R5: Restoration of Fragmented Landscapes for the Conservation of Birds

Article written by John M. Marzluff & Kern Ewing

Summary

The detriment of wildlife can be directly related to human intervention leading to the fragmentation of habitats. Marzluff and Ewing explore the specifics of this line of thinking with particular focus on avian species: the effects of urbanization on native habitats, possible mitigation of these effects, and future research points. Fragmentation has a wide range of effects that can determine its severity include natural disturbance regime and the persistence of anthropogenic change. This understanding allows restoration ecologists to design solutions to maintain native species through both short and long term designs including maintaining native vegetation, designing buffers that reduce penetration of undesirable agents from the surroundings, and integrating urban parks into the native habitat system to name a few.

Stitch

Marzluff and Ewing list a few ways restoration ecologists can intentionally design better urban spaces fragments of nature for avian species to utilize, of which the most applicable to an urban environment I feel include maintaining native vegetation and deadwood within the fragmented space (2), discourage open lawns on public and private property (8), and of course integrate urban parks into the native habitat reserve system (10). These are aspects that can readily be applied to a wide range of urban projects; creating a green wall or ‘vertical park’ in dense urban settings, utilizing green roof systems, or creating urban gardens with native vegetation rather than lawns. The third idea has been implemented in numerous places, one of which being the 685 Third Avenue Pocket Park by Gensler in New York City. The utilization of a living wall combined with seasonal trees creates an artificial habitat in the busy city. Though they go to great lengths to draw in the public I feel that birds would be less inclined to. 

In searching out a living wall they neglected to look at native plant species as well as design the park entirely for human engagement. There is no buffer between the living wall or manufactured habitat and human occupied spaces. While they do make a point of not covering the park with a lawn they go too far and leave the entire park essentially paved except for planters and fountains. To add to the list the park only serves as a secondary entrance to the TIAA CREF company and as such is quite small.

I’m not saying that an urban park has to be the size of the Golden Gate park in San Francisco or Central Park in New York City but the park must be designed to a scale that provides separation of human and animal habitats. 

Questions

• At project scale how can we hope to make a difference when it comes to fragmenting habitats? 

• Is this a problem for architects or for urban planners?