{"id":60984,"date":"2026-06-30T15:38:10","date_gmt":"2026-06-30T19:38:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thenatureofcities.com\/TNOC\/?p=60984"},"modified":"2026-06-30T17:11:21","modified_gmt":"2026-06-30T21:11:21","slug":"cities-are-typically-a-game-of-limited-space-and-limited-budgets-what-could-we-do-less-of-to-make-room-for-nature","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thenatureofcities.com\/TNOC\/2026\/06\/30\/cities-are-typically-a-game-of-limited-space-and-limited-budgets-what-could-we-do-less-of-to-make-room-for-nature\/","title":{"rendered":"Cities are typically a game of limited space and limited budgets. What could we do less of to make room for nature?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Authors in This Roundtable<\/h3>\n
Tim Beatley, Charlottesville<\/a> Nature is part of what helps to dispel distrust and build or restore levels of trust.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Samarth Das, Mumbai<\/a> As citizens, we have to reclaim our role as custodians of the city\u2019s natural assets and actively participate in their preservation and enhancement.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Gillian Dick, Glasgow<\/a> Nature isn\u2019t an add-on. It is core infrastructure. Treating it that way means accepting that something else\u2014often something familiar\u2014has to give.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Paul Downton, Melbourne<\/a> Welcome the weeds. Let the grass and vines and trees and flowers grow through the cracks in the pavement and celebrate the irrepressible energy of Wildness and Life!<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Susannah Drake, New York<\/a> Bidadari Park<\/strong> in Singapore is an example of activ expansion of greening, but it is not without trade-offs: approximately 68,000 Malay graves were exhumated and relocated. The authoritarian single-party rule of the City\/State determined that benefits to living populations carried more weight than cultural and religious burial traditions. I cannot imagine this happening in New York City, where some of the best places for both parks and housing exist in cemeteries<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Carolina Figueroa Arango, Bogot\u00e1<\/a> Degraded urban spaces should be reframed as opportunities for renaturalization, not as liabilities.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Isobel Fletcher, Dublin<\/a> We must stop demanding that every corner of the city be paved, parked on, or power-washed.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Andrew Grant, Bath<\/a> Ultimately, nature needs a home in the city to thrive. That suggests humans need to give up some of the space we dominate and dictate the use of to create space for biodiversity.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Jeremy Guth, Toronto<\/a> We need to stop trading off nature and instead invest in nature as<\/em> infrastructure.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Mathieu H\u00e9ile, Montreal<\/a> A city\u2019s natural life comes from meeting spaces and creation spaces, not from open spaces.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Oliver Hillel, Montreal<\/a> Resilience will not emerge from more concrete. It comes from the space deliberately left for nature to operate \u2014 and from the humility to recognize that many cities already knew this, long before the experts arrived.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Ewa Iwaszuk, Berlin<\/a> No man\u2019s lands are disappearing, and perhaps in dense cities they cannot simply be wished back into existence.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Charles Karangwa, Morges<\/a> To make room for nature, cities must do less of what makes them hard and fragile, and more of what makes them living, adaptive, inclusive, and resilient.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Dave Kendal, Ararat<\/a>\u00a0Quietening could be an opportunity to reopen the door to an acoustic nature culture \u2015 to build a culture that connects with nature\u2019s noise through performance, music, and movement.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Lucie Lederhendler, Brandon<\/a> There is no ideal \u201creturn to nature\u201d in an urban space because nature is inherently feral.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Jordi Marfa Vives, Barcelona<\/a> Unpaving is a measure that can be implemented gradually, slowly transforming the demands we place on our public space. La despavimentaci\u00f3 \u00e9s una mesura que es pot implementar gradualment, transformant lentament les demandes que imposem al nostre espai p\u00fablic.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Nina-Marie Lister, Toronto<\/a> We need to stop trading off nature and instead invest in nature as<\/em> infrastructure.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Anastasia Mouragova Millin, Montreal<\/a> We need to stop trading off nature and instead invest in nature as<\/em> infrastructure.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Joe Mulligan, Stockholm<\/a> A\u00a0fundamental cities question for contemporary society: either speed up and use more energy to squeeze more in; or slow-down, \u201chave\u201d less (maybe have \u201cenough\u201d?), and leave more space for nature to do its thing.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Steward Pickett, Poughkeepsie<\/a> IF cities are spatial arenas in which all parcels are subject to profit maximization by an elite, THEN citizens can only imagine they are in control.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Rob Pirani, New York<\/a> This is not easy, requiring more time and effort from overstretched public agencies, a willingness to trade off one habitat type for another.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Mary Rowe, Toronto<\/a> Instead of years of political machinations around congestion pricing, start to reduce vehicle use in cities through voluntary campaigns. No drive Sundays. Or leave-the-car-at-home days. Start bonusing positive behaviours.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Karen Seto, New Haven<\/a> The path to greener cities may not be about building more, but rather, building less.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
Lorena Zarate, Ottawa<\/a> Better, not just more, is the kind of growth we want. Let\u2019s focus at least as much energy on not losing the nature and the built environment we already have.<\/span>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
David Maddox<\/div>\n
\n

about the writer
\n David Maddox<\/a>\n <\/h3>\n

David loves urban spaces and nature. He loves creativity and collaboration. He loves theatre and music. In his life and work he has practiced in all of these as, in various moments, a scientist, a climate change researcher, a land steward, an ecological practitioner, composer, a playwright, a musician, an actor, and a theatre director. David's dad told him once that he needed a back up plan, something to \"fall back on\". So he bought a tuba.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n

Introduction<\/h3>\n

We talk a lot about adding nature to cities in the TNOC network and the wider urban greening community. But cities are often zero sums. Additions of any kind rarely come without trade-offs, and we seldom discuss them in ways that fully acknowledge the costs. More trees, habitat, wetlands, biodiversity, ecological processes, and green space? Wonderful. Who would argue against cleaner air, cooler streets, healthier ecosystems, and richer connections between people and the natural world? Yet these benefits are rarely free. In many places, more nature may require less of something else: affordable housing, parking, road space, development potential, sports fields, commercial activity, public services, maintenance budgets, consumption, or expectations of convenience, growth, and access.<\/p>\n

The challenge is especially acute in cities facing limited land, strained finances, aging infrastructure, political conflict, and competing social needs. Which is … just about everywhere. Maybe a few cities can afford to do more of everything. (OK, name one. I’ll wait.) Most cannot. In reality, creating room for nature often means making difficult choices about what receives space, funding, attention, and political support.<\/p>\n

This roundtable asks us to imagine cities beyond the edges of our professional and green-focused expertise. We believe that cities need more nature. Sure. But since cities are constrained by finite space, finite budgets, competing priorities, and contentious politics, what should we stop doing\u2014or do less of\u2014to make room for it? What activities, investments, habits, assumptions, or aspirations should be reconsidered? What trade-offs are acceptable, and who should bear the costs of them?<\/p>\n

Or alternatively, maybe we can find ways for the perfect expression of nature to not be an enemy of good \u2014 or at least better \u2014 expression of nature. Are there strategies in which we try to fit nature into opportunistic or small spaces that nevertheless provide some of the benefits we aspire to? Perhaps we can value, celebrate, and sing the praises of these imperfect additions, too. Or build differently or less.<\/p>\n

It’s not easy, is it?<\/p>\n

These are reflections on the benefits, hard choices, necessary sacrifices, adjustments of aspirations, and transformative opportunities that accompany a more nature-rich urban future. We need to be specific. Be provocative. Be fierce, including with ourselves.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n
Samarth Das<\/div>\n
\n

about the writer
\n Samarth Das<\/a>\n <\/h3>\n

Samarth Das is an Urban Designer and Architect based in Mumbai. Having practiced professionally in Ahmedabad, Mumbai, and subsequently in New York City, his work focuses on engaging actively in both public as well as private sectors\u2014to design articulate shared spaces within cities that promote participation and interaction amongst people.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n

Samarth Das<\/h3>\n
As citizens, we have to reclaim our role as custodians of the city\u2019s natural assets and actively participate in their preservation and enhancement.<\/blockquote><\/figure>\n

Making Space for Nature: Reclaiming urban nature in an era of relentless development and climate uncertainty<\/strong><\/p>\n

Having spent two weeks this summer immersed in Indonesia’s richly biodiverse landscapes, I have returned to my home city of Mumbai feeling rejuvenated, refreshed, and more convinced than ever of the invaluable role that urban greening and natural ecosystems play in our lives. The prompt for this roundtable has compelled me to confront a fundamental question: how far are we prepared to go to make space for nature in our cities?<\/p>\n

Re-imagining Mumbai through an ecological lens<\/strong>
\nMumbai is a city that is overburdened and struggling to keep pace with its own infrastructure ambitions. It is governed through a fragmented planning system marked by poor coordination among agencies and priorities that appear increasingly aligned with real estate interests rather than public well-being. Consequently, the quality of Mumbai’s urban environment and daily life has deteriorated to unacceptable levels over the better part of the last two decades. The Vision for the city is, unfortunately, relegated to swathes of colour on the city’s Development Plans, rather than aspiring for meaningful improvements in the lived experience of the city. Planning, urban design, and architectural policies remain overwhelmingly focused on the built form, while larger concerns of ecological resilience, environmental health, and quality of life are sidelined. What Mumbai urgently needs is an ecology-centred planning framework that places environmental sustainability and public well-being at its core.<\/p>\n

Protecting and restoring the city\u2019s natural assets<\/strong>
\nUrban growth must be accommodated through the optimisation of densities within already urbanised areas, while the model of greenfield expansion should be abandoned entirely. Although this position may be criticised as “anti-development,” it is a necessary response to the ecological realities of our time. In this context, all land currently earmarked for future development under the Development Plan should be redesignated as No-Development Zones (NDZs). These areas should be protected and actively reforested to establish substantial carbon sinks, reverse ecological degradation, and safeguard critical ecosystem services. These areas should be woven into a city-wide network of public spaces, advancing decentralised greening strategies and guaranteeing universal access to nature. Such interventions are indispensable for reducing urban heat island effects, improving environmental quality, and strengthening the city’s contribution to climate change mitigation. Along with this, we must include our existing natural assets, such as rivers, creeks, wetlands, nullahs, lakes, and forests, into the city\u2019s geographic and demographic understanding. Often ignored, marginalised, and abused, these natural assets represent some of the city\u2019s greatest opportunities for ecological restoration and the reintegration of nature into the urban fabric.<\/p>\n

Reforming governance and development policies<\/strong><\/p>\n

At the governance and policy level, unchecked development driven by a \u201cbuild-more\u201d syndrome, coupled with weak regulatory oversight, continues to undermine our urban green assets. Current regulations often prioritize construction over environmental stewardship, with little accountability for the protection of existing trees, plantations, and green spaces. As a result, every new development project further erodes the city\u2019s natural assets.<\/p>\n

A particularly damaging practice is the construction of basements extending to plot boundaries, which frequently necessitates the complete removal of peripheral trees. Neighbourhoods once characterized by low-rise, low-density development and abundant green cover are being transformed into overcrowded, densely built environments with severely diminished ecological value. Policy reforms must recognize, protect, and celebrate existing green cover as a critical urban asset. While densification is necessary\u2014and, as argued above, can play an important role in sustainable urban growth\u2014it must be pursued alongside robust compensatory landscape replacement and tree protection policies. Such measures are essential to ensure that urban development does not come at the expense of ecological resilience and environmental quality.<\/p>\n

Citizen stewardship and collective<\/strong><\/p>\n

We must also acknowledge our own complicity in the prevailing neo-liberal market model that equates progress with endless growth, consumption, and construction. Nowhere is this more evident than in the redevelopment frenzy that has gripped the city, where developers entice existing residents with larger homes while benefiting hugely through the sale of new apartments in the open market at inflated costs. While redevelopment can address legitimate housing needs, it must be balanced against its environmental costs and its impact on the city’s already fragile ecological fabric.<\/p>\n

Meaningful climate action cannot be separated from active civic engagement. Every responsible resident must consciously carve out time in their daily lives to support nature and advocate for its protection. This requires mobilising within neighbourhoods to demand greater tree cover, resist unnecessary tree felling, and promote the planting of indigenous species rather than pursuing the misguided promise of rapid greening through alien varieties that often prove ecologically unsustainable. As citizens, we have to reclaim our role as custodians of the city\u2019s natural assets and actively participate in their preservation and enhancement.<\/p>\n

Although individual actions and lifestyle changes can meaningfully strengthen nature\u2019s presence within our cities, lasting impact requires a coordinated, multi-pronged approach. The responsibility cannot rest solely with citizens; proactive leadership and meaningful intervention from civic authorities are indispensable to safeguarding and expanding urban green cover as cities continue to grow.<\/p>\n<\/div>

\n
Mary Rowe<\/div>\n
\n

about the writer
\n Mary Rowe<\/a>\n <\/h3>\n

Mary W. Rowe is an urbanist and civic entrepreneur. She currently lives in Toronto, Canada, where she is Executive Director of the Canadian Urban Institute. She is an impassioned leader with diverse experience in the business, government, not-for-profit and philanthropy sectors.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n

Mary Rowe<\/h3>\n
Instead of years of political machinations around congestion pricing, start to reduce vehicle use in cities through voluntary campaigns. No drive Sundays. Or leave-the-car-at-home days. Start bonusing positive behaviours.<\/blockquote><\/figure>\n

Instead of “adding” nature to cities, let\u2019s expose the nature that already \u2018is\u2019 in cities. This would mean, STOP mowing, stop manicuring, stop \u2018perfecting\u2019 green spaces, and move to a totally permissive approach to green spaces, front and back yards, laneways, and vacant lots. In cities in North America, vacant lots are seen as eye sores and encouragers of vagrancy and squatting. Fencing is the default, but what if instead we\u00a0\u00a0encouraged community uses, providing light equipment and material support for communities to self organize these spaces. Business Improvement Areas, civic groups could be supported to steward orphaned spaces, with meanwhile uses that could include vending, pop ups, and even the hardest landscapes could be naturalized with the addition of planters, soil amendments, other natural features that communities themselves would come up with. Some may propose a cooling centre (tents and misters) others a dog park still others a temporary sports court.<\/p>\n

Similarly, instead of elaborate rules and protocols, why not remove onerous rules and compliance requirements to encourage greening balconies, roofs, front stoops, boulevards. Remove punitive approaches and replace with permissive: literally let a thousand flowers bloom. Encourage even the smallest places: verges, boulevards, lay bys, underpasses.
\nInstead of years of political machinations around congestion pricing, start to reduce vehicle use in cities through voluntary campaigns. No drive Sundays. Or leave-the-car-at-home days. Start bonusing positive behaviours: free coffee for pedestrians and transit takers. One day a week no parking days. Designate days no AC days. Or open window days : for buildings and cars.<\/p>\n

Boldest idea that others will legitimately propose \u2013 who know the feasibility better than I: don\u2019t let homeowners pave their parking. Period.
\n<\/div>

\n
Tim Beatley<\/div>\n
\n

about the writer
\n Tim Beatley<\/a>\n <\/h3>\n

Tim Beatley is the Teresa Heinz Professor of Sustainable Communities, in the Department of Urban and Environmental Planning, at the University of Virginia, where he has taught for the last twenty-five years. He is the author or co-author of more than fifteen books, including Green Urbanism, Native to Nowhere, Ethical Land Use, and his most recent book, Biophilic Cities.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n

Tim Beatley<\/h3>\n

Reasoning through nature tradeoffs. What do we need less of in cities? <\/strong><\/p>\n

Nature is part of what helps to dispel distrust and build or restore levels of trust.<\/blockquote><\/figure>\n

There are many tradeoffs to consider when we make more room for nature in cities. I am ready to accept a level of extra (though very small) danger from falling tree limbs to live in a neighborhood of large and majestic trees. There may be some additional costs connected with maintaining and taking care of these trees (and perhaps an occasional disruption of power resulting from a downed tree in a storm), but they deliver so much (birds, coolth, awe, beauty) that the cost is infinitesimal in comparison.<\/p>\n

At a more collective level, protecting those large trees requires a strong tree code. And a tradeoff here entails the giving away of a small amount of individual freedom (losing the right to remove the tree without collective approval). Like so many other tradeoffs in a modern society, this is a good one\u2013we agree to abide by traffic regulations or building codes even though they reduce our individual freedoms to a negligible degree because we all benefit greatly from the exchange. And more broadly, it is hard to imagine the full exercise of free life (a more positive version of freedom as advocated by Timothy Snyder[1]<\/sup><\/a>) without the sheltering presence of trees and the nurturing role of nature more broadly.<\/p>\n

I want to live in a city where a glimpse (or glimpses) of wild nature is a daily occurrence. Sometimes there is a small level of danger or inconvenience: say, the steps we need to take to ensure safe coexistence with bears or coyotes or mountain lions, if we are lucky to share our world with them. And collective investments in coexistence (public education programs, warning and response capabilities; e.g., the capture and safe relocation of a mountain lion in Redwood City, CA[2]<\/sup><\/a>) are justified by the immense value and benefit we all enjoy from seeing (and knowing of) that wild nature nearby.<\/p>\n

\"Black<\/p>\n

\"Warning
Accepting some degree of danger and\/or inconvenience is a good tradeoff for living in cities with wild nature close by. Photos: Tim Beatley<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Often, the tradeoffs involve getting more of something we need and want (nature), and less of something we don\u2019t need (or need as much of), and in that way are win-win tradeoffs. One obvious example of these kinds of tradeoffs involves car-dependence and the ubiquitous paved surfaces of cities. Many of us believe that cities need a lot less concrete and a lot more flowers and trees. Taking up that concrete generates many cost savings as well. Most of the impervious hard surfaces in a city are roadways and parking lots. Space devoted to cars is especially excessive in American cities, 25-40% of a city. We need less of that, hopefully, as we transition to visions of cities that emphasize walking, strolling, and new connections with nature (think Biophilic Cities!) Can we build (and subsidize) treeways, not freeways?[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Many cities around the United States are already reducing or outright eliminating required parking minimums: parking for cars is definitely something we hear less of. The Parking Reform Network, which keeps track of these things, has an online map of the now 123 cities that have already eliminated parking requirements. New developments like Culdesac,[4]<\/sup><\/a> in Tempe, Arizona, show what is possible without parking: some 55% percent of the development available for greenery, trees, and community gathering spaces.<\/p>\n

Some cities are beginning to set ambitious goals for desealing<\/em>\u2013taking up that concrete and asphalt and returning it to permeable soil that retains stormwater, replenishes groundwater (LA County, for example[5]<\/sup><\/a>). And of course permits new forms of nature\u2013pollinator gardens, meadows, new trees and forests. We need less turfgrass in our cities as well. That will continue to be a challenge to our conventional aesthetics. I have a neighbor who replaced almost his entire front yard with native it is\/was a remarkable step in civic generosity, yet shockingly, some neighbors apparently think this verdant oasis is ugly.<\/p>\n

We have started to plant microforests on my campus and in my city. We have five already and they have grown vigorously and gloriously in a short period of time. These intensively planted Miyawaki forests are popping up in cities around the world.[6]<\/sup><\/a> The tradeoff here is often economic: no more mowing is needed, reducing time, cost, energy consumed, and carbon emitted. This is not a zero-sum tradeoff but a positive-sum outcome: everyone is better off, and the many benefits (health, stormwater retention, new habitat) more than outweigh any additional costs. Indeed, such investments in urban nature pay impressive dividends.[7]<\/sup><\/a> Regenerating nature in cities is often this way.<\/p>\n

\"Photo
A tiny or microforest at the Muzikplein in the City of Utrecht, Netherlands. Here they have traded 20 car parking spaces for 1100 trees and a dense urban forest. Photo: Tim Beatley<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Often, the tradeoffs can\u2019t be resolved (or shouldn\u2019t be) through reference to cost-benefit, or return-on-investment thinking. They often involved more immutable values and duties. Just doing the right thing when it comes to nature. Designing urban buildings that don\u2019t cause massive death and the pain and suffering of millions of birds, for example, falls into this category. While it turns out that installing fritted glass and other building materials that virtually eliminate the risk for birds is also a cost-effective way of reducing energy consumption (e.g., as in the example of the Jacob Javits Center in New York City), most of us believe we are simply duty-bound to prevent these unnecessary deaths.<\/p>\n

\"Photo
It has been estimated that over a billion birds or more die each year from window and building strikes (including the Golden-Crowned Kinglet shown above). Here, tradeoff thinking should give way to acknowledgment of a primary or priority ethical duty to take steps to minimize their pain and suffering. Photo: Tim Beatley<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

There are many other things we need less of in cities that investing in nature helps with: less violence and crime (evidence from tree-planting in vacant lots in Philly, for example), less loneliness and isolation, less stress in our lives, less hunger (think community orchards and community gardens), and less pessimism about the future. The considerable and mounting evidence around exposure to nature suggests that these reductions<\/em> are all but certain.<\/p>\n

We also need less human noise (especially the kind generated by cars). We know the health impacts are significant, but they also mask what we need more of in cities: the beautiful life-affirming sounds of the natural world: the katydids and tree frogs and rustling tree leaves, and of course, birdsong. I have argued that abundant universal native birdsong ought to be a primary metric for judging a good city. I think we ought to measure it more systemically and evaluate our urban planning progress against it.<\/p>\n

\"Photograph
We need less human noise (especially from cars) and more ability to hear the sounds of nature like the calls of the Eastern Gray Treefrog here Photo: Tim Beatley<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Another thing we need less of in cities, and society more broadly, is distrust. A 2025 Pew poll found sharp reductions in the level of trust Americans have in fellow Americans.[8]<\/sup><\/a> In this poll, only about one-third of respondents agreed with the statement \u201cmost people can be trusted\u201d (SO, it seems we believe most people cannot be trusted!) This level of social distrust was much lower in the 1970s. This is no small problem, as Pew notes, trust is \u201cthe oil that lubricates the frictions of daily life.\u201d Without it, a city becomes a difficult and unpleasant place to live, where perceptions of reciprocity and mutuality give way to fear and anger.<\/p>\n

Nature is part of what helps to dispel distrust and build or restore levels of trust. This is no small task, but Natural settings\u2013that neighborhood park, community garden, or forest trail\u2013and the collective engagements with nature and each other that occur in these spaces\u2013help to build community, mutual understanding, tolerance and care, and yes, importantly, trust<\/em>. In a recent interview with the pastor of a Baltimore church, Stillmeadow Community Fellowship, a ten-acre adjacent forest has become a space in which to build understanding and trust. In an interview with the church\u2019s pastor, Michael Martin, he explains the unique ability of this nature-space to bring people together and to help them overcome perceived differences. \u201cIt\u2019s really hard to not be friendly and connected to people when you\u2019re digging a hole to plant a tree in,\u201d he told me.<\/p>\n

Achieving less distrust means more opportunities to come together to do things like bird-watch (and bird-listen), to collect seeds and to plant trees, to watch together the changing seasons and the daily sky, and to observe the everyday wildness large and small.<\/p>\n

[1]<\/sup><\/a> Timothy Snyder, On Freedom<\/em>, Crown, 2024.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cMountain lion captured in Redwood City yard,\u201d June 16, 2026, found here: https:\/\/www.eastbaytimes.com\/2026\/06\/16\/mountain-lion-redwood-city\/<\/a><\/p>\n

[3]<\/sup><\/a> I am not sure who first came up with this motto, but perhaps Margaret Chappelle an anti-highway activist in Edmonton, Canada, responsible to saving the MacKinnon Ravine; See https:\/\/citymuseumedmonton.ca\/2021\/11\/02\/margaret-chappelle-the-artist-who-saved-the-mackinnon-ravine\/?fbclid=IwY2xjawSmhKcBHWKSTsJGRXLixm38g2EQVbr-Vr9SzjrSDCilhJ94SAsLpe3CC6VFoLL-AQ#_ftnref52<\/a><\/p>\n

[4]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/culdesac.com\/<\/a><\/p>\n

[5]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.latimes.com\/opinion\/story\/2026-01-28\/la-pavement-natural-infrastructure<\/a><\/p>\n

[6]<\/sup><\/a> See Hannah Lewis, Mini-Forest Revolution: Using the Miyawaki Method to Rapidly Rewild the World<\/em>, Chelsea Green, 2022.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/sup><\/a>A recent study by Earth Economics found that in the case of the microforests planted in Elizabeth City, New Jersey, there are almost $11 dollars in community benefits generated for every dollar spent. See https:\/\/groundworkusa.org\/microforests-in-elizabeth-nj\/<\/a><\/p>\n

[8]<\/sup><\/a> See Pew Research Center, \u201cAmericans\u2019 Trust in One Another,\u201d May 8, 2025, found here:\u00a0 https:\/\/www.pewresearch.org\/2025\/05\/08\/americans-trust-in-one-another\/<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>

\n
Dave Kendal<\/div>\n
\n

about the writer
\n Dave Kendal<\/a>\n <\/h3>\n

After careers as an academic, landscape planner, software engineer and noise maker, Dave started Future in Nature in 2022 to have a greater impact on nature-related policy and programs in Australia and around the world. He helps cities and botanic gardens to adapt landscapes to climate change, enable biodiversity to thrive, and to develop our ecological, social and cultural relationships with nature. He has been an adviser to local, state, and federal governments in Australia, and the European Commission, and has worked as an academic at the University of Tasmania, the University of Melbourne, and the Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n

Dave Kendal<\/h3>\n
Quietening could be an opportunity to reopen the door to an acoustic nature culture \u2014 to build a culture that connects with nature\u2019s noise through performance, music, and movement.<\/blockquote><\/figure>\n

Making Space for Nature\u2019s Noise<\/strong><\/p>\n

Cities are noisy. Along with heat, air pollution, and light pollution, noise is a pervasive environmental characteristic of cities around the world. Noise pollution can have a major impact on human health, increasing stress and disturbing sleep<\/a>. Noise can also interfere with natural processes such as animal communication<\/a>; for example, birds and frogs alter their mating calls in response to environmental noise. Sound is used as an indicator of ecosystem health \u2015 we fear a silent spring.<\/p>\n

Natural sounds are important. They can improve the health and wellbeing of people, with assemblages of natural sounds particularly beneficial<\/a>. They are critical to ecosystem function, with the fitness of many animal species dependent on mating and warning calls, and species such as bats are reliant on echolocation for movement and foraging.<\/p>\n