If this is your first time here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. You may also want to checkout our list of organizations and books if you want to learn more about what this site is about.

This is a call to all community planners, new urbanism folks, preservationists, environmentalists, neighborhood improvement organizations, politicians, business owners, church leaders and activists! Take note:This British study states that birds love affluent neighborhoods. Reading deeper you’ll find that the birds’ affinity is thought to be due to the theory that people with more money choose to purchase and distribute more bird feed.

This is in contrast with poor communities who choose to purchase and distribute food to household members first, and if possible, the birds second. The second part doesn’t happen much, apparently, or they’d have more birds.

If is sounds like I’m being facetious, you’re right. I’ve tracked this article back to the Telegraph’s article and a few other bloggers’ reactions to the study (but wasn’t able to find the original article at it’s source, the journal Diversity and Distributions.) And I’m still looking for something that seems to be missing: the statement that although it was a backward way of finding it, the study shows yet another facet of environmental inequity. These “findings” say a lot about how we value our built landscapes, how we rate the presence or absence of nature in our communities and other’s and especially how, bless their hearts, the animals are not really the issue. Has anybody stopped to declare that it’s also a problem that Johnny Q. Public on the other side of the tracks can’t afford a bag of bird seed?

I love the Telegraph’s summation that:

…there are more birds in affluent urban areas than in poorer ones because wealthier people are more interested in birds and more inclined to feed them.

Is that right? As the income rises, so does the interest in birds? Does this have to do with higher life expectancy, moderate birth-rates and greater access to the arts? A little bit absurd, I think. Seems a little problematic to say that those with money are “more interested” in birds. Although, this may be part of my new rating system. Does So-and-So make enough money to be able to feed birds and still get by? Do I?

In the meantime, those of you who are one of the people I listed at the beginning, we should recognize the sad truth. There are communities who, by no fault of their own, cannot easily afford to create an nature-friendly neighborhood. And a neighborhood park doesn’t necessarily mean animals want to be there. Is it soaked in pesticides? Does a toxic stream run through it? Is there nothing to eat in the landscape? Can the community residents afford to spay or neuter their cats to prevent overpopulation (leading to a potential decline in existing bird population)? Etc, etc.

Or maybe it’s all just a British thing.

The Environmental Justice Reader: Politics, Poetics, and Pedagogy
Price: USD 19.80

22 used & new available from USD 11.50

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!