See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284548973

On the ecological quality of urban systems: An

ornithological perspective

Article · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

19 62

3 authors:

Ian MacGregor-Fors Rubén Ortega-Álvarez

Institute of Ecology INECOL Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
88 PUBLICATIONS 1,200 CITATIONS 52 PUBLICATIONS 374 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jorge E. Schondube
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
85 PUBLICATIONS 1,065 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ecological synthesis of the bat-fruit interactions in the Neotropics View project

Monitoreo biológico comunitario: ciencia participativa View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jorge E. Schondube on 10 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

In: Urban Planning in the 21st Century ISBN:978-1-60692-975-9
Editors: Daniel S. Graber and Kenneth A. Birmingham ©2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 3

ON THE ECOLOGICAL QUALITY OF URBAN SYSTEMS: AN

ORNITHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

Ian MacGregor-Fors1* Rubén Ortega-Álvarez2

and Jorge E. Schondube1
Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Campus Morelia. Antigua Carretera a Pátzcuaro 8701, Morelia 58190, Michoacán,
México1
Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad Universitaria.
Circuito exterior S/N, México, D.F. 04510, México2

1. WHY TO USE BIRDS AS TOOLS FOR MEASURING THE ECOLOGICAL

QUALITY OF CITIES?
When you leave your home early in the morning, for work or school, the sunrise chorus
of birds is usually ubiquitous. The main reason that enables you to enjoy this phenomenon
inside a city is that birds are one of the few wildlife groups that assemble complex
communities within urban areas. Due to the latter and to the fact that birds are generally
conspicuous, diverse, and quickly respond to habitat changes, biologists that study urban
ecosystems have focused greatly on this group to carry out their research. In this chapter, we
attempt to summarize the knowledge on the factors that have been identified as important for
maintaining diverse communities of urban-dwelling birds. We also pinpoint the relationship
between these factors and the ecological quality of urban areas. Finally, we propose several
urban management and planning activities that could assist on maintaining and promoting
biodiversity within cities. At the same time, these activities could improve the ecological
quality of the urban areas in which we live, leading to a win-win scenario.

*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
52 Ian MacGregor-Fors, Rubén Ortega-Álvarez, and Jorge E. Schondube

2. BIRDS AND THE CITY

When an area becomes urbanized, natural habitats are replaced with artificial structures
that satisfy human-life requirements (Bradshaw, 2003). The establishment of these structures
has drastic and long-term effects on the environment (Turner et al., 2004; McKinney, 2006).
Thus, changing the attributes of the preexisting natural habitat urbanization represents a threat
to the native biodiversity (Marzluff et al., 2001a; McKinney, 2008). However, each city
comprises a unique and complex system, the essence of which is related to its specific
attributes (Batty, 2008). Of these, the intensity of urbanization, quantified by measuring both
built area and building density (Marzluff et al., 2001b), is one of the main factors affecting
urban-dwelling wildlife.
Studies carried out all around the world have recorded both positive and negative effects
of urbanization intensity on bird communities. As recorded by the great majority of urban
ecologists, native resident bird species richness and abundance decrease in highly developed
areas (Jokimäki and Suhonen, 1998; Jokimäki, 1999; Blair, 2004; Lim and Sodhi, 2004;
Valiela and Martinetto, 2007; Shwartz et al., 2008). On the other hand, urbanization intensity
has positive effects on the presence of a few urban-exploiter species, defined as those species
with broad dietary requirements (mainly omnivorous and granivorous; Jokimäki and
Suhonen, 1998; Lim and Sodhi, 2004; Kark et al., 2007), highly sociable and sedentary, with
preferences for nesting in artificial structures, and able to expand their ranges throughout
human-dominated landscapes (Blair, 1996; Kark et al., 2007). These characteristics make
them capable to exploit the environmental changes generated by urbanization processes.
Among the most widespread urban-exploiter species in North America, we find the House
Sparrow (Passer domesticus), the Rock Pigeon (Columba livia), and the European Starling
(Sturnus vulgaris). Obviously, ‘urbanization intensity’ encompasses a multi-factorial set of
conditions and processes that are responsible for the recorded shifts in avian communities
within urban areas. In the next two sections of this chapter (‘Birds and Urban Habitats’, and
‘Birds and Humans’) we steer through some of the main factors identified as drivers of bird
diversity inside urban areas.

3. BIRDS AND URBAN HABITATS

Urban areas comprise a unique combination of built structures, planted vegetation, and
natural habitat remnants. Although these novel habitats are largely dissimilar from those that
surround them, site-specific habitat characteristics within a city can have different effects on
bird communities. In this section we review the relationships found between the ‘artificial’
and ‘natural’ components of urban environments and bird community diversity values.

3.1 The ‘Artificial’ Structure Component

The quantity of urbanized area within a city is closely related to the space available for
the establishment of other ‘natural’ components. In this respect, the variable ‘percent built’
has been widely used to define discrete points along urban gradients (Marzluff et al., 2001b;
 On the Ecological Quality of Urban Systems: An Ornithological Perspective 53

Hahs and McDonnell, 2006; Simon et al., 2007). Nevertheless, few studies have focused on
the effects that the presence, type, or density of ‘artificial’ structures have on bird
communities. One of the first urban ecologists that described directional relationships
between urban ‘artificial’ structures and birds was John T. Emlen. Back in the 1970s, he
described the urban bird community of Tucson, Arizona in the southwestern area of the
United States of America, and pinpointed that ‘house tops and particularly their
superstructures such as air conditioning units and television aerials provide attractive song
and resting perches [for birds]’ (Emlen, 1974; pp. 188). Emlen (1974) also underlined the
importance of perches located at different heights, such as fence tops, telephone poles, and
wires.
In addition to Emlen’s contribution, two characteristics of buildings have been related to
avian ecological processes. First, the architectural style of buildings can determine if birds
use them for nesting (DeGraff and Wentworth, 1986). Urban ecologists from Italy and the
United States of America reported that ‘ornate older buildings’ encompass a higher number of
nesting sites, and benefit those species that can exploit them (Johnsen and VanDruff, 1987;
Sacchi et al., 2002). One clear example of this is the Rock Pigeon, an urban-exploiter species
that exhibits highest abundances in areas with ‘ornate older buildings’ (Sacchi et al., 2002).
Second, results from an urban ecology study carried out in west-central Mexico shows a
positive relationship between total bird abundance and the maximum height of buildings.
These results were principally explained by the abundance of two exotic bird species, the
House Sparrow and the Rock Pigeon, that successfully exploit building facades and roofs for
roosting and nesting (MacGregor-Fors et al., in press A).

3.2 The ‘Natural’ Vegetation Component

Green areas within a city, including urban forests, greenways, parks, and gardens offer
many social and environmental benefits, such as recreation, landscaping, land-use buffering,
and wildlife conservation (Furuseth and Altman, 1991; Schiller and Horn, 1997). Such green
areas are characterized by the presence of vegetation components, independent of their
structure and/or complexity, and are subject to different types and intensities of management
activities (Grimm et al., 2003). A wide spectrum of urban green areas exists inside cities,
ranging from simple single herb-stratum sport-fields, to complex urban forest remnants.
Although urban green areas are diverse in kind, they generally have higher similarity to
natural habitats than to highly-developed urban sites. Urban ecologists have widely focused
their studies on natural and man-made vegetated areas inside cities (Collins et al., 2000;
Marzluff et al., 2001a; Melles, 2005 Gavareski, 1976; Rosenberg et al., 1987; Schiller and
Horn, 1997; Morneau et al., 1999; Fernández-Juricic and Jokimäki, 2001; Sandström et al.,
2006). Empirical research focused on urban green areas have evaluated them by using
landscape-geographic perspectives (e.g., size, form, aggregation), and by analyzing their
structural components separately (e.g., trees, shrubs, herbaceous plants). Based on this clear
division of study objectives, in this section we first review avian diversity patterns related to
urban green areas size an location within a city, and second, we discuss the specific effect that
each vegetation component has on birds.
54 Ian MacGregor-Fors, Rubén Ortega-Álvarez, and Jorge E. Schondube

3.2.1 Urban Green Areas

The diversity patterns of birds that use/inhabit urban green areas are consistent among
studies (e.g., Jokimäki, 1999; Morneau et al., 1999; Crooks et al., 2004; Daniels and
Kirkpatrick, 2006). Bird communities recorded in urban green areas are richer, and comprise
a higher number of individuals than those from non-green urban sites. Independent studies
have demonstrated that such increase of native bird species in urban green areas is the result
of multiple factors. For example, the amount of urban area covered by vegetation in parks
(Gavareski, 1976; Jokimäki, 1999; Morneau et al., 1999; Melles et al., 2003) and gardens
(Daniels and Kirkpatrick, 2006) is positively related to both native breeding bird species
richness and abundances (Clergeau et al., 1998; McKinney, 2002).
Aside from their size, other four characteristics of urban green areas have been identified
as determinant for breeding bird species richness and abundances: (1) the origin of the green
area (as natural or planted; Lim and Sodhi, 2004); (2) the structure and composition of the
vegetation component (Gavareski, 1976; Fernández-Juricic et al., 2001; Marzluff and Ewing,
2001; McKinney, 2008); (3) the periodicity of the management they receive (Lim and Sodhi,
2004; Shwartz et al., 2008); and (4) the interconnectivity between urban green areas (Melles
et al., 2003; Tan, 2006). The first three factors are related to the resources that urban green
areas offer to birds. Because urban green areas are often re-populated with non-native plant
species, their ecological relationships with native food resourses like insects, flowers, fruits,
and seed are poor. Therefore, native bird species are not familiar with the novel set of
resources. Also, birds are driven away from urban green areas due to the noise and constant
habitat structure change (mainly on herbaceous plants and shrubs) that is caused by the
regular management given to such green areas (Lim and Sodhi, 2004). On the other hand, the
interconnection of urban green areas is an important geographical feature for the arrival and
establishment of bird species in an urban area. The interconectivity among green areas opens
the possibility for the incorporation of urban-sensitive bird species, by providing suitable
habitat across corridors through complex green-networks (Tan, 2006; von Haaren and Reich,
2006).
Urban habitat characteristics identified as ‘positive’ for native breeding bird species tend
to have negative relationships on urban-exploiter birds. Specifically, urban-exploiters are
benefited by changes in the composition and structure of native vegetation, and by the
presence of small-sized urban green areas. Also, because most urban-exploiter bird species
are pre-adapted to urban conditions, they benefit from highly-developed homogeneous urban
areas.

3.2.2 Vegetation components

3.2.2.1 The ‘Tree’ Component

Tree density is one of the vegetation variables that have been positively related to
breeding bird species richness and abundances within cities (Emlen, 1974; Melles et al., 2003;
Crooks et al., 2004; Lim and Sodhi, 2004). Also, tree density is positively related to
invetebrate diversity (Smith et al., 2006), incorporating potential avian food resources.
However, the relationship between tree density and bird diversity values vary depending if
trees are native or exotic. Results from studies carried out in Tucson, Arizona (Mills et al.,
1989), and Sidney, Australia (Parsons et al., 2006), suggest that exotic tree species are related
 On the Ecological Quality of Urban Systems: An Ornithological Perspective 55

to decreases in native bird species richness, and increases in the number of generalist urban-
exploiter bird species. On the other hand, the presence of native tree species is related to
increases in native bird species richness (Emlen, 1974; Mills et al., 1989). These studies
suggest that native bird species that could be driven away from the urban systems can find
shelter in areas that include elements that are familiar to them. However, energy-rich exotic
tree species, such as the Australian Silk Oak (Grevillea robusta
), was identified as positive for bird species richness in a Mexican suburb (MacGregor-Fors,
2008).
In addition to the density and origin (native vs. exotic) of the tree species that are present
in an urban green area, the number of tree species can also play an important role in shaping
bird communities. Much of the food resources and vegetation structure heterogeneity that can
be found in urban parks is related to the high vegetation diversity encountered within them,
mostly in the form of tree species richness (Shwartz et al., 2008). This variable was
positively related to breeding native bird species richness and abundances in a study that
assessed bird diversity values along an urbanization gradient in Mexico City (Ortega-Álvarez
and MacGregor-Fors, in press).
Additionally to these variables, tree height also seems to be an important factor affecting
bird communities in urban environments around the world (Munyenyembe et al., 1989;
Jokimäki, 1999; Daniels and Kirkpatrick, 2006; MacGregor-Fors, 2008). Because older trees
are higher, tree height is related to the age of the urban green area. Also, higher trees provide
a greater range of feeding, perching, resting, and nesting resources (MacGregor-Fors, 2008).
Furthermore, even when these old high trees are ill or dying, they offer highly valuable
resources for some urban adaptable cavity-nesters, such as owls, woodpeckers, and parrots
(Shwartz et al., 2008; MacGregor-Fors pers. obs.) that usually are unable to breed inside cities
that do not count with large old trees.

3.2.2.2 The ‘Shrub’ Component

While many urban ecologists have concentrated on tree canopy coverage as an ecological
measurement of urban green areas (e.g., Moll, 1997), shrub density often provides
information on the level of conservation and management of an urban green area (Jokimäki,
1999). Additionally, shrubs contribute importantly to the structure complexity of habitats
inside cities. The presence and abundance of shrubs benefit both native and exotic bird
species. On the one hand, a cover of large shrubs benefits urban-exploiter bird species
richness (Daniels and Kirkpatrick, 2006; Ortega-Álvarez and MacGregor-Fors, in press).
This phenomenon seems to be related to the fact that these species are highly gregarious and
often exhibit communal nesting behavior, for which large shrubs are ideal (Kark et al., 2007).
On the other hand, shrub cover has been related to the increase of species richness and
abundance values for urban adaptable bird species (Melles et al., 2003; Daniels and
Kirkpatrick, 2006). Empirical studies have showed three main benefits of the shrub
component to native birds: (1) shrubs contribute with an important number of nesting sites
(Jokimäki, 1999); (2) they can provide additional food resources, such as berries (Melles et
al., 2003); and (3) they offer hiding cover for urban-dwelling birds, acting as shelter from
predators and human disturbance (Fernández-Juricic et al., 2001).
56 Ian MacGregor-Fors, Rubén Ortega-Álvarez, and Jorge E. Schondube

3.2.2.3 The ‘Herbaceous Plant’ Component

Is common among cities to have large green areas dominated by grass that receive
constant management . Good examples of this are lawns and sport-fields. Large extensions
covered with managed herbaceous plants often generate decreases in native bird species
richness (Gavareski, 1976; Mörtberg, 2001; Shwartz et al., 2008). Open green areas often
lack trees and shrubs, afecting urban-adaptable species that them for foraging and nesting
(DeGraff and Wentworth, 1986; Shwartz et al., 2008). However, some particular bird species
benefit from large extensions of open green areas, such as exotic urban-exploiters (e.g.,
starlings), native generalists (e.g., cowbirds, grackles), and aerial insectivore bird species that
use open spaces (e.g., tyrant flycatchers; Emlen, 1974; DeGraff and Wentworth, 1986; Mills
et al., 1989).
By comparison, large urban areas covered with herbaceous plants that are not subjected
to management have very different effects on birds. When herbaceous plants, both native and
exotic, are left to grow, they tend to form environments similar to grasslands. These areas
inside cities provide dense vegetation cover, perching sites, and food in the form of seeds and
insects. Two studies carried out in cities of central and west-central Mexico found that areas
with herbaceous plants with heights ranging from 0.3 to 4 m exhibited higher bird species
richness and abundance values than urban sites with lower herbaceous plants (< 0.3 m;
Ortega-Álvarez and MacGregor-Fors, in press; MacGregor-Fors et al., in press A). This
result seems to be related to the absence of human management within abandoned lots, where
habitat structure resembles those from shrubby grasslands, allowing the convergence of both
native and exotic bird species (MacGregor-Fors et al., in press A).

4. BIRDS AND HUMANS

Within a city, physical, biological, and social factors interact to shape the urban
ecosystem (Nilon et al., 2003). Although the social component of urban areas includes
several complex variables such as gender, ethnic origin, education, income, and population
density (Furuseth and Altman, 1991; Kinzig et al., 2005), most of these factors have been
ignored in urban ecology studies. The few urban ecology studies that take into account the
social component of urban ecosystems have mainly focused on the effects that population
density and per capita income have on birds (e.g., Hope et al., 2003; Melles, 2005; Shaw et
al., 2008; MacGregor-Fors et al., in press A). Some clear ecological patterns have been found
by these studies: (1) bird species richness (specifically of frugivorous species) are positively
related to low human population density (Lim and Sodhi, 2004); (2) the presence and
abundance of insectivorous and carnivorous bird species is negatively related to high human
population densities (Lim and Sodhi, 2004); (3) the abundance of generalist urban-exploiter
bird species is positively related to high human population densities (Jokimäki and Suhonen,
1998; Lim and Sodhi, 2004); (4) urban wealthy neighborhoods have abundant and rich native
bird communities; and (5) low-income districts encompass poorer and less abundant bird
communities (Melles, 2005; Fuller et al., 2008). Based on these results, we can conclude that
wealthy neighborhoods with low human densities offer better environmental conditions for
native urban-dwelling birds.
 On the Ecological Quality of Urban Systems: An Ornithological Perspective 57

Bird distribution patterns inside cities are clearly related to two main socioeconomical
associated factors: (1) the lack of vegetation components in highly developed and populated
urban areas (Melles, 2005); and (2) the intensity and frequency of human caused disturbance)
in highly populated urban areas (e.g., density of pedestrians, car traffic, land-use change,
percent built; Martinuzzi et al., 2007; MacGregor-Fors and Schondube pers. obs.). This
affects urban-dwelling bird communities in two ways: (1) the number of pedestrians has
negative effects on native urban-adaptable bird species, and positive effects on the abundance
of exotic urban-exploiter species (Miller et al., 2001; Ortega-Álvarez and MacGregor-Fors, in
press; MacGregor-Fors et al., in press A); and (2) the number of cars also affects bird
communities, with highly transited streets, roads, and/or boulevards exhibiting lower bird
species richness than streets with low traffic (Ortega-Álvarez and MacGregor-Fors, in press;
MacGregor-Fors et al., in press A). Interestingly, one study carried out in Spain showed that
larger bird species are less tolerant to the presence and abundance of humans (Fernández-
Juricic et al., 2001). This phenomenon could act as an important ecological force molding the
type of urban-adaptable bird species that can succeed in urban areas with different levels of
human activity.
Other environmental agents affecting both birds and humans that dwell within cities
include noise, pollution, and the dispersal of diseases by animal vectors. Urban noise,
generally caused by vehicles, causes stress-related psychosocial symptoms in humans
(Gidlöf-Gunnarsson and Öhrström, 2007) and can difficult the communication among birds
for their year-round and reproductive activities (Slabbekoorn and Peet, 2003). Water and air
pollution can drastically affect both human (Wu et al., 1999; WHO, 2000) and bird health
(Eeva et al., 1998). High density of some human-related fauna, such as dog, cats, rats, mice,
and birds can act as disease vectors for humans and wildlife (e.g., rabies, West Nile virus,
avian flu), and can also affect avian predation rates (Matthews et al., 1999; Woods et al.,
2003; Baker et al., 2005; López-Flores et al., in press). These factors can result in higher
stress levels for both humans and birds dwelling within cities (Cappon, 1977; Partecke et al.,
2006; Chávez-Zichinelli pers. com.).
While most human activities inside cities affect birds negatively, a positive and important
factor shaping bird communities within urban settlements is the human-based input of food
resources. These food resources can be provided by people both voluntarily (e.g., bird
feeders), or involuntarily (e.g., litter). Because the input of human-based food resources that
are important for birds is large and continuous in urban ecosystems, those species that can
feed on them have a permanent food income, and therefore can ‘live on their credit’ (Shochat,
2004).
Several studies have documented that bird-feeders can affect the local distribution and
abundance of bird species, benefiting specially those that are mainly granivorous (Emlen,
1974; Chace and Walsh, 2006; Daniels and Kirkpatrick, 2006; Gaston et al., 2007; Fuller et
al., 2008). However, three negative aspects have been related to the presence and abundance
of bird-feeders within an urban area. First, because birds congregate near feeders, different
bird predators are attracted to them, making feeder-consumers highly vulnerable to predation
(Kristan et al., 2003). Second, bird feeders favor the presence of urban-exploiter bird species
that can exclude potential native visitors (Daniels and Kirkpatrick, 2006; MacGregor-Fors et
al., in press B). Third, feeders can act as sites where diseases and parasites are passed among
feeding individuals, which could have further avian population health issues (Dhondt et al.,
1998; USGS, 2007).
58 Ian MacGregor-Fors, Rubén Ortega-Álvarez, and Jorge E. Schondube

5. BIRDS AS ECOLOGICAL QUALITY THERMOSTATS

In this chapter we have reviewed urban ornithology knowledge to understand how urban
conditions and resources affect urban-dwelling birds. But, why should these information
concern urban planners and managers, or even a regular urban citizen? The information
presented earlier in this chapter shows that avian life-quality resembles our concept of life-
quality. While the information on the ecological quality of urban systems provided by birds
could seem obvious, and some people could argue that we do not need birds as tools to
measure the ecological quality of an area within a city, we believe that birds offer special
insights on the identification of both conspicuous and inconspicuous factors affecting the
quality of life inside cities. This 'urban avian alarm system' can be employed using single
bird species or entire bird communities.
One of the main factors that make birds useful as bio-indicators is that they are a diverse
group. Some species are highly sensitive to simple changes, while others are highly resistant
to a great variety of disturbance types and intensities. Two excellent examples of these
extremes are the Island Canary (Serinus canaria) and the House Sparrow. Island Canaries
were used by miners in the past to test out air quality within mines due to their high
sensitivity to methane and carbon dioxide. When a canary died for exposure to these gases,
the miners were still able to exit the area before being affected by them. Similarly to the
Island Canary, several species of native birds are sensitive to air quality inside cities, and their
population trends could be used as indicators of air pollution levels, acting as ‘urban mine-
canaries’. Two examples of this are the Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum) and the
American Robin (Turdus migratorius), which fell dead due to the high air pollution levels
recorded in Mexico City in 1987 and 2004 (de Anda-Tenorio, 2004). Opposite to such
habitat perturbation sensitivity, the House Sparrow, an ubiquitous species in urban systems,
survives and reproduces under the most intense levels of urbanization. The presence and
abundance of this species in a site indicates some level of disturbance, regardless of the area’s
apparent good environmental condition (MacGregor-Fors et al. in press B).
The use of entire bird communities for detecting changes in the urban system generally
helps on the identification of changes in broad habitat structure (see Chace and Walsh, 2006
and references therein). This approach is helpful when no detailed information is available on
the behavior of particular species. However, if precise information of the habitat variables
that individual bird species pursue along the studied urban area is available, the
presence/absence, arrival, or disappearance of one single species can be quite revealing.
Thus, studying the particular biological, physical, and social preferences of urban-exploiter
and urban-adaptable bird species throughout urbanization gradients could help us to identify
inconspicuous changes in habitat and environmental conditions along urban systems.
Urban systems are quite different from natural habitats, and thus birds could be one of the
few charismatic animal groups urban citizens could use to relate to nature. Some urban-
exploiter bird species, such as the Rock Pigeon or the House Sparrow, are the only ‘wild
animals’ identified by urban citizens. We believe that having contact with native fauna is
relevant for urban people . The contact with several native bird species can increase people’s
 On the Ecological Quality of Urban Systems: An Ornithological Perspective 59

interest on native biodiversity, resulting in citizens that are concerned on the environmental
issues of their cities.

6. PLANNING TOWARDS HEALTHIER CITIES

Urban areas are complex systems, and understanding them requires the integration of
their biological, physical, sociological, economical, and historical components (Pickett et al.,
1997; Nilon et al., 2003). Indeed, urban planners and managers need better information on
the factors that can assist in mitigating the negative impacts of urbanization and its processes
(Clergeau et al., 2001; MacGregor-Fors, 2008). For this, in this last section we discuss
several recommendations to improve urban management and planning activities based on the
information generated by urban ornithological studies. Carrying out these actions may
increase the ecological complexity of cities, and therefore assist on both the maintenance and
promotion of biodiversity within urban areas, as well as improving the ecological quality of
the urban areas we live in.

6.1 Controlling Land-Use Changes Within the Region of a City

If we want to live in cities with high biodiversity values and high ecological quality, we
need to focus on controlling land-use change at two levels: (1) inside the city limits,
preserving the actual green areas and promoting the transformation of ‘non-functional’ urban
‘artificial’ spaces into new urban green areas; and (2) outside the city limits, controlling the
way in which cities are sprawling. New urbanizing activities should include natural wildland
networks that allow the communication between areas surrounding the city and the new
urbanized areas.

6.2 Increasing the Ecological Value of Urban Vegetation

Increasing the quality of urban vegetation inside and outside green areas involve both urban
management and planning actions. First, native plant species that provide both beautification
and environmental resources to support complex wildlife communities need to be evaluated.
Plant species should be carefully chosen in order to be coherent with the environmental
conditions of the city so as not to appear ‘out of place’ as in the case of dense and exuberant
green areas found in arid urban systems (Grimm et al., 2003), and should need little or null
management or resource input throughout their development. Second, existent urban green
areas should be managed to increase the complexity of their vegetation structure using the
appropriate plant species (Ortega-Álvarez and MacGregor-Fors, in press). Third, when
urbanization processes do not consider the conservation of natural habitats, new urban green
areas should be established using the evaluated plant species (preferably native ones),
including some fast growing species with the aim of having green areas with complex
vegetation structure in the short-to mid-term (MacGregor-Fors, 2008). On this point, it is
60 Ian MacGregor-Fors, Rubén Ortega-Álvarez, and Jorge E. Schondube

important to underline the relevance of the size of urban green areas. Based on urban
ornithology research that have directly evaluated the effect of the size of parks (e.g.,
Gavareski, 1976; Jokimäki, 1999; Morneau et al., 1999), we suggest avoiding parks smaller
than 1 ha (2.47 acres), and recommend establishing large parks and/or urban preserves from
20 to 100 ha (49.42 to 247.10 acres). These green areas can be established outside the city
boundaries, allowing a less damaging and more organized urban growth.
Unfortunately, urban green areas are not evenly distributed throughout cities. In general,
wealthy neighborhoods include better ecological conditions than those found in economically
poorer areas. In fact, several studies have reported urban ecological differences related to
socioeconomics, showing higher plant and native bird diversity values in wealthy
neighborhoods (Hope et al., 2003; Kinzig et al., 2005; Melles, 2005). This phenomenon has
been related to changes in the basic characteristics of urban habitats due to the ‘luxury effect’
(term used to describe the relationship between human wealth and elevated plant diversity in
urban areas; Hope et al., 2003), deriving in an unfair distribution of urban green areas along
socioeconomic urban gradients. Thus, it is imperative that city council plans are developed
with the aim of generating even ecological conditions along cities, independent of the
socioeconomic status of urban neighborhoods. This follows the scheme of the
‘environmental justice’ social movement, which seeks to address the unequal distribution of
environmental benefits, and questions whether environmental policies are fair to the people
they affect (Bryant and Callewaert, 2003). One way of mitigating the existence of poor
ecological conditions among low income neighborhoods is the establisment of ‘green areas’
by placing native plants in sidewalks, roofs, street ridges, abandoned lots, and other
unexploited urban elements and areas.

6.3 Generating Complex Urban Green Networks

Connecting urban green areas can have several ecological and social benefits, such as
providing environmental services that compensate the ecological problems created by
urbanization and/or the agglomeration of people in small areas, as well as increasing the
landscape quality of a city (Ribeiro and Barao, 2006; von Haaren and Reich, 2006 cita). Such
networks need to be connected to natural areas surrounding the city, as well as
interconnecting the major urban green areas within the city. Following the recommendations
of research studies focused on the nature and function of urban greenways (e.g., Schiller and
Horn, 1997; Ribeiro and Barao, 2006; Tan, 2006; Mason et al., 2007), we recommend future
urban developments to establish major greenways running along rivers, streams, or
boulevards that run through major sections of the city. These major greenways should not
include large proportions of artificial structures and should have a minimum width of 100 m
(following Mason et al., 2007). In order to generate functional urban green networks, other
smaller green tracks should connect preexisting urban green areas, such as parks and open
spaces, with at least one major greenway. These green tracks should be established by
planting native trees and shrubs in gardens and sidewalks, generating 4-20 m paths,
depending on the proportion of the green area they connect (following Tan, 2006).
Unfortunately, this last recommendation is only realistic for areas that will be urbanized
in the future. Hence, we strongly suggest joining efforts towards generating the widest and
longest possible corridors throughout already established cities. These corridors can be
 On the Ecological Quality of Urban Systems: An Ornithological Perspective 61

created by connecting sidewalks, street ridges, gardens, open areas, and every other
unexploited urban area deprived of trees. Achieving the interconnection of urban green areas
along already established cities will not only benefit birds, but could also mitigate the island
heat phenomenon caused by urban areas (Ferguson and Woodbury, 2007), which can have
serious repercussions on human health (Patz et al., 2005).

6.4 Establishing Standard Protocols to Measure the Ecological Quality of

Cities

Each city comprises a unique and complex dynamic system. Therefore, urban
management and planning activities should be continuously evaluated in order to measure
their effectiveness to improve the ecological quality of a city. We suggest that standard
protocols ought to be established in order to evaluate the condition of bird communities,
which can reflect a wide range of effects related to site-specific characteristics using both
alpha- and beta-diversity approaches (Magurran, 2004). In order to standardize methods and
allow further comparisons between cities, we recommend using a simple site-specific
surveying method such as point-counts (following Ralph et al., 1993; Ralph et al., 1995),
encompassed in a volunteer-based bird monitoring project, such as the Tucson Bird Count
(Turner, 2003). Additionally, protocols should also be established to assess the quality of
urban habitats using other bio-indicator taxa (e.g., insects, small mammals), and other
environmental variables (e.g., water, air, and noise pollution).

6.5 Highlighting the Profits of Having High Ecological Quality Cities in

Urban Environmental Education Plans

Although a large amount of scientific research concentrated on urban ecosystems has

allowed the comprehension of urban systems, there is a gap between the scientists’
perspective and the perspective of city residents (Hollweg et al., 2003). This lack of
communication often generates apathy from citizens regarding urban ecosystem management
and planning issues. Therefore, education on urban ecosystems can be employed to induce
public awarness of urban environmental problems (UNESCO-UNEP, 1976). Establishing
education activities that focus on teaching both children and adults to care about the
ecosystems they depend on is imperative if we hope to develop new sustainable-thinking
societies (Berkowitz et al., 2003; Chawala and Salvadori, 2003; Sprin, 2003). Since birds are
highly charismatic, and are one of the few well represented wildlife groups within cities, they
provide urban environmental educators with a unique opportunity to establishurban education
programs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Erick de la Barrera and Katherine Renton for their helpful comments that
improved our manuscript. We also thank Lorena Morales-Pérez, Carlos Chávez-Zichinelli
and Javier Quesada for discussions on the topic. The Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México funded previous research projects that derived in this chapter (Macroproyecto:
62 Ian MacGregor-Fors, Rubén Ortega-Álvarez, and Jorge E. Schondube

Manejo de Ecosistemas y Desarrollo Humano – Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México -

SDEI-PTID-02, and PAPIIT project IN228007-3). Ian MacGregor-Fors, as part of the
Posgrado en Ciencias Biológicas of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, received
a Ph. D. scholarship from CONACYT (175447).

LITERATURE CITED
Baker, P. J., Bentley, A. J., Ansell, R. J. & Harris, S. (2005) Impact of predation by domestic cats
Felis catus in an urban area. Mammal Rev, 35, 302-312.
Batty, M. (2008) The size, scale, and shape of cities. Science, 319, 769-771.
Berkowitz, A. R., Nilon, C. H. & Hollweg, K. S. (2003) The importance of understanding urban
ecosystems: Themes. In A. R. Berkowitz, C. H. Nilon & K. S. Hollweg (Eds.),
Understanding urban ecosystems - A new frontier for science and education (pp. 15-17). New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Blair, R. B. (1996) Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecol Appl, 6,
506-519.
Blair, R. B. (2004) The effects of urban sprawl on birds at multiple levels of biological
organization. Ecol Soc, 9, (5):2.
Bradshaw, A. D. (2003) Natural ecosystems in cities: A model for cities as ecosystems. In A. R.
Berkowitz, C. H. Nilon & K. S. Hollweg (Eds.), Understanding urban ecosystems - A new
frontier for science and education (pp. 77-94). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bryant, B. & Callewaert, J. (2003) Why is understanding urban ecosystems important to people
concerned about environmental justice? In A. R. Berkowitz, C. H. Nilon & K. S. Hollweg
(Eds.), Understanding urban ecosystems - A new frontier for science and education (pp. 46-
57). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cappon, D. (1977) Urban stress. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 116, 9-10.
Chace, J. F. & Walsh, J. J. (2006) Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landscape Urban
Plann, 74, 46-69.
Chawala, L. & Salvadori, I. (2003) Children for cities and cities for children: Learning to know
and care about urban ecosystems. In A. R. Berkowitz, C. H. Nilon & K. S. Hollweg (Eds.),
Understanding urban ecosystems - A new frontier for science and education (pp. 294-314).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Clergeau, P., Jokimäki, J. & Savard, J. P. L. (2001) Are urban bird communities influenced by the
bird diversity of adjacent landscapes? J Appl Ecol, 38, 1122-1134.
Clergeau, P., Savard, J. P. L., Mennechez, G. & Falardeau, G. (1998) Bird abundance and
diversity along an urban-rural gradient: A comparative study between two cities on different
continents. Condor, 100, 413-425.
Collins, J. P., Kinzig, A., Grimm, N. B., Fagan, W. F., Hope, D., Wu, J. et al. (2000) A new urban
ecology. Am Sci, 88, 416-425.
Crooks, K. R., Suarez, A. V. & Bolger, D. T. (2004) Avian assemblages along a gradient of
urbanization in a highly fragmented landscape. Biol Conserv, 115, 451-462.
Daniels, G. & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006) Does variation in garden characteristics influence the
conservation of birds in suburbia? Biol Conserv, 133, 326-335.
de Anda-Tenorio, A. (2004) Las aves y la contaminación en la Ciudad de México. La Jornada
(Newspaper), March 1st, La Jornada Ecológica.
 On the Ecological Quality of Urban Systems: An Ornithological Perspective 63

DeGraff, R. M. & Wentworth, J. M. (1986) Avian guild structure and habitat associations in
suburban bird communities. Urban Ecol, 9, 399-412.
Dhondt, A. A., Tessaglia, D. L. & Slothower, R. L. (1998) Epidemic mycoplasmal conjuntivitis in
House Finches from Eastern North America. J Wildl Dis, 43, 265-280.
Eeva, T., Lehikoinen, E. & Rönkä, M. (1998) Air pollution fades the plumage of the Great Tit.
Funct Ecol, 12, 607-612.
Emlen, J. T. (1974) An urban bird community in Tucson, Arizona: derivation, structure,
regulation. Condor, 76, 184-197.
Ferguson, G. & Woodbury, A. D. (2007) Urban heat island in the subsurface. Geophys Res Lett,
34, L23713.
Fernández-Juricic, E., Jimenez, M. D. & Lucas, E. (2001) Bird tolerance to human disturbance in
urban parks of Madrid (Spain): Management implications. In J. M. Marzluff, R. Bowman &
R. Donnely (Eds.), Avian conservation and ecology in an urbanizing world (pp. 259-273).
Boston, MA.: Kluwer Academic.
Fernández-Juricic, E. & Jokimäki, J. (2001) A habitat island approach to conserving birds in
urban landscapes: case studies from southern and northern Europe. Biodivers Conserv, 10,
2023-2043.
Fuller, R. A., Warren, P. H., Armstrong, P. R., Barbosa, O. & Gaston, K. J. (2008) Garden bird
feeding predicts the structure of urban avian assemblages. Divers Distrib, 14, 131-137.
Furuseth, O. J. & Altman, R. E. (1991) Who's on the greenway: Socioeconomic, demographic,
and locational characteristics of the greenway users. Environm Manage, 15, 329-336.
Gaston, K. J., Fuller, R. A., Loram, A., MacDonald, C., Power, S. & Dempsey, N. (2007) Urban
domestic gardens (XI): variation in urban wildlife
gardening in the United Kingdom
. Biodivers Conserv, 16, 3227-3238.
Gavareski, C. A. (1976) Relation of park size and vegetation to urban bird populations in Seattle,
Washington. Condor, 78, 375-382.
Gidlöf-Gunnarsson, A. & Öhrström, E. (2007) Noise and well-being in urban residential
environments: The potential role of perceived availability to nearby green areas. Landscape
Urban Plann, 83, 115-126.
Grimm, N. B., Baker, L. J. & Hope, D. (2003) An ecosystem approach to understanding cities:
Familiar foundations and uncharted frontiers. In A. R. Berkowitz, C. H. Nilon & K. S.
Hollweg (Eds.), Understanding urban ecosystems - A new frontier for science and education
(pp. 95-114). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hahs, A. K. & McDonnell, M. J. (2006) Selecting independent measures to quantify Melbourne’s
urban–rural gradient. Landscape Urban Plann, 78, 435-448.
Hollweg, K. S., Berkowitz, A. R. & Nilon, C. H. (2003) Foundations and frontiers from education
theory and practice: Themes. In A. R. Berkowitz, C. H. Nilon & K. S. Hollweg (Eds.),
Understanding urban ecosystems - A new frontier for science and education (pp. 229-231).
New York: Spriger-Verlag.
Hope, D., Gries, C., Zhu, W., Fagan, W. F., Redman, C. L., Grimm, N. B. et al. (2003)
Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. PNAS, 100, 8788-8792.
Johnsen, A. M. & VanDruff, L. W. (1987) Spring and winter distribution of introduced bird
species and native bird species richness within a complex urban environment. In L. W. Adams
& D. L. Leedy (Eds.), Integrating man and nature in the metropolitan environment (pp. 123-
127). Columbia, MD.: National Institute of Urban Wildlife.
Jokimäki, J. (1999) Occurrence of breeding bird species in urban parks: Effects of park structure
and broad-scale variables. Urban Ecosyst, 3, 21-34.
64 Ian MacGregor-Fors, Rubén Ortega-Álvarez, and Jorge E. Schondube

Jokimäki, J. & Suhonen, J. (1998) Distribution and habitat selection of wintering birds in urban
environments. Landscape Urban Plann, 39, 253-263.
Kark, S., Iwaniuk, A., Schalimtzec, A. & Banker, E. (2007) Living in the city: Can anyone
become an "urban exploiter"? J Biogeogr, 34, 638-651.
Kinzig, A. P., Warren, P. S., Martin, C., Hope, D. & Katti, M. (2005) The effects of human
socioeconomic status and cultural characteristics on urban patterns of biodiversity. Ecol Soc,
10, 23.
Kristan, W. B., Lyman, A. J., Price, M. V. & Rotenberry, J. T. (2003) Alternative causes of edge-
abundance relationships in birds and small mammals of California coastal sage scrub.
Ecography, 26, 29-44.
Lim, H. C. & Sodhi, N. S. (2004) Responses of avian guilds to urbanisation in a tropical city.
Landscape Urban Plann, 66, 199-215.
López-Flores, V., MacGregor-Fors, I. & Schondube, J (In press) Artificial nest predation along a
Neotropical urbanization gradient. Landscape Urban Plann.
Magurran, A. E. (2004) Measuring Biological Diversity. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
MacGregor-Fors, I. (2008) Relation between habitat attributes and bird richness in a western
Mexico suburb. Landscape Urban Plann, 84, 92-98.
MacGregor-Fors, I., Morales-Pérez, L. & Schondube, J. E. (In press A) From forests to cities:
Effects of urbanization on subtropical mountain bird communities. Studies in Avian Biology.,
MacGregor-Fors, I., Morales-Pérez, L., Quesada, J. & Schondube, J. E. (In press B) Relationship
between the presence of House Sparrows (Passer domesticus) and Neotropical bird
community structure and diversity. Biol Invasions.
Martinuzzi, S., Gould, W. A. & Ramos González, O. M. (2007) Land development, land use, and
urban sprawl in Puerto Rico integrating remote sensing and population census data.
Landscape Urban Plann, 79, 288-297.
Marzluff, J. M., Bowman, R. & Donnely, R. (2001a) Avian conservation and ecology in an
urbanizing world. Boston, MA.: Kluwer Academic.
Marzluff, J. M., Bowman, R. & Donnely, R. (2001b) A historical perspective on urban bird
research: Trends, terms, and approaches. In J. M. Marzluff, R. Bowman & R. Donnely (Eds.),
Avian conservation and ecology in an urbanizing world (pp. 1-17). Boston, MA.: Kluwer
Academic.
Marzluff, J. M. & Ewing, K. (2001) Restoration of fragmented landscapes for the conservation of
birds: A general framework and specific recommendations for urbanizing landscapes. Restor
Ecol, 9, 280-292.
Mason, J., Moorman, C., Hess, G. & Sinclair, K. (2007) Designing suburban greenways to
provide habitat for forest-breeding birds. Landscape Urban Plann, 80, 153-164.
Matthews, A., Dickman, C. R. & Major, R. E. (1999) The influence of fragment size and edge on
nest predation in urban bushland. Ecography, 22, 349-356.
McKinney, M. L. (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity and conservation. BioScience, 52, 883-890.
McKinney, M. L. (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv,
127, 247-260.
McKinney, M. L. (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: A review of plants and
animals. Urban Ecosyst, 11, 161-176.
Melles, S., Glenn, S. & Martin, K. (2003) Urban bird diversity and landscape complexity:
Species–environment associations along a multiscale habitat gradient. Conserv Ecol, 7, (1):5.
Melles, S. J. (2005) Urban bird diversity as an indicator of human social diversity and economic
inequality in Vancouver, British Columbia. Urban Hab, 3, 25-48.
 On the Ecological Quality of Urban Systems: An Ornithological Perspective 65

Miller, J. R., Fraterrigo, J. M., Hobbs, N. T., Theobald, D. N. & Wiens, J. A. (2001) Urbanization,
avian communities, and landscape ecology. In J. M. Marzluff, R. Bowman & R. Donnely
(Eds.), Avian conservation and ecology in an urbanizing world (pp. 117-137). Boston, MA.:
Kluwer Academic.
Mills, G. S., Dunning, J. B. & Bates, J. M. (1989) Effects of urbanization on breeding bird
community structure in Southwestern desert habitats. Condor, 91, 416-428.
Moll, G. (1997) America's urban forests: Growing concerns. Am Forests, 103, 14-18.
Morneau, F., Decarie, R., Pelletier, R., Lambert, D., DesGranges, J. L. & Savard, J. P. L. (1999)
Changes in breeding bird richness and abundance in Montreal parks over a period of 15 years.
Landscape Urban Plann, 44, 111-121.
Mörtberg, U. M. (2001) Resident bird species in urban forest remnants; landscape and habitat
perspectives. Landscape Ecol, 16, 193-203.
Munyenyembe, F., Harris, J. & Hone, J. (1989) Determinants of bird populations in an urban
area. Aust J Ecol, 14, 549-557.
Nilon, C. H., Berkowitz, A. R. & Hollweg, K. S. (2003) Introduction: Ecosystem understanding is
a key to understanding cities. In A. R. Berkowitz, C. H. Nilon & K. S. Hollweg (Eds.),
Understanding urban ecosystems - A new frontier for science and education (pp. 1-14). New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Ortega-Álvarez, M., & MacGregor-Fors, I. (In press) Living in the big city: Effects of urban land-
use on bird community structure, diversity, and composition. Landscape Urban Plann.
Parsons, H., Major, R. & French, K. (2006) Species interactions and habitat associations of birds
inhabiting urban areas of Sydney, Australia. Austral Ecol, 31, 217-227.
Partecke, J., Schwabl, I. & Gwinner, E. (2006) Stress and the city: Urbanization and its effects on
the stress physiology in European Blackbirds. Ecology, 87, 1945-1952.
Patz, J. A., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Holloway, T. & Foley, J. A. (2005) Impact of regional
climate change on human health. Nature, 438, 310-317.
Pickett, S. T. A., Burch, W. R., Dalton, S., Foresman, T., Morgan, J. & Rowntree, R. (1997) A
conceptual framework for the study of human ecosystems in urban areas. Urban Ecosyst, 1,
185-199.
Ralph, C. J., Droege, S. & Sauer, J. R. (1995) Managing and monitoring birds using point counts:
Standards and applications. Albany, CA: USDA.
Ralph, C. J., Geupel, G. R., Pyle, P., Martin, T. E. & DeSante, D. F. (1993) Handbook of field
methods for monitoring landbirds. Albany, CA: USDA.
Ribeiro, L. & Barao, T. (2006) Greenways for recreation and maintenance of landscape quality:
Five case studies in Portugal. Landscape Urban Plann, 76, 79-97.
Rosenberg, K. V., Terrill, S. B. & Rosenberg, G. H. (1987) Value of suburban habitats to desert
riparian birds. Wilson Bull, 99, 642-654.
Sacchi, R., Gentilli, A., Razzetti, E. & Barbieri, F. (2002) Effects of building features on density
and flock distribution of feral pigeons Columba livia var. domestica in an urban environment.
Can J Zool, 80, 48-54.
Sandström, U. G., Angelstam, P. & Mikusinski, G. (2006) Ecological diversity of birds in relation
to the structure of urban green space. Landscape Urban Plann, 77, 39-53.
Schiller, A. & Horn, S. P. (1997) Wildlife conservation in urban greenways of the mid-southern
United States. Urban Ecosyst, 1, 103-116.
Shaw, L. M., Chamberlain, D. & Evans, M. (2008) The House Sparrow Passer domesticus in
urban areas: reviewing a possible link between post-decline distribution and human
socioeconomic status. J Ornithol, 149, 293-299.
 66 Ian MacGregor-Fors, Rubén Ortega-Álvarez, and Jorge E. Schondube

Shochat, E. (2004) Credit or debit? Resource input changes population dynamics of city-slicker
birds. Oikos, 106, 622-626.
Shwartz, A., Shirley, S. & Kark, S. (2008) How do habitat variability and management regime
shape the spatial heterogeneity of birds within a large Mediterranean urban park? Landscape
Urban Plann, 84, 219-229.
Simon, U., Kübler, S. & Böhner, J. (2007) Analysis of breeding bird communities along an urban-
rural gradient in Berlin, Germany, by Hasse Diagram Technique. Urban Ecosyst, 10, 17-28.
Slabbekoorn, H. & Peet, M. (2003) Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature, 424, 267.
Smith, R. M., Warren, P. H., Thompson, K. & Gaston, K. J. (2006) Urban domestic gardens (VI):
environmental
correlates of invertebrate species richness
. Biodivers Conserv, 15, 2415-2438.
Sprin, A. W. (2003) Urban ecosystems, city planning, and environmental education: Literature,
precedents, key concepts, and prospects. In A. R. Berkowitz, C. H. Nilon & K. S. Hollweg
(Eds.), Understanding urban ecosystems - A new frontier for science and education (pp. 201-
212). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Tan, K. W. (2006) A greenway network for Singapore. Landscape Urban Plann, 76, 45-66.
Turner, W. R. (2003) Citywide biological monitoring as a tool for ecology and conservation in
urban landscapes: The case of the Tucson Bird Count. Landscape Urban Plann, 65, 149-166.
Turner, W. R., Nakamura, T. & Dinetti, M. (2004) Global urbanization and the separation of
human from nature. BioScience, 54, 585-590.
(ISGS) United States Geological Survey (2007) Fact sheet: Coping with diseases at bird feeders.
Denver, CO.: U.S. Geological Survey - National Wildlife Health Center.
(UNESCO-UNEP) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – United
Nations Environment Programme (1976) The Belgrad Charter - A Global Framework for
Environmental Education. Environmental Education Newsletter, 1, 1-2.
Valiela, I. & Martinetto, P. (2007) Changes in bird abundance in Eastern North America: Urban
sprawl and global footprint? BioScience, 57, 360-370.
von Haaren, K. & Reich, M. (2006) The German way to greenways and habitat networks.
Landscape Urban Plann, 76, 7-22.
Woods, M. E., McDonald, R. A. & Harris, S. (2003) Predation of wildlife by domestic cats Felis
catus in Great Britain. Mammal Rev, 33, 174-188.
(WHO) World Health Organization (2000) Addressing the links between Indoor air pollution,
household energy and human health. Washington, D.C.: World Health Organization.
Wu, C., Maurer, C., Wang, Y., Xue, S. & Davis, D. L. (1999) Water pollution and human health
in China. Environ Health Persp, 107, 251-256.

View publication stats