Wed, Aug 17, 2022: 5:00 PM-6:30 PM
ESA Exhibit Hall
Background/Question/MethodsUrban wildlife communities are structured by numerous ecological and anthropogenic filters that benefit some species over others. The “luxury effect” hypothesis posits that patterns of urban biodiversity are positively related to income of residents. Although informative, income is only one of a suite of sociodemographic factors that can shape landscape structure. Biodiversity patterns may also be shaped by social legacies such as historic redlining and ethnicity, but these factors and their interactions are understudied and may be masked by patterns of income alone. To unpack the luxury effect, we ask: How does the occupancy of common urban mammal species (coyote, domestic cat, desert cottontail rabbit) and activity patterns vary independently by income and ethnicity within neighborhoods? Drawing from potential differences in neighborhood structure and lifestyles of residents, we hypothesized that neighborhood ethnicity may help to explain the occupancy and activity of common urban wildlife species better than income or environmental variables alone. We tested this hypothesis in metro Phoenix, Arizona, using summer data (June-Sept) from an array of 38 wildlife cameras located in or near neighborhood greenspace or community parks across gradients of neighborhood scale income and ethnicity (% Latinx residents).
Results/ConclusionsCoyotes, domestic cats, and desert cottontail rabbits were common (naïve occupancy [# sites where species was detected/# total sites] of 0.47, 0.71, and 0.21, respectively). Native wildlife of conservation interest (coyote and cottontails) were more likely to be detected in higher vs. lower income neighborhoods (naïve occupancy coyotes = 0.58 vs. 0.37; and cottontails = 0.37 vs. 0.05). In contrast, free ranging domestic cats were less likely to occupy higher vs. lower income neighborhoods (naïve occupancy = 0.58 vs. 0.84). Coyote detections were also higher in neighborhoods dominated by White residents (0.63) vs. neighborhoods with more Latinx residents (0.32). Notably, neighborhoods with more Latinx residents had few to no detections of cottontails but abundant detections of cats (naïve occupancy =.79 in high Latinx neighborhoods vs. 0.63 in low Latinx neighborhoods). The mechanistic processes behind these spatial distributions are unclear but potentially related to land cover and use differences linked to socio-demographic variables. These preliminary results suggest income and ethnicity influence common urban mammal spatial distribution within neighborhoods, enriching the understanding of patterns seen across the United States where low-income and minority populations often experience lower biodiversity where they live. Our research helps to untangle the social drivers of these inequities.
Results/ConclusionsCoyotes, domestic cats, and desert cottontail rabbits were common (naïve occupancy [# sites where species was detected/# total sites] of 0.47, 0.71, and 0.21, respectively). Native wildlife of conservation interest (coyote and cottontails) were more likely to be detected in higher vs. lower income neighborhoods (naïve occupancy coyotes = 0.58 vs. 0.37; and cottontails = 0.37 vs. 0.05). In contrast, free ranging domestic cats were less likely to occupy higher vs. lower income neighborhoods (naïve occupancy = 0.58 vs. 0.84). Coyote detections were also higher in neighborhoods dominated by White residents (0.63) vs. neighborhoods with more Latinx residents (0.32). Notably, neighborhoods with more Latinx residents had few to no detections of cottontails but abundant detections of cats (naïve occupancy =.79 in high Latinx neighborhoods vs. 0.63 in low Latinx neighborhoods). The mechanistic processes behind these spatial distributions are unclear but potentially related to land cover and use differences linked to socio-demographic variables. These preliminary results suggest income and ethnicity influence common urban mammal spatial distribution within neighborhoods, enriching the understanding of patterns seen across the United States where low-income and minority populations often experience lower biodiversity where they live. Our research helps to untangle the social drivers of these inequities.