Appreciating the non-human landscape? Urban residents’ willingness to coexist with animals and plants in Australia and Japan

Abstract

When we think about the urban landscape, we often think of buildings and streets, or natural elements such as mountains, rivers or the sea. But we also share cities with animals and plants, co-inhabiting urban space and interacting on a daily basis. These interactions can lead to wildlife conflicts (e.g., crows looking for food in trash, weeds growing on the sidewalk), because animals and plants are independent actors we cannot control. In the context of rapid urbanisation, geographers are calling for embracing non-humans as urban co-inhabitants. To find paths towards more-than-human cities and reduce wildlife conflicts, we need to better understand residents’ willingness to coexist with plants and animals. This study used a mail-back survey and quantitatively compared residents’ preferences toward sharing their neighbourhood and perceptions of belonging across urban green space in two geographically and culturally distinct cities: Brisbane, Australia and Sapporo, Japan. Results suggest factors influencing respondents’ willingness to coexist were geographical and cultural context alongside educational attainment and age, but not sex and income. Mapping respondents’ preferences for animals in their neighbourhood revealed four categories divided by two axes – global-local and wanted-unwanted animals. These categories arose from the way animals contested human notions of control over urban space. Most respondents chose informal green space (e.g., vacant lots, brownfields etc.) as spaces of belonging after forests and bushland. Drawing upon recent theoretical and empirical research on liminal urban spaces, I argue with Nohl (1990) that informal green space can offer ‘provisional arrangements’, allowing for conciliatory engagements with animals and plants. I thus propose informal green space as potential territories of encounter – a possible path towards more-than-human cities. Finally, I discuss some implications for planning and management of interspecies interactions.

Full text

Appreciating the
non-human landscape?
Urban residents’ willingness
to coexist with animals and plants
in Australia and Japan
Christoph Rupprecht
Research Institute for Humanity and
Nature, Kyoto
Environmental Futures Research Institute,
Griffith University

“When the sky was cleared of condors, they had to
face the propagation of serpents; the spiders'
extermination allowed the flies to multiply into a
black swarm; the victory over the termites left the
city at the mercy of the woodworms.
One by one the species incompatible to the city had
to succumb and were extinguished.
By dint of ripping away scales and carapaces,
tearing off elytra and feathers, the people gave
Theodora the exclusive image of a human city that
still distinguishes it. […]
Man had finally re-established the order of the world
which he had himself upset: no other living species
existed to cast any doubts.”
Italo Calvino, 1972, Inv is ible Cities
Whose city?
Anonymous, 2002
(Part of project by Mikhail Viesel
http://calvino.lib.ru/english/)

More-than-human landscape? Animals, plants & more
Non-human elements
• Easy to miss the forest for
the trees: landscape often
synonymous with “nature”
• Non-human processes
shape the urban landscape
• Reflected in our art, signs,
buildings and expression
Non-human architects
• Plants (e.g. transformation of
soil, soil history, habitat for other
species)
• Animals (e.g. ants, beavers)
• Microbes (shaping physical &
chemical characteristics of
landscape; form “hidden” micro-
landscape)

Human-nature coexistence: Benefits & conflict
• Fulfilling ‘nature needs’ (Matsuoka
& Kaplan 2008)
• Recreation
• Health (Keniger et al 2013)
• Aesthetic improvement
• Experience (Soga et al 2015)
• Food (Guitart et al 2014)
• Ecosystem services (Luque & Duff)
• Over space, belonging, resources
(Foster & Sandberg 2010; Head & Atchison 2008;
Belaire et al., 2015; Enari and Suzuki, 2010; Honda,
2009; Jerolmack, 2008; Knight, 1999; Lemelin, 2013;
Yeo and Ne o, 2010 )
• Ecosystem disservices (e.g. animal
bites, pollen allergies, smell of rotting
organic matter) (Lyytimäki et all 2008)
• Large-scale ‘management’: herbicide,
pesticide, eradication (Hillier & Byrne 2016)

Paths towards more-than-human cities?
Wolch et al. 1995: Transsp. urban theory
• Environmental ethic recognising linkage:
human justice & justice for animals
• Reincorporate wild animals into everyday
• Respecting their dignity & value
• Accepting the duty to know way of living
Wolch 2002: Anima urbis
• Trace how & why attitudes & practices
toward animals change over time & space
Hinchliffe & Whatmore 2006: Conviviality
• Examine diversity of ecological
attachments & through which politics of
urban nature is fabricated
Understanding relation as path to coexistence

More-than-human geography: quantitative approaches
Focus
Location
Authors/Year
Attitude
towards animals
Japan, USA, Germany
Kellert 1991, 1993
Preference
for coexistence
Japan
Sawaki & Kamihogi 1995
Adolescents attitude tow.
animals
Norway
Bjerke et al. 1998a
Species
preferences
Norway
Bjerke et al. 1998b
Attitude of pet (non)
-owners
Norway
Bjerke et al. 2003
Attitude
towards urban animals
Norway
Bjerke & Østdahl 2004
Children’s attitude toward animals
Portugal
Almeida et al. 2014
Species preferences in children
Italy
Borgi & Cirulli 2013
Ø Urban residents prefer certain species
Ø Relationship affected by education, gender
Ø ‘Animal lovers’ & those who prefer large
distance between them and animals
Ø Open questions: geography, culture?

Methods: mail-back survey
Brisbane Sapporo
Founded
1824, city status
1902
1868, city status
1922
Population
1,07 mil. (2010)
ì 1,3 mil. (2031)
1,9 mil. (2011) î
1,8 mil. (2030)
Pop.
density
770/km
2
(peak
>5,000/km
2
)
1,700/km
2
(peak
>8,000/km
2
)
Park space 32m
2
per person 12m
2
per person
Main questions in section
• Attitude towards urban nature
• Knowledge of urban nature
• Knowledge of term “biodiversity”
• What 5 animals do/don’t you want
to see in your neighborhood?
• Where do you think animals &
plants should be able to live?
• Wildlife protection vs. lifestyle
Sample
• N=123/163 (Brisbane/Sapporo)
• Median age 54 58
• Ages 19-84 21-90
• Women 63% 53%

Br isbane
Sapporo
I know a lot about the
wild plants in my neighbourhood.
3.18
3.71
I know a lot about the
wild animals in my neighbourhood.
2.84
3.67
I know a lot about the
birds in my neighbourhood.
2.75
3.66
M
ore green space in neighbourhood.
2.11
2.40
Green
space in neighbourhood important to me.
1.68
1.85
Urban nature has
value within itself
1.66
1.76
Obligation to
preserve urban nature for future generations.
1.60
1.66
Willingness to
contribute money to preserve urban nature.
2.51
2.92
U.
animals & plants have as much right as humans to exist.
2.04
2.31
Knowledge & attitude to nature (1-5: agree-disagree)
Limited knowledge but eco-centric attitudes

“Biodiversity”, wildlife protection vs. lifestyle
94%
5%
1%
Brisbane
I know the meaning
I have heard the word before, but I don't
know the meaning
I don't know the meaning
31%
36%
33%
Sapporo
67%
16%
16%
54%
32%
3%
To protect urban wildlife and plants we have to
accept restrictions in our lifestyle
Protecting urban wildlife and plants is important,
but not if it means changing our lifestyle
To enjoy a pleasant and comfortable lifestyle we
can’t avoid losing urban wildlife and plants

Wanted, unwanted & contested animals: Sapporo
Rats
Snakes
Deer
Feral dogs
Raccoons
Brown bears
Monkeys
Squirrels
Sparrows
Small birds
Wild birds
Rabbits
Butterflies
Cuckoos
Ducks
Hokkaido squirrels
Horses
Owls
Bears
Crows
Foxes
Birds
Cats
Feral cats
Pigeons
Dogs
Ezo red foxes
Tanukis
Insects
Wolves
5
10
20
40
80
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Number of times mentioned by respondents
Respondents' preference score for animals
Unwanted
Wanted
Contested
Linear (Unwanted)
Linear (Wanted)

Wanted, unwanted & contested animals: Brisbane
Feral cats
Feral dogs
Mice
Dingos
Rabbits
Venomous snakes
Cockroaches
Feral pigs
Lizards
Koalas
Birds
Frogs
Kookaburras
Native birds
Blue-tongue lizards
Magpies
Parrots
Wallabies
Ducks
Owls
Cockatoos
Butterflies
Fish
Wombats
Echidna
Ringtail possums
Possums
Rats
Snakes
Brush turkeys
Cane toads
Foxes
Bats
Kangaroos
Crows
Ibises
Flying foxes
Mynahs
Pigeons
Willy
wagtails
5
10
20
40
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Number of times mentioned by respondents
Respondents' preference score for animals
Unwanted
Wanted
Contested
Linear
(Unwanted)

Where do you think animals should be able to live?
42%
87%
72%
89%
67%
97%
4%
29%
14%
38%
23%
89%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
City centre City parks Private
gardens
Informal
urban
greenspace
Agricultural
areas
Forests or
bushland
Percent of respondents
Brisbane
Sapporo

Where do you think plants should be able to live?
53%
69%
75%
92%
57%
95%
15%
46%
21%
49%
24%
90%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
City centre City parks Private
gardens
Informal
urban
greenspace
Agricultural
areas
Forests or
bushland
Percent of respondents
Brisbane
Sapporo

Informal greenspace as
territories of encounter,
allowing for
“provisional arrangements”
(Nohl 1990)?
“A neutral zone that belongs to
nobody is necessary: left-over
room, margins, interstices, space.
A life like in the city, where man-
made objects are surrounded by
nothing but artificial greenspace,
is suffocating.”
– Male, 45, Sapporo
Conclusion

Questions?
Blog: www.treepolis.org
Twitter: @focx
Google+: Christoph Rupprecht
This presentation will be freely available @
ResearchGate, Slideshare & Academia.edu!

References
Almeida, António, Clara Vasconcelos, and Orlando Strecht-Ribeiro. “Attitudes toward Animals: A Study of Portuguese Children.” Anthrozoös 27, no. 2 (June 1, 2014): 173–90.
doi:10.2752/1 7530 3714X 13 9038 2748 7403 .
Belaire, J. Amy, Lynne M. Westphal, Christopher J. Whelan, and Emily S. Minor. “Urban Residents’ Perceptions of Birds in the Neighborhood: Biodiversity, Cultural Ecosystem Services, and
Disservices.” The Condor 117, no. 2 (April 22, 2015): 192–202. doi:10.1650/CONDOR-14-128 .1.
Bjerke, Tore, Toril S. Ødegårdstuen, and Bjørn P. Kaltenborn. “Attitudes Toward Animals Among Norwegian Adolescents.” Anthrozoös 11, no. 2 (June 1, 1998): 79–86.
doi:10.2752/0 8927 9398 78 70 00 74 2.
———. “Attitudes toward Animals Among Norwegian Children and Adolescents: Species Preferences.” Anthrozoös 11, no. 4 (December 1, 1998): 227–35. doi:10.2752/0 89 27 93 9878 7000 544.
Bjerke, Tore, and Torbjørn Østdahl. “Animal-Related Attitudes and Activities in an Urban Population.” Anthrozoös 17, no. 2 (June 1, 2004): 109–29. doi:10.2752/08 9279 30 47 86 99 17 83.
Bjerke, Tore, Torbjørn Østdahl, and Jo Kleiven. “Attitudes and Activities Related to Urban Wildlife: Pet Owners and Non-Owners.” Anthrozoös 16, no. 3 (September 1, 2003): 252–62.
doi:10.2752/0 8927 9303 78 69 92 12 5.
Borgi, Marta, and Francesca Cirulli. “Attitudes toward Animals among Kindergarten Children: Species Preferences.” Anthrozoös 28, no. 1 (March 1, 2015): 45–59.
doi:10.2752/0 8927 9315X 14 1293 5072 1939 .
Calvino, I. Invisible Cities. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013. http://books.google.c om.au/ books?id=Pn8d9riSL6UC.
Enari, Hiroto, and Toru Suzuki. “Risk of Agricultural and Property Damage Associated with the Recovery of Japanese Monkey Populations.” Landscape and Urban Planning 97, no. 2 (August 30,
2010): 83–91. doi:10.1016/j.lan dur bpla n. 2010. 04 .0 14.
Foster, Jennifer, and L Anders Sandberg. “Friends or Foe? Invasive Species and Public Green Space in Toronto.” Geographical Review 94, no. 2 (2010): 178–98. doi:10.1111/j.1 93 1-
0846.2004.tb00166.x.
Guitart, Daniela A., Catherine M. Pickering, and Jason A. Byrne. “Color Me Healthy: Food Diversity in School Community Gardens in Two Rapidly Urbanising Australian Cities.” Health & Place 26
(March 2014): 110–17. doi:10.1016/j.he althplac e.2 013. 12. 01 4.
Head, Lesley, and Jennifer Atchison. “Governing Invasive Plants: Policy and Practice in Managing the Gamba Grass (Andropogon Gayanus) – Bushfire Nexus in Northern Australia.” Land Use Policy
47 (September 2015): 225–34. doi:10.1016/j.lan dus ep ol.2 01 5. 04. 00 9.
Hillier, J., and J. Byrne. “Is Extermination to Be the Legacy of Mary Gilberts Cat?” Organization 23, no. 3 (May 1, 2016): 387–406. doi:10.1177/13 50 50 84 16 62 94 55 .
Hinchliffe, Steve, and Sarah Whatmore. “Living Cities: Towards a Politics of Conviviality.” Science as Culture 15, no. 2 (June 1, 2006): 123–38. doi:10.1080/09 50 54 3060 0707 988.
Honda, Takeshi. “Environmental Factors Affecting the Distribution of the Wild Boar, Sika Deer, Asiatic Black Bear and Japanese Macaque in Central Japan, with Implications for Human-Wildlife
Conflict.” Mammal Study 34, no. 2 (June 1, 2009): 107–16. doi:10.3106/0 41.034. 02 06.
Jerolmack, Colin. “How Pigeons Became Rats: The Cultural-Spatial Logic of Problem Animals.” Social Problems 55, no. 1 (February 1, 2008): 72–94. doi:10.1525/sp.2008.55. 1.72.
Kellert, Stephen R. “Attitudes, Knowledge, and Behavior Toward Wildlife Among the Industrial Superpowers: United States, Japan, and Germany.” Journal of Social Issues 49, no. 1 ( April 1, 1993):
53–69. doi:10.1111/j.154 0-4560.1993.tb00908.x.
———. “Japanese Perceptions of Wildlife.” Conservation Biology 5, no. 3 (September 1, 1991): 297–308.
Keniger, Lucy, Kevin Gaston, Katherine Irvine, and Richard Fuller. “What Are the Benefits of Interacting with Nature?” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 10, no. 3
(2013): 913–35. doi:10.3390/ijerph 1003 0913 .
Knight, John. “Monkeys on the Move: The Natural Symbolism of People-Macaque Conflict in Japan.” The Journal of Asian Studies 58, no. 03 (August 1999): 622–47. doi:10.2307/26 59 11 4.
Lemelin, Raynald Harvey. “To Bee or Not to Bee: Whether ‘tis Nobler to Revere or to Revile Those Six-Legged Creatures during One’s Leisure.” Leisure Studies 32, no. 2 (April 1, 2013): 153–71.
doi:10.1080/0 2614 367.2 01 1. 62 6064.
Luque, Andres, and Mike Duff. “Urban Green Infrastructure: Capturing Ecosystem Value.” Accessed March 25, 2016. https://www.rudi.net/books/ 8935.
Lyytimäki, Jari, Lars Kjerulf Petersen, Bo Normander, and Peter Bezák. “Nature as a Nuisance? Ecosystem Services and Disservices to Urban Lifestyle.” Environmental Sciences 5, no. 3 (2008) :
161–72. doi:10.1080/15 69 34 30 80 20 5552 4.
Matsuoka, Rodney H., and Rachel Kaplan. “People Needs in the Urban Landscape: Analysis of Landscape And Urban Planning Contributions.” Landscape and Urban Planning 84, no. 1 (2008): 7–
19. doi:10.1016/j.land urbpl an. 2007 .0 9.0 09.
Rupprecht, Christoph D D, Jason A Byrne, Hirofumi Ueda, and Alex Y H Lo. “‘It’s Real, Not Fake like a Park’: Residents’ Perception and Use of Informal Urban Green-Space in Brisbane, Australia
and Sapporo, Japan.” Landscape and Urban Planning 143 (November 2015): 205–18. doi:10.1016/j.la nd ur bpl an. 20 15.0 7.0 03 .
Sawaki, Masanori, and Akiharu Kamihogi. “Study on the Residents’ Taste for Coexisting with Nature Life in the New Town.” Journal of the Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture 58, no. 5
(1995): 133–36.
Soga, Masashi, Yuichi Yamaura, Tetsuya Aikoh, Yasushi Shoji, Takahiro Kubo, and Kevin J. Gaston. “Reducing the Extinction of Experience: Association between Urban Form and Recreational Use
of Public Greenspace.” Landscape and Urban Planning 143 (November 2015): 69–75. doi:10.1016/j.lan dur bpla n. 2015. 06 .0 03.
Wolch, Jennifer. “Anima Urbis.” Progress in Human Geography 26, no. 6 (December 1, 2002): 721–42. doi:10.1191/03 09 13 2502 ph40 0oa.
Wolch, Jennifer R., Kathleen West, and Thomas E. Gaines. “Transspecies Urban Theory.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 13, no. 6 (December 1, 1995): 735–60.
doi:10.1068/d 1307 35.
Yeo, Jun-Han, and Harvey Neo. “Monkey Business: Human–animal Conflicts in Urban Singapore.” Social & Cultural Geography 11, no. 7 (November 1, 2010): 681–99.
doi:10.1080/1 4649 365.2 01 0. 50 8565.