Towards multispecies urbanism: Negotiating space for and with wildlife in design practice

Urban habitats are driving global ecological crisis (Apfelbeck et al. 2020). Thus, researchers (Kay et al. 2022), policy-makers (London Rewilding Taskforce 2023), practitioners (C40Cities & Arup 2023), and the public (GCC 2020a) are increasingly concerned with how they can work for and with, rather than against nature. A key aspect of this is a need to focus more critically on how cities can be designed to foster ‘human co-existence’ with wildlife (Beatley 2015), bringing stronger human empathy to bear in providing for nonhuman habitat, mobility and resource needs. For this to happen, a better understanding of how wildlife is negotiated in and through design is required, as well as factors that facilitate or constrain beneficial wildlife outcomes to emerge. This thesis aimed to provide a coupled social, ecological and technical examination of how to design for urban wildlife, in ways that supports nonhuman species to flourish alongside us. It has done so, by first reviewing literature in four fields that offer disciplinary distinct but practically overlapping perspectives on the intersection of urban wildlife and design: urban ecology, urban design, systems thinking, and ecofeminist philosophy. Interviews were then conducted with a multi-disciplinary sample of researchers and practitioners, drawing from their experiences and expertise to distil qualities needed to deliver effective urban wildlife design solutions, as well as constraints towards doing so. These insights informed but did not overprescribe case study analysis of two green infrastructure projects, which analysed how wildlife concerns and outcomes are negotiated in place-based practice. The main findings highlight that for design to be effective, wildlife concerns must be integrally considered, appropriately targeted, well informed, planned to wildlife spatial concerns and with their capacity to adapt, and supported to perform well beyond the end of formal design work. Nevertheless, the capacity of individuals and organisations to deliver for wildlife, is significantly impinged upon by the broader economic and development paradigms they operate within, as well as siloed cultures within and between academia, practice and public authorities. Ultimately, better informed and tailored urban design is crucial but not sufficient to deliver meaningful wildlife outcomes. Rather, effective wildlife design requires the financial resourcing and social infrastructure to perform. To realise a more transformative multispecies urban vision, more holistic recognition and accounting of urban wildlife is needed, as well as co-centring wildlife promotion within the infrastructural transformations required to meet the climate and resource challenges faced by cities in the 21st century.