Next Article in Journal
MODIS and VIIRS Calibration and Characterization in Support of Producing Long-Term High-Quality Data Products
Next Article in Special Issue
Monitoring for Changes in Spring Phenology at Both Temporal and Spatial Scales Based on MODIS LST Data in South Korea
Previous Article in Journal
Toronto Water Vapor Lidar Inter-Comparison Campaign
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Remote Sensing
Volume 12
Issue 19
10.3390/rs12193166
remotesensing-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

How Do Urban Parks Provide Bird Habitats and Birdwatching Service? Evidence from Beijing, China

by
Zhengkai Zhang
1,2 and
Ganlin Huang
1,2,*
1
Center for Human-Environment System Sustainability (CHESS), State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology (ESPRE), Beijing Normal University, No 19 Xinjiekouwai Road, Beijing 100875, China
2
School of Natural Resources, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Remote Sens. 2020, 12(19), 3166; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12193166
Submission received: 7 August 2020 / Revised: 22 September 2020 / Accepted: 23 September 2020 / Published: 27 September 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remote Sensing of Urban Vegetation and Its Applications)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Parks are an important green infrastructure. Besides other benefits for human and animals, parks provide important bird habitats and accommodate most human-bird interactions in cities. Understanding the complex dynamics among park characteristics, bird habitats and park attractiveness to birdwatchers will inform park designers and managers. However, previous studies often examined factors influencing bird habitats and birdwatching activities separately. To fill this gap, we aim to study the whole picture of “parks, birds and birdwatchers” in Beijing, China for its spatial patterns and possible factors which influence bird habitat areas and birdwatching services. We conducted a three-month bird census in at 159 sites and mapped bird habitat areas in parks of Beijing through the maximum entropy method based on results of the bird survey as well as high-resolution remote sensing data. We derived the number of birdwatching records to describe birdwatching activities from the China Birdwatching Record Center website. We used correlation analysis, regression and analysis of variance to investigate factors that may influence areas of bird habitats and the number of birdwatching records for each park. Our results showed that among the 102 parks, 61 provide habitats to breeding birds with an average of 17 ha, and 26 parks generated a total of 330 birdwatching records. Park size, age, proportion of pavement, landscape connectedness, pavement largest patch index and woodland patch density explained 95% of the variation in habitat areas altogether. Bird habitat area alone explained 65% of the variation in the number of birdwatching records. Furthermore, parks with birdwatching records are significantly larger, older, closer to the city center and more accessible than those have no reported birdwatching. These findings have important implications for park management. While park size or age cannot be easily changed, modifying landscape patterns can increase bird habitats in parks, and improving accessibility may attract more birdwatchers to parks that already have considerable bird habitats.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Cities are densely populated and highly modified ecosystems [1], where plants and animals provide important ecosystem services to urban residents [1]. Birds, in particular, play an essential role in the wellbeing of urban dwellers. Researchers found that the presence of birds significantly contributes to people’s mental health and self-rated wellbeing [2,3]. For example, birds’ colorful look was found to deliver aesthetic enjoyment and make people feel pleasant [4,5]. Moreover, birdsong diversity increased people’s self-reported wellbeing and appreciation of the landscape [6,7].
Parks are important bird habitats in urban areas, providing food [8] and nesting places [9]. At the regional scale, urban parks form habitat islands in built-up areas, which connect with other vegetation patches and constitute a “habitat network” [1,10,11]. Furthermore, parks in cities along the major migratory bird flyways are important stopover places for migrant birds [12,13].
Parks also accommodate most human–bird interactions in cities, including causal bird encountering as well as birdwatching. Compared with bird habitats in remotely located areas, urban parks are more frequently visited [14,15]. People can easily get close to birds and observe many different types of birds in one place in the park [16]. Consequently, parks are attractive to birdwatchers [14,17]. In addition, birdwatching organizations often organize birdwatching tours in urban parks, which contribute to increased birdwatching activities in parks [18,19].
Due to the essential roles which urban parks play for both birds and human–bird interactions, researchers have been eager to understand what factors may affect urban parks’ capacities to provide bird habitats and accommodate human–bird interactions. Existing studies revealed that many factors contributed to park bird diversity (species richness or species α diversity), such as park size [9,16,20,21,22,23], park age [24,25], tree cover [26], habitat heterogeneity [16,24], landscape connectedness [16,27] and waterbody area [16]. In contrast, other factors may weaken bird diversity in parks, such as the density of buildings and pavements [22,28,29], urbanization degree [20,23,30], pedestrian rate and noise level around the park [9,20,31]. In contrast, relatively little attention has been paid to how much habitat parks can provide for birds. While few papers have previously looked at distribution models for birds in urban green infrastructure [21,32,33,34], parks were either not considered [21,33] or regarded as one type of land use [32,34].
Locations in which birdwatching activities may take place have been studied in protected areas and national parks instead of urban parks [17,35,36]. Researchers found that bird species richness [17,36], rare bird presence [17,35] and accessibility [15,17] were the most important factors attracting birdwatchers. It remains unclear how birdwatching, as a typical bird–human interaction, is associated with bird habitat in urban parks.
Vegetation remote sensing has been used in various fields, such as vegetation cover classification [37,38,39], land surface temperature pattern analysis [40,41,42,43,44], species habitat characteristics [45,46,47] or identification [48,49,50,51,52] and ecosystem services assessment [53,54]. Predicting the habitat of the species and estimating the quality of the habitat is necessary to urban planning, green space management and biodiversity protection. However, it was seldom used in urban areas. Many models can be used to estimate wildlife habitats, including MaxEnt [32,55]. MaxEnt is a niche-based model [56,57] and has been widely used to estimate species distribution for conservation purposes [55,58] or species invasion risk [59,60]. MaxEnt model uses species presence-only data and a set of environmental indicators as input to produce a pixel-based probability map of species distribution as output [56]. MaxEnt has been applied in urban areas to model suitable habitats for birds [32]. Using MaxEnt to model bird habitat will benefit urban green infrastructure biodiversity protection and ecosystem services and provide a scientific basis for urban green infrastructure planning and designing.
Considering the essential role which urban parks play in providing bird habitats and hosting birdwatching activities, relatively few researchers have studied the whole picture of “parks, birds and birdwatchers” or examined the complex dynamics among them. This paper aims to explore the spatial patterns of bird habitats and birdwatching activities, as well as potential factors which may influence them. This study aims to explore these questions in the parks of Beijing, China. Specifically, we ask two questions: (1) What are the spatial patterns of parks’ bird habitats and birdwatching activities in Beijing? (2) What factors may affect the amount of habitats and birdwatching services provided by urban parks?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

We focused our study in the urban area of Beijing, defined as the areas within the fifth ring road (Figure 1). It has a total area of 66,600 ha [61], with a population of 10.5 million [62]. This is the most densely populated area in Beijing. The average population density was 157 people/ha. There are 317 urban parks in Beijing, which received 250 million visits in 2010 [63]. We chose 102 urban parks [64] (Figure 1) as our study area, which received the majority of visits [65]. For example, in our study area, the eleven parks funded and managed by the city received 94 million visits in 2017 [66]. The 102 parks vary substantially in terms of size and park age. The total area of a park ranges from less than 1 ha to nearly 400 ha. The oldest parks were built hundreds of years ago as imperial gardens, while the new ones were built recently (i.e., Olympic Forest Park).
Beijing has a total of 21 orders, 74 families, 423 species and 173 breeding birds [67]. Among the 423 bird species in Beijing, 30 species were listed as threatened species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature [68]. The first organized birdwatching activity in China took place in Beijing in 1996 [69,70]. Nowadays, birdwatching is a popular activity. Every week, there is at least one public birdwatching event taking place in the parks of Beijing [71,72]. With a variety of parks, abundant bird species and vigorous birdwatching activities, Beijing provides a suitable study area to explore our research questions.

2.2. Data

2.2.1. Bird Census

We conducted our bird census survey in seven parks. We selected the seven parks as samples out of the 102 parks, considering their size, location and age (Figure 1, Table S1). We conducted a three-month bird survey during the breeding season, March–July 2017. For each park, we designed a survey route along the road, which covered most park areas. Along the route, we selected observation sites every 150 m for parks smaller than 150 ha and every 200 m for those larger than 200 ha (Figure 2). As a result, we had 159 sample points in total. We used the sample point count method in the bird census [73]. At each sample point, we stayed for five minutes and counted the species and the number of individual birds sited within a 25 m radius. We conducted each survey within the first four hours after sunrise.

2.2.2. Possible Influencing Factors: Park Characteristics and Land Cover

We considered factors which may influence bird habitats and birdwatching from several aspects: accessibility and urbanization degree of a park and its surrounding area, park size and age and the landscape composition and configuration in a park (Table S2).
We used high spatial resolution land cover data extracted from the Pleiades satellite imagery to quantify the composition and configuration of park landscapes. These landscape composition and configuration variables were further used to investigate their potential association with bird habitat area and number of birdwatching records in parks. The Pleiades image was acquired on 19 September 2015. It has one 0.5 m spatial resolution panchromatic band (470–830 nm) and four multispectral bands with 2 m spatial resolution (blue: 430–550 nm; green: 500–620 nm; red: 590–710 nm; near-infrared: 740–940 nm). The image was preprocessed using ERDASTM. The land cover classification included seven types: woodland (i.e., woody vegetation), grassland (i.e., herbaceous vegetation), building, road, pavement, waterbody and bare land [61]. An object-based approach was used for the land cover classification. We first segmented the image into objects, using the fractal net evolution approach that is embedded in the software eCognitionTM. The segmentation algorithm uses a bottom-up region merging method, starting with each pixel in the image as an individual segment which is then merged into larger ones. After segmentation, the image objects were then classified using a rule-based classifier built on a class hierarchy and associated features and rules for classifications [61]. Extensive manual editing was conducted to further refine the classification. The overall accuracy of the classification was 84.56%, with a Kappa value of 0.82. The producer’s and user’s accuracies ranged from 71.43% to 100% and from 81.08% to 88.24%, respectively.
In addition, we also used medium resolution (30 m) Landsat ETM+ images to calculate the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and a Digital Elevation Model (DEM 30) obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to calculate slope through 3D analysis (Table 1). Land cover types, NDVI and slope were used as input of MaxEnt model, which will be explained in Section 2.3. The Landsat ETM+ image was retrieved in summer 2016. The DEM 30 was retrieved in 2011. Park boundaries and entrances were manually mapped according to an online mapping platform (Amap.com) and validated through a ground-truth survey from 14 October to 20 November 2015 [74]. Since land cover and vegetation structure in parks did not experience significant change over recent years, we believe that the time gap between different data acquisitions had little significant impact on the results of the study.

2.2.3. Birdwatching Record

We obtained birdwatching records from the website of the China Birdwatching Record Center [75]. The China Birdwatching Record Center is a citizen science website where registered users can upload birdwatching records. A typical record contains the following information: location, date, recorder ID, weather, watching equipment, watching route, bird species and the number of bird individuals. The most active time for the China Birdwatching Record Center website was 2008 to 2014. Then, it experienced a decline with the growth of smartphone-based social media. We derived all the birdwatching records submitted within the 102 parks between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2013 and used the total number of birdwatching records in each park to represent its service for birdwatching.

2.3. Modeling Bird Habitats in Parks

We used the maximum entropy method (MaxEnt) to estimate bird habitats in the 102 parks based on results from the bird census survey and land cover dataset. In this study, we focused on habitats for breeding birds to represent overall bird habitats because breeding birds have a relatively stable nest location, territory and well-documented breeding traits (nest location and nest type, body length and body weight) [26,67,76,77]. The point of bird occurrence is likely to be within their breeding territories, making a strong link with the spatial properties of the habitat.
First, we identified the breeding birds according to the bird checklist in Beijing [67]. Then, we grouped them into different guilds by traits including body length, body weight, nest location and nest type. Next, we ran the MaxEnt model to estimate distribution for each guild. Finally, we merged the distribution maps for all guilds to generate a bird habitat map.
In order to group breeding birds into different guilds, we input body length, body weight, nest location and nest type data to draw a dendrogram in the RTM program [76,77]. We used the Functional Diversity (FD) package to calculate the Gower distance matrix of these traits, which evaluated the overall dissimilarity of species or taxa [78]. We chose the average method of hierarchical clustering to generate a trait dendrogram. The branch lengths in the resulting dendrogram between clusters were calculated by pairwise distances. We decided to use the distance of 0.18 as a threshold to balance the number of guilds and their dissimilarity. As a result, we divided the breeding birds into thirteen functional guilds (Figure 3) and generated a presence–absence dataset for each guild. We have included the command syntax for R in the Supplementary Materials. Detailed steps on how to generate a dendrogram can be found in this book [79]. Finally, we input the bird presence–absence dataset along with land cover type, normalized difference vegetation index, slope, distance to city center and distance to the nearest water body into the MaxEnt model (Table 1). It worth noting that the MaxEnt model requires a minimum sample size of 14—that is, birds of a guild observed at 14 sites or more. Therefore, we excluded the water surface open nest guild (observed at five sites) and the reed open nest guild (observed at one site) from further analysis.
As a result, the MaxEnt model generated a probability map of distribution probability for each guild at the resolution of 30 m × 30 m. We used 25% presence data for model testing. For each guild, we ran the Digital Elevation Model14 times to generate the distribution probability map. We assessed the model accuracy by the threshold-independent evaluation statistic method. The threshold is the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver’s operating characteristic [80]. After this, we defined habitat as a distribution probability value higher than 0.60. Then, we merged the suitable habitats for all the guilds (Table S3) to represent bird habitat and calculated the total area.

2.4. Analyses

We first conducted a correlation analysis between the number of birdwatching records and habitat areas generated by MaxEnt modeling. We excluded parks with no habitat or birdwatching record in this analysis.
Then, we used stepwise regression analysis to investigate how possible influencing factors may explain variations in habitat area and birdwatching records. We conducted two stepwise regression analyses with bird habitat area and the number of birdwatching records as dependent variables, respectively. Independent variables for both regressions included three aspects: park size and age, accessibility and urbanization degree of a park and its surrounding area and the landscape composition and configuration in a park (Table S2). In addition, we added bird habitat area as an independent variable in the regression which had the number of birdwatching records as a dependent variable. We tested collinearity between the variables by correlation analysis and variance inflation coefficient (VIF). The results were included in Tables S4 and S5, respectively. Stepwise regression was able to identify independent variables that were highly correlated and the final model only contained independent variables with a relatively low degree of autocorrelation.
Finally, we conducted a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to investigate the differences between parks with and without birdwatching records (Table S2). We separated parks with and without birdwatching records into two groups and compared them to determine whether any of the variables in terms of park size and age, accessibility, urbanization degree and landscape composition and configuration were significantly different across the two groups. All the analyses were conducted in SPSSTM. Additionally, we used ArcGISTM 10.0 to visualize the spatial distributions of bird habitat area and the number of birdwatching records.

3. Results

3.1. Bird Census and Modeling

We found 79 species from the bird survey, among which 53 were breeding species. We identified 13 functional guilds for the 53 breeding species based on their breeding traits (Table S3). As the MaxEnt model requires a minimum sample size of 14, 11 out of the 13 functional guilds were entered into the model. The model passed the AUC accuracy test with the values ranging from 0.71 to 0.85 (Table S6). More details on the accuracy test are included in the Supplementary Materials.

3.2. Spatial Patterns and Relationships of Park’s Bird Habitats and Birdwatching Records

Our results showed that 61 parks had habitats at least for one breeding guild. The area of habitat in each park ranged from 0.09 ha to 169 ha, with an average of 17 ha. The habitat proportion ranged from 0.45% to 71%, with an average of 19%. Most parks with large bird habitat areas were located in the central and northern regions of the city (Figure 4a). The top five parks with large bird habitats areas are Summer Palace, Olympic Forest Park, Yuanmingyuan Park, Heaven Temple and Chaoyang Park.
The China Birdwatching Record Center had 330 birdwatching records in 26 parks from 2009 to 2013. For individual parks, the record number ranged from 1 to 75, with a mean value of 12. Most parks with lots of birdwatching records are located in the middle and the northwest of the city (Figure 4b). The top five parks with high birdwatching records were Olympic Forest Park, Heaven Temple, Summer Palace, Yuanmingyuan Park and Black Bamboo Park, four of which were also listed as the top five parks with large bird habitat areas (Figure 4a). Among the 26 parks with birdwatching records, 22 had bird habitats (0.15–169 ha). Our results showed that the bird habitat area was significantly associated with the number of birdwatching records (r = 0.828, p < 0.01, n = 22) (Figure 4b).

3.3. Park Characteristics Explaining Variations in Bird Habitat Area and Birdwatching Activities

The stepwise regression results showed that park size, age, proportion of pavement, landscape connectedness, pavements largest patch index and woodland patch density (Table 2) explained 95% of the variation in bird habitat area. Parks that are larger and older and have less pavement, better connected landscapes and less woodland patches tend to have larger areas of suitable bird habitats.
In terms of the number of birdwatching records, our results showed that park size and the woodland landscape shape index together explained 80% of its variation (Table 2). Parks that are larger and have woodland in relatively regular shapes tend to have more birdwatching records. However, after we added bird habitat area as an independent variable, park size and woodland landscape shape index were no longer significant. Results indicated that bird habitat area explained 65% of the variation in birdwatching records.
Results from the one-way ANOVA analysis revealed significant differences in park size between parks with and without birdwatching records (Table 3, Figure 5). Firstly, parks with birdwatching records were significantly larger than their counterparts. After the effect of park size was considered, results showed that parks with birdwatching records were older, closer to city center and more accessible than those that had no reported birdwatching.

4. Discussion

4.1. Spatial Patterns of Parks with Bird Habitats and Birdwatching Record

Our results indicated that parks with relatively more habitats and/or birdwatching activities clustered along the “central axis”, which started from the Forbidden City (the center of Beijing in both ancient and modern times), stretched all the way to the north and ended in the Olympic Forestry Park (designed with a dragon-shaped waterbody to echo the Forbidden City). Parks along the central axis often have historical and cultural legacies that can be traced back to dynasties. For example, the Beihai Park was built in 1163 and has served as an imperial home and garden since 1179. The Beijing Zoo was built in the Qing Dynasty upon royal gardens. Researchers found that high density of old trees contributes to bird richness [24], which could explain the connections between ancient parks and suitable bird habitats. In contrast, parks between the third and the fifth ring roads were built more recently, provided less bird habitats and attracted less birdwatchers.
Results showed that numbers of birdwatching records in parks located in the northwest area were high. The northwest area in Beijing hosts the IT companies (known as the Chinese “Silicon Valley”), quite a few well-known universities and residents with good education (Figure 4). The spatial overlap between highly educated residents and parks with active birdwatching activities may not be a coincidence. Birdwatchers usually have a relatively high education level [70]. Moreover, living close to parks tended to increase birdwatching and interacting with birds [15,17,32]. The spatial overlaps observed in this study confirmed these previous findings regarding the education level of birdwatchers and “nearby birdwatching” in urban areas.

4.2. Relationship between Parks with Bird Habitats and Birdwatching Record

We found the area of bird habitat was the most important independent variable explaining the variation in the number of birdwatching records. Habitat area is usually considered to be associated with bird species richness [30], so this finding is consistent with previous studies which found that bird species richness is a major indicator of locations where birdwatching activities may take place [17,35,36]. With that being said, bird habitat was clearly not a sufficient condition to attract birdwatchers. Among the 66 parks with bird habitats, only 22 of them had birdwatching records. Accessibility played an important role in attracting birdwatchers. Our analysis showed that parks with birdwatching records were closer to the downtown area with more roads, bus stops and metro stations nearby, compared with parks with no birdwatching records.
Interestingly, bird habitat was not a necessary condition for birdwatching either. Among the 26 parks with birdwatching records, four of them were estimated to have few bird habitats according to our results. We did not conduct the one-way ANOVA analysis to examine differences in park characteristics’ due to the small sample size. These four parks were all relatively small (0.8 to 8 ha) compared to the average park size of 41 ha. We might underestimate bird habitat in the four small parks due to the limitation of MaxEnt modeling, which will be discussed later in the limitation section. In addition, there are other parks within a 1-mile radius of these four parks, which may provide habitats for birds. Lastly, birdwatching records indicated that birds which appeared in the four parks were Eurasian Tree Sparrow (Passer montanus), Common Magpie (Pica pica), Azure-winged Magpie (Cyanopica cyanus), Large-billed Crow (Corvus macrorhynchos) and Carrion Crow (Corvus corone). These species are resident birds well adapted to urban environments, which contain a large proportion of impervious surfaces (such as buildings, pavements and roads). Future on-site study is needed to investigate parks with few habitats hosting birdwatchers by using high-resolution spatial data.
It is also worth noting that environmental non-government organizations (NGOs) played an essential role in introducing and promoting birdwatching activities [18,70]. The three parks with the most birdwatching records all host birdwatching activities organized by NGOs on a regular basis.

4.3. Impacts of Park Characteristics on Bird Habitats and Birdwatching

Results showed that park size was an important factor. Larger parks tend to have more bird habitats and birdwatching records. Park size is commonly used as an indicator to describe the quality of a park in studies evaluating their attractiveness to people as well as their ecosystem services in general [81,82]. Our findings provide evidence that parks with larger sizes contribute to both supporting bird species as well as hosting birdwatching activities. Despite these benefits of large parks, it is not always feasible to enlarge a park. Our results indicate that certain landscape patterns, such as less pavements, may increase bird habitats and birdwatching records, which could be achieved through proper design. Previous studies also found that larger parks usually have high bird richness [9,16,21] and also found that less pavements can promote bird richness [29].
Furthermore, our results also showed that accessibility determined whether a park would be attractive to birdwatchers, which is consistent with previous studies conducted in protected areas and national parks [15,17]. We found that small parks with limited bird habitats but good accessibility still hosted some birdwatching activities. For example, Liuyin Park is 15 ha in size, with 3 ha bird habitat (compared with the mean values of 41 and 10, respectively). With a score of 51 in accessibility (number of metro and bus stops, compared with the mean value of 31), it contributed six out of 330 birdwatching records. So, increasing the number of bus stops and subway stations can help to attract more birdwatchers.

4.4. Limitations

This study has several limitations. Firstly, we only considered birdwatchers for the benefits brought by birds. Park visitors who did not intend to watch birds or submit birdwatching records may also enjoy the presence of birds in parks, but they were not considered in this approach. Furthermore, using the number of birdwatching records may oversample areas with rare or exotic birds. For example, the Bluethroat (Luscinia svecica) appeared in the Olympic Forest Park and attracted three records within four days between May 16 and 19, 2010. Future studies should consider the possibilities of eliminating such impact, such as surveying visitors to estimate how they enjoy birds in parks.
Secondly, the MaxEnt model worked on a resolution of 30m * 30m and was not able to capture habitats smaller than this scale. This may result in an underestimation of the total bird habitat area in small parks. While it did generate habitat estimates successfully in the 11 out of 33 parks smaller than 8 ha (Table S7), four parks smaller than 8 ha that reported birdwatching records were estimated to have few habitats by the model. Future studies should investigate what causes the inconsistency between suitable bird habitats and birdwatching records in the parks as well as apply high-resolution data and combine them with small-scale surveys to make the habitat estimation of small-scale parks more accurate.
Lastly, we employed land cover based on high-resolution remote sensing data as input for the MaxEnt model to estimate bird habitats in this study. Therefore, we carry the limitations of remote sensing images, which hardly detect the vertical vegetation structure, such as conditions of shrubs under arbor cover and length or quality of grass. Such 3D vegetation structures that are captured by remote sensing data may impact bird habitats [9,16,21,83].

5. Conclusions

We investigated the factors that impact bird habitats and birdwatching activities in urban parks of Beijing. Our results showed that parks with large areas and a long history tend to provide more bird habitats and birdwatching services. Besides size and age, park landscape pattern also has an impact on bird habitat area. Parks with less pavement cover, less clustered pavements and better-connected landscapes tend to have more bird suitable habitats. Birdwatching activities were highly associated with suitable bird habitats, as the area of habitat can explain 65% of the variation in birdwatching records. In addition, park location and accessibility also contributed to the popularity of a park as a birdwatching destination. Providing habitats in cities and connecting urban residents with nature are the fundamental goals of urban parks. Here, we focus on birds and birdwatching to examine what factors may help or impede parks in fulfilling these objectives. Our findings will inform park planners and managers about strategies and measures that can help them better achieve one or both goals.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/12/19/3166/s1, The command syntax of drawing a trait dendrogram in RTM. Table S1. Location, size, age and waterbody of sample parks, Table S2. Independent variables for statistical analysis, Table S3. Name list of breeding guilds, Table S4. Correlation matrix of landscape index, Table S5. The variance inflation coefficient (VIF) of index in regression, Table S6. The area under the curve (AUC) of each guild habitat assessment in MaxEnt model, Table S7. Parks with bird habitats of less than 1.6 ha.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.H.; methodology, Z.Z., and G.H.; software, Z.Z.; validation, G.H.; formal analysis, Z.Z.; investigation, Z.Z.; resources, G.H.; data curation, Z.Z.; writing—original draft, Z.Z.; writing—review and editing, G.H.; visualization, Z.Z.; supervision, G.H.; project administration, G.H.; funding acquisition, G.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31670702).

Acknowledgments

We thank Tianhui Wang (Beijing Forestry University) for the graphic abstract materials. We appreciate constructive suggestions from both anonymous reviewers and academic editors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Goddard, M.A.; Dougill, A.J.; Benton, T.G. Scaling up from gardens: Biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Fuller, R.A.; Irvine, K.N.; Devine-Wright, P.; Warren, P.H.; Gaston, K.J. Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol. Lett. 2007, 3, 390–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ratcliffe, E.; Gatersleben, B.; Sowden, P.T. Bird sounds and their contributions to perceived attention restoration and stress recovery. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 36, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Brock, M.; Perino, G.; Sugden, R. The Warden Attitude: An Investigation of the Value of Interaction with Everyday Wildlife. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2017, 67, 127–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Clucas, B.; Rabotyagov, S.; Marzluff, J.M. How much is that birdie in my backyard? A cross-continental economic valuation of native urban songbirds. Urban Ecosyst. 2015, 18, 251–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hedblom, M.; Heyman, E.; Antonsson, H.; Gunnarsson, B. Bird song diversity influences young people’s appreciation of urban landscapes. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 469–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hedblom, M.; Knez, I.; Gunnarsson, B. Bird Diversity Improves the Well-Being of City Residents. In Ecology and Conservation of Birds in Urban Environments; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 287–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jokimaki, J.; Suhonen, J. Distribution and habitat selection of wintering birds in urban environments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1998, 39, 253–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fernández-Juricic, E.; Poston, R.; De Collibus, K.; Morgan, T.; Bastain, B.; Martin, C.; Jones, K.; Treminio, R. Microhabitat selection and singing behavior patterns of male house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus) in urban parks in a heavily urbanized landscape in the Western US. Urban Habitats 2005, 3, 49–69. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen, S.; Ding, P.; Zheng, G.; Wang, Y. Bird community patterns in response to the island features of urban woodlots in eastern China. Front. Biol. China 2006, 1, 448–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fernandez-Juricic, E.; Jokimäki, J. A habitat island approach to conserving birds in urban landscapes: Case studies from southern and northern Europe. Biodivers. Conserv. 2001, 10, 2023–2043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Seewagen, C.L.; Slayton, E.J. Mass Changes Of Migratory Landbirds During Stopovers in A New York City Park. Wilson J. Ornithol. 2008, 120, 296–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cabrera-Cruz, S.A.; Cohen, E.B.; Smolinsky, J.A.; Buler, J.J. Artificial Light at Night is Related to Broad-Scale Stopover Distributions of Nocturnally Migrating Landbirds along the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Kellert, S.R.; Brown, P.J. Human dimensions information in wildlife management, policy, and planning: Introductory comments to the special issue on human dimensions in wildlife management. Leis. Sci. Interdiscip. J. 1985, 7, 269–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Vas, K. Birding blogs as indicators of birdwatcher characteristics and trip preferences: Implications for birding destination planning and development. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2017, 6, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Morelli, F.; Benedetti, Y.; Su, T.; Zhou, B.; Moravec, D.; Šímová, P.; Liang, W. Taxonomic diversity, functional diversity and evolutionary uniqueness in bird communities of Beijing’s urban parks: Effects of land use and vegetation structure. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 23, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Graves, R.A.; Pearson, S.M.; Turner, M.G. Effects of bird community dynamics on the seasonal distribution of cultural ecosystem services. Ambio 2018, 48, 280–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ma, Z.; Cheng, Y.; Wang, J.; Fu, X. The rapid development of birdwatching in mainland China: A new force for bird study and conservation. Bird Conserv. Int. 2012, 23, 259–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. McGarigal, K. FRAGSTATS Help. Documentation for FRAGSTATS 4; University of Massachusetts: Amherst, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fernández-Juricic, E. Spatial and temporal analysis of the distribution of forest specialists in an urban-fragmented landscape (Madrid, Spain). Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 69, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Huang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Li, S.; von Gadow, K. The Effects of habitat area, vegetation structure and insect richness on breeding bird populations in Beijing urban parks. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 1027–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Xie, S.; Lu, F.; Cao, L.; Zhou, W.; Ouyang, Z. Multi-scale factors influencing the characteristics of avian communities in urban parks across Beijing during the breeding season. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 29350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Schutz, C.; Schulze, C.H. Functional diversity of urban bird communities: Effects of landscape composition, green space area and vegetation cover. Ecol. Evol. 2015, 5, 5230–5239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Fernández-Juricic, E. Bird community composition patterns in urban parks of Madrid_the role of age, size and isolation 2000. Ecol. Res. 2000, 15, 373–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhou, W.; Pickett, S.T.A.; Cadenasso, M.L. Shifting concepts of urban spatial heterogeneity and their implications for sustainability. Landsc. Ecol. 2016, 32, 15–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Stagoll, K.; Manning, A.D.; Knight, E.; Fischer, J.; Lindenmayer, D.B. Using bird–habitat relationships to inform urban planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 98, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Grafius, D.R.; Corstanje, R.; Siriwardena, G.M.; Plummer, K.E.; Harris, J.A. A bird’s eye view: Using circuit theory to study urban landscape connectivity for birds. Landsc. Ecol. 2017, 32, 1771–1787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Amaya-Espinel, J.D.; Hostetler, M.; Henríquez, C.; Bonacic, C. The influence of building density on Neotropical bird communities found in small urban parks. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 190, 103578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Souza, F.L.; Valente-Neto, F.; Severo-Neto, F.; Bueno, B.; Ochoa-Quintero, J.M.; Laps, R.R.; Bolzan, F.; de Oliveira Roque, F. Impervious surface and heterogeneity are opposite drivers to maintain bird richness in a Cerrado city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 192, 103643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Marzluff, J.M.; Bowman, R.; Donnelly, R. (Eds.) Avian Ecology and Conservation in an Urbanizing World; Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhou, D.; Chu, L.M. How would size, age, human disturbance, and vegetation structure affect bird communities of urban parks in different seasons? J. Ornithol. 2012, 153, 1101–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Davis, A.Y.; Belaire, A.; Fafran, M.A.; Milz, D.; Sweeney, E.R.; Loss, S.R.; Minor, E.S. Green infrastructure and bird diversity across an urban socioeconomic gradient. Ecosphere 2012, 3, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Le Louarn, M.; Clergeau, P.; Strubbe, D.; Deschamps-Cottin, M. Dynamic species distribution models reveal spatiotemporal habitat shifts in native range-expanding versus non-native invasive birds in an urban area. J. Avian Biol. 2018, 49, e01527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sushinsky, J.R.; Rhodes, J.R.; Possingham, H.P.; Gill, T.K.; Fuller, R.A. How should we grow cities to minimize their biodiversity impacts? Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19, 401–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Booth, J.E.; Gaston, K.J.; Evans, K.L.; Armsworth, P.R. The value of species rarity in biodiversity recreation: A birdwatching example. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 2728–2732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cumming, G.S.; Maciejewski, K. Reconciling community ecology and ecosystem services: Cultural services and benefits from birds in South African National Parks. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 28, 219–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kuang, W.; Dou, Y. Investigating the Patterns and Dynamics of Urban Green Space in China’s 70 Major Cities Using Satellite Remote Sensing. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Baker, F.; Smith, C.; Cavan, G. A Combined Approach to Classifying Land Surface Cover of Urban Domestic Gardens Using Citizen Science Data and High Resolution Image Analysis. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Fisher, J.R.B.; Acosta, E.A.; Dennedy-Frank, P.J.; Kroeger, T.; Boucher, T.M.; Pettorelli, N.; Buchanan, G. Impact of satellite imagery spatial resolution on land use classification accuracy and modeled water quality. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 2018, 4, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sobrino, J.A.; Irakulis, I. A Methodology for Comparing the Surface Urban Heat Island in Selected Urban Agglomerations Around the World from Sentinel-3 SLSTR Data. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Romaguera, M.; Vaughan, R.G.; Ettema, J.; Izquierdo-Verdiguier, E.; Hecker, C.A.; van der Meer, F.D. Detecting geothermal anomalies and evaluating LST geothermal component by combining thermal remote sensing time series and land surface model data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2018, 204, 534–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wang, R.; Gao, W.; Peng, W. Downscale MODIS Land Surface Temperature Based on Three Different Models to Analyze Surface Urban Heat Island: A Case Study of Hangzhou. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ermida, S.L.; Trigo, I.F.; DaCamara, C.C.; Roujean, J.-L. Assessing the potential of parametric models to correct directional effects on local to global remotely sensed LST. Remote Sens. Environ. 2018, 209, 410–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Heck, E.; de Beurs, K.M.; Owsley, B.C.; Henebry, G.M. Evaluation of the MODIS collections 5 and 6 for change analysis of vegetation and land surface temperature dynamics in North and South America. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2019, 156, 121–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bleyhl, B.; Baumann, M.; Griffiths, P.; Heidelberg, A.; Manvelyan, K.; Radeloff, V.C.; Zazanashvili, N.; Kuemmerle, T. Assessing landscape connectivity for large mammals in the Caucasus using Landsat 8 seasonal image composites. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017, 193, 193–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Richter, R.; Heim, A.; Heim, W.; Kamp, J.; Vohland, M. Combining Multiband Remote Sensing and Hierarchical Distance Sampling to Establish Drivers of Bird Abundance. Remote Sens. 2019, 12, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Cai, D.; Fraedrich, K.; Guan, Y.; Guo, S.; Zhang, C.; Carvalho, L.M.V.; Zhu, X. Causality of Biodiversity Loss: Climate, Vegetation, and Urbanization in China and America. Sensors 2019, 19, 4499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Jacob, A.L.; Bonnell, T.R.; Dowhaniuk, N.; Hartter, J. Topographic and spectral data resolve land cover misclassification to distinguish and monitor wetlands in western Uganda. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2014, 94, 114–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zielewska-Büttner, K.; Heurich, M.; Müller, J.; Braunisch, V. Remotely Sensed Single Tree Data Enable the Determination of Habitat Thresholds for the Three-Toed Woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus). Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Bonthoux, S.; Lefèvre, S.; Herrault, P.-A.; Sheeren, D. Spatial and Temporal Dependency of NDVI Satellite Imagery in Predicting Bird Diversity over France. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Remelgado, R.; Leutner, B.; Safi, K.; Sonnenschein, R.; Kuebert, C.; Wegmann, M.; Pettorelli, N.; Ryan, S. Linking animal movement and remote sensing-mapping resource suitability from a remote sensing perspective. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 2018, 4, 211–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Wicaksono, P.; Aryaguna, P.A.; Lazuardi, W. Benthic Habitat Mapping Model and Cross Validation Using Machine-Learning Classification Algorithms. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Pettorelli, N.; Schulte to Bühne, H.; Tulloch, A.; Dubois, G.; Macinnis-Ng, C.; Queirós, A.M.; Keith, D.A.; Wegmann, M.; Schrodt, F.; Stellmes, M.; et al. Satellite remote sensing of ecosystem functions: Opportunities, challenges and way forward. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 2018, 4, 71–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pilant, A.; Endres, K.; Rosenbaum, D.; Gundersen, G. US EPA EnviroAtlas Meter-Scale Urban Land Cover (MULC): 1-m Pixel Land Cover Class Definitions and Guidance. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Morris, K.M.; Soehren, E.C.; Woodrey, M.S.; Rush, S.A. Habitat-Suitability Model for the Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) in the Northern Gulf Coast of Alabama and Mississippi, USA. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Merow, C.; Smith, M.J.; Silander, J.A. A practical guide to MaxEnt for modeling species’ distributions: What it does, and why inputs and settings matter. Ecography 2013, 36, 1058–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Phillips, S.J.; Anderson, R.P.; Schapire, R.E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 2006, 190, 231–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Gallardo, B.; zu Ermgassen, P.S.E.; Aldridge, D.C.; Veech, J. Invasion ratcheting in the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) and the ability of native and invaded ranges to predict its global distribution. J. Biogeogr. 2013, 40, 2274–2284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Evangelista, P.; Stohlgren, T.; Morisette, J.; Kumar, S. Mapping Invasive Tamarisk (Tamarix): A Comparison of Single-Scene and Time-Series Analyses of Remotely Sensed Data. Remote Sens. 2009, 1, 519–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Liu, X.; Liu, H.; Gong, H.; Lin, Z.; Lv, S. Appling the One-Class Classification Method of Maxent to Detect an Invasive Plant Spartina alterniflora with Time-Series Analysis. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Qian, Y.; Zhou, W.; Yu, W.; Pickett, S.T.A. Quantifying spatiotemporal pattern of urban greenspace: New insights from high resolution data. Landsc. Ecol. 2015, 30, 1165–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bureau of Statistics of Beijing. Changes and Characteristics of Beijing’s Population Development in 2014. Available online: http://tjj.beijing.gov.cn/zxfbu/202002/t20200216_1636952.html (accessed on 22 May 2015).
  63. Beijing Municipal Administration Center of the Parks. The Report of Beijing Municipal Administration Center on the 2010 Work Summary and the 2011 Work Plan. Available online: http://report.bjmacp.gov.cn/xxgkxx.ASPX?newsid=112677 (accessed on 1 December 2016).
  64. Beijing Gardening and Greening Bureau. The Urban Parks of Beijing. Available online: http://yllhj.beijing.gov.cn/ggfw/gyfjqyl/cs/ (accessed on 1 January 2018).
  65. Beijing Municipal Administration of Culture and Tourism. Statistical Table of Maximum Carrying Capacity of A-Level Tourist Scenic in Beijing. Available online: http://whlyj.beijing.gov.cn/zwgk/tzgg/201809/P020200407399785305222.doc (accessed on 1 December 2018).
  66. The Report of Beijing Municipal Administration Center of Parks on the 2017 Work Summary and the 2018 Work Plan. Available online: http://gygl.beijing.gov.cn/xxgk/xxgk_ghjh/201912/t20191218_1269293.html (accessed on 23 March 2018).
  67. Bird Watch China Society. The Checklist of Birds of Beijing (2014 Edition); Bird Watch China Society: Beijing, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  68. IUCN. IUCN Endangered Species Redlist. 2016. Available online: http://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed on 9 November 2015).
  69. Cheng, Y.X.; Wang, J.Y.; He, X.; Ma, Z.J. Present status and development of birdwatching in mainland China. J. East China Norm. Univ. 2013, 2, 63. [Google Scholar]
  70. Walther, B.A.; White, A. The emergence of birdwatching in China: History, demographics, activities, motivations, and environmental concerns of Chinese birdwatchers. Bird Conserv. Int. 2018, 28, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Bird Watch China Society. The Topic of Birdwatching in Urban Green Island. Available online: http://bbs.cbw.org.cn/forum.php?mod=forumdisplay&fid=26 (accessed on 30 June 2018).
  72. Friends of Nature Wild Bird Society. Bird Survey 20 Years: Friends of Nature Wild Bird Society Publish Bird Survey Results at Beijing. Available online: http://www.sohu.com/a/116242097_403458 (accessed on 15 October 2016).
  73. Fuller, R.J.; Langslow, D.R. Estimating numbers of birds by point counts: How long should counts last? Bird Study 1984, 31, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Tu, X.; Huang, G.; Wu, J. Contrary to common observations in the west, urban park access is only weakly related to neighborhood socioeconomic conditions in Beijing, China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. China Birdwatching Record Center. Available online: http://www.szbird.org.cn/birdtalker.net/index.asp (accessed on 24 September 2020).
  76. Cai, Q. Birds of Beijing; Beijing Publishing House: Beijing, China, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  77. Zhao, Z.J. The Hand Book of Birds of China; Jilin Science and Technology Press House: Changchun, China, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  78. Gower, J.C. A General Coefficient of Similarity and Some of Its Properties. Biometrics 1971, 4, 857–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Swenson, N.G. Functional And Phylogenetic Ecology in R; Springer Science+Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 68–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Elith, J.; Leathwick, J. Predicting species distributions from museum and herbarium records using multiresponse models fitted with multivariate adaptive regression splines. Divers. Distrib. 2007, 13, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Dallimer, M.; Irvine, K.N.; Skinner, A.M.J.; Davies, Z.G.; Rouquette, J.R.; Maltby, L.L.; Warren, P.H.; Armsworth, P.R.; Gaston, K.J. Biodiversity and the Feel-Good Factor: Understanding Associations between Self-Reported Human Well-being and Species Richness. BioScience 2012, 62, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Schipperijn, J.; Stigsdotter, U.K.; Randrup, T.B.; Troelsen, J. Influences on the use of urban green space—A case study in Odense, Denmark. Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Carrasco, L.; Giam, X.; Papeş, M.; Sheldon, K. Metrics of Lidar-Derived 3D Vegetation Structure Reveal Contrasting Effects of Horizontal and Vertical Forest Heterogeneity on Bird Species Richness. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Remotesensing 12 03166 g001 550
Figure 1. The location of urban parks within the fifth ring road of Beijing.
Figure 1. The location of urban parks within the fifth ring road of Beijing.
Remotesensing 12 03166 g001
Remotesensing 12 03166 g002 550
Figure 2. Sample sites of bird census.
Figure 2. Sample sites of bird census.
Remotesensing 12 03166 g002
Remotesensing 12 03166 g003 550
Figure 3. Trait dendrogram for breeding guilds. Notes: The length of the branches in the vertical direction indicates the dissimilarity from other species. At the bottom of the dendrogram is the species name. The red horizontal line indicates the threshold 0.18 to distinguish breeding guilds. The numbers ❶–⓭ represent 13 breeding guilds identified by dendrogram.
Figure 3. Trait dendrogram for breeding guilds. Notes: The length of the branches in the vertical direction indicates the dissimilarity from other species. At the bottom of the dendrogram is the species name. The red horizontal line indicates the threshold 0.18 to distinguish breeding guilds. The numbers ❶–⓭ represent 13 breeding guilds identified by dendrogram.
Remotesensing 12 03166 g003
Remotesensing 12 03166 g004 550
Figure 4. Bird habitat area and number of birdwatching records in parks of Beijing. (a) Spatial distributions of bird habitat area and number of birdwatching records; (b) the numeric relationship between bird habitat area and number of birdwatching records.
Figure 4. Bird habitat area and number of birdwatching records in parks of Beijing. (a) Spatial distributions of bird habitat area and number of birdwatching records; (b) the numeric relationship between bird habitat area and number of birdwatching records.
Remotesensing 12 03166 g004
Remotesensing 12 03166 g005 550
Figure 5. Comparisons of park size with/without birdwatching records. Notes: park with no birdwatching, n = 76, park sizemean = 24.87 (ha), park with birdwatching, n = 26, park sizemean = 86.37 (ha).
Figure 5. Comparisons of park size with/without birdwatching records. Notes: park with no birdwatching, n = 76, park sizemean = 24.87 (ha), park with birdwatching, n = 26, park sizemean = 86.37 (ha).
Remotesensing 12 03166 g005
Table
Table 1. Input variables for maximum entropy method (MaxEnt) model.
Table 1. Input variables for maximum entropy method (MaxEnt) model.
VariableExplanationData Source
Bird distribution mapPresence–absence dataset for each breeding guildBird census survey
Land cover typeWoodland, grassland, waterbody, pavements, building, road, bare landLandsat ETM+ image, 2016
Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)
NDVI = N I R − R N I R + R
NIR: reflectance value at the near infrared red band
R: reflectance value at the red band		Landsat ETM+ image, 2016
SlopeDevelop from Digital Elevation Model (DEM 30) through 3D analysisDEM 30, 2011
Distance to city centerDirect distance from the site to city centerLandsat ETM+ image, 2016
Distance to waterbodyDirect distance to the nearest waterbodyLandsat ETM+ image, 2016
Table
Table 2. Results of stepwise regression models of factors that may impact bird habitat area and number of birdwatching records in parks.
Table 2. Results of stepwise regression models of factors that may impact bird habitat area and number of birdwatching records in parks.
Independent VariableDependent Variable
Area of Bird Habitat (n = 61)Number of Birdwatching Records (n = 26)
Standardized CoefficientSignificanceStandardized CoefficientSignificance
Park size1.011<0.0011.756<0.001
Park age0.292<0.001————
PLAND_pavements−0.613<0.001————
CONNECT0.1430.023————
LPI_pavements0.2280.002————
PD_woodland0.2300.003————
LSI_woodland————−1.0850.002
Area of bird habitat————0.820<0.001
Table
Table 3. Pairwise comparisons of parks with/without birdwatching records.
Table 3. Pairwise comparisons of parks with/without birdwatching records.
CategoryIndicators with Significant Differences (p < 0.05)Mean Value with Birdwatching
(n = 26) 1		Mean Value Without Bird Watching
(n = 76) 1
Basic indicatorPark size86.3724.87
Park age48.7319.00
UrbanizationDistance to city center6825.188889.76
AccessibilityNumber of bus stop42.9626.28
Number of subway station1.560.79
neighbor road density63.5145.19
Landscape composition and configurationPLAND_woodland56.0570.50
PLAND_pavements6.739.21
PD_woodland156.85239.89
ED_waterbody————
1 We used one-way ANOVA to identify the differences between parks with birdwatching and parks without birdwatching. n represents the number of parks.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, Z.; Huang, G. How Do Urban Parks Provide Bird Habitats and Birdwatching Service? Evidence from Beijing, China. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3166. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12193166

AMA Style

Zhang Z, Huang G. How Do Urban Parks Provide Bird Habitats and Birdwatching Service? Evidence from Beijing, China. Remote Sensing. 2020; 12(19):3166. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12193166

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Zhengkai, and Ganlin Huang. 2020. "How Do Urban Parks Provide Bird Habitats and Birdwatching Service? Evidence from Beijing, China" Remote Sensing 12, no. 19: 3166. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12193166

APA Style

Zhang, Z., & Huang, G. (2020). How Do Urban Parks Provide Bird Habitats and Birdwatching Service? Evidence from Beijing, China. Remote Sensing, 12(19), 3166. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12193166

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop