Why “Greening” Cities is Not Enough: Toward Care and Coexistence with Urban Wildlife

Wildlife as city dwellers

Humans do not live alone in the cities we build. Wild animals are deeply affected by urban development, yet they receive little attention in planning practice and research. As urbanisation encroaches on rural habitats, densification reduces green space, and buildings without the nooks and crannies needed for nesting and resting are built, animals are pushed out of both countryside and city.

Animals do not confine themselves to what we label as “nature,” such as parks or reserves. Cities themselves are made of natural materials, and animals live their lives on rooftops, in courtyards, attics, and underground infrastructure. Still, the persistent belief that cities and nature are separate makes wildlife largely invisible in urban settings, even as animals face threats from traffic, habitat fragmentation, and barriers such as roads and buildings.

Recognising animals as co-inhabitants is a crucial step toward designing cities that truly support more-than-human life.

De-centring the human

A key aspect of more-than-human thinking is de-centring the human. This does not mean prioritising other species over human needs but acknowledging that urban decisions inevitably affect other beings and ecosystems. Coexistence requires moving beyond viewing nature as a resource (or, as often is the case, a nuisance) and instead seeing it as a network of relationships of which we are a part.

Wild animals are often perceived as problematic when they cause inconvenience. Species that are labelled as pests or considered “out of place” are routinely removed, often through lethal control. Urban lifestyles and generational shifts have also increased physical and emotional distance from wildlife, making ordinary animal behaviour seem threatening or irritating.

This has become particularly visible to me since moving to an inner-city neighbourhood in my mid-sized Swedish hometown. The area is built around large courtyards with highly uniform greenery. Pollination sources are limited and few plants produce berries or seeds. Despite this rather sterile setting, feeding birds is considered inappropriate and is often forbidden in housing cooperatives. The stated reasons include bird droppings, concerns about disease, and the risk of property damage from mice and rats.

These arguments are typically presented with little room for nuance. Swedish rats, for example, carry a relatively low risk of disease (although such risks should not be dismissed entirely). It is also unlikely that a single, well-designed and well-maintained bird feeder in a 100 square-meter courtyard would lead to an explosion in the local rat population. If a rat or two appear, they most likely already live in the area but have simply kept themselves out of sight. Rats also perform largely invisible waste work for us [2] — but I digress. . .

While it is understandable that housing association boards want to make life as simple as possible for themselves and their residents, such blanket prohibitions are deeply unempathetic and may even encourage riskier forms of informal feeding. Alternatives could include shared feeders, coordinated management, or planting vegetation that provides food and shelter year-round. Such measures do not need to be complicated, but they do require openness to coexistence.