Better the well -kept practices or gardens in the wild? If you want to do well to the planet, the seconds.
Do you have a garden? And if so, how do you keep it? Are you of those who cut the grass every three days to prevent them from overcoming the centimeter in height and thus having a perfectly cared for praet? Or do you throw seeds on the ground and wait to see what comes out?
The fact that this doubt exists should be enough to demonstrate that not everyone loves nature in the same way, and now a study by the North Caroline State University certifies it on scientific bases. Posted on Hortsciencefocuses on the link between the so -called biophilia (i.e. appreciation and love for biodiversity) and urban gardens, showing that passion for nature and biodiversity is not a common trait between human beings, but a matter of character.
The differences between gardens. Although ordered and pleasant to see, the domestic gardens that are constantly “shaved” and in which not even a flower is left to grow are not particularly effective in promoting biodiversity: there are few plant species (if not one), and consequently even animals frequent them less. On the contrary, in the most chaotic and less refined gardens, biodiversity is higher, because there are enough elements other than being able to create a small trophic network. Taken individually, the study says, the most natural gardens do not change the world, but if they become systemic they could have an impact.
Not everyone, however, are willing to sacrifice their lawn and welcome bushes, shrubs and the so -called “weeds”. The NCSU team has subjected more than 2,000 people from all the United States to a survey, focused precisely on their liking for “wild” gardens: the first response that emerged from the analysis of the data is that biofilia is not a common feature, but a trait of character: there are those who have it and those who do not have it (and obviously there are all the intermediate stadiums).
Rich and poor. This means that, even knowing that the natural gardens are more “biodiverse” than the well -kept ones, not all of them are willing to say no to the praise shaved and to embrace the chaos. And it is not only a matter of character, but also of a social class: the major affinity for biodiversity emerged in low -income families, while the rich tend to prefer their tidy and clean gardens – a conclusion that has surprised the authors of the study, which expected the exact opposite.
Obviously, as mentioned, there are several intermediate degrees between the two extremes (“I love wild gardens”, “I hate wild gardens”). According to the authors of the study, it is essential to be able to identify with a certain precision who is those who are: in this way you can act in a more targeted way, for example when it comes to proposing projects linked to urban gardens – because if the target is more receptive, the projects work better.
Comments are closed.