The Role of Urban Ecological Networks on Health from a One Health Perspective: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Introduction: Ecological networks (ENs) are critical frameworks designed to protect biodiversity, enhance habitat connectivity, and provide ecosystem services in fragmented landscapes. Urban ecological networks (UENs) adapt this concept to address the challenges posed by urbanization, habitat fragmentation, and climate change. Methods: This systematic review follows the PRISMA methodology, with the search strategy applied across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Articles published until 29 July 2025, were evaluated based on their alignment with One Health domains: human, animal, and ecosystem health. The included studies underwent independent review and quality assessment using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: Only nine of the 228 articles that were found satisfied the requirements for inclusion. These studies examined UENs’ effects on biodiversity, species migration, and climate resilience but lacked direct evaluation of human health impacts. Key findings highlighted the role of ecological corridors in improving habitat connectivity, promoting biodiversity, and mitigating climate-related fragmentation. Conclusions: While UENs show significant potential to enhance biodiversity and urban resilience, their direct impacts on human health remain underexplored. Future interdisciplinary research should focus on quantifying these links and integrating UENs into urban planning to address ecological and Public Health challenges under a One Health framework.

1. Introduction

A network can be defined as a set of elements connected by links, which may exist between all or some of the elements that comprise the network itself. By extending this definition, an ecological network (EN) is conceptualized as a network where the elements are typically species, and the links represent ecological interactions. Within this framework, hundreds of different species interact in various ways. These intricate interactions form complex links between individuals of different species, ultimately contributing to the creation of a robust ecological community [1].

Ecological networks (ENs) serve as a foundational framework created to understand, protect, and enhance the connectivity between natural habitats in fragmented landscapes. These networks include core areas (natural or semi-natural habitats), corridors that connect these areas, and buffer zones that mitigate external pressures on ecosystems [2]. The primary objective of an ecological network is to maintain and improve the resilience of ecosystems, thus promoting the conservation of biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services [3].

In the context of urban planning, the concept of EN diverges significantly from its application in ecology, despite sharing some fundamental similarities. Historically, natural features—such as rivers, coastlines, dunes, cliffs, and hills—were often seen as obstacles to the development of infrastructure and urban centers. This utilitarian view reflected a simplistic approach in which natural features were seen merely as barriers to navigate. However, from the Renaissance through to the Baroque and Picturesque movements, there was a paradigm shift. The natural landscape began to be incorporated into the urban fabric, not just as a challenge, but as an integral scenic element that enhanced both the aesthetic and functional dimensions of urban spaces [4].

Over recent decades, ENs have become central to addressing the spatial and functional challenges posed by urbanization, habitat fragmentation, and climate change. Their interdisciplinary nature combines insights from ecology, urban planning, public health [5], and climate resilience [6]. Understanding and optimizing these networks involves different methodologies, such as ecological network analysis and graph theory, which assess structural connectivity and the functional roles of habitats within landscapes [7].

Urbanization represents one of the most significant threats to biodiversity and ecological connectivity. The expansion of cities fragments habitats, leading to isolated species populations, impaired gene flow, and ecosystem degradation. Ecological networks in urban contexts (or urban ecological network—UEN) aim to mitigate these impacts through green corridors, urban parks, and integrated habitat zones that link urban and peri-urban environments [8]. For example, successful urban ecological networks can be found in European initiatives, such as Natura 2000, which integrates biodiversity conservation into densely populated areas. These networks often include biodiversity corridors, such as riverways or greenways, exemplifying how UENs can address habitat fragmentation while fostering connectivity and enhancing urban quality of life.

An ecological network is therefore not merely a network of green or blue areas but rather a scalar element that represents a share of more or less wild land within which biodiversity dynamics develop (or remain preserved) that are capable of self-sustaining independently of human action [9,10,11].

Moreover, the One Health approach recognizes the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health. Ecological networks align with this perspective by promoting habitat connectivity and ecosystem stability, which, in turn, reduces risks associated with zoonotic disease transmission [5]. Urban ENs are particularly instrumental in mitigating contact between humans and wildlife in fragmented landscapes, thereby reducing disease spillovers. They also provide co-benefits, such as increased access to natural spaces for recreation and improved air quality, both of which improve human health and well-being.

Through urban ecological networks, policymakers can synchronize public health goals with biodiversity conservation. For example, expanding walkable green spaces can reduce air pollution and mitigate heat island effects, directly benefiting urban residents [12]. Modern urban planning increasingly prioritizes the concept of walkability, characterized by environments where pedestrians can interact easily and safely with surrounding green spaces. Ecological networks support this trend by integrating green corridors into urban areas, allowing for both wildlife movement and an encouragement of human mobility, thus promoting healthier, community-oriented spaces [13].

By implementing UENs, planners can create multifunctional systems that serve as biodiversity reserves and recreational areas. Urban greenways, for example, promote both ecological connectivity and sustainable development goals by linking parks with residential areas. Incorporating features such as bioswales and rain gardens into these networks improves stormwater management in urban settings, addressing local flood risks exacerbated by climate change [14].

Climate change poses a serious challenge to biodiversity conservation. Rising temperatures and shifting climate zones necessitate adaptation strategies for reconnecting habitats and enabling species migration. UENs function as vital tools in facilitating these migrations, allowing species to access suitable habitats as conditions evolve [15]. Additionally, ecological networks bolster urban resilience to climate change. By increasing vegetation cover, they can mitigate urban heat island effects, sequester carbon, and enhance stormwater management. Reforestation initiatives as part of UEN plans enhance habitat connectivity in addition to increasing carbon uptake. Consequently, improving the accessibility of ecological resources for local communities and biodiversity [16].

While UENs seem to offer significant benefits, their implementation faces unique challenges. Urban and peri-urban landscapes often involve land-use conflicts, human disturbances, and varying stakeholder interests. Habitat fragmentation remains a persistent issue, particularly in rapidly expanding cities. However, these constraints also provide opportunities for innovative solutions. For example, integrating urban biodiversity corridors within mixed-use developments can harmonize growth with conservation goals. By encouraging community engagement in local habitats, cities can align conservation objectives with public support and educational initiatives. Furthermore, technological advances such as GIS mapping and remote sensing further enhance planning approaches, providing detailed data to optimize UEN designs [17].

The aim of this study was to analyze and promote the importance of urban ecological networks (UENs) as key tools for addressing contemporary ecological challenges in urban contexts. Identifying these networks can facilitate connectivity between fragile habitats and improve ecosystem resilience and is critical for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service provision in urban contexts. Through the integration of interdisciplinary methodologies, ranging from ecology to urban planning and Public Health (One Health), this study aimed to identify evidence from the literature regarding the impact of UEN on human, animal, and ecosystem health, while also highlighting potential gaps in scientific evidence concerning the relationships among these elements.

While there is a substantial body of literature on the benefits of urban ecological networks (UENs) in general, a qualitative or quantitative assessment providing measurable outcomes is still lacking. This study aims to identify existing literature assessing the impact of UENs on health-related outcomes and to critically examine the methodological and conceptual gaps hindering this emerging field. By analyzing the limited number of studies that met the inclusion criteria and reflecting on those that were excluded, we aim to clarify the challenges involved in operationalizing the ‘One Health’ approach in urban planning and to propose future research directions that will strengthen interdisciplinary collaboration in this area.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Selection Protocol and Search Strategy

The current systematic review has been performed adopting the Preferred Reporting Methodology for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). CRD42025635296, the associated protocol, is registered in PROSPERO [18]. Three different databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) were used in this research The search string (“ecological network*” OR “biodiversity corridor*” OR “ecological infrastructure”) AND (“urban planning” OR “urban development” OR “city design” OR “urban ecosystem*”) AND (“human health” OR “public health” OR “psychological well-being” OR “climate resilience” OR “biodiversity” OR “One Health”) was then used to find all articles published up to 29 July 2025.

2.2. Inclusion Criteria for the Study

Every article found was then filtered first by title and abstract, and then by full text. The authors L.C., M.S., L.P., M.A.D., C.D.P., S.D.G., and L.S. then each made their own independent decisions. The same writers (L.C., M.S., L.P., M.A.D., C.D.P., S.D.G., and L.S.) independently reviewed each article. If any issues, uncertainties, or inconsistencies were found, all writers reached a collective decision after a rigorous discussion. The authors included any study that focused on how ecological networks can serve as a cornerstone for sustainable urban development, offering co-benefits for health, biodiversity, and climate resilience. All articles that contained unique information were included. Reviews, case reports, meta-analyses, symposia, editorials, and other forms of writing were not considered in this study.

In summary, the included articles present original assessments or data, therefore, to be understood extensively as qualitative or quantitative, regarding the impact of UENs in at least one of the three domains identified by the One Health approach: human health, animal health, and ecosystem health (

Table 1. Inclusion Criteria.

Domain	Specific Criteria
Human Health	Direct impacts (prevalence of diseases) Indirect impacts (effects on social determinants of health, mitigation of extreme climatic events, or environmental determinants)
Animal Health	Animal population size and biodiversity, migratory and reproductive capacity
Environmental and Ecosystem Health	Reduction of pollutants, increased biodiversity of flora

).

Included articles answer at least 1 of the research questions according to the following Table 1: Inclusion Criteria.

2.3. Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

All of the included papers were then analyzed in order to extract information on author, year, country, socio-economic and demographic characteristics, impact of ecological networks on health, biodiversity, and climate resilience, and study methodology. The data were then organized using a variety of assessment and intervention techniques. A quality assessment was then carried out using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Evaluation Scale (NOS). The NOS uses a set of questions to evaluate the quality of research in observational studies, and each study can score up to nine points in three separate areas. The first section, “SELECT” (4 points), considered the profile of the respondent, sample size, research group selection, and the clarity of the major risk factors. The second section, “COMPARATIVITY” (2 points), includes the presence or absence of confounding variables and the comparability of different outcome groups. The final section, “RESULTS” (3 points), examined whether the exposure and outcome verification were properly assessed or whether statistical testing was appropriate when used. The quality was categorized as “Good” if the total score was greater than 7, “Fair” if it was between 5 and 7, or “Poor” if it was less than 5 after the scores were added up [19].

3. Results

Of the 317 articles found by searching the 3 databases, 228 were analyzed by title and abstract. After reducing the publications to be read in full to 66, only 9 were considered to be suitable for the objective of this survey, as reported in Figure 1.

These studies were conducted in China [20,21,22,23], the Republic of Korea [24], Spain [25], the USA [26], Italy [27], and France [28] in the years 2014 [25], 2019 [21], 2021 [20], 2023 [24], and 2025 [22,23,26,27,28].

At the end of the selection stages, 9 scientific papers are included, none of which present direct assessments regarding the impact of EN on human health [20,21,22,23,24,26,27,28]. One article addresses the significance of public health by acknowledging the possibility of zoonotic transmission and human-wildlife conflict in urban settings, despite the absence of direct measures of disease prevalence [25]. The authors also point out that metropolitan characteristics, including the urban heat island effect, can act as a buffer against seasonal extremes, which could change how animals behave and how people interact with nature, particularly during the winter [26]. One study demonstrated how human exposure can have a great impact on wildlife and can cause habitat degradation and biodiversity loss, which are frequently caused by rapid urbanization, human activity and changes in land use [23]. Also, D’onofrio R. et al. emphasizes the close indirect link between urban green infrastructure and public health, despite not explicitly evaluating disease prevalence or epidemiological data. A number of urban designs, including those in Avellino, Bologna, and Prato, incorporate measures to improve thermal comfort, improve air quality, and lessen the urban heat island effect—all of which are associated with improved health outcomes. For instance, Avellino has deliberately placed flora to lessen exposure to pollution and heat, improving the well-being of its residents. In a similar vein, Bologna incorporates green infrastructure into climate adaptation plans since it understands how important it is for safeguarding public health during severe weather. Furthermore, in recognition of the psychological advantages of having access to nature, plans such as those in Padova and Bolzano suggest using green spaces for physical exercise and social inclusion. These examples show that the greening efforts are purposefully created to address important environmental determinants of health, such as microclimate regulation, access to nature, and the encouragement of active lifestyles, even though they cannot be measured in medical terms [27]. Conserving natural buffers such as wetlands and forests helps mitigate the impacts of extreme climatic events (such as flooding and heatwaves), which are increasingly relevant to urban public health [22]. Clauzel C. et al. [28] highlight how greening schoolyards can improve air quality, reduce the urban heat island effect, and create healthier environments, all of which are linked to a lower incidence of respiratory and heat-related illnesses. They also improve social equity, recreational space, and well-being, especially in densely populated or underserved urban areas, promoting children’s mental health and learning capacity. In line with reducing health disparities through environmental improvements, schoolyards can support reproductive and migratory behaviors by acting as stepping stones connecting fragmented habitats, facilitating the movement and survival of urban wildlife populations, and improving ecological connectivity in the city [28].

One paper deals directly with the issue of environmental health and indirectly with the issue of animal health [20]. Two papers [21,25] deal directly with the issue of animal health, through the analysis of the behavior and life cycle of some bird species, one in particular, and also through their relationship with fauna, thus also dealing, indirectly, with the issue of environmental health. The last one deals directly with the role of UENs in supporting the development of biodiversity of flora and fauna [24]. In order to link disparate ecosystems, lessen habitat fragmentation, and promote biodiversity, an ecological network (EN) made up of habitat patches, corridors, and buffer zones is constructed. It has been demonstrated that species such as Muntiacus crinifrons and Mergus squamatus, for example, experience decreased habitats and mobility as a result of fragmented landscapes, which impacts their rates of reproduction and survival. Their ability to reproduce and migrate is utilized as a marker of the resilience of the ecosystem as a whole [22].

Rodewald et al. highlight how urbanization reduces the diversity of plant species, favoring the most invasive ones and consequently limiting equitable access to resources for other species. This change in the plant world inevitably leads to a reduction in resources for animal species. The reduction of available resources for animal species in urban areas not only threatens local biodiversity but may also compromise overall ecological stability, leading to cascading effects on air quality, urban climate regulation, and the spread of zoonotic diseases [25]. The loss of biodiversity and the equitable distribution of habitat and vital resources among other species are both significantly hampered by human overpopulation. It is important for ecological networks to understand how urbanization indirectly influences biodiversity and emphasizes the need to incorporate species interactions into conservation strategies [25]. Lv and his collaborators show how urban habitat fragmentation threatens species associated with specific habitats (e.g., wetlands or forests), highlighting the importance of maintaining connectivity between habitats to ensure movement and survival of species. Small water bodies and balanced forest or open-habitat cover are essential for the conservation of water, forest, and open-habitat birds [21]. This is echoed by Su’s working group, which analyzes how building ecological corridors can improve climate connectivity, reduce habitat fragmentation, and help species migration. Identifying these corridors will also be crucial under future global warming conditions. Constructing ecological corridors and reducing human activity intensity are crucial for maintaining biodiversity and enhancing climate-wise conservation [20].

Jin et al. point out that connectivity between various patches increases biodiversity and that targeted reforestation of selected patches can increase functional connectivity, enhancing the ecological sustainability of the urban environment and thus favoring species with limited dispersal capacity. A targeted, cost-effective approach to afforestation can enhance the ecological resilience of urban ecosystems [24].

In their assessment of the variety of urban mammals, Hallam J et al. [26] identified 23 mammal taxa in both the winter and summer. There was a clear seasonal species turnover, with some species (such as the striped skunk and groundhog) only occurring in the summer and others (such as the brown rat) only occurring in the winter. The observed variance shows how vulnerable urban animal populations are to seasonal variations in temperature, human activity, and resource availability. In addition to the migratory and reproductive habits of urban animals, these dynamics also represent more general ecological processes such as habitat selection and dispersal. Greater biodiversity and more stable seasonal community structures were found in larger parks, indicating that park size is important for maintaining animal health and population resilience in urban settings. By examining biodiversity and finding anthropogenic DNA (from cows and pigs, for example), the study inferentially evaluates the health of the ecosystem and raises the possibility of human-caused environmental contamination. Noting that larger, vegetated parks sustain more complex and diversified species networks than smaller, recreational ones, it highlights the significance of urban green spaces in promoting ecological function. Ecological stability is impacted by larger species dispersal, which is shown by seasonal declines in network connection, especially during the summer. Overall, the study supports the use of biodiversity monitoring in one health and urban planning plans by demonstrating how eDNA can disclose the ways in which urbanization, seasonality, and human activity impact mammal groups [26].

Restoring soil and water systems, cutting pollution, and enhancing ecosystem services are all made possible by urban planning. To manage stormwater and fight climate change, towns such as Turin and Prato are specifically encouraging surface desealing, urban demineralization, and the application of nature-based solutions (NBS). By enhancing water filtration, lowering runoff pollutants, and boosting vegetation’s cooling effect, these measures should strengthen ecosystem resilience. Through programs such as tree censuses, urban forestry projects, and the incorporation of agricultural lands into the urban fabric, governments also formally support plant biodiversity. To increase the amount and quality of urban vegetation, Prato, for instance, has created a comprehensive “Urban Forestry Action Plan” that incorporates peri-urban woods, green buildings, and reforestation corridors. Urban greening is now viewed as a fundamental component of infrastructure for climate adaption, biodiversity preservation, and public health promotion rather than as an aesthetic or recreational add-on [27].

The qualitative assessment of these 9 articles was “good” [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28].

4. Discussion

Given that the first key result of this study is the scarcity of articles identified through the review phases, it is also important to consider that the full-text excluded articles still present characteristics useful for informing the discussion. These articles can be grouped into three macro-categories:

(1)

Articles that identify the key characteristics required to define an urban ecological network (UEN).

(2)

Articles that, based on these characteristics, introduce evaluation and study tools for UENs.

(3)

Articles that measure the impact of policies and urbanization processes on UENs.

Some scientific works fall between these three categories, particularly within the field of urban studies.

The first category includes several studies that identify connectivity and biodiversity as the main defining features of UENs [29,30,31]. Connectivity is a fundamental aspect in defining UENs, as it refers to the ability of natural areas to maintain a continuous ecological flow between fragmented habitats. Connectivity plays a key role in supporting biodiversity and ecological resilience, as it enables species dispersion, the maintenance of genetic variability, and the capacity to adapt to environmental changes [29]. However, in urban areas, this connectivity is frequently compromised by anthropogenic infrastructure and landscape fragmentation, making it necessary to adopt targeted strategies to strengthen ecological corridors and reduce physical and ecological barriers between green areas [32].

In this sense, connectivity is a key criterion for identifying a UEN, as it differentiates it from the mere presence of green or blue spaces, regardless of their biodiversity level or legal classification [31]. Some studies delve deeper into the specific characteristics of connectivity [29,32], providing a comprehensive overview of its defining features.

The second category, the largest group, includes studies focusing on the development of modeling tools capable of identifying UENs, particularly in terms of connectivity [30,33] and spatial extent [34]. Various methodological approaches have been proposed to assess and optimize ecological connectivity in cities, including the use of graph theory [32], which allows for the identification of nodes and critical links necessary to maintain the ecological network, and GIS-based landscape analysis models, which evaluate fragmentation levels and the potential for connection between different components of the urban ecological network [10,35].

The integration of these tools into urban planning enables the development of effective strategies to preserve and enhance UEN connectivity, thereby supporting not only biodiversity but also improving the ecosystem services provided to urban inhabitants [36].

Modeling is primarily conducted through geospatial software [33], which allows for the assessment of the connectivity margin between the UEN and the urban area. However, the ultimate goal of these tools remains urban planning [4], with a focus on protecting and safeguarding UENs from urbanization processes.

Most of the excluded articles aimed at the recognition and maintenance of ecological networks and habitat connectivity in urban areas. In this way, the subject of urban planning is undoubtedly becoming more and more relevant. In this sense, there is certainly a growing relevance of the topic in urban planning with a focus on how to identify, recognize, and protect ecological corridors based on digital mapping systems, GIS, or community participation mechanisms. However, the excluded articles did not quantify the need for ecological corridors or the impact of an intervention on biodiversity, nor did they model how much improving ecological corridors and their connectivity could then impact, in predictive terms, the improvement of human, animal, or biodiversity health in general [29,37,38,39,40].

Furthermore, most of the excluded articles deal with an equally important issue, namely, how much cities impact the quality of ecological networks, or how much (and especially how) urban planning can (and should, in fact) incorporate elements of recognition, protection, and enhancement of ecological networks: this pertains more to a planning area and is beyond the scope of this article [41,42,43]. Further excluded articles, particularly after reading the full-text, present case studies of impacts of urban policies on the maintenance of UENs also through the specific behavioral aspects of individual animal species, thus rather measuring characteristics such as the connectivity of green areas or their conservation in the face of anthropogenic pressures [37,44].

Included articles specifically address one direction of the causal chain, namely, how much ecological corridors, habitat connectivity, and ecological networks, in general, contribute to human, animal, and ecosystem health in an urban environment from a One Health perspective [20,21,24,25].

Included articles present a qualitative or quantitative, even modeled/estimated and not directly measured, assessment of the impact of ecological networks on at least one of the three domains in a one health perspective: human health, animal health, and ecosystem health, including through the mitigation of human footprint and climate change and its effects. Indeed, the aim of the work is to try to identify a direction of the causal chain (ecological network, human health, animal health, environmental health) from a one health perspective, reversing the anthropocentrism that necessarily characterizes our ability to study ecosystems in urban environments [20,21,24,25]. In this sense, it is useful to reiterate how the One Health approach shifts the focus from the centrality of human health to the centrality of global health [5]. Even today, the scientific literature still has difficulty in best framing this paradigm shift, often maintaining the essentially anthropocentric perspective that has characterized the study model and the environmental impact assessment procedures, which in any case are ultimately aimed at assessing the impact on human health [45].

In this sense, the difficulty of assessing the impact of complex systems such as ENs in urban settings on human health clearly emerges. While there is also a very large literature that quantitatively analyzes the association between, e.g., green or blue areas and health outcomes [46,47,48,49], including through causal pathways that see the mitigation effect of, e.g., heat waves in the model [50,51]. However, the literature analysis reveals a significant gap in research regarding the direct impact of UENs on human health. While numerous studies explore the role of urban green infrastructures in ecosystem services, few works systematically and experimentally assess the relationships between ecological connectivity and health benefits.

Lack of exposure to green areas and natural settings has been proposed as a potential risk factor for children’s adaptive skills and mental development issues. Most likely, according to the etiological theory, stress reduction, improved physical activity, and less pollution exposure are all ways that natural surroundings might enhance mental health [52,53].

Meeting WHO criteria and improving access to green spaces could avert a significant number of premature deaths, possibly as many as 9% of all fatalities when PM2.5 exposure is taken into account [54,55].

From an animal health point of view, on the other hand, that of the UEN is an area of particular interest. Especially with regard to the possibility of animals being able to move via the UENs, thus increasing the possibility of fitness of the species and in any case guaranteeing a greater range and variability of the habitats [56]. Moreover, the connectivity provided by UEN also allows the management of extreme climatic events, such as heat waves, which could locally affect certain urban areas more severely [50,56]. The same goes for environmental health, as UEN guarantees biodiversity, which in turn allows for effective control of invasive species, alien or otherwise, thanks precisely to a substantial balance in the reproduction rates of species, both animal and plant [57,58].

5. Conclusions and Limitations

Given the paucity of elements identified and included, the study, rather than achieving its specific objectives, allows the outlining of possible research developments. In particular, biomedical research in relation to the role of UENs in determining the health status of the population and their importance as constituent elements of the urban environment. This aspect certainly is a limitation for the present study. However, it points to the need for further investigation of how to best identify and study the constituent elements of the non-humanized landscape, not only to ensure their maintenance and expansion but also to demonstrate their effectiveness in improving the health status of urbanized populations. Therefore, the discussion of the article had to include elements also related to the articles that did not answer the specific research question, as they were nonetheless considered interesting in delineating the phenomenon at hand, and in particular to read how the scientific literature struggles to include a “one health” approach within research models. In this sense, it would be useful to further define this perspective, especially through basic research models capable of developing new integrated methodologies for reading complex phenomena.