Editorial: Spatial aspects of urban animal ecology and conservation biology, volume II

Volume I: Spatial Aspects of Urban Animal Ecology and Conservation biology framed urban animal ecology around broad spatial questions including habitat fragmentations, habitat and resource use, green spaces and corridors, comparisons between urban and less urbanized environments, and the use of landscape ecology metrics to inform conservation policy. Volume II continues many of these themes but does so by including more applied case studies. The papers focus on how animals respond to specific features of urban and human-modified landscapes, including artificial light, green infrastructure, water availability, anthropogenic attractants, and nesting or foraging opportunities.

The manuscripts in volume II extend the original focus on habitat use and fragmentation by treating humans as habitat modifiers and urban landscapes as fragmented habitats that influence animal use and movement. Collectively they show that connecting spatial ecology with thoughtful urban planning and conservation policy can benefit human-wildlife co-existence. The unifying theme is that urban conservation depends on understanding the spatial arrangement of human disturbance including anthropogenic effects, habitat resources, and animal responses. Additionally, environmental stressors that result from climate change (e.g. heat islands and altered water distribution, etc.) create dynamic disturbances across an urban landscape. These disturbances create uneven habitat mosaics of roads, buildings, green spaces, water bodies, and residential areas as well as show an increase in anthropogenic light, sound, and attractants that shape animal movement, habitat use, and avoidance. Applying that knowledge to urban spaces and urban design can better support both wildlife and people.

The collection moves beyond comparisons of urban and rural habitats and how animals differ in their usage to examining direct or indirect anthropogenic pressures such as artificial light, sound, built infrastructure, climate change and other urban influences (Dincel et al.; Liermann et al.). Each of these factors should be considered a potential stressor that could affect an organism’s physiology, morphology and behavior throughout the lifetime of the organism. Stressors play critical roles in population persistence by affecting reproductive success. Liermann et al. demonstrated that even species considered to be urban adapters, such as the white stork (Ciconia ciconia), can be affected by anthropogenic influences and environmental stressors, as demonstrated by elevated stress responses.

Ultimately, how resources are spatially distributed in urban landscapes, whether it is green infrastructure (Hase), water surfaces (Harper and Bennet), food attractants (Venumière-Lefebvre et al.), nesting sites (Liermann et al.), or ecosystem services in urban areas (Qian et al.) are crucial for conservation efforts. The most effective conservation efforts depend on knowing where resources are located and how animals access them. That type of landscape data and usage should be a must when developing conservation policies that promote coexistence between humans and their animal counterparts.

Urban planning and design should incorporate these data to reduce human-animal interactions. Although urban growth and expansion can occur rapidly, species with different natural histories and life histories likely perceive and respond to urban habitat modification differently. Another variable to consider is the relative rate of change among and between urban landscapes. As a result, more experimental data are needed on approaches that reduce attractants bringing wildlife into proximity with humans (Venumière-Lefebvre et al.) and on ways to identify and modify anthropogenic sources of disturbance to minimize environmental impacts (Dincel et al.). Additionally, other anthropogenic sources, such as clutter and its influence on habitat use or avoidance, should also be considered (Harper and Bennet).

There is a need to think beyond citizen scientists/members of the public as presence and absence data collectors, but as the subjects of the data collection as well. Citizen’s perceptions of nature can influence policy and urban planning. Individuals may have positive perceptions of animal species, but a community may benefit from targeted environmental education to improve knowledge and foster emotional ties to nature leading to a more conservation friendly community that fosters enhanced urban management (Qian et al.).

Improving green infrastructure for wildlife and understanding public perceptions can be used to guide conservation policy. The next steps may include taking a holistic approach that goes beyond the indicator species and links holistic health of all species in an urban landscape with an approach that considers a scale from microbes to animals to humans with a One Health viewpoint (Hase). Furthermore, we need more research that studies the impacts on mixed species groups (MSG). There are fitness benefits of being in an MSG, and all individuals in an MSG are affected by anthropogenic sources that could negate those benefits (Fraizer and Freeberg).

This volume spans amphibians, birds, bats, bears, and mixed-species groups. This breadth suggests a theme that urban conservation biology must move beyond single-species case studies and compare responses across taxa with different mobility, habitat needs, and tolerance of disturbance (Fraizer and Freeberg). The overarching goal of the volume is to apply spatial ecology to urban landscapes as a conservation tool. The papers collectively ask how spatial patterns—green corridors, water availability, residential neighborhoods, artificial lighting, and urban habitat structure—can inform management decisions. The volume also emphasizes that urban animal conservation is not only about wildlife persistence but also about human perceptions, ecosystem services and disservices, and reducing conflict (Venumière-Lefebvre et al.; Qian et al.).

This volume should shift the focus from documenting urban animal responses toward investigating mechanisms and interventions with a goal of long-term outcomes that promote species coexistence. Next questions include: Which urban design interventions actually improve animal fitness, not just animal presence?; How do multiple urban stressors interact spatially and synergistically?; Can cities be designed as connected habitat networks across taxa?; How does urban wildlife respond to habitat changes across seasons and life stages?; How can human–wildlife coexistence be measured spatially and which metrics predict the best outcomes?; What conservation actions are scalable across cities?; How will climate change shape urban animal ecology?; How can citizen scientists be utilized to better understand urban ecology?; and How can urban ecology move from description to experimental management?

To answer these questions researchers should take on an interdisciplinary approach to urban spatial ecology and ask: How can spatial urban ecology identify the specific designs, policies, and community practices that allow animal populations—not just individual animals—to persist in cities under increasing disturbance and climate change?

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Co-Pilot was used for grammar and to help reduce overall word count.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited and reviewed by: J.D. Lewis, Fordham University, United States