Urban biodiversity is often
overlooked in our general concept of conservation efforts. We picture national
parks or other large swaths of protected land where wildlife is maintained
separate from human populations. However,
research suggests that biodiversity conservation efforts in cities may be
equally, if not more important than in remote parks. Ricketts and Imhoff (2003)
performed a study in order to prioritize terrestrial ecoregions for
conservation based on areas with high levels of both biodiversity and human
threat. They created indices for species richness and endemism and defined human
threat by land use. In addition to identifying priority locations, they found
that conservation efforts may be more critical in human population centers
(Ricketts and Imhoff, 2003).
Credit:
The Guardian
Biodiversity is important to cities beyond its contribution to overall conservation efforts. Green spaces in cities serve as critical migratory corridors for some species. People want access to nature and the services that come with it (Maddox, 2012). A 10% increase in urban tree canopy cover can result in 3-4 degree Celsius decrease in ambient temperature, reducing the need for air conditioning. However, one of the most compelling arguments for urban biodiversity is the health benefits. Rich diversity in cities contribute to ecosystem services such as improved air quality, dust filtering, and acting as a carbon sink. Proximity to plant life can reduce prevalence of childhood asthma and allergies (Simonsen, 2012). These are just a few examples of the myriad health benefits that biodiversity provides, but the bulk of investment in biodiversity conservation efforts currently focuses on land that is far away from population centers. However, given the health implications as more people move into in cities, a greater effort should be put toward studying and protecting urban biodiversity. Change can come through developing better protection schemes and incorporating considerations for biodiversity into urban design (Maddox, 2012), as well as community based efforts.
One mechanism for increasing urban biodiversity is to support urban agriculture efforts. Some cities already utilize urban farming a great deal; a 1996 UN report estimated that up to 80% of families in some Asian cities and others around the world are involved in agriculture. Urban agriculture itself has huge public health implications. Gardens can strengthen local food security when paired with support in the form of knowledge, tools and space. Though many variables affect agricultural outputs, given average growing conditions, a 10 by 10 meter plot can provide a household’s yearly vegetable needs including much of the nutritional requirements for vitamins A, C, B complex and iron (Brown and Jameton, 2000). While such a plot may not be a viable option for many city dwellers, smaller plots or community gardens can still contribute to increased nutrition. Gardens also contribute to improved personal wellness. Research supports the associated benefits of physical exercise, stress release, and other psychological and social benefits (Brown and Jameton, 2000). In fact, naturally occurring soil bacteria can act directly as a mood enhancer. One bacterium, mycobacterium vaccae, boosts serotonin levels and reduces anxiety (Healthy Organic).
Biodiversity is important to cities beyond its contribution to overall conservation efforts. Green spaces in cities serve as critical migratory corridors for some species. People want access to nature and the services that come with it (Maddox, 2012). A 10% increase in urban tree canopy cover can result in 3-4 degree Celsius decrease in ambient temperature, reducing the need for air conditioning. However, one of the most compelling arguments for urban biodiversity is the health benefits. Rich diversity in cities contribute to ecosystem services such as improved air quality, dust filtering, and acting as a carbon sink. Proximity to plant life can reduce prevalence of childhood asthma and allergies (Simonsen, 2012). These are just a few examples of the myriad health benefits that biodiversity provides, but the bulk of investment in biodiversity conservation efforts currently focuses on land that is far away from population centers. However, given the health implications as more people move into in cities, a greater effort should be put toward studying and protecting urban biodiversity. Change can come through developing better protection schemes and incorporating considerations for biodiversity into urban design (Maddox, 2012), as well as community based efforts.
One mechanism for increasing urban biodiversity is to support urban agriculture efforts. Some cities already utilize urban farming a great deal; a 1996 UN report estimated that up to 80% of families in some Asian cities and others around the world are involved in agriculture. Urban agriculture itself has huge public health implications. Gardens can strengthen local food security when paired with support in the form of knowledge, tools and space. Though many variables affect agricultural outputs, given average growing conditions, a 10 by 10 meter plot can provide a household’s yearly vegetable needs including much of the nutritional requirements for vitamins A, C, B complex and iron (Brown and Jameton, 2000). While such a plot may not be a viable option for many city dwellers, smaller plots or community gardens can still contribute to increased nutrition. Gardens also contribute to improved personal wellness. Research supports the associated benefits of physical exercise, stress release, and other psychological and social benefits (Brown and Jameton, 2000). In fact, naturally occurring soil bacteria can act directly as a mood enhancer. One bacterium, mycobacterium vaccae, boosts serotonin levels and reduces anxiety (Healthy Organic).
Credit: Inspiration Green
Urban agriculture improves public
health through other forms of stress reduction as well. Community gardens help
improve the social capital of neighborhoods. Indirect effects include reduced
burglaries, thefts, and illicit drug dealing in neighborhoods with garden
projects (Brown and Jameton, 2000). In addition to broadening our concept of
biodiversity conservation, we must broaden our definition of the traditional
concept of health. Though these community improvements don’t fall under
traditional notions of health improvement, they have impacts on personal
well-being.
Positive health benefits from
increased urban biodiversity stem from a plethora of activities that are not
limited to gardening. The state of Kerala in India just piloted a new Urban
Biodiversity Enhancement Programme. Several polluted urban ponds have been
turned over to residents’ associations for cleaning and restoration. Local
residents transform these into urban biodiversity centers by planting medicinal
plants and trees, some of which are native. One pond already has about 160
species of medicinal and flowering plants. Though the pilot ponds are in
various stages of completion, the project is being considered a success and
more ponds will soon be turned over (Unni, 2013). As well as improving the
environmental and social health of the neighborhood, these projects provide a
local source of plants with medicinal properties.
Credit:
The New India Express
Urban agriculture can result in
some negative environmental health consequences. These come from the use of
chemical fertilizers and pesticides, which can cause negative health effects
through direct exposure and pollution. Current and historically industrial
sites have also been shown to cause health problems for those ingesting the
food grown there. Plants take up hazardous manufacturing residues that can be
toxic to humans in certain concentrations. On the other hand, phytoremediation (using
plants to remove contaminants more efficiently) presents a potential solution
to that issue, as well as improving the health of city land in general (Brown
and Jameton, 2000).
There’s a caveat, however, for plant based biodiversity programs. A study of changing biodiversity patterns in cities found that plant species richness increases because of importation, but animal species richness tends to decline. This is because humans directly control plants but almost never animals and microbes—the implication being that conserving natural habitats defined by plants doesn’t guarantee the other components of biological community (Faeth et al., 2011). The fauna and microbes in a community are crucial for biodiversity and the ecosystem services they provide. This should be accounted for more in urban biodiversity efforts.
There’s a caveat, however, for plant based biodiversity programs. A study of changing biodiversity patterns in cities found that plant species richness increases because of importation, but animal species richness tends to decline. This is because humans directly control plants but almost never animals and microbes—the implication being that conserving natural habitats defined by plants doesn’t guarantee the other components of biological community (Faeth et al., 2011). The fauna and microbes in a community are crucial for biodiversity and the ecosystem services they provide. This should be accounted for more in urban biodiversity efforts.
So how can more efforts be
initiated? If biodiversity programs are going to occur in and be maintained by
local communities or neighborhoods, an easy answer would be educating those
residents about the importance of urban biodiversity. A study by Shwartz et al
(2012) came about from the lack of existing evaluation of the effectiveness of
urban conservation programs that are meant to increase action toward and
knowledge of biodiversity. Their study examined the influence of an urban
conservation activity day on knowledge, awareness and actions toward biodiversity
in Paris. They founds that a single activity day increased interest and
knowledge of local urban biodiversity but had little effect in the long term.
Subsequently, they hypothesize that repeated education programs could achieve
conservation goals more effectively (Shwartz et al., 2012). This comes as no
surprise; real effort toward biodiversity conservation requires a sustained
commitment. However, the benefits of such work are undeniable, from as big a
scale as global biodiversity conservation down to the health of each urban
individual.
Works Cited
Brown, Kate H., and Andrew
Jameton. "Public Health Implications of Urban Agriculture." Journal
of
Public Health Policy 21.1 (2000): 20-39.
Faeth, Stanley H., Christofer Bang, and
Susanna Saari. "Urban Biodiversity: Patterns and
Mechanisms." Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences (2011): 69-81.
Healthy Organic. "Soil Bacteria Makes
You Happy." Web. <http://healthyorganic.co.za/soil-bacteria-
makes-you-happy/>.
Maddox, David. "Shift Investment to
Urban Biodiversity." Sound
Science Blog. 9 Feb. 2012. Web.
<http://sound-science.org/blog/2012/02/09/shift-investment-to-urban-biodiversity/>.
Ricketts, Taylor, and Marc Imhoff.
"Biodiversity, Urban Areas, and Agriculture: Locating Priority
Ecoregions for
Conservation." Conservation
Ecology 8.2 (2003).
Shwartz, Assaf, Alix Cosquer, Alexandre
Jaillon, Armony Piron, Romain Julliard, Richard Raymond,
Laurent Simon, and Anne-Caroline Prévot-Julliard. "Urban
Biodiversity, City-Dwellers and Conservation: How Does an Outdoor Activity Day
Affect the Human-Nature Relationship?" PLoS
ONE 7.6 (2012).
Simonsen, Sturle. "Rich Biodiversiy
Can Curb Urban Health Issues - Stockholm Resilience Centre." Rich
Biodiversiy Can Curb Urban Health Issues - Stockholm Resilience Centre. 15 Oct. 2012. Web.
<http://www.stockholmresilience.org/21/research/research-news/10-15-2012-rich-biodiversiy-can-curb-urban-health-issues.html>.
Unni, Aparna. "Urban Pond
Rejuvenation Tastes Success." The
New Indian Express. 23 May 2013.
Web.
<http://newindianexpress.com/cities/thiruvananthapuram/Urban-pond-rejuvenation-tastes-success/2013/05/23/article1602009.ece>.
No comments:
Post a Comment