See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225544201

Urban biodiversity and the importance of

management and conservation
Article in Landscape and Ecological Engineering January 2010
Impact Factor: 0.72 DOI: 10.1007/s11355-010-0146-8

CITATIONS

READS

304

1 author:
Charles Nilon
University of Missouri
59 PUBLICATIONS 1,527 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Charles Nilon

Retrieved on: 24 June 2016

Landscape Ecol Eng

DOI 10.1007/s11355-010-0146-8

SPECIAL FEATURE: REVIEW

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Importance of

Cities for post 2010 perspective

Urban biodiversity and the importance of management

and conservation
Charles H. Nilon

Received: 6 September 2010 / Revised: 6 December 2010 / Accepted: 6 December 2010

International Consortium of Landscape and Ecological Engineering and Springer 2010

Abstract The importance of urban biodiversity is debated by many in the conservation community. Some
researchers and managers focus on threats to biodiversity
associated with urbanization and land use change. In contrast to this approach, people who live in, study, or care
about citiesecologists, wildlife managers, conservation
biologists, planners, and local residentshave debated
what biodiversity means in urban settings. Recent literature
on biodiversity in cities notes the range of ecological,
social, and cultural meanings of urban biodiversity and
stresses the importance of defining the setting and scales at
which biodiversity is being assessed. This approach to
urban biodiversity has documented the importance of
conservation of rare species and habitats but also the
importance of managing the range of habitats in and around
where people live, work, and play.

places of great species richness and can be centers of local

and regional biodiversity. Sanderson et al. (2005) noted
that the biodiversity in urban regions is shaped by the local
and regional species pools, and by the pattern and
dynamics of habitat patches in the region. Beyond these
basic concepts are definitions based on the context in which
species and habitat patches occur. Savard et al. (2000)
noted the range of definitions for urban biodiversity and
stressed the importance of defining the setting and scales at
which biodiversity is being assessed. Differences in scale,
from a single urban lot to the larger region containing the
city, reflect differences in land and property ownership and
management regimes, and shape the meaning and goals of
biodiversity conservation (Savard et al. 2000; Kinzig et al.
2005; Werner and Zahner 2009; Werner and Zahner 2010).

Keywords Biodiversity
Urban
Wildlife conservation

Conservation
Biology
Wildlife management

Urban biodiversity in a social and cultural context

Definitions of urban biodiversity

Recent review papers have discussed the meanings of
urban biodiversity that are relevant to conservation and
management. Werner and Zahner (2009) summarized this
work in their definition of urban biodiversity as the animals
and plants living within the settled areas of a city. They
noted the literature confirms that urban areas are often

C. H. Nilon (&)
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences,
University of Missouri, 303 ABNR, Columbia,
MO 65211-7240, USA
e-mail: nilonc@missouri.edu

Beyond these basic definitions is a recognition that urban

biodiversity is also shaped by the social and cultural context in which it occurs. What people think about biodiversity is important. Harrison and Davies (2002) used the
term the biodiversity that matters to describe the places
that urban residents value because of social concerns
associated with greenspaces and semi-natural areas such as
access to greenspace, aesthetics, and opportunities for
contact with nature. These values shape the context in
which people view different habitats and places in cities
that are often ignored by ecologists. Cultural processes,
expressed through design and planning decisions, shape the
pattern and distribution of urban biodiversity (Millard
2010). In turn, urban biodiversity shapes how people view
where they live, helps to shape what makes a city unique,
and helps to define its culture (Frey 1999; Millard 2010).

123

Landscape Ecol Eng

Biodiversity conservation may also contribute to specific

social goals such as community-based management, sustainable development and poverty reduction in cities as
different as Cape Town, South Africa and Kankakee, Illinois, United States (Considine 2009; Cilliers 2010).

Management and conservation: addressing urban

biodiversity goals
The range of definitions of urban biodiversity and the
recognition of the different contexts in which urban residents view biodiversity in cities lead toward a range of
goals or targets for urban biodiversity. The strategies for
achieving these goals can be generalized as a management approach or as a conservation approach. Management approaches come from the applied fields of
natural resources management (e.g., forestry, fisheries
management, wildlife management) and emphasize the
management of single species. Management is often
focused on species in an ecosystem that have an ecological,
social or economic value (Sinclair et al. 2006). Conservation approaches draw from the applied field of conservation
biology, a discipline that is rooted in natural resource
management but with a focus on rare species within ecosystems (Hunter and Gibbs 2007). Both management and
conservation approaches are relevant in addressing urban
biodiversity goals. The remainder of this paper will explore
how these approaches are used and applied.

Shrubland birds in the Midwest United States

Grassland and shrubland bird conservation in the Midwest
United States is an example of a conservation approach
toward urban biodiversity. Grassland and shrubland habitats are declining in and around midwestern cities due to
habitat loss from development and management changes
associated with the loss of fire and grazing as management
tools (Burhans and Thompson 2006). Regional bird

conservation plans list these habitats and the species

associated with them as some of the most endangered in the
region (Burhans and Thompson 2006).
Columbia, Missouri is a city located in the Midwest
United States. It occurs within a zone of transition between
prairie and woodland land type associations, and with
remnant grassland and shrubland habitats occurring in
urban, suburban and exurban areas (Nelson 2005). Burhans
and Thompson (2006) illustrate the conservation approach
in their work focusing on shrubland birds in and around
Columbia. Their study focused on factors contributing to
nestling survival, resulting in management recommendations to reduce predation risks and guidelines for managing
vegetation height and species composition, along with
recommendations for reducing mowing and maintaining
burning. Their management recommendations for three
species of concernthe blue-gray gnat catcher (Polioptila
caerulea), the yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens), and the
indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea)focused on identifying
patches of grassland and shrubland habitat within cities,
and determining how these habitat patches function as
habitat for nesting and other activities.
Marzluff and Rodewald (2008) have summarized
approaches that are needed to assure the conservation of
bird species in urban areas (Table 1). It is instructive to
consider these strategies and how they might be applied
to address a grassland and shrubland bird species in a city
in the Midwest United States. However, conserving the
biodiversity of these regionally important species is not
just a simple task of following a set of research-based
guidelines. The sites that were the focus of this study
occur in a unique context that is relevant to their management. One of the sites studied by Burhans and
Thompson (2006) is a 50 ha habitat within an 82 ha urban
park. Conservation of shrubland bird species on this site
would also require knowledge of what was happening in
the adjacent residential areas, an understanding of the
needs and desires of park users, and an understanding of
the agency culture that influences decisions made by the
park managers.

Table 1 Recommended practices for urban bird conservation (Marzluff and Rodewald 2008), and potential and actual activities supporting
grassland and shrubland bird conservation in Columbia, Missouri, United States
Recommended practice

Potential activities

Actual activities

Protect natural areas and matrix

Identify habitats

Limited/no

Plan explicitly for open space in new subdivisions

Planning for grassland/shrubland habitats

No

Management of built and natural spaces in developed areas

Zoning and guidelines/ordinances

Zoning in place/no guidelines

Enhance existing habitat in

Research-based

Yes

Natural areas/open spaces

Management guidelines

Improve management of matrix habitats

Guidelines for property owners/managers

Limited and not specific

Celebrate urban biodiversity

Information to and engagement of residents

Limited by income and education

123

Landscape Ecol Eng

Incorporating shrubland bird management into the

guidelines provided by Marzluff and Rodewald (2008)
would require additional work with planners, designers,
and residents of matrix habitats adjacent to the park in
order to develop practices that would reduce populations
of nest predators that are associated with regional
declines of grassland and shrubland birds. This would
require the monitoring of park management practices for
their impacts on shrubland habitat and birds, and would
involve changing park management practices on the
frequency of mowing and burning. Conservation and
management efforts for shrubland birds in matrix habitats
would require changes to local planning guidelines to
allow for the identification and protection of these habitats, and would require guidelines for managing shrubland habitats for property owners and managers. These
specific steps for shrubland bird conservation are only
partially in place in Columbia, and are not addressing
many of the steps needed to achieve bird conservation as
recommended by Marzluff and Rodewald (2008)
(Table 1).

Describing and managing the urban matrix

Management and conservation approaches are also relevant
to the urban matrix. Comprehensive biotope mapping and
similar projects in cities have identified a large number of
habitats associated with vacant lots, wasteland areas, small
patches of remnant habitats, riparian areas along streams,
ditches, and canals, and a diverse and large group of

residential habitats that occur among the worlds urban

areas (Frey 1999; Jarvis and Young 2005) (Fig. 1). A key
characteristic of the matrix is that it is a place that urban
residents understand and are knowledgeable about what
Kaplan et al. (1998) refer to as everyday nature, and what
Heynen et al. (2006) describe as the places where we work,
live, and play.
Work from the Baltimore Ecosystem Study, a longterm research project in the United States, suggests that
residential areas in the matrix can be classified into zones
that are ecologically meaningful for different groups of
species. Nilon et al.s (2009) study of birds in Baltimore,
Maryland, used bird species composition and bird habitat
data to classify residential areas in the city into four
neighborhood types associated with different patterns of
street-side vegetation and land cover. The four neighborhood types were associated with distinct bird communities. Two of the neighborhood types reflect local
conditions. Urban shoreline neighborhoods are located
along the shoreline of the Patapsco River as it enters
Chesapeake Bay and are a mix of older residential areas
and new housing in gentrified industrial and commercial
areas. Inner city neighborhoods are the oldest neighborhoods in the city and incorporate row house and other
building styles common to cities along the east coast of
the United States (Fig. 2). The remaining two neighborhood types are more common in North American cities
and are characterized by a moderately high housing
density with scattered trees, and a second type with lower
housing density and a large number of mature trees
(Martin et al. 2004; Kinzig et al. 2005).

Fig. 1 Biotope map of the

center city area of Columbia,
Missouri, showing a diverse
group of residential biotope
types and locations of bird
survey points

123

Landscape Ecol Eng

Fig. 2 Neighborhood types
identified by Nilon et al. (2009).
Each type represents a distinct
group of bird communities
associated with differences
in land cover and block-scale
vegetation. a Reflects the
unique setting of Baltimore,
Maryland along the Patapsco
River and Chesapeake Bay.
bd Common throughout North
American cities (Nilon et al.
2009)

Biodiversity and the urban matrix

Matrix habitats have been studied for several years by
urban ecologists. These studies range from descriptive
studies that focus on species composition and abundance
within matrix habitats to those emphasizing the mechanisms that explain patterns of composition, abundance, and
distribution (Nilon and Pais 1997; Shochat et al. 2010). The
value of the matrix for biodiversity has been highlighted
for different taxonomic groups. Zerbe et al.s (2003) study
of a transect through residential neighborhoods in Berlin
that documented differences in the diversity of flora among
different types of residential developments, and Luniaks
(1994) study of bird communities in housing estates in
Warsaw are examples of these more descriptive studies.
Recent work on the biodiversity of urban yards and
gardens highlights some of the contemporary approaches
used to understand the conservation value of matrix habitats (Angold et al. 2006; Smith et al. 2006). Researchers
studying urban gardens in Sheffield, United Kingdom
found that these habitats support a greater total number of
plant species and a greater number of native plant species
than natural and semi-natural habitats in the region
(Thompson et al. 2003). Studies of the insects in yards and
gardens indicates the importance of this plant diversity.
Brunets (2006) study of butterflies in urban gardens
looked at the use of nectar sources in yards and found that
yards and gardens differ in butterfly species composition
and abundance based on the amount of the yard that is
devoted to flower gardens and on the presence or absence
of native plant species.

123

Additional work has found differences in insect biodiversity among different types of residential neighborhoods.
Studies of the bee fauna of community gardens of inner
city neighborhoods of New York City found that these
areas supported 54 species, 19% of which were exotic
species, representing 13% of the regions recorded bee
species (Matteson et al. 2008). A study of similar design of
suburban yards a few kilometers north of New York City
found that these gardens supported 110 bee species, 95% of
which were native, representing a bee community similar
to that of a nearby nature preserve (Fetridge et al. 2008).
These recent studies on biodiversity in the urban matrix
have documented a wide range of species that use matrix
habitats and have identified some of the unique
matrix habitats that support species of high conservation
value. Matrix habitats occur in a broader context of decision making by property owners and urban planners who
make decisions at different scales across a city. How these
urban residents use information on urban biodiversity to
make management decisions at multiple scales is a critical
question.

Management of the matrix at a site or local scale

Management of the matrix involves a mix of practice and
decision making. The emphasis on practice focuses on
specific guidelines for urban residents and property managers. In North America and Europe, government agencies
and private organizations have developed information and
materials that target urban residents interested in managing

Landscape Ecol Eng

their yards and gardens. Backyard wildlife programs in

the United States target homeowners with information on
the use of native plant species and yard management
techniques to attract native wildlife species (Nance 2009).
Research on the effectiveness of these programs is limited.
Nance (2009) described the scope of the National Wildlife
Federations Backyard Wildlife Habitat program in one
United States city where over 100 property owners participated. Research on the effectiveness of these programs
is limited. In one study, Aurora et al. (2009) compared bird
species diversity in two neighborhoods: one developed
using management practices recommended by the Texas
Department of Parks and Wildlifes Texas Wildscapes
program to a neighborhood developed without incorporating these practices. The program provided guidance on
retaining native flora during the construction process and
on using native plant species in landscaping. The neighborhood following the Texas Wildscapes guidelines had a
higher number of native bird species than the neighborhood
that followed traditional design guidelines.
Research on participants in programs that emphasize
management by homeowners and residents has highlighted
the background of residents, and their interest in participating. Brunet (2006) found that volunteers who participated in a butterfly monitoring project and managed their
yards for butterflies were different from the majority of
residents in the city. They were involved in other wildliferelated activities and organizations, more likely to be
women, were relatively well educated. Heynen et al. (2006)
found that race, income, and home ownership were predictors of participation in a tree planting program in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States. Both studies emphasize
the differences between participants in homeowner-based
management efforts and the general public, and address the
need to bring management and conservation information to
a broader group of urban residents.
Additional studies have used socioeconomic variables
both to describe residents of urban areas and as predictors
of species abundance and species diversity (Kinzig et al.
2005; Melles 2005; Loss et al. 2009; Strohbach et al. 2009;
Denison 2010). Income has consistently been a predictor of
species richness, although the strength of the prediction and
the direction of the relationship varies among taxonomic
groups and among cities (Loss et al. 2009) (Fig. 3).
Although these studies are important in indicating the
potential role of poverty and wealth in shaping biodiversity
within residential areas, they do not explain the potential
mechanisms that drive the relationship between socioeconomic status, behavior of residents, and actual impacts on
habitats and species. Troy et al.s (2007) study of Baltimore, Maryland is an exception because of its emphasis on
understanding the links between socioeconomic and lifestyle variables and actual expenditures on lawn care and

Fig. 3 Bird species richness versus median family income in small

neighborhood parks in Baltimore, Maryland and Phoenix, Arizona,
United States (P. Warren, personal communication)

vegetation management, and offers an example of an area

for future research.
The role of planners in developing polices that influence
management, and the role of land managers in carrying out
land management decisions and practices at a site and at
local scale is less well understood. Azerrad and Nilon
(2006) found that planners in the state of Washington,
United States used technical information on species life
history and habitat requirements for large-scale and
regional projects, but were much less likely to seek out
such information for small-scale and site projects. The
planners noted lack of regulations requiring this type of
input, and the lack of information on species life history
and how wildlife species respond to management at these
smaller scales as reasons for their reluctance to use ecological information. In response to this lack of information,
the Washington Department of Wildlife and Parks developed guidelines for assessing impacts of development on
different species that can be used in making decisions at a
site scale (Azerrad et al. 2009). How planners and land
managers use this information is unknown, andit points to
the continuing importance of working with these groups to
understand how their decisions shape biodiversity in matrix
habitats.

Managing the matrix at larger scales

Researchers and land managers in Tucson, Arizona, a large
city in the southwest United States, have developed
planning guidelines for protecting important wildlife habitats in matrix areas. These planning guidelines stress the

123

Landscape Ecol Eng

importance of managing low- and medium-density housing

developments in ways that create and maintain habitats
similar to those found in large protected areas in the region
(Livingston et al. 2003). Efforts by the London Ecology
Unit, West Midlands County Council, and other groups in
the United Kingdom to incorporate matrix habitats and
biodiversity into the planning and design process have been
documented and their progress noted, but actual impacts on
biodiversity have been difficult to document. These agencies developed procedures for identifying sites of ecological and social value, and have identified unique habitats
and species occurring within matrix areas in a number of
British cities. The findings from these inventories have
been incorporated into planning guidelines to protect the
listed sites (Goode 1989; Marshall and Smith 1999).
Recent efforts to link biodiversity to the urban planning
process have focused on developing spatially explicit
models for rare species and on the development of tools
that help planners assess and evaluate biodiversity in cities
and towns. Tzoulas and James (2010) developed a checklist
for assessing diversity in urban habitats that can be used by
nonspecialists. Ecologists working with the Singapore
government have developed the Singapore Cities Biodiversity Index, which can be used by local governments to
assess biodiversity (Chan and Djoghlaf 2009). Additional
tools that can be used by planners and local governments to
assess biodiversity at multiple scales are described by
Mortberg et al. (2007) and Azerrad et al. (2009).

Conservation and management of urban biodiversity

is about people
The development of the urban biodiversity and design
(URBIO) network and the new emphasis on standardized
methods for assessing biodiversity in the worlds cities and
towns provide an opportunity for researchers and practitioners to share approaches toward conservation and
management and examine how they are applied in a variety
of settings around the world (Muller and Werner 2010;
L. Chan, personal communication).
These approaches will build on the large body of work
on urban biodiversity, address conservation goals for rare
species, and seek to manage for a range of species among
the habitats that occur in cities. The key to the success of
these efforts lies not just in the development of specific
tools or in additional research on species and their habitats,
but in engaging people whose decisions and actions impact
biodiversity at different scales.
A key step to implementing conservation and management approaches is engaging the people who live in cities.
Previous studies have shown that views about nature and
biodiversity are socially constructed and far from uniform.

123

The values that the conservation community associate with

biodiversity and native species and their habitats may differ
from those held by urban residents who live around and use
the greenspaces containing those species and habitats
(Burgess et al. 1988; Harrison and Burgess 1994; Davison
and Ridder 2006; Gill et al. 2009).
Managers and conservation organizations often have
goals to conserve biodiversity and maintain ecosystem
function, maintain the land in its natural state and stetg, and
to provide for use and access in a way that will minimize
human disturbance. Ecologists and managers often view
their interactions with residents and site users as primarily
those of biodiversity educators, and in this context often
value backyard wildlife programs and programs in matrix
habitats for the potential of those programs to engage
people in the broader issue of biodiversity conservation
(Davison and Ridder 2006; Gill et al. 2009).
In contrast, visitors to greenspaces and the residents who
live near them value sites in terms of opportunities for both
social interaction and contact with nature, and often in a
broader context that includes both the history and past uses
of the greenspace. Residents and users are, at times,
sceptical about scientists and managers arguments for the
biodiversity value of a site and of the management activities needed to maintain that biodiversity (Harrison and
Burgess 1994; Davison and Ridder 2006). However, they
are often aware of the wide range of species that are found
at a site and value the contrast between the greenspace and
the day-to-day built environment (Burgess et al. 1988;
Davison and Ridder 2006; Gill et al. 2009).
Engaging residents in conservation and management
therefore involves more than education on the importance
of biodiversity. Recent research has found that urban residents that are most engaged with wildlife and nature are
those that have had positive contacts with nature in and
around where they live, and those who have received
valued and supportive messages concerning those encounters from family and friends (Van Velsor and Nilon 2006).
Harrison and Burgess (1994) found that urban residents
perceptions of the conservation issue reflect the multiple
roles that they play in their day-to-day lives. These multiple roles inform how residents learn about and perceive
management and conservation issues. Pugsley and Donoyou (1992) recognized these multiple roles in their plan for
a biodiversity conservation strategy in Peterborough, United Kingdom by seeking to engage residents through their
involvement with homeowner/landowner associations,
schools and colleges, industry and commerce, professional
organizations, and nonprofit organizations.
Engaging urban residents as active participants in the
conservation and management of urban biodiversity
requires the recognition of the range of experiences that
urban residents have with the species and habitats they

Landscape Ecol Eng

encounter, the diverse and sometimes conflicting information concerning biodiversity that they receive, and the
multiple ways that they value biodiversity. It is also
important to recognize the broader context within which urban
residents view specific management or conservation actions.
This broader context provides an opportunity for partnerships
around areas of common interest. Ecologists and managers
might interact with residents who attend a church that has an
environmental justice ministry that focuses on how local
residents might use a brownfield site; members of a neighborhood association dealing with the proposed development
of a remnant woodland habitat; parents concerned about the
safety of their children in a local park; or employees of an
office concerned with the management of greenspaces on their
corporate campus. The brownfield, remnant woodland, local
park, and greenspace may be important for species conservation, but they are also places where messages concerning
local biodiversity projects can be shared and where the participation and inclusion of local residents conservation and
management projects can be encouraged.

References
Angold PG, Sadler JP, Hill MO, Pullin A, Rushton S, Austin K, Small
E, Wood B, Wadsworth R, Sanderson R et al (2006) Biodiversity
in urban habitat patches. Sci Tot Environ 360:196204
Aurora AL, Simpson TR, Small MF, Bender KC (2009) Toward
increasing avian diversity: urban wildscapes programs. Urban
Ecosyst 12:347358
Azerrad JM, Nilon CH (2006) An evaluation of agency conservation
guidelines to better address planning efforts by local government. Landsc Urban Plan 77:255262
Azerrad J, Carleton J, Davis J, Quinn T, Sato C, Tirhi M, Tomassi S,
Wilhere G (2009) Landscape planning for Washingtons wildlife: managing for biodiversity in developing areas. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. http://wdfw.wa.gov/
publications/0023/wdfw0023.pdf
Brunet D (2006) Butterfly gardening: using volunteers to provide data
on flower use (Masters thesis). University of Missouri, Columbia
Burgess J, Harrison CM, Limb M (1988) People, parks and the urban
green: a study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in
the city. Urban Stud 25:455473
Burhans DE, Thompson FR (2006) Songbird abundance and parasitism differ between urban and rural shrublands. Ecol Appl
16:394405
Chan L, Djoghlaf A (2009) Invitation to help compile an index of
biodiversity in cities. Nature 460:33
Cilliers SS (2010) Social aspects of urban biodiversityan overview.
In: Muller N, Werner P, Kelcey JG (eds) Urban biodiversity and
design. Wiley, Oxford, pp 81100
Considine CD (2009) Fire history and current stand structure analysis
of a midwestern black oak sand savanna (Masters thesis).
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale
Davison A, Ridder BP (2006) Turbulent times for urban nature:
conserving and re-inventing nature in Australian cities. Australas
Zool 33:306314
Denison C (2010) Effects of socioeconomics on European Starling
(Sturnus vulgaris) abundance in Baltimore, Maryland (Masters
thesis). University of Missouri, Columbia

Fetridge ED, Ascher JS, Langellotto GA (2008) The bee fauna of

residential gardens in a suburb of New York City (Hymenoptera:
Apoidea). Ann Entomol Soc Am 101:10671077
Frey J (1999) Practical aspects of biotope mapping in cities: methods,
problems and solutions. An example of Mainz, Germany.
Deinsea 5:4156
Gill N, Waitt G, Head L (2009) Local engagements with urban
bushland: moving beyond bounded practice for urban biodiversity management. Landsc Urban Plan 93:184193
Goode DA (1989) Urban nature conservation in Britain. J Appl Ecol
26:859873
Harrison CM, Burgess J (1994) Social constructions of nature: a case
study of conflicts over the development of Rainham Marshes.
Trans Inst Br Geogr 19:291310
Harrison C, Davies G (2002) Conserving biodiversity that matters:
practitioners perspectives on brownfield development and urban
nature conservation in London. J Environ Manag 65:95108
Heynen N, Perkins HA, Roy P (2006) The political ecology of uneven
urban green space: the impact of political economy on race and
ethnicity in producing environmental inequality in Milwaukee.
Urban Aff Rev 42:325
Hunter ML, Gibbs JP (2007) Fundamentals of conservation biology.
Wiley-Blackwell, Cambridge
Jarvis PJ, Young CH (2005) The mapping of urban habitat and
its evaluation (discussion paper for UK MAB Urban
Forum). Univ Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton (see http://www.
ukmaburbanforum.co.uk/documents/papers/MABpaper.pdf)
Kaplan R, Kaplan S, Ryan RL (1998) With people in mind: design
and management of everyday nature. Island, Washington
Kinzig AP, Warren P, Martin C, Hope D, Katti M (2005) The effects
of human socioeconomic status and cultural characteristics on
urban patterns of biodiversity. Ecol Soc 10:23
Livingston M, Shaw WW, Harris LK (2003) A model for assessing
wildlife habitats in urban landscapes of eastern Pima County,
Arizona (USA). Landsc Urban Plan 64:131144
Loss SR, Ruiz MO, Brawn JD (2009) Relationships between avian
diversity, neighborhood age, income, and environmental
characteristics of an urban landscape. Biol Conserv 142:2578
2585
Luniak M (1994) The development of bird communities in a new
housing estates in Warsaw. Memorab Zool 49:257267
Marshall R, Smith C (1999) Planning for nature conservation: the role
and performance of English district local authorities in the
1990s. J Environ Plan Manag 42:691706
Martin CA, Warren PS, Kinzig AP (2004) Neighborhood socioeconomic status is a useful predictor of perennial landscape
vegetation in residential neighborhoods and embedded small
parks of Phoenix, Arizona. Landsc Urban Plan 69:355368
Marzluff JM, Rodewald AD (2008) Conserving biodiversity in
urbanizing areas: nontraditional views from a birds perspective.
Cities Environ 1:6
Matteson KC, Ascher JS, Langellotto GA (2008) Bee richness and
abundance in New York City urban gardens. Ann Entomol Soc
Am 101:140150
Melles SJ (2005) Urban bird diversity as an indicator of human social
diversity and economic inequality in Vancouver, British Columbia. Urban Habitats 3. http://www.urbanhabitats.org/v03n01/
vancouver_full.html
Millard A (2010) Cultural aspects of urban biodiversity. In: Muller N,
Werner P, Kelcey JG (eds) Urban biodiversity and design.
Wiley, Oxford, pp 5680
Mortberg U, Balfors B, Knol W (2007) Landscape ecological assessment: a tool for integrating biodiversity issues in strategic environmental assessment and planning. J Environ Manag 82:457470
Muller N, Werner P (2010) Urban biodiversity and the case for
implementing the convention on biological diversity in towns

123

Landscape Ecol Eng

and cities. In: Muller N, Werner P, Kelcey JG (eds) Urban
biodiversity and design. Wiley, Oxford, pp 127
Nance AV (2009) Austin is a habitat haven with National Wildlife
Federation certification. Ecol Restor 27:125127
Nelson P (2005) The Terrestrial Natural Communities of Missouri.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
Nilon CH, Pais RC (1997) Terrestrial vertebrates in urban ecosystems: developing hypotheses for the Gwynns Falls Watershed in
Baltimore, Maryland. Urban Ecosyst 1:247257
Nilon CH, Warren PS, Wolf J (2009) Baltimore birdscape study:
identifying habitat and land-cover variables for an urban birdmonitoring project. Urban Habitats 6. http://www.urbanhabitats.
org/v06n01/baltimore_full.html
Pugsley C, Donoyou R (1992) Peterboroughs strategy for people and
wildlife. Director of Planning and Environmental Health,
Peterborough City Council, Peterborough
Sanderson R, Angold PG, Sadler JP, Hill MO, Pullin A, Rushton S,
Austin K, Small E, Wood B, Wadsworth R (2005) Biodiversity
in urban habitat patches. Sci Total Environ 360:196204
Savard JL, Clergeau P, Mennechez G (2000) Biodiversity concepts
and urban ecosystems. Landsc Urban Plan 48:131142
Shochat E, Lerman SB, Anderies JM, Warren PS, Faeth SH, Nilon
CH (2010) Invasion, competition, and biodiversity loss in urban
ecosystems. Bioscience 60:199208
Sinclair AR, Fryxell JM, Caughley G (2006) Wildlife ecology,
conservation, and management. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden

123

Smith R, Thompson K, Hodgson J, Warren P, Gaston K (2006) Urban

domestic gardens (IX): composition and richness of the vascular
plant flora, and implications for native biodiversity. Biolog
Conserv 129:312322
Strohbach MW, Haase D, Kabisch N (2009) Birds and the city: urban
biodiversity, land use, and socioeconomics. Ecol Soc 14:31
Thompson K, Austin KC, Smith RM, Warren PH, Angold PG, Gaston
KJ (2003) Urban domestic gardens (I): putting small-scale plant
diversity in context. J Veg Sci 14:7178
Troy AR, Grove JM, ONeil-Dunne JP, Pickett ST, Cadenasso ML
(2007) Predicting opportunities for greening and patterns of
vegetation on private urban lands. Environ Manag 40:394412
Tzoulas K, James P (2010) Making biodiversity measures accessible
to non-specialists: an innovative method for rapid assessment of
urban biodiversity. Urban Ecosyst 13:113127
Van Velsor SW, Nilon CH (2006) A qualitative investigation of the
urban African-American and Latino adolescent experience with
wildlife. Hum Dim Wildl 11:359370
Werner P, Zahner R (2009) Biological diversity and cities: a review
and bibliography (BfN-Skripten 245). Bundesamt fur Naturschutz, Leipzig
Werner P, Zahner R (2010) Urban patterns and biological diversity: a
review. In: Muller N, Werner P, Kelcey JG (eds) Urban
biodiversity and design. Wiley, Oxford, pp 145173
Zerbe S, Maurer U, Schmitz S, Sukopp H (2003) Biodiversity in Berlin and
its potential for nature conservation. Landsc Urban Plan 62:139148