Bogotá’s bird distributions expose a socioeconomic geography—but habitat still does the ecological work

Spatial models found many terrestrial species more associated with higher-value parts of the city, while aquatic and migratory birds often broke the pattern and tree richness explained only part of the variation.

Wild Lands Ecological Intelligence Editor
Wild Lands Institute · 19 September 2026

A bird flies low over refuge waters. — Illustrative repository image, not study-site documentation — Steve Hillebrand/USFWS · Public Domain (USFWS) · Rights: Public domain

Evidence: Peer-reviewed
Geography: Bogotá, Colombia
System: Andean metropolitan landscape, urban trees, parks and wetlands

WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS

Using eBird records, cadastral land values and spatial regression, researchers found significant positive socioeconomic associations for many of 157 analyzed bird species, with stronger patterns among terrestrial species than aquatic or migratory birds. Urban tree-species richness correlated with bird richness, but explained only about 23% of its variance and did not fully mediate the socioeconomic pattern.

WHY IT MATTERS / OUR READ

The planning lesson is not that wealth itself attracts birds. Socioeconomic geography is entangled with where vegetation structure, habitat quality, wetlands and connectivity are maintained; equitable urban biodiversity planning has to change those ecological conditions rather than simply add generic green cover.

CAVEATS / UNCERTAINTY

This is observational citizen-science analysis, so detection effort, unmeasured habitat structure and spatial confounding remain important. Land values were imputed for some public green spaces, and associations do not establish that income causes biodiversity differences.

SOURCE

Urban Ecosystems
View original evidence ↗