As cities are increasingly recognised as hotspots for biodiversity, urban greening and rewilding interventions are becoming ever popular. These solutions are promoted as having multiple co-benefits for humans and more-than-humans alike, infused with narratives of climate change adaptation and positive (human) health outcomes. Little research has critically engaged with how the human residents of cities respond to urban greening and rewilding interventions and the potentially increasing numbers, or changing types, of more-than-humans living in urban neighbourhoods. As most rewilding programs have occurred in peri-urban or rural areas, the bulk of current knowledge about human responses is in a rural or semi-rural context. In this vein, this paper seeks to critically engage with the social dimensions of urban rewilding initiatives and greening programs. Following on from the critical attention rewilding is receiving from ecological and conservation perspectives it reviews the current state of knowledge about more-than-human relations in an urban context. In drawing on a range of literature the paper aims to develop a more-than-human perspective for understanding how human residents respond to rewilding projects in cities. It concludes by contemplating what these ideas might mean for improving the design and implementation of future urban greening programs.

Many species of native, wild animals flourish in the flows of urban life in Brisbane, adopting various material-semiotic strategies that allow them to hold their own against the pressures of urbanisation and the presence of humans. Encounters with them are a daily occurrence, and their uninhibited presence and pugnacious habits can make life in the city feel risky and uncomfortable for humans. For the Queensland government, managing abundant urban wildlife is a ‘new frontier’ for conservation, and methods must be found to temper the problematic agency of this wildlife while simultaneously allowing its broader circulations in and out of the city. Using magpies and ibis as examples, I demonstrate that making everyday wildlife manageable can involve experiments through which managers and animals find ways to make the city liveable for both human and non-human. Through these experiments, new identities can arise. Everyday wildlife can become responsive and manageable members of the city, and managers can gain expertise and authority as facilitators of convivial urban environments. However, drawing on observations of a flying fox dispersal, I demonstrate how making wildlife manageable can also be little more than ineffective acts of human dominance over animals unable to respond as they ‘should’.