 13. Type of pesticides or herbicides used in Dominant perspectives (N = 243).

 C. Beumer 8UEDQ)RUHVWU\ 8UEDQ*UHHQLQJ  ²

Fig. 14. Garden style descriptions (a) and garden style descriptions in Dominant perspectives (b). cities, human settlements and citizens, empowering them to play an This dilemma can be studied at the level of the domestic garden, which active and unique role in development initiatives (United Nations, is – in the Netherlands – characterised by a high level of individual 2016a,b, p.2United Nations, 2016aUnited Nations, 2016a,b, p.2United freedom of design. Nations, 2016aUnited Nations, 2016a,b, p.2).” As urban populations The results of the questionnaire show that the Dutch population is and cities keep growing in an unprecedented pace, the assumption best represented by the Egalitarian and the Hierarchist perspectives. arises that the environmental impact of individual citizens and their Both perspectives are in the domain of valuing community and public lifestyles become of increasing importance far beyond the local level values (Offermans, 2012; Verweij et al., 2006). The Egalitarian per- (Steffen et al., 2005; United Nations, 2016a,b; Grimm et al., 2008; Urry, spective is also characterised by having high ecological ideals. How- 2005). Or should national and local governments take the lead in sus- ever, these ideals are often not reflected in how the Egalitarian re- tainable urban development? Where are the limits of governance in- spondents design and maintain their gardens. Most respondents of the terference and when does governance start impeding the freedom of Hierarchist and the Egalitarian groups (generally) undertake gardening individual choice and lifestyle? And when does individual freedom start activities to keep the garden neat and tidy and state a preference for a to interfere with public values and well-being? This public/private di- garden that does not need much maintenance. Only the Autonomous lemma has been described before in medical sociology in the wake of group regards yard-work a fun activity to pursue and an opportunity for debates around the individualization of the responsibility (re- enjoying the ecological processes. However, practical functionality sponsibilization) for health versus public solidarity (Haignere, 1999; traits of gardens trump aesthetic quality and ecological functionality in Meulen, 2015; Gray, 2009; Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2001), but also all perspective groups. General practical awareness regarding the value fits the question of who should be responsible for a sustainable planet. of the home yard for biodiversity conservation and urban sustainability

Fig. 15. Preferred garden styles visual (a) and preferred garden styles for Dominant perspectives.

 C. Beumer 8UEDQ)RUHVWU\ 8UEDQ*UHHQLQJ  ²

Table 5 The actions respondents undertake to attract native animals in their outdoor spaces.

Action Perspectives in% per item Freq. Total Sig. Min. Expected Count

Hier Ega Ind Fat Aut Dyn

No 31,9 20,4 50 31,9 8 22,5 131 26% 0.000 10,33 Feeding 54,1 62,8 40,5 55,3 70 55 293 58% 0.047 16,79 Nectar & pollen 14,1 26,7 4,8 14,9 56 32,5 120 24% 0.000 9,50 Berries & fruit 18,5 26,7 7,1 17 48 30 123 24% 0.000 9,70 Beneficial insects 3,7 6,8 4,6 10,6 24 12,5 42 8% 0.000 3,39 Shelter 12,6 16,2 11,9 6,4 32 22,5 81 16% 0.008 6,42 Nesting 25,9 39,3 19 21,3 54 52,5 176 35% 0.000 13,94 Insect hotel 0 2,1 2,4 1,4 8 7,5 15 3% 0.017 1,19 Honeybees 0 1 0 2,1 0 2,5 4 1% 0.977 0.32 Organic material 17 25,1 7,1 14,9 44 25 113 22% 0.000 8,95 Pond 7,4 14,1 11,9 14,9 10 15 60 12% 0.486 4,75 Stream or fountain 8,9 9,4 16,7 6,4 12 12,5 51 10% 0.627 4,04 Hedges & shrubs 13,3 14,7 9,5 12,8 12 22,5 71 14% 0.634 5,62 Migration 8,1 12 7,1 12,8 22 17,5 61 12% 0.122 4,83 Cats & dogs 20 23,6 11,9 21,3 11,2 22,5 113 22% 0.209 8,95 Other 3 2,1 0 2,1 6 5 14 3% 0.509 1,11 seems not so high. Only the relatively small group of the Autonomous perspective are Low maintenance gardens are standing out as a popular concept more or less consistently able to align high ecological ideals with sus- with the respondents. Being outside and relaxing are the most valued tainable lifestyles and wildlife friendly gardening practices. This group activities to pursue in gardens, and the low maintenance concept is also does most in their yards to attract wildlife. Least people in the most often played out in gardens that look like courtyards or extended Autonomous group report to have cats or dogs. This suggests that this living rooms with luxury pavement, lounge-sets and kitchens. This group is also aware of the dangers of these urban predators for wildlife courtyard garden scores highest in all perspective groups, but con- (Marra and Santella, 2016). But this was not explicitly asked and cannot tributes little to nothing to biodiversity or sustainable urban environ- be confirmed based on the data. From the Individualist perspective no ments. On the contrary, research – most of which has been conducted in efforts for the benefit of biodiversity or urban sustainability can be the UK, the Netherlands and the US – has shown that imperviously expected. Also the knowledgeability of sustainability and conservation sealed off gardens negatively affect the quality of life in cities (Prokop issues is low in the Individualist group. et al., 2011; Beumer and Martens, 2015; Zwaagstra, 2014; Perry and Next to negative effects on habitat and food availability for urban Nawaz, 2008; Artmann, 2014; Warhurst et al., 2014). species like birds, insects and small vertebrates, the urban climate However, there is an interesting contradiction in the results that regulation and many other ecosystem services are affected by grey brings some hope for a greener urban future: even though most re- impervious urban space (Beumer and Martens, 2015a,b; Artmann, spondents report to own gardens that are paved to a high extend, their 2014): rainwater-uptake is impaired (increasing the risk of flooding, visual preferences speak out for colourful English cottage gardens and long term drought in urban soils) (Zwaagstra, 2014; Warhurst et al., rather lush gardens with wild flowers. This visual choice for thriving 2014; Kelly, 2016), and the urban heat island effect is worsened gardens is apparent in almost all perspective groups, except for the (Beumer and Martens, 2015a,b; Theeuwes et al., 2012; Zwaagstra, Individualists. This suggests a general strong cognitive dissonance in 2014; Tsilini et al., 2015; Alcoforado and Andrade, 2008). Even though the relationship of the Dutch respondents with their gardens: most are not many respondents indicate to use fertilizers or pesticides, other inspired by green and wild flower gardens, but most don’t have them. research indicates that on hardened surfaces (both sealed with

Fig. 16. Believed contribution of outside spaces in Dominant perspectives to local (a) and to (b) global biodiversity.

 C. Beumer 8UEDQ)RUHVWU\ 8UEDQ*UHHQLQJ  ²

Fig. 17. Intentional yard design to match local climate and biodiversity.

Fig. 18. Main actor responsible for green in direct living environment.

pavement and covered with gravel), like on lawns (Larson et al., 2009; more green is not always better. Earlier research indicated that it is very Chowdhury et al., 2011; Cook et al., 2012; Karr et al., 2007; Larson and important to consider the contribution of gardens to sustainability and Brumand, 2014), more pesticides and herbicides are being used biodiversity conservation in a specific regional biome (Beumer and (Beumer and Martens, 2015a,b; Karr et al., 2007), affecting both human Martens, 2015a,b). Tropical or cold areas will have their own specific health (Karr et al., 2007) and the health of important pollinators and sustainability and conservation traits that need to be taken into account birds (Lindemann-Matthies and Marty, 2013; Whitehorn et al., 2012). when considering domestic gardens for sustainability and biodiversity Although the benefits of green gardens and the negative effects of paved conservation (Meléndez-Ackerman et al., 2014). gardens have increasingly been given attention, it seems not to be easy Even though most gardens of the participants do not structurally to turn this paved garden trend (Xing et al., 2017). Using pervious contribute to green infrastructures in practice, the results show that paving is often mentioned as a simple and practical solution (Kelly, there is a high confidentiality in the idea that domestic yards can 2016; Drake et al., 2014; Charlesworth et al., 2017). This option would contribute to both local and global biodiversity and to the local climate. accommodate the water-uptake of urban soil and it would help decrease The Egalitarian, Autonomous and Dynamic groups see a green living the urban heat island effect (Fini et al., 2017). However, it will most environment as a shared responsibility. However, the outcomes also likely not significantly contribute to providing habitat and other ben- indicate that a large part of Dutch citizens generally see it as a re- efits for biodiversity. sponsibility of the local government to take care of the green in the The survey results seem not too flourishing for the way residential urban environment. These results suggest that for a large group of outdoor spaces contribute to green infrastructure in the Netherlands. people domestic gardens are mentally separated from the idea of an However, caution should be taken when generalising to other contexts: urban green infrastructure and that the awareness about the potential

 C. Beumer 8UEDQ)RUHVWU\ 8UEDQ*UHHQLQJ  ² role of private gardens for public values such as biodiversity con- to be much more green and lush. Market based strategies place the servation, sustainability and climate adaptation is still rather low. This solution of the public/private dilemma with the individual home- conflicts with the recent participatory policy trend in Dutch munici- owner. The risk is that only limited sustainability concerns are taken palities where citizens are encouraged to participate in the greening of into account, neglecting the full spectrum from climate change to bio- their environment (Dijksma, 2014). This possibly also indicates that a diversity. Also the risk exists that no action will be taken at all. critical mass of Dutch citizens is not ready (yet) for bottom-up co- Secondly, in many neighbourhoods and communities in the U.S. operation and strategies to realise Goal 11 of the Sustainable Devel- (especially suburbs) Home Owners Associations (HOAs) have a large opment Goals and the New Urban Agenda. If citizens need to be in- influence in the way residents design and maintain their yards (Beumer volved in improving the sustainability of their own residential outdoor and Martens, 2015a,b; Larson et al., 2009; Larson et al., 2010; space, strategic measures could be considered to engage them. At the Chowdhury et al., 2011; Cook et al., 2012; Larson and Brumand, 2014). other side, when it concerns the care for public green infrastructure, In many HOAs ideals of neat and tidy, well-maintained lawns dominate governments and local governments may also have to be aware that the suburban landscape (Visscher et al., 2016; Nassauer, 1995a,b; stimulating participatory citizen action could also be regarded as Zheng et al., 2011). Some resistance to this HOA prescribed ‘traditional’ hidden cuts on public green space (Jordan and Kapoor, 2016). image of what a garden should be arose during the economic crisis The effectiveness (and desirability) of possible incentives to de-pave around 2008: many people started growing food or meadows in their gardens or keep residents from doing so, hasn’t yet been given much frontyards (grow food, not lawns) (Wekerle and Classens, 2015). Also attention in research (Prokop et al., 2011). As the results showed, many some HOAs in the South-West of the US increasingly promote drought respondents see the responsibility for the urban environment at the resistant gardens inhabiting endemic desert biodiversity (Beumer and municipal policy-level. This may be a first barrier to be taken in order to Martens, 2015a,b; Larson et al., 2009; Larsen and Harlan, 2006; Norris- solve the public/private dilemma on the level of domestic yards. Bernzel and Edinger, 2005; DBG, 2013; Larsen and Swanbrow, 2006; However, there are some key examples of strategies to enhance sus- Martin, 2008; St.Hilaire et al., 2010; Zube et al., 1986). This strategy tainable yard management for fostering public value and ecosystem places the solution of the public/private dilemma in the collective services. Meléndez-Ackerman et al. (2014), for example, look into hands of home-owners. Such a community-focus moves further away socio-economic incentives that drive yard design and maintenance from the individualised solution but not necessarily takes into account practices, finding “consistent vegetation associations with the age of the broader debated values of sustainability and conservation. residents, housing ownership, and with yard size (Meléndez-Ackerman Thirdly, in different European cities in Germany, Denmark, Austria et al., 2014).” Harris et al. (2013) find how “emotions circulate between and in the Netherlands, raising taxes on pavement (negative tax in- homeowners, yards, and neighborhood political economies, creating centives) or reducing effluent charges for residents with green gardens collectivities of management practices bound by shared experience of (positive tax incentives) have been implemented at the local level as emotions (Harris et al., 2013).” Zhang et al. (2015) argue that “that strategies to reduce soil sealing of home gardens (Prokop et al., 2011; awareness, education and changing culture of taste and preference can Artmann, 2014). These strategies would fit the controlistic worldview serve [as] additional measures together with law and technological of the Hierarchist. Most of European garden culture is however char- advancement toward sustainable lawn in the United States and the acterised by the freedom residents have to design their home yards to world (Zhang et al., 2015).” their own liking (Beumer and Martens, 2015a,b; Dewaelheyns et al., Different ideas on incentives for yard design and strategies are 2014; Dewaelheyns et al., 2013; Dewaelheyns et al., 2016). This ac- closely tied to specific CT perspectives. In order to address residents counts for the Netherlands as well. There are no strict rules and reg- effectively, it could be wise to investigate the perspectives constellation ulations for garden design and maintenance. This strategy solves the of a target community before deciding on any roadmaps. In the public public/private dilemma in a public way. However, it is not necessarily a debate and international literature on the role of gardens for sustain- publicly debated and negotiated way and this top-down approach im- able urban environments and biodiversity four dominant strategies for pairs the freedom of home owners to design their yards in their own promoting greener gardens can be identified. These can all be placed on personal way. The risk emerges of losing a lot of cultural and biological a public/private scale as they are dealing with the public/private di- diversity when gardening becomes subject to top-down incentives. lemma in different ways, ranging from individualised, private ways to Fourthly, awareness campaigns like Operatie Steenbreek – a Dutch solutions negotiated in the public sphere (Edwards, 2014) (see Table 6). campaign where Dutch municipalities cooperate in a national network The first dominant way of addressing the issues related to paved to experiment with innovative participatory practices, garden ideas and gardens is by focusing on market based solutions: many horticultural share knowledge around benefits of green gardens over the dis- entrepreneurs react to the increasing awareness around the negative advantages of paved gardens – are interesting, as they put the issue on effects of paving by promoting a “partial-infiltration permeable pave- the local and national agenda and place it in a sphere of public debate ment system (Drake et al., 2014)” and other technological ways of and shared practice (Edwards, 2014). It creates a common under- storing and managing rainwater in the home yards. Even though such standing of what a ‘good’ or ‘sustainable’ garden is for each particular systems improve the quality and uptake of storm water (Drake et al., municipal context (Edwards, 2014; Dijk et al., 2017; Silvertown, 2009). 2014), this technology driven and Individualist strategy does not really It also generates a wealth of information for policymakers and scientists take into account the arguments of green gardens for the promotion and to see what type of processes do work and do not work to engage ci- conservation of biodiversity. As the Individualist group in the Nether- tizens in solving public issues in a co-creative way (Scholl and Kemp, lands is relatively small, adoption of such technologies may be easy, but 2016). This strategy finds the solution for the public/private dilemma probably not contribute to people’s favoured garden ideals that proved in a negotiated public vision of what is ‘the good way’ and provides

Table 6 Different types and risks of solutions to the public/private dilemma.

Solution Type Public/Private Scale Perspective Risks

Market based solutions Individual sphere solution Individualist/Dynamic No action/limited sustainability scope Home Owners Associations based solutions Community based solution Egalitarian Limited to community ideals Tax based solutions Public solution top-down Hierarchist Impairs freedom, diversity, and creativity Awareness Campaign based solutions Public sphere solution bottom-up Egalitarian Preaching to the choir

 C. Beumer 8UEDQ)RUHVWU\ 8UEDQ*UHHQLQJ  ² opportunity to localise and contextualise solutions to a high extend. gardening trends and ideals relate to different perspectives. Different However, involving residents in such processes is time consuming and types of solutions and incentives were brought forward to show how, labour intensive. Besides, experience from the Operatie Steenbreek based on the variety of perspectives, citizens could be engaged towards campaign also learns that most people who respond to the campaign are making their gardens more sustainable and biodiversity friendly. These already garden lovers. solutions can be attributed to certain preferences for solving the public/ The identified cognitive dissonance of paved reality and lush ideals private dilemma on a scale ranging from individualised solutions to suggests that awareness campaigns may not be sufficient to create a solutions made in the public sphere. critical mass that turns home gardens into havens for wildlife and hubs Further researching and understanding the public/private dilemma for sustainability. Effects could possibly be generated by marketing (Haignere, 1999) and the way it influences sustainable urban planning, practical examples and planting schemes of green and biodiversity design and biodiversity conservation from within the home yard may be friendly gardens that are not time and work intensive. Nevertheless, as an imperative step to take to make real progress and de-pave our little the reasons for the cognitive-dissonance are not crystal clear, more paradises. investigation about what hampers and what would motivate the large group of especially Egalitarians to start bringing their ideals into Acknowledgements practice – and dissolve this cognitive dissonance – would be re- commendable. Perhaps insights can be gained from research on the I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Dr. Pim Martens of adoption of sustainable energy systems (like photovoltaics) and do- ICIS, Maastricht University, who has been an inspirational supervisor mestic insulation in the context of climate change (Vasseur and Kemp, and sparring partner during the broader dissertation study on the role 2015; Karakaya and Sriwannawit, 2015). However, whereas the barrier of urban greening for biodiversity conservation Stepping Stone Cities for adopting sustainable energy often can be attributed to the ‘cost (Beumer, 2014a,b) which has been a foundation for this paper. Also I’d factor’, within Dutch domestic yards the ‘ease factor’ obviously plays a like to thank Pleun Aardening and Flycatcher for their support and larger role (Vasseur and Kemp, 2015). enthusiasm regarding the survey. Great gratitude also extends to all the From a policy-perspective, the Autonomous perspective may not respondents who belonged to the standard survey panel of Flycatcher need to be convinced as this group already has a high intrinsic moti- and participated voluntarily in this study. vation for gardening in the context of accommodating ecological pro- cesses. The Fatalist ‘strategy’ of neglect has not (yet) been discussed as a Appendix A. Supplementary data solution. Although from a social-cultural point of view neglected gar- dens are being framed as problematic (Johns and Merton, 2015), they Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the sometimes carry high biodiversity value (Beumer and Martens, online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.09.010. 2015a,b). As the Hierarchist perspective prefers neat and tidy gardens and has a high percentage of courtyards, this may be an important but References difficult to reach target group. However, if the tide is turning away from pavement at some point, Hierarchists may be likely to conform to new Alcoforado, M.J., Andrade, H., 2008. Global warming and the urban heat island. In: social gardening norms. Marzluf, J.M., Schulenberger, E., Endlicher, W., Alberti, M., Bradley, G., Ryan, C., Simon, U., ZumBrunnen, C. (Eds.), Urban Ecology. An International Perspective on The general existing cognitive dissonance between green ideals and the Interaction Between Humans and Nature. Springer, New York. paved practice allows multiple stakeholders with various perspectives Appleton, A.F., 2002. How New York City Used an Ecosystem Services Strategy Carried to assess and experiment with different incentives and greener low- Out Through an Urban-Rural Partnership to Preserve the Pristine Quality of Its Drinking Water and Save Billions of Dollars. New York. maintenance concepts for enhancing the ecological quality of domestic Artmann, M., 2014. Assessment of soil sealing management responses, strategies, and gardens and for bridging the gap between private space and public targets toward ecologically sustainable urban land use management. AMBIO 43 (4), interests. Experimentation with various garden concepts to align all the 530–541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0511-1. human preferences and ecological values may be a role for the Dynamic Asselt, M. v., Rotmans, J., Elzen, M. d., Hilderink, H., 1995. Uncertainty in Integrated Assessment Modeling: A Cultural Perspective Approach (461502009 115 P En, 1995). Integrator to take up. Integrated Assessment, Modeling, Perspectives, Cultural Theory, Bilthoven Retrieved from. 5. Conclusion Barton, A.C., Tan, E., 2013. It changed our lives: activism, science, and greening the community. Can. J. Sci. Math. Technol. Educ. 10 (3), 207–222. Beatley, T., 2011. Biophilic Cities. Integrating Nature into Urban Design. Island Press, This paper explored answers about the way Dutch domestic gardens Washington D.C. contribute to- and reflect public values related to urban sustainability and Beck, U., Beck-Gernsheim, E., 2001. Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and Its Social and Political Consequences. Sage, London. biodiversity conservation. Semi structured surveys were conducted and Belaire, J.A., Westphal, L.M., Minor, E.S., 2016. Different social drivers, including per- analysed within the heuristic framework of Cultural Theory. Through ceptions of urban wildlife, explain the ecological resources in residential landscapes. four more specific research questions insights were provided into the Landsc. Ecol. 31 (2), 401–413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0256-7. Bell, S., Fox-Kämper, R., Keshavarz, N., Benson, M., Caputo, S., Noori, S., Voigt, A. (Eds.), way Dutch respondents: 1) relate to global sustainability and con- 2016. Urban Allotment Gardens in Europe. Routledge, New York. servation issues in their daily lives; 2) relate to their domestic outside Beumer, C., Martens, P., 2010. Noah's ark or world wild web? Cultural perspectives in spaces; 3) prefer yard maintenance, design and trends; 4) connect their global scenario studies and their function for biodiversity conservation in a changing world. Sustain. (Special Issue Futures) 2 (10), 3211–3238. http://dx.doi.org/10. gardening activities to ideas of (local and global) sustainability and 3390/su2103211. biodiversity conservation. An important finding showed that a cogni- Beumer, C., Martens, P., 2013. IUCN and perspectives on biodiversity conservation in a tive dissonance exists between what most respondents find attractive changing world. Biodivers. Conserv. 22, 3105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531- gardens (lush and green) and the way most residents actually designed 013-0573-6. Beumer, C., Martens, P., 2015a. Biodiversity in my (back) yard: towards a framework for their gardens (paved low maintenance style). citizen engagement inj exploring biodiversity and ecosystem services in residential The answers to the four main research questions have been dis- gardens. Sustain. Sci. 10, 87–100. fi cussed in the context of the global need for more sustainable cities and Beumer, C., Martens, P., 2015b. BIMBY’s rst steps: a pilot study on the contribution of fl residential front-yards in Phoenix and Maastricht to biodiversity, ecosystem services biodiversity conservation, which is re ected in the UN Sustainable and urban sustainability. Urban Ecosyst. 1–32. Development Goals (particularly Goal 11) (United Nations, 2016a,b) Beumer, C., Figge, L., Elliott, J., 2017. The sustainability of globalisation: including the and the CBD Aichi targets (CBD, 2011). It was discussed how domestic ‘social robustness criterion’. J. Clean. Prod ccepted 1-11-2017. Beumer, C., 2014a. Stepping Stone Cities. Exploring Urban Greening and Gardening as a gardens may – via strengthening rich green infrastructure – or may not Viable Contribution to Global Biodiversity Conservation. Maastricht University, – via soil sealing and paving – contribute to global goals of sustain- Maastricht PhD. ability and biodiversity conservation. It was discussed how specific Beumer, C., 2014b. Stepping Stone Cities Appendix. Retrieved from. http://media.wix.

 C. Beumer 8UEDQ)RUHVWU\ 8UEDQ*UHHQLQJ  ²

com/ugd/47b293_5f16d5a7aefb4fb498aa21cd9976a002. pdf. Goddard, M.A., Dougill, A.J., Benton, T.G., 2010. Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity Beumer, C., 2017. Sustopia or cosmopolis? A critical reflection on the sustainable city. conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25 (2), 90–99. Sustainability 9 (5), 845. Goddard, M.A., Dougill, A.J., Benton, T.G., 2013. Why garden for wildlife? Social and Bolund, P., Hunhammar, S., 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 29, ecological drivers, motivations and barriers for biodiversity management in re- 293–301. sidential landscapes. Ecol. Econ. 86, 258–273. Burghardt, K.T., Tallamy, D.W., Shriver, G., 2008. Impact of native plants on bird and Gray, G.C., 2009. The responsibilization strategy of health and safetyNeo-liberalism and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conserv. Biol. 23 (1), 219–224. the reconfiguration of individual responsibility for risk. Br. J. Criminol. 49 (3), CBD, 2010. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. Retrieved from Montreal: Biodiversity 326–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azp004. Convention Scebarios. Grimm, N.B., Faeth, S., Golubiewski, N., Redman, C., Wu, J., Bai, X., Briggs, J., 2008. CBD, 2011. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Targets: Living in Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319 (756). Harmony with Nature. Retrieved from Montreal, Canada. Haase, D., Schetke, S., 2010. Potential of biodiversity and recreation in shrinking cities: CBD, 2012. Cities and Biodiversity Outlook. Retrieved from Montreal: Biodiversity contextualization and operationalization. In: Müller, N., Werner, P., Kelcey, J.G. Urban. (Eds.), Urban Biodiversity & Design. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford. Cameron, R.W.F., Blanuša, T., Taylor, J.E., Salisbury, A., Halstead, A.J., Henricot, B., Haignere, C.S., 1999. Closing the ecological gap: the public/private dilemma. Health Thompson, K., 2012. The domestic garden –its contribution to urban green infra- Educ. Res. 14 (4), 507–518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/her/14.4.507. structure. Urban For. Urban Greening 11 (2), 129–137. Harris, E.M., Martin, D.G., Polsky, C., Denhardt, L., Nehring, A., 2013. Beyond lawn Campbell, S., 1996. Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban plannibng and the people: the role of emotions in suburban yard management practices. Prof. Geogr. 65 contradictions of sustainable development. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 62 (3), 296–312. (2), 345–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2012.681586. Carifio, Perla, 2007. Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths Hemenway, T., 2009. Gaia's Garden:A Guide to Home-Scale Permaculture. Chelsea Green and urban legends about likert scales and likert response formats and their antidotes. Publishing Company, White River Junction. J. Soc. Sci. 3 (3), 106–116. Hills, M.D., 2002. Kluckhohn and strodtbeck's values orientation theory. Online Read. Certomà, C., 2011. Critical urban gardening as a post-environmentalist practice. Local Psychol. Culture 4 (4). http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1040. Environ. 16 (10), 977–987. Hopper, F., 1981. The dutch Régence garden. Garden Hist. 9 (2), 118–135. Charlesworth, S.M., Faraj-Llyod, A.S., Coupe, S.J., 2017. Renewable energy combined ICLEI, 2012. Launch of the Cities and Biodiversity Outlook. Retrieved from. http://www. with sustainable drainage: ground source heat and pervious paving. Renew. Sustain. iclei.org/index.php?id=13001ref_b. Energy Rev. 68 (Part 2), 912–919. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.02.019. IPCC, 2013. Climate Change 2013. The Physical Science Base. Summary for Policymakers. Chowdhury, R.R., Larson, K., Grove, M., Polsky, C., Cook, E., 2011. A multi-scalar ap- Retrieved from Switzerland. proach to theorizing socio-ecological dynamics of urban residential landscapes. Cities Iannotti, M., 2012. The Worst Gardening Trends of the 2000 Decade: Gardening Trends Environ. 4 (1), 1–19. That Did Not Improve Our Gardens or the Way We Garden. Retrieved from. http:// Cilliers, S., 2010. Social aspects of urban biodiversity—an overview. In: Müller, N., gardening. about. com/od/gardendesign/tp/Worst-Gardening-Trends.htm. Werner, P., Kelcey, J.G. (Eds.), Urban Biodiversity and Design. Wiley-Blackwell, Ignatieva, M., Stewart, G.H., Meurk, C., 2011. Planning and design of ecological networks London. in urban areas. Landsc. Ecol. Engl. 17–25 7 Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Cook, E.M., Hall, s. J., Larson, K.L., 2012. Residential landscapes as social-ecological Importance of Cities for post 2010 perspective. systems: a synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between people and their home en- Ives, C.D., Lentini, P.E., Threlfall, C.G., Ikin, K., Shanahan, D.F., Garrard, G.E., Bekessy, vironment. Urban Ecosyst. 15, 19–52. S.A., Fuller, R.A., Mumaw, L., Rayner, L., Rowe, R., Valentine, L.E., Kendal, D., 2016. Crutzen, P., Beck, B., Thompson, M., 2007. On Cities. Retrieved from. http://www. Cities are hotspots for threatened species. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25 (1), 117–126. engineeringchallenges.org/cms/7125/8602.aspx. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/geb.12404. Cuppen, E., Breukers, S., Hisschemoeller, M., Bergsma, E., 2010. Q methodology to select Jackson, T., 2008. The Challenge of Sustainable Lifestyles. Psychology Behaviour, participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Washington, USA Retrieved from. Netherlands. Ecol. Econ. 69, 579–591. Jamieson, S., 2004. Likert scales: how to (Ab)use them. Med. Educ. 38 (12), 1217–1218. Cuppen, E., 2012. Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: con- Johns, R.A., Merton, E., 2015. Neglected yards and community landscaping. Southeast. siderations for design and methods. Policy Sci. 45, 23–46. Geogr. 55 (2), 225–251. DBG, 2013). Desert Botanical Garden. Retrieved from. http://www.dbg.org/. Jordan, S., Kapoor, D., 2016. Re-politicizing participatory action research: unmasking Dahmus, M.E., Nelson, K.C., 2014. Yard stories: examining residents’ conceptions of their neoliberalism and the illusions of participation. Educ. Action Res. 24 (1), 134–149. yards as part of the urban ecosystem in Minnesota. Urban Ecosyst. 17 (1), 173–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2015.1105145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0306-3. Jorgensen, A., Keenan, R., 2012. Urban Wildscapes. Routledge, New York. Dewaelheyns, V., Elsen, A., Vandendriessche, H., Gulinck, H., 2013. Garden management Karakaya, E., Sriwannawit, P., 2015. Barriers to the adoption of photovoltaic systems: the and soil fertility in Flemish domestic gardens. Landsc. Urban Plann. 116, 25–35. state of the art. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 49, 60–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.03.010. rser.2015.04.058. Dewaelheyns, V., Rogge, E., Gulinck, H., 2014. Putting domestic gardens on the agenda Karr, C.J., Solomon, G.M., Brock-Utne, A.C., 2007. Health effects of common home, lawn, using empirical spatial data: the case of Flanders. Appl. Geogr. 50, 132–143. and garden pesticides. Pediatr. Clin. N. Am. 54 (1), 63–80. http://dx.doi.org/10. Dewaelheyns, V., Kerselaers, E., Rogge, E., 2016. A toolbox for garden governance. Land 1016/j.pcl.2006.11.005. Use Policy 51, 191–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.11.016. Kelly, D.A., 2016. Impact of paved front gardens on current and future urban flooding. J. Dibevo, NVG, 2015. Siervissen in Top-3 Van Meest Gehouden Huisdieren. Retrieved Flood Risk Manage. from. https://www.dibevo.nl/nieuws/siervissen-in-top-3-van-meest-gehouden- Kendal, D., Williams, N.S.G., Williams, K.J.H., 2012. A cultivated environment: exploring huisdieren. the global distribution of plants in gardens: parks and streetscapes. Urban Ecosyst. 15, Dijk, M., de Kraker, J., van Zeijl-Rozema, A., van Lente, H., Beumer, C., Beemsterboer, S., 637–652. Valkering, P., 2017. Sustainability assessment as problem structuring: three typical Keune, H., Kretsch, C., De Blust, G., Gilbert, M., Flandroy, L., Van den Berge, K., Versteirt, ways. Sustain. Sci. 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0417-x. V., Hartig, T., De Keersmaecker, L., Eggermont, H., Brosens, D., Dessein, J., Dijksma, S., 2014. Natuurlijk Verder. Rijksnatuurvisie 2014. Retrieved from Den Haag. Vanwambeke, S., Prieur-Richard, A.H., Wittmer, H., Van Herzele, A., Linard, C., Douglas, M., 1970. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. Barry & Rockliff, Martens, P., Mathijs, E., Simoens, I., Van Damme, P., Volckaert, F., Heyman, P., London. Bauler, T., 2013. Science–policy challenges for biodiversity, public health and ur- Drake, J., Bradford, A., Van Seters, T., 2014. Stormwater quality of spring–summer-fall banization: examples from Belgium. Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2), 025015. http://dx.doi. effluent from three partial-infiltration permeable pavement systems and conventional org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/025015. asphalt pavement. J. Environ. Manage. 139, 69–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. Kowarik, I., 2011. Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environ. jenvman.2013.11.056. Pollut. 159. Edwards, M., 2014. Civil Society. Polity Press, Cambridge. Kumar, M., Kumar, P., 2008. Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural Erez, M., Gati, E., 2004. A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: from the micro level of perspective. Ecol. Econ. 64, 808–819. the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Appl. Psychol.: Int. Rev. 53 (4), Kurtz, T., 2002. The psychology of environmentally sustainable behavior: fitting together 583–598. pieces of the puzzle. Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy 2 (1), 257–278. European Commission, 2017. Green Infrastructure. Retrieved from. http://ec.europa.eu/ Kurz, T., Baudains, C., 2012. Biodiversity in the front yard: an investigation of landscape environment/nature/ecosystems/index_en.htm. preference in a domestic urban context. Environ. Behav. 44 (166), 166–196. Ewing, R., 2001. Using a visual preference survey in transit design. Public Works Manage. Lachmund, J., 2013. Greening Berlin the Co-production of Science, Politics and Urban Policy 5 (270), 270–280. Nature. The MIT Press, London, Cambridge. Field, A., 2005. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage, London. Larsen, L., Harlan, S.L., 2006. Desert dreamscapes: residential landscape preference and Fini, A., Frangi, P., Mori, J., Donzelli, D., Ferrini, F., 2017. Nature based solutions to behavior. Landsc. Urban Plann. 78, 85–100. mitigate soil sealing in urban areas: results from a 4-year study comparing permeable, Larsen, L., Swanbrow, L., 2006. Postcards of phoenix: images of desert ambivalence and porous, and impermeable pavements. Environ. Res. 156, 443–454. http://dx.doi.org/ homogeneity. Landsc. J. 25 (2–6), 205–217. 10.1016/j.envres.2017.03.032. Larson, K.L., Brumand, J., 2014. Paradoxes in landscape management and water con- Francis, R.A., Lorimer, J., 2011. Urban reconciliation ecology: the potential of living roofs servation: examining neighborhood norms and institutional forces. Cities Environ. and walls. J. Environ. Manage. 92, 1429–1437. 7 (1). Galluzzi, G., Eyzaguirre, P., Negri, V., 2010. Home gardens: neglected hotspots of agro- Larson, K.L., Casagrande, D., Harlan, S., Yabiku, S.T., 2009. Residents' yard choices and biodiversity and cultural diversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 3635–3654. rationales in a desert city: social priorities, ecological impacts: and decision tradeoffs. Gibbons, J.D., 1993. Nonparametyric Statistics: an Introduction. Sage Publications Inc., Environ. Manage. 44, 921–937. London. Larson, K.L., Cook, E., Strawhacker, C., Hall, S.J., 2010. The influence of diverse values, Giddens, A., 2009. Sociology, 6th ed. Polity Press, Cambridge. ecological structure: and geographic COntext on residents’ multifaceted landcaping

 C. Beumer 8UEDQ)RUHVWU\ 8UEDQ*UHHQLQJ  ²

decisions. Hum. Ecol. 38, 747–761. Soil Sealing and Mitigating Its Effects. Retrieved from Brussels, Belgium. Larson, K.L., Nelson, K.C., Samples, S.R., Hall, S.J., Bettez, N., Cavender-Bares, J., Rees, W., 2010. Thinking ‘Resilience'. In: Heinberg, R., Lerch, D. (Eds.), The Post Carbon Groffman, P.M., Grove, M., Heffernan, J.B., Hobbie, S.E., Learned, J., Morse, J.L., Reader: Managing the 21 St Century's Sustainability Crises. Santa Rosa. Watershed Neill, C., Ogden, L.A., O’Neil-Dunne, J., Pataki, D.E., Polsky, C., Chowdhury, R.R., Media, Post Carbon Institute, California. Steele, M., Trammell, T.L.E., 2016. Ecosystem services in managing residential Rudd, H., Vala, J., Schaefer, V., 2002. Importance of backyard habitat in a comprehensive landscapes: priorities, value dimensions, and cross-regional patterns. Urban Ecosyst. biodiversity conservation strategy: a connectivity analysis of urban green spaces. 19 (1), 95–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11252-015-0477-1. Restor. Ecol. 10 (2), 368–375. Lerman, S.B., Turner, V.K., Bang, C., 2012. Homeowner associations as a vehicle for Schäffler, A., Swilling, M., 2013. Valuing green infrastructure in an urban environment promoting native urban biodiversity. Ecol. Soc. 17 (4). under pressure—the Johannesburg case. Ecol. Econ. 86, 246–257. http://dx.doi.org/ Lin, B.B., Gaston, K.J., Fuller, R.A., Wu, D., Bush, R., Shanahan, D.F., 2017. How green is 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.05.008. your garden? Urban form and socio-demographic factors influence yard vegetation, Scholl, C., Kemp, R., 2016. City labs as vehicles for innovation in urban planning pro- visitation, and ecosystem service benefits. Landsc. Urban Plann. 157, 239–246. cesses. Urban Plann. 1 (4), 89–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.07.007. Silvertown, J., 2009. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24 (9), 467–471. Lindemann-Matthies, P., Marty, T., 2013. Does ecological gardening increase species Simonis, U.E., 2011. Greening urban development: on climate change and climate policy. richness and aesthetic quality of a garden? Biol. Conserv. 159, 37–44. http://dx.doi. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 38 (11), 919–928. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.12.011. 03068291111171423. Loram, A., Warren, P.H., Gaston, K.J., 2008. Urban domestic gardens (XIV): the char- Smith, S.S., 2010. Forest story cards, a visual survey tool. J. Ext. 48 (2), 1–5. acteristics of gardens in five cities. Environ. Manage. 42, 361–376. St.Hilaire, R., VanLeeuwen, D.M., Torres, P., 2010. Landscape preferences and water Lyytimäki, J., Petersen, L.K., Normander, B., Bézak, P., 2008. Nature as nuisance? conservation choices of residents in a high desert environment. HortTechnology 20 Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. Environ. Sci. 5 (3), 161–172. (2), 308–314. Müller, N., Kamada, M., 2011. URBIO: an introduction to the international network in Stansfeld, S., Haines, M., Brown, B., 2000. Noise and health in the urban environment. urban biodiversity and design. Landsc. Ecol. Engl. 7 (1), 1–8. Rev. Environ. Health 15 (1-2), 43–82. Müller, N., Werner, P., Kelcey, J.G. (Eds.), 2010. Urban Biodiversity and Design, vol. 7 Steffen, W., Sanderson, A., Tyson, P.D., Jaeger, J., Matson, P.A., Moore III, B., Oldfield, F., Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. Richardson, K., Schellnhuber, H.J., Turner II, B.L., Wasson, R.J., 2005. Global Change MEA, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being Biodiversity Synthesis. Biodiversity and the Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure. Springer, Berlin. Report, Washington, DC Retrieved from. Swedlow, B., 2013. Advancing policy theory with cultural theory: an introduction to the Maas, J., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., Vries, S. d., Spreeuwenberg, P., 2006. Green special issue. Policy Stud. J. 42 (4), 465–483. space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? J. Epidemiol. Comm. Health Szilagy, K., 2011. The evolution of english picturesque landscape garden to urban public 60, 587–592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.043125. park. Paper Presented at the First International Conference Horticulture and Mamadouh, V., 1999. Grid-group cultural theory: an introduction. GeoJournal 47, Landscape Architecture in Transylvania. 395–409. TEEB, 2011. TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management. Marra, P.P., Santella, C., 2016. Cat Wars: The Devastating Consequences of a Cuddly Retrieved from. Killer. Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Theeuwes, N.E., Steeneveld, G.J., Ronda, R.J., Heusinkveld, B.G., Holtslag, A.A.M., 2012. Martin, C.A., 2008. Landscape sustainability in a sonoran desert city. Cities Environ. 1 (2), Mitigation of the urban heat island effect using vegetation and water bodies. In: Paper 1–16. Presented at the 8th Int Conf. Urban Climate. Dublin, Ireland. Marzano, A., 2008. Science, art, and nature: ancient gardens in all their variety. Am. J. Thompson, M., Ellis, R., Wildavsky, a., 1990. Cultural Theory. Westview Press, Boulder. Archaeol. 111 (2), 1–8. Thompson, M., 1997. Cultural theory and integrated assessment. Environ. Model. Assess. Mathey, J., Rink, D., 2010. Urban wastelands – a chance for biodiversity in cities? 2, 139–150. Ecological aspects, social perceptions and acceptance of wilderness by residents. In: Tidball, K.G., 2012. Urgent biophilia: human-nature interactions and biological attrac- Müller, N., Werner, P., Kelcey, J.G. (Eds.), Urban Biodoversity and Design. Blackwell tions in disaster resilience. Ecol. Soc. 17 (2), 5. Publishing Ltd., Oxford. Tsilini, V., Papantoniou, S., Kolokotsa, D.-D., Maria, E.-A., 2015. Urban gardens as a McKinney, M.L., 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52 (10), solution to energy poverty and urban heat island. Sustain. Cities Soc. 14, 323–333. 883–890. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2014.08.006. Meijer, S.A., Van Timmeren, A., Crul, M.R.M., Brezet, H.C., 2013. From community re- Tzoulas, K., James, P., 2004. Finding links between urban biodiversity and human health silience towards urban resilience: exploring the grassroot initiatives' role in cities. In: and well-being. In: Paper Presented at the 4th International Postgraduate Research Paper Presented at the Livinggreen Scientific Conference. (19 April 2013), Delft. Conference in the Built and Human Environment. Salford, Manchester. Meléndez-Ackerman, E.J., Santiago-Bartolomei, R., Vila-Ruiz, C.P., Santiago, L.E., García- Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J., James, Montiel, D., Verdejo-Ortiz, J.C., Manrique-Hernández, H., Hernández-Calo, E., 2014. P., 2007. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Socioeconomic drivers of yard sustainable practices in a tropical city. Ecol. Soc. 19 Infrastructure: a literature review. Landsc. Urban Plann. 81 (3), 167–178. http://dx. (3), 20. doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001. Meulen, R. t., 2015. Solidarity and justice in health care A critical analysis of their re- UN Habitat, 2015. Input to Post-2015 Un Development Agenda: Working Group B. lationship. Diametros 43, 1–20. Retrieved from. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/untaskteam_ Millard, A., 2010. Cultural aspects of urban biodiversity. In: Müller, N., Werner, P., undf/groupb_unhabitat_suscities.pdf. Kelcey, J.G. (Eds.), Urban Biodiversity and Design. Wiley-Blackwell, London. UNEP, 2007. Global Environmental Outlook 4. Environment for Development (GEO4) Miller, J.R., Hobbs, R.J., 2002. Conservation where people live. Conserv. Biol. 16 (2), Retrieved from. 330–337. United Nations, 2016a. Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from. http://www. Mitchell, D.B., Mueller, M.P., 2009. A Philosophical Analysis of David Orr’s Theory of un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/. Ecological Literacy: Biophilia: Ecojustice and Moral Education in School Learning United Nations, 2016b. In: New Urban Agenda. Quito Declaration on Sustainable Cities Communities 6. Cultural Studies of Science Education, pp. 193–221. and Human Settlements for All Paper Presented at the Habitat III Conference. Quito, Mitchell, M.G.E., Bennett, E.M., Gonzalez, A., 2013. Linking landscape connectivity and (10 September 2016). ecosystem service provision: current knowledge and research gaps. Ecosystem 16 (5), Urry, J., 2005. The complexities of the gobal. Theory Culture Soc. 22 (235). http://dx.doi. 894–908. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9647-2. org/10.1177/0263276405057201. NWF, 2013. Garden for Wildlife. Make Habitat at Home. Retrieved from. http://www. Valkering, 2000. Toddling ‘long the River Meuse. Integrated Assessment and nwf.org/How-to-Help/Garden-for-Wildlife.aspx?campaignid=WH10DGWP&s_src= Participatory Agent-Based Odelling to Support River Management. Universitaire Pers CWH_Wildlife_Navigation. Maastricht, Maastricht. Nassauer, J.I., 1995a. Messy ecosystems. Orderly frames. Landsc. J. 14 (2), 161–170. Van Heezik, Y., Dickinnson, K.J.M., Freeman, C., 2012. Closing the gap: communicating Nassauer, J.I., 1995b. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landsc. Ecol. 10 (4), to change gardening practices in support of native biodiversity in urban private 229–237. gardens. Ecol. Soc. 17 (1), 34. Niinemets, Ü., Peñuelas, J., 2008. Gardening and urban landscaping: significant players in Van den Berg, A.E., Jorgensen, A., Wilson, E.R., 2014. Evaluating restoration in urban global change. Trends Plant Sci. 13 (2), 60–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants. green spaces: does setting type make a difference? Landsc. Urban plann. 127, 2007.11.009. 173–181. Norris-Bernzel, K., Edinger, P., 2005. Gardening in the Southwest. Sunset Publishing Vasseur, V., Kemp, R., 2015. The adoption of PV in the Netherlands: a statistical analysis Corporation, Menlo Park, CA. of adoption factors. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 41, 483–494. http://dx.doi.org/10. O'Neill, S., Nicholson-Cole, S., 2009. Fear won't do it: promoting positive engagement 1016/j.rser.2014.08.020. with climate change through visual and iconic representation. Sci. Commun. 30 Velarde, M.D., Fry, G., Tveit, M., 2007. Health effects of viewing landscapes–landscape (355), 355–379. types in environmental psychology. Urban For. Urban Greening 6 (4), 199–212. Offermans, A., 2012. The Perspectives Method. Towards Socially Robust River http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2007.07.001. Management. Maastricht University Press, Maastricht. Verweij, M., Douglas, M., Ellis, R., Engel, C., Hendriks, F., Lohmann, S., Ney, S., Rayner, Olsson, P., Folke, C., 2007. Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social- S., Thompson, M., 2006. Clumsy solutions for a complex world: the case of climate ecological systems. Environ. Manage. 34 (1), 75–90. change. Public Adm. 84 (4), 817–843. Pallant, J., 2005. SPSS Survival Manual. a Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Usiong Visscher, R.S., Nassauer, J.I., Marshall, L.L., 2016. Homeowner preferences for wooded SPSS Version 12. Open University Press & McGraw-Hill, New York. front yards and backyards: implications for carbon storage. Landsc. Urban Plann. Perry, T., Nawaz, R., 2008. An investigation into the extent and impacts of hard surfacing 146, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.09.001. of domestic gardens in an area of Leeds, United Kingdom. Landsc. Urban Plann. 86 Warhurst, J.R., Parks, K.E., McCulloch, L., Hudson, M.D., 2014. Front gardens to car (1), 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.12.004. parks: changes in garden permeability and effects on flood regulation. Sci. Total Prokop, G., Jobstmann, H., Schönbauer, A., 2011. Report on Best Practices for Limiting Environ. 485–486, 329–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.035.

 C. Beumer 8UEDQ)RUHVWU\ 8UEDQ*UHHQLQJ  ²

Wekerle, G.R., Classens, M., 2015. Food production in the city: (re)negotiating land, food indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS. and property. Local Environ. 20 (10), 1175–1193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ Xing, Y., Jones, P., Donnison, I., 2017. Characterisation of nature-based solutions for 13549839.2015.1007121. theBuilt environment. Sustainability. White, R., Sasser, D., Bogren, R., Morgan, J., 2009. Photos can inspire a thousand words: Zhang, Y., Zheng, B., Sun, G., Fan, P., 2015. The american lawn revisited: awareness photolanguage as a qualitative evaluation method. J. Ext. 47 (3). education and culture as public policies toward sustainable lawn. Problemy ekor- White, M.M., 2011. Sisters of the Soil: Urban Gardening as Resistance in Detroit 5. pp. ozwoju –Prob. Sustain. Dev. 10 (1), 107–115. 13–28 Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts 5 (1) 13–28. Zheng, B., Zhang, Y., Chen, J., 2011. Preference to home landscape: wildness or neatness? Whitehorn, P.R., O’Connor, S., Wackers, F.L., Goulson, D., 2012. Neonicotinoid pesticide Landsc. Urban Plann. 99, 1–8. reduces bumble bee colony growth and queen production. Science 336 (6079), Zube, E.H., Simcox, D.E., Law, C.S., 1986. The oasis image of two desert cities. Landsc. 351–352. Res. 11 (3), 7–11. World Bank Group, 2016. Urban Population (% of Total). The United Nations Population Zwaagstra, C., 2014. The Contribution of Soil Sealing in Urban Private Gardens to Runoff Divisions World Urbanization Prospects Retrieved from. http://data.worldbank.org/ and Urban Heating. Rijks universiteit Groningen, Groningen MSc.