Description
Description
Urban wildlife refers to “wildlife that has adapted their lifestyle to living in the concrete jungles of cities and suburban neighborhoods” [Urban Wildlife Alliance].
The urbanisation of towns and cities can alter the composition of wildlife communities, resulting in loss of biodiversity loss and increased prevalence of species that thrive in urban areas [Pauchard 2006; Olden 2006].
Encounters between humans and urban wildlife have increased over the last few decades because of urbanisation [Basak 2022]. Although urbanisation results in the destruction of parasites [Bradley 2006], increased human-wildlife contact can result in the development of zoonotic diseases that can have negative effects on both wildlife and humans [Blasdell 2022].
Impact
Impact
Urbanisation can result in a reduction in wildlife and negatively affect well-being. The evidence base is weak and further research is required.
Results
Results
Two reviews comprising over 170 articles were identified. The first review (n=70 articles) investigated the synergies and trade-offs between mental health and wildlife support in cities [Felappi 2020]. The second review (n= 106 articles) explored the relationship between urbanisation and wildlife [Murray 2019].
Outcome: Wildlife health
Patch area was positively correlated with both mental restoration and wildlife support [Felappi 2020].
There was a negative significant relationship between urbanisation and wildlife health, driven largely by higher concentrations of toxins and greater numbers and diversity of parasites [Murray 2019].
The aesthetic preferences of humans in green spaces have a potentially negative effect on urban wildlife support [Felappi 2020].
There is a strong geographic and taxonomic bias in research efforts to explore the relationship between urbanisation and wildlife health [Murray 2019].
Outcome: Mental health and wellbeing
Tended vegetation, having low amounts of deadwood and brushwood, had a positive effect on mental health [Felappi 2020].
The effects of vegetation structure on restoration and psychological well-being are inconclusive [Felappi 2020].
Biological sounds (i.e. birds and insects) and geophysical sounds (i.e. wind and water) were positively correlated with well-being [Felappi 2020].
Strength of the Evidence
Strength of the Evidence
None of the reviews reported on the quality of the primary studies.
Resource Implications
Resource Implications
None of the included reviews reported on the resource implications. They are likely to be moderate and linked to urban green spaces.
Recommendations
Recommendations
- Future studies should investigate multiple health metrics simultaneously.
- Future studies should quantify urbanisation-based landscape metrics applicable to the local wildlife population.
- Future studies should explore the relationship between species characteristics (e.g., type of diet, lifespan) and health outcomes.
Related Resources
Related Resources
- Urban Wildlife Alliance. What is Urban Wildlife? Available at: https://urbanwildlifealliance.org/2017/04/26/what-is-urban-wildlife/
- Pauchard 2006. “Multiple effects of urbanization on the biodiversity of developing countries: the case of a fast-growing metropolitan area (Concepcion, Chile).” Biol. Conserv. 127, 2006:272–281.
- Olden 2006. “Forecasting faunal and floral homogenization associated with human population geography in North America.” Biol. Conserv. 127, 2006:261–271.
- Bradley 2006. “Urbanization and the ecology of wildlife diseases.” Trends in ecology & evolution vol. 22,2 (2007): 95-102.
- Blasdell 2022. “Rats and the city: Implications of urbanization on zoonotic disease risk in Southeast Asia.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America vol. 119,39 (2022): e2112341119.
- Basak 2022. “Public perceptions and attitudes toward urban wildlife encounters – A decade of change.” The Science of the total environment vol. 834 (2022): 155603.
Reference to Reviews
Reference to Reviews
Felappi 2020. “Green infrastructure through the lens of “One Health”: A systematic review and integrative framework uncovering synergies and trade-offs between mental health and wildlife support in cities.” Sci. Total Environ. Volume 748, 15 December 2020, 141589.
Murray 2019. “City sicker? A meta-analysis of wildlife health and urbanization.” Front. Ecol. Environ. Volume 17, Issue 10 December 2019 Pages 575-583.