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, Open Access Journal, 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. 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.
    3. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    4. 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, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, October.
    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. Łukasz Łuczaj & Monica Wilde & Leanne Townsend, 2021. "The Ethnobiology of Contemporary British Foragers: Foods They Teach, Their Sources of Inspiration and Impact," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 13(6), pages 1-23, March.
    2. 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, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(12), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Alessio Russo & Giuseppe T. Cirella, 2019. "Edible urbanism 5.0," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-9, December.
    4. Alessio Russo & Giuseppe T. Cirella, 2020. "Edible Green Infrastructure for Urban Regeneration and Food Security: Case Studies from the Campania Region," Agriculture, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(8), pages 1-14, August.
    5. Leonie K. Fischer & Ingo Kowarik, 2020. "Dog Walkers’ Views of Urban Biodiversity across Five European Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 12(9), pages 1-11, April.

    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. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-Related and Socio-Demographic Variations in Urban Green Space Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    2. 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.
    3. 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, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, February.
    4. 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.
    5. 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, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(4), pages 1-14, April.
    6. 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.
    7. Zahra Kalantari & Sara Khoshkar & Helena Falk & Vladimir Cvetkovic & Ulla Mörtberg, 2017. "Accessibility of Water-Related Cultural Ecosystem Services through Public Transport—A Model for Planning Support in the Stockholm Region," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(3), pages 1-16, February.
    8. Scott Hetrick & Rinku Roy Chowdhury & Eduardo Brondizio & Emilio Moran, 2013. "Spatiotemporal Patterns and Socioeconomic Contexts of Vegetative Cover in Altamira City, Brazil," Land, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 2(4), pages 1-23, December.
    9. 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, Open Access Journal, vol. 6(12), pages 1-16, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Monika Kopecká & Daniel Szatmári & Konštantín Rosina, 2017. "Analysis of Urban Green Spaces Based on Sentinel-2A: Case Studies from Slovakia," Land, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 6(2), pages 1-17, April.
    12. Ernstson, Henrik & Sörlin, Sverker, 2013. "Ecosystem services as technology of globalization: On articulating values in urban nature," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 274-284.
    13. Zhijie Wu & Yixin Zhang, 2019. "Water Bodies’ Cooling Effects on Urban Land Daytime Surface Temperature: Ecosystem Service Reducing Heat Island Effect," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(3), pages 1-11, February.
    14. Amirafshar Vaeztavakoli & Azadeh Lak & Tan Yigitcanlar, 2018. "Blue and Green Spaces as Therapeutic Landscapes: Health Effects of Urban Water Canal Areas of Isfahan," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(11), pages 1-20, November.
    15. Agathe Colléony & Assaf Shwartz, 2019. "Beyond Assuming Co-Benefits in Nature-Based Solutions: A Human-Centered Approach to Optimize Social and Ecological Outcomes for Advancing Sustainable Urban Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(18), pages 1-18, September.
    16. Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.
    17. Halkos, George, 2012. "Assessing the economic value of protecting artificial lakes," MPRA Paper 39557, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Shanaka Herath & Johanna Choumert & Gunther Maier, 2015. "The value of the greenbelt in Vienna: a spatial hedonic analysis," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 54(2), pages 349-374, March.
    19. Massoni, Emma Soy & Barton, David N. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Gundersen, Vegard, 2018. "Bigger, more diverse and better? Mapping structural diversity and its recreational value in urban green spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 502-516.
    20. Rojas, Carolina & Páez, Antonio & Barbosa, Olga & Carrasco, Juan, 2016. "Accessibility to urban green spaces in Chilean cities using adaptive thresholds," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 227-240.

    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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (XML Conversion Team). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com/ .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.