DOCSLIB.ORG

Urban Wilds Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Urban Wilds Final Report Interactive Qualifying Project 2000 Inventory of Boston’s Urban Wilds Boston Project Center D-Term 2000 Sponsored by: The City of Boston Environment Department Liaison: Richard McGuinness Project Group: Chris Brassard Bonnie Henderson Ryan Kilgore Clark Magnan WPI Faculty Advisors: Professor Steve Pierson Professor Fabio Carrerro May 5, 2000 This project is submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree requirements of Worcester Polytechnic Institute. The views and opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Worcester Polytechnic Institute or the City of Boston Environment Department. Abstract Urban Wilds are crucial areas of natural land that are being lost to development. This project was designed to overcome the lack of communication and information currently undermining Boston’s protective attempts in order to minimize further loss. Data collected through visiting unprotected Wilds was used to determine each Wild’s importance and recorded in a database that included images and current ownership information for each Wild, thus creating a source of centralized information. 2 Acknowledgements As a group, there are many individuals we would like to thank for their invaluable assistance with our project. First, we express our gratitude to our liaison Richard McGuinness and the rest of the Environment Department staff for their constant support and guidance. We would also like to thank Tim Smith of the Boston Parks and Recreation Department for providing us with essential information regarding Boston’s open space plan. In addition, we would like to show our appreciation to the staff of the Boston Natural Areas Fund for allowing us access to their office and files as well as to David Lavelle for his aid in our Urban Wild ownership research effort. Finally, we greatly appreciate the guidance and diligence of our advisors Steve Pierson and Fabio Carrera. 3 Authorship Page Each of the four project group members equally contributed to the creation of the maps, graphs and information found in this report. In addition, each member diligently produced information and material that was presented to our liaison in addition to the report. ___________________ Christopher Brassard ___________________ Bonnie Henderson ___________________ Ryan Kilgore ___________________ Clark Magnan 4 Table of Contents ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. 3 AUTHORSHIP PAGE...................................................................................................... 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. 5 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................... 10 2. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 14 3. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 16 3.1. NATURE IN CITIES .............................................................................................. 16 3.1.1. Ecological and Psychological Benefits of Urban Wilds ........................... 17 3.1.2. History of Nature in Boston ...................................................................... 18 3.2. RELEVANT BOSTON AGENCIES .......................................................................... 20 3.2.1. City of Boston Environment Department.................................................. 20 3.2.2. Boston Redevelopment Authority.............................................................. 21 3.2.3. Boston Conservation Commission............................................................ 22 3.2.4. Boston Natural Areas Fund ...................................................................... 23 3.2.5. Boston Parks and Recreation Department ............................................... 24 3.2.6. Department of Neighborhood Development............................................. 24 3.2.7. Boston Assessing Department................................................................... 25 3.3. BNAF 1990 SURVEY OF URBAN WILDS ............................................................ 25 3.3.1. Methodology of the 1990 Survey............................................................... 26 3.3.2. Results of the 1990 Survey........................................................................ 26 3.3.3. 1990 Recommendations by BNAF ............................................................ 28 3.4. METHODS OF PROTECTING URBAN WILDS......................................................... 29 3.4.1. Protection by Direct Ownership ............................................................... 29 3.4.2. Regulations................................................................................................ 30 3.4.3. Incentives .................................................................................................. 34 3.4.4. Information................................................................................................ 35 3.4.5. Management and Maintenance of Urban Wilds ....................................... 35 4. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 37 4.1. PREPARATION .................................................................................................... 37 4.1.1. Urban Wild Parameters............................................................................ 37 4.1.2. Field Form ................................................................................................ 40 4.2. DATA COLLECTION............................................................................................ 41 4.2.1. Agency Resources ..................................................................................... 41 4.2.2. Field Data Collection................................................................................ 43 4.3. URBAN WILD DATABASES ................................................................................. 43 4.4. URBAN WILD NOTEBOOKS................................................................................. 44 4.5. MAPPING URBAN WILDS.................................................................................... 45 4.6. ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 45 5 4.6.1. Urban Wild Overview............................................................................... 46 4.6.2. Importance................................................................................................ 46 5. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 48 5.1. URBAN WILD OVERVIEW ................................................................................... 48 5.1.1. Urban Wild Presence in Boston................................................................ 48 5.1.2. Condition................................................................................................... 55 5.2. OWNERSHIP........................................................................................................ 57 5.3. IMPORTANCE...................................................................................................... 59 5.3.1. Overall Importance................................................................................... 59 5.3.2. Importance by Individual Criterion .......................................................... 62 5.4. MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ..................................................................................... 73 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................ 74 7. APPENDIX.............................................................................................................. 77 7.1. BNAF 1990 URBAN WILD PARCEL SURVEY DATA........................................... 77 7.2. 2000 PUBLIC V PRIVATE FOR UNPROTECTED WILDS ........................................ 82 7.3. FIELD FORM ....................................................................................................... 85 7.4. FIELD FORM PROCEDURE................................................................................... 86 7.5. IMPORTANCE WEIGHTING.................................................................................. 88 7.6. THEMATIC MAPS................................................................................................ 89 7.6.1. Boston’s Urban Wilds ............................................................................... 89 7.6.2. Urban Wild Ownership ............................................................................. 89 7.6.3. Neighborhoods by Open Space Acreage................................................... 89 7.6.4. Neighborhoods by Urban Wild Acreage................................................... 89 7.6.5. Urban Wilds with Wetlands ...................................................................... 89 7.6.6. Urban Wilds with Rock Outcroppings ...................................................... 89 7.6.7. Urban Wild Dumping Rating by Neighborhood Income .......................... 89 7.6.8. Urban Wild Dumping Rating by Neighborhood Minority........................ 89 7.6.9. Urban Wild Dumping Rating by Neighborhood Poverty.........................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Urban Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services
    POSTbrief Number 26, July 2017 Urban Green By Jonathan Wentworth Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services Inside: The Urban Environment 3 What Constitutes an Urban Area? 3 Environmental Effects of Urbanisation 4 Urban Natural Capital 8 Key Services for Urban Ecosystems 8 Assessing Levels of Service Provision 14 Planning Green Infrastructure 17 Urban Green Space Strategies 18 www.parliament.uk/post | 020 7219 2840 | [email protected] | @POST_UK POSTbriefs are responsive policy briefings from the Parliamentary Office of Science Cover page image: and Technology based on mini literature reviews and peer review. DCMS, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons 2 Urban Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services Background Human health and subjective wellbeing (emotional states and life satisfaction) can be considered the overarching outcome of optimal ecosystem service provision.1 Ecosystem services are the benefits provided to humans by natural systems that range from food and water to recreation and climate regulation. Those elements of the natural environment that provide benefits to humans are referred to as ‘natural capital’. The UK Natural Capital Committee have defined natural capital as ‘elements of nature that directly or indirectly produce value to people, including ecosystems, species, freshwater, land, minerals, the air and oceans’ (POSTnote 542). In urban areas, the elements of the natural environment providing ecosystem services are referred to as ‘green infrastructure’. Urban green infrastructure is not just open spaces such as parks, playing fields, cemeteries, allotments, and private gardens, but also green roofs and walls, street trees and sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDs), as well as ponds, rivers and canals. The EU green infrastructure strategy defines it as: ‘a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services.
    [Show full text]
  • 3 Wildlife in the City: Human Drivers and Human Consequences
    3 Wildlife in the City: Human Drivers and Human Consequences 1 2 3 4 Susannah B. Lerman *, Desiree L. Narango , Riley Andrade , Paige S. Warren , Aaron M. Grade5 and Katherine Straley5 1 USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA; 2Advanced Science Research Center, City University of New York, New York, New York, USA; 3School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA; 4Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA; 5Graduate Program in Organismic and EvolutionaryBiology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA Abstract on how built structures, species interactions and socio-cultural factors further influence The urban development process results in the local species pool. Within this context, we the removal, alteration and fragmentation of assess the ecosystem services and disservices provided by urban wildlife, how management natural vegetation and environmental features, decisions are shaped by attitudes and exposure which have negatively impacted many wildlife to wildlife, and how these decisions then feed species. With the loss of large tracts of intact back to the local species pool. By understanding wildlands (e.g. forests, deserts and grasslands), why some animals are better able to persist in and the demise of specific habitat features (e.g. human modified landscapes than others, land early successional habitat or native plants), managers, city planners, private homeowners many specialist species are filtered out from and other stakeholders can make better­ urban ecosystems. As a result, some argue that informed decisions when managing properties urbanization has a homogenizing effect on in ways that also conserve and promote wildlife.
    [Show full text]
  • Lima2019ecologicaltransactions
    Edinburgh Research Explorer Ecological value of abandoned wild landscapes in Chinese cities Citation for published version: Hu, X & Lima, MF 2019, Ecological value of abandoned wild landscapes in Chinese cities. in WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment. vol. 238, Wessex Institute, Southampton, pp. 331-342. https://doi.org/10.2495/SC190301 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.2495/SC190301 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Published In: WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 30. Sep. 2021 The Sustainable City XIII 331 ECOLOGICAL VALUE OF ABANDONED WILD LANDSCAPES IN CHINESE CITIES XINLEI HU & MARIA FRANCISCA LIMA Edinburgh School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, The University of Edinburgh, UK ABSTRACT This paper is focused on urban industrial abandoned wild landscapes which have experienced structural changes, and where abandonment triggered a natural vegetation succession process, as well as fauna’s progressive reoccupation. Due to such natural regeneration, abandoned wild landscapes have high biodiversity and ecological value and have been gaining attention from the scientific and planning communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston “Emerald Necklace” Case Study
    Report MIT Wescoat Boston “Emerald Necklace” Case Study Product of research on “Enhancing Blue-Green Environmental and Social Performance in High Density Urban Environments” Sponsored by the Ramboll Foundation 20 July 2015 Authors: Alex Marks, James L. Wescoat Jr., Karen Noiva, and Smita Rawoot Massachusetts Institute of Technology Page 1 Report MIT Wescoat CONTENTS 1. PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 2. DEFINING BLUE-GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE (BGI) IN BOSTON ............................................ 5 3. SITUATING BOSTON’S BLUE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IN A LOCAL, REGIONAL & COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT ........................................................................................... 9 4. CHALLENGES THAT CITIES LIKE BOSTON FACE TODAY .................................................... 24 5. RESEARCH FINDINGS ON HOW BOSTON HAS ADDRESSED SUCH CHALLENGES USING BGI: THE EXPANDED PROCESS MODEL APPROACH ...................................................... 31 6. RESEARCH FINDINGS ON THE VALUES ADDED BY BGI IN BOSTON .............................. 37 7. RESEARCH FINDINGS ON INSTITUTIONAL DYNAMICS .......................................................... 48 8. RESEARCH FINDINGS RELEVANT FOR IMPLEMENTING FUTURE BGI PROJECTS ... 56 9. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 58 10. ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    1 INTRODUCTION A. The Need for a Master Plan Alewife Reservation and the Alewife Brook Parkway are part of the B. The Setting for Metropolitan Park System, the first regional park system in the country. the Master Plan Established in 1893, the system today comprises almost 20,000 acres of C. The Master Planning Process woodlands, rivers, coastline, wetlands, and urban parklands. The Alewife Brook and its adjacent Parkway are important linear connec- tions within the Metropolitan District Commission’s park system. Near the end of the 19th century, the visionary landscape architect Charles Eliot planned the Alewife Brook Parkway as one link in his network of car- riageway parks winding their way through the suburbs of Boston. Such carriageways, and later parkways for automobiles, were a synthesis of road and adjacent landscape designed for driving as a leisurely, recreational, and aesthetically enjoyable activity. Increased traffic and other development pressures have obscured the parkland component so that the road now dominates public perception of many historic parkways. The Alewife Reservation, which has existed since the early 20th century, was purchased with the intent to fulfill Eliot’s desire to connect the Mystic River with Fresh Pond. The intrinsic ecological value of the Alewife area was not recognized at the time. Today the Reservation is one of Boston’s largest urban wilds, a remnant of the Great Swamp that once stretched from Fresh Pond to Spy Pond. This relic of the former expanse of wetlands still provides valuable ecological functions such as wildlife habitat and filtering stormwater runoff. It also ALEWIFE MASTER PLAN 1 serves as critical floodplain.
    [Show full text]
  • Enhance Urban Natural Areas 3 Enhance Urban Natural Areas A.Drauglis Furnituremaker
    Enhance Urban Natural Areas 3 Enhance Urban Natural Areas A.Drauglis Furnituremaker Furnituremaker A.Drauglis Red-shouldered hawk in Rock Creek Park Big Idea in Action n the future, Washington’s parks will contain the majority of the city’s Iforests, wetland and riparian habitats, and many unique ecosystems. Washington’s urban natural areas are appreciated and protected for the use and enjoyment they provide to residents and visitors, but also because they are respected urban sanctuaries that provide a safe refuge for wildlife and important ecological functions that enhance the entire metropolitan region. Washington’s natural parkland areas, including the numerous stream valleys and wildlife corridors, connect to each other, connect to urban neighborhoods, and connect to the greater regional system of natural areas. Natural areas are protected, restored, and enhanced. DCpages.com The natural areas in Washington’s parks play a critical role in fulfilling the city’s sustainability and environmental goals. Low impact and sustainable Kayaker on the C&O Canal measures to reduce pollution are incorporated across the city and around the region. The natural and built environment now work in concert, providing the city with green infrastructure to improve air and water quality and address climate change. 51 Ideas to Achieve the Full Potential of Washington’s Parks and Open Space Library of Congress of Congress Library Boulder Bridge, Rock Creek Park, ca. 1920-1940 Brief History of Washington’s Natural Areas Washington’s parks contain most of the city’s river and stream valley corridors, escarpment, and forested areas, and provide many ecological functions.
    [Show full text]
  • (Wednesday), 2021 Room 1 Opening Ceremony and Plenary Session I 10.00 – 10.15 Welcome Addresses and Opening Plenary Session 10.15 – 10.40 K.1
    July 7 (Wednesday), 2021 Room 1 Opening Ceremony and Plenary Session I 10.00 – 10.15 Welcome addresses and opening plenary session 10.15 – 10.40 K.1. City love and place quality: assessment of livable neighborhoods in cities Peter Nijkamp 10.40 – 11.05 K.2. Cities as shared habitats of people, plants and animals: key challenges for urban biodiversity conservation Ingo Kowarik 11.05 – 11.15 Discussion A Symposium GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR URBAN AREAS Room 1 A.1. Concept & Planning of the Urban Green Infrastructure Chair: Daniele la Rosa 11.30 – 11.40 A.1.1. Green infrastructure operationalization: A systematic review on the procedural aspects from a decade of research Simeon Vaňo, Martina van Lierop, Stephan Pauleit, Peter Mederly 11.40 – 11.50 A.1.2. Ecological network analysis of a metabolic urban system based on input-output tables: Model development and case study for the city of Vienna Oleksandr Galychyn, Brian Fath, Elvira Buonocore, Pier Paolo Franzese 11.50 – 12.00 A.1.3. Is the green infrastructure considered as the development asset of Polish medium-sized cities? Renata Giedych, Barbara Szulczewska, Paulina Legutko-Kobus, Agata Cieszewska, Joanna Adamczyk-Jabłońska 12.00 – 12.10 A.1.4. Built environment eactors effecting urban biodiversity and its planning strategies-case study in blocks along Century Avenue, Pudong New District, Shanghai, China Jing Gan, Guangpu Guo 12.10 – 12.20 A.1.5. Planning for cultural Ecosystem Services in socialist and post-socialist Zagreb, Croatia Neven Tandarić, Christopher D. Ives, Charles Watkins 12.20 – 12.30 A.1.6.
    [Show full text]
  • Paradox Introduction
    THE ECOLOGY OF PARADOX: DISTURBANCE AND RESTORATION IN LAND AND SOUL by Rowland S. Russell A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Environmental Studies at Antioch University New England (2007) Committee: Mitchell Thomashow (Chair), John Tallmadge, and Fred Taylor © Copyright by Rowland S. Russell 2007 All Rights Reserved i ABSTRACT This heuristic study explores environmental disturbance and ecological restoration in several North American settings in order to uncover epistemological, philosophical, aesthetic and ethical considerations revolving around those place-based processes. With fire as one of the central metaphors of this work, the initial place-based chapter examines Northern New Mexico's Pajarito Plateau to explore the region's fire ecology. The study then moves to the Pacific Northwest to draw from wild salmon restoration efforts in urban Seattle habitat. The third place-based chapter focuses on the Midwest grass and farmlands in order to investigate the seeming contradictions between managing prairie landscapes for agricultural commodity versus biological diversity. In the final chapter, the metaphorical implications of disturbance and restoration are explored in terms of individuals, communities and as a society. In explicating the philosophical and phenomenological foundations of disturbance and restoration, personal experiences are used in the study as examples to develop applied practice of paradox. It also examines and illuminates correspondences between ecological and eco-psychological cycles of disturbance and restoration within the context of paradox, which for the purpose of this work is defined as any place or context where seemingly contradictory elements coexist without canceling each other out.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Urban Wild Acres of the St. Louis Region Area Management Plan  Page 3
    2013 Urban Wild Acres of the St. Louis Region Area Management Plan Page 3 OVERVIEW Division with Area Year Maintenance & Area Name Acreage County Number Acquired Administrative Responsibilities August G. Beckemeier 9724 1996 54 St. Louis Wildlife Conservation Area Jean and Joan Goodson (Bittersweet Woods) 9805 1998 10 St. Louis Wildlife Conservation Area Gravois Creek Conservation 9707 1996 13.7 St. Louis Wildlife Area Hickory Woods 8707 1986 10.5 St. Louis Wildlife Conservation Area Phantom Forest 9411 1993 13 St. Louis Wildlife Conservation Area Roger Klamberg Memorial 8214 1982 67.3 St. Louis Wildlife Woods Conservation Area Teszars Woods 8009 1980 90 Jefferson Wildlife Conservation Area Wild Cherry Ridge 9703 1996 9.2 St. Louis Wildlife Conservation Area Statements of Purpose A. Strategic Direction The Urban Wild Acres (UWA) of the St. Louis Region will be managed to provide areas of nature enjoyment close to home for urban residents, provide places to pursue conservation education and demonstrate conservation practices, provide urban wildlife habitat, and conserve open space in partnership with local governing bodies. B. Desired Future Condition The desired future condition for the Urban Wild Acres is mostly forested open space in an urban setting. C. Federal Aid Statement N/A 2013 Urban Wild Acres of the St. Louis Region Area Management Plan Page 4 GENERAL INFORMATION AND CONDITIONS I. Special Considerations Area Priority Area Natural Area August G. Beckemeier None None Conservation Area Jean and Joan Goodson (Bittersweet Woods) None None Conservation Area Gravois Creek Conservation None None Area Hickory Woods Conservation None None Area Phantom Forest Conservation None None Area Roger Klamberg Memorial Forest Action Plan Landscape; None Woods Conservation Area Audubon Important Bird Area Teszars Woods Conservation The Nature Conservancy None Area Priority Stream Reach Wild Cherry Ridge None None Conservation Area The Urban Wild Acres areas are distributed from northern St.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenspace Plan 2020 FINAL-6-19
    1 To do effective conservation, you need a map. - Dr. Gretchen LeBuhn, - The Great Sunflower Project This mapping, the data, and more information can be found at: https://green-space-project-olentangy.hub.arcgis.com/ 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was made possible by a grant from The Columbus Foundation Green Fund and the leadership Friends of the Lower Olentangy Watershed (FLOW) Board members: Kelly Thiel, Chair Jim Palus Deirdre Donaldson Danielle Johnson, Vice Chair David White Gregg Peace George Williams, Treasurer Bob Campbell Laura Fay, Secretary Amy Hill Lower Olentangy Watershed Greenspace Steering Committee members: Amy Dutt, Urban Wild/ FLOW Kelly Thiel, Delaware Co RSD Beth Hugh, Orange TWSP Lynne Bonenberger Brent Howe Malcolm Porter, BIA of Central Ohio Caroline Cicerchi, City of Delaware Mary Van Haaften, Preservation Parks Christine Szymansky, ODNR Scenic Rivers Matt Simpson, Preservation Parks Danah Palik, Columbus Recreation & Parks Dept Nick Seaglione Frank Hickman Philip Bennetch, Delaware Co Regional Planning Fred Milan, Del-Co Water Rachael Beeman, MORPC Heather Doherty, ODNR Scenic Rivers Rocky Kembo, City of Powell Jason Kentner, Implement Tatiana Parfenova, Columbus & Franklin Metro Parks Jeff Kauffman, Del- Co Water Tina Mohn, Columbus Recreation & Parks Dept Josh Garver, FSWCD Tom Curtain, Preservation Parks Judy Snell Tom Ryther, FLOW Julie McGill, Delaware Co RSD And Ryan Pilewski of the Franklin Soil and Water Conservation District for his Geographic Information System (GIS) and Watershed Resource expertise. This document was drafted by Maureen Lorenz of the FLOW Science Committee with graphics assistance from Ellie Nowels of Centipede Graphics. 3 Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3 INTRODUCTION TO FLOW 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 THE LOWER OLENTANGY WATERSHED’S GREENSPACE PLAN 10 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Sound Walk for an Urban Wild
    Other Order: Sound Walk for an Urban Wild Peter Del Tredici and Teri Rueb n urban areas, vegetation that is not planted total biodiversity (Kowarik and Körner 2005; or maintained by people—including both Carroll 2011). Harder to quantify, but never- Inative and non-native species—typically theless important, are the opportunities for dominates many different habitats including social, cultural, educational, and nature expe- river and stream banks, highway verges, vacant riences that spontaneous vegetation provides building lots, infrastructure edges, chain-link across the wide array of cultural contexts and fence lines, and random pavement cracks. For sites that characterize most cities (Pfeiffer and most cities, the amount of spontaneous vegeta- Voeks 2008; Daniel et al. 2012; Jorgensen and tion they support varies inversely with their Keenan 2012). economic prosperity; cities that have lost the The aesthetics of spontaneous vegetation are most population and jobs show the highest lev- usually considered negative given that much els of land abandonment and volunteer plant of it is perceived as ugly or messy (i.e., lack- growth (Del Tredici 2010a, b; Burkholder 2012). ing ornamental characteristics or possessing How city dwellers respond to the presence an unkempt appearance), and its presence in of spontaneous vegetation in their midst is the landscape is justifiably viewed as project- influenced by personal preferences as well as ing an image of neglect (Nassauer and Raskin by cultural norms. In many European cities, 2014). In the arena of public health, many people residents’ feelings about spontaneous vegeta- see spontaneous vegetation as providing habi- tion is divided—some welcome it as a mani- tat for animals that are vectors for a number festation of unrestrained urban nature while of human pathogens and infectious diseases others see it as an indicator of dereliction that such as rats, mosquitoes, and ticks (Garvin et should be removed.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Relative Wild Areas Offer Opportunities for Urban Biodiversity?
    Landscape and Urban Planning 170 (2018) 256–265 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Landscape and Urban Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan Research Paper ‘Wild’ in the city context: Do relative wild areas offer opportunities for urban T biodiversity? ⁎ Anke Müllera,c, , Peder K. Bøchera,b, Christina Fischerc, Jens-Christian Svenninga,b a Section for Ecoinformatics & Biodiversity, Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark b Center for Biodiversity Dynamics in a Changing World (BIOCHANGE), Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark c Restoration Ecology, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, Technical University Munich, Freising, Germany ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Urbanization is increasing worldwide, making it essential to improve management of urban greenspaces for Biodiversity better provisioning of ecosystem services and greater biodiversity benefits. At the same time, societal interest in Urban greenspace reduced intensity management regimes is growing for a range of practical and normative reasons. We assessed if Urban habitats relative wild urban greenspaces, under little or no management, are associated with increased levels of biodi- Bioscore versity. We conducted a GIS-based relative wildness mapping for the Danish city Aarhus, and compared relative Wildness mapping wildness to field-measured perceived biodiversity at 100 randomly placed sample sites in the city centre. Urban wildscapes Perceived biodiversity was estimated using the bioscore methodology. The results show a positive relationship between mapped wildness and bioscores, notably within artificial vegetated areas such as parks and gardens, while woodland had the highest wildness and bioscore values overall. All bioscore components measuring structural diversity increased with increasing mapped wildness. The bioscore component compositional richness covered site-level species richness for birds, invertebrates and plants, with invertebrate and bird species richness increasing and plant species richness decreasing with increasing wildness.
    [Show full text]