1. A critical review of the potential suitability of residential
gardens in the UK as a conservation tool for two
contrasting taxonomic groups: mammals and birds.
Shona Redman
Word Count: 1497

2. INTRODUCTION
Alongside the current rapid human (scientific names in Appendix 1) population growth,
urbanisation is increasing (Gering & Blair 1999; United Nations Population Fund 2007).
Between 2001-2011, total human population and the percentage living in urban areas
increased in England and Wales, resulting in a human density higher than the natural carrying
capacity of the environment (Office for National Statistics 2004, 2013: Figure 1).
Figure 1. A comparison of key population statistics in England and Wales between 2001 and 2011: (a) total
human population; (b) percentage of population living in urban areas; (c) percentage of land classed as urban;
(d) human density in urban areas. References: Office for National Statistics (2004, 2013).
To house the increasing urban population there is a current trend in the UK to build
low-cost, high density housing with small gardens (Baker & Harris 2007), typically in areas
of high biological diversity and endemism; this hugely affects native wildlife (Garden et al.
2006). However, residential gardens constitute a considerable portion of urban green space
(Loram et al. 2007). This essay will discuss the feasibility of using gardens as a conservation
tool for rare and declining UK bird and mammal species.
CONSERVATION CONCERN SPECIES
In the UK, there are 18 terrestrial mammal and 59 bird species of conservation concern,
whose numbers or ranges are markedly declining (Joint Nature Conservation Committee
2016a, b), primarily due to urbanisation causing habitat loss and fragmentation of rural
environments (Table 1). This forces species into urban areas (Hof & Bright 2009), where
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2001 2011
N
Year of census
Total population (in millions) Urban population (%)
Urban area (%) Urban human density (per ha)

3. residential gardens could increase and stabilise populations of species which possess the
typical characteristics of urban residents i.e. small-medium sized, phenotypically plastic
generalists, tolerant of, and tolerated by, humans (Møller 2010a; Evans et al. 2011: Table 1;
Box 1). However, these areas are not suitable for some conservation concern species because
they create insurmountable problems e.g. lack of specific habitat (Table 1).

4. Table 1. Characteristics of selected UK Biodiversity Action Plan species,threats to their populations and their suitability for conservation within urban residential gardens.
References: Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2016a, b).
UK BAP
Species
Habitat
requirements
Diet Threats Foundin
urban areas?
Benefits of gardens Drawbacks of gardens Suitable for
urban garden
conservation?
Additional references
Water vole Riverine systems,
fens, andswamps.
Especially areas
with dense
vegetationanda
slow current.
Herbivorous - Loss of habitat
- Predationby the non-native
American mink
- River quality
Occasionally - Protectionfrommink
- May have suitable habitats e.g. dense
vegetationandponds
- Large source of food
- Do not roamfar (<300m) so suitable area
neededis relativelysmall
- Voles likedby homeowners
- Predationby domestic cats
- Vegetation normallykept tidy
- Normally do not have a waterbody and
unlikely that a garden pondwill be large
enough
- Most gardens do not backontoa riveror
stream
- Require a contiguous habitat; suitable gardens
would needto be adjacent
Possibly Angoldet al. (2006);
Baker & Harris (2007);
The Wildlife Trusts
(2016a,b)
Wildcat Woodlandfor
shelter, open
pastures for
hunting
Predatory–
rabbits, voles,
mice
- Hybridisation with,and
exposure tonewdiseases
from, feral domestic cats
- Habitat loss and
fragmentation
No - May have mice tohunt andrefuse to
scavenge in
- High density of domestic cats so
hybridisationstill likely
- Not large enough (territories in wildup to
18km2
)
- Probable negative human perceptions,
especially owners of small pets
- Lack of suitable habitat
No Kilshaw(2011)
Pine Marten Woodlandwith
above-groundden
sites
Predatory–
small rodents,
birds, poultry,
game, insects
- Habitat loss &
fragmentation
- Persecution
- Secondary rodenticide
poisoning
- Predationby redfoxes
No - Possible breedingsites: den boxes,
old/damagedtrees, androofs
- May have birds, rodents, andinsects to
hunt
- Red foxes commonin, andaround, urban
gardens
- No woodlandhabitat (is a specialist)
- Sensitive to humandisturbance
- Homeowner perceptions: possible threat to
small pets
No Birks et al. (2005)
Dormouse Woodlandand
hedgerows
Fruits e.g.
berries
- Habitat loss &
fragmentation
- Climate change
Yes - Hedges commonandplantingmore would
only be a relativelysmall modification
- Wouldprovide a large enough habitat and
food-bearingplants couldbe planted
- Gardens close to woodlandwouldbe most
beneficial
- Could cut small holes in fences toallow
connectivity between hedgerows, or replace
fences with hedges
- Unlikely to provide the variety oftrees and
arboreal pathways needed
- Most will not be close to woodland
- Predationby cats
-‘Mice’ not likedby homeowners
Possibly Baker & Harris (2007)
Polecat Arable fields,
marshes, along
riverbanks
Predatory–
rabbits,
amphibians,
game, poultry
- Hybridisation with feral
ferrets
- Persecution
- Secondary rodenticide
poisoning
Occasionally - Protectionfromhybridisationandmaybe
persecution
- Lack of food
- Area not large enough
- Possible negative homeowner opinions,
especially owners of small pets
- Exposure torodenticides mayincrease
No The Mammal Society
(2016)
Red Squirrel Woodland Seeds, nuts,
flowers, and
berries
- Competition andspreadof
squirrelpox virus fromgrey
squirrels
Occasionally - Likedby homeowners so likely to be
providedfoodandcare
- Nestingsites in trees ornest boxes
- Could climbover fences to reach other
gardens
- No protectionfrom grey squirrels andfeeding
redsquirrels can attract moregrey squirrels
- Unlikely that tree densitywouldbe high
enough to provide a suitable habitat
Yes, but
unlikely to be
effective
unless grey
squirrels are
Thomas et al. (2003);
Baker & Harris (2007)

5. controlled
effectively
Bats Woodlandand
parklandwith
hedgerows, and
buildings
Insects - Habitat loss &
fragmentation, including
destructionof roosts in
buildings
Yes - Roostingsites in roofs
- Likedby homeowners andtolerant of
humans
- Can fly to avoidthreats fromdomestic
animals andto move between gardens
- Could provide a safe ‘stop-off’between
two more suitable habitats
- Plants can attract insects for the bats to
feedon
- Provide ecosystem services by eating
insects – reduces needfor homeowners to
use insecticides
- Wouldneedto be surroundedby suitable
habitat forforaging – possible on urban fringe
but unlikely in city centre.
- Can create noise andsmell which
homeowners may not tolerate after a while.
Yes Baker & Harris (2007)
House
sparrow
Farmlandand
urban areas, close
to humans –
especially in barns
andhouse roofs
Seeds Rural – changingagricultural
practices reduce food
availability
Urban- unknown but
probably loss of garden
habitat due to housingcrisis.
Could also be predation and
pollution.
Yes - Already abundant in urban gardens so they
must be suitable
- Lots of homeowners feedpasserines
- Suitable habitat couldbe createdby
plantingtrees/bushes in eachgarden
- Homeowners likelytochange gardening
practices e.g. stopuse of chemicals
- Avoidthe effects offragmentation by
flyingover barriers
- Cat predation
- Cannot stop buildingof more houses (but can
plan for species duringdevelopment)
Yes Chamberlain et al.
(2007);
Davies et al. (2009);
Fuller et al. (2009)
Herringgull Shorelines and
urban areas, close
to water bodies
e.g. lakes
Fish - Changes to, anddecline in,
commercial fishing – less
foodavailable
- Avian botulism
Yes - Can live away from coast
- Can nest on roofs
- Avoidthe effects offragmentation by
flyingover barriers
- Serious lack of habitat (nolarge water
bodies/shorelines)
- Wouldconcentrate individuals, couldspread
botulism
- Dislikedby homeowners
- Lack of natural food
- Cat predation(although unlikely)
No Mitchell et al. (2004)

6. Box 1. The effectsof urbanisation on European hedgehogs and the current use of residential gardens
in their conservation.
European hedgehog case study
Less than 1.5 million hedgehogs remain in the UK (Wembridge 2011) because populations have declined by a third in
the last 10 years (Johnson 2016). Evidence increasingly suggests that hedgehogs are surviving better in urban areas
than rural areas (Doncaster et al. 2001; Young et al. 2006) due to severalreasons.
Urban hedgehogs negatively affected by:
 Roads and fences
- Cause fragmentation of habitat, impeding movement (Baker & Harris 2007; Wembridge 2011),
especially as hedgehogs avoid crossing large roads (Rondinini & Doncaster 2002; Baker et al. 2003).
- Road deaths are common from hedgehogs crossing small roads (Dowding et al. 2010a).
- Smaller gardens from low cost housing increase perimeter of surrounding fencing.
But positively affected by:
 Absence of predators
- Badgers rarely found in urban areas because they are sensitive to human disturbance and create
human-wildlife conflict through damage caused to buildings and gardens by sett building (Delahay et
al. 2009; Bateman & Fleming 2012; Trewby et al. 2014).
- Badgers can rarely access residential gardens, enabling hedgehogs to use them as a refuge from badger
predation (Doncaster 1992; Ward et al. 1997; Huck et al. 2008; Roper 2010).
 Abundance of food
- Opportunistic feeders so can exploit anthropogenic food sources (Hubert et al. 2011).
- Increased temperatures and rainfall in urban areas increase abundance of invertebrate prey (Dowding
et al. 2010a).
 Liked by humans (Baker & Harris 2007)
- Provide hedgehog boxes for nesting (Hof & Bright 2009; Loram et al. 2011).
- Ecosystem services- an insectivore so reduces pest species and the need for homeowners to use
insecticides.
Current conservation practices:
Urban hedgehogs frequently use residential gardens but the fragmentation of this potentially invaluable habitat is the
main concern for these populations. To make gardens more accessible to hedgehogs, the Hedgehog Street campaign
has been launched by the People’s Trust for Endangered Species which encourages homeowners to cut holes in their
garden fences to allow free movement of hedgehogs (Wembridge 2011; Johnson 2016). However,the success of the
campaign depends on how many householders engage and how the participating gardens are spatially related to each
other (Johnson 2014).
This is a well-studied case of how the exploitation and slight alteration of residential gardens could help conserve a
species in urban areas,with little impact on human life.

7. DISADVANTAGES OF URBAN AREAS
Profound ecological changes occur along an urban gradient which only select species can
tolerate (McKinney 2006). Human disturbance severely affects the prevalence of
disturbance-sensitive and actively persecuted species (McKinney 2002; Baker & Harris
2007), some of which adapt their behaviour to avoid humans but this can reduce their ability
to locate and capture prey (Ditchkoff et al. 2006). Birds are less affected by these problems
because they can fly away from threats and are generally liked by homeowners.
Companion cats and dogs exist at high densities, and create disturbances and new
predation pressures which affect the utilisation of gardens by wildlife (Baker et al. 2003). The
effects of dogs have only been investigated in rural areas where they cause substantial
disturbances on birds (Banks & Bryant 2007) and mammals (Mainini et al. 1993; Reed &
Merenlender 2011). Cats exert greater predation pressures than dogs because they roam
freely and have retained their tendency to hunt (Adamec 1976), with an estimated minimum
predation rate of 18.3 prey cat-1 year-1 (Thomas et al. 2012). The most common prey are
small rodents and house sparrows, whose populations are likely diminished by this predation
(Baker et al. 2005, 2008; McDonald et al. 2015).
Roads and fences cause habitat fragmentation, which decreases habitat size and
carrying capacity of the environment, and increases mortality risk from crossing roads (Baker
& Harris 2007). Small mammals are ten times less likely to disperse between habitats
separated by large roads (Forman & Alexander 1998); if these habitats become isolated,
genetically distinct populations, vulnerable to local extinction, can form (Underhill & Angold
2000; Wembridge 2011). Fragmentation is not a problem for birds and bats because they can
fly over barriers and have high dispersal abilities. Road mortality can hugely decrease
populations; for example, over 1600 birds and mammals were killed during four years on the
Long Point Causeway (Ashley & Robinson 1996). In Great Britain, nearly 250 billion vehicle
miles are travelled annually, although urban roads only receive around 35% of traffic flow
(Department for Transport 2016).
Traffic and other anthropogenic activities increase pollution in urban areas. Birds rely
on audial and visual communication so sound and light pollution affect their reproductive
success (Table 2). Population effects can also be seen, e.g. reduced breeding density near
roads or high noise levels (Reijnen et al. 1995).

8. Table 2. The effects of chemical, light and noise pollution on birds and other urban species
Type ofpollution Examples Effects Species affected References
Chemical Rodenticides
Insecticides
Molluscicides
Heavy metals
e.g. lead
Oestrogens
 Reduced prey
 Second-hand poisoning
 Bioaccumulation
 Endocrine disruption which can
result in reduced immune function
and changes to song repertoire
 Oxidative stress
Rodents;
Predatory species
whose prey are
targeted by, or are
exposed to, these
chemicals
Baker et al. (2003);
Blanchoud et al. (2004);
Chandler et al. (2004);
Gorissen et al. (2005);
Markman et al. (2008);
Dowding et al. (2010b);
Wembridge (2011)
Light Street lamps
Security lights
Car headlights
 Altered timings of behaviours e.g.
birds start singing earlier in the day
which can increase reproductive
success:(1) clutches laid earlier, (2)
males get more extra-pair females (3)
get cuckolded less
 Altered physiology
 Reduced activity periods or foraging
ranges for nocturnal species but
increased periods for diurnal species
– may impact on longevity
 Increased predation risk/prey
visibility
 Disorientation of night-migrating
species
Nocturnal species;
Species with
circadian rhythms,
especially birds
Miller (2006);
Navara & Nelson (2007);
Kempenaers et al. (2010)
Noise Cars
Humans
Machinery
Fireworks
 Altered song structure,e.g. shorter,
and sung fasterwith atypical
elements
 Interruption of vocalisations by
ambient noise – can affect survival
and reproductive success
 May disorientate animals if panicked
 Changes to stress hormone levels
 Divergence in sender-receiver
dialogue
 Masking of warning calls
 Masking of hunger calls from chick
to adult. Results in fewer young,
lower body mass and fewer
fledglings
Species that rely on
vocal
communication e.g.
birds
Ditchkoff et al. (2006);
Slabbekoorn & den
Boer-Visser (2006);
Hu & Cardoso (2009);
Mockford & Marshall
(2009);
Nemeth & Brumm
(2010);
Payne et al. (2012);
Schroeder et al. (2012)
Urban areas lack natural food resources and nesting sites within their modified habitat
patches, so fail to provide specialists with sufficient resources unless they can adapt their
behaviour and diet (Doncaster et al. 1990; Hinsley et al. 2009). Paucity of natural food
reduces reproductive success in urban birds, compared to their rural counterparts, whilst
increasing energy expenditure (Hinsley et al. 2009; Chamberlain et al. 2009). However,
urban areas experience increased temperature and rainfall which increases invertebrate
abundance and plant growth, providing adequate food for insectivores and herbivores (Oke
1982; Dowding et al. 2010a). Humans can supplement food; this is a major benefit of urban
areas.

9. ADVANTAGES OF URBAN AREAS
Several benefits exist to species in urban areas, if they can overcome the disadvantages.
Anthropogenic food sources supplement natural food and are abundant throughout the year so
provide food security, especially to species liked by humans (Baker & Harris 2007; Davies et
al. 2009). Feeding birds can prevent the need for migration (Plummer et al. 2015), and
increase survival and reproductive success (Arcese & Smith 1988; Robb et al. 2008), unless a
temporal mismatch is created between availability of resources and hatching of chicks
(Hinsley et al. 2008, 2009). Additional problems arise from the nutritional inadequacy of
anthropogenic food (Heiss et al. 2009), and the high density of individuals at feeding sites
which exacerbates disease transmission, but decreases predation risk (Smith & Engeman
2002).
Urban areas also provide anthropogenic nesting and denning sites such as roofs and
bird boxes (Gaston et al. 2005, 2007). Indoor nests typically have lower predation rates and
increased brood sizes than natural outdoor nests (Møller 2010b), but communal roosts
facilitate disease transmission (Smith & Engeman 2002). Some mammal species readily nest
near humans by adapting their behaviour e.g. stone martens (Herr et al. 2010), but others only
do so if natural sites are limited and population densities are high e.g. red foxes (Newman et
al. 2003).
Natural predators struggle to find food or are afraid of human disturbance so are
seldom found in urban areas, creating refuges for some species (Gering & Blair 1999; Møller
2012), for example, the endangered San Joaquin kit fox is limited to a few urban
conurbations in California, correlating with areas of coyote absence (Nelson et al. 2007). A
UK example is hedgehogs’ use of residential gardens as a refuge from badgers (Box 1),
exemplifying how gardens can help conserve a species.

10. GARDENS AS A CONERVATION TOOL
Urban residential gardens have huge potential as a conservation tool because they constitute
35-47% of green space, although the majority are small (<400m2) (Loram et al. 2007).
Wildlife-gardening can improve garden attractiveness to a range of species and is already
undertaken by homeowners to improve well-being, sometimes resulting in neighbourhood
mimicry (Goddard et al. 2013; Cox & Gaston 2016). This can increase the success of
conservation practices, especially if they only require a small cost or task.
Gardens are heterogeneous which enhances their suitability for many species by
providing food-bearing plants and shelter vegetation, which can attract species that do not
benefit from typical anthropogenic feeding e.g. non-granivorous birds (Baker & Harris 2007;
Fuller et al. 2008; Evans et al. 2009). Fragmentation hardly affects birds because they can
fly, but planting trees could improve garden connectivity for them and small scansorial
mammals, but would not help larger mammals, the species worst affected by fragmentation.
Other problems within urban areas can be minimised, e.g. bell collars reduce cat
predation by up to 53% (Gordon et al. 2010). However, owners that perceive cats as harmless
to wildlife may not participate (McDonald et al. 2015). Birds can evolve to avoid predation
e.g. give alarm calls and stay tonically still when caught (Møller & Ibáñez-Álamo 2012), or
sing at higher levels (Møller 2011). Traffic-induced mortality could be reduced by placing
trees or posts along verges to increase a bird’s take-off height. Some mammals adapt to
become most active after midnight e.g. hedgehogs (Baker et al. 2007; Dowding et al. 2010a),
and smaller species can avoid mortality by fitting beneath cars (Ford & Fahrig 2007).
Current conservation practices focus on reconciliation ecology which modifies
gardens to encourage use by both humans and wildlife (Francis & Lorimer 2011). These
techniques include the installation of green roofs and walls which can support a range of
vegetation and invertebrates, providing additional food for mammals and birds (Francis &
Lorimer 2011). Green roofs also provide habitat for birds, being used by black redstarts to
adapt to urban life (Grant 2006). However, most houses lack a flat roof, capable of supporting
the substrate, so would require extensive work.
CONCLUSION
Urban residential gardens would be suitable for conserving several conservation concern
species, especially small bird generalists which can exploit small habitat patches, avoid the

11. effects of fragmentation, and are fed by humans, but are severely affected by pollution.
However, large specialists are not suitable for conservation in gardens because they cannot
overcome the lack, and fragmentation, of habitat. More homeowners will undertake
conservation practices, increasing their success, if they only require a small task focused
towards a well-liked species.
Reference List
Adamec, R.E. (1976) The interaction of hunger and preying in the domestic cat (Felis catus):An adaptive
hierarchy? Behavioural Biology, 18,263-272.
Angold, P.G., Sadler, J.P.,Hill, M.O., Pullin, A., Rushton, S., Austin, K.,Small, E., Wood, B.,
Wadsworth, R., Sanderson, R. & Thompson, K. (2006) Biodiversity in urban habitat patches. Science
of the Total Environment, 360,196-204.
Arcese,P. & Smith, J.N.M. (1988) Effects of population density and supplemental food on reproduction
in song sparrows. Journal of Animal Ecology, 57,119-136.
Ashley, E.P. & Robinson, J.T. (1996) Road mortality of amphibians, reptiles and other wildlife on the
Long Point Causeway,Lake Erie, Ontario. Canadian Field Naturalist, 110,403-412.
Baker,P.J.,Ansell, R.J.,Dodds, P.A.A.,Webber,C.E. & Harris, S. (2003) Factors affecting the
distribution of small mammals in an urban area. Mammal Review, 33,95-100.
Baker,P.J.,Bentley, A.J.,Ansell, R.J. & Harris,S. (2005) Impact of predation by domestic cats Felis
catus in an urban area. Mammal Review, 35,302-312.
Baker,P.J.,Dowding, C.V.,Molony, S.E., White, P.C.L. & Harris,S. (2007) Activity patterns of urban
red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) reduce the risk of traffic-induced mortality. Behavioural Ecology, 18,716-
724.
Baker,P.J. & Harris,S. (2007) Urban mammals: what does the future hold? An analysis of the factors
affecting patterns of use of residential gardens in Great Britain. Mammal Review, 37,297-315.
Baker,P.J.,Molony, S.E., Stone, E., Cuthill, I.C. & Harris, S. (2008) Cats about town: is predation by
free-ranging pet cats Felis catus likely to affect urban bird populations? Ibis, 150,86-99.
Banks, P.B. & Bryant,J.V. (2007) Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds from
natural areas. Biology Letters, 3,611-613.
Bateman,P.W. & Fleming, P.A. (2012) Big city life: carnivores in urban environments. Journal of
Zoology, 287,1-23.
Birks, J.D.S.,Messenger,J.E. & Halliwell, E.C. (2005) Diversity of den sites used by pine martens
Martes martes:a response to the scarcity of arboreal cavities? Mammal Review, 35,313-320.
Blanchoud, H., Farrugia, F. & Mouchel, J.M. (2004) Pesticide uses and transfers in urbanised catchments.
Chemosphere, 55,905-913.
Chamberlain, D.E.,Toms, M.P.,Cleary-McHarg,R. & Banks, A.N. (2007) House sparrow (Passer
domesticus) habitat use in urbanized landscapes. Journal of Ornithology, 148,453-462.
Chamberlain, D.E.,Cannon, A.R.,Toms, M.P.,Leech,D.I.,Hatchwell, B.J. & Gaston, K.J. (2009) Avian
productivity in urban landscapes: a review and meta-analysis. Ibis, 151,1-18.

12. Chandler, R.B.,Strong, A.M. & Kaufman, C.C. (2004) Elevated lead levels in urban house sparrows: a
threat to sharp-shinned hawks and merlins? Journal of Raptor Research, 38,62-68.
Cox, D.T.C. & Gaston, K.J. (2016) Urban bird feeding: Connecting people with nature. Public Library of
Science ONE, 11,1-13.
Davies, Z.G., Fuller, R.A.,Loram, A., Irvine, K.N.,Sims, V. & Gaston, K.J. (2009) A national scale
inventory of resource provision for biodiversity within domestic gardens. Biological Conservation,
142,761-771.
Delahay, R.J.,Davison, J.,Poole, D.W.,Matthews,A.J.,Wilson, C.J.,Heydon, M.J. & Roper, T.J. (2009)
Managing conflict between humans and wildlife: trends in licensed operations to resolve problems
with badgers Meles meles in England. Mammal Review, 39,53-66.
Department for Transport (2016) Provisional Road Traffic Estimates Great Britain: October 2015 –
September 2016. Department for Transport.
Ditchkoff, S.S., Saalfeld, S.T., Gibson, C.J. (2006) Animal behaviour in urban ecosystems:Modifications
due to human-induced stress. Urban Ecosystems, 9,5-12.
Doncaster,C.P.,Dickman, C.R. & Macdonald, D.W. (1990) Feeding ecology of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes)
in the city of Oxford, England. Journal of Mammalogy, 71,188-194.
Doncaster,C.P. (1992) Testing the role of intraguild predation in regulating hedgehog populations.
Proceedingsof the Royal Society, 249,113-117.
Doncaster,C.P.,Rondinini, C. & Johnson, P.C.D. (2001) Field test for environmental correlates of
dispersal in hedgehogs Erinaceus europaeus.Journal of Animal Ecology, 70,33-46.
Dowding, C.V.,Harris, S., Poulton, S. & Baker,P.J. (2010a) Nocturnal ranging behaviour of urban
hedgehogs, Erinaceus europaeus,in relation to risk and reward. Animal Behaviour, 80,13-21.
Dowding, C.V.,Shore, R.F.,Worgan, A.,Baker, P.J. & Harris,S. (2010b) Accumulation of anticoagulant
rodenticides in a non-target insectivore, the European hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus).
Environmental Pollution, 158,161-166.
Evans, K.L.,Newson, S.E. & Gaston, K.J. (2009) Habitat influences on urban avian assemblages. Ibis,
151,19-39.
Evans, K.L.,Chamberlain, D.E.,Hatchwell, B.J., Gregory, R.D. & Gaston, K.J. (2011) What makes an
urban bird? Global Change Biology, 17,32-44.
Ford, A.T. & Fahrig, L. (2007) Diet and body size of North American mammal road mortalities.
Transportation Research Part D, 12,498-505.
Forman, R.T.T. & Alexander, L.E. (1998) Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics, 29,207-231.
Francis, R.A. & Lorimer, J. (2011) Urban reconciliation ecology: The potential of living roofs and walls.
Journal of Environmental Management, 92,1429-1437.
Fuller, R.A.,Warren, P.H.,Armsworth,P.R.,Barbosa,O. & Gaston, K.J. (2008) Garden bird feeding
predicts the structure of urban avian assemblages. Diversity and Distributions, 14,131-137.
Fuller, R.A.,Tratalos, J. & Gaston, K.J. (2009) How many birds are there in a city of half a million
people? Diversity and Distributions, 15,328-337.
Garden, J.,McAlpine, C., Peterson,A.,Jones, D. & Possingham, H. (2006) Review of the ecology of
Australian urban fauna: A focus on spatially explicit processes. Austral Ecology, 31,126-148.
Gaston, K.J.,Warren,R.H.,Thompson, K. & Smith, R.M. (2005) Urban domestic gardens (IV): the
extent of the resource and its associated features. Biodiversity and Conservation,14,3327-3349.

13. Gaston, K.J.,Fuller, R.A.,Loram, A.,MacDonald, C., Power,S. & Dempsey, N. (2007) Urban domestic
gardens (XI): variation in urban wildlife gardening in the United Kingdom. Biodiversity and
Conservation, 16,3227-3238.
Gering, J.C. & Blair, R.B. (1999) Predation on artificial bird nests along an urban gradient: predatory risk
or relaxation in urban environments? Ecography, 22,532-541.
Goddard, M.A.,Dougill, A.J. & Benton, T.G. (2013) Why garden for wildlife? Social and ecological
drivers, motivations and barriers for biodiversity management in residential landscapes. Ecological
Economics, 86,258-273.
Gordon, J.K.,Matthaei, C. & van Heezik, Y. (2010) Belled collars reduce catch of domestic cats in New
Zealand by half. Wildlife Research, 37,372-378.
Gorissen, L.,Snoeijs, T., van Duyse, E. & Eens, M. (2005) Heavy metal pollution affects dawn singing
behaviour in a small passerine bird. Oecologia, 145,504-509.
Grant, G. (2006) Extensive green roofs in London. Urban Habitats, 4,51-65.
Heiss, R.S., Clark, A.B. & McGowan,K.J. (2009) Growth and nutritional state of American crow
nestlings vary between urban and rural habitats. Ecological Applications, 19,829-839.
Herr, J., Schley, L., Engel, E. & Roper, T.J. (2010) Den preferences and denning behaviour in urban stone
martens (Martes foina). Mammalian Biology, 75,138-145.
Hinsley, S.A.,Hill, R.A.,Bellamy, P.E.,Harrison, N.M.,Speakman, J.R.,Wilson, A.K. & Ferns,P.N.
(2008) Effects of structural and functional habitat gaps on breeding woodland birds: working harder
for less. Landscape Ecology, 23,615-626.
Hinsley, S.A.,Hill, R.A.,Bellamy, P.,Broughton, R.K.,Harrison, N.M.,Mackenzie, J.A.,Speakman, J.R.
& Ferns, P.N. (2009) Do highly modified landscapes favour generalists at the expense of specialists?
An example using woodland birds. Landscape Research, 34,509-526.
Hof, A.R. & Bright, P.W. (2009) The value of green-spaces in built-up areas for western hedgehogs.
Lutra, 52,69-82.
Hu, Y. & Cardoso, G.C. (2009) Are bird species that vocalize at higher frequencies preadapted to inhabit
noisy urban areas? Behavioural Ecology, 20,1268-1273.
Hubert, P.,Julliard, R.,Biagianti, S. & Poulle, M. (2011) Ecological factors driving the higher hedgehog
(Erinaceuseuropaeus) density in an urban area compared to the adjacent rural area. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 103,34-43.
Huck, M., Davison, J. & Roper, T.J. (2008) Predicting European badger Meles meles sett distribution in
urban environments. Wildlife Biology, 14,188-198.
Johnson, H. (2014) Conservation Strategy for West-European Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) in the
United Kingdom(2015-2025). London: People’s Trust for Endangered Species.
Johnson, H. (2016) Hedgehog Street. URL:http://www.hedgehogstreet.org/pages/hedgehog-street.html
[20 November 2016].
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2016a) UK BAP priority terrestrial mammal species. URL:
http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5170 [12 November 2016].
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2016b) UK BAP priority bird species. URL:
http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5163 [12 November 2016].
Kempenaers,B.,Borgström, P.,Loës, P.,Schlicht, E. & Valcu, M. (2010) Artificial night lighting affects
dawn song, extra-pair siring success,and lay date in songbirds. Current Biology, 20,1735-1739.
Kilshaw, K. (2011) Scottish Wildcat. Scottish Natural Heritage.

14. Loram, A., Tratalos, J., Warren, P.H. & Gaston,K.J. (2007) Urban domestic gardens (X): the extent &
structure of the resource in five major cities. Landscape Ecology, 22,601-615.
Loram, A., Warren,P., Thompson, K. & Gaston, K. (2011) Urban domestic gardens: The effects of
human interventions on garden composition. Environmental Management, 48,808-824.
Mainini, B., Neuhaus,P. & Ingold, P. (1993) Behaviour of marmots Marmota marmota under the
influence of different hiking activities. Biological Conservation, 64,161-164.
Markman, S., Leitner, S., Catchpole, C., Barnsley, S., Müller, C.T.,Pascoe,D. & Buchanan, K.L. (2008)
Pollutants increase song complexity and the volume of the brain area HVC in a songbird. Public
Library of Science ONE, 3,1-6.
McDonald, J.L.,Maclean, M., Evans, M.R. & Hodgson, D.J. (2015) Reconciling actual and perceived
rates of predation by domestic cats. Ecology and Evolution, 5,2745-2753.
McKinney, M.L. (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. BioScience, 52,883-890.
McKinney, M.L. (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological
Conservation, 127,247-260.
Miller, M.W. (2006) Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behaviour of American robins. The
Condor, 108,130-139.
Mitchell, P.I.,Newton, S.F., Ratcliffe, N. & Dunn, T.E. Eds. (2004) Seabird populations of Britain and
Ireland: results of the Seabird 2000 census (1998-2002). T and A.D. Poyser, London.
Mockford, E.J. & Marshall, R.C. (2009) Effects of urban noise on song and response behaviour in great
tits. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276,2979-2985.
Møller, A.P. (2010a) Interspecific variation in fear responses predicts urbanization in birds. Behavioural
Ecology, 21,365-371.
Møller, A.P. (2010b) The fitness benefit of association with humans: elevated success of birds breeding
indoors. Behavioural Ecology, 21,913-918.
Møller, A.P. (2011) Song post height in relation to predator diversity and urbanization. Ethology, 117,
529-538.
Møller, A.P. (2012) Urban areas as refuges from predators and flight distances of prey. Behavioural
Ecology, 23,1030-1035.
Møller, A.P. & Ibáñez-Álamo, J.D. (2012) Escape behaviour of birds provides evidence of predation
being involved in urbanization. Animal Behaviour, 84,341-348.
Navara,K.J. & Nelson, R.J. (2007) The dark side of light at night: physiological, epidemiological, and
ecological consequences. Journal of Pineal Research, 43,215-224.
Nelson, J.L.,Cypher, B.L.,Bjurlin, C.D. & Creel, S. (2007) Effects of habitat on competition between kit
foxes and coyotes. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71,1467-1475.
Nemeth, E. & Brumm, H. (2010) Birds and anthropogenic noise: Are urban songs adaptive? The
American Naturalist, 176,465-475.
Newman,T.J., Baker,P.J.,Simcock, E., Saunders, G., White, P.C.L. & Harris,S. (2003) Changes in red
fox habitat preference and rest site fidelity following a disease-induced population decline. Acta
Theriologica, 48,79-91.
Office for National Statistics (2004) Census 2001: Key statistics for urban areas in England and Wales.
Office for National Statistics.

15. Office for National Statistics (2013) 2011 Census: Characteristics of built-up areas. Office for National
Statistics.
Oke, T.R. (1982) The energetic basis of the urban heat island. Quarterly Journal of the Royal
Meteorological Society, 108,1-24.
Payne,C.J.,Jessop, T.S., Guay, P.,Johnstone, M., Feore, M. & Mulder, R.A. (2012) Population,
behavioural and physiological responses of an urban population of black swans to an intense annual
noise event. Public Library of Science ONE, 7,1-9.
Plummer, K.E.,Siriwardena, G.M., Conway, G.J., Risely, K. & Toms, M.P. (2015) Is supplementary
feeding in gardens a driver of evolutionary change in a migratory bird species? Global Change
Biology, 21,4353-4363.
Reed,S.E. & Merenlender, A.M. (2011) Effects of management of domestic dogs and recreation on
carnivores in protected areas in northern California. Conservation Biology, 25,504-513.
Reijnen, R., Foppen, R., ter Braak, C. & Thissen, J. (1995) The effects of car traffic on breeding bird
populations in woodland. III. Reduction of density in relation to the proximity of main roads. Journal
of Applied Ecology, 32,187-202.
Robb, G.N., McDonald, R.A.,Chamberlain, D.E., Reynolds, S.J., Harrison, T.J.E. & Bearhop,S. (2008)
Winter feeding of birds increases productivity in the subsequent breeding season. Biology Letters, 4,
220-223.
Rondinini, C. & Doncaster,C.P. (2002) Roads as barriers to movement for hedgehogs. Functional
Ecology, 16,504-509.
Roper, T.J. (2010) Badger. Collins, London.
Schroeder, J., Nakagawa,S.,Cleasby, I.R. & Burke, T. (2012) Passerine birds breeding under chronic
noise experience reduced fitness. Public Library of Science ONE, 7,1-8.
Slabbekoorn, H. & den Boer-Visser, A. (2006) Cities change the songs of birds. Current Biology, 16,
2326-2331.
Smith, T.H. & Engeman, R.M. (2002) An extraordinary raccoon, Procyon lotor,density at an urban park.
Canadian Field Naturalist, 116,636-639.
The Mammal Society (2016) Polecat – Mustela putorius. URL:http://www.mammal.org.uk/species-
hub/full-species-hub/full-species-hub-list/species-polecat/ [13 November 2016].
The Wildlife Trusts (2016a) The Wildlife Trusts’ water vole projects. URL:
http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/watervole [12 November 2016].
The Wildlife Trusts (2016b) Water vole – frequently asked questions. URL:
http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/water-vole-faq [12 November 2016].
Thomas, K.,Tompkins, D.M.,Sainsbury, A.W., Wood, A.R.,Dalziel, R., Nettleton, P.F. & McInnes,C.J.
(2003) A novel poxvirus lethal to red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris). Journal of General Virology, 84,
3337-3341.
Thomas, R.L.,Fellowes, M.D.E. & Baker,P.J. (2012) Spatio-temporal variation in predation by urban
domestic cats (Felis catus) and the acceptability of possible management actions in the UK. Public
Library of Science ONE, 7,1-13.
Trewby, I.D.,Young, R., McDonald, R.A.,Wilson, G.J., Davison, J., Walker, N.,Robertson, A.,
Doncaster,C.P. & Delahay,R.J. (2014) Impacts of removing badgers on localised counts of
hedgehogs. Public Library of Science ONE, 9,1-4.

16. Underhill, J.E. & Angold, P.G. (2000) Effects of roads on wildlife in an intensively modified landscape.
Environmental Reviews, 8,21-39.
United Nations Population Fund. (2007) Unleashing the potential of urban growth. UNFPA.
Ward, J.F.,Macdonald, D.W. & Doncaster,C.P. (1997) Responses of foraging hedgehogs to badger
odour. Animal Behaviour, 53,709-720.
Wembridge, D. (2011) The state of Britain’s hedgehogs. PTES.
Young, R.P.,Davison, J., Trewby, I.D.,Wilson, G.J., Delahay, R.J. & Doncaster,C.P. (2006) Abundance
of hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus)in relation to the density and distribution of badgers (Meles
meles). Journal of Zoology, 269,349-356.
Appendix 1. Scientific names of species mentioned in the text
Common name Scientific name
Human
Water vole
American mink
Domestic cat
Wildcat
Rabbit
Pine marten
Red fox
Dormouse
Polecat
Ferret
Red squirrel
Squirrelpox virus
Grey squirrel
House sparrow
Herring gull
Avian Botulism
European hedgehog
Eurasian badger
Domestic dog
Stone marten
San Joaquin kit fox
Coyote
Black redstarts
Homo sapiens
Arvicola terrestris
Neovision vison
Felis catus
Felis silvestris
Oryctolagus cuniculus
Martes martes
Vulpes vulpes
Muscardinus avellanarius
Mustela putorius
Mustela putorius furo
Sciuris vulgaris
Parapoxvirus
Sciurus carolinensis
Passer domesticus
Larus argentatus
Clostridiumbotulinum
Erinaceuseuropaeus
Meles meles
Canis lupus familiaris
Martes foina
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Canis latrans
Phoenicurus ochruros