Applied Geography 29 (2009) 577–587
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Applied Geography
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apgeog
Diversity and distribution of landscape trees in the compact Asian city
of Taipei
C.Y. Jim*, Wendy Y. Chen
Department of Geography, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong
a b s t r a c t
Keywords:
Urban biodiversity
Urban forest
Urban tree communities
Urban ecology
Compact city
Taipei
The promotion and preservation of biodiversity in urban areas remains scant, especially in
Asian cities. This study focuses on spatial pattern and diversity of landscape trees in
compact Taipei. Aggregate species diversity of three urban habitats (streets, urban parks
and riverside parks) exceeded the countryside’s secondary forests. Urban parks with site
heterogeneity and multiple functions accommodate the highest richness, and streets with
acute site limitations the poorest represented by popular native species. More affinities
exist between urban and riverside parks. Low diversity in riverside parks echoes natural
site constraints and primary use for river discharge and flood control. The compact urban
form has not stifled species diversity and spatial variability of urban forests. Development
history and park area have no significant relationship with species diversity. Understanding species composition in urban ecosystems could frame conservation strategies to
augment species richness, appropriate site selection, habit preservation and wildlife
recruitment.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
The world is heavily urbanized and 60% of humanity is projected to reside in cities by 2030 (United Nations, 2007). The
considerable magnitude, extent and pace of urban expansion have brought drastic habitat degradation and biodiversity losses
at different scales (Cilliers, Müller, & Drewes, 2004; Czech & Krausman, 1997; McKinney, 2006; Prasad & Badarinth, 2004). The
protection of urban natural areas has become an important facet of nature conservation since the 1990s (Goode, 1993;
Heywood, 1996; McKinney, 2006; Miller, 2005; Miller & Hobbs, 2002). A key endeavour is the protection of urban biodiversity
and associated habitat assemblages. Biodiversity in cities provides social and biological functions to residents, including
ecological balance, ecosystem services, environmental protection, outdoor recreation, aesthetic enjoyment, nature education,
and nurturing grounds, shelters, refuges and dispersal centres for wildlife species (Box & Harrison, 1994; Cilliers et al., 2004;
Reduron, 1996; Tsai, 2001). The sustainable development of human society could be achieved with the help of ecological
sustainability, in which urban biodiversity conservation could play a useful role.
Biodiversity conservation in Taiwan faces an uphill battle due to rapid development and urbanization (Tsai, 1999).
Conservation efforts initiated since the 1980s have focused on natural ecosystems outside cities. The Cultural Heritage
Preservation Act, enacted in 1981, mandated nature reserves and protected species. The Wildlife Conservation Act of 1989
permitted designation of 1955 species of rare fauna at three protection levels, namely endangered, rare, valuable and
requiring conservation measures. The issue of global biodiversity conservation then attracted little attention from
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ852 2859 7020; fax: þ852 2559 8994.
E-mail address: hragjcy@hkucc.hku.hk (C.Y. Jim).
0143-6228/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2009.01.002
578
C.Y. Jim, W.Y. Chen / Applied Geography 29 (2009) 577–587
government agencies or the public in Taiwan. A special Committee for Global Environment Change was set up in the Executive
Yuan (equivalent to the Cabinet), which established a Biodiversity Conservation Group in 1994. Lacking enabling policies and
public awareness, related governmental agencies encountered difficulties in protecting biodiversity. In 2001, the Executive
Yuan augmented nature conservation by formulating an action plan to pursue ‘‘the conservation of biological diversity, the
sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the use of genetic
resources’’, modelled after the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. Such efforts thus far have designated six national parks
aiming mainly at nature conservation. Meanwhile, biodiversity conservation and restoration in urban ecosystems and the
adjoining rural envelope still receive little attention.
Urban green spaces provide home and sustenance for many floral and faunal species. They contribute notably to urban
diversity conservation (Box & Harrison, 1994; Smith, Thompson, Hodgson, Warren, & Gaston, 2006; Sukopp, 2002; Thompson
et al., 2003). Many studies focused on plant diversity (e.g. Pyšek, 1989; Smith et al., 2006; Turner, Lefler, & Freedman, 2005;
Zerbe, Maurer, Schmitz, & Sukopp, 2003), others investigated animals (e.g. Melles, Glenn, & Martin, 2003; Shochat, Stefanov,
Whitehouse, & Faeth, 2004) and both (Angold et al., 2006). In Germany, habitat and species diversities were positively related
to intensities of disturbance in the transition zone (between city centre and outskirts). The choice and combination of tree
species influence the leaf area indices of urban forests, leading to differences in environmental and ecological benefits and
facilitating smart growth (Gatrell & Jensen, 2002). Moreover, land use patterns and historical changes could affect floristic
diversity in cities (Zerbe et al., 2003). The extensive introduction and invasion of alien species in urban areas, and heterogeneity of urban habitats (natural, disturbed and managed), could raise species richness above the surrounding natural or
semi-natural habitats (Kowarik, 1990; Turner et al., 2005). The increasing cultural disturbance could reduce natural potential
and the conservation and ecological values of flora (Gracı́a-Romero, 2001).
The ‘‘Landscape Master Plan for Taipei City’’ proposed by the Taipei City Government in 2006 stipulated the need for
biodiversity conservation. The enlightened policy could benefit from relevant research leading to practical plans and actions.
This study aimed at: (1) to investigate the current status of species diversity in the typical compact Asian city of Taipei, which
is the political, economic, cultural and transport centre of Taiwan; (2) to explore differentiation of the tree flora in the main
urban habitats (streets, urban parks and riverside parks); (3) to examine the relationship between tree diversity and human
disturbance; and (4) to deduce implications on urban green spaces management to achieve biodiversity and nature
conservation in compact cities. Understanding plant diversity in urban green spaces could contribute to enhanced understanding of human and natural impacts on urban vegetation. The findings could inform the management of urban ecosystems
and generate practical implications for biodiversity conservation in Taipei (Jim & Chen, 2008).
Study area and methods
Study area
Taipei city is situated in the lowest portion of the Taipei Basin, occupying 27,127 ha, of which 66% has been urbanized. It is
surrounded by hills on the north, east and south sides, with Danshui River and its floodplain opening to the west. The wellvegetated surrounding hills occupy about half of the city’s territory. The main landform is alluvial plain deposited by the
Danshui River in the last few millennia. Others include riverine marsh, river terraces, lower hillslopes and water surfaces.
The subtropical monsoon climate has an annual average temperature of 23.5 C and rainfall of 2153 mm mainly deposited in
the warm months. The climate supports continuous plant growth for most species, except some deciduous elements that
avoid the dry season (Huang, 1993).
Data
This study focused on landscape trees in the built-up portion of Taipei city. They are largely cultivated and managed by the
Parks and Street Lights Office of the Public Works Department (Parks and Street Lights Office, 2000, 2005). The analysis was
based on a tree census in the study area (including species identity and site location) conducted in 2005 with the help of this
Office. All landscape trees were recorded, except those situated in small (<1 ha) neighbourhood parks. To investigate the
relationship between habitat conditions and human disturbance, 12 street sections (Table 2), 10 urban parks (Table 4), 10
riverside parks (Table 6) were evaluated as representative samples that accommodate most landscape trees and main site
variations.
Species diversity indices and statistical computation
Species richness (S) denotes the total number of tree species in a certain sample area. Amongst different species diversity
indices (Greig-Smith, 1983), Simpson (Simpson, 1949), Shannon–Wiener (Lloyd, Zar, & Karr, 1968) and Evenness were chosen.
The Simpson index describes the probability that a second individual drawn from a population (vegetation community)
should be of the same species as the first. The Shannon–Wiener index indicates the species heterogeneity of a vegetation
community. The Evenness index refers to the distribution pattern of the individuals between the species. The computations
were preformed by the Species Diversity and Richness (III) software package (Seaby & Henderson, 2004). Pearson correlations
C.Y. Jim, W.Y. Chen / Applied Geography 29 (2009) 577–587
579
were computed to explore the relationship between species diversity and site area, development history (denoting the
intensity of human disturbance) with the help of SPSSPC 12 software.
A biomass index is proposed to indicate the contribution of individual species to the treescape and the potential provision
of ecosystem services. It is computed by B ¼ (Tree count Final height score)/100, where species with small (5–9 m), medium
(9–18 m) and large (>18 m) final height are assigned respectively scores of 1, 2 and 3. Urban forests could bring extensive
benefits: microclimate amelioration, energy saving, improved water, air and soil quality, mitigation of storm water runoff,
reduced carbon dioxide emission, increased property value, and community vitality (Macro & McPherson, 2002; McPherson
et al., 1997; Xiao, McPherson, Simpson, & Ustin, 1998). The average life span of urban trees in stressful sites is about 10–25
years (Urban, 1989). Trees that can remain could reach their biological potential size, to realize their potential benefits.
Without data on age structure and size distribution, an analysis based on actual tree dimensions could not be conducted at
this stage.
Results and discussion
Street trees
Taipei’s street trees are composed of 33,656 trees from 49 species. Species composition is dominated by a small cohort of
popular species (Table 1). The top five contributing 61% are Cinnamomum camphora, Ficus microcarpa, Koelreuteria elegans,
Melaleuca quinquenervia and Bischofia javanica. The street tree population showed distinct species composition. Six species
are common to all three habitats, five shared between streets and urban parks, only one between streets and riverside parks,
and eight are exclusively planted in streets.
The conifers and palms are minor components. The tropical broadleaf growth form and species with large final size (>18 m
tall) are dominant (Tables 1 and 7). Some 48% of the trees are evergreen broadleaves, and 42% deciduous broadleaves. The 12
deciduous broadleaved species prevail over six evergreen broadleaved ones. Nine species could attain large final size, versus
eight for medium (9–18 m tall) and only three small (5–9 m tall).
Table 1
The composition, landscape features, provenance and quantities of the top 20 landscape tree species in streets.
Rank
Species
Family
Growth forma
Final heightb
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Cinnamomum camphora
Ficus microcarpa
Koelreuteria elegans
Melaleuca quinquenervia
Bischofia javanica
Liquidambar formosana
Roystonea regia
Ulmus parvifolia
Bombax ceiba
Ficus religiosa
Peltophorum pterocarpum
Lagerstroemia speciosa
Alstonia schloaris
Lauraceae
Moraceae
Sapindaceae
Myrtaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Hamamelidaceae
Arecaceae
Ulmaceae
Bombacaceae
Moraceae
Caesalpiniaceae
Lythraceae
Apocynaceae
BLE
BLE
BLD
BLE
BLD
BLD
Palm
BLD
BLD
BLD
BLD
BLD
BLE
Large
Large
Small
Large
Large
Large
Large
Small
Large
Large
Medium
Medium
Medium
14
15
16
Terminalia mantalyi
Ficus elastica
Erythrina indica
Combretaceae
Moraceae
Fabaceae
BLD
BLE
BLD
Medium
Large
Medium
17
Pongamia pinnata
Fabaceae
BLD
Medium
18
Mangifera indica
Anacardiaceae
BLE
Medium
19
20
Phoenix roebelenii
Pistacia chinensis
Arecaceae
Anacardiaceae
Palm
BLD
Small
Medium
Total
Average
a
Provenance
Native
Native
Native
India, Malaysia, Australia
Native
Native
Central America
Native
India
India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar
Tropical Asia, Australia
India, Australia
India, Malaysia, Java,
Philippines
Tropical Africa
India, Malaysia, Java
India, Malaysia,
Pacific islands
India, Malaysia, S. China,
Ryukyu, Australia
India, Myanmar,
Malaysia
India, Indochina
Native
Tree quantity
Species biomass
Tree
count
(no.)
Tree
frequency
(%)c
Biomass
indexd
6792
5873
3675
2122
2042
1907
1767
1208
1110
1065
764
751
739
20.18
17.45
10.92
6.30
6.07
5.67
5.25
3.59
3.30
3.16
2.27
2.23
2.20
203.76
176.19
36.75
63.66
61.26
57.21
53.01
12.08
33.30
31.95
15.28
15.02
14.78
24.70
21.36
4.45
7.72
7.43
6.93
6.43
1.46
4.04
3.87
1.85
1.82
1.79
562
455
418
1.67
1.35
1.24
11.24
13.65
8.36
1.36
1.65
1.01
309
0.92
6.18
0.75
259
0.77
5.18
0.63
235
188
0.70
0.56
2.35
3.76
0.28
0.46
32,241
1612
95.80
4.79
824.97
41.25
100.00
5.00
Biomass
index
(%)e
For tree growth form, BLE denotes broadleaf evergreen, and BLD broadleaf deciduous.
This is the final tree height that could be attained in Taiwan: small trees are 5–9 m tall, medium 9–18 m and large >18 m.
Tree frequency (%) ¼ (Tree count/Total tree number in street habitat) 100%.
d
Species biomass index ¼ (Tree count Final height score)/100, where large, medium and small final heights are assigned values of 3, 2 and 1. It indicates
the biomass and hence landscape impact of a species upon reaching its final dimension.
e
Biomass index (%) ¼ (Species biomass index/Total biomass index) 100%.
b
c
580
C.Y. Jim, W.Y. Chen / Applied Geography 29 (2009) 577–587
Of the 20 most frequent species in street habitats, 13 are exotic, with 11 originated from Asia and Australia (Table 1). South
and Southeast Asia are the principal sources of introduced species. Exotic trees contribute 31% of the total tree count and 33%
of attainable biomass. The seven native species lead by sheer numbers at 64% by trees and 67% by biomass. The large
proportion of natives could offer suitable habitat, shelter and forage for native wildlife to enrich urban ecology. The limited
colourful blooms in Taipei’s streets are mainly offered by exotics. Streets contain a large number of species with large final
dimensions, indicating their potential ability to offer a high leaf area index to bestow environmental and ecological benefits
(Gatrell & Jensen, 2002).
Daan has the most street trees (8470 trees, 25.17%), and Nangang has the least (627 trees, 1.86%) (Table 2). Street species
composition demonstrates significant district variations. The city’s 49 species are unevenly distributed, ranging from 23
species in the dense core districts of Wanhua and Zhongshan to only four in Nangang. Individual districts showed a unique
species assemblage. Wanhua has the highest species density at 4.0 species/km2 by urbanized area and 21 species/km2 by road
area. Wanhua is the oldest centre, with a long and varied development history. Different street tree species have been
introduced at different periods tied to changing landscape preference. The initiation of urban greening under Japanese
influence (1895–1945) shifted to indigenous persuasion after the Second World War, and then to recent systematic green-city
planning after 1995 (Public Works Department, 2004). Nangang is an outlier with only four species, and the lowest species
density. It is a newly built industrial centre receiving less landscaping attention.
For the whole city, species diversity in streets is moderate (Simpson index D ¼ 9.75, Shannon–Weiner index H ¼ 2.71;
Table 2), which is slightly lower than the average tree diversity in natural forests in the Taipei region (at H ¼ 2.90; Su, 1994).
The stressful street environment has not limited the growth of many species. Changes in species selection over time have
accumulated more species, as exemplified by the highest diversity of the oldest Wanhua district (D ¼ 8.11, H ¼ 2.41), followed
by Daan (D ¼ 7.89, H ¼ 2.34). The relatively new and peripheral Nangang has the least (D ¼ 1.83, H ¼ 0.81). For Evenness index,
the old and compact Wanhua (E ¼ 0.62) and Daan (E ¼ 0.60) have the highest scores, denoting a relatively equitable representation of different species. Nangang scores the lowest (E ¼ 0.21), reflecting that its small tree population is heavily represented by common species. The large street tree stocks in Shilin, Songshan, and Zhongshan have lifted the D and H values,
but their E values have been suppressed by the occurrence of uncommon to rare species.
The results indicate the limited species palette of street trees. Growth environment in different streets tend to have similar
soil and atmospheric conditions. Street trees serve similar environmental benefits such as air pollutant removal (McPherson
et al., 1997), wildlife habitats (Clark, Matheny, Cross, & Wake, 1997) and ornamental functions (McPherson, Simpson, Peper, &
Xiao, 1999). They share similar management concerns and challenges (Parks and Street Lights Office, 2005). The common
physical and physiological constraints also restrict species selection. Usually, the relatively narrow roadside corridor and
underground utilities severely confined tree growth in compact city environment (Jim, 1992). The heavy shading, air
pollution, poor soil quality, restricted soil volume and soil compaction would exclude many species from roadside use (Bassuk
& Whitlow, 1987; Jim, 1999). The need for headroom and lateral clearance for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and avoidance
Table 2
The abundance, distribution and species diversity of landscape trees in streets in the 12 districts.
Code District
Land area
Tree Stock
Beitou
Daan
Datong
Nangang
Neihu
Shilin
Songshan
Wanhua
Wenshan
Xinyi
Zhongshan
Zhongzheng
Total
Average or
aggregate
Range
a
b
c
d
e
1691
1093
478
972
1446
1897
825
575
1635
1038
998
704
13,352
1113
1419
Road area
Species diversity index
Species Tree
richness density
(trees/
Sa
ha)b
Species
density
(species/
km2)c
Tree
density
(trees/
ha)b
Species
Tree-species Person- Simpson Shannon– Evenness
density
ratiod
tree
diversity Wiener
index, E
(species/
ratioe
index, D diversity
2 c
km )
index, H
11
19
7
4
20
16
19
23
9
12
23
13
0.93
7.75
2.03
0.65
1.00
2.08
7.16
4.71
0.58
0.87
2.95
4.56
0.65
1.74
1.46
0.41
1.38
0.84
2.30
4.00
0.55
1.16
2.30
1.85
9.33
34.22
8.86
7.64
5.98
20.23
43.43
25.26
5.52
6.56
11.63
21.46
6.52
7.68
6.40
4.87
8.28
8.19
13.97
21.45
5.26
8.68
9.09
8.70
143.09
445.79
138.43
156.75
72.25
246.94
310.95
117.74
105.00
75.58
128.04
246.69
157.89
36.93
132.41
180.02
180.79
73.13
34.94
72.79
272.99
255.95
73.63
49.36
6.36
7.89
3.21
1.83
4.38
4.29
4.47
8.11
2.74
7.11
6.43
4.95
2.03
2.34
1.39
0.81
1.85
1.72
2.01
2.41
1.33
2.11
2.15
1.82
0.52
0.60
0.36
0.21
0.48
0.44
0.52
0.62
0.34
0.54
0.55
0.47
2000 33,656 49
167
2805
2.52
0.37
16.83
2.45
686.86
77.89
9.75
2.71
0.70
7.17
3.59
37.91
16.58
373.54
238.05
6.07
1.60
0.41
Urbanized Road Tree
(ha)
(ha) count
(no.)
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
D8
D9
D10
D11
D12
Urbanized area
169
248
109
82
241
195
136
107
171
138
253
149
171
1574
8470
969
627
1445
3951
5908
2708
945
907
2945
3207
7843 19
S ¼ Number of tree species.
Tree density ¼ Tree count/Land area in ha.
Species density ¼ Species richness/Land area in km2.
Tree-species ratio ¼ Tree count/Species richness.
Person-tree ratio ¼ Population/Tree count.
C.Y. Jim, W.Y. Chen / Applied Geography 29 (2009) 577–587
581
of nuisance to road users and adjacent buildings would preclude more species (Galvin, 1999). The high mortality rate of street
trees (McPherson, 1994) implies that the species that could not adapt to the harsh streetside milieu would be sieved and
eliminated. On the other hand, heavy long tenure of human influence and continual replacement of lost and weak trees with
better species (Galvin, 1999) could enrich species diversity. Different species in different road sections reflects conscious
decisions to bring inter-site diversity despite the relatively homogeneous and stressful conditions. Wanhua is the oldest
centre of Taipei that has experienced different development periods. The development and redevelopment processes have
permitted the adoption of different species in tandem with changing landscape styles and preferences. Nangang is a newly
built industrial centre, where the relatively uniform urban design and low intensities of human activities have brought
monotonous landscapes. A snapshot of the street tree-species composition displays the resultant of continual changes and
frequent tree replacements.
Urban park trees
Urban parks in Taipei have a rather short development history. Except 228 Peace Park opened in 1899, others were
installed since the 1970s. The ten main parks contain 139 tree species and 33,342 trees (Table 3). The top 34 park species
account for 82% of the population. The top three species, all natives, contribute 33% of tree counts and 47% of potential
biomass. Domination by popular species is somewhat subdued in comparison with street trees. Besides F. microcarpa, which is
widely planted in all three habitats, only two species with frequency >2% (Liquidambar formosana and C. camphora) are
shared between streets and parks. The city has 51 species with tree count >50, but only 11 species are shared between parks
and streets, and 18 species are found exclusively in parks. The divergence in species composition between parks and streets is
conspicuous. Differences in site conditions and landscape intentions have generated marked species differentiation. Urban
parks are mainly semi-natural sites with less human modifications than street habitats. The notable woodland-relic
components in parks indicated inheritance from the natural or semi-natural sites (Parks and Street Lights Office, 2000). They
serve multiple functions with multiple habitat conditions.
The domination by native species attains 49% by tree count which falls below street trees, and 65% by potential biomass
which is comparable to street trees (Table 7). The preponderance of broadleaved species, about two-third of which are
evergreen, is somewhat diluted by the notable presence of palms. Conifers are minor elements, with only two species
(Juniperus chinensis and Cupressus funebris) contributing 3.92% of the tree population amongst the top 34 urban parks species
(Table 3). Final height of park trees is mainly large. With a potential biomass of 63%, species with large final dimensions will in
time impose increasingly conspicuous landscape impacts on the city. The familiar species such as native B. javanica, C.
camphora, F. microcarpa, L. formosana and Machilus kusanoi, and exotic Ficus benjamina, M. quinquenervia, Bombax ceiba and
Pterocarpus indicus, will in due course notably raise their landscape and environmental benefits.
The large and popular trees are known for their sizeable stature, wide crown, dense foliage and excellent shading effect.
However, they do not present showy flowers to enliven the parks in the visual and olfactory senses. Amongst the top ten, only
the exotic Prunus serrulata (rank 4) displays ornamental blossoms. Two flowering species in line are exotic Cassia fistula (rank
14) and native K. elegans (rank 15). Despite the presence of 139 park tree species and the general expectation for decorative
vegetation in parks, few species with attractive blooms have been planted. Only seven of the top 34 species display ornamental flowers (Table 3), indicating a strong preference for foliage trees with key impacts on the parkscape. By species count,
exotics are dominant with 20 common species versus 14 of native provenance (Table 3). Six of the seven flowering species are
exotics and only one species (K. elegans) is native (Table 3). Exotic trees thus impart a more prominent presence due to their
attractive blossoms. Overall, exotics contribute significantly to species diversity in parks (Table 7).
Of the ten major parks, Yangming Park is the biggest with the most trees (10,950 trees or one-third of total park trees) and
the maximum tree-species ratio of 304 (Table 4). However, with only 36 species it has the lowest diversity indices (D ¼ 4.898,
H ¼ 2.063). Yangming Park is located at edge of the Yangming Mountain Nature Park in a countryside setting. The vegetation is
mainly secondary forest planted after destruction of the primary forest in the twentieth century. The massive deforestation
has drastically impoverished native species diversity. The relatively young secondary forest has not recuperated from biotic
pauperization, although some native species have invaded spontaneously (Wang, Hang, & Lin, 2004).
Daan Forest Park has the maximum species richness at 92. It also has the highest diversity indices (D ¼ 21.370, H ¼ 3.493).
Overall, there was no significant statistical association between species diversity (H) and park area, opening year and terrain
type (all P > 0.10). The variation of E shows the same pattern as H across urban parks, with Yangming registering the least
equitability amongst the constituent species, and Daan the highest (Table 4). The small differences between the H and D
rankings of urban parks are related to the abundance of common species in Bihu, Qingnian and Jiancheng Parks. The average
Shannon–Wiener index of urban parks in Taipei (H ¼ 3.76) is higher than the average tree diversity in the floristically
impoverished secondary forest of the region (H ¼ 2.90; Su, 1994). The findings imply that human-oriented functions could
accumulate species diversity in urban parks to a high level. For comparison, the study of Kühn, Brandl, & Klotz (2004) found
that plant diversity in urban area was higher in German cities than surrounding areas.
Taipei has witnessed some recent changes in the basic tenet of park design and use, triggered by the vision of sustainable
and ecological city (Lo & Lin, 2007). It has moved notably away from formal-manicured to ecological-naturalistic, and from
passive open-space amenity to user-nature interaction (Tu, 2002). Vegetation species diversity has been emphasized in the
recently established parks (such as Daan Forest Park added recently to the stock). Comparing with streets, urban parks in
general are blessed with a genial environment with subdued negative growth factors. Both site limitations and deleterious
582
C.Y. Jim, W.Y. Chen / Applied Geography 29 (2009) 577–587
Table 3
The composition, landscape features, provenance and quantities of the top 34 landscape tree species in urban parks.
Rank Species
Family
Growth
forma
Final
heightb
Provenance
Tree count
(no.)
1
2
3
4
Ficus microcarpa
Machilus kusanoi
Sphaeropteris lepifera
Prunus serrulata
Moraceae
Lauraceae
Cyatheaceae
Rosaceae
BLE
Large
BLE
Large
Tree fernf Medium
BLD
Small
5
6
Ficus benjamina
Juniperus chinensis
Moraceae
Cupressaceae
BLE
Conifer
Large
Medium
7
Alstonia scholaris
Apocynaceae
BLE
Medium
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Arecaceae
Hamamelidaceae
Lauraceae
Salicaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Caesalpiniaceae
Sapindaceae
Palm
BLD
BLE
BLD
BLD
BLE
BLD
BLD
Medium
Large
Large
Small
Large
Small
Medium
Medium
Moraceae
BLE
Small
Native
17
18
Chrysalidocarpus lutescens
Liquidambar formosana
Cinnamomum camphora
Salix babylonica
Bischofia javanica
Mallotus paniculatus
Cassia fistula
Koelreuteria elegans
ssp. formosana
Ficus microcarpa cv.
golden leaves
Trema orientalis
Pongamia pinnata
Native
Native
Native
Mainland China,
Japan, Korea
India, Malaysia
Mainland China,
Japan
India, Malaysia,
Java, Philippines
Madagascar
Native
Native
Mainland China
Native
Native
India
Native
Ulmaceae
Fabaceae
BLE
BLD
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Ternstroemia gymnanthera
Melaleuca quinquenervia
Garcinia spicata
Ulmus parvifolia
Roystonea regia
Archontophoenix alexandrae
Bauhinia ’Blakeana’
Bombax ceiba
Pterocarpus indicus
Cupressus funebris
Prunus persica f. duplex
Syzygium grijsii
Acacia confusa
Prunus mume
Eucalyptus robusta
Sterculia foetida
Theaceae
Myrtaceae
Clusiaceae
Ulmaceae
Arecaceae
Arecaceae
Caesalpiniaceae
Bombacaceae
Fabaceae
Cupressaceae
Rosaceae
Myrtaceae
Mimosaceae
Rosaceae
Myrtaceae
Sterculiaceae
BLE
BLE
BLE
BLD
Palm
Palm
BLE
BLD
BLD
Conifer
BLD
BLE
BLE
BLD
BLE
BLD
Medium Native
Medium India, Malaysia,
S. China, Ryukyu, Australia
Small
Native
Large
India, Malaysia, Australia
Medium India, Sri Lanka
Small
Native
Large
Central America
Medium Queensland
Small
Hong Kong
Large
India
Large
Tropical Asia
Large
Mainland China
Small
Mainland China
Small
Native
Small
Native
Small
Mainland China
Large
Australia
Large
Tropical Asia
16
Total
Average
Tree quantity
Species biomass
Biomass
Tree
frequency indexd
(%)c
Biomass
index
(%)e
4298
3313
3305
1818
12.89
9.94
9.91
5.45
128.94
99.39
66.10
18.18
20.74
15.99
10.63
2.92
1215
1012
3.64
3.04
36.45
20.24
5.86
3.26
839
2.52
16.78
2.70
827
771
765
696
664
625
523
507
2.48
2.31
2.29
2.09
1.99
1.87
1.57
1.52
16.54
23.13
22.95
6.96
19.92
6.25
10.46
10.14
2.66
3.72
3.69
1.12
3.20
1.01
1.68
1.63
414
1.24
4.14
0.67
406
395
1.22
1.18
8.12
7.90
1.31
1.27
378
376
357
348
335
334
321
306
300
295
292
285
267
265
265
246
1.13
1.13
1.07
1.04
1.00
1.00
0.96
0.92
0.90
0.88
0.88
0.85
0.80
0.79
0.79
0.74
3.78
11.28
7.14
3.48
10.05
6.68
3.21
9.18
9.00
8.85
2.92
2.85
2.67
2.65
7.95
7.38
0.61
1.81
1.15
0.56
1.62
1.07
0.52
1.48
1.45
1.42
0.47
0.46
0.43
0.43
1.28
1.19
27,363
805
82.05
2.41
621.66
18.28
100.00
2.94
a
For tree growth form, BLE denotes broadleaf evergreen, and BLD broadleaf deciduous.
The final tree height that could be attained in Taiwan: small trees are 5–9 m tall, medium 9–18 m and large >18 m.
Tree frequency ¼ (Tree count/Total tree number in urban park habitat) 100%.
d
Biomass dominance index ¼ (Tree count Final height score)/100, where large, medium and small final heights are assigned values of 3, 2 and 1. It
indicates the biomass and hence landscape impact of a species upon reaching its final dimension.
e
Biomass index (%) ¼ (Species biomass index/Total biomass index) 100%.
f
The tree fern has a palm-like structure and appearance in landscape applications; it is grouped under the palm growth form in this study.
b
c
human impacts are less arresting, and more management inputs and cares are regularly introduced to foster tree performance. This tree growth regime is conducive to longevity, stability in the tree population and a general resistance to changes.
Unlike the more changeable street trees, in urban parks the initial tree flora will tend to linger for decades.
Riverside park trees
Taipei originated as a river port. The Danshui, Jilong and Xindianxi Rivers and associated tributaries form an elaborate
watercourse network in the city. The fluvial marsh and banks in Taipei are part of the drainage and flood management system
of the drainage basin (Lin & Jiao, 2005). The edge strips along the urban stretch of the river serve as reserved river channels in
times of unusual peak discharge to prevent flooding. Such lands also serve as extensive recreational grounds. The riverside
C.Y. Jim, W.Y. Chen / Applied Geography 29 (2009) 577–587
583
Table 4
The abundance, distribution and species diversity of landscape trees in ten main urban parks.
Code Park
District
Terrain
U1
U2
U3
U4
U5
U6
U7
U8
U9
U10
Zhongzheng
Neihu
Daan
Datong
Wanhua
Songshan
Shilin
Zhongshan
Beitou
Shilin
River plain
7.15 1899
Lake & environs 16.39 1987
River plain
25.93 1992
Lower hillslope
1.06 1980
Lower hillslope
24.44 1975
River terrace
2.68 1973
River terrace
2.63 1996e
River terrace
19.50 1978
Lower hillslope 125.95 1977
Lower hillslope
10.01 1986
228 Peace Park
Bihu Park
Daan Forest Park
Jiancheng Park
Qingnian Park
Sanmin Park
Shilin Park
Xinsheng Park
Yangming Park
Zhishan Park
Total or aggregate
Average
Range
a
b
c
d
e
Area
(ha)
235.74
23.57
124.88
Opening Tree
year
count
(no.)
1339
1195
7675
306
4626
428
2531
3128
10,950
1164
Species TreeSimpson Shannon– Evenness
Species Tree
density species diversity Wiener
richness density
index, E
a
b
d
(trees/ha) (species/ ratio
index D diversity
S
km2)c
index, H
62
28
92
18
63
23
69
31
36
34
187.22
72.92
296.00
287.59
189.28
159.58
961.77
160.41
86.94
116.33
8.67
1.71
3.55
16.92
2.58
8.58
26.22
1.59
0.29
3.40
21.60 13.11
42.68 12.86
83.42 21.37
17.00 5.65
73.43 8.97
18.61 5.30
36.68 9.64
100.90 5.20
304.17 4.90
34.24 9.09
3.16
2.83
3.49
2.09
3.00
2.31
2.90
2.40
2.06
2.64
0.62
0.56
0.69
0.41
0.59
0.46
0.57
0.47
0.41
0.52
33,342 139
3334 14
10,644 74
141.43
0.59
239.87 21.00
3.76
0.74
888.85
25.93
287.17 16.47
1.43
0.28
S ¼ number of tree species.
Tree density ¼ Tree count/Land area in ha.
Species density ¼ Species richness/Land area in km2.
Tree-species ratio ¼ Tree count/Species richness.
Previously the official residence of the President; opened to the public as a park since 1996.
parks increase the stock of green spaces in Taipei, and offer alternative outdoor recreational venues with reduced facility and
management.
Despite the rather simple and uniform site condition, 62 tree species have been found in riverside areas (Table 6), a level
that lies between street and park habitats. Species richness of individual venues is notably lower than urban parks (Table 6).
The top ten species account for 79% of the trees, and top 20 for 91%, indicating a high degree of dominance by popular species
(Table 5) that is comparable to street trees but higher than urban parks. Besides the almost ubiquitous native F. microcarpa
(rank 1), species with natural affinity for water have been preferentially planted, such as exotic Salix babylonica (rank 2) and
Pongamia pinnata (rank 5), Garcinia spicata (rank 7), Pithecellobium dulce (rank 8), and native Palaquium formosanum (rank 9).
Only five species are shared with urban parks, merely one with streets, and eight species are exclusive to riverside parks. The
pronounced divergence in arboreal components signifies the unique landscape and ecological exclusivity of riverside parks.
Like street and urban park sites, riverside parks have more exotics than natives (eight of the top ten species are exotic). The
proportion of native trees is the lowest of the three habitats. The biomass index of natives exceeds exotics, implying that the
exotics have smaller final dimensions.
Riverside parks have the highest proportion of broadleaved trees, especially evergreens, reaching 53% by tree count and
70% by biomass (Table 7). Palm presence lies between streets and urban parks; trees with large final size also lie between
them. A total of 5449 trees are enumerated in ten sampled riverside parks, 51% of which dwell in Huazhong Riverbank Park
(Table 6). As the largest riverside park, it also has the highest species richness (26 species) and diversity index (H ¼ 2.31). The
ranking of E is similar to H. There is slight difference between H and D, which is related to the occurrence of rare species. For
example, Caihong Riverside Park has the highest D, which has species with a solitary member, including Ficus elastica,
Erythrina corallodendron and F. benjamina. There is no significant statistical relationship between species richness, diversity,
site area and opening year (all P > 0.10).
Although both park habitats have generous provision of growth spaces, riverside parks are subject to stringent inherent
site limitations and they are established for a different purpose. The high water table and wet soil conditions have imposed
constraints on species choice. The preference for water-edge and stress-tolerant species reflects this site reality. The amount
of flowering or decorative species is the lowest amongst the three habitats. Some trees were inherited from spontaneous
growths on river sediments to augment species diversity. Most species do not require horticultural care. The sites could be
periodically flooded and impacted by fast-running water during periods of high discharge, and trees intolerant of such
stresses could be harmed or eliminated. Trees are deliberately planted at a low density to avoid obstructing water flow. Some
sites serve as protected areas or sanctuary for birds and riverine wetland vegetation, as exemplified by Guandu and Huazhong. Planting too many landscape trees is avoided, lest the natural processes of wetland ecosystem are disturbed and its
ecological function as wildlife habitat is compromised (Henry & Amoros, 1995). Overall, the pragmatic species choice and
planting pattern match the challenging site conditions, and shared use of the land amongst green space, river discharge and
nature conservation.
Riverside lands are co-used on a time-sharing basis between amenity space and river discharge. As they are designed and
managed to perform dualistic functions, the choice of suitable species would be more restricted. With less latitude for species
selection and the need to maintain a sparse tree cover to facilitate water discharge, the tree flora is notably less varied than
urban parks. With low tree cover and limited recreational facilities, riverside parks attract less patronage and visitor impacts.
584
C.Y. Jim, W.Y. Chen / Applied Geography 29 (2009) 577–587
Table 5
The composition, landscape features, provenance and quantities of the top 20 landscape tree species in riverside parks.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Species
Growth
forma
Final
heightb
Provenance
Moraceae
Salicaceae
Arecaceae
BLE
BLD
Palm
Large
Small
Medium
Native
Mainland China
Madagascar
Moraceae
Fabaceae
Ulmaceae
Clusiaceae
Mimosaceae
Sapotaceae
Arecaceae
Moraceae
Lythraceae
Mimosaceae
Combretaceae
Moraceae
Apocynaceae
Mimosaceae
Hamamelidaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Lauraceae
BLE
BLD
BLD
BLE
BLE
BLE
Palm
BLE
BLD
BLE
BLD
BLE
BLE
BLD
BLD
BLD
BLE
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Medium
Large
Small
Large
Small
Medium
Medium
Small
Medium
Small
Large
Large
Large
India, Malaysia
India, Malaysia, S. China, Australia
Native
India, Sri Lanka
Tropical America
Native
Mainland China, Ryukyu
India, Malaysia, Java
India, Mainland China
Native
Native
Native
India, Malaysia, Java, Philippines
Tropical America
Native
Native
Native
Family
Ficus microcarpa
Salix babylonica
Chrysalidocarpus
lutescens
Ficus benjamina
Pongamia pinnata
Celtis sinensis
Garcinia spicata
Pithecellobium dulce
Palaquium formosanum
Livistona chinensis
Ficus elastica
Lagerstroemia indica
Acacia confuse
Terminalia catappa
Ficus septica
Alstonia scholaris
Leucanea leucocephala
Liquidambar formosana
Bischofia javanica
Cinnamomum camphora
Total
Average
Tree quantity
Species biomass
Tree
count
(no.)
Tree
frequency
(%)c
Biomass
indexd
Biomass
index
(%)e
1710
730
394
31.38
13.40
7.23
51.3
7.3
7.88
44.65
6.35
6.86
296
291
198
189
179
164
129
110
84
84
71
65
62
57
55
49
46
5.43
5.34
3.63
3.47
3.29
3.01
2.37
2.02
1.54
1.54
1.30
1.19
1.14
1.05
1.01
0.90
0.84
8.88
5.82
5.94
3.78
3.58
4.92
1.29
3.3
0.84
1.68
1.42
0.65
1.24
0.57
1.65
1.47
1.38
7.73
5.07
5.17
3.29
3.12
4.28
1.12
2.87
0.73
1.46
1.24
0.57
1.08
0.50
1.44
1.28
1.20
4963
248
91.08
4.55
114.89
5.74
100.00
5.00
a
For tree growth form, BLE denotes broadleaf evergreen, and BLD broadleaf deciduous.
The final tree height that could be attained in Taiwan: small trees are 5–9 m tall, medium 9–18 m and large >18 m.
Tree frequency (%) ¼ (Tree count/Total tree number in riverside habitat) 100%.
d
Biomass dominance index ¼ (Tree count Final height score)/100, where large, medium and small final heights are assigned values of 3, 2 and 1. It
indicates the biomass and hence landscape impact of a species upon reaching its final dimension.
e
Biomass index (%) ¼ (Species biomass index/Total biomass index) 100%.
b
c
Table 6
The abundance, distribution and species diversity of landscape trees in ten main riverside parks.
Code Park
District
R1
R2
Shilin
Neihu
Bailing Left Bank
Caihong
Riverbank Park
R3
Chengmei Left
Bank
R4
Dajia Riverbank
Park
R5
Fuhe Riverbank
Park
R6
Guandu
Riverbank Park
R7
Guting Riverbank
Park
R8
Huazhong
Riverbank Park
R9
Yanping
Riverbank Park
R10 Yingfeng
Riverbank Park
Total
Average
Range
a
b
c
d
Area
(ha)
Opening Tree count Species
year
(no.)
richness, Sa
Tree
density
(trees/
ha)b
Species
density
(species/
km2)c
Tree-species Simpson
ratiod
diversity
index, D
Shannon–
Wiener
diversity
index, H
Evenness
index, E
25.48 1992
29.00 1998
392
204
13
13
15.39
7.03
0.51
0.45
30.15
15.69
1.72
7.83
1.06
2.18
0.26
0.53
2.20 1990
63
6
28.64
2.73
10.50
3.15
1.29
0.31
36.00 1997
355
17
9.86
0.47
20.88
6.90
2.20
0.53
Wenshan
2.20 1984
510
9
231.82
4.09
56.67
2.46
1.16
0.28
Beitou
2.34 1994
163
8
69.80
3.43
20.38
5.60
1.85
0.45
Zhongzheng
23.35 1988
215
16
9.21
0.69
13.44
3.92
1.88
0.46
Wanhua
54.35 1988
2782
26
51.19
0.48
107.00
6.68
2.31
0.56
Datong
8.78 1967
597
13
68.03
1.48
45.92
2.06
1.15
0.28
53.00 1998
168
13
3.17
0.25
12.92
5.63
2.02
0.49
5449
545
2719
62
23.02
0.26
87.89
7.44
2.75
0.67
228.65
3.85
96.50
6.12
1.25
0.30
Nangang
Zhongshan
Songshan
236.69
23.67
52.15
S ¼ number of tree species.
Tree density ¼ Tree count/Land area in ha.
Species density ¼ Species richness/Land area in km2.
Tree-species ratio ¼ Tree count/Species richness.
20.00
C.Y. Jim, W.Y. Chen / Applied Geography 29 (2009) 577–587
585
Table 7
Variations in tree growth form, final height and provenance of the top ranking 51 tree species that occur in three main urban forest habitats.a
Final heightb
Growth form
c
Species provenance
Broadleaf Broadleaf Conifer Palm
evergreen deciduous
Total
Large
Medium Small
Total
Native
Exotic-Asiad Exotic-others Total
Street
Species count (no.)
Tree count (no.)
Tree frequency (%)
Species biomass index
Species biomass (%)
6
16,240
48.25
477.22
57.85
12
13,999
41.59
292.39
35.44
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
2
2002
5.95
55.36
6.71
20
32,241
95.80
824.97
100.00
9
23,133
68.73
693.99
84.12
8
3990
11.86
79.80
9.67
3
5118
15.21
51.18
6.20
20
32,241
95.80
824.97
100.00
7
21,685
64.43
551.01
66.79
11
8227
24.44
209.71
25.42
2
2329
6.92
64.25
7.79
20
32,241
95.80
824.97
100.00
Urban park
Species count (no.)
Tree count (no.)
Tree frequency (%)
Species biomass index
Species biomass (%)
15
14,124
42.35
361.90
58.22
13
7131
21.38
131.30
21.12
2
1496
4.49
33.27
5.35
3
4612
13.83
95.19
15.31
33
27,363
82.05
621.66
100.00
13
13,149
39.43
394.47
63.45
10
8505
25.51
170.10
27.36
11
5709
17.11
57.09
9.18
34
27,363
82.05
621.66
100.00
14
16,346
49.01
401.86
64.64
18
9855
29.56
193.21
31.08
2
1162
3.48
26.59
4.28
34
27,363
82.05
621.66
100.00
Riverside park
Species count (no.)
Tree count (no.)
Tree frequency (%)
Species biomass index
Species biomass (%)
10
2905
53.31
80.71
70.25
8
1535
28.17
25.01
21.77
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
2
523
9.60
9.17
7.98
20
4963
91.08
114.89
100.00
8
2628
48.23
78.84
68.62
7
1270
23.31
25.40
22.11
5
1065
19.54
10.65
9.27
20
4963
91.08
114.89
100.00
9
2442
44.82
70.41
61.28
8
1891
34.70
32.45
28.24
3
630
11.56
12.03
10.47
20
4963
91.08
114.89
100.00
All habitats
Species count (no.)
Tree count (no.)
Tree frequency (%)
Species biomass index
Species biomass (%)
21
33,269
51.53
919.83
58.91
23
22,665
35.10
448.70
28.73
2
1496
2.32
33.27
2.13
5
7137
11.05
159.72
10.23
51
64,567
100.00
1561.52
100.00
17
38,910
60.26
1167.30
74.75
18
13,765
21.32
275.30
17.63
16
11,892
18.42
118.92
7.62
51
64,567
100.00
1561.52
100.00
19
40,473
62.68
1023.28
65.53
27
19,973
30.93
435.37
27.88
5
4121
6.38
102.87
6.59
51
64,567
100.00
1561.52
100.00
a
b
c
d
Only the common species included in Tables 1, 4 and 6 have been included in the computations.
The final tree height that could be attained in Taiwan: small trees are 5–9 m tall, medium 9–18 m and large >18 m.
The tree fern Sphaeropteris lepifera has been grouped under the palm growth form in view of its palm-like appearance and landscape applications.
Including Australia as the Australasian biogeographical realm.
Trees in riverside parks are expected to persist, and many could realize their biological life span and dimensions to sustain
their ecosystem functions.
Conclusion and implications
The high-density and compact urban form of Taipei has not stifled flora diversity and spatial variability of its urban forests.
Our findings suggest that the tree stock in three main habitats of Taipei tend to diverge and is envisaged to maintain their
divergence. Natural and human factors have differential effects on tree diversity in different habitats. The interplay of
inherent site characteristics and management intervention has jointly determined the tree-species pattern. Similar to
landscape ecological changes in countryside areas, dominating human factors interact with biophysical site conditions to
influence the resulting vegetation composition (Serra, Pons, & Sauri, 2008). Street trees are beset by a rather uniformly
stressful growth regime and unvarying site preparation and design, and they share common but narrow planting objectives.
The acute disturbances of street environment might bring extensive premature tree decline, high turnover rate and low
floristic stability. Species composition in urban parks is influenced by the varied functions assigned to different venues and
trees inherited from pre-development vegetation, moderated by diverse inherent site conditions, varying site preparation
and design, and evolving landscape planting fads. Riverside parks take an intermediate position between streets and urban
parks, the species diversity of which is mainly determined by their special environmental constraints and function of facilitating water discharge.
Understanding the status and dynamics of species diversity marks the first step in nature and biodiversity conservation in
urban areas (Alvey, 2006). Based on our findings, we have deduced some implications to promote and preserve urban
biodiversity in urban areas. On the one hand, introducing more indigenous species could create biologically rich urban forests
to benefit not only humans but also the sustainability of urban ecosystems, especially for street habitats with a small species
cohort. Such simple composition could accentuate the biotic hazard of tree diseases and pests, and reduce the stability of its
vegetation communities. The capability to attract wildlife into the city’s linear street tree belts is also limited by a simplistic
and overly exotic species assemblage. On the other hand, biodiversity in urban ecosystems could be enhanced by creating or
enhancing a wide range of habitats (Goode, 1993; Wheater, 1999), and varied habitats could be inserted in tandem with the
city’s development and redevelopment (Harrison & Davies, 2002). In Taipei, beautifying the urban landscape and providing
recreational grounds remain the principal aims of the open-space programme (Research, Development and Evaluation
Commission, 1997). Most parks were or will be built to meet these overriding objectives (Public Works Department, 2004).
586
C.Y. Jim, W.Y. Chen / Applied Geography 29 (2009) 577–587
However, biodiversity conservation has not been firmly incorporated in the long-term planning vision (Yang, 1989). Two
recently built natural parks have been designed mainly for recreation and ecological education purposes, and nature
conservation is considered as a pleasant by-product. In the continual expansion of the city into its peri-urban countryside,
areas with high ecological value could be identified for protection as future urban natural enclaves. Measures could be taken
to forestall the impacts on the high quality forests due to continued urban sprawl at the city’s hilly fringe (MacDonald & Rudel,
2005). A move away from the deeply ingrained conventional thinking is needed to embrace new ideas and practices in urban
green space design.
Recent studies in urban ecology and biogeography have provided ample evidence of high biodiversity in urban areas.
Empirical findings suggested species enrichment in urbanized areas in comparison with the surrounding countryside (Kühn,
Brandl, & Klotz, 2004). A similar effect was found in this case study. Social forces could impose notable increase in green
spaces and species composition also in rural areas by social recomposition leading to re-landscaping of gentrified villages
(Phillips, Page, Saratsi, Tansey, & Moore, 2008). Specifically, such species enrichment seems to be confined to targeted
functions while the natural environment still plays a certain role in the diversification process. However, due to the shortage
of historical record of tree plantation and introduction, quantitative analysis of the relationship between tree biodiversity and
development history so far is impossible. Regular long-term observations could explore tree-species dynamics in Taipei and
other subtropical cities. Further study is needed to ascertain whether such a trend could result in homogenization due to
increase in introduced species at the expense of native, or diversification due to co-existence of native and exotic species.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the generous help kindly offered by the Honorable Den-Yih Wu, Dr Ming-chung Lee, Miss Hua-rong Mo
and Mr Tian-shou Xu.
References
Alvey, A. A. (2006). Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 5, 195–201.
Angold, P. G., Sadler, J. P., Hill, M. O., Pullin, A., Rushton, S., Austin, K., et al. (2006). Biodiversity in urban habitat patches. Science of the Total Environment, 360,
196–204.
Bassuk, N., & Whitlow, T. (1987). Environmental stress in street trees. Acta Horticulturae, 195, 49–57.
Box, J., & Harrison, C. (1994). Minimum targets for accessible natural greenspace in urban areas. Urban Wildlife News, 11, 10–11.
Cilliers, S. S., Müller, N., & Drewes, E. (2004). Overview on urban nature conservation: situation in the western-grassland biome of South Africa. Urban
Forestry and Urban Greening, 3, 49–62.
Clark, J. R., Matheny, N. P., Cross, G., & Wake, V. (1997). A model of urban forest sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture, 23, 17–30.
Czech, B., & Krausman, P. R. (1997). Distribution and causation of species endangerment in the United Sates. Science, 277, 1116–1117.
Galvin, M. F. (1999). A methodology for assessing and managing biodiversity in street tree populations: a case study. Journal of Arboriculture, 25, 124–128.
Gatrell, J. D., & Jensen, R. R. (2002). Growth through greening: developing and assessing alternative economic development programmes. Applied Geography,
22, 331–350.
Goode, D. (1993). Local authorities and urban conservation. In F. B. Goldsmith, & A. Warren (Eds.), Conservation in progress (pp. 335–345). Chichester: John
Wiley.
Gracı́a-Romero, A. (2001). Evolution of disturbed oak woodlands: the case of Mexico City’s western forest reserve. The Geographical Journal, 167, 72–82.
Greig-Smith, P. (1983). Quantitative plant ecology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harrison, C., & Davies, G. (2002). Conserving diversity that matters: practitioners’ perspectives on brownfield development and urban nature conservation
in London. Journal of Environmental Management, 65, 95–108.
Henry, C. P., & Amoros, C. (1995). Restoration ecology of riverine wetlands: I. A scientific base. Environmental Management, 19, 891–902.
Heywood, V. H. (1996). The importance of urban environments in maintaining biodiversity. In F. di Castri, & T. Younès (Eds.), Biodiversity, science and
development: Towards a new partnership (pp. 543–550). Wallingford: CAB International.
Huang, W. (1993). Vegetation of Taiwan. Beijing: China Environmental Science Press.
Jim, C. Y. (1992). Tree-habitat relationships in urban Hong Kong. Environmental Conservation, 19, 209–218.
Jim, C. Y. (1999). A planning strategy to augment the diversity and biomass of roadside trees in urban Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Planning, 44, 13–31.
Jim, C. Y., & Chen, W. Y. (2008). Pattern and divergence of tree communities in Taipei’s main urban green spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84, 312–323.
Kowarik, I. (1990). Some responses of flora and vegetation to urbanization in Central Europe. In H. Sukopp, S. Hejný, & I. Kowarik (Eds.), Urban ecology: Plants
and plant communities in urban environments (pp. 45–74). The Hague: SPB Academic.
Kühn, I., Brandl, R., & Klotz, S. (2004). The flora of German cities is naturally species rich. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 6, 749–764.
Lin, Y., & Jiao, Z. (2005). Application of ecological landscape principles in the river environment planning-example by Tamsui River of Taiwan, China. Journal
of Lake Sciences, 17, 269–274.
Lloyd, H., Zar, J. H., & Karr, J. R. (1968). On the calculation of information-theoretical measures of diversity. American Midland Naturist, 79, 257–272.
Lo, C. W., & Lin, J. J. (2007). Analyzing the green-land system in Taipei city by the landscape structure indices. Presentation at the 7th International
Conference on Urban Planning and Environment, 3–5 January 2007, Bangkok, Thailand.
MacDonald, K., & Rudel, T. K. (2005). Sprawl and forest cover: what is the relationship? Applied Geography, 25, 67–79.
Macro, S. E., & McPherson, E. G. (2002). Assessing canopy cover over streets and sidewalks in street tree population. Journal of Arboriculture, 28, 270–276.
McKinney, M. L. (2006). Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological Conservation, 127, 247–260.
McPherson, E. G. (1994). Benefits and costs of tree planting and care in Chicago. In E. G. McPherson, D. J. Nowak, & R. A. Rowntree (Eds.), Chicago’s urban
forest ecosystem: Results of the Chicago urban forest climate project (pp. 115–134). USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-186.
McPherson, E. G., Nowak, D., Heisler, G., Grimmond, S., Souch, C., Grant, R., et al. (1997). Quantifying urban forest structure, function, and value: the Chicago
urban forest climate project. Urban Ecosystems, 1, 49–61.
McPherson, E. G., Simpson, J. R., Peper, P. J., & Xiao, Q. (1999). Benefit-cost analysis of Modesto’s municipal urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture, 25, 235–248.
Melles, S., Glenn, S. M., & Martin, K. (2003). Urban bird diversity and landscape complexity: species-environment associations along a multiscale habitat
gradient. Conservation Ecology, 7, 5, Available at website. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/.
Miller, J. R. (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20, 430–434.
Miller, J. R., & Hobbs, R. J. (2002). Conservation where people live and work. Conservation Biology, 16, 330–337.
Parks and Street Lights Office. (2000). The beauty of parks in Taipei City. Taipei: Public Works Department, Taipei City Government.
Parks and Street Lights Office. (2005). A glimpse of Taipei streets. Taipei: Public Works Department, Taipei City Government.
C.Y. Jim, W.Y. Chen / Applied Geography 29 (2009) 577–587
587
Phillips, M., Page, S., Saratsi, E., Tansey, K., & Moore, K. (2008). Diversity, scale and green landscapes in the gentrification process: traversing ecological and
social science perspectives. Applied Geography, 28, 54–76.
Prasad, V. K., & Badarinth, K. V. S. (2004). Land use changes and trends in human appropriation of above ground net primary production (HANPP) in India
(1961–98). The Geographical Journal, 170, 51–63.
Public Works Department. (2004). Taipei: Taiwan’s garden city. Taipei: Taipei City Government.
Pyšek, P. (1989). On the richness of Central European urban flora. Preslia, 61, 329–334.
Reduron, J. P. (1996). The role of biodiversity in urban areas and the role of cities in biodiversity conservation. In F. di Castri, & T. Younès (Eds.), Biodiversity,
science and development: Towards a new partnership (pp. 551–557). Wallingford: CAB International.
ResearchDevelopment and Evaluation Commission. (1997). Beautiful Taipei, new homeland: Blueprint of Taipei development. Taipei: Executive Yuan.
Seaby, R. M. H., & Henderson, P. A. (2004). Species diversity and richness (III). Lymington: Pisces Conservation.
Serra, P., Pons, X., & Sauri, D. (2008). Land-cover and land-use change in a Mediterranean landscape: a spatial analysis of driving forces integrating
biophysical and human factors. Applied Geography, 28, 189–209.
Shochat, E., Stefanov, W. L., Whitehouse, M. E. A., & Faeth, S. H. (2004). Urbanization and spider diversity: influences of human modification of habitat
structure and productivity. Ecological Applications, 14, 268–280.
Simpson, E. H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163, 168.
Smith, R. M., Thompson, K., Hodgson, J. G., Warren, P. H., & Gaston, K. J. (2006). Urban domestic gardens (IX): composition and richness of the vascular plant
flora, and implications for native biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 129, 312–322.
Su, H. J. (1994). Species diversity of forest plants in Taiwan. In C. I. Peng, & C. H. Chou (Eds.), Biodiversity and terrestrial ecosystems (pp. 87–98). Taipei:
Institute of Botany, Academia Sinica.
Sukopp, H. (2002). On the early history of urban ecology in Europe. Preslia, 74, 373–393.
Thompson, K., Austin, K. C., Smith, R. M., Warren, P. H., Angold, P. G., & Gaston, K. J. (2003). Urban domestic gardens (I): putting small-scale plant diversity in
context. Journal of Vegetation Science, 14, 71–78.
Tsai, H. M. (1999). Human impacts on island biodiversity. Environmental Education Quarterly, 38, 51–65.
Tsai, H. M. (2001). The role of national parks on biodiversity education. In Proceedings of the national park conference on biodiversity conservation strategies
(pp. 18–196). Taipei: National Parks Society.
Tu, H. (2002). The reweaving: an urban park design in Taipei, Taiwan. Master thesis, Faculty of Landscape Architecture, State University of New York,
New York.
Turner, K., Lefler, L., & Freedman, B. (2005). Plant communities of selected urbanized areas of Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Landscape and Urban Planning, 71,
191–206.
United Nations. (2007). World population prospects 2007. United Nations, New York: Department of International Economic and Social Affair, Population
Studies. Website at. http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp. Accessed on 01.04.08.
Urban, J. R. (1989). Evaluation of tree planting practices in the urban landscape. In Make our cities safe for trees: Proceedings of the 4th Urban Forestry
Conference (pp. 119–127). Washington, DC: American Forestry Association.
Wang, Y., Hang, Y., & Lin, J. (2004). Forests in Yangming mountain nature park. Journal of National Park, 14, 11–23.
Wheater, C. P. (1999). Urban habitats. London: Routledge.
Xiao, Q., McPherson, E. G., Simpson, J. R., & Ustin, S. L. (1998). Rainfall interception by Sacramento’s urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture, 24, 235–244.
Yang, Y. F. (1989). Design of new communities and renovation of old neighbourhood in Taipei. Taipei: Mingwen Publisher.
Zerbe, S., Maurer, U., Schmitz, S., & Sukopp, H. (2003). Biodiversity in Berlin and its potential for nature conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 62,
139–148.