Opinion: Building safer cities means protecting animals too, not just humans
- Share via
The recent Los Angeles wildfires are the most destructive in the region’s history. More than two dozen people have died, and tens of thousands have fled their homes. The damage extends beyond our species too: According to one survey, nearly half of evacuees from a disaster or emergency leave at least one pet behind. Wild animals die or flee their habitats during natural disasters as well, often with nowhere to go.
Fortunately, people are stepping up to help. Organizations are working tirelessly to rescue animals, and as local shelters reach capacity, some organizations are taking animals to nearby states; for example, the charities Best Friends Animal Society and Wings of Rescue relocated more than 80 cats and dogs from L.A. County to Utah.
Many who fled the flames were forced to make devastating choices about their pets. Some, terrified, hid or refused to leave. In other cases, their owners were away from home and could not safely return.
The wildfires, and these responses, are a reminder that human and animal fates are linked, in part because of the effects of human activity. We might think that we should leave animals alone, but that ship has sailed — L.A., for instance, is home to countless animals and interacts with them all the time both directly, through animal control, and indirectly, through environmental management.
The effects that infrastructure can have on animals are particularly important and neglected. After all, our built environment shapes where animals can live and how they can behave, both during normal times and during emergencies including wildfires. We should ask: As we work to make our infrastructure more resilient and sustainable in the face of climate change, how can we make it safer for animals too?
I spent a year working with a team of experts to investigate how cities and other local actors can improve their infrastructure for humans, animals and the environment at the same time. This project culminated in a detailed policy report led by legal scholar Alisa White, which describes a number of low-cost, co-beneficial solutions that cities should consider and could achieve quickly. Here are some examples:
- Build with bird-friendly materials. Hundreds of millions of birds die each year in building collisions, because glass is hard for birds to see. As cities update building codes for energy efficiency, they can aim to reduce collisions too. For instance, they can require new constructions and major renovations to use bird-safe glass, which uses coatings and patterns that are more visible to birds and less visible to humans. Many cities already require bird-friendly design for certain properties, including at least 10 in California. Others should follow suit.
Our city is a hub of avian superhighways and filled with glass buildings that birds can’t see. Requiring bird-safe glass in buildings could help reduce fatal collisions.
- Improve road design. Busy, often overly congested streets can increase collisions between vehicles and animals, fragment wildlife habitats and disrupt migration patterns. As cities update transportation systems for energy efficiency, they can consider building overpasses or underpasses to reduce collisions and explore pedestrian-only corridors to mitigate air and noise pollution while encouraging walking and cycling. Last year California announced that the world’s largest wildlife crossing, which will provide safe passage over the 101 in L.A. County, is set to open with philanthropic support in 2026. This can be a model for development everywhere.
- Improve green infrastructure. Green roofs, rain gardens and bioswales (channels that collect, direct and filter stormwater runoff) can capture water and provide relief from the heat-island effect that drives up temperatures in concrete-heavy areas. Incorporating plants into this infrastructure can also make a difference. Los Angeles has been praised as a “sponge city” for its approach to water collection. Moving forward, L.A. and other cities can select plants for wild animal food and habitats as part of development too.
- Improve lawn maintenance. Turf and monoculture lawns offer limited habitat for animals, and gas-powered lawn equipment increases air and noise pollution. Switching to naturalized lawns can create habitat corridors for birds, insects and other animals while reducing the use of disruptive equipment. These lawns are becoming increasingly popular in California, and the state has banned the sale of new gas-powered lawn equipment. These and similar changes can benefit animals and humans alike.
The mix of urban settings and nature is what we love about this region. This past week we’re reminded just how untamed the wilderness is.
- More fundamentally, cities can establish an animal welfare office, as New York did in 2019. The city has also made progress in recent years on infrastructure (such as bird-friendly building policies), wildlife management (for example, non-lethal deer and geese management policies) and various other issues. Such progress illustrates that co-beneficial solutions for humans, animals and the environment are easier to find when policymakers create an official mechanism for considering animal welfare.
Of course, these proposals are only starting points. Every city has its own social, political, economic and ecological context and will need to adapt policies accordingly; for L.A. that will include a focus on both fires and floods to mitigate risks associated with its “hydroclimate whiplash.” We also still have a lot to learn about how to protect humans and animals at the same time. Even if we somehow made all the right decisions, many animals would still suffer and die from our extreme impacts on the environment.
Still, we should avoid letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. We need to adapt to climate change now, and as we do, we should consider animals too. As we know from the wildfires, every life saved is a victory, but individual rescue is not enough. By building an animal-friendly infrastructure, we can embed compassion for animals into the basic structures of our shared society.
Jeff Sebo is an associate professor of environmental studies, director of the Center for Environmental and Animal Protection, and director of the Center for Mind, Ethics, and Policy at NYU. His latest books are “Saving Animals, Saving Ourselves” and the forthcoming “The Moral Circle.”
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
