IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i24p6972-d295046.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Conceptual Framework for Choosing Target Species for Wildlife-Inclusive Urban Design

Author

Listed:
  • Beate Apfelbeck

    (Terrestrial Ecology Research Group, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technische Universität München, D-85354 Freising, Germany
    Department of Biosciences, University of Salzburg, 5020 Salzburg, Austria)

  • Christine Jakoby

    (Department for Open Space Planning, University of Kassel, 34127 Kassel, Germany)

  • Maximilian Hanusch

    (Terrestrial Ecology Research Group, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technische Universität München, D-85354 Freising, Germany
    Department of Biosciences, University of Salzburg, 5020 Salzburg, Austria)

  • Emanuel Boas Steffani

    (Terrestrial Ecology Research Group, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technische Universität München, D-85354 Freising, Germany)

  • Thomas E. Hauck

    (Department for Open Space Planning, University of Kassel, 34127 Kassel, Germany)

  • Wolfgang W. Weisser

    (Terrestrial Ecology Research Group, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technische Universität München, D-85354 Freising, Germany)

Abstract

Recent research has highlighted the significance of cities for biodiversity, making them important places for conservation in their own right. Current conservation approaches in cities are mostly defensive. Thus, they focus on remnant pockets of natural areas or try to protect particular species that occur in the built environment. These approaches are vulnerable to further urban development and do not create habitats. An alternative strategy is to make wildlife an integral part of urban development and thereby create a new habitat in the built-up area. Here we address the challenge of choosing target species for such wildlife-inclusive urban design. The starting point of our conceptual framework is the regional species pool , which can be obtained from geo-referenced species data. The existing habitat types on and around the development site and dispersal barriers limit the species numbers to the local species potential . In the next step, the site’s potential for each species is analyzed—how can it be upgraded to host species given the planned development and the life-cycle of the species? For the final choice of target species, traits related to the human–animal interaction are considered. We suggest that stakeholders will be involved in the final species selection. Our approach differs from existing practice, such as expert choice of priority species, by (1) representing an open process where many species are potential targets of conservation, (2) the involvement of stakeholders in a participatory way. Our approach can also be used at larger spatial scales such as quarters or entire cities.

Suggested Citation

  • Beate Apfelbeck & Christine Jakoby & Maximilian Hanusch & Emanuel Boas Steffani & Thomas E. Hauck & Wolfgang W. Weisser, 2019. "A Conceptual Framework for Choosing Target Species for Wildlife-Inclusive Urban Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-20, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:24:p:6972-:d:295046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/6972/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/6972/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sandifer, Paul A. & Sutton-Grier, Ariana E. & Ward, Bethney P., 2015. "Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 1-15.
    2. McGinlay, James & Parsons, David J. & Morris, Joe & Hubatova, Marie & Graves, Anil & Bradbury, Richard B. & Bullock, James M., 2017. "Do charismatic species groups generate more cultural ecosystem service benefits?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 15-24.
    3. Eva Knop & Leana Zoller & Remo Ryser & Christopher Gerpe & Maurin Hörler & Colin Fontaine, 2017. "Artificial light at night as a new threat to pollination," Nature, Nature, vol. 548(7666), pages 206-209, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ingo Kowarik & Leonie K. Fischer & Dave Kendal, 2020. "Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Urban Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-8, June.
    2. Chiara Catalano & Mihaela Meslec & Jules Boileau & Riccardo Guarino & Isabella Aurich & Nathalie Baumann & Frédéric Chartier & Pascale Dalix & Sophie Deramond & Patrick Laube & Angela Ka Ki Lee & Pasc, 2021. "Smart Sustainable Cities of the New Millennium: Towards Design for Nature," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 1053-1086, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. McGinlay, James & Parsons, David J. & Morris, Joe & Graves, Anil & Hubatova, Marie & Bradbury, Richard B. & Bullock, James M., 2018. "Leisure activities and social factors influence the generation of cultural ecosystem service benefits," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 468-480.
    2. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    3. Christopher Hassall & Michael Nisbet & Evan Norcliffe & He Wang, 2024. "The Potential Health Benefits of Urban Tree Planting Suggested through Immersive Environments," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-12, February.
    4. Deborah F Coldwell & Karl L Evans, 2017. "Contrasting effects of visiting urban green-space and the countryside on biodiversity knowledge and conservation support," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, March.
    5. Kaowen Grace Chang & William C. Sullivan & Ying-Hsuan Lin & Weichia Su & Chun-Yen Chang, 2016. "The Effect of Biodiversity on Green Space Users’ Wellbeing—An Empirical Investigation Using Physiological Evidence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-15, October.
    6. Matthew Dennis & David Barlow & Gina Cavan & Penny A. Cook & Anna Gilchrist & John Handley & Philip James & Jessica Thompson & Konstantinos Tzoulas & C. Philip Wheater & Sarah Lindley, 2018. "Mapping Urban Green Infrastructure: A Novel Landscape-Based Approach to Incorporating Land Use and Land Cover in the Mapping of Human-Dominated Systems," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-25, January.
    7. William L. Rice & Sarah Y. Michels & Miranda Foster & Jon Graham & Peter Whitney & Jennifer M. Thomsen, 2023. "Exploring the Impacts of Protected Areas’ Attributes on Pediatric Health: The Case for Additional Research beyond Greenspace," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-19, August.
    8. Manoj Sharma & Erin Largo-Wight & Amar Kanekar & Hana Kusumoto & Stephanie Hooper & Vinayak K. Nahar, 2020. "Using the Multi-Theory Model (MTM) of Health Behavior Change to Explain Intentional Outdoor Nature Contact Behavior among College Students," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-12, August.
    9. Pelletier, Marie-Chantale & Heagney, Elizabeth & Kovač, Mladen, 2021. "Valuing recreational services: A review of methods with application to New South Wales National Parks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    10. Peta Brom & Kristine Engemann & Christina Breed & Maya Pasgaard & Titilope Onaolapo & Jens-Christian Svenning, 2023. "A Decision Support Tool for Green Infrastructure Planning in the Face of Rapid Urbanization," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-19, February.
    11. Suzanne M. Skevington & Richard Emsley & Svenja Dehner & Ian Walker & Stuart E. Reynolds, 2019. "Does Subjective Health Affect the Association between Biodiversity and Quality of Life? Insights from International Data," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 14(5), pages 1315-1331, November.
    12. Tian Gao & Rui Song & Ling Zhu & Ling Qiu, 2019. "What Characteristics of Urban Green Spaces and Recreational Activities Do Self-Reported Stressed Individuals Like? A Case Study of Baoji, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    13. Elwell, Tammy L. & López-Carr, David & Gelcich, Stefan & Gaines, Steven D., 2020. "The importance of cultural ecosystem services in natural resource-dependent communities: Implications for management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    14. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    15. Benjamin Guinaudeau & Mark Brink & Beat Schäffer & Martin A. Schlaepfer, 2023. "A Methodology for Quantifying the Spatial Distribution and Social Equity of Urban Green and Blue Spaces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-19, December.
    16. Jason Corburn, 2017. "Urban Place and Health Equity: Critical Issues and Practices," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-10, January.
    17. María Julieta Arias & Pablo Andrés Vaschetto & Mercedes Marchese & Luciana Regaldo & Ana María Gagneten, 2022. "Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Zooplankton Communities as Ecological Indicators in Urban Wetlands of Argentina," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-21, March.
    18. Mannetti, Lelani M. & Göttert, Thomas & Zeller, Ulrich & Esler, Karen J., 2017. "Expanding the protected area network in Namibia: An institutional analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 207-218.
    19. Andy Deprato & Himasha Rao & Hannah Durrington & Robert Maidstone & Ana Adan & Jose Francisco Navarro & Anna Palomar-Cros & Barbara N. Harding & Prasun Haldar & Saibal Moitra & Tanusree Moitra & Lyle , 2022. "The Influence of Artificial Light at Night on Asthma and Allergy, Mental Health, and Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Scoping Review Protocol," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-10, July.
    20. Katayama, Naoki & Baba, Yuki G., 2020. "Measuring artistic inspiration drawn from ecosystems and biodiversity: A case study of old children’s songs in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:24:p:6972-:d:295046. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.