ArticlePDF Available

Bird diversity indicates ecological value in urban home prices

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

It is known that public greenspaces contribute positively to urban home prices; yet urban ecologists also have known that not all greenspaces are equally valuable. Also some ecologically valuable space appears on private residences, not only public spaces. This work examines directly whether using a variable derived from bird species richness and relative abundance adds new information regarding ecological value and if high values of that variable significantly improve urban housing prices. We collected information on approximately 368 home sales in Lubbock, TX from 2008 to 2009 from the Multiple Listing Service: Sale Price, Square Footage, Lot Size and Age in 17 neighborhoods identified by the Lubbock Realtor Association. We conducted bird counts in the vicinity of each home sale and recorded both the total numbers of birds and the number of bird species identified in a particular class—less ubiquitous bird species. Finally, we used GIS to record the percentage of tree cover in the immediate area surrounding each sale. We constructed a predictive model for a bird relative abundance and species richness variable (Bird) from AICc statistics. Home price for each sale then was regressed against the predicted value of ‘Bird’ from the selected model and regressed against home price along with other attributes from the Multiple Listing Service. The predicted value for Bird finds that the addition of another desirable, less ubiquitous bird species improves mean home price by $32,028, likely due to the human created landscapes on private properties immediately surrounding a home sale. Curiously, the presence of a nearby park neither explained variation in the ecological indicator nor contributed to home price elevation. This deliberately simple and inexpensive indicator helped to direct attention to the composition of local landscapes in specific areas to assess joint ecological and economic gains rather than presume a priori that open greenspace jointly satisfies these dual objectives.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Bird diversity indicates ecological value in urban
home prices
Michael C. Farmer &Mark C. Wallace &Michael Shiroya
#Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract It is known that public greenspaces contribute positively to urban home prices;
yet urban ecologists also have known that not all greenspaces are equally valuable. Also
some ecologically valuable space appears on private residences, not only public spaces.
This work examines directly whether using a variable derived from bird species richness
and relative abundance adds new information regarding ecological value and if high values
of that variable significantly improve urban housing prices. We collected information on
approximately 368 home sales in Lubbock, TX from 2008 to 2009 from the Multiple
Listing Service: Sale Price, Square Footage, Lot Size and Age in 17 neighborhoods
identified by the Lubbock Realtor Association. We conducted bird counts in the vicinity of
each home sale and recorded both the total numbers of birds and the number of bird species
identified in a particular classless ubiquitous bird species. Finally, we used GIS to record
the percentage of tree cover in the immediate area surrounding each sale. We constructed a
predictive model for a bird relative abundance and species richness variable (Bird) from
AIC
c
statistics. Home price for each sale then was regressed against the predicted value of
Birdfrom the selected model and regressed against home price along with other attributes
from the Multiple Listing Service. The predicted value for Bird finds that the addition of
another desirable, less ubiquitous bird species improves mean home price by $32,028,
likely due to the human created landscapes on private properties immediately surrounding a
home sale. Curiously, the presence of a nearby park neither explained variation in the
ecological indicator nor contributed to home price elevation. This deliberately simple and
inexpensive indicator helped to direct attention to the composition of local landscapes in
specific areas to assess joint ecological and economic gains rather than presume a priori
that open greenspace jointly satisfies these dual objectives.
Keywords Hedonic price analysis .Greenscape .Urban wildlife
Urban Ecosyst
DOI 10.1007/s11252-011-0209-0
M. C. Farmer (*):M. Shiroya
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Texas Tech University, Agricultural Science Room
204C, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
e-mail: michael.farmer@ttu.edu
M. C. Wallace
Department of Natural Resources Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
Introduction
A problem urban ecologists and new urbanistsoften face is the difficult task of
completing ecological-environmental evaluations in a timely and cost effective fashion
when land use decisions operate under short timelines and modest budgets. If we add a
need by decision-makers for follow-up ecological information with local zoning and
planning boards, this places the urban ecologist and ecological economist with a
conundrum. Communities slated for new development or redevelopment seek permits and
zoning rules in a relatively rapid policy design, decision and development timetable. The
time to conduct a full wildlife population assessment or even a landscape inventory is often
unavailable.
Currently in these environments certain defaults frequently prevail. For example, it is
common to designate any greenspace as ecologically beneficial, environmentally low foot-
print and beneficial to economic development. The mantra can be invoked to exculp policy-
makers from closer ecological examinations. Perhaps this is because those same defaults
have been proven to benefit housing values with little need for nuanced ecological
assessment (Cavailhés et al. 2007; Jim and Chen 2006; Wolters 2001). Recently studies are
beginning to show that some people pay more to reside near amenities that show more
nuanced urban landscapes or greenscapes (Cho, et al. 2008); for example, homes with
highly educated owners may prefer quality habitat directly (Bark et al. 2009).
From an ecological perspective, the type and the nature of urban greenspaces yield
very different outcomes (Pickett et al. 2001; Mansfield et al. 2005; Sandström et al.
2006). Greenspace can be simple open space such as a greenway, or it can be a rich
ecological space populated with urban wildlife and forests (Oleyar, et al. 2008).
Nonetheless studies regularly report that undifferentiated open space is an unambiguous
public good yielding multiple environmental benefits (Bolund and Hunhammar 1999). So
as the urban ecologist aspires to add context to an assertion that all greenspace is
necessarily green,we propose to consider methods wherein a little extra field work by
the urban ecologist working with economists might identify even stronger gains to
housing values, environmental footprint and urban wildlife that might otherwise go
unnoticed in a quick-paced development cycle.
This work is motivated by a concern that the form of urban landscapes, of which
greenspace is part, needs to be assessed more explicitly. Economic and ecological-
environmental effects are more subtle; yet that is often difficult to inject into public
discourse in time limited policy settings. One method to motivate rethinking is to
design filtersnot full ecological evaluationsthat can be completed quickly and
cheaply but nonetheless compelling to local planners and zoning boards. Filters likely
to be especially effective in this policy setting would indicate four things that we
consider in this work:
&Does the filter indicate a potential to increase economic value of a development?
&Does the filter indicate a potential to improve ecological and other environmental
outcomes?
&Does the filter require few resources and little time to complete?
&Does the filter help to identify locations where follow-up work is likely to be most
informative?
This work presents a case study for the first three, pointing to the last. Given prior
literature, a measure that emphasizes the number of bird species present in the study area,
but that tend to be observed in areas with a variable vegetative height density, is argued to
Urban Ecosyst
be an indicator of an array of desirable ecological outcomes. We measure if high values for
the indicator map to higher home prices in an immediate area about the size of a city block.
In this case, the filter was relatively easy to complete in terms of time to conduct the
repeated observations and of cost to conduct the study.
For the last concern, ecologists may use a filter to point to quite specific locations in the
urban space that represent specific opportunities to increase economic development values
while improving ecological-environmental outcomes. The filter not only may provide
breathing space as a precautionary practice during the planning and development approval
process, but it may identify where higher resolution follow-up field work is likely to be
beneficial, but also cheaper, faster and reasonably robust.
Background
A seminal work by MacArthur and MacArthur (1961) offers one opportunity to construct
such a filter that could be useful in numerous regions. This work drew a strong relation
between landscape structure and avian wildlife diversity: the more complete the vertical
landscape composition of vegetation across heights ranging from low shrubs to higher tree
canopy, the richer the avian species diversity. A fuller vertical composition attracts bird
species beyond the ubiquitous species. For examples of ubiquitous species in our study
area, these included the house sparrow (Passer domesticus), European starling (Sturnus
vulgaris), great-tailed grackle (Quiscalus mexicanus), and Eurasian collared dove
(Streptopelia decaocto). Some members of these species are observed at nearly every site
in our study area and often in great numbers, notably the great-tailed grackle.
Subsequent studies validate the MacArthur and MacArthur (1961) assertion that the
indicator works both ways: diverse landscape compositions attract diverse avian species;
but, also, if the researcher observes more species diversity, or presence of several less
ubiquitous species, that is a powerful indicator of a diverse vertical landscape composition
(Sandström et al. 2006). That is important. As ecologists have noted that urban ecosystems
are quite diverse and scale dependent (Pickett et al. 2001), a common urban ecosystem
indicator adopted by ecologists has been tree presence, density and location. DeGraaf and
Wentworth (1986) noted that bird diversity varied with, amongst other dimensions, tree
density, or tree density predicted bird diversity. Oleyar, et al. (2008) noted the isomorphic
relationship: urban forest functionality was an integration of many factors; and bird
diversity was a good predictor of tree density. Fernández-Juricic (2000) reached a similar
finding. They noted that trees located at the street level had a positive effect on bird
diversity and population abundance. Fernández-Juricic (2000) also noted that bird diversity
varied with vegetation in urban settings. Crooks et al. (2004) finally equate the presence of
bird diversity with urban ecosystem diversity broadly. Temporal variation in canopy and
vegetation would be indicated by an observation of neighborhood bird diversity and
population. This implies that a more height variable canopy and vegetation, which has
known positive environmental externalities, likely supports a richer population of birds.
Some of the associated benefits of a rich greenscape with varied vegetative height range
from reduced noise and air pollution, climate regulation, watershed management, rainwater
capture, drainage and sewage treatment (Bolund and Hunhammar 1999). Even health (Maas
et al. 2006) and physical activity benefits to avert chronic disease (Farmer and Lipscomb
2006) are associated with a rich urban landscape pattern. Other ecological-environmental
benefits also flow from simple tree canopy by itself: reductions in air conditioning costs,
improvements in air quality, sequestration of carbon, assistance in recharge of water tables
and provision of habitat for animals in urban settings (Breuste et al. 1998).
Urban Ecosyst
We accept the received literature that bird diversity among less ubiquitous bird species
responds to a more progressed and height varied landscape structure; as such, a diverse,
progressed vegetation structure delivers a raft of environmental benefits over a high input
monoculture lawn (Pickett et al. 1997).
As environmental and ecological studies have shown robust benefits to greenspace
generally, economists have identified robust responses to greenspace and open-space,
generally, as improving home values (Wolters 2001; Morancho 2003; Bell and Irwin 2002;
Lipscomb and Farmer 2005; Mansfield et al. 2005; Cavailhés et al. 2007). Some have gone
on to examine gross number of trees to value rental property (Thompson et al. 1999; Luttik
2000). As ecologists began to differentiate among greenspace benefits from studies
conducted at higher levels of resolution with respect to the composition of greenspace
(DeGraaf et al. 1985; Pickett et al. 2001; Fernández-Juricic 2000; Sandström et al. 2006),
data began to permit economists to examine if specific ecological characteristics also
benefited home values (Farmer and Lipscomb 2006; Bark et al. 2009; Cho, et al. 2008).
This work developed an ecological indicator to facilitate economic study and to improve
the precision of ecological-economic linkages while saving study costs and time. Since little
has been done in residential areas on the non-public spaces where most developed green
landscapes often are located, urban ecology benefits include private greenscapes in the
yards of individual homes, alleys and in the collective canopy of, say, a street.
This level of resolution facilitates sharper economic evaluations. This work adapted a
higher resolution ecological indicator that operates at the scale of a city block; and then
estimated if home prices close to bird observation sites responded positively. The reduced
cost and time is informative.
We anticipate that a full landscape inventory that evaluates landscape composition
according to a consistent and meaningful coding protocol will be difficult and expensive.
We sought an indicator easy to measure yet likely to be associated with the array of benefits
identified by bird species diversity. The indicator is not a stand alone ecological assessment
of bird diversity, but a broad robust indicator of environmental and urban ecological
benefits consistent with the literature, that is also easy to collect.
We adapted an indicator to serve as a filter that more quickly highlights potential urban
ecological and economic gains to zoning and development practices. The indicator is the
simple product of the number of less ubiquitous bird species observed at a site and the
number of birds observed. The indicator weights highly repeated observations of less
ubiquitous species. If only ubiquitous species were observed, the value for the indicator was
zero. This is because our goal was not directly to complete a bird population study but to
infer diversity of vegetative cover and broad ecological diversity. To predict values for the
indicator variable (Bird), tree canopy cover was observed over an area the size of a city
block near a bird observation site. Home sales were observed within the same range. So the
indicator, while neither a comprehensive landscape inventory nor a wildlife population
study nonetheless was observed at a relatively high spatial scale to indicate higher
resolution environmental and ecological benefits. These allow higher resolution economic
response estimates of ecological-environmental services. In our study area the less
ubiquitous species included the American robin (Turdus migratorius), blue jay (Cyanocitta
cristata), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)
and western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis).
In evaluating areas of rich vegetation composition where the built environment was
largely private residences, bird diversity and abundance is often easier to capture than direct
completion of a comprehensive inventory of vegetative structure and composition. The
question is whether this local vegetation diversity supporting more diverse bird life is also
Urban Ecosyst
more valuable to home owners, especially in comparison to other forms of public
greenspace such as a local park. Rather than construct a continuous or categorical metric of
landscape quality, we measured the closely associated urban wildlife variable directly to
assess the wildlife variables effect on housing prices across a 40 sq-mi urban space.
Methods
Study area
We collected a data set of recent house sales, tree canopy density and bird species richness
in 17 neighborhoods of interest. The area spans approximately 40 square miles in southwest
Lubbock, TX (Fig. 1.). We chose 17 neighborhoods in Lubbock, TX suggested by realtors
as diverse for the area and also thought to have a high number of recent sales.
Neighborhoods are of similar size and most had comparable numbers of sales. Two
neighborhoods (Southhaven and Melonie Park South) had only four or five sales, but were
somewhat unique neighborhoods. They were retained in the housing price model; but
eliminated in the model to estimate significant effects on the Bird index.
Fig. 1 Map of neighborhoods for study. Shaded neighborhoods were used in final model for Predicted Bird
(Model 3). Each grid square is approximately one square mile
Urban Ecosyst
Data sources and collection
The first set of data collected was housing residential sales data from June 2006 to
December 2008 within the neighborhoods of interest by extracting information from the
Lubbock area Multiple Listing Service (MLS). We drew from MLS documents physical
attributes of each house and the selling price.
Percent tree canopy cover was estimated from Google Earth photos from 2008. Grid size
adopted used a 192 point dot-grid overlay on Google Earth images scaled at an elevation of
3,200 ft above the surface, with a resolution of 0.56 by 0.70 miles, and recorded percent of
grid dots overlapping trees.
Relative abundance of birds was collected using point count surveys (Bibby et al.; 1992)
recording detections <or> 50 m. Birds detected were identified to species and were
recorded at n8 sites in each of n=17 neighborhoods over 2 different mornings during
summer 2009. We categorized bird species as synanthropic species and suburban species.
Species A (synanthropic species) birds were ubiquitous native and invasive species for
example, house sparrow (Passer domesticus), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), great-
tailed grackle (Quiscalus mexicanus), Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto); and
Species B birds (suburban species) were desirable urban birds like: American robin (Turdus
migratorius), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern
mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis). The bird variable
used for analyses was calculated by multiplying the total number of birds at an observation
site by the number of Category B bird species, for an indexed variable labeled Bird. All
data, such as tree canopy or the measure of the bird variable were referenced to each
residential unit sold in the survey; so the bird variable, for example, realized a different
value for each housing unit sale that we examined.
Model selection methods for bird richness and abundance
Our approach, based on bird richness and relative abundance, resembles other models that
use birds as a barometer of ecosystem complexity (MacArthur and MacArthur 1961), urban
ecosystem biodiversity (Crooks et al. 2004) or the quality of greenspace (Sandström et al.
2006; and Fernández-Juricic 2001), or urban forests (Oleyar, et al. 2008). These studies
build a theory associating urban avian wildlife abundance as well as diversity with a sizable
number of favorable environmental outcomes.
First, we sought to explain variation in the bird variable. Bird is defined as an inter-
action variable between the total numbers of birds multiplied by the number of different
kinds of Species B birds. We regressed Bird against the percent tree cover, 16 dummy
variables to capture variation due to neighborhood effects across the 17 neighborhoods, and
a variable near park,defined by the presence (1) or absence (0) of a park fitting two
criteria: the park was located within the neighborhood and within a half mile of the
residential unit of interest. Model 1 predicts Bird using all 18 independent variables. Using
Model 1 results, we eliminated three insignificant variables. The public greenspace, near
parkwas eliminated at this stage. We then regressed Bird against the significant variables
to derive Model 2. Following this, we derived Model 3 from the significant variables in
Model 2, eliminating two more variables. The process eliminated neighborhoods that had
less than 6 sales in 2008 and 2009 to form Model 3. We regressed the remaining 11
neighborhood dummy variables and tree cover on Bird.
We compared the three Models for Bird using AIC
c
values for the three regressions.
Having chosen the Model with the lowest AIC
c
score (results below) and the highest weight
Urban Ecosyst
to predict Bird, we extracted the predicted value of Bird from that model, which we labeled
Predicted Bird.
We then tested regressed each observed home sale price against household structural
variables and Predicted Bird to examine how well this urban wildlife measure correlated
with home prices.
Two models of home price compared
We estimated several factors expected to affect housing price. The housing characteristics
used were Square Footage, Age of House, Garage (0/1) and Lot Size. We compared two
housing price models to predict home price for sales in 2008 and 2009. The first housing
price model did not include Predicted Bird (Generic Model); the other model included
Predicted Bird (Modified Model). The two models are:
Generic Housing Price Hedonic Model:
House value ¼b0þb1
»Square Footage þb3
»AgeofHouse þb4
»Garage
þb4
»Lot Size
Modified Housing Price Hedonic Model:
House value ¼b0þb1
»Square Footage þb2
»AgeofHouse þb3
»Garage
þb4
»Lot Size þb5
»Predicted Bird
Results
Model selection for bird We conducted 296 point counts and used total number of birds and
total number of species B detected on 2 point counts (randomly selected if there were >2
conducted) for each neighborhood to attach a Bird value to each sale. The results of model
comparisons for Bird are presented in Table 1.
Model 3, in which Bird was regressed against tree cover and remaining significant
neighborhood dummy variables was the best model from our tests. Model 3 showed the
lowest overall AIC
c
value; was assigned the entirety of the explanatory weight; and
generated the highest R
adj2
(=0.4965) value. Therefore we used Model 3 to generate
Predicted Bird,which was then used as an independent variable to explain home sale
prices for which we had MLS data in 20082009 across 17 neighborhoods.
Model selection method for home price We collected MLS data for 368 home sales in
Lubbock, TX from 2008 to 2009. Three hundred twenty-three had no missing data and
were used for analyses.
Table 2reports our hedonic price model for the Modified Housing Price Model. Home
Price was regressed against physical house characteristic variables (house square footage,
garage, lot size, and age) and one ecological variable (Predicted Bird). Predicted Bird,
square footage, age and lot size of each house were all significant (P< 0.001). R
adj2
also
improved for Modified Model that included Predicted Bird over the Generic Model,
increasing R
ad2
from 0.7348 to 0.7792 using Predicted Bird.
Urban Ecosyst
Not shown are several alternatives to the Generic Housing Price Model and Modified
Housing Price Model. Near parkwas added to both models; and in a third case, near
parkdirectly replaced Predicted Bird in the Modified Model. In all three cases, near park
added virtually no explanatory value (t-stat <0.18 in all cases) and, in each case, overall
model performances fell (see below).
Table 3summarizes key information. Table 3records neighborhood name (referenced on
Fig. 1) and reports the mean values for Bird, Tree Cover, and Home Price. Implications are
discussed below.
Discussion
Model for predicted bird Overall, Model 3 in displayed the lowest overall AIC
c
value in
predicting Bird variation; was assigned the entire explanatory weight (100%); and showed
the highest R
adj2
. Because Model 3 was the most efficient estimate of bird species richness
and relative abundance, this model was used to predict Bird (i.e. Predicted Bird). Predicted
Bird from this model then was used in the modified hedonic regression (Modified Model)
to predict of house value. The final model of Bird (Model3) showed a strong positive
relationship between bird species richness and relative abundance with tree cover. Tree
cover producing a t stat=4.13. Yet paradoxically, proximity to a park was not a significant
predictor of bird richness and relative abundance. In fact, the near parkvariable produced
a t stat=0.15 in Model 1. When we added near parkto Model 3 as a test, near parkagain
realized a virtually identical t stat (0.148); and when we replaced near parkfor Predicted
Bird the t-stat was low (0.185).
This seemingly counterintuitive result for parks is explained by the composition of tree
cover in most Parks in Lubbock, TX, which is not particularly dense, nor a multi-layered
canopy. Tree cover is composed of punctuated trees heavily pruned below 8to 10. Also
many city parks are converted (filled) playa lakes, managed partly to serve as flood control
drainage as well as public space. So parks on average were not valuable in predicting higher
Bird outcomes. A development model premised on clearing space for a park but not
Table 1 Akaiki (AIC
c
) comparison of regression models to derive Predicted Bird variable
Statistics for model comparison
Model SSE 2log(L) K n AIC
c
w
1 242279 4299.63 17 319 4263.60 0
2 247221 4292.51 12 319 4267.49 0
3 288441 4386.90 11 319 4364.04 1
Where:
Model 1 Bird regressed against near park, tree cover and neighborhood dummy variables
Model 2 Bird regressed against tree cover and significant neighborhood dummy variables from Instrument 1
Model 3 Bird regressed against tree cover, significant neighborhood dummy variables with >6 sales from
Instrument 2
Variables: bird, was derived using total birds times number of suburban bird species; near park, was distance
to nearest open space/city park; and, neighborhood dummy variables. Data are from summer 2009 in
Lubbock, TX
Urban Ecosyst
Table 2 Modified hedonic price model
Hedonic Price Model With Predicted Bird
Dependent Variable: Price
Number of Observations Read 368
Number of Observations Used 323
Number of Observations with Missing Values 45
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Model 5 3.746561E12 7.493121E11 228.27 <.0001
Error 317 1.040565E12 3282540056
Corrected Total 322 4.787126E12
Root MSE 57293 R-Square 0.7826
Dependent Mean 234809 Adj R-Sq 0.7792
Coeff Var 24.40002
Parameter Estimates
Variable Label DF Parameter Estimate Standard Error t Value Pr >t|
Intercept Intercept 1 45434 16924 2.68 0.0076
Square Footage 1 94.25576 3.95636 23.82 <.0001
Age of House 1 2926.60790 286.06107 10.23 <.0001
Garage 1 8655.86801 6582.18243 1.32 0.1894
Lot Size 1 1.55797 0.34163 4.56 <0001
Predicted Bird 1 1243.93485 172.42051 7.21 <.0001
Mean total number of bird= 24.14. Mean value of B Species=2.08; for $32,028 gain in expected mean home value from a gain of one more Type B species observed
Regressing MLS characteristics (house square footage, garage, lot size, and age) and ecological variables (Predicted Bird) to prices of most recent home sale in Lubbock, TX.
20082009
Urban Ecosyst
improving zoning and building requirements for an improved landscape on residential
property would remove an ecological benefit and substitute for it an expensive public
commitment to upkeep that cleared area. The same decision also would lower home
values.
Home price effects of predicted bird
The Modified hedonic housing price regression included Predicted Bird; again the expected
value of Bird associated with each home sale from Model 3 discussed above. The
regressors for the Generic housing price model are identical, except they do not include
Predicted Bird.
Predicted Bird had a significant effect on housing prices. First, the significance level of
Predicted Bird is well above 99%, with a t-stat=7.21. This stands in contrast to results for
near park.When entered into either the Generic Home Price Model or the new Modified
Home Price Model, near parkhad an insignificant effect on home price. The Modified
Model, for example, generated a t stat=0.49 for near park. Further, in both models, the
addition of near parkas a regressor resulted in a decline in adjusted R
2
. So greenspace
alone was not significantly related to improvements in either the urban wildlife variable,
Bird, nor in average home prices.
In contrast, the inclusion of Predicted Bird increased the value of the adjusted R
2
from
72.6% to 77.9%, meaning the variable added to real explanatory power for the regression
adjusting for the decline in the degrees of freedom. Again, Adjusted R
2
fell when near
parkwas added. The inclusion of Predicted Bird into the regression model for home price
was not only significant, but passed several internal consistency checks when the Modified
Model was compared to the Generic Model.
Table 3 Mean values for key variables by neighborhood
Mean bird Mean home price Mean tree cover
Tech terrace 91 178,285 0.33824
Whisperwood 51 167,881 0.37414
Rushland 65 386,933 0.37905
Brentwood 56 145,500 0.3
Tanglewood 123 470,838 0.385
Greenlawn 37 98,124 0.28
Melonie Park South 67 174,806 0.29
Melonie Park 53 177,742 0.24167
Melonie Gard 27 318,358 0.11739
Ravenwood 10 280,960 0.05
Southhaven 30 307,437 0.29426
Lakeridge 26 148,243 0.28556
Farrar 10 222,712 0.04107
Regal Park 34 155,861 0.05071
Pleasant Run 46 340,056 0.23444
Regency Park 9 162,448 0.05
For Neighborhoods Used in Bird Model, See Fig. 1
Urban Ecosyst
Model consistency checks
Compare hedonic regressions with and without Predicted Bird (the Generic and the
Modified Model above). Theory suggests some estimated parameters that explain home
prices should change when Predicted Bird is added to the Modified Model. Theory also
suggests others should not change.
Square footage is one example. The parameter value for square footage, an interior home
attribute, should not shift between the Generic and the Modified models. Adding Predicted
Bird into the Modified Model is an exterior attribute, which we expect to be independent
from values of interior home attributes. Comparing the Generic to the Modified model, the
parameter estimate for square footage shifted only from $94.25 to $94.48 per square foot
almost no change. Both results were well in line with the average $92 to $98 per square
foot value provided to us by local realtors (Linda Gaither, Westmark Realty, personal
communication).
Lot Size and AgeofHouse parameter estimates, however, are predicted by theory to
change between the Generic Model and the Modified Model, which includes Predicted Bird
as a regressor.
The regression parameter for Lot Size (in square yards) fell when Predicted Bird was
entered into the Modified regression. Some lots will be improved with added tree cover and
others will not. So we expect that when Predicted Bird is added to the regression, the value
of lot size should fall. By entering Predicted Bird into the Modified Home Price Model, the
model ought to differentiate better between the values for lot size on unimproved space
versus private lots improved by mature trees. Indeed, the value for lot size fell from $1.97
per square yard in the Generic Model to $1.56 per square yard in the Modified Model.
What is noteworthy is that the ecological indicator helped to tease out a qualitative
difference among lots with and without mature trees in the economic model.
We expect a similar type of outcome for the coefficient values for house AGE. Older
houses are less valuable on average. Yet older homes can accommodate older, more mature
trees. That feature should increase home values. Again, some older houses have mature
trees and some do not. So with the addition of Predicted Bird into the Modified Model,
house age by itself should exert a more powerful negative effect. In the Generic Model, it
was estimated that age diminished home price by an expected $1516.84 per year old (e.g. a
10 year old home would fall by $15,168). Adding Predicted Bird to the Modified Model
increased the predicted negative impact of home age, reducing housing price by $2926.61
per year. Differentiating between older homes with mature trees and older home without
mature trees, the stronger depreciating value of home age was more properly identified.
These shifts in parameter values from the Generic Housing Price Model and the
Modified Housing Price Model appeared as expected. Further, no shifts in parameters arose
between where they were not expected, such as square footage. This internal consistency
would explain the improvement in adjusted R
2
from 0.7348 to 0.7792 by adding Predicted
Bird.
Estimated mean home price premium for bird richness and abundance
There is a strong average premium for features that attract more desirable bird species, Bird.
For the mean home sale in this market, a premium of $32,028 was correlated with the
presence of just one more Type B, or suburban, species observed near the home site. The
number, while high, makes sense when we note the average number of type B species
Urban Ecosyst
observed was only 2.08. So the value on average from, say, 2 to 3 of such species may
suggest a strong improvement in the aesthetics, neighborhood walkability and the wildlife
diversity that collectively helps to form a streetscape.
The average number of Type B bird species observed for all positions was 2.08. The
mean number of total birds observed was 24.14. On Table 2, as the total value of Predicted
Bird increased by one unit, home price, on average, improved by $1243.93. That regression
coefficient is equivalent to observing another bird at a site where at least one type B species
was observed. The critical contribution to home value, however, arose likely from a
landscape that on average improved the number of Type B species by one. Such a change,
on more observed type B species, realized a gain of $32,028.47 in home price; or average
home price changed by 24.14(mean of total birds observed)*$1243.93 (expected home
price change as Predicted Bird value increases by one unit).
Not to be taken too literally, the result does divide the observations into those with
landscapes nearby that favor a vegetative cover that would improve diversity in Bird
species in terms of including non-ubiquitous bird species from those that do not. The home
price contribution of the suite of services correlated with a higher Bird value is not only
significant, but it is a substantive contribution to overall home price. Whatever are the
component details of the landscape differential or, perhaps, ecological function, the sharp
impact on home prices broadly across this study area is one that we submit would draw
attention from planners and developers.
Efficient targeting of subsequent field work
Our final comment is that our empirical results direct attention to higher resolution studies at
specific locations. This is item four regarding the benefits of a good filter in the Introduction. A
way to target locations for further study is to examine those sites that have high recorded Bird
values yet were predicted to have much lower Bird values. We hypothesize that unobserved
landscape characteristics, such as vertical height cover, would be responsible for higher
observed than expected Bird values. This would isolate quite specific spots for closer
inspection. Landscape architects or forest ecologists would need to conduct site studies, but
some features stand out to suggest those studies would be constructive. We start with cross
neighborhood comparisons and then drill down to specific blocks.
Starting with neighborhood by neighborhood comparisons, when we look a little closer
at the neighborhoods in the Bird prediction model (Model 3) that explain very high Bird
values that are statistically significant and compare them to neighborhoods with
insignificant or negative effects on mean Bird values, the vegetative canopy has a visibly
more complete vertical composition. On Table 3, consider two neighborhood comparisons.
Comparing Tanglewood to Rushland, they neighborhoods have similar tree canopy
percentages (0.385 versus 0.379) and other home characteristics, such as size, were similar.
Tangelwood realized much higher values for Bird (123 versus 65) and for home value
($471 K versus $387 K). As the neighborhoods are adjacent (Fig. 1), it is clear that older
trees with high canopies with lawns below dominate the landscape in Rushland compared
to a more height varied and denser tree composition for the same overall canopy coverage.
Three other neighborhoods with reasonably similar characteristics, Tech Terrace, Wisperwood,
and Brentwood, have similar values for tree cover (0.38, 0.37, 0.30, respectively); yet Tech
Terrace realizes higher home prices ($178 K, $167 K, $146 K, respectively) and Bird values
(91, 51, 56), and by casual inspection has more landscape diversity.
The is good reason to suspect the area beneath the canopyexplains much of the
variance and serves as a guide to a higher resolution enunciation of ecological services.
Urban Ecosyst
Oleyar, et al. (2008), evaluate urban forest functionality, especially in light of the
connection between avian assembleges in a fragmented urban landscape and vegetative
structures (Crooks, et al. 2004).
Drilling down just a little further to street block by street block, there is variation in
vertical composition of the vegetative landscape at this resolution. We compare six bird
sites in Wisperwood and three in Tech Terrace with identical tree cover percentages,
evidence we believe useful to policy.
In Wisperwood areas with equivalent low tree canopy sites, those that predicted Bird
accurately were largely not vegetated, marked by younger ornamental fruit trees and
impervious surfaces. This contrasts with sites yielding higher than expected Bird values,
which had, in one case, clearly more undergrowth (still modest) and another site near an
alley that possessed both more overgrowth and more vegetative layers than dominant lawn
landscapes. In Tech terrace we identified local blocks with higher than, lower than and
expected bird values for canopy cover values that all realized the identical cover percentage
measure. The highest Bird valued site had a dense tree cover, as Oleyar, et al. (2008) found
elsewhere, a high canopy cover, yet a filled understory, including some fruit and nut bearing
plants. The site that predicted Bird higher than actually observed was not a layered
landscape and the site was adjacent to park open space inhabited by ubiquitous birds
(grackles) with no barrier. The site that predicted well also had open space nearby; but it
was more protected. Also a strong canopy existed with limited undergrowth and somewhat
larger lawns. These all conform to the developed theory.
These results, using a very accessible ecological indicator for the region as a filter, focus
attention for comparison to a very few select neighborhoods and even fewer selected blocks
for quite close, high resolution inspection and study. The higher resolution results will not
surprise ecologists who have found repeatedly that a progressed or layered vegetative
structure tends to encourage diversity of avian and other urban wildlife (Sandström, et al.
2006; Fernández-Juricic 2000), as well as many other environmental benefits (Crooks, et al.
2004); yet there was some corroboration in this exercise. What is perhaps valuable is the
speed and relative ease to obtain these comparisons from this one indicator that served as a
filter to identify particular sites to conduct more close study. Fortunately, those more
nuanced assessments correlated with direct economic benefits. Persons appear to be willing
to pay for some elements of the suite of services delivered, demonstrable by filtered
illustration to a few points.
These clearly casual inspections of neighborhoods or blocks with similar tree canopy but
higher Bird measures corresponded to landscapes with intermediate zone vegetation at the
one meter and two meter levels. So, a planner may wish to know what shapes contribute to
ecological value per se; and, then, with even greater specification from very local fieldwork
filtered through our ecological indicator coupled with an economic assessment, a planner
may be able to isolate which improvements lead to economic improvements and at what
point ecological enhancement starts to improve at the expense of further economic
outcomes. If the ecologist, economist and planner seek ecological economic outcomes, the
analysis here points to subsequent fieldwork where landscape design contributes to
ecological outcomes and to economic development. The sort of analysis conducted here
opens the pathway for defining where to sharpen field work to study specific ecological and
social conditions that affect ecological and economic outcomes, separately and together.
Acknowledgements Linda Gaither and Moses Russell, Lubbock Realtors; The 2008 real estate economics
class in Agr and Applied Economics, TTU; L. Navarette, J. Strova, and K. McCabe, field technicians in
Natural Resources Management, TTU; and C. Casanova, Landscape Architecture, TTU.
Urban Ecosyst
References
Bark RH, Osgood DE, Colby BG, Katz G, Stromberg J (2009) Habitat preservation and restoration: do
homebuyers have preferences for quality habitat? Ecol Econ 68:14651475
Bell K, Irwin E (2002) Spatially explicit micro-level modeling of land-use change at the ruralurban
interface. Ag Econ 27(3):217232
Bibby CJ, Burgess ND, Hill DA (1992) Bird census techniques. Academic, New York
Bolund O, Hunhammar S (1999) Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol Econ 29(2):293301
Breuste J, Feldmann H, Uhlmann O (1998) Urban ecology. Springer, Berlin
Cavailhés J, Brossard T, Foltête J-C, Hilal M, Joly D, Tourneux F-P, Tritz C, Wavresky P (2007) Seeing and being
seen: a GIS-based hedonic price valuation of landscape, working paper. INRA-Cesaer and CNRS-Thma,
Dijon-Besancon, France
Cho S-H, Poudyal NC, Roberts RK (2008) Spatial analysis of the amenity value of green open space. Ecol
Econ 66:403416
Crooks KR, Suarez AV, Bolger DT (2004) Avian assemblages along a gradient of urbanization in a highly
fragmented landscape. Biol Cons 115(3):451462
DeGraaf RM, Wentworth JM (1986) Avian guild structure and habitat associations in suburban bird
communities. Urban Ecol 9:399412
DeGraaf RM, Tilghman NG, Anderson SH (1985) Foraging guilds of North American birds. Environ Manag
9:493536
Farmer MC, Lipscomb C (2006) The role of economic analysis in the design and evaluation of healthy
communities and regions. In: Shevliakova E (ed) Regional economics: social and economic processes.
Toglatti University Press. 326340
Fernández-Juricic E (2000) Bird community composition patterns in urban parks of Madrid: the role of age,
size, and isolation. Ecol Res 15(4):373383
Fernández-Juricic E (2001) Avian spatial segregation at edges and interiors of urban parks in Madrid, Spain.
Biodivers Conserv 10(8):13031316
Jim CY, Chen WY (2006) Impacts of urban environmental elements on residential housing prices in
Guangzhou (China). Landsc Urban Plan 78(4):422434
Lipscomb CA, Farmer M (2005) Household diversity and market segmentation within a single
neighborhood. Ann Reg Sci 39(4):791810
Luttik J (2000) The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in The Netherlands.
Landsc Urban Plan 48(3/4):161
Maas J, Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP, De Vries S, Spreeuwenberg P (2006) Green Space, urbanity, and
health; how strong is the relation? J Epidemiol Commun H 60(7):587592
MacArthur RH, MacArthur JW (1961) On bird species diversity. Ecol 42:594598
Mansfield C, Pattanayak SK, McDow W, McDonald R, Halpin P (2005) Shades of green: measuring the
value of urban forests in the housing market. J For Econ 11:177199
Morancho AM (2003) A hedonic valuation of urban green areas. Landsc Urban Plan 66(1):3541
Oleyar D, Greve A, Withey JC, Bjorn A (2008) An integrated approach to evaluating urban forest
functionality. Urban Ecosys 11:289308
Pickett STA, Burch JWR, Dalton SE, Foresman TW, Grove JM, Rowntree R (1997) A conceptual framework
for the study of human ecosystems in urban areas. Urban Ecosys 1:185199
Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Nilon CH, Pouyat RV, Zipperer WC, Costanza R (2001) Urban
ecological systems: linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and socioeconomic components of
metropolitan areas. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:127
Sandström UG, Angelstam P, Mikusiński G (2006) Ecological diversity of birds in relation to the structure of
urban green space. Landsc Urban Plan 77(1/2):3953
Thompson R, Hanna R, Noel J, Piirto D (1999) Valuation of tree aesthetics on small urban interface
properties. J Arboric 25(5):225234
Wolters MJJ (2001). The business of modularity of business.PhD Thesis, Rotterdam, Erasmus University
Press
Urban Ecosyst
... Urban trees provide shade, clean the air, soak up flood water, help combat climate change, create more livable neighborhoods, create a calming flow on urban traffic, and offer habitat for many species (Nowak and Greenfield, 2020). Similarly, neighborhoods that attract wildlife through diverse vegetation have characteristics that also make them more desirable for humans, resulting in higher real-estate values (Farmer et al., 2013;Perry et al., 2020). Yet investment in and access to urban forestry are often seen as luxuries. ...
Article
Full-text available
Three concurrent global environmental trends are particularly apparent: human population growth, urbanization, and climate change. Especially in countries such as Ethiopia in the Global South, all three are impacted by, and in turn have bearing upon, social justice and equity. Combined, these spatial and social factors reduce wellbeing, leading to increasing urgency to create urban environments that are more livable, resilient, and adaptive. However, the impacts on, and of, non-human urban residents, particularly on the ecosystem services they provide, are often neglected. We review the literature using the One Health theoretical framework and focusing on Ethiopia as a case-study. We argue for specific urban strategies that benefit humans and also have spillover effects that benefit other species, and vice versa. For example, urban trees provide shade, clean the air, help combat climate change, create more livable neighborhoods, and offer habitat for many species. Similarly, urban neighborhoods that attract wildlife have characteristics that also make them more desirable for humans, resulting in improved health outcomes, higher livability, and enhanced real-estate values. After summarizing the present state of knowledge about urban ecology, we emphasize components relevant to the developing world in general and pre- COVID-19 pandemic Ethiopia in particular, then expand the discussion to include social justice and equity concerns in the built environment. Prior to the ongoing civil war, Ethiopia was beginning to invest in more sustainable urbanization and serve as a model. Especially in light of the conflict and pandemic, much more will need to be done.
... Another primary indicator of the relationship between avian community and vegetation is avian diversity. Avian diversity was a good predictor of tree density [1] , which means species occurrences declined as resource availability decrease, and breeding sites reduced relative to the percentage of vegetation cover remaining [2] . Simultaneously, avian community structure and composition can also be affected by local environmental factors such as predation and competition, and by large-scale ecological factors, such as the structure and the degree of habitat isolation [3][4][5] . ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Background: Vegetation cover has an essential role in wetland habitats in controlling avian populations throughout the world. The vegetation cover structure in grassland systems varies dramatically among seasons on the same sites. Variation in vegetation cover-abundance richness and diversity has been studied through one hundred forty-seven quadrate samples during summer and autumn, 2019, winter, and spring 2020. Avian species richness and diversity were recorded during the same period. Results: The correlation analysis results confirmed that: (1) there was no apparent seasonal difference in the abundance of vegetation cover while avian abundance was statistically different. (2) Plant abundance in summer was positively correlated with the number of avian, while in autumn it was negatively correlated. Plant and avian abundance at the genus level showed a positive correlation while maintaining a negative correlation at the species level (p < 0.05). However, during summer and autumn, a strong linear relationship exists between vegetation coverage and avian. The Shannon diversity index and Simpson diversity index have a positive linear relationship between vegetation coverage and avian families and genera. Conclusions: We conclude that vegetation coverage richness significantly impact avian communities. We suggest further research into the relationship between other biological communities and farming practices in the wetlands.
... Another primary indicator of the relationship between avian community and vegetation is avian diversity. Avian diversity was a good predictor of tree density [ 1] , which means species occurrences declined as resource availability decrease, and breeding sites reduced relative to the percentage of vegetation cover remaining [ 2] . Simultaneously, avian community structure and composition can also be affected by local environmental factors such as predation and competition, and by large-scale ecological factors, such as the structure and the degree of habitat isolation [3][4][5] . ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Vegetation cover has an essential role in wetland habitats in controlling avian populations throughout the world. The vegetation cover structure in grassland systems varies dramatically among seasons on the same sites. Variation in vegetation cover-abundance richness and diversity has been studied through one hundred forty-seven quadrate samples during summer and autumn, 2019, winter, and spring 2020. Avian spe cies richness and diversity were recorded during the same period. Meanwhile, correlation analysis results confirmed that: (1) there was no apparent seasonal difference in the abundance of vegetation cover while avian abundance was statistically different. (2) Plant abundance in summer was positively correlated with the number of avian, while in autumn it was negatively correlated. Plant and avian abundance at the genus level showed a positive correlation while maintaining a negative correlation at the speci es level (p < 0.05). However, during summer and autumn, a strong linear relationship exists between vegetation coverage and avian. The Shannon diversity index and Simpson diversity index have a positive linear relationship between vegetation coverage and a vian families and genera. Therefore, we conclude that vegetation coverage and richness significantly impact avian communities. We suggest further research into the relationship between other biological communities and farming practices in the wetlands.
... Social sciences represented 10.7% of all urban wildlife publications between 2010 and 2020. Papers within this topic include research on urban residents' perceptions of nature (Jacobs et al., 2012;Wieczorek Hudenko, 2012), surveys on public opinions regarding wildlife management (Jacobs et al., 2014;van Eeden et al., 2019), and how social and socioeconomic identities play a role in acceptance or rejection of wildlife management practices (Gledhill and James, 2012;Farmer et al., 2013;Palamar et al., 2013). These topics align with a growing focus on the importance of understanding coupled humannatural systems and urban socio-ecological systems, including linking biodiversity to historical urban development and social inequalities (Schell et al., 2020;Ackley et al., 2015;Liu et al., 2007;Magle et al., 2016). ...
Article
As urbanization continues to expand across the globe, urban wildlife research is critical for urban planners and conservation practitioners to create livable cities for both humans and wildlife. In 2012, Magle et al. conducted a foundational review on the status of urban wildlife research. The authors described the status of urban wildlife research as of 2010 and offered suggestions for future advancements in the field. We conducted a systematic review following Magle et al. (2012) to provide a 10-year update on the state of urban wildlife research globally and describe recent advancements in the field. We also conducted a broader literature search to further explore current research trends and continuing research gaps within the urban wildlife field. We found that urban wildlife publications have continued to increase within the last decade. However, the sectors conducting the research and the geographical location of publications stayed relatively the same. Similarly, the predominant taxa studied were mammals and birds across the 2000–2020 decades. After broadening our literature search, we were able to identify a new emphasis on management-related research and research in the fields of disease ecology, social science, and methodological development. Critical knowledge gaps remain, however, as there was still a significant lack of studies on herptiles, arthropods, and fish. Additionally, studies from Africa, South America, and Asia – three of the fastest urbanizing continents – were underrepresented. Our results provide conservation practitioners a summary of emerging topics and recommendations for future research that will contribute to creating healthier and more livable cities for both wildlife and people.
... The results can describe the distribution pattern of different bird species and how they are affected by different microhabitats in the urban ecosystem. This should inform urban planners and policymakers about better urban design and ways to conserve urban biodiversity (Farmer & Shiroya, 2013). ...
Article
Full-text available
The rapid growth in residential development in urban areas is the primary cause of habitat change that is affecting avian communities. Bhubaneswar is the capital city and the most urbanized area in state of Odisha, India. We have conducted avian surveys in 30 different sampling sites with 5 from each habitat type in the city. In total, we detected 222 species in 19 orders and 65 families. Agricultural areas were the most preferred habitat with over 52% of the total diversity followed by forest patches with 50%, parks and gardens 39%, wetlands 32%, grasslands 11% and human habitations 8%. Five species were globally nearly threatened, three vulnerable and one endangered according to the IUCN Red List. The cluster analysis shows that the avian community diversity shows positive correlation between forest patch and park and garden habitats (r = 0.52, p < 0.05), park and garden and human habitations habitats (r = 0.29, p < 0.05). Our findings describe high avian species richness as forest and wetland dwelling species are found in these urban habitats. Hence general conservation plan may be suggested to keep these species diversity and richness stable from being lessen.
... The result of this type of study can describe the distribution pattern of different groups of birds and how they are being affected by different microhabitats in the urban ecosystem. In return, urban planners and policymakers will find a better way for urban designing and to conserve urban biodiversity (Farmer et al 2013). The reasons for birds being used as a bioindicator species are as follows: their ecology is being well understood; the link among bird community and habitat had been clearly demonstrated. ...
Article
Full-text available
Birds are considered as ecological indicators and most sensitive health indicators of an ecosystem. Wetlands are used by birds for various purposes such as breeding, nesting, roosting, and foraging. This study was designed to fulfill this research gap on avian diversity comparison of different wetlands in various habitats. The objective of the study was to generate information on avian diversity with seasonal variability of different wetlands of various habitats. Sampling was done in eight different wetlands from different districts of Odisha. The study was carried out during October 2015 to September 2018, and the point count method was used. A total number of 109 species of birds covering 16 order and 42 families were recorded. Maximum waterbird richness was found at Chilika (62%, N=68) and minimum species richness (15%, N=17) found at Talcher. Six species were recorded under Near Threatened category (IUCN, 2020). The reason behind this occurrence of more numbers species in Chilika, Hirakud, and Koraput may be because of the habitat suitability and low anthropogenic pressure. The Talcher sampling site had the lowest species richness because of the highly polluted mining area with high anthropogenic pressure. Conservation of these small wetlands is also required to conserve the declining native avifauna.
Article
Insect pollinators are declining globally as a result of the anthropogenic pressures that have destroyed native habitats and eroded ecosystems. These declines have been associated with agricultural productivity losses, threatening food security. Efforts to restore habitat for pollinators are underway, emphasizing large-scale habitat creation like wildflower strips, yet ignoring the impact of smaller or more isolated patch-creation. A meta-analysis of 31 independent published studies assessed the effect of scale of pollinator planting interventions (herbaceous strips, hedgerows, fertiliser/grazing/mowing control). We assessed pollinator species richness and abundance against size of intervention and type. Pollinator conservation interventions increased species richness and abundance in almost all of the studies examined, with the greatest increases in pollinator ecological metrics seen from hedgerows covering 40 m² and herbaceous interventions at 500 m². We then analysed results from a 5-year study that deployed small pollinator habitats (30 m²) at community gardens and farms (<150,000 m²) practicing organic methods in the Pacific Northwest US. Small additions to pollinator resources had a significant local impact on pollinator abundance, but this effect was lost when these relatively small additions were introduced to sites in larger landscapes (>150,000 m²). Together, we show that small interventions (∼500 m²) can significantly benefit pollinators, but only when sufficiently densely distributed at a landscape level. Though we understand the effects of single interventions at various scales, future research is needed to understand how these relatively small interventions act cumulatively at a landscape scale, and within this context whether larger areas are still needed for some species. Nonetheless, these preliminary data are promising, and may play an important role in convincing smaller landowners to act to preserve insect pollinators.
Preprint
Full-text available
Vegetation cover has an essential role in wetland habitats in controlling avian populations throughout the world. The vegetation cover structure in grassland systems varies dramatically among seasons on the same sites. Variation in vegetation cover-abundance richness and diversity has been studied through one hundred forty-seven quadrate samples during summer and autumn, 2019, winter, and spring 2020. Avian species richness and diversity were recorded during the same period. Meanwhile, correlation analysis results confirmed that: (1) there was no apparent seasonal difference in the abundance of vegetation cover while avian abundance was statistically different. (2) Plant abundance in summer was positively correlated with the number of avian, while in autumn it was negatively correlated. Plant and avian abundance at the genus level showed a positive correlation while maintaining a negative correlation at the species level (p < 0.05). However, during summer and autumn, a strong linear relationship exists between vegetation coverage and avian. The Shannon diversity index and Simpson diversity index have a positive linear relationship between vegetation coverage and avian families and genera. Therefore, we conclude that vegetation coverage and richness significantly impact avian communities. We suggest further research into the relationship between other biological communities and farming practices in the wetlands
Article
Full-text available
The need for integrated concepts, capable of satisfying natural and social scientists and supporting integrated research, motivates a conceptual framework for understanding the role of humans in ecosystems. The question is how to add humans to the ecological models used to understand urban ecosystems. The ecosystem concept can serve as the basis, but specific social attributes of humans and their institutions must be added. Learning and feedback between the human and natural components of urban ecosystems are key attributes of the integrated model. Parallels with familiar ecological approaches can help in understanding the ecology of urban ecosystems. These include the role of spatial heterogeneity and organizational hierarchies in both the social and natural components of urban ecosystems. Although urban watersheds are commonly highly altered, the watershed approach can serve as a spatial basis for organizing comparative studies of ecosystems exhibiting differing degrees of urbanization. The watershed concept can also spatially organize the hierarchically scaled linkages by which the integrated human ecosystem model can be applied. The study of urban ecosystems is a relatively new field, and the questions suggested by the integrated framework can be used to frame ecosystem research in and associated with urban and metropolitan areas.
Article
Full-text available
This paper analyses the link between housing prices and urban green areas endowments using the hedonic technique as methodological approach. Together with the conventional variables used to explain housing prices, three environmental variables are considered: the existence of views of a park or a public garden, the distance from the dwelling to its nearest green area and the size of that open space. The sample is made up of 810 observations gathered from the city of Castellón (Spain). Results show housing size to be the most relevant variable on price. As far as the hedonic variables are concerned, there is an inverse relationship between the selling price of the dwelling and its distance from a green urban area.
Article
Full-text available
Urban areas can contain public parks, protected forests, unprotected (or undeveloped) forest areas, and trees growing around a house or in the neighborhood surrounding the house. Each type of forest cover provides different amenities to the homeowner and to society at large. In particular, while trees on a parcel of land or in a neighborhood may add value for homeowners, the ecological value of these trees as habitat is far less than large, unbroken parcels of forest. We explore different definitions of forest cover and greenness and assess the relative value of these various types of forest cover to homeowners. Using data from the Research Triangle region of North Carolina, we test the hypothesis that trees on a parcel or in the neighborhood around that parcel are substitutes for living near large blocks of forest. The findings have implications for land-use planning efforts and habitat conservation in particular.
Book
This book provides an overview of international developments in urban ecology, with many examples from cities worldwide. In addition, it presents a unique exchange of experiences and ideas, with a focus on cooperation between researchers and those involved in putting ideas into practice. Topics include: aims and standards for ecological cities; the integration of ecologial, economic, social and cultural aspects; land use as a controlling factor; ecologically responsible mobility; and the integration of nature and landscape into urban development.
Article
This paper describes micro-economic models of land use change applicable to the rural-urban interface in the US. Use of a spatially explicit micro-level modelling approach permits the analysis of regional patterns of land use as the aggregate outcomes of many, disparate individual land use decisions distributed across space. In contrast to the models featured by Nelson and Geoghegan, we focus on models that require spatially articulated data on parcel-level land use changes through time. In characterising the spatially disaggregated models, we highlight issues uniquely related to the management and generation of spatial data and the estimation of micro-level spatial models.
Article
Matthijs Wolters was born on June 4 1972 in Dronten, the Netherlands. He studied Econometrics at the University of Groningen, with a specialization in Operations Research and Statistics. During his study he was involved in a number of research investigations, varying from forecasting the outcome of tennis matches to a viewers inquiry for a popularscientific television program. He graduated in 1996 on a thesis that dealt with the development and testing of algorithms and heuristics for efficient orderpicking in warehouses. Since October 1996 he has been working at the Erasmus University Rotterdam as a Ph.D. candidate on modularity, mass-customization, dynamic networking and ICT. His research was published in several newspapers, books and journals and he presented his work at international conferences. He also supervised a number of graduation students with their master's project. In 1998 he organized an international conference "Electronic Commerce: Crossing Boundaries". Recently, he has started his own company Ludens Research and Consultancy in which he continues his work on customer-oriented organizing and modularity.
Article
This paper describes micro-economic models of land use change applicable to the rural-urban interface in the US. Use of a spatially explicit micro-level modelling approach permits the analysis of regional patterns of land use as the aggregate outcomes of many, disparate individual land use decisions distributed across space. In contrast to the models featured by Nelson and Geoghegan, we focus on models that require spatially articulated data on parcel-level land use changes through time. In characterising the spatially disaggregated models, we highlight issues uniquely related to the management and generation of spatial data and the estimation of micro-level spatial models.
Article
This study intends to assess the influence of fragment age, size and isolation (from the regional species pool) on bird community composition patterns in urban parks in Madrid, and the role of local and regional factors on community structure. Park age was a good indicator of habitat complexity. Park age and area accounted for 62% of the variability in species richness, but two measures of isolation from the regional species pool were not included as significant factors. Species composition in urban parks showed a high degree of nestedness, which was associated with park age and area, but not with two measures of isolation from the regional species pool. The degree of nestedness increased with park age; the distribution of species varying from nested in old and mature parks to random in young parks. The incidence (% of species occurrence in parks) in young parks was correlated with regional densities, whereas in mature and old parks the incidence was correlated with local densities. In this urban landscape, species composition appears to be regulated by local factors (particularly in mature and old parks), such that species accumulate in an orderly (not random) fashion in relation to park age and area. Regional influences seem to be more pronounced only in young parks, which are mainly colonized by species from the regional species pool.
Article
We propose a foraging guild classification for North American inland, coastal, and pelagic birds. This classification uses a three-part identification for each guild—major food, feeding substrate, and foraging technique—to classify 672 species of birds in both the breeding and nonbreeding seasons. We have attempted to group species that use similar resources in similar ways. Researchers have identified foraging guilds generally by examining species distributions along one or more defined environmental axes. Such studies frequently result in species with several guild designations. While the continuance of these studies is important, to accurately describe species' functional roles, managers need methods to consider many species simultaneously when trying to determine the impacts of habitat alteration. Thus, we present an avian foraging classification as a starting point for further discussion to aid those faced with the task of describing community effects of habitat change.