1 of 13

The Economic, Environmental, and Societal Benefits of Urban Conservation

Tyler Matthews
ENVL-3311
Dr. Moscovici

2 of 13

Abstract
Urban conservation is a newly practiced method of sustainability. The purpose of this paper is to
review the economic, environmental, and societal benefits of urban conservation, focusing on the
question, Is urban conservation possible in the future given the current urban population growth rate?
The problems that cause the necessity of conservation in urban areas will be stated, and economically and
environmentally viable solutions to those problems will be discussed. These solutions, however, cannot
be completed without the publics involvement. Examples of successful conservation and why they are
successful will be reviewed. Recommendations will then be made based on the data given.
Table of Contents

Introduction......page 2

Brief History of Urban Conservation in the US...page 3

Necessity of Urban Conservation...page 3

Figure 1: Urban Population Growth of US and China since 1981 (primary source data..page 3

New Approaches page 5

Figure 2: Green Roof Species in Switzerland (Brenneisen, S., 2006).....page 5

Figure 3: Boulder, Colorado Growth Boundary..page 7

Figure 4: Portlands Metro 2040 Growth Concept..page 8

Public Involvementpage 8

Figure 5: Bostons Land Preservation Initiatives (2003)...page 9

Examples of Good Management page 9

Recommendations....page 10

Conclusion.page 10

Bibliography.page 11

I) Introduction
What does conservation mean to you? Most scholars agree that conservation is defined as the
science behind biodiversity, with the intention of preserving Earths biodiversity through the protection of
its ecosystems and their respective species. However, there is a necessary question to ask: Is
conservation always possible? The estimated population for 2050 is 10 billion, with 60% of people living
in urbanized areas. The sheer amount of pressure put on urban areas from issues like pollution,
overpopulation, and habitat fragmentation are strenuous for the environment, and its natural inhabitants.

3 of 13
This paper will elaborate if it is possible for urban conservation zones to exist in our future, as well as
what their benefits are to their local environment, economy and community as a whole.
II) Brief History of Urban Conservation in the United States
Urban conservation is a relatively new concept, only coming to be within the last century, starting to rise
in the 1960s. In 1978, the Missouri Urban Biology Program was created to inform the public, assist with
habitat management, and acquire wilderness lands in and around metropolitan areas. Then, in 1979, the
creation of a habitat evaluation program was the first step towards Arizonas urban wildlife program,
which was completed in 1986. In 1981, Washingtons urban wildlife program was initiated with the same
3 functions. It wasnt until 1985 that the federal government started getting involved, and the Center for
Urban Ecology was formed in Washington D.C. (Adams 2005). The next year, the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) sponsored a symposium, Integrating Man and Nature in the Metropolitan Environment.
The FWS manages the National Wildlife Refuge system, some of which are located within metropolitan
zones. Fast-forward to 1999, the Urban Treaty for Migratory Bird Conservation was put into place.
These programs and policies are where state and federal government urban conservation started, and they
have steadily been on the rise as environmental awareness continues to grow with them.
III) Necessity of Urban Conservation
Urban conservation is necessary given the rate at which urbanization is growing. In 1950, it was
estimated there were 746 million people living in urban areas, and as of 2014, the urban population was
estimated to be 3.9 billion, over a 500% increase in a 64 year time span.

Figure 1: Urban Population Growth of the United States and China since 1981 made by Tyler Matthews
As the world continues to urbanize, sustainable development challenges will be increasingly concentrated
in cities (Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations,
2014) Most cities were built before environmental sciences were taught publicly and focused mainly on

4 of 13
economic values. However, the key to a successful and sustainable city is finding a harmonious
relationship between its economy, environment, and society, otherwise known as the triple bottom line of
sustainability.
The impacts of building a city are inescapable, and the effects that modern day cities have on
people and the environment have only recently been studied. Rapid development has caused the
ecological balance to negatively shift significantly. One of the more detrimental effects of cities has been
the loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation on a large scale, causing wildlife fragmentation and
displacement (Wang, Y., & Moskovitz, D. K. 2001) The amounts of roads and buildings in place of
otherwise pristine land plays a role in the displacement and destruction of local biodiversity
(Markovchick-Nicholls, L., Regen, H. M., Deutschman, D. H., Widyanata, A., Martin, B., Noreke, L., &
Ann-Hunt, T. 2008). This decreases the resilience of the environment and increases the rate of
disturbances from anthropogenic activities, as well as putting pressure on local wildlife to decrease their
territories or move to new ones.
Urbanization also brings about an incredible amount of impermeable surface area, causing run
off; an example of non-point source pollution. As rain falls and comes into contact with impermeable
areas, it flows along the surface until it can disperse, picking up any natural and manmade pollution along
the way, which threatens local bodies of water. A case study conducted in Poland measured the pollutants
found in runoff from high traffic roads for 6 months, and the results showed: benzene from gasoline,
chlorine and sodium from salt, nitrate and sulfates from burning fossil fuels, malathion, and volatile
organohalogens and chloroorganic compounds from solvent use. These samples were similar to samples
collected in other cities around Europe, showing there is a consistency in runoff being toxic and heavily
contaminated (. Polkowska, M. Grynkiewicz, B. Zabiegaa, J. Namienik, 2001). In New Jersey, it was
proven that the highest quality of water is found in the least developed regions (Goodrow, S., & Procopi,
N.).
Cities have damaged their air just as much as their waters. Over the last century, society has
become increasingly car-based, causing a dangerous rise in air pollution in heavily dense areas. A
combination of acute gas intake, particle pollutants, and other forms of air pollution have been linked to
cardiovascular diseases and heart rate variabilities, as well as an increase in breathing related problems
such as asthma and bronchiolitis (Shields, K. N., Cavallari, J. M., Hunt, M. J., Lazo, M., Molina, M.,
Molina, L., & Holguin, F., 2013). There is a negative correlation between a citys air quality and its
citizens. People moving into the city expect a higher quality of life from a built environment, only to find
their physical and mental health threatened. There are over 40 years of studies that show implementing
natural areas within cities is beneficial to physical and cognitive well-being (Wolf, K. L., & Robins, A. S.
May 2015).
There is also the threat of invasive species in urban areas. Due to the increase of transportation,
there is a significantly higher chance of bringing in species nonnative to the local environment, which can

5 of 13
negatively impact the environments trophic levels if left unchecked (Briski, E., Wiley, C. J., Bailey, S. A.,
& Frid, C. (2012). Alien species can bring about disease and the native environment does not have a
niche for these species. There is a lack of predator-prey dynamic and the invasive species are left to do as
they please, eating their prey to the brink of localized extinction.
Commuters and tourists also play a substantial role in the pollution of cities. For example, the
population of Manhattan, NY, is estimated at 1.6 million. Every morning, the population doubles solely
due to commuters coming to work, causing massive congestion in each entry to the city. Tourism
increases this congestion and pollution even further, and though public transportation eases this burden to
a degree, it still has enough of an affect. These factors can double the amount of pollution New York
would normally see daily. Urbanization without urban conservation in mind can, and will, bring about
these issues. The damage to a populations physical and mental health, damage to the native environment
and its wildlife, and the toxification of water and air quality are all concerns that need to be addressed.
IV) New Approaches
Conservation areas are realistic solutions to these issues. Some of the more simple ideas such as
implementing green roofs and green walls throughout a city are a smart first step environmentally and
economically. A green roof is covered, partially or entirely, with vegetation planted over a waterproofing
membrane, with the option to have drainage and irrigation systems within them. Green roofs mitigate
climate, pollution, and biodiversity issues. Their storm water retention saves money by nullifying the
necessity of storm drains that require routine maintenance. Green roofs and walls reduce local air
temperatures up to 9F (McPherson 1994), providing a cooler microclimate and combating the urban
heat-island effect. They act as a filter; filtering pollutants out of the water and air and sequestrating
carbon dioxide, helping fight a citys air and water pollution problems. Green roofs insulate buildings,
moderating the heat and sound inside, making them energy-efficient. Green roofing can extend the
lifespan of a roof by over 200%, increase real-estate value (Fabricio B., & Kasun H., 2012), and in some
cities, there are even tax credit incentives, such as New Yorks 1 year property tax credit (Paul Nasttu,

6 of 13
2008). Green roofs promote biodiversity (Brenneisen, S., 2006), usually in the form of soil living
organisms and birds. See Figure 2 below
Figure 2) This bar graph shows the number of species of beetles and spiders found on green roofs in
Basel, Switzerland. It compares structured and unstructured green roof designs over a three year
surveying period. The red shading represents species of conservation interest (Brenneisen, S., 2006)
Green roofs are known to act as green corridors when enough are put into place, aiding bird and insect
movement throughout the city. Cities often implement green roof policies that promote biodiversity
objectives focusing on native plants and soils, making sure not to introduce any invasive species that
could eventually spore out (Williams, N. S., Lundholm, J., & Maclvor, S. J., 2014). If there are any rare
and endangered plants in the area, green roofs are perfect way to implement rare species conservation.
Green spaces, urban parks, and urban forests are also environmentally and economically viable
solutions. Endemic nature put forth in cities is proven to mitigate pollution through carbon sequestration,
water purification and storm water management (Wolf, K. L., & Robins, A. S., 2015). Conservation
easements, a legal agreement between landowner and a land trust or government agency that limits use of
the land for conservation purposes, are a key way to implement these ideas and ensure their protection.
Total air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs across 55 U.S. cities at 711,000 metric tons,
estimating the removal value at $3.8 billion in annual public value (Nowak et al. 2006). Green areas save
money while also promoting biodiversity (Savard, J. L., Clergeau, P., & Mennechez, G. 2000). Cities are
now realizing the monetary gain that is possible through these natural areas.
There are substantial physical and mental health benefits brought forth from nature within cities.
Active living plays a huge role in the physical health aspect, as many people in the cities arent going for
walks as much as they would when living in rural areas. Parks and trail ways encourage people to get out
more for a bike ride or to walk the dog, and staying active is one of the more important ways to maintain
good health. Natural areas also provide noise abatement, helping disband the noisiness of the city which
can show negative effects on cognitive health. In a case study by the The Trust for Public Land (2013),
the avoided costs annually of health care connected to different levels of physical activity in parks across
10 U.S. cities and counties were shown to be in the millions, ranging from $4 million to $69.4 million,
and was proven that physical activity promoted from parks can reduce the mortality rates of a city. Stress
relief, spaces that support cognitive functioning, nature therapy, horticulture and the promotion of social
and recreational activities; the benefits from urban green spaces present themselves not only in the
publics pockets, but their health as well.
Urban areas have earned themselves the term concrete jungle for a reason, and there have
recently been new ways to reduce the impact of cement. Cement companies in New York are introducing
new ways of making cement by utilizing blast furnace slag, a nonmetallic co-product produced in the
production of iron and iron ore. By making cement with this product, it severely reduces the amount of
carbon dioxide needed to make cement. There will always be new ways to reduce emissions, which is a

7 of 13
significant breakthrough. The problem with our pavements is that they are impermeable, and having such
a vast amount of impermeable surface area degrades our environment and local water sources through run
off. Cities need to implement permeable surfaces such as pervious concrete, plastic grids, porous asphalt,
and recycled glass porous pavement. The more permeable surface area, the more protected a citys
waterways and watershed will be from contaminates.
The key to successful urban conservation is the implementation of laws and regulations.
Thankfully, conservation awareness is on the rise thanks to summits such as the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, the driving factor behind the Kyoto Protocol) and
the Cities for Life Summit. One federal, one local municipalities, both showing that concerns for
conservation are reaching different levels of government. The Cities for Life Summit held in 2012
consisted of some 500 people, around 1/5th of them municipality leaders or mayors, focusing on a
biodiversity agenda, how to implement that agenda, and how to perform subsequent follow ups. Almost
all agendas focus on putting nature areas within the cities, such as; urban parks, forests, open parks, green
roofs, and so on (Blaustein, R. 2013). In the 1980s, air pollution in cities had steadily been on the rise,
and the federal government came up with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA), which integrated transportation planning with air quality planning. They claimed that those
who did not comply would lose funding, and Atlanta, Georgia refused to comply, so they made an
example out of them. They created incentives to force cities nation wide to start planning better. It
brought about the creation of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) which does not just focus on
traffic and air quality, but everything discussed up until this point
It is the local and federal
governments planning and
policies which make
conservation work. One of the
many techniques used to
conserve is the use of urban
growth boundaries. These are
boundaries set around a city that
attempt to control urban sprawl
by issuing that the area inside the
boundary is to be used for higher
density development, while the
area outside be used for lower
density development. The goal is
to build upwards, not outwards.
Boulder, Colorado is one of the

Figure 3: Boulder Growth Boundary

8 of 13
cities effectively implementing growth boundaries (see figure 3). Surrounded by mountains and scenic
landscapes, the city made sure not to lose its pristine land to the increasing number of people moving
there or looking for vacation homes by utilizing these boundaries and issuing dwelling units per acre,
where you must own large amounts of land to be able to build a single home.
An increasing focus in the last few decades has been on the transit of oriented development
(TOD), which is any form of public transportation; meaning you wont have to use your car to get around
the city and can get from point A to B without a hassle. The goal of TOD is to reduce the amount of
drivers in the city in order to decrease traffic congestion and air pollution. Portland, Oregon is a prime
example TOD implementation. In Portland, it is possible to get to every major area of the city via
trolley in an easy to navigate network. Portlands Metro 2040 growth concept focuses on making
efficient use of the land, leaving more area for conservation efforts by promoting multi-model
transportation. See Figure 4 below

Figure 4: Portlands Metro 2040 Growth Concept

V) Public Involvement
These new approaches are all beneficial in their own right, but none of them can be implemented
without the help of the general public. However, many people are unaware of the amount of pollution

9 of 13
they create and the effects they have on their environment. Few people want their state or federal
government telling them what they can and cannot do through regulations and zoning. Much of these
policies have made people wary of conservation, some of which have even stirred a negative connotation
due to the forcefulness of some policies. A large percentage of people are still uneducated about
conservation and the environment, and education is key to making all of this possible. So, as a city, how
do you get your community involved and aware? Austin, Texas has done just that. One of the fastest
growing metropolitan areas nearing 1 million people, the city established a list of goals it wanted to
accomplish. These goals included climate change, conserving water, improve water and air quality, and
enhance the quality of wildlife habitat within the city. The main goal was to receive a National Wildlife
Federation Certificate. City officials educated their people on what was at stake, and what they can do as
individuals to help make it possible. A friendly rivalry ensued among neighborhoods, to see who could
do the most in their sector, and the city even offered prepaid NWF habitat applications to all of its
residents, ensuring that everyone had equal opportunity to participate in the program. To qualify for a
NWF certificate, a city must be able to provide food, water, and shelter for its wildlife, as well as a place
to raise their young. The city must practice sustainable gardening, and remove invasive species in the
process. The reduction of fertilizers and chemicals, harvesting of rainwater, and composting were all
necessary as well. The education and awareness of Austins citizens paid off, and set an amazing example
of how a city can get involved in wildlife biodiversity conservation (Nance, A. V. 2009) Education and
activism are essential to get the public on board. The community must play a role in the conservation
process or it may be set to fail (Andrade, G. S., & Rhodes, J. R., 2012).
Figure 5: Bostons Land Preservation Initiatives
VI) Good Management
Boulders urban growth boundaries,
Portlands Metro 2040 growth concept, and
Austins community initiatives to be awarded
the NWF certification are all prime examples
of how urban conservation can be successful
given a steadily rising population. Boston,
Massachusetts can be commemorated for its
land preservation initiatives. Similar to
Boulders concern for their wildlife
surroundings, Boston not only set up an urban
growth boundary, but has designated multiple
areas within the metropolitan area to be
conservation zones (See Figure 5 below).
Though these may not be within the city itself,

10 of 13
the plan is still doing what it can to ensure that its reservoirs are protected. In total, 40,426 acres have
been deemed conservation areas as of 2003.
VII) Recommendations
The solutions and examples listed in this paper are a step in the right direction, but are they
enough? Environmental awareness is growing, but many cities, even countries, remain passive in the
fight for our planet. Mistakes were made in the past due to a lack of environmental knowledge, and
education is the most important part of humanitys fight to protect and conserve nature. Besides the
plethora of environmental disasters that made it to mainstream media, education has been the driving
factor for our increase in environmental awareness. Schools need to adjust their curriculum for the sake
of the environment, and start teaching a new generation at a younger age how to help preserve land,
biodiversity, and health. A presentation to middle schoolers and one year of earth science in high school
does not cut it, and it isnt entirely up to the new generations to fix these problems. There should be
government programs dedicated to help educate citizens of their surroundings and impacts. Its a
depressing fact that any given person can name countless logos and brand names off the top of their head
but couldnt tell you the name of 3 species living in their surroundings. Perhaps just as important as
educating the young is educating people of political power. Sometimes, an environmental committee isnt
enough for politicians. We need people making decisions that effect the environment educated in
environmental sciences, to know just what they're impact is and why it matters. In the end, education can
only do so much. Society needs incentives and weve seen a few good examples already, like New Yorks
green roof one year property tax credit. I believe city funding should be partially based on its
environmental impact and the percentage of green space it incorporates. There needs to be higher taxes
on the amount of pollution put out, and rewards for the reduction of pollution or use of renewable energy.
There are architects that design and are willing to build urban farm skyscrapers and other beneficial green
buildings within cities, but the lack of money will block them. If there is enough money donated to
Nongovernment organizations to outright purchase land or development rights, I believe with the right
media attention and political push there could be enough money donated to fund these projects that are
ahead of their time. One of the largest problems cities will face is their food sources, and urban farming
can lead the future of sustainable urban areas.
VIII) Conclusion
As the Earth continues to urbanize at an increasing rate, the sustainable focus will undoubtedly
shift into cities. Over the course of the century, case studies worldwide have brought about new
technology and techniques to manage urban impacts on biodiversity, and help conserve. Through the use
of zoning and urban growth boundaries, cities force themselves to make the impact they want to make.
Green spaces, green roofs, urban parks and forests all promote a healthy environment through water

11 of 13
purification, storm water retention, microclimate, and air filtration. Not only do these benefits promote a
healthy environment, but they are economically viable and even reduce the rate of mortality in cities by
providing daily exercise and a peace of mind. New technology has made it possible to implement nature
into infrastructure, not only to conserve, but reduce the pollution of cities too. These have proven to be
effective despite the negative effects of commuting and tourism. Renowned cities such as New York,
Boulder, Portland, Austin, and Austin have all implemented many of these new approaches of
conservation, and many more are following suit. Of course, some still need the help of the general public,
and others need their politicians to be more aware, but it is slowly but surely happening. This new
generation is fighting for the environment in a way that hasnt been seen since the 1970s, calling for
complete reform of how we manage our cities. In the future, it will be possible to maintain urban
conservation zones given the increasing environmental awareness, the public pressure that will be put on
politicians to regulate and zone accordingly and the fact that many conservation areas and sustainable
practices go hand in hand. These are only the advancements of the last few decades, and more research
still needs to be done on newer methods of managing cities.
IX) Bibliography

1) Adams, L. W. (2005). Urban wildlife ecology and conservation: A brief history of the discipline. Urban
Ecosystems, 8, 139-156. Retrieved March 2, 2016, from http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/792/art
%3A10.1007%2Fs11252-005-4377-7.pdf?originUrl=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11252-0054377-7&token2=exp=1457390731~acl=/static/pdf/792/art%253A10.1007%252Fs11252-005-4377-7.pdf?
originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle
%2F10.1007%2Fs11252-005-4377-7*~hmac=ce5daa176e5c4a522a9152ce540c32749f0b3c16097194b45b7c64ee9a19f18e
2) United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2014).
World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352)
3) Wang, Y., & Moskovitz, D. K. (august 2001). Tracking Fragmentation of Natural Communities and
Changes in Land Cover: Applications of Landsat Data for Conservation in an Urban Landscape (Chicago
Wilderness). Conservation Biology, 15(4), 835-843. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.stockton.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=332cdd9f-5535-43a6-8f75-0ad44069fb69@sessionmgr198&vid=29&hid=115
4) Markovchick-Nicholls, L., Regen, H. M., Deutschman, D. H., Widyanata, A., Martin, B., Noreke, L., &
Ann-Hunt, T. (february 2008). Relationships between Human Disturbance and Wildlife Land Use in Urban Habitat Fragments. Conservation Biology, 22(1), 99-109. Retrieved January 28, 2016, from http://
web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.stockton.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=bd9675ad-78cf-4a20a07f-351952ed69f3@sessionmgr4002&vid=9&hid=4104
5) Polkowska, Z., Grynkiewicz, M., Zabiegala, B., & Namiesnik, J. (2001). Levels of Pollutants in Runoff
Water from Roads with High Traffic Intensity in the City of Gdansk, Poland. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 10(5), 351-364. Retrieved February 24, 2016, from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=11&sid=a2183b7e-73a0-44f3-921c-84c96995ddc2@sessionmgr112&hid=110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#AN=5386396&db=8gh

12 of 13

6) Goodrow, S., & Procopio, N. (n.d.). Land Use and Land Cover (pp. 1-6) (United States, New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Science).
7) Shields, K. N., Cavallari, J. M., Hunt, M. J., Lazo, M., Molina, M., Molina, L., & Holguin, F. (2013,
January). Traffic-related air pollution exposures and changes in heart rate variability in Mexico City: A
panel study [Scholarly project]. In DSpace@MIT. Retrieved February 25, 2016, from https://
dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/78834
8) Wolf, K. L., & Robins, A. S. (may 2015). Metro Nature, Environmental Health, and Economic Value.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 123(5), 390-398. Retrieved February 15, 2016, from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.stockton.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?
sid=332cdd9f-5535-43a6-8f75-0ad44069fb69@sessionmgr198&vid=37&hid=115
9)Briski, E., Wiley, C. J., Bailey, S. A., & Frid, C. (2012). Role of domestic shipping in the introduction
or secondary spread of nonindigenous species: Biological invasions within the Laurentian Great Lakes.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 49(5), 1124-1130. Retrieved March 2, 2016, from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?
vid=5&sid=60c5e9a7-956e-4c58-9f71-1f6b515d0b1a@sessionmgr120&hid=125&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#AN=80202581&db=8gh

10) McPherson, E. Gregory; Nowak, David J.; Rowntree, Rowan A. eds. 1994. Chicago's urban forest
ecosystem: results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-186. Radnor, PA:
U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 201 p. from http://
www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_ne186.pdf
11) Fabricio, B., & Kasun, H. (dec 2012). Probabilistic social cost-benefit analysis for green roofs: A lifecycle approach. Building and Environment, 58, 152-162. Retrieved February 19, 2016, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036013231200193X
12)Nastu, P. (2008, June 29). Tax Credits For Green Rooftops In NYC. Retrieved February 19, 2016,
from http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/06/29/tax-credits-for-green-rooftops-in-nyc/
13) Brenneisen, S. (2006). Space for Urban Wildlife: Designing Green Roofs as Habitats in Switzerland.
Urban Habitats, 4(1), 27-36. Retrieved February 25, 2016, from http://www.urbanhabitats.org/v04n01/
wildlife_pdf.pdf
14) Williams, N. S., Lundholm, J., & Maclvor, S. J. (december 2014). Do green roofs help urban biodiversity conservation? Journal of Applied Ecology, 51(6), 1643-1649. Retrieved January 29, 2016, from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.stockton.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=10&sid=bd9675ad-78cf-4a20a07f-351952ed69f3@sessionmgr4002&hid=4104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#AN=997084
71&db=8gh
15) Nowak, D. J., Crane, D. E., & Stevens, J. C. (2006). Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs
in the United States. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 4, 115-123. Retrieved March 2, 2016, from
http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/other_publishers/OCR/ne_2006_nowak001.pdf

13 of 13
16) Savard, J. L., Clergeau, P., & Mennechez, G. (may 2000). Biodiversity Concepts and Urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48(3-4), 131-142. Retrieved February 1, 2016, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204600000372
17) Blaustein, R. (february 2013). Urban Biodiversity Gains New Converts. BioScience, 63(2), 72-77.
Retrieved February 1, 2016, from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.stockton.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/
pdfviewer?sid=bd9675ad-78cf-4a20-a07f-351952ed69f3@sessionmgr4002&vid=24&hid=4104
18) Nance, A. V. (june 2009). Austin Is a Habitat Haven with National Wildlife Federation Certification.
Ecological Restoration, 27(2), 125-127. Retrieved January 29, 2016, from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.stockton.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=bd9675ad-78cf-4a20a07f-351952ed69f3@sessionmgr4002&vid=13&hid=4104
19) Andrade, G. S., & Rhodes, J. R. (2012). Protected Areas and Local Communities: An Inevitable Partnership toward Successful Conservation Strategies? Ecology & Society, 17. Retrieved February 1, 2016,
from http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/handle/10535/8675
20) Fettig, T., Westrate, E., Decena, M., & Kenney, J. (Directors). (2007). Design E Squared [Motion picture on DVD]. United States: PBS. Narrated by Brad Pitt

21) World Bank Group. (n.d.). Urban Population Data. Retrieved March 2, 2016, from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL/countries/1W?display=graph
World Bank Staff estimates based on United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects
22) America Revealed: Transportation [Motion picture on DVD]. (2012). PBS.
Hosted by Yul Kwon

23) United States, Portland City Council. (n.d.). Metro 2040 Growth Concept.
http://www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/index.cfm?c=52250
24) Moscovici, D. (n.d.). State Growth Management (Presentation).
https://blackboard.stockton.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-896892-dt-content-rid-2957905_1/courses/
20636.201620/02. State Growth Management Techniques.pdf