There has been a move in geography and urban planning towards new ontologies of the urban as multispecies space not only inhabited, but coproduced, by both humans and nonhuman actors. Urban planning, however, still focuses on urban space as predominantly a human domain, not only reinforcing the nature-culture divide, but failing to account for many other urban inhabitants. This is particularly relevant with the “auto-rewilding” of urban space in response to an unfolding ecological crisis and impacts of climate change. Overcoming pest narratives and the consequent violence of lethal management approaches entails ethical multispecies urban planning that recognizes human/nonhuman cohabitation. This raises the question as to what might multispecies urban planning entail?
Flying-foxes are mega-bats which traditionally establish camps in forests and wetland biomes. In recent years flying-foxes have shown a preference for urban living, with roost sites (or camps) becoming larger and more permanent. This transgresses human-centred spatial imaginaries of the urban, leading to demands for their removal or eradication, but flying-foxes do not easily relinquish their camps, and in effect have forced humans to re-evaluate the human-centric approach to urban planning. Critical discourse analysis (CDA) was applied to a range of documents including the NSW Flying-Fox Camp Management Policy and four local government produced site specific camp management plans. Human-flying-fox relations are entangled in a biopolitics reflecting socio-ecological values of care and conservation, and human amenity, well-being and property protection. This research identified that a range of practices and management actions are incorporated into camp management plans, including care and support, education, coexistence with minimal habitat modification, creating alternative habitat with camp dispersal being framed as a last resort. These plans are analysed in relation to academic literature on multispecies urban planning.