Urban wildlife in India has largely disappeared. But they can be brought back

When I was growing up in Kolkata in the 1980s and 1990s, the tiny patches of urban forests that grew around dilapidated houses and on empty pieces of land that were under property litigation became hosts to thousands of tiny wildlife that somewhat became part and parcel of our lives. I remember we played hide and seek in one such forest, with a pair of mango trees, a neem, a few wood apples and some betel nuts, and heavy undergrowth where I had first come face to face with a Bengal fox. The unassuming canine was also stunned by the presence of a slightly taller human, looking with equally curious eyes at it.

There used to be a palm civet that lived with its family on one of the betel nut trees, the leaves of which would grow into one of the windows of my house. The civet family would occasionally take the liberty to sneak in during the afternoons or late evenings to snack on leftover food or fruits that were left casually on the tables. I remember there would never be a ruckus over wild animals entering houses to feed. While today it seems preposterous, little did we realise that those would likely be the last time we would see these animals. The foxes and civets living in this tiny space too had learnt to adapt to our presence, while the city grew around them.

Our house, built in the early 1900s, had a wood apple tree in the courtyard. However, it was not planted for shade but primarily for religious reasons—a pair of cobras had settled in one of the tree’s barks and coexisted quite peacefully, often feeding on the offerings at the base of the tree. I can’t imagine a pair of cobras settling in a modern household in an Indian city without being ‘rescued’.

A 2023 paper titled Human-wildlife interactions in Urban Asia, which reviewed 528 studies from various Asian countries, analysed trends in research from 1984 to 2020. It found that invertebrates were the most frequently studied group, appearing in 38 per cent of the reviewed studies, followed by birds (28.9 per cent) and mammals (27.8 per cent). These studies addressed both conflict and coexistence between humans and wildlife. In contrast, amphibians, reptiles, and fish were the least represented. Among invertebrates, butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera) were the focus in 12.4 per cent of studies, followed by sawflies, wasps, ants, and bees (Hymenoptera) at 11.4 per cent, and beetles (Coleoptera) at 10.9 per cent. Within the mammal category, species from the order Carnivora—such as large cats, foxes, dogs, bears, and canines—were the most commonly studied, comprising 32 per cent of mammal-related abstracts.

During my board exam preparations, a pair of house sparrows made their nest on the pelmet in my study room. Unfazed by my presence, they busily brought in twigs and bits of grass, as if trusting me to watch over their little haven. By the time my exams ended, three chicks had hatched, their cheerful chirping filling the room as their parents flew in and out through the open windows, bringing food. I never closed those windows, wanting to give them free passage. Even now, I believe true cohabitation isn’t about rescuing wildlife—it’s about preserving safe spaces and open corridors where they can thrive. As sparrow populations decline in many cities, I still quietly hope for a nest tucked away in some corner, where they can come and go freely, just like they once did in mine.

The study concludes that “ultimately, human-wildlife interaction studies can contribute to wildlife conservation by informing our understanding of the layered and diverse relationships between humans and wildlife applicable across regions. Urban design, which considers these human-wildlife interactions, can help decrease the likelihood of negative encounters between humans and wildlife by considering both the built and natural environment within the urban environment. Urban design which successfully incorporates ecological interactions with other anthropogenic needs (e.g., cultural values, recreational needs, health considerations) can help change attitudes towards wildlife, further increasing the value of wildlife-friendly cities to conserving biodiversity”.

Recently, when I spotted a skink outside the door at my house in Delhi, I realised we had grown so accustomed to this cohabitation model that we failed to realise that we would never feel their absence. One day in Kolkata, after I had returned from school, a group of men with bulldozers was mowing down this patch of green, perhaps burying the fox dens and a few bird nests.

According to a training manual prepared under the Climate Smart cities assessment framework, the number of plant species in urban areas correlates with human population size, than it does with the size of the city area. The city’s age affects species richness; large, older cities have more plant species than large, younger cities. Twenty per cent of the world’s bird species and five per cent of the vascular plant species occur in cities; 70 per cent of the plant species and 94 per cent of the bird species found in urban areas are native to the surrounding region.

A study titled Ecological Impacts of Urbanisation on Indian Wildlife, published in the International Journal of Innovative Research and Creative Technology, found that habitat fragmentation and loss are among the foremost consequences of urbanisation on Indian wildlife. As cities expand and natural landscapes are converted into urban areas, roads, and agricultural fields, wildlife habitats become increasingly fragmented and isolated. This fragmentation disrupts ecological connectivity and reduces the size and quality of remaining habitats, which are vital for the survival and reproduction of many species. Fragmented habitats often cannot support populations requiring larger territories or specific ecological conditions, leading to species richness and biodiversity declines.

Public perception has also played a role in the decline of urban wildlife. In the 1990s and early 2000s, media narratives often portrayed wild animals as threats—rogue leopards, killer snakes, nuisance monkeys. These portrayals fueled fear and led to retaliatory killings, further reducing urban biodiversity.

Yet, many of these animals provided essential ecosystem services. Black kites helped clean up organic waste. Snakes controlled rodent populations. Civets dispersed seeds. Their presence was not just a curiosity but a form of ecological balance.

Today, conservationists stress the importance of coexistence. Urban ecosystems are not just about green spaces but shared spaces. Cities can and should be designed to accommodate both humans and wildlife. Rooftop gardens, green corridors, native tree plantations, and community awareness programs can all help restore some of the lost. Most importantly, patches of green in cities can be left to grow naturally instead of cosmetic makeovers with concrete and stones that block the access of wildlife species to the soil they depend on.

But the most crucial step is remembering the foxes and civets, the trees and the silence, how we once lived alongside the wild without fear or hostility. Only by remembering can we begin to rebuild.

Somreet Bhattacharya is a former journalist-turned-wildlife author who writes on ecology, conservation

Views expressed are author's own and don't necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth