Establish “green infrastructure” in urban areas

Overall effectiveness category Awaiting assessment
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

not assessed
Certainty

not assessed
Harms

not assessed

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Planting rooftops in urban areas, and growing plants up vertical structures such as walls and lamp-posts, often termed “green infrastructure”, is becoming increasingly popular, and is usually done with the aim of reducing pollution and run-off, or to improve building insulation (Dunnett & Kingsbury 2008). However, they may also be put in place to increase biodiversity, by providing habitat for a range of species (Oberndorfer et al. 2007), including nectar resources or egg-laying sites for butterflies and moths.

^{Dunnett N. & Kingsbury N. (2008) Planting green roofs and living walls. Timber, Portland, Oregon, USA. Second edition, ISBN: 0881929115.}

^{Oberndorfer E., Lundholm J., Bass B., Coffman R.R., Doshi H., Dunnett N., Gaffin S., Kohler M., Liu K.K.Y. & Rowe B. (2007) Green roofs as urban ecosystems: ecological structures, functions and services. BioScience, 57, 823–833.}

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects of establishing “green infrastructure in urban areas on butterflies and moths. This study was in Taiwan.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Taiwan found that green roofs had a lower species richness of butterflies than urban parks.

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Taiwan found that green roofs had a lower abundance of butterflies than urban parks, but the abundance was higher on older green roofs with more nectar plant species in a larger area.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, site comparison study in 2011–2012 on 11 green roofs in Taipei City, Taiwan (Lee & Lin 2015) found that green roofs had a lower abundance and species richness of butterflies than urban parks, but the abundance of butterflies was higher on older green roofs with more nectar plant species in a larger area. On green roofs, both the abundance (514 individuals) and species richness (12 species) of butterflies was lower than in urban parks (abundance: 3,141–8,882 butterflies; richness: 50–109 species). However, the abundance of butterflies was higher on green roofs established longer ago, and on roofs with more nectar plant species covering a larger area (data presented as model results). Eleven green roofs (95–590 m², 7–34 m above ground), established 13–46 months before the study, contained a total of 34 butterfly nectar plant species (1–16 species/roof, covering 2–41 m²). Two urban parks (13–26 ha), established 18–25 years before the study, contained 20–45 nectar plant species. From August 2011–May 2012, butterflies were surveyed for four hours twice/month on each roof. From July 2008–June 2009, butterflies were surveyed in one urban park, and from March 2011–February 2012 they were surveyed in a second park (no further details provided).
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Lee L.-H. & Lin J.-C. (2015) Green roof performance towards good habitat for butterflies in the compact city. International Journal of Biology, 7, 103-112.

Please cite as:

Bladon A.J., Bladon, E. K., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2023) Butterfly and Moth Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for butterflies and moths. Conservation Evidence Series Synopsis. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Plant parks, gardens and road verges with appropriate native species Action Link	Awaiting assessment	8	Synopsis Link
Practise ‘wildlife gardening’ Action Link	Evidence not assessed	4	Synopsis Link
Protect or restore brownfield or ex-industrial sites Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link