Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 32 (2018) 64–70

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ufug

Biodiversity in sacred urban spaces of Bengaluru, India T

a b c c,⁎
Madhumitha Jaganmohan , Lionel Sujay Vailshery , Seema Mundoli , Harini Nagendra
a
UFZ- Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research, Department of Computational Landscape Ecology, Permoserstrasse 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany
b
Department of Animal Ecology I, Bayreuth Center for Ecology and Environmental Science (BayCEER), University of Bayreuth, Universitätsstraße 30, 95444 Bayreuth,
Germany
c
Azim Premji University, PES Campus, Pixel Park, B Block, Electronics City, Hosur Road, (Beside NICE Road), Bengaluru, 560100, India

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Urban green spaces provide critical social and ecological support for cities, but we know little about their
Cities diversity and composition in cities of the Global South. This is especially true of lesser known urban spaces such
Green spaces as sacred sites, which are of important cultural and biodiversity significance. We examine tree diversity and
India composition in sacred sites in Bengaluru, one of India’s fastest growing cities. We recorded 5504 trees from 93
Religious institutions
species across 62 temples, churches, and Hindu, Christian and Muslim cemeteries in central areas of Bengaluru.
Urban biodiversity
Over half (52%) of the tree species were of native origin, a much higher proportion when compared to other
green spaces in the city such as parks. Tree density in sacred sites was much higher than that in parks and
informal settlements in Bengaluru. Temples and Hindu cemeteries contained the highest proportion of native
species, with large numbers of Ficus benghalensis, a keystone sacred species. Trees in sacred spaces provide an
important buffer against urban environmental stress in Indian cities, and serve as refuges for urban wildlife and
biodiversity. We need greater information on these lesser known, but culturally significant alternate spaces. They
play an important, though ignored role in the environmental sustainability of rapidly growing cities in the Global
South.

1. Introduction
The human impact on the planet today is perhaps most visible in its
cities – especially so in Asia, which has the highest number of urban
residents. Urbanization threatens biodiversity and environmental sus-
tainability (UN-Habitat, 2016). Urban land area expansion is taking
place even faster than urban population growth (Seto et al., 2011,
2012), resulting in the fragmentation of urban green cover and loss of
urban biodiversity (Elmqvist et al., 2013).
Urban green cover provides multiple benefits to city residents
(Dearborn and Kark, 2009; Shackleton et al., 2015), including the mi-
tigation of urban heat island effects, reduction of air and noise pollu-
tion, and protection against flooding (The Nature Conservancy, 2016).
Food trees in urban public spaces can provide economic and food se-
curity benefits (Lafontaine-Messier et al., 2016). Foraging in urban
forests supplies medicine and supports livelihoods (Clark and Nicholas,
2013; Poe et al., 2013; McLain et al., 2012, 2014; Shackleton et al.,
2015). Urban biodiversity provides important recreational and aes-
thetic benefits, and is especially important for physical and mental
health (van den Berg et al., 2015).
Urban green spaces include the more obvious parks, domestic
gardens and remnant forests patches. They also encompass lesser
known informal spaces such as streets, pavements and land next to
water bodies (Rupprecht and Byrnea, 2014). In addition, green spaces
of religious and cultural significance are especially significant in many
countries of the Global South. These include heritage trees in Buddhist
shrines of Bangkok city, Thailand (Thaiutsa et al., 2008), to sacred trees
in Bengaluru, India (Nagendra, 2016; Keswani, 2017), and trees in
churchyards and cemeteries of Grahamstown, South Africa (De Lacy
and Shackleton, 2017a).
Sacred urban ecosystems serve a dual purpose: they support biodi-
versity, and are of cultural significance to urban residents (Kowarik
et al., 2016). Sacred sites in Indian and other Global South cities can
serve as an important node and motivation for conservation (Nagendra
et al., 2013; De Lacy and Shackleton, 2017a,b). Several species of Ficus
– especially Ficus religiosa and Ficus benghalensis – are considered sacred
in Hinduism and Buddhism. Ficus religiosa is associated with Gautama
Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, believed to have attained enlight-
enment under the shade of a Ficus benghalensis (Nene 2000). Ficus re-
ligiosa is found in Hindu temple compounds across India, and is also
ubiquitous on roadsides where it is worshipped along with Azadirachta
indica (Krishna and Amirthalingam, 2014; Keswani, 2017). The wood of

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: harini.nagendra@apu.edu.in (H. Nagendra).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.03.021
Received 6 December 2017; Received in revised form 19 March 2018; Accepted 28 March 2018
Available online 03 April 2018
1618-8667/ © 2018 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
M. Jaganmohan et al.
Fig. 1. Map of study area.
Ficus religiosa is primarily used in sacrificial fires and religious rituals
(Nene, 2001). Planting of these Ficus species is also considered a divine
act in ancient Hindu texts (Nalini, 1996; Krishna and Amirthalingam,
2014).
Sacred sites have been protected across the world by communities,
and globally recognized as important sites for biodiversity conserva-
tion. Nature and culture are closely linked in these sacred spaces
(UNESCO, 2005; Verschuuren et al., 2010). Despite the ecological and
cultural significance of sacred sites in cities, there has been a substantial
deficit in our understanding of the urban ecology of these spaces. Most
literature on the biodiversity of sacred spaces focuses on rural areas,
tending to ignore cities. Thus, recent research has called for increased
attention to this important, yet neglected category of urban green
spaces (Jackson and Ormsby, 2017). Cities in the Global South will be
the main sites for spatial and demographic growth in the future, and
India is no exception to this trend (UN-Habitat, 2016). Sacred spaces act
as refuges for biodiversity, and have a potential yet relatively un-
explored role to play in protecting urban biodiversity in the Indian
context (Nagendra et al., 2013).
We aim to address the knowledge gap on the biodiversity and
ecology of this neglected category of urban green space, through an
examination of tree biodiversity in sacred green spaces in the south
Indian city of Bengaluru, one of India’s fastest growing megacities. We
seek to document tree biodiversity, density, diversity and distribution
across different categories of sacred green spaces, and to compare these
to other types of land use in Bengaluru.
2. Study area
Bengaluru has a history of urban settlement dating back to the 16th
century. The growth of the city has been shaped by its ecology and the
interactions between humans and nature (Nagendra, 2016). From a
largely open landscape, devoid of trees, Bengaluru was systematically
greened over centuries by a succession of Indian and colonial rulers,
65
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 32 (2018) 64–70
administrators, and citizens, gaining the reputation of the “Garden
City” of India (Nagendra, 2016). Now one of the fastest growing Indian
cities, owing to the information technology boom, Bengaluru has wit-
nessed enormous changes to its environment including a progressive
loss of green cover (Sudhira et al., 2007). Remnant patches of greenery
exist in the core of the city in large heritage parks, educational and
government institutions, and sacred spaces (Nagendra et al., 2012). Our
research forms part of a larger study on the biodiversity of different
kinds of green spaces in the city that include parks (Nagendra and
Gopal, 2011), streets (Nagendra and Gopal, 2010; Vailshery et al.,
2013), domestic gardens and apartment complexes (Jaganmohan et al.,
2012, 2013), and informal settlements (Gopal and Nagendra, 2014;
Gopal et al., 2015). Here, we extend this research to include sites of
religious and cultural importance in Bengaluru that have been hitherto
ignored, but constitute a very important part of urban biodiversity in
Indian cities.
Many of the temples, churches and cemeteries in Bengaluru in this
study have existed since historical times, constituting an important part
of the cultural landscape of the city. The Someshwara temple in Ulsoor
is believed to date to the Chola dynasty period, and was reconstructed
by Kempe Gowda I, the founder of Bengaluru, in the 16th century. Some
other temples, including Kadu Malleshwara, Dodda Ganapathy, Bull
temple, and Kote Venkatramana temple also date back hundreds of
years, providing glimpses of the interrelationship between the cultural
landscape and ecology of the city. Thus, the Kadu Malleshwara (Kadu
means forest in the local language, Kannada, while Malleshwara is the
name of the temple deity) temple is named for the forested landscape in
which it was once situated, while the Bull temple is believed to mark
the origin of the Vrishabhavathi River (Annaswamy, 2003). Similarly,
churches such as Trinity, Saint Mark’s and All Saints Church founded
under the Colonial rule in the 1800s (Rice, 1897), have become im-
portant cultural landmarks of the city, and contain large areas of rela-
tively undisturbed urban green space within their boundaries that have
been little studied.
M. Jaganmohan et al.
3. Methods
We used a 1976 Survey of India topographic map of Bengaluru,
which is the most recent topographic map available for the city, to mark
the boundaries of our study area. Considering the General Post Office as
the city center, we drew a circle of 6 km radius around the center
(Fig. 1). The 6 km radius was done to circumscribe the limits of the old
(circa 1990s or older) urban agglomeration of Bengaluru, within which
most of the older urban sacred spaces are located. Within this, we used
an Eicher city map in combination with Google Earth imagery and field
visits, to locate all religious institutions – temples, churches, mosques
and cemeteries. This was followed by field visits, identifying sites that
were larger than 700 m2 in area, and had areas of garden or open space
greater than 30 m2 (cut-off criteria used to identify and remove re-
ligious institutions that were completely built up, with limited space for
tree cover). We identified a total of 101 sites, out of which we were able
to obtain permissions to survey 62 sites: 19 temples and 28 churches
out of a total of 78 locations, and six Hindu, six Christian and three
Muslim cemeteries out of a total of 23 sites. Temples included Hindu
mutts/ashrams (hermitages or monasteries) and spiritual organisations,
while churches encompassed Christian theological centres and semin-
aries. We were unable to access permissions to sample six mosques
within the study area. The date of establishment for older sites and
records of age of tree planting were not available.
We conducted field sampling of trees in temples and churches from
January to September 2011, and in cemeteries from October 2011 to
January 2012. Each site was visited once to check if they satisfied our
size criteria for selection, as this could not be reliably discerned from
the map. If the site fit the criteria, then we sought permission from the
managing authorities, following which field research was conducted.
For smaller sites (temples and churches), we were generally able to
cover each site within a single day of field work. For larger sites (e.g.
most cemeteries) we required multiple field visits. Within each selected
site, all trees were identified to the species level, and their diameter at
breast height (DBH) and height recorded. We categorized species as
native and introduced. Cocos nucifera, naturalized over centuries of
planting, was additionally categorized as native.
A non-parametric Mann Whitney U test (Sokal and Rohlf, 1981) was
used to assess whether density, distribution and diversity differed sig-
nificantly in attributes of density, distribution and diversity. All statis-
tical analysis was performed in R 3.1.2 (R Core Team, 2014). Species
diversity was analysed using the Hurlbert’s PIE index, a measure of
species evenness that represents the probability that two randomly
sampled individuals from the community are from two different species
(Hurlbert, 1971). The index is interpreted as a probability: the larger
the probability, the greater the evenness of distribution of individuals
across species.
4. Results
4.1. Aggregate distribution of trees
The total area of the institutions varied from a minimum of 0.07 ha
to a maximum of 9.72 ha. 5504 trees were recorded from the 62 sites in
this study. There was a relatively even distribution of native and in-
troduced trees. Of 93 species recorded, 48 species or 52% were native
species. The five most dominant tree species comprised 46% of the total
population of the trees (Table 1). The most dominant tree, constituting
a little more than 17% of the total population, was Pongamia pinnata.
This native species has a wide canopy that provides shade, and is a
source of fuelwood, timber, oil (from seeds) and medicine. The next
most dominant tree was a narrow-canopied ornamental introduced
species, Polyalthia longifolia. Other large dominant shade-providing
trees included Ficus benghalensis, Samanea saman, Mangifera indica and
Peltophorum pterocarpum. Ficus benghalensis and Mangifera indica are
multi-use species, providing timber and medicine. In addition, Ficus
66
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 32 (2018) 64–70
benghalensis is a source of fuelwood while Mangifera indica provides
fruits (Kavitha et al., 2012). These species also provide shelter and food
to a wide variety of bird and insect life. Mammals such as squirrels and
monkeys are found in the trees (personal observations), and the ca-
nopies are potential habitats for the slender loris (Loris tardigradus), a
nocturnal primate found in the city (http://www.
urbanslenderlorisproject.org/). There was an almost even mix of de-
ciduous and evergreen trees among the ten dominant species. Species
such as Tamarindus indicus, Syzygium cumini, Ficus religiosa and Arto-
carpus heterophyllus together comprised 5% of the total population.
These species are popular native trees with multiple uses. We also re-
corded 27 Santalum album (sandalwood) trees, a native tree of high
commercial value classified as vulnerable by the IUCN Red List (Asian
Regional Workshop, 1998).
4.2. Differences across categories of religious spaces
Average tree density was 86.7 trees/ha. The highest tree density was
found in Muslim cemeteries (161 trees/ha) followed by churches (91.7
trees/ha) (Fig. 2 and Table 2).
Hindu cemeteries had the highest proportion of native trees
(74.8%), and temples contained the highest percentage of native spe-
cies (52.6%) (Table 2). Of the ten most dominant species, temples and
Muslim cemeteries contained six native species, Hindu cemeteries five,
churches four native species and Christian cemeteries only two. Pon-
gamia pinnata was the only common dominant species found across all
five categories of sacred spaces, while Mangifera indica, Samanea saman
and Grevillea robusta were relatively widespread, each being en-
countered in four categories of sacred spaces. Ficus religiosa was
dominant in temples and Hindu cemeteries, but absent or not dominant
in churches, Christian cemeteries and Muslim cemeteries. Araucaria
cookii, the conifer popularly known as the Christmas tree (Krishen,
2006) was only dominant in churches. Punica granatum finds mention in
the Koran (Musselman, 2003; Khafagi et al., 2006), but in Bengaluru,
only six trees of this species were recorded, from Hindu and Christian
institutions.
Polyalthia longifolia was the most dominant tree in the temples and
churches followed by Cocos nucifera. In cemeteries, the most dominant
species was Pongamia pinnata, followed by Ficus benghalensis. Dominant
native species in temples and churches included Cocos nucifera,
Mangifera indica, Millingtonia hortensis, Ficus religiosa, Pongamia pinnata
and Ficus benghalensis. In cemeteries, dominant native species included
Cocos nucifera, Mangifera indica, Ficus religiosa, Pongamia pinnata, Ficus
benghalensis, Tamarindus indicus and Michelia champaca (Table 3).
Table 4 presents the results of a Mann Whitney U test (a non-
parametric test) to assess the statistical significance of differences in the
distribution of native trees and species among temples, churches and
cemeteries. Temples had a significantly greater proportion of native
trees and species compared to churches.
4.3. Differences in growth across species
The largest size class consisted of trees with a DBH greater than
75 cm. In this category, the dominant species were Ficus benghalensis (a
native sacred species found mostly in Hindu cemeteries) and Samanea
saman (an introduced species distributed widely). A Ficus benghalensis in
All Saints Church had the widest trunk at 488.9 cm. Yet most trees were
small trunked, with a DBH between 15 and 30 cm (Fig. 3). The domi-
nant species in this size category were Pongamia pinnata, Cocos nucifera
and Polyalthia longifolia. In the smallest size class of trees with DBH less
than 15 cm, the most dominant species were Polyalthia longifolia and
Pongamia pinnata (Fig. 4).
Five of the tallest trees, with a height greater than 30 m, included
two Araucaria cookii trees, and one each of Millingtonia hortensis, Acacia
nilotica and Polyalthia longifoila. Two highly valuable 26 m tall Santalum
album (sandalwood) trees were located in one of the older Christian
M. Jaganmohan et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 32 (2018) 64–70

Table 1
Attributes of ten dominant species from study sites.
Scientific name Common name Origin Number Proportion of trees (%) Phenology

Pongamia pinnata Pongam Native 942 17.1 Deciduous

Polyalthia longifolia Indian mast Introduced 686 12.5 Evergreen
Cocos nucifera Coconut Native 387 7.0 Evergreen
Ficus benghalensis Banyan Native 286 5.2 Deciduous
Samanea saman Raintree Introduced 262 4.8 Deciduous
Grevillea robusta Silver oak Introduced 232 4.2 Evergreen
Mangifera indica Indian mango Native 217 3.9 Evergreen
Peltophorum pterocarpum Copper pod Introduced 197 3.6 Deciduous
Spathodea campanulata African tulip Introduced 142 2.6 Deciduous
Millingtonia hortensis Indian cork Native 120 2.2 Deciduous

out of every five trees in Bengaluru’s parks are introduced (Nagendra

Fig. 2. Average tree density per hectare across urban sacred spaces.
churches. The ancient Someshwara temple had a Ficus religiosa that
stood at 25 m. Overall, we encountered 217 trees taller than 20 m, from
Ficus species such as Ficus benghalensis, Ficus religiosa, Ficus benjamina
and Ficus glomerata, as well as other species including Mangifera indica,
Santalum album, Tamarindus indica and Syzygium cumini. The majority of
trees were however in the height class between 9 and 12 m (Fig. 5).
5. Discussion
The 5504 trees we documented form important patches of urban
greenery in the expanding metropolis providing many benefits.
Temples, churches and cemeteries have a larger percentage of native
species (52%) when compared to Bengaluru’s parks (33%) (Nagendra
and Gopal, 2011). While both native and introduced trees provide
ecological benefits such as temperature control and biodiversity sup-
port (Gray and van Heezik, 2015; Sjöman et al., 2016), the higher
percentage of native species in sacred spaces appears indicative of the
cultural and sacred significance accorded to specific native species. This
stands in stark opposition to parks in Bengaluru, where considerations
of aesthetics dominate, with a preference for introduced species: four
and Gopal, 2011). Average tree density in urban sacred spaces (65
trees/ha) is far higher than found in other spaces such as informal
settlements (11 trees/ha) (Gopal and Nagendra, 2014; Gopal et al.,
2015) and parks (36–53 trees/ha) (Nagendra and Gopal, 2011).
The size class distribution of trees provides an indication of the
changing composition of trees planted over different periods of time
(Fig. 4). Polyalthia longifolia, a relatively small canopied, fast growing
tree was dominant in smaller DBH size classes below 15 cm, while large
canopied Ficus benghalensis and Samanea saman were found in larger
size classes. This indicates, in a pattern similar to urban parks
(Nagendra and Gopal, 2011) and streets (Nagendra and Gopal, 2010) in
Bengaluru, that wide canopied trees are no longer being planted. The
changing preference for narrow-canopied tree species has implications
for the environment as wide canopied trees provide more shade, can
support more bird and insect life, and are more effective in mitigating
air pollution (McPherson and Rowntree, 1989; The Nature
Conservancy, 2016).
Ecology in cities exists at different scales – from individual trees in
informal settlements to religious institutions that extend across several
acres – each serving a variety of purposes for different groups of city
dwellers. Residents of informal settlements and middle class homes
prioritize food and medicinal plants and trees such as Moringa oleifera
and Cocos nucifera (Gopal and Nagendra, 2014; Gopal et al., 2015;
Jaganmohan et al., 2012; Nagendra, 2016). At the same time, parks are
mainly accessed for recreation and have wide canopied shade providing
and flowering trees (Nagendra and Gopal, 2011). Ficus trees are key-
stone species but do not form part of the ten most dominant trees in
either parks (Nagendra and Gopal, 2011) or on streets (Nagendra and
Gopal, 2010) of Bengaluru. On the other hand the temples, churches
and cemeteries documented in this study had 286 Ficus benghalensis
trees, the fourth most dominant species encountered. Even single in-
dividuals of keystone species in human-dominated landscapes are
known to be beneficial for protection of biodiversity (Caughlin et al.,
2012). The large numbers of Ficus trees in sacred sites demonstrate a
strong potential for urban conservation in this fast changing city.
Protection of urban greenery is a constant challenge for an

Table 2
Summary of attributes of trees based on a sub-sample survey of tree population in temples, churches and cemeteries of Bengaluru.
Parameter Temples Churches Hindu cemeteries Christian cemeteries Muslim cemeteries

Number of locations studied 19 28 6 \6 3

Area (ha) − total, mean and standard deviation 10.7, 0.6 ± 0.5 22.8, 0.8 ± 0.8 21.6, 3.4 ± 3.2 18.7, 3.1 ± 2.7 10.4, 3.5 ± 5.4
Tree density (per ha) − mean and standard deviation 88.4 ± 76.0 91.7 ± 67.5 48.3 ± 21.4 58.8 ± 29.9 161 ± 101.3
Range of tree density (per ha) − minimum and maximum 2.1–312.9 10.9–284.6 17.1–78.6 33–122.2 28.1–273.6
Average DBH (cm) − mean and standard deviation 33.6 ± 26.8 30.9 ± 24.1 41 ± 30 43.6 ± 31.7 50.3 ± 31.8
Range of DBH (cm) − minimum and maximum 6.1–203.8 4.8–488.9 6.4–189.8 5.1–213.4 6.4–185.7
Average height (m) − mean and standard deviation 10.8 ± 4.4 9.5 ± 4.3 7.6 ± 3.9 9.4 ± 4.5 8.9 ± 3.9
Range of height (m) − minimum and maximum 3–25 2–30 2–25 3–25 3–25
Species Hurlbert index − mean and standard deviation 0.8 ± 0.2 0.8 ± 0.2 0.6 ± 0.2 0.7 ± 0.2 0.9 ± 0.1
% native trees 50.7 39.4 74.8 40.1 54.8
% native species 52.6 48.1 47.5 46.9 51.5

67
M. Jaganmohan et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 32 (2018) 64–70

Table 3
Ten most dominant species for urban sacred spaces.
Dominance rank Temples Churches Hindu cemeteries Christian cemeteries Muslim cemeteries

1 Cocos nucifera (13.3%) Polyalthia longifolia (21.2%) Pongamia pinnata (48.5%) Pongamia pinnata (26.2%) Peltophorum pterocarpum
(27.0%)
2 Polyalthia longifolia (12.1%) Cocos nucifera (11.6%) Ficus benghalensis (15.4%) Polyalthia longifolia (13.8%) Pongamia pinnata (17.3%)
3 Grevillea robusta (7.8%) Mangifera indica (6.5%) Samanea saman (8.9%) Samanea saman (8.3%) Ficus benghalensis (16.6%)
4 Mangifera indica (5.7%) Grevillea robusta (4.8%) Markhamia lutea (6.3%) Spathodea campanulata (5.5%) Samanea saman (5.1%)
5 Millingtonia hortensis (4.6%) Jacaranda mimosifolia Tamarindus indica (4.0%) Grevillea robusta (4.8%) Tamarindus indica (4.0%)
(3.6%)
6 Ficus religiosa (3.1%) Araucaria cookii (3.3%) Spathodea campanulata Delonix regia (3.6%) Mangifera indica (3.0%)
(1.8%)
7 Pongamia pinnata (3.0%) Millingtonia hortensis (3.0%) Cassia spectabilis (1.7%) Muntingia calabura (3.6%) Pithecellobium dulce (3.0%)
8 Ficus benghalensis (2.5%) Delonix regia (2.2%) Ficus religiosa (1.7%) Peltophorum pterocarpum Michelia champaca (2.8%)
(2.9%)
9 Spathodea campanulata Pongamia pinnata (2.2%) Mangifera indica (1.1%) Lagerstroemia speciosa (2.2%) Cocos nucifera (2.6%)
(2.5%)
10 Cassia spectabilis (2.3%) Samanea saman (2.2%) Delonix regia (1.0%) Swietenia macrophylla (2.0%) Grevillea robusta (2.6%)

expanding city such as Bengaluru. Bengaluru is India’s second fastest

growing city (Sudhira et al., 2007) with a population of around 8.5
million as per the Census of India 2011 (DCO, 2011). The city grew
from 69 km2 in 1949–741 km2 in 2007: a more than ten-fold spatial
expansion (Sudhira et al., 2007) that has had a major impact on green
cover (Nagendra et al., 2012). Development of the city, be it widening
of roads or construction of the metro, has been preceded by massive
cutting of avenue trees, resulting in an irreversible loss of ecological
benefits provided by these large canopied trees. For instance, a total of
2500 trees were felled in the first phase of metro construction (ESG
2016). Bengaluru has only one tree for every seven people, a highly
inadequate number for an expanding city with high rates of carbon
emissions (Bharath et al., 2017). It is unlikely that large wooded areas
will be established at the cost of other needs of urbanization
Fig. 3. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) across urban sacred spaces.
(Fernández-juricic and Jokimäki, 2001). Thus, protection of the existing
habitats of temples, churches and cemeteries documented in this study
is imperative, as they can serve as buffers against loss of tree cover in
other urban spaces.
Trees in temples, churches and cemeteries have a better chance of
protection as compared to many other urban green spaces, as they have
lesser exposure to anthropogenic activities, and can act as a refuge for
different kinds of biodiversity (Barrett and Barrett, 2001; Löki et al.,
2016). Additionally, temples, churches and cemeteries are likely to
have stronger custodians (including local communities). Cemeteries
have been known to contain some of the oldest trees (Barrett and Fig. 4. Percentage of trees from the five most dominant species in different
Barrett, 2001), and such old and large trees provide a better habitat for Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) size categories across urban sacred spaces
biodiversity (Ferenc et al., 2013). When compared to other urban combined.
greenery in public spaces, protecting these trees can also be easier
thereby contributing to environmental benefits. The usual restrictions long-term urban green space management (Roy et al., 2012; Rupprecht
of choice of species, tree size and canopy cover that apply to street trees et al., 2015). This may be challenging, however, as many of the tem-
and trees in urban parks owing to concerns of safety, costs and main- ples, churches and cemeteries are owned by temple trusts. Citizens,
tenance, and width of roads (Nagendra and Gopal, 2010) also do not owners and the government need to find ways to come together for
apply to trees in temples, churches and cemeteries. their protection (Ishi et al., 2010; Jim, 2012). Where there is greater
Urban planners and managers must look for spaces that can enhance awareness about the various ecological and cultural values of urban
urban greenery, working with different kinds of users and owners for greenery including in sacred spaces, there is a greater likelihood of

Table 4
Results of a non-parametric, two-tailed Mann Whitney U test assessing the statistical significance of differences in site size, tree density, diversity and percentage of
native trees and species across temples, churches and cemeteries, based on a sub-sample survey in Bengaluru.
Tree attributes Temples vs. Churches Hindu cemeteries vs. Christian cemeteries Hindu cemeteries vs. Muslim Christian cemeteries vs Muslim
cemeteries cemeteries

Difference in% native trees Temples > Churches*** Hindu cemeteries > Christian cemeteries* No significant difference No significant difference
Difference in% native Temples > Churches*** No significant difference No significant difference No significant difference
species

* Significant at p < 0.1.

*** Significant at p < 0.01.

68
M. Jaganmohan et al.
Fig. 5. Height distribution of all trees in urban sacred spaces.
urban planners adopting strategies for their protection (Young, 2010).
As in the case of informal green spaces in cities, appropriate manage-
ment of sacred and cultural sites can help conserve biodiversity.
Today, Bengaluru faces a multitude of sustainability challenges that
are common to many other rapidly urbanizing cities. We need better
and more innovative planning of the urban landscape that can in-
corporate the entire range of urban ecosystems, including sacred
spaces, considering their ecological, social and economic importance
(Kowarik, 2011). Urban planning in the Global South must incorporate
sacred urban green spaces where they exist, to help build ecologically
sustainable and culturally inclusive cities.
Acknowledgements
We thank USAID PEER [Grant ID 2000001966 to HN via Ashoka
Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment] and the Centre for
Urban Ecological Sustainability, Azim Premji University [Grant ID
RC00072] for funding this research. Vijay Nishant and Varshitha Jha
are also acknowledged for their help in data collection.
References
Annaswamy, T.V., 2003. Bengaluru to Bangalore: Urban History of Bangalore from the
Pre-Historic Period to the End of the 18th Century. Vengadam Publications,
Bangalore.
Asian Regional Workshop (Conservation & Sustainable Management of Trees, Viet Nam,
August 1996), 1998. Santalum Album. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 1998:
e.T31852A9665066. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.1998.RLTS.
T31852A9665066.en.
Barrett, G.W., Barrett, T.L., 2001. Cemeteries as repositories of natural and cultural di-
versity. Conserv. Biol. 15 (6), 1820–1824.
Bharath, H.A., Vinay, S., Chandan, M.C., Gouri, B.A., Ramachandra, T.V., 2017. Green to
gray: silicon valley of India. J. Environ. Manage. 206, 1287–1295.
Caughlin, T.T., Ganesh, T., Lowman, M.D., 2012. Sacred fig trees promote frugivore
visitation and tree seedling abundance in South India. Curr. Sci. 102 (6), 918–922.
Clark, K.H., Nicholas, K.A., 2013. Introducing urban food forestry: a multifunctional
approach to increase food security and provide ecosystem services. Landsc. Ecol. 28
(9), 1649–1668.
DCO, 2011. District Census Handbook, Bangalore. Directorate of Census Operations,
Karnataka.
De Lacy, P., Shackleton, C.M., 2017a. Woody plant species richness, composition and
structure in urban sacred sites, Grahamstown, South Africa. Urban Ecosyst. 20 (5),
1169–1179.
De Lacy, P., Shackleton, C.M., 2017b. Aesthetic and spiritual ecosystem services provided
by urban sacred sites. Sustainability 9, 1628. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9091628.
Dearborn, D.C., Kark, S., 2009. Motivations for conserving urban biodiversity. Conserv.
Biol. 24 (2), 432–440.
ESG, 2016. Public Hearing to Review Proposed Tree Felling for Phase II of Bangalore
Metro, Cancelled for the Third Time. Press Release by Environment Support Group,
Bengaluru, India.
Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Güneralp, B., Marcotullio, P.J., McDonald, R.I.,
Parnell, S., Schewenius, M., Sendstad, M., Seto, K.C., Wilkinson, 2013. Urbanization,
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities. Springer, New
York, London.
Ferenc, M., Sedláček, O., Fuchs, R., 2013. How to improve urban greenspace for wood-
land birds: site and local-scale determinants of bird species richness. Urban Ecosyst.
17 (2), 625–640.
Fernández-juricic, E., Jokimäki, J., 2001. A habitat island approach to conserving birds in
69
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 32 (2018) 64–70
urban landscapes: case studies from southern and northern Europe. Biodivers.
Conserv. 10, 2023–2043.
Gopal, D., Nagendra, H., 2014. Vegetation in Bangalore's slums: boosting livelihoods,
well-being and social capital. Sustainability 6, 2459–2473.
Gopal, D., Manthey, M., Nagendra, H., 2015. Vegetation in slums of Bangalore, India :
composition, distribution, diversity and history. Environ. Manage. 55 (6),
1390–1401.
Gray, E.R., van Heezik, Y., 2015. Exotic trees can sustain native birds in urban woodlands.
Urban Ecosyst. 19 (1), 315–329.
Hurlbert, S.H., 1971. The nonconcept of species diversity: a critique and alternative
parameters. Ecology 52 (4), 577–586.
Ishi, H.T., Manabe, T., Ito, K., Fujita, N., Imanishi, A., Hashimoto, D., Iwasaki, A., 2010.
Integrating ecological and cultural values toward conservation and utilization of
shrine/temple forests as urban green space in Japanese cities. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 6,
307–315.
Jackson, W., Ormsby, A., 2017. Urban sacred natural sites: a call for research. Urban
Ecosyst. 20 (3), 675–681.
Jaganmohan, M., Vailshery, L.S., Gopal, D., Nagendra, H., 2012. Plant diversity and
distribution in urban domestic gardens and apartments in Bangalore, India. Urban
Ecosyst. 15, 911–925.
Jaganmohan, M., Vailshery, L.S., Nagendra, H., 2013. Patterns of insect abundance and
distribution in urban domestic gardens in Bangalore, India. Diversity 5, 767–778.
Jim, C.Y., 2012. Sustainable urban greening strategies for compact cities in developing
and developed economies. Urban Ecosyst. 16 (4), 741–761.
Kavitha, A., Deepthi, N., Ganesan, R., Joseph, G.J., 2012. Common Dryland Trees of
Karnataka: Bilingual Field Guide. Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the
Environment, Bengaluru.
Keswani, K., 2017. The practice of tree worship and the territorial production of urban
space in the Indian neighbourhood. J. Urban Des. 22 (3), 370–387.
Khafagi, I., Zakaria, A., Deweedar, A., El-Zahdany, 2006. A voyage in the world of plants
as mentioned in the Holy Quran. Int. J. Bot. 2 (3), 242–251.
Kowarik, I., Buchholz, S., von der Lippe, M., Seitz, B., 2016. Biodiversity functions of
urban cemeteries: evidence from one of the largest Jewish cemeteries in Europe.
Urban For. Urban Green. 19, 68–78.
Kowarik, I., 2011. Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environ.
Pollut. 159, 1974–1983.
Krishen, P., 2006. Trees of Delhi. DK Publishers, New Delhi.
Krishna, N., Amirthalingam, M., 2014. Sacred Plants of India. Penguin Books, New Delhi.
Löki, V., Tökölyi, J., Süveges, K., Lovas-Kiss, A., Hürkan, K., Sramkó, G., Molnár, A.V.,
2016. The orchid flora of Turkish graveyards: a comprehensive field survey.
Willdenowia 45, 231–243.
Lafontaine-Messier, M., Gélinas, N., Olivier, A., 2016. Profitability of food trees planted in
urban public green areas. Urban For. Urban Green. 16, 197–207.
McLain, R., Poe, M., Hurley, P.T., Lecompte-Mastenbrook, J., Emery, M.R., 2012.
Producing edible landscapes in Seattle’s urban forest. Urban For. Urban Green. 11,
187–194.
McLain, R.J., Hurley, P.T., Emery, M.R., Poe, M.R., 2014. Gathering wild food in the city:
rethinking the role of foraging in urban ecosystem planning and management. Local
Environ. 19 (2), 220–240.
McPherson, E.G., Rowntree, R.A., 1989. Using structural measures to compare twenty-
two US street tree populations. Landsc. J. 8, 13–23.
Musselman, L.J., 2003. Trees in the Koran. Unasylva 213 (54), 45–52.
Nagendra, H., Gopal, D., 2010. Street trees in Bangalore: density, diversity, composition
and distribution. Urban For. Urban Green. 9, 129–137.
Nagendra, H., Gopal, D., 2011. Tree diversity, distribution, history and change in urban
parks. Urban Ecosyst. 14, 211–223.
Nagendra, H., Nagendran, S., Paul, S., Pareeth, S., 2012. Graying, greening and frag-
mentation in the rapidly expanding Indian city of Bangalore. Landsc. Urban Plann.
105, 400–406.
Nagendra, H., Sudhira, H.S., Katti, M., Schewenius, M., et al., 2013. Sub-regional as-
sessment of India: effects of urbanization on land use, biodiversity and ecosystem
services. In: Elmqvist (Ed.), Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services:
Challenges and Opportunities. Springer, New York, London, pp. 65–74.
Nagendra, H., 2016. Nature in the City: Bengaluru in the Past, Present and Future. Oxford
University Press, New Delhi.
Nalini Tr., S., 1996. Surapalas Vrikshayurveda (The Science of Plant Life by Surapala).
Bulleting No 1. Asian Agri-History Foundation, Secunderabad, India.
Nene, Y.L., 2000. Trees in ancient literature: I. The banyan tree. Asian Agri-Hist. 4 (4),
311–314.
Nene, Y.L., 2001. Trees in Ancient literature: II. The pipal tree. Asian Agri-Hist. 5 (2),
141–148.
Poe, M.R., McLain, R.J., Emery, M., Hurley, P.T., 2013. Urban forest justice and the rights
to wild goods, medicines, and materials in the city. Hum. Ecol. 41, 409–422.
R Core Team, 2014. R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. www.R-project.org/.
(Accessed 11 May 2017).
Rice, B.L., 1897. revised edition. Mysore: a Gazetteer Compiled for Government, volume I
and II Archibald Constable and Company, Westminster, UK.
Roy, S., Byrne, J., Pickering, C., 2012. A systematic quantitative review of urban tree
benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones.
Urban For. Urban Green. 11 (4), 361–363.
Rupprecht, C.D.D., Byrnea, J.A., 2014. Informal urban green space: a typology and tri-
lingual systematic review of its role for urban residents and trends in the literature.
Urban For. Urban Green. 13, 597–611.
Rupprecht, C.D.D., Byrne, J.A., Garden, J.G., Hero, J.M., 2015. Informal urban green
space: a trilingual systematic review of its role for biodiversity and trends in the
M. Jaganmohan et al.
literature. Urban For. Urban Green. 14 (4), 883–908.
Seto, K.C., Fragkias, M., Günerlap, B., Reilly, M.K., 2011. A meta-analysis of global urban
land expansion. PLoS One 6 (8), e23777.
Seto, K.C., Güneralp, B., Hutyra, L.R., 2012. Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030
and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. PNAS 109 (40), 16083–16088.
Shackleton, S., Chinyimba, A., Hebinck, P., Shackleton, C., Kaoma, H., 2015. Multiple
benefits and values of trees in urban landscapes in two towns in northern South
Africa. Landsc. Urban Plann. 136, 76–86.
Sjöman, H., Morgenroth, J., Sjöman, J.D., Sæbø, A., Kowarik, I., 2016. Diversification of
the urban forest: can we afford to exclude exotic tree species? Urban For. Urban
Green. 18, 237–241.
Sokal, R., Rohlf, F.J., 1981. Introduction to Biostatistics, 2nd edn. Island, Washington DC.
Sudhira, H.S., Ramachandra, T.V., Bala Subrahmanya, M.H., 2007. City profile:
Bangalore. Cities 24 (5), 379–390.
Thaiutsa, B., Puangchit, L., Kjelgren, R., Arunpraparut, W., 2008. Urban green space,
street tree and heritage large tree assessment in Bangkok, Thailand. Urban For. Urban
70
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 32 (2018) 64–70
Green. 7, 219–229.
The Nature Conservancy, 2016. Planting healthy air: a global analysis of the role of urban
trees in addressing particulate matter pollution and extreme heat. Nat. Conservancy.
UN-Habitat, 2016. Urbanization and Development: Emerging Futures. World Cities
Report. Un-Habitat, Nairobi.
UNESCO, 2005. Conserving cultural and biological diversity: the role of sacred natural
sites and cultural landscapes. In: Proc Intl Symp. 30 May to 2 June 2005, Tokyo.
van den Berg, M., Wendel-Vos, W., van Poppel, M., Kemper, H., van Mechelen, W., Maasa,
J., 2015. Health benefits of green spaces in the living environment: a systematic
review of epidemiological studies. Urban For. Urban Green. 14 (4), 806–816.
Vailshery, L.S., Jaganmohan, M., Nagendra, H., 2013. Effect of street trees on micro-
climate and air pollution in a tropical city. Urban For. Urban Green. 12, 408–415.
Verschuuren, B., Wild, R., McNeely, J.A., Oviedo, G. (Eds.), 2010. Sacred Natural Sites:
Conserving Nature and Culture. Earthscan, London, Washington DC.
Young, R.F., 2010. Managing municipal green space for ecosystem services. Urban For.
Urban Green. 9, 313–321.