Perceived Benefits and Costs of Owning a Pet in a Megapolis: An Ecosystem Services Perspective
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods and Materials
2.1. Data Collection and Survey Distribution
2.2. Study Sampling
2.3. Questionnaire Design
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Respondents Characteristics and Pet Ownership Structure
3.2. Reported Reasons for Owning a Pet Translated into ES and NCP
3.3. Disservices of Owning a Pet Translated from Perceived Disadvantages
3.4. Costs of Owning a Pet as Reported by Respondents
3.5. Perceived Availability of Green Infrastructure
4. Discussion
5. Implications for Urban Planning
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Amiot, C.; Bastian, B.; Martens, P. People and Companion Animals: It Takes Two to Tango. BioScience 2016, 66, 552–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boivin, N.L.; Zeder, M.A.; Fuller, D.Q.; Crowther, A.; Larson, G.; Erlandson, J.M.; Denham, T.; Petraglia, M.D. Ecological consequences of human niche construction: Examining long-term anthropogenic shaping of global species distributions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 6388–6396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Driscoll, C.A.; Macdonald, D.W.; O’Brien, S.J. From wild animals to domestic pets, an evolutionary view of domestication. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 9971–9978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Clutton-Brock, J. The process of domestication. Mammal Rev. 1992, 22, 79–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeder, M.A. Pathways to Animal Domestication. In Biodiversity in Agriculture; Gepts, P., Famula, T.R., Bettinger, R.L., Brush, S.B., Damania, A.B., McGuire, P.E., Qualset, C.O., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012; pp. 227–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Driscoll, C.A.; Menotti-Raymond, M.; Roca, A.L.; Hupe, K.; Johnson, W.E.; Geffen, E.; Harley, E.H.; Delibes, M.; Pontier, D.; Kitchener, A.C.; et al. The Near Eastern Origin of Cat Domestication. Science 2007, 317, 519–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ottoni, C.; Van Neer, W.; De Cupere, B.; Daligault, J.; Guimaraes, S.; Peters, J.; Spassov, N.; Prendergast, M.E.; Boivin, N.; Morales-Muñiz, A.; et al. The palaeogenetics of cat dispersal in the ancient world. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 1, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podberscek, A.L. Good to Pet and Eat: The Keeping and Consuming of Dogs and Cats in South Korea. J. Soc. Issues 2009, 65, 615–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gray, P.B.; Young, S.M. Human–Pet Dynamics in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Anthrozoös 2011, 24, 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, S.P. Can Pets Function as Family Members? West. J. Nurs. Res. 2002, 24, 621–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Friedmann, E.; Son, H. The Human–Companion Animal Bond: How Humans Benefit. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Small Anim. Pract. 2009, 39, 293–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wells, D.L. The Effects of Animals on Human Health and Well-Being. J. Soc. Issues 2009, 65, 523–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shibata, A.; Oka, K.; Inoue, S.; Christian, H.; Kitabatake, Y.; Shimomitsu, T. Physical Activity of Japanese Older Adults Who Own and Walk Dogs. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2012, 43, 429–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Veitch, J.; Christian, H.; Carver, A.; Salmon, J. Physical activity benefits from taking your dog to the park. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 185, 173–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westgarth, C.; Christley, R.M.; Christian, H.E. How might we increase physical activity through dog walking?: A comprehensive review of dog walking correlates. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Applebaum, J.F.; Adams, B.L.; Eliasson, N.; Zsembik, B.; McDonald, S.E. How pets factor into healthcare decisions for COVID-19: A One Health perspective. One Health 2020, 11, 100176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Applebaum, J.W.; Tomlinson, C.A.; Matijczak, A.; McDonald, S.E.; Zsembik, B.A. The Concerns, Difficulties, and Stressors of Caring for Pets during COVID-19: Results from a Large Survey of U.S. Pet Owners. Animals 2020, 10, 1882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mueller, M.K.; Richer, A.M.; Callina, K.S.; Charmaraman, L. Companion Animal Relationships and Adolescent Loneliness during COVID-19. Animals 2021, 11, 885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baneth, G.; Thamsborg, S.M.; Otranto, D.; Guillot, J.; Blaga, R.; Deplazes, P.; Solano-Gallego, L. Major Parasitic Zoonoses Associated with Dogs and Cats in Europe. J. Comp. Pathol. 2016, 155, 54–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Morrison, G. Zoonotic infections from pets. Postgrad. Med. 2001, 110, 24–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Afonso, E.; Lemoine, M.; Poulle, M.-L.; Ravat, M.-C.; Romand, S.; Thulliez, P.; Villena, I.; Aubert, D.; Rabilloud, M.; Riche, B.; et al. Spatial distribution of soil contamination by Toxoplasma gondii in relation to cat defecation behaviour in an urban area. Int. J. Parasitol. 2008, 38, 1017–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torrey, E.F.; Yolken, R.H. The urban risk and migration risk factors for schizophrenia: Are cats the answer? Schizophr. Res. 2014, 159, 299–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loss, S.R.; Will, T.; Marra, P.P. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nat. Commun. 2013, 4, 1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- de Silva, K.V.K.A.; Kenup, C.F.; Kreischer, C.; Fernandez, F.A.S.; Pires, A.S. Who let the dogs out? Occurrence, population size and daily activity of domestic dogs in an urban Atlantic Forest reserve. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 2018, 16, 228–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buchholz, S.; Seitz, B.; Hiller, A.; von der Lippe, M.; Kowarik, I. Impacts of Dogs on Urban Grassland Ecosystems. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 215, 104201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sims, V.; Evans, K.L.; Newson, S.E.; Tratalos, J.A.; Gaston, K.J. Avian assemblage structure and domestic cat densities in urban environments: Urban cats and birds. Divers. Distrib. 2007, 14, 387–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, C.M.; Adams, N.A.; Bradley, J.S.; Bryant, K.A.; Davis, A.A.; Dickman, C.R.; Fujita, T.; Kobayashi, S.; Lepczyk, C.A.; McBride, E.A.; et al. Community Attitudes and Practices of Urban Residents Regarding Predation by Pet Cats on Wildlife: An International Comparison. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0151962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kikillus, K.H.; Chambers, G.K.; Farnworth, M.J.; Hare, K.M. Research challenges and conservation implications for urban cat management in New Zealand. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 2017, 23, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Natoli, E.; Maragliano, L.; Cariola, G.; Faini, A.; Bonanni, R.; Cafazzo, S.; Fantini, C. Management of feral domestic cats in the urban environment of Rome (Italy). Prev. Vet. Med. 2006, 77, 180–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, J.; Bruce, S.; Dale, A. A Survey of Public Opinion on Cat (Felis catus) Predation and the Future Direction of Cat Management in New Zealand. Animals 2017, 7, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Murray, J.K.; Browne, W.J.; Roberts, M.A.; Whitmarsh, A.; Gruffydd-Jones, T.J. Number and ownership profiles of cats and dogs in the UK. Vet. Rec. 2010, 166, 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Migiro, G. How Many Cats Are There in the World? WorldAtlas. 2018. Available online: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-many-cats-are-there-in-the-world.html (accessed on 4 January 2020).
- Migiro, G. How Much Do Canadians Spend on Their Pets? WorldAtlas. 2020. Available online: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-much-do-canadians-spend-on-their-pets.html (accessed on 4 January 2020).
- Perrin, T. The Business of Urban Animals Survey: The facts and statistics on companion animals in Canada. Special Report. Can. Vet. J. 2009, 50, 48–52. [Google Scholar]
- Petsecure. A Guide to Worldwide Pet Ownership. Available online: https://www.petsecure.com.au/pet-care/a-guide-to-worldwide-pet-ownership/ (accessed on 4 January 2020).
- WCIOM. Russia Is a Country of Cats! Available online: https://wciom.ru/index.php?id=236&uid=10030 (accessed on 4 May 2020).
- Vadimov, I. With a Human Face. How Russians Are Changing Their Attitude towards Pets. Kommersant. Available online: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4180648 (accessed on 4 May 2020).
- Haines-Young, R.; Potschin-Young, M. Revision of the Common International Classification for Ecosystem Services (CICES V5.1): A Policy Brief. One Ecosyst. 2018, 3, e27108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPBES. Update on the Classification of Nature’s Contributions to People by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Available online: https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/pdf/ipbes-5-inf-24.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2021).
- Ramón, M.E.; Slater, M.R.; Ward, M.P. Companion animal knowledge, attachment and pet cat care and their associations with household demographics for residents of a rural Texas town. Prev. Vet. Med. 2010, 94, 251–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramón, M.E.; Slater, M.R.; Ward, M.P.; Lopez, R.R. Repeatability of a telephone questionnaire on cat-ownership patterns and pet owner demographics evaluation in a community in Texas, USA. Prev. Vet. Med. 2008, 85, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salman, M.; New, J., Jr.; Scarlett, J.; Kass, P. Human and animal factors related to the relinquishment of dogs and cats in 12 selected animal shelters in the United States. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 1998, 1, 207–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McHarg, M.; Baldock, C.; Heady, B.; Robinson, A. National People and Pets Survey; Urban Animal Management Coalition: Melbourne, Australia, 1995; pp. 1–27. [Google Scholar]
- Cutt, H.; Giles-Corti, B.; Knuiman, M. Encouraging physical activity through dog walking: Why don’t some owners walk with their dog? Prev. Med. 2008, 46, 120–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koohsari, M.J.; Nakaya, T.; McCormack, G.R.; Shibata, A.; Ishii, K.; Yasunaga, A.; Liao, Y.; Oka, K. Dog-walking in dense compact areas: The role of neighbourhood built environment. Health Place 2020, 66, 102428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hawes, S.M.; Hupe, T.M.; Gandenberger, J.; Saucedo, M.; Arrington, A.; Morris, K.N. Detailed Assessment of Pet Ownership Rates in Four Underserved Urban and Rural Communities in the United States. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2021, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciftcioglu, G.C.; Ebedi, S.; Abak, K. Evaluation of the relationship between ornamental plants—based ecosystem services and human wellbeing: A case study from Lefke Region of North Cyprus. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 102, 278–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calvet-Mir, L.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Reyes-García, V. Beyond food production: Ecosystem services provided by home gardens. A case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 74, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muradian, R.; Gómez-Baggethun, E. Beyond ecosystem services and nature’s contributions: Is it time to leave utilitarian environmentalism behind? Ecol. Econ. 2021, 185, 107038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, L.; Martin, K.; Christian, H.; Houghton, S.; Kawachi, I.; Vallesi, S.; McCune, S. Social capital and pet ownership—A tale of four cities. SSM Popul. Health 2017, 3, 442–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Friedmann, E.; Krause-Parello, C.A. Companion animals and human health: Benefits, challenges, and the road ahead for human-animal interaction. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epizoot. 2018, 37, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pascual, U.; Balvanera, P.; Díaz, S.; Pataki, G.; Roth, E.; Stenseke, M.; Watson, R.T.; Başak Dessane, E.; Islar, M.; Kelemen, E.; et al. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 26–27, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chan, K.M.A.; Gould, R.K.; Pascual, U. Editorial overview: Relational values: What are they, and what’s the fuss about? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 35, A1–A7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, K.M.A.; Satterfield, T.; Goldstein, J. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 74, 8–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brown, G.; Raymond, C.M.; Corcoran, J. Mapping and measuring place attachment. Appl. Geogr. 2015, 57, 42–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hemsworth, S.; Pizer, B. Pet ownership in immunocompromised children–a review of the literature and survey of existing guidelines. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2006, 10, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medina, F.M.; Bonnaud, E.; Vidal, E.; Nogales, M. Underlying impacts of invasive cats on islands: Not only a question of predation. Biodivers. Conserv. 2014, 23, 327–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crowley, S.L.; Cecchetti, M.; McDonald, R.A. Our Wild Companions: Domestic cats in Anthropocene. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2020, 35, 477–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Young, J.K.; Olson, K.A.; Reading, R.P.; Amgalanbaatar, S.; Berger, J. Is wildlife going to the dogs? Impacts of feral and free-roaming dogs on wildlife populations. BioScience 2011, 61, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carter, J.; Paterson, M.B.A.; Morton, J.M.; Gelves-Gomez, F. Beliefs and Attitudes of Residents in Queensland, Australia, about Managing Dog and Cat Impacts on Native Wildlife. Animals 2020, 10, 1637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Federal State Statistics Service. Labor Market, Employment, and Salaries. Available online: https://rosstat.gov.ru/folder/13397 (accessed on 4 April 2021).
- Gates, M.C.; Walker, J.; Zito, S.; Dale, A. Cross-sectional survey of pet ownership, veterinary service utilisation, and pet-related expenditures in New Zealand. N. Z. Vet. J. 2019, 67, 315–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dushkova, D.; Ignatieva, M.; Hughes, M.; Konstantinova, A.; Vasenev, V.; Dovletyarova, E. Human Dimensions of Urban Blue and Green Infrastructure during a Pandemic. Case Study of Moscow (Russia) and Perth (Australia). Sustainability 2021, 13, 4148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Barton, D.N. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunewald, K.; Bastian, O.; Louda, J.; Arcidiacono, A.; Brzoska, P.; Bue, M.; Cetin, N.I.; Dworczyk, C.; Dubova, L.; Fitch, A.; et al. Lessons learned from implementing the ecosystem services concept in urban planning. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 49, 101273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kremer, P.; Hamstead, Z.; Haase, D.; McPhearson, T.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Andersson, E.; Kabisch, N.; Larondelle, N.; Lorance Rall, E.; Voigt, A.; et al. Key insights for the future of urban ecosystem services research. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sharifi, A.; Khavarian-Garmsir, A.R. The COVID-19 pandemic: Impacts on cities and major lessons for urban planning, design, and management. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 749, 142391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Slater, S.J.; Christiana, R.W.; Gustat, J. Recommendations for Keeping Parks and Green Space Accessible for Mental and Physical Health During COVID-19 and Other Pandemics. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2020, 17, 200204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grajfoner, D.; Ke, G.N.; Wong, R.M.M. The Effect of Pets on Human Mental Health and Wellbeing during COVID-19 Lockdown in Malaysia. Animals 2021, 11, 2689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nieforth, L.O.; O’Haire, M.E. The role of pets in managing uncertainty from COVID-19. Psychol. Trauma Theor. Res. Prac. Policy 2020, 12, S245–S246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parry, N.M.A. COVID-19 and pets: When pandemic meets panic. Forensic Sci. Int. Rep. 2020, 2, 100090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sirakaya, A.; Cliquet, A.; Harris, J. Ecosystem services in cities: Towards the international legal protection of ecosystem services in urban environments. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 29, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Christian, H.; Bauman, A.; Epping, J.N.; Levine, G.N.; McCormack, G.; Rhodes, R.E.; Richards, E.; Rock, M.; Westgarth, C. Encouraging dog walking for health promotion and disease prevention. Am. J. Lifestyle Med. 2018, 12, 233–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Christian, H.; Giles-Corti, B.; Knuiman, M. “I’m Just a’-Walking the Dog” correlates of regular dog walking. Fam. Community Health 2010, 33, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McCormack, G.R.; Graham, T.M.; Swanson, K.; Massolo, A.; Rock, M.J. Changes in visitor profiles and activity patterns following dog supportive modifications to parks: A natural experiment on the health impact of an urban policy. SSM Popul. Health 2016, 2, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vincent, A.; Mamzer, H.; Zenithson, N.G.; Farkas, K.J. People and their pets in the times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Soc. Regist. 2020, 4, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hölting, L.; Komossa, F.; Filyushkina, A.; Gastinger, M.; Verburg, P.H.; Beckmann, M.; Volk, M.; Cord, A.F. Including stakeholders’ perspectives on ecosystem services in multifunctionality assessments. Ecosyst. People 2020, 16, 354–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Number of Views of the Advertisement in Vk | Number of Visits to the Entry Page on Survio | Number of Visitors Who Have Completed the Survey | Number of Moscow Residents | Number of Moscow Residents—Pet Owners | Number of Moscow Residents—Dog or (and) Cat Owners |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
36,004 | 569 | 346 | 260 | 242 | 229 |
Characteristic | Share of Respondents |
---|---|
Gender | 10%—Male 90%—Female |
Age | 13.5%—Less than 20 years old 39.7%—21–30 years old 22.7%—31–40 years old 13.5%—41–50 years old 8.7%—51–60 years old 1.7%—More than 60 years old |
Highest obtained level of education | 2.2%—Primary general (4 grades of school) 7.0%—Basic general (9 grades of school) 2.6%—Secondary general (11 grades of school) 17.5%—Secondary vocational 12.2%—Incomplete higher 51.1%—Higher (bachelor, specialty, master) 7.4%—Higher (postgraduate or doctoral studies, PhD degree) |
Living/family circumstances | 7.9%—Alone 22.7%—With spouse 64.2%—With family (children, parents) 4.8%—With friend/friends 0.4%—no answer |
Reason for Owning a Pet Reported by Respondents | Suggested Translation into ES/NCP | Percentage of Respondents Owning a Pet Reporting Such Reasons | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Suggested Category and Reasoning | Equivalent in CICES 1 (If Exists) | Equivalent in NCP 2 (If Exists) | Cats | Dogs | |
For joy | Mental health as part of physical and psychological experiences | 3.1.1.1 | (16) | 26.2 | 28.4 |
For comfort, coziness, sense of home | Sense of place as part of supporting identities | 3.2.1.1 | (17) | 21.7 | 16.7 |
For caring/feeling responsible | Educational values as part of learning and inspiration | 3.1.2.2 | (15) | 14.3 | 16.4 |
To shelter | Mental health as part of physical and psychological experience | 3.1.1.2 | (16) | 12.8 | 5.0 |
Not to feel alone | Mental health as part of physical and psychological experience | 3.1.1.2 | (16) | 10.5 | 9.1 |
For beauty/to admire | Aesthetics, both as a source of learning and inspiration and as part of physical and psychological experience | 3.1.1.2 | (15) and (16) | 7.2 | 7.6 |
For health | Physical and mental health as part of physical and psychological experience | 3.1.1.1 | (16) | 2.5 | 5.6 |
For breeding/sale | Materials and assistance and/or sense of identity and belonging as part of supporting identities or even maintenance of options | 1.2.2.1 1.2.2.2 | (13), (17) and (18) | 1.1 | 0.9 |
To participate in exhibitions | Aesthetic enjoyment based on close contact with the pet (nature) and/or sense of belonging, connectedness to the pet and/or community with its rituals and customs | 3.1.1.1 | (16) and (17) | 0.2 | 1.2 |
To guard | Regulation of organisms detrimental to human well-being | 2.2.3.X 3 | (10) | - | 6.4 |
For hunting | Food and feed/provisioning contribution and/or sense of belonging, identity to the community with its rituals/relaxation and enjoyment of nature | 3.1.1.1 1.1.6.1 | (12), (16) and (17) | - | 0.3 |
To catch mice | Pest control/regulation of organisms detrimental to humans | 2.2.3.1 | (10) | 1.3 | - |
Other | - | - | - | 2.2 | 2.4 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Konstantinova, A.; Matasov, V.; Filyushkina, A.; Vasenev, V. Perceived Benefits and Costs of Owning a Pet in a Megapolis: An Ecosystem Services Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10596. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910596
Konstantinova A, Matasov V, Filyushkina A, Vasenev V. Perceived Benefits and Costs of Owning a Pet in a Megapolis: An Ecosystem Services Perspective. Sustainability. 2021; 13(19):10596. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910596
Chicago/Turabian StyleKonstantinova, Anastasia, Victor Matasov, Anna Filyushkina, and Viacheslav Vasenev. 2021. "Perceived Benefits and Costs of Owning a Pet in a Megapolis: An Ecosystem Services Perspective" Sustainability 13, no. 19: 10596. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910596
APA StyleKonstantinova, A., Matasov, V., Filyushkina, A., & Vasenev, V. (2021). Perceived Benefits and Costs of Owning a Pet in a Megapolis: An Ecosystem Services Perspective. Sustainability, 13(19), 10596. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910596