Gentrification attracts wildlife (1 Viewer)

[Ignatius]

According to a brand spanking new study published in PNAS yesterday, gentrification leads to an influx of wildlife. This is apparently due to rich folk wanting little parks and gardens which in turn become sanctuaries for urban wildlife. The study covers 23 major cities across the USA and comes to the conclusion that such gentrified areas contain on average 1-2 more species (ca. 13%) than do other urban areas. However, an even bigger factor than gentrification in attracting wildlife is soil sealing, which those little parks and green oases combat. As is p.c. today, the study notes that of course 'marginalized' communities miss out on the wildlife bonanza.
To study the wildlife the team of scientists between 2019 and 2021 placed trail cameras at over 900 locations in 23 major cities across the USA. The resultant images showed 21 species, including lynx, squirrels, deer, foxes, coyotes and beavers.
The study was led by the Urban Wildlife Institute of Linocln Park Zoo, Chicago, IL. Lead author is Mason Fidino.

 

[jurek]

Interesting study, I also noticed that richer residential parts of cities often have more birds.

I suggest that it can be a reverse correlation - city districts with old trees and close to forests and other natural places are seen by humans as good places to live and become gentrified. The same places have native wildlife. Especially mammals like beaver and lynx which are likely only visitors from nearby natural landscapes.

I agree that poor communities in cities have less or no access to wildlife. In Europe, this is influenced by reliance on public transport and less or no access to cars, which prevent accessing nature. So, initiatives to reduce car use, or make car-free city centers which are very common in Europe create communities where children never been to a forest and know native wildlife only from films. There was already a study that children in Britain recognize more species of Pokemon than birds.

I am afraid in the near future these children will grow into voting population which does not care about nature and bird conservation. So environmentalists have engineered their own demise.

 

[lgonz1008]

There was already a study that children in Britain recognize more species of Pokemon than birds.

To be fair, most of us don't get to see 1,000 bird species when we leave our homes, but every kid today has a Switch or another device listing over 1,000 different Pokemon to play/interact with.

 

[Mysticete]

I'm suspicious the "kids recognize more pokemon than animals" is actually a new phenomena. I'd bet if you looked at any decade, most kids would probably be more able to recognize cartoon characters, toy characters, film and TV characters, or professional athletes than wildlife (I have trouble seeing much a different from collecting pokemon then collecting baseball cards). I am hardly of the Pokemon generation, but I can't really recall as a kid running into many other kids with more than a passing interest in natural history, and I was living in places with easy access to nature.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

I agree that poor communities in cities have less or no access to wildlife. In Europe, this is influenced by reliance on public transport and less or no access to cars, which prevent accessing nature. So, initiatives to reduce car use, or make car-free city centers which are very common in Europe create communities where children never been to a forest and know native wildlife only from films.

Let me add that in the Netherlands these initiatives to reduce car use are combined with the creation of green environments in or next to cities. These parks and nature reserves are accessible by bike, often there are special roads for bikes. It helps that the cities are not that big so the distances are within 10 km. Besides, this country is flat which make cycling relatively easy.

 

[Patudo]

It seems almost self-evident that where there is more habitat (parks, larger gardens etc) there are more species. It would be interesting though to do a similar study with birds - although more gentrified (and, indeed, more derelict) areas will have more species, smaller urban parks may still have species of interest, that the wider public appreciate and enjoy (eg. European robin).

The great majority of my birding is done via public transport or just walking to my local patch (I suppose it does help that I live within 20 minutes of both Hyde and Regent's Parks, but small and midsized/larger parks are dotted all over London). I could live in many parts of London and watch peregrines every weekend; to watch hobbies (my other fascination) would probably need more travel, but would still be doable. I think the real difficulty with poorer communities isn't access to nature but that spark of interest in nature never being ignited due to upbringing, culture etc.

I remember earlier this year watching waxwings near an estate in North London, with a steady stream of passersby oblivious to those beautiful and vocal birds (and barely giving the group of birders with their binoculars and scopes a second look). A couple of times some kids went by, at that age that I know I'd have been delighted to have seen a waxwing, and I thought about pointing out the birds to them, maybe asking them to take a look through one of the other birders' scopes. But I didn't - worried that "the community" they were from might mean their reaction to knowing about the birds might be to trap them.

 

[jurek]

My feeling is that

I think the real difficulty with poorer communities isn't access to nature but that spark of interest in nature never being ignited due to upbringing, culture etc.

I feel most people got interest in nature by themselves - they went out of the house to the woods, park, pond etc. and became fascinated with wild life there. But this does not work if the child has no forest, park or ponds in the walking distance. An adult without a car quickly finds that forests and wildlife places are worst connected by public transport of all possible points in the country.

Poorer communities face another problem - children are discouraged to go out because of fear of crime. It also contributes to the obesity problem.

 

[Mysticete]

The great majority of my birding is done via public transport or just walking to my local patch (I suppose it does help that I live within 20 minutes of both Hyde and Regent's Parks, but small and midsized/larger parks are dotted all over London). I could live in many parts of London and watch peregrines every weekend; to watch hobbies (my other fascination) would probably need more travel, but would still be doable. I think the real difficulty with poorer communities isn't access to nature but that spark of interest in nature never being ignited due to upbringing, culture etc.

I think a bigger problem (speaking of only the states...I won't comment on other countries) is that economic conditions make it difficult to get that spark of interest to begin with. When parents are working multiple jobs (or there is just a single parent) just to make ends meet, they simply might not have the energy on their days off to take there kids out to a park or something, or they have a million other things to do that they already need to do on that weekend. Factor in that the kids themselves might end up having a greater number of chores as well as bearing the burden of caring for younger siblings. Furthermore, society in general, for good and bad reasons, is just less comfortable with letting kids run around on there own, which further limits there exposure.

Personally, I am not convinced that the "spark" is less common than it was when I was growing up. I never ran into anyone interested in nature in the way I was until College...I knew some young hunters and fisherman and that was about as close as I got.

 

[Elkhornsun]

The city gardens are certainly better than suburbia in the USA where sterile lawns and non native trees and bushes are planted. The mayor of Paris France is exceptional with her moves to eliminate motor vehicles on many streets and to add more plantings which provides a cooler environment for the average person in the city. I doubt a man would have thought to do this or dared to try.

 

[Patudo]

I feel most people got interest in nature by themselves - they went out of the house to the woods, park, pond etc. and became fascinated with wild life there. But this does not work if the child has no forest, park or ponds in the walking distance. An adult without a car quickly finds that forests and wildlife places are worst connected by public transport of all possible points in the country.

I don't know if I would have gotten interested in nature by myself, though no doubt a lot of birders (and others) did. One of my first memories of books is my mother buying the "Ladybird" bird books for me when I was a child (for which I am eternally grateful). Had she not thought that natural history might be something I'd find interesting, I'd most likely be even more of a soulless wageslave than I am now. Mysticete's point about economic circumstances is a good one - I'm fortunate my family, unlike those in many 'marginalized' communities, was able to afford books and to allow me the leisure time to read them.

I, personally, actually prefer urban birding - I'm fascinated by the wildlife that is found in our cities and which coexists with man amidst the human-modified habitat. I'm grateful that forests and other nature reserves exist in the UK and elsewhere, but (speaking only for myself) it isn't necessary to visit such places for me to find wonder and joy in nature.

Personally, I am not convinced that the "spark" is less common than it was when I was growing up. I never ran into anyone interested in nature in the way I was until College...I knew some young hunters and fisherman and that was about as close as I got.

Of course fishing and hunting are also interests in nature. I've spent a lot of time fishing and to succeed in that requires an understanding of your quarry and its environment and the conditions that influence its behaviour that is very similar to birding. I have to say that birding has made me a better observer and record keeper, more attuned to weather, conditions, and activity patterns, all of which have changed my approach towards fishing for the better - not only made me a better angler but increased my appreciation of the sport. Where the two activities come together (for example in tuna fishing, where spotting and understanding the behaviour of birds can be essential) applying the skills learned in one to the other can be very satisfying.

China (the PRC) is interesting in the context of this discussion because it has some of the world's largest urban zones and populations. The PRC is a bit of a paradox in that, while obviously there is a huge amount of wildlife trade that is deletorious for wildlife in both the PRC and internationally, cities like Shanghai do have large city parks that have a good amount of bird life (see link). We can only hope that with increasing development and prosperity will come increasing appreciation of nature, as has happened in places like Korea and Japan - and Europe for that matter. I've read articles covering the birds of London in the 1940s/50s - it's remarkable, even allowing for (presumably) more observer effort and better observers, how many more species are seen in the same areas today.