DIALOGUE TO GLOBAL MAYORS 对话全球市长 COVER STORY · 封 面 故 事
All information sheets are made of eco-friendly material. To protect the environment, please conserve resources.
005
006
pollinators and other environmental criteria.
Along with a certain amount of municipal
bombast, it manages to elicit a vast planting
effort in British cities and towns year after
year.
Maybe it’s a fantasy to think anything like
that could happen in the United States. But
just imagine: Right now, mayors do verbal
jousting over meaningless contests between
teams that are merely named for wildlife —
Chicago Cubs versus St. Louis Cardinals,
Anaheim Ducks versus San Jose Sharks,
Atlanta Hawks versus Charlotte Bobcats,
and so on, through an entire zoo’s worth of
rivalries.
If those mayors had to go toe-to-toe over the
real thing —\"My city has more wildlife than
yours,\" \"My city has more green space than
yours,\" \"My city is a better place for bird,
butterflies, and people to live\"— that would
be a competition worth watching.
one significant hazard: They can become
\"ecological traps,\" luring birds to their deaths
in a sort of cat smorgasbord. Just keeping
cats indoors, says Lerman, could prevent
the loss of billions of birds in the United
States every year.
In Britain, adds Mark Goddard, of the
University of Leeds, allotments, or
community gardens, in urban areas make
a major difference for pollinating insects,
probably because they tend to feature fruit
trees and bushes and because the weedy
corners tend to be a little more insectfriendly than private gardens. Concern about
dwindling pollinator species has also led
to the recent proliferation of 60 wildflower
meadows in British cities, modeled after the
extensive meadows planted around the site
of the 2012 London Olympics.
The new study by Lerman and her coauthors may also inadvertently have hit
on one unlikely source of hope for urban
wildlife: Civic pride and competitiveness.
Their study looked at the relative wildlifefriendliness of 10 sample cities and boiled
the differences down to a series of numbers
indicating how well each city accommodated
nine representative species. While the study
scrupulously avoids an overall ranking of
cities, it would be easy enough for local
partisans to look at the numbers and make
invidious comparisons. For instance, among
the big cities, Philadelphia ranked first for
biodiversity, followed by Washington, D.C.
Boston lagged well behind. But it beat New
York, and New York topped its Hudson River
neighbor, Jersey City.
No formal \"green city\" competition exists in
this country, at least not yet. But the \"Britain
in Bloom\" contest, sponsored by the Royal
Horticultural Society, increasingly focuses on
The study proposes a marriage of i-Tree
and eBird, two current methods for keeping
track of the natural world. Designed by
the U.S. Forest Service, i-Tree is software
used by organizations around the world
to record data on urban tree cover, from
single trees to entire forests. Its counterpart,
eBird, from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology,
is a checklist system enabling thousands
of birders around the world to log their
observations into a central database. The
combination of the two enables researchers
to assess not just which trees characterize
a neighborhood, but how good they are as
bird habitat, and which birds are using them.
To demonstrate the usefulness of this
methodology, the study’s co-authors looked
at 10 municipalities in the U.S. Northeast
for which tree data happened to be
available. They were aiming to show that
the technology can work in the broadest
possible range of communities. So they
included municipalities from Moorestown,
N.J., a Philadelphia bedroom community
with a population of about 20,000, on up
to New York City with 8.3 million. The
ambition was to provide a quick tool for
urban planners to assess how a proposed
development would affect local wildlife, or
which neighborhoods could benefit most
from habitat improvements.
Accommodating wildlife in cities doesn’t
necessarily require massive investment,
says Lerman. You can bring in more birds,
she says, just by breaking up endless lawns
with the right kinds of shrubs, to create
structure and variety. Mowing those lawns a
little less often — not weekly but every two or
three weeks — will increase the population
of native bees and other pollinators. As for
bird feeders, they don’t necessarily increase
overall bird populations, but they do present
A new study in the journal Landscape and
Urban Planning also looks at better ways of
understanding urban wildlife and habitat in
combination. The study uses birds as bioindicators for other wildlife types because
they are easier to count than shy, often
nocturnal, mammals, and because they are
more broadly familiar to the public. \"They’re
active during the day, they’re colorful, they
sing,\" says Susannah Lerman, a University
of Massachusetts ornithologist and lead
author of the new study. \"So even if most
people know nothing about wildlife, they
know something about birds.\"