Here’s how smart design can help prevent wildlife from losing to the bench or ballpark:

Across the United States, over 440 national parks and 7,400 urban parks offer a variety of recreational green spaces for people and pets.

However, the U.S. Forest Service warns that urbanization, including park development, reduces the natural habitat of plants and animals, and violates wildlife survival.

How can urban parks continue to be important shelters for wildlife, despite being designed to meet the growing needs of people? The first study by University of Florida scientists explores this important balance and provides insight into how to achieve harmony in smart urban park designs.

Scientists at UF’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) answered the question by studying the park in Broward, one of the most populous counties in Sunshine State, published in the Magazine of Urban Forestry & Urban Greening.

Researchers analyzed green spaces in more than 600 cities across Broward County and explored how different physical attributes, such as tree canopies, exercise facilities and playgrounds, are linked to human activity and biodiversity.

“We found that green space size is a powerful predictor of both human utility and biodiversity. Importantly, our findings highlight the need for careful design of green spaces to support biodiversity, but the mix of green spaces with a variety of goals is also important.”

Urban green spaces are essential for environmental health and for urban residents. They provide important services such as air and water purification, climate control and recreational opportunities. More than that, they maintain a diverse range of forms of life by providing habitat for a variety of species, scientists have found.

Urban green spaces are important as they serve as an asset within the city and support both ecological and social systems. These areas provide a place for recreation, relaxation and connection with nature. This is closely linked to mental and physical well-being, Callahan said.

“On the other hand, due to biodiversity, green spaces provide essential habitat for birds, insects, mammals and plants, helping to maintain the population of an otherwise fragmented urban landscape,” he said. “Ecologically, these spaces contribute to climate regulation by reducing urban heat island effects, improving air and water quality, buffering against floods, and sequestering carbon.”

These spaces help buffer the effects of flooding and sequester carbon. This dual role – supporting human happiness and ecological health creates urban green spaces that are essential as cities grow.

The important points from this study highlight that urban green spaces are designed to serve a variety of purposes, but these objectives can contradict the needs of wildlife.

Features such as sports fields and play areas are great for people, but can reduce the quality of habitat for sensitive species, Callahan said.

“On the other hand, dense vegetation and limited lighting support biodiversity, but may not be used by people. It’s all about finding the ground in between,” said Natalie Miguez, lead author of the paper that conducted the study as an undergraduate student at the UF Geography Department.

Frequent mowing to maintain a well-maintained lawn can harm native pollinators, and light installations for safety purposes can destroy nighttime species. Despite these trade-offs, there are ways to design green spaces that can benefit both people and wildlife. Researchers recommend incorporating native plant species, creating tree canopies, connecting separate green spaces to provide better habitat for wildlife, and also supporting human activities.

It is essential to leverage modern technology and community engagement to further strengthen the coexistence of human activities and wildlife in urban green spaces.

One way to incorporate them is through data-driven insights made possible by citizen science platforms like inaturalist, so that we can directly contribute to our understanding of biodiversity in urban spaces.

Citizen science platforms like Inaturalist played a pivotal role in collecting the vast amount of biodiversity data needed for this study. These platforms provide a unique and scalable tool for assessing biodiversity across a wide range of regions by providing the public with ways to contribute to plant and animal observation in urban parks.

Using this data, scientists and urban park planners can better match urban green space management with the needs of both human visitors and the wildlife who call these spaces homes, Callahan said.

The findings show that thoughtful, data-based park planning doesn’t have to compromise on biodiversity for recreation, and vice versa. By identifying which parks support wildlife and human use, planners across the country can design more resilient and ecologically functional urban green spaces. This study provides models that can be applied far beyond South Florida, providing guidance for cities across the country that strive to preserve nature while serving growing populations.

“As cities continue to expand, we need to ensure that our green spaces are working hard for both people and biodiversity,” Callahan said. “That means that ongoing investment in research, surveillance and community science platforms is something like inerarchists. The more we know, the more we can design a space that is inclusive for both human and biodiversity. Continuous support to realize that vision is key.”