For decades, biologists have focused on the physical changes that cities bring to wildlife, such as altering food supplies, fragmenting habitats, and introducing pollution.
However, a comprehensive new study published in Nature Cities highlights that societal factors, particularly those related to religion, politics, and war, also significantly influence the evolution of urban wildlife.
This global review synthesizes evidence collected from various cities, showing how human conflict and cultural practices can impact wildlife genetics, behavior, and survival.
The authors argue that ecological processes cannot be fully understood without considering the social world, as factors like religious traditions and political systems may shape the evolutionary paths of the animals and plants living in urban areas.
Elizabeth Carlen, a co-lead author of the study and a biologist at Washington University in St. Louis, states, “Social sciences have been very far removed from life sciences for a very long time, and they haven’t been integrated.
We started just kind of playing around with what social and cultural processes haven’t been talked about,” with a focus on how religion, politics, and war affect evolutionary biology in urban settings.
Carlen’s research in St. Louis illustrates how urban design and racial segregation influenced ecological conditions, affecting the access of wildlife to green spaces.
She points out, “Crime prevention through environmental design” can restrict urban wildlife.
By requesting the removal of bushes or low trees for better sightlines, law enforcement inadvertently creates barriers for small animals trying to navigate parks.
This is not a unique phenomenon to St. Louis.
Carlen is confident similar patterns exist in cities like Los Angeles, noting how parks in wealthier neighborhoods often differ significantly from those in less affluent areas, particularly regarding tree species richness.
The study explores how armed conflicts can disrupt wildlife in unpredictable ways.
For instance, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the evacuation of humans from war zones allowed wildlife, such as wild boars and deer, to reclaim urban habitats, while sparrow populations experienced significant declines due to their reliance on human food sources in urbanized areas.
These findings compel planners and scientists to rethink urban design by integrating social and ecological considerations.
Recognizing how religion, politics, and war shape urban wildlife could lead to cities that are more accommodating for both people and the genetic diversity of other species.
Los Angeles serves as a case study in the intersection of culture and biology, particularly evident in the behavior of coyotes across L.A. County.
A recent tracking study showed these animals tended to avoid affluent neighborhoods, not due to food scarcity, but likely because of aggressive human behavior and higher rates of removal actions.
In contrast, coyotes freely roamed lower-income areas where trapping was less common, despite those neighborhoods having higher pollution levels and fewer resources.
This situation underscores how broader urban inequities impact wildlife movements and the risks they face.
Similarly, other species, like black bears, parrots, and peacocks, reflect this complex relationship in Los Angeles.
Wilson Sherman, a UCLA PhD student studying human-black bear interactions, highlighted how local governance intricacies influence animal management and their presence in communities.
For instance, Sierra Madre requires residents to have bear-resistant trash cans, while neighboring Arcadia does not, shaping the habitat and movement of black bears across these differing jurisdictions.
Cultural values play a major role as well, with flourishing populations of non-native birds like Amazon parrots and peacocks emphasizing how aesthetic preferences and daily choices leave lasting ecological impacts on the city.
Sherman noted the growing presence of surveillance infrastructure in urban areas is changing how people view urban biodiversity.
For example, security cameras and motion alerts might lead homeowners to realize a coyote frequents their yard, potentially prompting them to modify their landscapes to deter such wildlife.
Such surveillance affects public perceptions and shapes policy regarding who can coexist in the city, impacting wildlife behavior.
Korinna Domingo, founder and director of the Cougar Conservancy, explained that cougars in Los Angeles have adapted their behaviors due to years of urban development, fragmented landscapes, and the social and political circumstances that dictate how animals are managed.
She pointed out that freeway construction, zoning laws, and historical funding decisions have forced cougars to change their movement patterns.
For example, the restricted movements have led to observed reductions in genetic diversity within mountain lion populations, a problem not stemming from natural selection but from the repercussions of human land-use decisions.
To counter these issues, the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing project aims to restore connectivity for wildlife across urban boundaries.
Domingo asserts that while infrastructure developments are crucial, they are insufficient on their own.
“You can have habitat connectivity all you want,” she emphasized, “but you also have to think about social tolerance.
Urban planning that facilitates animal movement increases the chances of human interaction with wildlife, necessitating healthier coexistence strategies.
In Los Angeles, differing community resources and attitudes mean approaches to wildlife management vary.
While wealthier residents may afford to create predator-proof enclosures, lower-income communities may lack the means or support to do so, leading to disputes over wildlife removal rather than coexistence.
Domingo stressed that wildlife management transcends biology, encompassing values, power dynamics, and representation in decision-making.
Long-standing cultural and religious perspectives, particularly those rooted in human superiority over nature, have historically guided wildlife management in the U.S., contributing to the extermination of predators like cougars and wolves, as well as the displacement of Indigenous communities with land-based practices that conflict with these management philosophies.
In California, such values perpetuate lingering inequalities, where the campaigns against wildlife parallels the historical removal of American Indian peoples.
Alan Salazar, a tribal elder from the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, observes that these legacies run deep, equating the genocide of Indigenous peoples with the eradication of large predators and the plants they coexist with.
Salazar stated, “What happened to native peoples happened to our large predators in California.
There were three parts to our world — humans, animals, and plants.
We were all connected, and we respected all of them.”
He reflects that his ancestors coexisted with mountain lions for over 10,000 years by learning from them rather than eliminating them, seeing these predators as teachers to be honored and understood.
Salazar views the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing not just as a bridge for mountain lions but as a significant cultural opportunity for all animals.
He believes it can raise awareness and shift perceptions surrounding cohabitation and ecological planning, benefitting both native wildlife and Indigenous communities.
As Los Angeles grapples with the future of wildlife in its urban spaces, Salazar and others argue this situation presents a chance to reassess the cultural frameworks, governance systems, and historical injustices that have long dictated human-wildlife relations in the city.
Through policy reform, community education, and ceremonies, residents need reminders that the evolutionary trajectories of wildlife are shaped across highways, backyards, and local governance discussions.
image source from：latimes
