Abstract
Urban greenspace is vital in fulfilling people's nature needs. Informal urban greenspace (IGS) such as vacant lots, street or railway verges and riverbanks is an often-overlooked part of the natural urban landscape. We lack a formal definition of IGS and a comprehensive review of knowledge about IGS and its role for urban residents. This paper advances a formal definition and typology of IGS that can be applied globally. Based on this definition, a total of 65 peer-reviewed papers in English (57), Japanese (7) and German (1) were reviewed. We analyzed this literature for its temporal trends, spatial patterns, studied IGS types, methods used and key authors, and summarized the individual research papers’ findings concerning IGS. Results show IGS plays an important role for urban residents, but also highlight limitations and problems in realizing IGS’ full potential. Research papers focused on perception, preferences, value and uses of IGS. Residents could distinguish between formal and informal greenspace. They preferred a medium level of human influence in IGS. The analysis of patterns in the literature reveals: a marked increase in publications in the last 20 years; a strong geographical bias towards the USA; and a lack of multi-type IGS studies including all IGS types. Publications outside of scholarly research papers also make valuable contributions to our understanding of IGS. Our results suggest IGS is emerging as an important sub-discipline of urban greening research.
Highlights
34 Results show Informal urban greenspace (IGS) plays an important role for urban residents, and highlight limitations
209 We found a total of 65 original research papers widely distributed across 31 journals and five 210 edited books
Perception differed among resident groups: residents with little nature contact experience show less nature affinity than those with extensive nature contact experience (Sawaki and Kamihogi, 1995). 233 234 Research has found that residents have preferences for characteristics distinguishing IGS from formal greenspace, namely naturalness, diversity and mystery (Herzog, 1989; House and Fordham, 1997; Gobster and Westphal, 2004; Chon and Shafer, 2009)
Summary
They are comprised of a patchwork of paved and 49 unpaved spaces, built and vacant land, and newly developed and obsolescent and/or abandoned buildings and infrastructure. Even backyard gardens and suburban lawns can be liminal They may be highly manicured, rambling or even overgrown and neglected, depending upon many factors such as feelings of ownership, socio-economic status, identity, cultural beliefs, level of neighbors’ surveillance, age and government regulation, among others (Head and Muir, 2006; Trigger and Head, 2010). Why have they seemingly been neglected by researchers? Are such informal green spaces really temporary and transitory? Might they provide more permanent, but seldom-acknowledged functions for urban residents? If so, what benefits might they confer upon users and non-users, and what problems might they present? How can we formally define and describe them in a way that can be applied globally? What does the literature say about them and their role for urban residents? What trends exist in the 75 literature (temporal trends, spatial patterns, studied space types, methods used, key authors)?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
