PRACTICAL 3

Abstract
The rapid increase in human population since the industrial revolution has been companied by constant demand for more space. This caused the destruction of many habitats. Instead of preventing further urban developments, scientist found it is more important to accept and sustain urban environments as ecosystems. The governments are concentrating on the renovation of their cities in such a way not just humans but urban ecosystems can also benefit. Green spaces are part of this renovation. The aim of the experiment is to investigate the effectiveness of green spaces in urban environments. It is evaluated at the intermediate level for 33 different suburbs and at the micro level for Spooner Park. The suburbs surveyed had 50% of its area dedicated to green space. Trees, scrubs and grass are found amongst its nature strips. Spooner Park is frequently used by children and their guardians and a variety of insects, reptiles and birds. However, only 2 age groups and 3 trophic levels were observed. Artificial green space is not very effective in sustaining urban biodiversity but it does have a reasonable balance between ecosystem and human benefits.

Introduction
The major cause for loss of biodiversity is the depletion of natural habitats from rapid human growth and human activities as such as construction developments (Richard B. Primack, 2008; Cunningham & Cunningham, 2009). However, semi-natural and artificial habitats like parks are just as important. It was not until recent times did scientist came to accept urban environments as proper ecosystems (Cunningham & Cunningham, 2009). The governments are concentrating on the renovation of their cities in such a way not just humans but urban ecosystems can also benefit (http://ips.jhu.edu). Green spaces are created for this purpose. This experiment focuses on the role green space play between human usage and sustaining biodiversity and its effectiveness. Green space is evaluated at the intermediate level for 33 different suburbs using collaborated data and at the micro level for Spooner Park in Beverley Park Suburb. The human usage is surveyed by the age groups and the biodiversity is surveyed by the different type of organisms using the park as niches.

Material and Method

1. SUBURB 1.1 Suburb profile The geography of each suburb is different. The profile of each individual suburb is obtains from different council sites. The information obtained includes total area of the suburb and the different parks, national parks and reserves found within the suburb boundaries. These information is then tabled and categorised under Parks/Reserves, National Park/Natural Reserves, Sporting Fields and Others. 1.2 Green space

A map printout is obtained (via GOOGLE SATELLITE). The areas of all the green space listed under the suburb profile are calculated with the scale provided (including error range). This data is then collaborated with the remaining 32 suburb. The mean of the green space percentage is then calculated (MICROSOFT EXCEL). 1.3 Nature strips The information obtained from the site and the map needs to be verified. This was done by walking around the suburb. Ten streets were randomly picked and the types of vegetations found on its nature strips are noted. The streets were then rated on its types of vegetation. 2. PARK 2.1 Park Profile A park profile contains the name, total area and the characteristics of the park. The percentage estimate of different facilities and vegetations is calculated. A scaled map is then made. 2.2 Presence of floras and extent of usage by people. The numbers of trees are counted along with the type of fauna found in the park. This information was then used to construct a food web. The human usage is measured by the age group that frequent the park most. The age group is classified into children, adults and the elderly. 2.4 Ecosystem services The likely ecosystem service provided by the park is then identified. RESULTS Suburb Collaborated Suburb Data Over the 33 suburbs surveyed in Sydney, it was found large percentage of suburb space are dedicated to green space(Fig1). In the collaborated data, over 55% of the total suburb areas is dedicated to green space. Beverley Park is below this mean with only 29% dedicated to green space.
29.53 % Area of Beverley Park Area of total Green Space

Rest 55.69 % 44.31 % Green Space 70.47 %

(fig1, fig 2)

10.05%

park/reserve natural park/reserve 54.15% sporting fields other 93.19%

6.81%

26.43%

9.37%

Beverley Park's Sporting Fields

(Figure3. Figure4) Within the 55+_0.0008% of total suburb area, half is used by artificial parks and reserves as shown in figure 3; whereas natural parks and reserves tends to take the smallest section of the total green space. The usage of green space in Beverley Park is found to be less diverse as shown in figure 4. No presences of natural habitats indicate Beverley Park is fully urbanised. Nature Strips The nature strips randomly picked in the 33 suburbs consists of very little biodiversity. The three main component of natures strip includes grass, trees and occasional shrubs and bushes (fig3).
40 20 0 Grass Trees Shrubs/Bushes 32 30 23 Series1

Figure 3,most common vegetations in Nature strips

PARK (Table1,Table2) Spooner Park is most frequent by children Organisms found on Organism found in and their guardians, mainly to use its sporting trees. the herb/flower bed facilities. The sport grounds overlaps with the Ants Bees grass together they take up 7.2% of the total Birds (In general) Butterfly park area (Table2). Grass alone fills up the Beetles Caterpillar majority of the park space up to 83% Coca roach Lizards (Table2). This leaves a small percentage of Other bugs snails Moth Wasps space for trees and other potential nesting Spiders worms grounds for birds and other organism. Termites Name Spooner Park Area( m) 14733m+_0.000034% Age Group most frequent the park Children and their guardians Number of Trees and Bushes 54

Trees 0.01% 7% 6% 7.20% 5% Herb/Flower Garden Bed Grass (overlaps with Sporting grounds) Sporting grounds Concrete Path Resting Facilities 0.20% Shrubs

83%

Figure4 and Map1( http://maps.google.com/) (pic1) (Pic2)

(Fig5) Organism tends to be found in trees and at the herbs and flower bed. Despite these regions are relatively small compared to the total park area, the organisms that use them as niches are quite diverse (Table2 and Fig4). The ability to be used as niches is considered one of the ecosystem services of the park, (Michael C et al 2008, p723). Other ecosystem services in the park include erosion control, pollination, recreation and waste treatment. The plant is responsible for erosion control and waste management; pollination is carried out by bees and butterfly in the herb/flower bed and the park as a whole contributes to various outdoor activates. Discussion Suburb

The major cause of loss of biodiversity is habitat destruction (Richard B.Primack, 2008, Cunningham&Cunningham 2009). Only 29.53% of Beverley Parks dedicated to green space and this number significantly less than the percentage mean of all 33 suburbs (fig 1,2). Adding to that, all of the green spaces in Beverley Park are artificially made (fig 4). This indicated Beverley Park is a fully urbanised. Artificial habitats are less diverse than natural habitats therefore fewer types of organisms lives there (Richard B. Primack, 2008, Cunningham & Cunningham). The ecosystem functions and services in Beverley Park would also be less than the average suburb. This is because the ecosystem functions are influenced by the functional diversity and the genetic diversity (Michael C et al 2008, p722). Very little biodiversity is found within the nature strips of the 33 suburb; its main components are grass, trees and shrubs (fig.3) Despite these areas are quit small and the diversity is low, it is well managed to maximise land and usage and provide ecosystem service(http://www.tams.act.gov.au/) The main ecosystem benefits of nature strips is gas/climate regulation. By filling up unused space it is effective green space management. Park Artificial green space like Spooner Park benefits ecosystems only up to certain degrees because human benefits are weighted heavier. As indicated in fig4 and map1, a cleaner look is produced by growing trees on the outer areas of the park leaving 83% of the area open for outdoor activities. Resting facilities, concrete path and sporting fields took up a further 13.01% of area given that sporting facilities do overlap with the grass. This leaves only 12% of the ground space for trees and herb/flower beds. Despite the ecosystem services in the park include erosion control, pollination, recreation and waste treatment. The use of space is not efficient enough for the benefit of ecosystem and humans; only 2 age groups and 3 trophic levels were observed in the park(Table2). The spaces should be used more effectively to either plant trees for the benefits of ecosystems or more sporting facilities for the benefit of people. Many organism use trees and flowerbed as nesting grounds(table1). Because the tree/flower to open space ratio in Spooner Park is low, the capacity for the organisms would also be low. Ecological processes and services are dependent on functional diversity and the total number of organism (Michael C and William H 2008, p 722). The number of trophic levels can be used as an indicator for the ecosystems sustainability(Raven etc,2008). There are only 3 trophic levels for Spooner Park indicating its sustainability is quite low. The artificial green spaces are moderate in sustaining urban ecosystem and providing ecosystem services but not biodiversity. References
1. Michael C and William H 2009, ECOTOXICOLOGY: A Comprehensive Treatment, p722, 723. 2. Richard B. Primack 2008, conservation biology 2nd, Sinauer Association INC, Sunderland, USA.

3. Cunningham & Cunningham, 2008, Principle of Environmental Scienc,e 1st, Joanice roerig-blong, New York. 4. ACT Government, Naturestripspdf.pdf, ACT Government, 13.04.09, <http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/12667/naturestripspdf.pdf>
5. Johns Hopkins University, Is there an Urban revival and what does it mean for Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University, 13. 04.09. < http://ips.jhu.edu/pub/Is-There-An-Urban-Revivaland-What-Does-It-Mean-for-Baltimore>