animals

Communication
Animals and Cities: A Reflection on Their Potential in
Innovating Nature-Based Solutions
Giulia Granai * , Carmen Borrelli , Chiara Mariti and Francesco Di Iacovo

Department of Veterinary Science, University of Pisa, Viale delle Piagge 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy;
[email protected] (C.B.); [email protected] (C.M.); [email protected] (F.D.I.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Simple Summary: Animals have always lived with humans, but their presence in cities is growing.
This phenomenon warrants a specific reflection on the advantages of human–animal interactions
as a potential nature-based solution (solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, which
provide environmental, social, and economic benefits). This article aims to provide an overview of
the current situation of animals in cities and to explore the roles of animals and their interactions
with humans in such a context. Through the lens of the European project IN-HABIT in Lucca (Italy)
(which aims to codify an integrated policy on the relationship between people and animals that will
then be transferred and replicated in other cities), we investigated all these aspects. In addition, our
work suggests the need for the involvement of different stakeholders in the implementation of actions
that aim to valorize human–animal relationships and their positive effects.

Abstract: In recent decades, nature-based solutions (NBSs) have spread in scientific research, and
they are increasingly deployed in cities’ strategic planning. While the number of nonhuman animals
in cities is growing, a specific reflection on the advantages of human–animal interactions as potential
NBSs is still lacking. This article aims to provide an overview of the current situation of animals
in cities and to explore the roles of animals and their interactions with humans in such a context.
These topics are crucial to the European project IN-HABIT in Lucca (Italy), which aims to codify an
integrated policy on the relationship between people and animals; its outputs will then be transferred
and replicated in other cities. This article concludes by highlighting the need for the involvement
of different stakeholders in public–private–people partnerships to implement actions that aim to
Citation: Granai, G.; Borrelli, C.;
valorize human–animal relationships and their positive effects. This study presents a perspective on
Mariti, C.; Di Iacovo, F. Animals and
the relevance of animal NBSs to increase the quality of life in cities, both for citizens and for animals
Cities: A Reflection on Their Potential
in Innovating Nature-Based Solutions.
living in cities, and to also introduce the opportunity to develop an integrated animal urban policy
Animals 2024, 14, 680. https:// able to valorize human–animal interactions in cities.
doi.org/ 10.3390/ani14050680
Keywords: nature-based solutions; animals; human–animal interaction
Academic Editor: Laura A. Reese

Received: 7 November 2023

Revised: 21 December 2023
Accepted: 22 December 2023 1. Introduction
Published: 21 February 2024 Cities are expected to host the increasing world population in the future, generating
expectations as well as questions regarding how to ensure services and future prosperity [1]
for their inhabitants. The urbanization trend in society moves in parallel with growing
challenges related to environmental and social aspects in addition the economic aspects.
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Alongside the population growth in urban contexts, social diversity and inequalities have
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
also increased in recent decades [2–5]. Traditionally, economic opportunities have been
distributed under the terms and
linked to the development of the private economic sector, while it has been the role of the
conditions of the Creative Commons state to intervene and regulate access to environmental resources and ensure basic societal
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// needs [6]. Emerging environmental and societal challenges are seen as part of a neo-liberal
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ economic approach that disconnects value creation at the territorial level and especially
4.0/). access to environmental and societal public goods [7]. In times of fiscal crisis [8] and budget

Animals 2024, 14, 680. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14050680 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/animals

Animals 2024, 14, 680 2 of 20

constraints of public administrations and municipalities [9], the provision of public goods
has started to become a topic of discussion.
In addition to environmental issues, cities are also tackling emerging societal inequali-
ties linked to their reorganization and socio-geographical fragmentation. The emerging
urban inequalities regard suburban and central areas, gentrification, aging, and interethnic,
intergenerational, and income divides. These societal trends are culminating in new prob-
lematic issues, such as an increasing NEET and youth learning disabilities ratio, isolation,
gender inequalities, and labor market divides [10,11].
All societal needs used to be tackled by the public welfare and social/health services.
Nowadays, welfare reorganization is under discussion, both in the cities and at the country
level [12–14], and the so-called post-welfare cities [15] look to shadow care infrastructures.
They emerge from the involvement of new actors and resources organized by a new mix
of public institutions, NGOs, and new actors designing innovative and still unformalized
practices. Such a cluster of new initiatives represents the struggle and the starting point for
a transformative scenario able to redesign more inclusive infrastructures in urban areas.
Such novelties might then be developed toward transition management paths [16].
In Europe and abroad, the opportunity to reshape public intervention, the involvement
of local stakeholders (private and citizens), the mobilization of existing local resources, the
provision of ecosystem services [17], and the promotion of the innovative use of nature
are becoming bricks of an ongoing possible positive emerging scenario to improve local
quality of life. In such a scenario, the so-called nature-based solutions (NBSs) are seen both
as an opportunity for life improvements and as possible activators of innovative paths
and partnerships among diverse public and private actors. The (co-)design of NBSs is
mainly debated to tackle environmental issues (such as pollution, warming cities, and
water management) but also to redesign public spaces for more positive interactions among
citizens and the generation of more attractive cities (for inhabitants, investors, and visitors
alike) [2,10,18–20].
The discussion on public goods and NBSs focuses on the possible space to introduce
suitable and unconventional solutions to tackle emerging societal needs in society and how
to foster their use to reduce disparities and problematic environmental impacts. At the
same time, the debate on NBSs mainly focuses on green/plant-based solutions without
considering the possible role of animals, although the presence of animals in cities has a
historical role [21,22].
Nowadays, there is a new increasing presence in terms of numbers as well as in
the role of animals in cities. In Western countries, the growing presence of animals is
mainly a personal/family choice to introduce and start relationships with nonhuman
animals in everyday life (dogs, cats, birds, and unconventional companion animals, but
also traditionally food-producing animals). In addition, wild animals also live in cities.
The wider presence of animals in cities opens space for a new reflection on their possible
impacts in an urbanizing society from different perspectives. As with plants, animals might
offer support to urban dwellers and generate opportunities for improving the urban quality
of life as well as for supporting people in need, strengthening individual quality of life, and
contributing to new societal supports [23,24].
This article begins with the growing debate on nature-based solutions in cities and
their possible role in the provision of environmental, social, and economic opportunities.
Then, we underline the lack of attention on the possible role of nonhuman animals in cities
and the possible outcomes of their interactions with humans. Such reflection starts from
the European project Horizon 2020 IN-HABIT (“INclusive Health and wellBeing In small
and medium size ciTies”) in smart cities, in which the city of Lucca is nominated to become
the first European human–animal city with an integrated policy on human–nonhuman
animal interactions. This article focuses on the idea that the presence of animals in cities is
growing as part of an individual/private nature-based solution and that cities are hosting
an increasing number of nonhuman animals. At the same time, there is a lack of specific
reflection on the planning of innovative, integrated policies regarding nonhuman animals’
Animals 2024, 14, 680 3 of 20

presence in everyday life and how to take advantage of their interactions with humans.
The possible outcomes emerging from innovative views on human–nonhuman animal
interactions, for different circumstances and needs, are further investigated every day in
terms of support for elders [25,26], children with learning difficulties, people experiencing
homelessness [27,28], and people who are less empowered and isolated toward the im-
provement in the health of interacting humans. Meanwhile, another side of the debate looks
at animals and their rights in society in terms of citizenship and human stewardship. In
such a perspective, the interactions between humans and nonhuman animals could be seen
as a part of a broader public discourse. This discourse could generate the foundation for a
common recognition of human and nonhuman animals (both human companions and wild
animals) in cities, of their common needs, and of the positive outcomes of the promotion of
their interactions. Nonhuman animals can be considered as an existing resource (intended
as beings whose presence can offer support, not as things to be exploited) that can be mobi-
lized in innovative ways for increasing health and well-being in cities. In such respects, the
topic of nonhuman animals might be part of the discussion on innovative nature-based
solutions for smart and requalified urban settings, especially in times of public resource
scarcity and increasing societal needs toward the organization of transition pathways able
to recognize their role in the reorganization of environmental and social public goods.
This study aims to better analyze the role of animals from new and intriguing per-
spectives and to find solutions to overcome the lack of valorization of the presence of
nonhuman animals in enhancing the quality of life of people living in urban areas. The
process of social innovation to valorize the benefits derived from human–animal bonds is
investigated in this article.

2. Nature-Based Solutions as an Evolutionary Concept

The Current Debate on NBSs
The concept of nature-based solutions (NBSs) has become, in recent decades, more
popular both in the scientific literature and in governmental and non-governmental policies
following the introduction given by the European Commission (EC) and the International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) [29]. The definition of NBSs given by the EC is
“solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultane-
ously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience; such
solutions bring more, and more diverse, nature and natural features and processes into
cities, landscapes, and seascapes, through locally adapted, resource-efficient and systemic
interventions” [30]. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) proposed a
slightly different definition of NBSs as “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore
natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively,
simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits” [31].
In the literature, many studies refer to NBSs as an “umbrella” concept for different
green concepts [32] that promote the role of nature in different processes, but at the same
time, there is still an ongoing discussion on the extent and types of interventions that can
be classified as NBSs [33]. To clarify the concept of NBSs, both the IUCN and the European
Commission defined priority areas that could be addressed by NBSs, and the IUCN also
suggested eight criteria by which to shape green/blue interventions as NBS actions. The
IUCN defined the following five priority areas as particularly topical: water security, food
security, human health, disaster risk reduction, and climate change [31]. The European
Commission identified seven priority areas, most of which (NBSs for regeneration and
well-being in urban areas, carbon sequestration, coastal resilience, watershed management,
and ecosystem restoration) conform with the IUCN priorities. However, the European
Commission also added two different and new topics—NBSs to enhance the insurance
value of ecosystems and foster sustainable use of matter and energy [34]. The IUCN has
drawn up a Global Standard [35] on NBSs aimed to be used as a framework for the various
stakeholders—governments, planners, businesses, donors, and financial institutions—to
design and support NBSs. The Standard [35] contains the following eight criteria (Figure 1):
 European Commission also added two different and new topics—NBSs to enhance th
insurance value of ecosystems and foster sustainable use of matter and energy [34]. Th
IUCN has drawn up a Global Standard [35] on NBSs aimed to be used as a framework f
the various stakeholders—governments, planners, businesses, donors, and financial ins
Animals 2024, 14, 680 4 of 20
tutions—to design and support NBSs. The Standard [35] contains the following eight c
teria (Figure 1): (1) address societal challenges; (2) landscape scale of intervention; (3) b
odiversity
(1) addressgain; (4) challenges;
societal economic(2)viability;
landscape(5)scale
governance capability;
of intervention; (6) equitably
(3) biodiversity gain; balan
trade-offs; (7)viability;
(4) economic adaptive (5)management; and (8)(6)mainstreamed
governance capability; equitably balancewithin an appropriate
trade-offs; (7) adap- jur
dictional context. and (8) mainstreamed within an appropriate jurisdictional context.
tive management;

Theeight
Figure1.1.The
Figure eight criteria
criteriaofofthe IUCN
the Global
IUCN Standard
Global [35]. [35].
Standard
In the EC document on NBSs of 2021 [36], three categories depending on the degrees
In the EC document
of intervention on NBSs of 2021 [36], three categories depending on the degre
are proposed:
of1.intervention are
“Minimal or noproposed:
intervention in ecosystems—or better use of protected/natural ecosys-
1. “Minimal or no intervention
tems”: interventions in ecosystems—or
aimed at preserving or improvingbetter
the use of protected/natural
delivery of ecosystem ec
services by
systems”: targeted ecosystems.
interventions aimed at preserving or improving the delivery of ecosyste
2. “Management approaches that involve some intervention—NBS that support sustain-
services by targeted ecosystems.
able, multi-functional managed ecosystems”: solutions directed toward sustainable,
2. “Management approaches that involve some intervention—NBS that support su
multi-functional ecosystems to improve them.
tainable, multi-functional
3. “Extensive, intrusive management managed ecosystems”:thesolutions
of ecosystems—or design anddirected
creationtoward
of new sustai
able, multi-functional
ones”: these solutions ecosystems to improve
are focused both them.
on the interrelation between biodiversity
3. “Extensive, intrusive management of ecosystems—or the of
conservation and landscape architecture and on the integration design and creation of ne
new approaches.
ones”:
These these solutions
categories areoffocused
and types both
approaches onnot
are the interrelation
full-scale between
solutions, biodiversity
and there can be co
a lot of different NBSs encompassing space and time.
servation and landscape architecture and on the integration of new approaches.
According to the “Naturvation” project, in addition to meeting twelve societal chal-
These
lenges, NBSs categories and types
address specific Unitedof approaches
Nations are Development
Sustainable not full-scale solutions,
Goals and there ca
(SDGs). Since
beNBSs
a lot can
of different NBSs encompassing space and time.
lead to different benefits for society, the economy, the environment, and human
According
well-being, to the
among “Naturvation”
the SDGs mentioned we project, in find
can also addition
SDG3 to meeting
“Health and twelve societal cha
well-being”,
which is the focus of the project we are working on.
lenges, NBSs address specific United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG
As previously
Since NBSs can leadmentioned,
to different there is greatfor
benefits interest in the
society, theNBS theme, and
economy, thethis is also
environment, an
increasing every year. In the literature, we have found several works on this topic that refer
human well-being, among the SDGs mentioned we can also find SDG3 “Health and we
to different kinds of interventions involving various sources related to nature.
being”,Thewhich
focusison
the focus
the NBS of the project
concept we are
originated withworking
the aim on.of enhancing resilience in
the context of climate change [37]; however, its potential ininaddressing
As previously mentioned, there is great interest the NBS socio-economic
theme, and this is al
increasing
challengesevery year.environmental
along with In the literature,
issueswe
hashave
since found several works
been increasingly on this
recognized [34].topic th
However, according to the review of Ershad Sarabi et al. [38], in the
refer to different kinds of interventions involving various sources related to nature. literature, we can
mainly find NBSs with challenges in water management and enhancing water resilience
The focus on the NBS concept originated with the aim of enhancing resilience in th
(Table 1). The review also stated that significant attention has been given both to climate
context of climate change [37]; however, its potential in addressing socio-economic cha
change adaptation and carbon sequestration and the socio-economic benefits of NBSs. It
lenges along with environmental issues has since been increasingly recognized [34
Animals 2024, 14, 680 5 of 20

is also reported [39] how NBSs can create space for new relations and a sense of place
among people in their communities, especially people who are vulnerable. This advantage
is described mainly in relation to urban gardens and small-scale experiments where citizens
directly participate in the management, maintenance, and monitoring of NBSs [40–42].
Furthermore, we can find various studies [43–45], where NBSs play a role in improving
mental health and well-being.

Table 1. Types of challenges addressed by NBSs reported in the literature—22 empirical studies out
of 40 selected publications (elaboration on the work of Ershad Sarabi et al. [38]).

NBS Challenges Number of Papers

Water management 14
Climate change mitigation and adaptation 10
Public health and well-being 10
Social justice and social cohesion 9
Urban regeneration 8
Participatory planning and governance 8
Green space management 7
Economic opportunities and green jobs 5
Air quality 4
Coastal resilience 2

Even if, as stated, the topic of NBSs has been spreading in recent years, unfortunately,
the number of solutions is still low, and implementations are often slowed down by barriers
in governance [37,38]. A clear assessment of the impacts of NBSs within and across different
societal challenges would help in the process of recognition of their benefits by governance.
In this regard, many attempts have been made to systematize the possible outcomes by
introducing specific indicators [46], although the diversity and complexity of any approach
make comparisons challenging.
When NBSs are implemented to use natural processes in urban contexts, they may
simultaneously provide co-benefits for biodiversity and human well-being [31] but ex-
isting works only framed and evaluated benefits regarding single challenge areas (i.e.,
ecosystem service values, synergies, and trade-offs [47], and the co-benefits of climate
interventions [48]). Additionally, there is a lack of targeted counseling for the processes
that enable the consideration and assessment of co-benefits within and across the stages of
implementation and decision making [49]. This leads to the fact that, as stated in different
studies [50,51], the ecosystem service concept is being taken into consideration by policy,
but with approaches that are too sector-based and not sufficiently sensitive to specific
political and socio-cultural contexts. To overcome this gap, there is a need for more par-
ticipatory processes able to amplify marginalized voices in urban co-planning, co-design,
co-deployment, and co-management of NBSs. According to the topics under discussion,
participatory processes should consider most stakeholders’ perceptions, including transdis-
ciplinary working methods, co-production of knowledge and adaptive management [52],
the co-creation and design of NBSs [53], as well as education and greater effort in moni-
toring and assessing the multiple benefits of NBSs [54]. We can also consider that some
of the NBSs are linked to more infrastructural plans related to the urban rebuilding of
public spaces (“hard solutions”, e.g., new squares and spaces to safely channel over raining
water), while others (“soft solutions”) have a larger impact on the urban organization of
an innovative dialogue and the organization of partnerships between private and public
agencies toward the definition of new levels of subsidiarity and proactive participation in
the everyday organization of public spaces and activities [55–57].
Animals 2024, 14, 680 6 of 20

3. The Noisy Silence on Animal Nature-Based Solutions

Although the impact of animals on human psychological well-being is reported in
many case studies [58–62], most of the works on NBSs usually refer to solutions that
are based on the use of plants for diverse purposes [63,64], while the possible outcomes
emerging from human–animal interactions are still completely underestimated. Animal
NBSs refer to the possible useful role of animals as NBSs themselves, and the enhancement
of human–animal relationships as a potential opportunity to increase the quality of life of
urban inhabitants in cities.
Animals in cities are present in a growing number, generating everyday interactions
with the urban environment and humans as well [65–67]. Human–animal interactions
might also differ in time and specific geographic conditions due to cultural, environmental,
historical, and societal arrangements. Animals might differ in species, numbers, and levels
of interdependency/dependency with humans in diverse geographic settings. They live
in cities, although they are always at the border of public life and experience, and their
presence is taken for granted and unconsidered, other than the possible negative impacts
on humans (in the case of car accidents, zoonotic diseases, and physical risks) [68–70].
The presence of animals in cities can be distinguished among wild animals, food-
producing animals, and companion animals as described below.
Wild animals: In recent times, the presence of wild animals has been investigated in
the case of mammals [71] in terms of numbers and types of presence. Enlarging cities
generate spaces for the adaptation of different species according to their body mass, diet
breadth, reproductive timing, reproductive outputs, behavioral flexibility, and flying ability.
These traits are considered filtering effects, allowing adaptation and persistence in an
urban environment. In cities, the presence of food and ecological niches might facilitate
mammalian adaptation in carnivores, primates, and rodents. Some of them are classified
as urban visitors (those who enter cities periodically) or urban dwellers (those who estab-
lish their homes in urban settings). The elements that might influence the presence and
different behaviors of animals are related both to the filtering traits of each species and
their combination with the organization of cities (in terms of green areas, green corridors,
food availability, waste production and management, space availability, level of human
acceptance, and type of interaction). Birds as well as other small animals and insects inhabit
urban settings; the presence of these animals might represent opportunities for biodiver-
sity, nature conservation, and natural observation, but also for environmental monitoring
activities [72,73].
In particular, insects go hand in hand with green re-naturalization in urban settings
with their pollination activities [74]; moreover, there could also be positive relationships
between re-greening urban spaces and animal presence.
Despite the presence of small animals living in or entering cities every day (birds, rats,
beavers, squirrels, snakes, etc.), wild animals have always selected habitats outside of cities
where they can find shelter and food [75]. Due to strong urbanization and impoverishment
of the natural environment, nowadays wild animals penetrate urban borders and enter
cities, even if cities can be challenging places for them. Since by living in or near cities
animals can live longer—there are few predators—and access more food, urban areas
have become animal habitats. The search for food sources is one of the first motivations
that push wild animals to enter urban environments, as cities can provide easily acces-
sible food sources for some animals (wild boars, foxes, deer, wolves, monkeys, etc.) [76].
Cities are noisy and chaotic places, and some animals have adapted by changing their
behaviors [77–79] (i.e., the time of day that they are awake) to avoid people or to find more
food or mates (or in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, some animals managed to access
more habitat spaces in the absence of human life [76]). To provide some examples of wild
animals nowadays present in cities, the literature reports the presence of black bears in
urban areas in North America and brown bears in some East European [80] cities. In the
same way, in Mediterranean cities (i.e., Barcelona [81]), wild boars are frequently observed
roaming within urban areas [82,83]. Aside from the possible risks in the case of dangerous
Animals 2024, 14, 680 7 of 20

animals or zoonotic diseases, wild animals in cities represent a natural resource that is
part of natural environments, providing humans with the possibility of nature observation,
listening to nonhuman sounds, and spaces for well-being and reflection.
Food-producing animals: The historical background of cities reminds us that animals
have always lived with people and have played active roles in the self-sufficiency of
families through their production (eggs, milk, meat, etc.), as well as providing a means for
transportation. The city of Matera (Italy), as shown by Carlo Levi in his novel [84], is a clear
example of human–animal daily urban interactions in the so-called Sassi houses [85], but
also the cities of Glasgow and New York are mentioned in the literature about the topic [86].
Food-producing animals are still present in contemporary examples in many developing
large cities in the world today [87–89]. With economic development and urbanization, the
movement of people from the countryside to the city meant that the custom of raising
courtyard animals was progressively lost, although not everywhere. Nowadays, instead,
the desire for a return to nature and the emergence of new technological solutions are
supporting the reintroduction of food-producing animals at the city level (with aquaponics,
small domestic egg production, and goats); therefore, situations in which people breed
animals in the city for production are increasingly widespread again. From this point of
view, animals still represent a source of food in (some) cities and a solution to access fresh
food. This is mostly part of the tradition but also relates to the migrant movements in
many countries, as well as to the availability of innovative and sometimes unexpected
techniques (see aquaponics, but also bees in cities) and social behaviors. From this point of
view, the increasing demand for urban food generates space for fresh and nutritious food
production by keeping animals in densely populated areas without environmental and
health hazards [90].
Companion animals: In addition to the previous phenomena, in most cities, it is evi-
dent how the presence of companion animals (mainly dogs and cats, but also horses) is
traditionally present and now quickly increasing.
Companion animals have always been present in cities; for example, there is archeolog-
ical evidence that reports how approximately 14,000 years ago, domestic wolves, ancestors
of the dog, lived in settlements with humans [91]. This is proof of the interactive process
of domestication and socialization of animals through reciprocal evolutionary changes
with humans. Based on this, it is not difficult to understand how companion animals have
become increasingly important in the lives of people in recent decades. More recently, in
the frame of increasing urbanization, animals have started to have an increasing role in
terms of relationships and participation in family life. An unplanned societal phenomenon
has emerged on a worldwide scale: the presence of companion animals in urban settings
generates emerging influences both on individual and socio-cultural approaches. The
scientific literature on the topic relates the high numbers of companion animals to public
health, both for direct and indirect effects. In terms of the direct effects, for example, we
found studies stating that companion animal keepers are more likely to survive a heart
attack and have lower blood pressure than people without [92]. Regarding the indirect
effects, authors have concluded that human–animal bonds have an impact both on people’s
interactions and health: regular dog-walking, indeed, can trigger positive social interac-
tions between strangers [93,94] and it helps maintain a good level of physical activity [94].
People experiencing homelessness are often accompanied by companion animals [95–97].
Moreover, Animal Assisted Interventions (AAI) have positive outcomes on elders, people
with dementia, people with autism, and people identified as NEET, and they can pre-
vent violence against women, among other benefits [98–103]. In this respect, companion
animal–human interactions can be classified as a type of animal nature-based solution.
The presence of animals in cities generates diverse possibilities in terms of human–animal
interactions and, sometimes, problematic interactions. At the same time, the presence of
wild animals might be recognized by some humans as both harmful in terms of hygiene,
zoonotic influences, and physical risks (direct attacks or possible accidents), and as poten-
tially beneficial in terms of biodiversity and environmental monitoring elements [104–107].
Animals 2024, 14, 680 8 of 20

As for wild animals, the presence of domestic animals (in the urban environment)
may also present some issues in terms of zoonosis (in the case of vector-borne diseases).
In the same way, the coexistence between wild and domesticated animals might increase
environmental and health risks (see avian flu [108–110]) that would need to be addressed
via government regulations.
Urban animals are increasingly seen as actors to be managed or protected by way of
specific rules, norms, and actions as part of their citizenship. At the same time, there is
a growing interest and understanding in terms of positive personal interactions both in
domestic settings and in the public—social and educational—perspective regarding the
potential of human–animal bonds. New projects/solutions on this topic, although mainly
isolated cases, are under discussion and testing.
From a societal point of view, human–animal bonds are continuously evolving accord-
ing to societal preferences and perspectives, such as the following examples:
1. Protection from the wild and protecting the wild.
2. Working with food-producing animals (in the past, in the present, in a retro innova-
tive perspective).
3. Interacting with companion animals from both private/public perspectives.
4. Companion animal management in urban settings (organizing new spaces, managing
the impact on waste production, and representing their rights).
From a philosophical perspective, two main alternatives are entering the debate:
abolitionist approach vs. citizenship [111].
Also, cities’ approaches to human–animal interactions should be considered from an
evolutionary perspective, ranging from a protective approach (especially in terms of urban
hygiene, control, and containment) to more proactive and positive ones.
Meanwhile, today the presence of animals is growing in urban settings and scientific
and societal attention still appears discontinuous and fragmentary, generating space for
sectoral and sometimes specific and punctual interventions. In our view, this underestima-
tion of human–animal bonds in cities and city planning should be rethought by opening a
reflection on the subject and on the possible outcomes it can offer in terms of health and
well-being for the future of cities.

4. The IN-HABIT Project

The European project Horizon 2020 IN-HABIT "INclusive Health and wellBeing In
small and medium size ciTies” involves four European cities—Cordoba (Spain), Riga
(Latvia), Lucca (Italy), and Nitra (Slovakia)—and it aims at increasing inclusive health
and well-being through the mobilization of existing undervalued resources (culture, food,
human–animal bonds, and environment). IN-HABIT is a 5-year project started in 2020, and
it is now at the middle stage of its lifespan.
Regarding the city of Lucca, Italy, the main objective of the project is to create the
first human–animal smart city in Europe, with an integrated human–animal policy able to
mobilize such resources to increase local wellness for people who are less empowered and all
citizens. The project works on different aspects of human–animal relationships to co-design
innovative solutions able to give value to the presence of animals in urban settings as well
as to their interactions with people. Starting from the recognition of the importance of
this relationship for the well-being of citizens, in this direction, the IN-HABIT project is
a pilot that aims to build an integrated policy of actions in different fields of intervention
(urban planning, social and health fields, culture, economic field, tourism, etc.). The project,
toward a participatory process involving the municipality, private citizens, NGOs, and the
private sector, engaged local actors in a transition process aimed at translating common
private visions of human–animal relationships into a public perspective and engagement
around the topic.
Since the beginning of the project, special attention has been given to the active
involvement of the local population and stakeholders through participatory processes,
since it is important that the solutions are co-designed, co-deployed, and co-managed with
 Animals 2024, 14, 680 9 of 20

and by people. Most of the effort was spent on co-creating a new vision that is able to shift
the presence of animals in the city (mainly companion animals) from a private–personal
link to a public affair, and from perspectives toward animal protection (mainly from
NGOs dedicated to animals’ protection and rights) to a more bi-directional perspective in
which nonhuman animals’ citizenship could be merged with the positive outcomes of their
relationships with humans. The process facilitated the co-design of innovative solutions to
be introduced in the territory of Lucca, both from an infrastructural point of view and for
the soft NBSs to be implemented in the city.
In the first phase of the project, a period was dedicated to the co-design of the so-called
“Animal Lines”, a path that would link the old city center (the city’s ancient walls and the
under-utilized surrounding green areas) with Lucca’s suburbs and peri-urban areas. The
participative process within the community assisted in gathering information, needs, and
ideas about what to implement inside the areas, what materials to use to create an accessible
place, and how to make the areas comfortable for both people and their companion animals.
Along the path, where simple interventions will be implemented to adapt the existing cycle
paths or pedestrian paths to become more companion animal-friendly (generally known by
the common term “pet-friendly”), different areas have been built (“relational areas”) that are
accessible to people and their companion animals. These spaces are aimed at fostering and
facilitating human–animal relationships and, consequently, social relations and inclusion of
the most fragile subjects. The areas have already been inaugurated and are open to people
and their companion animals.
Subsequent to the co-design of these infrastructural interventions, another partici-
patory phase started with a focus on possible connections between animals, people, and
various urban policies such as tourism, education, social policies, policies related to the
enhancement of companion animals’ related economic and professional activities, and acti-
vation of responsible citizenship. From the first discussions with the various stakeholders
involved in the process, several innovative ideas emerged and provided a clear definition
of the needs of the territory and a convergence of requests on the same initiatives that
could, therefore, arouse integrations between the various groups of interest.
Possible intervention areas that are in the co-design and co-development phases with
Animals 2024, 14, 680 10 of 21
the Lucca partners as well as with the involved IN-HUB’s stakeholders are shown in
Figure 2.

Figure 2. Proposed
Figure intervention
2. Proposed interventionareas
areas(elaboration fromthe
(elaboration from theauthors).
authors).

The possibility of diverse deployment of animal NBSs in the city of Lucca (and in
cities in general) normally requires diverse competencies such as
• Social policies and health: AAI, innovative services for and with animals, but also the
involvement of voluntary associations and the enhancement of volunteers’ attitudes
Animals 2024, 14, 680 10 of 20

The possibility of diverse deployment of animal NBSs in the city of Lucca (and in cities
in general) normally requires diverse competencies such as
• Social policies and health: AAI, innovative services for and with animals, but also the
involvement of voluntary associations and the enhancement of volunteers’ attitudes to-
ward young members of society by involving companion animals (in the facilitation of
animal shelter workshops or by providing support to elders with companion animals);
• Education through activities with and in the schools: educational activities about the
presence of animals in the city and interactions with citizens and cultural initiatives
devoted to the links between culture and animals (from cartoons to books and from
theatrical comedies to outdoor activities);
• Environment management: the organization of spaces, animal/waste management
(which has an increasing impact in the project cities), and the management of wild
animals and their (re)discovery in the city;
• Public building and transportation policies: to design and build suitable spaces for
human–nonhuman animal interactions (i.e., Animal Lines) and or to facilitate the
access of companion animals to diverse kinds of public transportation;
• Economic sector: to develop and support the (re)organization of innovative economic
activities and services devoted to human–nonhuman animal interactions and to ensure
the rights of companion animals (conventional and non-conventional);
• Tourism sector: to enhance the Lucca city experience as a combined one for people and
their companion animals, supporting the reorganization of existing services (hotels,
restaurants, museums, guided tours, supporting info, events, and games) into more
“pet-friendly” ones;
• Municipal governance: to build a chart, a strategy plan, as well as an action plan able
to integrate into one policy the set of norms, rules, procedures, and budget expenditure
devoted to an integrated urban animal policy.
At this moment, the project is in the middle of its lifespan, following the complete
change in the Lucca political administration after the election phase in June 2022. The
project was, and still is, highly demanding in terms of collective knowledge creation,
vision sharing, and public–private–people integration. Moreover, the project requires the
translation of the possible solutions into more integrated policies able to involve different
members (technical and political) of the municipality and the integration of new paths
into more ordinary processes. The full integration of political dynamics into a research
project was, and still is, challenging, and from one side it is demanding in terms of political
negotiation and adaptation of the project objectives, milestones, and deadlines to the
requirements of political and administrative staff. At the same time, the slower the process,
the deeper the opportunity to translate the research project into a real transformative
initiative for the city. From this point of view, the transition process established with the
IN-HUB, the agenda setting, the organization of pilots, and the ongoing reflection on the
achievement as well as on the delays, are part of a collective learning activity (Figure 3).
This seems to be necessary to mobilize the existing animal resources into animal NBSs able
to increase the quality of life for all citizens from a public perspective and in the provision
of public goods in requalified public spaces.
The process behind the transformation of existing animals into a public resource might
be framed into different possible steps, such as
1. General idea sharing (animals as NBSs).
2. Converging vision building toward:
a. Internal communication with the administration (technical staff, political staff,
and integrating sectors);
b. External communication with external stakeholders (economic sector, profes-
sionals, citizens, NGOs operating in different sectors, citizens, schools, diverse
related services, i.e., dog shelters).
3. Specific co-design and co-deployment for diverse single innovative solutions.
 for the city. From this point of view, the transition process established with the IN-HUB,
the agenda setting, the organization of pilots, and the ongoing reflection on the achieve-
ment as well as on the delays, are part of a collective learning activity (Figure 3). This
seems to be necessary to mobilize the existing animal resources into animal NBSs able to
Animals 2024, 14, 680 increase the quality of life for all citizens from a public perspective and in the provision
11 of 20 of
public goods in requalified public spaces.

Arena
Shared partners Shared partners
experiences methods

Moving forward
Reflexive activities initiatives and
and consolidation processes
Co-deployment
Lucca administration
Pilot initiatives
internal political and
technical arena setting Internal political
and technical
Co-deployment Stakeholder Analysis and first agenda setting
Pilot initiatives Core Group setting
(activities in schools, (Lucca municipality & LuccaCrea)
Reflexive tourism sector,
Agenda
business activities, First draft Core group Co-deployment
Communication) idea Agenda setting Pilot initiatives
Co-design
Project definition (Animal lines,
Pilot initiatives
& selection AAI for elders in
Lucca IN-HUB
Arena & Agenda nursing homes,
setting Lucca innovative services
Enlarging Lucca’s IN-HUB for people in need)
IN-HUB
Arena & new agenda sharing
Reflexive activities on
emerging intermediate results

Shared partners Shared partners

communication technological solutions
Pilot

Figure 3. Recap of the process (elaboration from the authors).

Figure 3. Recap of the process (elaboration from the authors).
Regarding the general process, a specific focus should be given to the overall infras-
The process
tructure behind
for a larger the transformation
dialogue and communication of existing animals
effort. This into a public
focus should not onlyresource
focus
might be framed into different possible steps, such as
on more traditional participatory processes able to involve local private groups (NGOs,
enterprises)
1. and citizens
General (families,
idea sharingchildren,
(animals andas youth),
NBSs). but it should also provide specific
attention2.to theConverging vision building toward: and active communication initiatives
involvement of community building
inside the municipality itself and the participation of its technical staff.
a. Internal communication with the administration (technical staff,
More specifically, the first attempt to reorganize public spaces to support better
human–nonhuman animal political staff, and
interactions integrating
and to valorizesectors);
animal NBSs to support local quality
of life was carriedb.out.External communication
The so-called withpathway
“Animal Lines” external initiative
stakeholders (economic
was designed sec-
and
rebuilt with specific spaces (i.e., relational areas) for human–dog interactions. The spacescit-
tor, professionals, citizens, NGOs operating in different sectors,
are accessible for people izens, schools,
with diverse
disabilities, andrelated services,
they can supporti.e.,an
dog shelters).dialogue
interactive
with dogs but also with wild animals along the path. The relational
3. Specific co-design and co-deployment for diverse single innovative areas are connected solu-
by way of thetions.
Animal Lines paths making the peri-urban areas (the natural park area on
the Serchio River) more connected with the ancient Lucca medieval walls and the Roman
Regarding the general process, a specific focus should be given to the overall infra-
Nottolini aqueduct on the way to Monte Pisano (Pisa side). Along the paths, people might
structure
walk, run,forstop,
a larger
anddialogue
talk with and
othercommunication effort. the
citizens or experience Thiscity
focus(in should
the casenot only focus
of tourists).
on more In addition to the so-called “hard solutions” (the infrastructural interventions), (NGOs,
traditional participatory processes able to involve local private groups some
enterprises)
soft ones haveandalso
citizens
been(families,
developed. children, and youth), but it should also provide specific
attention to the involvement
Regarding of community
single solutions, buildingofand
a strong process activeexchange
learning communication initiatives
and procedure
inside the municipality
re-design was installeditself and the
to re-frame theparticipation of its technical
possible valorization staff.
of human–nonhuman animal
More specifically,
interactions the first
in two nursing homesattempt to reorganize
for elders in the citypublic spaces to support better hu-
of Lucca.
An agreement
man–nonhuman animalwith three NGOand
interactions experts in AAIanimal
to valorize and the social
NBSs to workers
support of thequality
local two
ofnursing
life washomes
carriedwas out.designed and weekly
The so-called “Animal activities with diverse
Lines” pathway groups
initiative of elders
was designedwereand
organized. The main outcomes are under scientific evaluation (both for animals and elders)
and, in the meantime, focus groups have been organized to monitor and co-evaluate
the process with the actors involved and to assess the qualitative results. In this case,
different elements enter the game, such as specific knowledge, responsibility sharing
among institutions and new private actors, the definition of a new commitment of NGOs
and private citizens to the innovative human–animal perspective, and the opportunity to
redesign roles and procedures in the provision of effective opportunities for elders’ quality
of life in the nursing homes.
Animals 2024, 14, 680 12 of 20

A second service is under co-design with other NGOs and the municipality to support
the temporary needs of people regarding the management of their companion animals to
reduce anxiety, as well as preventing animal abandonment in the case of temporary health
limitations of an animal’s human companion (hospital recovery or temporary disabilities
in the case of an isolated person).
In the next phase of the project, educational activities will be planned with primary
and secondary schools for educational purposes and interaction facilities. A card game has
been designed and deployed in order to gamify the educational experience.
An app engaging citizens and tourists has been designed, and it is going to be tested
to engage people in missions linked to human–nonhuman animal experiences.
Meanwhile, some tourist services are under discussion with hotel managers and
other economic activities (restaurants, animal shops and animal services, museums, and
tour guides).
The IN-HABIT project, through participation, implementation, and new services, aims
to develop the effectiveness of solutions based on a new relationship between people and
animals to codify them into an integrated policy to be managed in the future and transferred
to other cities interested in replicating the experience of Lucca.
At the implementation stage, the IN-HABIT project will demonstrate, at the same
time, the high potential of what we can call animal (N)BSs, their abundant availability
in most urban settings, and the opportunity for their mobilization in a more public-wide
perspective, thus supporting the health and the quality of life of both human and nonhuman
animals at the city level.

5. Animals as Nature-Based Solutions and New Opportunities: The Space for

Innovative Policies
The increase in the number of animals in cities is connected to evolutionary awareness/
needs/demands/opportunities linked to human–nonhuman animal bonds and the respon-
sibilities related to the human counterpart. From the economic point of view, such evidence
is confirmed by the growing impact of the so-called “pet economy” that is increasingly
affecting Western economies [112,113].
Linked to the private interests of the people, the increasing number of animals
in cities and societies generates innovative opportunities in terms of societal/health
impacts [114–119] and the organization of new economic opportunities linked to devoted
products and services delivered. Such growing attention has clear implications in the be-
havior of single persons [120], inside family organizations [121], and for society [122,123].
The presence of animals (wild, food-producing, and companion animals) in the urban
setting is more evident every day. However, there is a lack of reflection in the literature on
the possible impact of animals on public good provision from the perspective of supportive
NBSs to increase the quality of life and well-being both for human and nonhuman animals
in cities. From our perspective, animal NBSs in cities might generate positive interactions
with wild animals in terms of contact with nature, education about nature, education about
sustainability, exploration and observation of nature, and coexistence with nature [79,124].
In such respects, specific planning initiatives can be organized at the city level (by designing
specific paths, organizing cultural and educational events and activities, and involving
citizens in participatory scientific activities).
Moreover, interest in food-producing animals is changing in cities. Considering the
threat of future food scarcity, attention to food-producing animals might increase, although
ideally based on new perspectives as part of urban agriculture initiatives. Food-producing
animals might be differently involved in local urban communities, but also innovative
entrepreneurial (in the case of aquaponic or small husbandry activities in cities or peri-
urban areas, or rooftop gardens) or inclusive social innovation projects [125–128]. From this
point of view, depending on the location (developed vs. so-called “developing countries”),
on the one hand, new small productive activities are re-emerging [129]; on the other hand,
more traditional ones might be reframed and improved to reduce existing hygiene risks.
Animals 2024, 14, 680 13 of 20

Increasing attention should be dedicated to companion animals as part of the existing

and growing components of nonhuman citizens (in addition to wild and food-producing
animals) to consider their right to citizenship and the implication of their growing pres-
ence in urban environments. In addition to the positive (personal vs. societal) effects of
companion animals in cities, there are also some problematic impacts, such as unattended
dogs and dogs perceived to be aggressive or simply unfriendly [130,131], or potential
risks (including bites, allergies, or biosecurity and zoonotic diseases [132–135], as well as
physical injury, vehicle strikes, and property damage [136–138]). To shift the attention from
animals as isolated/private components in the urban area to more collective nature-based
solutions able to improve the everyday lives of city dwellers has some implications on
urban planning and policies, as the IN-HABIT project is trying to explore in the city of
Lucca. The project generates many new possible intersections at the municipal level with
diverse fields of activity:
• Veterinary public health sector: the framing of new services, procedures, and rules
for the management of innovative NBSs with animals, and the sanitary implications
related to their new and growing presence (such as the sanitary impact of companion
animal waste in terms of microbiological effects in interactions with humans [139]);
• Public building sector: the introduction of specific city plans for the presence of
animals—wild (i.e., birds and insects)/food-producing (i.e., aquaponics, bees, and
chickens) and companion animals—in the city, such as spaces for dedicated
outdoor activities;
• Environmental sector: the management of the new wastes produced by animals—mainly
companion ones—outdoors and at the home level, and reorganizing strategies in envi-
ronment management (parks and green areas);
• Educational/cultural dedicated policies: policies for young people and citizens to
enhance opportunities for education regarding animals that can be present in cities;
• Social and health policies: the introduction of new plans and programs able to explore
the potential of human–nonhuman animal (mainly companion ones) bonds and their
positive outcomes for diverse targets of urban populations with specific needs (elders,
people who are less empowered, people experiencing homelessness, people identified
as NEET, migrants, people with autism, people with disabilities, etc.);
• Economic activation: the support of innovative services and activities devoted to
the increasing presence of animals in cities and, therefore, generating job—also
innovation—opportunities for young people and all;
• Tourism sector: the exploration of the potential of the increasing number of people
and families attending tourism opportunities with their companion animals (mainly
dogs and cats);
• Public offices: the generation of new policies concerning the presence of animals
(mainly companion ones) in public and private offices [140];
• Among others.
Looking at the scientific research on animals linked to NBSs, examples such as the
study by Malhi et al. [141] were found, which explored how conservation or restoration
of large wild animal populations might influence climate mitigation and the adaptation
potential of ecosystems. Moreover, Berzaghi et al. [142] investigated how the incorporation
of the carbon services of wild animals into financial markets has the potential to benefit
both climate and conservation.
One of the few articles that directly refer to animals as NBSs is that of Danby and
Grajfoner [143], in which they tried to critically analyze human–equine tourism experiences
and how they can be recognized as NBSs for mutually enhancing psychological well-being.
From this study, the authors could deduce how nonhumans are fundamental to increasing
human well-being and mental health owing to an active mutually beneficial relationship
between humans and nonhumans formed within natural spaces.
According to the IUCN classification [35], animal (N)BSs are neither green nor blue
solutions (a red color could be added from this point), and they are mainly related to issues
Animals 2024, 14, 680 14 of 20

such as food security (food-producing animals) and human health. According to the EU
view, animal (N)BSs can also be linked to the provision of ecosystem services related to
biodiversity, especially for some specific outcomes (such as the presence of insects). From
the point of view of the management process, we can consider the promotion of animal
(red) NBSs to fit with the need to address some societal challenges from environmental,
social, and economic perspectives. They might improve:
• Urban biodiversity (especially by considering wild animals [144,145]);
• Urban quality of life for citizens by boosting human–nonhuman animal bonds and
their outcomes;
• Economic and job creation impact related to the enhancement of new devoted eco-
nomic activities and initiatives (i.e., organization of wildlife watching services in
collaboration with environmental guides—for wild animals—but also innovative
services for the management of companion animals), as well as to the increased attrac-
tiveness of “pet-friendly” cities (i.e., specific services dedicated to tourists moving with
companion animals, kindergartens for companion animals offered while owners are
visiting museums, specific veterinary and educational services, sports activities, etc.)
nowadays [146].
The Lucca project presents a new approach toward more integrated policies able to
valorize animal NBSs that might be highly demanding in terms of innovative governance
processes, both internally to the public institutions and at the public–private–people part-
nerships level. To move forward in such a direction requires progressive adaptive and
evolutionary management in both public and private actions, but also the organization
of more interdependent decision paths among organized citizens (in the form of citizen
observatories or councils) and public decision procedures. Before that, the development
of new collective knowledge—which might be built toward transition pathways until
adaptive procedures and juridical rules in both the local society and the mainstream are
established—is needed, as the ongoing process in the European project Horizon 2020
IN-HABIT concerning the city of Lucca (Italy) is demonstrating.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

NBSs are always seen and tested as suitable solutions able to enhance the quality
of life for people living in urban areas, especially in the face of emerging environmental,
social, and economic challenges. In our study, we observed the lack of the valorization of
animals for this purpose, despite their growing presence and evidence in both our cities
and our societal commitment to their citizenship. Different from other NBSs, animal NBSs
are two-sided solutions. On the one hand, they give more emphasis and attention to the
citizenship rights of animals in urban spaces, their possible impact, and the demand for
greater attention to be paid to them and their needs in an urbanized society. On the other
hand, by looking at animals as offering NBSs, there are emerging opportunities that might
be explored to generate innovative and effective positive interactions with human beings
and their needs. The mobilization of what we call animal NBSs demands the organization
of a process of social innovation able to involve most of the public–private–people actors in
transition paths to reshape common visions and actions toward the innovation of meanings
about what we consider with regard to the animals living around and with us. The
reshaping of public spaces from the perspective of more open interactions with animals,
revising public policies and activities, and reorganizing economic and social opportunities
around the valorization of human–animal bonds present opportunities for society to learn
and improve, as the IN-HABIT project aims to demonstrate.

Author Contributions: The research group was coordinated by F.D.I. with the support of C.M.
Conceptualization, G.G. and F.D.I.; methodology, G.G. and F.D.I.; writing—original draft, G.G.;
writing—review and editing, G.G., C.B. and F.D.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
 around the valorization of human–animal bonds present opportunities for society to learn
and improve, as the IN-HABIT project aims to demonstrate.

Author Contributions: The research group was coordinated by F.D.I. with the support of C.M. Con-
ceptualization, G.G. and F.D.I.; methodology, G.G. and F.D.I.; writing—original draft, G.G.; writ-
Animals 2024, 14, 680 15 of 20
ing—review and editing, G.G., C.B. and F.D.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This
Funding: This project
project received
receivedfunding
fundingfrom
fromthe
theEuropean
EuropeanUnion’s
Union’sHorizon
Horizon2020 research
2020 and
research in-
and
novation program under grant agreement No. 869227.
innovation program under grant agreement No. 869227.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank all the participants and partners in this study.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank all the participants and partners in this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
References
1.1. Jackson,T.T.Prosperity
Jackson, Prosperitywithout
withoutGrowth:
Growth:Economics
EconomicsforforaaFinite
FinitePlanet;
Planet;Earthscan
EarthscanPublications
PublicationsLtd.:
Ltd.:London,
London,UK,
UK,2011.
2011.
2.2. Madanipour, A. Rethinking public space: Between rhetoric and reality. Urban
Madanipour, A. Rethinking public space: Between rhetoric and reality. Urban Des. Int. 2019, 24, 38–46. [CrossRef] Des. Int. 2019, 24, 38–46.
3. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-019-00087-5.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries;
3. Organisation
OECD Publishing: for Economic Co-Operation
Paris, France, 2008. and Development. Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD
4. Countries; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2008.
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (European Commission); Perrons, D.; Plomien, A. Why Socio-Economic Inequalities
4. Directorate-General
Increase?—Facts for Research
and Policy Responsesand Innovation
in Europe; European(European Commission);
Commission: Brussels, Perrons,
Belgium,D.; Plomien,
2010; A.online:
Available Why Socio-Economic
https://data.
Inequalities Increase?—Facts and(accessed
europa.eu/doi/10.2777/94928 Policy Responses in Europe;
on 10 December European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2010. Available online:
2023).
5. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/94928
Borja, J. The City, Urbanization and Inequality. (accessed on 10 December
In Made-to-Measure 2023). for Democracy? Views from the Basque Atalaia; Zabalo,
Future(s)
5. Borja, J. The City, Urbanization and Inequality. In Made-to-Measure Future(s)
J., Filibi, I., San-Epifanio, L.E., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [CrossRef] for Democracy? Views from the Basque Atalaia; Zabalo,
6. J., Filibi, I., San-Epifanio, L.E., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08608-3.
Wit, A.; Wilke, H. Public good provision under environmental and social uncertainty. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 28, 249–256.
6. Wit, A.; Wilke, H. Public good provision under environmental and social uncertainty. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 28, 249–256.
[CrossRef]
7. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199803/04)28:2<249::AID-EJSP868>3.0.CO;2-J.
Raworth, K. Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist; Random House: Broadway, NY, USA, 2017.
8.7. Raworth, K.
O’Connor, Doughnut
J. The Economics:
Fiscal Crisis Seven Routledge:
of the State; Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century
London, UK, 2002. Economist; Random House: Broadway, NY, USA, 2017.
9.8. O’Connor, J. The Fiscal Crisis of the State; Routledge: London,
Barbera, C.; Guarini, E.; Steccolini, I. Italian Municipalities and UK,
the2002.
Fiscal Crisis: Four Strategies for Muddling Through. Financ.
Acc. Manag. 2016, 32, 335–361. [CrossRef]
10. Hunter, R.F.; Cleary, A.; Braubach, M. Environmental, Health and Equity Effects of Urban Green Space Interventions. In
Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change; Marselle, M., Stadler, J., Korn, H., Irvine, K., Bonn, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2019; pp. 381–409. [CrossRef]
11. Cole, H.V.S.; Mehdipanah, R.; Gullón, P.; Triguero-Mas, M. Breaking Down and Building Up: Gentrification, Its drivers, and
Urban Health Inequality. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2021, 8, 157–166. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Milotay, N.; Noonan, E.; Chircop, D.; Müller, K.; Navarra, C.; Pasikowska-Schnass, M. EU Welfare Systems and the Challenges of
Poverty and Inequality; European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS): Brussels, Belgium, 2022. [CrossRef]
13. Muñoz de Bustillo Llorente, R. Key Challenges for the European Welfare States; European Commission: Seville, Spain, 2019.
14. Esping-Andersen, G.; Gallie, D.; Hemerijck, A.C.; Myles, J. A New Welfare Architecture for Europe? Report Submitted to the
Belgian Presidency of the European Union. 2001. Available online: https://childcarecanada.org/documents/research-policy-
practice/02/03/new-welfare-architecture-europe-report-submitted-belgian-pr (accessed on 31 March 2023).
15. Power, E.R.; Wiesel, I.; Mitchell, E.; Mee, K.J. Shadow care infrastructures: Sustaining life in post-welfare cities. Prog. Hum. Geogr.
2022, 46, 1165–1184. [CrossRef]
16. Wittmayer, J.M.; Loorbach, D. Governing Transitions in Cities: Fostering Alternative Ideas, Practices, and Social Relations through
Transition Management. In Governance of Urban Sustainability Transitions; Loorbach, D., Wittmayer, J.M., Shiroyama, H., Fujino, J.,
Mizuguchi, S., Eds.; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 2016; pp. 13–32. [CrossRef]
17. Mcdonald, R.; Güneralp, B.; Zipperer, W.C.; Marcotullio, P.J. The Future of Global Urbanization and the Environment. Solutions
2015, 5, 60–69.
18. Jabbar, M.; Yusoff, M.M.; Shafie, A. Assessing the role of urban green spaces for human well-being: A systematic review.
GeoJournal 2022, 87, 4405–4423. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Marselle, M.R.; Stadler, J.; Korn, H.; Irvine, K.N.; Bonn, A. Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2019. [CrossRef]
20. Piekut, A.; Valentine, G. Spaces of encounter and attitudes towards difference: A comparative study of two European cities. Soc.
Sci. Res. 2017, 62, 175–188. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Atkins, P. Animal Cities. Beastly Urban Histories, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [CrossRef]
22. Wischermann, C.; Steinbrecher, A.; Howell, P. Animal History in the Modern City. Exploring Liminality; Bloomsbury Academic:
London, UK, 2018; Available online: https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/45802 (accessed on 10 December 2023).
Animals 2024, 14, 680 16 of 20

23. Friedmann, E.; Gee, N.R.; Simonsick, E.M.; Studenski, S.; Resnick, B.; Barr, E.; Kitner-Triolo, M.; Hackney, A. Pet Ownership
Patterns and Successful Aging Outcomes in Community Dwelling Older Adults. Front. Veter-Sci. 2020, 7, 293. [CrossRef]
24. Dall, P.M.; Ellis, S.L.H.; Ellis, B.M.; Grant, P.M.; Colyer, A.; Gee, N.R.; Granat, M.H.; Mills, D.S. The influence of dog ownership on
objective measures of free-living physical activity and sed-entary behaviour in community-dwelling older adults: A longitudinal
case-controlled study. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 496. [CrossRef]
25. Phelps, K.A.; Miltenberger, R.G.; Jens, T.; Wadeson, H. An investigation of the effects of dog visits on depression, mood, and
social interaction in elderly individuals living in a nursing home. Behav. Interv. 2008, 23, 181–200. [CrossRef]
26. Garrity, T.F.; Stallones, L.F.; Marx, M.B.; Johnson, T.P. Pet Ownership and Attachment as Supportive Factors in the Health of the
Elderly. Anthrozoos 1989, 3, 35–44. [CrossRef]
27. Bailey, C.; Hockenhull, J.; Rooney, N.J. “A Part of Me.”: The Value of Dogs to Homeless Owners and the Implications for Dog
Welfare. In Zoophilologica: Polish Journal of Animal Studies; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ślaskiego: ˛ Katowice, Poland, 2023;
pp. 1–32. [CrossRef]
28. Ferrigno, S. Survey on the relationship between homeless people and the dog. Dog Behav. 2015, 2, 18–24. [CrossRef]
29. Cohen-Shacham, E.; Andrade, A.; Dalton, J.; Dudley, N.; Jones, M.; Kumar, C.; Maginnis, S.; Maynard, S.; Nelson, C.R.; Renaud,
F.G.; et al. Core principles for successfully implementing and upscaling Nature-based Solutions. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 98,
20–29. [CrossRef]
30. European Commission. Nature-Based Solutions. Available online: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/
environment/nature-based-solutions_en (accessed on 20 March 2023).
31. Cohen-Shacham, E.; Walters, G.; Janzen, C.; Maginnis, S. Nature-Based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges; IUCN: Gland,
Switzerland, 2016. [CrossRef]
32. Albert, C.; Schröter, B.; Haase, D.; Brillinger, M.; Henze, J.; Herrmann, S.; Gottwald, S.; Guerrero, P.; Nicolas, C.; Matzdorf, B.
Addressing societal challenges through nature-based solutions: How can landscape planning and governance research contribute?
Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 182, 12–21. [CrossRef]
33. Sowińska-Świerkosz, B.; Wójcik-Madej, J.; Michalik-Śnieżek, M. An Assessment of the Ecological Landscape Quality (ELQ) of
Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) Based on Existing Elements of Green and Blue Infrastructure (GBI). Sustainability 2021, 13, 11674.
[CrossRef]
34. Final Report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group on Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities. In Towards an EU Research and
Innovation Policy Agenda for Nature-Based Solutions & Re-Naturing Cities; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015.
35. IUCN Global Standard for Nature-Based Solutions, A User-Friendly Framework For the Verification, Design and Scaling up of NbS, 1st ed.;
IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2020. [CrossRef]
36. Directorate-General for Environment. FUTURE BRIEF: The Solution Is in Nature; European Commision: Bristol, UK, 2021.
37. Kabisch, N.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Pauleit, S.; Naumann, S.; Davis, M.; Artmann, M.; Haase, D.; Knapp, S.; Korn, H.; Stadler, J.; et al.
Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: Perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps,
barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 39. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/26270403 (accessed
on 31 March 2023). [CrossRef]
38. Sarabi, S.E.; Han, Q.; Romme, A.G.L.; de Vries, B.; Wendling, L. Key Enablers of and Barriers to the Uptake and Implementation
of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Settings: A Review. Resources 2019, 8, 121. [CrossRef]
39. Frantzeskaki, N. Seven lessons for planning nature-based solutions in cities. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 93, 101–111. [CrossRef]
40. van der Jagt, A.P.N.; Szaraz, L.R.; Delshammar, T.; Cvejić, R.; Santos, A.; Goodness, J.; Buijs, A. Cultivating nature-based solutions:
The governance of communal urban gardens in the European Union. Environ. Res. 2017, 159, 264–275. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Gulsrud, N.M.; Hertzog, K.; Shears, I. Innovative urban forestry governance in Melbourne?: Investigating “green placemaking”
as a nature-based solution. Environ. Res. 2018, 161, 158–167. [CrossRef]
42. Camps-Calvet, M.; Langemeyer, J.; Calvet-Mir, L.; Gómez-Baggethun, E. Ecosystem services provided by urban gardens in
Barcelona, Spain: Insights for policy and planning. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 62, 14–23. [CrossRef]
43. Blau, M.L.; Luz, F.; Panagopoulos, T. Urban River Recovery Inspired by Nature-Based Solutions and Biophilic Design in Albufeira,
Portugal. Land 2018, 7, 141. [CrossRef]
44. Vujcic, M.; Tomicevic-Dubljevic, J.; Grbic, M.; Lecic-Tosevski, D.; Vukovic, O.; Toskovic, O. Nature based solution for improving
mental health and well-being in urban areas. Environ. Res. 2017, 158, 385–392. [CrossRef]
45. Kabisch, N.; van den Bosch, M.; Lafortezza, R. The health benefits of nature-based solutions to urbanization challenges for
children and the elderly—A systematic review. Environ. Res. 2017, 159, 362–373. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. European Commission. Evaluating the Impact of Nature-based Solutions: Appendix of Methods; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2021.
[CrossRef]
47. Mouchet, M.A.; Paracchini, M.L.; Schulp, N.; Stürck, C.J.E.; Verkerk, P.J.; Verburg, P.H.; Lavorel, S. Bundles of ecosystem
(dis)services and multifunctionality across European landscapes. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 73, 23–28. [CrossRef]
48. Rao, S.; Klimont, Z.; Leitao, J.; Riahi, K.; van Dingenen, R.; Reis, L.A.; Calvin, K.; Dentener, F.; Drouet, L.; Fujimori, S.; et al.
A multi-model assessment of the co-benefits of climate mitigation for global air quality. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016, 11, 124013.
[CrossRef]
49. Ürge-Vorsatz, D.; Herrero, S.T.; Dubash, N.K.; Lecocq, F. Measuring the Co-Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation. Annu. Rev.
Environ. Resour. 2014, 39, 549–582. [CrossRef]
Animals 2024, 14, 680 17 of 20

50. Bouwma, I.; Schleyer, C.; Primmer, E.; Johanna, K.; Berry, P.; Young, J.; Carmen, E.; Jana, Š.; Bezák, P.; Preda, E. Adoption of the
ecosystem services concept in EU policies. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 213–222. [CrossRef]
51. an der Jagt, A.P.N.; Buijs, A.; Dobbs, C.; van Lierop, M.; Pauleit, S.; Randrup, T.B.; Wild, T. An action framework for the
participatory assessment of nature-based solutions in cities. Ambio 2023, 52, 54–67. [CrossRef]
52. Ahern, J.; Cilliers, S.; Niemelä, J. The concept of ecosystem services in adaptive urban planning and design: A framework for
supporting innovation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 254–259. [CrossRef]
53. Collier, M.J.; Connop, S.; Foley, K.; Nedović-Budić, Z.; Newport, D.; Corcoran, A.; Crowe, P.; Dunne, L.; de Moel, H.; Kampelmann,
S.; et al. Urban transformation with TURAS open innovations; opportunities for transitioning through transdisciplinarity. Curr.
Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2016, 22, 57–62. [CrossRef]
54. Connop, S.; Vandergert, P.; Eisenberg, B.; Collier, M.J.; Nash, C.; Clough, J.; Newport, D. Renaturing cities using a regionally-
focused biodiversity-led multifunctional benefits approach to urban green infrastructure. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 62, 99–111.
[CrossRef]
55. Pelling, M.; Brown, D.; Lwasa, S.; Chen, F. Cities and Disaster Risk Reduction. 2017; pp. 1–4. Available online: https://www.
preventionweb.net/publication/cities-and-disaster-risk-reduction (accessed on 19 June 2023).
56. Majamaa, W. The 4th P-People-in Urban Development Based on Public-Private-People Partnership; Helsinki University of Technology:
Helsinki, Finland, 2008.
57. Maraña, P.; Labaka, L.; Sarriegi, J.M. We need them all: Development of a public private people partnership to support a city
resilience building process. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 154, 119954. [CrossRef]
58. Krause-Parello, C.A. The Mediating Effect of Pet Attachment Support Between Loneliness and General Health in Older Females
Living in the Community. J. Community Health Nurs. 2008, 25, 1–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. McConnell, A.R.; Brown, C.M.; Shoda, T.M.; Stayton, L.E.; Martin, C.E. Friends with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet
ownership. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 101, 1239–1252. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Zasloff, R.L.; Kidd, A.H. Loneliness and Pet Ownership among Single Women. Psychol. Rep. 1994, 75, 747–752. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
61. Carr, D.C.; Taylor, M.G.; Gee, N.R.; Sachs-Ericsson, N. Psychological Health Benefits of Companion Animals Following a Social
Loss. Gerontol. Cite Gerontol. 2020, 60, 428–438. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Friedmann, E.; Son, H. The Human–Companion Animal Bond: How Humans Benefit. Veter-Clin. N. Am. Small Anim. Prac. 2009,
39, 293–326. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63. Raymond, C.M.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Kabisch, N.; Berry, P.; Breil, M.; Nita, M.R.; Geneletti, D.; Calfapietra, C. A framework
for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 77, 15–24.
[CrossRef]
64. van der Jagt, A.P.; Smith, M.; Ambrose-Oji, B.; Konijnendijk, C.C.; Giannico, V.; Haase, D.; Lafortezza, R.; Nastran, M.; Pintar, M.;
Železnikar, Š.; et al. Co-creating urban green infrastructure connecting people and nature: A guiding framework and approach.
J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 233, 757–767. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Kumar, S.; Singh, S.K. Monitoring of pet animal in smart cities using animal biometrics. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018, 83,
553–563. [CrossRef]
66. Maroto, F. Is There Room for Pets in Smart Cities? Available online: https://pacomaroto.wordpress.com/smart-cities-series/is-
there-room-for-pets-in-smart-cities/ (accessed on 30 November 2023).
67. Kumar, S.; Singh, S.K. Biometric Recognition for Pet Animal. J. Softw. Eng. Appl. 2014, 7, 470–482. [CrossRef]
68. Cupertino, M.; Resende, M.; Mayer, N.; Carvalho, L.; Siqueira-Batista, R. Emerging and re-emerging human infectious diseases:
A systematic review of the role of wild animals with a focus on public health impact. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2020, 13, 99–106.
[CrossRef]
69. Cunningham, A.A.; Daszak, P.; Wood, J.L.N. One Health, emerging infectious diseases and wildlife: Two decades of progress?
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2017, 372, 20160167. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70. Kock, R. Drivers of disease emergence and spread: Is wildlife to blame? Onderstepoort J. Veter-Res. 2014, 81, E1–E4. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
71. Santini, L.; Isaac, N.J.B.; Maiorano, L.; Ficetola, G.F.; Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Carbone, C.; Thuiller, W. Global drivers of population
density in terrestrial vertebrates. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2018, 27, 968–979. [CrossRef]
72. American Bird Conservancy. Available online: https://abcbirds.org/bird-city-network/ (accessed on 19 June 2023).
73. Bird Immune Systems Reveal Harshness of City Life. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/
horizon-magazine/bird-immune-systems-reveal-harshness-city-life (accessed on 19 June 2023).
74. Urban Bees. Available online: https://www.urbanbees.co.uk (accessed on 19 June 2023).
75. Magle, S.B.; Kay, C.A.M.; Buckley, J.; Fake, K.R.; Fidino, M.; Lehrer, E.W.; Murray, M.H. Why Do Animals Live in Cities? Front.
Young-Minds 2021, 9. [CrossRef]
76. Weber, C. Animals in Cities. Available online: https://www.animalsaroundtheglobe.com/animals-in-cities/ (accessed on 20
July 2023).
77. Ditchkoff, S.S.; Saalfeld, S.T.; Gibson, C.J. Animal behavior in urban ecosystems: Modifications due to human-induced stress.
Urban Ecosyst. 2006, 9, 5–12. [CrossRef]
Animals 2024, 14, 680 18 of 20

78. Parsons, A.W.; Forrester, T.; Baker-Whatton, M.C.; McShea, W.J.; Rota, C.T.; Schuttler, S.G.; Millspaugh, J.J.; Kays, R. Mammal
communities are larger and more diverse in moderately developed areas. eLife 2018, 7, e38012. [CrossRef]
79. Egerer, M.; Buchholz, S. Reframing urban “wildlife” to promote inclusive conservation science and practice. Biodivers. Conserv.
2021, 30, 2255–2266. [CrossRef]
80. Bateman, P.W.; Fleming, P.A. Big city life: Carnivores in urban environments. J. Zool. 2012, 287, 1–23. [CrossRef]
81. Navarro-Gonzalez, N.; Casas-Díaz, E.; Porrero, C.M.; Mateos, A.; Domínguez, L.; Lavín, S.; Serrano, E. Food-borne zoonotic
pathogens and antimicrobial resistance of indicator bacteria in urban wild boars in Barcelona, Spain. Veter- Microbiol. 2013, 167,
686–689. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. Jansen, A.; Luge, E.; Guerra, B.; Wittschen, P.; Gruber, A.D.; Loddenkemper, C.; Schneider, T.; Lierz, M.; Ehlert, D.; Appel, B.; et al.
Leptospirosis in Urban Wild Boars, Berlin, Germany. Emerg. Infect Dis. 2007, 13, 739–742. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
83. Broitman, D.; Griskin, V.; Czamanski, D. Unbundling negative and positive externalities of nature in cities: The influence of wild
animals on housing prices. Urban Stud. 2019, 56, 2820–2836. [CrossRef]
84. Carlo, L. Cristo si è Fermato a Eboli; Einaudi: Turin, Italy, 1945.
85. Frediani, G. Earth-City: The ‘Sassi’ settlement in Matera. Space and identity between utopia and rehabilitation. J. Comp. Cult.
Stud. Archit. 2012, 6, 4–15.
86. Wells, A. Antisocial Animals in the British Atlantic World: Liminality and Nuisance in Glasgow and New York City, 1660–1760. In
Animal History in the Modern City: Exploring Liminality; Wischermann, C., Steinbrecher, A., Howell, P., Eds.; Bloomsbury Academic:
London, UK, 2018.
87. Rossignoli, C.; Di Iacovo, F.; Moruzzo, R.; Scarpellini, P. Dairy cattle, livelihoods and resilience in Gaza Strip: A case study. New
Medit 2015, 14, 24–33.
88. Canfield, M.L. Backyards as Borderlands: Humans, Animals, and Urban Food Production; University of Georgia: Athens, Greek, 2014.
89. Butler, W.H. Welcoming animals back to the city: Navigating the tensions of urban livestock through municipal ordinances.
J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2012, 2, 193–215. [CrossRef]
90. Lindahl, J. Urban animals—Feeding the cities of the future. In Siani Policy Brief ; Swedish International Agricultural Network
Initiative: Stockholm, Sweden, 2016.
91. Serpell, J. In the Company of Animals: A Study of Human-Animal Relationships; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008.
92. McNicholas, J.; Gilbey, A.; Rennie, A.; Ahmedzai, S.; Dono, J.-A.; Ormerod, E. Pet ownership and human health: A brief review of
evidence and issues. Br. Med. J. 2005, 331, 1252–1254. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
93. Toohey, A.M.; Rock, M.J. Unleashing their potential: A critical realist scoping review of the influence of dogs on physical activity
for dog-owners and non-owners. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2011, 8, 46. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
94. Christian, H.E.; Westgarth, C.; Bauman, A.; Richards, E.A.; Rhodes, R.E.; Evenson, K.R.; Mayer, J.A.; Thorpe, R.J., Jr. Dog
Ownership and Physical Activity: A Review of the Evidence. J. Phys. Act. Health 2013, 10, 750–759. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
95. Cronley, C.; Strand, E.B.; Patterson, D.A.; Gwaltney, S. Homeless People who are Animal Caretakers: A Comparative Study.
Psychol. Rep. 2009, 105, 481–499. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
96. Singer, R.S.; Hart, L.A.; Zasloff, R.L. Dilemmas Associated with Rehousing Homeless People Who Have Companion Animals.
Psychol. Rep. 1995, 77, 851–857. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
97. Scanlon, L.; Hobson-West, P.; Cobb, K.; McBride, A.; Stavisky, J. Homeless People and Their Dogs: Exploring the Nature
andImpact of the Human–Companion Animal Bond. Anthrozoos 2021, 34, 77–92. [CrossRef]
98. Zafra-Tanaka, J.H.; Pacheco-Barrios, K.; Tellez, W.A.; Taype-Rondan, A. Effects of dog-assisted therapy in adults with dementia:
A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry 2019, 19, 41. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
99. Yakimicki, M.L.; Edwards, N.E.; Richards, E.; Beck, A.M. Animal-Assisted Intervention and Dementia: A Systematic Review. Clin.
Nurs. Res. 2018, 28, 9–29. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
100. Kanamori, M.; Suzuki, M.; Yamamoto, K.; Kanda, M.; Matsui, Y.; Kojima, E.; Fukawa, H.; Sugita, T.; Oshiro, H. A day care
program and evaluation of animal-assisted therapy (AAT) for the elderly with senile dementia. Am. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. Other
Demen. 2001, 16, 234–239. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
101. Mossello, E.; Ridolfi, A.; Mello, A.M.; Lorenzini, G.; Mugnai, F.; Piccini, C.; Barone, D.; Peruzzi, A.; Masotti, G.; Marchionni,
N. Animal-assisted activity and emotional status of patients with Alzheimer’s disease in day care. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2011, 23,
899–905. [CrossRef]
102. Anderson, S.; Meints, K. Brief Report: The Effects of Equine-Assisted Activities on the Social Functioning in Children and
Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2016, 46, 3344–3352. [CrossRef]
103. Rehn, A.K.; Caruso, V.R.; Kumar, S. The effectiveness of animal-assisted therapy for children and adolescents with autism
spectrum disorder: A systematic review. Complement. Ther. Clin. Prac. 2023, 50, 101719. [CrossRef]
104. Doungchawee, G.; Khoaprasert, Y.; Kongtim, S.; Thamavit, W.; Tajima, K.; Moore, M.A.; Tsuda, H. Use of Wild Rodents for
Environmental Monitoring—Comparison of Rats in Bangkok and Rural Areas of Thailand. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2002, 3,
367–368. [PubMed]
105. Madeira, D.; Mendonça, V.; Madeira, C.; Gaiteiro, C.; Vinagre, C.; Diniz, M.S. Molecular assessment of wild populations in the
marine realm: Importance of taxonomic, seasonal and habitat patterns in environmental monitoring. Sci. Total. Environ. 2019, 654,
250–263. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Animals 2024, 14, 680 19 of 20

106. Brait, C.H.; Filho, N.A.; Furtado, M. Utilization of wild animal hair for the environmental monitoring of Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Pb e
Zn. Quim Nova 2008, 32, 1384–1388. [CrossRef]
107. Göttert, T.; Perry, G. Going Wild in the City—Animal Feralization and Its Impacts on Biodiversity in Urban Environments.
Animals 2023, 13, 747. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
108. Berns, K.I.; Casadevall, A.; Cohen, M.L.; Ehrlich, S.A.; Enquist, L.W.; Fitch, J.P.; Franz, D.R.; Fraser-Liggett, C.M.; Grant, C.M.;
Imperiale, M.J.; et al. Adaptations of Avian Flu Virus Are a Cause for Concern. Science 2012, 335, 660–661. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
109. World Health Organization. Influenza (Avian and other Zoonotic). Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/
fact-sheets/detail/influenza-(avian-and-other-zoonotic)?gclid=Cj0KCQiA4NWrBhD-ARIsAFCKwWv80w3kHCCEbmjMQ4
ROGeAS8lliet07BW7G0__R9mLFgSQliI6HarEaAlU0EALw_wcB (accessed on 10 December 2023).
110. Iwami, S.; Takeuchi, Y.; Liu, X. Avian flu pandemic: Can we prevent it? J. Theor. Biol. 2009, 257, 181–190. [CrossRef]
111. McWilliams, J. Potere animale. Virginia Quarterly Review, Stati Uniti. 2020. Available online: https://www.internazionale.it/
notizie/james-mcwilliams/2020/05/29/potere-animale (accessed on 24 August 2023).
112. IRI Information Resources and Associazione Nazionale Medici Veterinari Italiani (ANMVI). XVI Edizione RAPPORTO
ASSALCO—ZOOMARK 2023. Alimentazione e Cura Degli Animali da Compagnia Italiani e Animali da Compagnia: Una
Relazione di Valore. 2023. Available online: https://www.assalco.it/pagina29_il-rapporto-assalco-zoomark.html (accessed on 10
December 2023).
113. Crivelli, G.; Minciotti, G.; Cerati, F.; Criscione, A.; Pezzatti, F. La Pet Economy; Il Sole 24 Ore Spa. 2019. Available online:
https://www.ilsole24ore.com/ebook/sfogliabile/la-pet-economy-ACAe6eH (accessed on 10 December 2023).
114. Wood, L.; Martin, K.; Christian, H.; Nathan, A.; Lauritsen, C.; Houghton, S.; Kawachi, I.; McCune, S. The Pet Factor—Companion
Animals as a Conduit for Getting to Know People, Friendship Formation and Social Support. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0122085.
[CrossRef]
115. Wood, L.J.; Giles-Corti, B.; Bulsara, M.K.; Bosch, D.A. More than a furry companion: The ripple effect of companion animals on
neighborhood interactions and sense of community. Soc. Anim. J. Hum.-Anim. Stud. 2007, 15, 43–56. [CrossRef]
116. Antonacopoulos, N.M.D.; Pychyl, T.A. An Examination of the Potential Role of Pet Ownership, Human Social Support and Pet
Attachment in the Psychological Health of Individuals Living Alone. Anthrozoos 2010, 23, 37–54. [CrossRef]
117. Bennett, P.C.; Trigg, J.L.; Godber, T.; Brown, C. An experience sampling approach to investigating associations between pet
presence and indicators of psychological wellbeing and mood in older australians. Anthrozoos 2015, 28, 403–420. [CrossRef]
118. Bao, K.J.; Schreer, G. Pets and Happiness: Examining the Association between Pet Ownership and Wellbeing. Anthrozoos 2016, 29,
283–296. [CrossRef]
119. Borrelli, C.; Granai, G.; Di Iacovo, F.P.; Riggio, G.; Rovai, M.; Moruzzo, R.; Riccioli, F.; Bibbiani, C.; Gazzano, A.; Mariti, C. The
benefits of dog ownership on people as an undervalued resource in urban environments. Dog Behav. 2022, 3, 21–39. [CrossRef]
120. Haraway, D.J. The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness; Prickly Paradigm Press: Chicago, IL,
USA, 2003.
121. Dorè, A.; Michalon, J.; Monteiro, T.L. The Place and Effect of Animals in Families. Enfances Fam. Générations 2019, 32. [CrossRef]
122. Wood, L.; Giles-Corti, B.; Bulsara, M. The pet connection: Pets as a conduit for social capital? Soc. Sci. Med. 2005, 61, 1159–1173.
[CrossRef]
123. Nast, H.J. Critical Pet Studies? Antipode 2006, 38, 894–906. [CrossRef]
124. Wu, M.; Yuan, T.-C.; Liu, C.-C. Changing stigma on wild animals: A qualitative assessment of urban pupils’ pre- and post-lesson
drawings. Environ. Educ. Res. 2019, 26, 830–848. [CrossRef]
125. Audretsch, D.B.; Eichler, G.M.; Schwarz, E.J. Emerging needs of social innovators and social innovation ecosystems. Int. Entrep.
Manag. J. 2022, 18, 217–254. [CrossRef]
126. Bonifacio, M. Social Innovation: A Novel Policy Stream or a Policy Compromise? An EU Perspective. Eur. Rev. 2014, 22, 145–169.
[CrossRef]
127. Nyseth, T.; Hamdouch, A. The Transformative Power of Social Innovation in Urban Planning and Local Development. Urban
Plan. 2019, 4, 1–6. [CrossRef]
128. Murray, R.; Caulier-Grice, J.; Mulgan, G. The Open Book Of social Innovation; The Young Foundation/Nesta: London, UK, 2010.
129. Dietze, V.; Feindt, P.H. Innovation systems for controlled-environment food production in urban contexts: A dynamic case study
analysis of combined plant, fish and insect production in Berlin. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2023, 21, 2166230. [CrossRef]
130. McCormack, G.R.; Rock, M.; Toohey, A.M.; Hignell, D. Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical
activity: A review of qualitative research. Health Place 2010, 16, 712–726. [CrossRef]
131. Derges, J.; Lynch, R.; Clow, A.; Petticrew, M.; Draper, A. Complaints about dog faeces as a symbolic representation of incivility in
London, UK: A qualitative study. Crit. Public Health 2012, 22, 419–425. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
132. McClaskey, B. Companion Animals and their Impact on Human Lives. Midwest Q. 2019, 60, 335–351.
133. der Maaten, T.S.-V.; Turner, D.; Van Tilburg, J.; Vaarten, J. Benefits and Risks for People and Livestock of Keeping Companion
Animals: Searching for a Healthy Balance. J. Comp. Pathol. 2016, 155, S8–S17. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
134. Hinchliffe, S.; Bingham, N. People, animals and biosecurity in and through cities. In Networked Disease: Emerging Infections in the
Global City; Ali, S.H., Keil, R., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2008.
135. Louzã, A.C. The Sharing of Urban Areas by Man and Animals. In A Portrait of State-of-the-Art Research at the Technical University of
Lisbon; Pereira, M.S., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2007; pp. 479–488. [CrossRef]
Animals 2024, 14, 680 20 of 20

136. Conover, M.R.; Pitt, W.C.; Kessler, K.K.; DuBow, T.J.; Sanborn, W.A. Review of human injuries, illness, and economic losses
caused by wildlife in the United States. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1995, 23, 407–414.
137. Conover, M.R. Wildlife management by metropolitan residents in the United States: Practices, perceptions, costs, and values.
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1997, 25, 306–311.
138. Hadidian, J. Wildlife in U.S. Cities: Managing Unwanted Animals. Animals 2015, 5, 1092–1113. [CrossRef]
139. Penakalapati, G.; Swarthout, J.; Delahoy, M.J.; McAliley, L.; Wodnik, B.; Levy, K.; Freeman, M.C. Exposure to Animal Feces and
Human Health: A Systematic Review and Proposed Research Priorities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 11537–11552. [CrossRef]
140. Sousa, C.; Esperança, J.; Gonçalves, G. Pets at work: Effects on social responsibility perception and organizational commitment.
Psychol. Leaders Leadersh. 2022, 25, 144–163. [CrossRef]
141. Malhi, Y.; Lander, T.; le Roux, E.; Stevens, N.; Macias-Fauria, M.; Wedding, L.; Girardin, C.; Kristensen, J.; Sandom, C.J.; Evans,
T.D.; et al. The role of large wild animals in climate change mitigation and adaptation. Curr. Biol. 2022, 32, R181–R196. [CrossRef]
142. Berzaghi, F.; Cosimano, T.; Fullenkamp, C.; Scanlon, J.; Fon, T.E.; Robson, M.T.; Forbang, J.L.; Chami, R. Value wild animals’
carbon services to fill the biodiversity financing gap. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2022, 12, 598–601. [CrossRef]
143. Danby, P.; Grajfoner, D. Human–Equine Tourism and Nature-Based Solutions: Exploring Psychological Well-Being Through
Transformational Experiences. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2020, 46, 607–629. [CrossRef]
144. Gallo, T.; Fidino, M. Making wildlife welcome in urban areas. eLife 2018, 7, e41348. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
145. Marinelli, J. Urban Refuge: How Cities Can Help Solve the Biodiversity Crisis. Available online: https://e360.yale.edu/features/
urban-refuge-how-cities-can-help-solve-the-biodiversity-crisis (accessed on 10 December 2023).
146. Hawes, S.; Ikizler, D.; Loughney, K.; Tedeschi, P.; Morris, K. Legislating Components of a Humane City: The Economic Impacts of
the Austin, Texas ‘No Kill’ Resolution (City of Austin Resolution 20091105-040). Anim. Law Legis. Collect. 2017. Available online:
https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/anilleg/1 (accessed on 10 December 2023).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.