4.6 Article

Urban domestic gardens (XI): variation in urban wildlife gardening in the United Kingdom

Journal

BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION
Volume 16, Issue 11, Pages 3227-3238

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-007-9174-6

Keywords

biodiversity; domestic gardens; housing; urbanisation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two consequences of the continued urbanisation of the human population are that a growing proportion of the landscape is less hospitable to, and that a growing proportion of people are disconnected from, native biodiversity. One response of the UK government has been to establish a goal, and an associated baseline indicator, of increasing the extent and range of public participation in gardening for wildlife. The formulation of policy to attain this end requires, however, insight into the factors that are associated with the level of participation. Here we examine the relationships, across 15 areas in five UK cities, between the proportion of households providing various garden features for wildlife or participating in various wildlife gardening activities, and housing densities and characteristics of the garden resource. We show that significant numbers of households participate in some form of wildlife gardening, but that the predominant form this participation takes is feeding wild birds. Key variables associated with spatial variation in wildlife gardening activities are the proportion of households with access to a garden and, more importantly, average garden size and the proportion of land cover by gardens. There was no evidence for strong effects of household density or the socio-economic status of householders on the prevalence of wildlife friendly features in gardens or on the participation by householders in activities to encourage wildlife. Our results suggest important considerations in attempts to increase awareness and participation in wildlife gardening.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available