Urban grasslands for different city zones: a scenario assessment integrating public preferences and management aspects
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22616/j.landarchart.2026.28.03Keywords:
urban meadows, a scenario-based assessment, public perception, city functional zonesAbstract
Urban grasslands are increasingly promoted as biodiversity-oriented alternatives to intensively managed lawns. However, their implementation in Latvian cities remains fragmented and is rarely embedded within comprehensive green infrastructure planning. Municipalities often lack spatially differentiated planning tools that integrate public preferences, management regimes and long-term cost considerations. The paper addresses this gap, and the aim of the study is to develop a scenario-based assessment framework to identify suitable functional urban zones for urban grassland integration, using Jelgava, Latvia, as a pilot case, with a particular focus on those functional zones where municipalities could systematically incorporate urban meadows as elements of green infrastructure within thematic spatial plans for urban territories. The research combines prior survey data on public perceptions with spatial analysis and management modelling. Functional urban zones appropriate for urban grassland implementation were selected, and integration models were developed for each zone group, distinguishing between flowering urban meadows and extensively managed existing grasslands. The proportional coverage of grasslands within each zone was modelled through test planning, and lifecycle costs were calculated over a five-year period, including both establishment and maintenance regimes. Two city-scale integration scenarios were subsequently developed, enabling comparison between establishmentintensive and management-transition approaches. The results demonstrate that spatial differentiation is critical. Larger and more continuous grassland areas can be allocated in peripheral zones, particularly near natural territories, as well as in railway corridors and technical areas, while central streetscapes and residential courtyards require controlled proportions and clearly defined design solutions to ensure public acceptance. The study concludes that urban grassland integration should be framed as a reform of maintenance regimes embedded within municipal green infrastructure planning. By linking public perception, spatial typology and differentiated management practices within a scenario-based framework, municipalities can move beyond isolated pilot projects toward systematic, cost-efficient and socially acceptable implementation of urban grasslands across functional city zones.
References
1. Aronson, M. F. J., Lepczyk, C. A., Evans, K. L., Goddard, M. A., Lerman, S. B., MacIvor, J. S., Vargo, T. (2017). Biodiversity in the city: Key challenges for urban green space management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15(4), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1480
2. Baruch, Z., Liddicoat, C., Cando-Dumancela, C., Laws, M., Morelli, H., Weinstein, P., Young, J. M., Breed, M. F. (2020). Increased plant species richness associates with greater soil bacterial diversity in urban green spaces. Environmental Research, 196, 110425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110425
3. Bixler, R. D., Floyd, M. F. (1997). Nature is scary, disgusting and uncomfortable. Environment and Behavior, 29(4), 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659702900401
4. Bunkse, E.V. (2000). Reality of Rural Landscape Symbolism in the Formation of a Post-Soviet, Postmodern Latvian Identity. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift, 53, 121-138.
5. Buri, P., Arlettaza, R., Humberta, J.Y. (2013). Delaying mowing and leaving uncut refuges boosts orthopterans inextensively managed meadows: Evidence drawn from field-scale experimentation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 181, 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.09.003
6. Canter, D. (1977). The psychology of place. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 198 p.
7. Cēsu novada pašvaldība (n.d.-a) Apstādījumu uzturēšanas un aizsardzības noteikumi Cēsu novada pašvaldības teritorijā. LIKUMI. LV.https://likumi.lv/ta/id/349588-apstadijumu-uzturesanasun-aizsardzibas-noteikumi-cesu-novada-pasvaldibas-teritorija
8. Cēsu novada pašvaldība (n.d.-b) Cēsu novada pašvaldība īstenos projektu zālāju biotopu atjaunošanai un uzturēšanai. cesis.lv. https://www.cesis.lv/lv/novads/aktualitates/zinas/vide/cesu-novada-pasvaldiba-istenos-projektu-zalaju-biotopuatjaunosanai-un-uzturesanai/
9. Chollet, S., Brabant, Ch., Tessier, S., Jung, V. (2018). From urban lawns to urban meadows: Reduction of mowing frequency increases plant taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 180, 121–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.009
10. Dushkova, D., Ignatieva, M. (2025). Rethinking Urban Lawns: Rewilding and other Nature-Based Alternatives. Diversity, 17(12), 830. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17120830
11. European Commission (2020a). Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 (2026, January 16). https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_en
12. European Commission (2020b). EU Green infrastructure Strategy (2026, January 19). https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/green-infrastructure_en
13. GrassLife (n.d.). https://www.grasslife.lv/
14. Hedblom, M., Lindberg, F., Vogel, E., Wissman J., Ahrné, K. (2017). Estimating urban lawn cover in space and time: Case studies in three Swedish cities. Urban Ecosystistems, 20, 109–1119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-017-0658-1
15. Hoyle, H., Jorgensen, A., Warren, P., Dunnett, N., Evans, K. (2017). “Not in their front yard” The opportunities and challenges of introducing perennial urban meadows: A local authority stakeholder perspective. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 25, 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.009
16. Igaühe looduskaitse - Elfond (n.d.). Elfond.ee. https://elfond.ee/tuleniitma
17. Ignatieva, M. (2017). Lawn alternatives in Sweden: From theory to practice. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. 159 p.
18. Ignatieva, M., Eriksson, F., Eriksson, T., Berg, P., Hedblom, M. (2017). The lawn as a social and cultural phenomenon in Sweden. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 21, 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.12.006
19. Ile, U. (2019). The landscape ecological and aesthetic values in the urban green structure of the city of Jelgava. Landscape Architecture and Art, 14 (14), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.22616/j.landarchart.2019.14.07
20. Jelgavas valstspilsētas pašvaldība (2023). Jelgavas valstspilsētas un Jelgavas novada ilgtspējīgas attīstības stratēģija līdz 2034. gadam: Esošās situācijas raksturojums. https://www.jelgava.lv/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/IAS_2.red_pec_pub_apspriesanas_final.pdf
21. Jelgavas valstspilsētas dome. (2014). Jelgavas pilsētas teritorijas plānojums. Paskaidrojuma raksts.
22. Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J., Dunnett, N. (2007). Woodland as a setting for housing - Appreciation and fear and the contribution to residential satisfaction and place identity in Warrington New Town, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79, 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.02.015
23. Knot, P., Hrabe, F., Hejduk,S., Skladanka, J., Kvasnovsky M., Hodulikova, L., Caslavova, I., Horky, P. (2017). The impacts of different management practices on botanical composition, quality, colour and growth of urban lawns. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 26, 178–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.01.011
24. Latvijas kultūras kanons (n.d.). https://kulturaskanons.lv/
25. Lhomme-Duchadeuil, A. (2018). Urban naturalistic meadows to promote cultural and regulating ecosystem services (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Sheffield. 183 p.
26. McFrederick, Q. S., LeBuhn, G. (2005). Are urban parks refuges for bumble bees Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae)? Biological Conservation, 129 (3), 372–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.11.004
27. Mollashahi, H., Szymura, M., Szymura, T. H. (2020). Connectivity assessment and prioritization of urban grasslands as a helpful tool for effective management of urban ecosystem services. PLoS ONE, 15 (12), e0244452. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244452
28. Nordic Botanical (n.d.) OÜ Nordic Botanical internet resource. https://nordicbotanical.ee/
29. Official statistics portal (2025). Population by territorial unit, sex and age group. Territorial units and land area. https://stat.gov.lv/
30. Özgüner, H., Kendle, A. D. (2006). Public attitudes towards naturalistic versus designed landscapes in the city of Sheffield (UK). Landscape and Urban Planning, 74 (2), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.10.003
31. Paudel, S., States, S. L. (2023). Urban green spaces and sustainability: Exploring the ecosystem services and disservices of grassy lawns versus floral meadows. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 84, 127932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127932
32. Przybysz, A., Popek, R., Stankiewicz-Kosyl, M., Zhu, C., Małecka-Przybysz, M., Maulidyawati, T., Mikowska, K., Deluga, D., Griżuk, K., Sokalski-Wieczorek, J., Wolszczak,
K., Wińska-Krysiak, M. (2021). Where trees cannot grow – Particulate matter accumulation by urban meadows. The Science of the Total Environment, 785, 147310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147310
33. Rīgas dome (2024) Rīgas domes saistošie noteikumi Nr. RD-24-270-sn “Rīgas valstspilsētas pašvaldības teritorijas kopšanas un būvju uzturēšanas saistošie noteikumi” https://likumi.lv/ta/id/353198-rigas-valstspilsetas-pasvaldibas-teritorijaskopsanas-
un-buvju-uzturesanas-saistosie-noteikumi
34. Rūsiņa, S. (Ed.). (2017). Outstanding semi-natural grassland sites in Latvia: Biodiversity, management, restoration. University of Latvia. 105 lpp.
35. Siguldas novada pašvaldība (2024a) Siguldas pilsētā veido dabiski skaistas pļavas; aicinām tās izmantot svētkos (2024, September 19). https://sigulda.lv/siguldas-pilseta-veidodabiski-skaistas-plavas-aicinam-tas-izmantot-svetkos/
36. Siguldas novada pašvaldība (2024b) Dabisko pļavu krāšņums ienāk pilsētvidē (2024, September 19). https://sigulda.lv/dabisko-plavu-krasnums-ienak-pilsetvide/
37. Skujane, D., Nitavska, N., Markova, M., Lagzdina, A., Cavare, A. (2026) Opportunities and Barriers to Integrating Urban Grasslands into Green Infrastructure: A Socio-Institutional Assessment of Latvian Cities. Land, 15, 505. https://doi.org/10.3390/land15030505
38. Smith, L.S., Fellowes, M.D.E. (2015). The grass-free lawn: Floral performance and management implications. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14, 490–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.05.005
39. Southon, G. E., Jorgensen, A., Dunnett, N., Hoyle, H., Evans, K. L. (2016). Biodiverse perennial meadows have aesthetic value and increase residents’ perceptions of site quality in urban green-space. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.08.003
40. Swacha, G., Raduła, M. W., Jewticz, S., Kusak, B., Świerszcz, S. (2024). Varying patterns of taxonomic and functional plant composition and diversity across different types of urban
and rural grasslands. Land Degradation and Development, 35 (16), 4997–5010. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.5273
41. Territorial units and land area. Oficial statistic portal (n.d.). https://stat.gov.lv/
42. ULC Urban Meadows (n.d.). Latvijas Dabas fonds (2024, December 2). https://ldf.lv/en/project-tab/ulc-urban-meadows/
43. UrbanLIFEcircles (n.d.). Latvijas Dabas fonds. (2024, December 2). https://ldf.lv/en/projects/urbanlifecircles/
44. Wascher, D. M. (Ed.). (2005). European landscape character areas: Typologies, cartography and indicators for the assessment of sustainable landscapes (Final project report). Landscape Europe. 160 p.
45. Watson, C. J., Carignan‐Guillemette, L., Turcotte, C., Maire, V., Proulx, R. (2019). Ecological and economic benefits of lowintensity urban lawn management. Journal of Applied Ecology,
57 (2), 436–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13542
46. Winkler, J., Pasternak, G., Sas, W., Hurajová, E., Koda, E., Vaverková, M.D. (2024). Nature-Based Management of Lawns - Enhancing Biodiversity in Urban Green Infrastructure. Applied Sciences, 14, 1705. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14051705
47. Zheng, B., Zhang, Y., Chen, J. (2011). Preference to home landscape: Wildness or neatness? Landscape and Urban Planning, 99 (1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.08.006
48. Ziemeļniece, A. (2014) The cultural historical landscape space of Pārlielupe in Jelgava. Landscape Architecture and Art, 5 (5), 94-101.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Landscape Architecture and Art
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
