Global urbanization and the separation of humans from nature

BioScience

Volumn 54, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 585-590

  Turner, Will R ^a,b,c   Nakamura, Toshihiko ^d   Dinetti, Marco ^e,f  

^a University of Arizona   (United States)

^b PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Tucson Bird Count   (United States)

^d NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM AND INSTITUTE   (Japan)

^e Ital League the Protect of Birds   (Italy)

^f Ecologia Urbana   (United States)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Citywide biological survey; Human population; Shifting baselines; Urban ecology

Indexed keywords

EID: 2942588533     PISSN: 00063568     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0585:GUATSO]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Benfield FK, Raimi MD, Chen DD. 1999. Once There Were Greenfields: How Urban Sprawl is Undermining America's Environment, Economy, and Social Fabric. New York: National Resources Defense Council.
2. Bixler RD, Floyd MF, Hammitt WE. 2002. Environmental socialization: Quantitative tests of the childhood play hypothesis. Environment and Behavior 34: 795-818.
3. Blair RB. 1996. Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecological Applications 6: 506-519.
4. _. 2001. Birds and butterflies along urban gradients in two ecoregions of the United States: Is urbanization creating a homogenous fauna? Pages 33-56 in Lockwood JL, McKinney ML, eds. Biotic Homogenization: The Loss of Diversity through Invasion and Extinction. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
5. Degen G, Otto W. 1988. Atlas der Brutvögel von Berlin. Naturschutzarbeit in Berlin und Brandenburg, suppl. 8. Berlin: Institut für Landschaftsforschung und Naturschutz.
6. Dinetti M, Romano S, eds. 2002. Atlante Degli Uccelli Nidificanti nel Comune di Firenze 1997-1998. Florence (Italy): Lega Italiana Protezione Uccelli, Comune di Firenze, BirdLife International.
7. Gould SJ. 1991. Unenchanted evening. Natural History 100: 4-14.
8. Hadidan J, Sauer J, Swarth C, Handly P, Droege S, Williams C, Huff J, Didden G. 1997. A citywide breeding bird survey for Washington, D.C. Urban Ecosystems 1: 87-102.
9. Hope D, Gries C, Zhu W, Fagan W, Redman CL, Grimm NB, Nelson AL, Martin C, Kinzig A. 2003. Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100: 8788-8792.
10. Horwitz P, Lindsay M, O'Connor M. 2001. Biodiversity, endemism, sense of place, and public health: Inter-relationships for Australian inland aquatic systems. Ecosystem Health 7: 253-265.
11. Hough M. 1995. City Form and Natural Process. New York: Routledge.
12. Kahn PH. 2002. Children's affiliations with nature: Structure, development, and the problem of environmental generational amnesia. Pages 93-116 in Kahn PH, Kellert SR, eds. Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
13. Kahn PH, Friedman B. 1995. Environmental views and values of children in an inner-city Black community. Child Development 66: 1403-1417.
14. Kaplan R, Kaplan S. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge (United Kingdom): Cambridge University Press.
15. Keeley JE, Fotheringham CJ. 2001. Historic fire regime in Southern California shrublands. Conservation Biology 6: 1536-1548.
16. Kellert SR. 2002. Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in children. Pages 117-151 in Kahn PH, Kellert SR, eds. Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
17. Kowarik I. 1995. On the role of alien species in urban flora and vegetation. Pages 85-103 in Pysek P, Prach K, Rejmánek M, Wade PM, eds. Plant Invasions: General Aspects and Special Problems. Amsterdam: SPB Academic.
18. Marzluff JM. 2001. Worldwide urbanization and its effects on birds. Pages 19-47 in Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R, eds. Avian Ecology and Conservation in an Urbanizing World. Boston: Kluwer.
19. Marzluff JM, Ewing K. 2001. Restoration of fragmented landscapes for the conservation of birds: A general framework and specific recommendations for urbanizing landscapes. Restoration Ecology 9: 280-292.
20. McIntyre NE. 2000. Ecology of urban arthropods: A review and a call to action. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 93: 825-835.
21. McKinney ML. 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. BioScience 52: 883-890.
22. Murata T. 1997. Ferns of Chiba City. Pages 321-342 in Numata M, Nakamura T, Hasegawa M, Fujihara M, eds. Conservation of Biodiversity: Surveys of Species, Communities, and Ecosystems in Chiba City. Tokyo: Shinzansha.
23. [OAGB] Ornithologische Arbeitsgruppe Berlin (West). 1984. Brutvogelatlas Berlin (West). Ornithologischer Bericht für Berlin (West), vol. 9. Berlin: Sonderheft.
24. Pauly D. 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10: 430.
25. Robinson SK, Thompson FR III, Donovan TM, Whitehead DR, Faaborg J. 1995. Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 267: 1987-1990.
26. Rohde CLE, Kendle AD. 1994. Human Well-Being, Natural Landscapes and Wildlife in Urban Areas: A Review. Peterborough (United Kingdom): English Nature.
27. Rosenzweig ML. 2003. Win-Win Ecology: How the Earth's Species Can Survive in the Midst of Human Enterprise. Oxford (United Kingdom): Oxford University Press.
28. Schultz PW. 2001. Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues 56: 302-304.
29. Turner WR. 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.
30. [UN] United Nations Population Division. 2001. World Population Prospects: The 2000 Revision. New York: UN.