IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i19p10596-d642152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceived Benefits and Costs of Owning a Pet in a Megapolis: An Ecosystem Services Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Anastasia Konstantinova

    (Department of Landscape Design and Sustainable Ecosystems, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia—RUDN University, 117198 Moscow, Russia)

  • Victor Matasov

    (Department of Landscape Design and Sustainable Ecosystems, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia—RUDN University, 117198 Moscow, Russia)

  • Anna Filyushkina

    (Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Viacheslav Vasenev

    (Department of Landscape Design and Sustainable Ecosystems, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia—RUDN University, 117198 Moscow, Russia
    Department of Soil Geography and Landscape, Wageningen University and Research Centre (WUR), 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Ongoing urbanization has led to a significant increase in the number of pets and has altered the relationships between pets and owners from primarily utilitarian to cultural (e.g., entertainment and health improvement). Existing classifications of ecosystem services (ES) (e.g., CICES) and nature’s contributions to people (NCP) explicitly consider only the ES provided by livestock and wild animals. This study attempted to translate perceived benefits and costs from owning pets (dogs or cats) in a megapolis into ES and disservices frameworks. The data were collected via an online questionnaire distributed through social media among residents of Moscow (Russia). The study showed that pets contribute to the well-being of city dwellers, for which owners are willing to put up with some potential risks and also bear monetary costs. Reasons for owning a pet have been translated into ES and NCPs ranging from regulating (4%) to provisioning (1%). However, cultural services linked to mental (26%) and physical (32%) health, spiritual, symbolic interaction (19%), and educational values (16%) have been the most prominent group. Considering an increase in pet owners, the interests and needs of this distinct stakeholder group need to be taken into account in urban planning and management. Pets’ integration into classifications and thus assessments of the urban ES can be a crucial step towards achieving this goal.

Suggested Citation

  • Anastasia Konstantinova & Victor Matasov & Anna Filyushkina & Viacheslav Vasenev, 2021. "Perceived Benefits and Costs of Owning a Pet in a Megapolis: An Ecosystem Services Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-15, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:19:p:10596-:d:642152
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/19/10596/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/19/10596/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scott R. Loss & Tom Will & Peter P. Marra, 2013. "The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 4(1), pages 1-8, June.
    2. Calvet-Mir, Laura & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Reyes-García, Victoria, 2012. "Beyond food production: Ecosystem services provided by home gardens. A case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 153-160.
    3. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    4. Grunewald, K. & Bastian, O. & Louda, J. & Arcidiacono, A. & Brzoska, P. & Bue, M. & Cetin, N.I. & Dworczyk, C. & Dubova, L. & Fitch, A. & Jones, L. & La Rosa, D. & Mascarenhas, A. & Ronchi, S. & Schla, 2021. "Lessons learned from implementing the ecosystem services concept in urban planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    5. Diana Dushkova & Maria Ignatieva & Michael Hughes & Anastasia Konstantinova & Viacheslav Vasenev & Elvira Dovletyarova, 2021. "Human Dimensions of Urban Blue and Green Infrastructure during a Pandemic. Case Study of Moscow (Russia) and Perth (Australia)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, April.
    6. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    2. Langemeyer, Johannes & Baró, Francesc & Roebeling, Peter & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, 2015. "Contrasting values of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas: The case of park Montjuïc in Barcelona," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 178-186.
    3. Tandarić, Neven & Ives, Christopher D. & Watkins, Charles, 2022. "From city in the park to “greenery in plant pots”: The influence of socialist and post-socialist planning on opportunities for cultural ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    4. Dennis, Matthew & James, Philip, 2017. "Ecosystem services of collectively managed urban gardens: Exploring factors affecting synergies and trade-offs at the site level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 17-26.
    5. Riechers, Maraja & Barkmann, Jan & Tscharntke, Teja, 2016. "Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 33-39.
    6. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    7. Peck, Megan & Khirfan, Luna, 2021. "Improving the validity and credibility of the sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services in Amman, Jordan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    8. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    9. Brzoska, P. & Grunewald, K. & Bastian, O., 2021. "A multi-criteria analytical method to assess ecosystem services at urban site level, exemplified by two German city districts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    10. De Valck, Jeremy & Beames, Alistair & Liekens, Inge & Bettens, Maarten & Seuntjens, Piet & Broekx, Steven, 2019. "Valuing urban ecosystem services in sustainable brownfield redevelopment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 139-149.
    11. Wubante Fetene Admasu & Annelies Boerema & Jan Nyssen & Amare Sewnet Minale & Enyew Adgo Tsegaye & Steven Van Passel, 2020. "Uncovering Ecosystem Services of Expropriated Land: The Case of Urban Expansion in Bahir Dar, Northwest Ethiopia," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-20, October.
    12. Remme, Roy P. & Edens, Bram & Schröter, Matthias & Hein, Lars, 2015. "Monetary accounting of ecosystem services: A test case for Limburg province, the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 116-128.
    13. Vaz, Ana S. & Kueffer, Christoph & Kull, Christian A. & Richardson, David M. & Vicente, Joana R. & Kühn, Ingolf & Schröter, Matthias & Hauck, Jennifer & Bonn, Aletta & Honrado, João P., 2017. "Integrating ecosystem services and disservices: insights from plant invasions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 94-107.
    14. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    15. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    16. Affek, Andrzej Norbert & Kowalska, Anna, 2017. "Ecosystem potentials to provide services in the view of direct users," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 183-196.
    17. Maraja Riechers & Micha Strack & Jan Barkmann & Teja Tscharntke, 2019. "Cultural Ecosystem Services Provided by Urban Green Change along an Urban-Periurban Gradient," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-10, January.
    18. Primmer, Eeva & Jokinen, Pekka & Blicharska, Malgorzata & Barton, David N. & Bugter, Rob & Potschin, Marion, 2015. "Governance of Ecosystem Services: A framework for empirical analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 158-166.
    19. Jianxiong Bao & Wen Wang & Tianqing Zhao, 2023. "Spatiotemporal Changes of Ecosystem Service Values in Response to Land Cover Dynamics in China from 1992 to 2020," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-28, April.
    20. Lopes, Rita & Videira, Nuno, 2019. "How to articulate the multiple value dimensions of ecosystem services? Insights from implementing the PArticulatES framework in a coastal social-ecological system in Portugal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.

    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:13:y:2021:i:19:p:10596-:d:642152. 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.