Balancing Urban Biodiversity Needs and Resident Preferences for Vacant Lot Management

Abstract

Urban vacant lots are often a contentious feature in cities, seen as overgrown, messy eyesores that plague neighborhoods. We propose a shift in this perception to locations of urban potential, because vacant lots may serve as informal greenspaces that maximize urban biodiversity while satisfying residents' preferences for their design and use. Our goal was to assess what kind of vacant lots are ecologically valuable by assessing their biotic contents and residents' preferences within a variety of settings. We surveyed 150 vacant lots throughout Baltimore, Maryland for their plant and bird communities, classified the lot's setting within the urban matrix, and surveyed residents. Remnant vacant lots had greater vegetative structure and bird species richness as compared to other lot origins, while vacant lot settings had limited effects on their contents. Residents preferred well-maintained lots with more trees and less artificial cover, support of which may increase local biodiversity in vacant lots. Collectively, we propose that vacant lots with a mixture of remnant and planted vegetation can act as sustainable urban greenspaces with the potential for some locations to enhance urban tree cover and bird habitat, while balancing the needs and preferences of city residents.

Perception of Urban Green Areas Associated with Sociodemographic Affiliation, Structural Elements, and Acceptance Stripes

“…The value and contribution of natural urban green spaces to biodiversity and their ecological importance with respect to ecosystem services are well-known [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. This green infrastructure has a variety of functions connected to the maintenance of basic ecological processes, properties, and resulting services [8][9][10][11][12][13], including positive climatic effects [3,8,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. From a social point of view, urban green spaces offer facilities that can be used by city dwellers, e.g., as meeting points and places for relaxation and recreation [8,9,21].…”

“…This green infrastructure has a variety of functions connected to the maintenance of basic ecological processes, properties, and resulting services [8][9][10][11][12][13], including positive climatic effects [3,8,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. From a social point of view, urban green spaces offer facilities that can be used by city dwellers, e.g., as meeting points and places for relaxation and recreation [8,9,21]. In addition, they have multiple benefits (physiological and psychological) with respect to health and well-being (e.g., [7,8,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]).…”

“…Because of the fast densification of numerous urban areas all over the planet, the remaining urban green spaces are under pressure [1,22,[35][36][37]. Urban green spaces in cities contribute to increased biodiversity [9,10,22,[38][39][40], and the conservation of urban biodiversity can create multi-layered advantages for people and nature conservation alike [41,42]. However, current urban development contributes instead to the decline of biodiversity [22,43].…”

“…However, current urban development contributes instead to the decline of biodiversity [22,43]. In the temperate zones, one special aspect of biodiversity loss in urban areas is anthropogenic manipulation involving the intense maintenance of lawns [9,[44][45][46] and the planting of exotic plants [45][46][47]. Mown grassland, i.e., amenity grassland or lawn, is one of the most prevailing types of urban green space, particularly in temperate regions [1,48,49].…”

“…On the other hand, biodiversity is often not recognized or is estimated incorrectly because of the mismatch between the perceived and actual characteristics of biodiversity by laypersons [8,24,41,89] as a result of poor knowledge [41] and the lack of a nuanced comprehension of naturalness within an urban context [8]. Indeed, biodiversity per se is frequently not appreciated (e.g., [9,24,44,46,75,77,[90][91][92][93][94][95]), because the perception of nature by people is self-related and their evaluation of natural phenomena is tightly connected to selfish (practical and aesthetic) usage [75]. The topic of urban nature should encompass not only positive ecological aspects, but also people and their perception of nature conservation concepts.…”