Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 May;14(5):20180082.
doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2018.0082.

Biodiversity and socioeconomics in the city: a review of the luxury effect

Affiliations
Review

Biodiversity and socioeconomics in the city: a review of the luxury effect

Misha Leong et al. Biol Lett. 2018 May.

Abstract

The ecological dynamics of cities are influenced not only by geophysical and biological factors, but also by aspects of human society. In cities around the world, a pattern of higher biodiversity in affluent neighbourhoods has been termed 'the luxury effect'. The luxury effect has been found globally regarding plant diversity and canopy or vegetative cover. Fewer studies have considered the luxury effect and animals, yet it has been recognized in the distributions of birds, bats, lizards and indoor arthropods. Higher socioeconomic status correlates with higher biodiversity resulting from many interacting factors-the creation and maintenance of green space on private and public lands, the tendency of both humans and other species to favour environmentally desirable areas, while avoiding environmental burdens, as well as enduring legacy effects. The luxury effect is amplified in arid cities and as neighbourhoods age, and reduced in tropical areas. Where the luxury effect exists, benefits of urban biodiversity are unequally distributed, particularly in low-income neighbourhoods with higher minority populations. The equal distribution of biodiversity in cities, and thus the elimination of the luxury effect, is a worthy societal goal.

Keywords: biodiversity; luxury effect; socioeconomics; urban ecology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

We declare we have no competing interests.

References

    1. Panagiotakopulu E. 2001. New records for ancient pests: archaeoentomology in Egypt. J. Archaeol. Sci. 28, 1235–1246. (10.1006/jasc.2001.0697) - DOI
    1. Smith GD. 2002. Commentary: behind the broad street pump: aetiology, epidemiology and prevention of cholera in mid-19th century Britain. Int. J. Epidemiol. 31, 920–932. (10.1093/ije/31.5.920) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hope D, Gries C, Zhu WX, Fagan WF, Redman CL, Grimm NB, Nelson AL, Martin C, Kinzig A. 2003. Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8788–8792. (10.1073/pnas.1537557100) - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bigirimana J, Bogaert J, De Cannière C, Bigendako M-J, Parmentier I. 2012. Domestic garden plant diversity in Bujumbura, Burundi: role of the socio-economical status of the neighborhood and alien species invasion risk. Landsc. Urban Plan. 107, 118–126. (10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.008) - DOI
    1. Clarke LW, Jenerette GD, Davila A. 2013. The luxury of vegetation and the legacy of tree biodiversity in Los Angeles, CA. Landsc. Urban Plan. 116, 48–59. (10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.04.006) - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources