Integrating Wildlife Conservation into Land-Use Plans for Rapidly Growing Cities

  • William W. Shaw
  • Rachel McCaffrey
  • Robert J. Steidl


By definition, exurban development does not occur in isolation from other environments. Indeed, in many if not most situations, “exurban” is a categorization for a range of development types that occur somewhere between wild or rural lands and cities. Urban environments and the habitats found in cities and suburbs play important roles in the ecological health and biodiversity of adjacent and nearby exurban lands. In this chapter, we review the importance of wildlife and wildlife habitats in metropolitan areas and the influence of these urban habitats on adjacent exurban lands. We also describe how planning and science can work together to develop large-scale land-use plans that advance wildlife conservation goals. The Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP), developed for Pima County, Arizona, serves as a case study for this type of conservation planning.


Wildlife Conservation Urban Ecology Urban Habitat Planning Goal Riparian Land 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adams, L. W. 2005. Urban wildlife ecology and conservation: a brief history of the discipline. Urban Ecosystems 8:139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, L. W., and Leedy, D. L. 1987. Integrating man and nature in the metropolitan environment. Proceedings of the National Symposium on Urban Wildlife, Chevy Chase, MD, 4–7 November 1986.Google Scholar
  3. Beissinger, S. R., and Osborne, D. R. 1982. Effects of urbanization on avian community organization. Condor 84:75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benedict, M., Drohan, J., and Gavely, J. 2005. Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, Pima County Arizona, Green Infrastructure–Linking Lands for Nature and People: Case Study Series #6. Arlington, VA: The Conservation Fund.Google Scholar
  5. Blair, R. B. 1996. Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecological Applications 6:506–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blair, R. B. 2001. Birds and butterflies along urban gradients in two ecoregions of the U.S. In Biotic Homogenization, eds. J. L. Lockwood, and M. L. McKinney, pp. 33–56. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, C. A., and Dagg, A. I. 1976. Bird populations in downtown and suburban Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario. Ontario Field Biologist 30:1–22.Google Scholar
  8. Dasmann, R. F. 1966. Wildlife and the new conservation. The Wildlife Society News 105:48–49.Google Scholar
  9. Decker, D., Brown, T., and Siemer, W. 2001. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management in North America. Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Society.Google Scholar
  10. DeGraaf, R. M. 1991. Winter foraging guild structure and habitat associations in suburban bird communities. Landscape and Urban Planning 21:173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeStefano, S., and DeGraaf, R. M. 2003. Exploring the ecology of suburban wildlife. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeStefano, S., Deblinger, R. D., and Miller, C. 2005. Suburban wildlife: lessons, challenges, and opportunities. Urban Ecosystems 8:131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emlen, J. T. 1974. An urban bird community in Tucson, Arizona: derivation, structure, regulation. Condor 76:184–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eversham, B. C., Roy, D. B., and Telfer, M. G. 1996. Urban industrial and other manmade sites as analogues of natural habitats for Carabidae. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33:149–156.Google Scholar
  15. Fitter, R. S. R. 1945. London’s Natural History. London, UK: Bloomsbury Books.Google Scholar
  16. Germaine, S. S., Rosenstock, S. S., Schweinsburg, R. E., and Richardson, W. S. 1998. Relationships among breeding birds, habitat, and residential development in Greater Tucson, Arizona. Ecological Applications 8:680–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gould, S. J. 1991. Unenchanted evening. Natural History 100:4–14.Google Scholar
  18. Hadidian, S., and Smith, J. 2001. Urban Animals. New York, NY: The Humane Society of the United States.Google Scholar
  19. Hood, L. C. 1998. Frayed Safety Nets: Conservation Planning Under the Endangered Species Act. Washington D.C.: Defenders of Wildlife.Google Scholar
  20. Jonsson, B. 1995. Measures for sustainable use of biodiversity in natural resource management. In Global Biodiversity Assessment, ed. V. H. Heywood, pp. 943–981. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kareiva, P., Andelman, S., Doak, D., Elderd, B., Groom, M., Hoekstra, J., Hood, L., James, F., Lamoreux, J., LeBuhn, G., McCullock, C., Regetz, J., Savage, L., Ruckelshaus, M., Skelly, D., Wilbur, H., Zamudio, K., and National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis HCP Working Group. 1999. Using Science in Habitat Conservation Plans. National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kellert, S. R. 1996. The Value of Life. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kieran, J. 1959. A Natural History of New York City. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  24. Kingsland, S. E. 2005. The Evolution of American Ecology, 1890–2000. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lancaster, R. K., and Rees, W. E. 1979. Bird communities and the structure of urban habitats. Canadian Journal of Zoology 57:2358–2368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leedy, D. L. 1979. An Annotated Bibliography on Planning and Management for Urban-Suburban Wildlife. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/OBS-79/25.Google Scholar
  27. Leopold, A. 1933. Game Management. Madison, WI: Wisconsin University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Loker, C. A., Decker, D. J., and Schwager, S. J. 1999. Social acceptability of wildlife management actions in suburban areas: 3 cases from New York. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:152–159.Google Scholar
  29. Lyons, J. R., and Leedy, D. L. 1984. The status of urban wildlife programs. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 49:233–251.Google Scholar
  30. MacArthur, R. H., and Wilson, E. O. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Marzluff, J. M., Bowman, R., and Donnelly, R. 2001. Avian Ecology and Conservation in an Urbanizing World. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCaffrey, R. E. 2005. Using citizen science in urban bird studies. Urban Habitats 3:70–86.Google Scholar
  33. McKinney, M. L. 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Melles, S., Glenn, S., and Martin, K. 2003. Urban bird diversity and landscape complexity: species–environment associations along a multiscale habitat gradient. Ecology and Society 7:5 (online). Available at: Accessed November 18, 2008.
  35. Miller, J. R., and Hobbs, R. J. 2002. Conversation where people live and work. Conversation Biology 16:330–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Niemela, J. 1999. Ecology and urban planning. Biodiversity and Conservation 8:119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Noss, R. 2004. Can urban areas have ecological integrity? In Proceedings, 4th International Wildlife Symposium, eds. W. Shaw, L. Harris, and L. VanDruff, pp. 3–8. Tucson, AZ: College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  38. Rosenzweig, M. 2003. Win-Win Ecology. London, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Savard, J. P., Clergeau, L. P., and Mennechez, G. 2000. Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning 48:131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shaw, W. W., and Supplee, V. 1987. Wildlife conservation in rapidly expanding metropolitan areas: informational, institutional, and economic constraints and solutions. In Integrating Man and Nature in the Metropolitan Environment, eds. L. W. Adams, and D. L. Leedy, pp. 191–197. Proc. Nat. Symp. on Urban Wildlife. Chevy Chase, MD: 4–7 November 1986.Google Scholar
  41. Shaw, W. W., Mangun, W. R., and Lyons, J. R. 1985. Residential enjoyment of wildlife by Americans. Leisure Science 7:361–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shaw, W. W., Harris, L. K., and VanDruff , L. 2004. Urban Wildlife Conservation: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Urban Wildlife Conservation. Tucson, AZ: College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  43. Shenstone, J. C. 1912. The flora of London building sites. Journal of Botany 50:117–124.Google Scholar
  44. Shultz, P. W. 2001. Empathizing with nature: the effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues 56:302–304.Google Scholar
  45. 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 and Urban Planning 65:149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Turner, W. R., Nakamura, T., and Dinetti, M. 2004. Global urbanization and the separation of humans from nature. BioScience 54:585–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation, QuickFacts, available Accessed November 18, 2008.
  48. Wood, B. C., and Pullin, A. S. 2002. Persistence of species in a fragmented urban landscape: the importance of dispersal ability and habitat availability for grassland butterflies. Biodiversity and Conservation 11:1451–1468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • William W. Shaw
    • 1
  • Rachel McCaffrey
    • 2
  • Robert J. Steidl
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Natural Resources, University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.School of Natural Resources, Biological Sciences East, University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  3. 3.School of Natural Resources, Biological Sciences East 312, University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations