Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 63 (2021) 127227

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

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

Residential sidewalk gardens and biological conservation in the cities:

Motivations and preferences that guide the floristic composition of a
little-explored space
Nicole Guerrero-Leiva a, *, Claudia Cerda b, Iñigo Bidegain b, c, d
a
Master Program in Wild Areas and Nature Conservation, Faculty of Forest Sciences and Conservation of Nature, Universidad de Chile, Chile
b
Department of Forest Management and Environment, Faculty of Forest Sciences and Conservation of Nature, Universidad de Chile, Chile
c
Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Faculty of Sciences, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain
d
Institute of Natural Sciences, Universidad de las Américas, Chile

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Jun Yang Plant diversity in large cities has recently become a subject of intense biological research. Urban green spaces are
widely acknowledged to improve people’s quality of life. Unlike in wild areas, plants in urban ecosystems
Keywords: develop in spaces strongly managed by human activity and tend to form different compositions than the natural
Attitudes landscape. Under this scenario, would the motivations and preferences of urbanresidents make it possible to
Easement gardens
conserve a sample of the local diversity in these spaces? To answer this question, we apply a semistructured
Ex-situ conservation
survey to 100 homes that have a residential sidewalk garden in Santiago de Chile. Our results show that these
Native gardening
Socioecological system gardens are perceived as an essential part of the home and its environment. We recognized three groups of
Urban flora citizens, namely, a utilitarian group (19 %), native group (21 %) and neutral group (60 %). The utilitarian group
prefers to grow useful plants, such as for medicine or food. The neutral group does not indicate a preference for
particular attributes of plants, which could be an indicator of the extinction of the experience with nature. Most
of the participants do not know the origin of the species they grow.However, even when knowledge of native
flora is limited (X = 0.96; max = 3.0), citizens recognize the intrinsic value of these species and would be willing
to conserve them in their gardens (X = 4.35; max = 7.0). This willingness is also motivated by the set of benefits
provided by native plants (e.g., ornamental, ecological, structural or emotional). Greater knowledge of native
flora in the native group can be attributed to familiarity; therefore, the presence of these species in residential
sidewalk gardens could encourage preferences and decisions aimed at promoting the conservation of local plant
diversity.

1. Introduction of privacy, produce food and medicine, improve neighborhood esthetics,

and provide a habitat for other living organisms (Shackleton et al., 2015;
Cities are complex biological systems that are shaped and developed Shaw et al., 2017).
primarily based on people’s actions (Grimm et al., 2008). Political and Most plants grown in gardens are chosen mainly because of their
administrative structures make decisions that influence the biodiversity ornamental characteristics and their ability to adapt to environmental
of public spaces (Alberti et al., 2003). At the residential level, each cit­ conditions, such as water shortages (Kendal et al., 2012), which explains
izen modifies their immediate environment based on their own decisions why gardens tend to include a great variety of exotic species (Smith
and preferences (Cameron et al., 2012). The space allocated to gardens et al., 2006) that considerably exceed the proportion of native species
and gardening as an activity produce important benefits that improve and produce community assemblages that do not represent the sur­
that quality of life in cities (Dunnett and Qasim, 2000; rounding natural landscape (Freire-Moro et al., 2014). In some cases,
Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013; Camps-Calvet et al., 2016). For this type of flora may have invasive behavior (Smith et al., 2006).
example, these factors can regulate the microclimate, increase the sense However, people’s level of education and their experience with nature

* Corresponding author at: Faculty of Forest Sciences and Conservation of Nature, Universidad de Chile, Avenida Santa Rosa, 11315, Santiago, Chile.
E-mail address: nguerrero@ug.uchile.cl (N. Guerrero-Leiva).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127227
Received 7 October 2020; Received in revised form 3 June 2021; Accepted 10 June 2021
Available online 16 June 2021
1618-8667/© 2021 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
N. Guerrero-Leiva et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 63 (2021) 127227

may favor a choice based on the value of the native plant or other 2. Methods
ecological functions of the plants (e.g., attraction of pollinators and
retention of atmospheric particulates; Kendal et al., 2012). Thus, resi­ 2.1. Study area
dential gardens are an indicator of the potential of urban biodiversity
(Gaston et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2006; Acar et al., 2007) and provide Santiago is the capital of Chile, and it is located in the metropolitan
information on how sociocultural factors influence the garden compo­ region (RM hereafter; 33◦ 26′ 16′′ S - 70◦ 39′ 01′′ W; Fig. 1). Currently, it
sition (Marco et al., 2010). has an approximate area of 641 km2 and a population of approximately
In recent times, a growing number of authors have emphasized the 6,1 million inhabitants (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas (INE, 2017).
need to reduce the dominance of exotic flora in cities, thereby guiding Thus, it is the most populated urban area in Chile, and as such, it is
the composition of residential gardens towards more native character­ highly vulnerable to land use changes that favor development (Picón
istics (e.g., van Heezik et al., 2012; Oldfield et al., 2013; Freire-Moro et al. 2017). The climate is Mediterranean and characterized by a pro­
et al., 2014; Shaw et al., 2017). Such changes will not only reduce the longed warm dry summer and a cold rainy winter (Luebert and Pliscoff,
pressure in natural ecosystems but also promotes concrete conservation 2006). Santiago is located in the biodiversity hotspot of the Mediterra­
actions. For example, biological corridors should be implemented to nean region, where sclerophyllous forests and scrub are the most com­
attract other organisms and connect isolated habitat patches in the mon vegetation formations (Luebert and Pliscoff, 2006; Rodríguez et al.,
urban matrix (Dearborn and Kark, 2010; Goddard et al., 2010). Despite 2018). However, the high floristic diversity that characterizes natural
their reduced area, the great amount of residential gardens and their areas is poorly represented in Santiago (Figueroa et al., 2016). There are
ubiquity in cities indicates that they are key elements that promote the approximately 200 different species in the RSGs, of which only 11 % are
growth and ex situ propagation of native flora species (van Heezik et al., native, with 89 % composed of exotic species (Guerrero-Leiva et al.,
2012; Gaston et al., 2005). However, few studies have explored the unpublished data). Green spaces in Santiago de Chile are characterized
perception of urban residents towards this flora (see Shaw et al., 2017). by an unequal distribution. This inequality is highly correlated with the
Better understanding this factor is important because forestation ini­ socioeconomic level of the population (De la Barrera et al. 2018). The
tiatives with native species could fail if they are not in alignment with higher the household income level, the larger the total green surface
citizens’ interest. area.
In the current context of accelerated urbanization, the high demand In recent decades, spatial planning in Santiago has been driven by
for housing and the reduction of residential gardens are the main limi­ market-oriented planning pressures, which have led to a critically
tations to developing conservation actions in cities (Oldfield et al., detrimental expansion of Santiago at the expense of the surrounding
2013). Nonetheless, the use of informal spaces, such as residential rural and natural areas (Cox and Hurtubia, 2016).
sidewalk gardens (RSGs), appears to be a promising alternative. These
sites are distributed all over the city and in practice do not have a 2.2. Sampling and survey
function until people take charge of their management (Pellegrini and
Baudry, 2014; Rupprecht and Byrne, 2014). RSGs are located in the To assess the motivations and preferences of citizens regarding flora
easement areas of homes and are perceived as an extension of the grown in their RSGs, we conducted a survey in Santiago. The surveyed
property (Hunter and Brown, 2012; Marshall et al., 2019, 2020). Unlike households were selected through stratified random sampling based on
other residential gardens, RSGs are open to the observation of neighbors photointerpretation of the urban area of the city, which made it possible
and passersby and thus are part of the daily public environment. The to detect approximately 100 sectors where RSGs were abundant. Within
possibility of cultivating native flora in these spaces could help to these sectors, we randomly selected 100 neighborhoods, taking care to
conserve a sample of local diversity while also reestablishing the represent the 37 communes that are part of the urban radius of the city
connection between urban residents and the typical flora of the natural and increasing the sample size in the communes with the largest surface
landscape through closeness, thereby obtaining benefits that contribute area (Fig. 1).
to improving people’s quality of life (Miller and Hobbs, 2002; Miller, In general, the houses in Santiago are of the townhouse type and
2005). However, whether urban residents are willing to conserve native have small interior patios with or without front gardens based on the
flora in their RSG is still unclear. scarcity of land. Only the richest sectors have independent houses with
Exploring the reasons underlying the creation of an RSG and the larger gardens and patios. Likewise, there is an uneven distribution of
factors that influence the selection of their components are the keys to the size and distance of public green areas and the availability and
understanding the extent to which people’s motivations and preferences surface area of easements. To standardize the sample, during the visit to
are compatible with future conservation initiatives (Acar et al., 2007; each neighborhood, we considered the following criteria: (a) home
Shaw et al., 2017). To study these factors, we analyze the case of the city gardens located in the sidewalk easement area at the front or side of a
of Santiago de Chile. Specifically, the aims of this study are to (i) house and (b) gardens composed of at least five different species of
determine the motivations that influence the creation of a sidewalk plants in addition to turfgrass. Criterion (a) describes the most common
garden, (ii) define the characteristics and functional roles of plants type of easement gardens in residential areas in Santiago (curb-side,
selected by gardeners, (iii) analyze the benefits provided by some native middle and sidewalk; see Hunter and Brown, 2012), and criterion b)
species of local interest and (iv) evaluate people’s perception of native establishes a minimum species richness to capture a greater variety of
flora in terms of their knowledge and willingness to host these species in plant characteristics. Turfgrass was excluded because it is a mixture of
their RSGs. Addressing these objectives will provide useful tools for various species that share similar characteristics, including annual
urban landscape planning because the results can be used to predict adventitious herbs, and this mixture is used as the same functional en­
whether future biodiversity management initiatives could be sustained tity. Each of the sites was visited and georeferenced between autumn
in these spaces. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first and spring 2019. When the residents were not at home, we looked for
studies to acknowledge the importance of RSGs as potential spaces for another RSG in the neighborhood that met the indicated criteria.
the conservation of native plant diversity and the provision of social The survey included three sections and 35 questions that addressed
welfare (see Marshall et al., 2019, 2020). the objectives of this study. Section I consisted of a series of open-ended,
closed-ended, and multiple-choice questions. Here, we asked partici­
pants about their reasons for creating a sidewalk garden, general aspects
about garden management (Who created the garden? Who maintains it?
How many years have the garden? Is there another garden? Do you grow only
domesticated plants or naturally established plants as well?), their preferred

2
N. Guerrero-Leiva et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 63 (2021) 127227

Fig. 1. Geographic location of Santiago de Chile and distribution of sampling sites.

characteristics of plants and their perception about native and exotic considered to be important. To do so, the participants were required to
species. In the survey, the concept of “native” was described as an place the nine categories of attributes (derived from the attributes
“original species to Chile that grows naturally in forests, hills and other developed in the previous section) in descending order of importance (9
natural areas”. The concept of “exotic” was defined as a “species origi­ to 1). When necessary, the participants were shown species from the list
nating in another country that is intentionally or accidentally introduced that were present in their gardens but that they could not identify.
by people”. Participants were provided with a list of 30 standardized Then, based on the preferences declared in the survey, we estab­
possible attributes related to their plants that were grouped into nine lished two scoring scales. The first scale (from 0 to 3 points) measured
categories for further analysis: alimentary, ecological, emotional, me­ the participants’ specific knowledge about native flora. For that pur­
dicinal, ornamental, social, structural, symbolic, and native (modified pose, the following questions were posed: Do you know the origin of the
from Molebatsi et al., 2010 and Kirkpatrick et al., 2012; see the details species you are growing? Do you know which of your plants are native? Do
in. you know if any of native species listed are threatened? To confirm the
Section II includes a list of fifteen native species frequently grown in participants’ effective knowledge about the geographic origin of the
RSGs in Santiago (Guerrero-Leiva et al., unpublished data) in addition to species, they were required to identify the native species in their gar­
five other species classified under different threat levels according to the dens. This information was contrasted with the floristic composition
Nómina de Especiessegún Estado de Conservación of the Ministry of the observed in each garden, which allowed us to verify or correct the an­
Environment (Ministerio del Medio Ambiente (MMA, 2020). The twenty swers used in the scoring scales. Similarly, the response to threatened
evaluated species are native to central Chile and correspond to seven species was also verified. The second scoring scale (from 0 to 7 points)
trees, five shrubs, six herbs and two succulents (see below). To facilitate was used to infer how willing citizens are to conserve native flora in
identification, the list included full-color illustrations of each species. their RSGs. To obtain this information, the following key questions were
This tool serves as a visual stimulus that has been validated in the sci­ posed: Is native origin a desirable characteristic in your plants? Would you
entific literature (e.g., Tahvanainen et al., 2001; Cerda et al., 2019), and like to grow more native plants in the future? Would you replace the exotic
it highlights the distinctive morphological features for each species, such species you now grow with native ones? Regarding the list of native species
as flowers, fruit, or leaves. After showing the illustrations to the survey of local interest, the following key questions were posed: Do you grow
respondents, they were instructed to identify which species from the list any of the species on the list? Does the native origin status justify your de­
they were growing in their RSG and the benefits or attributes that they cision to grow them? Would you like to grow any of them in the future? Do

3
N. Guerrero-Leiva et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 63 (2021) 127227

you think it is important to conserve native flora in cities? (regarding garden management, demographic and socioeconomic
Finally, section III presents personal information collected from the background, and experience with nature; see section 2.2) on their
survey respondents (participant anonymity was ensured). This section knowledge about native flora and willingness to conserve, two ordinal
reported on their demographic (sex, age, city of origin, lifestyle, number logistic regressions were applied. The factors from both analyses were
and age of children in the household, and years of residence) and so­ selected previously by exploring the most significant variables through a
cioeconomic background (education level, profession, current occupa­ multiple regression (P ≤ 0.1). First, we conducted a logistic regression in
tion, income level, and home ownership or rental status) as well as their which the dependent variable corresponded to the knowledge about
experience with nature (source of information on environmental issues: native flora, which was reflected in the score. The first factor was ’region
formal environmental education, mass media, visit to urban green areas of origin’, which had two levels: RM and other regions. The second
or wild areas; and family tradition). Given the extremely heterogeneous factor was ‘age’, which was expressed in seven levels: 18–29, 30–39,
socioeconomic context in Santiago de Chile, assessing the influence of 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, 70–79 and > 80 years. Then, another logistic
these characteristics on the positive willingness to cultivate native plants regression was performed in which the dependent variable corre­
is useful for focusing communication efforts on the importance of sponded to the score assigned to willingness to conserve. In this case, the
biodiversity conservation in sectors that present socioeconomic and first factor was ‘region of origin’. The second factor was ‘natural
cultural characteristics that are not driving factors for conservation. dispersion’, which had two levels: tolerant and nontolerant. The third
The complete survey is available through the corresponding author. factor was ‘lifestyle’, which had two levels: close to nature and urban
The description of the participants and the characteristics of the evalu­ life. The fourth factor was ‘income’, which had five levels: < 310,
ated gardens are provided in Appendix A. 310− 620, 620− 930, 930− 1,240 and > 1240 USD. These regressions
were performed using the polr() function in the MASS package in
2.3. Data analysis RStudio.

Data collected through surveys were systematized in an Excel 3. Results

spreadsheet. Variables were identified from the structured questions and
complemented with answers from the open-ended questions. The sta­ 3.1. Motivations to maintain an RSG
tistical analyses were performed using XLSTAT software (Addinsoft,
version 2020.2.3) and RStudio (version 1.3.1073). We identified 16 motivations for creating and maintaining a side­
walk garden. Fascination for plants and gardening and having a beau­
2.3.1. Motivations to maintain an RSG tiful house with its own identity were the main motivations (38 % each).
We asked participants the following open-ended question: What are In 20 % of cases, the sidewalk garden was the only garden in the house.
your motivations for having a sidewalk garden? Since most of the responses The search for nature was provided by 28 % of the participants, while
consisted of a combination of reasons of different natures, each of them the observation of biodiversity was provided by 14 %. The least frequent
was broken down. Next, we classified each answer according to the set of reasons were to share benefits with the community and to avoid parking
variables gathered (examples are provided in Appendix B). cars on the sidewalks (11 % each) (Fig. 2).

2.3.2. Characteristics and functional roles 3.2. Preferred characteristics and functional roles
A hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) was conducted to explore the
preferred characteristics and functional roles of plants grown by the The most preferred characteristics in plants were the attraction of
different residents in Santiago. Categorical variables were the different birds and insects (78 %), the presence of large and colorful flowers (77
attribute categories (see Table 1). For each category and each partici­ %), and the production of shade (70 %). Drought tolerance and envi­
pant, the average frequency was calculated as the [number of attributes ronmental dust retention accounted for 53 % and 47 %, respectively.
preferred by the participant × total number of attributes in category− 1] Additionally, 21 % of the participants preferred to grow species of native
while the native origin was expressed in binary form. Ward’s method origin while 10 % were looking for variety for their gardens. The least
was used as the clustering method, and the Euclidian distance was used preferred attributes were trendy, hallucinogenic properties, and
as the dissimilarity measure. flaunting higher economic status (Table 1). In general, the attributes
Then, the groups of participants were characterized according to that corresponded to the structural category reached the highest fre­
their social variables (garden management, demographic and socio­ quency (99 %), followed by the ornamental and ecological categories
economic background and experience with nature; see section 2.2). The (94 % each), and the social category was the least frequent (29 %).
qualitative variables were contrasted using Pearson’s chi-squared test Regarding plant growth habits, 91 % of the participants preferred a
with Yates’ correction (X2). Quantitative variables were analyzed based mixture of forms, with shrubs and herbs being the most common in
on the data distribution, with a Kruskal-Wallis analysis and Dunn’s test gardens (Table 1).
used to determine the significant differences between the groups. According to the type of attributes preferred in plants (Fig. 3a), we
recognized three groups of participants: utilitarian, native, and neutral
2.3.3. Native species of local interest and benefits they provide (Fig. 3b). The utilitarian group represented 19 % of the participants and
To determine the preferred benefits of native flora among partici­ was characterized by preferring alimentary, ornamental, and medicinal
pants, we calculated how often each category was mentioned at least attributes. This group was mainly composed of women (74 %) who
once. The importance of each attribute was calculated by clustering all learned about nature through family traditions (90 %) and who had less
the species based on the following: [Σ importance value × n−1 1 × n−2 1 ± S. than five years of residence in the home (26 %) (Table 2). All of the
D], where n1 corresponds to the number of participants who indicated participants who preferred to grow native species were included in the
the attribute, and n2 corresponds to the number of species that met this native group, which accounted for 21 % of the participants. This group
attribute. showed high preference for emotional, ecological, symbolic, and struc­
tural attributes (Fig. 3) and were mostly men (67 %) who migrated to
2.3.4. Knowledge and willingness to conserve Santiago from other regions of the country (57 %) and had a profession
To examine the relationship between the participants’ knowledge related to the environment (14 %). Their environmental experience was
and their willingness to conserve, Spearman’s rank correlation was mainly based on visiting wild areas (86 %) and having a lifestyle close to
calculated and tested to examine the significance of the correlation. To nature (81 %). Moreover, most of them were homeowners (95 %) with
determine the influence of the participants’ sociocultural variables more than ten years of residence (81 %) (Table 2). Finally, the neutral

4
N. Guerrero-Leiva et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 63 (2021) 127227

Fig. 2. Main motivations for maintaining an RSG (n = 100).

Furthermore, they only had a garden on the sidewalk (27 %) (Table 2).
Table 1
Preferred attributes in plants grown in RSGs (n = 100) and their categories.
Attributes F% Attributes F%
3.3. Native species of local interest and benefits they provide

Aromatic condiment 59 Brings variety to the garden 10

Fifteen of the 20 native species listed in the survey were present in 70
Edible 53 Ornamental 94
Alimentary 75 Uncommon 26 % of the RSGs evaluated. Among the benefits provided by these species,
Attract birds and insects 78 Trending 4 their ornamental nature was mentioned with the highest frequency (52
Drought tolerance 53 Economic status 1 %) and was associated with 13 species. The structural features (35 %)
Environmental dust retention 46 Social 29 were associated with 8 species, medicinal characteristics (22 %) were
Weed suppression 22 Shade provision 70
Pest repellent 17 Ground cover 66
associated with 4 species, ecological characteristics (20 %) were asso­
Ecological 94 Live fence 57 ciated with 10 species, symbolic characteristics (20 %) were associated
Childhood memory 35 Reduced size 49 with 2 species and the native aspect (17 %) was mentioned for 9 species.
Express who I am 15 Low maintenance 45 The less frequent categories were emotional connection (10 %), which
Memory of loved ones 5 Ordered 7
was associated with 8 species, and alimentary characteristics (9%),
Emotional 41 Structural 99
Medicinal 60 Energy protection 42 which was associated with 3 species. Social attributes were not
Hallucinogenic 3 Religious or cultural value 9 mentioned. On the other hand, the emotive and native categories
Medicinal 60 Symbolic 42 reached a higher importance value (8.3 each), together with the orna­
Large and colorful flowers 77 Native to Chile 21 mental (8.2) and structural and symbolic categories (8.1 each). The least
Leaves with textures and colors 55 Shrubs 80
Seasonal flowers 25 Herbs 79
important categories were medicinal (7.8), ecological (7.6) and
Evergreen foliage 16 Trees 68 alimentary (7.4) (Table 3).
Combines with the garden 11 Succulents 63 At the species level, Aristotelia chilensis (Molina) Stuntz, Cryptocarya
alba (Molina) Looser, Quillaja saponaria Molina and Echinopsis chiloensis
(Colla) Friedrich & G.D. Rowley were highly valued for their native
group was characterized by low preference values for all attribute types
status and Caesalpinia gilliesii (Wall. ex Hook.) D. Dietr., Escallonia rubra
studied, and it accounted for 60 % of the participants (Fig. 3). Most of
(Ruiz & Pav.) Pers., Carpobrotus chilensis (Molina) N.E. Br. and Nassella
these people had an urban lifestyle (65 %) and were retired (32 %).
spp. were noted for their ornamental value. Structural attributes were

Fig. 3. (a) Dissimilarity of plant attributes preferred by participants and (b) frequency (%) in the utilitarian (n = 19), native (n = 21) and neutral (n = 60) groups.

5
N. Guerrero-Leiva et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 63 (2021) 127227

Table 2
Social descriptors of the groups of participants (F%). Asterisks next to the values of the qualitative variables indicate a significant contrast of proportions (X2 > 2.072; P
< 0.15). The letters next to the values of the quantitative variable indicate significantly different groups (Dunn test). The bold indicate the highest values of the
descriptive variables of each group or significantly different values in the case of quantitative variables.
Variable type Variables Level Utilitarian group (n = 19) Native group (n = 21) Neutral group (n = 60)

Demographic Gender Woman 73.7* 33.3* 50.0

Residence < 5 years 26.3* 14.3 11.7
Socioeconomic Student 21.0* 4.8 5.0
Occupation
Housewife 21.0* 19.0 8.3
Environmental experience Family tradition 89.5* 71.4* 81.7
Gender Man 26.3* 66.7* 50.0
Demographic
Region of origin Other regions 47.4 57.1* 38.3
Owners Yes 73.7 95.2* 76.7
Residence > 10 years 63.2 80.9* 63.3
Socioeconomic
Profession Environmental 0.0 14.3* 5.0
Income 310− 620USD 31.6 52.4* 33.3
Lifestyle Close-to-nature 52.6 80.9* 35.0*
Environmental experience
Visit wilderness areas 78.9 85.7* 63.3*
Garden creator Yes 89.5 66.7* 93.3*
Garden management Garden years Yes 19.9 ± 16b 18.4 ± 13b 10.4 ± 6a
Unique garden Yes 10.5 9.5 26.7*
Socioeconomic Residence 5− 10 years 10.5 4.7* 25.0*
Environmental experience Lifestyle Urban life 47.4 19.0* 65.0*

Table 3
Importance value of attributes of native species in the RSGs (X ± SD) (1: alimentary; 2: ecological; 3: emotional; 4: medicinal; 5: ornamental; 6: social; 7: structural; 8:
symbolic; and 9: native) and its frequency in the RSGs.
Species F% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Acacia caven 4 – 7.0 ± 0 8.5 ± 1 – 7.8 ± 2 – – – 8.3 ± 1

Aristotelia chilensis 7 7.8 ± 1 7.0 ± 1 8.0 ± 0 8.0 ± 0 7.7 ± 1 – – – 9.0 ± 0
Beilschmiedia miersii** 0 – – – – – – – – –
Cryptocarya alba 5 5.5 ± 1 – 8.0 ± 1 7.0 ± 1 7.0 ± 1 – 7.5 ± 1 – 8.8 ± 0
Jubaea chilensis*** 0 – – – – – – - – –
Quillaja saponaria 2 – – – – 8.5 ± 1 – 7.0 ± 0 – 9.0 ± 0
Schinus areira 9 – 8.0 ± 0 – – 7.9 ± 1 – 8.9 ± 0 – –
Avellanita bustillosii*** 0 – – – – – – – – –
Baccharis linearis 2 9.0 ± 0 – – – 7.5 ± 1 – – – 8.5 ± 1
Caesalpinia gilliesii 4 – 8.0 ± 1 8.0 ± 0 – 8.8 ± 1 – – – –
Cestrum parqui 21 – 8.0 ± 1 8.0 ± 0 7.0 ± 1 7.4 ± 1 – 8.3 ± 1 8.6 ± 1 8.3 ± 1
Escallonia rubra 2 – 7.0 ± 0 – – 9.0 ± 0 – 8.0 ± 0 – 6.0 ± 0
Carpobrotus chilensis 2 – – – – 9.0 ± 0 – 8.0 ± 0 – –
Echinopsis chiloensis* 9 – 8.0 ± 0 9.0 ± 0 – 8.6 ± 1 – – 7.5 ± 1 9.0 ± 0
Alstroemeria spp 0 – – – – – – – – –
Dichondra sericea 6 – – – – – – 9.0 ± 0 – –
Dysphania ambrosioides 18 – 8.0 ± 0 8.0 ± 0 9.0 ± 0 – – – – 7.7 ± 1
Nassella spp 3 – 8.0 ± 0 – – 9.0 ± 0 – – – –
Oxalis rosea 18 – 7.0 ± 0 9.0 ± 0 – 8.8 ± 0 – 8.1 ± 0 – –
Sisyrinchium striatum 0 – – – – – – – – –
F% 9 20 10 22 52 - 35 20 17
X 7.4 ± 2 7.6 ± 1 8.3 ± 1 7.8 ± 1 8.2 ± 1 - 8.1 ± 0 8.1 ± 1 8.3 ± 1

*
Near threatened.
**
Vulnerable.
***
Endangered.

the most valued in Schinus areira L., which is a shade-producing tree, and growing more native species in the future and willing to replace exotic
Dichondra sericea Sw., which is a groundcover plant. Acacia caven species (54 %). Regarding the listed species, 70 % of the participants
(Molina) Molina and Oxalis rosea Jacq. were linked to the emotive cultivated some of them, although only 17 % did so due to their origin.
category. Finally, Baccharis linearis (Ruiz & Pav.) Pers., Cestrum parqui Twenty-seven percent were aware of the threatened status of some of the
L’Hér. and Dysphania ambrosioides (L.) Mosyakin & Clemants were noted species in the conservation category, mainly Jubaea chilensis (Molina)
for their alimentary, symbolic, and medicinal attributes, respectively Baill. (EN) and Beilschmiedia miersii (Gay) Kosterm. (VU). Nonetheless,
(Table 3). all of the participants showed interest in growing some of these species
in the future because they considered it important to conserve native
flora in cities (86 %).
3.4. Knowledge and willingness to conserve
The participants’ knowledge of native flora ranged between 0 and 3
points, with a median of 1 point and an average of 0.96. After dis­
Based on the stated preferences, most participants were unaware of
the origin of the species they grew (89 % totally or partially). Thus, the aggregating the data, the native group scored higher (X = 1.8; median =
participants were not able to identify some or all of the native species in 2), followed by the utilitarian group (X = 1.0; median = 0), with the
their gardens (70 %). Only 21 % of them indicated that the native origin neutral group presenting the lowest score (X = 0.6; median = 0)
of a plant species was a desired attribute, and 17 % valued this attribute (Fig. 4a). Willingness to conserve in RSGs ranged between 1 and 7
for some of the evaluated species. However, 85 % were interested in points, with a median of 4 points and an average of 4.3 points. Again, the

6
N. Guerrero-Leiva et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 63 (2021) 127227

native group reached higher scores (X = 5.9; median = 6) than the experiences that define types of citizens more or less inclined to
utilitarian group (X = 4.3; median = 4) and neutral group (X = 3.8; acknowledge the importance of local biodiversity (Marco et al., 2010).
median = 4) (Fig. 4b). Spearman’s correlation revealed a significant These tendencies were determined by factors that included preferences,
correlation between knowledge about native flora and participants’ principles, memories, interpersonal values, and social norms, which
willingness to conserve (R = 0.392, P < 0.0001) and showed that greater constitute relational values (Chan et al., 2016, 2018; Marshall et al.,
knowledge corresponded to a greater willingness to conserve, and vice 2020). These values differ from the classic utilitarian or intrinsic argu­
versa. ments, which despite being useful for environmental management, are
The ordinal logistic regressions regarding sociocultural variables often excessively reductionist. In fact, the heterogeneity of benefits
showed that knowledge about native flora depended on the ‘age’ factor expressed by a single respondent could indicate that the different at­
(Value = 0.255, P = 0.019), which showed that a higher level of natural tributes of the plants influenced each other and that their joint appre­
knowledge was associated with lower age. The ‘region of origin’ factor ciation was formed through relational processes.
was partially significant (Value = 0.121, P = 0.053). The second ordinal Some of the most prominent differences between the utilitarian
logistic regressions indicated that the willingness to conserve mainly group and the native group were gender, environmental experience, and
depended on the factor ‘income level’ (Value = 0.44, P = 0.007), with a residence time at home. We found that food and medicine were asso­
positive relation observed between a higher income level and a higher ciated with the female gender and family traditions, especially in
willingness to conserve. However, ‘region of origin’ was close to sig­ housewives, while men had more contact with the natural landscape.
nificance (Value = 0.12, P = 0.057). However, our results also showed that the RSGs were used as a support
for the household economy, especially during the first years of resi­
4. Discussion dence. Moreover, people who preferred to grow native plants had a
longer residence, which is consistent with studies that indicate that it
Exploring the reasons behind the creation of RSGs and the factors takes at least five years for people to decide which type of plants they
that influence the selection of their components are key factors for un­ prefer to grow (Kendal et al., 2012). In addition, gardens are often
derstanding the extent to which people’s motivations and preferences redesigned until the gardener achieves a floristic composition that meets
coincide with future conservation initiatives. Our results showed that both their immediate needs and the expression of their ideology (Kirk­
RSGs are an essential part of the house; however, unlike courtyards and patrick et al., 2012; van Heezik et al., 2014; Shackleton et al., 2015).
inner gardens, which are seen as an exclusive part of the domestic world The participants’ knowledge about native flora was a significant
(Clayton, 2007), RSGs are also perceived as an important part of the factor that influenced their willingness to conserve. The greater the
urban ecosystem. knowledge, the greater the willingness to conserve. In addition, a
Plants with large, colorful flowers attract a greater diversity of pol­ younger age was a determinant of a higher level of natural knowledge.
linators, which is a sign of a resource-rich habitat (Kendal et al., 2012; We also found that a higher income level was associated with a higher
Kirkpatrick et al., 2012; Conway, 2016). For that reason, it is not sur­ willingness to conserve. We hypothesize that younger people reached
prising that these attributes were the most preferred by participants in greater knowledge and willingness to conserve native species because
our study. However, other characteristics and functional roles of plants they may have received more information about the native flora of Chile
were not restricted. For example, in Santiago, low rainfall and long through formal education (Martin-López et al., 2007). This education
drought periods are a major problem, especially during the summer. In may be causing a higher level of familiarity with native species, thus
addition, air pollution (World Health Organization (WHO, 2016) is influencing the willingness to conserve. With respect to the influence of
caused by vehicle emissions and other sources. Regardless of the size of income, other studies in Chile found that a positive willingness to pay for
the RSG, most participants included at least one tree in the garden to conserving native plants in protected areas is affected by the income of
regulate thermal sensation, and they preferred shade-producing or visitors (Cerda et al., 2018).
drought-resistant plants. However, shrubs were effectively used as a People who identified with an urban lifestyle only expressed pref­
barrier for street dust, thus helping to reduce the load of suspended erences for a limited number of attributes. This finding and the high
particles at the local level (Guerrero-Leiva et al., 2016). number of participants in the neutral group could be indicators of the
We also evaluated some intangible attributes of plants that were extinction of the experience that occurs in large cities, where low
related to the appreciation of the native origin, which shows that the interaction with nature limits the ability to perceive and actively assess
decision to grow a particular species is influenced by personal its potential benefits (Miller, 2005; Camps-Calvet et al., 2016; Lin et al.,

Fig. 4. Scores of (a) knowledge and (b) willingness to conserve native flora in the RSG. The box indicates the median and Q1-Q3 values of the score, the marker
indicates the mean, and the bars indicate the minimum and maximum values.

7
N. Guerrero-Leiva et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 63 (2021) 127227

2017). Although more than half of the respondents were in the neutral environment that went beyond the boundaries of the property. In this
group, most of the respondents in our sample stated an interest in sense, the people who currently maintain a sidewalk garden would
cultivating native plants in the future, with half of them indicating that already be promoting the recovery of the link with biodiversity; there­
they would use natives to replace exotic species. This fact opens the fore, they would be receptive to incorporating threatened species into
possibility of strengthening the role of RSGs as conservation spaces. these spaces.
With respect to the perceptions of native and exotic species, our re­ In summary, RSGs are not only an expression of biophilia (i.e.,
sults show that people maintain an emotional bond with their plants, fascination for plants and gardening; Camps-Calvet et al., 2016) but the
both native and exotic, and thud would not be willing to discard the consequence of a series of interconnected factors. The need to create a
plants. However, the representation of both plant origins in some cities, more natural landscape that incorporates "green over gray" is a common
such as Santiago, is far from balanced (Figueroa et al., 2016; Castro motivation of urban gardening, thus highlighting the psychological and
et al., 2018). Although some people declared a preference for native spiritual benefits that this activity provides (Dunnett and Qasim, 2000;
species, all gardens were dominated by exotic plants, such as Cynodon Dearborn and Kark, 2010; Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013).
dactylon (L.) Pers. and Poa annua L. in turfgrass or Ligustrum ovalifolium The possibility of modifying the immediate environment through
Hassk. on living fences. Public street trees that cohabit the easement gardening strengthens the sense of belonging and the identity of the
areas with RSGs were also dominated by exotic species, such as Acer household, thus allowing us to break the homogeneous patterns char­
negundo L. and Robinia pseudoacacia L. (Guerrero-Leiva et al, unpub­ acteristic of residential sectors (Clayton, 2007). The neighborhood
lished data). development date, property size, presence of other gardens, and social
People who cultivated native plants believed that this flora was part disadvantages are related to the unequal distribution of easement areas
of their cultural heritage. However, those who only cultivated exotic in cities (Marshall et al., 2020), which could limit the expansion of RSGs.
plants did not know Chilean species, did not know where to buy them or However, small spaces do not appear to be a disincentive to building a
had never questioned the origin of their plants. The actual composition garden (although they may discourage growing large trees). Here, social
of RSGs revealed that many survey respondents misidentified native contagion is a common phenomenon since all plants are visible to
species as exotics, and vice versa. Indeed, native species were included neighbors (Hunter and Brown, 2012; Marshall et al., 2019). This implies
in most gardens, although only 30 % of the participants were able to that certain gardening styles and floristic compositions are replicated,
recognize them. On the other hand, 5 % of people strongly believed that thereby encouraging other neighbors to intervene in public space
all their plants were native since they had known of them since child­ (Marshall et al., 2020). This finding suggests that RSGs satisfy a series of
hood and the plants were common throughout the city. This finding needs relevant to people’s quality of life, which justifies the decision to
shows that both knowledge and individual experience condition peo­ invest time and money in an informal urban space. At the ecological
ple’s perceptions and attitudes towards biodiversity and are key to level, RSGs generate patches of vegetation with a complex and highly
native flora being recognized and valued in cities (Zhang and Jim, variable composition that favors the biological and functional diversity
2014). of the urban ecosystem (Alberti et al., 2003).
The motivation to cultivate native flora was not based only on the While biodiversity observation did not occupy a prominent position
origin. In fact, in six of the fifteen species analyzed, the native origin was among the reasons for building a garden (although it was relevant in the
irrelevant to people, with other types of attributes received a high rating. selection of species), this and other environmental benefits would arise
Being able to perceive these “secondary” benefits in native flora could as a result of its management. The RSGs as a whole accumulate char­
facilitate their incorporation into gardens, and the benefits could grad­ acteristics of a discontinuous biological corridor (Hunter and Brown,
ually replace the functions dominated by exotic species (Zhang and Jim, 2012), which facilitates the natural or assisted propagation of native
2014; Shaw et al., 2017). A fundamental condition for such replacement flora. In turn, these spaces could act as temporary refuges for fauna that
is the freedom to choose which species to cultivate because, as our re­ venture into cities (Goddard et al., 2010; Gómez-Baggethun and Barton,
sults showed, the perception of the provided benefits and their impor­ 2013; van Heezik et al., 2014).
tance are different and individual. For example, images of C. alba evoked Although the role of native and exotic flora in cities has been widely
some childhood memories regarding the sclerophyllous forest. For other discussed, there is a consensus that none of these origins can be
people, this species was seen as an efficient alternative to shade. completely excluded (Kowarik, 2011; Oldfield et al., 2013; van Heezik
With respect to endangered species in gardens, we only identified the et al., 2014). Even under a conservation approach, exotic species are
presence of E. chiloensis (NT) among the threatened species in RSGs. necessary to increase the complexity and functional diversity of urban
Although its native status was the most valued attribute, the participants ecosystems, thus ensuring the provision of multiple benefits for citizens
did not know that it was under a conservation category. Instead, 27 % of (Dearborn and Kark, 2010
people knew that J. chilensis (EN) and B. miersii (VU) were threatened. Urbanized areas require more flexible and perhaps less ambitious
These two species are emblematic of central Chile; thus, it was to be ecological strategies (Dearborn and Kark, 2010; Kowarik, 2011), such as
expected that some people would be familiar with their conservation implementing conservation actions in places where people live or work
status. However, the idea of cultivating a specimen of B. miersii in the and turning native species into everyday elements (Miller and Hobbs,
future was not attractive, which is probably due to its dimensions. In 2002). A key challenge for conservation in cities is for community ini­
contrast, smaller species, such as E. chiloensis (19 %), J. chilensis (17 %), tiatives to be recognized by the public sphere, which will change the
and Alstroemeria spp. (16 %; VU, EN), had better acceptance and could be normative beliefs that discourage the propagation of this type of garden
successfully incorporated into future conservation actions. Meanwhile, (Marshall et al., 2020). Future research should assess the effect of nature
Avellanita bustillosii Phil. (EN) only aroused the interest of two people. relatedness, sense of community, behavioral and normative beliefs, and
This shrub is an occasional species of sclerophyllous forests and lacks motivation to comply with these beliefs (Marshall et al., 2020) on the
attractive characteristics, which could explain why participants’ floristic composition of RSGs.
perception of it was considerably less favorable relative to emblematic
species. 5. Conclusions
In general terms, participants were willing to conserve native flora in
their RSG (X = 4.35; max = 7.0), even though they showed limited Our results indicate that although RSGs are an undervalued resource
specific knowledge (X = 0.96; max = 3.0). These results suggest that it in cities, they represent strategic spaces for managing biodiversity. In
could be possible to bridge the gap between conservation needs and this sense, RSGs meet the minimum sufficient conditions for conserving
citizen preferences. This study identified an explicit concern for the native flora in the future, which would potentially be compatible with
the motivations and preferences of their owners. Although the

8
N. Guerrero-Leiva et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 63 (2021) 127227

willingness to conserve in Santiago was not optimal, an explicit rejection Acknowledgments

of native flora was not observed. The positive willingness of participants
to have native flora in their RSGs in the future allows for the visuali­ The authors wish to thank the master’s program in Wild Areas and
zation of the potential role of these spaces in conserving biodiversity in Nature Conservation (MASCN) at the University of Chile. Also thank the
cities. Exploring the multiple dimensions of preference for species that residents of the city of Santiago who participated in the survey, for their
make up gardens (e.g., childhood memories or symbolic importance) kindness and tolerance. And two anonymous reviewers for the critical
may contribute to understanding the underlying complexity of urban review of the manuscript and its translation into English.
residents’ plant choices.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors report no declarations of interest.

Appendix A

Sociocultural variables of the participants and RSG features (n = 100)

Variable type Variables Level F% Variable type Variables Level F%

Interviewed* 87 Yes 63
Children at home
Woman 50 No 37
Garden creator Demographic
Man 46 RM 56
Region of origin
Unknown 4 Other regions 44
Interviewed* 93 Yes 80
Owners
Garden maintainer Woman 53 No 20
Man 47 <5 15
3–10 64 Residence (years) 5–10 18
2 11–20 29 > 10 67
Garden area (m )
21–30 5 Primary 17
> 30 2 Education High school 37
Garden management <1 3 University 46
1–5 20 Environmental 6
Profession
6–10 26 Other profession 94
Garden years Socioeconomic
11–15 19 Student 8
16–20 19 Housewife 13
Current occupation
> 20 14 Employee 51
Yes 20 Retired 28
Unique garden
No 80 < 310 28
Tolerant 46 310− 620 37
Natural dispersion
Nontolerant 54 620− 930 21
Income (USD)
Native 75 930–1240 2
Species origin
Exotic 100 > 1240 4
Woman 51 Does not say 8
Gender
Man 49 Urban life 52
Lifestyle
18–29 9 Close-to-nature 48
30–39 14 Formal education 24
Demographic 40–49 14 Environmental experience Mass media information 95
Age (years) 50–59 19 Visit urban parks 77
60–69 14 Visit wilderness areas 71
70–79 16 Family tradition 81
80− 89 14

*Indicates how many of the people interviewed were responsible for creating the RSG or are currently in charge of maintaining it.

Appendix B

Construction of variables and classification of the following open-ended question: What motivates you to maintain a garden on the sidewalk? (a: fascination with plants and gardening; b:
obtain products and save money; c: family tradition; d: search for the natural; e: diversity of plants, birds and insects; and f: clean the air and produce more oxygen)

Interviewed/Answers a b c d e f

N◦ 6. I like plants and vegetables, everything that helps the kitchen. That is how it was when I lived in the countryside. We should do the same with the 1 1 1 1 0 0
plants here, especially with what is natural.
N◦ 15. To see little birds and produce oxygen. I love plants, and I spend all my free time gardening or tending to my seedlings. I love growing products in 1 1 0 0 1 1
my own garden and bringing them to the table.

9
N. Guerrero-Leiva et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 63 (2021) 127227

References Kowarik, I., 2011. Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environ.
Pollut. 159, 1974–1983.
Lin, B.B., Gaston, K.J., Fuller, R.A., Wu, D., Bush, R., Shanahan, D.F., 2017. How green is
Acar, C., Acar, H., Eroğlu, E., 2007. Evaluation of ornamental plant resources to urban
your garden? Urban form and socio-demographic factors influence yard vegetation,
biodiversity and cultural changing: a case study of residential landscapes in Trabzon
visitation, and ecosystem service benefits. Landsc. Urban Plan. 157, 239–246.
city (Turkey). Build. Environ. 42, 218–229.
Luebert, F., Pliscoff, P., 2006. Sinopsis Bioclimática y Vegetacional de Chile, first edition.
Alberti, M., Marzluff, J.M., Shulenberger, E., Bradley, G., Ryan, C., Zumbrunnen, C.,
Universitaria, Santiago.
2003. Integrating humans into ecology: opportunities and challenges for studying
Marco, A., Barthelemy, C., Dutoit, T., Bertaudière-Montes, V., 2010. Bridging human and
urban ecosystems. BioScience 53 (12), 1169–1179.
natural sciences for a better understanding of urban floral patterns: the role of
Cameron, R.W.F., Blanusa, T., Taylor, E.J., Salisbury, A., Healstead, A.J., Henricot, B.,
planting practices in Mediterranean gardens. Ecol. Soc. 15 (2), 2.
Thompson, K., 2012. The domestic garden – its contribution to urban green
Marshall, A.J., Grose, M.J., Williams, N.S.G., 2019. Footpaths, tree cut-outs and social
infrastructure. Urban For. Urban Green. 11, 129–137.
contagion drive citizen greening in the road verge. Urban For. Urban Green. 44,
Camps-Calvet, M., Langemeyer, J., Calvet-Mir, L., Gómez-Baggethun, E., 2016.
126427.
Ecosystem services provided by urban gardens in Barcelona, Spain: insights for
Marshall, A.J., Grose, M.J., Williams, N.S.G., 2020. Of mowers and growers: perceived
policy and planning. Environ. Sci. Policy 62, 14–23.
social norms strongly influence verge gardening, a distinctive civic greening
Cerda, C., Fuentes, J.P., Mancilla, G., 2018. Can conservation in protected areas and
practice. Landsc. Urban Plan. 198, 103795.
visitor preferences converge? An empirical study in Central Chile. Biodivers.
Martin-López, B., Montes, C., Benayas, J., 2007. The non-economic motives behind the
Conserv. 27, 1431–1451.
willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 139, 67–82.
Cerda, C., Silva-Rodríguez, E., Briceño, C. (Eds.), 2019. Naturaleza en Sociedad, first
Miller, J.R., 2005. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends
edition. Ocho Libros, Santiago.
Ecol. Evol. 20, 430–434.
Chan, K.M.A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-
Miller, J.R., Hobbs, R.J., 2002. Conservation where people live and work. Conserv. Biol.
Baggethun, E., Gould, R., Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S., Luck, G.W., Martín-
16, 330–337.
López, B., Muraca, B., Norton, B., Ott, K., Pascual, U., Satterfield, T., Tadaki, M.,
Ministerio del Medio Ambiente (MMA), 2020. Nómina de Especies según Estado de
Taggart, J., Turner, N., 2016. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the
Conservación. Retrieved May 4th, 2020 from. https://clasificacionespecies.mma.
environment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 113 (6), 1462–1465.
gob.cl/.
Chan, K.M., Gould, R.K., Pascual, U., 2018. Editorial overview: Relational values: what
Molebatsi, L.Y., Siebert, S.J., Cilliers, S.S., Lubbe, C.S., Davoren, E., 2010. The Tswana
are they, and what’s the fuss about? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 35, A1–A7.
tshimo: a homegarden system of useful plants with a particular layout and function.
Clayton, S., 2007. Domesticated nature: motivations for gardening and perceptions of
Afr. J. Agric. Res. 5 (21), 2952–2963.
environmental impact. J. Environ. Psychol. 27, 215–224.
Oldfield, E.E., Warren, R.J., Felson, A.J., Bradford, M.A., 2013. Challenges and future
Conway, T.M., 2016. Tending their urban forest: resident’s motivations for tree planting
directions in urban afforestation. J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 1169–1177.
and removal. Urban For. Urban Green. 17, 23–32.
Pellegrini, P., Baudry, S., 2014. Streets as new places to bring together both humans and
Cox, T., Hurtubia, R., 2016. Vectores de expansión urbana y su interacción con los
plants: examples from Paris and Montpellier (France). Soc. Cult. Geogr. 15 (8),
patrones socioeconómicos existentes en la ciudad de Santiago. EURE 42 (127).
871–900.
Dearborn, D.G., Kark, S., 2010. Motivations for conserving urban biodiversity. Conserv.
Rodríguez, R., Marticorena, C., Alarcón, D., Baeza, C., Cavieres, L., Finot, V.L.,
Biol. 24, 432–440.
Fuentes, N., Kiessling, A., Mihoc, M., Pauchard, A., Ruíz, E., Sánchez, P.,
Dunnett, N., Qasim, M., 2000. Perceived benefits to human well-being of urban gardens.
Marticorena, A., 2018. Catálogo de las plantas vasculares de Chile. Gayana Bot. 75
HorTechnology 10 (1), 40–45.
(1), 1–430.
Figueroa, J.A., Teillier, S., Guerrero-Leiva, N., Ray-Bobadilla, C., Rivano, S.,
Rupprecht, C.D.D., Byrne, J.A., 2014. Informal urban green-space: comparison of
Saavedra, D., Castro, S.A., 2016. Vascular flora in public spaces of Santiago, Chile.
quantity and characteristics in Brisbane, Australia and Sapporo, Japan. PLoS ONE 9
Gayana Bot. 73 (1), 85–103.
(6), e99784.
Freire-Moro, M., Westerkamp, C., Soares de Araújo, F., 2014. How much importance is
Shackleton, S., Chinyimba, A., Hebinck, P., Shackleton, C., Kaoma, H., 2015. Multiple
given to native plants in cities’ treescape? A case study in Fortaleza, Brazil. Urban
benefits and values of trees in urban landscapes in two towns in northern South
For. Urban Green. 13, 365–374.
Africa. Landsc. Urban Plan. 136, 76–86.
Gaston, K.J., Warren, P.H., Thompson, K., Smith, R.M., 2005. Urban domestic gardens
Shaw, A., Miller, K.K., Wescott, G., 2017. Australian native gardens: Is there scope for a
(IV): the extent of the resource and its associated features. Biodivers. Conserv. 14,
community shift? Landsc. Urban Plan. 157, 322–330.
3327–3349.
Smith, R.M., Thompson, K., Hodgson, J.G., Warren, P.H., Gaston, K.J., 2006. Urban
Goddard, M.A., Dougill, A.J., Benton, T.G., 2010. Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity
domestic gardens (IX): composition and richness of the vascular plant flora, and
conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25 (2), 90–98.
implications for native biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 129, 312–322.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for
Tahvanainen, L., Tyrväinen, L., Ihalainen, M., Vuorela, N., Kolehmainen, O., 2001. Forest
urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86, 235–245.
management and public perceptions – visual versus verbal information. Landsc.
Grimm, N.B., Faeth, S.H., Golubiewski, N.E., Redman, C.L., Wu, J., Bai, X., Briggs, J.M.,
Urban Plan. 53, 53–70.
2008. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319, 756–760.
van Heezik, Y.M., Dickinson, K.J.M., Freeman, C., 2012. Closing the gap: communicating
Guerrero-Leiva, N., Castro, S.A., Rubio, M.A., Ortiz-Calderón, C., 2016. Retention of
to change gardening practices in support of native biodiversity in urban private
atmospheric particulate by three woody ornamental species in Santiago, Chile.
gardens. Ecol. Soc. 17 (1), 34.
Water Air Soil Pollut. 227, 435.
van Heezik, Y.M., Freeman, C., Porter, S., Dickinson, K.J.M., 2014. Native and exotic
Hunter, M.C.R., Brown, D.G., 2012. Spatial contagion: gardening along the street in
woody vegetation communities in domestic gardens in relation to social and
residential neighborhoods. Landsc. Urban Plan. 105, 407–416.
environmental factors. Ecol. Soc. 19 (4), 17.
Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas (INE), 2017. Resultados definitivos Censo 2017:
World Health Organization (WHO), 2016. Ambient Air Pollution Database. Retrieved
Población total por sexo y área urbana-rural, según edad simple. Retrieved May 4th,
May 4th, 2020 from. http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/d
2020 from. https://www.ine.cl/estadisticas/sociales/censos-de-poblacion-y-vivie
atabases/cities/en/.
nda/poblacion-y-vivienda.
Zhang, H., Jim, C.Y., 2014. Species diversity and performance assessment of trees in
Kendal, D., Williams, K.J.H., Williams, N.S.G., 2012. Plant traits link people’s plant
domestic gardens. Landsc. Urban Plan. 128, 23–34.
preferences to the composition of their gardens. Landsc. Urban Plan. 105, 34–42.
Kirkpatrick, J.B., Davison, A., Daniels, G.D., 2012. Resident attitudes toward trees
influence the planting and removal of different types of trees in eastern Australian
cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 107, 147–158.

10