IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i9p3507-d350252.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dog Walkers’ Views of Urban Biodiversity across Five European Cities

Author

Listed:
  • Leonie K. Fischer

    (Department of Ecology, Ecosystem Science/Plant Ecology, Technische Universität Berlin, Rothenburgstr. 12, D-12165 Berlin, Germany
    Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), D-14195 Berlin, Germany
    Institute of Landscape Planning and Ecology, University of Stuttgart, Keplerstraße 11, D-70174 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Ingo Kowarik

    (Department of Ecology, Ecosystem Science/Plant Ecology, Technische Universität Berlin, Rothenburgstr. 12, D-12165 Berlin, Germany
    Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), D-14195 Berlin, Germany)

Abstract

Contact with nature makes people feel better, live healthier and act more environmentally-friendly. We hypothesized that dog walking, an omnipresent people–nature interaction in cities, translates to a more positive view of urban nature and, subsequently, to more support for conservation initiatives. Insights into such positive side-effects of dog walking are relevant for dog-related urban policies that often focus on negative impacts of dogs (e.g., health risks, disturbance of wildlife). Based on a field survey in five European cities ( N = 3717), we analyzed if people who walked dogs regularly valued four urban ecosystem types (park meadows, wastelands, streetscapes, forests), and the plant species diversity within, differently from other people. Opposite to our hypothesis, participants from both groups valued urban ecosystems and their biodiversity very similarly across the cities. Thus, our study does not confirm that regular dog walkers value natural elements more than other people. It thus remains an important challenge for urban planners to balance services and disservices of dog walking in urban greenspaces.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonie K. Fischer & Ingo Kowarik, 2020. "Dog Walkers’ Views of Urban Biodiversity across Five European Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-11, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:9:p:3507-:d:350252
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/9/3507/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/9/3507/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fischer, L.K. & Honold, J. & Botzat, A. & Brinkmeyer, D. & Cvejić, R. & Delshammar, T. & Elands, B. & Haase, D. & Kabisch, N. & Karle, S.J. & Lafortezza, R. & Nastran, M. & Nielsen, A.B. & van der Jag, 2018. "Recreational ecosystem services in European cities: Sociocultural and geographical contexts matter for park use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 455-467.
    2. Jonah L. Landor-Yamagata & Ingo Kowarik & Leonie K. Fischer, 2018. "Urban Foraging in Berlin: People, Plants and Practices within the Metropolitan Green Infrastructure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-23, June.
    3. Paul Draus & Juliette Roddy, 2018. "Weeds, Pheasants and Wild Dogs: Resituating the Ecological Paradigm in Postindustrial Detroit," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(5), pages 807-827, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ingo Kowarik & Leonie K. Fischer & Dave Kendal, 2020. "Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Urban Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-8, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alessio Russo & Giuseppe T. Cirella, 2019. "Edible urbanism 5.0," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Guangxi Shen & Zipeng Song & Jiacong Xu & Lishuang Zou & Lijin Huang & Yingnan Li, 2023. "Are Ecosystem Services Provided by Street Trees at Parcel Level Worthy of Attention? A Case Study of a Campus in Zhenjiang, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-16, January.
    3. Giorgio Mina & Valentina Scariot & Giovanni Peira & Giampiero Lombardi, 2023. "Foraging Practices and Sustainable Management of Wild Food Resources in Europe: A Systematic Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-22, June.
    4. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-Related and Socio-Demographic Variations in Urban Green Space Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    5. Eve Burrows & Margaret O’Mahony & Dermot Geraghty, 2018. "How Urban Parks Offer Opportunities for Physical Activity in Dublin, Ireland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-11, April.
    6. Peng Zhan & Guang Hu & Ruilian Han & Yu Kang, 2021. "Factors Influencing the Visitation and Revisitation of Urban Parks: A Case Study from Hangzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-12, September.
    7. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-related and socio-demographic variations in urban green space preferences," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/326192, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. Maund, Phoebe R. & Irvine, Katherine N. & Dallimer, Martin & Fish, Robert & Austen, Gail E. & Davies, Zoe G., 2020. "Do ecosystem service frameworks represent people’s values?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    9. Ruiz-Frau, A. & Ospina-Alvarez, A. & Villasante, S. & Pita, P. & Maya-Jariego, I. & de Juan, S., 2020. "Using graph theory and social media data to assess cultural ecosystem services in coastal areas: Method development and application," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    10. Yang Yang & Zhifang Wang & Guangsi Lin, 2021. "Performance Assessment Indicators for Comparing Recreational Services of Urban Parks," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-21, March.
    11. Jinlong Chen & Zhonglei Yu & Mengxia Li & Xiao Huang, 2023. "Assessing the Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Vegetation Coverage in Urban Built-Up Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, January.
    12. Nina Schwarz & Annegret Haase & Dagmar Haase & Nadja Kabisch & Sigrun Kabisch & Veronika Liebelt & Dieter Rink & Michael W. Strohbach & Juliane Welz & Manuel Wolff, 2021. "How Are Urban Green Spaces and Residential Development Related? A Synopsis of Multi-Perspective Analyses for Leipzig, Germany," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, June.
    13. Ben-Simchon, Eyal & Grunwald, Yael & Ben-Ari, Giora & Rosenfeld, Arie & Shelef, Oren, 2022. "A village a field? Agronomic evaluation of fruit trees in inhabited space – Lessons for land use policy from a case study in Israel's Sharon Region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    14. Jörg Priess & Luis Valença Pinto & Ieva Misiune & Julia Palliwoda, 2021. "Ecosystem Service Use and the Motivations for Use in Central Parks in Three European Cities," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, February.
    15. Ruochen Ma & Yuxin Luo & Katsunori Furuya, 2023. "Gender Differences and Optimizing Women’s Experiences: An Exploratory Study of Visual Behavior While Viewing Urban Park Landscapes in Tokyo, Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-14, February.
    16. Spence, Danielle S. & Schuster-Wallace, Corinne J. & Lloyd-Smith, Patrick, 2023. "Disparities in economic values for nature-based activities in Canada," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    17. Weixuan Wei & Yiqi Wang & Qi Yan & Guanpeng Liu & Nannan Dong, 2024. "Assessing Buffer Gradient Synergies: Comparing Objective and Subjective Evaluations of Urban Park Ecosystem Services in Century Park, Shanghai," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-33, November.
    18. Shackleton, Charlie M. & de Vos, Alta, 2022. "How many people globally actually use non-timber forest products?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    19. Joanna Wysmułek & Maria Hełdak & Anatolii Kucher, 2020. "The Analysis of Green Areas’ Accessibility in Comparison with Statistical Data in Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-17, June.
    20. Davide Marino & Margherita Palmieri & Angelo Marucci & Mariangela Soraci & Antonio Barone & Silvia Pili, 2023. "Linking Flood Risk Mitigation and Food Security: An Analysis of Land-Use Change in the Metropolitan Area of Rome," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, January.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:9:p:3507-:d:350252. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.