The influence of small urban parks characteristics on birddiversity: A case study of Petaling Jaya, Malaysia

Zanariah Jasmani1,2 & Hans Peter Ravn1& Cecil C. Konijnendijk van den Bosch1,3

Published online: 30 August 2016# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Abstract The capacity of small urban park to serve as urbanhabitats are rarely explored. This study analyses the character-istics of small urban parks and their potential to support urbanbiodiversity and ecological functions. Nine small urban parkswere studied in Malaysia in August and September 2014using the combined field survey method of structured obser-vation and field measurements. The measured variables weredivided into three broad categories of physical characteristics,species richness and human factors. Bird species richness andabundance were used as the indicators for assessing biodiver-sity. Pearson correlations and multiple regressions were con-ducted to analyse the relationships between variables and toidentify which variables had a significant effect on bird spe-cies richness and abundance. The results demonstrated thatpark area and vegetation variables ( e.g. the percentage of treecanopy cover, open grass/ground, native-exotic plants) are theimportant predictors of bird species richness and abundance.The percentage of canopy covers (negative relation) and parkarea (positive relation) are the best predictors of bird speciesrichness in small urban parks. Meanwhile, the best predictorsfor bird abundance are the percentage of canopy covers (neg-ative relation) and native vegetation species (positive

relation). Human activities and park surroundings have a mar-ginal effect on the presence of bird species in small parks.Based on the findings, we provide two general recommenda-tions that could probably increase bird diversity in small urbanparks: (1) the park development and management plan shouldincorporate a social-ecological approach that can benefit bothcity-dwellers and bird species, and (2) findings from the studyshould be used to rethink the planting design and compositionof especially newly established small urban parks.

Keywords Biodiversity . Human disturbance .

Socio-ecological approach . Urban green space . Urban birds

Introduction

In many developing countries, urbanisation results in increas-ing population, more demand for infrastructure, residentialand commercial developments. Due to this, the provision ofurban green spaces has become increasingly essential for bothhuman and ecology in cities. However, high demand for urbandevelopment can put pressure on urban green spaces andmake these green spaces smaller and more scattered.Designing small parks in cities is important for improvingthe quality of life in many ways, especially for enhancingurban biodiversity and ecosystem services. (Ikin et al. 2013;Shwartz et al. 2013). However, most studies on urban parks,biodiversity and ecosystem functions have focused on large-sized of parks (Qiu et al. 2013; Nielsen et al. 2014). Scholarshave suggested that small urban parks should be given atten-tion because of their potential as a supplementary to overallurban biodiversity (Shanahan et al. 2011; Shwartz et al. 2013;Strohbach et al. 2013; Kang et al. 2015). For assessing thebiodiversity of small urban parks, the richness of plants andanimals species can be used as indicators (Savard et al. 2000;

* Zanariah Jasmanizbj@ign.ku.dk; zanariahj@utm.my

1 Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management,Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23,1958 Frederiksberg. C, Denmark

2 Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of BuiltEnvironment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM Skudai,81310 Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia

3 Department of Landscape Architecture, Planning and Management,Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 58, S-230 53Alnarp, Uppsala, Sweden

Urban Ecosyst (2017) 20:227–243DOI 10.1007/s11252-016-0584-7

Shwartz et al. 2013). High biodiversity provides opportunitiesfor humans to experience nature and wildlife in cities, poten-tially creating a sense of peace and tranquillity as well asbenefiting human health and well-being (Clucas andMarzluff 2011; Szlavecz et al. 2011). Studies have demon-strated that green elements (ground covers, shrubs, trees)and water can stimulate mental restoration in small ur-ban parks (Nordh et al. 2009; Nordh et al. 2011;Peschardt et al. 2014).

Birds are often the most visible and abundant wildlife incities, and their presence in urban parks is expected and de-sired by most park visitors (Hails and Kavanagh 2013).However, some bird species are not desired by city dwellersand regarded as a nuisance to the environment (e.G. corvussplendens (House Crow) and Columba livia (Rock Pigeon))(Lim et al. 2003; Skandrani et al. 2014). Various factors caninfluence the interaction between humans and birds in urbanparks. Human activities may unintentionally negatively affectbirds in urban parks, for example walking near the birds’foraging area and nesting sites or by disturbing breeding be-haviour (Chace and Walsh 2006; Møller 2008; Clucas andMarzluff 2011). Huge amounts of food wastes from humansin urban areas will attract unwanted scavenging birds likeCorvus splendens (House Crow) (Lim and Sodhi 2004).Moreover, invasive birds can become a threat to small nativebirds through food sources competition and/or nesting exploi-tation (Chace and Walsh 2006; Peck et al. 2014).

In this study, small urban parks were defined as small-scaleurban green spaces with a size between 0.5 to 3.5 ha, whichincluded parks that had a well-defined boundary and providedopportunities for public recreation. Due to their limited size,small urban parks may receive high pressures from the sur-roundings. Only a few studies have explored the capability ofsmall parks to function as a habitat for urban wildlife (Carbó-Ramírez and Zuria 2011; Strohbach et al. 2013). Therefore,more studies and deeper understanding of how to plan andmanage small urban parks for maintaining or even increasingbird diversity can be of great value for urban biodiversity andthe provision of ecological functions. In understanding thefunctioning of ecosystem and biodiversity in small urbanparks, better assessment of the overall characteristics of theparks is needed (Kang et al. 2015).

The objectives of the present study were: (1) to assess theeffect of park characteristics related to vegetation richness andstructure and human-related factors on bird communities insmall urban parks; and based on this (2) to provide recommen-dations for planning and management of small urban parksthat can support urban bird diversity. The study attempted toprovide a practical, cost-effective socio-ecological assessmentof urban parks as a first step in enhancing knowledge on, forexample, bird community patterns in cities, factors that influ-ence these, and ways to increase bird diversity through plan-ning, design, and management. We expected that park

characteristics such as size, shape, and land use contribute tobird diversity. We hypothesised based on the literature thatvegetation diversity and structures are important factors forincreasing bird species richness and abundance in small urbanparks due to the availability of nesting sites and food re-sources. We also expected that bird species richness and abun-dance will decrease when activities in the park and the sur-roundings increase.

Methods

Study area

The field survey was carried out in August–September 2014in nine small urban parks in the city of Petaling Jaya, Selangor,Malaysia. Petaling Jaya is Malaysia’s first satellite new townlocated 11 km from the capital, Kuala Lumpur. The city wasplanned and designed in the 1950s based on the British modelof an ideal modern city to alleviate the congestion of KualaLumpur (Ju et al. 2011). All selected parks in this study areadministered by Petaling Jaya City Council (Fig. 1). We usedsatellite imagery from Google Earth to identify the locationand size of the parks. All nine parks were chosen based on thecriteria of size, location, and function. The size of the parks isbetween 0.5 to 3.5 ha, and all are publicly accessible. Thisstudy excluded parks that are specifically designed for certainphysical activities, e.g. skateboard park because such parkscan limit other activities.

Data collection

In this study, which is part of a larger socio-ecological assess-ment study of small urban parks, we were mainly interested inthe effects of the local landscape context on bird diversity. Westudied bird species since birds are relatively conspicuous andthus fairly easy to survey. Furthermore, birds are excellentindicators for assessing habitat quality and environmentalchange (Sandström et al. 2006; Fontana et al. 2011).Secondary information about the surrounding land use andactivities was obtained from the Selangor PlanningInformation System (SISMAPS version 2- an online GISmap for the public) (Fig. 2). For primary data collection, wecombined structured observation with a non-participant andfield measurement method to examine the park characteristics,human, plants and bird species. Structured observation wasused to capture the variety of human activities, bird speciesand abundance, soundscape and smells in the studied parks. Inobserving humans and birds, the observers did not need tointeract or communicate with the subject, and it is unobtru-sive. Field measurement involved several equipments to mea-sure sound levels, tree diameter, landscape features and ambi-ent temperature.

228 Urban Ecosyst (2017) 20:227–243

The survey was carried out for three consecutive workingdays by five observers. The criteria that needed to be observedwere clearly defined and categorised in the survey form beforeconducting the observation. We excluded weekends and pub-lic holidays for data consistency and comparability. Each parkwas observed for two hours each in the morning (7.30–9.30 h), afternoon (12.30–14.30 h) and evening (17.00–19.00 h). The weather conditions during the survey were sta-ble, partially cloudy to sunny with a light breeze, no rain andthe temperature range of 27-34 °C. When rain did interruptmeasurements, the observation procedure was repeated fromthe beginning of the next day to keep the data consistent.

Bird surveys

Bird species and abundance were recorded three times a day dueaforementioned periods. For bird observation, we used 40 m to50 m radius point counts (three points in each park) (Fig. 3).Birds seen within the radius were recorded, and birds that wereonly flying overhead without making any connection with thestudied area (such as feeding or perching on trees or structures)were ignored. In order to detect as many bird species as possible,we also used time survey method in which the observerssearched throughout the park especially in areas with dense veg-etation and containing suitable habitats for bird species. (Kadlecet al. 2012). Pictures of the observed birds were taken with ahigh-resolution digital camera and species name was identifiedusing Davison and Aik (2010). We did not distinguish between

nesting and visiting birds as distinction was difficult. Bird abun-dance was defined as the average number of individuals presentand frequency of the species presence in each park. For birdabundance, we estimated the number of each species and itsfrequency using the scale value of 1 to 10; (1–2 = very low),(3–4 = low), (5–6 = medium), (7–8 = high), (>10 = very high).

Variables measured

Physical characteristics

Information that was recorded included surrounding land use,topography, size, shape, context (proximity to road and infra-structure), buildings and facilities, and the presence of waterbodies. The general description of each park also referred to,e.g., the occurrence of construction nearby if any, temporarystructures and special conditions, such as, flooding or treedamage.

Vegetation diversity and structure

The inventory of vegetation was done using the data frommunicipality and site surveys. Canopy cover was calculatedusing satellite imagery and SISMAPS. We recorded the num-ber of vegetation and species name according to the group oftrees, palms and shrubs. It is important to understand the veg-etation composition as it can be as predictors for total birdspecies and abundance in small urban parks (Nielsen et al.

Fig. 1 Location of the nine studied parks in Petaling Jaya. The map was created using data provided by Petaling Jaya City Council and SelangorPlanning Information System (SISMAPS)

Urban Ecosyst (2017) 20:227–243 229

2014). Large woody trees can be a keystone structure in urbanparks and have a positive effect on bird diversity (Stagoll et al.2012). Therefore, we recorded all medium to large vegetationas well as a small vegetation within the groups of trees, palmsand shrubs. The structure of vegetation includes canopy size,vegetation height, as well as tree diameter at breast height(DBH) was also quantified. Since the area of the studied parkswas relatively small, we were able to identify all vegetation

groups. Planting more native vegetation in urban parks cansupport more native birds by providing food and shelter(Kummerling and Muller 2012; Karuppannan et al. 2014).Despite the values of native vegetation for urban wildlife,exotic species may also be beneficial as a habitat for birds(Szlavecz et al. 2011). In this study, information on plant spe-cies name, their characteristics and classification for nativeand exotic was confirmed using (Min et al. 2006).

Fig. 2 The small urban parks included in the city. The satellite images were taken fromGoogle Earth and the land use map from SISMAPS. The red lineand dotted line shows the boundary of the parks

230 Urban Ecosyst (2017) 20:227–243

Human factors

Observation of the human activities in the park and thesurrounding area was done structurally based on theclassification used by Tzoulas and James (2010) who group hu-man activities in urban parks into four categories: utilitarian,recreation, sport and play. We added one more group, namelyspecial occasion to classify the activities that occasionally hap-pen in the park such as a wedding, team building and otherevents. Activities outside the park and the nearby area weredescribed briefly in the survey form. Since parks were smalland visually accessible from all angles, only one observer wasdeemed needed to count the number of visitors (Arnberger et al.2005). The visitors were divided into two groups; park users andpassersby. For this study, park users were defined as people whouse the park as a destination and spent a minimum of 15 to30 min for their activities. Meanwhile, passersby were definedas persons who used the park as a pathway to other places.

SoundscapeWe defined the soundscape by the level of noisemeasured in decibel (dB) and the diversity of sound (types ofsound). The measurement of noise levels was carried out atthree designated spots in the park (the same spots used tosurvey birds). The equipment for measurement (digitalmultimeter EM5510) was placed firmly approximately1.5 m above ground. At each spot the observer recorded thenoise levels for ten times with intervals of three minutes

(30 min overall). Sound diversity was divided into two types;natural and anthropogenic or mechanical. Natural soundsincluded, e.g., bird chirping, a rustling of leaves, etc., whereasanthropogenic or mechanical sounds referred to all soundsmade by humans. All sound types that could be heard in thepark were listed according to the respective category.

Smells ‘Smellscapes’ can be an important part of the urbansensory experience (Henshaw 2014). In urban parks, smellscan relate to air quality and recreational value (McCormacket al. 2010). However, studies on smell experience and itsrelation to ecological characteristics and human behaviour inurban parks have been limited to date. In this study, we clas-sified the types of smells into two broad classes: pleasant orunpleasant. At the same spots where the bird survey andsoundscape measurement were carried out, the observer hadto experience the smells that occur in the park. Since smellscan be subjected to wind direction, the observer also used thewalking path in the parks to discover the smells occurrence.

Data analysis

All data recorded during the field work was compiled andinserted into a table format using Microsoft Excel®Professional Plus 2010. The information was arranged andextracted from a larger set by using the pivot table functionand matrix table. The tables were used for cross tabulation in

Fig. 3 Location of three observation spots and the 40–50 m radius for observation. The broken yellow line represents the walking path used to observehuman activities, birds and smell experience

Urban Ecosyst (2017) 20:227–243 231

order to compare the results between variables. Cross tabula-tion analysis is commonly used to analyse landscape elementsand spatial attributes (Çelik 2012; Jiang et al. 2014). Using thespecies matrix we calculated the number of vegetation andbird species for each park. Vegetation and bird species diver-sity were computed using the Shannon-Weiner diversity index(H) formula (Krebs 1999). Vegetation maps were also pro-duced to calculate the coverage percentage, analyse the plant-ing composition and species distribution.

Statistical analysis Pearson correlations were first performedto examine the relationships between the measured variableswith bird species richness and abundance. The richness andabundance of bird species can be predicted by more than onevariable because interactions among variables may occur(Toledo et al. 2011). Therefore, based on the correlation re-sults, we then conducted multiple linear regressions (2–3 pre-dictors) followed by Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC)corrected for small sample size (Burnham and Anderson2002; Oliver et al. 2011) to identify which variables signifi-cantly affected and best predicted for bird species richness andabundance. All statistical analysis was carried out in R version3.1.2. and XLSTATS version 2015.

Results

Park characteristics

A summary of the parks physical characteristics is provided inTable 1. The shape of the parks varieds from irregular orsquare, to triangular or linear. The topography of the parkswas mostly flat except AP, which has a rather undulating land-scape. Two parks (MBPJ and JS) were located next to a busyroad (especially during peak hours) and through our experi-ence, the decibels (dB) were higher at those parks (Table 2).Meanwhile, SM and SS2 were situated in a busy businessarea. All parks are easily accessed by pedestrians, and wellequipped with facilities for outdoor recreation. Overall, parkmaintenance and cleanliness were found to be at satisfactorylevel. Some parks located in important areas in the city centreand exclusive residential areas had a more intensive mainte-nance, for example in terms of mowing.

Presence of birds in small urban parks

Throughout the observation, 22 bird species were recorded.The average of the bird diversity index is moderate (H = 2.19),with the highest index recorded for PJS10 (H = 2.73).Although MBPJ had a diverse vegetation, it has a lower birddiversity index (H = 1.84). Birds found in the parks weremostly insectivores and omnivores. The most abundant birdspecies were Passer montanus (Eurasian Tree-sparrow),

followed by Copsychus saularis (Oriental Magpie-robin)and Corvus splendens (House Crow). The individual birdcharacteristics, their ecological traits, adaptability in the urbanenvironment and human perception of the birds are shown inTable 3. Most are a resident species which means they arebreeding or known to have bred in Malaysia. Although mostof the birds are generalist species and urban adapters, theoccurrence of passage migrant bird (Merops viridis (Blue-throated Bee-eater)) was also noted. We also observed thecommon Little Heron (Butorides striata) in PJS10 and AP.Birds of prey (Accipiter trivirgatus (Crested Goshawk)) werealso seen perched on a branchwith dense foliage. In this study,bird presence is higher during the morning and afternoon andfewer in the evening (Fig. 4 (a)).

Vegetation characteristics

A total of 89 different plant species (trees, palms and shrubs)were observed, and 52 of them were found in AP (seeTable 2). For all studied parks, vegetation diversity is moder-ate with an average of Shannon-Weiner indexH = 2.27. Of thenine parks, AP has the highest vegetation diversity index(H = 3.67) and the lowest was found in BME (H = 1.64).The list of all plant species according to the group of trees,palms and shrubs are presented in Tables 4 and 5. The mostpopular tree species used as an ornamental plant is Tabebuiarosea (Trumpet Tree). Veitchia merrilli (Christmas Palm) wasthe most common palm species planted and Hymenocallisspeciosa ‘Variegata’ (Spider Lily) was frequently used as anornamental shrub. In MBPJ, the planting of flowering shrubswas higher compared to other parks, and it exhibited thehighest number of exotic plants (Fig. 4 (b)). Overall, exoticvegetation was planted more than native with Trumpet Treeand Spider Lily being among the most common exoticspecies.

Human factors, soundscape and smells

Observation of user activities demonstrated that the small ur-ban parks were used more for utilitarian purposes (42 %, e.g.walking or motorcyclist access) than for recreation (32 %, e.g.relaxing or family outing) or sports, play and special occasions(26 %) (Fig. 4 (c)). In relation to sound, we experienced moreanthropogenic sound than natural ones (Fig. 4 (d)). Moreover,we also experienced more unpleasant than pleasant smellsfrom vehicles, animal manure, food waste, garbage anddrains.

Statistical analysis results

The results in Table 6 present the Pearson correlations whichshow the association of variables measured against birds spe-cies richness and abundance. Park area had a positive

232 Urban Ecosyst (2017) 20:227–243

association with bird species richness (r = 0.513) and birdabundance (r = 0.453, Table 6). The percentage of canopycovers had a significant negative correlation to bird speciesrichness (r = −0.692, p- value <0.05) and abundance

(r = −0.803, p-value <0.01). On the other hand, the percentageof open grass/ground had a positive correlation to birds(r = 0.674, p-value <0.05 and r = 0.793, p-value <0.01).Native and exotic vegetation species has a positive relation

Table 1 Summary of physical characteristics of the studied small urban parks

1 MBPJ 0.7 340 Irregular

Commercial, institutional, residential

Easily accessed by pedestrians.

< 30 mBenches, shelters & free wifi.

NonWell-maintained & satisfactory cleanliness

2 JS 0.7 470 Linear

Commercial, institutional, residential, industrial

Easily accessed by pedestrians.

< 25 mBenches, playground badminton court

NonSatisfactory maintenance & cleanliness

3 SM 0.7 350 TriangularCommercial, residential, institutional

Easily accessed by pedestrians. Parking area is provided. < 30 m

Few benches, shelter & basketball court

NonLow maintenance & less satisfactory cleanliness

4 BME 1 370 IrregularResidential, commercial, institutional

Easily accessed from the nearby neighbourhood.

< 100 m

Benches, outdoor gym, playground, shelter, basketball & badminton court

Non

Medium maintenance & satisfactory cleanliness

5 WP 1 440 TriangularResidential, commercial, institutional

Easily accessed from the nearby neighbourhood. < 150 m

Benches, shelters, badminton & basketball court

NonSatisfactory maintenance & cleanliness

6 MJ 1.2 410 Square

Residential, industrial, commercial, institutional

Easily accessed from the nearby neighbourhood.

< 200 m

Benches, shelters, community hall, basketball & futsal court

Non

Medium maintenance & less satisfactory cleanliness

7 SS2 1.5 510Square

Commercial, residential, institutional

Easily accessed by pedestrians. Parking area is provided.

< 70 mBenches, few shelters and basketball hall.

NonLow maintenance & less satisfactory cleanliness

8 PJS10 2.5 620 Square

Residential, commercial, institutional

Easily accessed by pedestrians and from the nearby neighbourhood. Parking area is provided.

< 70 m

Well equipped with recreational facilities, outdoor gym and shelters

LakeWell-maintained & satisfactory cleanliness

9 AP 3.5 1210Irregular

Residential, commercial, institutional

Easily accessed by pedestrians, from nearby neighborhoods and from the LRT station. Parking area is provided.

> 50 m< 200 m

Well equipped with recreational facilities, outdoor gym, shelters and public toilet

LakeWell-maintained & satisfactory cleanliness

No. Park Size (ha)

Perimeter (m) Shape Surrounding land

use AccessibilityProximity to the main road

Building & Facilities Water body

Maintenance & cleanliness

Table 2 Summary of vegetation characteristics, bird species richness and human factors

Park MBPJ JS SM BME WP MJ SS2 PJS10 AP

Total vegetation (NOI) 424 90 74 103 59 82 54 354 381

Overall vegetation species 32 12 10 10 11 8 7 26 52

Large woody trees (NOI) 25 37 17 71 26 53 34 48 84

Canopy covers (%) 76 77 34 53 48 90 68 53 67

Open grass/ ground (%) 23 22 65 46 50 8 28 45 30

Mean tree canopy size (m) 7.2 8.5 6 8.2 9 10 9.8 7.6 6.2

Mean tree height (m) 9 12.8 7.4 12.7 12.3 15 14.5 11 9

Mean shrub height (m) 0.65 1 1.8 1 2.3 1 0.5 1 1

Mean tree diameter (DBH) 0.5 0.7 0.6 1.2 1.1 0.9 1 0.7 0.4

Native vegetation (NOI) 96 56 21 45 6 34 15 145 157

Exotic vegetation (NOI) 328 34 53 58 53 48 39 209 155

Native vegetation species 9 6 2 4 3 2 2 10 27

Exotic vegetation species 22 5 7 6 7 5 4 15 24

Vegetation diversity index 3.104 2.058 1.744 1.639 1.815 1.702 1.663 3.011 3.668

Bird species 9 8 16 8 15 7 10 19 15

Bird abundance 27 34 65 43 65 20 30 71 63

Bird diversity index 1.835 1.90 2.612 1.95 2.584 1.719 1.904 2.728 2.503

Mean number of visitor 200 514 115 106 81 133 501 369 456

Mean noise levels (decibels) 77 81 72 63 60 58 71 66 68

NOI Number of individuals. The vegetation and bird diversity index were based on Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index

Urban Ecosyst (2017) 20:227–243 233

Tab

le3

Speciesandecologicaltraitsof

bird

speciesfoundwith

inthestudiedparks,includingtheiradaptabilityin

urbanenvironm

ents,behaviour

andhuman

perceptio

nof

thebird

species

Birds

Ri(%

)Status

Feeding

guild

Nestin

gAdaptability

Naturalbehaviourandhuman

perceptio

nof

thespecies

Accipitertrivirgatus(Crested

Goshawk)

0.64

RC

Tree

Avoider

Birdof

prey,preferred

toperchedon

thetree

crow

nswith

densefoliage.O

ccasionalv

isito

rof

smallp

ark

Acridotheresjavanicus(Javan

Myna)

1.28

FO

Secondary

cavity

Adapter

Regards

asinvasive

andnuisance

dueto

theirdisturbing

behaviour

Acridotherestristis

(Com

mon

Myna)

10.13

RO

Secondarycavity

Adapter

Com

mon

insm

allp

arks.R

egards

asinvasive

andnuisance

dueto

theirdisturbing

behaviour

Aegith

inatip

hia(Com

mon

Iora)

3.11

RI

Shrub/tree

Adapter

Colourful

songbird,pleasanttosee.Som

etim

eskept

ascagebird.C

ommon

insm

allp

arks.

Aplonispanayensis(A

sian

GlossyStarlin

gs)

5.90

RFru.

Secondary

cavity

Adapter

Shining

dark

greenbird

with

redeyes,usually

staysin

tree

crow

nsfeedingon

fruits.C

ommon

visitorsof

smallp

arks

andcanbe

noisywhenpresence

inflocks

Butorides

striata(LittleHeron)

0.40

RM

CTree

Adapter

Smallw

aterbird,usually

seen

aloneattheedge

ofwaterways.

Onlyvisitssm

allp

arks

ifnaturalw

ater

ispresence.

Cinnyrisjugularis(O

live-backed

Sunbird)

5.90

RN

Tree

Adapter

Tinycolourfulsongbirdthatdesire

bymostp

eoplebecause

theappearance

resembles

hummingbird

Colum

balivia

(Rockpigeon)

5.74

FO

Secondarycavity

Exploiter

Feraldomesticated

pigeon,som

etim

esconsidered

asa

nuisance.S

omepeopleareenjoying

thisbird

byfeeding

them

.Often

presence

inlargeflocks

Copsychus

saularis(O

rientalM

agpie-robin)

10.85

RI

Secondarycavity

Adapter

Com

mon

insm

allp

arks.P

opular

songbirdsandsometim

eskept

acagebird

Corvussplendens(H

ouse

Crow)

10.53

FO

Tree

Adapter/

Exploiter

Regards

asinvasive

andnuisance

dueto

theirdisturbing

behaviour

Eudynam

ysscolopacea

(Asian

Koel)

1.59

RM

OBrood

parasite

(layingtheiregg

onotherbird’snest,

usually

crow

s)

Adapter

Bothmaleandfemalehave

avery

differentappearance,thus

they

canbe

distinguishedeasily.A

sian

Koelisashybird

andusually

stay

ontree

crow

nswith

densefoliage.

Geopelia

striata(Zebra

Dove)

7.26

RG

Shrub

Adapter

Popular

songbirdsandsometim

eskept

acagebird.

Com

monly

seen

insm

allp

arks

foraging

onthe

ground

forgrainandseeds

Hirundo

tahitica(PacificSwallow)

1.52

RI

Cup

neston

aman-

madestructures

Adapter

Excellent

flyers,m

osto

fthetim

ewas

seen

flying,but

sometim

esperchedon

wires

ortwigs.Occasional

visitorof

smallp

arks

Lonchura

punctulata(Scaly-breastedMunia)

0.56

RG

Shrub/tree

Adapter

Afinch-lik

ebirdswith

astriking

patternson

theunderside,

feedson

seedsfrom

thetallgrass.Com

mon

visitorof

small

parksiftallgrassy

area

exists.

Meropsviridis(Bluethroated

Bee-eater)

0.88

RM

IBurrownesting

(underground)

Adapter

Colourful

migratory

bird,occasionalv

isito

rof

smallp

arks

Oriolus

chinensis(Black-naped

Oriole)

4.70

RM

OTree

Adapter

Brighty

ellowcolour

bird

makes

theirappearance

conspicuous.Com

mon

insm

allp

arks

234 Urban Ecosyst (2017) 20:227–243

with birds, while canopy size and tree height were negativelycorrelated. There was a non-significant tendency that height ofshrubs had a positive association with bird abundance(r = 0.612, p-value <0.1). With regards to human factors,recreational activities were found to have a positive correla-tion and marginally significant (r = 0.626, p-value <0.1) withbird species richness and abundance while utilitarian humanuses were negatively correlated (weak correlation).

Based on the results from Pearson correlation for individualvariables, we developed several models of multiple linear re-gression (2–3 predictors) to determine which of the variablessignificantly influence the bird species richness and abun-dance. Regression models with Adjusted R2 (Adj. R2) ≥ 0.5andP-value <0.1(CI 90%)were selected, which resulted in 16priority models of bird species richness (7 models- A1 to A7)and bird abundance (9 models- B1 to B9) (see Table 7). Thepredictor or explanatory variables for the regressions includespercentage of canopy covers, percentage of open grass/ground, area, total vegetation, native vegetation, exotic vege-tation, shrub species, flowering shrubs, mean tree height andmean shrub height (see Table 7 for each model predictors).The smallest AICc was also accounted for selecting the bestpredictor variables. Results of the regression indicated that thepercentage of canopy covers (negative relation) and park area(positive relation) are the best predictors of bird species rich-ness (Model A2: Adj. R2 = 0.684, P-value =0.013, AICc=23.326). For bird abundance, the percentage of canopycovers (negative relation) and native vegetation species (pos-itive relation) are the best predictors (Model B3: AdjR2 = 0.798, P-value =0.003, AICc =46.346). Taking into ac-count that other models in Table 7 were also significant (P-value <0.01 and P-value <0.05), we also considered the pre-dictor variables in models with ΔAICc < 2 and ΔAICc <7 forfurther discussion and substantial support. The regressionsresults demonstrate that human activities might have a mini-mal impact on bird richness (Model A5) but not to bird abun-dance (Model B9).

Discussion

The influence of park area and physical features

This study shows that park area is one of the important char-acteristics for explaining the variation in bird species richnessand abundance (e.g. Tables 6 and 7), which is in line with ourhypotheses at the outset of the study. Our findings are similarto those of earlier studies (Carbó-Ramírez and Zuria 2011;Zhou and Chu 2012; Kang et al. 2015). Increasing park sizewill provide larger niche spaces for birds, greater habitat di-versity and resource availability (Cornelis and Hermy 2004;Schütz and Schulze 2015). Although only a small range ofpark sizes (0.5–3.5 ha) was considered in this study, park sizeT

able3

(contin

ued)

Birds

Ri(%

)Status

Feeding

guild

Nestin

gAdaptability

Naturalbehaviourandhuman

perceptio

nof

thespecies

Orthotomus

sutorius

(Com

mon

Tailo

rbird)

0.72

RI

Shrub/tree

Adapter

Activesm

allsongbirds,occasionalv

isito

rof

smallp

ark

andcanbe

hardly

spotted.

Passermontanus(EurasianTree-sparrow)

16.67

RG

Secondarycavity

Adapter/

Exploiter

Smallb

irds

oftenpresence

inlargeflocks.V

erycommon

insm

allp

arks.

Pycnonotusgoiavier

(Yellow-vented

Bulbul)

5.10

RO

Shrub

Adapter

Popularsongbirdsandsometim

eskept

acagebird.C

ommon

insm

allp

arks

Rhipidura

javanica

(PiedFantail)

1.44

RI

Shrub/tree

Adapter

Activebird

with

beautiful

long

tail.

Pleasanttoseewhen

they

fanningthetails

Streptopelia

chinensis(SpottedDove)

3.03

RG

Shrub/tree

Adapter

Popular

songbirdsandsometim

eskept

acagebird.C

ommon

insm

allp

arks

Treron

vernans(Pink-necked

Green

Pigeon)

2.07

RFru.

Tree

Adapter

Wild

pigeon,tendto

stay

intree

crow

nsfeedingon

fruits.

Com

paredto

otherdomesticated

pigeons,thiswild

pigeon

areprefered

bybird

watchers

Ri(%)P

ercentof

relativ

eabundance,R:R

esident,M

Migrant/passage

migrant,F

Feral,C

-Carnivores,O-Omnivores,I-Insectivores,N

-Nectarivores,Fru-Frugivores,G-Granivores.Secondarycavity

nestersbirdsthatdo

notactivelyexcavatetheirn

estholes,butuseexistin

gones.N

aturalbehaviourand

human

perceptio

nwas

basedon

theobservationsupportedby

(Davison

andAik(2010),M

ansorand

Sah

(2012),and

MNSBirdConservationCouncil(2015)

Urban Ecosyst (2017) 20:227–243 235

still has the greatest effect on both the bird species richnessand abundance. This was also consistent with the study byCarbó-Ramírez and Zuria (2011) and Shanahan et al. (2011)who reveal that even small urban green spaces can contributeto maintaining bird communities. The shape of small parkscould also play a role in supporting urban biodiversity andecological functions. As described by Forman (1995) andBeck (2013), different patch shapes are able to support moreor less interior habitat. Several shapes tend to have greaterinterior habitat and less edge habitat such as circular, curvilin-ear ones, squares and lobes, while, in contrast, other forms likeelongated and linear would have more edge than interior hab-itat (Forman 1995; Collinge 1996; Hostetler and Knowles2009; Beck 2013). However, in this study, the shape of theparks did not have a significant impact on bird diversi-ty. Most of the birds found in the parks are edge spe-cies and perhaps the parks were too small to supportmore interior species, which would imply that park shapedid not affect the presence of birds.

The surrounding land use of small urban parks can be adeterminant of bird diversity. Increase in residential and com-mercial buildings density lead to declining bird species andindividuals (Reis et al. 2012; Ikin et al. 2013). In this study, wedid not directly measure land use intensity and configuration,but in our case, some bird species are very common withinhuman habitation and can be found almost in all parks.Species like Eurasian Tree-sparrow (Passer montanus),House Crow (Corvus splendens) and Common Myna(Acridotheres tristis) can survive in a highly urbanised areawith the flexibility in foraging and nesting (Lowe et al. 2011;Francis and Chadwick 2013). Another factor that influencesbird species richness and abundance is the distance to adjacentroads. When small parks are closer to roads, the traffic noise

and vehicular disturbance increased. Thus, this may interferewith the songbirds’ communication and decrease habitat qual-ity (Chace and Walsh 2006; Carbó-Ramírez and Zuria 2011;Proppe et al. 2013).

The presences of water bodies (ponds, lakes, streams orrivers) in the small parks are beneficial for bird species rich-ness, especially to those associated with water (Chamberlainet al. 2007; Ferenc et al. 2014). In this study, we found twobird species, Little Heron (Butorides striata) and Pacific swal-low (Hirundo tahitica) that were present only in parks with apond and lake. This was in accordance with a previous studythat reported that if water resources and natural vegetation arewisely managed, even small urban green spaces can supporthigh bird diversity (Kim et al. 2007).

A long-term strategy for the management of small urbanparks can help to protect the habitat zone, increase speciesdiversity, improve vegetation structure and reduce mainte-nance costs (Fontana et al. 2011; Ikin et al. 2013; Shwartzet al. 2013). For example, lawns in small parks should notbe constantly mowed and tall grass can be left adjacent tothe mowed lawn (Hails and Kavanagh 2013). This practicemay contribute to the growth of wild flowers, potentially en-hancing the diversity of invertebrates (Shwartz et al. 2008;Carbó-Ramírez and Zuria 2011), thus providing food sourcesfor granivorous and insectivorous birds such as Geopeliastriata (Zebra Dove), Streptopelia chinensis (Spotted Dove)and Copsychus saularis (Oriental Magpie-robin). Clippingshrubs into an unnatural shape (i.e. topiary), such as boxes,balls, etc. restrict the shrubs to grow in its natural form andstructure (Forsyth and Musacchio 2005), which may disturbthe birds by exposing their nests to excessive sun, heavy rainor predators. Based on our observation, intensively managedparks (frequently changed ornamental flowerbeds, pesticide

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

No. of

dif

fere

nt

sounds

Parks

Sound diversity

Natural Sound

Anthropogenic &

mechanical sound

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Aver

age

no. of

acti

vit

ies

Parks

Activity patterns

Ut

Rc

Sp

Pl

SO

0102030405060708090

Abundan

ce v

alue

Parks

Bird abundance value according to time of day

Morning

Afternoon

Evening

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Veg

etat

ion n

um

ber

Parks

Distribution of vegetation types

Tree

Palms

Shrubs

a b

c d

Fig. 4 The graph shows the: aBird abundance value according to time of day, bDistribution of vegetation types, cActivity patterns.Ut - Utilitarian,Rc -Recreation, Sp - Sports, Pl - Play, SO - Special occasion, d Sound diversity

236 Urban Ecosyst (2017) 20:227–243

Table 4 Inventory of tree species (number of individuals) in each park

Park MBPJ JS SM BME WP MJ SS2 PJS10 AP

No. Trees Number of trees Total

1 Acacia auriculiformis (Earleaf Acacia) 5 5

2 Adenanthera pavonina (Saga) 5 5

3 Agathis Borneesis (Borneo Kauri) 8 8

4 Anacardium occidentale (Cashew Nut) 3 3

5 Averrhoa carambola (Starfruit) 4 4

6 Azadirachta indica (Neem Tree) 1 1

7 Balanocarpus heimii (Chengal) 1 1

8 Barringtonia racemosa (Common Putat) 7 7

9 Brownea grandiceps (Rose of Venezuela) 5 5

10 Bucida molinetii (Spiny Bucida) 2 7 9

11 Casuarina equisetifolia (Common Rhu) 12 5 17

12 Cinnamomum iners (Wild Cinnamon) 5 5

13 Delonix regia (Flame of the Forest) 6 2 6 14

14 Erythrina fusca (Coral Bean) 1 1

15 Eucalyptus camaldulensis (Red Gum) 2 2

16 Eucalyptus deglupta (Mindanao Gum) 1 1

17 Fagraea fragrans(Tembusu) 1 1

18 Ficus benghalensis (Indian Banyan) 11 2 4 17

19 Ficus microcarpa ‘Golden’ (Indian Laurel Fig) 9 9

20 Filicium decipiens (Fern Tree) 1 14 15

21 Gnetum gnemon (Belinjau) 8 8

22 Hopea odorata (Ironwood) 2 1 2 5

23 Hura crepitans (Sandbox Tree) 2 2

24 Juniperus chinensis (Chinese Juniper) 1 1

25 Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle) 4 10 14

26 Lansium domesticum (Langsat) 2 2

27 Leptospermum brachyandrum (Weeping Tea-Tree) 6 6

28 Mangifera indica (Indian Mango) 2 1 3

29 Melaleuca bracteata ‘Revolution Gold’ (Golden Tea Tree) 8 8

30 Melaleuca cajuputi (Cajeput/Tea Tree) 7 8 15

31 Michelia X alba (White Champaca) 3 6 9

32 Mimusop elengi (Spanish Cherry) 6 6 12

33 Peltophorum pterocarpum (Yellow Flame) 26 1 7 10 6 50

34 Phyllanthus acidus (Otaheite Gooseberry) 3 3

35 Plumeria obtusa (Great Frangipani) 8 6 14

36 Polyalthia longifolia (Asoka Tree) 8 8

37 Pometia pinnata (Matoa) 5 6 11

38 Pterocarpus indicus (Angsana) 1 30 31

39 Samanea saman (Rain Tree) 2 2 8 4 6 6 6 34

40 Sandoricum koetjape (Sentol) 4 4

41 Swietenia macrophylla (Honduras Mahogany) 5 4 9

42 Syzygium grande (Sea Apple) 6 12 18

43 Syzygium myrtifolium (Australian BrushCherry) 3 3

44 Syzygium polyanthum (Indonesian Bay Leaf) 11 5 8 24

45 Tabebuia rosea (Trumpet Tree) 15 41 13 5 8 15 7 104

46 Terminalia catappa (Sea Almond) 1 2 3

47 Terminalia mantaly (Umbrella tree) 18 18

48 Xanthostemon chrysanthus (Golden Penda) 4 5 4 13

Total 44 37 31 74 27 53 34 85 177 562

Urban Ecosyst (2017) 20:227–243 237

usage and mowing) had fewer bird species present. For exam-ple, at MBPJ, in spite of relatively high vegetation diversity

(H = 3.1), the park had a relatively low bird diversity index(H = 1.84). This might be due to the use of pesticides and

Table 5 Inventory of palms and shrub species (number of individuals) in each park

Park MBPJ JS SM BME WP MJ SS2 PJS10 AP

No. Palms Number of palms Total

1 Archontophoenix alexandrae (Alexandra Palm) 5 5

2 Areca catechu (Betel Palm) 2 2

3 Bambusa multiplex (Striped Bamboo) 3 4 7

4 Cocos nucifera (Coconut) 3 9 12

5 Cyrthostachys renda (Lipstick Palm) 4 1 5 10

6 Elaesis guineensis (Oil Palm) 1 1

7 Licuala grandis (Fan Palm) 6 6

8 Nypa fruticans (Nipah Palm) 6 6

9 Veitchia merrilli (Christmas Palm) 3 5 5 13

10 Wodyetia bifurcata (Foxtail Palm) 9 9

Total 24 1 3 4 13 26 71

Park MBPJ JS SM BME WP MJ SS2 PJS10 AP

No. Shrubs Number of shrubs

1 Acalypha siamensis (Siamese Acalypha/Wild tea) 25 25

2 Aglaonema commutatum (Chinese Evergreen) 24 24

3 Alpinia species (Alpinia) 20 20

4 Aphelandra squarrosa (Zebra Plant) 7 7

5 Bilbergia pyramidali (Vase Plant) 10 10

6 Bougainvillea x buttiana ‘Poultonii’ (Bougainvillea) 10 8 10 10 38

7 Canna hybrid (Canna) 13 13

8 Codiaeun variegatum (Croton) 15 15

9 Colocasia esculenta ‘Blackmagic’ (Elephant Ear) 10 10

10 Calliandra haematocephala (Red Powderpuff) 25 25

11 Cordyline fruticosa (Ti Plant) 32 3 32 67

12 Costus spicatus (Indian Head Ginger) 40 40

13 Cyperus alternifolius (Umbrella Plant) 14 14

14 Dracaena fragrans (Corn Palm) 8 8

15 Duranta erecta (Golden Dewdrop) 10 10 10 10 40

16 Heliconia psittacorum x H. spathocircinata (Golden Torch) 25 25

17 Heliconia rostrata(Fishtail Heliconia) 35 35

18 Hibiscus rosa-sinensis (Chinese Hibiscus) 20 7 20 20 67

19 Hymenocallis speciosa ‘Variegata’ (Spider Lily) 32 30 32 32 126

20 Ixora siamensis (Jungle Flame) 15 10 15 15 55

21 Lantana camara (Lantana) 15 15

22 Mirabilis jalapa (Marvel of Peru) 20 20

23 Mussaenda erythrophylla ‘Dona Luz’ (Pink Mussaenda) 7 7 14

24 Osmoxylon lineare (Yellow Aralia) 30 30 60

25 Pandanus pygmaeus (Small Screwpine) 18 18 36

26 Pandanus tectorius cultivar (Variegated Screw Pine) 2 2

27 Pennisetum X advena ‘Rubrum’ (Purple Fountain Grass) 20 20

28 Phyllanthus myrtifolius (Mousetail Plant) 20 20 40

29 Pseuderanthemum carruthersii (Yellow-vein Pseuderanthemum) 15 15

30 Spathiphyllum cannifolium(Spathe Flower) 10 10

31 Tradescantia spathacea ‘Dwarf´ (Dwarf Boat Lily) 35 35

Total 346 52 40 25 28 25 20 256 139 931

238 Urban Ecosyst (2017) 20:227–243

periodical removal of certain plants for aesthetic purposes,which would reduce the availability of food sources for birds.

Vegetation diversity and structures

The results of this study demonstrate that vegetation variables(more than e.g. human factors) were the important predictorfor bird species richness and abundance in small urban parks.The percentage of canopy cover had a significant negativerelationship to bird species richness and abundance. In con-trast, the percentage of open grass/ open ground was found tohave a significant positive relation to bird richness and

abundance. For example, our findings in MJ indicate that al-though the park had the highest percentage of canopy cover(90 %), bird richness and abundance are the lowest of allparks, which is in contrast to earlier studies (Imai andNakashizuka 2010; Zhou and Chu 2012; Schütz and Schulze2015) but in line with a study by Lim et al. (2003). Onepossible explanation for this result could be that many of thebird species found inhabit forest edges and open countrywhich they preferred, as small parks have a varied structure,with both vegetated areas and open lawn areas. Moreover,lack of understorey vegetation, shrub layer and vegetationcomplexity might be another reasons for lower bird speciesrichness (Hails and Kavanagh 2013; Kang et al. 2015). Thenumber of trees can be the most important habitat variable inincreasing the bird communities in cities (Sandström et al.2006; Fontana et al. 2011). Similar pattern was found in thisstudy in which tree species and their number of individualshave significantly influenced the bird abundance (Table 7,Model B5: Adj. R2 = 0.756, P-value = 0.006) and ModelB6: Adj. R2 = 0.742, P-value = 0.007).

In this study, we found that birds favoured tall shrubs com-pared to tall trees because higher shrubs may provide densefoliage that is secure for shrub-nesting birds (e.g. Pycnonotusgoiavier (Yellow-vented Bulbul)) and offer more sources offruits and insects (Imai and Nakashizuka 2010; Rousseau et al.2015). Our results also support an earlier study which reportedthat bird density was significantly positively correlated withmedium-size trees instead of tall trees (Khera et al. 2009). Thepresent study suggests that tall woody trees are not necessarilyimportant for attracting more birds species in small parks be-cause birds can utilise medium trees and shrubs for theirneeds. Furthermore, taller shrubs offered a larger area of ref-uge and lowered the risk of predation (Fernández-Juricic et al.2001). The density of shrubs (number of individuals) was notsignificantly correlated with bird species richness and abun-dance, suggesting that the maturity of shrubs was more impor-tant than the number of shrubs available (Forsyth andMusacchio 2005). We also found that the presence of bothnative and exotic vegetation had a positive relationship withbird species diversity and bird abundance. In contrast, a studyby Khera et al. (2009) reported that exotic woody vegetationwas negatively correlated with bird diversity. Our contradic-ting results suggest that the mixed use of native and exoticplants might help create more bird habitat. An appropriate mixof native and exotic plants could thus support a wider range ofbird species and enhance the foraging opportunities. Nativevegetation will host more insects than exotic vegetation (New2015) and many birds (insectivores and omnivores) needsinsects to feed their nestlings. If a mixture of vegetation spe-cies are used in the small parks, it could attract birds fromseveral feeding guilds due to the availability of food, but theymight not be necessarily nesting in the parks (Jokimäki 1999).For larger parks, it would require a higher proportion of native

Table 6 The Pearson correlation (r) between the variables of parkphysical characteristics, vegetation structures and human factors withthe bird species richness and bird abundance

Variables Bird species richness Bird abundance

Bird species richness 1 0.930

Bird abundance 0.930 1

Area (hectare) 0.513 0.453

Perimeter 0.396 0.397

Canopy covers (%) −0.692** −0.803***Total vegetation 0.313 0.191

Open grass/ ground (%) 0.674** 0.793***

Overall vegetation species 0.361 0.317

Exotic vegetation species 0.340 0.246

Native vegetation species 0.338 0.347

Native vegetation (NOI) 0.387 0.318

Exotic vegetation (NOI) 0.207 0.047

Number of trees 0.241 0.303

Tree species 0.358 0.379

Large woody trees −0.080 0.061

Number of shrubs 0.267 0.090

Shrubs species 0.290 0.112

Number of flowering shrubs 0.102 −0.036Number of palms 0.263 0.189

Mean canopy size (m) −0.540 −0.585*Mean tree height (m) −0.558 −0.557Mean tree diameter (DBH) 0.064 −0.080Mean shrubs height (m) 0.472 0.612*

Mean number of park visitors 0.028 −0.075Mean noise levels (dB) −0.137 −0.190Utilitarian −0.155 −0.182Recreation 0.626* 0.625*

Sports 0.427 0.497

Play 0.319 0.442

Special occasion 0.362 0.391

NOI – Number of individuals; dB- Decibels; DBH- Dimeter at breastheight

Significant level alpha =0.1; *** p-value <0.01, ** p-value <0.05, * p-value <0.1

Urban Ecosyst (2017) 20:227–243 239

plants in order to retain more native birds and reduce alien birdspecies (Chace and Walsh 2006; Sulaiman et al. 2013).

Human impacts

Bird species richness and abundance in small parks may alsobe affected by human activities and disturbance in the adjacentlandscape. Zhou and Chu (2012) report that the visiting ratehad an adverse influence on insectivores and frugivores.However, in this study we found that density of park visitorsdid not affect bird species and abundance, similar findings byCarbó-Ramírez and Zuria (2011). Our results in regressionsindicate that human activities of utilitarian, recreation andsports had a significant effect on bird species richness(Table 7, Model A5). Utilitarian uses had a propensity of neg-atively influenced bird species richness probably because thiscategory of activities involves constant human movement andactivity that could alter the bird alert and flight distance(Fernández-Juricic et al. 2001; Campbell 2011). On the otherhand, our results indicate that recreational activities were pos-itively related with species richness and abundance. Our as-sumption is that the intensity of recreational uses was not thatheavy in the park and only involved moderate actions, whichis in line with a study by Jokimäki (1999). During the obser-vation, we found that some people enjoyed feeding the birds(mostlyColumba livia (Rock pigeon),Geopelia striata (ZebraDove) and Passer montanus (Eurasian Tree-sparrow)), with

grains or their food leftovers which could also explain thepositive relation between recreation and bird assemblage.

When small urban parks were isolated and near to the com-mercial areas that have food businesses producing lots of foodwaste (e.g. wet markets, food centres, restaurants), these willattract scavenging birds like Corvus splendens (House Crow)and Acridotheres tristis (Common Myna) (Lim et al. 2003).Such a situation occurs in our study park SS2, where abundantof house crows have caused a nuisance (e.g. through loudnoise and behaviour of scattering the rubbish). The numberof house crows increased when the food businesses were at thepeak and during these times the presence of other birds (espe-cially smaller birds) was low. The high abundance of housecrows may threaten small native birds by nests exploitation orfood resource competition (Chace and Walsh 2006). Only atthe patch where medium-height trees were planted in clumps,other bird species were observed such as Rhipidura javanica(Pied Fantail) and Copsychus saularis (Oriental Magpie-robin).

Anthropogenic noise from human activities in the parksand from the surrounding urban matrix (e.g. road traffics,train, construction machinery) may be detrimental to bird spe-cies, and especially songbirds (e.g. Pycnonotus goiavier(Yellow-vented Bulbul), Orthotomus sutorius (CommonTailorbird), Aegithina tiphia (Common Iora)). Elevated noiselevels can cause disturbances to the songbird acoustic signals(Proppe et al. 2013) and decrease the overall quality of

Table 7 Results of model selection and regression analysis of birdspecies richness and abundance. Models were tested with differentcombination of predictor variables (2 or 3 predictors). The modelsshown fitted well to Adj. R2 ≥ 0.5) and P-value <0.1 (confidence

interval at 90 %). AICc is the Akakike’s Information Criterion for smallsample size and ΔAICc is the difference in AICc between each model andthe model with the smallest AICc. The smallest AICc is shown in bold

Model ID Bird species richness Adj. R2 P-value AICc ΔAICc AICc weight

A1 Canopy covers (%) + Mean tree height + Mean tree DBH 0.724 0.023 27.685 4.359 0.076

A2 Canopy covers (%) + Area 0.684 0.013 23.326 0 0.674

A3 Open grass/ ground (%) + Shrub species + Flowering shrubs 0.63 0.048 30.315 6.989 0.020

A4 Canopy covers (%) + Native vegetation (NOI) + Large woody trees 0.615 0.053 30.677 7.351 0.017

A5 Utilitarian +Recreation + Sport 0.611 0.054 30.771 7.445 0.016

A6 Canopy covers (%) + Total vegetation 0.546 0.039 26.595 3.269 0.132

A7 Native vegetation (NOI) + Mean shrub height 0.467 0.064 28.033 4.677 0.064

Model ID Bird abundance Adj. R2 P-value AICc ΔAICc AICc weight

B1 Total vegetation + Canopy cover + Exotic vegetation 0.802 0.01 51.698 5.352 0.029

B2 Canopy covers (%) + Exotic vegetation (NOI) + Area 0.80 0.01 51.802 5.456 0.028

B3 Canopy covers (%) + Native vegetation species 0.798 0.003 46.346 0 0.422

B4 Canopy covers (%) + Overall vegetation species 0.756 0.006 48.043 1.697 0.181

B5 Open grass/ ground + Tree species 0.756 0.006 47.974 1.628 0.187

B6 Canopy covers (%) + Number of trees 0.742 0.007 48.521 2.175 0.142

B7 Mean tree height + Mean shrub height + Area 0.702 0.028 55.383 9.037 0.005

B8 Native vegetation species + Mean shrub height 0.488 0.057 54.703 8.357 0.006

B9 Utilitarian + Recreation + Sport 0.483 0.1 60.349 14.003 0.000

NOI: Number of individuals, DBH: Diameter at breast height

240 Urban Ecosyst (2017) 20:227–243

soundscape in urban parks (Irvine et al. 2009). However, ourprediction was not met, as noise levels did not have significantimpacts on bird species richness and abundance, which was inline with the findings of Zhou and Chu (2012). This is prob-ably because most of the bird species were urban adapters(and several also human commensals).

Conclusion

This paper highlights some of the characteristics that are im-portance to the planning, design and management of smallurban parks to increase bird diversity – as an indication ofthe ecological functions and wider ecosystem services of theseparks. Although small urban parks may not host as muchdiversity as larger parks, they have the capacity to maintainoverall urban biodiversity, ecosystem services and ecologicalconnectivity (Carbó-Ramírez and Zuria 2011; Shwartz et al.2013; Strohbach et al. 2013). Based on the findings from ourstudy, we provide two general recommendations for smallurban parks to support diverse bird communities. First, devel-opment and management plans for small urban parks shouldfocus on the benefit for both city-dwellers and urban birdspecies through incorporating a socio-ecological approach. Itcan be assumed that ecological design strategies to enhancebiodiversity would not be successful unless people really ap-preciate it. Therefore, collaborations among practitioners andscientists can improve understanding of the dynamics of socialand ecological interactions. Since urban areas will continue toexpand in the future, larger area for parks can be limited,which provides an even stronger case for small parks to becarefully designed and managed to reduce the surroundingpressure for bird species. Within the limited area, the overalllayout and spatial configuration of the parks should aim atimproving the internal habitat quality. It may be difficult tocontrol the impact from the adjacent urban matrix entirely, butminimising this impact would have great value to birddiversity.

Second, newly established small urban parks should have aplanting design and composition that provide habitats andforaging area for birds. The right proportion of vegetated areaand open lawn should be considered within the parks to createhabitat complexity. This study suggests that small parksshould not be too shaded or too open to create spatial hierar-chy and transition for bird species interactions. These can bedone by creating vegetation patches and corridors with differ-ent species and structures. Selection of suitable plant species isbeneficial for birds, and especially nectarivores and frugi-vores, as these will provide the birds with food and nestingplaces. Planting medium-height trees in a row or in clumpsrather than solitarily provide connective corridor and shelterfor small bird species. In SM, for example, fruits from a row ofFicus benghalensis (Indian Banyan) were eaten by several

bird species such as Treron vernans (Pink-necked GreenPigeon), Aplonis panayensis (Asian Glossy Starling) andOrthotomus sutorius (Common Tailorbird). Meanwhile,plants that also produce nectar such as Erythrina fusca(Coral Bean) and Syzygium myrtifolium (Australian Brush-Cherry) also favour birds. Another example in JS, small birdCinnyris jugularis (Olive-backed Sunbird) were seen feedingon nectar of Calliandra haematocephala (Red Powderpuff)and Hibiscus rosa-sinensis (Chinese Hibiscus). Appropriatemixtures of native and exotic vegetation are acceptable forsmall urban parks to maximise the diversity of birds.However, designers must choose exotic plant species wise-ly and should abstain from using these as major parkcomponents because they may become invasive to nativeplant species. Although small parks have limited area,considering the vertical and horizontal layer of vegetationstructures can create transitions and spatial heterogeneitythat would maximise the opportunities for attracting birds(Hails and Kavanagh 2013).

In general, our expectations in this study were met, al-though some of the results contradicted with our assumptions.Although this study was based on the results of the empiricalstudy in Malaysia, the overall findings and discussion are alsoapplicable to many cities in the Western world. This studydoes not conclude that small parks are better than large parksbut rather to provide solutions for small green spaces to func-tion as refugees for wildlife when cities become more densi-fied. The findings should provide landscape architects, urbanplanners and park managers with a better understanding of themechanisms that drive bird diversity in small urban greenspaces.

Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the Ministryof Higher Education, Malaysia and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia forfunding and financial support. We thank Ms. Suziana Hassan for assis-tance in statistical analysis. We would also like to thank all of the assis-tants for their help in conducting the field survey in Malaysia.

References

Arnberger A, Haider W, Brandenburg C (2005) Evaluating visitor-monitoring techniques: a comparison of counting and video obser-vation data. Environ Manag 36(2):317–327. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-8201-6

Beck T (2013) Principles of Ecological Landscape Design. Island Press.doi:10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2

Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model Selection and MultimodelInference: A practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn.Springer-Verlag, New York. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Campbell MO (2011) ‘Passerine reactions to human behaviour and veg-etation structure in Peterborough, Canada’,. Urban For UrbanGreen 10(1):47–51 Available at: WOS:000289024300007

Carbó-Ramírez P, Zuria I (2011) The value of small urban greenspaces forbirds in a Mexican city. Landsc Urban Plan 100(3):213–222.doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.12.008

Urban Ecosyst (2017) 20:227–243 241

Çelik, A. (2012) ‘The landscape of Kocaeli pedestrian walkway as an exam-ple of urban outdoor and user views’, J Food Agric Environ, 10(April).Available at: http://world-food.net/download/journals/2012-issue_2/237.pdf (Accessed: 19 January 2015).

Chace JF, Walsh JJ (2006) Urban effects on native avifauna: A review.L a n d s c U r b a n P l a n 7 4 ( 1 ) : 4 6–6 9 . d o i : 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j .landurbplan.2004.08.007

Chamberlain DE, Gough S, Vaughan H, Vickery JA, Appleton GF (2007)Determinants of bird species richness in public green spaces:Capsule Bird species richness showed consistent positive correla-tions with site area and rough grass. Bird Study 54(1):87–97.doi:10.1080/00063650709461460

Clucas B, Marzluff JM (2011) ‘Coupled Relationships between Humansand other Organisms in Urban Areas’. In: Niemelä J, Breuste JH,Elmqvist T, Guntenspergen G, James P, Mclntyre NE (eds) UrbanEcology: Patterns, processess, and applications. Oxford UniversityPress, pp. 135–147

Collinge SK (1996) Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation:implications for landscape architecture and planning. Landsc UrbanPlan 36(1):59–77. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(96)00341-6

Cornelis J, Hermy M (2004) Biodiversity relationships in urban and sub-urban parks in Flanders. Landsc Urban Plan 69(4):385–401.doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.038

Davison GWH, Aik YC (2010) A Naturalist’s Guide to the Birds ofMalaysia including Sabah and Sarawak. John Beaufoy Publishing,Oxford

Ferenc M, Sedláček O, Fuchs R (2014) How to improve urbangreenspace for woodland birds: site and local-scale determinantsof bird species richness. Urban Ecosystems 17(2):625–640.doi:10.1007/s11252-013-0328-x

Fernández-Juricic E, Jimenez MD, Lucas E (2001) Alert distance as analternative measure of bird tolerance to human disturbance: impli-cations for park design. Environ Conserv 28(03):263–269.doi:10.1017/S0376892901000273

Fontana S, Sattler T, Bontadina F, Moretti M (2011) ‘How to manage theurban green to improve bird diversity and community structure’.Landscape Urban Plan Elsevier BV 101(3):278–285. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.033

Forman RTT (1995) Some general principles of landscape and regionalecology. Landsc Ecol 10(3):133–142. doi:10.1007/BF00133027

Forsyth A, Musacchio LR (2005) Designing Small Parks: A Manual forAddressing Social and Ecological Concerns. John Wiley & Sons,Inc., New Jersey

Francis RA, Chadwick MA (2013) Urban Ecosystems: Understandingthe Human Environment, 1st edn. Routledge, New York

Hails CJ, Kavanagh M (2013) ‘Bring back the birds! Planning for treesand other plants to support southeast Asian wildlife in urban areas’.Raffles Bull Zool (SUPPL. 29):243–258

Henshaw V (2014) Urban Smellscapes: Understanding and designingcity smell environment. Routledge, New York

HostetlerM,Knowles H (2009) Conservation Subdivision : Design Phase –Patch Size and Shape of Conserved Open Spaces, UF/IFASExtension. Florida

Ikin K, Beaty RM, Lindenmayer DB, Knight E, Fischer J, Manning AD(2013) ‘Pocket parks in a compact city: how do birds respond toincreasing residential density?’,. Landsc Ecol 28(1):45–56Availableat: WOS:000313833100004

Imai H, Nakashizuka T (2010) Environmental factors affecting the com-position and diversity of avian community in mid- to late breedingseason in urban parks and green spaces. Landsc Urban Plan 96(3):183–194. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.03.006

Irvine KN, Devine-Wright P, Payne SR, Fuller RA, Painter B, Gaston KJ(2009) Green space, soundscape and urban sustainability: an inter-disciplinary, empirical study. Local Environ 14(2):155–172.doi:10.1080/13549830802522061

Jiang H, Liu S, Sun P, An S, Zhou G, Li C, Wang J, Yu H, Tian X (2014)The influence of vegetation type on the hydrological process at thelandscape scale. Can J Remote Sens 30(5):743–763. doi:10.5589/m04-033

Jokimäki, J. (1999) ‘Occurrence of breeding bird species in urban parks:effects of park structure and broad-scale variables’, UrbanEcosystems, (1966), pp. 21–34. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1009505418327 (Accessed: 19 January2015).

Ju SR, Zaki SA, Choi YK (2011) Contextual Modernization; New TownPlanning in Petaling Jaya, of Malaysia. J Asian Architec Build Eng10(1):93–100. doi:10.3130/jaabe.10.93

Kadlec T, Tropek R, Konvicka M (2012) Timed surveys and transectwalks as comparable methods for monitoring butterflies in smallplots. J Insect Conserv 16(2):275–280. doi:10.1007/s10841-011-9414-7

Kang W, Minor ES, Park C, Lee D (2015) ‘Effects of habitat structure ,human disturbance , and habitat connectivity on urban forestbird communities’,. Urban Ecosystems. doi:10.1007/s11252-014-0433-5

Karuppannan S, Baharuddin ZM, Sivam A, Daniels CB (2014) ‘UrbanGreen Space and Urban Biodiversity : Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia’.Sustain Dev 7(1):1–16. doi:10.5539/jsd.v7n1p1

Khera N, Mehta V, Sabata BC (2009) ‘Interrelationship of birds andhabitat features in urban greenspaces in Delhi, India’,. UrbanForestry Urban Greening Elsevier 8(3):187–196. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2009.05.001

Kim J, Chae J, Koo T, Im JK, Hae JC, Oo TK (2007) ‘Variation in BirdDiversity in Relation to Habitat Size in the Urban Landscape ofSeoul , South Korea’,. Acta Ornithologica 42(1):39–44

Krebs CJ (1999) Ecological Methodology, 2nd edn. Addison WesleyLongman, Inc., Menlo Park, California

Kummerling M, Muller N (2012) ‘The relationship between landscapedesign style and the conservation value of parks: A case study of ahistorical park in Weimar, Germany’,. Landsc Urban Plan 107(2):111–117 Available at: WOS:000307145300005

Lim HC, Sodhi NS (2004) Responses of avian guilds to urbanisation in atropical city. Landsc Urban Plan 66(4):199–215. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00111-7

Lim HC, Sodhi NS, Brook BW, Soh MCK (2003) Undesirable aliens:factors determining the distribution of three invasive bird species inSingapore . J Trop Ecol 19(6) :685–695. doi :10.1017/S0266467403006084

LoweK a, Taylor CE,Major RE (2011) Do CommonMynas significantlycompete with native birds in urban environments? J Ornithol 152(4):909–921. doi:10.1007/s10336-011-0674-5

Mansor M.S., Sah S.A.M. (2012) The Influence of Habitat Structure onBird Species Composition in LowlandMalaysian Rain Forests. TropLife Sci Res 23, 1–14

McCormack GR, Rock M, Toohey AM, Hignell D (2010)‘Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physicalactivity: a review of qualitative research.’,. Health Place Elsevier16(4):712–726. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.03.003

Min BC, Omar-Hor K, Lin O-YC, Kheng NC (2006) 1001 Garden Plantsin Singapore, 2nd edn National Parks Board

Møller AP (2008) Flight distance of urban birds, predation, and selectionfor urban life. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63(1):63–75. doi:10.1007/s00265-008-0636-y

New TR (2015) Insect Conservation and Urban Environments. SpringerInternal Publishing Switzerland. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21224-1

Nielsen AB, van den Bosch M, Maruthaveeran S, van den Bosch CK(2014) Species richness in urban parks and its drivers: A review ofempirical evidence. Urban Ecosystems 17(1):305–327. doi:10.1007/s11252-013-0316-1

Nordh H, Hartig T, Hagerhall CM, Fry G (2009) ‘Components of smallurban parks that predict the possibility for restoration’,. Urban

242 Urban Ecosyst (2017) 20:227–243

Forestry Urban Greening Elsevier 8(4):225–235. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2009.06.003

NordhH, Alalouch C, Hartig T (2011) ‘Assessing restorative componentsof small urban parks using conjoint methodology’. Urban ForestryUrban Greening Elsevier GmbH 10(2):95–103. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2010.12.003

Oliver AJ, Hong-Wa C, Devonshire J, Olea KR, Rivas GF, Gahl MK(2011) Avifauna richness enhanced in large, isolated urban parks.Landsc Urban Plan 102(4) :215–225. doi :10 .1016/ j .landurbplan.2011.04.007

Peck HL, Pringle HE, Marshall HH, Owens IPF, Lord a M (2014)Experimental evidence of impacts of an invasive parakeet on forag-ing behavior of native birds. Behav Ecol 25(3):582–590.doi:10.1093/beheco/aru025

Peschardt KK, Stigsdotter UK, Schipperrijn J (2014) ‘IdentifyingFeatures of Pocket Parks that May Be Related to HealthP r omo t i n g U s e ’ . La nd s c R e s : 1 – 1 6 . d o i : 1 0 . 1 0 8 0/01426397.2014.894006

Proppe DS, Sturdy CB, St Clair CC (2013) Anthropogenic noise de-creases urban songbird diversity and may contribute to homogeni-zation. Glob Chang Biol 19(4):1075–1084. doi:10.1111/gcb.12098

Qiu L, Lindberg S, Nielsen AB (2013) Is biodiversity attractive?-On-siteperception of recreational and biodiversity values in urban greenspace’. Landscape and Urban Planning. Elsevier B.V 119:136–146. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.07.007

Reis E, López-Iborra GM, Pinheiro RT (2012) ‘Changes in bird speciesrichness through different levels of urbanization: Implications forbiodiversity conservation and garden design in Central Brazil’.Landscape Urban Plan Elsevier BV 107(1):31–42. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.04.009

Rousseau JS, Savard JL, Titman R (2015) Shrub-nesting birds in urbanhabitats : their abundance and association with vegetation. UrbanEcosystems, pp:871–884. doi:10.1007/s11252-014-0434-4

Sandström UG, Angelstam P, Mikusiński G (2006) Ecological diversity ofbirds in relation to the structure of urban green space. Landsc UrbanPlan 77(1–2):39–53. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.01.004

Savard J-PL, Clergeau P, Mennechez G (2000) ‘Biodiversity conceptsand urban ecosystems’,. Landscape and Urban Planning Elsevierscience BV, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands 48(3–4):131–142. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00037-2

Schütz C, Schulze CH (2015) ‘Functional diversity of urban bird com-munities: effects of landscape composition, green space area andvegetation cover’. Ecol Evol:n/a–n/a. doi:10.1002/ece3.1778

Shanahan DF, Miller C, Possingham HP, Fuller R a (2011) The influence ofpatch area and connectivity on avian communities in urban revegetation.Biol Conserv 144(2):722–729. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.10.014

Shwartz A, Shirley S, Kark S (2008) How do habitat variability andmanagement regime shape the spatial heterogeneity of birds withina largeMediterranean urban park? Landsc Urban Plan 84(3–4):219–229. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.08.003

Shwartz A, Muratet A, Simon L, Julliard R (2013) Local and manage-ment variables outweigh landscape effects in enhancing the diversityof different taxa in a big metropolis. Biol Conserv 157:285–292.doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.09.009

Skandrani Z, Lepetz S, Prévot-Julliard A-C (2014) ‘Nuisance species:beyond the ecological perspective’,. Ecol Process 3(1):p. 3.doi:10.1186/2192–1709–3–3

Stagoll K, Lindenmayer DB, Knight E, Fischer J, Manning AD (2012)Large trees are keystone structures in urban parks. Conserv Lett5(2):115–122. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00216.x

Strohbach MW, Lerman SB, Warren PS (2013) Are small greening areasenhancing bird diversity? Insights from community-driven greeningprojects in Boston. Landsc Urban Plan 114:69–79. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.02.007

Sulaiman S, Mohamad NHN, Idilfitri S (2013) ‘Contribution ofVegetation in Urban Parks as Habitat for Selective BirdCommunity’,. Procedia – Social Behavioral Sci Elsevier BV 85:267–281. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.358

Szlavecz K, Warren P, Pickett S (2011) Biodiversity on the UrbanLandscape. In: Cincotta RP, Gorenflo LJ (eds) Human Population:Its Influences on Biological Diversity. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg,pp. 75–95. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16707-2

Toledo MCB, Donatelli RJ, Batista GT (2011) Relation between greenspaces and bird community structure in an urban area in SoutheastBrazil. Urban Ecosystems 15(1):111–131. doi:10.1007/s11252-011-0195-2

Tzoulas K, James P (2010) ‘Peoples’ use of, and concerns about, greenspace networks: A case study of Birchwood, Warrington NewTown, UK’, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. Elsevier 9(2):121–128. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2009.12.001

Zhou D, Chu LM (2012) How would size, age, human disturbance, andvegetation structure affect bird communities of urban parks in dif-ferent seasons? J Ornithol 153(4):1101–1112. doi:10.1007/s10336-012-0839-x

Urban Ecosyst (2017) 20:227–243 243

本文献由“学霸图书馆-文献云下载”收集自网络，仅供学习交流使用。

学霸图书馆（www.xuebalib.com）是一个“整合众多图书馆数据库资源，

提供一站式文献检索和下载服务”的24 小时在线不限IP

图书馆。

图书馆致力于便利、促进学习与科研，提供最强文献下载服务。

图书馆导航：

图书馆首页 文献云下载 图书馆入口 外文数据库大全 疑难文献辅助工具