4.6 Article

Correcting common misconceptions to inspire conservation action in urban environments

Journal

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 2, Pages 300-306

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13193

Keywords

cities; conservation policy; novel habitats; patch size; urban biodiversity; urban conservation; urban green space; area verde urbana; biodiversidad urbana; ciudades; conservacion urbana; habitats novedosos; politicas de conservacion; tamano de fragmento

Funding

  1. Clean Air and Urban Landscapes Hub
  2. Threatened Species Recovery Hub of the National Environmental Science Program
  3. Melbourne Waterway Research Practice Partnership - Melbourne Water

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite repeated calls to action, proposals for urban conservation are often met with surprise or scepticism. There remains a pervasive narrative in policy, practice, and the public psyche that urban environments, although useful for engaging people with nature or providing ecosystem services, are of little conservation value. We argue that the tendency to overlook the conservation value of urban environments stems from misconceptions about the ability of native species to persist within cities and towns and that this, in turn, hinders effective conservation action. However, recent scientific evidence shows that these assumptions do not always hold. Although it is generally true that increasing the size, quality, and connectivity of habitat patches will improve the probability that a species can persist, the inverse is not that small, degraded, or fragmented habitats found in urban environments are worthless. In light of these findings we propose updated messages that guide and inspire researchers, practitioners, and decision makers to undertake conservation action in urban environments: consider small spaces, recognize unconventional habitats, test creative solutions, and use science to minimize the impacts of future urban development.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available