Using POPs to Create Healthy Wildlife Corridors in Dense Urban … · 2017. 1. 24. · urban...

Using POPs to CreateHealthy Wildlife Corridors in Dense Urban Environments

Matthew CastroDemonstration of Professional Competence

Pratt Institute PSPD Fall 2013

[page Intentionally left blank]

Without the influence of those who I’ve had the pleasure of meet-ing over the past two years at Pratt, my graduate experience would not have been half as fulfilling. A big thanks to Alec Appelbaum for the many edits and comments that made the revision process a little more bearable.

i

[page Intentionally left blank]

ii

A privately owned public space and more specifically, a marginal one, creates a prime entryway into creating wildlife corridors into an urban environment like New York City. With over 500 POPS that exist across the City of New York there are many opportunities to add a wildlife component that enhances public space. With a large portion of these POPS existing as uninviting marginal spaces, adding a wildlife component benefits the image of the owner, the community and wildlife species. Furthermore, POPS with a wild-life component are created to function as a system with other habitat links in the corridor, acting as green public additions that require less maintenance attention. With a wildlife corridor located along Water Street, benefits for plants, wildlife coincide with those for businesses, developers and the community.

Executive Summary

iii

The presence of wildlife in New York City is existent and visible. Skunks in Inwood Hill Park, monarch butterflies migrating through Coney Island and the restoration of the Eastern Screech owl in Central Park, demonstrate the living and breathing non-human residents living within one of the busiest cities in the world. While many are fully aware of existing wildlife populations, urban poli-cies that reflect this and seek to provide an equal or better habitat within the city center have not been fully accepted, or have been overlooked. NYC’s missed opportunities don’t necessarily mean that providing habitat for wildlife has been avoided completely, but instead shows the opportunities yet to be had. In NYC’s 2012 Wetland strategy, efforts do seek to increase and restore wet-lands however, these efforts create habitat for birds, amphibians and other wetland species on the outskirts of the city and not into a space where they might co-exist with a human population. In continuing New York City’s environmentally aware policy agenda, a greater, well thought out city view needs to be realized. A place where compatible urban species of wildlife, travel through visually appealing corridors, created to benefit both themselves and the people interacting within them.

Since 2002, New York City has added 300 acres of parkland (PlaNYC 2013), yet green space created through parkland can only be done so in open space, or space that has become vacant of expansive structures (i.e. razing a building). This creates an issue for habitat creation but there are alternatives ways outside of green space and can easily address this issue. Greenspace in NYC in terms of both private and public areas are greenways, parks, community gardens, cemeteries and greenroofs (Hess et. al. 2001). Take the South Street Seaport area of Community Board 1 in lower Manhattan as an example. The only New York City Department of Recreation parkland in the area is Vietnam Veteran’s Park and further off to the West, Battery Park (Figure 1). Without strategizing on how to increase wildlife in areas like this, the protocol for creating habitat has been done outside of dense city center.

Existing Conditions

Figure 1. Battery Park and Vietnam Veteran’s Park

1

Much further north, the Bronx River Alliance was founded in 2001. The organization has helped to foster support through clean up the Bronx River through programing and on-water usage. Com-munity based practices and outreach have improved the Bronx Rover from its dilapidated state. The return of clean water to the river, replacing the remnants of an industrial past, worked to bet-ter the area for humans and at no additional hardship, fostered an environment that has allowed beaver to reappear after an absence of 200 years (Figure 2) (Wildlife Conservation Society 2010). If efforts in place increase the quality of life for people, other similar New York City-wide opportunities can be sought out. These oppor-tunities can be as simple as creating plantings that attract wildlife along corridor like stretches in the city.

Wildlife Corridors

“Landscape linkages, land bridges, wildlife corridors, gre-enways, shelterbelts, turkey trots- call them what you will”

Chadwick (1991)

Green Spaces in New York City are all capable, whether they cur-rently do so or not, of supporting some level of wildlife. Nature in NYC, in terms of species that thrive most successfully can be seen as, but not limited to, the sedentary species of trees, shrubs and others plants and mobile species like bees, fish, birds and small mammals like beavers. By analyzing available space, and utilizing the higher standard of public design NYC has created for itself, urban wildlife corridors that promote human enjoyment and wildlife success can skillfully be created.

A wildlife corridor is habitat that connects wildlife populations that have been separated by human activities or structures (Hess et. al. 2001). Within these corridors are segments that will be refer-enced as habitat links. These links are the small, slightly fragment-ed areas of habitat that are close enough to allow wildlife to pass to and from them. The size of the habitat and the distance from one another are relative to the species examined. White-footed

Source:PBS

Source:NY1

Figure 2.1: Bronx River Then

Figure 2.2: Bronx River Now2

field mice in NYC, prefer to travel under areas of tree cover (Mun-shi et. al. 2010). Habitat links connect to large areas of habitat, or habitat hubs, where the larger population reside. The central idea of any corridor is to create movement for wildlife and can be de-fined by their structural or functional qualities (Hess et. al. 2001). For this central idea, habitat links can be seen as small parks, green spaces and public plazas while habitat hubs that support a minimum population are large parks, graveyards, waterfront spaces or expansive areas of open space uninhabited by humans (Figure 3).

In 2009, New Yorkers for Parks approximated that there were 2.5 acres for every 1000 residents. With a population of 8,336,697 people (US Census 2012), this equates to 20,842 acres of open space. As green space in New York City increased, simultaneous community and park improvement projects raised its quality. Ef-forts demonstrated through actions like Mayor Bloomberg’s alloca-tion of $3.3 billion plan for new parks, housing, ferry service and environmental improvements for its 578 miles of shoreline as part of the release of Vision 2020 in 2011(Bloomberg 2011). As of right now, there hasn’t been a study expansive enough to survey New York City’s wildlife population as a whole. The most recent attempt to do so was undertaken by the Macaulay Honors College in the summer of 2013. While the full results have yet to be published, wildlife supporting takeaways suggest that small changes can do much for wildlife. One small observation showed that removing trash cans out of woodland areas, a food source for rats, allowed chipmunks to return (Woldon 2013).

Improvements that allowed beaver to return to the Bronx River have also been seen in New York City parks, and in its headlines. Park improvements have had the coincidence of attracting coyote that live in the Bronx and Westchester that followed habitat lead-ing to Central Park. This headline is an indirect way in which a New Yorker has been exposed to a wildlife corridor. Speculating on the path taken from North to South, beginning in Van Cortlandt Park, coyote moved into Manhattan through the railway, entering

Habitat Hub

Habitat Hub

Figure 3

Habitat Links

3

Inwood Hill Park, then along the greenway to Fort Washington Park, to Riverside park and over to Central Park (Figure 4). While this is speculation, coyote could have crossed over the Highbridge as well. One must emphasize that New York City isn’t creating a haven for Coyote, but has been slowly moving towards a more wildlife-friendly environment. The likely cause is that New York City’s parks were not inviting coyote but more likely its prey to which they followed which could be a plus for New Yorkers since coyote prey on pests like rats (New York Times 2012). Coyote liv-ing in habitat hubs in Weschester and the Bronx used habitat links to migrate south into Central Park, the final habitat hub.

Humans also follow habitat links and the habitat corridor of a NYC urbanite can easily be visualized. An individual may begin their day in the habitat hub of an apartment, use the habitat links of apartment steps, to the street below, to the subway station and on to a subway and then follow the mirrored path ending at another habitat hub, possibly a workplace. When creating more habitat corridors into New York City, the effort is not placed on species like coyote, who for safety reasons have difficulty existing in a city environment, but to create a more “habitable” place for plants, birds, insect and some mammals that may be beneficial through a service like pollinating the flower a child loves, or eating a nui-sance mosquito. To do so, areas utilized by people can be focused on, and within these public spaces a wildlife component can be added. This wildlife component can be in the form of trees, or na-tive plants that help to draw wildlife to this public area.

Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS)

Private Owned Public Spaces can provide a way for wildlife cor-ridors to be created in urban areas of New York City. Privately Owned Public Spaces or POPS, are a designation given by the New York City Planning Commission to areas built by private de-velopers, building owners or other non-city parties, for the allow-ance to add additional floors or be granted waivers by implement-ing a space for the public (NYCDCP 2013). Currently, there are Figure 4: Possible coyote path

4

over 500 of these spaces spanning New York City, with the largest densities concentrated in Mid and Downtown Manhattan (Figure 5 map of all POPS). These spaces vary widely in typology and func-tion, and not until 2000, when the book “Privately Owned Public Space: The New York City Experience” was published, there was no formal way to categorize POPS in New York City. Jerold S. Kayden, a Harvard Professor joined the Department of City Plan-ning and the Municipal Arts Society in order to perform a study cataloguing and evaluating POPS in New York City.

The system of categorization was officially adopted for use when addressing POPS. Narrowed down into five categories; Destina-tion, Neighborhood, hiatus, Circulation and Marginal, the descrip-tions below paraphrased to only describe the users and the space functions (Kayden 2000).

• Destination space is high-quality public space that attracts em-ployees, residents, and visitors from outside, as well as from, the space’s immediate neighborhood. Users socialize, eat, shop, view art, or attend a programmed event, although they may also visit the space for sedentary, individual activities of reading and relaxing (Figure 6)(NYCDCP 2013).

• Neighborhood space is high-quality public space that draws residents and employees from the immediate neighborhood, including the host building and surrounding buildings within a three-block radius. Users go to neighborhood space for such activities as group socializing, taking care of children, and indi-vidual reading and relaxing (Figure 7)(NYCDCP 2013).

• Hiatus space is public space that accommodates the passing user for a brief stop, but never attracts neighborhood or desti-nation space use. Usually next to the public sidewalk and small in size, such spaces are characterized by design attributes geared to their modest function… (Figure 8)(NYCDCP 2013).

• Circulation space is public space that materially improves the

Source: http://apops.mas.org/

Figure 5: Plotted POPS map

5

pedestrian’s experience of moving through the city. Its princi-pal purpose is to enable pedestrians to move faster from point A to point B, and/or to make the journey more comfortable by providing weather protection for a significant stretch (Figure 9) (NYCDCP 2013).

• Marginal space is public space that, lacking satisfactory levels of design, amenities, or aesthetic appeal deters members of the public from using the space for any purpose. Such spaces usually have one or more of the following characteristics: barren expanses or strips of concrete or terrazzo, elevations above or below the public sidewalk, inhospitable microcli-mates… (Figure 10)(NYCDCP 2013).

Marginal spaces are a type of POP in need of improvement and do not meet expectations like other POPS. Marginal spaces pres-ent an opportunity where usable space can improve the quality of life for the community. If a wildlife component is added to a mar-ginal space, a once blighted POP can become a link in a wildlife corridor. These “barren expanses or strips of concrete” can be re-designed and constructed as linear oasis in the middle of the city hustle. In its most loose form, we can use POPS, and more specifically, marginal spaces, as a starting point to formally imple-ment wildlife corridors within New York City, creating movement and allowing wildlife to move between areas.

Water Street POPSIn July of 2013, Mayor Bloomberg announced a program in part-nership with the New York City Economic Development Corpora-tion known as “Water Street POPS!”. This initiative, with consulta-tion from Community Board 1, gave both a new meaning to POPS in terms of how they could be utilized and how an alternate inter-pretation of use could spur economic growth and invitation to an area. Following Hurricane Sandy, Lower Manhattan was damaged both physically and economically. With a new initiative to spur economic activity the use of POPS is an innovative way to do so (NYCDCP 2013). Figure 10: Marginal Space

Figure 9: Circulation Space

Figure 8: Haitus Space

Figure 7: Neighborhood Space

Figure 6: Destination Space

6

Within the past five years, and with the implementation of a large amount of POPS, the Department of City Planning implemented guidelines that dictate standards of how newly created and rede-veloped POPS are designed. The first of these, a 2007 zoning text amendment created a set of operational and design standards to be placed on to all New York City POPS. This measure dictated that POPS needed to meet requirements on design (configuration, visibility, elevation, etc.) and operational standards (hours of ac-cess, accessibility, etc.) (NYCDCP 2007). In 2009 these changes were amended to include and expand and define explicitly what was needed within a POP. Changes included the use of signage, trees and plantings, amongst other clarifications (NYCDCP 2009).

In March 2013, the same regulations altered to make previous changes were amended again to provide the ability for POPS along the Water Street corridor to hold programming. Guidelines created an imaginary boundary around the Water Street area with the designation of “Public Space Activation area”. This provided an important link between Battery Park and the Bowling Green sub-way station and the Water Street Corridor (Figure 11) (NYCDCP 2013). Dubbed the “Special Lower Manhattan District”, the area would allow events and a wide range of temporary amenities to be placed on 20 existing POPS on and near Water Street until Janu-ary 1, 2014 (Figure12). While only temporary, the proposal, and previous ones, makes the case that it is possible to make changes to POP guidelines when those changes provide a better quality of life for users. Additionally, the Water Street POPS create an environment where several pops are playing a role together. With amendments being implemented for beneficial purposes, that raise the quality of space for individuals to enjoy, using POP space to draw wildlife to an area may act as a win-win for users.

If the Water Street POPS were to be hypothetically redeveloped, marginal spaces located along the street could be converted into lush habitat links making up a greater wildlife corridor. Implement-ing a wildlife corridor must begin when an area is set for re/de-velopment or when several POPS are being constructed in close

Figure 11: Public Space Activation Area

Figure 12: Water Street POPS

Source: NYCDCP

7

proximity to each other. As mentioned before, a habitat corridor within a city must include many links in close proximity to one an-other . Implementing a single POP with a wildlife component would create an oasis. Existing as a single POP with a wildlife com-ponent would not serve a purpose for wildlife. With no adjacent connection, wildlife would have no way to reach that POP or know of its existence. When a series of POPS near each other can be created to contain a wildlife component, the proper function of a wildlife corridor is feasible.

Within the 20 highlighted spaces along the Water Street Cor-ridor, some of which being plazas and others arcades, nine of these are marginal plaza spaces. As per the 2009 Amendment to POPS, 20% of floor level space is to be dedicated to vegetation (NYCDCP 2009). With 186,894 ft2 of total plaza area, the potential for implementing vegetation for wildlife is 37,379 ft2. This figure is relatively small in comparison to the amount of space allotted for pedestrian use (Figure 13). A 2014 Water Street Wildlife Corridor Amendment would utilize the required space for vegetation as one that could attract wildlife. The proposed amendment would meet the requirements of plantings in POPS but would add a wildlife-planting component. With no additional space required outside of previous guidelines, wildlife could be integrated into areas that people occupy as well. A 2014 amendment would also specify the types of plants and the design needed to foster wildlife in the area. If redeveloped, these marginal spaces could act as a way to pro-vide a greater amount of habitat for wildlife within the dense urban area on Water Street.

Green Space and Wildlife CorridorsIf people were the intended users of POPS, and green spaces intended the the same, few areas in the center of New York City are specifically tailored to provide both habitat for native fauna and flora and accessibility to the public. An ability to move through a corridor of supportive habitat freely is what makes a habitat healthy. From an ecosystem perspective, an interaction of living and non-living things in an environment free from distress and

1 B

atte

ry

Par

k P

laza

1 N

ew

Yor

k P

laza

1 S

tate

S

treet

55

Wat

er

St

86

Wat

er

St

95 W

all

St

111

Wal

l St

115

Bro

ad

St

125

Bro

ad

St

0.0

10000.0

20000.0

30000.0

40000.0

50000.0

60000.0

Vacant Plaza Space (ft2) Wildlife Component Space (ft2)

Figure 13: Vegetated vs Plaza Space

8

degradation while maintaining its organization and autonomy over time becomes resilient to stress (Costanza, 1992).

Even though parks can contain habitable areas for wildlife, they are highly manicured. Edges of city parks helps to further isolate populations and creates very specific “urban adapters”, or species that have only adapted to survive in that specific area. Isolated populations become genetically distinct from one another (Figure 14). Similar to the effect of what an island does, the occurrence has been seen in urban populations of foxes, butterflies, and salamanders (Mushi et. al. 2012). In a 2012 study of white-footed mice in NYC, 14 population samples across the city were all found to be genetically distinct from one another. What this means is that each of those micro populations never has the chance to interact with one another due to the highly isolated populations created in an urban environment (Mushi et. al. 2012). These urban adapters are not to be confused with the Norway rat, the species often seen in the subway tunnels of NYC. Norway rats, unlike urban adapters, have exhibited excellent gene flow through an urban landscape (Mushi, et. al. 2012).

When looking at studies of songbirds in urban Seattle, Washing-ton, connectivity of habitat and tree cover were found to affect populations. While birds are capable of flying to and from habitats, avoiding those that are less preferred, or areas with factors like habitat gaps may contribute to this decrease in population move-ment. With that said, local species of birds fall victim to this more frequently than migratory species. Migratory species traveling in larger groups, often find a place to breed or stop in an optimal spot along the route followed. Local species are more sedentary and will likely remain restricted to an area that may provide an optimal habitat, food source or breeding area (Unfried, et. al. 2012).

Figure 14: Isolated mice populations

9

Invasive Species and Wildlife Corridors

If wildlife corridors were implemented throughout the City of New York, the species success would increase. In studies testing con-nected habitats of plants, those areas that were closely linked had higher success rates of populations and over time these popula-tions grew in richness (Damschen 2012). In the same study, the success rates of native species also outcompeted those of inva-sive (Figure 15). From this information one could speculate that native pollinators could return to an area due to the increase of native plant cover. Issues associated with isolated populations and the movement in between habitat hubs would be possible would be removed.

When species are prevented from migrating to new areas, the pool of genes for that population are limited. In addition, corridors enhance the ability of individuals to move among habitats patches, lowering the expected time of re-colonization of a patch that has suffered extinction (Hess et. al. 2001). Therefore, if a species becomes absent in one area, a relative or related species may find its way to recolonize that space. For the individual responsible for maintaining the space, this reduces the need to frequently replant. One example of how this may occur is by using the flight pattern of a bird. If a bird were to feed off of the native plants that existed within a habitat corridor and then travel through and land in the next habitat link, that bird may deposit those seeds in another area.

The true challenge lies not in the cost of the impacts of invasive and exotic species, but in preventing further damage to natural ecosystems (Pimentel 2005). This prevention essentially pre-serves the biodiversity potential for an area and allows species to adapt to environmental changes (Gowdy 1997). These changes are especially important within the microclimates that cities can create within themselves. Biodiversity plays a role in maintain the resilience of ecosystems to environmental shocks. In a study of Minnesota grasslands, more bio-diverse areas recovered from periods of drought faster (Gowdy 1997). Applying the reverse to a

Figure 15: Native richness increasing over time

10

Hurricane Sandy-flooded Water Street could mean that the land-scape may not have been as affected when waters receded. In dealing with this biodiversity, one must understand that all species are not treated equal. Species vary in size, shape, feeding habits and area preference. If resistance to flood waters is needed, then salt water resistant species need to be considered.

Development and Wildlife Corridors

Ecosystems are complex entities and operate on scales that vary in size, and time that are much different than the human percep-tion (Gowdy 1997). These may operate from the length of time it takes a plant to grow to the microscopic breakdown of nutrients in the soil. For a biologist an ecosystem may have a value that is infinite while an economist on the other hand needs to break down these into finite values. Luckily, certain values may be measurable for the importance of providing an incentive to those nearest to the Water Street Wildlife Corridor

Placing a value on wildlife corridors is difficult, yet POPS once again show innovation from a different angle. Market values may increase because of proximity to green space. That green space also provides ecological services to the area. Ecological services vary widely and are generally services that the natural world pro-vides to people. For example, plants converting carbon dioxide to oxygen may be an ecosystem service because people need oxy-gen to breathe, and plants provide this at no cost to themselves. Speaking specifically to the project area, the 37,379 ft2 of habitat potential’s ecosystem services have been calculated in g/m2/yr for carbon sequestration, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, par-ticulate matter10, ozone and carbon monoxide (Figure 16). This information is based off of the ability of trees and fine vegetation to remove these pollutants. For this reason, carbon is the lower of the quantities. Trees are able to hold carbon in woody trunks but fine vegetation does not have this ability and thus carbon is less (Nowak and Crane 2002, Yang 2008). The increase of property values adjacent to Greenspace in known and wildlife corridors may increase the economic value of surrounding commercial area

Figure 16: Vegetative ecological services

g/m

2 y

r Car

bon

SO2

NO 2

PM10

O 3

CO

36,631

91,204

72,141

11,4379

21,671

5

11

(Gowdy, 1997). With the surrounding business on Water Street, a study performed by Gensler and the Urban Land Institute is able to shed light on the importance that corridors along Water Street can bring.

The study’s main objective was to demonstrate the link between open space and 350 professionals ranging from developers, property advisors, investors and public sector workers. 59% of these were at the director level and above (Gensler and ULI 2011). The applicability of this study to wildlife corridors is that Gensler and ULI classify small parks and narrow green-corridors as open space. With 74% of director level and above professionals using open space at least once a week, the push for wildlife corridor cre-ation may be more easily sold at a higher tier. With the initiative of Water Street POPS bringing economic incentive to the area, 95% of survey respondents would be prepared to pay at least 3% more to be in close proximity to open space. Wolf (2004) found that shoppers were willing to pay 10% more for products in shopping areas with trees and vegetation as opposed to those without.

This connection between bringing visitors and higher paying own-ers to the area could be a huge economic catalyst. Similar incen-tive was seen with the larger, but still green, Bryant Park (Figure 17). After the creation of a park from a blighted midtown plot, research by Economic Research Associates cited a leasing activity increase by 60% and rent increases upwards of 40% (Gensler and ULI 2011). Companies like MetLife have now expanded their pres-ence to the west of the park, demonstrating that even very large companies tend to move towards areas of green. The Gensler/ULI furthers an incentive to integrate wildlife corridors into an urban environment by citing 77% of professionals consulted believe that open spaces have positive impact on ecological diversity in cities (2011). More importantly, over 70% of professionals said private owners share a part in the maintenance of open spaces. While the owner maintains their POP(S), creating the wildlife link out of that space adds open space without an outside pressure forcing that owner to build additional open space.

Figure 17: Future view from 7 Bryant Park

12

The placement of wildlife corridors may even serve a more practi-cal purpose. In studies performed in Japan examining the flight of birds in urban environments, areas with more Greenspace or can-opy cover attracted birds (Fujita, et. al. 2007). One could speculate that the implementation of habitat for birds in a city could provide a resting place that would deter the same species from nesting in unwanted areas. Reduced bird nuisance can also be seen in the form of bird feces on pavement and weathering of statues and the nesting in unwanted areas. A properly designer corridor, would not allow for bird droppings to fall on to the pavement and keep those within planting beds in order to provide nutrients for plant species existing there.

People and Wildlife CorridorsCorridors become paths of movement where urbanites may travel, walking along adjacent plots of land that foster ecology in the city. The use of wildlife corridors began with safety and now serves a broader focus. In Alberta, Canada, the Banff wildlife corridors (22 underpasses and two overpasses) has proven successful at preventing the deaths of large mammals like bear and elk, and motor vehicle accidents on the Trans Canada Highway(Figure 18). Monitoring studies have documented increased rates of animal crossings from the 1996, when the crossings were implemented, to 2006. For example, grizzly bear crossings have increase from 7 a year to 100, meaning that animals could be exhibiting a learning curve by looking for crossings where they feel safer (Clevenger, 2007). This has been documented through automated cameras and hair samples found over the crossing.

In Hamburg, Germany corridors for wildlife take a different form. In a long-term plan, the city is implementing a green network con-necting parks, cemeteries, gardens and other recreational areas by utilizing derelict land, which by the end will increase the size of Hamburg by 40% (Gensler, 2011) (Figure 19). These green-ways would eventually unite the city as a path for both people and nature. The variety of creative ways of implementing cor-ridors demonstrates that the wildlife corridors can be presented

Figure 18: Banff wildlife crossing

Figure 19: Hamburg Green Network map

Source: Ecological Society of America

Source: Flckr

13

in an appealing way. Similar to Hamburg, the proposal by Open Fabric Rotterdam, Netherlands called “Diverse Networks” uses transit lines to create corridors. Mapping out all of the networks of busses, trains and trolleys, designers are able to suggest where habitat links can be created, like a top a train stop and how bird species can then follow the green space along the railway (Figure 20) (Garofalo, 2012). Taking the reverse approach, Groundlab Landscape Urbanism’s “Deep Ground Longgang, China”, the landscape strategy is to build a new city around a framework of corridors. All of these proposal and projects have the understand-ing that a link between humans and wildlife are important (Figure 21)(Castro, 2008).

Corridors unite spaces together. Currently, a POP, or any pub-lic space for that matter was seen as a solitary space, created without the thought of uniting an area. This ideology of creating a space out of compliance in one locale, without considering spaces in the vicinity can be improved upon. Wildlife corridors create a feeling of ecological character to an area, bringing character that’s clear and identifiable by the surrounding spaces. When one looks at the brownstones of Greenwich Village, a history is seen there. With an emphasis on urban living, the previous natural life has been forgotten. Small hints of this are now being created though resurrecting the port city past and emphasis of oysters in the har-bor and wildlife corridors can do something similar.

Health and Wildlife Corridors

The World Health Organization has upheld its definition of health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence disease or infirmity” (WHO, 1948). If one were to look at POP from an aerial perspective there were be individuals walking to and from that space, while those at worked marveled out the window from the heights of their building upon it. That space, existing amongst city dwellers can be a place that increases the health of those who interact with it, whether visually or physically. Located along Water Street there are a variety of users. The area is comprised of office buildings, housing and tour-

Figure 20: Hamburg Green Network map

Figure 21: Deep Ground Longgang

Source: Open Fabric

Source: Landscape Urbanism

14

ism. These uses vary greatly in need yet a space to find peace in is similar throughout all three. Epidemiological studies have pro-vided evidence of a positive relationship between senior citizens’ longevity and Greenspace (Takano et al., 2002). Kim and Kaplan (2004) suggested that natural features play an important role to an individual’s attachment to the area.

Green spaces that are perceived as overgrown or unmanaged will affect emotions towards that space negatively (Kuo et al., 1998 and Bixler and Floyd, 1997). With a POP as a space managed tightly by the owner, a managed space with a wildlife component has little room to affect the surrounding population’s feelings towards it. Offices and buildings nearby allow positive feeling towards these spaces to be elevated up several stories. In one example, test subjects were introduced to a stressful situation and afterwards shown a video of nature views recovered from stress within 4-7 minutes. This was demonstrated through lowered blood pressure and reduced muscle tension (Ulrich et al. 1991). Similarly in studies by Hartig et al (1991) demonstrated increased emotional gains and attention when regularly exposed to natural views. In certain studies, productivity in the work place increased by 2.9%. The same study showed that green areas, in terms of productivity had a net present value of $12 per square foot due to productivity and reduced absenteeism (ARUP 2011). Therefore, the 37,379 ft2 of habitat space would result in a net present value of $448,548. A feeling of ease could dramatically increase productivity and save money.

With a wildlife corridor developed along Water Street, these views would be expanded so those on the highest of floors could follow stretches of greenery. Tourism on the other hand acts no different. The Urlich (1991) studies also discuss the ability for the positive relationship between emotional well-being and the natural environ-ment to be expressed universally. In a study by Yi (1992), there was no cultural difference in natural appreciation between those from Texas and those from Korea. A wildlife corridor nearby a focal point of tourism could expand the economic range in that area.

Water Street Wildlife CorridorsCharacteristics of a corridor are specific to the area where they need to be placed. Moving forward through the application of a wildlife corridor to Water Street, the criteria outlined will be specific to the area. If corridors are to be applied to other areas in New York City, the species targeted and methodologies used may vary. Without hard sciences to dictate the needs of species that live in urban areas, other methodologies have been applied. The process of engaging wildlife in the Water Street Wildlife Corridor, a bottom-up approach has been formulated. Since exact needs of species are not known, planting may be established to draw specific spe-cies to an area. These specific uses will be discussed in the fol-lowing section.

With the forethought of attracting wildlife species, and planting native plants, invasive and introduced species must be consid-ered as well. For example, European Starlings are not native to New York and now represent over 70% of the birds in urban areas (Savard et. al. 2000). While these birds are an introduced spe-cies, meaning they were placed here and purpose and wound up thriving, they have become a crucial prey base for native birds of prey. The exact needs of birds that prey on starlings is not known, planting intended to draw native species are not intended to dis-rupt a food chain in place, but to give native species more room to thrive. In Washington D.C., introduced species were found to make up 95% of bird populations in less densely vegetated areas as opposed to 60% in more vegetated areas (Savard et. al., 2000). If vegetation increased, native species may habitat those areas planted within a wildlife corridor.

Taking a bottom-up approach, plant species that attract were se-lected from the New York City Parks Department Natural Resourc-es Group Native Planting guide. Target plant species were se-lected first on their ability to provide food for birds and pollinators. These native plants provide food in the form of fruits, seeds, pollen and flowers. Removing all species that thrived in swamps and other areas that were not suited for the proposed planting area,

15

Figure 22: Native plant, partridgeberry

reduced the number of target species. Soil and pH preference were not chosen at this time due to needs at the time of planting. These plant species are meant to attract bird and pollinators and is by no means a finite list. From the planting guide 50 plant spe-cies, like partridge berry were selected (see appendix for full list). The resulting species have the ability to attract specific bird and pollinator species as well.

The methodology for selecting bird species utilized information from the Cornel Lab of Ornithology and The New York State De-partment of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Natural Heri-tage Program. As a valuable tool for engagement and real-time information, Cornell has set up a program for birders to submit data on species and frequency of sightings. “Hot Spots” for birding act as hubs for birder submissions. The bird areas selected along the Water Street Corridor were Battery Park, Pier 4 and Brooklyn Bridge Park. Recorded birds from these three areas totaled over 150 species (Cornell 2013). This list was then crossed with native birds listed by NYSDEC on their Natural Heritage list. The Natural Heritage program was established by the NYSDEC to promote conservation of all native New York plant and wildlife. Birds not ap-pearing on the DEC list were removed from the list of birds spotted in those three hubs. This data was refined once again, removing all water loving species. The final list resulted in 27 bird species that are native to New York and could have a greater presence specific to the Water Street Corridor (see appendix for full list).

The activity of Water Street plays a part in allowing species to flourish during non-busy hours. The majority of diurnal birds begin activity at sunrise. Within businesses located in the area, em-ployees would begin utilizing spaces after diurnal birds had first become active. This provides enough time for bird species to feed and begin moving throughout the corridor before active hours begin. According to Savard et. al., species richness tends to be greater in downtown areas where there is a higher level of vegeta-tion (2000). Corridors such as this, catering to bird and pollinator species have yet to be implemented, let alone in public plazas.

Figure 23: Native bird, tufted titmouse16

wildlife observation areas will also help to expand the design use of the plaza. Many times prime areas for viewing wildlife are not ADA accessible and thus, they are not conducive for wildlife viewing. A wildlife corridor designed with ADA acces-sibility gives those with needs the chance to see native wildlife up close.

• Creation of a Wildlife Improvement District. Similar to a Busi-ness Improvement District, this would ensure that construction and activity that goes on within the area, take into consider-ation are aware of the environmental sensitivity located near-by. This type of overlay zoning could occur during the process of passing an amendment.

It must be known that while there are many benefits within the in-novation that is a Wildlife Corridor along Water Street, it is still an experiment. There is still much to be known about what can occur environmentally, and if all POP owners are willing to participate. With only nine potential participants, even one reduction could cre-ate an issue in the efficient use of a corridor. With that said, sev-eral recommendations may help the project to be more successful on both a function and usable front.

• Re-amend guidelines so any POP created or redeveloped must meet certain wildlife habitat creating criteria. These may include limitations on the use of non-wildlife attracting native plants, limited use of fertilizers and irrigation. Using the same methods that NYC City Planning previously used to pass the Water Street POPS agenda would do this. Consultants through private or public sectors should weigh in on the specifics of planting so that all plazas utilize the same resources to ensure corridor consistencies.

• Educate users and neighbors of Wildlife Corridor POPS. Stud-ies suggest that those residing near important wildlife areas don’t understand their value and do not understand the benefit served to the area (Hostetler et al. 2011). Efforts to do so can be tailored through programming in the area. This can be in the form of a kiosk, web pages and brochures that target spe-cific issues for the neighborhood. With the 2013 Water Street POPS’ main focus to bring amenities to the area, this would help to further the original intent for the area.

• Preferred design guidelines for habitability and usability. Plant-ings done in a certain way can reduce the maintenance that comes with creating habitat. Trees and shrubs bearing fruits can be planted behind borders in such a way so that when fruits drop, they fall into the planting bed and not the plaza. Likewise, leaf litter can remain in the planting beds during autumn, bring nutrients to the soil. Integrating ADA accessible

Recommendations

17

BibliographyAnderson, B. 1996. Social Value. New York: Augustus, M. Kelly

Bhanoo, Sindya. “Coyotes in New York City: A Bonus?” Green Coyotes in New York City A Bonus Comments. New York Times, 22 Mar. 2012. Web. 30 Nov. 2013.

Braun, Martin Z. “New York Plans $3.3 Billion of Improvements for Shoreline Parks, Ferries.” Bloomberg.com. Bloom-berg, 13 Mar. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2013.

Castro, Eva. “PROJECT: Deep Ground, Longgang, China, 1st Prize.” Groundlab, 28 Mar. 2008. Web. 30 Nov. 2013.

Conrad, Jon, Carla Gomes, Willem-Jan Hoeve, and Ashish Sabharwal. “Wildlife Corridors as a Connected Subgraph Problem.” Environmental Economics and Management 63 (2011): 1-18. ELSEVIER.

Clevenger, Tony. “The Banff Wildlife Crossings Project.” TR News 249 (2007): 14-17.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and New York City Bird Watchers. “Ebird: Hotspot Explorer.” Hotspot Explorer. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 01 Dec. 2013. Web. 01 Dec. 2013.

Damschen, Ellen, and Lars Brudvig. “Landscape Connectivity Strengthens Local-Regional Richness Relationships in Successional Plant Communities.” Ecology 93.4 (2012): 704-10.

R. Costanza, B. Norton, B.D. Haskell (Eds.), Ecosystem Health—New Goals for Ecosystem Management, Inland Press, Washington, DC (1992), pp. 239–256

Ehrenfield, D. 1988. “Why Put a Value on Biodiversity?” In Biodiversity, ed. E. O Wilson. Washington DC: National Acad-emy Press

S. de Vries, R.A. Verheij, P.P. Groenewegen, P. Spreeuwenberg Natural environments—healthy environments? Environ. Plann., 35 (2003), pp. 1717–1731

Fujita, Motoko, and Fumito Koike. “Birds Transport Nutrients to Fragmented Forests in an Urban Landscape.” Ecological Society of America 17.3 (2007): 648-54.

Garofalo, Francesco. “Diverse Networks.” Open Fabric: Landscape Architects. N.p., n.d. Web.

Gomez-Baggethun, Erik, and David Barton. “Classifying and Valuing Ecosysten Services for Urban Planning.” Ecological Economics 86 (2013): 253-45. ELSEVIER.

Gowdy, John M. “The Value of Biodiversity: Markets, Society, and Ecosystems.” Land Economics 73.1 (1997): 25-41. J TOR.

I

Hess, George, and Richard Fischer. “Communicating Clearly About Conservation Corridors.” Landscape and Urban Planning 55 (2001): 195-208.

Hostetler, Mark, Will Allen, and Colin Meurk. “Conserving Urban Biodiversity? Creating Green Infrastructure Is the First Step.” Landscape and Urban Planning 10 (2001): n. pag. ELSEVIER.

P. Horwitz, M. Lindsay, M. O’Connor Biodiversity, endemism, sense of place, and public health: Inter-relationships for Australian inland aquatic systems Ecosystm. Health, 7 (2001), pp. 253–265

J. Kim, R. Kaplan Physical and psychological factors in sense of community. New Urbanist Kentlands and Nearby Orchard Village Environ. Behav., 36 (2004), pp. 313–340

Kayden, Jerold S. Privately Owned Public Space: The New York City Experience. New York: John Wiley, 2000. Print.

K.M. Korpela, Place-identity as a product of environmental self-regulation J. Environ. Psychol., 9 (1989), pp. 241–256

K.M. Korpela Adolescents” favourite places and environmental self-regulation J. Environ. Psychol., 12 (1992), pp. 249–258

F.E. Kuo, M. Bacaicoa, W.C. Sullivan Transforming inner city landscapes: trees, sense of place and preference Envi-ron. Behav., 42 (1998), pp. 462–483

Mulcahey, Ian, and Greg Clark. Open Space: An Asset without a Champion? Publication no. 1. N.p.: Gensler and ULI, 2011.

Munshi-South, Jason, and Katerina Kharchenko. “Rapid, Pervasive Genetic Differntiation of Urban White-Footed Mouse Populations in New York City.” Molecular Ecology 19 (2010): 4242-252.

Munshi-South, Jason. “Urban Landscape Genetics: Canopy Cover Predicts Gene Flow Between White-Footed Mouse Populations in New York City.” Molecular Ecology 21 (2012): 1360-378

Native Species Planting Guide for New York City and VicinityNatural Resources Group. New York City: New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, 1993.

NYS Department of Conservation. “New York Nature Explorer.” New York Nature Explorer. NYSDEC, 1 Jan. 2005. Web. 01 Dec. 2013.

NYCDCP. “Privately Owned Public Space - New York City Department of City Planning.” Privately Owned Public Space - New York City

II

Department of City Planning. NYC.gov, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013.

NYC Department of City Planning. Article III: Commercial District Regulations. Rep. Chapter 7. N.p.: n.p., 2007. Print. Section 70.

NYC Department of City Planning. Article III: Commercial District Regulations. Rep. Chapter 7. N.p.: n.p., 2009. Print. Section 70.

New Yorkers for Parks. Open Space Index. Publication. NYC: n.p., 2009.

New Yorkers for Parks. City Council District 1 Profile. Publication. NYC: n.p., 2009.

Oneal, Amber, and John Rotenberry. “Scale-Dependent Habitat Relations of Birds in Riparian Corridors in an Urban-izing Landscape.” Landscape and Urban Planning 92 (2009): 264-275. ELSEVIER.

Pickett, S.T.A., M.L. Cadenasso, C.H. Nilon, and R.V. Pouyat. “Urban Ecological Systems: Linking Terrestrial Ecologi-cal, Physical, and Socioeconomic Components of Metropolitan Areas.” Annual Review of Ecology and Sytematics 32 (2001): 127-57.

PlaNYC. PlaNYC Progress Report 2013. Tech. NYC: Office of Longterm Planning and Sustainability, 2013.

Pulsinelli, Max, and Steve Fairchild. “New York City’s Known Beaver Population Just Doubled.” New York City’s Known Beaver Population Just Doubled. Wildlife Conservation Society, 17 Sept. 2010. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.

Resasco, Julian, Douglas Levey, and Ellen Damschen. “Habitat Corridors Alter Relative Trophic Position of Fire Ants.” Ecosphere 3.100 (2012): n. pag. ESA. Web.

Savard, Jean-Pierre, Phillippe Clergeau, and Gwenaelle Mennechez. “Biodiversity Concepts and Urban Ecosystems.” Landscape and Urban Planning 28 (2000): 131-42.

Stairs, David. “Biophilia and Technophobia: Examining the Nature/Culture Split in Design Theory.” The MIT Press 13.3 (1997): 37-44.

A. Tanaka, T. Takano, K. Nakamura, S. Takeuchi, Health levels influenced by urban residential conditions in a megac-ity – Tokyo, Urban Studies, 33 (1996), pp. 879–894

T. Turner City as Landscape. A Post-postmodern View of Design and Planning E&FN Spon, London (1996)

Unfried, Thomas, Lorenz Hauser, and John Marzluff. “Effects of Urbanization on Song Sparrow Population Connectiv-ity.” Conservation Genetics (2012): n. pag. Springer Science.

III

Urlich, R. 1993. “Biophilia, Biophobia, and Natural Landscapes.” The Biophilia Hypothesis, eds. S Kellert and E.O. Wilson. Washington, DC; Ispland Press.

Woldan, Olaf. “Biology in the Big Apple: Surveying the Wildlife of Central Park | Guest Blog, Scientific American Blog Network.” Biology in the Big Apple: Surveying the Wildlife of Central Park | Guest Blog, Scientific American Blog Net-work. Scientific American, 28 Sept. 2013. Web. 30 Nov. 2013.

Wolf, Kathleen. “Public Value of Nature: Economics of Urban Trees, Parks and Open Space.” University of Washing-ton: College of Forest Esources (2004): n. pag. Environmental Design and Research Asoociation.

WHO, 1948. Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19–22 June, 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Re-cords of the World Health Organization, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948.

Zuniga, Rodolfo, and Doug Morrison. “Update on the Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Alien-inva-sive Species in the United States.” Ecological Economics 52.3 (2005): 273-88. Science Direct. Web.

IV

Appendix ATargeted marginal POPS along the Water Street CorridorSource: Joseph Kayden, NYCDCP

a

Appendix BCalculations for potential planting area in each POPSource: NYCDCP

POP AddressYear

CreatedTotal Plaza Size (ft2)

Percent needed for ground-level

planting

Total possible planting area

(ft2)1 Battery Park Plaza 1969 16337.0 20% 3267.41 New York Plaza 1967 40839.0 20% 8167.81 State Street 1970 8976.8 20% 1795.3655 Water St 1970 75897.0 20% 15179.486 Water St 1971 3416.0 20% 683.295 Wall St 1969 1963.0 20% 392.6111 Wall St 1967 10883.0 20% 2176.6115 Broad St 1968 7573.0 20% 1514.6125 Broad St 1970 21009.0 20% 4201.8Total 186893.8 37378.76

Appendix CCalculations for ecological services of each POPSource: Nowak and Crane 2002, Yang 2008

POP Address AreaCarbon Sequestration Coefficient (kgC/year/m2) Carbon Removed

1 Battery Park Plaza 3267.4 0.12 392.091 New York Plaza 8167.8 0.12 980.141 State Street 1795.4 0.12 215.4455 Water St 15179 0.12 1821.5386 Water St 683.2 0.12 81.9895 Wall St 392.6 0.12 47.11111 Wall St 2176.6 0.12 261.19115 Broad St 1514.6 0.12 181.75125 Broad St 4201.8 0.12 504.22Total 37379 4485.45

Carbon Sequestration

POP Address AreaAir Pollution Removal (SO2)(g/m2 yr) SO2 Removed


Air Quality Improvement

f

POP Address AreaAir Pollution Removal (NO2)(g/m2 yr) NO2 Removed



POP Address AreaAir Pollution Removal (PM10)(g/m2 yr) PM10 Removed



POP Address AreaAir Pollution Removal (O3)(g/m2 yr) O3 Removed



POP Address AreaAir Pollution Removal (CO)(g/m2 yr) CO Removed



g

Appendix DCommunity reference mapsSource: Oasis NYC

Land Use M

ap

This map w

as created using the Open A

ccessible Space Inform

ation System

(OA

SIS

) website, licensed under a

Creative C

omm

ons Attribution-N

oncomm

ercial-Share A

like 3.0 United S

tates License. Visit ww

w.oasisnyc.net for the latest inform

ationabout data sources and notes about how

the maps w

ere developed. Contact oasisnyc@

gc.cuny.edu w

ith questions or comm

ents. O

AS

IS is developed and m

aintained by the Center for U

rban Research, C

UN

Y G

raduate Center.

Tracks

Block/Lot B

oundaries

(Not all item

s in the legend

Parks, Playgrounds, &

Environmental C

harac

Land Use

OA

SIS Printhttp://w

ww.oasisnyc.net/printm

ap.aspx

1 of 212/1/13 3:23 PM

Green S

pace Map

This map w

as created using the Open A

ccessible Space Inform

ation System

(OA

SIS

) website, licensed under a

Creative C

omm

ons Attribution-N

oncomm

ercial-Share A

like 3.0 United S

tates License. Visit ww

w.oasisnyc.net for the latest inform

ationabout data sources and notes about how

the maps w

ere developed. Contact oasisnyc@

gc.cuny.edu w

ith questions or comm

ents. O

AS

IS is developed and m

aintained by the Center for U

rban Research, C

UN

Y G

raduate Center.

Tracks

Land cover classification

Block/Lot B

oundaries

(Not all item

s in the legend

Parks, Playgrounds, &

Environmental C

harac

Land Use

OA

SIS Printhttp://w

ww.oasisnyc.net/printm

ap.aspx

1 of 212/1/13 3:22 PM

Land Use

Green Space

h

Appendix ECensus DataSource: NYC Census FactFinder

i

Appendix FNative Planting ListSource: New York City Department of Parks and Recreation Natural Resources Group

k

Appendix GNative Bird ListSource: NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program and Cornell Lab of Ornithology

Common Name Scientific Name SubgroupAmerican Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Crows and JaysAmerican Kestrel Falco sparverius Hawks Falcons Eagles VulturesAmerican Robin Turdus migratorius Thrushes and BluebirdsAmerican Tree Sparrow Tachycineta bicolor SwallowsBarn Swallow Hirundo rustica SwallowsBlue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Crows and JaysBlue-‐headed Vireo Vireo gilvus VireosCarolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus WrensCedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum WaxwingsChimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Hummingbirds and SwiftsCommon Grackle Quiscalus quiscula Blackbirds and OriolesDowny Woodpecker Picoides pubescens WoodpeckersEastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus FlycatchersEastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus Sparrows and TowheesEastern Wood-‐Pewee Contopus virens FlycatchersGray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Mockingbirds and ThrashersHouse Wren Troglodytes aedon WrensMourning Dove Zenaida macroura Pigeons and Doves

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Cardinals and BuntingsNorthern Flicker Colaptes auratus WoodpeckersNorthern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Mockingbirds and ThrashersPeregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Hawks Falcons Eagles VulturesRed-‐bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus WoodpeckersRed-‐tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Hawks Falcons Eagles VulturesRed-‐winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Blackbirds and OriolesSong Sparrow Melospiza melodia Sparrows and TowheesTufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor Chickadees and TitmiceWhite-‐breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Nuthatches

o

Matthew [email protected]

Using POPs to Create Healthy Wildlife Corridors in Dense Urban … · 2017. 1. 24. · urban...

Documents

Transcript of Using POPs to Create Healthy Wildlife Corridors in Dense Urban … · 2017. 1. 24. · urban...