Introduction

Networks in research and society, including politics and economy, are drivers of innovation and cross-level learning cultures (Koller 2020). In Germany and beyond the “Berlin School of Urban Ecology” led by Herbert Sukopp played a significant role in establishing the field of urban nature and urban biodiversity (Lachmund 2013; Kowarik 2023). The need for a scientific basis for local landscape planning resulted in the founding of the transdisciplinary network “Biotope Mapping in Populated Areas” (BMPA). The work of this network exerted influence beyond the borders of Germany (Graf 1986, Jalkanen et al. 2020, Müller and Fujiwara 1998, Osawa et al. 2004, Reumer and Epe 1999, Seoul Development Institute 2005,) and initiated the development of two further networks: CONTUREC and URBIO. The aim of this paper is to describe the goals and development of these networks founded in Germany, which have provided impetus for the development of the topic of urban biodiversity worldwide, as well as to reflect the experiences that led to their national and international success. The authors were involved in the founding, development, and management of these three networks. The following review is based on the experiences and recollections of the authors, but for purposes of verification, almost all published and unpublished, including internal documents relating to the networks described have been evaluated by the authors, such as letters, minutes of meetings, working papers, conference papers (invitations, program flyers, abstracts, list of participants), articles in journals and books. All these documents are part of the authors’ private archives, respectively, the archive of Herbert Sukopp, who handed over his documents to one of the authors, Peter Werner, in the early 2000s.

The working group “Biotope Mapping in Populated Areas” (BMPA)

History and aim

Because of the environmental problems and the fast decrease of the biological diversity in the 1960ies, the first German Federal Nature Conservation Act (GFNCA) was passed by the federal government in 1976 (Bundesgesetzblatt 1976). Paragraph 1 outlines the main goals of that act:

“Nature and landscape in populated and unpopulated areas are to be protected, maintained, and developed in such a way that,

  1. 1.

    the efficiency of the natural balance

  2. 2.

    the usability of natural resources

  3. 3.

    the flora and fauna and

  4. 4.

    the diversity, uniqueness, and beauty of nature and the landscape...are sustainably safeguarded.”

This document clearly states that nature must be protected and maintained across the entire country, including urban areas. In addition, the GFNCA also strengthened that landscape planning at the municipal level is an essential tool for achieving the objectives set out in section 1 of that act on the local level.

As the GFNCA and its amendment in 1986 demanded more qualified attention to nature conservation and landscape management at the municipal level, the need grew in many municipalities to plan and implement landscape planning and nature conservation not only in the countryside but also in their built-up areas. This created a great need for basic data reflecting the habitat quality and biodiversity of the entire areas of cities and towns. To fill this gap, the Working Group on “Biotope Mapping in Populated Areas” (BMPA) was founded in Berlin in 1978 on the initiative of Herbert Sukopp (Kowarik 2020) and with intensive support from the federal states of Bavaria and Berlin. This working group was able to build on two processes (Schulte et al. 1986).

Firstly, more and more studies demonstrated that not only the biological diversity in cities is surprisingly high, but also that the distribution of species is the subject to natural regularities which can be analysed with ecological methods (Sukopp 2002; Nilon 2023). The initial research of Herbert Sukopp and his colleagues was pioneering for that finding (Kowarik 2023). Secondly, based on the above-mentioned research and the growing experiences with biotope mapping in the countryside (Kaule et al. 1978), specific methods for biotope mapping in urbanised areas had been developed and became available to the municipalities. Two biotope mapping methods can be distinguished: the comprehensive-representative mapping, which includes the categorizing of the entire area of a city into different types of biotopes based on the differentiation of land use types (see Fig. 1), and the selective mapping, which analyses only habitats worthy of protection (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Comprehensive-representative mapping from the city area of Hannover (city location see Fig. 4). The different colours and codes represent different land use types and biotopes (from Arbeitsgemeinschaft Stadtbiotopkartierung Hannover 1984)

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Selective mapping from the city centre of Augsburg 1986 (city location see Fig. 4): only biotopes valuable for nature conservation (e. g. floodplain forests, semidry grasslands, large parks, old wastegrounds) are mapped and pictured (from Müller and Waldert 2020)

Full size image

Although the “comprehensive-representative biotope mapping” was recommended by the network (Schulte et al. 1986, 1993), it was only carried out in one-third of researched German cities (Sukopp and Weiler 1988). “Selective mapping” was favoured, as this is less costly and time-consuming than “comprehensive-representative mapping”.

Structure, conferences, and deliverables

The network was structured by three organisational levels. The first level was the organisation office. The State Commissioner for Nature Conservation, supported by the Technical University Berlin (Herbert Sukopp), provided personnel and financial resources for the organisation office. In 1998, this task was taken over by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, namely Wolfgang Schulte. The second level was a working group to which representatives of all 11 or, after the reunification in 1990, all 16 state offices or institutes of the federal states responsible for nature conservation and landscape protection, were invited. At the beginning of the BMPA nearly all federal states sent delegates to the working group, but after 1995, only a few federal states were represented. The third level was mirrored by annual conferences (Table 1). The number of participants in these national conferences fluctuated significantly (Fig. 1), with the biggest number from 1988 to 1991. All participants of these conferences had a choice to be registered in the network. After 1983, the papers presented at the annual conferences were published in special issues of journals, conference proceedings and peer-reviewed books.

Table 1 Annual conferences of the working group “Biotope Mapping in Populated Areas” (BMPA) with themes and results
Full size table

A special feature of this network was that it included scientists, experts of local and regional authorities, and NGO-members.

The conferences covered three main topics:

  1. 1.

    Presentations on methods for mapping biotopes and plant species data (e. g. trapping, floristic data collection, transects, and remote sensing)

  2. 2.

    Presentations on regional and local activities (e. g., data collection, green management, and education) from the locations where the conferences took place, including excursions (Fig. 3), and

  3. 3.

    General presentations on urban ecology and urban planning.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Meeting of the “Working Group Biotope Mapping in urban areas” in Hamburg 1984 (Second from right Herbert Sukopp) (Photo: N. Müller)

Full size image

At the second meeting, the working group BMPA agreed on a systematic collection of papers dealing with urban biodiversity, nature conservation in urban areas, and urban ecology. Herbert Sukopp used his worldwide connection to include international papers in this list. A scientific survey about studies on nature in cities (Sukopp and Werner 1982) was the starting point for the compilation and publication of a bibliography of national and international papers on urban biodiversity and ecology in co-operation with the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (Sukopp et al. 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1993, 1995, 2000).

An outstanding milestone in the development of the working group BMPA was the elaboration of the guidelines on the methodology of biotope mapping in populated areas (Schulte et al. 1986; Schulte et al. 1993). With these guidelines, which were adopted by all federal state agencies for nature conservation, the working group BMPA set a unified technical framework for the mapping of species and biotopes in urban areas.

The special feature of comprehensive representative mapping was the way of addressing nature conservation tasks in a narrower sense, but at the same time, to show a broader understanding of both ecosystem services and human-nature contact. Therefore, this mapping also provides an important basis for sustainable urban development. Berlin’s urban ecology research has always been an important source of inspiration for this approach.

In the 12 years between 1983 and 1995 more than 200 qualified urban biotope mappings were carried out in Germany (Fig. 4). During this time the most federal states launched funding programs for municipal biotope mappings. This gave a great boost to urban biotope mappings and also to the working group BMPA.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Urban biotope mapping in Germany. Black circles - the comprehensive-representative method was applied and the entire surface of a city was mapped: half-filled black circles - the comprehensive-representative method was applied but only parts of the administrative district were mapped. Striped circles - the selective method was applied, taking into account the entire area of a city; half-filled striped circles - the selective method was applied but only parts of the administrative area were mapped (from Werner 1999)

Full size image

Decline of interest in urban biotope mapping

The above-mentioned guidelines for biotope mappings in populated areas defined that qualified biotope mappings are only possible if they include comprehensive or representative species surveys. Since the mid-1990s, it has become clear that hardly any biotope mapping in urban areas fulfils this requirement. In order to save budget, more and more cities and municipalities have carried out biotope mapping without species surveys. They limited the mapping to spatial and structural features, mainly analysed by aerial images, without collecting species data on site.” There were several reasons for such limitation:

Firstly, the Federal Nature Conservation Act and the corresponding laws of the federal states have created a binding legal framework that makes area-wide biotope mapping a necessary component of planning processes to produce municipal land use plans. However, these laws request the mandatory recording of biotope types, and species mapping has only been performed for nature conservation purposes in the narrower sense.

Secondly, the financial and personnel costs for comprehensive, representative surveys are relatively high. Almost all federal states have stopped funding municipal biotope mappings, and the restrictive financial conditions of the cities and towns considerably limit their ability to carry out comprehensive and qualified biotope mappings. As scientific species surveys, in particular, are costly, they are generally only carried out if required by law.

Thirdly, the interest of universities in participating in such mappings has declined sharply. Taxonomic knowledge and the corresponding personnel have been systematically reduced. Cities such as Frankfurt show that if there is an appropriate institution - such as Senckenberg Research Institute here - that upholds the issue of biodiversity in cities, then good mappings continue to be carried out (Zizka and Malten 2015).

Fourthly, Herbert Sukopp’s expertise, personality and national and international network (Kowarik 2020) were the important backbone of the working group BMPA. When he retired and reduced his involvement in the working group after 1997, the gap he left behind could not be filled. Against this background, both the meetings of the LANA “Working Group Biotope Mapping in Populated Areas” and the annual conferences became less and less important.

The “Competence Network Urban Ecology” CONTUREC

History, aims, and structure

At the suggestion of the last conference of the working group BMPA in 2004, a group of selected representatives of universities, research institutions, and state institutes for the environment met in Berlin on 22 April 2005 to discuss the establishment of a new, transdisciplinary, and open network on the subject of urban biodiversity and urban ecology (Fig. 5). The group of experts decided to find a new network with the name “Competence Network for Urban Ecology” (CONTUREC) and to initiate the first steps towards its realisation.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Expert group which founded at the 22 April 2005 in Berlin the network CONTUREC. From left to right: Josef Hübschen (LANUV Recklinghausen), Juliane Mathey (IÖR Dresden), Ingo Kowarik (TU Berlin), Wilfried Nobel (HfWU Nürtingen), Peter Werner (IWU Darmstadt), Herbert Sukopp (TU Berlin), Ulrike Weiland (UFZ Leipzig), Monika Wächter (DLR München), Norbert Müller (FH Erfurt) (Photo: archive P. Werner)

Full size image

Adapted from a preparatory position paper the following goals and tasks were agreed on that expert workshop. The general aims of CONTUREC are to make urban ecology research in Germany more visible, to foster it as an important and innovative field of research in the ecological research landscape at a national level, and to seek a connection to the research at the international level. The tasks of the network should include:

  • Developing perspectives and questions on urban ecological research and promoting joint research.

  • Collecting and evaluating results of urban ecology research and organizing exchange on them.

  • Discussion platform between science, policy, administration, funding institutions, etc.

  • Ensuring the connection to international urban ecology research as well as the maintenance of cooperation in international networks.

At the workshop, three thematic approaches were proposed that should be at the centre of CONTUREC’s work, namely a) biodiversity and cities, b) urban habitats, and c) urban ecological systems. In addition, the expert workshop decided that an international conference should be organized by CONTUREC. Implementation and organization of that international conference was delegated to the second author.

The structure of CONTUREC was a copy of the working group BMPA. An executive office was set up at the Institute for Housing and Environment (IWU) in Darmstadt, headed by the author. The expert group that founded the network was expanded to include other experts and became the advisory board of CONTUREC and the conferences represented the open plenum of CONTUREC.

Logistic and financial support of the network CONTUREC was provided by the IWU (Institute for Housing and Environment) in Darmstadt, where Peter Werner worked as senior researcher, and by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Deliverables

As with the working group BMPA, the conferences were the most important element of the network. The conferences were the fora of the exchange of scientific and practical experiences, and the plena to discuss the status and future of urban biodiversity and urban ecology for regional and local experts, planners, and practitioners. The topics of the conferences ranged from various approaches of urban nature to sustainable urban development (Table 2).

Table 2 Conferences of the CONTUREC network with themes and results
Full size table

An own, peer-reviewed journal was produced, which also bore the name CONTUREC. The contributions from the CONTUREC conferences, including the last meeting of the working group BMPA in Jena (Müller 2005), were published in this journal. Ultimately, five volumes were published each one in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2013 (compare Table 2).

A newsletter, that appeared 4 to 6 times a year, was distributed via an e-mail list with around 250 addresses. The newsletter reported on current projects and plans, conferences, and publications, including international ones. More than 150 scientists and experts from universities, research institutions, planning offices, and associations, as well as almost 100 people from public regional and local administrations, mostly people from environmental or urban planning departments, were reached directly by these newsletters.

Funded by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, a review and bibliography of current research on urban biodiversity was presented on the occasion of COP 9 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which took place in Bonn, Germany, 2008 (Werner and Zahner 2009).

As decided at the founding meeting, CONTUREC supported the organisation and implementation of the first international URBIO conference, which was still held as the 3rd CONTUREC conference (see chapter below).

CONTUREC became a member of the global partnership of sub-national governments, cities, and other local authorities. This partnership was initiated by ICLEI and the Executive Secretary of the CBD (COP 9 2008; COP 10 2010). Beyond that, CONTUREC played a part in the development of the Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity, also known as the City Biodiversity Index (Chan et al. 2021).

On the national level, CONTUREC was involved both in the elaboration of the declaration on “Biological Diversity in Municipalities”, adopted by representatives of more than 30 German cities and towns, on the same named dialogue forum in 2010, and in the founding of the network “Municipalities for Biological Diversity”. Meanwhile, more than 380 German municipalities have signed this declaration and are members of the network (Kommbio 2023).

The end of CONTUREC

After funding from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research came to an end in 2012 and IWU’s support had to be significantly reduced as a result, the network slowed down. The search for new funding and the implementation of the managing secretary at another institution were not successful, so the CONTUREC network was terminated two years later with the retirement of Peter Werner.

The international network “Urban Biodiversity and Design” URBIO

Background

The 21st meeting of the Working Group BMPA was held in Jena in the year 2004 with the main theme “Biodiversity in urban areas - basics and examples of implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity” (Müller 2005). During this meeting it was decided by the participants to organize an international conference with the same theme. This task was dedicated to the first author, who recruited funds from the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. Because Germany was organizing in 2008 the 9th Conference of the Parties (COP 9) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Bonn, it was the aim to support with this international scientific conference the foundation of a new Mayor Group “Cities and Biodiversity” (later called “Local Authorities” or “Local and Subnational Governments”) within the CBD. The political preparation of this new Mayor Group was launched already in March 2007 by the “Mayors’ meeting on the contribution to the 2010 Biodiversity Target” – a meeting in Curitiba with five mayors (each representing one big city of the main continents), the CBD Secretary General, representatives of ICLEI and some urban ecologists including the first author.

Foundation, aims and persons

Against the above-mentioned background, the 3rd. CONTUREC conference was organized as international conference in Erfurt (Germany) titled “Urban Biodiversity and Design - Implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity in towns and cities”. Between May 21 and 24, 2008, over 400 scientists, planners, and other practitioners exchanged experiences and founded the international network URBIO (Müller and Kamada 2011). The aims of the network are:

  1. a)

    Fostering international research and exchange between researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders by implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity in towns and cities,

  2. b)

    Organizing international conferences and workshops prior to the Conference of the Parties (Table 3).

  3. c)

    Maintaining a website (www.urbionetwork.com/) and contributing a newsletter - in general twice a year,

  4. d)

    Developing and holding scientific tools (see below).

Table 3 Conferences and workshops of the URBIO network with themes and results
Full size table

The network maintains contact with several related scientific societies and working groups and is a member of the Global Partnership on “Cities and Biodiversity” — a task force on cities and local authorities that was established with the Secretariat of the CBD (SCBD), the Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and its “Local Action for Biodiversity” program, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Countdown 2010, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), several academic institutes, as well as the cities of Curitiba, Bonn, Nagoya, Montreal and the City-State of Singapore.

The network is chaired by the URBIO President, who holds the Headquarter and distributes the newsletter. An Advisory Board supports the Presidium in fostering scientific exchange and decisions for the network. Permanent not elected members of the board are:

  • a representative of the CBD office in Montreal and

  • a representative of ICLEI.

The network was founded in May 2008 (see above) chaired by the first author until October 2014 with funds from the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (2007 - 2014) and the University of Applied Sciences Erfurt (2006 – 2014). From November 2014 to September 2019, Haripriya Gundimeda (Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India) was President of the URBIO network. Since September 2019, Maria Ignatieva (University of Western Australia, Australia) and Charles Nilon (University of Missouri, USA) are chairing the network.

The URBIO network is a strictly non-profit scientific organisation, without own budget. Everyone who subscribes to the newsletter is registered as member of the network. In 2018, the network had approximately 1100 members from over 80 countries. More information on the structure and activities of URBIO can be found on the website.

Conferences and workshops

In the same way as for the above-described networks also for the URBIO network, the scientific exchange with conferences is the main goal. To have regularity, it was decided to hold the conferences every two years and prior to the COP meetings. Until 2023 the network URBIO has organized seven international conferences (compare Table 3). The themes of the conferences are related to recent challenges and are proposed by the Presidium in close exchange with the advisory board and the SCBD Office (Müller and Kamada 2011).

Additional to the conferences three workshops were organized until now. In the workshops 2013 in Erfurt and during the Conference 2014 in Incheon the aim was to develop a Global Research Agenda on Urban Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Design. In 2016 a workshop was organized in Erfurt to discuss the URBIO Index - a tool for the sustainable design of green spaces. The latest workshop was organized online by the Head office in Perth and Columbia/Missouri during the Coronavirus pandemic with the theme “Urban biodiversity in time of pandemics” (Dushkova et al. 2024).

Scientific tools related to URBIO

The members of URBIO have created or were involved in the development of several scientific tools and networks. Some more important examples are:

The Singapore Index

In 2008 - during COP 9 - Singapore proposed the development of the city biodiversity index – a self-assessment tool to evaluate biodiversity conservation efforts of cities. Within expert workshops of the Global Partnership a set of 23 indicators were developed and presented as “Singapore Index” during COP 10. Until today, over 60 Cities have applied the Singapore Index as diagnostic and decision-making tool (Chan et al. 2021).

Cities and biodiversity Outlook (CBO)

The “Cities and Biodiversity Outlook” is a global assessment of the links between urbanization, biodiversity, and ecosystem services prepared under the leadership of the SCBD and the Stockholm Resilience Centre and with contributions of over almost 200 scientists and practitioners. Besides 15 principal papers it provides 18 regional and local case study assessments (Elmqvist et al. 2013).

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policy Makers (TEEB)

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity is a global initiative focused on drawing attention to the economic benefits of biodiversity. Its objective is to highlight the growing cost of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation. TEEB presents an approach that can help decision-makers recognize, demonstrate, and capture the values of ecosystems and biodiversity, including how to incorporate these values into decision-making. In 2010, a sourcebook, “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policy Makers”, was published to support subnational and local authorities especially (TEEB 2010).

Urban Biodiversity Research Coordination Network (UrBioNet)

This global research network was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation and brings together researchers, land managers, and planners to address questions about biodiversity conservation in cities. The mission of UrBioNet is: expand global coverage of databases (e. g. (Aronson et al. 2014), engage scientists and managers to compile datasets, and identify generalities on urban biodiversity. (compare https://sites.rutgers.edu/urbionet/about/).

Global Research Agenda on Urban Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Design

Subsequently, in following up on the above stated work the Scientific Network URBIO was invited in 2012 by the SCBD to determine the necessary scientific fields and skills most needed by local governments to implement the “Plan of Action”. This “Research Agenda on Urban Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, and Design” should be based on existing studies on urban biodiversity and the needs of local governments. An initiating workshop was organized at the URBIO Headquarters in Erfurt in July 2013, together with ICLEI and the SCBD. Here representatives from URBIO, ICLEI, the SCBD, and contributors to the CBO attended and drafted a first roadmap. The driving questions of the workshop were:

  • What information do decision makers and managers in governments and other sectors need to support biodiversity, expand ecosystem services, and apply ecologically-sophisticated design?

  • What knowledge is currently available in the cities, and what are critical knowledge gaps?

  • How can basic research support the specific needs of cities?

  • How can we communicate knowledge to decision-makers?

  • What should the next steps be to develop this agenda?

Following up on this event an online survey was held to determine the most urgent research questions from the view of the URBIO community. In two subsequent sessions during the URBIO 2014 conference in Incheon (Korea) the dialogue between city representatives and researchers continued and closed by panel discussion with the audience. With the Incheon URBIO2014 Declaration, the progress of the “Research Agenda” was brought to the “Biodiversity Summit for cities and subnational governments” at COP 12 in Pyeongchang (Müller et al. 2013).

URBIO Index

This tool was developed in Germany by the URBIO Headquarter with the aim to assist landscape architects, urban designers, and local authorities in benchmarking their landscape design efforts in the urban context. With 25 indicators (Table 4) the index enables to evaluate parks under all aspects of sustainability. The index should also be used during the design process to raise awareness on the goals of sustainability. The index was tested in Germany (Fig. 6), Florida, Japan and Korea and discussed in the URBIO Workshop 2016 in Erfurt (Müller and Elsner 2016).

Table 4 Indicators and sustainability goals of the URBIO Index (from Müller and Elsner 2016)
Full size table
Fig. 6
figure 6

Assessment diagram of the URBIO Index for the Park of the German Federal Environmental Agency, Dessau (Photos N. Müller). Explanation: Each indicator group can have 20 points in maximum. The Park of the Federal Environmental Agency, Dessau reached 70 points from 120

Full size image

Declarations, books, and special issues

According to the aim of the URBIO Network to support the Major Program of the CBD“ Local Authorities” every scientific conference is finalized with the“ URBIO Declaration” where the more important outcomes of the conference are summarized. In general, the Declaration is brought by the local Conference Organizer or another representative of URBIO to the COP meeting, where during the side-event of the “City Summit” (organized be ICLEI), the URBIO Declaration is presented. Another important goal of the network is to publish the conference and workshop results in books and special issues /features of related peer reviewed journals. The first book about urban biodiversity was edited from the results of the 3rd CONTUREC and 1st URBIO conference in Erfurt/Germany (Müller et al. 2010) (see Fig. 7). The “House” journal of URBIO is “Landscape and Ecological Engineering”, and other related journals are used. All Books and Special issues until now are mentioned in Table 3.

Fig. 7
figure 7

The first book about urban biodiversity was published in 2010 from the results of the 3rd CONTUREC and 1st URBIO conference in Erfurt/Germany. (Front cover of the Book published in the Conservation and Science Series of Wiley Blackwell)

Full size image

Discussion and conclusion

All three networks – BMPA, CONTUREC and URBIO – are open and transdisciplinary networks that have the topic of urban biodiversity at the centre of their activities.

They are structured in the same way. An executive office, a core group, and open plenary sessions. The open plenums - the conferences - reach a wide audience and in some cases develops considerable appeal. Any interested person or institution can take part in the conferences without obligation and be added to the networks’ address lists.

However, the non-binding nature of the networks meant and still means that there is no continuous flow of funds via memberships or other binding regulations. The networks are extremely dependent on the performance of the executive offices. As long as the offices are institutionally secure and have sufficient financial and human resources to maintain partnerships and develop sources of funding, it is possible to maintain a wide range of activities.

The BMPA working group was institutionally well anchored for many years thanks to its links to the federal states offices and states institutes and set a central point of orientation with the guidelines for urban biotope mapping. The numerous use of the urban biotope mapping tool was an important step in ensuring that the development and protection of urban biodiversity in Germany was increasingly anchored in urban planning processes. CONTUREC was also involved in various international activities and thus became the starting point for the development of the international network URBIO.

The special quality of URBIO is its broad global community and mixture of natural scientists, sociologists, planners, and stakeholders. The outstanding features of URBIO are laying in its cooperation with the CBD office, the biennial conferences prior to the biennial COP meetings, and its contact with the other partners of the CBD Major Group“ Local Authorities” e. g. ICLEI, IUCN, and the Stockholm Resilience Centre. For the further success of URBIO it will be important that the executive office maintains contact with other related networks and the CBD office, because this provides quick access to recent environmental political themes and the consequent scientific questions.

The increasing importance of urban ecology and urban biodiversity in research and urban planning processes cannot be explained without the various networks that have driven these processes. Beginning with the networks of a small number of scientists in Germany, United Kingdom, and USA (Kowarik 2023; Goode 2018; Adams 2015)) and the research networks that had realized projects in Rome, Tokyo etc. (Bonnes 1984; Numata 1977), funded by the Man-and-Biosphere Program, until the large sessions on urban wildlife at the conferences of the Ecological Society of America, the CitiesWithNature platform, managed by ICLEI, and the international network URBIO.