IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i7p1048-d1434420.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying the Wild: Public Acceptance and Challenges of Urban Wildscapes in Chiba, Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Daer Su

    (Graduate School of Horticulture, Chiba University, Chiba 271-8510, Japan)

  • Jie Chen

    (Graduate School of Horticulture, Chiba University, Chiba 271-8510, Japan)

  • Hongyu Li

    (Graduate School of Horticulture, Chiba University, Chiba 271-8510, Japan)

  • Shixian Luo

    (School of Architecture, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 611756, China)

  • Jing Xie

    (Graduate School of Horticulture, Chiba University, Chiba 271-8510, Japan)

  • Huixin Wang

    (Graduate School of Horticulture, Chiba University, Chiba 271-8510, Japan)

  • Fuhao Sun

    (Graduate School of Horticulture, Chiba University, Chiba 271-8510, Japan)

  • Wanyue Ren

    (Graduate School of Horticulture, Chiba University, Chiba 271-8510, Japan)

  • Takeshi Kinoshita

    (Graduate School of Horticulture, Chiba University, Chiba 271-8510, Japan)

Abstract

People’s reduced connection with nature has led to many health problems. In the NBS framework, urban wildscapes (UWSs) are considered an important solution. They can contribute to improving the health of residents and ecosystems within the city. However, overly wild green spaces may also be offensive to residents. It is necessary to understand the public’s acceptance of UWSs. Current studies on the acceptance of UWSs have used vague terms to generalize the “wildness degree”. In this study, we attempted to quantify the degree of wildness using plant height and plant abundance in Japan and analyzed the results through mediated effect analysis. We discovered the following: 1. Japanese residents have low acceptance of UWSs in vacant lots. 2. The use of “height” and “abundance” may be a more objective way to quantify wildness. 3. The negative effects of abundance can be minimized. The negative effect of height cannot be controlled. This study addresses a gap in the study of Asian cities and proposes a novel approach to quantifying “wildness.” It improves the health benefits of UWSs. Furthermore, it can offer guidance on the management and construction of urban green spaces.

Suggested Citation

  • Daer Su & Jie Chen & Hongyu Li & Shixian Luo & Jing Xie & Huixin Wang & Fuhao Sun & Wanyue Ren & Takeshi Kinoshita, 2024. "Quantifying the Wild: Public Acceptance and Challenges of Urban Wildscapes in Chiba, Japan," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-21, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:7:p:1048-:d:1434420
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/7/1048/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/7/1048/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    2. Rupprecht, Christoph, 2017. "Informal urban green space: Residents’ perception, use, and management preferences across four major Japanese shrinking cities," SocArXiv ug86b, Center for Open Science.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    2. Christopher B. Riley & Kayla I. Perry & Kerry Ard & Mary M. Gardiner, 2018. "Asset or Liability? Ecological and Sociological Tradeoffs of Urban Spontaneous Vegetation on Vacant Land in Shrinking Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Goran Krsnik & Sonia Reyes-Paecke & Keith M. Reynolds & Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo & José Ramón González Olabarria, 2023. "Assessing Relativeness in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: Better Comparison Methods for Improved Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    4. Gaodi Xie & Wenhui Chen & Shuyan Cao & Chunxia Lu & Yu Xiao & Changshun Zhang & Na Li & Shuo Wang, 2014. "The Outward Extension of an Ecological Footprint in City Expansion: The Case of Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-16, December.
    5. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    6. Alexander V. Rusanov, 2019. "Dacha dwellers and gardeners: garden plots and second homes in Europe and Russia," Population and Economics, ARPHA Platform, vol. 3(1), pages 107-124, April.
    7. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    8. Monika Kopecká & Daniel Szatmári & Konštantín Rosina, 2017. "Analysis of Urban Green Spaces Based on Sentinel-2A: Case Studies from Slovakia," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-17, April.
    9. Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.
    10. Vasileios A. Tzanakakis & Andrea G. Capodaglio & Andreas N. Angelakis, 2023. "Insights into Global Water Reuse Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-30, August.
    11. Massoni, Emma Soy & Barton, David N. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Gundersen, Vegard, 2018. "Bigger, more diverse and better? Mapping structural diversity and its recreational value in urban green spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 502-516.
    12. Somajita Paul & Harini Nagendra, 2017. "Factors Influencing Perceptions and Use of Urban Nature: Surveys of Park Visitors in Delhi," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-23, April.
    13. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    14. Dennis, Matthew & James, Philip, 2017. "Ecosystem services of collectively managed urban gardens: Exploring factors affecting synergies and trade-offs at the site level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 17-26.
    15. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    16. Donatella Valente & María Victoria Marinelli & Erica Maria Lovello & Cosimo Gaspare Giannuzzi & Irene Petrosillo, 2022. "Fostering the Resiliency of Urban Landscape through the Sustainable Spatial Planning of Green Spaces," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-13, March.
    17. Vahid Amini Parsa & Esmail Salehi & Ahmad Reza Yavari & Peter M van Bodegom, 2019. "An improved method for assessing mismatches between supply and demand in urban regulating ecosystem services: A case study in Tabriz, Iran," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-22, August.
    18. Aevermann Tim & Schmude Jürgen, 2015. "Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services in Munich, Germany," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 59(3), pages 188-200, December.
    19. J. Amy Belaire & Heather Bass & Heather Venhaus & Keri Barfield & Tim Pannkuk & Katherine Lieberknecht & Shalene Jha, 2023. "High-Performance Landscapes: Re-Thinking Design and Management Choices to Enhance Ecological Benefits in Urban Environments," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-18, August.
    20. Ou Deng & Yiqiu Li & Ruoshuang Li & Guangbin Yang, 2022. "Estimation of Forest Ecosystem Climate Regulation Service Based on Actual Evapotranspiration of New Urban Areas in Guanshanhu District, Guiyang, Guizhou Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-17, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:7:p:1048-:d:1434420. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.