Abstract
Ongoing urbanization has led to a significant increase in the number of pets and has altered the relationships between pets and owners from primarily utilitarian to cultural (e.g., entertainment and health improvement). Existing classifications of ecosystem services (ES) (e.g., CICES) and nature’s contributions to people (NCP) explicitly consider only the ES provided by livestock and wild animals. This study attempted to translate perceived benefits and costs from owning pets (dogs or cats) in a megapolis into ES and disservices frameworks. The data were collected via an online questionnaire distributed through social media among residents of Moscow (Russia). The study showed that pets contribute to the well-being of city dwellers, for which owners are willing to put up with some potential risks and also bear monetary costs. Reasons for owning a pet have been translated into ES and NCPs ranging from regulating (4%) to provisioning (1%). However, cultural services linked to mental (26%) and physical (32%) health, spiritual, symbolic interaction (19%), and educational values (16%) have been the most prominent group. Considering an increase in pet owners, the interests and needs of this distinct stakeholder group need to be taken into account in urban planning and management. Pets’ integration into classifications and thus assessments of the urban ES can be a crucial step towards achieving this goal.
Highlights
Published: 24 September 2021Companion animals, or pets, are formally defined as animals we live with and that have no obvious economic and practical function, but the value we attribute to them comes from the benefits of the relationship we have with them [1]
Most pets live in families: more than half of respondents reside with children or parents (64.2%)
Urban planning is challenged with addressing these and other demands of pet owners, while balancing them with those of other interest groups, for instance through the cooperation between multiple beneficiaries and the identification of stakeholder-specific multifunctionality hotspots [77]. Domestic animals such as cats and dogs contribute to the well-being of their owners in urban environments; this is not reflected in the existing ecosystem services (ES) and disservices classifications, and presents an obstacle to their assessment and inclusion into decisionmaking
Summary
Published: 24 September 2021Companion animals, or pets, are formally defined as animals we live with and that have no obvious economic and practical function, but the value we attribute to them comes from the benefits of the relationship we have with them [1]. The relationship between people and domestic animals in contemporary societies and ecosystems is a longstanding and enduring issue [2,3]. Cats were valued at all times as low-maintenance predators-in-residence to protect food stores and warehouses from rodents [3,6]. This appreciation played a significant role in their global spread, as they were used as pest controllers on commercial vessels [7]. The human–animal bonds and benefits people receive from their pets are changing with time. In Asia (mostly in Cambodia, China, Thailand, and Vietnam), where approximately
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
