Abstract
Activities undertaken by householders in their gardens have huge potential to enhance city-wide biodiversity, but programs aimed at activating householders require an understanding of the factors encouraging or acting as barriers to the uptake of different kinds of activities. We provided 42 householders with two species-enhancing activities, selected from six possibilities, free-of-charge (to remove the barrier of initial cost). We collected socio-demographic data as well as information on knowledge of common urban species, pro-environmental behaviors and nature connectedness. We monitored ongoing engagement at two time points: 1 and 6 months. Characteristics of householders opting for different activities varied in terms of their degree of environmental engagement, their knowledge about common species, and the size of their gardens; e.g., bird feeders and bee planters were popular with people who did not know the names of common species and were not particularly engaged in pro-environmental activities respectively, whereas lizard habitat creation was attractive to people who were already engaged in wildlife gardening activities. Cost to continue with activities was a significant barrier for some people, but most householders were willing to practice relatively inexpensive activities in small spaces. Esthetics was an important factor to be considered when enhancing invertebrate habitat (e.g., bug hotels are more attractive than log piles, and planters for bees contain colorful flowers). A commonly cited barrier was lack of information about wildlife-friendly activities, despite much being available online. Most participants (85%) talked about their activities with others, potentially acting as influencers and shifting social norms.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams AL, Dickinson KJ, Robertson BC, van Heezik Y (2013) Predicting summer site occupancy for an invasive species, the common brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula), in an urban environment. PLoS ONE 8(3):e58422
Admiraal JF, Van den Born RJ, Beringer A, Bonaiuto F, Cicero L, Hiedanpää J, Knights P, Knippenberg LW, Molinario E, Musters CJ, Naukkarinen O (2017) Motivations for committed nature conservation action in Europe. Environ Conserv 44(2):148–157
Anton V, Hartley S, Wittmer HU (2018) Evaluation of remote cameras for monitoring multiple invasive mammals. NZ J Ecol 42(1):74–79
Aronson MF, La Sorte FA, Nilon CH, Katti M, Goddard MA, Lepczyk CA, Dobbs C (2014) A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers. P R Soc B Biol Sci 281(1780):20133330
Aronson MF, Lepczyk CA, Evans KL, Goddard MA, Lerman SB, MacIvor JS, Nilon CH, Vargo T (2017) Biodiversity in the city: key challenges for urban green space management. Front Ecol Environ 15(4):189–196
Azjen I (1991) The theory of planned behaviour. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Belaire JA, Whelan C, 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
Blackwell GL, Potter MA, McLennan JA (2002) Rodent density indices from tracking tunnels, snap-traps and Fenn traps: do they tell the same story? NZ J Ecol 26:43–51
Brook I (2003) Making here like there: place attachment, displacement and the urge to garden. Ethics, Place Environ 6(3):227–234
Burghardt KT, Tallamy DW, Shriver GW (2009) Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conserv Biol 23(1):219–224
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd Edn. Springer, Berlin
Cartwright K, Mitten D (2017) Exploring the human–nature relationship of conservation gardeners. Nativ Plants J 18(3):212–226
Cerra JF (2017) Emerging strategies for voluntary urban ecological stewardship on private property. Landsc Urban Plann 157:586–597
Coisnon T, Rousseliere D, Rousseliere S (2019) Information on biodiversity an environmental behaviors: a European study of individual and institutional drivers to adopt sustainable gardening practices. Soc Sci Res https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.06.014
Conway TM (2016) Tending their urban forest: residents’ motivations for tree planting and removal. Urban Urban Gree 17:23–32
Daniels GD, Kirkpatrick JB (2006a) Comparing the characteristics of front and back domestic gardens in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Landsc Urban Plan 78(4):344–352
Daniels GD, Kirkpatrick JB (2006b) Does variation in garden characteristics influence the conservation of birds in suburbia? Biol Conserv 133(3):326–335
Davies ZG, Fuller RA, Loram A, Irvine KN, Sims V, Gaston KJ (2009) A national scale inventory of resource provision for biodiversity within domestic gardens. Biol Conserv 142(4):761–771
Davis A, Taylor CE, Martin JM (2019) Are pro-ecological values enough? Determining the drivers and extent of participation in citizen science programs. Hum Dimens Wildl 24(6):501–514
Dewaelheyns V, Kerselaers E, Rogge E (2016) A toolbox for garden governance. Land Use Policy 51:191–205
Domroese MC, Johnson EA (2017) Why watch bees? Motivations of citizen science volunteers in the Great pollinator Project. Biol Conserv 208:40–47
Freeman C, Dickinson KJ, Porter S, van Heezik Y (2012) “My garden is an expression of me”: exploring householders’ relationships with their gardens. J Environ Psychol 32(2):135–143
Galbraith JA, Beggs JR, Jones DN, McNaughton EJ, Krull CR, Stanley MC (2014) Risks and drivers of wild bird feeding in urban areas of New Zealand. Biol Conserv 180:64–74
Gaston KJ, Warren PH, Thompson K, Smith RM (2005) Urban domestic gardens (IV): the extent of the resources and its associated features. Biodiv Conserv 14:3327–3349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-9513-9
Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG (2010) Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol Evol 25(2):90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
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
Goulson D, Hanley ME (2004) Distribution and forage use of exotic bumblebees in South Island, New Zealand. NZ J Ecol 28(2):225–232
Hartley NM (2018) Ecology of Native Bees in North Taranaki, New Zealand. MSc Thesis, Massey University
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
Head L, Muir P (2007) Changing cultures of water in eastern Australian backyard gardens. Soc Cult Geogr 8(6):889–905
Helfand GE, Park JS, Nassauer JI, Kosek S (2006) The economics of native plants in residential landscape designs. Landsc Urban Plan 78(3):229–240
Hobbs SJ, White PC (2012) Motivations and barriers in relation to community participation in biodiversity recording. J Nat Conserv 20(6):364–373
Hope D, Gries C, Zhu W, Fagan WF, Redman CL, Grimm NB, Nelson AL, Martin C, Kinzig A (2003) Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. P Natl Acad Sci 100(15):8788–8792
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2013) Applied logistic regression. John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, New Jersey
Hostetler M, Allen W, Meurk C (2011) Conserving urban biodiversity? Creating green infrastructure is only the first step. Landsc Urban Plan 100(4):369–371
Hunter MCR, Brown DG (2012) Spatial contagion: gardening along the street in residential neighborhoods. Landsc Urban Plan 105(4):407–416
Innes J, Kelly D, Overton JM, Gillies C (2010) Predation and other factors currently limiting New Zealand forest birds. NZ J Ecol 34(1):86
Jacobson SK, Carlton JS, Monroe MC (2012) Motivation and satisfaction of volunteers at a Florida natural resource agency. J Park Recreat Adm 30(1):51–67
Kelly D, Sullivan JJ (2010) Life histories, dispersal, invasions, and global change: progress and prospects in New Zealand ecology, 1989–2029. NZ J Ecol 34(1):207–217
Kendal D, Williams KJ, Williams NS (2012) Plant traits link people’s plant preferences to the composition of their gardens. Landsc Urban Plan 105(1–2):34–42
Kinzig AP, Warren P, Martin C, Hope C, 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/.23
Kirkpatrick JB, Davison A, Daniels GD (2012) Resident attitudes towards trees influence the planting and removal of different types of trees in eastern Australian cities. Landsc Urban Plan 107(2):147–158
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(6):747–761
Lepczyk CA, Mertig AG, Liu J (2004) Assessing landowner activities related to birds across rural—urban landscapes. Environ Manag 33(1):110–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0036-z
Lettink M, Cree A (2007) Relative use of three types of artificial retreats by terrestrial lizards in grazed coastal shrubland, New Zealand. Appl Herpetol 4(3):227–243
Loram A, Tratalos J, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Urban domestic gardens (X): the extent and structure of the resource in five major cities. Landsc Ecol 22:601–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-9051-9
Loram A, Warren PH, Thompson K, Gaston KJ (2011) Urban domestic gardens: the effects of human interventions on garden composition. Environ Manag 48(4):808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9723-3
Lowenstein DM, Matteson KC, Xiao I, Silva AM, Minor ES (2014) Humans, bees, and pollination services in the city: the case of Chicago, IL (USA). Biodivers Conserv 23(11):2857–2874
Luck GW, Smallbone LT, O’Brien R (2009) Socio-economics and vegetation change in urban ecosystems: patterns in space and time. Ecosystems 12(4):604
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. Landscape Urban Plan 69(4):355–368
Martyn P, Brymer E (2016) The relationship between nature relatedness and anxiety. J Health Psychol 21(7):1436–1445
Mathieu R, Freeman CF, Aryal J (2007) Mapping private gardens in urban areas using object-oriented techniques and very high resolution satellite imagery. Landsc Urban Plan 81:179–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.11.009
Meurk CD, Zvyagna N, Gardner RO, Forrester G, Wilcox M, Hall G, North H, Belliss S, Whaley K, Sykes B, Cooper J (2009) Environmental, social andspatial determinants of urban arboreal character in Auckland, New Zealand. Ecology of towns and cities: a comparative approach. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, pp 287–307
Morgan DKJ, Waas JR, Innes J (2009) An inventory of mammalian pests in a New Zealand city. NZ J Zool 36(1):23–33
Morgan DK, Waas JR, Innes J, Fitzgerald N (2011) Identification of nest predators using continuous time-lapse recording in a New Zealand city. NZ J Zool 38(4):343–347
Mumaw L, Bekessy S (2017) Wildlife gardening for collaborative public-private biodiversity conservation. Australas J Env Man 24(3):242–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2017.1309695
Nassauer JI, Wang Z, Dayrell E (2009) What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landsc Urban Plan 92(3-4):282–292
Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA (2009) The nature relatedness scale: linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environ Behav 41(5):715–740
Peters MA, Hamilton D, Eames C (2015) Action on the ground: a review of community environmental groups’ restoration objectives, activities andpartnerships in New Zealand. N Z J Ecol 39(2):179–189
Raymond CM, Diduck AP, Buijs A, Boerchers M, Moquin R (2019) Exploring the co-benefits (and costs) of home gardening for biodiversity conservation. Local Environ 24(3):258–273
Reynolds SJ, Galbraith JA, Smith JA, Jones DN (2017) Garden bird feeding: insights and prospects from a north-south comparison of this global urban phenomenon. Front Ecol Evol 5:24. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2017.00024
Rodriguez SL, Peterson MN, Moorman CJ (2017) Does education influence wildlife friendly landscaping preferences? Urban Ecosyst 20(2):489–496
Shaw AE, Miller KK (2016) Preaching to the converted? Designing wildlife gardening programs to engage the unengaged. Appl Environ Educ Commun 15(3):214–224
Shwartz AH, Cheval L, Julliard SR (2013) Virtual garden computer program for use in exploring the elements of biodiversity people want in cities. Conserv Biol 27:876–886
Russell JC, Innes JG, Brown PH, Byrom AE (2015) Predator-free New Zealand: conservation country. BioScience 65(5):520–525
Smith RM, Gaston KJ, Warren PH, Thompson K (2005) Urban domestic gardens (V): relationships between landcover composition, housing and landscape. Landsc Ecol 20:235–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-004-3160-0
Tallamy DW, Shropshire KJ (2009) Ranking lepidopteran use of native versus introduced plants. Conserv Biol 23(4):941–947
Threlfall CG, Williams NS, Hahs AK, Livesley SJ (2016) Approaches to urban vegetation management and the impacts on urban bird and bat assemblages. Landsc Urban Plan 153:28–39
Threlfall CG, Mata L, Mackie JA, Hahs AK, Stork NE, Williams NS, Livesley SJ (2017) Increasing biodiversity in urban green spaces through simple vegetation interventions. J Appl Ecol 54(6):1874–1883
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
Uren HV, Dzidic PL, Bishop BJ (2015) Exploring social and cultural norms to promote ecologically sensitive residential garden design. Landscape Urban Plan 137:76–84
van Heezik Y, Ludwig K (2012) Proximity to source populations and untidy gardens predict occurrence of a small lizard in an urban area. Landsc Urban Plan 104(2):253–259
van Heezik Y, Smyth A, Mathieu R (2008) Diversity of native and exotic birds across an urban gradient in a New Zealand city. Landscape Urban Plan 87(3):223–232
van Heezik Y, Smyth A, Adams A, Gordon J (2010) Do domestic cats impose an unsustainable harvest on urban bird populations? Biol Conserv 143(1):121–130
van Heezik YM, Dickinson KJ, Freeman C (2012) Closing the gap: communicating to change gardening practices in support of native biodiversity in urban private gardens. Ecol Soc 17(1). www.jstor.org/stable/26269012
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
van Heezik YM, Freeman C, Porter S, Dickinson KJ (2014) Native and exotic woody vegetation communities in domestic gardens in relation to social andenvironmental factors. Ecol Soc 19:17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06978-190417
van Heezik Y, Hight SR (2017) Socio-economic-driven differences in bird-feeding practices exacerbate existing inequities in opportunities to see nativebirds in cities. J Urban Ecol 3(1):jux011
van Heezik Y, Seddon PJ (2018) Animal reintroductions in peopled landscapes: moving towards urban-based species restorations in New Zealand. Pac Conserv Biol 24(4):349–359
van Heezik Y, Freeman C, Buttery Y, Waters DL (2018) Factors affecting the extent and quality of nature engagement of older adults living in a range of home types. Environ Behav. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518821148
Woolley CK, Hartley S, Hitchmough RA, Innes JG, van Heezik Y, Wilson DJ, Nelson NJ (2019) Reviewing the past, present and potential lizard faunas of New Zealand cities. Landsc Urban Plan 192:103647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103647
Wright DR, Underhill LG, Keene M, Knight AT (2015) understanding the motivations and satisfactions of volunteers to improve the effectiveness of citizen science programs. Soc Nat Resour 28(9). https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1054976
Acknowledgements
We thank all those householders who participated in this research and Jill Hetherington from the Department of Conservation for her contribution to study design. Funding was from Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment grant UOWX1601 (People, Cities and Nature) and the Department of Conservation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
The research was carried out under human ethics approval 18/191.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van Heezik, Y., Freeman, C., Davidson, K. et al. Uptake and Engagement of Activities to Promote Native Species in Private Gardens. Environmental Management 66, 42–55 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01294-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01294-5