Jump to content

Course:CONS200/2025FL1/Urban Rewilding and Species Reintroduction: Theory, Debates, and Examples

From UBC Wiki

Introduction

The rapid development and urbanization of landscapes has led to widespread biodiversity and habitat loss worldwide. As the global human population is expected to increase by about 2.5 billion[1] and 68% of the world population is expected to live in urban areas by 2050[2], urbanization of natural habitats will only increase to accommodate population growth. Urban rewilding and species reintroduction are emerging as new and increasingly popular approaches among conservationists. Urban rewilding is a diverse method that involves reintroducing key species to ecosystems which have lost biodiversity and functionality in their natural ecosystem processes [3]. It is renowned for its customizability to different ecosystems globally, however, this has led to some criticism about its lack of a firm definition, and how it can be interpreted through different ethical perspectives [4].  A variety of stakeholders including governments and their citizens, environmental groups, developers, environmentalists, economists and more have their opinions on urban rewilding as it has not only environmental, but cultural, political and economical implications on the areas in which it is introduced  [5].

History

Rewilding on a riverside in London, England
Rewilding on a riverside in London, England

Urban rewilding has globally emerged as a response to the massive biodiversity loss from modern urbanization. The term "rewilding" originated in North America, coined by members of the grassroots group Earth First! in the 1990's[4] and was initially focused on securing large areas of land to release native animals to the ecosystem [6]. Over the course of the next few decades, the term has moved from academic to public realms and has taken on multiple meanings and strategies as it grows from awareness.

Historically, the concept of rewilding evolved from large scale wilderness restoration but has been more recently adapted to urban contexts where cities, such as Singapore, London, and Beijing [7], began to integrate nature based design planning and rewilding strategies.

Approaches and Methods

Urban rewilding requires intensive critical decision making and background knowledge about ecosystem interactions, species interactions, climate, history of population dynamics, and future urban development plans.

Site Selection

Prior to selecting a site for rewilding, solid reasoning for how the species reintroduction may be beneficial must be determined. Understanding of why there may have been species loss in the past is necessary for choosing a candidate that will react well to its introduced environment. If possible, any threats must be mitigated or eliminated to ensure project success and resource efficiency[3].

The site must also be evaluated for potential benefits of rewilding. For example, busier cities with high noise and air pollution may be in higher need for introduction of native species that can attribute to a more natural setting. As hubs for living, working and socializing, not only does human development impact cities, but the cities have an impact on well-being and livelihood[8]. Implementing greenspace into a city should be done in a case-by-case scenario, as cities are all unique with their needs, existing infrastructures, populations, cultures, policies/governments, and relationship with nature.

A flow-chart showing differences in types of rewilding including active and passive. Active branches into 'wilderness', fence or island reserve, abandoned or restored, and cities/human presence. Passive brances into abandoned or restored and cities/human presence.
Types of rewilding that involve different conservation strategies.

Species Selection

Similar to the site selection, the choice of which species to introduce can be quite the challenge, and different depending on the end goals of the rewilding efforts. Species native to the area but locally absent are often chosen for reintroduction as the end goal[3]. Species may also be selected to fulfill an absent role in the ecosystem that contributes to an important role such as that of a keystone species. Public interest and excitement are also factors for choosing reintroduced species. If species have negative connotations such as 'pests', 'threatening', or a nuisance, there may be public backlash regardless if the species is beneficial for the ecosystem.

Types of Rewilding

The concept of rewilding is diverse, with a variety of mechanisms discussed among conservationists. This includes passive rewilding, trophic rewilding, and more. Passive rewilding involves letting succession happen on its own, unassisted by human interferences, whereas trophic rewilding is characterized by revitalizing top-down food web interactions that were previously extinct.[9]

A building features a green roof with many large plants.
A green roof in Berlin, Germany.

Common Approaches

Green Roofs

A popular choice for rewilding is the introduction of green roofs. Not only do these installations look beautiful, but they allow for extra gardening space in tall apartment buildings, capture carbon, and can retain water that could otherwise overwhelm sewer and water management systems. Berlin is a leading green city in Germany, with a total of 18,368 buildings having green roofs[10]. UBC even has its own rooftop garden called Roots on the Roof which encourages urban gardening and maintaining food security.[11]

Wildlife Crossings

A man-made highway crossing features greenery to allow for wildlife to cross the busy road.
A wildlife highway crossing in Banff National Park, Canada.

Due to high vehicle usage in urban settings, vehicle strikes result in millions of animal deaths every year[12]. Wildlife bridges over highways have been implemented in some areas as a way for animals to cross over the road without danger of being hit by automobiles. Such crossings commonly feature vegetation native to the local area to 'blend' the crossing in with surrounding habitats. These bridges are often paired with fencing along the highway to channel fauna through the safe passageway[13].


Examples

Gardens by the Bay - Singapore

Gardens by the Bay

Gardens by the Bay is not only one of Singapore’s most recognizable landmarks, it’s also a great example of how cities can bring nature back into urban life. Built on reclaimed land in Marina Bay, this 101-hectare park was designed to turn Singapore’s long-time “Garden City” vision into something more ambitious: a “City in a Garden.” It’s a place where engineering, design, and ecology meet: towering "Supertrees" covered in living plants rise above the skyline, while vast glass domes recreate cool mountain and Mediterranean climates in the tropics.[14]

Beyond its futuristic look, Gardens by the Bay has an ecological purpose. The Dragonfly and Kingfisher Lakes are designed as biofilters that clean water naturally, and they’ve become home to many species of birds, fish and insects. What started as a design project has, over time, become a functioning habitat. The garden builds on decades of Singapore’s green policies, from early tree-planting laws in the 1970s to the 1991 “Green and Blue Plan,” which aimed to connect the city’s parks and waterways into one continuous network.[14]

While the park is carefully maintained and far from wild in the traditional sense, it raises an interesting question: how much wildness can exist in a city that’s so carefully designed? In Singapore, rewilding doesn’t mean leaving nature to run its course, it means designing spaces where nature can thrive alongside people. Gardens by the Bay shows that even in one of the world’s most urbanised environments, it’s possible to make room for biodiversity, not by removing human influence, but by rethinking it.[14]

Walthamstow Wetlands aerial view

Walthamstow Wetlands - London

Walthamstow Wetlands lies on the northeastern edge of London, where ten Victorian reservoirs have been reimagined as one of Europe’s largest urban nature reserves. Once built solely for the city’s water supply, the 200-hectare site now combines engineering with ecology, supporting both people and wildlife.[15]

Since reopening in 2017, the wetlands have become a haven for birds such as herons, cormorants, and bitterns, with over seventy species recorded each year. The area’s reedbeds, islands, and open water provide feeding and breeding grounds that have brought new life to a once-closed industrial site.[16]

The project shows how rewilding can work within an active city. The reservoirs still supply water to London, but they now also function as habitats and public green space. Rather than restoring a past landscape, Walthamstow Wetlands integrates nature into urban life, showing how cities can make room for wildness without stepping away from modern life.

Ecological and Environmental Impacts

Urban rewilding and species reintroduction reshape city ecosystems by restoring natural processes that have long been disrupted by development[17]. When vegetation, waterways, and wildlife are brought back into urban spaces, they strengthen ecological networks that support both native and migratory species. Fragmented habitats become connected again through green corridors, rooftop gardens, or restored wetlands, allowing pollinators, birds, and small mammals to move more freely across the city. This renewed connectivity helps rebuild biodiversity that would otherwise struggle to survive in heavily built environments.[3]

Rewilded landscapes also restore crucial ecological functions. Plants and soils act as natural filters, absorbing pollutants and improving air and water quality[18]. Wetlands and green corridors help manage urban water by slowing runoff and reducing flood risks[19], while trees and dense vegetation lower surrounding air temperatures and mitigate the urban heat island effect. Projects like Gardens by the Bay in Singapore and Walthamstow Wetlands in London show how urban design can reintroduce ecological processes such as nutrient cycling, habitat succession, and species interactions into otherwise artificial settings.

These initiatives also enhance climate resilience. Vegetated areas store carbon, buffer against heat extremes, and provide natural flood defenses, all of which become increasingly important as cities face rising temperatures and more intense rainfall[18]. Rewilding also promotes ecosystem adaptability: as native species return and habitats diversify, the ecological community becomes better able to recover from disturbance and adapt to changing conditions.[18]

However, the environmental benefits of rewilding are not automatic. Reintroducing species or reconfiguring land use in dense urban areas must be done with care, since new ecological interactions can produce unintended consequences. Non-native species may outcompete local ones[17], and changes to vegetation or water systems can alter existing management strategies. There is an ongoing debate about how much intervention is necessary, whether humans should guide these ecosystems or allow them to evolve independently once initial restoration is complete.[20]

Overall, urban rewilding has the potential to transform cities into functioning ecological systems rather than isolated patches of green. By re-establishing natural cycles of water, soil, and biodiversity, these projects help restore balance between human activity and the environment, offering a model for how cities can coexist more sustainably with the natural world.

Sociocultural Implications

Social science has also been deemed a necessary component of conservation decision-making to ensure that conservation practices are equitable and address environmental justice concerns [5]. Rewilding continues to spark conversations about who experiences its costs and benefits and how these are included in conservation decisions. Because the purpose of urban rewilding is to support natural ecosystems and species reintroduction in urbanized spaces where many people often reside, such restoration projects can both positively and negatively affect local residents with sociocultural implications.

A wheel with different ecosystem services gained from land.
Examples of ecosystem services

Ecosystem services

One of the main benefits of urban rewilding to humans is its development of various ecosystem services [5]. Creating sites for ecotourism, sustainable food production, and other land-based services allows for people to still benefit from natural resources while improving areas with significant biodiversity loss. However, a number of such ecosystem services are privately owned, raising the question of whether developing such rewilding initiatives benefits local communities or transforms nature into a financial currency [5]. This method of profiting off natural resources is intertwined with issues of colonialism, extractivism, and capitalism which contribute to unequal access of land [5]. Sociocultural concerns regarding urban rewilding primarily surround a lack of involvement from a variety of communities in decision-making processes. Some rewilding initiatives focus on restricting natural areas from being accessed, limiting communities who would normally use such areas for recreational, traditional, and cultural purposes [5]. Public demand and shortcomings of current urban rewilding projects necessitates better engagement with Indigenous communities, local communities, and conservation professionals [21].

Indigenous communities

Many Indigenous communities' health and culture are supported by their relationships to nature. In areas where more Indigenous people are living in urban environments, these important relationships and values can be affected [22]. For example, Indigenous Māori people in Aotearoa New Zealand participate in cultural practices, such as kaitiakitanga that involve stewardship and foster connections between humans and nature [22]. Urban Māori people are more at risk of losing knowledge of kaitiakitanga and opportunities to practice this culture in urban spaces [22]. The knowledge and practices of kaitiakitanga have the potential to support many urban restoration efforts, like other Indigenous knowledge systems around the world [22]. With a lack of consultation with Indigenous communities and inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in urban rewilding, urban governments risk diminishing Indigenous cultural practices that support human-nature relationships and ecological health. As issues of colonialism continue to affect Indigenous peoples, there remains exclusion of Indigenous knowledge in urban planning, but there are initiatives that some governments are taking o support the inclusion of Indigenous peoples in urban restoration. One co-inquiry in Victoria, Australia found encouraging urban residents to replace their gardens with Indigenous plants to support Indigenous biodiversity to be an impactful outcome [23]. Initiatives like these can support Indigenous knowledge and inclusion in urban rewilding, however, a lack of prioritization in politics, governance, and conservation still results in human-nature relationships affecting certain populations disproportionately in urban spaces [23].

Health Benefits

A woodland area in the UK also used for recreation.

A major philosophy commonly held in urban rewilding conservation is the importance of human-nature relationships and balances. Ensuring that intrinsic value is given to ecosystem protection while also maintaining human benefits from natural resources is necessary to establish these balances in urban environments [24]. Urban greenspaces and rewilding initiatives have been associated with many health benefits for humans, including stress recovery, increased nature-based connections, increased physical activity, and improved social cohesion that supports mental and physical health [24]. Both access to urban green spaces and the amount of time spent in nature are important for such health benefits to be seen [25]. This may necessitate the accessibility and attractiveness of urban rewilding projects in order to gain support by the general public. Urban rewilding, as opposed to curated greenspaces, provide greater health benefits due to their greater perceived biodiversity and integrity which can reduce stress [24]. Additionally, human health is supported by urban rewilding through the reduction of harms such as like pollution, noise, and extreme heat [24]. By supporting natural ecosystems in urban environments, plants can reduce the levels of air and water pollution and support better flood protection [18]. Other ecosystems like wetlands that support plant and wildlife can also benefit climate mitigation by acting as carbon sinks and reducing extreme heat effects caused by urbanized areas [18].

Along with these benefits, there are potential risks to humans associated with rewilding initiatives, typically seen when implemented on large scales not seen in urban environments [24]. Ticks, mosquitos, human-animal conflicts, and allergies may become problematic with large scale rewilding projects, but can be mitigated through prior planning [24]. To maximize the health benefits and public support of urban rewilding initiatives, it is therefore important to consider current and potential health risks/benefits of the proposed site, consult local residents, and support the perceived "wildness" of the site [24].

Debates and Political Perspectives

Definition Uncertainty

With the variety of practices that can be considered 'rewilding', researchers, governments, and the public tend to have different definitions of what they consider urban rewilding. This makes communication within the scientific community and between disciplines difficult. Some argue that 'rewilding' should be called 'restoring' instead to create a universal definition that avoids research on rewilding being repeated under the guise of another term[26]. The term 'wilderness' refers to "an area where the earth and its community of life and untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain..."[27]. As urban areas are characterized by dense human population, the term 'urban rewilding' can seem oxymoronic and problematic to some as the inclusion of 'wild' enhances the concept of dichotomy between humans and nature[26].

Governance

Historically, conservation and wildlife spaces have been separate from urban areas and communities through methods such as fortress conservation. This often took form in displacing Indigenous people from their lands in order to create protected areas or parks, a key example practices rooted in colonialism[28]. Many cities have been built focused on their human inhabitants and housing as many people as possible, with little consideration for conserving biodiversity. Institutions and governments are the decision making powers for many urban areas, and are responsible for conservation movements or the lack thereof[23]. As biodiversity management and environmental conservation is interdisciplinary and impacts many people, methods of governance (i.e. top-down, community-based, Indigenous-based, non-for-profits) can be diverse and challenged, often fought for government control to stay the same by people with values that are less open to change or conservative values[29]. Who is in charge of urban rewilding can spark debates and lead to projects that have different impacts on society. For example, parks and urban canopies have been used to strengthen socioeconomic inequalities between neighborhoods as they are seen as luxuries and can attract large investments[29]. Wrongful intentions can be used to exploit and profit from urban rewilding via governance and power dynamics, striking controversy and debate amongst parties.

A wild boar grazing on green grass
A wild boar, as seen in Genoa, Italy

Public Safety & Human-Wildlife Conflict

While urban rewilding is associated with certain health benefits mentioned above, health risks are also a frequent topic of debate. Concerns such as increased presence of diseases transmitted through mosquitos and ticks are relevant especially in rewilding projects in wetlands and wooded areas[6]. Wetlands are the preferred habitat for mosquito breeding, and ticks are often found in areas that are wooded or have tall grasses. Including more with these characteristics in urban areas may lead to increased human-insect interactions and presence of mosquito/tick-borne diseases. Additionally, by reintroducing species into urban areas or creating urban areas with habitat more suitable for wildlife, concerns of human-wildlife conflict arise. For example, in Genoa, Italy, there has been an increasing presence of wild animals such as wild boars in the urban areas due to post-war rewilding of ecological corridors[30]. In the city there are concerns for both human and wildlife safety, with varying opinions on selective hunting, feeding the wild boars, and the significance of the boars to improving environmental conditions in the city. 57.7% of citizens disagreed, and 24.3% agreed that the wild boars should be killed for safety reasons[30]. Animal rights/well-being can vary depending on education, personal experience, and beliefs, making the impacts of urban rewilding a topic to be debated by interested stakeholders.

Indigenous Rights and Knowledge Systems

As touched on briefly, conservation practices have a deeply involved history with Indigenous people worldwide. Interconnections between humans and nature are deeply valued in Indigenous cultures and philosophies worldwide[22]. It is important to consider Indigenous voices when planning urban rewilding initiatives, as excluding their perspectives may lead to barriers in cultural practice and connections today. Indigenous involvement is especially important in governments with systematic ties to colonialism due to the fact that western science and conservation mechanisms have historically excluded Indigenous people[31]. However, decolonizing these knowledge frameworks and power structures is a complex and intense process that can bring controversy from individuals or groups with different beliefs.

Future of the practice

Urban rewilding and species reintroduction presents a promising yet complex pathway for restoring ecological functions within urbanized landscapes. The concept is grounded in the need to counteract habitat loss and biodiversity decline caused by modern city development. Urban rewilding offers ecological, social, and cultural benefits but it's potential is reliant on thorough planning, long term commitment, and inclusive governing[3].

Design innovations such as wildlife corridors, green roofs, and wetland restoration have demonstrated ecological value and but limited successful faunal reintroduction in urban settings. The long term data on population sustainability, species compatibility, and ecological function reveals that there is a need for more robust monitoring and adaptive management[32]. From a technical perspective, species selection must be evidence based and context specific as well as prioritizing native species in urban spaces.

Socially and culturally, urban rewilding can foster and improve stronger human relationships with nature and promote ecotourism. However, equitable participation is crucial to rewilding initiatives to reinforce environmental justice and fair decision making that involves local and Indigenous communities. Economically and politically, early stage investments in habitat restoration can yield long term benefits by providing ecosystem services and project success for wildlife regulations[33].

Overall, urban rewilding and species reintroduction is most effective when both ecological science is integrated with social equity, economic planning, and strong community governance. When urban rewilding is approached as an adaptive and long term process, it can contribute significantly to improving biodiversity and greener urban environments.

References

  1. ↑ Simkin, Rohan D; Seto, Karen C; McDonald, Robert I; Jetz, Walter (March 14, 2022). "Biodiversity impacts and conservation implications of urban land expansion projected to 2050". PNAS. 119 (12): e2117297119.
  2. ↑ United Nations. "68% of the world population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, says UN". United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Retrieved 2 November 2025.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Finnerty, Patrick B; Carthey, Alexandra J R; Banks, Peter B; Brewster, Rob; Grueber, Catherine E; Houston, Donna; Martin, John M; McManus, Phil; Roncolato, Francesca (May 25, 2025). "Urban rewilding to combat global biodiversity decline". BioScience. 75 (7): 545–558 – via Oxford Academic.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Russo, Alessio; Sardeshpande, Mallika; Rupprecht, Christoph D D (February 2025). "Urban rewilding for sustainability and food security". Land Use Policy. 149 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Cary, Emma; Jones, Karen; Thomas, Virginia; Brieghel, Signe; Payo Payo, Ana; Wartmann, Flurina M. (July 17, 2025). "Five critical questions we should ask of rewilding projects-And that social science can help us answer". People and Nature. 7 (9): 2119–2135 – via British Ecological Society.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Rosenkrantz, Leah (August 2023). "Urban rewilding and public health considerations". National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health.
  7. ↑ Coughlan, Alex (February 8, 2021). "Urban Rewilding: A Solution To The World's Ecological And Mental Health Crises?". Earth.org. Retrieved 2 November 2025.
  8. ↑ Gehl, Jan (2013). Cities For People. Island Press. pp. 9–28. ISBN 9781597269841.
  9. ↑ Tanentzap, Andrew; Daykin, Georgia; Fennell, Thea; Hearne, Ella; Wilkinson, Matthew; Carey, Peter; Woodcock, Ben; Heard, Matthew (May 2023). "Trade-offs between passive and trophic rewilding for biodiversity and ecosystem functioning". Biological Conservation. 281: 110005 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  10. ↑ "Green Roofs". Environmental Atlas Berlin. 2020. Retrieved 2 November 2025.
  11. ↑ "Who are we?". Roots on the Roof. 2025. Retrieved 2 November 2025.
  12. ↑ Abra, Fernanda D.; Goebel, Luan G.A.; Gregory, Tremaine; Alonso, Alfonso; Grilo, Clara; Huijser, Marcel P. (November 2025). "A century documenting road's toll on global biodiversity". Global Ecology and Conservation. 63: e03859 – via Elsevier Science DIrect.
  13. ↑ National Geographic Society (October 19, 2023). "Wildlife Crossings". National Geographic Education. Retrieved 2 November 2025.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 Lim, Tin Seng (July 2012). "From Botanic Gardens to Gardens by the Bay: Singapore's Experience in Becoming a Garden City" (PDF). BiblioAsia. Vol. 8 Issue 2.
  15. ↑ Sànchez, Joe; Corada, Karina; Furlong, Jamie; Nash, Caroline; Connop, Stuart; San José Carreras, Esther (February 2026). "Blue-green infrastructure and socio-spatial changes: A study of urban wetlands restoration, housing development and gentrification in London using census data". Cities. Vol. 169.
  16. ↑ Frith, Mathew; Owens, Charlie; Wileman, Tony (May 2021). "Walthamstow Wetlands; A Bird and People Hotspot?" (PDF). London Bird Report 2019. 84: 217–229.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Simkin, Rohan; Seto, Karen; McDonald, Robert; Jetz, Walter (March 14, 2022). "Biodiversity impacts and conservation implications of urban land expansion projected to 2050". PNAS.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 Gaston, Kevin (September 16, 2010). Urban Ecology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521743495.
  19. ↑ Mitsch, William. J; Gosselink, James. G (October 2000). "The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting". Ecological Economics. Vol. 35: 25–33.
  20. ↑ Moesch, Simon. S; Haase, Dagmar; Zoderer, Brenda. M; Lokatis, Sophie (May 15, 2025). "Into the Urban Wild: Overcoming Barriers to Urban Rewilding through Expert Perspectives on Benefits, Hurdles, and Measures for Creating Wilder Greenspaces". Cities and the Environment. Vol. 18: Iss. 1, Article 4.
  21. ↑ Hwang, Yun Hye (June 28, 2025). "Urban rewilding in Singapore: from a conservation strategy to a sociocultural proposition". Urban Ecosystems. 28 – via Springer Nature.
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 Walker, Erana; Jowett, Tim; Whaanga, Hēmi; Wehi, Priscilla (July 9, 2024). "Cultural stewardship in urban spaces: Reviving Indigenous knowledge for the restoration of nature". People and Nature. 6: 1696–1712 – via British Ecological Society.
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 Mumaw, Laura; Ison, Ray; Corney, Helen; Gaskell, Nadine; Kelly, Irene (February 1, 2023). "Reframing governance possibilities for urban biodiversity conservation through systemic co-inquiry". Environmental Policy and Governance. 33: 517–530 – via Wiley Online Library.
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 24.5 24.6 Rosenkrantz, Leah (August 31, 2023). "Urban rewilding and public health considerations". Vancouver, BC: National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health. ISBN 978-1-988234-88-5.
  25. ↑ White, M. P., Alcock, I., Grellier, J., Wheeler, B. W., Hartig, T., Warber, S. L., Bone, A., Depledge, M. H., & Fleming, L. E. (June 13, 2019). Spending at Least 120 minutes a Week in Nature Is Associated with Good Health and Wellbeing. Scientific Reports, 9(1).
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 Hayward, Matt; Scanlon, Robert; Callen, Alexandra; Howell, Lachlan; Klop-Toker, Kaya; Di Blanco, Yamil; Balkenhol, Niko; Bugir, Cassandra; Campbell, Lachlan (May 2019). "Reintroducing rewilding to restoration - Rejecting the search for novelty". Biological Conservation. 233: 255–259 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  27. ↑ "Wilderness Act of 1964". U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Retrieved December 7, 2025.
  28. ↑ Rai, Nitin; Devy, M; Ganesh, T; Ganesan, R; Setty, Siddappa; Hiremath, Ankila; Khaling, Sarala; Rajan, Priyadarsanan (February 2021). "Beyond fortress conservation: The long-term integration of natural and social science research for an inclusive conservation practice in India". Biological Conservation. 254: 108888 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 Garrett, Cal (September 22, 2025). "Stewardship: the political ecologies of parks, rewilding, and reform in the United States". Social Problems. 00: 1–16 – via Oxford Academic.
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 Piana, Pietro; Brocada, Lorenzo; Hearn, Robert; Mangano, Stefania (January 2024). "Urban rewilding: Human-wildlife relations in Genoa, NW Italy". Cities. 144: 104660 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  31. ↑ Mansuy, Nicolas; Staley, Diana; Alook, Sharlene; Parlee, Brenda; Thomson, Alexandra; Littlechild, Danika Billie; Munson, Matthew; Didzena, Fred (September 28, 2023). "Indigenous protected and conserved areas (IPCAs): Canada's new path forward for biological and cultural conservation and Indigenous well-being". Facets. 8: 1–16 – via Canadian Science Publishing.
  32. ↑ Carver, Steve; Convery, Ian; Hawkins, Sally; Beyers, Rene; Eagle, Adam; Kun, Zoltan; Van Maanen, Erwin; Cao, Yue; Fisher, Mark (March 16, 2021). "Guided principles for rewilding". Conservation Biology. 35: 1882–1893 – via Conbio Online Library.
  33. ↑ "Cities & UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration". UN Environment Programme. Retrieved December 7, 2025.


This conservation resource was created by Course:CONS200.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:CONS200/2025FL1/Urban_Rewilding_and_Species_Reintroduction:_Theory,_Debates,_and_Examples&oldid=881856"