Perceived Benefits and Costs of Owning a Pet in a Megapolis: An Ecosystem Services Perspective

Anastasia Konstantinova, Victor Matasov, Anna Filyushkina and Viacheslav Vasenev
Additional contact information
Anastasia Konstantinova: Department of Landscape Design and Sustainable Ecosystems, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia—RUDN University, 117198 Moscow, Russia
Victor Matasov: Department of Landscape Design and Sustainable Ecosystems, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia—RUDN University, 117198 Moscow, Russia
Anna Filyushkina: Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Viacheslav Vasenev: Department of Landscape Design and Sustainable Ecosystems, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia—RUDN University, 117198 Moscow, Russia

Sustainability, 2021, vol. 13, issue 19, 1-15

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.

Keywords: domestic animals; pets; urban planning; CICES; NCP; stakeholders; disservices (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/19/10596/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/19/10596/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:19:p:10596-:d:642152

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().