Residents’ attitudes and behaviours on private green spaces in the suburban areas of Central European countries

doi:10.1016/j.regsus.2024.100180

Abstract

Abstract:

Green spaces in urban and suburban areas play a significant role in helping settlements adapt to climate change. The design, quantity, quality, and location of green spaces influence their ability to provide benefits to people and enhance the quality of life. Private green spaces, if adequately managed, can enhance the environmental quality. This study, based on a questionnaire survey and the Motivation/Attitude-Driven Behaviour (MADB) model, investigated how the attitudes and behaviours of residents shape private green spaces in 12 settlements of the 4 city regions (Cluj region, Nitra region, Kecskemét region, and Györ region) in 3 Central European countries (Hungary, Slovakia, and Romania). The results showed that beautiful natural environment, abundance of green spaces, beautiful settlement and streetscape, and village atmosphere were mentioned most often, along with good quality of life, with a mention rate of over 70.00% in the four city regions. Convenience also played a significant role in the management of green spaces, showing that convenience factors (less work, less waste, and cheaper management) more important for those who live in settlements nearer to the cities. The importance of biodiversity and ecology was positively correlated with socio-economic status such as education and financial situation. However, the importance of the utility of green spaces was less prevalent among original villagers and settlers. Moreover, we found that the percentage of green spaces of settlers is slightly higher than that of original villagers. The results of factor analysis revealed that socio-economic status can influence respondents’ attitudes towards green spaces. It suggests to increase ecological awareness of residents, especially for new settlers, and promote good management techniques for green spaces. This study can improve the awareness of urban planners about the importance of green spaces in suburban areas.

Key words: Green spaces, Suburban area, Motivation/Attitude-Driven Behaviour (MADB) model, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania

Tamás HARDI, Ádám PÁTHY, Andrea POZSGAI. Residents’ attitudes and behaviours on private green spaces in the suburban areas of Central European countries[J]. Regional Sustainability, 2024, 5(4): 100180.

Figures/Tables 14

Fig. 1.

Table 1

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Table 2

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Fig. 7.

Fig. 8.

References 48

[1]	Ambrey, C., Byrne, J., Matthews, T., et al., 2017. Cultivating climate justice: Green infrastructure and suburban disadvantage in Australia. Appl. Geogr. 89, 52-60.
[2]	Angel, S., Parent, J., Civco, D.L., et al., 2011. The dimensions of global urban expansion: Estimates and projections for all countries, 2000-2050. Prog. Plan. 75(2), 53-107.
[3]	Antrop, M., 2005. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70(1), 21-34.
[4]	Aram, F., Higueras García, E., Solgi, E., et al., 2019. Urban green space cooling effect in cities. Heliyon. 5(4), 01339, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01339.
[5]	Bürgi, M., Bieling, C., von Hackwitz, K., et al., 2017. Processes and driving forces in changing cultural landscapes across Europe. Landscape Ecol. 32(11), 2097-2112.
[6]	Byrne, J.A., Lo, A.Y., Yang, J.J., 2015. Residents’ understanding of the role of green infrastructure for climate change adaptation in Hangzhou, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 138, 132-143.
[7]	Cameron, R.W.F., Blanuša, T., Taylor, J.E., et al., 2012. The domestic garden—Its contribution to urban green infrastructure. Urban For Urban Gree. 11(2), 129-137.
[8]	Chang, J., Qu, Z.L., Xu, R.H., et al., 2017. Assessing the ecosystem services provided by urban green spaces along urban center-edge gradients. Sci. Reports. 7(1), 11226, doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-11559-5.
[9]	Csomós, G., Farkas, J.Z., Kovács, Z., 2020. Access to urban green spaces and environmental inequality in post-socialist cities. Hungarian Geogr. Bul. 69(2), 191-207.
[10]	Csontos, P., Kalapos, T., Faradhimu, T., et al., 2020. Effects of tree size and park maintenance on soil seed bank of Gleditsia triacanthos, an exotic tree in urban green areas. Biol. Futura, 71(1-2), 81-91. doi: 10.1007/s42977-020-00020-w pmid: 34554533
[11]	Darly, S., Feuillet, T., Laforêt, C., 2021. Home gardening and the social divide of suburban space: Methodological proposal for the spatial analysis of a social practice in the Greater Paris Urban Area. Sustainability Basel. 13(6), 3243, doi: 10.3390/su13063243.
[12]	De Sousa Silva, C., Viegas, I., Panagopoulos, T., et al., 2018. Environmental justice in accessibility to green infrastructure in two European cities. Land Basel. 7(134), 1-23.
[13]	Dumitrache, L., Zamfir, D., Nae, M.M., et al., 2016. The urban nexus: Contradictions and dilemmas of (post)communist (sub)urbanization in Romania. Human Geogr. 10(1), 38-50.
[14]	EEA (European Environment Agency), 2016. Urban Sprawl in Europe. [2024-01-15]. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/urban-sprawl-in-europe.
[15]	Forman, R.T.T., Wilson, E.O., 1995. Land Mosaics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 406-435.
[16]	Forman, R.T.T., 2008. Urban Regions:Ecology and Planning Beyond the City. Cambridge: University Press Cambridge, 164-222.
[17]	Gangopadhyay, K., Balooni, K., 2012. Technological infusion and the change in private, urban green spaces. Urban For. Urban Gree. 11(2), 205-210.
[18]	Gardi, C., 2017. Is urban expansion a problem? In: Gardi, C., (ed.). Urban Expansion, Land Cover and Soil Ecosystem Services. London: Routledge, 3-18.
[19]	Graffigna, S., González-Vaquero, R.A., Torretta, J.P., et al., 2023. Importance of urban green areas’ connectivity for the conservation of pollinators. Urban Ecosyst. 27, 417-426.
[20]	Grigorescu, I., Mitrică, B., Kucsicsa, G., et al., 2012. Post-communist land use changes related to urban sprawl in the Romanian metropolitan areas. Human Geogr. 6(1), 35-46.
[21]	Hall, T., 2010. Goodbye to the backyard?—The minimisation of private open space in the Australian Outer-Suburban Estate. Urban Policy Res. 28(4), 411-433.
[22]	Hardi, T., Repaská, G., Veselovský, J., et al., 2020. Environmental consequences of the urban sprawl in the suburban zone of Nitra: An analysis based on landcover data. Geographica Pannonica. 24(3), 205-220.
[23]	Hardi, T., 2022. Differences and similarities in the expansion of suburban built-up areas around the different city regions of three Central European countries. Space and Society. 36(3), 165-193.
[24]	Hlaváček, P., Kopáček, M., Horáčková, L., 2019. Impact of suburbanisation on sustainable development of settlements in suburban spaces: Smart and new solutions. Sustainability Basel. 11(24), 7182, doi: 10.3390/su11247182.
[25]	Hu, X.W., Su, Y.Q., Ren, K.F., et al., 2021. Measurement and influencing factors of urban traffic ecological resilience in developing countries: A case study of 31 Chinese cities. Reg. Sustain. 2(3), 211-223. doi: 10.1016/j.regsus.2021.10.001
[26]	Ilbery, B., 2014. The Geography of Rural Change. London: Routledge, 131-160.
[27]	Johnson, M.P., 2001. Environmental impacts of urban sprawl: A survey of the literature and proposed research agenda. Environ. Plan. A. 33(4), 717-735.
[28]	Kahn, M.E., 2000. The environmental impact of suburbanization. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 19(4), 569-586.
[29]	Lagucki, E., Burdine, J.D., McCluney, K.E., 2017. Urbanization alters communities of flying arthropods in parks and gardens of a medium-sized city. PeerJ. 5, e3620, doi: 10.7717/peerj.3620.
[30]	Lennert, J., Farkas, J.Z., Kovács, A.D., et al., 2020. Measuring and predicting long-term land cover changes in the functional urban area of Budapest. Sustainability Basel. 12(8), 3331, doi: 10.3390/su12083331.
[31]	Li, Q.Z, Thapa, S., Hu, X.L., et al., 2022. The relationship between urban green space and urban expansion based on gravity methods. Sustainability Basel. 14(9), 5396, doi: 10.3390/su14095396.
[32]	Lian, Z.X., Feng, X.H., 2022. Urban green space pattern in core cities of the greater bay area based on morphological spatial pattern analysis. Sustainability Basel. 14(19), 12365, doi: 10.3390/su141912365.
[33]	Liu, Q., Peng, P.H., Wang, Y.K., et al., 2019. Microclimate regulation efficiency of the rural homegarden agroforestry system in the Western Sichuan Plain, China. J. Mt. Sci-Engl. 16(3), 516-528. doi: 10.1007/s11629-018-5112-1
[34]	Mahmoudi Farahani, L., Maller, C., Phelan, K., 2018. Private gardens as urban greenspaces: Can they compensate for poor greenspace access in lower socioeconomic neighbourhoods? Landscape Online. 59, doi: 10.3097/LO.201859.
[35]	Martínez-Sastre, R., Ravera, F., González, J.A., et al., 2017. Mediterranean landscapes under change: Combining social multicriteria evaluation and the ecosystem services framework for land use planning. Land Use Pol. 67, 472-486.
[36]	Matthews, T., Lo, A.Y., Byrne, J.A., 2015. Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate change adaptation: Barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners. Landsc. Urban Plan. 138, 155-163.
[37]	Repaská, G., Vilinová, K., Šolcová, L., 2017. Trends in development of residential areas in suburban zone of the city of Nitra (Slovakia). Eur. Countrys. 9(2), 287-301.
[38]	Russo, A., Escobedo, F.J., Cirella, G.T., et al., 2017. Edible green infrastructure: An approach and review of provisioning ecosystem services and disservices in urban environments. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 242, 53-66.
[39]	Săgeată, R., Mitrică, B., Cercleux, A.L., et al., 2023. Deindustrialization, tertiarization and suburbanization in central and eastern Europe. Lessons learned from Bucharest City, Romania. Land Basel. 12(9), 1731, doi: 10.3390/land12091731.
[40]	Semeraro, T., Scarano, A., Buccolieri, R., et al., 2021. Planning of urban green spaces: An ecological perspective on human benefits. Land Basel. 10, 105, doi: 10.3390/land10020105.
[41]	Siedentop, S., Fina, S., 2012. Who sprawls most? Exploring the patterns of urban growth across 26 European countries. Environ. Plan. A. 44(11), 2765-2784.
[42]	Slaev, A., Nedovic-Budic, Z., 2016. The challenges of implementing sustainable development: The case of Sofia’s master plan. Sustainability Basel. 9(1), 15, doi: 10.3390/su9010015.
[43]	Svobodová, I., Drlík, J., Spěšná, D., et al., 2021. Food self-provisioning in the Czech Republic—A comparison of suburban and peripheral regions of Rural South Moravia. Eur. Countrys. 13(3), 516-535.
[44]	Taubenböck, H., Gerten, C., Rusche, K., et al., 2019. Patterns of Eastern European urbanisation in the mirror of Western trends—Convergent, unique or hybrid? Environ. Plan. B. 46(7), 1206-1225.
[45]	UN-DESAPD (United Nations-Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Dynamics), 2019. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision. [2024-01-15]. .https://population.un.org/wup/Publi-catio-ns/Files/WUP2018-Report.pdf.
[46]	Wang, Y.X., 2007. On the cognitive processes of human perception with emotions, motivations, and attitudes. Int. J. Cognitive Informatics Nat. Intelligence. 1(4), 1-13.
[47]	Warhurst, J.R., Parks, K.E., McCulloch, L., et al., 2014. Front gardens to car parks: Changes in garden permeability and effects on flood regulation. Sci. Total Environ. 485-486, 329-339.
[48]	Zhou, L., Huang, X.Y., Zhao, C.M., et al., 2022. Regional landscape transformation and sustainability of the rural homegarden agroforestry system in the Chengdu Plain, China. Reg. Sustain. 3(1), 68-81.

Country	Region		Population (persons)			Percentage of impervious surface (%)						Residential density (personskm²)
			Population (persons)			Impervious surface of 16.00%-50.00%			Impervious surface of 50.00%-100.00%			Residential density (personskm²)
			2001	2011	2018	2006	2012	2018	2006	2012	2018	2011	2018
Romania	City	Cluj	318,056	308,026	323,675	10.49	11.60	8.41	7.87	8.30	13.27	8624	8333
	City region	Cluj region	185,671	192,791	213,223	1.15	1.40	1.28	0.23	0.30	0.89	3603	3151
	Sample settlement	Baciu	8064	9371	11,526	1.66	1.80	1.74	0.21	0.20	1.26	5246	4366
		Chinteni	2831	2929	3294	0.72	0.80	0.98	0.02	0.00	0.34	3907	2573
		Aiton	1392	1154	1019	0.69	0.70	1.04	0.00	0.00	0.18	3421	1832
Slovakia	City	Nitra	86,656	79,202	76,655	18.85	22.80	13.30	2.37	2.70	11.24	3056	3081
	City region	Nitra region	219,878	220,162	222,159	5.29	5.60	3.91	0.14	0.20	1.77	1922	1950
	Sample settlement	Nitrianske Hrnčiarovce	1746	1914	2089	9.59	11.80	8.74	0.07	0.10	3.25	1655	1791
		Lapáš	1494	1645	2659	7.59	10.49	7.92	0.16	0.14	4.68	1375	1875
		Jelšovce	950	988	1000	5.92	6.10	4.26	0.05	0.10	1.69	1518	1587
Hungary	City	Kecskemét	107,708	111,150	110,687	8.06	8.36	5.86	3.03	3.37	6.09	2930	2863
	City region	Kecskemét region	145,647	140,751	139,920	1.84	1.90	1.56	0.42	0.44	1.12	2436	2114
	Sample settlement	Ballószög	2666	3215	3652	3.31	3.45	2.18	0.22	0.23	1.34	2524	3000
		Kerekegyháza	5994	6263	6563	3.06	3.08	2.56	0.23	0.24	1.43	2313	2016
		Fülöpszállás	2456	2191	2047	1.07	1.10	1.10	0.03	0.04	0.29	2088	1605
	City	Györ	129,411	129,519	132,038	10.30	10.90	11.88	9.52	10.70	12.59	3410	3074
	City region	Györ region	146,126	149,396	158,148	3.00	3.10	3.20	0.83	0.90	1.55	1863	1681
	Sample settlement	Györújfalu	1096	1565	2201	6.89	7.70	7.35	2.58	3.10	4.54	1381	2524
		Györzámoly	1560	2336	3129	2.26	2.30	2.86	1.29	1.30	1.71	1595	2520
		Börcs	1005	1236	1320	3.89	3.90	4.42	1.29	1.30	1.94	1561	1670

City region	Settlement	Percentage of settlers always living here (%)	Percentage of settlers moving to settlements (%)		Percentage of settlers moving from the centre of the city (%)
City region	Settlement	Percentage of settlers always living here (%)	Anytime	After 2000
Cluj region	Baciu	64.60	35.40	14. 00	64.70
	Chinteni	56.30	43.80	37.30	81.00
	Aiton	31.30	68.80	59.20	60.50
	Total	50.70	49.30	36.70	67.60
Györ region	Györújfalu	30.00	70.00	58.00	80.00
	Györzámoly	44.00	56.00	48.00	81.50
	Börcs	50.00	50.00	46.00	88.00
	Total	41.30	58.70	50.70	82.80
Kecskemét region	Ballószög	38.00	62.00	33.00	73.30
	Kerekegyháza	62.00	38.00	20.00	27.80
	Fülöpszállás	52.00	48.00	32.00	16.70
	Total	50.70	49.30	32.00	43.10
Nitra region	Nitrianske Hrnčiarovce	61.00	38.00	34.00	70.50
	Lapáš	42.90	57.10	50.00	65.60
	Jelšovce	61.70	38.30	29.80	50.00
	Total	54.90	45.10	38.60	62.70
Inner zone		48.50	51.50	37.50	73.70
Transitional zone		51.00	49.00	39.10	66.30
Outer zone		48.70	51.30	41.80	55.00
Total zone		49.40	50.60	39.50	65.00

Function or characteristic of garden	Biodiversity	Convenience	Ecology	Utility	Indigenous species	Climate
Providing habitat for birds	0.570
Providing habitat for insects	0.756
Providing habitat for other animals	0.703
Being maintained with little work		0.597
Being maintained inexpensively		0.668
Does not generate much waste		0.620
Increasing green areas			0.670
Contributing to ecological corridors			0.751
Useful from a market perspective				0.881
Useful for providing food for the household				0.419
Containing indigenous species					0.489
Does not contain invasive species					0.680
Providing shade						0.626
Regulating microclimate						0.481
Having big trees						0.416
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin=0.704; Significance of Bartlett’s test of sphericity=0.000

Zone	Cluj region		Györ region		Kecskemét region		Nitra region
Zone	Settlement	Percentage (%)	Settlement	Percentage (%)	Settlement	Percentage (%)	Settlement	Percentage (%)
Inner zone	Baciu	56.00	Györújfalu	90.00	Ballószög	94.00	Nitrianske Hrnčiarovce	96.00
Transitional zone	Chinteni	49.00	Györzámoly	88.00	Kerekegyháza	86.00	Lapáš	93.60
Outer zone	Aiton	45.10	Börcs	86.00	Fülöpszállás	54.00	Jelšsovce	87.50
Chi² significance=0.000

Plant or cultivation type	Biodiversity	Ecology	Indigenous species	Climate
Lawn				+
Herbaceous plant	+	+	+
Kitchen garden	+		+
Large tree		-		+
Pine			- -	++
Thuja			-
Vine		+
Shrub	++		++	+
Rose		+		-
Arbor	++		++	+
Uncultivated soil	++	- -	++	++
Gravel		- -	++