This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: On a warm evening in May, swifts scream over rooftops, chasing insects above the traffic. A fox slips along a garden wall while gulls squabble on a supermarket roof.
We tend to treat these animals as visitors. But they're residents too, living alongside us in places designed for people. My recent research argues this needs to change.
Instead of asking how nature can make cities better for humans, urban planners should consider what cities owe the many species that already live in them. More than half the world's population now lives in urban areas, while cities continue to expand into wildlife habitats. In the UK, swifts provide a distinct example.
They nest in gaps under eaves and roof tiles, which can disappear when older buildings are demolished, re-roofed or insulated. UK swift numbers have fallen by around 60% since 1995. In 2021, the species was added to a list of birds at greatest risk of extinction.
The issue isn't simply how we can make cities greener. It's who we think cities are for. For my new study, I compared approaches to incorporating nature into urban planning, including environmental offsetting, sustainable development and nature-based solutions such as green roofs, street trees and wetlands.
I also examined cases where governments and courts have given species and ecosystems a different status in decision-making. The pattern I found was striking. These approaches have become increasingly good at showing how nature benefits people, but much less willing to ask whether other species have interests of their own.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
