Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 5, e3914

Estimating the Potential Biodiversity Impact of Redeveloping Small Urban Spaces: The Natural History Museum's Grounds


Estimating the Potential Biodiversity Impact of Redeveloping Small Urban Spaces: The Natural History Museum's Grounds

Helen R P Phillips et al. PeerJ.


Background: With the increase in human population, and the growing realisation of the importance of urban biodiversity for human wellbeing, the ability to predict biodiversity loss or gain as a result of land use change within urban settings is important. Most models that link biodiversity and land use are at too coarse a scale for informing decisions, especially those related to planning applications. Using the grounds of the Natural History Museum, London, we show how methods used in global models can be applied to smaller spatial scales to inform urban planning.

Methods: Data were extracted from relevant primary literature where species richness had been recorded in more than one habitat type within an urban setting. As within-sample species richness will increase with habitat area, species richness estimates were also converted to species density using theory based on the species-area relationship. Mixed-effects models were used to model the impact on species richness and species density of different habitat types, and to estimate these metrics in the current grounds and under proposed plans for redevelopment. We compared effects of three assumptions on how within-sample diversity scales with habitat area as a sensitivity analysis. A pre-existing database recording plants within the grounds was also used to estimate changes in species composition across different habitats.

Results: Analysis estimated that the proposed plans would result in an increase of average biodiversity of between 11.2% (when species density was modelled) and 14.1% (when within-sample species richness was modelled). Plant community composition was relatively similar between the habitats currently within the grounds.

Discussion: The proposed plans for change in the NHM grounds are estimated to result in a net gain in average biodiversity, through increased number and extent of high-diversity habitats. In future, our method could be improved by incorporating purposefully collected ecological survey data (if resources permit) and by expanding the data sufficiently to allow modelling of the temporal dynamics of biodiversity change after habitat disturbance and creation. Even in its current form, the method produces transparent quantitative estimates, grounded in ecological data and theory, which can be used to inform relatively small scale planning decisions.

Keywords: Biodiversity value; Habitat loss; Habitat redevelopment; Species density; Species–area relationship.

Conflict of interest statement

All authors were affiliated with the Natural History Museum, London, whilst undertaking this study. Helen R.P. Phillips and Andy Purvis had no involvement in either the conception of the redevelopment proposal or the opposition to it. Prior to the start of the study, it was agreed that results would be published irrespective of the findings.


Figure 1
Figure 1. Detailed plans of the grounds of the Natural History Museum.
Detailed plans of the NHM grounds, provided by Wilder Associates, and the area (m2) of: (A) Current habitat types and, (B) Proposed habitat types.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Map of the 12 UK studies (10 papers) included in the analysis.
Data Sources for this analysis. (Petit & Usher, 1998; Wilson et al., 2003; Fountain & Hopkin, 2004; Smith, Chapman & Eggleton, 2006; Butt et al., 2008; Williams, Whitfield & Biggs, 2008; Scriven, Sweet & Port, 2013; Sirohi et al., 2015; Speak, Mizgajski & Borysiak, 2015, WLG Database). MacIvor & Lundholm (2011) (a Canadian article on green roofs) was included in the analysis (containing two studies) but is not shown on this map. Size of the points do not indicate the study area or sample size. All data and code is available for download from: and
Figure 3
Figure 3. Model estimates of the 19 habitats within the Museum grounds.
Black coefficients are modelled species densities (10 m2), whilst red coefficients are the habitat densities that were unable to be modelled and estimated from other habitats (details in Table 1). Grey coefficients are modelled within-sample species richness and pink coefficients are the within-sample habitat richness of those unable to be estimated. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 4
Figure 4. The number of times each percentage change in average species density was obtained in the sensitivity analysis.
A random sample was taken from the distribution of each habitat coefficient, and under Assumption 1 the overall gain or loss in average species density was calculated. This was repeated 1,000 times. Vertical line indicates 0% change. 0.4% of the runs resulted in a loss of species richness under Assumption 1.
Figure 5
Figure 5. Compositional similarity between habitat types, based on data from the WLG database of plant species.
Each cell shows the percentage of species in the habitat on the x-axis that are also present in the habitat listed on the y-axis. Therefore, the grids above and below the diagonal are not mirror-images.

Similar articles

See all similar articles


    1. Alkemade R, Van Oorschot M, Miles L, Nellemann C, Bakkenes M, Ten Brink B. GLOBIO3: a framework to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss. Ecosystems. 2009;12:374–390. doi: 10.1007/s10021-009-9229-5. - DOI
    1. Alvey AA. Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2006;5:195–201. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2006.09.003. - DOI
    1. Angold PG, Sadler JP, Hill MO, Pullin A, Rushton S, Austin K, Small E, Wood B, Wadsworth R, Sanderson R, Thompson K. Biodiversity in urban habitat patches. Science of the Total Environment. 2006;360:196–204. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.08.035. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aronson MFJ, La Sorte FA, Nilon CH, Katti M, Goddard MA, Lepczyk CA, Warren PS, Williams NSG, Cilliers S, Clarkson B, Dobbs C, Dolan R, Hedblom M, Klotz S, Louwe Kooijmans J, Kühn I, MacGregor-Fors I, McDonnell M, Mörtberg U, Pyšek P, Siebert S, Sushinsky J, Werner P, Winter M. A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2014;281(1780):20133330. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2013.3330. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baker J, Sheate WR, Bennett T, Payne D, Tucker G, White O, Forrest S. Evaluation of the biodiversity offsetting pilot programme. Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited; London: 2014.

Grant support

This work was funded by the Natural History Museum in relation to their renovation of their grounds. Helen R.P. Phillips was supported by a Hans Rausing Scholarship. Andy Purvis was supported by NERC (grant NE/J011193/2). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

LinkOut - more resources