Ecological Indicators 112 (2020) 106087

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Original Articles

Connecting people to biodiversity in cities of tomorrow: Is urban foraging a T

powerful tool?
Leonie K. Fischera,b,c, , Ingo Kowarika,b
⁎

a
Department of Ecology, Ecosystem Science/Plant Ecology, Technische Universität Berlin, Rothenburgstr. 12, D-12165 Berlin, Germany
b
Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), D-14195 Berlin, Germany
c
Institute of Landscape Planning and Ecology, University of Stuttgart, Keplerstraße 11, D-70174 Stuttgart, Germany

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: As global population becomes increasingly urban, opportunities for people to experience nature have decreased.
Edible plants Counteracting this trend is a key challenge for future urban development as interactions of urban people with
Biocultural diversity biodiversity support human health and wellbeing, and may also result in positive attitudes towards biodiversity
Gathering activity conservation. Collecting edible plants in urban surroundings, especially outside of gardens (“urban foraging”) is
Informal green infrastructure
a traditional interaction with nature, based on knowledge about multiple uses of plants. Although some studies
Provisioning ecosystem services
exist from different cities around the world, urban foraging has been revealed as a critically understudied
Urban biodiversity
phenomenon. We now analyze (i) the relevance of this human-nature interaction in Berlin, one of Europe’s
metropolises, (ii) how people’s sociocultural background matters in attitudes of urban foragers vs. non-foragers
towards this activity, and (iii) whether urban foraging may lead to conflicts with biodiversity conservation. Our
survey revealed urban foraging as a relevant human-nature interaction with a high potential to grow: 33% of 535
respondents already collected edible plants outside of gardens and another 38% would be doing so given certain
conditions, e.g. when contamination risks can be excluded. Many sociocultural groups (differing, e.g. on gender,
age, childhood experience) shared attitudes towards foraging and existing barriers. Risks to biodiversity seem to
be manageable as neither native species nor rare species were over-foraged in relation to species’ abundance in
the local flora, with more abundant species being collected more frequently. We conclude that urban foraging
can be a powerful tool for connecting urban people to nature without putting native biodiversity at risk. We
make a claim for integrated approaches towards environmental policy, environmental education and greenspace
management: these should aim on keeping potential health risks at a minimum, and should support urban
foraging as a biodiversity-friendly and sustainable human-nature interaction in the cities of tomorrow.

1. Introduction
Global urban population is on a constant rise, yet only a minority of
urban dwellers experience nature directly (Cox et al., 2017). The re-
sulting loss of experiences with nature may reduce support for biodi-
versity conservation, as conservation attitudes largely depend on per-
sonal experience (Soga and Gaston, 2016). Moreover, interacting with
nature is fundamental for the physical, mental and social health of
people (MacKerron and Mourato, 2013; Shanahan et al., 2015). Biolo-
gically diverse greenspaces thus contribute to public health (Flies et al.,
2017; Aerts et al., 2018) and generally receive broad support from
urban societies (Fischer et al., 2018a).
Yet, developing future cities that allow experiencing nature within
urban environments faces two challenges. First, urban greenspaces are
often under strong pressure due to the rapid densification of many cities
(Lin and Fuller, 2013; Haaland and Konijnendijk van den Bosch, 2015).
Second, decreasing nature-experiences of people (young people in
particular; Soga and Gaston, 2016), indicates that interacting with
urban biodiversity on a regular basis remains a challenge in urban areas
(Schuttler et al., 2018). One possibility to connect to nature and im-
prove quality of life in cities is to engage in edible green infrastructure
such as community and allotment gardens, rooftop farms or urban food
forests (Russo et al., 2017; Kowalski and Conway, 2019; Park et al.,
2019). Being active through gardening is beneficial for human health,
for example by reducing depression or increasing life satisfaction and
social health (Soga et al., 2017; Egerer et al., 2018; He and Zhu, 2018).
Especially for more vulnerable groups of society, expected positive
health outcomes through the relation of outdoor activities is gaining
importance (Kabisch et al., 2017). Gardening activities and personal
engagement in the edible green infrastructure may thus be considered

⁎
Corresponding author at: Institute of Landscape Planning and Ecology, University of Stuttgart, Keplerstraße 11, D-70174 Stuttgart, Germany.
E-mail address: leonie.fischer@ilpoe.uni-stuttgart.de (L.K. Fischer).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106087
Received 17 September 2018; Received in revised form 12 December 2019; Accepted 7 January 2020
1470-160X/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L.K. Fischer and I. Kowarik
as elements that support social resilience (Petrovic et al., 2019; Säumel
et al., 2019).
Urban gardening can connect people to nature and enhance the
understanding of natural processes associated with food production
(Lin et al., 2018). Collecting edible plants outside of maintained gar-
dens (“urban foraging”, Shackleton et al., 2017) might complement
these advantages as the practice of urban foraging can involve all urban
dwellers, i.e., independent from sociocultural or economic back-
grounds, can be conducted across many different urban environments
and does not rely on specific cultivated areas. Moreover, urban foraging
can support interactions with the specific species pool of a broad range
of urban environments (McLain et al., 2014; Shackleton et al., 2017). In
two parks of Berlin, for example, people interacted with about 17% of
the local species pool (Palliwoda et al., 2017).
Foraging has been a traditional human-nature interaction since
prehistoric times and is still common in rural societies around the globe
(e.g., Ladio and Lozada, 2004 for Argentina, Sujarwo et al., 2016 for
Indonesia). Recent studies indicate urban foraging also as a highly re-
levant, but critically underestimated, human-nature interaction in cities
(Shackleton et al., 2017)—driven by a range of motivations, e.g.,
maintaining cultural practices (Poe et al., 2013 for the cities of Balti-
more, New York City, Philadelphia, Seattle in the U.S.), livelihood
support (Gopal and Nagendra, 2014 for Bangalore, India), healthy
lifestyle (Synk et al., 2017 for Baltimore, U.S.) or personal enjoyment
(Landor-Yamagata et al., 2018 for Berlin, Germany). Urban foraging
has been shown to involve more than half of the population of some
South African cities (Kaoma and Shackleton, 2014 for Tzaneen, Bela
Bela, Zeerust), 25% in some urban and rural areas of West coast states
in the U.S. (Robbins et al., 2008), and 5% of park visitors in five Eur-
opean cities (Fischer et al., 2018b for Bari, Berlin, Edinburgh, Ljubljana,
Malmö). Moreover, knowledge about forageable plants has helped
people in times of crisis (e.g., famines, Łuczaj et al., 2012; wartime in
Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Redžić, 2010; the Great Recession,
Sachdeva et al., 2018 for Canada and the U.S.).
In the review by Shackleton et al. (2017), the potential of urban
foraging for connecting people to nature has been highlighted. Yet,
especially two important questions relating to the management of green
spaces in cities and the involvement of urban societies and their in-
teractions with urban biodiversity remain open. Previous studies nei-
ther address the sociocultural background of urban foragers system-
atically nor compare attitudes of urban foragers vs. non-foragers.
Studying the latter, however, could uncover barriers that prevent
people from engaging in this type of nature interaction in cities.
Moreover, most studies originate from cities where collecting wild
plants is prohibited (e.g., in many U.S. cities; Shackleton et al., 2017),
making the foraging potential within urban societies without legal
regulations less known.
A further open question is on conflicts that urban foraging might
evoke between two societal goals: connecting urban people to nature
(Cox et al., 2017) and conserving biodiversity in cities (Nilon et al.,
2017). Previous studies have shown that cities harbor a considerable
biological richness, to which both native and non-native plant species
contribute (Kühn et al., 2004; Aronson et al., 2014). In parallel, a re-
levant proportion of urban floras are edible. In Beijing, for example,
nearly 40% of wild plants growing in residential areas can be used for
food or medical purposes (Wang et al., 2015). Yet, urban en-
vironments—from natural remnants to novel urban ecosystem-
s—provide habitats also for a wide range of endangered plant species
(Ives et al., 2016; Kowarik and von der Lippe, 2018). Over-foraging
could threaten native biodiversity (de Jong and Varley, 2018). The
harvesting of orchid tubers for producing a traditional winter beverage,
for example, is a major threat to wild orchid populations in several
countries (Molnár et al., 2017).
While previous studies report long lists on gathered wild plants in
cities (e.g., McLain et al., 2014 and references herein; Landor-Yamagata
2
Ecological Indicators 112 (2020) 106087
et al., 2018), it remains unclear thus far whether rare plant species are
over-foraged in relation to their abundance in the given city. We ad-
dress this question separately for native and non-native species since
the former are usually in the focus of urban biodiversity conservation. It
is well-known that foraged plants include both native and non-native
species (McLain et al., 2014). Yet foraging traditions (Poe et al., 2014)
may lead foragers to collect proportionally more species from the native
species pool over the non-natives as these are better known to people in
the context of collecting edible plants outside of gardens. However,
foragers also reported to collect in a sustainable manner by focusing on
non-native or “weedy” species (widely abundant, spontaneous species)
and thereby excluding potentially rare native species (de Jong and
Varley, 2018). Sometimes, urban foraging is even aimed at species
management as foragers purposely collect non-native species to de-
crease their occurrence (de Jong and Varley, 2018; Frazee et al., 2016).
While some studies suggest that common species are categorically
collected, no systematic analysis exists to our knowledge about pre-
ferences of urban foragers for native vs. non-native species and for rare
vs. abundant species. With that in mind, we develop our third research
question, as whether native or non-native edible species are gathered in
proportion to their abundance in the local urban flora and whether rare
species are over-foraged.
Another important question is about the sites that people prefer for
foraging. Previous research has uncovered a wide range of green in-
frastructure types in which urban foraging is conducted (McLain et al.,
2014; Shackleton et al., 2017; Landor-Yamagata et al., 2018). Areas for
foraging range from formal to informal urban greenspaces (cf
Rupprecht and Byrne, 2014), and thus span from traditional parks to
wild vacant land, with different levels of management, maintenance,
and land use legacies. Many people use green infrastructure such as
urban forest areas for collecting edible plants (Jay and Schraml, 2009;
Synk et al., 2017), but perceive informal greenspaces not necessarily as
places where food can be found or grown, but where food-related uses
could be established (Rupprecht, 2017). In this regard, foragers in-
dicated to be well aware of risks related to certain foraging sites such as
pollution by former uses or nearby traffic (e.g., Synk et al., 2017;
Landor-Yamagata et al., 2018). Only few insights exist on which types
of urban areas people prefer for foraging and whether—and to which
extent—barriers prevent non-foragers in getting involved in the prac-
tice as well.
Thus, previous studies highlighted urban foraging as a promising
pathway to enhance biodiversity experience in cities as it is benefitting
people in many ways. We now use a systematic approach that connects
methods from vegetation ecology with the social sciences. With that, we
aim to further our understanding on how urban foraging relates to
a. different groups of society, with regard to characterizing urban
foragers vs. non-foragers (the “Who?”; Fig. 1),
b. the association of collected species to the local species pool (the
“What?”),
c. preferences for formal vs. informal greenspaces in cities (the
“Where?”).
Based on that we worked on the following research questions,
conducting a field survey with 535 respondents:
1. What is the share of foragers within the urban population in a
European metropolis? Do sociocultural backgrounds differ between
urban foragers and people who do not forage?
2. Does the abundance of foraged plants relate to the abundance and
native/non-native status of the species in the urban flora?
3. Do people prefer formal over informal greenspaces, and which
barriers to foraging exist that could be tackled by environmental
policies and greenspace management practices?
L.K. Fischer and I. Kowarik
2. Materials and methods
Our field survey was conducted in Berlin, Germany’s capital and
largest city (892 km2, population 3.7 M in 2017). Berlin’s flora is very
well known because native and non-native species assemblages have
been documented in detail since the 19th century (Sukopp, 1987). Due
to a city-wide continuous mapping of Berlin’s flora, species’ abundance
and their Red list status as endangered or not endangered are well
known as well. Currently, 1527 taxa have been reported for Berlin,
including 20% non-native species (Seitz et al., 2012). Nearly half of
Berlin’s species are listed in the city’s Red List of endangered species
(Seitz et al., 2018). Both native and endangered species grow in a broad
range of ecosystems, from natural remnants to novel anthropogenic
ecosystems, but with the highest richness in natural ecosystems; non-
native species are more attributed to anthropogenic ecosystems
(Kowarik and von der Lippe, 2018).
2.1. Field survey
To elucidate the intersection between urban people and nature in
regard to the practice of urban foraging, we employed a questionnaire
to assess (a) whether respondents collect edible species outside of
gardens in the city or not, (b) if so, which species they forage, (c) if
respondents prefer park grasslands (i.e., a formal greenspace type) or
wild vegetation on vacant land (i.e., an informal greenspace type) for
urban foraging, (d) if people would forage under certain conditions
(foraging potential), and (e) how sites would need to be configured so
that people are motivated to collect edible plants. We also gathered a
range of sociocultural background variables from respondents (Table
A.1).
To answer (c), we included high-resolution photographic material in
the questionnaire that depicted the two greenspace types in question,
each image with high species richness in the foreground and the same
background of apartment blocks and a neutral blue sky. Data was
gathered in two consecutive years in late spring and midsummer (7.
July–30. Aug. 2016 and 23.–31. May 2017) at different times of the
day. In total, 535 questionnaires were included in the final database.
For nine persons that were underage (aged 16 and 17), we received
permission to interview them by an accompanying adult. To reach a
maximum of socioculturally diverse people, we conducted our
3
Ecological Indicators 112 (2020) 106087
Fig. 1. Urban foraging as a tool to connect people
with urban biodiversity. Assessing which people are
involved, how collected plants relate to the local
species pool and how urban greenspaces could be
configured to attract potential foragers could inform
environmental policies, environmental education
and greenspace management in cities.
interviews in different settings, including formal/informal greenspace
sites, railway stations, and a commercial district center. The rejection
rate was 19.74%.
2.2. Data preparation
We described the sociocultural backgrounds of the respondents with
eight variables: gender, age, childhood surroundings, gardening ac-
tivity, frequency of greenspace visits, favorite greenspace use, orienta-
tion towards nature and orientation towards diet (Table 1, Table A.1).
The two latter variables served as proxies for a person’s nature relat-
edness and his/her awareness of a healthy diet. These variables were
assessed with sub-questions (see Table A.1 for details) and are oriented
on the concept of Nisbet et al. (2009) for measuring how people relate
to nature and are concerned about environmental aspects. We compiled
a full species list of the plants listed by respondents and collected ad-
ditional data on species’ native/non-native status, life form (herbs vs.
woody species) and abundance in Berlin, based on their presence/ab-
sence in 153 grid cells each 7.3 km2 according to Seitz et al. (2012; see
Table A.2).
2.3. Statistical analyses
We used Chi2 tests (function chisq.test(), Pearson’s Chi squared test
with Yates’ continuity correction; Crawley, 2007) based on frequency
tables to compare foraging behavior (yes/no; N = 535) between (1)
different sociocultural backgrounds, (2) foraging potential related to
greenspace conditions, and (3) preferred greenspace configuration for
foraging. To find out whether collected plants related to (a) the species’
abundance in Berlin, (b) their native/non-native status or (c) their life
form, we used a linear regression (function lm(), Crawley, 2007) that
incorporates the variables a–c. All analyses were conducted using open-
source R statistical software, version 3.4.3 (2017), and within the li-
cense free R Studio user interface.
3. Results
3.1. Foragers versus non-foragers
Exactly one-third of the respondents answered that they collect
L.K. Fischer and I. Kowarik Ecological Indicators 112 (2020) 106087

Table 1 were mostly collected for food and beverages (Table 2).
(A) Sociocultural background of respondents (N = 535) and (B) covariates in
relation to whether or not they collect edible plants outside of gardens (“for- 3.3. Foraging sites and barriers to foraging
agers” or “non-foragers”). Values display frequencies, with proportions in
parentheses. The results of the Chi2 test show if there is an association between
Forty percent of respondents indicated that they would collect ed-
foraging activity and each sociocultural characteristic or covariate. Significant
ible plants equally from the informal vacant land site with wild vege-
associations (p < 0.05) shown in bold. For more information on the variables’
tation and from the formal park site with grassland (Fig. 3); 35% of the
underlying interview questions, see Table A.1.
respondents preferred the formal park setting and 25% the informal
(A) Sociocultural characteristics Non-foragers Foragers Chi2 p-value vacant land site.
Gender 1.65 0.20
Asking people about barriers to urban foraging revealed a surpris-
Female 218 (42) 95 (18) ingly high foraging potential. More than two-thirds of the respondents
Male 133 (26) 74 (14) (71%) would collect edible plants outside of gardens in urban settings,
Age group 2.22 0.33 either under certain conditions (62%, see Table A.1: Foraging pre-
16 to 29 141 (27) 79 (15)
requisites) or without any restrictions (9%). Only 29% of the re-
30 to 59 148 (28) 61 (12)
≥60 62 (12) 31 (6) spondents would not collect edible plants at all. There were no sig-
Childhood surrounding 1.15 0.28 nificant differences between foragers and non-foragers concerning this
Urban 241 (46) 128 (25) general foraging potential (Chi2 = 0.3, p = 0.86). In the same vein,
Rural 106 (20) 45 (9) both groups shared the same reasons (Chi2 = 1.7, p = 0.63) that would
Gardening activity 0.50 0.48
Yes 212 (40) 98 (18)
hinder foraging: concerns regarding contaminants (36%), mistaking
No 144 (27) 76 (14) potentially toxic species with edible species (31%), that dogs are not
Frequency of greenspace visits 7.50 0.01 allowed on the specific site (29%) and that trash is removed on a reg-
Rarely 57 (11) 13 (2) ular basis (29%).
Often 296 (56) 160 (30)
Favorite greenspace use 9.88 0.01
Physical 184 (37) 77 (16) 4. Discussion
Social 120 (24) 58 (12)
Nature-related 25 (5) 27 (5) Our study suggests that the practice of urban foraging could func-
Orientation towards nature 0.15 0.70 tion as a powerful tool that connects large parts of society with urban
Low 74 (14) 39 (7)
High 281 (53) 136 (26)
nature. More specifically, we revealed urban foraging as an important
Orientation towards diet 3.09 0.08 human-nature interaction in Berlin (Fig. 1) that has a considerable
Low 92 (17) 58 (11) potential to grow: One-third of the respondents collected edible plants
High 262 (50) 116 (22) outside of gardens, and a total of 71% indicated they would potentially
(B) Covariates do so, most of them (62%) under certain conditions.
The practice—and potential—of urban foraging was largely in-
Place of interview 7.24 0.03
dependent from sociocultural background, including the age of re-
Wild natural site, green corridor 86 (16) 60 (11)
Commercial center, railway stations 150 (28) 57 (11) spondents (Table 1). These findings reveal urban foraging as a pro-
Other parts of city 124 (23) 58 (11) mising pathway for connecting a broad range of groups within urban
Season of interview 0.46 0.49 societies to nature, including younger generations—which is particu-
Late spring 119 (22) 52 (10) larly important as the loss of nature experience is most prominent in
Midsummer 241 (45) 123 (23)
young people (Soga and Gaston, 2016). Our study, however, did not
determine how intensely interviewees collected edible plants outside of
gardens but showed that urban foraging is especially popular with
edible plants outside of gardens. Out of eight sociocultural background people that are often outdoors and prefer nature-related activities
variables, six were not related to foraging behavior. That is, foragers (Table 1). Whether the practice is carried out on a regular basis in some
were no different from non-foragers with regard to gender, age, child- specific groups of society but not in others thus remains an open
hood surroundings, gardening activity, orientation towards nature, and question.
orientation towards diet. People who often visit parks were more likely Interestingly, our results demonstrated that both native and non-
to collect edible plants outside of gardens (Chi2 = 7.5, p = 0.01)—as native plant species were foraged to the same extent (Fig. 2) and that
were people that favor nature-related activities while visiting green- neither native nor non-native species were preferred over the other in
spaces (Chi2 = 9.9, p = 0.01; Table 1A). Place of interview was related Berlin. This adds to previous insights that both native and non-native
to foraging behavior, with people interviewed in the commercial center species are collected in urban settings (McLain et al., 2014). Similarly,
being less likely to be involved in urban foraging than people that were in a park study, people utilized native and non-native species in pro-
interviewed elsewhere (Chi2 = 7.2, p = 0.03; Table 1B). portion to their availability at the local scale (Palliwoda et al., 2017).
This indicates that both native and non-native species may equally
3.2. Foraged species support provisioning ecosystem services that urban greenspaces have
for urban foragers. However, further analysis is required to identify if
We analyzed 365 open entries where respondents noted foraged the manifold uses attributed to collected plants (Table 2) are evenly
species, leading to a total of 49 unique taxa (Table A.2). Of the 44 taxa shared between native and non-native species.
that could be assigned to the species level, 49% were herbs and 51% Previous studies have implied that over-foraging could threaten
woody species; 54% were native, and the remaining 46% non-native to native biodiversity, but also, that foragers are often aware of nature
the region of Berlin. Dandelion (Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia) and black- conservation issues (de Jong and Varley, 2018). As collecting plants for
berry (Rubus sect. Rubus) were the most often mentioned species. personal, non-commercial use is allowed by the German Nature Con-
Frequency of mentions was significantly and positively related to the servation Act (thus including the study area), our observations reflect
species’ abundance in Berlin (R2 = 0.15, R2adj = 0.08 with p = 0.016) foraging practices under largely unregulated conditions. Our results
but did not relate to the origin of the species (p = 0.146) or their life suggest that risks for native species are manageable as the frequency of
form (p = 0.455; Fig. 2). Urban foragers thus did not prefer native collected species reflect their abundance in Berlin (Fig. 2). That is, rare
species over non-native species or herbs over woody species. Plants species were not over-sampled. While the respondents in our study, i.e.,

4
L.K. Fischer and I. Kowarik Ecological Indicators 112 (2020) 106087

Fig. 2. The relationship of collected plant species to their abundance in Berlin and their native/non-native status is displayed by the green (native species) and orange
(non-native species) lines and symbols. Whereas abundance of plant species is related to how often people mentioned collecting them, their native/non-native status
is not. Photos show examples for native (circle in upper-right corners) and non-native (triangle) herbs and woody species that can be found in urban settings in Berlin,
Germany. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Table 2 voluntary codes of conduct to avoid overharvesting. Integrating sus-

Common uses of edible plants gathered in urban surroundings, and outside of tainable harvesting practices (McLain et al., 2017) and codes of conduct
gardens. into policies on urban foraging is essential to preserve local biodiversity
Use Examples Frequency Percentage (Charnley et al., 2018).
At a single species level, however, negative impacts cannot be ex-
Food Berries, fruits, nuts 203 38 cluded since—beyond the selection of just a species for foraging—also
Herbs and spices 50 9
the extent of this activity matters. While plants usually recover after
Raw food, vegetables, salad, smoothies*, 151 28
pesto*, soup*, cookies* having lost some leaves, gathering plant parts that are important for
Jam 82 15 survival or reproduction can be critical. One study revealed the har-
Beverage Tea, syrup*, liqueur* 107 20 vesting of orchid tubers as a major threat to wild orchid populations in
several countries (Molnár et al., 2017). Moreover, potential risks to
Other Pet food, fertilizer*, organic pest control* 57 11
Medicinal uses, cosmetics* 35 7
animals of conservation concern that might result from the intrusion in
Other uses 49 9 habitats, from picking above-ground or below-ground plant parts,
should be considered. Municipal foraging policies should therefore not
Sum exceeds 100% as respondents were able to choose more than one option. * only inform about plants that can be foraged —or should not be gath-
Marks examples that were mentioned as open entry in the category “other ered—but should also monitor critical plant (or animal) populations to
uses”. support the adaptation of urban foraging based on knowledge from the
local context.
members of the general public, did not report the use of red-listed As a major practical implication, our study supports urban foraging
species, in another study, in-depth interviews with semi-professional as an innovative tool for urban environmental policy, environmental
foragers revealed a larger pool of foraged species (N = 125) including education and greenspace management that could be developed further
some occasionally collected rare species (Landor-Yamagata et al., to enhance wild edible plants, fruit trees and other edible components
2018). Nevertheless, the latter study also found foragers employing in greenspaces beyond designated sites for urban agriculture. The

Fig. 3. Formal and informal greenspaces are equally accepted as urban foraging grounds. In relation to photographic scenes that depicted a formal park grassland
(Image A) and an informal vacant site with wild vegetation (Image B), foragers (n = 135) and non-foragers (n = 315) shared the same preferences (Chi2 = 1.0,
p = 0.61; NA = 67) for collecting edible plants. That is, the two groups of respondents showed no difference in whether they prefer to collect edible plants in each of
the two scenes, and in both sites equally.

5
L.K. Fischer and I. Kowarik
manifold benefits of edible green infrastructure of maintained areas
such as allotment and community gardens are well communicated
(Russo et al., 2017). Thus, adding to the positive effects of urban
foraging that have been revealed by previous studies, and their im-
plications (e.g., McLain et al., 2014; Shackleton et al., 2017), we sug-
gest that edible components should become more accessible for a
broader range of urban people. In this regard, approaches can include
(i) planting edible species in public greenspaces as done in the “edible
city” Andernach (Kosack, 2016) or in other projects (Säumel et al.,
2019),
(ii) enhancing vegetation diversity in greenspaces in general (e.g., by
converting some lawns to extensively managed grassland) and
(iii) accepting higher shares of spontaneous, wild vegetation in urban
settings in particular.
Such approaches could increase not only the supply of cultivated
but also of wild edible species. The latter could have positive side ef-
fects for local biodiversity (e.g., Lerman et al., 2018) and the attrac-
tiveness of a range of urban spaces for urban people (Fischer et al.,
2018a, Bonthoux et al., 2019). Management could be adjusted to re-
duce the identified barriers that prevent people from foraging (e.g.,
regular removal of trash, dog-free areas).
However, in line with our finding that about one third of all re-
spondents felt contamination as a major barrier to urban foraging, there
is increasing concern of the development of healthy cities in general.
This includes the manifold risks that urban environments hold for urban
people such as contaminated air, water and soils (Zerbe et al., 2018;
Gori et al., 2019)—all of these abiotic factors can directly impact the
quality of edible, agricultural products grown in cities. With regard to
horticulture, the types of site, vegetable and fruit matter for detecting
unsafe contaminant concentrations (Säumel et al., 2012; von Hoffen
and Säumel, 2014; Margenat et al., 2019). In parallel, crops from urban
rooftops prove low in heavy metal content, suggesting that these are
places less vulnerable to contamination from traffic (Harada et al.,
2019). However, studies also demonstrate that although urban garden
crops are free of contaminants, risks arise from unintentional soil in-
gestion at the very same places (Warming et al., 2015). A Californian
study found elevated concentrations of lead and cadmium in soils from
sites with wild edible plants, but concluded, based on tissue tests, that
rinsed greens of the tested species are safe to eat (Stark et al., 2019).
Yet, few verified insights on safety concerns exist on wild-growing ed-
ible plants in general (Stark et al., 2019).
If pollutants increase in urban areas or if urban foraging is in-
creasing in areas with high pollution loads, this topic must be the
subject of further investigation. For example, a recent study describes
for the urban area of São Paulo, Brazil, that traffic-related air pollution
relates to high contamination in wild edible plants—concluding that
foraging in cities should be performed best in low traffic areas or parks
(Amato-Lourenco et al., 2020). In the same vein, a study from Berlin
identified distance to high trafficked roads as a predictor of trace metal
concentration in plants (Säumel et al., 2012). Uncertainties bound to
the risk of pollution and contamination highlight the need for further
studies and in particular for environmental education to inform about
potential risks associated with certain species or sites, or the prepara-
tion and consumption of forageables as such.
While our study demonstrated that urban people found park
grasslands and wild vegetation on vacant land equally appealing for
foraging (Fig. 3), only 18% of respondents in a Japanese study agreed
that informal greenspaces are places where food can be found
(Rupprecht, 2017). In the very same study, however, people indicated
that informal greenspaces could be used for growing vegetables.
Fruitful approaches in incorporating a wild vacant natural site in en-
vironmental education with regard to urban foraging have been re-
cently demonstrated in Berlin. In this project, innovative learning tools
related school garden work to foraging experiences at a neighboring
6
Ecological Indicators 112 (2020) 106087
wild natural site. At the latter site, pupils readily learn about abundant
wild edible plants, and about harvesting and preparing them in school
meals (Fischer et al., 2019).
In summary, our results identify urban foraging as a promising tool
to connect a broad range of urban people to the urban nature that
surrounds them—likely with positive feedbacks from interaction with
urban biodiversity to human wellbeing and health (Shanahan et al.,
2015; Aerts et al., 2018). Collecting wild edible plants outside of gar-
dens requires awareness of local biodiversity and may enhance positive
attitudes toward biodiversity conservation. Yet, integrated approaches
towards environmental policy, environmental education and green-
space management are needed to mitigate existing risks for biodiversity
and support urban foraging as a biodiversity-friendly and sustainable
human-nature interaction in cities of tomorrow.
Acknowledgements
This work was financed by the “Green Infrastructure and Urban
Biodiversity for Sustainable Urban Development and the Green
Economy (GREEN SURGE)”, EU FP7 collaborative project, FP7-
ENV.2013.6.2-5-603567 (Grant Agreement No. 603567). We thank all
students and respondents for participating in the project, Birgit Seitz for
assisting in species determination, Jonah Landor-Yamagata and Divya
Gopal for improving our English, the editor and the anonymous re-
viewers for their valuable comments.
Contributions
Both authors contributed to the manuscript by setting up the re-
search idea and design, and writing the manuscript. Fieldwork was led
by LKF who also did the statistics.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106087.
References
Aerts, R., Honnay, O., Van Nieuwenhuyse, A., 2018. Biodiversity and human health:
mechanisms and evidence of the positive health effects of diversity in nature and
green spaces. Br. Med. Bull. 127, 5–22.
Amato-Lourenco, L.F., Ranieri, G.R., de Oliveira Souza, V.C., Junior, F.B., Saldiva, P.H.N.,
Mauad, T., 2020. Edible weeds: are urban environments fit for foraging? Sci. Total
Environ. 698 133967.
Aronson, M.F., La Sorte, F.A., Nilon, C.H., et al., 2014. A global analysis of the impacts of
urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers. Proc. R.
Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 281, 20133330.
Bonthoux, S., Chollet, S., Balat, I., et al., 2019. Improving nature experience in cities:
what are people’s preferences for vegetated streets? J. Environ. Manage. 230,
335–344.
Charnley, S., McLain, R.J., Poe, M.R., 2018. Natural resource access rights and wrongs:
nontimber forest products gathering in urban environments. Soc. Natural Resour. 31,
734–750.
Cox, D.T.C., Hudson, H.L., Shanahan, D.F., et al., 2017. The rarity of direct experiences of
nature in an urban population. Landscape Urban Plann. 160, 79–84.
Crawley, M.J., 2007. The R Book. Wiley & Sons. 942p.
de Jong, A., Varley, P., 2018. Foraging tourism: critical moments in sustainable con-
sumption. J. Sustainable Tourism 26, 685–701.
Egerer, M., Philpott, S., Bichier, P., et al., 2018. Gardener well-being along social and
biophysical landscape gradients. Sustainability 10, 96.
Fischer, L.K., Honold, J., Cvejić, R., et al., 2018a. Beyond green: broad support for bio-
diversity in multicultural European cities. Global Environ. Change 49, 35–45.
Fischer, L.K., Honold, J., Botzat, A., et al., 2018b. Recreational ecosystem services in
European cities: sociocultural and geographical contexts matter for park use. Ecosyst.
Serv. 31, 455–467.
Fischer, L.K., Brinkmeyer, D., Karle, S.J., et al., 2019. Biodiverse edible schools: linking
healthy food, school gardens and local urban biodiversity. Urban For. Urban
Greening 40, 35–43.
Flies, E.J., Skelly, C., Negi, S.S., et al., 2017. Biodiverse green spaces: a prescription for
global urban health. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15, 510–516.
Frazee, L., Morris-Marano, S., Blake-Mahmud, J., et al., 2016. Eat your weeds: edible and
wild plants in urban environmental education and outreach. Plant Sci. Bull. 62,
72–84.
L.K. Fischer and I. Kowarik
Gopal, D., Nagendra, H., 2014. Vegetation in Bangalore’s slums: boosting livelihoods,
well-being and social capital. Sustainability 6, 2459–2473.
Gori, A., Ferrini, F., Fini, A., 2019. Growing healthy food under heavy metal pollution
load: overview and major challenges of tree based edible landscapes. Urban For.
Urban Greening 38, 403–406.
Haaland, C., Konijnendijk van den Bosch C., C., 2015. Challenges and strategies for urban
green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban For. Urban
Greening 14, 760–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.009.
Harada, Y., Whitlow, T.H., Russell-Anelli, et al., 2019. The heavy metal budget of an
urban rooftop farm. Sci. Total Environ. 660, 115–125.
He, B., Zhu, J., 2018. Constructing community gardens? Residents’ attitude and beha-
viour towards edible landscapes in emerging urban communities of China. Urban For.
Urban Greening 34, 154–165.
Ives, C.D., Lentini, P.E., Threlfall, C.G., et al., 2016. Cities are hotspots for threatened
species. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25, 117–126.
Jay, M., Schraml, U., 2009. Understanding the role of urban forests for migrants—uses,
perception and integrative potential. Urban For. Urban Greening 8, 283–294.
Kabisch, N., van den Bosch, M., Lafortezza, R., 2017. The health benefits of nature-based
solutions to urbanization challenges for children and the elderly – a systematic re-
view. Environ. Res. 159, 362–373.
Kaoma, H., Shackleton, C.M., 2014. Collection of urban tree products by households in
poorer residential areas of three South African towns. Urban For. Urban Greening 13,
244–252.
Kosack, L., 2016. Die Essbare Stadt Andernach. Urbane Landwirtschaft im öffentlichen
Raum. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Geographie 40, 138–144.
Kowalski, J.M., Conway, T.M., 2019. Branching out: The inclusion of urban food trees in
Canadian urban forest management plans. Urban For. Urban Greening 45, 126142.
Kowarik, I., von der Lippe, M., 2018. Plant population success across urban ecosystems: a
framework to inform biodiversity conservation in cities. J. Appl. Ecol. 55,
2354–2361.
Kühn, I., Brandl, R., Klotz, S., 2004. The flora of German cities is naturally species rich.
Evol. Ecol. Res. 6, 749–764.
Ladio, A.H., Lozada, M., 2004. Patterns of use and knowledge of wild edible plants in
distinct ecological environments: a case study of a Mapuche community from
northwestern Patagonia. Biodivers. Conserv. 13, 1153–1173.
Landor-Yamagata, J.L., Kowarik, I., Fischer, L.K., 2018. Urban foraging in Berlin: people,
plants and practices within the metropolitan green infrastructure. Sustainability 10,
1873.
Lerman, S.B., Contosta, A.R., Milam, J., et al., 2018. To mow or to mow less: lawn
mowing frequency affects bee abundance and diversity in suburban yards. Biol.
Conserv. 221, 160–174.
Lin, B.B., Egerer, M.H., Ossola, A., 2018. Urban gardens as a space to engender biophilia:
evidence and ways forward. Front. Built Environ. 4, 79.
Lin B., B., Fuller A., R., 2013. Sharing or sparing? How should we grow the world’s cities?
J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 1161–1168.
Łuczaj, Ł., Pieroni, A., Tardío, J., et al., 2012. Wild food plant use in 21st century Europe:
the disappearance of old traditions and the search for new cuisines involving wild
edibles. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 81, 359–370.
MacKerron, G., Mourato, S., 2013. Happiness is greater in natural environments. Global
Environ. Change 23, 992–1000.
Margenat, A., Matamoros, V., Díez, S., et al., 2019. Occurrence and human health im-
plications of chemical contaminants in vegetables grown in peri-urban agriculture.
Environ. Int. 124, 49–57.
McLain, R.J., Hurley, P.T., Emery, M.R., et al., 2014. Gathering wild food in the city:
rethinking the role of foraging in urban ecosystem planning and management. Local
Environ. 19, 220–240.
McLain, R.J., Poe, M.R., Urgenson, L.S., et al., 2017. Urban non-timber forest products
stewardship practices among foragers in Seattle, Washington (USA). Urban For.
Urban Greening 28, 36–42.
Molnár, V.A., Nagy, T., Löki, V., et al., 2017. Turkish graveyards as refuges for orchids
against tuber harvest. Ecol. Evol. 7, 11257–11264.
Nilon, C.H., Aronson, M.F., Cilliers, S.S., et al., 2017. Planning for the future of urban
biodiversity: a global review of city-scale initiatives. Bioscience 67, 332–342.
Nisbet, E.K., Zelenski, J.M., Murphy, S.A., 2009. The Nature Relatedness scale: linking
individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environ.
Behav. 41, 715–740.
Palliwoda, J., Kowarik, I., von der Lippe, M., 2017. Human-biodiversity interactions in
urban parks: the species level matters. Landscape Urban Plann. 157, 394–406.
Ecological Indicators 112 (2020) 106087
Park, H., Kramer, M., Rhemtulla, J.M., Konijnendijk, C.C., 2019. Urban food systems that
involve trees in Northern America and Europe: a scoping review. Urban For. Urban
Greening 45, 126360.
Petrovic, N., Simpson, T., Orlove, B., et al., 2019. Environmental and social dimensions of
community gardens in East Harlem. Landscape Urban Plann. 183, 36–49.
Poe, M.R., LeCompte, J., McLain, R., et al., 2014. Urban foraging and the relational
ecologies of belonging. Soc. Cultural Geography 15, 901–919.
Poe, M.R., McLain, R.J., Emery, M., et al., 2013. Urban forest justice and the rights to wild
foods, medicines, and materials in the city. Human Ecol. 41, 409–422.
Redžić, S., 2010. Use of wild and semiwild edible plants in nutrition and survival of
people in 1430 days of siege of Sarajevo during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina
(1992–1995). Collegium Antropologicum 34, 551–570.
Robbins, P., Emery, M., Rice, J.L., 2008. Gathering in Thoreau’s backyard: nontimber
forest product harvesting as practice. Area 40, 265–277.
Rupprecht, C.D.D., Byrne, J.A., 2014. Informal urban greenspace: a typology and trilin-
gual systematic review of its role for urban residents and trends in the literature.
Urban For. Urban Greening 13, 597–611.
Rupprecht, C.D.D., 2017. Informal urban green space: residents' perception, use, and
management preferences across four major Japanese shrinking cities. Land 6 (3), 59.
Russo, A., Escobedo, F.J., Cirella, G.T., et al., 2017. Edible green infrastructure: an ap-
proach and review of provisioning ecosystem services and disservices in urban en-
vironments. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 242, 53–66.
Sachdeva, S., Emery, M.R., Hurley, P.T., 2018. Depiction of wild food foraging practices
in the media: impact of the Great Recession. Soc. Natural Resour. 31, 977–993.
Säumel, I., Kotsyuk, I., Hölscher, M., et al., 2012. How healthy is urban horticulture in
high traffic areas? Trace metal concentrations in vegetable crops from plantings
within inner city neighbourhoods in Berlin, Germany. Environ. Pollut. 165, 124–132.
Säumel, I., Reddy, S., Wachtel, T., 2019. Edible city solutions—one step further to foster
social resilience through enhanced socio-cultural ecosystem services in cities.
Sustainability 11, 972.
Schuttler, S.G., Sorensen, A.E., Jordan, R.C., et al., 2018. Bridging the nature gap: citizen
science reverse the extinction of experience? Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 405–411.
Seitz, B., Ristow, M., Meißner, J., et al., 2018. Rote Liste und Gesamtartenliste der eta-
blierten Farn- und Blütenpflanzen von Berlin. In: Der Landesbeauftragte für
Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege, Senatsverwaltung für Umwelt, Klima und
Verkehr: Rote Listen der gefährdeten Pflanzen, Pilze und Tiere von Berlin, Berlin.
120p.
Seitz, B., Ristow, M., Prasse, R., et al., 2012. Der Berliner Florenatlas. Natur+Text. 533p.
Shackleton, C., Hurley, P., Dahlberg, A., et al., 2017. Urban foraging: a ubiquitous human
practice overlooked by urban planners, policy, and research. Sustainability 9, 1884.
Shanahan, D.F., Lin, B.B., Bush, R., et al., 2015. Toward improved public health outcomes
from urban nature. Am. J. Public Health 105, 470–478.
Soga, M., Gaston, K.J., 2016. Extinction of experience: the loss of human–nature inter-
actions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 94–101.
Stark, P.B., Miller, D., Carlson, T.J., et al., 2019. Open-source food: nutrition, toxicology,
and availability of wild edible greens in the East Bay. PLoS ONE 14, e0202450.
Sujarwo, W., Arinasa, I.B.K., Caneva, G., et al., 2016. Traditional knowledge of wild and
semi-wild edible plants used in Bali (Indonesia) to maintain biological and cultural
diversity. Plant Biosystems 150, 971–976.
Sukopp, H., 1987. On the history of plant geography and plant ecology in Berlin. Englera
7, 85–103.
Synk, C.M., Kim, B.F., Davis, C.A., et al., 2017. Gathering Baltimore’s bounty: char-
acterizing behaviors, motivations, and barriers of foragers in an urban ecosystem.
Urban For. Urban Greening 28, 97–102.
Wang, H.F., Qureshi, S., Knapp, S., et al., 2015. A basic assessment of residential plant
diversity and its ecosystem services and disservices in Beijing, China. Appl. Geogr. 64,
121–131.
Warming, M., Hansen, M.G., Holm, P.E., et al., 2015. Does intake of trace elements
through urban gardening in Copenhagen pose a risk to human health? Environ.
Pollut. 202, 17–23.
Zerbe, S., Plagg, B., Polo, A., 2018. Städtische Ökosysteme und menschliche Gesundheit.
Ein interdisziplinärer Brückenschlag zur nachhaltigen Entwicklung und
Renaturierung urbaner Lebensräume. In: Fehr R and Hornberg C: Stadt der Zukunft –
Gesund und nachhaltig. Brückenbau zwischen Disziplinen und Sektoren. Oekom
Verlag, München. 384p.
von Hoffen, L.P., Säumel, I., 2014. Orchards for edible cities: cadmium and lead content
in nuts, berries, pome and stone fruits harvested within the inner city neighbour-
hoods in Berlin, Germany. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 101, 233–239.