NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Wilson EO, Peter FM, editors. Biodiversity. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1988.

Cover of Biodiversity

Biodiversity.

Show details

Chapter 7Challenges to Biological Diversity in Urban Areas

DENNIS D. MURPHY

Research Programs Director, Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, California

Jaws, claws, an explosion of spray, and a grizzly emerges from the shallows, a salmon in its grasp. Mixed herds of elk, deer, and pronghorn antelope graze rolling, grassy slopes. A cougar surveys from broken chaparral and woodland above.

A scene from the shores of Yellowstone Lake? Perhaps. But it is also a scene from the shores of San Francisco Bay just 150 years ago. Now only deer and cougar remain, but well away from those shores in mountainous habitats above the sprawling metropolitan Bay Area. It seems that only the relatively recent European settlement of the West has spared those species at all. In wooded patches surrounding Milwaukee, the woodland bison, moose, wolverine, black bear, elk, and lynx have been long extinct. Now just a very few forest specialists, such as the raccoon, chipmunk, and white-footed mouse, survive in the region, and those species are gone from all but the very largest woodland patches (Matthiae and Stearns, 1981). In patches of eastern deciduous forest near Washington, D.C., migrant bird species restricted as breeders to forest interiors also survive in only the largest natural habitat remnants. A number of warbler species there show signs of imminent regional extinction (Whitcomb et al., 1981).

These are merely obvious examples of an accelerating decline in the global diversity of living things. The term biological diversity has been used to describe "the variety of life forms, the ecological roles they perform, and the genetic diversity they contain" (Wilcox, 1984, p.640). While scientists argue about the relative enormity of tropical deforestation and its impact on biological diversity, the loss of populations, species, and entire ecological communities in human population centers and their surrounding landscapes is well documented and inarguably immense. In urban areas of the eastern United States, only species with the most general habitat and resource requirements have remained in urban corridors. Moreover, the prospect of further erosion of biological diversity looms. In Great Britain, where the sustained assault on the environment is measured in millennia rather than in centuries, and where most vertebrate species are distant memories, a cascade of invertebrate extinctions is now being observed. For example, 80% of the resident butterfly species have declined in number in at least a major part of their British ranges during the past decade (Thomas, 1984). A number of those survive only on reserves and under rigorous management regimes. An estimated 18% of all European butterfly species are considered to be vulnerable to or imminently faced with extinction (Heath, 1981).

Unfortunately, losses of animal and plant species are restricted neither to temperate zone urban areas nor to the developed world. Urban impacts on biological diversity reach their most devastating in the Third World. Less than 2% of the Atlantic forests of coastal Brazil within the urban reach of Sao Paulo remain, and it has been estimated that thousands of species from this region of high endemism have been driven to extinction, most never having been described by taxonomists.

Although the full extent of this urban environmental degradation is virtually impossible to convey, its underlying causes are comparatively simple to identify. With few exceptions, losses of naturally occurring biological diversity are incidental to human activities. Thus, urban areas are effectively synonymous with ecosystem disruption and the erosion of biological diversity. Natural habitats are replaced directly by houses, condominiums, hotels, and malls, as well as by streets, highways, and utilities that support them. Historically, urban areas were the first regions subjected to local overkill of wildlife for food, fur, and feathers, and through misdirected predator control programs. They were also the first to experience logging and weed eradication programs. The biological diversity of urban areas has also been among the most severely affected by the introduction of animal species, which prey on native animal populations, compete for limited resources, and act as vectors for novel diseases and parasites to which native organisms can be particularly susceptible.

Great effects on biological diversity in urban areas also can result from less direct sources, including many of the air- and water-borne pollutants that imperil human health. Toxic by-products of industrial production, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), sulfur dioxide, and oxidants as well as pesticides directed at noxious species, have been found to disrupt natural ecosystems (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1981). Airborne pollutants are especially insidious, since they expand the reach of urban blight far beyond city limits. More subtle impacts on biological diversity result from overdrafting local aquifers, dropping water tables, and ground subsidence. These processes are often compounded by changes in natural patterns of groundwater percolation caused by the destruction of wetlands and diversion of runoff.

This wide array of obvious and subtle factors contribute to the disruption of ecosystem function, the decoupling of interactions among species, and the disappearance of populations of organisms from urban locales. Why should that concern us? Because losses of just a few populations can result in a great destabilization of natural ecological communities and, as a consequence, in a decrement in the ability of those communities to provide a wide array of services. Thus, many reasons for protecting diversity in urban areas are often highly utilitarian. Benefits include amelioration of climate, because foliage in cities contribute to the reduction of ambient temperatures. Large trees and shrubs reduce wind velocity and reduce evaporation of soil moisture. Plants are also useful in architecture, erosion control, watershed protection, wastewater management, noise abatement, and air pollution control (Grey and Deneke, 1986).

Nevertheless, the aesthetic reasons for preserving biological diversity are often those that most obviously affect the populace of urban areas. The great parks and natural areas of the world's major cities, such as Central Park and the Gateway National Recreation Area in New York City and Golden Gate Park and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in San Francisco, are regarded as prized jewels, providing opportunities for recreation and relaxation as well as habitat for a wide variety of species.

The arguments for protecting biological diversity in urban areas seem straight-forward, but the implementation of conservation programs in urban areas is among the most difficult problems faced by environmentalists. Some areas are so disturbed that functioning, naturally occurring ecosystems are no longer identifiable, whereas other urban habitats remain effectively undisturbed. Open spaces in inner cities often support only species that are particularly well adapted to human impact. Such areas are nearly always small and extremely isolated, and their maintenance and enhancement demand extensive and continuous hands-on management. The conservation goals in such areas must usually aim at maximizing biological diversity to the extent possible, rather than preserving all remaining resident species.

Inner city park developers have traditionally introduced plantings of exotic species. Such settings fulfill many of the aesthetic and utilitarian roles that natural habitats offer, but their establishment and maintenance costs tend to be high, since few of the self-regenerating functions of natural ecosystems are available. Yet, although human-induced intervention such as the replacement of ecosystem components can increase the number of species locally over at least the short run, these processes nearly always upset the ecological balance of communities; hence it ultimately exerts a negative impact on naturally occurring biological diversity.

Where larger, intact ecosystems exist within cities, they are often restricted to corridors alongside steep stream canyons, such as Rock Creek Park in Washington, D.C., and Fairmont Park in Philadelphia. But the most extensive expanses of natural habitat in urban areas are those surrounding city limits. In those relatively undisturbed areas, prescriptions for the preservation of biological diversity are quite different from those for maximizing diversity in more disturbed areas. Corridors and surrounding habitats are among the most valuable urban natural areas, providing for extensive biological diversity and reducing the isolation of the largest surviving ecosystems, which may be far from urban centers.

The single greatest threat to the biological diversity of relatively intact natural communities in and around urban areas is the destruction of natural habitats and their conversion to other uses. The paving over of natural habitats as urban activities sprawl outward destroys and fragments remnant functioning ecosystems. The redistribution of water through channelization and impoundment of flowing waters, and the draining of some wetlands and the flooding of others, destroys undeveloped habitat areas. Activities as seemingly benign as the planting of exotic trees and shrubs in parks and along byways or the conversion of open space to golf courses disrupt the distribution of natural components of biological diversity. These activities combine to decrease habitat area and disturb the equilibrium between extinction and immigration among remaining natural habitats, with the frequent result that some species are permanently lost.

Decreases in local biological diversity resulting from losses of habitat area and insularization of habitat remnants are compounded by the more subtle effects of fragmentation. Losses of single, specific microhabitats within an otherwise undisturbed habitat can cause the local extinction of certain species. Disruption of even narrow corridors of natural habitat between large habitat patches can lead to losses of species. The removal of understory foliage in manicured park areas and suburban housing developments can result in the loss of numerous species, most conspicuously species of birds. Vast differences in temperature, humidity, light availability, and wind exposure exist between forest edges and interiors and affect habitat suitability for some species. In addition, losses of certain species due to any one or more causes can affect closely associated species sometimes leading ultimately to secondary extinction events (Wilcox and Murphy, 1985).

In light of these basic ecological facts, conservation of the full range of urban biological diversity necessitates the protection of the largest possible expanses of natural habitat. Yet, that simple prescription is usually impossible to fill in urban areas, where the forces acting to decrease the size of remaining natural habitats are greatest. These conflicting pressures interact to determine urban conservation policy and to force biologists to justify the sizes of biological preserves.

Economic and political considerations in urban areas make preservation particularly difficult. Land costs are high because of high demand, and the vast majority of urban space is private property. The few publicly owned open spaces are subject to intensive, varied uses, many of which are incompatible with preserving biological diversity. Local political institutions usually favor development over preservation, and many agencies concerned with land and resource management, such as the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, have no presence in urban areas. Many conservation organizations with largely urban memberships virtually limit their concern to nonurban environments, and those involved with local issues rarely have the resources available for protracted fights over development.

The Endangered Species Act with its mandate outlawing the "take" of any endangered species is the best tool for protecting biological diversity in urban areas of this country. Although the goal of the Act is protection of individual species of concern, its "purposes … are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species depend may be conserved" (USC, 1983, p. 1, §1531). Its strength resides in its ability to protect species regardless of land ownership.

Efforts to conserve the full extent of biological diversity by using the Endangered Species Act must target species that are most susceptible to habitat loss. The protection of extinction-prone species can be the key to facilitating the conservation of biological diversity in urban areas. Species especially prone to extinction include those high on trophic pyramids, widespread species with low vagility (i.e., with poor dispersal ability), endemic and migratory species, and species with colonial nesting habits (Terbough, 1974). Many such species inhabit urban areas during all or major portions of their lives and can act as umbrellas of sorts, often conferring protection to great numbers of species in the same habitats.

The greatest erosion of extinction-prone species has usually occurred in habitat remnants that survive in those urban areas with the longest histories of settlement. Hence prescriptions for conserving remaining biological diversity differ substantially among urban areas. For example, forest patches support many more bird species than do grassland patches of similar size. All else being equal, therefore, protection of the total remaining biological diversity of oak woodlands surrounding San Francisco will demand more and larger preserves than protection of similar habitats to achieve a similar goal near less biologically diverse Washington D.C. In addition, the sizes of preserves necessary to protect biological diversity within an urban area will vary because the diversity itself varies greatly among different natural communities. Oak woodland preserves near San Francisco are likely to require more area to protect their complement of biological diversity than will native grassland preserves in the same geographic area.

In the urban United States, three groups must interact to assist the Endangered Species Act in protecting biological diversity. Field biologists must aid in the identification and survey of potential umbrella species. Conservation organizations must use that information and citizen petitions to get appropriate umbrella species protected via the endangered list. In response, the Office of Endangered Species will have to reassess listing priorities.

The San Francisco Bay Area exemplifies the challenge of preserving urban biological diversity. Without the grizzly bear, tule elk, and even the Xerces blue butterfly, San Francisco might be viewed as biologically impoverished in a sense, but the urban Bay Area remains an exceptionally rich natural region in the biologically richest state in the union. The ecological communities within a 25-kilometer radius of Berkeley include redwood, Douglas fir, and digger pine forests as well as coastal sage and inland chaparral, annual grasslands, dunes, riparian corridors, freshwater lakes, bay marshlands, and even pelagic marine communities and offshore seabird rookeries, an extraordinary array of ecological communities supporting immense biological diversity. The conservation challenge is great, especially in the shadow of a population growing at more than 3% per year; moreover, that shadow is not cast evenly. Less than 15% of San Francisco Bay marshlands remain, but much inland chaparral remains untouched.

Can this urban biological diversity be protected? In this country, the answer is a qualified yes. In many other countries the outlook is not that sanguine. In Austria, prohibitions against the collection of wildlife and plants are strictly enforced, while the conversion of natural habitats to cultivation is effectively subsidized by the government. In the Federal Republic of Germany, as the Black Forest dies from acidification, powerful lobbies thwart the implementation of speed limits on the autobahns; consequently high levels of pollution continue to prevail. Overpopulation, chronic poverty, and fuel shortages in the Third World create unrelenting pressures to exploit all available local resources. These pressures certainly will become more overwhelming in the future.

Our urban centers can be viewed as bellwethers of our global environmental fate. Our success at meeting the challenges of protecting biological diversity in urban areas is a good measure of our commitment to protect functioning ecosystems worldwide. If we cannot act as responsible stewards in our own backyards, the long-term prospects for biological diversity in the rest of this planet are grim indeed.

References

  • Ehrlich, P. R., and A. H. Ehrlich. 1981. Extinction. The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species. Random House, New York. 305 pp.
  • Grey, G. W., and F. J. Deneke. 1986. Urban Forestry. 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 299 pp.
  • Heath, J. 1981. Threatened Rhopalocera (Butterflies) in Europe. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France. 157 pp.
  • Matthiae, P. E., and F. Stearns. 1981. Mammals in forest islands in southeastern Wisconsin. Pp. 55–66 in R. L. Burgess, editor; and D. M. Sharpe, editor. , eds. Forest Island Dynamics in Man-dominated Landscapes. Springer-Verlag, New York.
  • Terborgh, J. 1974. Preservation of natural diversity: The problem of extinction prone species. BioScience 24:715–722.
  • Thomas, J. A. 1984. The conservation of butterflies in temperate countries: Past efforts and lessons for the future. Pp. 333–353 in R. I. Vane-Wright, editor; and P. R. Ackery, editor. , eds. The Biology of Butterflies. Academic Press, London.
  • USC (United States Code). 1984. Title 16, Conservation; Section 1531 et seq. Endangered Species Act of 1973. United States Code, 1984 Lawyers Edition. Lawyers Co-operative, Rochester, N. Y.
  • Whitcomb, R. F., C. S. Robbins, J. F. Lynch, B. L. Whitcomb, M. K. Klimkiewicz, and D. Bystrak. 1981. Effects of forest fragmentation on avifauna of the eastern deciduous forest. Pp. 125–205 in R. L. Burgess, editor; and D. M. Sharpe, editor. , eds. Forest Island Dynamics in Man-dominated Landscapes. Springer-Verlag, New York.
  • Wilcox, B. A. 1984. In situ conservation of genetic resources: Determinants of minimum area requirements. Pp. 639–647 in J. A. McNeeley, editor; and K. R. Miller, editor. , eds. National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Proceedings of the World Congress on National Parks, Bali, Indonesia, 11–22 October 1982. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
  • Wilcox, B. A., and D. D. Murphy. 1985. Conservation strategy: The effects of fragmentation on extinction. Am. Nat. 125(6):879–887.
Copyright © 1988 by the National Academy of Sciences.
Bookshelf ID: NBK219328

Views

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...