Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Different social drivers, including perceptions of urban wildlife, explain the ecological resources in residential landscapes

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

The conservation value of residential landscapes is becoming increasingly apparent in our urbanizing world. The ecological characteristics of residential areas are largely determined by the decisions of many individual “managers.” In these complex socio-ecological systems, it is important to understand the factors that motivate human decision-making.

Objectives

Our first objective was to quantify wildlife resources and management activities in residential landscapes and compare vegetation in front and back yards. Our second objective was to test three hypotheses linked with variation in yards: socioeconomic characteristics, neighborhood design factors, and perceptions of neighborhood birds.

Methods

We conducted surveys of over 900 residents in 25 Chicago-area neighborhoods to examine the wildlife resources contained in front and back yards and the social factors associated with variation in yards. We used a multi-scalar approach to examine among-yard and among-neighborhood variation in residential landscapes.

Results

Results indicate that back yards contain more wildlife resources than front yards, including greater vegetation complexity, more plants with fruit/berries, and more plants intended to attract birds. Furthermore, different hypotheses explain variation in front and back yards. Perceptions of birds were most important in explaining variation in back yard vegetation and wildlife-friendly resources per parcel, while neighbors’ yards and socioeconomic characteristics best explained front yard vegetation.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the importance of back yards as an unexplored and underestimated resource for biodiversity. In addition, the results provide insight into the complex factors linked with yard decisions, notably that residents’ connections with neighborhood birds appear to translate to on-the-ground actions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allred SB, Ross-Davis A (2011) The drop-off and pick-up method: an approach to reduce nonresponse bias in natural resource surveys. Small Scale For 10:305–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balmford A, Cowling R (2006) Fusion or failure? The future of conservation biology. Conserv Biol 20:692–695

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Belaire JA, Whelan CJ, Minor ES (2014) Having our yards and sharing them too: the collective effects of yards on native bird species in an urban landscape. Ecol Appl 24(8):2132–2143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjerke T, Ostdahl T (2004) Animal-related attitudes and activities in an urban population. Anthrozoös 17(2):109–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjerke T, Ostdahl T, Kleiven J (2003) Attitudes and activities related to urban wildlife: pet owners and non-owners. Anthrozoos 16:252–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnington C, Gaston KJ, Evans KL (2013) Fearing the feline: domestic cats reduce avian fecundity through trait-mediated indirect effects that increase nest predation by other species. J Appl Ecol 50:15–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron RWF, Blanuša T, Taylor JE, Salisbury A, Halstead AJ, Henricot B, Thompson K (2012) The domestic garden—its contribution to urban green infrastructure. Urban For Urban Green 11(2012):129–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chowdhury R, Larson KL, Grove JM, Polsky C, Ogden L, Onsted J, Cook E (2011) A multi-scalar approach to theorizing socio-ecological dynamics of urban residential landscapes. Cities Environ 4(1):6–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA (1990) A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Personal Soc Psychol 58(6):1015–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton S (2007) Domesticated nature: motivations for gardening and perceptions of environmental impact. J Environ Psychol 27:215–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clucas B, Rabotyagov S, Marzluff JM (2014) How much is that birdie in my backyard? A cross-continental economic valuation of native urban songbirds. Urban Ecosyst. doi:10.1007/s11252-014-0392-x

    Google Scholar 

  • Conniff R 2014. The evil of the outdoor cat. New York Times. 24 Mar. 2014

  • Cook EM, Hall SJ, Larson KL (2012) Residential landscapes as social-ecological systems: a synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between people and their home environment. Urban Ecosyst (6 August 2011):1-34

  • Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Phillips T, Bonney R (2007) Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecol Soc 12(2): 11. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art11/

  • Cosquer A, Raymond R, Prevot-Julliard A (2012) Observations of everyday biodiversity: a new perspective for conservation? Ecol Soc 17(4):2

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahmus ME, Nelson KC (2013) Yard stories: examining residents’ conceptions of their yards as part of the urban ecosystem in Minnesota. Urban Ecosyst 17(1):173–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels GD, Kirkpatrick JB (2006a) Does variation in garden characteristics influence the conservation of birds in suburbia? Biol Conserv 133:326–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels GD, Kirkpatrick JB (2006b) Comparing the characteristics of front and back domestic gardens in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Landsc Urban Plan 78:344–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies ZG, Fuller RA, Dallimer M, Loram A, Gaston KJ (2012) Household factors influencing participation in bird feeding activity: a national scale analysis. PLoS One 7(6):e39692

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson JL, Crain R, Yalowitz S, Cherry TM (2013a) How framing climate change influences citizen scientists’ intentions to do something about it. J Environ Educ 44(3):145–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson JL, Crain R, Reeve HK, Schuldt JP (2013b) Can evolutionary design of social networks make it easier to be ‘green’? Trends Ecol Evol 28(9):561–569

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (1978) Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller RA, Irvine KN, Davies ZG, Armsworth PR, Gaston KJ (2012) Interactions between people and birds in urban landscapes. In: Lepczyk CA, Warren PS (eds) Urban bird ecology and conservation. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ, Fuller RA, Loram A, MacDonald C, Power S, Dempsey N (2007) Urban domestic gardens (XI): variation in urban wildlife gardening in the United Kingdom. Biodivers Conserv 16:3227–3238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ, Avila-Jimenez ML, Edmondson JL (2013) Managing urban ecosystems for goods and services. J Appl Ecol 50(4):830–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG (2013) Why garden for wildlife? Social and ecological drivers, motivations and barriers for biodiversity management in residential landscapes. Ecol Econ 86:258–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grove JM, Troy AR, O’Neil-Dunne JPM, Burch WR Jr, Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA (2006) Characterization of households and its implications for the vegetation of urban ecosystems. Ecosystems 9(4):578–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris EM, Polsky C, Larson KL, Garvoille R, Martin DG, Brumand J, Ogden L (2012) Heterogeneity in residential yard care: evidence from Boston, Miami, and Phoenix. Hum Ecol 40:735–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head L, Muir P (2006) Suburban life and the boundaries of nature: resilience and rupture in Australian backyard gardens. Trans Inst Br Geogr 31(4):505–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head L, Muir P (2007) Edges of connection: reconceptualising the human role in urban biogeography. Aust Geogr 37(1):87–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hope D, Gries C, Zhu W, Fagan WF, Redman CL, Grimm NB, Nelson AL, Martin C, Kinzig A (2003) Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. PNAS 100(15):8788–8792

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter MCR, Brown DG (2012) Spatial contagion: gardening along the street in residential neighborhoods. Landsc Urban Plan 105:407–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinzig AP, Warren P, Martin C, Hope D and Katti M (2005) The effects of human socioeconomic status and cultural characteristics on urban patterns of biodiversity. Ecol Soc 10(1): 23. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art23/5

  • Larsen L, Harlan SL (2006) Desert dreamscapes: residential landscape preference and behavior. Landsc Urban Plan 78:85–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson KL, Casagrande D, Harlan S, Yabiku S (2009) Residents’ yard choices and rationales in a desert city: social priorities, ecological impacts, and decision tradeoffs. Environ Manag 44:921–937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson KL, Cook E, Strawhacker C, Hall SJ (2010) The influence of diverse values, ecological structure, and geographic context on residents' multifaceted landscaping decisions. Hum Ecol 38:747–761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legendre P, Legendre L (2012) Numerical ecology, 3rd edn. Elsevier, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepczyk CA, Mertig AG, Liu J (2004) Assessing landowner activities related to birds across rural-to-urban landscapes. Environ Manag 33(1):110–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepczyk CA, Warren PS, Machabee L, Kinzig AP, Mertig AG (2012) Who feeds the birds? A comparison across regions. In: Lepczyk CA, Warren PS (eds) Urban Bird Ecology and Conservation. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lerman SB, Warren PS (2011) The conservation value of residential yards: linking birds and people. Ecol Appl 21(4):1327–1339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loram A, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2008) Urban domestic gardens (XIV): the characteristics of gardens in five cities. Environ Manag 42:361–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loss SR, Ruiz MO, Brawn JD (2009) Relationships between avian diversity, neighborhood age, income, and environmental characteristics of an urban landscape. Biol Conserv 142:2578–2585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loss SR, Will T, Marra P (2013) The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nat Commun 4:1396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin CA, Warren PS, Kinzig AP (2004) Neighborhood socioeconomic status is a useful predictor of perennial landscape vegetation in residential neighborhoods and embedded small parks of Phoenix, AZ. Landsc Urban Plan 69:355–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer FS, Frantz CM (2004) The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. J Environ Psychol 24:503–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald JL, Maclean M, Evans MR, Hodgson DJ (2015) Reconciling actual and perceived rates of predation by domestic cats. Ecol Evol 5(14):2745–2753

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Micallef L, Rodgers P (2014) eulerAPE: drawing area-proportional 3-Venn diagrams using ellipses. PLoS ONE 9(7):e101717

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Minor ES, Belaire JA, Davis A, Franco M, Lin M (2015) Socioeconomics and neighbor mimicry drive urban yard and neighborhood vegetation patterns. In: Francis R, Millington J (eds) Urban landscape ecology: science, policy and practice. Taylor & Francis, Oxon

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI, Wang Z, Dayrell E (2009) What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landsc Urban Plan 92:282–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolan JM, Schultz PW, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V (2008) Normative social influence is underdetected. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 34:913

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O'Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner H (2012) vegan: Community ecology package. R package version 2.0-3. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan

  • Polsky C, Grove JM, Knudson C, Groffman PM, Bettez N, Cavender-Bares J, Hall SJ, Heffernan JB, Hobbie SE, Larson KL, Morse JL, Neill C, Nelson KC, Ogden LA, O'Neil-Dunne J, Pataki DE, Chowdhury RR, Steele M (2014) Assessing the homogenization of urban land management with an application to US residential lawn care. PNAS 111(12):4432–4437

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rudd H, Vala J, Schaefer V (2002) Importance of backyard habitat in a comprehensive biodiversity conservation strategy: a connectivity analysis of Urban green spaces. Restor Ecol 10(2):368–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder HW, Ruffolo SR (1996) Householder evaluations of street trees in a Chicago suburb. J Arboric 22(1):35–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz PW (1999) Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: a field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 27(1):25–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz PW (2011) Conservation means behavior. Conserv Biol 25(6):1080–1083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steele J, Bourke L, Luloff AE, Liao P, Theodori GL, Krannich RS (2001) The drop-off/pick-up method for household survey research. J Community Dev Soc 32(2):238–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stracey CM (2011) Resolving the urban nest predator paradox: the role of alternative foods for nest predators. Biol Conserv 144:1545–1552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tratalos J, Fuller RA, Warren PH, Davies RG, Gaston KJ (2007) Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landsc Urban Plan 83(4):308–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. EPA. 2012. Healthy yards, healthy lawns, healthy environment. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pesticideslawn.htm. Accessed Nov 2013

  • van Heezik YM, Dickinson KJM, Freeman C (2012) Closing the gap: communicating to change gardening practices in support of native biodiversity in urban private gardens. Ecol Soc 17(1):34

    Google Scholar 

  • van Heezik Y, Freeman C, Porter S, Dickinson KJ (2013) Garden size, householder knowledge, and socio-economic status influence plant and bird diversity at the scale of individual gardens. Ecosystems 16(8):1442–1454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vergnes A, Le Viol I, Clergeau P (2012) Green corridors in urban landscapes affect the arthropod communities of domestic gardens. Biol Conserv 145:171–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler B. 2010. lmPerm: permutation tests for linear models. R package version 1.1–2. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmPerm

  • Zmyslony J, Gagnon D (2000) Path analysis of spatial predictors of front-yard landscape in an anthropogenic environment. Landscape Ecol 15:357–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Grant DGE-0549245 and the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Department of Biological Sciences Elmer Hadley Graduate Research Award. We thank C. Watkins for advice in social survey design and delivery, H. Gin for help with survey distribution, and L. Vonderlinden for verifying yard characteristics of respondents. We also thank the many residents of Cook County, Illinois who graciously participated in the survey.

Author information

Author notes

  1. J. Amy Belaire

    Present address: Wild Basin Creative Research Center, Department of Natural Sciences, St. Edward’s University, 3001 S. Congress Ave., Austin, TX, 78704, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, 845 W. Taylor, M/C 066, Chicago, IL, 60607, USA

    J. Amy Belaire & Emily S. Minor

  2. US Forest Service, Northern Research Station, “People and Their Environments” Research Program, 1033 University Place, Suite 360, Evanston, IL, 60201, USA

    Lynne M. Westphal

Authors
  1. J. Amy Belaire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lynne M. Westphal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emily S. Minor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Amy Belaire.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 300 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Belaire, J.A., Westphal, L.M. & Minor, E.S. Different social drivers, including perceptions of urban wildlife, explain the ecological resources in residential landscapes. Landscape Ecol 31, 401–413 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0256-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0256-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation