Abstract
AbstractAimUrban biodiversity, and its associated ecosystem services, is an important component of the quality of life of urban residents. The "luxury effect" posits a positive association between biodiversity and socioeconomic status in urban areas, and is thus reflective of environmental injustice, as the benefits associated with biodiversity are not equitably shared across society. We aimed to determine the generality of the luxury effect, and to identify the factors causing its variation across published studies.LocationUrbanized landscapes globally.Time periodCurrent.Major taxa studiedTerrestrial animals and plants.MethodsWe tested the luxury effect across a sample of 337 estimates of the relationship between biodiversity measures and socioeconomic status from 96 studies via a meta‐analysis, addressing three hypotheses: (a) the luxury effect is more pronounced where water availability is limited, (b) the luxury effect is more pronounced in developing than developed countries, (c) the luxury effect is stronger in exotic compared to native species.ResultsThere was a significant overall luxury effect: there was a positive association between terrestrial biodiversity measures and socioeconomic status. The strength of the luxury effect was greater in arid areas. There was limited support for a stronger luxury effect in exotic species, but no support for any association with development status.Main conclusionsMany key and emerging climate impacts are concentrated in urban areas. Therefore, the degree of environmental injustice represented by the luxury effect may be amplified in the future, especially in arid regions. The objective to increase urban biodiversity through more equitable management and provision of water resources could form part of a wider strategy for sustainable development of cities to promote environmental justice, enhancing the quality of life of urban residents across all sectors of society. Challenges remain to ensure that any such strategy prioritizes conservation goals for native biodiversity.
Highlights
Urban biodiversity is an important component of the quality of life of urban dwellers and is associated with a range of ecosystem services, such as cooling effects through shade provision, flood prevention and pollination services (Belaire, Westphal, Whelan, & Minor, 2015; Dearborn & Kark, 2009), there can be negative impacts of urban biodiversity for the human population
Our results suggest that socioeconomic status has a greater influence on urban biodiversity in more arid regions, likely through greater investment in the provision of water resources, and possibly because areas with water are more desirable, inflating property prices (Mahan, Polasky, & Adams, 2000)
The effect of precipitation found in our study demonstrates environmental injustice in arid cities in that poorer areas will have greater exposure to the deleterious effects of higher temperatures, which will be exacerbated in the future by the effects of climate change
Summary
Urban biodiversity is an important component of the quality of life of urban dwellers and is associated with a range of ecosystem services, such as cooling effects through shade provision, flood prevention and pollination services (Belaire, Westphal, Whelan, & Minor, 2015; Dearborn & Kark, 2009), there can be negative impacts of urban biodiversity for the human population (so-called ‘ecosystem disservices’; Lyytimäki & Sipilä, 2009). The positive spatial relationship between biodiversity measures and socioeconomic status has been termed the luxury effect (Hope et al, 2003). Hypotheses for the underlying cause of the luxury effect include that wealthier individuals or municipalities have more resources to invest in management promoting biodiversity, or that higher biodiversity areas are more attractive places to live, and property prices are elevated (Leong et al, 2018). In terms of the sustainable development of cities, it is important to understand the luxury effect in the context of environmental justice, that is, the right of all urban residents to have access to, and to be able to benefit from, biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides (e.g., Kinzig, Warren, Martin, Hope, & Katti, 2005). Urban development plans that aim for social inclusion should, have the objective of attenuating any such luxury effect
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
