Abstract
Abstract Cultural ecosystem services related to urban green spaces contribute significantly to liveable cities. While previous studies highlight the intersection of cultural ecosystem services with societal values, spiritual or religious values associated with urban nature have received less attention. In India, as in other parts of the world, sacred sites are known for their biological richness, but analyses from urban sacred sites are largely missing. Based on a stratified random sampling approach, we analysed the cultivated and wild plant species assemblages of 69 sacred sites in the megacity of Bengaluru, India, in relation to biological and cultural features, and parameters related to the urban matrix and type of sacred sites (temple vs. katte). Unlike other urban studies, we found a dominance of native species in the cultivated and spontaneous species pools (121 species in total), with Ficus religiosa and Azadirachta indica as most frequently planted species. Culturally relevant species prevailed in the species pool (89%), with overlaps between religious (36%), medicinal (50%) and ornamental (62%) plants; only 11% of species were weeds. Urban matrix parameters (age of development, housing density) and size and type of sacred sites were related to differences in species assemblages. We identified key species for different classes of age and housing density, and for types of sacred sites. Our study demonstrates that urban sacred sites have an important potential in harbouring both native and culturally significant species that can support urban livelihoods in developing countries by a range of cultural and provisioning ecosystem services, including medicinal uses. As such sites are conserved by communities for spiritual or cultural beliefs, local biodiversity can be enhanced, e.g. by adapting management practices through community participation. This would strengthen the important contribution of sacred sites within the green infrastructure of rapidly growing megacities.
Full Text
Topics from this Paper
Sacred Sites
Differences In Species Assemblages
Housing Density
Cultural Ecosystem Services
Adapting Management Practices
+ Show 5 more
Create a personalized feed of these topics
Get StartedTalk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Similar Papers
Ecological Indicators
Mar 1, 2020
European Journal of Public Health
Aug 1, 2021
Land Use Policy
Jul 1, 2013
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
Dec 1, 2021
Ecological Indicators
Aug 1, 2021
Ecosystem Services
Apr 1, 2015
Geoderma
Jun 1, 2019
Journal of Cleaner Production
Jan 1, 2021
Global Ecology and Conservation
Mar 1, 2020
Land
Jul 25, 2020
Visnyk of V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, series Geology. Geography. Ecology
Jun 1, 2023
Urban Ecosystems
Oct 1, 2018
Ecosystem Services
Aug 1, 2020
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Jan 6, 2019
Ecosystem Services
Jun 1, 2020
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
Dec 1, 2023
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
Dec 1, 2023
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
Dec 1, 2023
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
Dec 1, 2023
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
Dec 1, 2023
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
Nov 1, 2023
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
Nov 1, 2023
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
Nov 1, 2023
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
Nov 1, 2023
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
Nov 1, 2023