As a rapidly urbanizing global society, there are more and more interactions between wildlife in urban areas. Urban ecology has been a relatively new field of study since its inception in the 1960s, with its initial focus on the negatives of human-wildlife interactions: disease transmission, nuisances, property damage, and direct conflicts resulting in injury or death. More modern research details the positives of urban wildlife interactions, such as keystone species and ecosystem services such as supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural). The perception of these interactions is greatly determined by the social and cultural factors within a given community. This paper summarizes the general body of research surrounding urban wildlife conflicts, detailing the extent to which they expand our understanding and the gaps and limitations of the studies. 

The paper’s overarching objective to demonstrate the effects of one’s societal context on perceptions of urban wildlife interactions was one of the largest takeaways I had from this critical review. The discrepancy between the perceived dangers and damage to property of urban wildlife interactions far exceeds the real likelihood, prompting many to eradicate species, hindering conservation efforts, and making poorly informed management decisions. Urban wildlife conflicts have more to deal with social and cultural factors than reality itself; the authors indicate the need for a more interdisciplinary framework in which urban wildlife conflicts are studied. More collaboration with economics, public health, sociology, psychology, and planning experts is necessary to gain a better understanding. 

In addition to improving the framework from which researchers approach urban wildlife conflicts, there is a need for better education about their true nature. A larger focus on the benefits of the interactions between wildlife, such as mental health benefits, is necessary. In a rapidly urbanizing world, people are becoming more detached and disenchanted from the natural world, which is associated with more mental health issues. An increasing body of research indicates the benefits of nature-based therapy, which public health officials overlook; they are more concerned about the individual’s lifestyle than the environment they are constrained to. Better education would midgate hysteria, increase the value society places on urban wildlife, and midgate poor management decisions.

Another takeaway from this paper was the unintended consequences of urban greening initiatives. Urban greening projects have the unintended consequence of creating a high disease hazard, even more so with projects to connect fragmented habitats through corridors. Improved green infrastructure can also increase the frequency of wildlife-vehicle collisions. The positive impacts of urban greening can not be overstated, but mitigating wildlife disease transmission and collisions should also be mitigated, which are not mutually exclusive. 

As a result of this critical review, my perspective on the body of research on urban wildlife interaction has broadened. I am more aware of the current gaps and limitations of existing research. In the same way, ecology seeks to unravel the complexities of the interactions between organisms. Still, urban ecology faces greater complexity as cities function as an ecosystem. An ecosystem with its own identity is influenced by countless factors such as culture, history, economy, and environmental interactions. This paper reinforces the importance of a multidisciplinary perspective within urban ecology. As a researcher, I find this paper incredibly helpful as it indicates research gaps that must be explored and expanded upon.

Source: Soulsbury, Carl D., and Piran C. L. White. “Human–Wildlife Interactions in Urban Areas: A Review of Conflicts, Benefits and Opportunities.” Wildlife Research, vol. 42, no. 7, July 2015, pp. 541–53. bioone.org, https://doi.org/10.1071/WR14229.

I utilized Grammarly during the completion of this assignment.