Abstract
Rewilding is broadly recognized as an approach that promotes self-regulating ecological processes with no or minimal human intervention. Urban rewilding adapts this concept to cities by restoring ecological complexity in ways that accommodate human use and urban functions. Refined wilding further develops urban rewilding by engaging societal dimensions and design, framing spontaneous ecological processes through intentional spatial, aesthetic, and social considerations. Although these approaches are gaining traction in science, they remain less established in practice, and there is insufficient guidance on how to balance ecological goals with social acceptance, inclusion, and equity. Building on these foundations, this perspective introduces assisted urban rewilding as a conceptual and implementation framework that integrates self-organized ecological processes with inclusive governance, planning, and adaptive management in cities. Based on participatory research, academic literature, and knowledge co-produced through conferences, workshops, and webinars co-organized with international networks, we identify key principles and challenges for implementation. We distill lessons for implementing assisted urban rewilding as multifunctional NBS that are ecologically robust, socially balanced, and aligned with local contexts. We discuss critical considerations for scientists, urban planners, and practitioners, including navigating conflicting stakeholder values in participatory co-design; establishing long-term governance that empowers communities; managing trade-offs between public access and ecological sensitivity; and integrating assisted urban rewilding into blue-green infrastructure. We define criteria that distinguish assisted urban rewilding from related approaches, present a three-pathway framework linking context-specific planning, inclusive governance, and spatial integration, and outline a roadmap for embedding assisted urban rewilding within NBS, positioning it as an integral component.
1 Introduction
Worldwide, urban areas are facing unprecedented social and environmental challenges, including extreme heat and drought, increased flooding, deteriorating air quality, noise pollution, biodiversity loss, and socio-economic disparities (IPBES, 2019; Kumar et al., 2025). Cities are not only hotspots of biodiversity decline but also sites of deep social inequity, climate vulnerability, and disconnection from nature (; IPBES, 2024). However, cities are also dynamic spaces for experimentation where concepts and practical approaches that promote sustainability and resilience are tested, adapted, and scaled up (Kim et al., 2021). This duality—the ambivalence between risk and opportunity, degradation and innovation—reflects the complex urban context in which nature-based solutions (NBS) must operate (; Kotsila et al., 2020). Recognizing this ambivalence, characterized by the coexistence of positive and negative perceptions of urban nature, is crucial for designing effective wilding interventions that balance ecological processes with various societal expectations. This has significant implications for biodiversity, social equity, and inclusive NBS ().
In this context, NBS have emerged as a promising concept and practical approach for addressing multiple, interlinked urban challenges (). Defined as actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural and modified ecosystems, NBS simultaneously provide human wellbeing and biodiversity benefits (; ; IUCN, 2020). Over the past two decades, they have gained recognition across science, policy, and practice as effective context-sensitive strategies for climate adaptation, enhancing ecosystem services, improving human wellbeing, and strengthening urban resilience (; ; ; , ; ILO-UNEP-IUCN, 2024; IUCN, 2020; Seddon et al., 2020).
Among these, urban rewilding and its most recent developments – refined wilding and assisted urban rewilding—represent a distinct NBS approach that moves beyond traditional greening toward restoring ecological complexity while maintaining functional, accessible, and socially inclusive green spaces (; ; Lehmann, 2022; Vogt, 2025a). In this perspective, assisted urban rewilding is defined as an approach that intentionally supports and frames spontaneous ecological succession in urban environments, allowing self-organizing ecological processes to unfold while ensuring compatibility with urban planning, accessibility, and social expectations. Unlike traditional urban greening focused on ornamental aesthetics, assisted urban rewilding aims to reconcile ecological restoration with urban resilience and societal needs.
While urban rewilding (; ; Hwang, 2025; Kowarik, 2021; Moxon et al., 2023; Pettorelli et al., 2022) and NBS (; ; Lehmann, 2022; Sikorska et al., 2021) are increasingly recognized as promising approaches in research emphasizing ecological conservation and restoration, ecosystem services, and co-creation, they often treat these dimensions in parallel rather than as an integrated operational model. In particular, these approaches insufficiently specify actionable knowledge and practical guidance on how spontaneous ecological processes can be systematically aligned with participatory governance, planning instruments, and social equity objectives. Thus, balancing ecological goals with social inclusion, equity, and community empowerment remains limited and predominantly conceptual. This perspective addresses that gap by proposing assisted urban rewilding as a novel conceptual and operational framework that explicitly connects ecological spontaneity and recovery with governance structures and stakeholder engagement. In this paper, we distinguish between conceptual approaches (rewilding, urban rewilding, and refined wilding) and implementation-oriented frameworks. Assisted urban rewilding as NBS is positioned explicitly in the latter category, translating conceptual principles of (urban) rewilding and refined wilding into operational pathways for planning and governance.
Methodologically, the paper is based on three complementary sources: (1) the authors' ongoing participatory research on urban biodiversity, blue-green transformation, and inclusive NBS, (2) a narrative synthesis of recent peer-reviewed academic and gray literature on rewilding, NBS, and urban governance, and (3) knowledge co-production processes within international networks—URBIO (Urban Biodiversity and Design International Network), SURE (Society for Urban Ecology), and ESP (Ecosystem Services Partnership/Foundation for Sustainable Development), including co-organized conference sessions, expert workshops, and webinars that also addressed the urban rewilding theme in the activity. It also includes co-creation processes with researchers, practitioners, and other stakeholders.
The paper distills lessons for designing assisted urban rewilding as multifunctional NBS that are ecologically robust, socially just, and equitable. It also reflects on essential yet frequently neglected dimensions for researchers, planners, and practitioners, such as context-specific planning and adaptive management, governance arrangements and co-creation processes, and the integration of assisted urban rewilding with broader urban greening strategies (blue-green infrastructure). These were then translated into the proposed operational framework with a three-pathway structure alongside a roadmap for incorporating assisted urban rewilding into urban NBS strategies.
2 Rewilding, urban rewilding, refined wilding, assisted urban rewilding, and NBS: conceptual linkages
In scientific literature, “rewilding” and “wilderness” generally refer to allowing nature to progress without intrusive/extractive human activity () or with minimal human intervention, often in rural or peri-urban settings (Tree, 2018). Nevertheless, wilderness areas can be found in cities, representing places characterized by a high level of self-regulation in ecosystem processes, including population dynamics of native and non-native species with continuous community reassembly through succession, where direct human impacts are minimal/negligible (Kowarik, 2018). Such areas are also associated with the “Fourth Nature” (a spontaneously growing nature, independent of design or planning) within the Four Natures concept, where examples of urban wilderness include wastelands, railway areas, road sites, abandoned lots, cemeteries, cracks in pavement, and post-industrial landscapes (Kowarik, 2018, 2021; Ignatieva et al., 2023a).
“Urban rewilding,” by contrast, is an intentional strategy aimed at restoring ecological complexity in cities while accommodating human uses and urban functions (). It represents the potential enhancement of urban wilderness by reorganizing biota and ecosystem processes to set the socio-ecological system on a preferred trajectory, leading to self-sustaining systems with minimal human intervention/ongoing management (Pettorelli et al., 2019). This approach entails fostering autonomous ecological dynamics independent of historical land-use, with minimal direct maintenance or planting interventions (). Rewilding emphasizes spontaneity, natural succession, and species-driven dynamics, often leaving urban green spaces to evolve according to ecological rules rather than formal design (; Zoderer et al., 2024). By allowing ecological processes and species interactions to develop with minimal human interference, it aims to restore ecological complexity and native biodiversity, while also delivering cultural ecosystem services and providing both ecological and social benefits (Kowarik, 2021; Pettorelli et al., 2022). Beyond ecological functions, relatively wild urban parks can promote human resilience and psychological wellbeing, emphasizing the importance of integrating social benefits into rewilding strategies (Lev et al., 2020; ). Consequently, urban rewilding is often discussed as an effective strategy for addressing the biodiversity crisis (; ), improving ecosystem services (; Moesch et al., 2025), restoring ecological complexity (Kowarik, 2021; Moxon et al., 2023), and promoting urban sustainability and resilience (Kowarik, 2021; Lehmann, 2021; Russo et al., 2025).
Crucially, NBS and urban rewilding are not synonymous: many NBS fall outside urban rewilding, and urban rewilding initiatives may not meet NBS criteria (). Several NBS interventions, such as rain gardens, constructed wetlands, or managed green roofs, enhance ecosystem services and provide measurable social or resilience benefits without introducing the broader ecological complexity, spontaneous vegetation, or species-focused restoration that characterize rewilding. Conversely, urban rewilding initiatives that focus solely on ecological processes (e.g., “go wild”, “leave nature alone”) without intentionally incorporating co-creation, stakeholder engagement, or social inclusion may not satisfy the NBS standards (IUCN, 2020), since NBS are explicitly defined as solutions that integrate ecological restoration with societal needs and inclusive governance (; ; ; ; Seddon et al., 2020).
Thus, urban rewilding can represent a specific subset of urban NBS, one that aspires to go beyond technical greening toward processes that accommodate spontaneous vegetation, novel ecosystems, and ecological dynamics while embedding participatory planning, co-creation, and adaptive management to ensure social relevance, equity, and resilience outcomes (; Lehmann, 2022; Sikorska et al., 2021). In practice, urban rewilding emphasizes reduced human management and the promotion of spontaneous ecological processes, allowing urban ecosystems to self-organize and restore functional biodiversity over time through succession (). This may involve less intensive management and more “laissez-faire” of lawns (e.g., turning conventional lawns into species-rich meadows by lowing the frequency of mowing), creation of secondary succession habitats (e.g., allowing spontaneous vegetation on vacant lots, shrublands, or early woodland to develop), or reintroduction of keystone species (e.g., beavers as ecosystem engineers or predators such as wolves and lynx to manage herbivore numbers and prevent overgrazing/protecting vegetation), with a focus on ecological integrity rather than aesthetics (; Pettorelli et al., 2019, 2022).
Building on these foundations, “refined wilding” (Vogt, 2025a,b) represents a design-mediated conceptual refinement of urban rewilding, which more explicitly incorporates societal perceptions, cultural expectations, and aesthetic framing alongside ecological processes. While often described as design-mediated, refined wilding is more than a design concept; it is an approach that integrates ecological spontaneity with social interpretation and acceptance. In this sense, several elements of the “assisted urban rewilding” framework, particularly those addressing inclusivity, perception, and co-creation, overlap with and extend toward the scope of refined wilding. However, for conceptual clarity in this paper, refined wilding is not treated as a central comparative category but rather as a complementary perspective that highlights the importance of socially mediated ecological processes within urban contexts.
“Assisted urban rewilding” introduced in this paper, proposes an intentional strategy (implementation framework) that operationalizes principles of urban rewilding and refined wilding through governance, adaptive management pathways and urban planning, and societal contexts. It promotes functional biodiversity as a positive outcome, balancing ecological functions with benefits for urban residents. The approach supports the development, connectivity, and social acceptance of “wild” urban green spaces, fostering functional links with gray (built) and blue (aquatic) spaces as well as air corridors. “Assisted urban rewilding” goes beyond simply “letting nature take its course” by managing, guiding, and developing urban green spaces to optimize both biodiversity and ecosystem service delivery while integrating local social considerations. Urban green spaces designed through assisted urban rewilding require lower maintenance yet provide enhanced benefits for human health, economic development, and the environment. This approach emphasizes quality over quantity, prioritizing high-function urban green spaces that deliver better outcomes compared to less functional alternatives.
“Assisted urban rewilding” integrates ecological planning, landscape connectivity, human use, and socio-ecological functionality, drawing on scientific knowledge, smart-city planning, and co-creation approaches to ensure that ecological restoration aligns with urban resilience, human wellbeing, and inclusivity. As a framework, it organizes interdisciplinary knowledge to provide overarching guidance for various types of urban green spaces while addressing common barriers to achieving advanced sustainability functions. In the context of promoting resilient and inclusive cities, assisted urban rewilding functions as a broader co-creation process that fosters biodiversity by integrating ecological knowledge, smart city technologies, and social dimensions. In other words, “assisted urban rewilding” is “urban rewilding with a purpose,” designed to simultaneously meet urban ecological, social, and governance objectives. By emphasizing co-creation and stakeholder engagement, it transforms rewilding from a purely ecological practice into a full-fledged NBS intervention, bridging ecological ambition, urban sustainability, and social acceptance ().
To avoid conceptual ambiguity and to distinguish assisted urban rewilding from adjacent approaches, we define it here as a distinct operational category of multifunctional urban NBS. Assisted urban rewilding refers to an intentional, governance-embedded approach that supports spontaneous ecological processes while actively integrating planning frameworks, stakeholder participation, and adaptive management to ensure socially acceptable, equitable, and multifunctional outcomes. An NBS intervention can be framed as assisted urban rewilding if it meets the following interrelated criteria:
1) Ecological process orientation—priority is given to spontaneous succession and self-organizing dynamics;
2) Moderated intervention—management is reduced but strategically applied to guide outcomes;
3) Embedded co-creation—stakeholder engagement goes beyond informing and consulting toward co-design or co-governance;
4) Multifunctionality—interventions explicitly target biodiversity, ecosystem services, and social co-benefits; and
5) Governance integration—actions are aligned with urban planning instruments and long-term stewardship structures.
This distinguishes assisted urban rewilding from other approaches, such as low-intervention management (lacks explicit social integration), intended wilderness (minimizes human access), refined wilding (emphasizes design mediation), and other NBS types, which may not prioritize spontaneous ecological dynamics.
In practice, examples of assisted urban rewilding range from individual residential gardens, where homeowners select functional native and non-native species to support biodiversity (wildlife), while maintaining usability of the garden, to larger public parks and grounds that are intentionally designed as “wild-refined” spaces with advanced ecological function. At the urban scale, this form of rewilding creates functionally connected green spaces throughout the city, facilitating positive ecological interactions between green, gray (built), and blue (aquatic) infrastructure. All interventions use functional native and non-native plant species to create self-regulating, semi-natural systems that require less maintenance while delivering high performance in terms of biodiversity, human health, and climate resilience. Understanding how diverse publics perceive such spaces is critical. Studies on visitors' perceptions of urban wilderness show that acceptance of wilder landscapes varies significantly across cultural and social contexts (Moesch et al., 2025; Zoderer et al., 2024; Zoderer and Hainz-Renetzeder, 2025). Visual scenario preferences can serve as social-ecological indicators of rewilding support, highlighting the importance of aligning ecological interventions with community perceptions () and framing urban rewilding not only as a conservation tool but as a socio-cultural proposition that resonates with local values (; Hwang, 2025; Kowarik, 2021).
Research on emerging practices of urban rewilding confirms that implementing such approaches requires navigating barriers related to public perceptions, governance, and planning norms (; Kay et al., 2022; Moesch et al., 2025; Simone and Nielsen, 2022; Zoderer and Hainz-Renetzeder, 2025). At the same time, cities can act as innovation hubs where these barriers are addressed through participatory processes, expert engagement, and co-creation (; Moesch et al., 2024). The “cues to care” approach (Nassauer, 1995; Hostetler, 2021) offers a pathway to mediate negative perceptions of messy, wild-looking vegetation. By incorporating intentional design elements such as mown edges, pathways, signage, or intentional planting frames, practitioners signal human stewardship while maintaining ecological integrity in culturally recognizable ways (e.g., expressions of order and attention), thereby increasing social acceptance of rewilded spaces (O'Donnell et al., 2026; Richold, 2023).
A growing body of research demonstrates that rewilding, refined wilding, and assisted urban rewilding can provide multiple ecosystem services, including climate mitigation, stormwater regulation, habitat connectivity, and pollination support, while simultaneously enhancing human health and wellbeing, fostering community cohesion, and strengthening urban resilience (; Lehmann, 2021; Lu et al., 2024; Pettorelli et al., 2019; Vogt, 2025a).
3 Cross-network perspectives on assisted urban rewilding as NBS
This section presents the empirical and practice-based foundations of the framework, drawing on knowledge co-produced through international conferences, workshops, and webinars, before turning in Section 4 to conceptual reflections and implications for research and practice.
Recent discussions emerging from the URBIO (International Network on Biodiversity and Design), SURE (Society for Urban Ecology), and ESP (International Network on Ecosystem Services Partnership) activities have generated critical insights that inform the development of assisted urban rewilding as a socially and ecologically integrated NBS approach. Drawing on conference sessions, expert workshops, and webinar series co-organized with these networks between 2022 and 2025, we identify several cross-cutting themes that shape a shared research and practice agenda.
First, a persistent theme across URBIO 2022 (Leipzig), URBIO 2024 (Missouri), URBIO 2025 (Perth), and URBIO 2025 (online webinar) is the need to bridge disciplinary and language divides between ecologists, landscape designers, urban planners, green space managers, governmental and civil society representatives, and local communities (; ; ; Ignatieva et al., 2023a). The URBIO 2022 conference in Leipzig, in particular, emphasized the importance of developing shared vocabularies and heuristic processes that enable cross-disciplinary collaboration, making biodiversity goals actionable in planning and design practice. The ESP Europe Conference 2024 in Wageningen reinforced this theme, with sessions dedicated to integrating biodiversity into decision-making and highlighting how ecosystem services and NBS concepts can drive transformative change across sectors. At the same time, several URBIO 2024 (in Missouri) and 2025 (in Perth) and SURE 2025 (in Istanbul) discussions emphasized the need to intensify participatory processes with local citizens in order to openly address skepticism, fears, and resistance toward urban nature and rewilding initiatives. Participants noted that in the post-COVID context, public perceptions of “wilderness” in cities have, in some cases, shifted toward concerns about safety, health risks, and loss of control over urban environments, highlighting the importance of dialogue, trust-building, and inclusive engagement to ensure broader societal acceptance of biodiversity-oriented planning.
Second, community empowerment and co-creation as non-negotiable dimensions of inclusive NBS emerged across multiple forums. URBIO 2022 (Leipzig) and URBIO 2024 (Missouri) highlighted the imperative of translating scientific knowledge for practitioners and co-producing knowledge and policies with local stakeholders (; Ignatieva et al., 2023b; Nilon et al., 2024). Similarly, the ESP 2024 (Wageningen) showcased community empowerment tools to promote resilience and called for consistent standards in assessing NBS co-benefits (, ; Sieber et al., 2024). Sessions across all three networks further emphasized that inclusive NBS must address both biodiversity enhancement and social equity, aligning with the “One Planet, One Health” theme that positioned human and ecosystem health as fundamentally interconnected. All mentioned conferences consistently underscored that NBS (and rewilding as one of their forms) achieve transformative change only when societal needs and local knowledge are integrated from the outset. It aligns with broader literature emphasizing that stakeholder engagement must move beyond informing and consulting toward genuine power-sharing, co-design, and inclusive governance (Ibrahim et al., 2025; ; Moesch et al., 2024, 2025).
Third, the URBIO webinar on “Artificial intelligence (AI) in Urban Biodiversity and Design: Pros and Contras” (April 2025) addressed the potential and pitfalls of data and digital tools for biodiversity research and landscape design. Participants highlighted AI's promise for biodiversity monitoring, ecological connectivity modeling, and habitat optimization, while stressing the need for ethical frameworks, expert verification, and interdisciplinary collaboration to avoid technocratic approaches that marginalize community voices (Dushkova et al., under review). At ESP 2024, several discussions on AI and ecosystem services explored the integration of AI for biodiversity assessment, emphasizing that technological innovation must be harnessed in the service of – not as a replacement for—equitable and participatory processes.
Fourth, several sessions within the aforementioned conferences reinforced key themes for urban rewilding. Sessions on monitoring and evaluation of NBS (ESP 2024, URBIO 2022, 2024) provided insights into how rewilding outcomes (both ecological and social) can be systematically assessed. Additionally, sessions on human-nature relations and NBS for transformative change (ESP 2024, SURE 2025, URBIO 2025) resonated with our emphasis on ambivalence (), exploring how diverse values and perceptions shape the acceptance and success of NBS interventions, including rewilding. Several contributions emphasized the importance of perceptions of naturalness in designing urban green spaces. Public acceptance is essential for designing socially robust assisted urban rewilding interventions as NBS.
Fifth, the SURE World Conference 2025 (Istanbul) introduced themes of posthuman urbanism and inner transformation for sustainability, captured in the Istanbul Charter for Conservation and Perception of Urban Nature. These discussions resonate with both the concept of ambivalence in human-nature relationships () and the framework of “many (different) natures” (Ignatieva et al., 2023b), which distinguishes between native, cultivated, designed, and spontaneous urban natures. Building on these insights, we argue that while urban nature, blue-green infrastructure, and NBS are intertwined concepts, significant differences in their interpretation across disciplines often lead to misunderstandings and difficulties in practical implementation. These differences are shaped by specific socio-political, historical, cultural, and ecological contexts. Thus, a transdisciplinary perspective is essential for collaboration between ecological sciences, landscape architecture, and social sciences, particularly when co-creating NBS through participatory approaches that link practitioners, policymakers, and scientists with local communities (; ; Ignatieva et al., 2023b). This call for transdisciplinary and intercontinental integration directly informs assisted urban rewilding design, which must navigate diverse visions of urban nature and translate them into inclusive, context-sensitive biodiversity-promoting interventions ().
Collectively, these cross-network insights enriched with academic literature (; Vogt, 2025a,b) point toward a shared agenda for assisted urban rewilding that: (1) fosters interdisciplinary collaboration and shared language; (2) centers community empowerment and co-creation; (3) harnesses AI ethically and inclusively; (4) embraces ambivalence and relational dimensions of human-nature interactions; and (5) translates knowledge into actionable guidance for policy and practice. In the next section, we build on these foundations to elaborate key considerations for the development of an actionable framework for designing assisted urban rewilding as an ecologically meaningful and socially just NBS strategy.
4 Toward long-term success of assisted urban rewilding as NBS: implications for research and practice
Despite its potential, several challenges remain that hinder the broader uptake of urban rewilding as a common sustainability practice. Trade-offs between ecological complexity and public perception, governance coordination, and long-term maintenance require careful consideration. Cities must navigate differing cultural views of “wild” spaces, balancing freedom for ecological processes with safety, accessibility, and aesthetic expectations. Additionally, practical guidance for implementing urban rewilding and refined wilding approaches in ways that bridge ecological ambitions with social reality remains limited and largely theoretical.
To address these challenges and operationalize assisted urban rewilding as an inclusive NBS, we propose a novel implementation framework structured around three interconnected pathways (Figure 1). The framework has been developed as a learning system co-developed through our prior research and co-creation processes with multiple stakeholders (consultation, co-design, and co-governance), and empirical “living” examples of urban rewilding and NBS practice. The pathways translate the conceptual approach into actionable guidance, ensuring that urban rewilding interventions are ecologically robust, socially relevant, and adaptable to diverse urban contexts. The three pathways are: (1) context-specific planning, design, and adaptive management; (2) embedded inclusivity, equity, and participatory governance; and (3) integration with blue-green infrastructure and broader urban planning systems.
Figure 1
The framework illustrates both directional flows and feedback loops, emphasizing assisted urban rewilding as an adaptive and iterative socio-ecological process rather than a linear planning model. Initial context assessment informs site selection and design choices, which are co-developed through stakeholder engagement and governance arrangements, and subsequently integrated into wider spatial and policy frameworks. Monitoring of both ecological and social outcomes feeds back into adaptive management, creating a continuous learning cycle (with example indicators provided to each pathway; further details on NBS performance indicators can be found in our earlier work, e.g., ; ; ).
Arrows in the framework indicate both directional flow (from planning to implementation and evaluation) and feedback loops, highlighting that assisted urban rewilding is a non-linear intervention realized through an adaptive, co-produced process. The framework positions ecological processes, social acceptance, and governance structures as interdependent components essential for long-term success.
Synthesizing these three pathways, we propose a roadmap for implementing assisted urban rewilding as an inclusive NBS: 1) identify ecological and social objectives in context, 2) engage stakeholders through participatory and co-creation processes, 3) implement site-specific interventions that support biodiversity while allowing public access and ecosystem services, 4) monitor ecological and social outcomes, and 5) adapt management iteratively based on feedback. This approach aligns ecological ambition with social reality, fostering resilient, inclusive, and sustainable urban futures.
In the following subsections, we reflect on each of the three pathways.
Pathway 1: Context-specific approach from planning to adaptive management and design
Successful implementation of urban rewilding as an NBS begins with context-specific planning that identifies suitable locations for intervention. Site selection should consider ecological potential, patterns of public use, and available resources, with interventions scaled appropriately (e.g., small transitional zones at biotope edges, roadside verges, patches of remnant vegetation, wetlands, drainage lines, rocky outcrops, rain garden margins, but also larger naturalistic parks and institutional grounds, containing varied habitat types that support both amenity and biodiversity values). Maintaining or re-establishing ecological connectivity between habitat areas is essential to allow the movement of animals and the propagules of fungi and plants across the urban landscape. This context-sensitive approach to site identification has been applied across diverse geographical contexts, including Europe (; ; Kowarik, 2021; Sikorski et al., 2021; Sikorska et al., 2021; Teixeira et al., 2021; Zoderer et al., 2024), Australia (; Ignatieva et al., 2020, 2024), Asia (; Hwang, 2025; Lamperty et al., 2023; Lehmann, 2021), and America (; Jorgensen and Keenan, 2012).
Once sites are selected, low-impact design and reduced management intensity become the core operational steps. Practices such as less frequent mowing, minimal irrigation, and eliminating chemical inputs allow native plants to establish and self-regulate, fostering natural successional processes. Creating mosaic habitats with diverse wild grasses, wildflowers, and shrubs can simultaneously support pollinators, birds, and other wildlife, while maintaining visually engaging spaces for residents (Pettorelli et al., 2022).
The final and ongoing step is adaptive monitoring and management. NBS alternatives require continuous observation of species composition, growth patterns, and ecological interactions to inform timely interventions. Iterative, practice-led approaches such as adjusting mowing regimes, controlling undesirable species (weeds), or modifying plantings are essential for long-term success (). Stewardship innovation, often overlooked in NBS design, can maximize the value of urban nature by fostering long-term community commitment to wilder green spaces (Nash et al., 2021).
In practice, site suitability is typically determined by urban planners in collaboration with ecologists, other experts, and local stakeholders, using criteria such as land availability, connectivity potential, and current usage patterns. Monitoring indicators may include species richness, vegetation structure, pollinator presence, user satisfaction, and perceived safety. Trade-offs can be resolved through iterative governance processes, combining political agenda setting, expert assessment and stakeholder input.
Pathway 2: Embedded inclusivity, equity, and justice
The second direction places stakeholder perspectives at the center of assisted urban rewilding, where social inclusivity and equity are critical to success. Our experience shows that NBS projects neglecting the needs, values, or participation of local communities risk failing or producing inequitable outcomes (, ; , ; ). Therefore, designing assisted urban rewilding as inclusive urban NBS requires tailored empowerment strategies, participatory planning and design, and adaptive management to respond to both ecological and social needs (; ; Kowarik, 2021; Wang and Xu, 2024; Wilderness Foundation Global, (WFG), 2020).
It is important to note that norms, such as inclusivity, equity, accessibility, and participatory governance, are inherently human and societal constructs. They shape how urban societies plan, manage, and engage with urban nature. While these norms do not directly interfere with spontaneous ecological processes, human activities such as maintenance or recreation may indirectly affect them. Because urban rewilding occurs within densely populated socio-ecological systems, these societal norms become essential for ensuring that spontaneous ecological processes can coexist with human use, expectations, and urban governance structures.
A key approach emerging from such participatory processes is the strategic use of “cues to care” that offers a practical design language for reconciling ecological function with social expectations, particularly when urban rewilding initiatives depart from conventional aesthetic norms (; Moesch et al., 2025). Incorporating orderly frames (e.g., mown borders, fences, pathways, or interpretive signage) around wilder core areas signals intentionality and stewardship, thereby fostering community acceptance and long-term commitment to rewilded spaces (Nassauer, 1995; Hostetler, 2021; O'Donnell et al., 2026).
Developing inclusive NBS also requires clear frameworks for stakeholder engagement that navigate the why, when, who, and how of participation (; Ibrahim et al., 2025). The principle of “leaving no one behind” is essential, especially in urban rewilding initiatives that challenge traditional landscape aesthetics. When applied flexibly and collaboratively with local communities, strong evaluation criteria enhance urban rewilding projects' quality by encouraging meaningful engagement, context-sensitive design, and stronger local ownership.
Establishing collaborative platforms, such as multi-stakeholder workshops, knowledge-sharing networks, and policy roundtables, enables practitioners, researchers, and policymakers to exchange insights and refine success criteria for assisted urban rewilding as NBS. Regular engagement through participatory monitoring, case study evaluations, and adaptive policy discussions can help bridge gaps between theory and practice. Promoting transparency in project design and evaluation, including clear articulation of how NBS principles are applied within the assisted urban rewilding intervention, remains essential.
Importantly, multiple stakeholder engagement in assisted urban rewilding should be differentiated across levels of co-creation (). These include a) informing (raising awareness on the intervention and its benefits), b) consulting (gathering feedback, e.g., through surveys, interviews, workshops), c) involvement and co-design (iterative dialogue, shared planning and decision-making), and 4) empowerment, including co-governance or stewardship (long-term shared responsibility for management and sense of ownership). Each level implies different degrees of power-sharing and institutional commitment, and the appropriate level should be defined contextually (, ). Potential conflicts between ecological goals (e.g., minimal intervention) and social expectations (e.g., safety, tidiness) should be considered and addressed through negotiated trade-offs, combining participatory dialogue with design tools such as “cues to care,” zoning (core wild vs. accessible edges), and adaptive management strategies (; ).
Pathway 3: Integration with blue-green infrastructure (BGI) and broader urban planning frameworks
Assisted urban rewilding should not exist in isolation but complement other urban NBS approaches (e.g., blue-green infrastructure) to maximize ecological connectivity, water management, and recreational value. By aligning urban rewilding interventions with existing urban blue-green infrastructure networks, cities can amplify both ecosystem and social benefits. This integration requires moving beyond siloed thinking to embrace polycentric governance models that coordinate across municipal departments, agencies, and stakeholders ().
When embedded within strategic blue-green infrastructure frameworks, such as river and creek restoration, blue-green corridors, stormwater management systems, and connected habitat networks, assisted urban rewilding contributes to multifunctional landscapes that simultaneously address flood resilience, biodiversity enhancement, and public space quality. Such alignment ensures that spontaneous ecological processes are not relegated to isolated pockets but become functional components of the wider urban fabric, reinforcing rather than competing with gray infrastructure (Vogt, 2025a,b). Integrating assisted urban rewilding with blue-green infrastructure requires understanding how existing policy arrangements and regulatory frameworks shape opportunities for biodiversity enhancement and community engagement ().
Illustrative examples from different geographical regions/cities demonstrate how assisted urban rewilding principles are already emerging in practice (Figure 2). A relevant European example is the transformation of post-industrial and vacant urban land in cities such as Berlin and Leipzig, Germany, where spontaneous vegetation has been intentionally retained and lightly managed to enhance biodiversity while maintaining accessibility. The urban rewilding interventions in former railway stations in Berlin (Naturpark Südgelände) and Leipzig (Lene-Voigt Park) combine reduced intervention with design elements (e.g., pathways, signage), demonstrating how assisted urban rewilding can align ecological priorities with public use and social acceptance. In North American cities, such as New York, urban rewilding-inspired approaches have been applied in urban public parks through reduced mowing regimes and the introduction of native species assemblages inspired by previously existing natural and semi-natural ecosystems. Restoring and maintaining designed “wild” landscapes in Central Park in New York and the Wild Yards Program in Columbia (Missouri) support urban biodiversity while remaining embedded within municipal planning frameworks, illustrating how assisted urban rewilding can be integrated into broader blue-green infrastructure strategies. In Australia and New Zealand, the understanding of urban rewilding differs from that in Europe and North America because of their natural characteristics (e.g. long-term isolation, high percentage of endemism of flora and vegetation and particular response of natural biomes to disturbance) and cultural peculiarities (e.g. indigenous cultures vs. colonial and post-colonial landscapes with dramatic loss of unique native biodiversity and introduction of thousands of new species that become naturalized and dominant in urban environment). Urban rewilding here means returning first (native) nature to urban green spaces (e.g., private gardens, public parks, and street verges). Organizations such as ReWild Perth specifically target “immediate action to improve biodiversity and access to habitat across the city while creating a beautiful, sustainable garden for your own home” and closely work with stakeholders (ReWild Perth, 2026). This urban rewilding strategy, along with those in other Australian cities (e.g., Melbourne, Adelaide, Sydney), could be included in the assisted urban rewilding category. However, it is explicitly targeted at the native biodiversity component, and, unlike Europe, such urban rewilding initiatives mean controlling the spontaneous process and succession, since in a modified urban environment, non-native spontaneous vegetation is dominant and unwanted. In public urban spaces, urban rewilding includes native planting in road verges, and restoration of native grasslands and local vegetation in parks, which also involves appropriate maintenance that helps to accept “wild” urban landscapes.
Figure 2
5 Limitations and risks of assisted urban rewilding
Despite its potential, assisted urban rewilding entails several risks and limitations that must be explicitly acknowledged. Ecologically, reduced management may facilitate the spread of invasive species (among them problematic vectors) or allergenic plants, requiring careful monitoring and selective intervention and continuous monitoring (Kowarik et al., 2025). Socially, “wilder” landscapes resulting from urban rewilding interventions can generate concerns related to safety, aesthetics, and accessibility, particularly in densely populated or culturally diverse urban contexts. Governance challenges also arise, including unclear maintenance responsibilities, liability issues, and potential conflicts between municipal authorities and community actors. Furthermore, the benefits of rewilded spaces may be unevenly distributed, reinforcing existing socio-spatial inequalities if not deliberately addressed.
To mitigate these risks, practitioners should combine forms of low-invasive (earth observation and camera-supported) ecological monitoring with participatory processes, apply “cues to care” and other related landscape design strategies, establish clear governance arrangements, and ensure equitable access to benefits across communities. Acknowledging these trade-offs is essential for positioning assisted urban rewilding as a realistic and implementable NBS approach rather than an idealized concept.
6 Conclusion
As an inclusive NBS, assisted urban rewilding offers a transformative pathway to urban sustainability. However, its success hinges on the integration of ecological goals with inclusive planning, governance, and community engagement. Building on networked knowledge from URBIO, SURE, and ESP, along with prior empirical and conceptual work and scientific literature, we advocate a socially aware and ecologically robust approach to urban rewilding. This approach positions assisted urban rewilding as a cornerstone of NBS for sustainable and resilient cities. Incorporating assisted urban rewilding into the NBS framework ensures that ecological restoration actively supports social equity, governance, and long-term resilience.
Crucially, embracing flexibility and experimentation is key to scaling assisted urban rewilding across diverse urban contexts. Not all successful interventions will conform to conventional NBS criteria (see IUCN, 2020), yet they can offer valuable lessons and co-benefits. As urban wilderness narratives continue to evolve, embracing the tension between control and cohabitation will be essential for designing urban rewilding initiatives that are both ecologically meaningful and socially resonant (O'Donnell et al., 2026). The Global Charter for Rewilding the Earth further reinforces the importance of NBS in addressing extinction and climate crises, positioning rewilding as a cornerstone of global sustainability efforts (Wilderness Foundation Global, (WFG), 2020). Therefore, future research and practice should continue to explore mechanisms for scaling these approaches, especially in cities, while prioritizing equity and biodiversity outcomes. Achieving this requires sustained cross-network learning, adaptive governance, and genuine partnerships with local communities to ensure that urban rewilding fulfills its potential as an inclusive, multifunctional, and context-sensitive NBS for tomorrow's cities.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
DD: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. DH: Validation, Writing – review & editing. MI: Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. The study was developed within the scope of the UFZ Research Unit 1 Ecosystems of the future and Research Unit 6 Environment and society as well as with the support of the RUDN University Scientific Projects grant system and Strategic Academic Leadership Program (Diana Dushkova). Open Access is enabled and organized by the UFZ publication fund.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the participants of the URBIO 2022, 2024, 2025, ESP 2024, and SURE 2025 conference sessions for valuable discussions and insights, which contributed to shaping the ideas presented in this manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author DH declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
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.
References
1
BonthouxS.CholletS. (2024). Wilding cities for biodiversity and people: a transdisciplinary framework. Biol. Rev.99, 1458–1480. doi: 10.1111/brv.13076
2
ChaussonA.TurnerB.SeddonD.ChabaneixN.GirardinC. A. J.KaposV.et al. (2020). Mapping the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation. Glob. Chang. Biol.26, 6134–6155. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15310
3
ChenY.NijhuisS.Van DorstM. (2024). Visitors' perceptions of urban wilderness: a case study of jiangyangfan ecological park in Hangzhou, China. Urban For. Urban Green.95:128319. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128319
4
CirellaG. T. (2025). Visual scenario preferences as social-ecological indicators of urban rewilding support: evidence from six pennsylvania cities. Hum. Settlem. Sustain.1, 227–236. doi: 10.1016/j.hssust.2025.08.003
5
CirellaG. T.KempaJ.PaczoskiA.et al. (2026). Stakeholder perceptions and planning implications for urban rewilding as a nature-based solution in Poland. Sci. Rep.16:2792. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-32655-x
6
Cohen-ShachamE.CabecinhaE.AndradeA. (Eds.) (2025). Applying the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions™: 21 case studies from around the globe. Gland: IUCN. doi: 10.2305/RFTD6180
7
Cohen-ShachamE.WaltersG.JanzenC.MaginnisS. (2016). Nature-Based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges. Gland: IUCN. doi: 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en
8
ConnopS.NashC.ElliotJ.HaaseD.DushkovaD. (2020). Nature-based solution evaluation indicators: environmental indicators review. CONNECTING Nature project Deliverable 20200618. Available online at: https://connectingnature.eu/sites/default/files/images/inline/CN_Env_Indicators_Review_0.pdf (Accessed April 17, 2026).
9
DunlopT.KhojastehD.Cohen-ShachamE.et al. (2024). The evolution and future of research on nature-based solutions to address societal challenges. Commun. Earth Environ.5:132. doi: 10.1038/s43247-024-01308-8
10
DushkovaD.HaaseD. (2020). Not simply green: nature-based solutions as a concept and practical approach for sustainability studies and planning agendas in cities. Land9:19. doi: 10.3390/land9010019
11
DushkovaD.HaaseD. (2023). “Resilient cities, healthy communities, and sustainable future: How do nature-based solutions contribute?” in Handbook of Social Sciences and Global Public Health, ed. P. Liamputtong, (Cham: Springer), 1–24. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-96778-9_133-1
12
DushkovaD.IgnatievaM. (2025a). Rethinking urban lawns: rewilding and other nature-based alternatives. Diversity17:830. doi: 10.3390/d17120830
13
DushkovaD.IgnatievaM. (2025b). Research in urban ecology: application into landscape design and green infrastructure. Land14:2297. doi: 10.3390/land14122297
14
DushkovaD.IgnatievaM.KonstantinovaA.NilonC.MüllerN. (2024). Urban biodiversity and design in time of (post)pandemics: research perspectives from URBIO international network. Urban Ecosyst.27, 1767–1779. doi: 10.1007/s11252-024-01547-9
15
DushkovaD.IvlievaO. (2024). Empowering communities to act for a change: a review of community empowerment programs toward sustainability and resilience. Sustainability16:8700. doi: 10.3390/su16198700
16
DushkovaD.IvlievaO.PougetC.VandewalleM. (2025). How to support communities in the long-term sustainability transition: the tailored empowerment program. Blue-Green Syst.7, 210–237. doi: 10.2166/bgs.2025.049
17
DushkovaD.IvlievaO.VandewalleM.CarascoA. R.Pontón-CevallosJ.SieberI. M.et al. (2026). Just and inclusive enough? Designing inclusive NBS to support communities in their just transition toward sustainability and resilience. Nat.Based Solut.9:100306. doi: 10.1016/j.nbsj,.2026.100306
18
DushkovaD.KuhlickeC. (2024). Making co-creation operational: a reconect seven-step pathway and practical guide for co-creating nature-based solutions. MethodsX12:102495. doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2023.102495
19
EC – European Commission (2023). Nature-based solutions for biodiversity and climate. Available online at: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/biodiversity/nature-based-solutions-biodiversity-climate_en (Accessed January 20, 2026).
20
EC – European Commission, (2021). Evaluating the Impact of Nature-Based Solutions: A Summary for Policy Makers. Luxembourg: Publications Office.
21
FarahaniM. L.MallerC. (2019). Investigating the benefits of ‘leftover' places: residents' use and perceptions of an informal greenspace in Melbourne. Urban For. Urban Green.41, 292–302. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2019.04.017
22
Farinha-MarquesP.FernandesC. O.TeixeiraC. P. (2018). Disturbed, restored and novel ecosystems—concepts and practices challenging landscape planning, design and management in the 21st century. Ann. Wars. Univ. Life Sci. Hortic. Landsc. Archit.39, 17–25. doi: 10.22630/AHLA.2018.39.2
23
FinnertyP. B.CartheyA. J. R.BanksP. B.BrewsterR.GrueberC. E.HoustonD.et al. (2025). Urban rewilding to combat global biodiversity decline. Bioscience75, 545–558. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biaf062
24
GordonI. J.ManningA. D.NavarroL. M.Rouet-LeducJ. (2021). Domestic livestock and rewilding: are they mutually exclusive?Front. Sustain. Food Syst.5:550410. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.550410
25
HaaseD.DushkovaD. (2024). Embracing ambivalence as the key to promoting tree diversity as nature-based solutions in European cities. Urban Ecosyst.27, 1837–1846. doi: 10.1007/s11252-024-01555-9
26
HanS.PlavsicJ.DushkovaD.GebhardtO.IzydorczykK.Kovačević-MajkićJ.et al. (2025). Beyond individual barriers: a systems approach to understanding and addressing nature-based solutions implementation challenges. Clim. Risk Manag. 50:100739. doi: 10.1016/j.crm.2025.100739
27
HostetlerM. (2021). Cues to care: future directions for ecological landscapes. Urban Ecosyst.24, 11–19. doi: 10.1007/s11252-020-00990-8
28
HwangY. H. (2025). Urban rewilding in Singapore: from a conservation strategy to a sociocultural proposition. Urban Ecosyst.28:153. doi: 10.1007/s11252-025-01766-8
29
IbrahimA.MarshallK.CarmenE.BlackstockK. L.WaylenK. A. (2025). Raising standards for stakeholder engagement in nature-based solutions: navigating the why, when, who, and how. Environ. Sci. Policy163:103971. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103971
30
IgnatievaM.DushkovaD.MartinD. J.MofradF.StewartK.HughesM. (2023b). From one to many natures: integrating divergent urban nature visions to support nature-based solutions in Australia and Europe. Sustainability15:4640. doi: 10.3390/su15054640
31
IgnatievaM.DushkovaD.NilonC.HaaseD.KnappS.BittorfN. (Eds.) (2023a). “Integrating biodiversity in urban planning and design processes,”Book of abstracts of the 7th International Conference of the network URBIO – Urban Biodiversity & Design, 28–30 November 2022, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, Germany. Leipzig: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ.
32
IgnatievaM.HaaseD.DushkovaD.HaaseA. (2020). Lawns in cities: From a globalised urban green space phenomenon to sustainable nature-based solutions. Land9:73. doi: 10.3390/land9030073
33
IgnatievaM.HughesM.ChaudharyA. K.MofradF. (2024). The lawn as a social and cultural phenomenon in Perth, Western Australia. Land13:191. doi: 10.3390/land13020191
34
ILO-UNEP-IUCN (2024). Decent Work in Nature-based Solutions. Geneva: Unlocking jobs through investment in skills and nature-based infrastructure, ILO-IUCN. Available online at: https://www.ilo.org/publications/decent-work-nature-based-solutions-2024-unlocking-jobs-through-investment (Accessed January 24, 2026).
35
IPBES (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, eds. E. S. Brondízio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo (Bonn: IPBES secretariat), 1–1082. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3831673
36
IPBES (2024). Thematic Assessment Report on the Underlying Causes of Biodiversity Loss and the Determinants of Transformative Change and Options for Achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, eds. K. O'Brien, L. Garibaldi, and A. Agrawal (Bonn: IPBES secretariat). doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11382215
37
IUCN, (2020). Global Standard For Nature-Based Solutions: A User-Friendly Framework for the Verification, Design And Scaling Up of NbS. Gland: IUCN.
38
JorgensenA.KeenanR. (2012). Urban wildscapes. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203807545
39
KayC. A. M.RohnkeA. T.SanderH. A.StankowichT.FidinoM.MurrayM. H.et al. (2022). Barriers to building wildlife-inclusive cities: insights from the deliberations of urban ecologists, urban planners, and landscape designers. People Nat.4, 62–70. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10283
40
KimH. M.SabriS.KentA. (Eds.) (2021). “Smart cities as a platform for technological and social innovation in productivity, sustainability, and liveability: A conceptual framework,” in Smart Cities for Technological and Social Innovation. (Cambridge, MA: Academic Press), 9–28. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818886-6.00002-2
41
KotsilaP.AnguelovskiI.BaróF.LangemeyerJ.SekulovaF.ConnollyJ. T. (2020). Nature-based solutions as discursive tools and contested practices in urban nature's neoliberalisation processes. Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space4, 252–274. doi: 10.1177/2514848620901437
42
KowarikI. (2018). Urban wilderness: supply, demand, and access. Urban For. Urban Green.29, 336–347. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.017
43
KowarikI. (2021). Working with wilderness: a promising direction for urban green spaces. Landsc. Archit. Front.9, 92–104. doi: 10.15302/J-LAF-1-030025
44
KowarikI.FischerL. K.HaaseD.et al. (2025). Promoting urban biodiversity for the benefit of people and nature. Nat. Rev. Biodivers. doi: 10.1038/s44358-025-00035-y
45
KumarP.SahaniJ.Corada PerezK.AhlawatA.YaoR. (2025). Urban greening for climate resilient and sustainable cities: grand challenges and opportunities. Front. Sustain. Cities7:1595280. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2025.1595280
46
LampertyT.ChiokW. X.KhooM. D. Y.AmirZ.BakerN.ChuaM. A. H.et al. (2023). Rewilding in Southeast Asia: Singapore as a case study. Conserv. Sci. Pract.5:e12899. doi: 10.1111/csp2.12899
47
LehmannS. (2021). Growing biodiverse urban futures: renaturalization and rewilding as strategies to strengthen urban resilience. Sustainability13:2932. doi: 10.3390/su13052932
48
LehmannS. (2022). “Green cities: nature-based solutions, renaturing and rewilding cities,” in The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Futures (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan). doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-51812-7_20-1
49
LevE.Kahn JrP. H.ChenH.EsperumG. (2020). Relatively wild urban parks can promote human resilience and flourishing: a case study of discovery park, seattle, Washington. Front. Sustain. Cities2:2. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2020.00002
50
LuJ.ChengY.QiX.ChenH.LinX. (2024). Rethinking urban wilderness: status, hotspots, and prospects of ecosystem services. J. Environ. Manage.364:121366. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121366
51
MoeschS. S.HaaseD.ZodererB. M.LokatisS. (2025). Into the urban wild: overcoming barriers to urban rewilding through expert perspectives on benefits, hurdles, and measures for creating wilder greenspaces. Cities Environ.18:4. doi: 10.15365/cate.2025.180104
52
MoeschS. S.JeschkeJ. M.LokatisS.PeerenboomG.Kramer-SchadtS.StrakaT. M.et al. (2024). The frequent five: Insights from interviews with urban wildlife professionals in Germany. People Nat.6, 2091–2108. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10697
53
MoxonS.WebbJ.SemertziA.SamangooeiM. (2023). Wild ways: a scoping review to understand urban-rewilding behaviour in relation to adaptations to private gardens. Cities Health7, 888–902. doi: 10.1080/23748834.2023.2218016
54
NashC.RumbleH.ConnopS. (2021). “Stewardship innovation: The forgotten component in maximising the value of urban nature-based solutions,” in Urban Services to Ecosystems: Green Infrastructure Benefits from the Landscape to the Urban Scale, eds. C. Catalano, M. B. Andreucci, R. Guarino, F. Bretzel, M. Leone, and S. Pasta (Cham: Springer), 165–195. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-75929-2_9
55
NassauerJ. I. (1995). Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landsc. J.14, 161–170. doi: 10.3368/lj.14.2.161
56
NilonC.IgnatievaM.AronsonM.Rega-BrodskyC. (eds.). (2024). “Urban biodiversity and design 2024: urban biodiversity and design for local communities,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Urban Biodiversity and Design International Network, June 24-26, 2024 (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri). doi: 10.32469/10355/103842
57
O'DonnellM.Pineda-PintoM.AnderssonE.CollierM. (2026). From control to cohabitation: social-ecological insights on urban wildness narratives. Urban For. Urban Green.117:129279. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2026.129279
58
PettorelliN.DurantS. M.du ToitJ. T. (Eds.) (2019). Rewilding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781108560962
59
PettorelliN.Schulte to BühneH.CunninghamA. A.DancerA.DebneyA.DurantS. M.et al. (2022). Rewilding Our Cities; ZSL report. London: ZSL.
60
ReWild Perth (2026). Bringing Nature Home. Available online at: https://rewildperth.com.au (Accessed April 18, 2026).
61
RicholdJ. (2023). Toward a new aesthetics of care: a critical reading of nassauer's cues to care. Independent project. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Available at: https://stud.epsilon.slu.se (Accessed January 12, 2026).
62
RussoA.SardeshpandeM.RupprechtC. D. D. (2025). Urban rewilding for sustainability and food security. Land Use Policy149:107410. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107410
63
SeddonN.DanielsE.DavisR.ChaussonA.HarrisR.Hou-JonesX.et al. (2020). Global recognition of the importance of nature-based solutions to the impacts of climate change. Glob. Sustain.3, 1–12. doi: 10.1017/sus.2020.8
64
SieberI. M.CarrascoA. R.Gañán de MolinaC.PrallM.TiwariA.NtemiriS.et al. (2024). Building resilient coastal communities through nature-based solutions and empowerment tools (Eklipse Evidence Report No. 01/2024). Brussels: EKLIPSE.
65
SikorskaD.CieżkowskiW.BabańczykP.ChormańskiJ.SikorskiP. (2021). Intended wilderness as a nature-based solution: status, identification and management of urban spontaneous vegetation in cities. Urban For Urban Green 62:127155. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127155
66
SikorskiP.GawryszewskaB.SikorskaD.ChormańskiJ.SchwerkA.JojczykA.et al. (2021). The value of doing nothing—how informal green spaces can provide comparable ecosystem services to cultivated urban parks. Ecosyst. Serv.50:101339. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101339
67
SimoneA.NielsenM. (2022). “Rewilding the city: Urban life and resistance across and beyond visibility,” in The new politics of visibility: Spaces, actors, practices, and technologies in the visible. Bristol: Intellect Ltd.
68
TeixeiraC. P.FernandesC. O.AhernJ. (2021). Novel urban ecosystems: Opportunities from and to landscape architecture. Land10:844. doi: 10.3390/land10080844
69
TreeI. (2018). Wilding: The Return of Nature to a British Farm. London: Picador.
70
VogtM. (2025a). Refined wilding for functional biodiversity in urban landscapes: a verification and contextualisation. Urban Sci.9:21. doi: 10.3390/urbansci9020021
71
VogtM. (2025b). Refined wilding and functional biodiversity in smart cities for improved sustainable urban development. Land14:1284. doi: 10.3390/land14061284
72
WangD.XuP. Y. (2024). Urban green infrastructure: bridging biodiversity conservation and sustainable urban development through adaptive management approach. Front. Ecol. Evol.12:1440477. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2024.1440477
73
Wilderness Foundation Global (WFG). (2020). Global charter for rewilding the Earth: Advancing nature-based solutions to the extinction and climate crises. Available online at: https://issuu.com/ijwilderness/docs/rewildingcharter_final2 (Accessed December 12, 2025).
74
ZodererB. M.Hainz-RenetzederC. (2025). Enabling wild nature experiences in cities: a spatial analysis of institutional and physical barriers to using wild nature areas in Vienna, Austria. Landsc. Urban Plan.254:105228. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105228
75
ZodererB. M.Hainz-RenetzederC.VuoloF. (2024). Mapping wild nature areas to identify priority areas for urban rewilding in cities: a process-oriented approach. Urban For Urban Green101:128549. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128549
Summary
Keywords
assisted urban rewilding, co-creation, nature-based solutions, sustainable urban development, urban rewilding
Citation
Dushkova D, Haase D and Ignatieva M (2026) Urban rewilding assisted: from spontaneous nature to multifunctional and inclusive nature-based solutions for sustainable cities. Front. Sustain. Cities 8:1830220. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2026.1830220
Received
13 March 2026
Revised
26 April 2026
Accepted
28 April 2026
Published
15 May 2026
Volume
8 - 2026
Edited by
Melissa Vogt, Independent Researcher, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Reviewed by
Gemechu Jebeso Morketo, Central European University, Austria
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Dushkova, Haase and Ignatieva.
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: Diana Dushkova, diana.dushkova@ufz.de
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.