Everything is habitat for something. Now that we got the obvious out of
the way, to me the real question is, can these urban offspring be used
in a meaningful way as habitat for something that matters? And,
unfortunately, the only reason cemeteries and golf courses exist is
because they generate a lot of profit (for somebody). To turn them into
meaningful habitat would require a cut in profits, and nobody getting
those profits is going to want to do that.
On 12/05/02 15:39, John Mickelson wrote:
Working in NYC and looking at the spatial dimensions of biodiversity in this
heavily urbanized setting.
Wondering what folks thoughts are re: the extent to which cemeteries (and, to a lesser
extent: ball fields, play grounds, golf courses etc...) "really" serve as
habitat.
Clearly they serve multiple purposes and are utilized by a range of flora and fauna
(presumably more so within "green" managed programs), but should they really
form a core element within
a comprehensive urban conservation plan?
I'm finding myself able to argue both sides..... thoughts?
-John
