Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 45–56 | Cite as

Pocket parks in a compact city: how do birds respond to increasing residential density?

  • Karen Ikin
  • R. Matthew Beaty
  • David B. Lindenmayer
  • Emma Knight
  • Joern Fischer
  • Adrian D. Manning
Research Article

Abstract

The desire to improve urban sustainability is motivating many city planners to adopt growth strategies that increase residential density, leading to substantial changes to urban landscapes. What effect this change will have on biodiversity remains unclear, but it is expected that the role of public greenspace in providing wildlife habitat will become critical. We explored the role of urban “pocket parks” as habitat for birds, and how this role changed with increasing residential density in the surrounding neighbourhood. We found that parks in neighbourhoods with high levels of public greenspace (corresponding to less residential land) supported more bird species and individuals overall, and more woodland-dependent species, insectivores and hollow-nesters. Total greenspace area was more important (included in the best ranked models for all bird responses) than the configuration (number, average size and connectivity) of greenspace patches. The majority of species were common suburban birds, indicating that species we assume are tolerant to urban areas will be negatively affected by increasing residential density. Parks form part of an interconnected network of urban open space. For parks to continue to support a diverse native bird community, the network must be viewed, managed, and maintained in its entirety. We suggest three key management actions to improve the bird diversity values of urban greenspaces in compact cities: (1) Increase urban greenspace cover in residential neighbourhoods. (2) Increase vegetation structure in greenspace. (3) Encourage homeowners to plant trees and shrubs.

Keywords

Bird diversity Object based image analysis Landscape composition Landscape configuration Planning and management Southeast Australia Spatial analysis Urban form Urban greenspace Urban sustainability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to staff from ACT Conservation, Planning and Research, Territory and Municipal Services; Land Development Agency, ACT Planning and Land Authority, and J. Hibberd, P. Barton and P. Lentini for useful discussions; and M. Westgate and I. Stirnemann for providing helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. K.I. was the recipient of a postgraduate independent research scholarship, jointly funded by the Fenner School of Environment and Society (The Australian National University) and Conservation, Planning and Research (ACT Government). Ethics approval was obtained before conducting this work (F.ES.08.10).

Supplementary material

10980_2012_9811_MOESM1_ESM.doc (168 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 167 kb)

References

  1. ABS 2010. Australian Demographic Statistics, 3101.0, Dec 2010. Australian Bureau of StatisticsGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson E (2006) Urban landscapes and sustainable cities. Ecol Soc 11:34Google Scholar
  3. Bjornstad ON, Falck W (2001) Nonparametric spatial covariance functions: estimation and testing. Environ Ecol Stat 8:53–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blair RB (1996) Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecol Appl 6:506–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Botequilha Leito A, Miller J, Ahern J, McGarigal K (2006) Measuring landscapes: a planner’s handbook. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. Bounds J, Taws N, Cunningham RB (2010) A statistical analysis of trends in occupancy rates of woodland birds in the ACT, December 1998 to December 2008: the ten-year data analysis. Canberra Ornithologists GroupGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Definiens 2008. Definiens Developer 7.0, User GuideGoogle Scholar
  9. Donald PF, Sanderson FJ, Burfield IJ, van Bommel FPJ (2006) Further evidence of continent-wide impacts of agricultural intensification on European farmland birds, 1990–2000. Agric Ecosyst Environ 116:189–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 1999. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Cth. 2005. Tree Protection Act. ACTGoogle Scholar
  11. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, Burel FG, Crist TO, Fuller RJ, Sirami C, Siriwardena GM, Martin J-L (2011) Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Lett 14:101–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fennell P (ed) (2009) Birds of Canberra gardens. Canberra Ornithologists Group, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischer J, Stott J, Zerger A, Warren G, Sherren K, Forrester RI (2009) Reversing a tree regeneration crisis in an endangered ecoregion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA Biol Sci 106:10386–10391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fontana S, Sattler T, Bontadina F, Moretti M (2011) How to manage the urban green to improve bird diversity and community structure. Landsc Urban Plan 101:278–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG (2010) Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol Evol 25:90–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ACT Government 2006. Design standards for urban infrastructure. 14. Urban Open Space. Territory and Municipal Services, ACTGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanspach J, Fischer J, Stott J, Stagoll K (2011) Conservation management of eastern Australian farmland birds in relation to landscape gradients. J Appl Ecol 48:523–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hostetler M, Holling CS (2000) Detecting the scales at which birds respond to structure in urban landscapes. Urban Ecosyst 4:25–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huste A, Boulinier T (2011) Determinants of bird community composition on patches in the suburbs of Paris, France. Biol Conserv 144:243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laurance WF (2008) Theory meets reality: how habitat fragmentation research has transcended island biogeographic theory. Biol Conserv 141:1731–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lim HC, Sodhi NS (2004) Responses of avian guilds to urbanisation in a tropical city. Landsc Urban Plan 66:199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindenmayer DB, Cunningham RB (2011) Longitudinal patterns in bird reporting rates in a threatened ecosystem: is change regionally consistent? Biol Conserv 144:430–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2006) Habitat fragmentation and landscape change. An ecological and conservation synthesis. CSIRO Publishing, CollingwoodGoogle Scholar
  25. Loss SR, Ruiz MO, Brawn JD (2009) Relationships between avian diversity, neighborhood age, income, and environmental characteristics of an urban landscape. Biol Conserv 142:2578–2585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Luck GW, Davidson P, Boxall D, Smallbone L (2011) Relations between urban bird and plant communities and human well-being and connection to nature. Conserv Biol 25:816–826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  28. Montague-Drake R, Lindenmayer DB, Cunningham R (2009) Factors effecting site occupancy by woodland bird species of conservation concern. Biol Conserv 142:2896–2903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Musacchio LR (2009) The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability: a conceptual framework for translational landscape research and practice of designed landscapes and the six Es of landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecol 24:993–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Myint SW, Gober P, Brazel A, Grossman-Clarke S, Weng Q (2011) Per-pixel vs. object-based classification or urban land cover extraction using high spatial resolution imagery. Remote Sens Environ 115:1145–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oliver AJ, Hong-Wa C, Devonshire J, Olea KR, Rivas GF, Gahl MK (2011) Avifauna richness enhanced in large, isolated urban parks. Landsc Urban Plan 102:215–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ortega-Alvarez R, MacGregor-Fors I (2009) Living in the big city: effects of urban land-use on bird community structure, diversity and composition. Landsc Urban Plan 90:189–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pauleit S, Ennos R, Golding Y (2005) Modeling the environmental impacts of urban land use and land cover change—a study in Merseyside, UK. Landsc Urban Plan 71:295–310Google Scholar
  34. Rey Benayas JM, Bullock JM, Newton AC (2008) Creating woodland islets to reconcile ecological restoration, conservation and agricultural land use. Front Ecol Environ 6:329–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rhodes J, McAlpine C, Zuur A, Smith G, Ieno E (2009) GLMM applied on the spatial distribution of koalas in a fragmented landscape. In: Zuur A (ed) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  36. Robertson OJ, Radford JQ (2009) Gap-crossing decisions of forest birds in a fragmented landscape. Austral Ecol 34:435–446Google Scholar
  37. Shwartz A, Shirley S, Kark S (2008) How do habitat variability and management regime shape the spatial heterogeneity of birds within a large Mediterranean urban park? Landsc Urban Plan 84:219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Silcocks A, Tzaros C, Weston M, Olsen P (2005) An interim guild classification for woodland and grassland birds in Australia. Birds Australia Supplementary Report to State of the Environment Report 2006, CarltonGoogle Scholar
  39. Stagoll K, Lindenmayer DB, Knight E, Fischer J, Manning AD (2012) Large trees are keystone structures in urban parks. Conserv Lett 5:115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Suarez-Rubio M, Thomlinson JR (2009) Landscape and patch-level factors influence bird communities in an urbanized tropical island. Biol Conserv 142:1311–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sutherland WJ, Newton I, Green RE (2004) Bird ecology and conservation: a handbook of techniques. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thornton DH, Branch LC, Sunquist ME (2011) The relative influence of habitat loss and fragmentation: do tropical mammals meet the temperate paradigm? Ecol Appl 21:2324–2333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tratalos J, Fuller RA, Warren PH, Davies RG, Gaston KJ (2007) Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landsc Urban Plan 83:308–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tremblay MA, St. Clair CC (2011) Permeability of a heterogeneous urban landscape to the movements of forest songbirds. J Appl Ecol 48:679–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. United Nations 2009 (2009) Revision of World Urbanization Prospects. In: United Nations Development ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  46. United Nations 2011 (2011) Revision of world urbanization prospects. In: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs P. D.Google Scholar
  47. Wiens J (2009) Landscape ecology as a foundation for sustainable conservation. Landscape Ecol 24:1053–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen Ikin
    • 1
  • R. Matthew Beaty
    • 2
  • David B. Lindenmayer
    • 1
  • Emma Knight
    • 3
  • Joern Fischer
    • 1
    • 4
  • Adrian D. Manning
    • 1
  1. 1.The Fenner School of Environment and SocietyThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.CSIRO Ecosystem SciencesBlack Mountain LaboratoriesBlack MountainAustralia
  3. 3.Centre for Mathematics and Its ApplicationsThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Sustainability SciencesLeuphana University LueneburgLueneburgGermany

Personalised recommendations