IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS
Birdie..birdie.. come and let’s share our city
To cite this article: H Iswoyo et al 2018 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 203 012001
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
This content was downloaded from IP address 198.252.40.40 on 12/12/2018 at 15:01
ISATrop2017
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 203 (2018) 012001
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/203/1/012001
Birdie..birdie.. come and let’s share our city
H Iswoyo1, Nurfaida1, K Mantja1, B Vale2 and M Bryant2
1
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Hasanuddin. Jl.
Perintis Kemerdekaan KM 10 Makassar 90245, South Sulawesi, Indonesia
2
School of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Design Victoria University of
Wellington, Wellington 6012, New Zealand
E-mail: iswoyo@yahoo.com, hariiswoyo@unhas.ac.id
Abstract. Humans have been dominating the urban areas with their abilities and unfavourably
tend to have affected other living creatures. This paper directed how to acquire a place in the
cities for creating opportunities for birds that live in the cities to live together with us. Several
methods were applied emphasizing on Urban Rapid Biodiversity Assessment (RBA) which
was adjusted for tropical environments. Vegetation structure, Domain value and the diversity
of vascular plants are components determining the quality preference for birds. Results
indicated that stream corridors were the best accommodating spaces with an average number of
vascular plants was 27; the average number of existing vegetation structures amounted up to
7.00; the average of the total Domain values of all vegetation structures excluding buildings
was 24.00 and the average of the total Domain value of all trees was 11.00. Furthermore there
were as well empty fields, road corridors, institutional space, green spaces for the public, urban
farms and wetlands. The quality of spaces for city birds could be more specific by adding
additional filtering of size, ownership, and a development plan. Networking with natural areas
would be more feasible if more space were included. Available spaces would be greater when
the state of ownership was not limited, despite public spaces were much easier to manage.
1. Introduction
1.1. Urbanization
Urban development is a worldwide phenomenon, resulting from the change of both physical and
demographical aspects due to urbanization where for Southeast Asia, up to 11% are now metropolitan
areas [1,2]. As the main inhabitant of urban areas, humans are the most responsible creatures for
driving the course of this change, whether their egocentric approaches, focusing only on their matters
or concerning other creatures who were the original inhabitants of these areas which turned to be more
urban. Urbanization causes pressures to cities in terms of their ecosystem ecology, physical changes
which results to disruptions and threats to the natural state [3] and overall imposing pressures on space
utilization which compete with other members of the urban ecosystem [4], and thus affect them
inauspiciously. As a consequence, the existence of other species that inhabits the urban area has been
decreasing. The issue of creating an urban environment as a home for humans and habitat for species’
has become a popular discussion among planners, environmentalists and policy makers. Emphasizing
the importance of the existence of particular species could lead to the assessment of their needs for
their habitat, the distance and values required for further analysis [5]
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd
1
ISATrop2017
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 203 (2018) 012001
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/203/1/012001
1.2. Species that become urban target species
Assessment on urban space ecology could be more intensive by considering a specific species as the
primary target or indicator. This refers to a species which has important values to the landscape and is
subtle to changes in the landscape, furthermore requires special treatment [6]. In the scope of the urban
context, the identification of these desirable species is significant as their interaction with human
beings have been intense and thus the effect is ostensible [7]. Among the species that have received
large attention are urban birds [3], concerning their value to human beings [8]. Birds are considered to
be an important member of the ecosystem in cities [3] and their presence and conditions have often
become a parameter of environmental change in the urban areas [7]. Relating it with other urban
environmental issues such as the ecological network and greenways, optimizing urban spaces as a
habitat which have become the objective for the conservation program [9]. Furthermore, they could be
an important indicator for the biodiversity in the environment [10] as they represent the viability and
the quality of habitat in the urban areas [11] especially as the food chain where birds have been a
consistent component [12] as their presence in a variety of habitat types and environment [11].
1.3. Habitat Preferences
A variety of previous researches stressing on urban birds emphasised the preferences for birds habitat
within the urban environment. Many of them stressed the importance of the vegetation structure and
richness of the plants [13], some also included the significance of the area [12], and the abundant
amount of insect [14], also the specific type of urban patches [9,15] as well as the stage of urban
corridors [16]. The quality of the area potential enough to become the habitat for urban birds has
become the object of observation and tend to focus on the anthropological effect which causes threats,
disturbances, disruption and results the fragmentation of these features [15]. One thing in common
referring to the features of the habitat is the significance of vegetation as the ecosystem’s main
component. Vegetation structures specifically, according to [17] the information relating to this
structure will lead to the comprehension of the ecological value of habitat for wildlife.
This article tries to find a solution to assess areas in the cities which are considered to be suitable
as a habitat for birds who live in the city in one city in Indonesia which has been developing, which
one of those is Makassar. The primary observation was the vegetation structure of various types of
areas in the cities, as within the urban environment, the ecosystem functions across biological and
non-biological aspects [18], or natural and artificial [4] features, those commonly discovered in the
urban environment.
2. Methodology
2.1. Area of Study
This study was done in the capital of the Province of South Sulawesi i.e. Makassar, a city in the
Eastern part of Indonesia which is described as a fast-growing city in Indonesia, a developing country.
Urbanization in this city is intense and has caused problems in the quality of urban environmental
[19], affecting all biotic factors which includes human beings and wildlife.
2.2. Identifying the Urban Area
In order for the assessment to be more manage-effective and well-structured, the areas of this study
were classified based on the function, physical condition and other affecting qualities. Such
classification could be completed through observation by assessing images of both aerial and the
surface. This study benefited the typology of areas spaces which have been developed [20]. The areas
in Makassar were classified into several patches and corridors. The patches were: inter-housal space,
commercial space, unbuilt space, empty fields, institutional space, public fields, open public /green
space, wetland, fish ponds and urban farms. Whereas corridors which consisted of road corridors
(primary, secondary and tertiary), river corridors, stream/canal corridors and in-property corridors
[20].
2.3. Determining birds’ preferences according to local resources or certain similarities
2
ISATrop2017
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 203 (2018) 012001
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/203/1/012001
Several studies which have been done in other Indonesian cities have been taken as benchmarks for
determining the environment preferred by birds. As Makassar has been developing, urban birds tend to
become scarcer to find, and no information acquired about their stage regarding no location has been
provided to conduct specific research about this city. Therefore several research which have been held
in other cities such as Jakarta [21], Padang [22], Kudus [21] and other unspecified location in Java
[21] or unspecified cities in Indonesia [23] were taken to formulate aspects of observation based on
fulfilling the needs for birds mentioned in those studies. Based on the only studies in Indonesia, it
would not be sufficient enough to formulate the standards of several variables of the birds’
preferences. Therefore, general studies emphasizing on urban birds were also discussed to verify the
factors such as trees [24], patches’ or the types and sizes of the corridors [12,25].
2.4. Observing all the typologies of the areas regarding their vegetation stage, structure and types
Tzoulas and James in their research in the UK [26] have introduced a method for urban biodiversity
assessment with a tool known as the Rapid Biodiversity Assessment (RBA). This UK-based research
was adopted [4] in order to be applied in developing contexts. Part of the method is applicable for this
study as an assessment on vegetation which includes the qualities that are used in the variable of this
study. The assessment of the vegetation structure was performed by scoring the Domain value of each
structure. The structure here refers to both the soft (vegetation structure) and the hardbuilt structure).
The structure of vegetation defines the composition and height of trees, shrubs, forbs and grasses in an
area [26] whereas the Domain value is a number used in quantifying the dominance of a structure over
a particular land coverage. The scaling ranges from 0 to 100 percent which is divided into 10 classes
with smaller graduations nearer to the lowest part of the scale [27 p.45]. Figure 1 illustrates the list
used in the vegetation assessment.
Figure 1. Field record sheet (source:[26])
Stages of observing the vegetation are explained as mentioned below:
2.4.1. Defining a Visual Horizon. A Sampling site that represents all typologies which have been
surveyed by allocating sample points in the area. The number of sampling points depended on the size
of the area of the site. In each sampling point a sampling circle has been set. The function of this circle
was to define the visual horizon of each point. (As seen in figure 2)
3
ISATrop2017
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 203 (2018) 012001
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/203/1/012001
Figure 2. Definition of the visual horizon.
2.4.2. Recording dominance of different vegetation structures. This stage was performed by visual
observation by estimating the land cover dominance and writing it into a field work sheet. Figure 3
indicates how this method was performed. The researcher observed all the existing structures
(vegetation or built), starting from the circle’s center to the border of the sampling circle. This was
carried out to all directions (A-A’ and B-B’ of figure 3A). If there was a blocking object, then the
observer would walk around the sampling area (as in figure 3B).
4
ISATrop2017
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 203 (2018) 012001
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/203/1/012001
Figure 3. The Observation of the dominant vegetation structure, first, recording all the observable
structures despite the obstacles (A) and then walk around to see and record what was covered by the
obstacle (B)
2.4.3. Recording vascular plants. The previous step produced eight radii, each two unidirectional radii
which were combined into a transect of long line, hence four transects were formed. The length of the
line depends on the size of the sampling circle. This study used a 60m radius circle, therefore, the
length of the two combined radii was 120m. This line furthermore used as a midline of the transect
(see figure 4). Each transect was then made as a 10-meter-wide path (5 meters to each side of the line).
Each path was then walked at least 2 times to record all vascular plants that exist inside the path. This
recording refers to the type or species that exist, not the number of plants.
5
ISATrop2017
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 203 (2018) 012001
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/203/1/012001
Figure 4. Transect set up and vascular plants recording.
Taking all the preferences for the accommodation of city birds’, and all information that could
be observed and recorded through the research method, where there were several variables that
were taken as standards for scoring as seen in table 1.
Table 1. Preference variables for creating accommodating space for birds.
Birds’ preferred conditions based on
studies of urban birds
Translation of the preference regarding condition of
observed spaces in the Makassar study (based on the
approach of vegetation structure assessment)
A More diverse vegetation structures
[12]
1 Existence of all vegetation structures (with or
without built structures)
B
2 High domain value of vegetation structures
(the higher the better) and also, high average
Domain value of all non-built structures
Dense coverage of vegetation (high
vegetation cover) [21]
3 More vascular plants exist in the area
C
Areas with big and high trees
[24,28]
D Conserved and protected areas
(minimum human activities) [11]
4 The existence of trees in the area
5 High Domain value of high trees
6 Absence or minimum existence of built areas
6
ISATrop2017
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 203 (2018) 012001
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/203/1/012001
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Results
Domain Value of each typology group is presented on table 2.
Table 2. Domain value (DV) of various vegetation structures of different typology groups.
Typology group
High Low
High
Low
Bushes
Trees Trees
Grass Grasses
DV
DV
DV
DV
DV
Ground
Flora
DV
Aquatic
Flora
DV
Average
Built Number of
Vascular
DV
plants
Average
number of
existing
vegetation
structures
Average
of Total
Domain
values of
all
vegetation
structures
excluding
built areas
Average
of Total
Domain
value of
all trees
Empty field
4.64
3.82
6.55
3.18
4.73
3.27
1.09
3.55
31.55
6.64
27.27
3.78
Fish pond
0.33
0.33
3.00
1.33
1.00
1.00
5.33
0.33
8.67
6.00
12.33
0.67
Institutional space
6.21
4.57
4.00
2.21
6.50
3.64
0.07
4.86
41.93
6.50
27.21
6.64
Inter house space
2.33
2.00
4.00
0.00
3.00
4.00
0.00
9.00
35.67
6.00
15.33
10.79
Primary road
6.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
10.00
10.00
7.00
12.00
8.45
Public field
5.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
9.00
1.00
0.00
4.00
17.00
5.00
16.00
4.33
Public open/green
space
6.70
3.30
2.80
1.00
5.40
1.80
1.00
4.20
29.30
6.80
22.00
9.00
Secondary road
3.67
5.33
4.67
3.33
4.67
3.00
0.33
9.33
33.33
7.33
25.00
4.60
Stream/canal
6.00
1.00
5.00
6.00
0.00
5.00
1.00
6.00
27.00
7.00
24.00
11.50
Tertiary road
7.00
4.50
3.00
0.00
3.00
1.50
0.00
9.00
41.00
6.00
19.00
7.00
Un-built space
2.40
2.20
5.00
0.40
7.60
1.20
0.20
2.60
20.80
6.40
19.00
5.00
Urban farm
4.18
2.45
3.09
3.09
4.91
3.27
1.64
1.45
26.55
7.09
22.64
7.00
Wetland
1.78
2.00
2.44
2.67
3.11
1.78
6.33
2.33
21.89
7.33
20.11
10.00
Grand Total
4.45
3.09
3.85
2.12
4.86
2.66
1.58
3.96
29.58
6.72
22.62
7.54
The results of observation on the vegetation structure as illustrated in table 2 made it possible for
the assessment of all typologies in order to evaluate their compatibility with the conditions required by
urban birds as an effort for giving more space for them in Makassar (table 3). Table 4 illustrates the
compatibility of the translated conditions required by urban birds with the observed and assessed
condition of spaces in the city. The number range of the Domain value which were used to classify the
parameters into ‘high’, ‘medium’ or ‘low’ were all based on equal distribution of the maximum and
minimum Domain values for all variables.
7
ISATrop2017
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 203 (2018) 012001
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/203/1/012001
Table 3. The transformation of the required conditions into classifying the Makassar study research
parameters.
Observable Research Parameters
1. The Number
of Vegetation
structures
Required
condition
2. The Domain 3. The Number of 4. The Total
5. The Domain
value of all
Vascular Plants Domain value of value of high
structures
trees
trees
6. The Domain
value of built
structures
Low Med High Low Med High Low Med High Low Med High Low Med High High Med Low
A
B
C
D
Various
vegetation
structures
Dense vegetation
(high vegetation
cover)
Areas with big
and high trees
Areas protected
or with minimum
human activities
5.00- 5.79- 6.58- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5.78 6.57 7.33
------------------------
12.00- 17.10- 22.20- 8.67- 19.77- 30.87-----------------------------------------------------------------------17.09 22.19 27.27 19.76 30.86 41.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.67- 4.29- 7.91- 0.33- 2.56- 4.79-----------------------4.28 7.90 11.50 2.55 4.78 7.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.00- 6.77- 3.546.78 3.55 0.33
Note: shaded areas show high range as the preferred values.
Table 4. The Matrix of compatibility to meet preference for accommodation of urban birds.
Typology Group
Public
Required
Inter
Empty Fish Institutional
Primary Public
open/ Secondary Stream/
house
condition field pond
space
road
field
green
road
canal
space
A1
B2
B3
C4
C5
D6
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
space
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
Tertiary Un-built Urban
Wetland
road
space
farm
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
Note: shaded areas fulfilled 3 or more requirements, hence considered preferable
3.2. Discussion
The compatibility matrix (table 4) enables us to see the fulfilment of the capacity of the condition of
each typology prior to providing more space for the birds. Among all the typologies, only the
stream/canal corridors fulfilled most of the requirements i.e. 4 (four) requirements. Institutional space,
empty fields, primary and secondary roads, public green space, urban farms and wetlands equally
shared 3 (three) fulfilment of the requirements.
This fact would lead to accepting the fact that stream corridors are more preferred by urban birds.
We can also see that other corridors (primary and secondary roads) are preferred and this fact confirms
the results of studies in other cities in Indonesia that corridors with green features shelter more
numbers and types of urban birds compared to a more common form of green spaces such as urban
parks [22]. However, it gave a clue that it is important to keep those corridors green with plantings of
trees and other types of vegetation.
When a narrower and less natural corridor (i.e. stream/canal) in this study have been proved to be a
better place for birds to stay, it can be concluded to presume that the wider and more natural the
corridors are such as rivers the more preferred they are. Especially, rivers do not have many humans’
activities. It is interesting to see that spaces and corridors tend to be more affected by human
interaction (such as tertiary roads, inter-house space, un-built space), are less preferred by birds. This
study did not assess human activity as a direct variable of observation, yet the existence of built
structures represented the existence of humans (with all their intervention).
Concerning other studies in other context/cities, not only green corridors have been taken as study
target. [29,30] have performed identification studies of urban birds in the campus environment. In this
study, it belongs to the typology of institutional space. In general, campus grounds in Indonesia have a
wide vegetation area with big trees as the main structure of vegetation. It is also verified in this study
8
ISATrop2017
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 203 (2018) 012001
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/203/1/012001
that the campus environment (institutional space) is the ideal space to be developed for the birds to
stay.
The column of trees alongside the road corridors is the key components that help makes a place to
stay for the birds during their migration or even as refuging sites. Therefore, the condition of the trees
and other vegetation as well as the width of the corridor is significant to consider and improve,
especially as Hernowo & Prasetyo [12] emphasized the significance of the width of green corridors,
according to them even a 15m corridor could probably become a house for two types of birds only.
Learning from this study therefore, the most ideal corridors (of roads/stream) would be ones, which
are more than 15 m wide. However, for Makassar, the consistent width of corridors is difficult to
identify as the corridors in this city entirely are in the form of series of small patches alongside either
natural or cultural corridors. Despite the discontinuity, the distance between those patches are close
enough to form a sort of ‘corridors’, hence the width of the corridor would be the same as the patches’
width.
Regarding the patches for birds, the vegetation condition and composition is more important than
the size, therefore despite the guidelines of USDA regarding the preferable patch size for vegetation
i.e. 2.02 hectares [31] this should not filter out smaller spaces especially if the condition of the
vegetation in the site is already good or potentially improvable.
Land ownership always becomes an issue in the topic of urban space. In many cases it could be an
obstacle in the inclusion of spaces to green development programs [19]. It is indeed much less
complicated to manage public and state-owned spaces, however considering land status as a filter for
selecting birds’ preferable spaces will result in less space available for this purpose as only public
space, state owned-land and institutional spaces that are included. As a consequence, disregarding land
status will provide more available spaces significantly. It is very possible to include remote areas,
considering the most important components of the patch/corridors for the birds are the trees, and there
are many ways to improve their condition and composition without too much changing or interfering
the current land use and status.
4. Conclusions
Stream corridors become the best place for birds to stay and most popular. Then empty fields, road
corridors, institutional space, public green spaces, city farms and wetlands which are equal in
attracting birds’. The quality of spaces that may attract urban birds can be more specific by adding
additional filtering by the inclusion of size, ownership, and development plan as a consideration.
However, concerning the linkage to a more natural setting in the sub urban areas, a network would be
more feasible if there were more space. One thing certain is that the number of space would be even
greater when land ownership is not limited, despite the fact that public spaces are more manageable.
This study focused only on vegetation, making further thorough study concerning other variables
become necessary for a comprehensive and more details for studies on city birds. However, this study
would help further research to use the vegetation stage as the foundation filter for more sophisticated
studies and analysis on the species of city birds and communities.
Acknowledgments
Special appreciation is given to The Centre for Biodiversity and Restoration Ecology (CBRE) New
Zealand for funding the fieldwork activities for this study.
References
[1] Jones G 2002 Southeast Asian urbanization and the growth of mega-urban regions J. Popul. Res
19 119–36
[2] Cohen B 2006 Urbanization in developing countries: Current trends, future projections, and key
challenges for sustainability Technol Soc 28 63–80
[3] Tryjanowski P Morelli F Mikula P Krištín A Indykiewicz P Grzywaczewski G Kronenberg J and
Jerzak L 2017 Bird diversity in urban green space: A large-scale analysis of differences
between parks and cemeteries in Central Europe Urban For. Urban Green 27 264–71
9
ISATrop2017
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 203 (2018) 012001
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/203/1/012001
[4] Iswoyo H Vale B and Bryant M 2013 Scoring urban spaces in an Indonesian city based on
biodiversity Second International Conference on Geological and Environmental Sciences
(Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: IPCBEE) pp 5–9
[5] Linehan J Gross M and Finn J 1995 Greenway planning: developing a landscape ecological
network approach Landsc Urban Plan 33 179–93
[6] Hepcan S Hepcan Ç C Bouwma I M Jongman R H G and Özkan M B 2009 Ecological networks
as a new approach for nature conservation in Turkey: A case study of Izmir Province Landsc
Urban Plan 90 143–54
[7] Savard J-P L Clergeau P and Mennechez G 2000 Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems
Landsc. Urban Plan 48 131–42
[8] Hidayansyah R 2007 Ruang terbuka hijau (RTH) Kota Makassar (Green Open Space of
Makassar) (Jakarta: FPascasarjana-UI) (In Indonesian)
[9] Tiwary N K and Urfi A J 2016 Spatial variations of bird occupancy in Delhi: The significance of
woodland habitat patches in urban centres Urban For Urban Green 20 338–47
[10] Soendjoto M A and Gunawan 2003 Keragaman Burung di Enam Tipe Habitat PT Inhutani I
Labanan, Kalimantan Timur (Bird Diversity in Six Habitat Types of PT Inhutani I Labanan,
East Kalimantan) Biodiversitas 4 103–11
[11] Widodo F A Subeno and Mukhlison 2012 Keanekaragaman Jenis Burung dan Nilai Konservasi
Berbagai Penggunaan Lahan Perkotaan di Kecamatan Kota Kabupaten Kudus (Diversity of
Bird Species and Conservation Value of Several Urban Land-uses in District of Kota, City of
Kudus) (Yogyakarta: University of Gajah Mada) (In Indonesian)
[12] Hernowo J B and Prasetyo L B 1989 Konsepsi Ruang Terbiuka Hijau di Kota sebagai Pendukung
Pelestarian Burung (The Concept of Urban Green Open Space as Support for Birds
Conservation) Media Konserv II 61–71 (In Indonesian)
[13] Paker Y Yom-Tov Y Alon-Mozes T and Barnea A 2014 The effect of plant richness and urban
garden structure on bird species richness, diversity and community structure Landsc Urban
Plan 122 186–95
[14] Huang Y Zhao Y Li S and von Gadow K 2015 The Effects of habitat area, vegetation structure
and insect richness on breeding bird populations in Beijing urban parks Urban For. Urban
Green 14 1027–39
[15] Khera N Mehta V and Sabata B C 2009 Interrelationship of birds and habitat features in urban
greenspaces in Delhi, India Urban For Urban Green 8 187–96
[16] Matsuba M Nishijima S and Katoh K 2016 Effectiveness of corridor vegetation depends on
urbanization tolerance of forest birds in central Tokyo, Japan Urban For Urban Green 18 173–
81
[17] Cook E A 2002 Landscape structure indices for assessing urban ecological networks Landsc
Urban Plan 58 269–80
[18] Yu J P Jin S D Paik I H and Paek W K 2010 Bird Community of Tandong Stream in Daejeon
Metropolitan City J Korean Nat 3 77–81
[19] Iswoyo H Vale B and Bryant M 2012 Is Makassar ready to adapt an ecology-based concept for a
better urban environment? Sustainable built environment in the tropics: New technology, new
behaviour? (Jakarta, Indonesia: School of Architecture, Tarumanagara University) pp 35–47
[20] Iswoyo H Vale B and Bryant M 2011 Assessment and optimization of spaces as the basis for an
urban ecological network in an Indonesian city The 1st ACIKITA International Confrence of
Science and Technology ed P Kahar J Agus D Akbas K Tarman and I Iswaldi (Jakarta:
ACIKITA Foundation) pp 64–77
[21] Ontario J Hernowo J B Haryanto and Ekarelawan 1990 Pola pembinaan habitat burung di
kawasan pemukiman terutama di perkotaan (Patterns for Birds Habitat Development in
especially urban settlements) Media Konserv III 15–28 (In Indonesian)
[22] Jarulis Salsabila A and Bakar A 2005 Fauna Burung di Taman Kota dan Jalur Hijau Kota Padang
(Birds in Urban Parks and Green Corridors of the City of Padang) Gradien 1 98–104 (In
Indonesian)
10
ISATrop2017
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 203 (2018) 012001
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/203/1/012001
[23] Samsoedin I and Forestry M of 2012 Hutan Kota dan Manfaatnya bagi Lingkungan (Urban
Forests and Their Benefits for Environment) (Pusat Litbang Perubahan Iklim dan Kebijakan,
Badan Litbang Kehutanan, Kementrian Kehutanan) (In Indonesian)
[24] Stagoll K 2012 Pohon Besar Penting Bagi Kawasan Perkotaan (Big Trees are Important for
Urban Areas) Natl. Geogr Indones Alam dan Lingkung 2012 (In Indonesian)
[25] Gavareski C A 1976 Relation of Park Size and Vegetation to Urban Bird Populations in Seattle,
Washington Condor 78 375–82
[26] Tzoulas K and James P 2010 Making biodiversity measures accessible to non-specialists: an
innovative method for rapid assessment of urban biodiversity Urban Ecosyst 13 113–27
[27] Kent M and Coker P 1992 Vegetation Description and Analysis - A Practical Approach (London:
Belhaven Press)
[28] Hadinoto Mulyadi A and Siregar Y I 2012 Keanekaragaman Jenis Burung di Hutan Kota
Pekanbaru (Bird Diversity in The Urban Forest of the City of Pekanbaru) Ilmu Lingkung 6
[29] Wibowo Y and University F of M and N S-Y S 2004 Keanekaragaman Burung di Kampus
Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (Birds Diversity in campus area of Yogyakarta State
University) (Yogyakarta: Biology Department, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science,
Yogyakarta State University) (In Indonesian)
[30] Sudaryanto 1997 Keanekaragaman Burung di Kampus Udayana Badung Bali (Birds Diversity in
Campus Ground of University of Udayana, Bali) Berk Ilm (In Indonesian)
[31] Bentrup G Center U N A and Southern Research Station F S 2008 Conservation buffers: design
guidelines for buffers, corridors, and greenways (Lincoln: Department of Agriculture, USA)
11