Despite repeated calls to action, proposals for urban conservation are often met with surprise or scepticism. There remains a pervasive narrative in policy, practice, and the public psyche that urban environments, although useful for engaging people with nature or providing ecosystem services, are of little conservation value. We argue that the tendency to overlook the conservation value of urban environments stems from misconceptions about the ability of native species to persist within cities and towns and that this, in turn, hinders effective conservation action. However, recent scientific evidence shows that these assumptions do not always hold. Although it is generally true that increasing the size, quality, and connectivity of habitat patches will improve the probability that a species can persist, the inverse is not that small, degraded, or fragmented habitats found in urban environments are worthless. In light of these findings we propose updated messages that guide and inspire researchers, practitioners, and decision makers to undertake conservation action in urban environments: consider small spaces, recognize unconventional habitats, test creative solutions, and use science to minimize the impacts of future urban development.

Wildlife crossing structures can provide safe passage for wildlife across transportation corridors, and can help mitigate the effects of highways and exclusion fencing on wildlife. Due to their costs, wildlife crossing structures are usually installed sparsely and at strategic locations along transportation networks. Alternatively, non-wildlife underpasses (i.e. conventional underpasses for human and domestic animal use) are usually abundant along major infrastructure corridors and could potentially provide safe crossing opportunities for wildlife. To investigate this, we monitored the use of 40 non-wildlife underpasses by roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), and moose (Alces alces) in south-central Sweden. We found that roe deer and moose use non-wildlife underpasses, and prefer underpasses that are at least 11.5 m wide and 5 m tall. Furthermore, roe deer used structures that had little human co-use and were in locations where the forest cover differed on both sides of the highway. In most cases, roe deer and moose were detected within 50 m of the underpass more than they were detected crossing under them. This suggests that animals often approach underpasses without crossing under them, however modifications to underpass design may improve non-wildlife underpass use. We recommend non-wildlife underpasses at gravel and minor roads, particularly those with little human co-use and with variable forest cover on both sides of the highway, be built wider than 11.5 m and taller than 5 m.

Prey species may display anti‐predatory behavior, i.e., flight, increased vigilance, and decreased feeding, in response to the true presence of a predator or to the implied presence of a predator through, e.g., acoustic cues. In this study, we investigated the anti‐predatory reactions of moose (Alces alces) to acoustic stimuli related to hunting, at saltlick stones, a known attractant. In before‐during‐after‐control‐impact experiments, we compared the behavioral responses of individuals to: (i) two hunting‐related acoustic stimuli—hunting dog barking and human speaking; (ii) nonpredatory acoustic stimuli—bird sounds and; and (iii) no acoustic stimulus (control). We asked: (1) How does the probability of moose leaving the site differ depending on the stimulus they are exposed to?; (2) What affect do the acoustic stimuli have on the amount of time moose spend vigilant, feeding, or away from the site?; and (3) What affect do the stimuli have on the time between events at a site? We found that when exposed to the human stimulus, moose left the sites in 75% of the events, which was significantly more often compared to the dog (39%), bird (24%), or silent (11%) events. If moose did not leave the site, they spent more time vigilant, and less time feeding, particularly when exposed to a dog or human stimulus. Furthermore, moose spent the most time away from the site and took the longest to visit the site again after a human stimulus. Moose were also more likely to leave the site when exposed to the bird stimulus than during silent controls. Those that remained spent more time vigilant, but their behaviors returned to baseline after the bird stimulus ended. These findings suggest that acoustic stimuli can be used to modify the behavior of moose; however, reactions towards presumably threatening and nonthreatening stimuli were not as distinct as we had expected.

Gray wolves ( Canis lupus ) are recolonizing many parts of central Europe and are a key part of international conservation directives. However, roads may hinder the reestablishment of gray wolves throughout their historic range by reducing landscape connectivity and increasing mortality from wildlife‐vehicle collisions. The impact of roads on wolves might be mitigated by the construction of green bridges (i.e., large vegetated overpasses, designed to accommodate the movement of wildlife over transportation corridors). In this study, we investigated the seasonal and diurnal use of a green bridge by wolves and three of their main prey species: red deer ( Cervus elaphus ), roe deer ( Capreolus capreolus ), and wild boar ( Sus scrofa ). We found that all four species used the green bridge. Wolves were most active in winter, whereas prey species were most active in spring and summer. All species were more active at dusk and during the night than at dawn and during the day. We found no evidence that wolf presence influenced bridge‐use by prey species, consistent with other tests of the prey‐trap hypothesis. Our results suggest that green bridges are used by wolves and prey species alike, and may foster connectivity and recolonization for these species in rewilding landscapes.