Gardening for wildlife: A mixed‐methods exploration of the factors underlying engagement in wildlife‐friendly gardening

Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on Journal blog. Private domestic gardens are integral to cities and urban ecosystems. For example, they account an estimated 27.4% of area Edinburgh, UK (Loram et al., 2007), 23% Sheffield, (Gaston 2005), up 36% Dunedin, New Zealand (Mathieu 2007). Because generally divided dispersed across multiple small private properties, governments have difficulty enforcing guidelines that might harness policy goals regarding biodiversity loss (e.g. CBD, 2021) or conservation (Dewaelheyns 2016). Nonetheless, thanks large amount time invested in gardening, yearly household expenditure gardening garden products—400 EUR Denmark 2020 (Statistics Denmark, 2022a)—and gardens' extensive share total land area, immense potential contribute (Goddard 2010). Thompson (2007) distinguishes between conventional near-nature which he places at either end a continuum. Near-nature gardening—also called differential management (Aggeri, 2010), ecologically sustainable practices (Kiesling & Manning, 2010) wildlife-friendly (WFG) 2010)—aims support wildlife by providing wide range ecological resources (Davies 2009) avoiding environmentally aggressive such as pesticide use (Shwartz 2013). The direct expected positive outcomes WFG abundance richness diverse taxa well established research literature. benefit arthropod (Blackmore Goulson, 2014; Gaston 2005; Lerman 2018; Ro-Poulsen Threlfall 2017), bird (Cerra Crain, 2016; Evans 2009; Fuller 2008; Jokimäki, 1999; Paker Shwartz 2008), amphibian bat (Brittingham Williams, 2000; Razgour 2010; Russo Ancillotto, 2014) plant communities (Perring, 1959; Tresch 2019) (for more evidence, see Warren can be conceived pro-environmental behaviour, home personal ideologies behind it clearly affect environmental quality Steg Vlek, 2009). As with other behaviours, cumulative factors promote impede engagement WFG. According Kollmuss Agyeman (2002), barriers arising from sociodemographic (gender, age), internal values, motivations, knowledge, responsibility) external social norms, structural constraints) need overcome behaviours expressed. Recent has investigated interplay sociodemographic, including attitudes beliefs (Shaw 2013; van Heezik 2013), knowledge Lindemann-Matthies Marty, 2020), motivations uses 2011), landscape preferences (Lindemann-Matthies 2020) perceived behavioural feedback Other studies explored how size 2007; Smith gardeners' socioeconomic status (van norms expectations (Nassauer, 1998; Nassauer explain composition gardener Studies seeking understand drive argue is best understood stewardship ethic practice essentially relational (Jones Niemiec, 2020; Mumaw Mata, 2022) firmly embedded structures processes (Bhatti, 2014). Few people make choices based exclusively whether things possess inherent worth satisfy their preferences; instead, focus what appropriate context relationships (Chan 2016)—in case, nature within around gardens. Despite wealth WFG's dimensions not yet fully values relate gardens, individual Untangling these underpin critical foster acceptance transformative Our engagement, framed broadly according thinking West 2020). To do so, we first draw theories quantitatively assess underpinning people's (Stage 1). Later, thinking, qualitatively explore nested socio-ecological system expand gardeners, 2). questions were twofold, organized chronologically stages 1 2: Stage 1: covary engagement? contextualized systems, mediate A mixed-methods approach, consisting online crowdsourced survey seven qualitative walking interviews owners, provided quantitative data address questions. assessed covariance 2 better describe effect promoting impeding engagement. Due study, collection analysis into two chronological stages. collected through survey; stage consisted qualitative, semi-structured owners. We will present results separately, but our discussion them together (Creswell Clark, 2017). began collect promoted impeded (Table using set 19 components literature, encompassing tangible features (13) (6) (Supporting information S1). These components, whose implementation demands varying levels effort, popular Danish programmes Vild med vilje (‘wild purpose’) Giftfri (‘poison-free garden’). participants' asking Mounds vegetation stones‡ Patches bare soil‡ Terrain wall natural stone* Gravel path* Nest sites insects insect hotels)‡ Uncut grass† Bird attractions bath, box and/or feeders)‡ Dense shrubs undergrowth* Different heights connected ground treetop* Rain pond, perennials, stones flowering plants my lawn* Old trees lichen moss growing them† Deadwood e.g. whole tree, tall stump trunks, branches‡ Leaf litter‡ I aside areas only, meaning neither nor animals access† avoid pesticides† weed some garden† mow lawn fewer than three times during season† own compost heap‡ prune hedges bushes only October December‡ Lack economic Neighbourhood about negative impacts Health-related issues Ascription responsibility (‘it responsibility’) Gardening habits (‘I always managed same way’) Low locus control does difference’) space reasons Regarding asked participants select four out 11 action, adapted (2002). identify orientations used revised new paradigm (NEP) scale developed Dunlap al. (2000), been similar Information profile age, gender, income, occupation) characteristics type, area) was beginning questionnaire. towards followed any programme's recommendations. questionnaire ended filtering invitation participate 2. purpose study engaged interested WFG, adopted convenience sampling strategy form survey. Instagram, LinkedIn Facebook distribute link In addition, distributed 500 flyers 20 Greater Copenhagen neighbourhoods. overrepresentation well-off areas, selected neighbourhoods differing unemployment education, municipality (City Copenhagen, open 4 May until June 2020. increase response rate, Shaw al.'s (2013) proposal gave chance win 130 voucher local shop. Participation voluntary, could withdraw mid-survey if so wished. University Copenhagen's human ethics committee did require full application submitted because deemed low risk. complemented case studies. objective gather nuanced underpinned motivated Following Flyvbjerg (2006), selection chose among 37 who expressed interest outstanding components), owner profiles (pro-environmental orientation, age) inconsistencies two. Between 15 2020, conducted owners relaxed informal environment Skår Krogh, Interviews lasted 30 60 min. minutes tour establish good rapport interviewees (Denzen Lincoln, 2005). prompt elaborate presented word cloud taken Home (2019). contained related outdoor recreation preferences, others. Then, give opinions views specific capture concluded general gaps, programme content, perceptions took notes recordings interviews, pictures verbal consent awkward uneasy situations compromise rapport. First, summarized each index. Marty propose, assigned value garden. then added create compound measure garden, higher index, Second, level effort had implement component, classified effort. This classification inspired collaborative work vijle city Fredericia (Vild Vilje Commune, Level included easy less weeding, frequent lawn-mowing), whereas 3 required greater commitment planting vertically stands, constructing ponds/rain gardens). After assigning component 1), calculated completeness If all 1, scored 100% on. NEP scores owner, inverting when needed adding Likert categories (Dunlap 2000). score, pro-environmentally oriented owner. With Agyeman's (2002) model behaviour point departure, reclassified predictor variables relative influence built linear regression sets predictors Similarly, models (sociodemographic, factors) checked multicollinearity correlating candidate one another, examining tolerance variance inflation factor regressions (Hair found no evidence entered models. performed statistical tests IBM SPSS 29. thematic (Braun Clarke, 2006; Creswell, deductively identified themes audio written interview material, following behaviour. listening recorded reading field notes, drafted main subthemes addressed questions, regardless recurrent (Kiger Varpio, Themes fall subsequently typology. Once finalized tentative typology, validated revisiting material. Finally, represented table quotes exemplifying theme. 293 completed responses clustered highly populated Aalborg, Aarhus Vejle (Figure majority originated media outreach. Of 49 (≈10%) returned completed, consistent Miller, aged 35 years; often observed studies, females (76.5%) overrepresented (Hoyle 2017; Raymond 2019). sampled population median income >500,000 DKK, compared Denmark's mean 405,000 DKK 2022b). participants, 47.7% (137) reported type recommendation. Based self-reported presence index (on zero 19). Avoidance pesticides (91.8%), leaf litter (85.7%) (78.8%) most components. Conversely, gravel paths (16%), low-frequency mowing (22.9%) stone terrain walls (27%) seldom 3). (43.7%) insufficient (34.8%) frequently barriers. Additionally, approximately 20% respondents lack time, neighbourhood norms. ‘others’ temporary tenancies, conflicting members, recreational children. Results showed measured adherence programmes, exhibited highest suggested likely wildlife. Garden second prominent echoing Accordingly, smaller tended offer Interestingly, covaried negatively Retired those reporting inclined few Last least, positively revealing importance 3) (i.e. programmes) larger invest attracting However, gained increased. words, bigger implemented. also space, requiring greatest Self-reported medium high fell increased, suggesting overridden abovementioned factors. us in-depth understanding underlay revealed central role relationships. Table presents basic garden; 5 represents interviews. Figure shows differed terms gender representation (only male gardener) (380 sqm, vs. sqm survey). cases featured others 4). Although having compatible even 5, C5.1), family well-being care, (via self-efficacy) (C7.1), conflicted cases. possessed directly (C2.3–C5.4). mainly friends (C3.3) members (C6.1), although instructed formal settings (C5.3). applied practice, (C2.4) override it. types gardeners different aesthetic strongly motivations: manicured (C6.2, C2.4) laid-back (C1.3, C3.4). cases, varied households (C7.2) created conflict (C1.3). Furthermore, colour emerged species (C6.2). Family-related obligations (C1.4) hinder allocation money effort) (C2.5). C1 demonstrated motivation prioritize go hand hints should families busy schedules Some (C1.5, C6.3), questioning uses. mentioned receiving noticeable maintain over (C2.6, C7.3). habits, mostly childhood memories, (C4.1, C2.7). Space barely mentioned, prominently reported. Interviewees official rules imposed housing allotment associations (C6.4), appearance (C4.5, C6.5). Both norm played against principles. Household number right access property ownership) important behaviours. complex multi-occupied households, design accommodated, potentially hindering (C7.4–5, C4.7, C5.5). rental tenants, residents, hesitant allocate maintenance (C4.6, C3.8). settings, males dominate key decisions, especially lawns (C3.3, C1.3, C7.1, C7.2). recommendations wider generating habitats reflected ultimately biophysical Motivations stimuli (Wilkie, 1986). Clayton identifies gardening: (1) appreciation (2) concerns. findings desires lead organic lifestyle permaculture) appreciate learn relating care children's play, gatherings) conformity norms) certain principles, elsewhere (Home supports previous findings: (Clark 2019; Goddard 2013); concerns, self-efficacy, (Clayton, exemplified recreation), wildest studies; its said ‘the kids love move here’, sure ‘they getting nature’, acknowledging benefits children wilder, higher-quality green (Miller, Soga Gaston, Case suggests pathway whereby concerns well-being) leveraged conservation. believe reason why predicted weakly, precisely modulating motivations. show, usually emerge action. core (Steg 2014), discussion. During nonenvironmental operated via priorities dictated money, while central, alone Factors influenced follows, modulated maintaining help showing correlation habitat heterogeneity implies overall lower exacerbated determine available maintenance. results, long grass meadows, ponds rain gardens) common competed investments affected area. accommodate household, making difficult occur. wildlife, readdress problematic practices, widely confirms recent finds barrier Appropriate communication stakeholders ways public nonprofit institutions decision-making sphere view, there aspects consider. state, must want ‘get know’ place. conservation, learning improve Unfortunately, oftentimes priority (Beumer Martens, 2015; Chalmin-Pui 2021); style guided aesthetics ease. Thus, catching attention unengaged remains challenge interviewee suggested, due preoccupations duties, simply straightforwardly, readily available. Hence, decisions content dissemination take diversity inclinations activities (Ballantyne Hughes, Pelletier Sharp, 2012). (2014) example gain money) made normative wildlife-friendly). pesticides' toxicity fauna) alternatives companion plants) guarantee change. showed, accepted contradict throwing away waste despite being aware solutions). Yankelovich (1991) asserts,