The Planner's Guide to Natural Resource Conservation: by Adrian X. Esparza & Guy McPherson

Author:Adrian X. Esparza & Guy McPherson
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Springer New York, New York, NY

The late 1980s and 1990s experienced the proliferation of urban wildlife research, especially among management agencies and universities. International symposia were organized (Adams and Leedy 1987; Shaw, Harris and VanDruff 2004) and professional societies such as The Wildlife Society created working groups that focused on urban wildlife. The critical role that urban and exurban environments play in conservation was also acknowledged during the 1990s. Ecologists recognized that a conservation strategy focused exclusively (or predominantly) on wildlands and wilderness areas was not sufficient to maintain the full range of biodiversity.

These responses were due largely to the escalation of urban development. By 2000, over 5% of the country’s land had been converted to urban uses – more land than was protected in national and state parks and owned by the Nature Conservancy (McKinney 2002). More so, scholars were concerned by the pattern of development: a patchwork of urban areas intermixed with protected lands. Informed by island biogeography (MacArthur and Wilson 1967), researchers recognized that protected parks and reserves were too small and dispersed to ensure adequate conservation of biodiversity over the long term.

Recognition of the need to soften human-induced impacts, including the most modified lands of all – those found in cities – spurred an explosion of interest in urban ecology. This led urban ecology quickly from the periphery of ecological science to the mainstream as concerns about unprecedented suburban growth and the attendant loss of open space motivated research agendas aimed at informing regional planning and conservation (DeStefano, Deblinger and Miller 2005). Several universities hired faculty to teach and conduct research on a range of urban wildlife issues (Decker, Brown and Siemer 2001). In 1997, the National Science Foundation added two urban sites, Baltimore and Phoenix, to its long-term ecological research program (Kingsland 2005). By 2000, every state wildlife agency had a non-game management program, with some, such as Arizona Game and Fish Department, dedicating significant resources to wildlife management in urban areas (Decker, Brown and Siemer 2001).

Today, two areas of interest dominate the field of urban ecology: (1) reducing the impacts of urbanization by preserving and restoring habitats that promote native species conservation (McKinney 2002) and (2) developing methods to reduce human–wildlife conflicts and problems associated with “overabundant” wildlife (DeStefano and DeGraaf 2003). These themes spawn public involvement because they are ripe with conflict and ignite passions and controversy. Unlike remote areas, where conservation and management typically involve federal and state lands, most land in urban areas is privately owned or, if public, is used heavily by people (Shaw and Supplee 1987). Ecologists increasingly engage urban and suburban residents through direct participation in conservation or research programs, by communicating their research findings and by educating people about the various ways to mitigate the impacts of urbanization (DeStefano, Deblinger and Miller 2005). The Tucson Bird Count, a citizen science-based project that collects data on the abundances and distribution of birds around the Tucson area, is an example of such projects (McCaffrey 2005). The Tucson Bird Count uses data for research, local conservation initiatives, and land-use planning.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.