Abstract
Cities are home to both a majority of the world’s human population, and to a diversity of wildlife. Urban wildlife conservation research and policy has importantly furthered ecological understanding and species protection in cities, while also leveraging wildlife conservation to connect people to urban nature. Thus, urban wildlife conservation intersects conservation research, conservation policy, and the general public in cities worldwide. Yet, species that are often framed as “urban wildlife” are often of higher trophic levels, including birds and mammals that serve as “flagship” species for public support. Other forms of urban life including plants and invertebrates are often largely ignored, producing a normative urban wildlife concept that may bias urban wildlife conservation research and policy, and sentiment in the general public. To develop new strategies in urban wildlife conservation for the urban era, we need to move towards a more inclusive and holistic framing of urban wildlife for both research and the public. In this article, we discuss the normative framing of urban wildlife and how this framing may bias urban conservation efforts, and argue for a holistic approach to urban wildlife inclusive of all life forms for future research, publicity and policy interventions.
Highlights
Many of the world’s growing cities are located in biodiversity rich areas, or “biodiversity hotspots” (Ives et al 2016)
Strong urban conservation policy and programs combined with better human-wildlife relationships are essential to further global biodiversity conservation priorities
The contemporary urban era requires moving beyond normative associations of what is wild in cities both in research and in public perceptions to a more holistic framing of what we consider, value, and thereby conserve as urban wildlife
Summary
Many of the world’s growing cities are located in biodiversity rich areas, or “biodiversity hotspots” (Ives et al 2016). It is within this context that we consider the potential impact of a normative ‘urban wildlife’ framing for citizens, researchers or practitioners if—though aims are shared (e.g., protecting biodiversity in urban environments; promoting ecosystem function and services; fostering human-wildlife experiences in cities)—this may bias urban conservation efforts (especially for invertebrates) with unforeseen consequences on ecosystem-level conservation and ecosystem service provision.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.