Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Uptake and Engagement of Activities to Promote Native Species in Private Gardens

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Anton V, Hartley S, Wittmer HU (2018) Evaluation of remote cameras for monitoring multiple invasive mammals. NZ J Ecol 42(1):74–79

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Brook I (2003) Making here like there: place attachment, displacement and the urge to garden. Ethics, Place Environ 6(3):227–234

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd Edn. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright K, Mitten D (2017) Exploring the human–nature relationship of conservation gardeners. Nativ Plants J 18(3):212–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerra JF (2017) Emerging strategies for voluntary urban ecological stewardship on private property. Landsc Urban Plann 157:586–597

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway TM (2016) Tending their urban forest: residents’ motivations for tree planting and removal. Urban Urban Gree 17:23–32

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels GD, Kirkpatrick JB (2006b) Does variation in garden characteristics influence the conservation of birds in suburbia? Biol Conserv 133(3):326–335

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewaelheyns V, Kerselaers E, Rogge E (2016) A toolbox for garden governance. Land Use Policy 51:191–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Domroese MC, Johnson EA (2017) Why watch bees? Motivations of citizen science volunteers in the Great pollinator Project. Biol Conserv 208:40–47

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    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

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulson D, Hanley ME (2004) Distribution and forage use of exotic bumblebees in South Island, New Zealand. NZ J Ecol 28(2):225–232

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Head L, Muir P (2007) Changing cultures of water in eastern Australian backyard gardens. Soc Cult Geogr 8(6):889–905

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs SJ, White PC (2012) Motivations and barriers in relation to community participation in biodiversity recording. J Nat Conserv 20(6):364–373

    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. P Natl Acad Sci 100(15):8788–8792

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2013) Applied logistic regression. John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter MCR, Brown DG (2012) Spatial contagion: gardening along the street in residential neighborhoods. Landsc Urban Plan 105(4):407–416

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    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(6):747–761

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    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. Landscape Urban Plan 69(4):355–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Martyn P, Brymer E (2016) The relationship between nature relatedness and anxiety. J Health Psychol 21(7):1436–1445

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez SL, Peterson MN, Moorman CJ (2017) Does education influence wildlife friendly landscaping preferences? Urban Ecosyst 20(2):489–496

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell JC, Innes JG, Brown PH, Byrom AE (2015) Predator-free New Zealand: conservation country. BioScience 65(5):520–525

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tallamy DW, Shropshire KJ (2009) Ranking lepidopteran use of native versus introduced plants. Conserv Biol 23(4):941–947

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Zoology Department, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand

    Yolanda van Heezik & Blake Lewis

  2. Geography Department, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand

    Claire Freeman & Katherine Davidson

Authors
  1. Yolanda van Heezik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claire Freeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katherine Davidson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Blake Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yolanda van Heezik.

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.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01294-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation