Introduction
In their recent paper called the
Cities & Biodiversity Outlook, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), ICLEI (the local governments for sustainability), and the Stockholm Resilience Centre calls for action and policy to conserve urban biodiversity, maintain the ecological functioning of cities and offer citizens opportunities to experience and learn about local wildlife in cities worldwide (CBD
2012). “
With the growing awareness of the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services, cities with rich native biodiversity should ensure that their biodiversity is conserved. Cities with impoverished biodiversity should pursue enhancement, restoration, and reintroduction efforts to increase native biodiversity” (p.25). Following this call, this paper presents a list of 10 statements and arguments—targeting different stakeholder groups—on why we should take steps to transform traditional city environments into more bird-friendly ones. Cities are complex socio-ecological systems (Moffatt and Kohler
2008) in which to roll out a traditional bird conservation programme (that targets only a small number of different stakeholder groups). They have mosaics of divergent land uses, with each land use having its own habitat quality for each bird species. Moreover, cities present a high multi-stakeholder environment, where people have different roles and stakes in different settings (CBD
2012; Teillac-Deschamps et al.
2009). An urban dweller can be a home-owner, an employee, a shopping mall client, a sportsman … all the same person, but not at the same time. Further, bird conservation in cities is often not seen as a priority when the species themselves may be abundant and when many people feed birds in their gardens (Davies et al.
2009), spending millions of dollars annually to do so (Clucas et al.
2014). However, feeding birds is not the only conservation action that can be taken for birds in cities.
This paper aims to improve existing urban bird conservation practice by exploring ways of engaging people within their different roles by presenting arguments and action perspectives that are tailored to various urban stakeholder groups. These arguments are based upon the opportunities that various urban stakeholders may offer to conserve urban birds through the creation of essential habitat features (e.g., the provision of safe nesting places), whilst reducing urban threats, barriers and disturbances (e.g., reducing window collisions). Specifically, these opportunities vary from creating cohesive and robust green infrastructure planning and design (Tzoulas et al.
2007) to providing wildlife-friendly architecture and garden management. Sufficiently-sized and well-connected green patches cities are necessary to accommodate a rich urban bird community (habitat quantity), but this must also occur in conjunction with proper green design and management to ensure there is also sufficient habitat quality. A variety of stakeholders must be including in order to achieve the habitat quality and quantity required for bird-friendly cities, from the direct ecological influencers (e.g. city park managers, garden owners) to the highly important but often missed city infrastructure influencers (e.g. planners, project developers, architects).
This paper begins with a brief overview of the current value of cities as bird habitat and outlines the major challenges that urban environments may present for bird survival. We then identify the wide range of key stakeholders who play a vital role in ensuring and enhancing urban bird populations and their city habitat. Based upon each stakeholder’s characteristics we present ten statements for bird-friendly cities that are guided by an action perspective and a specific argument for the key stakeholder. We conclude with a discussion on how the use of stakeholder-specific arguments can enhance and rapidly advance urban bird conservation action.
Identifying key stakeholders and arguments for urban bird conservation
Urban environments present complex structure in both habitat and inhabitants. Unlike, for example, agricultural landscapes where there are a handful of stakeholders (e.g. farmers, water boards), urban environments consist of a greater variety and number of conservation participants such as land owners, institutions and associations (e.g. citizens, housing corporations, businesses, investors, sports clubs etc.). In addition, city development and management include an additional set of stakeholders and processes that are often ignored or simply not considered within urban conservation action plans. These city development professionals make countless choices that may be relevant for bird conservation, such as the position of vegetation and green space within plans, which tree species are planted, which building materials to use for roofs, and so on. A successful conservation strategy for urban birds should include the full range of stakeholders and identify the groups that are key for bird survival.
How do we even begin to map all the stakeholders in cities? Although several studies have identified the various stakeholders in relation to urban green or biodiversity in cities (e.g. Asikainen and Jokinen
2009; Azadi et al.
2011), no systematic approach currently exists in the literature. As a result, we created a new classification system. We began by categorising stakeholders to the different stages of the urbanization
process: the development stage, the usage stage and the management stage. We then considered the general lay-out and structure of a city (the
pattern). Six main categories were distinguished based on urban land use, each with its own set of stakeholders: (i) residential areas, (ii) business areas (including industry and shopping malls), (iii) utilities (e.g. schools, hospitals), the city’s main (iv) green and (v) water infrastructure and (vi) the (rail)road infrastructure. Urban green, a major component of bird habitat, can be found in varying degrees within all urban land use types. Large urban green patches like parks, sporting fields and allotment gardens make part of the main green infrastructure. In the other urban land use types urban green is present at a smaller scale (e.g., in gardens, road verges, corporate green, river banks). Finally, we combined these two classifications into a matrix that present a broad range of identified stakeholders (Table
1).
Table 1
City stakeholders classified according to urbanization phase (process) and urban land use type (pattern). This table provides an extensive though not complete overview of city stakeholders, and also illustrates the different roles people may fulfil simultaneously
Urban land use types |
Residential areas | Planners, urban designers, (landscape) architects, project developers, construction and engineering companies | Citizens, housing corporations, investors | Citizens, landscaping firms, garden designers, construction companies | Owners associations |
Business areas (incl. port, industrial and office sites) | Planners, urban designers, (landscape) architects, project developers, construction and engineering companies | Municipalities, entrepreneurs, employees, business clients, investors | Landscaping firms, construction companies | Entrepreneurs associations |
Utilities (incl. schools, hospitals) | Planners, urban designers, (landscape) architects, project developers, construction and engineering companies | School organizations, children; hospital organizations, patients, municipalities | Landscaping firms, construction companies | Parents, health insurance companies |
Main green space (incl. parks, sport fields, allotment gardens, cemeteries) | Planners, landscape architects, landscaping firms | Municipalities, sport clubs, allotment gardeners, cemetery organisation, recreationists | Landscaping firms, gardeners and other maintenance personnel | Citizens, environmental NGOs |
Main water structure | Planners, urban designers, project developers, water engineers, | Municipalities, water board, waterway transport and recreationists | Waterway managers, dredging companies, landscaping firms, | Water sport NGOs |
Main infrastructure | Planners, urban designers, landscape architects, road construction and engineering companies | Municipalities, public and private transport users | Road managers, landscaping firms | Car and bicycle owner associations |
From this stakeholder overview, and following the challenges for urban bird survival, we selected the stakeholder roles below as key for urban bird conservation. We base our selection on years of practical experience in urban bird conservation (e.g. by Birdlife International).
A)
Urban planners, urban designers and architects, and landscape architects
These professionals, both in municipal and corporate service, shape the demand of land owners and local authorities into spatial zoning and design plans for residential, business, utility, green, water and infrastructure areas. They determine the city’s physical layout and thus the overall availability and connectivity of urban green and water.
B)
Urban developers and engineers
These professionals transform the designers’ plans into man-made constructions.
These stakeholders predominantly determine the type, character and management of residential areas, including private gardens.
These organisations are representatives for business and industrial areas, ports and office sites (including left-over land), in a similar way as the homeowners and tenants.
E)
Landscaping and gardening firms
These stakeholders maintain both the public and private green space.
F)
Education and communication staff
The current status of cities as bird habitats implies a need for more education and outreach in urban bird conservation (Miller
2005). Education and communication staff at schools and NGOs can fulfil this need.
Note on the role of governments as actors and regulators:
‘Local governments’ or ‘municipalities’ present a challenge for this stakeholder classification: these governmental bodies include a wide array of professional actors (planning, design, conservation, legal, economic, etc.), each with their own specialism and interests. Moreover, the role of local governments may vary largely among cities worldwide. In some cases they coordinate the city’s design, development and management. In other cases with different governance practices the role of municipalities is much smaller. In this paper, we have chosen to only highlight the role of local governments in the planning and design of cities in our classification (see the group of professionals in this category). This is as in planning and design the role of local governments is unambiguous in cities worldwide and can obviously be linked with ‘habitat fragmentation and availability’, a main challenge for urban bird conservation.
In addition, the regulatory role that governments play is a key feature that distinguishes them from other urban actors. The ability to make and maintain regulations on every aspect of the city (e.g. from building codes to urban green space design) means that they have the potential to significantly impact the city environment for birds. In international city practice, there are examples of local governments that enforce within their building codes the actual greening of new developments (e.g. green roofs in Germany) and thus stimulate bird habitat development. However, local government can also provide regulations that discourage bird habitat development, for example, by decreeing the removal of shrubs from urban green space for social security reasons. In their book on urban wildlife management Adams et al. (
2006) designate a whole chapter on the impact of federal, state, county, city and local laws and ordinances on wildlife conservation. Their extensive discussion only covers the impact of regulations on wildlife in U.S. cities. Incorporating the wide range of regulations which differ between countries and cities into this paper would be impossible. We therefore recognize the impact that regulations can have on urban bird conservation, but do not discuss them here.
Reaching the right city stakeholder with the right (conservation) argument
To improve the current state of urban bird conservation, we’ve looked to actual practices of nature conservation in cities. Goddard et al. (
2013) illustrated that residents reveal a range of motivations for wildlife-friendly gardening. We expect a similar range among other stakeholders and practices other than just gardening. It has been suggested that taking into account the diversity of personal perceptions and practices, thereby providing a range of actions increases the success rate of participation (Teillac-Deschamps et al.
2009). In December 2011, at the International Congress on Conservation Biology (Auckland, New Zealand), the Birdlife International Group on Urban Birds (BIG-UB) organized a symposium and workshop to discuss the current state of art in urban bird science and conservation. Participants included urban bird scholars, conservationists and practitioners from different parts of the world, and with extensive cooperation with the identified stakeholder groups in urban bird conservation. With this group of bird and city practice experts, we formulated ten statements emphasizing the need for increased attention on the challenges and opportunities in urban bird conservation that are specifically linked to key stakeholders and address different perceptions on conservation (Table
2). Based upon the literature and practical experience, we provide for each statement an
action perspective as well as a
main argument for the key stakeholder that stress the mutual benefit gained for both humans and birds.
Table 2
Ten statements arguing for increased attention to urban bird conservation that are targeted to key stakeholders. Each statement includes the relevant stakeholders (main stakeholder in bold), an action perspective and a leading argument. Each statement also addresses one or more of the bird survival challenges listed in this paper, and some approach a conservation issue from varying stakeholder perspectives
I. Support for nature conservation starts in cities. | X | X | X | X | X |
X
| Include urban birds in wildlife education, outreach and communication | Make general conservation aims more recognizable by linking with the daily perception of citizens, businesses and urban professionals (Miller 2005; Snep and Clergeau 2012) | Habitat fragmentation; vegetation composition and structure |
II. People need education and messages to increase the value of bird conservation | | | X | | |
X
| Provide tailor-made advice for wildlife-friendly management of gardens | Tailor-made advice increases success rates in conservation practice (Goddard et al. 2013; van Heezik et al. 2012), increase support for NGOs | Vegetation composition and structure at the garden scale |
III. Citizens can make a difference when it comes to habitat quality for urban birds | | |
X
| | | X | Design structurally diverse gardens (vegetation and landforms), with native vegetation, and minimal paved surfaces, collar cats with bells and feed birds—if appropriate in the local context (Fuller et al. 2008) | The actions proposed will attract birds to gardens, enabling people to enjoy them, increase citizens’ well-being. | Vegetation composition and structure (Goddard et al. 2010; Lerman and Warren 2011); habitat fragmentation (Rudd et al. 2002); predation by domestic cats (Van Heezik et al. 2010). |
IV. Both people and birds benefit from green cities | | |
X
| x | | X | Green built-up areas where health problem prevention and recovery is important: hospitals, schools, elderly homes. | A green environment may prevent people from illness and speed up the healing process (De Vries et al. 2003; Ward Thompson et al. 2012) | Vegetation composition and structure of utility areas |
V. Incorporating wildlife habitat quality into urban planning and design substantially increases urban bird abundance. |
X
| X | X | | | X | Maximize the amount of green in urban developments, and connect new green areas with existing green structures inside and outside cities | People prefer a green living environment with abundant wildlife, increases the well-being for the planners/designers’ client (the citizen) | Habitat fragmentation and availability at the larger scale (Stagoll et al. 2010; Ikin et al. 2012; Asikainen and Jokinen 2009); zoning of human presence (recreation paths) in urban green |
VI. Incorporating wildlife habitat quality into building design and development increases urban bird abundance locally. | X |
X
| X | | | X | | Accounting for biodiversity is an increasingly popular issue within green building practices (Hostetler 2012). | Bird-friendly buildings: green walls (Chiquet et al. 2012); green roofs (Fernandez-Canero and Gonzalez-Redondo 2010); built-in nesting boxes |
VII. Incorporating wildlife habitat quality into urban green design and management substantially increases urban bird abundance. | | X | X | |
X
| X | Combine aesthetical and cost-effectiveness aims with habitat creation (Lovell and Johnston 2009). Establish native vegetation with sufficient variety in green design and maintenance (Murgui and Macias 2010; Wilkinson 2006). | Offering habitat opportunities for wildlife may appeal to land owners and users (Kaplan 2007), the (indirect) clients of the designers and landscape managers | Vegetation composition and structure; habitat availability; zoning of human presence (recreation paths) in urban green |
VIII. Both employees and birds benefit from green business and office parks. | | | X |
X
| | | Companies may utilize various options to physically green corporate environments, e.g. green walls and roofs. | A green outdoor environment at work appears to be an asset for employees’ wellbeing and level of stress (Kaplan 2007; Lottrup et al. 2013) | Habitat availability at business areas (Snep et al. 2009), bird-friendly corporate buildings |
IX. Urban bird conservation can help companies to express their corporate social/environmental responsibility | | | |
X
| | X | Companies may employ activities to stimulate wildlife presence and wildlife experience at their corporate land (Snep et al. 2009) | Increased employee commitment, improved relationships with environmental NGOs, positive effect on community relations, improved relationship with regulators, annual cost savings (Cardskadden and Lober 1998) | Habitat availability, composition and structure at business areas |
X. Corporations can make a difference when it comes to habitat quality for urban birds | | | |
X
| | X | Companies may explore how their corporate land (e.g. left-over land) can contribute to regional conservation aims (Snep and Ottburg 2008; Snep et al. 2011). | Companies can move beyond current corporate biodiversity practices and make a profile at the next CSR-level of conservation (CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility). | Habitat fragmentation and availability at the city region scale |
Our overview (Table
2) can be used to inform conservationists and governments about the wide range of actors that all may contribute to urban bird conservation. It provides targeted arguments and action perspectives for each stakeholder that can be used to inform action. Given that the practical approach to implementing these suggestions may vary between countries and cities, we suggest the incorporation of communication experts in any future discussions. We emphasize the importance of stakeholder-specific arguments instead of one general message.