Urban Wildness—A More Correct Term Than “Urban Wilderness”

Abstract

The concept of wilderness (荒野) has multiple characteristics and values relating to three principal areas: biological, socio-economic, and iconic. To provide clarity of concept, the term was included in the IUCN’s list of Protected Area Categories in 1992. More recently, a current and fashionable expression “urban wilderness” has emerged. For those who believe in the critical importance of natural wilderness areas to the future health and wellbeing of our planet, and who work to protect these areas, the term “urban wilderness” causes much consternation. It is very possible that such usages will create confusion in the mind of urban dwellers—now the majority of the global population—as to what “real” wilderness is. By definition, cities cannot be “wilderness” technically. However, elements of wilderness can and should be present in and around urban areas to enhance human health and quality of life. Rather than calling this urban wilderness, however, the term should be “urban wildness (野境).” This paper presents a rationale for using “urban wildness” to replace “urban wilderness,” citing some of the characteristics and benefits of urban wildness; provides case studies of urban areas that are working successfully with the concept; elucidates the role and challenges of wild animals (especially predators) in urban areas; and finally, gives an example of an engagement and educational methodology connecting urban dwellers to wild values and benefits.

Keywords

Urban Wildness / Urban Wilderness / Human Wildlife Coexistence / Biodiversity / Wilderness / City Nature Challenge / Environmental Education / Nature in the City / Predator–Prey

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2021 Higher Education Press