IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i6p1873-d150608.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Urban Foraging in Berlin: People, Plants and Practices within the Metropolitan Green Infrastructure

Author

Listed:
  • Jonah L. Landor-Yamagata

    (Department of Ecology, Ecosystem Science/Plant Ecology, Technische Universität Berlin, Rothenburgstr. 12, D-12165 Berlin, Germany)

  • Ingo Kowarik

    (Department of Ecology, Ecosystem Science/Plant Ecology, Technische Universität Berlin, Rothenburgstr. 12, D-12165 Berlin, Germany
    Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), D-14195 Berlin, Germany)

  • Leonie K. Fischer

    (Department of Ecology, Ecosystem Science/Plant Ecology, Technische Universität Berlin, Rothenburgstr. 12, D-12165 Berlin, Germany
    Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), D-14195 Berlin, Germany)

Abstract

Gathering wild plants in cities (urban foraging) is likely an important, but understudied human-nature interaction globally. As large European cities are critically understudied in this regard, we performed in-depth ethnography-based interviews in Berlin, Germany, to shed light on the cultural background of foragers, their motivations and which plants and fungi are gathered for which purposes. Results demonstrate multiple uses of 125 taxa, mostly frequently-occurring species but also some Red List species, from a range of formal and informal greenspace types. Both native and non-native species were gathered, with significant differences in use patterns. Use for food was most common, followed by medicinal uses, and personal enjoyment was a frequent motivation, indicating that urban foraging combines provisioning and cultural ecosystem services. Familial and childhood foraging exposure were common, pointing to influences of early-in-life exposure on later-in-life activities and transgenerational aspects of the practice. Results further suggest legacy effects from the post-war and communist eras on foraging knowledge. Although non-commercial foraging is allowed in Berlin, over-harvesting was not evident. Interviews indicate that stewardship of urban biodiversity is common among foragers. Results thus suggest considering urban foraging as a promising vehicle for linking humans with nature when developing a biodiverse urban green infrastructure.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonah L. Landor-Yamagata & Ingo Kowarik & Leonie K. Fischer, 2018. "Urban Foraging in Berlin: People, Plants and Practices within the Metropolitan Green Infrastructure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-23, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:1873-:d:150608
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1873/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1873/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: Comparing attitudes, perception, and use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 187-199.
    2. Reyes-García, Victoria & Menendez-Baceta, Gorka & Aceituno-Mata, Laura & Acosta-Naranjo, Rufino & Calvet-Mir, Laura & Domínguez, Pablo & Garnatje, Teresa & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Molina-Bustamante, M, 2015. "From famine foods to delicatessen: Interpreting trends in the use of wild edible plants through cultural ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 303-311.
    3. Charlie M. Shackleton & Patrick T. Hurley & Annika C. Dahlberg & Marla R. Emery & Harini Nagendra, 2017. "Urban Foraging: A Ubiquitous Human Practice Overlooked by Urban Planners, Policy, and Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, October.
    4. Fischer, L.K. & Honold, J. & Botzat, A. & Brinkmeyer, D. & Cvejić, R. & Delshammar, T. & Elands, B. & Haase, D. & Kabisch, N. & Karle, S.J. & Lafortezza, R. & Nastran, M. & Nielsen, A.B. & van der Ja, 2018. "Recreational ecosystem services in European cities: Sociocultural and geographical contexts matter for park use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 455-467.
    5. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Meike Rombach & Julio Botero & David L. Dean, 2023. "Should I Go Back to the Roots to Obtain My Food? Understanding Key Factors Driving U.S. Consumers’ Preferences for Food Foraging over Buying and Growing Food," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-12, October.
    2. Łukasz Łuczaj & Monica Wilde & Leanne Townsend, 2021. "The Ethnobiology of Contemporary British Foragers: Foods They Teach, Their Sources of Inspiration and Impact," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-23, March.
    3. Jan K. Kazak & Jakub Chruściński & Szymon Szewrański, 2018. "The Development of a Novel Decision Support System for the Location of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-20, November.
    4. Alessio Russo & Giuseppe T. Cirella, 2019. "Edible urbanism 5.0," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-9, December.
    5. Alessio Russo & Giuseppe T. Cirella, 2020. "Edible Green Infrastructure for Urban Regeneration and Food Security: Case Studies from the Campania Region," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-14, August.
    6. Joanna Wysmułek & Maria Hełdak & Anatolii Kucher, 2020. "The Analysis of Green Areas’ Accessibility in Comparison with Statistical Data in Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-17, June.
    7. Davide Marino & Margherita Palmieri & Angelo Marucci & Mariangela Soraci & Antonio Barone & Silvia Pili, 2023. "Linking Flood Risk Mitigation and Food Security: An Analysis of Land-Use Change in the Metropolitan Area of Rome," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, January.
    8. Shackleton, Charlie M. & de Vos, Alta, 2022. "How many people globally actually use non-timber forest products?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    9. Leonie K. Fischer & Ingo Kowarik, 2020. "Dog Walkers’ Views of Urban Biodiversity across Five European Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-11, April.
    10. Giorgio Mina & Valentina Scariot & Giovanni Peira & Giampiero Lombardi, 2023. "Foraging Practices and Sustainable Management of Wild Food Resources in Europe: A Systematic Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-22, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    2. Berglihn, Elisabeth Cornelia & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, 2021. "Ecosystem services from urban forests: The case of Oslomarka, Norway," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    3. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-Related and Socio-Demographic Variations in Urban Green Space Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    4. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-related and socio-demographic variations in urban green space preferences," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/326192, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Yang Yang & Zhifang Wang & Guangsi Lin, 2021. "Performance Assessment Indicators for Comparing Recreational Services of Urban Parks," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-21, March.
    6. Jörg Priess & Luis Valença Pinto & Ieva Misiune & Julia Palliwoda, 2021. "Ecosystem Service Use and the Motivations for Use in Central Parks in Three European Cities," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, February.
    7. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    8. Iwona Szumacher & Piotr Pabjanek, 2017. "Temporal Changes in Ecosystem Services in European Cities in the Continental Biogeographical Region in the Period from 1990–2012," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-14, April.
    9. Xiao, Lan & Haiping, Tang & Haoguang, Liang, 2017. "A theoretical framework for researching cultural ecosystem service flows in urban agglomerations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 95-104.
    10. Grzyb, Tomasz & Kulczyk, Sylwia & Derek, Marta & Woźniak, Edyta, 2021. "Using social media to assess recreation across urban green spaces in times of abrupt change," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    11. Fischer, L.K. & Honold, J. & Botzat, A. & Brinkmeyer, D. & Cvejić, R. & Delshammar, T. & Elands, B. & Haase, D. & Kabisch, N. & Karle, S.J. & Lafortezza, R. & Nastran, M. & Nielsen, A.B. & van der Ja, 2018. "Recreational ecosystem services in European cities: Sociocultural and geographical contexts matter for park use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 455-467.
    12. Jieyuan Zhu & Huiting Lu & Tianchen Zheng & Yuejing Rong & Chenxing Wang & Wen Zhang & Yan Yan & Lina Tang, 2020. "Vitality of Urban Parks and Its Influencing Factors from the Perspective of Recreational Service Supply, Demand, and Spatial Links," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-17, March.
    13. Wenjia Zhou & Jun Cai & Kai Chen, 2022. "Connecting Recreational Service to Visitor’s Well-Being: A Case Study in Qianjiangyuan National Park," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-17, September.
    14. Henry Lippert & Ingo Kowarik & Tanja M. Straka, 2022. "People’s Attitudes and Emotions towards Different Urban Forest Types in the Berlin Region, Germany," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-21, May.
    15. Zhichao Li & Tianqu Shao, 2019. "An Improved Ecological Services Valuation Model in Land Use Project," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-17, April.
    16. Goran Krsnik & Sonia Reyes-Paecke & Keith M. Reynolds & Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo & José Ramón González Olabarria, 2023. "Assessing Relativeness in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: Better Comparison Methods for Improved Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    17. Gaodi Xie & Wenhui Chen & Shuyan Cao & Chunxia Lu & Yu Xiao & Changshun Zhang & Na Li & Shuo Wang, 2014. "The Outward Extension of an Ecological Footprint in City Expansion: The Case of Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-16, December.
    18. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    19. Li-Pei Peng & Wei-Ming Wang, 2020. "Hybrid Decision-Making Evaluation for Future Scenarios of Cultural Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-20, August.
    20. Alexander V. Rusanov, 2019. "Dacha dwellers and gardeners: garden plots and second homes in Europe and Russia," Population and Economics, ARPHA Platform, vol. 3(1), pages 107-124, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:1873-:d:150608. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.