Stakeholder feedback on perspective renderings indicate broad support for no-mow management of campus greenspaces

No-mow management of greenspaces is becoming a popular intervention to conserve biodiversity and balance other human functions (e.g. aesthetic qualities, accessibility) through integrating the concept of “cues to care” (CTC). Here, visible signs of human intention and maintenance were featured by varying degrees of CTC, where three “no-mow” design approaches were created for greenspaces on a university campus. Next, we surveyed a cross-section of campus stakeholders to provide insight into how these no-mow options were perceived. There was broad support for no-mow management of campus greenspaces, with a design centred around a matrix of no-mow “islands” within a mowed lawn finding the most support across each of the three sites. A design composed of a more extensive no-mow patch with a well-defined border, and an no-mow patch featuring a mowed bisecting linear path were selected less frequently as preferred designs. Thematic analysis of qualitative comments revealed that no-mow designs were preferred based on higher aesthetic quality, perceived human use of the space and accessibility, and the value for biodiversity conservation. We found demographics, site familiarity, and the geometry of patch features were likely contributors to the social acceptance of no-mow design, where a moderate degree of CTC out-performed alternative management options. Affiliation, gender, and age demographics showed students who identified as women and under the age of 30 were most responsive to no-mow designs compared to high-frequency mowing. No-mow management was more strongly preferred for unfamiliar sites, as compared to familiar sites. The curvature of no-mow island features were also preferred over linear mowed strips, supporting a fundamental human preference for more-natural geometry. Findings demonstrate that designed greenspaces that facilitate human uses, feature moderate CTC, and provide habitat may improve public perceptions, and thus the uptake of no-mow management. • No-mow management of greenspaces was digitally rendered for a university campus. • We surveyed N = 150 campus stakeholders to understand their perspectives on the designs. • Stakeholders valued designs with high aesthetics, usability, and biodiversity. • No-mow “island” designs had the broadest support across all campus sites. • Support for no-mow declined in more familiar campus areas.