at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Geography 43 (2013) 56e66

Contents lists available

Applied Geography

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/apgeog

Wild things in urban places: America’s largest cities andmulti-scales of governance for endangered species conservation

Andrea Olive a,*, Alexa Minichiello b

aGeography & Political Science, University of Toronto, 100 Sid Smith Hall, Toronto, ON M4Y 2V6, CanadabGeography & Urban Planning, University of Toronto, Canada

Keywords:Urban environmentBiodiversityEndangered speciesUSAPublic policy

* Corresponding author. Tel.:þ1 4164593031.E-mail address: andrea.olive@utoronto.ca (A. Olive

0143-6228/$ e see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.06.004

a b s t r a c t

Endangered species live inside the world’s most densely populated cities. In the United States, the Fishand Wildlife Service is responsible for the protection and recovery of endangered species e whereverthose species are found. Unfortunately, very little is known about urban endangered species policy orprograms. This paper presents a comparative analysis of the five largest cities in the United States andexamines issue of governance around conservation. Cities have a responsibility to steward the envi-ronment, but through the 1973 Endangered Species Act, the Fish andWildlife Service has a legal mandateto protect endangered species throughout the country. Thus, this paper asks: What is the USFWS doinginside cities to recover endangered species? What are cities doing? Conservation is a shared duty but it isnot clear that anyone is taking responsibility for urban endangered species.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

According to the United Nations, by 2050 “almost 3 billionadditional people will inhabit the world’s cities, and the world willhave undergone the largest and fastest period of urban expansionin all of human history” (UNCBD, 2010). This rapid urbanizationwillhave wide ranging impacts on natural habitat and the wildlife thatdepends on it. Unfortunately, in the United States urban areas areunderappreciated in endangered species conservation policy,practice and literature. This is surprising given that endangeredspecies no longer live only on farms and ranches, or even in thewilderness, but now reside across a variety of land parcels in thecountry, including small and large cities. In fact, 22% of endangeredspecies in the US are in urban areas, which comprise only about 8%of the US landscape, but are where 50% of all Americans live (Brosi,Daily, & Davis, 2006; Schwartz, Jurjavcic, & O’Brien, 2002). Thus,what cities are doing e or not doing e to protect endangeredspecies is of major consequence.

This paper takes seriously the idea that cities need to co-existwith biodiversity and, moreover, have an obligation to protectand recover endangered species found within the city. In the lastdecade social science research has paid greater attention to cities,especially in the environmental fields, such as climate changemitigation and adaptation. This is because cities can and must act.In a lot of social and environmental areas cities have authority over

).

All rights reserved.

the things that matter, like transportation, energy, and housingprograms. However, endangered species conservation is an inter-esting case study of multi-scale governance. Cities have a re-sponsibility to steward the environment and are active participantsin the creation of waste as well as air and water pollution, and arealso managers of parks, rivers, trees and are potentially largelandowners (Beatley, 2006). But the United States Fish andWildlifeService (USFWS) has a legal mandate to protect endangered specieswherever they are found e even inside cities e through the 1973Endangered Species Act (ESA). Thus, this paper asks: What is theUSFWS doing inside cities to recover endangered species?What arecities doing themselves, apart from the federal endangered speciesprogram, to protect species at risk? Conservation is a shared dutybut it is not clear that anyone is taking responsibility for urbanendangered species.

After a brief description of endangered species law in the US, thepaper begins with an overview of the small literature on conser-vation of biodiversity and endangered species in urban areas.Following that discussion, the paper moves to a comparison of fivelarge US cities: Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Phoenix andHouston. There are federally listed endangered species inside eachcity and the USFWS is charged with their protection. The paperexplains and compares conservation efforts inside these cities. Thecentral finding is that little is being done by the USFWS to protectspecies inside cities e and only marginally more is being done bythe cities themselves. Chicago stands out as a conservation friendlycity as it alone has programs in place to protect and recovery not

A. Olive, A. Minichiello / Applied Geography 43 (2013) 56e66 57

just its biodiversity, but its endangered species as well. Based on thecomparison of the five cities, the paper concludes with some rec-ommendations for endangered species protection in North Amer-ica’s large cities. Policy makers and city planners need to carefullyassess the implications of urban growth for endangered speciesrecovery and all scales of government, from local to federal, have arole to play.

American law in American cities

The American Endangered Species Act (ESA) is designed to pro-tect and recover imperiled species and subspecies,1 whether they beplants, insects, or any other members of the animal kingdom. Theregulatory power of this law is housed in the Secretary of the Inte-rior, through the Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS), and the Sec-retary of Commerce, through the National Marine Fisheries Service.Section 9 of the ESAewhich applies to all persons, including privateindividuals, corporations, and federal and non-federal governmentofficials and entities e creates a prohibition against “taking” mem-bers of a listed species where to “take” is uniquely defined as “toharass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, orcollect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (ESA x1532). To“harm” includes significant habitatmodification ordegradation thatactually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essentialbehavior patterns, including breeding, feeding and sheltering(50 C.F.R x17.3). These definitions were upheld in the Babbitt, Sec-retary of the Interior v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a GreatOregon Supreme Court Case in 1995 (515 U.S. 687).

The law mainly targets federal lands and federal projects thatmight threaten the protection or recovery of an endangered spe-cies. However, the ESA does extend regulatory reach to privateproperty. While no landowner is required to take affirmative ac-tions to help species (like federal agencies), the Act does restrictland uses by prohibiting the take of a species through habitatmodification (Arnold,1991; Easley, Stephanie, Holtman, Scancarelli,& Schmidt, 2001; Raymond & Olive, 2008). This means that the lawapplies to all lands, public or private, across the country. Thus, theland inside cities is regulated by the ESA and the USFWS has amandate to recover species on any and all types of land parcels.

In 1995 the USFWS did establish a “small landowner exemption”that includes activities conducted on residential properties and lots5 acres or less as well as other activities determined by the USFWSto have negligible effects on a threatened species. Essentially, smallproperty owners are exempt from property regulation under theESA unless there is direct evidence of intentional harm to athreatened species. But the USFWS does reserve the right to notextend this exemption to landowners in cases where the risk to thespecies is too great. Moreover, this exemption does not apply tocases where small landowners live on endangered species habitat.In those cases, all activities of landowners are open to scrutiny andattempts to alter an endangered species habitat by cutting downtrees or putting in a backyard pool, for example, could be consid-ered a violation of the ESA. Therefore, for all intents and purposesfor small landowners, including urban dwellers, complianceamounts to avoiding the intentional “take” of a threatened or en-dangered species.

1 The list of Endangered or Threatened species by the Fish and Wildlife Serviceand National Marine Fisheries Service include species, subspecies (SS), distinctpopulation segments (DPS) or evolutionary significant unit (ESU). A high percent-age of the listings below the species level are globally secure. An example would bethe listed northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), a subspecies of theglobally secure spotted owl. Thus, when “extinction” is used in the context of theESA, it is meant extinction of that listing, whether it be a species or somethingbelow the species level.

Under the ESA the USFWS is required to develop and implementrecovery plans for all listed species e even though there is nospecific timeline for the creation or implementation of recoveryplans. Generally, a recovery plan entails a description of the species,present and past, its distribution and the reasons for its endan-germent (Easley et al., 2001). The plan can also include an estimatetarget population for recovery and outline actions to promote re-covery. Plans that were created prior to 1988 do not give specificguidance on how to best recover a species. In 1988 Congress addedprovisions to Section 4(f) that specified the template for recoveryplans and made clear that plans should be “as explicit as possible”about recovery (Easley et al., 2001). Thus, a recovery plan for aspecies, even one found predominately inside a city, should detailhow the USFWS plans to recovery the species, including habitatrestoration and public outreach.

Urban biodiversity & habitat loss

A lot has been said about the American ESA. Most scholarlyliterature focuses on private property and large landowners,namely farmers and ranchers (see for example, Adler, 2011;Bromley, 2000; Brook, Zint, & De Young, 2003; Brosi et al., 2006;Farrier, 1995). While it is the US Courts that act as the main guid-ing force behind defining critical habitat and implementing theESA, these scholarly studies have made a contribution to our un-derstanding of critical habitat, perverse incentives, stewardshipand the use of a broader set of policies beyond command-and-control. However, much less has been said by the courts or theliterature about the ESA in the context of cities. There is a rathervibrant and growing literature on the relationship been biodiver-sity and urbanization from a global perspective (Beatley, 2006; seefor Wilkinson, Parnell, and Sendstad, 2012 for a recent literaturereview). Endangered species conservation is a subset of biodiversityconservation and even though there is a US law in place to protectendangered species across all habitats, little is known about theprotection and recovery of species with habitat in cities.

This lack of research is surprising given that there is an alarmingrate of species loss occurring in the US. This is mainly due tointensifying urbanization (Beatley, 2000; Miller & Hobbs, 2002).The loss of farmland - an estimated 1.2 million acres annually- tourban sprawl has led to habitat destruction and fragmentation at anunprecedented scale (Hostetler & Drake 2009; Pauchard, Aguayo,Peña, & Urrutia, 2006). This process is compounded by the factthat population and development growth is occurring in regionswith the highest levels of biodiversity and most diverse ecosystems(Beatley, 2000). Several case studies have examined the relation-ship between urbanization and habitat fragmentation in rapidlydeveloping urban settings (Fernandez-Juricic & Jokimaki 2001;Riley et al., 2003; Zerbe, Maurer, Schmitz, & Sukopp, 2003).Ricketts and Imhoff (2003), in an examination of 76 regions forconservation in the United States and Canada, report that 16 re-gions are considered ‘priority sets’ where “high levels of biodiver-sity and human land use collide” (1). The most biologically diverseregions are found in the Southeastern United States, California, andTexas, and are most at risk for ecosystem degradation due to ur-banization and agriculture activities (Ricketts & Imhoff, 2003).However, no part of the North American landscape, including eventhe Arctic tundra, is safe from the impacts of human activitiesrelated to city-building (Olive, 2013).

McKinney (2006) explores how the diversity of native speciesdecreases within urban centers because urbanization createsfavorable habitats for those species that can adapt to changingenvironmental conditions (McKinney, 2002; McKinney, 2006). Forexample, animals such as bobcats and coyotes are now increasinglyfound in urban areas (as well as the occasional bear) and they have

A. Olive, A. Minichiello / Applied Geography 43 (2013) 56e6658

shifted their roaming and hunting from a daytime to a nocturnaltime. They have become highly vulnerable to vehicle accidents,poison and other, often lethal, animal control procedures (Rileyet al., 2003). Human activities in urban centers have also beenfound responsible for a decrease in local diversity and abundance inbumblebee and other insect taxa (Ahrné, Bengtsson, & Elmqvist,2009; Connor, Hafernik, Levy, Moore, & Rickman, 2003; Rebelo,Holmes, Dorse, & Wood, 2011).

Likewise, in an examination of threats to already endangeredspecies, Czech, Krausman, and Devers (2000) determine that ur-banization2 has a greater total associations of species’ endanger-ment than any other economic factors including agriculture,outdoor recreation, oil and gas extraction, logging, and nativespecies interaction to name only a few. Related research has illus-trated that human activity related to urbanization is the most sig-nificant contributor to habitat loss, impacting 85% of endangeredspecies in the United States (Venter et al., 2006;Wilcove, Rothstein,Dubow, & Phillips, 1998).

There are few case studies or empirical examinations of en-dangered species protection in urban or suburban areas. Raymondand Olive (2008) conducted a study of the endangered IndianaBrown Bat in a suburban area outside of Indianapolis. That bat’shabitat was fragmented by the expansion of the IndianapolisAirport. After conducting interviews with local landowners, Ray-mond and Olive found that very few people, even those living inclose proximity to the bat’s new conservation management area(CMA), had any knowledge of the bat. Most of the landownersinterviewed in the study claimed to be largely unaffected by theCMA, and almost none were able to identify clearly the purpose ofthe protected area. Raymond and Olive conclude “the USFWSshould not assume that listing a species necessarily affects land-owner behavior; other steps may be required to maximize chancesof recovery” (2008, 495). Similarly, Olive (2012a; 2013) investigateddesert tortoise protection and recovery in a rapidly growing city insouthwest Utah. The urban residents of St. George city had verylittle knowledge of the ESA or the endangered tortoise that lived ina conservation area less than a mile from the city. Of the 35 land-owners interviewed, only 29% had even heard of the ESA itself.These studies suggest that endangered species do reside in urban/suburban areas but that urban landowners are unaware of thespecies as well as the ESA.

The city of Seattle has investigated the plight of endangeredsalmon in the greater Seattle area (Beatley, 2006). In 2001 the citycreated Seattle’s Urban Blueprint for Habitat Protection and Resto-ration in which it documents the plight of Chinook salmon andmaps out a strategy to recover the fish. This plan has “launchedinteresting and potentially far-reaching discussion about howfar cities can and should go” in recovering endangered species(Beatley, 2006, 284). The ESA may trump local law, but when theESA is not being implemented to the full extent possible, it leavesopen the door for local authorities to act. Similarly, in the city ofChicago, a network of NGOs knows as ChicagoWilderness is posingthe same governance question. This coalition, as discussed below,receives substantial funding from the USFWS to carry out localinitiatives and lead efforts to protect and recover biodiversity in thegreater city area. The programs run by Chicago Wilderness areproving very successful and offer some best practices for othercities and other scales of governance in urban biodiversity settings.

Beyond these studies, little is known about endangered speciesconservation in urban environments, and yet cities continue tocontain high levels of biodiversity (Miller & Hobbs, 2002; Muller &

2 Urbanization is defined in their study as a concentration of no less than 50,000people with a minimum of 1000 people per 1 square mile (596).

Werner, 2010). Endangered plant, butterfly and insect taxa havepersisted in urban environments for many years (Beatley, 1992;Jarosik, Konvicka, Pysek, Kadlec, & Benes, 2011; Talley, Fleishman,Holyoak, Murphy, & Ballard, 2007). This persistence, which hasbeen found to be easier for plants than butterflies in deterioratedconditions, continues despite diminishing proportions of endan-gered plants and butterfly richness in urban environments (Jarosiket al., 2011). That said, rare and endangered plants are not high onthe public agenda (Schwartz, Jurjavcic, & O’Brien, 2002). Urbani-zation has had severe impacts on survivability of many plant spe-cies. And yet despite making up 50% of the USFWS list ofendangered species, plants receive the least amount of funding forrecovery efforts (Schwartz et al., 2002). This could be a problem forcities like Los Angeles, where so many plants are threatened withextinction, or at least expiation in the case of subspecies. However,this is not to downplay that all taxon of species are found in urbancenters in the US, but little research exists that explains either theirsurvival or the programs in place to protect and recover them.

Policy responses to urban biodiversity

It is well documented that biodiversity is under duress due tohabitat fragmentation/loss. There are some policy responses tobiodiversity loss in US cities that are germane to the conservationscene more broadly and warrant brief review here before exam-ining policy responses in the 5 largest cities. First, reconciliationecology, or what Rosenzweig (2003) refers to as conscious humanmanagement of the land, may increase biodiversity in otherwisehuman-dominated areas, like urban centers, parks, and cottageresorts. The idea is both to expand a species range and change theway people think about the species they see such that we canreconcile human use of land with other species (Rosenzweig,2006). Reconciliation ecology is akin to the basic approach takenby US cities. That is to say, while little is known about endangeredspecies recovery efforts, much more is known about city initiativesto create greener andmore sustainable communities. Across the US,urban gardens, forests, green ways, and protected areas, such asparks and watersheds, attempt to provide refuge for biodiversity incities (Alvey, 2006; Bryant, 2006; Goddard, Dougill, & Benton,2010). These ecological site design approaches “offer additionalhabitat areas and serve as refuges in fragmented landscapes”(Hunter & Hunter, 2008). In one particular study, rooftop gardensdesigned especially with appropriate substrate depth and compo-sitionwere found to increase colonization rates of spider and beetlespecies, whereas those of conventional green roofs remainedstagnant (Brenneisen, 2006). There are many other examples ofreconciliation ecology occurring in the US and this strategy willplay an important part of city life in the future.

Second, and closely related to reconciliation ecology, is “smartgrowth” or “sustainable growth” or “green design” or “greening”initiatives. These concepts call for “forms of urbanization that aremore compact, transit e and walking-friendly, conducive to high-quality urban life, and less environmentally damaging” (Fillion,2003, 49). There is an enormous and still growing literature onsmart growth, as the idea has taken root in planning schools andmunicipal planning offices (Fillion, 2003). What is important tonote here, is that there is a growing awareness amongst cityplanners that future development should be sensitive to habitatand wildlife issues (Beatley, 2006). However, these programs areinconsistent across the US, with cities like Chicago doing a lot andother cities doing very little, and there are no national standards ornational directive to green American cities. Moreover, as discussedbelow, such programs have yet to take seriously endangered spe-cies recovery. Thinking more carefully about sprawl and land-use isan important piece of biodiversity conservation, but it is still

3 The USFWS provides an annual report that details ESA funding by individualspecies, SS, DPS, or ESU through 2011 and lists the grants to the states. See http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/index.html for this information.

4 Personal email. February 12, 2013.

A. Olive, A. Minichiello / Applied Geography 43 (2013) 56e66 59

removed from the detailed attention necessary for the recovery ofalready endangered species.

Furthermore, smart growth initiatives, and reconciliation ecol-ogy more broadly, can lack public support and funding. This issometimes attributed to society’s inability to grasp or accept thevalue of biodiversity and the importance of humankind’s relation-ship to the natural environment. This ‘extinction of experience’ asMiller (2005) calls it is a result of “estrangement of people fromnature” (430) and can only be reversed when a sense of steward-ship for conservation is fostered among humans, when conserva-tion plans focus on reconnecting humans with the species andlandscapes that surround them, and when a broad coalition ofstakeholders from planning, policy, health and the environmentsectors collaborate on education together (Dearborn & Kark, 2010;Hunter & Hunter, 2008; Miller, 2005). There is data to suggest thatcitizens are not aware of endangered species (Czech & Krausman,2001; Olive, 2012a; Raymond & Olive, 2008) and this must berectified before attitudes toward biodiversity will change.

Olive (2012a), in a study of urban residents in Saskatchewan(Canada) cities, found a general lack of awareness of endangeredspecies laws and endangered species themselves. In a mail surveyof 364 residents, roughly 60% of respondents had heard of theprovincial Wildlife Act but only 22% had heard of federal Species atRisk Act (SARA). Most residents were confused about which actapplies to their land right now - 52% incorrectly thought SARAregulates their land. When asked if they could name an endangeredspecies in Saskatchewan, 58% responded but 10% named a speciesnot endangered. And only 42% of all subjects were able to identify areason why species are endangered. But despite the lack ofawareness about local endangered species, over 90% of respondentsfelt that it was important for human beings to protect other species(Olive, 2012a). This suggests that urban residents may still valuebiodiversity and endangered species, but lack engagement andawareness. This means a massive public outreach program may benecessary inside cities. Education campaigns have not been widelyinitiated in North America. This is a possible policy response thathas been largely ignored.

On the whole, very little data exists about endangered speciesconservation in urban habitats in the US. The ESA is designed toprotect endangered species across the entire country. However,much of the focus e in policy and literature e has been in agri-cultural areas of the country. At present, there are no comparativestudies of US cities. This paper seeks to address this void bycomparing endangered species initiatives in the 5 largest US cities.Since so little data exists, the paper focus on big-picture themes andthe work of both the USFWS and the city mayor’s office. Theconclusion of the paper explores other scales of governance such ascivil society and state actors.

Comparing big cities

No one expects endangered species to thrive in a city, or even befound inacity. Theprocessofurbanizationoftenpushes speciesoff thehabitat or changes the habitat in such a way that a species will nevercome back. Yet, against all odds, a wide variety of species are in deedfound in cities. Table 1 compares the five cities investigated in thispaper and the following sections provides a brief overview of en-dangered species conservation efforts in each city. Thefive citieswereselected on the basis of their size as they represent the five mostpopulous cities in the US. Philadelphia could have been selectioninstead of Phoenix as their populations are very similar but Phoenixwas selected for inclusionbecause it is amore rapidlygrowing cityandmust confront the related urbanization challengesmore immediately.

The size of the city was determined by 2010 US Census data andis representative of the county (or counties) in which the city is

located. Populationwas also determined using 2010 US Census dataand represents the population of the county (or counties) wherethe city is located. Parks are measured in the number of acres ofparkland that is under the jurisdiction of the municipal Parks andRecreation Department. It is recognized that cities are stewards ofmore than just parks, as rivers, trees, and open public spaces likecemeteries can also serve as habitat. However, we are using parksas a proxy for green space in these cities as reliable and comparabledata exists for parks. The number of endangered or threatenedspecies was determined through the federal USFWS county list ofspecies. The USFWS does not list species by city, but only by county.For example, the city of Houston is found in 2 counties and in thosecounties there are 2 listed species. This is not a perfect descriptionof the number of species with habitat inside the city limits, but itdoes provide some indication of the species with natural range inand around the city. It is safe to assume that if the city were notthere, these species would be found where the city is itself.Moreover, in some cases, such as the case of the Piping Plover inChicago or the Yuma Clopper Rail in Phoenix, these species residedirectly within the city proper. Table 2, in Appendix, lists eachspecies by common name and Latin name for each city and alsoillustrates howmuch the USFWS spent on recovering the species in2011. There is no data for city spending and the state spending data,as provided by the USFWS, can be misleading because if the speciesis listed in more than one state it is difficult to know how mucheach state spent.3

C-40 cities are members of a network of global cities that havecommitted to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions andaddress climate change at a local scale. These cities are consideredworldwide leaders in sustainable growth. The expectation is that C-40 cities have programs for biodiversity since climate mitigationand adaptation will require attention to this issue. Below is a briefdescription of the endangered species conservation landscape ineach city. To acquire this data we surveyed the literature on en-dangered species protection and recovery, we carefully and sys-tematically reviewed the USFWS recovery plans for each listedspecies, we contacted the USFWS field office responsible for eachcity and we analyzed the websites of each mayor’s office as well aseach USFWS’ office.

New York city, New York

New York City, the smallest city examined here, is home to 8.2million people, making it the densest city in the US. The counties inwhich NYC lies have 6 endangered species including one bird, 3turtles and 2 plants. These species are found predominately onLong Beach and on the costal areas of the city. According to theUSFWS senior biologist for the Long Island field office, “the USFWSis involved in monitoring and managing populations of pipingplover, sea beach amaranth and roseate tern in coastal areas withinthe borough of Queens.4” However, none of the recovery plans forany of these species mention NYC or specific initiatives to engagelocal city residents. Moreover, there is nothing on the USFWS ser-vicewebsite about these activities and no recovery implementationplans that overview progress of any species in NYC. Such plans maybe in existence, but there is no available evidence to suggest this isthe case.

Outside of USFWS efforts at recovery of endangered species, thecity of New York is making efforts to improve habitat for

Table 1Comparison of Geography and Conservation Indicators in the 5 Largest US Cities.

New York LA Chicago Houston Phoenix

Size 302 sq. miles 469 sq. miles 234 sq. miles 629 sq. miles 518 sq. milesPopulation 8,175,133 9,818,605 5,194,675 4,677,834 3,817,117Number of endangered or

threatened species6 51 6 2 12

Parks 29,000 acres 15,000 acres 8196 acres 37, 832 acres 38,000 acresTotal federal land in state

Footnote: See Gorte et al. 2012.0.7% 47.7% 1.1% 1.8% 42.3%

C-40 City Yes Yes Yes Yes No“Green” city program No Yes No Yes Yes

A. Olive, A. Minichiello / Applied Geography 43 (2013) 56e6660

biodiversity more broadly. PlaNYC was released in 2007 as anambitious strategy to create a greener New York for its residents(City of New York, 2013). However, PlaNYC has no specific goal torestore or protect endangered species habitat, but instead focuseson habitat conservation in its wetlands strategy. The New York CityWetlands Strategy aims to transfer 82 parcels of wetlands to theresponsibility of the Department of Parks and Recreation, restoreand conserve over 200 acres of wetlands habitat, and constructspecific habitat such as reefs and eelgrass to reintroduce aquaticspecies in wetland habitats (City of New York, 2012). This will un-doubtedly improve eco-system health and may attract some pre-viously expiated species to the city. However, this is a city leadeffort and not endangered species orientated. Of the 6 listed spe-cies, 3 are aquatic and could benefit fromwetlands restoration evenif that is not the primary intent of the program.

Similar to PlaNYC, the Jamaica Bay Science Centre, established in2012, aims to focus on urban ecosystem restoration and resiliencywithin Jamaica Bay (City of New York, 2013). The bay is situatedbetween Brooklyn and New York (Queens) along the southern sideof Long Island, which is where 4 of the cities’ endangered speciesclaim habitat. The Science Centre plans improvements to waterquality and the restoration of fish and wildlife habitat. These goalsare especially relevant given that Jamaica Bay “is an importanthabitat for wildlife, with more than 100 species of fish, a number ofendangered species (including the peregrine falcon, piping plover,and the Atlantic Ridley sea turtle), and 214 ‘species of specialconcern’” (City of New York, 2012: 10). Beyond these specific tar-gets, New York’s conservation efforts tend to focus on urban forestmanagement plans, urban greening and natural areas conservancyrather than endangered species recovery specifically.

Los Angeles, California

In recent years, Los Angeles has undergone an incredibletransformation of urbanization, which has greatly impacted itsnative biodiversity. As of 2011, “one third of California’s nativeplants are rare, endangered or threatened. Less than 10% of Cal-ifornia’s coastal sage scrub land and less than 1% of native grasslandremains intact” (City of Los Angeles, 2011). Los Angeles also has thegreatest number of endangered species, 51 total, living in its urbanborders than each of the other cities we analyze. Despite this largeproliferation of species, the City of LA does very little for the re-covery and conservation of threatened and endangered species ortheir habitat. “Greening LA,” which is the Mayor’s Green Agendasince 2007, has completely ignored the conservation of biodiversityor recovery of endangered species in its mandate. In fact, both theGreening LA Action Plan and the Climate LA Implementation Pro-gram omit any goals that would preserve or enhance existinghabitats and species. The same is true with other greening projectswithin the city such as a native tree ordinance, urban forestry di-vision and watershed management and revitalization plan. Allprograms have a focus on one aspect of the environment with little

to no consideration for endangered species conservation orrecovery.

The main focus of the USFWS in LA is undoubtedly the import/export of endangered species and other wildlife, including marinespecies. Wildlife inspection officers are responsible for all wildlifeinspection demands generated at Los Angeles International Airport(LAX e cargo and passenger), satellite facilities at Ontario Inter-national Airport, Palm Springs International Airport, VictorvilleLogistics Airport (an international mail facility), several interna-tional courier companies (DHL, Airborne Express, Federal Expresset al.), and the seaports of Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors andPort Hueneme, CA. At LAX alone, 16 million passengers passthrough the city each year. The ocean ports of LA have 27 oceancargo terminals, 80 shipping lines, and 12 cruise lines. A total of 3.9million tons of ocean freight are processed annually (USFWS, 2011).This places a huge demand on the USFWS, which is enforcing notjust the ESA but a plethora of other wildlife life laws like Conven-tion on the International Trade of Endangered Species and theMarine Mammal Protection Act.

Outside of USFWS activities, the Los Angeles Department ofRecreation and Parks did commission a report in 2008 entitledGriffith Park Wildlife Management Planwhich highlighted a numberof threatened and endangered species living in the park, theirvalue, threats to continued existence, and potential managementstrategies that would increase habitat recovery. The plan seeks to“promote protection and, only where necessary, enhancement ofnative wildlife populations and habitat and facilitate the collectionof wildlife distribution and ecological information” (Cooper, 2008:10). However, in light of recent budget cuts to the of L.A.’s parksecurity force (park rangers) and the continued debates on therevising of the Griffith Park Master Plan, the management strate-gies outlined in this report are still largely under review andpending full implementation (Friends of Griffith Park, 2012: 12).Thus, overall very little is being done for LA’s 51 listed species.Conservation has yet to rise to the priority list of urban issues in LA.

Phoenix, Arizona

Phoenix, the capital city of Arizona is a staggering 518 sq miles,with a population of 3,817,117 making Phoenix roughly twice thesize of Los Angeles but with only third of the population. In 2009,Mayor Phil Gordon implemented a 17-point plan entitled “GreenPhoenix” aimed to position Phoenix as the most sustainable city inthe United States. The plan, similar to those found in LA and NewYork, focuses on creating greener homes and businesses, renewableenergy and power and water. Missing from the action plan are anygoals or sub goals related to the conservation or recovery ofthreatened or endangered species of which 12 can be found withinthe city limits of Phoenix (City of Phoenix, 2013). Although Phoenixis situated in a desert-like environment, five listed species areaquatic and rely on the city’s river system (particularly the GilaRiver).

A. Olive, A. Minichiello / Applied Geography 43 (2013) 56e66 61

The USFWS website has no information about city initiatives inPhoenix pertaining to these species. Examining the recovery stra-tegies for each species, it is clear that the city proper does not factorinto the recovery of these species. Even in cases where it isacknowledged that the species has present-day range in the city, liketheWillowFlycatcher or theMexican SpottedOwl, there is no policyor program that addresses recovery inside the city itself. The fieldsupervisor the USFWS Phoenix office pointed out that the USFWSdoes “conduct a number of awareness programs through schoolsand some civic events.5” No specific information of these programspublically exists (on the internet or in academic scholarship).

The City of Phoenix does have an Environmental SustainabilityProgram that has targeted habitat conservation and recovery since2008. The Rio Salado Habitat Restoration Project and the Tres RiosProject have restored these riparian areas to “native wetlands withriverbank habitats, a lush riparian corridor of stream, wetlands,trees and desert grasslands” (City of Phoenix, 2008: 37) that pro-vide habitat for threatened and endangered species. The field su-pervisor for Phoenix says that “But to my knowledge none of theseareas support listed species. As the habitat matures we maysomeday see flycatchers nesting in certain areas, and my staff hasspoken with the cities of Phoenix and Mesa about somedayharboring nesting flycatchers.6” This suggests little connectionbetween local initiatives and planned endangered species conser-vation. The USFWS remains hopeful that city efforts will one dayprovide benefits but there is no central planning or formal rela-tionship in place to ensure outcomes.

The city has also begun a process of land reclamation andmanagement along the Roosevelt Lake and the Horseshoe andBartlett Reservoirs as part of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).These are projects under the management of the USFWS and arecarried out by various stakeholders, including cities. HCPs are aform of “incidental take permits,” which allow private landownersto apply for a permit to take (kill or injure wildlife) if “such taking isincidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwiselawful activity” (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)). Stakeholders, from one indi-vidual to large networks of vested parties, must prepare an HCPthat details the potential impact on the species, the steps that willbe taken to minimize impacts, and the funding available toimplement the first two steps as well as the alternative actions thatwere considered and why those alternatives were rejected (Easely,2001). The city of Phoenix is involved in an HCP for Roosevelt Lake,which is where the city as well as other entities acquire water. Inorder to continue to dam the lake and draw on the water supply,which is affecting two species (the Flycatcher and the YumaClapper), the interested parties must restore and protect riparianland for habitat mitigation (Salt River Project 2002).

Phoenix is a city of mixed messages. The “Green Phoenix” planmakes no mention of endangered species. The EnvironmentalSustainability Program has no connection to the USFWS or the ESA.But, nevertheless, the city is party of an HCP under the ESA. There ispotential for Phoenix as it has aspirations of becoming the US’mostsustainable city. However, there is not necessarily a directconnection between sustainability and biodiversity or endangeredspecies conservation. Similar to NYC and LA, Phoenix needs greaterattention to its listed species.

Houston, Texas

The city of Houston is the fourth largest city in the United Stateswith a population of 4,677,834. The “Green Houston” initiative is

5 Personal email. February 7, 2012.6 Personal email. February 7, 2012.

aimed at making Houston a green and sustainable city byimproving air and water quality, renewable energy initiatives andthe greening of buildings (City of Houston, 2013). The initiativerecognizes a series of projects related to urban forestry and nativetree planting but does not have an explicit focus on conservingbiological diversity or implementing management plans for thetwo endangered species that live in the city’s boundaries.

The only project that explicitly sets out to enhance wildlifehabitat and diversity is the Lake Houston Wilderness Park e Forestand Wildlife Management Plan which goals are to manage forestregeneration and streamside and habitat corridor areas (AdvancedEcology Ltd., 2008). There are no endangered species living in thepark thus recovery plans for species are absent from the wildlifemanagement plan (Advanced Ecology Ltd., 2008). This may explainwhy the Lake HoustonWilderness Park Master Plan, which reports ingreat detail the ecological and recreational uses of the park largelyneglects the recovery and protection of endangered species. Theonly opportunity that was highlighted to address the managementof endangered species in the park was conservation banking, theprotection of land for the establishment of preferred habitats forrare and endangered species that are found near and in the park yetit was given no funding in the preliminary budget found in thesame report (SWA Group, 2009: 28).

Similar to the cities mentioned above, the recovery plans forHouston’s two endangered species do not include city-level pro-grams. The Texas Prairie Dawn Flower has 10 cites inside the cityproper e albeit on the western edge of the city. Of the 21 totalflowering cities, 11 are occur on federal property while the other 10are on private land or public land (for example, the HoustonCommunity College has a cite). The recovery strategy of this speciesacknowledges that “many factors unique to an urban environmentbear upon the long-term survival of the species. Among these areparkland development, road and housing construction, andchanges in surrounding agricultural and rangeland use” (RecoveryPlan 1989). Unfortunately, the plan does not specify how thesegoals will be achieved and does not factor in public outreach or city-orientated awareness programs. Neither the USFWS nor the city ofHouston is actively engaged in recovering the two listed speciesinside the city.

Chicago, Illinois

Chicago has a population of 5.2 million people, making it thethird largest city in the US. It is home to 6 endangered species andonly has 8000 acres of parkland in the city limitse substantially lessthan any other city in this analysis. Despite this, the government ofChicago has taken themost proactive stance on endangered speciesconservation and recovery than any other city. Sustainable Chicago15 which is the City’s major green initiative is the only mayoraldirective for the five cities that addresses biodiversity conservationhead on by explicitly setting out to “drive habitat restoration andincrease and protect habitat that is friendly to bird and other spe-cies” (Sustainability Council, 2012 :27). Furthermore, the city’s Na-ture andWildlife Plan explicitly sets out to protect natural habitats inthe city and “monitor sites and compile research necessary to setpriorities for restoration andmanagement” (Chicago Department ofPlanning, 2006: 22). The 2016 updated plan further establishes di-rectives to create new natural areas and to foster a sense of stew-ardship amongst its citizens to appreciate and protect the naturalenvironment (Chicago Mayor, 2011). The plans recommend theimplementation of a number of programs that will foster habitatrestoration including the preservation of land and habitat which isused by threatened and endangered species, the protection ofexisting tree canopies, and the enforcement of the invasive speciesordinances (Chicago Mayor, 2011).

A. Olive, A. Minichiello / Applied Geography 43 (2013) 56e6662

Additional strategies that are supported by the city that work topreserve biological conservation include a rooftop garden initiativeand the Chicago Conservation Corps that train volunteers to act asstewards of the environment including the protection and preser-vation of endangered species and effected habitat. The ChicagoWilderness Project, which receives funding and program supportfrom the USDA Forest Service, the USFWS, the state of Illinois andseveral municipal departments, is an alliance of conservation bi-ologists, policy makers, environmentalists, and interestedmembersof the public. The Project’s mandate is to protect the 200,000 acresof federal, state, county, and municipal protected lands and waters(Moskovits et al., 2002). In 2000, the project drafted a regionalbiodiversity recovery plan and identified conservation priorities forthe regionwith a particular focus on endangered plant species. ThePlan identifies six overarching actions (land management, landprotection, stream protection, research and monitoring, educationand communication, local and regional development policies) thatsupport conservation and recovery efforts.

There are 6 endangered species with range inside the city ofChicago. The USFWS does not manage any federal land in the citybut has reached out to the ChicagoWilderness program to promotebiodiversity and endangered species awareness in the Chicago area.According to a field supervisor at the USFWS in Chicago, there is astrong interest by the public to protect biodiversity, which is re-flected in the large number of volunteers whowork the USFWS. TheService has a solid working relationship with the Forest PreserveDistrict, ChicagoWilderness, and the Chicago Field Museum as wellas private landowners.7 However, the recovery plans for the listedspecies are void of city initiatives. Thus, the city is an example ofstrong local leadership with financial support from, as well as aworking relationship with, the USFWS.

Findings and discussion

This research confirms that while endangered species are pre-sent in the five largest cities in the US, very little is being done bythe USFWS or cities to protect and recover them. The continuedexistence of these species and their habitat in cities will be tested inyears to come because authorities do so little to protect and recoverthese species, despite explicit protection under federal law. Thisreality offers a number of implications that are important toconsider when creating conservation policy and eliciting publicsupport.

First, in terms of levels of governance, it is apparent that theUSFWS is underperforming at the protection and recovery of spe-cies at risk in cities. There is little to no information about USFWSled initiatives in cities. The recovery plans for the 77 species foundin these cities make no mention of city targeted programs orawareness campaigns inside the cities themselves. This is prob-lematic. The USFWS needs to rethink these documents in light ofurban growth and future habitat loss. Any species’ whose rangeincludes a densely urban area will require a recovery plan that in-cludes reconciliation ecology, smart growth, public outreach andcommunity partnerships. Ultimately the USFWS is responsible forurban species and, therefore, recovery plans must be updatedimmediately. Far too many plans were written in the 1980s andearly 1990s before urban populations in places like Phoenixexploded. If Phoenix’s species are to recover they need recoverydocuments that adequately capture their urban environment.

Related to the USFWS mandate and authority is the issue offederal land base. When comparing the five cities, Chicago standsout as a more environmental city, followed by New York City and

7 Personal interview. February 13th, 2013.

then Houston, Phoenix and LA. This is true of not just “green” ini-tiatives but also endangered species and habitat strategies. Onepossible explanation for this might be the proximity of federallands to the city. The USFWS is a federal organization with a strongmandate, especially under the ESA, on federal lands. As illustratedin Table 1, the federal government manages 42.3% of the land inArizona and 47.7% of the land in California. This land base gives theUSFWS plenty of space to monitor and carry out programs.Conversely, the federal government only manages 1.1% of land inIllinois and 0.7% of land in New York. In these states the USFWS hasno land base and is forced to work cooperatively with other land-owners, including the state and cities, to carry out its mandate andenforce the ESA. This has perhaps led the USFWS to forge part-nerships and engage with the public. The field officer interviewedfor this research expressed a similar attitude as he said his Chicagooffice is reliant on organizations like Wilderness Chicago to engagelandowners and recruit public volunteers.8 Moreover, in 2006 theGovernment Accountability Office reviewed USFWS recoveryplanning and found that such plans are written with the assump-tion that partners, and their resources, will be available for recoveryefforts (GAO, 2006). Thus, the USFWS relies on partnerships fromthe outset but might be hindered by a large land base that makespartnerships unnecessary. Future research would need to test thishypothesis in a more empirical manner, but this study suggests thatoutreach and partnerships in cities is determined in part by theamount of federal lands available to the USFWS.Where there is a lotof federal land, partnerships are less important.

At the city level, management of endangered species appears tonot be a priority. Although no field officer interviewed made thisclaim, the actions and recovery plans of the USFWS suggest it mightbe the case. Cities are engaged in greening efforts and are makingserious strides to improve habitat and wetlands and increaseoverall green space inside the city limits. This is reconciliationecology at work, but it is not clear that endangered species willbenefit quickly enough from such efforts. The goal of the ESA is torecover each species in its natural range. Urban species obviouslyhave some adaptive capabilities otherwise they would have beenexpiated from urban centers long ago. But it is not safe to assumethat all urban species will or can adapt. When species in more ruralareas are targets for protection and recovery, land acquisition,habitat management, landowner partnerships and incentive toolsare often implemented by the USFWS over a rather short anddirected period of time (see for example Olive, 2012b). The sameeffort is not being extended to urban species.

Looked at in another light, it is possible to argue that throughrather vague “greening” programs, cities are perhaps challengingthe species-specific approach of the ESA. Endangered species con-servation could embrace a more regional or ecosystem frameworkto conservation (Elander, Alm, Malbert, & Sandstrom, 2005; Jarosiket al., 2011; Rudd, Vala, & Schaefer, 2002) because such an approachwould prioritize the establishment of “biological reserves whichcreate integrated large scale systems of protected natural spacesand habitats” (Beatley, 2000:5). This is particularly evident in densecities with large green spaces and habitat fragmentation like NewYork City. Increasing the size and density of natural reserves, parksor vegetation along highways, rivers, and tracks could reducehabitat fragmentation and provide peripheral habitat to specieswho are migrating within or across a region (Fernandez-Juricic &Jokimaki 2001; Jarosik et al., 2011; Rudd, Vala, & Schaefer, 2002).

Despite backhanded attempted at greening and reconciliationecology, endangered species conservation and recovery must be

8 Personal. phone interview. February 2013.

A. Olive, A. Minichiello / Applied Geography 43 (2013) 56e66 63

mainstreamed as an explicit goal in each city’s comprehensivesustainability or environmental plan (Puppim de Oliveira et al.,2011). This would require amendments to the plans but wouldensure that all actions taken to restore or develop parklands,wetlands, or waters would need to consider the impact on en-dangered species. The provisions could require cities tomanage anychanges to endangered species habitat through a habitat conser-vation or remediation plan. More importantly, conservation effortsand goals should all be integrated in legally binding planningdocuments (Elander et al., 2005).

Chicago, Houston, New York and Los Angeles are all C40 cities,members of a network of global cities that have committed to takeaction to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climatechange at a local scale (C40.org). With solutions focused to tackleissues of waste, transportation, water, electricity and energy ere-covery and consideration for rare and endangered species, whichare all found in each of these cities is entirely lacking. Indeed, theconservation of biodiversity is not even mentioned as a problemnor is it given any attention with solutions. This is not unlike manymunicipal plans and programs that focus on the environment andsustainability. Conservation for rare and endangered species isentirely lacking as a focus despite the effect global climate changehas had on these species.

While green initiatives have funding in these cities, allocatingdedicated funding and sustainable monies for endangered speciesconservation will be a challenge for cities particularly because ofthe high value of land in these urban centers (Ricketts & Imhoff,2003). The high price of land makes habitat preservation in citiesmore costly and politically difficult than those in rural areas. Onestrategy is to look for neighboring regions with lower land pricesbut that share similar habitat characteristics with endangered landsin the ‘hot spots’ and acquire or protect lands in those regionsinstead (Ricketts & Imhoff, 2003). A second strategy would be tochannel a portion of research dollars into matching grants for localhabitat acquisition ormanagement (Press, Doak, & Steinberg,1996).More research is needed to explore these strategies and test theireffectiveness in American cities.

This present study suggests that neither the federal governmentnor the local government are adequately conserving urban en-dangered species. Future research needs to examine other scales ofgovernance, including the state government, non-governmentalorganizations and civil society. In the US each state maintains alist of endangered and threatened species that it tries to protect andrecover. Thus, there could be state-led initiatives occurring in urbanareas. No research to date examines this possibility. Civil society isanother important actor. Literature suggests that people are notaware of endangered species, but there are no empirical studies ofurban residents and endangered species awareness in the US. Thereare likely a number of important programs run by eNGOs thatengage civil actors. For example, Project Noah asks urbanites fromall over the world to photograph the biodiversity they see in theircity. All photos are uploaded to their website and identified byfellow users. Thus, Project Noah is a guidebook to all biodiversityfound in urban cities. This specific project developed from a part-nership with NYC’s WildflowerWeek and Nature Block Party. Thereis no reason to suspect this is a rare or unique program. NGOs andother civil actors can have a large role to play in biodiversitymonitoring and endangered species protection.

One place NGOs could take lead in on education and outreach. Astrong education and community strategy must be developed toinform the public and policy makers about the value of biodiversityconservation and endangered species recovery in cities (Miller,2005; Puppim de Oliveira et al., 2011). According to the PewResearch Center only 43% of Americans think “people should bewilling to pay more to protect the environment” (Pew, 2012a).

However, despite their financial unwillingness, 74% of the publicfeels that “there needs to be stricter laws and regulations in place toprotect the environment” (Pew, 2012b). Through education andawareness, urban Americans might accept stronger implementa-tion of the ESA in cities and might even be willing to bear some ofthe costs. The educational programs should also foster a sense ofbeauty and belonging toward biodiversity for those living in anecologically rich environment (Hunter & Hunter, 2008). Thesemessages should target people’s direct relationship with theirenvironment and help “facilitate both a knowledge based and anemotional based relationship with nature” (Breuste, 2004). TheChicago Conservation Corp is one example of an educational andstewardship initiative that has helped foster public support forconservation planning.

Conclusion

Despite good intentions, a growing number of legal and policyscholars suggest either modern “environmental law has proved acolossal failure” (Wood, 2009, 43) or the need for substantial re-form (Wiersema, 2008). During the 40 years since the passage ofthe 1973 Act, 47 of the nearly 1400 (0.03%) listed taxonomic unitslisted are recovered, 18 due to data error, 10 are extinct, and 21(0.02%) are ecologically recovered (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,2010). This is not a proud record in conservation and the lack ofaction within the urban environment only adds to thisdisappointment.

Leakey and Lewin (1996) argue that biological diversity is in themidst of its sixth great extinction but, unlike the first five historicalextinction crises, this one is caused almost entirely by human be-ings. The number often quoted is 50e100 life forms are lost everyday with the possibility that twenty five percent of species will goextinct in the next few decades (Johnston, Gismondi, & Goodman,2006). Biodiversity loss is not just happening in remote areas ofthe world, but on the contrary, it is rapidly occurring in urbancenters across the globe. At present, what are the USFWS and UScities doing to protect and recover species in peril? Not much.Whatcould be done? Lots. Of course it is true, as Wilcove and Master(2005) point out, the ESA deals with but a relatively small pro-portion of species at risk of global extinction since the Act protectssubspecies and, moreover, that “no proven direct methods or reli-able data exist for verifying extinction” (He & Hubbell, 2011).However, there is little doubting the importance biodiversity inNorth America and there is every reason to recover and protectwhat the US has left inside its own borders.

The US will continue to urbanize in the 21st century. The U.S.Census Bureau estimates that by 2030 the population of Phoenixwill grow to 2.2 million and that the population of the metro areawill reach 6.3 million. And that is nothing compared to Houston - ofthe nation’s 366 metropolitan areas, none added more peopleduring the past decade than Houston. A new extensive analysis ofthe 2000 and 2010 censuses by Rice University’s Kinder Institute forUrban Research found the Greater Houston metropolitan area grewby a whopping 1.2 million people and increased by more than123,000 per year over the decade (Ruth, 2011). This is an aston-ishing number of people and will lead to only more habitat loss ifUS cities do not start to take endangered species conservationmoreseriously.

The good news is that there is already a national goal in place e

recover all species in threat of extinction (or expiation in the case ofsubspecies), regardless of taxon or location. The US Congress madethis is a national goal in 1973 with the passing of the ESA and theAmerican people continue to support this goal through funding ofthe USFWS and the ESA. Most American people live in cities. Thus itis not surprising that this transition from rural America to urban

A. Olive, A. Minichiello / Applied Geography 43 (2013) 56e6664

America has transformed not only the landscape but the centers ofpower in the country. Urbanization is the primary threat to speciesin the US. But urbanized people also represent important actors inthe efforts to conserve endangered species. To say differently, we

Appendix

Table 2Name of each endangered/threatened species by city with total FWS sp

City Endangered/Threatened species; common name

New York Piping PloverHawksbill sea turtleLeatherback sea turtleGreen sea turtleRoseate ternSeabeach amaranth

LA Arroyo ToadCalifornia red-legged frogMountain yellow-legged frogCalifornia condorCalifornia least ternLight Footed Clapper RailSan Clemente loggerhead shrikeSan Clemente sage sparrowLeast Bell’s vireoWestern Snowy PloverMarbled murreletCoastal California gnatcatcherSouthwestern willow flycatcherRiverside fairy shrimpVernal pool fairy shrimpUnarmored threespine sticklebackTidewater gobySanta Ana suckerBraunton’s milk-vetchVentura March Milk-vetchCoastal dunes milk-vetchNevin’s barberryThread-leaved brodiaeaMarcescent dudleyaSan Clemente Island woodland-starLyon’s pentachaetaSanta Cruz Island RockcressSan Clemente Island IndianpaintbrushSalt marsh bird’s-beakSan Clemente Island larkspurSan Clemente Island BroomSan Clemente Island bush-mallowCalifornia Orcutt grassMarsh SandwortSpreading navarretiaVerity’s dudleyaSlender-horned spineflowerGambel’s watercressSanta Monica Mountains dudleyeaEl Segundo blue butterflyQuino checkerspot butterflyPalos Verdes blue butterflySanta Catalina FoxPacific pocket mouseSan Bernardino Merriam’s Kangaroo ratLeatherback Sea turtleGreen sea turtleOlive ridley sea turtleIsland night lizardDesert tortoise

Chicago Piping PloverHine’s emerald dragonflyEastern prairie fringed orchidLeafy-prairie cloverMead’s milkweedPrairie Buch Clover

already understand the obstacles for conservation, namely habitatdegradation and fragmentation. What is needed now is broadawareness of endangered species in cities and the mobilization ofactors with an interest in the outcome.

ending.

Endangered/threatened species; scientific name FWS spending

Charadrius melodus $1,454,882Eretmochelys imbricata $774,352Dermochelys coriacea $1,447,500Chelonia mydas $442,418Sterna dougallii dougallii $394,937Amaranthus pumilus $450,078Bufo californicus $29,307Rana draytonii $388,500Rana muscosa $65,982Gymnogyps californianus $13,700Sterna antillarum browni $580,000Rallus longirostris levipes $0Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi $8000Amphispiza belli clementeae $0Vireo bellii pusillus $225,000Charadrius Alexandrinus nivosus $1,238,240Brachyramphus marmoratus $10,000Polioptila californica californica $205,000Empidonax traillii extimus $41,067Streptocephalus woottoni $34,117Branchinecta lynchi $820,273williamsoni $89,000Eucyclogobius newberryi $446,500Catostomus santaanae $51,000Astragalus brauntonii $12,000Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus $15,000Astragalus tener var. titi $3000Berberis Nevinii $3500Brodiaea filifolia $21,000Dudleya cymosa ssp. Marcescens $0Lithophragma maximum $3500Pentachaeta lyonii $77,500Sibara filifolia $28,000Castilleja grisea $20,500

Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. Maritimus $64,000Delphinium variegatum ssp. Kinkiense $3500Lotus dendroideus ssp. Traskiae $20,500Malacothamnus clementinus $20,500Orcuttia Californica $36,500Arenaria paludicola $68,500Navarretia fossalis $0Dudleya verityi $0Dodecahema leptoceras $5000Rorippa gambellii $85,000Dudleya cymosa ssp. ovatifolia $1400Euphilotes battoides allyni $36,000Euphydryas editha quino $27,500Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis $100Urocyon littoralis catalinae $16,000Perognathus longimembris pacificus $350,500Dipodomys merriami parvus $10,000Dermochelys coriacea $1,447,500Chelonia mydas $442,418Lepidochelys olivacea $145,800Xantusia riversiana $83,000Gopherus agassizii $4,914,420Charadrius melodus $1000Somatochlora hineana $295,708Platanthera leucophaea $143,901Dalea foliosa $70,800Asclepias meadii $46,994Lespedeza leptostachya $69,500

Table 2 (continued )

City Endangered/Threatened species; common name Endangered/threatened species; scientific name FWS spending

Houston Texas prairie dawn-flower Hymenoxys texana $10,000Whooping Crane Grus americana $32,903

Phoenix Arizona Cliff-rose Purshia (¼Cowania) subintegra $4645California least tern Sterna antillarum browni $356,000desert pupfish Cyprinodon macularius $500Gila topminnow (incl. Yaqui) Poeciliopsis occidentalis $50lesser long-nosed bat Leptonycteris curasoae $60,100Mexican spotted owl yerbabuenaerazorback sucker Strix occidentalis lucida $205,930Sonoran pronghorn Xyrauchen texanus $23,100southwestern willow Antilocapra americana sonoriensis $454,000flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus $68,600woundfin Plagopterus argentissimus $40,980Yuma clapper rail Rallus longirostris yumanensis $32,000

A. Olive, A. Minichiello / Applied Geography 43 (2013) 56e66 65

References

Adler, J. A. (2011). The Leaky Ark: the failure of endangered species regulation onprivate land. In Jonathan H. Adler (Ed.), Rebuilding the Ark: New perspectives onendangered species act reform. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.

Advanced Ecology Ltd. (2008). Lake Houston wilderness park e Forest and wildlifemanagement plan. Houston, Texas: Author.

Ahrné, K., Bengtsson, J., & Elmqvist, T. (2009). Bumble bees (Bombus spp) along agradient of increasing urbanization. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005574.

Alvey, A. A. (2006). Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest.Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5, 195e201.

Arnold, Craig Anthony (Tony) (1991). Conserving habitats and building habitats: theemerging impact of the endangered species act on land use development.Stanford Environmental Law Journal, 10, 11e13.

Beatley, T. (1992). Balancing urban development and endangered species: theCoachella Valley habitat conservation plan. Environmental Management, 16(1),7e19.

Beatley, T. (2000). Preserving biodiversity. Journal of the American Planning Associ-ation, 66(1), 5e20.

Beatley, T. (2006). Cities and biodiversity. In J. M. Scott, D. D. Goble, & F. W. Davis(Eds.), The Endangered Species Act at Thirty. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Brenneisen, S. (2006). Space for urban wildlife: designing green roofs as habitats inSwitzerland. Urban Habitats, 4(1), 27e36.

Breuste, J. (2004). Decision making, planning and design for the conservation ofindigenous vegetation within urban development. Landscape and Urban Plan-ning, 68, 439e452.

Bromley, D. W. (2000). Private property and the public interest: land in theAmerican idea. In William G. Robbins, & James C. Foster (Eds.), Land in theAmerican West: Private claims and the common good. Seattle, Oregon: Universityof Washington Press.

Brook, A., Zint, M., & De Young, R. (2003). Landowners’ responses to an endangeredspecies act listing and implications for encouraging conservation. ConservationBiology, 17(6), 1638e1649.

Brosi, B. J., Daily, G. C., & Davis, F. W. (2006). Agricultural and urban landscapes. In J.Michael Scott, Dale D. Goble, & Frank W. Davis (Eds.), The endangered species actat thirty, Vol. 2 (pp. 256e275). Washington DC: Island Press.

Bryant, M. (2006). Urban landscape conservation and the role of ecological green-ways at local and metropolitan scales. Landscape and Urban Planning, 76, 23e44.

Chicago Department of Planning and Development and Chicago Mayor’s Nature andWildlife Committee. (2006). Nature and wildlife plan. Chicago, Illinois: City ofChicago.

Chicago Mayor’s Nature and Wildlife Advisory Committee. (2011). Chicago natureand wildlife plan update: A strategy to enhance urban ecosystems 2011e2016.Chicago, Illinois: City of Chicago.

City of Houston. (2013). Green city projects. Green Houston. http://www.greenhoustontx.gov/cityprojects.html.

City of Los Angeles. (2011). Native plants and animals. Environment LA. http://www.environmentla.org/programs/nativeplantsanimals.htm.

City of New York. (2012). New York city wetlands strategy. New York City, New York:Author.

City of New York. (2013). “About PlaNYC” PlaNYC. http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/home/home.shtml.

City of New York. (2013). Jamaica bay. PlaNYC. http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/home/jamaica_bay.shtml.

City of Phoenix. (2008). Phoenix: Living like it matters! Environment sustainabilityprogram. Phoenix, Arizona: Author.

City of Phoenix. (2013). “What is green Phoenix” Green Phoenix. http://phoenix.gov/greenphoenix/greenphx/index.html.

Connor, E., Hafernik, J., Levy, J., Moore, V. L., & Rickman, J. (2003). Insect conser-vation in an urban biodiversity hotspot: the San Francisco Bay area. Journal ofInsect Conservation, 6, 247e259.

Cooper Ecological Monitoring Inc.. (2008). Griffith park wildlife management plan.Los Angeles, California: City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks.

Czech, B., & Krausman, P. (2001). The endangered species Act: History, conservationbiology, and public policy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Czech, B., Krausman, P. R., & Devers, P. K. (2000). Economic associationsamong causes of species endangerment in the United States. BioScience,50(7), 593e601.

Dearborn, D. C., & Kark, S. (2010). Motivations for conserving urban biodiversity.Conservation Biology, 24(2), 432e440.

Easley, S., Holtman, J. P., Scancarelli, J., & Schmidt, B. A. (Eds.). (2001). The endan-gered species act: A Stanford Environmental Law Society handbook. Stanford:Stanford University Press.

Elander, I., Alm, E., Malbert, B., & Sandstrom, U. G. (2005). Biodiversity in urbangovernance and planning: examples from Swedish cities. Planning Theory andPractice, 6(3), 283e301.

Farrier, D. (1995). Conserving biodiversity on private Land: Incentives for man-agement or compensation for lost expectations? Harvard Environmental LawReview, 19, 303.

Fernandez-Juricic, E., & Jokimaki, J. (2001). A habitat island approach to conservingbirds in urban landscapes: case studies from southern and northern Europe.Biodiversity and Conservation, 10, 2023e2043.

Filion, P. (2003). Towards smart growth? The difficult implementation of alterna-tives to urban dispersion. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 48e70.

Friends of Griffith Park. (2012). Winter. In Park rangers required. The Griffith Re-porter 1e16.

GAO. (2006). Endangered species: Time and costs required to recover species arelargely unknown. (GAO-06e463R/March 2006) http://www.gao.gov/assets/100/94111.html Accessed 07.06.13.

Goddard, M. A., Dougill, A. J., & Benton, T. G. (2010). Scaling up from gardens:biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolu-tion, 25(2), 90e98.

He, F., & Hubbell, S. P. (2011). Species-area relationships always overestimateextinction rates from habitat loss. Nature, 473(7347), 368e371.

Hostetler, M., & Drake, D. (2009). Conservation subdivisions: a wildlife perspective.Landscape and Urban Planning, 90, 95e101.

Hunter, M. R., & Hunter, M. D. (2008). Designing for conservation of insects in thebuilt environment. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 1, 189e196.

Jarosik, K., Konvicka,M., Pysek, P., Kadlec, T., & Benes, J. (2011). Conservation ina city: dothe same principles apply to different taxa? Biological Conservation, 144, 490e499.

Johnston, J., Gismondi, M., & Goodman, J. (2006). Politicizing exhaustion: eco- socialcrisis and the geographic challenge for cosmopolitans. In J. Johnston,M. Gismondi, & H. Goodman (Eds.), Nature’s revenge. Peterbrough, ON: Broad-view Press.

Leakey, R. E., & Lewin, R. (1996). The sixth extinction: patterns of life and the future ofhumankind. New York, New York City: Anchor Books.

McKinney, M. L. (2002). Urbanization, biodiversity and conservation. BioScience,52(10), 883e890.

McKinney, M. L. (2006). Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization.Biological Conservation, 127, 247e260.

Miller, J. R. (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience.Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20(8), 430e434.

Miller, J. R., & Hobbs, R. J. (2002). Conservation where people live and work. Con-servation Biology, 16(2), 330e337.

Moskovits, D., Fialkowski, C., Mueller, G., & Sullivan, T. (2002). Chicago wilderness: anew force in urban conservation. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 89(2),153e163.

Muller, N., & Werner, P. (2010). Urban biodiversity and the case for implementingthe convention on biological diversity in towns and cities. In P. Muller,P. Werner, & J. G. Kelcey (Eds.), Urban biodiversity and design. Chinchester: UK:Wiley-Blackwell.

Olive, A. (2012a). Species at risk: a Saskatchewan case study. Blue Jay, 70(4).Olive, A. (2012b). Endangered species policy in Canada and the US: A tale of two

islands. American Review of Canadian Studies, 42(1), 84e101.

A. Olive, A. Minichiello / Applied Geography 43 (2013) 56e6666

Olive, A. (2013). Land, stewardship & legitimacy: Affirmative motivations for cooper-ation with endangered species policy in Canada & the US. Toronto, Ontario:University of Toronto Press (in press).

Pauchard, A., Aguayo, M., Peña, E., & Urrutia, R. (2006). Multiple effects of urbani-zation on the biodiversity of developing countries: the case of a fast-growingmetropolitan area (concepción, Chile). Biological Conservation, 127(3), 272e281.

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. (2012a). American values survey. InQuestion 40a. http://www.people-press.org/values-questions/q40a/need-stricter-laws-to-protect-environment/#total Accessed 05.06.13.

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. (2012b). American values survey. InQuestion 40b. http://www.people-press.org/values-questions/q40b/should-be-willing-to-pay- higher-prices-to-protect-environment/#total Accessed 05.06.13.

Press, D., Doak, D. F., & Steinberg, P. (1996). The role of local government in theconservation of rare species. Conservation Biology, 10(6), 1538e1548.

Puppim de Oliveira, J., Balaban, O., Moreno-Penaranda, R., Gasparatos, A.,Iossifova, D., & Suwa, A. (2011). Cities and biodiversity: perspectives andgovernance challenges for implementing the convention on biological diversity(CBD) at the city level. Biological Conservation, 144, 1302e1313.

Raymond, L., & Olive, A. (2008). Landowner Beliefs regarding biodiversity protection onprivateproperty:an Indianacasestudy. SocietyandNaturalResources, 21(6), 483e497.

Rebelo, A. G., Holmes, P. M., Dorse, C., & Wood, J. (2011). Impacts of urbanization in abiodiversity hotspot: conservation challenges in Metropolitan Cape Town. SouthAfrican Journal of Botany, 77, 20e35.

Ricketts, T., & Imhoff, M. (2003). Biodiversity, urban areas, and agriculture: locatingpriority ecoregions for conservation. Conservation Ecology, 8(2), 1.

Riley, S., Sauvajot, R., Fuller, T., York, E., Kamradt, D., Bromley, C., et al. (2003). Effectsof urbanization and habitat fragmentation on bobcats and coyotes in SouthernCalifornia. Conservation Biology, 17(2), 566e576.

Rosenzweig, M. R. (2003). Win-win Ecology: How earth’s species can survive in themidst of human enterprise. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rosenzweig, M. R. (2006). Beyond set-asides. In The endangered species act at thirty:Renewing the conservation promise. Covelo CA: Island Press.

Rudd, H., Vala, J., & Schaefer, V. (2002). Importance of backyard habitat in acomprehensive biodiversity conservation strategy: a connectivity analysis ofurban green spaces. Restoration Ecology, 10(2), 368e375.

Ruth, D. (2011). “When it comes to population growth, Houston is No. 1.” Rice News.http://news.rice.edu/2011/07/13/when-it-comes-to-population-growth-houston-is-no-1/ Accessed 26.06.13.

Schwartz, M. W., Jurjavcic, N. C., & O’Brien, J. M. (2002). Conservation’s Disen-franchised urban Poor. BioScience, 52(7), 601e606.

Sustainability Council of Chicago. (2012). 2015 Sustainable Chicago action agenda.Chicago, Illinois: City of Chicago.

SWA Group. (2009). A master plan for lake Houston Park. Houston, Texas: City ofHouston Parks and Recreation Department.

Talley, T. S., Fleishman, E., Holyoak, M., Murphy, D. D., & Ballard, A. (2007).Rethinking a rare-species conservation strategy in an urban landscape: the caseof the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Biological Conservation, 135, 21e32.

UNCBD. (2010). Subnational and Local Implementation. http://www.cbd.int/en/subnational/partners-and-initiatives/cbo/overview Accessed 25.06.13.

USFWS. (2011). Office of Law Enforcement. http://www.fws.gov/pacific/lawenforcement/portla.html Accessed 25.06.13.

Venter, O., Brodeur, N., Nemiroff, L., Belland, B., Dolinsek, I., & Grant, J. (2006).Threats to endangered species in Canada. Bioscience, 56(11), 903e910.

Wiersema, A. (2008). A train without tracks: rethinking the place of law and goalsin environmental and natural resource law. Environmental Law, 38(4), 1238e1300.

Wilcove, D. S., & Master, L. L. (2005). Howmany endangered species are there in theUnited States? Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, 3, 414e420.

Wilcove, D. S., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Phillips, A., & Losos, E. (1998). Quantifyingthreats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience, 48(8), 607e615.

Wilkinson, C., Parnell, S., Sendstad, M., & Schewenius, M. (2013). Urban governanceof biodiversity and ecosystem services. In Th. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias, J. Goodness,B. Güneralp, P. J. Marcotullio, R. I. McDonald, et al. (Eds.), Urbanization, Biodi-versity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities. New York: Springer.

Wood, M. C. (2009). Advancing the sovereign trust of government to safeguard theenvironment for present and future generations: ecological realism and theneed for a paradigm shift. Environmental Law., 39, 43e89.

Zerbe, S., Maurer, U., Schmitz, S., & Sukopp, H. (2003). Biodiversity in Berlin andits potential for nature conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 62,139e148.