Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 May 2020 | 12(8): 15767–15775
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
doi: https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5172.12.8.15767-15775
#5172 | Received 18 June 2019 | Final
received 04 April 2020 | Finally accepted 01 May 2020
Mammalian fauna in an urban
influenced zone of Chandaka-Dampara Wildlife
Sanctuary in Odisha, India
Subrat Debata
¹ & Kedar Kumar Swain ²
¹Aranya Foundation, 625/12, Mars
Villa, Panchasakha Nagar, Dumduma,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha 751019, India
²Office of the Divisional Forest
Officer, Chandaka Wildlife Division, Gaja Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
751003, India
¹ subrat.debata007@gmail.com (corresponding author), ²
kedarswain28@gmail.com
Abstract: A camera trapping survey to
estimate the species richness and relative abundance of different mammalian
fauna and various anthropogenic activities was carried out for four months
within an urban influenced zone of Chandaka-Dampara
Wildlife Sanctuary, Odisha. The survey
extended over 120 days in January–April 2019 over 10% of the total sanctuary
area. With nine cameras and a total
effort of 771 trap days, 2,855 independent photographs including 14 species of
wild mammals and birds, human traffic, and movement of stray animals were
captured. Among the mammalian fauna,
Golden Jackal was the most photographed species whereas the Asian Elephant,
Striped Hyaena, and Common Palm Civet were the least photographed species. Various anthropogenic activities like
intensive movement of departmental vehicles, staff, feral livestock, and stray
dogs and cats were also recorded and these activities need to be addressed in
management activities for long term conservation of the area and its mammalian
fauna. In order to enhance biological
connectivity and improve movement of wildlife between the main part of the Chandaka Sanctuary and its near-detached reserved forests
in Jagannathprasad-Bharatpur, the study recommends
removal of feral cattle, extensive plantations, and construction of a fly-over
for vehicular traffic.
Keywords: Bhubaneswar, camera trap survey,
eastern India, Odisha, relative abundance, urbanization.
Editor: L.A.K. Singh,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India. Date of publication: 26 May 2020
(online & print)
Citation: Debata.S. & K.K. Swain (2020). Mammalian
fauna in an urban influenced zone of Chandaka-Dampara
Wildlife Sanctuary in Odisha, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 12(8): 15767–15775. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5549.12.8.15767-15775
Copyright: © Debata & Swain 2020. Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction,
and distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to
the author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and
Planning Authority, India.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author details: Subrat Debata is a Wildlife researcher currently affiliated with Aranya Foundation, an Odisha based nature conservation organisation. Kedar Kumar
Swain is a senior Odisha Forest Service Officer and currently working as
the Divisional Forest Officer of Chandaka Wildlife
Division.
Author contribution: Study design: KKS and SD; field work, data analysis
and writing the article: SD.
Acknowledgements: The study was carried out with financial support from
the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority, India
allotted to Chandaka Wildlife Division. We are thankful to the forest range officer,
Bhubaneswar Wildlife Range and field staff for their support during the
study. Thanks to H.S. Palei for preparing the study area map. We are also thankful to the anonymous
reviewers for their valuable suggestions in improving the manuscript.
INTRODUCTION
Information on the presence and distribution of
species within a region is important for planning and evaluating conservation
strategies (Tobler et al. 2008) and it is particularly vital if the area is
experiencing threats from adjoining urban development. Globally around half of the human population
are currently living in urban areas and it is predicted that it may cross 70%
by the year 2050 (United Nations 2011, 2012).
So, the increasing pressure for urban development will lead to continued
urban expansion resulting in loss, degradation, fragmentation and isolation of
the remnant natural habitats (Biamonte et al.
2011). This changing environmental
condition affects biodiversity at local, landscape and regional scales (Jokimaki & Kaisanlahti-Jokimaki
2003; Wilby & Perry 2006).
The Chandaka-Dampara
Wildlife Sanctuary (CDWS) covering an area of 193.39km² is situated in Khurda District adjoining Bhubaneswar, the capital city of
Odisha, eastern India. The sanctuary
exists in two different parts; the major part contains an area of 172.12km²
while the other part, Bharatpur-Jagannathprasad
sector is 19.27km² (Image 1). Out of the
19 wildlife sanctuaries in Odisha CDWS experiences severe biotic interference
out of the growth and development of Bhubaneswar City. For the last six decades, Bhubaneswar has
expanded many times from just 26.09km² in 1951 to 422km² in 2011 (Routray et al. 1996; Naik 2013). In fact, expansion of the northern region of
the city has resulted in fragmentation and isolation in the sanctuary. The Bharatpur and Jagannathprasad reserve forests of CDWS have already been
isolated from the sanctuary and surrounded by human habitations of Bhubaneswar
City. Therefore, it can be predicted
that the negative effect of urban growth might have resulted in the local
extinction or population depletion of many species particularly the mammalian
fauna in this fragmented habitat.
Unfortunately, there is sporadic information on the status of different
mammalian fauna in this urban influenced zone of CDWS. Therefore, documenting the status of
different mammalian fauna and various ongoing anthropogenic activities is
important to assist subsequent conservation interventions.
In this study, we carried out a camera trapping survey
within the urban influenced and isolated zone of CDWS with the objectives of:
(a) documentation of the mammalian species richness, (b) estimation of their
relative abundance based on photo-capture rate, and (c) monitoring of various
anthropogenic activities. The results
obtained from the study can be used as baseline data in future inventories to
ascertain the change over time and develop appropriate conservation
interventions.
MATERIAL AND METHOD
Study Area
The Bharatpur and Jagannathprasad forest sector of CDWS, Odisha (Image 1) lies
between 20.286–20.360 0N & 85.756–85.810 0E. This sector covers an area of 19.27km² (Bharatpur 11.88km² and Jagannathprasad
7.39km²) that represents around 10% of the total area of the sanctuary. The climate of the area is tropical and the
three distinct seasons—summer (March–June), monsoon (July–October) and winter
(November–February)—are experienced here.
The annual mean temperature of the area varies between 12°C during
January to 42°C during May with an average annual rainfall of 1,542mm. Vegetation of the area is an admixture of
mixed deciduous, semi-evergreen and bamboo brakes and the major portion of the
area is covered with bushy and shrubby vegetation. As the area is situated adjoining Bhubaneswar
City, a major portion of the boundary line is covered with stone wall
concertina fencing to check human interference and straying of wild
animals. Although currently, there is no
human habitation and human activities within the area, it is experiencing severe
biotic pressure from the growth and development of Bhubaneswar City.
Data collection and analysis
The study was carried out for four months (1
January–30 April 2019) by using nine automatically triggered camera traps (Cuddeback and Moultrie, USA). The area was first divided into square shaped
1km² grids on map (Image 1) followed by installation of one camera trap in each
grid for a minimum of 25 days. Because
of limitations from the number of camera traps we could only sample nine grids
at a time. Cameras were strapped on to
trees approximately 50cm above ground along the motorable roads and forest
paths by aiming the censor parallel to the ground. Cameras were set to operate 24 hours-a-day
and programmed to take two consecutive photos registering date and time for
each exposure with 30 seconds delay for the next exposure. Cameras were checked once a week for photo
download and battery replacement. For
each station, the date and time of installation and retrieval of each camera
trap was recorded to calculate the total number of trap days (Each trap day =
24 hours).
After retrieving the camera traps, all the photographs
were carefully observed and grouped as wild animals, domestic animals and human
traffic. Wild animals were identified up
to species level following Menon (2014).
Each photo was rated as an independent capture, if the time between
consecutive photographs of the same subject was more than 30 minutes apart at a
particular location (O’Brien et al. 2003).
Photos with multiple individuals of the same species in the frame were also
counted as single detection for that species.
Based on the principles given by Jenks et al. (2011), the relative
abundance index (RAI) of each species/ activity was calculated as
RAI = A/N × 100
Where ‘A’ is the total number of detections of a
species/ activity by all cameras and ‘N’ is the total number of camera trap
days by all the cameras.
To understand the impact of various anthropogenic
activities on mammalian species detection rate, we calculated the correlation
coefficient (r).
RESULTS
During the study period, the camera trapping effort
resulted in 771.31 trap days and captured 2,855 independent photographs of
which 53.2% were of wild animals followed by movement of departmental vehicle
(23.68%), staff (13.27%), and domestic animals (9.84%).
In all, 14 species of wild mammals were photographed
(Table 1; Images 2 to 15) and among them, the Asian Elephant is Endangered and
Striped Hyaena is Near Threatened as per the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
(IUCN 2017). Among the seven species of
mammalian herbivores, the Spotted Deer was the highest photographed (RAI =
39.02) and the Asian Elephant was the lowest photographed (RAI = 0.13) species. Similarly, among the carnivorous mammals, the
Golden Jackal was the highest photographed (RAI = 71.57) whereas the Striped
Hyaena and Common Palm Civet were the lowest photographed (RAI = 0.13 each)
species. Overall, the Golden Jackal was
the most photographed species whereas Asian Elephant, Striped Hyaena, and
Common Palm Civet were the minimally photographed species. The detailed information on the number of
independent photographs and RAI of all the mammalian species is given in Table
1. The histogram showing the RAI of
different mammalian species is given in Figure 1.
Photographs captured during the study depicting
various anthropogenic activities include movement of departmental vehicles,
staff, feral livestock, and free ranging dogs and cats. Among these, movement of vehicles was the
maximum photographed activity (RAI = 87.64) than movement of staff (RAI =
49.13), stray dogs (RAI = 17.50), feral buffalos (RAI = 15.81), feral cattle
(RAI = 2.46), and domestic cat (RAI = 0.65) (Table 2). Among all the sampling grids, the
anthropogenic activity was extremely low at the camera trap location in grid
number 10 due to no vehicular movement and it might be due to the absence of
motorable roads. Detailed information on
the number of independent photographs and RAI of all the mammalian species and
anthropogenic activities in each sampling grid is given in Table 3. It was observed that the detection rate and
RAI of different mammalian species was found to be negatively correlated with
level of anthropogenic disturbances (r = -0.66, p< 0.05).
DISCUSSION
The CDWS is home to 37 species of mammals of which
rodents, bats, shrews, and tree-shrews are represented by 14 species (Tiwari et
al. 2002). So a comparison of the 14
species of mammals recorded during the present study from Bharatpur
and Jagannathprasad forest sector with the rest of
the species from the entire sanctuary represents around 61%. Excluding bats, rodents, and shrews, species
like Sambar Rusa unicolor, Barking Deer
Muntiacus muntjak,
Indian Chevrotain Moschiola indica, Leopard Panthera
pardus, Asiatic Wild Dog Cuon
alpinus, Bengal Fox Vulpes bengalensis,
Small Indian Mongoose Urva auropunctatus, Sloth Bear Melursus
ursinus, and Indian Pangolin Manis crassicaudata that were earlier reported to occur in
CDWS (Tiwari et al. 2002), were not recorded during the present study in Bharatpur and Jagannathprasad
forest sector. For non-occurrence of
these species, there could be several possible factors. For example, the forest cover of Bharatpur and Jagannathprasad was
earlier connected with CDWS, however, with increasing urbanization, development
of road network and other anthropogenic activities, it has already been
fragmented and isolated. Studies across
the world have revealed that fragmentation and isolation of wildlife habitats
bring negative effect on abundance and distribution of animal communities (Mullu 2016). It was
also observed that the photo-capture rate of various anthropogenic activities
accounted for around 47% of all the detections and it was even much higher than
Similipal Tiger Reserve (Palei
et al. 2015) and Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary (Debata & Swain 2018).
Furthermore, the presence of domestic animals can have a detrimental
effect on the distribution and assemblage of wild animal communities (Palei et al. 2015; Debata &
Swain 2018) and movement of feral buffalos, cattle and stray dogs were recorded
throughout the study area. Therefore,
species like Sambar, Barking Deer, and Indian Chevrotain prefer comparatively
large undisturbed forest patches and are highly sensitive to human disturbance
and due to livestock pressure might have left the habitat or became locally
extinct. Similarly, these factors might
be responsible for the absence of Leopard, Asiatic Wild Dog, and Sloth Bear
which prefer similar habitat conditions (Srivastava & Singh 2003). Even the current status of these carnivores
is uncertain in the entire sanctuary (S. Debata pers.
obs. 2020). Other species like the Small
Indian Mongoose might have been missed out from the cameras because of small
body size. Usually the body size and behavior of individual animals greatly influence the
detection probability (Sollmann et al. 2013),
however, the photo-capture rate and RAI of Asian Elephant was estimated to be
extremely low. It can be inferred that
this mega herbivore rarely visit the area during seasonal migration. Although the habitat of the study area is
ideal for the Bengal Fox, the presence of the species in the area was not
confirmed.
Among all the species, Golden Jackal, Spotted Deer,
and Wild Boar were the most frequently photo-captured and widely distributed
species compared to others indicating their higher abundance in the study
area. These animals are habitat
generalists and can tolerate a wide range of anthropogenic disturbances (Prater 2005).
Additionally, with the absence of large predators and poaching
activities, their population is gradually increasing. Similarly with abundant
prey species, particularly the Spotted Deer and no competitor, the Golden
Jackal population is thriving well. On
the other hand, the increasing Golden Jackal population might be the factor for
absence or local extinction of Bengal Fox population as a result of increasing
competition for space and food.
Implications for conservation management
Although human disturbances from the peripheral areas
in Bharatpur and Jagannathprasad
have been completely controlled due to stone wall concertina fencing along the
boundary, the area is still experiencing severe biotic pressure from intensive
movement of vehicles, feral livestock and stray animals. In the long run if these disturbances
continue, it may greatly affect the abundance and composition of the existing
mammalian fauna. Therefore, for long
term conservation of the area and its wildlife, it is essential that the feral
livestock population be removed first.
Studies have shown that wild herbivores benefit from the reduction of
livestock (Madhusudan 2004). Lethal
control and sterilization of stray dogs can be useful in controlling their
population. Vehicular movements
negatively affect the ranging behaviour and activity pattern of wild animals
(Cole et al. 1997; Samson et al. 2016) and it accounted for 23.65% of the total
photo-capture rate in our study area. It
should be controlled to a minimum unless required. The forests of Bharatpur
and Jagannathprasad area are completely isolated from
the sanctuary. To ensure the
connectivity of the study area with the sanctuary, the area between Dalua Protected Forest in Chandaka
Wildlife Range and Jagannathprasad forest sector in
Bhubaneswar Wildlife Range should be considered for extensive plantation
activities. Moreover, the road passing
through the area may be converted to a flyover to avoid vehicular traffic. These implications may aid movement of wild
animals between habitats and thereby ensure biological connectivity.
Table 1. Number of independent photographs and
relative abundance index (RAI) of different mammalian species and birds in Bharatpur and Jagannathprasad
forest sector of Chandaka-Dampara Wildlife Sanctuary
in Odisha, eastern India, January–April 2019.
|
Family |
Species |
Common name |
IUCN status |
Number of photos |
RAI (%) |
Sno. of cameras where animal species
recorded |
|
Mammals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elephantidae |
Elephas maximus |
Asian Elephant |
Endangered |
1 |
0.13 |
5 |
|
Cervidae |
Axis axis |
Spotted Deer |
Least Concern |
301 |
39.02 |
1–14, 17 |
|
Cercopithecidae |
Macaca mulatta |
Rhesus Macaque |
Least Concern |
36 |
4.67 |
1–6, 11 |
|
Semnopithecus entellus |
Northern Plains Grey Langur |
Least Concern |
2 |
0.26 |
4 |
|
|
Hystricidae |
Hystrix indica |
Indian Crested Porcupine |
Least Concern |
52 |
6.74 |
1–5, 8, 10, 11, 13 |
|
Leporidae |
Lepus nigricollis |
Indian Hare |
Least Concern |
68 |
8.82 |
1, 3, 4, 6–10, 14 |
|
Suidae |
Sus scrofa |
Wild Boar |
Least Concern |
110 |
14.26 |
1–15, 17 |
|
Felidae |
Felis chaus |
Jungle Cat |
Least Concern |
60 |
7.78 |
1–5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17 |
|
Canidae |
Canis aureus |
Golden Jackal |
Least Concern |
552 |
71.57 |
1–11, 13, 14, 17 |
|
Hyaenidae |
Hyaena hyaena |
Striped Hyaena |
Near Threatened |
1 |
0.13 |
5 |
|
Viverridae |
Veverricula indica |
Small Indian Civet |
Least Concern |
60 |
7.78 |
1–6, 8, 10, 14, 17 |
|
Paradoxurus hemaphroditus |
Common Palm Civet |
Least Concern |
1 |
0.13 |
1 |
|
|
Herpestidae |
Urva edwardsii |
Grey Mongoose |
Least Concern |
6 |
0.78 |
1, 2, 9 |
|
Mustelidae |
Mellivora capensis |
Honey Badger |
Least Concern |
2 |
0.26 |
5 |
|
Birds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phasianidae |
Pavo cristatus |
Indian Peafowl |
Least Concern |
244 |
31.61 |
1–13 |
|
Francolinus pondicerianus |
Grey Francolin |
Least Concern |
13 |
1.68 |
3–7 |
|
|
Galloperdix spadicea |
Red Spurfowl |
Least Concern |
4 |
0.51 |
13 |
|
|
Gallus gallus |
Red Junglefowl |
Least Concern |
6 |
0.77 |
1–4, 7–11 |
Table 2. Number of independent photographs and
Relative Abundance Index (RAI) of various anthropogenic activities in Bharatpur and Jagannathprasad
forest sector of Chandaka-Dampara Wildlife Sanctuary
in Odisha, eastern India, January–April 2019.
|
Family |
Number of photos |
RAI (%) |
Sno. of cameras where anthropogenic
activities were recorded |
|
Vehicles |
676 |
87.64 |
1–8, 11–14, 17 |
|
Human traffic |
379 |
49.13 |
1–6, 8, 9, 11–15, 17 |
|
Feral cattle and buffalos |
141 |
18.28 |
1–15, 17 |
|
Free ranging dogs |
135 |
17.5 |
1–9, 11, 13, 14, 17 |
|
Free ranging cats |
5 |
0.65 |
3, 14 |
Table 3. Total number of photographs and relative
abundance index (RAI) of different mammalian species and anthropogenic
activities in different camera trap locations in Bharatpur
and Jagannathprasad forest sector of Chandaka-Dampara Wildlife Sanctuary in Odisha, eastern
India, January–April 2019.
|
Sno. of sampling grids |
Total number of |
RAI |
||
|
Mammal photographs |
Anthropogenic activity photographs |
Mammals |
Anthropogenic activities |
|
|
1 |
154 |
192 |
19.97 |
24.89 |
|
2 |
113 |
120 |
14.65 |
15.56 |
|
3 |
225 |
54 |
29.17 |
7 |
|
4 |
172 |
147 |
22.30 |
19.06 |
|
5 |
204 |
310 |
26.45 |
40.19 |
|
6 |
83 |
71 |
10.76 |
9.21 |
|
7 |
19 |
17 |
2.46 |
2.20 |
|
8 |
68 |
194 |
8.82 |
25.15 |
|
9 |
32 |
36 |
4.15 |
4.67 |
|
10 |
74 |
2 |
9.59 |
0.26 |
|
11 |
36 |
48 |
4.67 |
6.22 |
|
12 |
5 |
63 |
0.65 |
8.17 |
|
13 |
29 |
16 |
3.76 |
2.07 |
|
14 |
31 |
31 |
4.02 |
4.02 |
|
15 |
1 |
3 |
0.13 |
0.39 |
|
16 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
17 |
6 |
32 |
0.78 |
4.15 |
|
18 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Overall |
1252 |
1336 |
|
|
For
figures & images - - click here
REFERENCES
Biamonte, E., L, Sandoval, E. Chacon & G. Barrantes (2011). Effect of urbanization on the avifauna in a tropical
metropolitan area. Landscape Ecology 26: 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9564-0
Cole, E.K., M.D. Pope & R.G. Anthony (1997). Effects of road management on movement and survival of
Roosevelt Elk. The Journal of Wildlife Management 61: 1115–1126. https://doi.org/10.2307/3802109
Debata, S. & K.K. Swain (2018). Estimating mammalian diversity and relative abundance
using camera traps in a tropical deciduous forest of Kuldiha
Wildlife Sanctuary, eastern India. Mammal Study 43: 45–53. https://doi.org/10.3106/ms2017-0078
IUCN (2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version
2017-3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 20 May 2019.
Jenks, K.E., P. Chanteap, K.
Damrongchainarong, C. Peter, P. Cutter, T. Redford,
A.J. Lynam, J. Howard & P. Leimgruber
(2011). Using relative abundance indices
from camera-trapping to test wildlife conservation hypotheses-an example from
Khao Yai National Park, Thailand. Tropical
Conservation Science 4: 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291100400203
Jokimaki, J. & M.L. Kaisanlahti-Jokimaki
(2003). Spatial similarity of urban bird
communities: a multiscale approach. Journal of Biogeography 30:
1183–1193. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00896.x
Madhusudan, M.D. (2004). Recovery of wild large herbivores following livestock
decline in a tropical Indian wildlife reserve. Journal of Applied Ecology
41: 858–869. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00950.x
Menon, V. (2014). Indian Mammals: A Field Guide. Hachette Book
Publishing India Pvt. Ltd, India, 528pp.
Mullu, D. (2016). A review on the effect of habitat fragmentation on
ecosystem. Journal of Natural Sciences Research 6(15): 1–15.
Naik, M. (2013). Urban sprawl of Bhubaneswar city using GIS
applications and entropy. B Tech Thesis, National Institute of Technology,
Rourkela, 63pp.
O’Brien, T., G. Kinnaird, M.F. & H.T. Wibisono (2003). Crouching tigers, hidden prey: Sumatran tiger and
prey populations in a tropical forest landscape. Animal Conservation 6:
131–139. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1367943003003172
Palei, H.S., T. Pradhan, H.K. Sahu
& A.K. Nayak (2015). Estimating
mammalian abundance using camera traps in the tropical forest of Similipal Tiger Reserve, Odisha, India. Proceedings of
the Zoological Society 69: 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-015-0143-x
Prater, H.S. (2005). The book of Indian animals. Oxford University
Press, New Delhi, 324pp
Routray, J.K., K.C. Rath & N.
Nath (1996). Growth, development and planning
of Bhubaneswar. Cities 13(2): 79–96.
Samson, A., B. Ramakrishnan, A. Veeramani,
P. Santhoshkumar, S. Karthick, G. Sivasubramanian,
M. Ilakkia, A. Chitheena,
J.L. Princy & P. Ravi (2016). Effect of vehicular traffic on wild animals in Sigur Plateau, Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Threatened
Taxa 8(9): 9182–9189. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.1962.8.9.9182-9189
Sollmann, R., A. Mohamed, H. Samejima
& A. Wilting (2013). Risky
business or simple solution-Relative abundance indices from camera-trapping. Biological
Conservation 159: 405–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.12.025
Srivastava, S.S. & L.A.K. Singh (2003). Status of wild dog (Cuon
alpinus) in Similipal
and possible impacts of ‘village dogs’. Zoos’ Print 18(10):
18–21.
Tiwari, S.K., J.R.B. Alfred & S.K. Dutta (2002). Vertebrate Fauna of Chandaka-Dampara
Wildlife Sanctuary, Orissa. Zoological Survey of India, Conservation Area
Series 14, 126pp.
Tobler, M.W., S.E. Carrillo-Percastegui,
R.L. Pitman, R. Mares & G. Powell (2008). An evaluation of camera traps for inventorying large-
and medium-sized terrestrial rainforest mammals. Animal Conservation 11:
169–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2008.00169.x
United Nations (2011). World population prospects: the revision 2010. New
York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 481pp.
United Nations (2012). World urbanization prospects, the 2011 revision:
Final report and tables. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Population Division, 302pp
Wilby, R.L. & G.L.W. Perry (2006). Climate change, biodiversity and the urban
environment: a critical review based on London, UK. Progress in Physical
Geography 30: 73–98. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309133306pp470ra