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

Goddard, Mark A.; Dougill, Andrew J.; Benton, Tim G.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.016

Cited by 241 publications

(221 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

203

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Domestic gardens contribute substantially to the urban green space (Goddard et al, 2013), which also includes public parks, sports spaces, and natural areas (Warhurst et al, 2014).…”

Section: Domestic Urban Gardensmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this sense, two large groups of studies can be identified: those oriented toward studying the motivations and benefits of using domestic gardens and those oriented toward informing management decisions regarding gardens and their structure and design. Studies in the first group have identified six motivations for planting or using domestic gardens: (a) to connect with nature (Bhatti & Church, 2004;Clayton, 2007;Goddard et al, 2013;Kiesling & Manning, 2010;Loram et al, 2011;Tang, Sullivan, & Chang, 2015); (b) to engage in leisure activities with family, friends, and pets (Clayton, 2007;Goddard et al, 2013;Loram et al, 2011); (c) to perform physical, hands-on work (Clayton, 2007;Goddard et al, 2013;Kiesling & Manning, 2010;Loram et al, 2011); to grow food and medicinal plants (Clayton, 2007;Goddard et al, 2013); (e) to embellish the house for others (e.g., friends or neighbors) or to meet neighborhood standards (Bhatti & Church, 2004;Goddard et al, 2013); and (f) to increase the economic value of a house (Clayton, 2007).…”

Section: Domestic Urban Gardensmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within the second major area of research on domestic gardens, which concerns management decisions regarding structure and design, studies have focused on garden management activities (e.g., sowing, watering, pruning, cultivating, weeding, and using fertilizers and pesticides), their predictors, and their impacts (e.g., Clayton, 2007;Goddard et al, 2013;Kiesling & Manning, 2010;Loram et al, 2011). Research has identified owners' environmental values (Larson, Cook, Strawhacker, & Hall, 2010), their income (Larsen & Harlan, 2006), and the prevailing cultural norms (Nassauer, Wang, & Dayrell, 2009) as variables that influence the design of domestic gardens.…”

Section: Domestic Urban Gardensmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Friends and neighbors have proven to be an important influence in management decisions (Goddard et al, 2013). However, beyond this factor, satisfaction in various domains demonstrates significant correlations (van Praag & Ferrer-iCarbonell, 2004).…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, a garden's basic structure can be described by its main base cover (Goddard et al, 2013), that is, either plants or hardscaping. Factoring in the human benefits of interacting with nature, which were discussed in the literature review, we propose the following hypothesis:…”

Section: Garden Characteristics Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Private Urban Garden Satisfaction and Its Determinants in Quito, Ecuador

Cruz-Cárdenas

Oleas

2018

Sage Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because of their importance to people, nature, and societies, domestic gardens have attracted increasing research interest. However, significant areas of interest remain unexplored, such as the variables that determine individuals' satisfaction with their gardens. Our main goal was to address this gap. We surveyed 1,005 individuals with home gardens in Quito, Ecuador, to collect information on three groups of variables: (a) psychological and individual factors, (b) social and family aspects, and (c) garden characteristics. We used these groups of variables as predictors of satisfaction in a regression model (R 2 = 0.242), with the first and third contributing the most to our understanding of satisfaction. In particular, people tended to be more satisfied with gardens composed of mostly native plants. In addition, individuals tended to be more satisfied if their motives for garden use were related to nature. In contrast, a high level of consumed resources negatively affected satisfaction.

show abstract

“…Domestic gardens contribute substantially to the urban green space (Goddard et al, 2013), which also includes public parks, sports spaces, and natural areas (Warhurst et al, 2014).…”

Section: Domestic Urban Gardensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Domestic Urban Gardensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Domestic Urban Gardensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Garden Characteristics Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Private Urban Garden Satisfaction and Its Determinants in Quito, Ecuador

Cruz-Cárdenas

Oleas

2018

Sage Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Horticultural availability and homeowner preferences drive plant diversity and composition in urban yards

Cavender‐Bares

Cubino

Pearse

et al. 2020

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2020. Horticultural availability and homeowner preferences drive plant diversity and composition in urban yards. Ecological Applications 30(4):Abstract. Understanding the factors that influence biodiversity in urban areas is important for informing management efforts aimed at enhancing the ecosystem services in urban settings and curbing the spread of invasive introduced species. We determined the ecological and socioeconomic factors that influence patterns of plant richness, phylogenetic diversity, and composition in 133 private household yards in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Metropolitan area, Minnesota, USA. We compared the composition of spontaneously occurring plant species and those planted by homeowners with composition in natural areas (at the Cedar Creek Ecosystem Science Reserve) and in the horticulture pool of species available from commercial growers. Yard area and fertilizer frequency influenced species richness of the spontaneous species but expressed homeowner values did not. In contrast, the criteria that homeowners articulated as important in their management decisions, including aesthetics, wildlife, neatness and food provision, significantly predicted cultivated species richness. Strikingly, the composition of plant species that people cultivated in their yards resembled the taxonomic and phylogenetic composition of species available commercially. In contrast, the taxonomic and phylogenetic composition of spontaneous species showed high similarity to natural areas. The large fraction of introduced species that homeowners planted was a likely consequence of what was available for them to purchase. The study links the composition and diversity of yard flora to their natural and anthropogenic sources and sheds light on the human factors and values that influence the plant diversity in residential areas of a major urban system. Enhanced understanding of the influences of the sources of plants, both native and introduced, that enter urban systems and the human factors and values that influence their diversity is critical to identifying the levers to manage urban biodiversity and ecosystem services.

show abstract

Residential yard management and landscape cover affect urban bird community diversity across the continental USA

Lerman

Narango

Avolio

et al. 2021

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urbanization has a homogenizing effect on biodiversity and leads to communities with fewer native species and lower conservation value. However, few studies have explored whether or how land management by urban residents can ameliorate the deleterious effects of this homogenization on species composition. We tested the effects of local (land management) and neighborhood‐scale (impervious surface and tree canopy cover) features on breeding bird diversity in six US metropolitan areas that differ in regional species pools and climate. We used a Bayesian multiregion community model to assess differences in species richness, functional guild richness, community turnover, population vulnerability, and public interest in each bird community in six land management types: two natural area park types (separate and adjacent to residential areas), two yard types with conservation features (wildlife‐certified and water conservation) and two lawn‐dominated yard types (high‐ and low‐fertilizer application), and surrounding neighborhood‐scale features. Species richness was higher in yards compared with parks; however, parks supported communities with high conservation scores while yards supported species of high public interest. Bird communities in all land management types were composed of primarily native species. Within yard types, species richness was strongly and positively associated with neighborhood‐scale tree canopy cover and negatively associated with impervious surface. At a continental scale, community turnover between cities was lowest in yards and highest in parks. Within cities, however, turnover was lowest in high‐fertilizer yards and highest in wildlife‐certified yards and parks. Our results demonstrate that, across regions, preserving natural areas, minimizing impervious surfaces and increasing tree canopy are essential strategies to conserve regionally important species. However, yards, especially those managed for wildlife support diverse, heterogeneous bird communities with high public interest and potential to support species of conservation concern. Management approaches that include the preservation of protected parks, encourage wildlife‐friendly yards and acknowledge how public interest in local birds can advance successful conservation in American residential landscapes.

show abstract

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

Cited by 241 publications

References 74 publications

Private Urban Garden Satisfaction and Its Determinants in Quito, Ecuador

Private Urban Garden Satisfaction and Its Determinants in Quito, Ecuador

Horticultural availability and homeowner preferences drive plant diversity and composition in urban yards

Residential yard management and landscape cover affect urban bird community diversity across the continental USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About