Reframing urban “wildlife” to promote inclusive conservation science and practice [original]

Vol.:(0123456789)

Biodiversity and Conservation (2021) 30:2255–2266

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02182-y

1 3

COMMENTARY

Reframing urban “wildlife” topromote inclusive conservation

science andpractice

MonikaEgerer1,2 · SaschaBuchholz2,3

Received: 17 October 2020 / Revised: 2 February 2021 / Accepted: 12 April 2021 / Published online: 19 April 2021

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 eco-

logical understanding and species protection in cities, while also leveraging wildlife con-

servation 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, includ-

ing 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 norma-

tive 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 conser-

vation 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.

Keywords Conservation· Ecology· Human-wildlife interactions· Urban· Wildlife

Communicated by Dirk Sven Schmeller.

* Monika Egerer

[email protected]

Sascha Buchholz

sascha.buc[email protected]

1 School ofLife Sciences, Technical University ofMunich, Hans Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2,

85354Freising, Germany

2 Department ofEcology, Technical University ofBerlin, 12165Berlin, Germany

3 Berlin-Brandenburg Institute ofAdvanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), 14195Berlin, Germany

2256

Biodiversity and Conservation (2021) 30:2255–2266

1 3

Introduction

Many of the world’s growing cities are located in biodiversity rich areas, or “biodiver-

sity hotspots” (Ives etal. 2016). Rapid urbanization often drives declines of biodiversity

in many regions and has catalyzed wildlife conservation strategies and efforts designed

for cities. Most urban wildlife conservation efforts by researchers and policymakers focus

on charismatic species, specifically vertebrates. For example, urban conservation actions

include: protection of urban forest fragments, provision of green bridges and wildlife corri-

dors for birds and large carnivore populations (Riley etal. 2014); wildlife-friendly gardens

for hedgehogs and bats to ‘re-wild’ urban areas (Van Helden etal. 2020); and citizen sci-

ence urban wildlife conservation research programs monitor urban bird (e.g., ‘Celebrate

Urban Birds’ program) and wild fox populations (Scott etal. 2014). As such, these familiar

and charismatic fauna species of birds and mammals are often what people associate with

urban ‘wildlife’ conservation or management particularly among the general public. Why

are such vertebrate species framed as ‘urban wildlife’, while others including plants, fishes

and arthropod invertebrate species are rather framed and labeled as ‘urban biodiversity’?

What may this imply for invertebrate conservation if ‘urban wildlife’ serves as a synonym

for higher trophic level flagship species popular with the public?

Here, we question the normative framing of ’urban wildlife’ particularly in the con-

text of invertebrate conservation practice in cities. We focus specifically on urban wild-

life conservation because, as an emerging interdisciplinary field, conservation efforts and

programs are designed and implemented differently in cities to integrate people, the envi-

ronment, and their interactions (Shwartz et al. 2014). Urban wildlife conservation faces

unique challenges arising from the spatial heterogeneity of urban ecosystems (e.g., extreme

habitat fragmentation and degradation) and environmental stressors (e.g., light pollution,

soil quality, transport infrastructure) combined with the social context around nature and

conservation in cities (e.g., loss of nature experience, people’s perceptions of and connec-

tion to nature, to wildlife; (Miller 2005)). Moreover, urban residents may be biased towards

certain facets of urban wildlife and their common perception of ecosystem service provi-

sion (Home etal. 2009). This can stifle comprehensive biodiversity conservation if people

are unwilling to support conservation efforts towards what they may not perceive as wild-

life (Soanes etal. 2019). 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 ecosys-

tem 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.

What associates withurban “wildlife”?

Urban wildlife has its associations in scientific research and among the general pub-

lic. Academic and applied perspectives tend to focus predominantly on urban ‘wildlife’

as higher trophic level vertebrate populations including mammals and birds, while plants

and invertebrates are both largely ignored as urban ‘wildlife’ (Magle etal. 2012), or are

distinguished from urban wildlife (Adams 2005). In Magle and colleague’s search of the

literature using the word urban “wildlife”, less than 10% of recent papers included a study

2257

Biodiversity and Conservation (2021) 30:2255–2266

1 3

about plants or arthropods (Magle etal. 2012). This discrepancy is further highlighted in

our review of the recent literature of three high impact conservation journals (Conservation

Letters, Conservation Biology, and Conservation Science and Practice). A review of the

years 2019 and 2020 using ‘wildlife’ as a search term in any field identified 348 studies,

of which only six included arthropods. In an analysis of ten urban wildlife conservation

programs, only one included insects to a minimal extent (Bern, Switzerland: two species

out of 71 species in total). This is not to say that, for example, urban arthropod research

does not exist, as there are many arthropod studies in cities (Beninde etal. 2015; Fenoglio

etal. 2020). However, this framing in scientific research can shift the focus of conserva-

tion efforts or programs because arthropod research is in most cases not framed as wildlife

research. Moreover, in the 2019 Urban Wildlife Conference, most work continues to focus

on mammals and birds as focal species, with very few on invertebrates, including bees. The

oversight can create a gap or bias in scientific knowledge if literature searches and scien-

tific exchange focus on wildlife largely excluding invertebrates. Science mimics paradigms

in society and the general public of what is synonymous with ‘wildlife’: searching ‘urban

wildlife’ in Google Images similarly reveals only two of 300 photos with invertebrates.

A mammalian and bird focus in urban ‘wildlife’ research and practice follows academic

disciplinary traditions in wildlife conservation research where wild game management

laid the foundation for the discipline of urban wildlife ecology, conservation, and manage-

ment in the late 1960s and 1970s (Adams 2014). This set course for using the term wildlife

for animals that can be hunted, and while hunting game is uncommon in cities, the term

wildlife still seems to be used with traditional meaning. Yet, as defined by Cambridge,

“wildlife” should holistically consider “animals and plants that grow independently of peo-

ple, usually in natural conditions” (Cambridge Dictionary 2020). This English definition

translates similarly to “wildlife” definitions and concepts in many other languages, from

Portugese (vida selvage; “all plants, fungi and other organisms that grow or live wild in an

area without being introduced by humans”) to Chinese (野生动植物; “all kinds of undo-

mesticated animals that live in their natural state and have not been subjected to artificial

selection”) (Appendix 1). The urban environment inherently complicates these definitions

(i.e., what is ‘natural’ in cities). Yet in principle, urban wildlife should consider sponta-

neous unmaintained vegetation populating urban forest fragments harboring silvicolous

insects; unmanaged long-naturalized neophyte plants providing habitat for invertebrates in

urban dry grasslands; and wild pollinating insects roaming urban gardens and streetscapes.

All of these wild species are central agents to urban ecosystem function including nutrient

cycling, decomposition, and pollination. Moreover, city dwellers come into contact with

these lifeforms just as often, if not more, in their daily lives than with those lifeforms that

are currently emphasized as urban wildlife: most people likely encounter insects more fre-

quently than bats in cities. The emphasis of particular taxa within urban environments as

urban ‘wildlife’ opens a debate on how this framing may bias urban conservation research

and practice, especially against the background of an alarming worldwide insect crisis

(Hochkirch 2016) and the understanding that cities can be hotspots for threatened inverte-

brate species (Soanes and Lentini 2019).

We confront the focus on higher trophic levels and “mega-fauna” in the conceptualiza-

tion and application of the urban wildlife frame in scientific research but also in the general

public. This as a technically incorrect framing of what is actually ’wild’ life in cities. Stud-

ies on plants and invertebrates in urban areas have long contributed to our understanding

of the ecology of urban environments, the flora and fauna therein, and the important role

of such species for urban ecosystem function and services (Wu 2014). Why are such spe-

cies not necessarily framed as urban wildlife in the scientific community, but rather framed

2258

Biodiversity and Conservation (2021) 30:2255–2266

1 3

and labeled as ‘urban biodiversity’—which can be difficult to understand for some urban

residents, and not necessarily synonymous with ‘wildlife’ (Levé etal. 2019). What sense in

conservation research and practice does it make to label, for example, urban bats as ‘urban

wildlife’ but urban bumblebees as ‘urban biodiversity’? Both labels may evoke different

meanings to researchers and city residents, and how the public perceives a species can

largely affect what is considered acceptable in species management and conservation (van

Eeden etal. 2020). It is concerning that ’urban wildlife’ may not necessarily involve wild

plants or invertebrates in urban environments, with wildlife ecology historically separating

wildlife into “wildlife and plants” (Adams 2005). What are the conservationimplications

in policy and practice if ‘urban wildlife’, rather than biologically correct, serves as a syno-

nym for iconic flagship species popular with the general public? How will this influence

the acceptance of conservation programs in the general public?

Overlooking plants, invertebrates, amphibians, and lower trophic levels as urban wild-

life can influence public perception and public willingness to contribute to the conservation

of these taxa, with city dwellers more willing to protect charismatic megafauna flagship

species above all (Mesquita etal. 2014; Colléony etal. 2017; Curtin and Papworth 2020).

Although invertebrates are essential to urban ecosystem functioning (McIntyre 2000),

arthropods are often dismissed as harmful pests or a nuisance in cities—associated with

filth and sickness by residents—and not prioritized in urban wildlife conservation (Hunter

and Hunter 2008). Yet, because such trophic levels or dimensions of urban wildlife are

often what people experience daily, people may be more likely to value invertebrates and

plants in urban conservation efforts if such life forms are framed as urban wildlife. A shift

in perceptions, values, and norms around urban wildlife especially in publicity is critical for

urban invertebrate conservation to ultimately influence habitat management and urban con-

servation financial support (Schultz and Kaiser 2012). For example, insects that are “bug-

like” and less “human-like” are often perceived as less attractive, less worthy of rescue

than other animals among the general public (Cardoso etal. 2011; Mesquita etal. 2014),

and thereby receive less conservation funding (Curtin and Papworth 2020). How can we

shift negative perceptions of invertebrates among the general public to equally value such

creatures as ecosystem service providers, as they may for larger mammals or birds? What

is the conservation potential if spaces such as urban gardens can facilitate more positive,

and less negative interactions with less charismatic species?

This presents a new opportunity to rethink the urban wildlife framing in conservation

science, practice, and science-society interfaces. It is time for an inclusive framing of

urban wildlife, a holistic urban wildlife concept, to deepen the ecological understanding

of urban ecosystems, and to heighten society’s appreciation of all urban wildlife across

all life forms. An inclusive framing could best promote more diverse and holistic spe-

cies conservation and protection in cities. We frame urban wildlife to include all trophic

levels and life forms within urban ecosystems, from soil-dwelling organisms, inverte-

brates, small mammals, and large carnivores (Fig.1). Within this inclusive frame, urban

wildlife should, in principle, also encompass un-managed non-native neophyte species

long naturalized. What species we then deem of conservation concern and action can

then be in question for practitioners and policymakers (e.g., debates about conserving

non-natives). But painting a false image or perpetuating a normative narrative about

what comprises urban wildlife in research but more importantly also in the general pub-

lic can have adverse conservation outcomes if, for example, we neglect other trophic

levels and less charismatic species that are necessary for ecosystem functioning because

public support for targeted conservation is absent. An inclusive urban wildlife fram-

ing in public awareness campaigns is especially important in times of rapid invertebrate

2259

Biodiversity and Conservation (2021) 30:2255–2266

1 3

biodiversity loss, growing cities, and the heightening interest in and importance of

urban arthropod conservation This can be achieved, for example, through popular sci-

ence books and brochures that inspire the public about invertebrates and their ecological

importance, according to Heinz Sielmann’s motto "Only those who know nature will

protect it".

Some national-level wildlife organizations are beginning to explicitly recognize, for

example, native insect pollinators in their framing and programs, such as in the US (e.g.

the National Wildlife Foundation; https:// www. nwf. org/ Our- Work/ Wildl ife- Conse rvati on)

and in Europe (e.g. the German Wildlife Foundation; https:// www. deuts chewi ldtie rstif tung.

de/ wildt iere). Moreover, recent successful urban wildlife programs are using other trophic

level species as a “mascot” for their wildlife programs, with great potential to deconstruct

the image of wildlife as only birds and mammals within the general public. For exam-

ple, the German Wildlife Foundation is using bumblebees as flagship species. We need to

expand such inclusivity in urban conservation practice and policy across trophic levels and

life forms to appreciate and conserve wildlife within urban environments worldwide. This

includes going beyond including charismatic native bee and butterfly pollinators to elevate

plants, fishes, and even “creepy crawlies” like spiders both in conservation research and

science communication to the general public. Urban biodiversity conservation requires a

particular publicity approach because most urban dwellers have unique perspectives and

connections with nature (Berenguer etal. 2005). We provide three lines of evidence to sup-

port this argument.

Fig. 1 Although the basic unit of biodiversity is often the species, biologically speaking it consists of sev-

eral levels, from molecules to biotopes. In urban areas, species are therefore only one aspect of biodiversity,

but the essential benchmark for the wildlife concept. However, in both urban conservation research and

conservation policy the selection of relevant taxa is then determined by the underlying wildlife concept, and

whether we apply a biased wildlife framing or a holistic wildlife framing. This framing determines whether

we consider only a part of all wild living plants and animals or all of them. The framing in turn may affect

which taxa of biodiversity come into the focus of urban “wildlife” conservation programs, are selected as

flagship species, or are the subject of public perception

Loading more pages...