Urban bird conservation: presenting stakeholder-specific arguments for the development of bird-friendly cities

Abstract

Following the call from the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity BCities & Biodiversity Outlook^project to better preserve urban biodiversity, this paper presents stakeholder-specific statements for bird conservation in city environments. Based upon the current urban bird literature we focus upon habitat fragmentation, limited habitat availability, lack of the native vegetation and vegetation structure as the most important challenges facing bird conservation in cities. We follow with an overview of the stakeholders in cities, and identify six main Urban Ecosyst groups having the greatest potential to improve bird survival in cities: i) urban planners, urban designers and (landscape) architects, ii) urban developers and engineers, iii) homeowners and tenants, iv) companies and industries, v) landscaping and gardening firms, vi) education professionals. Given that motivation to act positively for urban birds is linked to stakeholder-specific advice, we present ten statements for bird-friendly cities that are guided by an action perspective and argument for each stakeholder group. We conclude with a discussion on how the use of stakeholder-specific arguments can enhance and rapidly advance urban bird conservation action.

Scientist and non-scientists share a diversity of dimensions in their relations to urban nature

“…For all these reasons, to rely exclusively on objective scientific education to increase individual awareness and concern for biodiversity conservation appears inadequate to us (see also Snep et al 2015). And indeed, our results open another direction.…”

An Appraisal of Bird-Mediated Ecological Functions in a Changing World

“…First, our results showed a lack of studies evaluating the ecological role played by birds in urban environments. Several studies highlight the contrasting effects of urbanization on bird species, which the variation of habitat quality of city environments may affect population shifts so that some populations grow, some decline, and others remain stable (see more details in Snep et al, 2016). However, in a recent study, Alberti et al (2017) has shown that urbanization can lead to phenotypic changes in animal populations, thus affecting the remaining ecosystem functioning in urban landscapes.…”

Biodiversity value of urban hedges

“…There are services that assist in ecosystem functioning such as nutrient and water cycling and soil formation and development and pollination (Andersson et al, 2014;Dover, 2015) and those that offer benefits to biodiversity such as habitat provision and food production (Alvey, 2006;Andersson et al, 2014;Dover, 2015). There are benefits to human health and wellbeing such as provision of places for recreation (Fuller et al, 2007;Forest Research, 2010;Andersson et al, 2014;Dover, 2015), improvement in air and water quality (Andersson et al, 2014;Dover, 2015) as well as aesthetic appeal and evoking positive states of mood (Kuo and Sullivan, 2001;Todorova, Asakawa and Aikoh, 2004;Matsuoka and Kaplan, 2008;Brown and Grant, 2016;Snep et al, 2016).…”

“…Ecosystem services potentially offered by urban hedges are varied but include aesthetic appeal, (Kuo and Sullivan, 2001;Todorova, Asakawa and Aikoh, 2004;Matsuoka and Kaplan, 2008;Brown and Grant, 2016;Snep et al, 2016), privacy (Oreszczyn and Lane, 2001;Gosling et al, 2016), noise and light barriers (Renterghem, 2014;Gosling et al, 2016) and may assist in air pollution mitigation (Varshney and Mitra, 1993;Tiwary, Reff and Colls, 2008;Dover, 2015;Gosling et al, 2016;Weerakkody et al, 2017) as well as increasing urban provision of habitats for biodiversity (e.g. Dover, 2015;Gosling et al, 2016) particularly for birds.…”