Abstract
Urban environments are confronted with the need to accommodate wildlife. However, cities are socio-ecological systems and there is limited understanding of how its organisms are affected by biophysical and social factors acting upon each other. Drawing from methods from the natural and social sciences, I use urban peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) in the United Kingdom to study how their ecological resources (safe nest sites and prey) may be mediated by human practices and beliefs.Through a systematic literature review and mapping, I investigated the ecological requirements of the eighteen urban raptor species, including peregrines, across Europe. It identified the use of natural and artificial sites for breeding and hunting, indicating how opportunities in these novel landscapes are potentially shaped by human activity. I conducted multispecies ethnography at Charing Cross Hospital to identify the feedback loops between peregrines, people, and their environment. This found that everyday interaction with peregrines shape human perception of the birds, motivating actions to improve the quality of the site. Through this research I also met pigeon fanciers who opposed and lobbied against the presence of peregrines due to their predation of racing pigeons and sought for population control. This highlights how conflict and negative feedback loops can occur and have material effects.
I investigated how human processes incidentally shape ecological resource availability. Using compositional analysis and GIS, I identified the breeding habitat preferences of peregrines in London, UK, from bird sighting records. It found a preference for breeding sites in built-up areas near waterbodies and public parks/gardens, while avoiding wooded areas, agricultural sites and allotments. Human demand shaping the urban form therefore drives the nesting opportunities for peregrines. I also conducted a large-scale citizen science study exploring urban peregrine diets. Diet shifts occurred during lockdown, centred around lower pigeon proportions linked to reduced anthropogenic food availability in London but not in other cities. This indicates urban peregrines in London, through their prey, are more dependent on the stability of human activity generating food opportunities in the landscape than elsewhere.
In the last part of the thesis, I focused on predation conflict. I quantified the cultural ‘cost’ of peregrine diets in London and compared this with other cities using qualifications from the IUCN Red-list. Racing pigeons were not an ecologically important part of the diet, which did not substantiate pigeon fanciers’ claims.
However, threatened starlings and charismatic parakeets dominated the diets of London peregrines may lead to conflict among the wider public. I explored contemporary pigeon fanciers’ conflict with peregrines and their conservation, through archival research on the past 150 years of evolving protective wildlife legislation and how (and why) pigeon fanciers contested them. Increasing popularity of anti-cruelty discourse shaping legislation overshadowed the pigeon fanciers’ interests and removed their agency through their ability to protect their pigeons from predation. However, critical moments linked to crisis can empower these groups leading to eroded protection. I argued that contemporary pigeon fanciers allied with falconers are using nationalist rhetoric to resuscitate fading practices marginalized by the priority of peregrine recovery that is becoming harder to defend with the healthy peregrine population status today.
The research presented in this thesis is the most comprehensive study of urban peregrines to date and highlights the need to consider the role of people and wildlife themselves as influential components within urban socio-ecological systems. Biological conservation in urban environments thus need to consider and accept “messy” relationships that go against the grain, to be successful.
| Date of Award | 1 Nov 2023 |
|---|---|
| Original language | English |
| Awarding Institution |
|
| Supervisor | Robert Francis (Supervisor) & Michael Chadwick (Supervisor) |