Land Use and Biodiversity- February 28th

Seminar Leaders- Kate Soltys, Allister Johnson, Lukas 

Spontaneous Urban Vegetation: Reflections of Change in a Globalized World- This article discussed how due to the heat retention in cities, the disturbance to natural habitats and impervious paving much natural plants how learned to tolerate much disturbance to their habitats. These plants tend to overgrow and take over abandoned areas in the city and are known as weeds. These species of plants grow with little or no maintenance therefore the lack of human contact with these abandoned areas does not stop the vegetation reproduction. This type of vegetation that people refer to as weeds can actually achieve many of the traditional restoration goals with less financial investment and have a greater change of long-term success. The article also discusses how in depressed cities where construction and development is minimal, plant growth is able to occur without disturbance or interference from people for a long period of time. This process of reproduction is closer to achieving a stable layered structure than many developing cities are. Finally as new settlers migrated, they brought with them their crops causing depletion of native species by the new invasive ones."At the functional level, spontaneous urban vegetation can be considered sustainable in the sense that it is performing a wide range of quantifiable ecosystem services on marginal land with a minimal input of maintenance resources."(Del Tredici 2010, 308-309) People have specific views on what is a weed and what is a flower, causing them to view much of the natural vegetation in cities as weeds, which then makes people get rid of them.1

2) An example of spontaneous vegetation.

3) Spontaneous vegetation- Dandelions known as a weed.

Local Land-Use Planning to Conserve Biodiversity: Planners' Perspectives on What Works- This article discusses how habitat loss is a primary threat to biodiversity loss and municipal planning departments have a important role in conserving biodiversity. 17 planning directors from municipal jurisdictions were interviewed to get an idea of how well they protect the biodiversity within their parks and such. There were high performing jurisdictions and low performing ones, answers were monitored to see what the differences between the high and low jurisdictions were. The high jurisdictions answered many of the questions positively and results showed they received more funding from the government to protect the biodiversity therefore more was able to be done, the low jurisdictions received little funding therefore proper technology was a holdback as well. Both levels believe to help biodiversity loss cease, more funding is needed, also more education for the public to be aware of what is going on. It was discussed that in order to help cease biodiversity loss, there needs to be some sort of benefit to the public in order for them to participate. Flagship biodiversity elements carry legal mandates for protection with them and also bring funding in order to protect the species that is endangered. Also including a biodiversity specialist in conservation programs is a great benefit and helps steer programs in the right direction to actually protect what they are intended to protect.4

Seminar Discussion- Do you think it is better for native species to be left to fend for itself or should we intervene when it begins to take over?
- It was discussed that this space could potentially be used to build on instead of building further into non-utalized space. Also it was said that if the space does not look pretty people will avoid contact with it at all costs so why not make it look pretty by managing it when it begins taking over and turning it into an urban green space.

Why are our views towards certain plants negative and how can we change these views so that native species can grow where they are intended to?
- People have an image of what they believe parks should look like due to how they are advertised, therefore when they view these plants that are not super pretty or are not put in a nice flower bed as weeds. They do not have enough education to realize they are just another type of plant species that offers the same benefits as pretty plants do.
-Some of the plants that are simply overgrown look invasive because they are not tended to, therefore managing them is all they need to make people realize they are not bad.
-We are a visual culture and like to look at what is pretty, so somehow arranging and gardening the native species to make them appealing to look at may be all that is needed.
-When native species are next to a nice bed of colourful flowers they look ugly due to the comparison, however on their own or in a group of native flowers they look nice as well. There are so many advertisements for pretty flowers telling you they are beautiful, more of these advertisements need to go into advertising the natural beauty of native species too, therefore people will see them differently. Intergrading the two types of species together into parks can help blend them in so they no longer look invasive.

Should all vacant areas that vegetation has taken over be turned into parks or should they be left alone to let biodiversity take over? What are other ways we conserve biodiversity other than making a park?
-It was said that some areas should be left alone without human intervention. Nature does not need humans to bring in biodiversity it does it on its own. The ecosystem and its species take care of each other. We conserve it in gardens, back yards, trails, etc.

How can planners think of biodiversity as a primary concern instead of an after thought and care for it before it becomes and issue?
-Planners can plan for it by using the native vegetation that is already found on site, therefore not disturbing anything. This does not damage the habitats living around.
-Planners should also be concerned not only about if are they damaging the biodiversity  found on the site, but also where their materials come from and does natural habitats get destroyed else where to provide the resources they need. ex) do not buy from clear cutter forests.
- It is not necessarily the planners choice if the habit it destroyed on the site because they build what the client wants and if the client wants not life on their site then that it what the planner creates, therefore by making mandatory laws in place for what is required on a site it will force people to embrace it, not destroy it. Possibly making a law that says to add in a wetland or some sort of productive green space every yard of urbanization. Gets integrated right into the landscape.

Do you think every person has a responsibility to protect biodiversity or is it solely the planners responsibility to initiate the protection of biodiversity?
-It goes both ways, clients should be somewhat aware of this if they are building on land.
-Could put a law in place that in order to remove a tree from your yard you need to go to the government and make sure it is ok to do so, and if it is done there must be at least two trees planted in its place.
-People like to break laws, so could give a tax break instead? However people do not respond well to takes so could make it first few people that create green space or something in their yard they get a tax break, then it will start a trend and everyone will want it.

Personal Reflection- Personally biodiversity it not a local issue it is a global one therefore in order for all these small projects to make a difference they need to be done at a global scale. Otherwise if one country is adding all these benefits, all their work they have done may be counteracted by another country who all of a sudden decided to chop down all the trees in the city. To make a difference everyone needs to be committed. Because not everyone likes to get involved in saving the world, making laws such as for every yard of urbanization there needs to be a wetland may be the best option. This does not put pressure on homeowners to try and get as much biodiversity into their yards but it would still be done by the city. It was brought up that a lot of animals in cities may not be a good thing but I grew up in the country with coyotes and deer in my yard, not seeing animals was uncommon, and I turned out perfectly fine. Why is biodiversity in cities a bad thing? It allows people to engage with nature more. Education on the animals can help people be less afraid therefore more accepting of their presence. Biodiversity also helps to regulate the ecosystems they inhabit, therefore with there loss the ecosystems may also collapse and we could be left with nothing. No vegetation, no animals. People seem to act when it is too late, this should not be one of those times.

1) Del Tredici, Peter . "Spontaneous Urban Vegetation: Reflections of Change in a Globalized World."Nature and Culture . 5. no. 3 (2010): 299-315. 10.3167/nc.2010.050305 (accessed February 28, 2013).
2) Rupprecht, Christoph. Focx Photography, "Spontane Vegetation II." Last modified 2010. Accessed February 28, 2013. http://www.focx.de/2011/09/20/spontaneous-vegetation-ii/?lang=de.
3) Jule, . Spontaneous Vegetation, "Posts Tagged ‘spontaneous vegetation’." Last modified Unknown . Accessed February 28, 2013. http://spontaneousvegetation.wordpress.com/tag/spontaneous-vegetation/.
4) Stokes, David L., Marian F. Hanson, Deborah D. Oaks, Jamie E. Straub, and Aileen V. Ponio. "Local Land-Use Planning to Conserve Biodiversity: Planners’ Perspectives on What Works."Conservation Biology . 24. no. 2 (2009): 450-460. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01356.x (accessed February 28, 2013).