Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Making biodiversity measures accessible to non-specialists: an innovative method for rapid assessment of urban biodiversity

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Urban biodiversity studies provide important inputs to studying the interactions between human societies and ecological systems. However, existing urban biodiversity methods are time intensive and/or too complex for the purposes of rapid biodiversity assessment of large urban sites. In this paper the authors present a biodiversity assessment method that is innovative in its approach, is reliable, and from which the data generated can be presented in an understandable way to non-ecologists. This method is based on measuring the land cover of different vegetation structures and the diversity of vascular plants, and then combining these into an overall biodiversity score. The land cover of vegetation structures was recorded by using a checklist in combination with Tandy’s Isovist Technique and the Domin cover scale. Vascular plant diversity was recorded at genus level by walking along defined transects within circular sampling areas of sixty five meter radius and using a checklist. A scoring procedure assigns an overall biodiversity score to different combinations of land cover of vegetation structures and vascular plant diversity. This method was tested in three urban locations in the United Kingdom which differed according to size, design and land use. Descriptive statistics of the resulting biodiversity scores differentiated between the biodiversity distribution within each one of the three locations, as well as across them. The main strength of this rapid biodiversity assessment method is its simplicity. Furthermore, by producing accurate results this biodiversity assessment method can be most useful in rapidly identifying areas where more detailed ecological surveys are needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aas G, Riedmiller A (2001) Trees of Britain and Europe. Harper Collin Publishers, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Boothby J (2000) An ecological focus for landscape planning. Landsc Res 25(3):281–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornelis J, Hermy M (2004) Biodiversity relationships in urban and suburban parks in flanders. Landsc Urban Plan 69:385–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitter RSR, Fitter A, Farer A (1984) Grasses, sedges, rushes, and ferns of Britain and Northern Europe. Harper Collin Publishers, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman C (1999) Development of a simple method for site survey and assessment in urban areas. Landsc Urban Plan 44:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman C, Buck O (2003) Development of an ecological mapping methodology for urban areas in New Zealand. Landsc Urban Plan 63:161–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ, Smith RM, Thompson K, Warren PH (2004) Gardens and wildlife: The BUGS Project. Br. Wildl. October; 1-9.

  • Gaston KJ, Warren PH, Thompson K, Smith RM (2005) Urban domestic gardens (IV): the extent of the resource and its associated features. Biodivers Conserv 14:3327–3349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert EO (1991) The ecology of urban habitats. Chapman and Hall, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Godefroid S, Koedam N (2007) Urban plant species patterns are highly driven by density and function of built-up areas. Landsc Ecol 22:1227–1239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood RD, Moffatt JD (1982) Implementation techniques for more natural landscapes, in Ruff, A.R., and Tregay, R., (Eds.), An ecological approach to urban landscape design. Occasional Paper No. 8. Department of Town & Country Planning, The University of Manchester; Manchester.

  • Hawksworth DL, Kalin-Arroyo MT (1995) Magnitude and distribution of biodiversity, in Heywood, V.H, Watson, R.T., (Eds), Global biodiversity assessment. Section 3. Cambridge University Press and UNEP, Cambridge.

  • Hercock MJ (1997) Appreciating the biodiversity of remnant bush land: an ‘architectural’ approach. Environmentalist 17(4):249–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermy M, Cornelis J (2000) Towards a monitoring method and a number of multifaceted and hierarchical biodiversity indicators for urban and suburban parks. Landsc Urban Plan 49:149–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill D, Fasham M, Tucker G, Shewry M, Shaw P (eds) (2005) Handbook of biodiversity methods: survey, evaluation and monitoring. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Honnay O, Piessens K, Van Landuyt W, Hermy M, Gulinck H (2003) Satellite based land use and landscape complexity indices as predictors for regional plant species diversity. Landsc Urban Plan 63:241–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jutro PR (1993) Human influences on ecosystems: dealing with biodiversity. In: Mc Donnel MJ, Pickett STA (eds) Humans as components of ecosystems. Springer, New York, pp 246–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent M, Coker P (1992) Vegetation description and analysis: a practical approach. John Wiley and Sons, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippert W, Podlech D (1994) Wild flowers of Britain and Europe. Harper Collin Publishers, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingston M, Sha WW, Haris LK (2003) A model for assessing wildlife habitats in urban landscapes of Eastern Pima County, Arizona (USA). Landsc Urban Plan 64:131–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovejoy TE (1980) Changes in biological diversity. In: Barney GO (ed) The global 2000 report to the president, Vol 2. Penguin Books, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell K (2006) Field guide to trees and shrubs of Britain and Europe. New Holland Publishers (UK), London

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss MR (2000) Interdisciplinarity, landscape ecology and the ‘transformation of agricultural landscape’. Landsc Ecol 15:303–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemelä J (1999) Is there a need for a theory of urban ecology? Urban Ecosyst 3:57–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norse EA, MacManus RE (1980) Ecology and living resources: biological diversity, in CEQ, environmental quality 1980: the eleventh annual report of the Council on Environmental Quality. Council on Environmental Quality, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1997) Hierarchical indicators for monitoring changes in biodiversity. In: Meffe GF, Caroll CR (eds) Principles of conservation biology, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, pp 88–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauleit S, Duhme F (2000) Assessing the environmental performance of land cover types for urban planning. Landsc Urban Plan 52:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson DL (1996) Selecting indicator taxa for the quantitative assessment of biodiversity. In: Hawksworth DL (ed) Biodiversity: measurements and estimation. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 75–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Pharo EJ, Beattie AJ, Binns D (1999) Vascular plant diversity as a surrogate for bryophyte and lichen diversity. Conserv Biol 13:282–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott D (1991) The greening of Warrington. Landsc Des, 24–25.

  • Southwood TRE, Henderson PA (eds) (2000) Ecological methods, 3rd edn. London, Blackwell Science

    Google Scholar 

  • Stork NE, Samways MJ (1995) Inventorying and monitoring. In: Heywood VH (ed) Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 459–543

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland WJ (ed) (1996) Ecological census techniques: a handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner K, Lefler B, Freedman B (2005) Plant communities of selected urbanised areas of Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Landsc Urban Plan 71:191–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wessels KJ, Freitag S, Van Jaarsveld AS (1999) The use of land facets as biodiversity surrogates during reserve selection at a local scale. Biol Conserv 89:21–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westmacott R, Worthington T (1994) Agricultural landscapes: a third look. Countryside Commission, Northampton

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitford V, Ennos AR, Handley JF (2001) City form and natural processes: indicators for the ecological performance of urban areas and their application to Merseyside, UK. Landsc Urban Plan 20:91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO (ed) (1988) Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates M (1974) An introduction to quantitative analysis in human geography. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Yli-Pelkonen V, Niemelä J (2005) Linking ecological and social systems in cities: urban planning in Finland as a case. Biodivers Conserv 14:1947–1967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young CP, Jarvis PJ (2001) Assessing the structural heterogeneity of urban areas: an example from the Black Country (UK). Urban Ecosyst 1:49–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zerbe S, Maurer U, Schmitz S, Sukopp S (2003) Biodiversity in Berlin and its potential for nature conservation. Landsc Urban Plan 62:139–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Konstantinos Tzoulas.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Table 7 Vascular plant genera checklist

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tzoulas, K., James, P. Making biodiversity measures accessible to non-specialists: an innovative method for rapid assessment of urban biodiversity. Urban Ecosyst 13, 113–127 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-009-0107-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-009-0107-x

Keywords

Navigation