Editorial: Refined wilding and urban rewilding: nature-based solutions for resilient and sustainable cities

Cities are under pressure from climate change, biodiversity loss, and deepening socio-economic inequality. Yet urban areas are not only sites where these challenges are concentrated; they are also important spaces for ecological renewal and experimentation. Two complementary frameworks help make sense of this shift: refined wilding and urban rewilding.

Refined wilding is a new urban biodiversity concept developed by Vogt (2025a). It draws on interdisciplinary knowledge to design and manage urban green spaces that are ecologically connected and functionally biodiverse, supporting human health alongside ecological processes without treating them as competing priorities. Vogt (2025a) does consider first the meaning and implementation of rewilding generally, and then introduced agricultural wilding (Vogt, 2021b). This term and concept is focused to wild crops and plants for agricultural systems and landscapes. Refined wilding is different by definition and is for urban landscapes. It focuses on wild plant, tree, shrubs and grasses (PTSGs), and is then informed by the ecological sensitivity within human realities (ESHR) concept (Vogt, 2021a) for functional selections and assemblages of PTSGs and of different urban green spaces for system to landscape functional connectivities, and human realities consideration. It does aim for an advanced function for urban green spaces, and by definition encourages a functional ecological complexity that includes animal and or wildlife, and an optimized coverage (Vogt, 2025b, c). The ecological complexity by advanced function must address the realities of human populations, by health and habit. The concept introduces focus to transparent spaces (air and aquatic) and positive connectivities with urban green spaces.

Urban rewilding is a term with a developing definition and diverse applications. From the broader concept of rewilding, urban rewilding commencing in the 2010s and 2020s, brings ecological restoration and the recovery of ecological processes into human-populated landscapes, with approaches ranging from supporting spontaneous ecological processes and restoring habitat and fauna to designing and managing spaces that enable closer coexistence between humans and nature. Increasingly, urban rewilding also considers human health and well-being, cultural connections to nature, public perceptions, participatory co-design, and governance as integral to implementation. Rather than representing a single model of urban nature, it can be understood as a living practice of coexistence that takes different forms across cities and contexts. Its aims may include greater ecological autonomy, biodiversity recovery, resilience, ecosystem services, and nature–human relationships, while reducing the need for intensive long-term maintenance. Examples from different urban contexts demonstrate how these ecological and social dimensions interact in practice (Cirella, 2025a, 2025b; Cirella et al., 2026).

The two concepts differ in emphasis. Refined wilding is newer, more specifically defined, and conceived as a landscape approach applicable across different types of UGS, with a particular emphasis on design, ecological connectivity, and functional biodiversity. Urban rewilding is fauna focused and context-dependent, encompassing ecological restoration and recovery alongside human–nature relationships, cultural connections, co-design, and socially acceptable forms of rewilding. Both challenge conventional approaches to heavily managed and ornamental urban greening, moving toward urban nature that is more dynamic, self-sustaining, and ecologically functional. Refined wilding additionally seeks to address aesthetic preferences and human realities by developing a more balanced understanding of the benefits and acceptability of wilder urban green spaces, thereby supporting approaches to urban nature that are both ecologically and socially meaningful and feasible.

This Research Topic brings together six articles that collectively demonstrate the breadth of research relevant to refined wilding and urban rewilding, addressing ecological connectivity, biodiversity, multifunctionality, resilience, vegetation, ecological communities, and implementation from complementary perspectives. Considered together, the contributions show that both approaches extend beyond plants and habitat, even though these are often the starting points for discussion. They also encompass ecological processes, spatial structure, environmental conditions, management practices, human experience, and the broader socio-economic context in which urban nature is planned and managed. Together, these dimensions demonstrate why refined wilding and urban rewilding should be understood as interdisciplinary socio-ecological approaches to shaping more biodiverse, connected, resilient, and sustainable urban environments.

Swanson and McKinney open with a study of green roofs across 13 sites in the southeastern United States, examining how management practices, roof age, and substrate composition shape plant and invertebrate communities. Invertebrates remain comparatively understudied in urban biodiversity research, where vegetation has often received greater attention. The study strengthens the case for green roofs as multifunctional habitats rather than primarily as engineered infrastructure for stormwater management or insulation.

Yang et al. take a different scale, examining coupling coordination between green economy development and ecological resilience across 280 Chinese prefecture-level cities from 2010 to 2023. Using a large comparative dataset, they identify growing coordination between the two over time, alongside spatial unevenness, path dependence, and spillover effects between neighboring cities. These findings, the empirical evidence and policy implications, complicate any simple story of steady progress and remind us that urban rewilding and refined wilding do not occur at individual sites in isolation. It is also shaped by economic policy, regional development trajectories, and spatiotemporal dynamics extending beyond any single park or green roof.

Dushkova et al. contribute an implementation framework for “assisted” urban rewilding that connects spontaneous ecological processes with governance, adaptive management, planning, and stakeholder participation, which they refer to as conceptual. Their central point challenges the assumption that rewilding simply means stepping back and letting nature take over. It also demands attention to public perception, co-creation, inclusivity, and long-term governance structures that can outlast a single planning cycle. Ecological processes alone do not generate political legitimacy; governance, participation, and institutional capacity remain essential to implementation. This contribution bridges conceptual discussions of rewilding with the practical challenges of implementation.

Li et al. study street-level greenery in Nanjing, combining street-view imagery, semantic segmentation, remote sensing, and spatial analysis. Their findings show that what people see at eye level and what satellites measure from above are not the same. Greenery visibility varies by season, vegetation composition, road hierarchy, and functional zoning, affecting how people experience urban nature beyond how much greenery appears on a map. This distinction between perceived and remotely measured greenery is particularly relevant as cities increasingly plan for well-being rather than canopy cover alone.

Wei et al. turn to ancient trees in Chongzuo, Southwest China, cataloguing 15,722 trees across 99 species, 73 genera, and 35 families, and examining how habitat conditions and socio-environmental factors shape their distribution. These trees are living archives—reservoirs of biodiversity, habitat continuity, and cultural memory linking the city’s ecological history to its present. Protecting them can therefore be an important component of urban rewilding strategies, particularly because mature tree canopies cannot simply be recreated on a comparable timescale.

Finally, Wu et al., and Wang examine winter bird communities in Shenyang’s riparian zones, finding that richness and diversity vary between urban core and expansion areas depending on disturbance, riparian characteristics, and vegetation condition. Bird communities can therefore serve as useful indicators of ecological condition and functionality, complementing vegetation surveys and helping reveal seasonal patterns that are often less represented in urban ecological research. They arrive to the recommendation for designing and managing high quality urban green spaces in winter for residential and migratory winter bird communities.

Across all six studies, a shared research agenda begins to emerge. How can individual green spaces be connected into larger ecological networks rather than treated as isolated patches? How can spontaneous and unplanned ecological processes be incorporated into formal planning without being overly constrained or simplified? And how should biodiversity outcomes be considered alongside ecosystem services, equity, and cultural value, rather than being reduced to species counts alone? There is also much to learn about animal taxa beyond birds, soil and substrate conditions, ecological succession over longer timeframes, and the interactions among these components rather than examining them in isolation.

Future research can use and implement either of the concepts, the frameworks provided, the methods used, and findings from this Research Topic to support similar studies in other cities or countries. Some for a multitude of reasons. The themes and focuses of the Research Topic articles are only a few of many appreciated factors for this expansive and interdisciplinary field of research and practice.

Both concepts provide wide reaching scope, and guidance ability for assessments, research questions, and planning, design, implementation and maintenance that can ensure protection and improvement in semi-natural or natural urban ecosystems. They also provide a quality criteria like guidance for intentions for urban green spaces and sustainable urban development. They need to be tested across different cities, cultures, climates, and governance systems. Findings from Nanjing, for example, cannot necessarily be assumed to transfer directly to Shenyang or to cities in other geographical and institutional contexts. Comparative and longitudinal research would help address a fundamental question: when does reduced management support biodiversity and resilience, and when is active intervention still necessary? Equally important is understanding how these choices shape whether people accept, participate in, and sustain changes over the long term, well beyond the initial planning phase. Tools such as remote sensing, street-view imagery, and digital monitoring can help address these questions at scale, but only when grounded in ecological knowledge and local realities rather than becoming ends in themselves. Taken together, the six studies point toward a shift in how urban nature is understood and managed. This shift—spanning ecology, society, technology, economics, and governance—is essential to translating refined wilding and urban rewilding from compelling concepts into durable practice.

Ensuring an accurate understanding by intention, definition and principles for refined wilding and urban rewilding is also recommended. Key themes for future research include conceptual discussions, investigations into scope aspects of knowledge, research and practice, examples of implementation of each concept and the use of advances in the field, and how they example ‘in scope’ for either or both concepts. The field can advance and advantage from the contribution of both as different nature based solutions in urban development, and for sustainable development goals.

Statements

Summary

Keywords

ancient tree species, coupling coordination for green economy and ecological resilience, green roofs and invertebrates, green visibility, nature based solutions (NbS), refined wilding, urban rewilding, winter bird communities

Citation

Vogt M and Cirella GT (2026) Editorial: Refined wilding and urban rewilding: nature-based solutions for resilient and sustainable cities. Front. Ecol. Evol. 14:1967480. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2026.1967480

Received

14 August 2026

Revised

25 August 2026

Accepted

27 August 2026

Published

03 September 2026

Volume

14 - 2026

Edited and reviewed by

J. D. Lewis, Fordham University, United States

Updates

Check for updates

Copyright

© 2026 Vogt and Cirella.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Melissa Vogt, melissaanneberylvogt@gmail.com

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.