See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303825438

PERCEPTIONS OF A WILD GREEN ROOF IN SINGAPORE

Conference Paper · January 2015

CITATIONS READS
0 1,194

2 authors:

Yun Hye Hwang Charlie Roscoe

National University of Singapore Imperial College London
25 PUBLICATIONS   131 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Greenspace and cardiovascular health outcomes in UK Biobank participants: assessing the environmental versus physiological pathways View project

Observation of floristic succession and biodiversity View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yun Hye Hwang on 07 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Session 1R: EVALUATING NATIVE & WILD GREEN ROOF
PERFORMANCE & DESIRABILITY

PERCEPTIONS OF A WILD GREEN ROOF IN SINGAPORE

Yun Hye HWANG1 and Charlie ROSCOE2,3
1
Department of Architecture, School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore – NUS,
Singapore. Corresponding author email: akiyhh@nus.edu.sg
2
Department of Evolutionary Biology and Ecology, Free University of Brussels/Université Libre de Bruxelles –
ULB, Brussels, Belgium
3
Department of Earth, Environment and Biodiversity, Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University/Université Pierre-et-Marie-
Curie – Paris VI, Paris, France

Abstract

In Singapore, a highly-urbanized tropical city, green roofs have developed as an important landscape
component of urban greening. Green roof technology development is currently focused on environmental and
physical parameters, however the Biophilic impact of green roofs is often overlooked, despite their potential as
local habitats for flora and fauna. Using green roofs as a platform for the interaction between humans and nature
is a possibility that is yet to be fully explored, especially in a tropical context.
This study uses Q-methodology to reveal areas of consensus and divergence in stakeholder perceptions
of wild vegetation on green roofs. Interviewees were invited to visit a wild green roof located at the National
University of Singapore before being asked to rank 50 statements about the roof in order of importance. Opinion
typologies were produced through quantitative analysis of the ranked statements, which were supplemented with
qualitative data from the discussion sessions that followed.
A range of factors were reported to influence participants' appreciation of wild vegetation on green roofs.
Concerns about safety and pests were highlighted, as well as positive attitudes towards biodiversity conservation,
user experience, and provision of environmental services. Individual aesthetical values were highly divergent,
however, several landscape elements that facilitated the public’s acceptance, such as ‘cues to care’, were also
identified. In short, our findings condense the complex dialogues behind stakeholder attitudes towards wild
vegetation, highlighting an opportunity to enhance the biodiversity of green roofs and the potential of green roofs
to act as a springboard toward the Biophilic City.

Keywords: Green roof, Spontaneous vegetation, Perceptions, Q-methodology, Biophilic city

1. Introduction

Situated at the southern tip of the Malaysian peninsular (103°50ʼE, 1°20ʼN), Singapore is a 100%
urbanized city state, where the majority of land has been fully developed (1). Recent population policy

CitiesAlive: 13th Annual Green Roof and Wall Conference

2015 Conference Proceedings
announcements indicate that development will not stop as the country progresses towards 2030 (2), which is likely
to continue to drive the loss of ground-level green spaces in the country, resulting in the loss of local habitat (3-5).
In the face of continued population growth and urbanization, Singapore is pushing towards sustainability in
architecture (6) and through the use of green building rating systems (7), the ‘City in a Garden’ is promoting a new
consciousness about the functional value of greenery on buildings (8). The incorporation of green roofs and
facades onto both buildings and infrastructure offers a novel elevated greenery platform and opportunity to bring
more greenery into the city (9). Singapore's land scarcity has long encouraged the careful planning and
provisioning of vegetation within the urban fabric to counteract high-density and high-rise living (10). An
investigation by Tan et al. (11) highlighted that the physical distribution of Singapore's greenery, rather than the
absolute quantum of green, increased perceptions of pervasive greenery. The city's rooftop greening policy,
supported by URA and NParks (12), may increase both quantum and perceived greenery and help to reinforce
Singapore’s image as a tropical ‘Garden City’.
Rooftop greening in the city has been encouraged through the Skyrise Greenery Incentive Scheme
(SGIS), which funds up to 50% of installation costs of rooftop greenery (13), resulting in more than 60Ha of
rooftop greenery being installed to date (14), and a projected 50Ha more by 2030 (15). A wide range of standards
and guidebooks have been made readily available in order to facilitate various aspects of design, such as loading
and safety requirements, plants, and substrates (16-27). The focus of rooftop greenery research thus far has
mainly been to improve building performance by, for example, reducing stormwater run-off (28), reducing life-cycle
costs (29), and mitigating the Urban Heat Island effect (30). There is, more recently, a growing interest in the
ecological services green roofs could offer and their potential role as local habitats and ecological network
connectors in Singapore (6, 31), requiring further investigation.
Owing to their lightweight profile, green roofs could potentially be scaled-up and installed onto most
existing roofs in Singapore without structural modification (27), however, this does limit the available plant palette
due to the comparatively lower water retention and shallower substrate of retro-fitted designs (27, 32).
Spontaneously growing vegetation may therefore offer a suitable planting method for green roofs in the tropics
given its ability to establish under extremely harsh heat conditions (33), without intensive maintenance, and offer
relatively high-biodiversity even in shallow substrates (34-37).
Despite the multiple potential gains of green roofs, the Singaporean public have not widely accepted them
as everyday recreational spaces, with proximity being indicated as a major determinant of visitation (38). The
creation of an ecologically-valuable or naturalized space offers further challenges as the public, who are
habituated with heavily modified and regulated forms (39, 40), have landscape preferences tending aesthetically
towards heavily-managed or manicured greenery (41). In other countries, wild vegetation has been perceived to
create an aesthetically pleasing juxtaposition between the natural and man-made environment (42, 43) and to
allow the appreciation of natural processes (44). Singapore may also be becoming more receptive to the wild and
natural environment (45) and the heavily-managed standard for landscape design is increasingly under scrutiny
from various domains (39, 46, 47), its application in modern green roof design is equally open to scrutiny.
To summarize, green roofs may play a role in increasing biodiversity through habitat provision when
ecological processes are taken into consideration (48, 49), and spontaneous vegetation could offer a relatively
low-maintenance strategy for management. It is essential, however, to understand not only the actual values but
the perceived values of green roofs (50-52) and spontaneous vegetation (53) for various stakeholder groups, to
ensure the successful distribution and integration of Wild green roofs into the human-dominated urban ecosystem.
This research therefore aims to investigate perceptions of a specific Wild green roof case-study through
interviewing 48 potential users and stakeholders. The detailed objectives are as follows:
- To identify stakeholder perceptions of Wild green roofs, particularly in the tropical context
- To condense and prioritize the perceived positive and negative impacts associated with Wild green roofs
- To discuss key considerations that may aid public acceptance of wild vegetation, with a consideration of
biophilic principles
2

CitiesAlive: 13th Annual Green Roof and Wall Conference

2015 Conference Proceedings
 The paper consists of three sections: the first section summarizes the methodology involved, the second
highlights the results in the form of factor interpretations, and the final section, based on our results, discusses
potential approaches for the successful incorporation of Wild green roofs into the urban matrix of Singapore.

2. Methodology

2.1. Q-methodology
The study uses Q-methodology (Q herein), a technique conceived by psychologist William Stephenson in
the 1930s and popularized by Stephen Brown in the 1980s (54, 55). Q can be applied to any field in which human
subjectivity exists, and facilitates a more objective interpretation of subjective attitudes through rendering the
interview process more open to statistical analysis (56). The method has been used more recently in relation to
environmental issues (57-64), and rarely in the context of landscape perceptions and decision making (65, 66),
although owing to the highly subjective nature of interpreting landscape design, and the multifaceted drivers
behind individual perceptions, we considered Q a suitable methodology to explore attitudes towards a novel
architectural greenery concept in Singapore: the Wild green roof.

2.2. Survey setup

2.2.1. Site
The Wild green roof (Fig.1) is situated on a 5-storey institutional building, School of Design and
Environment, NUS (135m AMSL, 662 m² area, 50mm deep topsoil profile), where spontaneous vegetation has
been encouraged to colonize bare ground. Full details on the development, minimal management strategy and
biodiversity of the site can be found in previous papers by the author (31, 33). The site is not currently accessible
to the public.

Figure 1. Wild green roof site situated at the School of Design and Environment, NUS

2.2.2. Concourse and statement selection

The concourse contains all of the relevant aspects of all of the discourses surrounding the topic (67) and
was produced from various sources of literature on green roofs and wild vegetation including scientific papers,
government-funded surveys, policy reports, technical 'best-practice' documents, local newspapers, and websites.
The literature review was supplemented with informal interviews (n=16), consisting of open-ended questions
about wild vegetation on green roofs. Assessment of these primary and secondary data sources lead to the
generation of 158 statements. Sampling of the concourse was unstructured (67) and rresearcher judgment at this
3

CitiesAlive: 13th Annual Green Roof and Wall Conference

2015 Conference Proceedings
stage was aided by several support documents (67-70). Retained statements could be broadly broken down into
the following categories: biodiversity and conservation, human wellbeing and recreation, governance and local
environmental services, Singapore's image and values, fears and annoyances, maintenance and aesthetics.
Statements were piloted, and based on feedback a final sample of 50 statements was retained, and some of the
statements were negated to balance the Q-set and facilitate the sorting process.

2.2.3. Participants
The selected participants (n=48), were all affiliated with the NUS, either as teaching and research staff,
students, or other non-research related employees. Q does not require large or even numbers in each participant
group, rather an adequate number to exemplify a particular viewpoint (54, 55, 69). We expected the breadth of
backgrounds of the participants to provide a diversity of perspectives on the use of wild vegetation on rooftops in
campus, with participant domains including: architecture, biology and ecology, landscape architecture, NUS
facilities management, and non-related disciplines (fields not associated with ecology or green roofs).

2.2.4. Survey process

Surveys were conducted between April and May 2015, avoiding the hottest time of the day and rescheduled in
the case of rain. Following a visit of ~5 minutes to the Wild green roof (Fig. 1) , participants were instructed
verbally and provided with written instructions of how to proceed with the Q-sort. Firstly, participants were asked
to assign 50 statements about wild green roofs into three categories: agree, neutral and disagree, with permission
to place cards between categories. Secondly, they were asked to place the 50 cards onto a forced quasi-normal
distribution grid (Fig. 2), which ranged from 'most agree' to 'most disagree' (11 columns, +5 to -5). The sorting
process is a gestalt procedure, whereby the placement of the statements is interdependent i.e. relies on the
placement of the other statements (71). Upon completion of the Q-sort participants were questioned for 15-30
minutes about the order and content of the statement cards.

Figure 2: Q-sort grid in normal distribution form, note the replacement of numerical values (-5 to +5 for column left to right, central column at 0 value) with an
arrow system following piloting feedback.
2.3. Data analysis
Statistical analysis of the Q-sorts was carried out in R 3.2.0 (72) using the package 'qmethod' (73) and
'psych' (74), the package 'qmethod' is based on Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The number of factors
retained was decided using a standard procedure (61): all factors had at least two participants loading on them
with an eigenvalue >1 and factors explained the highest total study variance possible (54, 69). It should be noted
that the two factor solution had the lowest total between factor correlation, however correlation was acceptable in
the three factor solution and based on qualitative data from interviews three factors were retained. Only
4

CitiesAlive: 13th Annual Green Roof and Wall Conference

2015 Conference Proceedings
statements that significantly (p=<0 .05) define factors based on differences in z-scores (not tabularized) were
included in factor interpretations (3.2), those that were non-significant across factors are discussed separately
(3.3).

3. Results

3.1. Most and least agreed statements

No. of participants
Category Statement assigning statement to
category

...would be accepted better by the public if they were informed of the ecological benefits of this type of roof 43
...offers a living classroom for education and research on biodiversity and natural processes 39
Agreed ...would need to be adapted to encourage visitors to appreciate the space...should provide nesting and 39
feeding resources for birds and insects 38
...should be encouraged by the government through grants and subsidies 38
Disagreed ...is unacceptable in a university setting 40
...is only acceptable if the roof is out of sight i.e. not overlooked by classrooms or offices 36
...is too progressive for Singapore, we are not ready for eco-projects so close to the workplace 35
...is fine for other cities but not for Singapore 34
...would quickly go out of fashion, being "eco" and "green" is just in fashion at the moment 33
Table 1. The five statements placed most often by participants into the "agree" category and into the "disagree" category during the preliminary card sorting
(participants n=48).

3.2. Three factor interpretation

The three factor solution is summarized in the following two tables (p.7 & 8) and outlined individually through
written factor interpretations. In the written factor interpretations the parenthesized numbers (e.g. 36:+4)
correspond to the number of the statement and its typical score in that factor respectively. Those numbers marked
with * are negated phrases that participants disagreed with, hence a double negative or agreement situation. It
should be noted that three participants did not load onto any factor (non-significant).
"Supporters" (Factor 1): Wild green roofs could play an important role in supporting ecological functioning
in the urban ecosystem with appropriate design and wide-scale implementation and should act as connectors or
stepping stones to larger patches of nature in Singapore, helping to create a green infrastructure (36:+4),
supporting ecosystem services such as pollination (47:+4) and offering recreational activities for nature lovers
(5:+2). They are acceptable, particularly if flora and fauna on the rooftop are of conservation value (33:+2). Wild
vegetation on green roofs would be relevant in Singapore due to the lack of natural areas left in the city (31:+3),
and should be encouraged by the government through grants and subsidies (44:+3), it would be acceptable to
draft into policy (45:-3*). Factor 1 loaders strongly disagree that wild green roofs are fine for other cities but not for
Singapore (11:-5), the city is ready for such eco-projects close to the work place (20:-4). A wild green roof offers a
nice view to look at whilst working or studying (18:+4) and is acceptable in the university setting (21:-5*). It is not
too messy (25:-3), nor is it in need of trimming (14:-2). Visitors will not be scared of what is hiding in the long
grasses (41:-2) and wild vegetation would not damage the structure of the building (12:-4*), or attract pests such
as cockroaches and rats (26:-2). One of the major benefits of wild vegetation as a green roof cover include the
reduction in maintenance when compared to other roof gardens (40:+5).
"Adapters" (Factor 2): The wild green roof would need to be adapted to encourage visitors to appreciate
the space, for example, seating areas and signs (3:+3) as well as more flowers in order to make the site more
appealing (35:+4). They felt that the university was an acceptable place to investigate Wild green roof design (11:-
5*). Like Factor 1 loaders, Factor 2 loaders find the roof acceptable, particularly if the flora and fauna on the

CitiesAlive: 13th Annual Green Roof and Wall Conference

2015 Conference Proceedings
rooftop are of conservation value (33:+5), and due to environmental benefits, such as effectively reducing CO2
emissions (16:+2), it would be acceptable to draft them into policy (45:-4*) in the Singapore context (11:-5) and in
congruence with the Singapore image (9:+2). However, concerns over wild vegetation increasing ponding and
attracting mosquitoes (8:+5), as well as pests such as rats and cockroaches (26:+2), were highlighted. These
participants did not find the Wild green roof was currently suited to visitors, indicating that it wasn't pleasant to
walk through (32:-2). "Wild vegetation on green roofs is too dangerous for public access", although this statement
was neutral in the array, loads significantly higher than on the other two factors (7:0); safety and comfort of visitors
was a notable concern. Participants did not feel that Wild green roofs would require less maintenance than other
types of roof garden (40:-1) due to the costs perceived by these participants in creating a safe environment, and
they also did not feel that appreciation of the wild roof was driven by the cultural or social background of an
individual (46:-1) but linked to creating a safe and more presentable rooftop for people to enjoy.
"Non-supporters" (Factor 3 ): A wild green roof does not beautify the rooftop (23:-4), is not a nice view to
look at whilst working or studying (18: -5), and is only acceptable if it is out of sight and not overlooked by
classrooms and offices (22:+1). Factor 3 loaders strongly disagree that Wild green roofs would improve the image
of Singapore as a 'City in a Garden' (9:-5), nor would they enhance the image of the company or institution
located within the building below (4:-3). They agree that Wild green roofs are fine for other cities, but not for
Singapore (11:+1), and feel such rooftops should not be encouraged by the government through grants and
subsidies (44:-1). Walking through the space using the provided footpath is not enjoyable (32:-3*) and the roof
does not offer a relaxing space away from the hustle and bustle of the city (2:-4) or a pleasant setting to socialize
in (48:-3), nor would it have a therapeutic effect on, and thereby improve the health of, users (6:-2). Participants
felt neutral about using the roof as a conservation tool for flora and fauna and felt, this would not improve the
acceptability of the rooftop for them (33:0). These participants, however, feel that wild vegetation on green roofs
would be appreciated differently by the different cultural or social groups within Singapore (46:+2), referring to
"foreign workers" and "nature lovers" who may enjoy the space more than themselves. Factor 3 participants
envisage problems such as debris choking the drainage system (27:+3) and pests such as cockroaches and/or
rats being attracted by the wild vegetation (26:+5). They agree that Wild green roofs would require less
maintenance than other roof gardens (40:+5) but this low (lack of) maintenance was the central problematic issue
for Factor 3 loaders, who felt the space looked messy, uncared for and was highly unacceptable.

3.3. Consensus statements

Several statements did not significantly distinguish factors from one another (p-value >0.05). Wild
vegetation on green roofs offers a living classroom for education and research on biodiversity and natural
processes (F1: +3,F2: +3, F3: +4) and wild vegetation would be accepted better by the public if they were
informed of the ecological benefits of this type of roof (F1: +5, F2: +4, F3:+3) were consensus statements across
the three factors. Another consensus statement, "...would be best if the plant species were native to Singapore",
was placed more neutrally (F1:0, F2: +1, F3: +2).

CitiesAlive: 13th Annual Green Roof and Wall Conference

2015 Conference Proceedings
No Wild vegetation on green roofs... Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
1 ...offers a living classroom for education and research on biodiversity and natural processes 3 3 4
2 ...provides a relaxing space away from the hustle and bustle of the city 1 -1 -4
...would need to be adapted to encourage visitors to appreciate the space(e.g. more paths, seating areas, viewing
3 1 3 1
points, signs)
4 ...enhances the image of the company or institution located within the building 0 1 -3
5 ...would provide recreational activities for nature lovers (e.g. bird or butterfly watching) 2 0 0
6 ...would have a therapeutic effect on and thereby improve the health of users 0 0 -2
7 ...is too dangerous for public access -3 0 -2
8 ...would increase the chances of ponding and attract mosquitoes -1 5 4
9 ...would improve the image of Singapore as a 'City in a Garden' 1 2 -5
10 ...would be well accepted by the public as long as they are informed of the ecological benefits of this type of roof 5 4 3
11 ...is fine for other cities but not for Singapore -5 -5 1
12 ...would damage the structure of the building -4 -3 0
13 ...would be well appreciated by foreign visitors -1 -1 -2
14 ...would be more appealing if the wild plants were trimmed and not too tall -2 1 1
15 ...allows visitors to connect spiritually to nature 1 -1 -2
16 ...would be effective in reducing CO2 emissions 0 2 0
17 ...would help encourage visitors to be more environmentally-conscious in their everyday lives 1 -2 -4
18 ...would provide a nice view to look at whilst I was working/studying 3 1 -5
19 ...looks too messy at close proximity so is best viewed from a distance -2 3 2
20 ...is too progressive for Singapore, we are not ready for eco-projects so close to the workplace -4 -5 -1
21 ...is unacceptable in a university setting -5 -4 -1
22 ...is only acceptable if the roof is out of sight i.e. not overlooked by classrooms or offices -4 -4 1
23 ...beautifies the roof top 2 1 -4
24 ...would quickly go out of fashion, being "eco" and "green" is just in fashion at the moment -3 -3 0
25 ...is too untidy, manicured greenery only please -3 1 2
26 ...would attract pests such as cockroaches and/or rats -2 2 5
27 ...would create debris from dead plants that will choke up the drainage system -2 0 3
...allows each roof top to have a more unique identity compared to manicured roof gardens that always use similar
28 2 0 -1
plant varieties
29 ...would be better mixed with neater, manicured areas on the same rooftop -1 2 4
30 ...contributes to protecting the natural heritage of Singapore -1 1 -2
31 ...would be highly relevant in Singapore due to the lack of natural areas left in the city 3 2 -1
32 ...is enjoyable to walk through using the provided footpath 0 -2 -3
33 ...is acceptable, particularly if flora and fauna on the rooftop is of conservation value 2 5 0
34 ...would cost less to install than other types of green roof 2 -2 3
35 ...would be more appealing if there were more flowers 0 4 2
...should act as connectors or stepping stones to larger patches of nature in Singapore, helping to create a green
36 4 -1 0
infrastructure
37 ...should provide nesting and feeding resources for birds and insects 4 3 1
38 ...would not interest the majority of Singaporeans; it would neither be opposed nor commended -1 -3 0
39 ...looks more diverse than what I see from typical landscapes in Singapore 0 -1 1
40 ...would require less maintenance than other roof gardens 5 -1 5
41 ...would scare visitors who will be afraid of what is hiding in the long grasses -2 4 3
42 ...is appealing as it would retain stormwater runoff, reducing the risk of urban flooding 1 -2 -1
43 ...would be a good place to reflect on the Singapore of the past -1 -3 -3
...should be encouraged by the government through grants and subsidies (such as the Skyrise Greenery Incentive
44 3 0 -1
Scheme)
45 ...would be unacceptable to draft into policy -3 -4 0
46 ...would be appreciated differently by the different cultural/social groups in Singapore 0 -1 2
47 ...would support ecosystem services such as pollination 4 0 1
48 ...offers a pleasant setting to socialize in -1 -2 -3
49 ...would be best if the plant species were native to Singapore 0 1 2
50 ...is appealing as it cools the building below reducing the building's energy costs for air-conditioning 1 0 -1

Table 2. Factor arrays with individual statement values for factor 1, 2, and 3. Factor arrays are a list of statement scores for individual statements (+5 to -5)
that are representative and typical of that factor. A participant who ranked their statements exactly the same as the factor array would load 100% onto that
factor.

CitiesAlive: 13th Annual Green Roof and Wall Conference

2015 Conference Proceedings
 Percentage of total Charateristics of Participants
No. of loading Q-
Factor variance explained Eigenvalues
sorts Background Professions
(%)
6 Architecture; 11 Biology; 6
Factor 1 17students; 12 Teaching and research ; 4
35 16.81 33 Landscape Architect; 4
(Supporter) Non-research related
Management; 6 Other
Factor 2 1 Architecture; 2 Management; 5 4 students; 2 Teaching and research ; 2
13 6.24 8
(Adapter) Other Non-research related
Factor 3 (Non- 1 Architecture; 2 Management; 1 2 Teaching and Research; 2 Non-research
8 3.75 4
supporter) Other related
Table 3. Factor summary detailing the percentage of total variance explained, eigenvalues, and number of loading Q-sorts for each factor, with information
on the participants who loaded significantly on the factor (defining Q-sorts)

4. Discussion
In Singapore, between 23,000 to 28,000 terrestrial species co-exist alongside humans (75), despite the
fact that around half of green space in Singapore is under management and typically consists of homogeneous
plant communities, low in biodiversity (76). Manmade green spaces have the potential to contribute to habitat
provisioning (77) and, due to the city's limited space and on-going development, reconciliation ecology (78, 79)
may offer a logical solution for boosting urban biodiversity.
Green roof design can be focused on biodiversity conservation (80, 81), particularly when they mimic
brownfield or early successional conditions (82, 83), and the majority of participants agreed that Wild green roofs
in Singapore should provision for birds and insects (n=38; table 1). Consensus statements (sect 3.3) and
preliminary sorting data (table 1) indicated that the majority of participants felt that wild vegetation on green roofs
would be better accepted by the public, if they were informed of the ecological benefits of this type of roof (agree
n=43) and that the roof would have educational and research value (agree n=39), highlighting the perceived
importance of sensitizing the population to the function of spontaneous vegetation in the urban ecosystem. The
participation and inclusion of visitors in green roof monitoring, research and design will be essential in gaining
public support (84, 85). Thirty-three of forty-five loading participants loaded on Factor 1 (35% total study variance
explained, Table 3), which was typified by a supportive attitude towards the Wild green roof. All biologists,
ecologists and landscape architects interviewed (100%, n=17) loaded on this factor, as did the majority of
students (81%, n=17), and the perceived human-nature relationship created through the incorporation of
spontaneous vegetation into green roof design was of particular importance. In congruence with studies on the
intrinsic link between views of nature and human wellbeing and productivity (86-88), the relatively small (662m2)
rooftop patch of spontaneous vegetation was perceived to deliver various physical and mental benefits for visitors
and on-lookers (table 2).
Messiness was a primary concern for Factor 3 loaders (n=4), although through the qualitative follow-up
session, the research allowed all participants to generate ideas about how to aesthetically improve the space.
Trimming, particularly around the path, wider paths, shade and seating, more flowers, and information signs about
biodiversity and green roofs were suggested, in keeping with the concept of ‘cues to care’ (89). Fears of what may
be hiding in the long grasses, such as snakes, and concerns about mosquito breeding and attraction of pests due
to the rambunctious vegetation were highlighted by the study (F2 and F3). These issues could be addressed by
both minimizing the risk of ponding; currently employed as an integral part of green roof construction and minimal
management strategy (31), and sensitizing the urbanized population with the benefits of diverse vegetation, as
oppose to low-diversity planting (90), in particular on green roofs (91). Understanding the function of diverse or
spontaneous vegetation was, in this study, a major driver in the acceptance of the Wild green roof and was
highlighted during the qualitative interviews that followed the Q-sorting exercise. Factor 2 loaders for example did
not find the space suitable for visitors but were still strongly supportive of Wild green roofs due to the
environmental and conservational benefits that they perceived in association with the vegetation.

CitiesAlive: 13th Annual Green Roof and Wall Conference

2015 Conference Proceedings
 Further investigation of the public's perceptions of spontaneous vegetation both on rooftops and at ground
level are required. However, based on this study group, finding imply that the Wild green roof may provide an
inner-city platform for human-nature contact (F1). In alignment with biophilic principles (92-94), adapting the roof
to suit users' preferences and enhancing the ecological value of the space (F2) can, in many cases, be
harmonious. For example, increasing floral diversity through the addition of more flowers may provide greater
resources for pollinators on green roofs (95) and also be aesthetically preferential (96). Other recent perception
studies have highlighted the public's ability to perceive (and self-reportedly benefit from) a higher level of
biodiversity in green spaces (97, 98). In space-limited Singapore, this study has highlighted that the improvement
of the quality and functionality, rather than solely the quantity, of green space could help to enhance the perceived
value of greenery; a key consideration for green roof design in the city.

5. Conclusion
Stakeholder support and participation is paramount to the diffusion and integration of wild green roofs into
the urban fabric. Spontaneous vegetation could act as an alternative, low-maintenance green roof cover in the
tropical urban city and provide a multifunctional space that considers ecological, environmental, recreational,
aesthetic, and managerial values. Wild green roofs may also provide a close-proximity point of contact with nature
in a high-density living environment such as Singapore. This specific case-study provides preliminary data on the
perceptions of a Wild green roof and, combined with further research on the perceived and attested values of
urban wilderness, at both the rooftop and ground level, will help to inform site-specific implementation strategies in
the city with more sensitivity towards stakeholder perspectives, moving the Garden City one step closer to
becoming a Biophilic City.

6. Acknowledgements
This work was made possible by funding from National University of Singapore (NUS) and Ministry of
Education (MOE) Tier 1 under grant number R-295-000-112-112, ‘The Implementation Feasibility
of Spontaneous Vegetation as Landscape Materials; Survey on Perceived Values of Naturalized Gardens ’. For
their invaluable advice and guidance, the authors would like to thank Nicolas J Vereecken (ULB), Farid Dahdouh-
Guebas (ULB), Simon Watts (University of East Anglia), and Zi En Jonathan YUE (NUS).

Reference

1.United Nations. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2014
ST/ESA/SER.A/352.
2.Singapore National Population and Talent Division. Population. A sustainable population for a dynamic Singapore. Singapore: National Population and
Talent Division, 2013.
3.Corlett RT. The Ecological Transformation of Singapore, 1819-1990. Journal of Biogeography. 1992;19(4):411-20.
4.Laurance WF. Reflections on the tropical deforestation crisis. Biological Conservation. 1999;91:109-17.
5.Brook BW, Sodhi NS, Ng PKL. Catastrophic extinctions follow deforestation in Singapore. Nature. 2003;424:420-3.
6.Tan PY. Vertical Garden City, Singapore. Singapore: Straits Times Press Pte Ltd; 2014.
7.Kishnani N. Greening Asia: Emerging Principles for Sustainable Architecture. Hong Kong: BCI Asia; 2012.
8.Neo B, Gwee J, Mak C. Growing a city in a garden. Case studies in public governance: building institutions in Singapore. London: Routledge; 2012.
9.Singapore NPB. Skyrise greenery website [cited 12/07/15]. Available from: https://www.skyrisegreenery.com/index.php.
10.Auger T. Living in a Garden: The Greening of Singapore. Singapore: Didier Millet; 2013.
11.Tan PY, Wang J, Sia A. Perspectives on five decades of the urban greening of Singapore. Cities. 2013;32:24-32.
12.National Parks Board. A Lusher and Greener Singapore (URA and NParks Introduce Schemes to Promote Skyrise Greenery). NParks. 2009.
13.Skyrise Greenery Incentive Scheme Calculation Guide. National Parks Board. 2009.
14.Wan KB. At the frontier of the Skyrise Greenery Movement [Internet]2014. [cited 12/062015]. Available from:
https://mndsingapore.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/at-the-frontier-of-the-skyrise-greenery-movement/.

CitiesAlive: 13th Annual Green Roof and Wall Conference

2015 Conference Proceedings
15.Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development. Sustainable Singapore Blueprint. Singapore: Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources
and Ministry of National Development; 2015.
16. Centre for Urban Greenery & Ecology (Singapore), National Parks Board (Singapore). Guidelines on Planting of Trees, Palms and Tall Shrubs on
Rooftop Singapore: Centre for Urban Greenery & Ecology; 2013.
17. Centre for Urban Greenery & Ecology (Singapore), National Parks Board (Singapore). Guidelines on Design and Construction of Pitched Green Roof.
Singapore: Centre for Urban Greenery & Ecology; 2013.
18. Centre for Urban Greenery & Ecology (Singapore), National Parks Board (Singapore). Guidelines on General Maintenance for Rooftop Greenery.
Singapore: Centre for Urban Greenery & Ecology; 2012.
19. Centre for Urban Greenery & Ecology (Singapore), National Parks Board (Singapore). Guidelines on Design for Safety of Skyrise Greenery. Singapore:
Centre for Urban Greenery & Ecology 2014.
20. Centre for Urban Greenery & Ecology (Singapore), National Parks Board (Singapore). Guidelines on Substrate Layer for Rooftop Greenery. Singapore:
Centre for Urban Greenery & Ecology; 2010.
21. Centre for Urban Greenery & Ecology (Singapore), National Parks Board (Singapore). Guidelines on Design for Safety for Rooftop Greenery. Singapore:
Centre for Urban Greenery & Ecology; 2010.
22. Centre for Urban Greenery & Ecology (Singapore), National Parks Board (Singapore). Guidelines on Design Loads for Skyrise Greenery. Singapore:
Centre for Urban Greenery & Ecology; 2014.
23. Centre for Urban Greenery & Ecology (Singapore), National Parks Board (Singapore). Guidelines on Design Loads for Rooftop Greenery. Singapore:
Centre for Urban Greenery & Ecology; 2010.
24.Centre for Urban Greenery & Ecology (Singapore), National Parks Board (Singapore). Guidelines on Filter, Drainage and Root Penetration Barrier Layers
For Rooftop Greenery. Singapore: Centre for Urban Greenery and Ecology; 2010.
25.Centre for Urban Greenery & Ecology (Singapore), National Parks Board (Singapore). Guidelines on Waterproofing For Rooftop Greenery. Singapore:
Centre for Urban Greenery and Ecology; 2012.
26.Centre for Urban Greenery & Ecology (Singapore), National Parks Board (Singapore). Guidelines on Irrigation For Rooftop Greenery. Singapore: Centre
for Urban Greenery and Ecology; 2012.
27.Tan PY, Sia A. A Selection of Plants for Green Roofs in Singapore. Second ed. Singapore: National Parks Board; 2008.
28.Qin X, Wu X, Chiew Y-M, Li Y. A Green roof test bed for stormwater management and reduction of urban heat island effect in Singapore. British J Environ
Climate Change. 2012;2(4):410-20.
29.Wong NH, Tan SF, Wong R, Ong CL, Sia A. Life cycle cost analysis of rooftop gardens in Singapore. Building and Environment. 2003;38:499-509.
30.Wong NH, Kardinal Jusuf S, Aung La Win A, Kyaw Thu H, Syatia Negara T, Xuchao W. Environmental study of the impact of greenery in an institutional
campus in the tropics. Building and Environment. 2007;42(8):2949-70.
31.Hwang YH. Green Roofs as Local Habitats in Singapore. IFLA (International Federation of Landscape Architecture) Asia Pacific Congress Kuching,
Malaysia:IFLA; 2014.
32.Snodgrass EC, McIntyre L. Green Roof Basics. The Green Roof Manual: A Professional Guide to Design, Installation, and Maintenance. Portland,
Oregon: Timber Press; 2010. p. 21-48.
33.Hwang YH. Observation of Urban Spontaneous Vegetation as Landscape Material. Journal of Landscape Architecture in Asia. 2010;5(1):61-71.
34.Del Tredici P. Wild urban plants of the Northeast : a field guide. New York: Cornell University Press; 2010. 374 p.
35.Kühn N. Intentions for the Unintentional: Spontaneous Vegetation as the Basis for Innovative Planting Design in Urban Areas. Journal of Landscape
Architecture 2006;1(2):46-53.
36.Millard A. Indigenous and spontaneous vegetation: their relationship to urban development in the city of Leeds, UK. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening.
2004;3(1):39-47.
37.De Sousa CA. Turning brownfields into green space in the City of Toronto. Landscape and urban planning. 2003;62(4):181-98.
38.Yuen B, Wong NH. Resident perceptions and expectations of rooftop gardens in Singapore. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2005;73(4):263-76.
39.Kong L. Urban children and the natural world. Children's geographies: Playing, living, learning. London: Routledge; 2000. p. 222.
40.Yuen B, Kong L, Briffett C. Nature and the Singapore resident. GeoJournal. 1999;49(3):323-31.
41.Khew JYT, Yokohari M, Tanaka T. Public Perceptions of Nature and Landscape Preference in Singapore. Human Ecology. 2014;42(6):979-88.
42.Keil A. Use and Perception of Post-Industrial Urban Landscapes in the Ruhr. In: Kowarik I, Körner S, editors. Wild Urban Woodlands. Springer: Berlin
Heidelberg; 2005. p. 117-30.
43.Bauer N. Attitudes towards Wilderness and Public Demands on Wilderness Areas. In: Kowarik I, Körner S, editors. Wild Urban Woodlands. Springer:
Berlin Heidelberg; 2005. p. 47-66.
44.Jorgensen A. Introduction. In: Jorgensen A, Keenan R, editors. Urban Wildscapes. London: Routledge; 2012. p. 1-14.
45.O'Dempsey T, Emmanuel M, van Wyhe J, Taylor NP, Tan FL, Chou C, et al. Nature Contained: Environmental Histories of Singapore. Barnard TP, editor.
Singapore: NUS Press; 2014. 328 p.
46.Chong KY, Teo S, Kurukulasuriya B, Chung YF, Rajathurai S, Tan TWH. Not all green is as good: Different effects of the natural and cultivated
components of urban vegetation on bird and butterfly diversity. Biological Conservation. 2014;171:299-309.
47.Yeoh BSA, Huang S. The conservation-redevelopment dilemma in Singapore: The case of the Kampong Glam historic district. Cities. 1996;13(6):411-22.
48.Braaker S, Ghazoul J, Obrist MK, Moretti M. Habitat connectivity shapes urban arthropod communities: the key role of green roofs. Ecology.
2014;95:1010-21.
49.Brenneisen S, Green roofs: recapturing urban space for wildlife - a challenge for urban planning and environmental education. Green Rooftops for
Sustainable Communities conference; 2005; Washington DC. Toronto: The Cardinal Group.
50.Fernandez-Cañero R, Emilsson T, Fernandez-Barba C, Herrera Machuca MÁ. Green roof systems: A study of public attitudes and preferences in
southern Spain. Journal of Environmental Management. 2013;128:106-15.
51.Jungels J, Rakow DA, Allred SB, Skelly SM. Attitudes and aesthetic reactions toward green roofs in the Northeastern United States. Landscape and
Urban Planning. 2013;117:13-21.
52.Wong NH, Wong SJ, Lim GT, Ong CL, Sia A. Perception Study of Building Professionals on the Issues of Green Roof Development in Singapore.
Architectural Science Review. 2005;48(3):205-14.
10

CitiesAlive: 13th Annual Green Roof and Wall Conference

2015 Conference Proceedings
53.Weber F, Kowarik I, Säumel I. A walk on the wild side: Perceptions of roadside vegetation beyond trees. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening.
2014;13(2):205-12.
54.Brown SR. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press; 1980.
55.Stephenson W. The Study of Behavior. Q-technique and Its Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1953.
56.Brown SR. Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research. 1996;6(4):561-7.
57.Bacher K, Gordoa A, Mikkelsen E. Stakeholders' perceptions of marine fish farming in Catalonia (Spain): A Q-methodology approach. Aquaculture.
2014;424–425:78-85.
58.Barry J, Proops J. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics. 1999;28(3):337-45.
59.Cairns R. Examining framings of geoengineering using Q methodology. Climate Geoengineering Governance Working Paper Series: 002, 2013.
60.Cairns R, Sallu S, Goodman S. Questioning calls to consensus in conservation: a Q study of conservation discourses on Galápagos. Environmental
Conservation. 2014;41(01):13-26.
61.Kamal S, Grodzinska-Jurczak M. Should conservation of biodiversity involve private land? A Q methodological study in Poland to assess stakeholders’
attitude. Biodiversity Conservation. 2014;23(11):2689-704.
62.Lansing DM. Not all baselines are created equal: A Q methodology analysis of stakeholder perspectives of additionality in a carbon forestry offset project
in Costa Rica. Global Environmental Change. 2013;23(3):654-63.
63.Lynch A, Adler C, Howard N. Policy diffusion in arid Basin water management: a Q method approach in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Reg Environ
Change. 2014;14(4):1601-13.
64.Webler T, Danielson S, Tuler S. Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Greenfield MA: Social and Environmental
Research Institute. 2009;54.
65.Cotton MD, Mahroos-Alsaiari AA. Key actor perspectives on stakeholder engagement in Omani Environmental Impact Assessment: an application of Q-
Methodology. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 2014;58(1):91-112.
66.Milcu AI, Sherren K, Hanspach J, Abson D, Fischer J. Navigating conflicting landscape aspirations: Application of a photo-based Q-method in
Transylvania (Central Romania). Land Use Policy. 2014;41:408-22.
67.Van Exel J, de Graaf G. Q methodology: A sneak preview. Online document http://www qmethodology net/PDF/Q-methodology. 2005.
68.Paige JB, Morin KH. Q-Sample Construction: A Critical Step for a Q-Methodological Study. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 2014.
69.Watts S, Stenner P. Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method & interpretation. London: Sage; 2012.
70.Dryzek JS, Berejikian J. Reconstructive Democratic Theory. The American Political Science Review. 1993;87(1):48-60.
71.Addams H, Proops JLR. Social Discourse and Environmental Policy: An Application of Q Methodology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd; 2000.
72.R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2015.
73.Zabala A. qmethod: A Package to Explore Human Perspectives Using Q Methodology. The R Journal. 2014;6(2):163-73.
74.Revelle W. psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research, Version = 1.5.6. 2015.
75.Ng KLP, Corlett R, Tan TWH. Singapore biodiversity : an encyclopedia of the natural environment and sustainable development. Singapore: Editions
Didier Millet in association with Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research; 2011. 552 p. p.
76.Yee ATK, Corlett RT, Liew SC, Tan HTW. The vegetation of Singapore - an updated map. Gardens' Bulletin Singapore. 2011;63(1&2):205-12.
77.Tan TWH. The Natural Heritage of Singapore. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2010. 323 p.
78.Francis RA, Chadwick MA. Urban Ecosystems: Understanding the Human Environment. London: Routledge; 2013.
79.Coffman RR, Waite T. Vegetated Roofs as Reconciled Habitats: Rapid Assays Beyond Mere Species Counts. Urban Habitats.
2011;6:http://www.urbanhabitats.org/v06n1/vegetatedroofs_full.html (accessed 6 July 2015).
80.Gedge D. From rubble to redstarts. Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, Chicago. 2003:29-30.
81.Lorimer J. Living roofs and brownfield wildlife: towards a fluid biogeography of UK nature conservation. Environment and planning. 2008;40(9):2042.
82.Brenneisen S. Space for urban wildlife: designing green roofs as habitats in Switzerland. Urban Habitats. 2006;4(1):27-36.
83.Kadas G. Rare invertebrates colonizing green roofs in London. Urban habitats. 2006;4(1):66-86.
84.Francis RA, Lorimer J. Urban reconciliation ecology: The potential of living roofs and walls. Journal of Environmental Management. 2011;92(6):1429-37.
85.Balint PJ, Stewart RE, Desai A, Walters L. Managing wicked environmental problems: Integrating public participation and adaptive management. National
Convention of the Society of American Foresters; 2006; Pittsburgh.
86.Tzoulas K, Korpela K, Venn S, Yli-Pelkonen V, Kaźmierczak A, Niemela J, et al. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green
Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2007;81(3):167-78.
87.Ulrich R. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science. 1984;224:420-1.
88.Loder A. ‘There's a meadow outside my workplace’: A phenomenological exploration of aesthetics and green roofs in Chicago and Toronto. Landscape
and Urban Planning. 2014;126:94-106.
89.Nassauer JI. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape journal. 1995;14(2):161-70.
90.Grime JP. Benefits of Plant Diversity to Ecosystems: Immediate, Filter and Founder Effects. Journal of Ecology. 1998;86(6):902-10.
91.Cook-Patton SC, Bauerle TL. Potential benefits of plant diversity on vegetated roofs: a literature review. Journal of Environmental Management.
2012;106:85-92.
92.Kellert SR, Wilson EO. The biophilia hypothesis. Washington: Island Press; 1995.
93.Wilson EO. Biophilia. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press; 1984.
94.Newman P. Biophilic urbanism: A case study on Singapore. Australian Planner. 2014;51(1):47-65.
95.Tonietto R, Fant J, Ascher J, Ellis K, Larkin D. A comparison of bee communities of Chicago green roofs, parks and prairies. Landscape and Urban
Planning. 2011;103(1):102-8.
96.Lee KE, Williams KJH, Sargent LD, Farrell C, Williams NS. Living roof preference is influenced by plant characteristics and diversity. Landscape and
Urban Planning. 2014;122:152-9.
97.Qiu L, Lindberg S, Nielsen AB. Is biodiversity attractive?—On-site perception of recreational and biodiversity values in urban green space. Landscape
and Urban Planning. 2013;119:136-46.
98.Carrus G, Scopelliti M, Lafortezza R, Colangelo G, Ferrini F, Salbitano F, et al. Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-
being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2015;134:221-8.
11

CitiesAlive: 13th Annual Green Roof and Wall Conference

2015 Conference Proceedings
 12

CitiesAlive: 13th Annual Green Roof and Wall Conference

2015 Conference Proceedings

View publication stats