In community level, loss of biodiversity has gained little concern. Both in Australia and the United States, people pay much more attention about air pollution and waterway than loss of tree species, ecosystem, animals, and wildlife (Williams & Cary, 2002).

Several studies have suggested that conservation of biodiversity might have effects on human’s perception of landscape. In a field study, both residents, famares and visiting cyclists showed their percieved levels of beauty of landscapes were positively associated with their percieved biodiversity (van den Berg, Vlek, & Coeterier, 1998). In a series of experimental and site studies, percieved attractiveness had positive associations with species richness and eveness of natural meadows, which implies that biodiversity has aesthetic value (Lindemann-Matthies, Junge, & Matthies, 2010). In a study conducted in neighborhood context in southeastern Australia, residents’ levels of satisfaction with neighborhood were positively related to species richness and abundance of birds, and plants after controlled for socio-economic characteristics (Luck, Davidson, Boxall, & Smallbone, 2011). Another study showed that greater species richness of plants, butterflies and birds objectively measured in urban greenspace was associated with higher level of psychological benefits (Fuller, Irvine, Devine-Wright, Warren, & Gaston, 2007). It is important to point out that Fuller and colleages’ study is the only one which has adopted objective measures of biodiversity to identify benefits of biodiversity on human mental health in urban settings. More empirical studies need be conducted to strengthen this potential link and provide confirming evidences to promote planning for urban biodiversity (Dean, van Dooren, & Weinstein, 2011).

Under some circumstances, percieved biodiversity could be different from objective measured biodiversity or expert-evaluated biodiversity because participants’ demographic background may influence understanding on the definition of biodiversity, such as education, occupation, and economic interests (van den Berg et al., 1998). To prevent misunderstanding, communication between planners, officials, and community groups are crucial: On one hand, residents need be acknowledged clear definition of biodiversity and ecosystem. On the other hand, it is necessary to integrate aesthetic interests of different community groups with the evaluation criterias for biodiversity in community settings.

Americans has deep-trenched social norms of favoring neat landscapes than spontanious, messy natural landscapes because neatness deliever information of management and stewardship (Williams & Cary, 2002). In some studies, human-altered natural landscapes were prefered by people than untended natural landscapes, which parallels Williams and Cary’s statement. In addition, evidences from other cultures also indicated people favor neat landscapes than unorganized ones. Sullivan pointed out this cross-culture pattern of preference is orginiated from humans evloutionary experience in savanna environment of East Africa. These findings have important implications for preservation of biodiversity in neighborhood: Richer natural landscapes don’t equals to higher appreciation or preference. As Kaplan (1987) suggested, people’s preference of landscapes is a process of evaluating environmental benefits and threats to promote their survival and reproduction. Under some circumstances, heavy, rich natural landscapes could provide hiding places for predators or enemies, meanwhile, those landscapes could impede them to explore further because it is hard for people to have good connection with vista and move through after they step into lands with high, dense undergrowth. Therefore, it is necessary for planners to consider spatial configuration and maintenance of natural landscapes while they try to promote biodiversity in community settings.

Advertisements