IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v86y2013icp258-273.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why garden for wildlife? Social and ecological drivers, motivations and barriers for biodiversity management in residential landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • Goddard, Mark A.
  • Dougill, Andrew J.
  • Benton, Tim G.

Abstract

Residential landscapes with private gardens are major land covers in cities and their sustainable management is paramount for achieving a resilient urban future. Here we focus on the value of residential ecosystems for biodiversity conservation and explore the social and ecological factors that influence wildlife-friendly garden management. Using a stratified sampling design across the UK city of Leeds, this interdisciplinary study develops and applies a mixed method approach, including questionnaires, interviews and ecological surveys across multiple spatial scales. We quantify wildlife-friendly gardening using two measures: (i) the number of wildlife-friendly features within gardens (the wildlife resources index, WRI); and (ii) the frequency of winter bird feeding. Wildlife-friendly gardening is influenced by a combination of garden characteristics and management intensity, householder demographics, wider environmental activity and landscape context. Residents reveal a range of motivations for wildlife-friendly gardening, notably personal well-being and a moral responsibility to nature. Respondents expressed a duty to maintain neighbourhood standards, revealing that social norms are a considerable barrier to uptake of wildlife-friendly activities, but also provide an opportunity where neighbour mimicry results in diffusion of wildlife-friendly practices. Community-driven initiatives that engage, educate and empower residents are better placed to encourage wildlife-friendly gardening than top-down financial incentives.

Suggested Citation

  • Goddard, Mark A. & Dougill, Andrew J. & Benton, Tim G., 2013. "Why garden for wildlife? Social and ecological drivers, motivations and barriers for biodiversity management in residential landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 258-273.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:86:y:2013:i:c:p:258-273
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800912002819
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Coisnon, Thomas & Rousselière, Damien & Rousselière, Samira, 2018. "Information on biodiversity and environmental behaviors: a European study of individual and institutional drivers to adopt sustainable gardening practices," Working Papers 272611, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    2. Kelli L. Larson & Jose-Benito Rosales Chavez & Jeffrey A. Brown & Jorge Morales-Guerrero & Dayanara Avilez, 2023. "Human–Wildlife Interactions and Coexistence in an Urban Desert Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Angela Heymans & Jessica Breadsell & Gregory M. Morrison & Joshua J. Byrne & Christine Eon, 2019. "Ecological Urban Planning and Design: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-20, July.
    4. Brock, Michael & Doremus, Jacqueline & Li, Liqing, 2021. "Birds of a feather lockdown together: Mutual bird-human benefits during a global pandemic," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    5. Derk Jan Stobbelaar & Wim van der Knaap & Joop Spijker, 2021. "Greening the City: How to Get Rid of Garden Pavement! The ‘Steenbreek’ Program as a Dutch Example," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-30, March.
    6. Lea Barbett & Edward J. N. Stupple & Michael Sweet & Malcolm B. Schofield & Miles Richardson, 2020. "Measuring Actions for Nature—Development and Validation of a Pro-Nature Conservation Behaviour Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-20, June.
    7. Christopher Yap, 2019. "Self-Organisation in Urban Community Gardens: Autogestion, Motivations, and the Role of Communication," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-21, May.
    8. Jorge Cruz-Cárdenas & Nora H. Oleas, 2018. "Private Urban Garden Satisfaction and Its Determinants in Quito, Ecuador," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(1), pages 21582440187, March.
    9. Anne-Katrin Schneider & Michael W. Strohbach & Mario App & Boris Schröder, 2019. "The ‘GartenApp’: Assessing and Communicating the Ecological Potential of Private Gardens," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.
    10. Elvia J. Meléndez-Ackerman & Christopher J. Nytch & Luis E. Santiago-Acevedo & Julio C. Verdejo-Ortiz & Raúl Santiago-Bartolomei & Luis E. Ramos-Santiago & Tischa A. Muñoz-Erickson, 2016. "Synthesis of Household Yard Area Dynamics in the City of San Juan Using Multi-Scalar Social-Ecological Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-21, May.
    11. Dennis, Matthew & James, Philip, 2016. "Considerations in the valuation of urban green space: Accounting for user participation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 120-129.
    12. Lenka Dubová & Jan Macháč & Alena Vacková, 2020. "Food Provision, Social Interaction or Relaxation: Which Drivers Are Vital to Being a Member of Community Gardens in Czech Cities?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-17, November.
    13. Dennis, M. & James, P., 2018. "Urban Social-ecological Innovation: Implications for Adaptive Natural Resource Management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 153-164.
    14. Jane Mills & Peter Gaskell & Julie Ingram & Janet Dwyer & Matt Reed & Christopher Short, 2017. "Engaging farmers in environmental management through a better understanding of behaviour," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(2), pages 283-299, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:86:y:2013:i:c:p:258-273. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.