How is the concept of “stewardship” and “care for local environments” expressed around the world?

Many voices. Greener cities. Better cities.
Every month we feature a Global Roundtable in which a group of people respond to a specific question in The Nature of Cities.
show/hide list of writers
Hover over a name to see an excerpt of their response…click on the name to see their full response.
Nathalie Blanc, Paris The good of my well-being is connected to the protection of irreplaceable beautiful environment. The good of my well-being is also connected to my ​​participation in a common good, resisting public policies or human behavior that is destructive. / Le bien de mon bien-être est lié à la protection d’un environnement d’une beauté irremplaçable. Le bien de mon bien-être est aussi lié à ma participation à un bien commun, à la résistance aux politiques publiques ou à un comportement humain destructeur.
Lindsay Campbell, New York Stewardship is not the same as ownershipbut it does mean taking ownership of your place, voice, and power in the world. We aim to show that all of us have a stake in caring for our local environments, whether we own any inch of ground or not.
Zorina Colasero, Puerto Princesa City The CommunityAct Program encourages the engagement of the community and other stakeholders in various tree planting and environmental activities and to be stewards of their environment.
Kirk Deitschman, Waimānalo What is aloha ʻāina? Alo (face) and hā (breath) = aloha, to exchange breath with another being, the essence of reciprocity. Aloha is also love, affection, compassion. ʻĀina encompasses everything living.
Johan Enqvist, Cape Town In Swedish,Ta hand om” is a common phrase usually translated as “taking care of”; the literal meaning, is more like “taking in your hand”. “Ta hand om naturen” communicates both an individual responsibility to be careful with nature, but also the shared effort of joining hands to achieve in the interest of our co-dependency on nature.
Emilio Fantin, Bologna Only through an autonomous process of consciousness—suggested by the word stewardship—can we share the sacredness which lays behind human nature. It is not a matter of thinking about which future disasters will kill us, or whether we will destroy the entire planet, but rather a matter of acting on the true sense of our relationship with the existence of life around us.
Artur Jerzy Filip, Warsaw In Poland, our phrase has been “lokalni gospodarze”, which translated back to English might be something like “Local Hosts”. It has enabled us to escape old schemes of thinking about civic participation and cross-sectoral governance.
Carlo Beneitez Gomez, Puerto Princesa City The CommunityAct Program encourages the engagement of the community and other stakeholders in various tree planting and environmental activities and to be stewards of their environment.
Cecilia Herzog, Rio de Janeiro We need to be GUARDIANS, PROTECTORS and DEFENDERS in and out of the cities now. We must resist, all of us, for our common home: Planet Earth!
Michelle Johnson, New York Stewardship is not the same as ownershipbut it does mean taking ownership of your place, voice, and power in the world. We aim to show that all of us have a stake in caring for our local environments, whether we own any inch of ground or not.
Kevin Lunzalu, Nairobi In day-to-day local applications, stewardship is also used to mean a guardian, a servant, and an agent. In rural villages where farming is predominant, farmers are regarded as stewards of their lands, farm animals, and produce.
Patrick Lydon, Osaka The human is steward of nature, yet only just as nature is steward of humans. Rather than hierarchy, there is mutuality built into this relationship.
Romina Magtanong, Puerto Princesa City The CommunityAct Program encourages the engagement of the community and other stakeholders in various tree planting and environmental activities and to be stewards of their environment.
Heather McMillen, Honolulu What is aloha ʻāina? Alo (face) and hā (breath) = aloha, to exchange breath with another being, the essence of reciprocity. Aloha is also love, affection, compassion. ʻĀina encompasses everything living.
Ranjini Murali, Bangalore In Indian rural communities and even certain urban ones, the idea of stewardship permeates people’s lives in their everyday action, as a lived concept. Does the Western concept of environmental stewardship arise as an explicit concern only when the environment becomes visibly degraded?
Harini Nagendra, Bangalore In Indian rural communities and even certain urban ones, the idea of stewardship permeates people’s lives in their everyday action, as a lived concept. Does the Western concept of environmental stewardship arise as an explicit concern only when the environment becomes visibly degraded?
Jean Ferus Niyomwungeri, Kigali Working with local communities and getting them on the board has shown an impact. They live day to day with natural resources and, with education and understanding, they respect and become more responsible, embracing the benefits of conservation.
Jean Palma, Manila The words across the many languages of the Philippine to understand “steward” and “stewardship” are reflective of the peoples’ inherent nature to care for someone or something, to stand for duty, to protect, and to help or to respond to a certain need.
Beatriz Ruizpalacios, Mexico City Stewardship means nurturing a thing or a place and the relationship we keep with it. We become responsible, and in turn the thing is a repository of our affection and care. There is no particular word for this kind of stewardship, but we prefer to use verbs that emphasize our responsibility and agency: Cuidar, Proteger.
Huda Shaka, Dubai Environmental stewardship in the UAE is rooted in the Islamic concept of vicegerency: the responsibility bestowed by God on human beings, which entails them being trustees of the earth.
Erika Svendsen, New York Stewardship is not the same as ownershipbut it does mean taking ownership of your place, voice, and power in the world. We aim to show that all of us have a stake in caring for our local environments, whether we own any inch of ground or not.
Abdallah Tawfic, Cairo We strive to understand the benefits of urban greenery and eventually have the chance to use it for good—that’s how we define stewardship in Cairo without acknowledging it as an understandable term on its own.
Diana Wiesner, Bogotá When I encountered the word “stewardship”, I instantly thought of the Colombian peasants, all those who save and protect seeds, food variety and biodiversity, without looking for anything in return. / Cuando me encontré con la palabra “stewardship” en inglés, pensé instantáneamente en los campesinos colombianos, todos aquellos que guardan y protegen las semillas, la variedad de alimentos y la biodiversidad, sin buscar nada a cambio.
Fish Yu, Shenzhen In China, “stewardship” seems to be a word related more to rural conservation, and its core idea of “taking care” embeds an emotional tie to the object, connecting to us equally. The relationship becomes much weaker and passive in an urban context.
Lindsay Campbell

About the Writer:
Lindsay Campbell

Lindsay K. Campbell is a research social scientist with the USDA Forest Service. Her current research explores the dynamics of urban politics, stewardship, and sustainability policymaking.

Introduction

Do you have a word or phrase you use for socially-driven environmental care in your region? Tell us in the Comment section.
In cities and communities around the world, people work to take care of their local environments. This activity can take many forms, from individual actions, to community groups acting to care for their neighborhoods, to larger civil society organizations acting in the public realm. What unites such diverse types of social organization and modes of action is that people are choosing to care for the environments that have meaning for them. 

How do we describe or name these activities? How do we, across languages and cultures, express the idea of “actively taking care of things we care about, such as the environment”?

In the U.S. and some other English speaking countries, the word used  is—often but not always—“stewardship”. People who take such actions might be called “stewards”. Our work with the USDA Forest Service has been to grow a network of collaborators involved in stewardship research and action across the globe. We have learned that the word “stewardship” in English (“western” and global north usage) has both possibilities and pitfalls through its multiple connotations of caretaking, rights, responsibilities, knowledge, and action. It is a word that often does not have direct translation to local languages. It does not necessarily even work among all English speakers. The concept resonates, but the words that describe the idea vary, and often are in development.

This roundtable was inspired by our workshop “Talk, Map, Act” at the TNOC Summit where we gathered diverse stories of engagement with stewardship from all around the world. 

We want to continue this  journey by exploring the words people use for the constellation of activities suggested by the English word “stewardship”. We are interested to hear how the act of environmental care is expressed in different languages and contexts.

So, we asked 25 practitioners—scientists, activists, artists, planners, practitioners—from five continents: in your context and experience, what is the word or phrase used for the concept of “actively taking care of things, such as the environment”? 

The answers are all over the map. In many languages, there is no direct translation to the English word “stewardship”. But there are many phrases that convey the activity of care—activities that in many countries are newly developing and advancing. The diversity of responses leads to valuable questions:

What sort of multiple linguistic meanings are opened up by exploring how people describe the concept of “care for the environment”?

In addition to thinking cross-culturally, how does the concept translate across urban to rural gradients?

What might thinking deeply about the meanings and limitations of expression of this concept tell us about the role of citizens and the state in our relationships with the biosphere? 

[This Roundtable is a collaboration between The Nature of Cities and the USDA Forest Service, and is an output of The Nature of Cities Summit.]

Erika Svendsen

About the Writer:
Erika Svendsen

Dr. Erika Svendsen is a social scientist with the U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station and is based in New York City. Erika studies environmental stewardship and issues related to hybrid governance, collective resilience and human well-being.

Michelle Johnson

About the Writer:
Michelle Johnson

Michelle Johnson is a research ecologist with the USDA Forest Service at the NYC Urban Field Station.

Cecilia Herzog

About the Writer:
Cecilia Polacow Herzog

Cecilia Polacow Herzog is an urban landscape planner, retired professor at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro. She is an activist, being one of the pioneers to advocate to apply science into real urban planning, projects, and interventions to increase biodiversity and ecosystem services in Brazilian cities.

Cecilia Herzog

We need to be GUARDIANS, PROTECTORS and DEFENDERS in and out of the cities now. We must resist, all of us, for our common home: Planet Earth!
Since I was invited to write about how stewardship translates into Brazilian Portuguese—especially regarding my own experience in dealing with different people from public, private and civic backgrounds, as well as from different disciplines in the academic world—I have been challenged to define in words what I have seen happening without having to give an specific name to it during many years.

The words that I first thought of were “GUARDIÃO” (guardian), “PROTETOR” (protector), “DEFENSOR” (defender) of the forest, rivers, birds, trees, river springs, nature… Many public and private programs and projects use those names.

Public programs in Rio have helped to change the landscape since the mid 19th Century, when the Emperor D. Pedro II commissioned Major Archer to replant native and fruit trees in the hills of the city, aiming to restore water springs, offering numerous direct and indirect ecosystem services up to now. Actually the benefits were so great that the city is now an international UNESCO Heritage Site: “Rio de Janeiro: Carioca Landscapes between the Mountain and the Sea”. Following the same path, in early 1980”s a city program transformed many of the degraded slopes with collective tree plantings (Mutirão Reflorestamento). This is a term used to bring people together to stewardship nature in the city: MUTIRÃO.

In the last years in São Paulo, there have been numerous MUTIRÕES to plant “Pocket Forests”, “Community Gardens”, “Rivers Springs Restorations”, “Rain Gardens”. Those collective actions are usually led by residents.

Photo: Cecilia Herzog
Photo: Cecilia Herzog
Photo: Cecilia Herzog

In Rio de Janeiro and other cities many actions have also been happening, with residents working together to change gray paved surfaces into green areas, because people need nature where they are. They want to participate, get together and transform the harsh landscape into a livable one. We love to make it together.

In July I had a personal experience when I was engaged in the process of designing and implementing the first rain garden of the city in a famous cultural center in the downtown area: “Fundição Progresso“. I proposed to co-create and co-design it. We organized two workshops and collective plantings (mutirões) with Organicidade, the landscape architect Pierre-André Martin, and also with Celso Junius (a city server with decades of experience in urban greening), with full support of the “Fundição” and Bambuê (the architect company in charge of building the garden). I never thought that we would be named stewards of nature in the city, but that was exactly what we were doing. We depaved a “no-where” gray backyard, built an edible rain garden, with native Atlantic Forest fruit trees, non-conventional edible, medicinal and ritualistic plants. On 28 September 2019 the rain garden area was opened to the public in a wonderful event that turned the decades old cultural institution in the Green Fundição, that aims to connect culture, arts and nature. The ceremony brought indigenous people from tribes located faraway. There was so much symbolism to recover an area and praise Mother Nature back to the city with the original residents of our country, who have been under attack by the current Federal administration.

Actually, I believe that people steward nature, but in countries were millions are unemployed it is not a priority. The systematic destruction of the rich ecosystems that my country has is caused by the myopia of the economic system that only sees the economic value of what is under the forests, and the potential for economic growth on hard infrastructure destroying rivers and forests, with hydropower killing our rivers and culture and new roads crisscrossing protected areas. We need more than ever to be ashamed of this predatory vision of permanent growth and stewardship nature and indigenous people! We need to be GUARDIANS, PROTECTORS and DEFENDERS in and out of the cities now. We must resist, all of us, for our common home: Planet Earth!

Artur Jerzy Filip

About the Writer:
Artur Jerzy Filip

Specialist in the field of urban planning and design and a uthor of the book “Big Plans in the Hands of Citizens”, Artur is currently an assistant professor at the Warsaw University of Technology.

Artur Jerzy Filip

In Poland, our phrase has been “lokalni gospodarze”, which translated back to English might be something like “Local Hosts”. It has enabled us to escape old schemes of thinking about civic participation and cross-sectoral governance.
In Poland, the idea of “stewardship” is opening a totally new perspective in thinking about responsibility for public space. So far, we have been rather stuck between two extremities; probably like most post-communist societies. On one hand, we have believed that only direct ownership guarantees honest and sustainable attentiveness to space. The argument here is that anything beyond individual ownership leads to blurred authority and never-ending quarrels … well, this makes the space nobody’s. The tragedy of the commons then is unavoidable. On the other hand, we have feared any private (i.e. individual, group, even community) ownership for being a serious threat to public character of common goods. If anything is somebody’s, then someone else is excluded, isn’t it so? In such a situation, the idea of “stewardship” breaks through the prejudices twofold. First, because the stewards are capable of taking care of spaces without being their legal owners at all. And second, because the stewards care for these spaces for the benefit of others. At least a fair number of examples proves it possible, even if it still sounds like the future for us here, in Poland.

Two years ago I co-curated an exhibition “Warsaw Under Construction” at the Museum of Modern Art in Warsaw. My part was dedicated entirely to the idea of stewardship. On that occasion we faced the linguistic challenge for the first time and ended up with the translation “Lokalni gospodarze”. “Lokalni” meaning devoted to environments, though not necessarily natural or green, actually any kind of urban spaces included. And “gospodarze” meaning the hosts, the ones who manage and keep space in good condition. Actually, if someone would try to translate the phrase “lokalni gospodarze” back from Polish to English, we might get something like “Local Hosts.” Fair enough as well. What is key, after all, is this combination of two fundamental elements. First, public environment considered within particular boundaries: the turf. And second, the ones who care for the turf. All the rest: their modes of operation, levels of cooperation, and ways of calling things might vary across the cases.

In Poland, the conceptual framework of urban—environmental, local, you name it…—stewardship has already proven its usefulness. In some cases, it has served as a handy term to describe and evaluate ongoing projects. In others, as a mind-opening perspective allowing for broadening the visions. On multiple occasions I conducted workshops and gave lectures for citizens, institutions, authorities, and business leaders to share this idea. Today I’m so happy to see that the term “lokalni gospodarze” has already been starting to be commonly used here as a way enabling to escape old schemes of thinking about civic participation and cross-sectoral governance, as we have used to call these things so far. The alteration is significant. The openness and flexibility of the term “lokalni gospodarze” enables us to work on collaboration without being constrained by any rigid formulas established in advance, especially since we still do not have many ready-to-use formulas (policies, programs) that would facilitate multiple and diverse stakeholders to collaborate in support of urban space preservation, maintenance, or development.

Patrick M. Lydon

About the Writer:
Patrick M Lydon

Patrick M. Lydon is an American ecological writer and artist based in Korea whose seeks to re-connect cities and their inhabitants with nature. He writes The Possible City series, is co-founder of City as Nature (Daejeon). He is an Arts Editor here at The Nature of Cities.

Patrick Lydon

The human is steward of nature, yet only just as nature is steward of humans. Rather than hierarchy, there is mutuality built into this relationship.
Some years ago we met with a curious old Japanese fisherman on the island of Megijima, Japan, who told us, “I fish from the mountain.”

We were curious. Though this man was leader of the local fishermans’ association, and a lifelong fisher, he was somehow just as interested in the mountain as he was in the sea.

We asked if there was something lost in translation from Japanese to English.

The fisherman shook his head and reiterated: “I don’t fish from the sea”.

Sitting on the traditional tatami floor of the Fisherman’s Association building, all we could do was stare at him in confusion. He continued “You can’t fish by looking at the sea. Yeah? You’ve got to fish by looking at the mountains first. The lives of the fish in this sea start with the rains that fall on the mountains. That rain works through the forests, through the agricultural fields, through the town, and then, it becomes the sea. If the mountain is not a healthy environment for the things that live there, the same is true for the sea.”

I ask, timidly “So, you fish from your boat, in the sea, but you are looking at the mountain?”

The fisherman looks at me, not so much annoyed, but quizzically, as if to say, is there any other way?

The main fishing port on Megijima, Japan. Photo: Patrick M. Lydon

This man fishes from the mountain because he—and presumably most of the traditional village fishermen like him—understand that in some way everything in this ecosystem depends on the health of every other part.

It’s a recurring theme with the farmers, fisherman, monks, chefs, and traditional craftspeople we have met over the past several years in this part of the world; the human is steward of nature, yet only just as nature is steward of humans.

Rather than hierarchy, there is mutuality built into this idea of stewardship. It is a relationship.

From this viewpoint, humans are no more or less important than any other living being on this earth, and all actors in this ecosystem must play their part, taking their action with “truth, goodness, and beauty” as both fishermen and nearby natural farmers say.

This is not an isolated thought by old farmers and fisherman. Indeed, when the entire village here comes together to celebrate the sea, it starts the festivities from the mountain, moving through the town, and into the sea.

Village elders on the island of Megijima, Japan, carry a portable shrine into the sea as part of a ceremony to pay respect to the sea. Photo: Patrick M. Lydon

It took this particular fisherman 70 years living on this island, and generations of wisdom passed down to him, to know what it means to fish from the mountain. That the office worker in Tokyo knows almost nothing of this anymore is a critical problem for cities.

Here on the island called Megijima, when we witness the last generation of people who want a job that requires them to know their role within the ecosystem, we are witnessing the extinction of knowledge. The lessons we might learn, not only from Japanese fishermen, but from similar keepers of traditional knowledge around the world, are about to be lost forever.

We who dwell in the cities, believe that such knowledge has no relevance to our staunch urban fortresses. Yet, truth is, the walls of our cities will most certainly crumble with the loss of this knowledge.

The lessons we need in order to build something akin to a sustainable society will not come from technology. They will not come from reports, graphs, or data analysis of the people who live this way. They will not come from financial growth, profits, investments, or dividends. The lessons we need will only come from our willingness as individual human beings to go, see, experience, and learn from those who know how to live withthe land, and how to become partners again, with the rest of the natural world with which we dwell.

Only if we can do this, will we know what it means to be stewards, and to develop technology, monetary systems, and all else in appropriate ways.

Saving these ways of thinking, living, and being are not just odes to a time long gone, they are the roots that will ensure our continued survival as a species here, no matter if we live in mega city or fishing village.

Sunset on the Seto Inland Sea, with the island of Megijima rising to the right. Photo: Patrick M. Lydon
Ranjini Murali

About the Writer:
Ranjini Murali

Ranjini is an interdisciplinary scientist at Azim Premji University. She is interested in studying human-nature relationships, especially the values that people have for nature, and how these are influenced by different drivers of change such as urbanization and climate change.

Ranjini Murali, Harini Nagendra

In Indian rural communities and even certain urban ones, the idea of stewardship permeates people’s lives in their everyday action, as a lived concept. Does the Western concept of environmental stewardship arise as an explicit concern only when the environment becomes visibly degraded?
Through our growing network of collaborators involved in stewardship research and action across the globe, we have learned that this word has both possibilities and pitfalls through its multiple connotations of caretaking, rights, responsibilities, knowledge, and action. We are interested to hear whether and how this word translates to different languages and contexts; and what sort of multiple linguistic meanings are opened up.  In addition to thinking cross-culturally, how does the word translate across urban to rural gradients? What might thinking deeply about the meanings and limitations of this word tell us—for instance—about the role of citizens and the state in our relationships with the biosphere?

The idea of stewardship as protecting nature is reflected in the Indian Constitution as the responsibility of both the state and the individual.  According to Article 51-A, “it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.”

To understand what stewardship means in specific contexts, however, we must turn our attention to specifics. Here we draw on our experiences working with communities in two very different parts of India: rural Spiti Valley, and urban Bangalore.

Spiti Valley is a cold desert in the Indian trans-Himalaya, inhabited by agro-pastoralists for millennia. The landscape is largely rural, though some parts of the valley are experiencing initial impacts of urbanization.

An exact translation of the English word “stewardship” is difficult to find in many Indian languages. There is unlikely to be a word in the local language Spitian (a derivative of Tibetan) for environmental stewardship. There also doesn’t seem to be a separate word for nature. However, the idea of stewardship permeates their lives in their everyday action, as a lived concept.  It seems to be driven by the use of the natural world for their survival, religion, history, and culture. For example, there are rules established around the use of pastures and of water, to ensure sustainability of use and to enable fairness of access to all. These rules have been established by previous generations and are passed down as norms of accepted use. With tourism entering the landscape, there is a sense of a need to protect their sacred sites, water, and pastures from the ill effects of tourism, such as garbage.

A typical village in Spiti Valley with the agricultural lands in the foreground. The pastures used for grazing livestock extend for kilometers around the village. In the extreme left, the small white structure is a “Chorten”, a religious structure symbolising Buddha’s presence. Photo: Ranjini Murali

Religion also plays a role in stewardship here. The religion that is dominant here, Buddhism, preaches care and love for all living beings. This translates into everyday practices of stewardship. For example, local monasteries ask people not to collect berries from bushes, so that they are left for the birds. During the sowing season, while the yak is sowing the soil, a prayer is said to all the small insects who might get crushed during this process.

In contrast to rural Spiti, the south Indian megacity of Bangalore is facing a starkly degraded environment. Bangalore was once considered a garden city and a city of lakes, prized for its green and pleasant environment. In the local language Kannada, a variety of words such as ಉಸ್ತುವಾರಿ (ustuvaari—taking care of), ಕಾವಲು (kaavalu—to guard), ಕಣ್ಣಿಟ್ಟಿರುವುದು (kannituruvudu—keeping an eye on) and others come close to stewardship, but there is no direct equivalent of the word. 

Citizen protests held in Bangalore in 2009, against the felling of trees for the construction of the Bangalore Metro. Credits: Harini Nagendra

In response to recent widespread tree felling and lake deterioration, environmental movements are on the rise. Environmental stewardship is often expressed as a concern of urban middle class residents, and focused on protecting aesthetic and cultural values. Urban residents are inspired to take up stewardship by activities such as waste composting, bird watching, and nature-themed art workshops. In certain wealthy and upwardly mobile sections of the population, the influence of global environmental movements can also be seen in the adoption of lifestyle choices such as veganism, cycling to work, carpooling or shopping local and organic, to reduce individual impacts on the environment.

Residents of informal settlements, and practitioners of nature-based livelihoods such as fishers and grazers, are important environmental stewards who often get left out of the discussion. The motivations for stewardship expressed by these residents of Bangalore is similar to that of Spitians in that they draw from everyday lived experiences of utilitarian and cultural values received from an everyday life immersed in nature. In contrast, our interviews with upper middle-class and wealthy residents of Bangalore show that their environmental stewardship seems to be driven by aesthetic values and concerns about health and pollution, shaped by a feeling of loss because of the destruction of natural spaces they loved.

This contrast raises a fundamental question in our minds. Does the Western concept of environmental stewardship arise as an explicit concern only when the environment becomes visibly degraded? We think there is a need for many more such comparative studies across different Western and non-Western, urban and rural contexts to enable us to make adequate sense of stewardship, and to understand the potential and limitations of global and local environmental movements.

Harini Nagendra

About the Writer:
Harini Nagendra

Harini Nagendra is a Professor of Sustainability at Azim Premji University, Bangalore, India. She uses social and ecological approaches to examine the factors shaping the sustainability of forests and cities in the south Asian context. Her books include “Cities and Canopies: Trees of Indian Cities” and "Shades of Blue: Connecting the Drops in India's Cities" (Penguin India, 2023) (with Seema Mundoli), and “The Bangalore Detectives Club” historical mystery series set in 1920s colonial India.

Ferus Niyomwungeri

About the Writer:
Ferus Niyomwungeri

Jean Ferus NIYOMUNGERI is a young Rwandan conservationist, born in Southern province, currently serving as a Community Conservation Officer under the Rwanda Wildlife Conservation Association (RWCA), the non-governmental organization he started with.

Jean Ferus Niyomwungeri

Working with local communities and getting them on the board has shown an impact. They live day to day with natural resources and, with education and understanding, they respect and become more responsible, embracing the benefits of conservation.
In Rwanda the word “stewardship” means the way of being responsible and taking care of resources. The word itself has no single word translation in Kinyarwanda, the language of Rwanda. When working in conservation, we translate it as “Kubungabunga umutungo kamere” which means “to protect natural resources”. Conceptually, there is a theological belief that humans are responsible for the world and should take care of it.

Rwanda has built different institutions mandated to manage different aspects of environmental protection, climate change mitigation and adaptation and disaster risk management.

Rwanda has also made efforts to engage people in environmental protection through different home-grown solutions, for instance whereby all communities across the entire country gather on the last Saturday of the month for community work “Umuganda”, such as cleaning, repairing roads or planting trees. This has contributed a lot towards Kigali being one of the greenest and cleanest cities in Africa. However, Rwanda is one of the low-income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa / East Africa. It is highly populated and more than 70% of people are engaged in agriculture as small-scale farmers. This has led to the loss of forests especially in urban areas as Rwanda’s natural resources and land are overstretched. Many of our natural forests are threatened by their transformation into settlement areas and agricultural land as well as demand for firewood as the main source of energy, and the use of trees for construction despite the government’s efforts towards conservation.

In this context, RWCA has contributed a lot to protect wildlife and natural habitats, engage and educate local communities while improving livelihoods and raise awareness of conservation issues. Our project of saving the endangered Grey Crowned Cranes where we work with people who kept cranes as pets in their home or hotel. With time, people have understood the issues contributing to the cranes’ decline in numbers and have changed their mind about keeping cranes in captivity and decided to contribute to the process of saving them. This project has showed how, with education and awareness raising, our communities were collaborative and supportive of the plan to reintroduce the cranes to the wild.

RWCA’s conservation model includes creating a sense of ownership and stewardship of cranes in order to create long term sustainable solutions to the project. Without this, the illegal trade would likely continue. For example, we have a team of 25 marsh rangers, recruited from the community around Rugezi marsh, a RAMSAR protected site rich in biodiversity and home to nearly a quarter of Rwanda’s Grey Crowned Cranes. Their role is to patrol and protect the marsh but a large part of that is educating people about the need to protect it and creating a sense of ownership over our country’s wildlife.

Rugezi marsh rangers receive instructions before patrol starts. Photo: Olivier Nsengimana

We also have a team of 30 Conservation Champions across the country located at key biodiversity areas and crane habitats. They are also recruited from within the communities they serve – they monitor cranes and other biodiversity in those areas and again educate people about the role of local communities in environmental protection. Our activities also include planting indigenous trees to restore habitats for the benefit of biodiversity. This activity also takes on the idea of stewardship, where we encourage communities to focus on “growing trees” not just “planting trees”, following up and caring for their trees in the long term. Working with local communities and getting them on the board has shown an impact since we started. They are the ones who live day to day with those natural resources and, with education and understanding, they respect and become more responsible, and embrace the benefits of conservation.

Kids participated in planting indigenous trees event. Photo: Maurice Uwineza
Ragene Palma

About the Writer:
Ragene Palma

Ragene Palma is a Filipino urbanist currently studying International Planning at the University of Westminster, London, as a Chevening scholar. Follow her work at littlemissurbanite.com.

Ragene Andrea L. Palma

The words across the many languages of the Philippine to understand “steward” and “stewardship” are reflective of the peoples’ inherent nature to care for someone or something, to stand for duty, to protect, and to help or to respond to a certain need.
“Stewardship” is an understanding that transforms across the Philippine archipelago. With more than 7,000 islands and at least 183 alive languages (see Note), the term elicits a multitude of perceptions from the highland farmers to peoples with seafaring roots, from the urbanites who have a more built-up daily experience to the rural dwellers.

The scope of “Filipino”

Understanding Filipino (the national language) entails understanding the origin of the places where the many languages are spoken, how Filipinos have moved and lived across islands throughout history. Ethnologue provides detailed maps of the Philippine language families.

Source: https://www.ethnologue.com Used with permission.
Source: https://www.ethnologue.com Used with permission.

Translations across the three major island groups of the Philippines would show similarities of meaning in understanding stewardship. Below are select translations from the different languages. 

Luzon islands

In Tagalog, what comes to mind when translating “steward” is tagapangalaga (someone who provides care). A rapid survey would also draw responses such as bantay (someone who looks out for someone), katiwala (a person with whom one entrusts important things), tagapangasiwa (one who facilitates or manages), and gabay (guide). In Kapampangan, “steward” is manyese (someone who takes care of another), or maningat, which roots from ingat, meaning “care”. In Ilocano, “steward” is taga-aywan (someone who provides care).

Visayas and the Bicol region

In Cebuano (or Bisaya), Hiligaynon, and Ilonggo, “steward” is tinugyanan, tigbantay, and taga-atiman (carer); in Bicolano, it is translated to taga-ataman (ataman being word that means protecting, nurturing, and providing care).

Mindanao

In Meranaw, “steward” comes close to kithatandingan, meaning someone who is in charge of a responsibility; thatandingan would refer to the act of protecting one’s own jurisdiction as a form of duty. In Tausug, “stewardship” comes close to daraakun, which is the act of taking care of, and serving others. A common word of the Moro tribe (the Islamic groups of Mindanao) is pamarinta, meaning the authority and responsibility over a certain area. This understanding is very much rooted in how the Moros associate with their home and their environment; in fact, Meranaw means people of the lake (ranaw being lake).

In Binukid, there are related words to stewardship: tulubagën (literally, “to respond”) means a general sense of responsibility; pëgpangamangël leans towards a more directed sense of responsibility for the community and the ancestral domain, and katëngdanan (which stems from the root word katënged, meaning duty).

In the Spanish-Filipino creole Chavacano, cuida means “to act as a steward for”.

Stewardship reflects care, duty

The Filipino words to understand “steward” and “stewardship” are reflective of the peoples’ inherent nature to care for someone or something, to stand for duty (a trait that comes with strong familial responsibility), to protect, and to help or to respond to a certain need.

Filipinos have strong ties to land and the natural environment as a home. It is beautiful how our indigenous groups, who have lived way before the colonial period and the establishment of the government, refer to our lands as lupang ninuno (ancestral lands); this gives context as to why our languages show respect, a certain fierceness (for duty), and affection (giving care), in understanding “stewardship”

Thank you to the following for contributing the translations and context for the Filipino languages: Salic ‘Exan’ Sharief, Jr. (for the Moro tribe languages), Rachelle Santos (Kapampangan), Yowee Gonzales (Cebuano, Hiligaynon, and Ilonggo), Ceng Bilgera and Keesha Buted (Ilocano), Jessie Lapinid (Chavacano), PJ Capistrano (Binukid), and Peter Fraginal (Bicolano).

Note: Simons, G. F. and C. D. Fennig (eds.). 2018 Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 22nd ed. Dallas: SIL International. www.ethnologue.com/country/PH/languages (Accessed 4 October 2019)

Huda Shaka

About the Writer:
Huda Shaka

Huda's experience and training combine urban planning, sustainable development and public health. She is a chartered town planner (MRTPI) and a chartered environmentalist (CEnv) with over 15 years' experience focused on visionary master plans and city plans across the Arabian Gulf. She is passionate about influencing Arab cities towards sustainable development.

Huda Shaka

“With God’s will, we shall continue to work to protect our environment and our wildlife, as did our forefathers before us. It is a duty, and, if we fail, our children, rightly, will reproach us for squandering an essential part of their inheritance, and of our heritage” —Source

The above quote from the founder and first president of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, encapsulates the culture of environmental stewardship in the country. It is a view rooted in the Islamic concept of vicegerency: the responsibility bestowed by God on human beings, which entails them being trustees of the earth. More recent concepts of sustainable development and intergenerational equity are also echoed in Sheikh Zayed’s quote above.

Environmental stewardship in the UAE is rooted in the Islamic concept of vicegerency: the responsibility bestowed by God on human beings, which entails them being trustees of the earth.
While environmental stewardship is a core part of the UAE’s culture (and more widely the Muslim world’s culture), perhaps what has changed in the last few years is the breadth of the concept. The focus in the UAE during the second half of the 20th century was primarily on the conservation of local flora and fauna. In line with Sheikh Zayed’s vision, a number of associations and programs were set up from as early as the 1960s to  protect and breed local endangered species such as the Arabian Oryx and the Houbara. This included introducing new legislation and designating environmental reserves and protected areas.

Sheikh Zayed’s environmental vision also included utilizing the best expertise and technological innovations to literally “green the desert”.  This involved ambitious agricultural, tree planting, and forestry projects to help provide employment, food security, and aesthetically pleasing and comfortable cities and towns for the new country’s residents. The forests functioned as green belts, protecting farms and human settlements in the desert from sand storms. Of course, they came at a water cost with ground water being the only feasible water source. 

Over the last decade, the discourse around environmental stewardship has evolved to encompass broader environmental aspects, particularly from a resources’ perspective. In 2006, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) declared the UAE as the country with the largest ecological footprint per capita, surpassing even the United States. This served as a wake-up call for the country’s residents and policy makers.

Since then, environmental stewardship at a policy and grassroots level has developed to encompass water and energy conservation and carbon reduction, as well as ecological conservation. The UAE now has a national energy strategy which includes renewable energy and carbon reduction targets. Similarly, a national water security strategy has been developed to ensure sustainable access to water. These targets are also reflected in local strategies and increasingly in building codes and rating systems. Ambitious development projects such as the Masdar City project aim to pioneer environmentally-sustainable technologies for survival in the desert, and in other resource-constrained contexts.

Today as the UAE is about to celebrate its 48th national day, environmental stewardship remains a concept which carries meanings of visionary leadership rooted in a deep cultural appreciation and understanding of the environment’s value and the present generations’ responsibility towards preserving it for future generations.

Abdallah Tawfic

About the Writer:
Abdallah Tawfic

Abdallah is an architect, environmentalist and urban farmer. He works at the German International Cooperation (GIZ) and he is also the cofounder of Urban Greens Egypt, a startup aiming to promote the concept of Urban Agriculture in Cairo.

Abdallah Tawfic

We strive to understand the benefits of urban greenery and eventually have the chance to use it for good—that’s how we define stewardship in Cairo without acknowledging it as an understandable term on its own.
In the center of one of the busiest informal settlements in Cairo lies “Mattariya school for girls”. I had the chance to meet with a group of teachers who believe in the importance of the preservation and revival of natural environments in our cities. Informal settlements in Cairo are a jungle of concrete houses stacked together with minimum or almost no open and green spaces, making it very hard to practice the right of being connected to nature.

Looking at the history of this informal construction, those were productive agriculture land in the early 60s, that has transformed incrementally through time—with the absence of laws—into unplanned urban dwellings. The informal construction approach is usually simple:—“build on 100 % of the plot”—so imagine the 60 years aftermath of this continuous fertile land encroachments.

The students do not understand why and where should we plant more trees and greens” said Omayya, a “Mattariya School for Girls” teacher whom we trained on rooftop gardens implementation & management. “Our urban pattern is challenging, the students living in the neighborhood are completely disconnected from nature”, she added.

The teachers have created rooftop gardening teams of interested students, where they get the chance to be reconnected to nature and learn more about how to produce their food within the boundaries of their neighborhood. They have learned new mechanisms of reviving the original function of this land in an innovative, environmentally responsible and contemporary way. They understand that this land has evolved long time ago to be agriculturally productive, and the aftermath of unprecedented urbanization should not stop them for seeking their rights to enjoy being around green spaces and learn how to locally grow their own food.

We want to change this persistent culture of environmental injustice that has accumulated over years. We want to create stewards taking the lead for a better and greener future.

The students deserve to understand the benefits of urban greenery and eventually have the chance to use it for their own benefits, that’s how we define stewardship in our city without acknowledging it as an understandable term on its own. Stewardship—Idaara in Arabic—is a classical translation for “supervision and management”. Teachers of Mattariya school for girls are stewards—or Environmental Managers if we wish to formulate it in English—who are passing the culture of rooftop community gardens to the new generations. They will one day not only apply it on their everyday activities, but create innovative approaches that improves the quality of life in such challenging living environment.

Diana Wiesner

About the Writer:
Diana Wiesner

Diana Wiesner is a landscape architect, proprietor of the firm Architecture and Landscape, and director of the non-profit foundation Cerros de Bogotá.

Diana Wiesner

(Léalo en español.)

When I encountered the word “stewardship”, I instantly thought of the Colombian peasants, all those who save and protect seeds, food variety and biodiversity, without looking for anything in return.
Custodians of Life

In Spanish, the word stewardship has many translations: custodian, guardian, executor, administrator, caretaker, depository, protector, defender, keeper.

In this sense, the guardian of life is the one who takes care of something as if he had in his hands his own heart or his soul, he is the one who has the meaning of his own life, of his identity, of his culture.

When I was invited to take part in this reflection, I instantly thought of the Colombian peasants, all those who save and protect seeds, food variety and biodiversity, without looking for anything in return. They do it by conviction, as part of their own life, they have it rooted in their routine and in their sense of being.

So they say, “The seeds have no owner”, and question their marketing. Seeds are world heritage. In geographically isolated areas of Colombia, with social conflict trajectories, the tradition of saving seeds is part of existence. They call themselves “guardians of seeds”. In the tropical dry forest there are more than seventy peasant families for whom seeds represent powerful notions of solidarity economy, territorial rooting, renewal, identity, and cultural heritage. As Cristina Consuegra, an anthropologist and defender of agrifood heritage, points out, “this relationship of belonging, identity, and cultural memory symbolizes the very thread of people’s lives”, connecting them with the memories of their parents and grandparents. It is part of their family.

“My seeds, I adore them so much, I always look for the best place for them, for me, they are part of the family and they are my food”. — A woman from the village of Los Robles, Colombia.

Since 2002, in the department of Nariño, the Network of Life Seed Guardians began to be woven from the work of recovering seeds and crops in risk of extinction. The fundamental work of this network is focused on the conservation of native and creole seeds that are in danger of disappearing, through the rescue, preservation, promotion of sustainable use and consumption, and the transformation of food.

Besides the peasants, there are the so-called “neo-rural” groups, urban inhabitants who have migrated to the countryside with the conviction of having another consistent perspective with their principles of productivity, sustainability and family life. An example of this is a family that lives in the rural area of Bogotá, on the other side of the eastern hills of the city, who call themselves “family of the land, fruits of utopia” and seek to defend food diversity. They are the custodians of ancestral food and have rescued more than forty-five varieties of potatoes in spiral agroecology, traditional cultivation methods and prepare them with ancestral recipes, in one of the largest capitals of Latin America and humanity in general.

In the words of Jaime Aguirre: “we seek to rescue the biodiversity of the Andean edible seeds and to exchange with other agro-ecological brother processes; we aim to take care of seeds with love, dry them and cultivate them spiritually so that small farmers can continue «procreating» the land”; so that they can continue to be the guardians of life.

These are definitions obtained from the Network of Life Seed Guardians:

Guardián de semillas (Seed Guardian): the seed producer, who recovers, produces, conserves, investigates, selects and improves seeds in an agro-ecological context, shares them in a supportive and responsible way, and helps to dynamize their flow.

Semillistas (seedbed-ers): they are the future seed guardians, who are in the process of transition from conventional to agro-ecological agriculture. In the same way, they recover, produce and conserve seeds, without properly dynamize their flow.

Amigos de las semillas (Seed Friends): are people who help the network, making monetary donations or contributing with their work, from their profession, interest and energy, to the process of conservation and flow of seeds, without being producers themselves.

The custodians of life are all those who, through passion, conviction, a sense of identity and cultural memory, look after, guard and protect all expressions of life. The productivity of a country should be measured by its number of life custodians, which multiplies and promotes a deep transformation and rooting of the life identity in the regions.

References:

Consuegra, Cristina. “The thread of life: seeds and agri-food heritage”. University of the Andes. Department of Anthropology. Bulletin OPCA 10, Observatory of Cultural and Archaeological Heritage. April 2016. ISSN 2256-3139.

Gutiérrez, L. Seeds, common goods and food sovereignty. ” The Free Seed Network of Colombia” Available here.

Network of guardians of seeds of life Colombia “Sowing for the future”. July 1, 2016. Available here.

“I have the heart of my territory in my hands, I am its guardian. If I release it, it disintegrates”. Gabriela Villate, 9 years old. Photo: Diana Wiesner
«Tengo el corazón de mi paisaje en mis manos, soy su guardiana. Si lo suelto, se desintegra». Gabriela Villate, 9 años. Foto: Diana Wiesner.
Isabel, “custodio” de semillas, Rurality of Bogotá. Photo: Stefan Ortiz.
Isabel, “custodio” de semillas, ruralidad de Bogotá. Foto: Stefan Ortiz.
“Guardador” de semillas. Photo Andrés Estefan. Courtesy of Cristina Consuegra
“Guardador” de semillas. Foto: El Salado Foto Andrés Estefan. Cortesía de Cristina Consuegra
Native potatoes. Photo: Stefan Ortiz. Courtesy of Cristina Consuegra
Papas nativas, Usme. Foto: Stefan Ortiz. Cortesía de Cristina Consuegra

Custodios de la Vida

Cuando me encontré con la palabra “stewardship” en inglés, pensé instantáneamente en los campesinos colombianos, todos aquellos que guardan y protegen las semillas, la variedad de alimentos y la biodiversidad, sin buscar nada a cambio.
En el idioma español existen múltiples palabras que describen a un cuidador: custodio, guardián, albacea, administrador, depositario, protector, defensor, vigilante. Todos estos sinónimos nos sirven para designar a un «guardián de vida», que es quien  prodiga cuidados como si tuviera en sus manos su propio corazón o su alma, es quien tiene el significado de su propia vida, de su identidad, de su cultura.

Cuando me invitaron a participar en esta reflexión, inmediatamente pensé en los campesinos de Colombia, en todos aquellos que guardan y protegen las semillas, la diversidad alimentaria y la biodiversidad, sin buscar nada a cambio. Ellos lo hacen por convicción, como parte de su propia vida, lo tienen enraizado en su rutina y en su sentido del ser. En cada región de Colombia a los guardianes se les llama de formas diversas: en Bogotá y su región se habla de custodios; en  la costa son guardadores y en  otras regiones cuidadores.  

«Mis semillas, yo las adoro tanto, les busco siempre el mejor lugar, para mí, hacen parte de la familia y son mi alimento». Mujer de del Municipio de la Paz en la vereda los Robles. Cesar, Colombia.

Desde el año 2002, en el departamento de Nariño, se empezó a tejer la Red de Guardianes de Semillas de Vida a partir del trabajo de recuperación de semillas y cultivos en riesgo de extinción. La labor fundamental de la red está enfocada en la conservación de semillas nativas y criollas que están en peligro de desaparecer, a través del rescate, preservación, promoción del uso sostenible y consumo, y de la transformación de los alimentos.

Además de los campesinos, están los grupos denominados «neorurales», habitantes urbanos que han migrado al campo con la convicción de tener otra perspectiva coherente con sus principios de productividad, sostenibilidad y vida familiar. Ejemplo de ello es una familia que vive en la zona rural de Bogotá, al otro lado de los cerros orientales de la ciudad, que se autodenominan «familia de la tierra, frutos de la utopía» y buscan la defensa de la diversidad alimentaria.  Son los custodios de los alimentos ancestrales y han rescatado más de cuarenta y cinco variedades de papas en agroecología en forma de espiral, métodos de cultivo tradicionales y las preparan con recetas ancestrales, uno de los mayores capitales que tienen América Latina y la humanidad en general.

En las palabras de Jaime Aguirre, cabeza de familia de la tierra: «buscamos rescatar la biodiversidad de semillas alimentarias de los Andes e intercambiar con otros procesos agroecológicos hermanos; buscamos cuidar las semillas con amor, secarlas y cultivarlas espiritualmente para que los pequeños agricultores puedan seguir “procreando” la tierra».

Definiciones obtenidas de la Red de Guardianes de Semillas de Vida:

Guardián de semillas: es el productor de semillas, quien las recupera, produce, conserva, investiga, selecciona y mejora en un contexto agroecológico, las comparte de manera solidaria y responsable, y ayuda a dinamizar su flujo.

Semillistas: son los futuros guardianes de semillas, que se encuentran en proceso de transición de la agricultura convencional a la agroecológica. De igual forma, recuperan, producen y conservan las semillas, sin dinamizar propiamente su flujo.

Amigos de las semillas: son personas que ayudan a la red, haciendo donaciones en dinero o aportando con su trabajo, desde su profesión, interés y energía, al proceso de conservación y flujo de las semillas, sin ser propiamente productores de las mismas.

Los custodios de la vida son todos aquellos que desde la pasión, la convicción, el sentimiento de identidad y la memoria cultural cuidan, guardan y protegen todas las expresiones de vida. La productividad de un país debería medirse por su cantidad de custodios de vida, lo que multiplica y promueve una transformación profunda y el enraizamiento de la identidad de vida en las regiones.

Referencias:

Consuegra, Cristina. «El hilo de la vida: semillas y patrimonio agroalimentario». Universidad de los Andes. Departamento de Antropología. Boletín OPCA 10, Observatorio del Patrimonio Cultural y Arqueológico. Abril de 2016. ISSN 2256-3139.

Gutiérrez, L. Semillas, bienes comúnes y soberanía alimentaria. «La Red de Semillas Libres de Colombia». Disponible aqui.

Red de guardianes de semillas de vida Colombia. «Sembrando para el futuro». Julio 1.º de 2016. Disponible aqui.

Heather McMillen

About the Writer:
Heather McMillen

Heather McMillen is the Urban & Community Forester with the Hawaiʻi Department of Land & Natural Resources.

Heather McMillen, Kirk Deitschman

Aloha ʻĀina, stewardship in Hawaiʻi

What is aloha ʻāina? Alo (face) and hā (breath) = aloha, to exchange breath with another being, the essence of reciprocity. Aloha is also love, affection, compassion. ʻĀina encompasses everything living.
Aloha mai kākou! Affectionate greetings to you all. We are part of Hālau ʻŌhiʻa, an intensive professional development training program in Hawaiʻi lifeways—of which stewardship is an embedded element—for developing the capacity of conservation and natural resource professionals in Hawaiʻi (Kealiikanakaoleohaililani et al. 2018). A hālau (literally “many breaths”) is a space of learning; ʻōhiʻa (“to gather”) are ecologically and culturally the most important native trees in Hawaiʻi (Metrosideros spp., Myrtaceae). Through Hālau ʻŌhiʻa we are learning to treat each other, our places, and all living beings like ʻohana (family). (See a previous post.) In doing so, we are learning how to steward relationships within ourselves, with our places, and with our communities.

Our understanding of stewardship is grounded in the Hawaiian concept of ʻāina. ‘Āina is land, sea, and all biotic/abiotic elements and processes. It is also sometimes translated as “that which feeds” because it nurtures the spirit and the body. People are in reciprocal relationships with ʻāina as part of an integrated system. In Hawaiian there is no word for “nature” as an entity that is separate from people. The proverb “I ola ʻoe, i ola mākou nei” underscores our interdependence. It means: your life depends on mine, and my life depends on yours. When you thrive, we thrive. We see that these concepts are foundational to aloha ʻāina, an ancient concept that we understand as stewardship.

What is aloha ʻāina? Alo (face) and hā (breath) = aloha, to exchange breath with another being, the essence of reciprocity. Aloha is also love, affection, compassion. ʻĀina, as described above, encompasses everything living. Through Hālau ʻŌhiʻa, we (the authors) have deepened our understanding of aloha ʻāina and our kinship to ʻāina. We recognize genealogical ties to ʻāina (i.e., I am connected to this mountain as much as I am to my maternal grandmother), and we care for the ʻāina as we would a dear family member (i.e., by protecting her). This is true for those of us born here and not, because we all drink the water and breathe the air of Hawaiʻi. The proverb: “I nā mālama ‘oe i ka ‘āina, na ka ‘āina malama iā ‘oe,” tells us if you take care of the ‘āina, she will take care of you. The opposite is also true, if we neglect the ʻāina, we will be neglected. The practice and process of aloha ʻāina requires pilina (relationship), in this case, relationships among people and place.

Aloha ʻāina is embodied in the protection of Maunakea (also Mauna Kea or Mauna a Wākea, “mountain of Wākea”, sky deity and ancestor of all Hawaiians). Since July 2019, kiaʻi (protectors or guardians) have occupied the sacred mountain in efforts to prevent further development for telescopes, specifically a telescope that would be 18 stories tall and 30 meters in diameter on an 8-acre footprint in a fragile, rare, subalpine ecosystem. This movement is based in aloha ʻāina and kapu aloha (multidimensional practice of compassion and peaceful consciousness for all especially for those perceived to have oppositional intentions). In the last three months as we have all held space—physically by being on the Mauna and also spiritually as we stay connected to the Mauna at home—we have all felt the cultural and cognitive shift  being ignited across Hawaiʻi and around the globe. The momentum has energized and informed other communities to protect places from development and desecration, to promote opportunities to nurture pilina with ʻāina and with each other. The movement to protect Maunakea has become a reference point for aloha ʻāina and healing in Hawaiʻi and worldwide.

View from piko (center) of kiaʻi activity based at the kūpuna (elder) tent. Puʻuhuluhulu is the hill in the background. Photo (July 2019): Natalie Kurashima)
Kirk Deitschman

About the Writer:
Kirk Deitschman

Kirk loves all aspects of Hawai'i. Throughout his life he has always been involved in uplifting and supporting communities of Hawai'i. His other passion is to continue to learn about the natural resources of Hawai'i and join the efforts to support and protect these important resources.

Lindsay Campbell

About the Writer:
Lindsay Campbell

Lindsay K. Campbell is a research social scientist with the USDA Forest Service. Her current research explores the dynamics of urban politics, stewardship, and sustainability policymaking.

Lindsay Campbell, Erika Svendsen, Michelle Johnson

Stewardship is not the same as ownershipbut it does mean taking ownership of your place, voice, and power in the world. We aim to show that all of us have a stake in caring for our local environments, whether we own any inch of ground or not.
Stewardship is far from a commonplace word in American English. However, it is invoked with some frequency in the context of natural resource management, often drawing upon historical roots going back to colonial settlement. The numerous indigenous peoples of the Americas have deep and diverse relations of caretaking and reciprocity with the natural world that we first want to acknowledge. In 1949, Aldo Leopold perhaps most famously invoked a theologically rooted “land ethic” through which humans have a moral responsibility to the land. Continuing the progressive utilitarian approach of Gifford Pinchot, our own agency, the USDA Forest Service, cares for the land on behalf of a “greater good”. On all United States lands, particularly National Forests and Grasslands, our agency is working toward a vision of “Shared Stewardship” with multiple stakeholders.

Our work as Forest Service researchers at the NYC Urban Field Station has aimed to advance the scholarship and practice of urban environmental stewardship, with a focus on the role of civic groups. We understand stewardship to consist of both caretaking for and claims-making on the environment. Anyone can have a personal experience of being a steward through acts of hands-on work, engagement in advocacy, expressions of love, and transformation of systems—and we’ve begun gathering personal accounts of people’s stewardship stories from all over the world. These narratives range from cherished memories, to everyday occurrences, to sparks that started social movements.  To add your own story to the map, go here!

We have found that individuals rarely engage in stewardship alone—and often it takes the form of local civic engagement. Many stewardship groups start from a shared experience of friends or neighbors—out of a desire to improve a local community, restore something that was lost, or create something new.  And there is incredible power in these civic groups, power that we have aimed to make more visible by mapping groups’ territories and networks through STEW-MAP

Why a map? In our market-driven American society we have a finely honed sense of private property; public agencies have a clear sense of the lands that they manage and where their jurisdiction lies. But how do we visualize and map the role of the “third” sector, or the civic realm that also shapes so much of our governance and our green and grey environments? Stewardship is not the same as ownership—but it does mean taking ownership of your place, voice, and power in the world. And by mapping stewardship, we are attempting to level the playing field a bit—to show that all of us have a stake in caring for our local environments, whether we own any inch of ground or not. 

Graphic depiction of stewardship groups’ territories, based on responses to STEW-MAP survey. Stewardship site types range across the green, blue, and built environment and exist at scales from window box to watershed. Image created by Pratt SAVI using STEW-MAP NYC 2017 data.
Erika Svendsen

About the Writer:
Erika Svendsen

Dr. Erika Svendsen is a social scientist with the U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station and is based in New York City. Erika studies environmental stewardship and issues related to hybrid governance, collective resilience and human well-being.

Michelle Johnson

About the Writer:
Michelle Johnson

Michelle Johnson is a research ecologist with the USDA Forest Service at the NYC Urban Field Station.

Emilio Fantin

About the Writer:
Emilio Fantin

Emilio Fantin is an artist working in Italy on multidisciplinary research. He teaches at the Politecnico, Architecture, University of Milan, and acts as coordinator of the “Osservatorio Public Art”.

Emilio Fantin

La Stewardship è una strategia di gestione responsabile che introduce un principio etico dell’uso delle risorse. (Stewardship is a responsible management strategy that introduces an ethical principle of resource use.)

“Stewardship,” una parola, molte applicazioni. Il termine anglosassone stewardship non è traducibile con un corrispettivo italiano, ma letteralmente significa: “gestione etica (responsabile) delle risorse”. Quali risorse? I beni comuni come l’acqua, il territorio, le foreste, la salute, le persone, i risparmi e i prodotti. (Stewardship, one word, many applications. The Anglo-Saxon term “stewardship” cannot be translated with an Italian equivalent, but it literally means: “ethical (responsible) management of resources”. Which resources? Common goods such as water, land, forests, health, people, savings and products.)

Stewardship is an ethic that embodies the responsible planning and management of resources. The concepts of stewardship can be applied to environment and nature, economics, health, property, information, theology, etc.

I have selected from the Net, three definitions of stewardship, two of them in Italian and one in English.

Only through an autonomous process of consciousness—suggested by the word stewardship—can we share the sacredness which lays behind human nature. It is not a matter of thinking about which future disasters will kill us, or whether we will destroy the entire planet, but rather a matter of acting on the true sense of our relationship with the existence of life around us.
All of them refer to the word Ethics, which can be defined in different ways but, in general, it refers to actions by human beings, in relation to all living organisms, human and not human, things and objects. Ethics is constituted by a set of values which arises from the relationship between culture and nature and it concerns human beings consciousness.

These values are applied to the idea of good and more specifically, collectively speaking, of common good. Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy which addresses to questions of morality. But terms such as “strategia di gestione” (management strategy) or management of resources sound to me like terms which do not belong to philosophy or morality humanistic sphere. There is a big discussion about language, because specific words can be related to concepts which assume different meanings from the original ones, especially when these words do not originate in their own field but they are imported from other cultural spheres.

That is the case with words like “management strategy”, which evidently come from both economic, business, and military lexicons. I know they are commonly used in many other disciplines, but that doesn’t mean that they are properly used. “Stewardship of resources”, from my point of view, has to do primary with the word “care”, which means love put love into practice. If we intend the meaning of the words “stewardship of resources” as the result of a strategy, or we think that it concerns a hierarchical management structure, we reduce it to an abstract concept and we significantly diminish the possibility of a positive result. By-taking care of resources, we intend to individually develop a profound relationship with all resources and common goods such as: water, air, green, food, human beings, soil or animals. It means to understand the essential quality of a particular status, form and way of being of all these elements, their esthetics and functions. It means to respect them in the same way we respect ourselves. That’s it. Because by taking care of them, we reconnect ourselves to a horizon which doesn’t comprehend finalized aims or strategic attitude but a true form of love.

A strong movement of transformation can take place whenever each part of a whole starts to act autonomously, instead of following a common direction or strategy. Only through an autonomous process of consciousness—suggested by the word stewardship—can we share the sacredness which lays behind human nature. It is not a matter of thinking about which future disasters will kill us, or if we will be able to destroy the entire planet, but rather a matter of discovering the true sense of our relationship with the existence of life around us.

Carlo Gomez

About the Writer:
Carlo Gomez

Carlo is the Department Head of the City Environment and Natural Resources Office of Puerto Princesa City Government.

Carlo Gomez, Zorina Colasero, Romina Magtanong

The CommunityAct Program encourages the engagement of the community and other stakeholders in various tree planting and environmental activities and to be stewards of their environment. In the case of the City’s Balayong Park—also known as People’s Park—interested individuals and groups were given the opportunity to adopt Balayong Trees, and receive responsibilities and certificates for doing so.
Stewardship is known as “Pangangalaga” in Filipino, from the root word “alaga” which means CARE. It is just but normal for somebody to care or manage properly the things that have value to him/her. 

“Stewardship” is one of the strategies/approaches used by the Philippine Government in managing the natural resources of the country. It is making the qualified interested group/individuals as partners in managing properly the particular timberland areas by giving them authority/permits through issuance of appropriate tenurial instrument such as Certificate of Stewardship Contract (CSC)—(individual/family), and Community-Based Forest Management Agreement (CBFMA) (community/peoples’ organization).

Awarding/issuance of tenurial instruments comes with responsibilities that the beneficiaries/stewards should do to ensure that the area and the resources within the awarded timberland are properly managed with the perception that they own it.     

The City of Puerto Princesa conducted various tree planting and other environmental activities in the past, but it was observed that the participants of those activities just come and go and didn’t mind what happens next. 

This is the main reason for conceptualizing CommunityAct Program. The Program encourages the engagement of the community and other stakeholders in various tree planting and environmental activities and to be STEWARDS of their environment.

On the other hand, i-Tree Tool, a tree inventory tool developed by US Forest Service to quantify ecosystem services provided by trees, promotes Stewardship since the tool can change how people value trees. People will not only value trees for the lumber they can provide but also for the ecosystem services as well. Such information will give them more reason to be stewards of the trees in their areas.    

In the case of the City’s Balayong Park—also known as People’s Park, where “Stewardship” was first applied in tree planting and environmental activities—interested individuals and groups were given the opportunity and/or privilege to adopt Balayong Trees; they were given Stewardship Certificate as a proof of tree adoption.

As stewards of the Balayong trees they have planted, they have the responsibility to ensure that their adopted trees will survive and grow well. Stewardship develops sense of ownership to the trees they have adopted. In addition, STEW mapping activities in Balayong Park is on-going.

Zorina Colasero

About the Writer:
Zorina Colasero

Zorina is Senior Environmental Management Specialist for the Puerto Princesa City Government.

Romina Magtanong

About the Writer:
Romina Magtanong

Romina is an Environmental Management Specialist, and Supervising Officer of Balayong Park Urban Forestry Development Program of City ENRO.

Nathalie Blanc

About the Writer:
Nathalie Blanc

Nathalie Blanc works as a Research Director at the French National Center for Scientific Research. She is a pioneer of ecocriticism in France. Her recent book is Form, Art, and Environment: engaging in sustainability, by Routledge in 2016.

Nathalie Blanc

(Lisez-le en français.)

The good of my well-being is connected to the protection of irreplaceable beautiful environment. The good of my well-being is also connected to my ​​participation in a common good, resisting public policies or human behavior that is destructive.
The term stewardship, difficult to translate into French, essentially refers to the idea of ​​being responsible for one’s environment. This includes responding to any damage to the integrity of the latter. Many authors speak of stewardship to describe collective movements that are defined by this relationship to the environment. These groups enrich the environment by maintaining its eco-sociosystemic integrity, but are also defined by their activity as a group in a given territory.

In this round table, I would like to propose extending the use of the term to much more ordinary forms of engagement in the environment, generally based on a lively sensitivity to the state of the latter, or even to not distinguish between the maintenance of human bodies in the environment and the health of this environment itself, modifying or even abandoning, thereby the use of the term “environment”.

The term “stewardship” is therefore likely to be based not only on a commitment to the environment, but also on the idea of ​​its transformation. The objects created, the environments produced, the elements of nature reconfigured in the light of new perspectives, notably in terms of urban planning, are all potential indicators of a transformation of the environment and of people in time and space. In addition, taking care of the objects of the environment made sensitive, active for oneself and loved ones, so that they persist or that, at least, the value that one recognizes to them recurring, supposes to think about the modalities of factors of the environment, but also to the aesthetic and ethical theories that govern this care.

In fact, the aesthetic is crossed right through by the dimensions of the social and the cultural; it promotes, among other things, empathy, the recognition of a relationship between an environment and/or an object therein, and a feeling of pleasure, of self-recognition or of the collectives involved. One of the feelings that this relationship with others and the environment gives rise to is that of protection and the desire to reproduce its sources. These two desires and/or needs are related to the idea of ​​ethics, which, as G. Agamben (2003) explains, is the sphere that knows neither fault nor responsibility, the sphere of the happy life. “Recognizing fault and responsibility is tantamount to leaving the sphere of ethics and entering into that of law”[i].

Engaging in stewardship projects requires us to recognize successes and failures in this area as well as life and death in the environment related to the free will of human beings. How to engage with and in the environment, invest fully, i. e. aesthetically, a living environment, to promote its image in the present and the future, is part of an ethics of “care”. Stewardship is about recognizing what is due to material and social vulnerabilities, the natural and cultural construct, the extraordinary beauties and violence of life, and the possibility of its disappearance. More simply, it is a question of highlighting—it is henceforth indispensable—elements of finiteness of human lives, animal and vegetal lives, of what they rely on to create life, in order to develop an ethic that integrates the environment as relational proximity, as being of the order of an objective concern. It is the impossibility of an overcoming in the manner humans know—that is to say, by the predation of other regions of the world, or other natural resources, or by the exhaustion of those present, or the extinction of a civilization. But an aesthetic reading of the environment predisposes to a prior concern, then corollary of the action towards it. It dramatically changes the perception of the environment’s agency; it creates new opportunities for relocating responsibility for what happens to it.

So, from an ethical point of view, we can’t deny the role of the environment in the sense of what surrounds us, or what the ecological question has produced in terms of a collective representation of the environment. The good of my well-being is identified in particular with the protection of this irreplaceable singularity that represents the beautiful object (or the beautiful environment)[ii] . The good of my well-being is also identified in the idea of ​​participation in a common good in resistance also proactive and positive action to public policies or to human behavior that can be described as destructive. In this sense, the action to be taken is that exemplified by the good of my well-being in the continued adequacy to living conditions. Therefore we could use the word of « intendance » to translate stewardship but being related to nobility, it may raise suspicions, so we may as well behold on the english term.

* * *

Le bien de mon bien-être est lié à la protection d’un environnement d’une beauté irremplaçable. Le bien de mon bien-être est aussi lié à ma participation à un bien commun, à la résistance aux politiques publiques ou à un comportement humain destructeur.
Le terme de stewardship, difficilement traduisible en français, renvoie essentiellement à l’idée de se montrer responsable à l’égard de son environnement. Il s’agit notamment de répondre en cas de dommage ou d’atteinte à l’intégrité de ce dernier. De nombreux auteurs parlent de stewardship pour qualifier des mouvements collectifs qui se définissent par ce rapport à l’environnement. Ces groupes enrichissent l’environnement en maintenant son intégrité éco-sociosystémique, mais se définissent également par leur activité en tant que groupe sur un territoire donné.

J’aimerais, dans le cadre de cette table ronde, proposer d’élargir l’usage du terme à des formes beaucoup plus ordinaires d’engagement dans l’environnement, se fondant, généralement, sur une sensibilité vive à l’état de ce dernier, voire qui ne font pas de distinction entre le maintien des corps humains dans l’environnement et la santé de cet environnement lui-même, invalidant, de ce fait-même l’emploi du terme « environnement ».

Le terme de stewardship, dès lors, repose non seulement sur un engagement à l’égard de l’environnement, mais aussi sur l’idée de sa transformation. Les objets créés, les environnements produits, les éléments de nature reconfigurés à l’aune de nouvelles perspectives en matière d’aménagement ou d’urbanisme sont autant de signes annonciateurs d’une transformation des environnements et des individus et collectifs dans le temps et l’espace. En outre, prendre soin des objets de l’environnement rendu sensible, actif pour soi et des proches, afin qu’ils perdurent ou que, tout au moins, la valeur qu’on leur reconnaît se reproduise suppose de réfléchir aux modalités de fabrique de l’environnement, mais également aux théories esthétiques et éthiques qui gouvernent cette prise en charge. En effet, l’esthétique est traversée de part en part par les dimensions du social et de la culture ; elle promeut notamment l’empathie, la reconnaissance d’une relation entre un environnement et/ou un objet qui s’y trouve et un sentiment de plaisir, de reconnaissance de soi-même ou des collectifs impliqués. L’un des sentiments que fait naître cette relation à autrui et à l’environnement est celui de protection et de désir de reproduction de ce qui en est à l’origine. Ces deux désirs et/ ou besoins sont liés à l’idée d’éthique qui, comme l’explique G. Agamben (2003) est la sphère qui ne connaît ni faute, ni responsabilité, la sphère de la vie heureuse. « Reconnaître une faute et une responsabilité revient à quitter la sphère de l’éthique pour pénétrer dans celle du droit » [iii].

S’engager dans des projets d ‘«intendance» exige que nous reconnaissions les succès et échec en la matière ainsi que la vie et la mort dans l’environnement en lien avec le libre arbitre des êtres humains. En quoi s’engager dans l’environnement, investir pleinement, i. e. esthétiquement, un milieu de vie, en promouvoir l’image au présent et au futur, participe d’une éthique du « care », traduit par « soin » ou « attention », qui met l’accent sur le souci du proche et de la proximité, l’attention au singulier. Il s’agit de reconnaître ce qui est dû aux vulnérabilités matérielle et sociale, au construit naturel et culturel, aux beautés et violences extraordinaires de la vie, et à la possibilité de sa disparition. Plus simplement, il s’agit de mettre en évidence – c’est désormais indispensable – des éléments de finitude des vies humaines, des vies animales et végétales, de ce sur quoi elles s’appuient pour se créer une vie, afin de développer une éthique intégrant l’environnement comme proximité relationnelle, comme étant de l’ordre d’une préoccupation objective. C’est l’impossibilité d’un dépassement à la manière que nous connaissons, c’est-à-dire par la prédation d’autres régions du monde, ou d’autres ressources naturelles, ou par l’épuisement de celles présentes, ou l’extinction d’une civilisation.

Or la lecture esthétique de l’environnement prédispose à un souci préalable, puis corollaire de l’action à son égard ; elle change dramatiquement la perception de l’agentivité de ce dernier ; elle crée de nouvelles opportunités quant à la relocalisation des responsabilités quant à ce qui lui arrive. Donc, il ne peut être question du point de vue d’une éthique de méconnaître l’environnement, au sens de ce qui nous environne, ni même ce que ce que la question écologique a produit du point de vue d’une représentation collective de ce dernier. Le bien de mon bien-être s’identifie notamment à la protection de cette singularité irremplaçable que représente le bel objet (ou le bel environnement) [iv]. Le bien de mon bien-être s’identifie également dans l’idée de participation à un bien commun en résistance à des politiques publiques ou à des conduites humaines que l’on peut qualifier de déprédatrices. En ce sens, l’action à conduire est celle qu’exemplifie le bien de mon bien-être dans l’adéquation poursuivie à des conditions de vie. Par conséquent, nous pourrions utiliser le terme «intendance» pour traduire «stewardship» mais, étant lié à la noblesse, cela peut éveiller les soupçons. Nous pouvons donc aussi bien utiliser le terme anglais.

Notes:

[i] Agamben, G. (2003). Ce qui reste d’Auschwitz.  Paris: Payot Rivages, 25.

[ii] Breviglieri, M., Trom, D. (2003). Troubles et tensions en milieu urbain. Les épreuves citadines et habitants de la ville. In D. Cefai et D. Pasquier (Eds), Le sens du public: Publics politiques et médiatiques (pp. 399-416). Paris: PUF.

[iii] Agamben, G. (2003). Ce qui reste d’Auschwitz.  Paris: Payot Rivages, 25.

[iv] Breviglieri, M., Trom, D. (2003). Troubles et tensions en milieu urbain. Les épreuves citadines et habitants de la ville. In D. Cefai et D. Pasquier (Eds), Le sens du public: Publics politiques et médiatiques (pp. 399-416). Paris: PUF.

Johan Enqvist

About the Writer:
Johan Enqvist

Johan Enqvist is a postdoctoral researcher affiliated with the African Climate and Development Initiative at University of Cape Town and Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University. He wants to know what makes people care.

Johan Enqvist

In Swedish,Ta hand om” is a common phrase usually translated as “taking care of”; the literal meaning, is more like “taking in your hand”. “Ta hand om naturen” communicates both an individual responsibility to be careful with nature, but also the shared effort of joining hands to achieve in the interest of our co-dependency on nature.
Put your hand around nature

Writing this text was surprisingly valuable to me, and taught me new things about something that I had spent five years of PhD research investigating. After dissecting three words that I thought would together cover the meaning of stewardship—a word with no direct translation in Swedish—I have ended up instead focusing on the expression that I best think captures the notion of “actively taking care of things we care about”.

First, three Swedish meanings of stewardship. Förvaltning generally means management or custodianship, caring for something valuable on behalf of someone else. Most often it is used to describe some part of Sweden’s public administration and bureaucracy, which is meant to run the country for the benefit of the population according to the elected government. Skötsel describes the more everyday activity of taking care of a piece of land, livestock, crops, machinery, or facilities, but also one’s own health or general conduct. The verb sköta version can also refer to temporarily caring for someone else’s children, household, or business interests, temporarily while they are unable to do so. Skötsel implies moral imperative or duty, and professionalism and expertise rather than care or compassion. Vård refers to a nursing kind of care, usually for someone or something (animate or inanimate) that is harmed, sick, aging or exhausted and needs to heal, recover, or receive palliative care. Vården is generally used to describe the health care sector as a whole. An older meaning is to watch over something, like a guard-post, beacon, monument, or a guardian spirits or angels.

None of these words explicitly refer to nature (natur) or the environment (miljö), but all can do so by adding prefixes: Miljöförvaltning is a common name for municipalities’ environmental departments; naturskötsel and miljövård typically refer to activities to maintain and restore natural systems. However, there is a sense of empowerment and bottom-up aspect of stewardship that is lacking in these terms; the commitment that comes from working with something you are personally invested in.

Ta hand om is a very common phrase usually translated as “taking care of”. The literal meaning, difficult to capture in English, is more like “taking in your hand” or “putting your hand around”. It carries notions both of taking responsibility, expressing care and compassion, and making things happen to achieve results. Ta hand om varandra, “look after each other”, is something you affectionately say to an older child left alone with younger siblings, a newlywed couple embarking on a new chapter, or dear friends that leave behind when moving abroad—especially if either party is particularly vulnerable or in need of healing. Ta hand om naturen communicates both an individual responsibility to be careful with nature, but also the shared effort of joining hands to achieve change (societal, behavioural, cultural) in the interest of our co-dependency on nature. Importantly, the idea of your hand directly applied to nature—even greeting it, “shaking its hand” as ta i hand translates to—also gives a sense of connectedness, of embodied care as opposed to the bureaucratic or professionalised meanings of förvaltning or skötsel. When that connection is established, when we can know the importance of nature, the need to ta hand om it. It is what you do for a heartbroken friend or a neglected houseplant, and it is what we ought to do with the environment more broadly. The metaphor of the hand even provides a helpful way of thinking of the different steps involved: in the friendly greeting and familiarisation, the hearty embrace and commitment, the concrete action and manual labour—and perhaps also, in symbol of the raised fist, a more transformative struggle to overhaul unsustainable societal and economic structures.

Kevin Lunzalu

About the Writer:
Kevin Lunzalu

Kevin Lunzalu is a young conservation leader from Nairobi, Kenya. Through his work, Lunzalu strives to strike a balance between environmental conservation and humanity. He strongly believes in the power of innovative youth-led solutions to drive the global sustainability agenda. Kevin is the country coordinator the Kenyan Youth Biodiversity Network.

Kevin Lunzalu

In day-to-day local applications, stewardship is also used to mean a guardian, a servant, and an agent. In rural villages where farming is predominant, farmers are regarded as stewards of their lands, farm animals, and produce.
In the Kenyan context, stewardship is a word that has many derivatives, all of which allude to nearly the same meaning and application. In Swahili, which is the national language for Kenya and which is spoken by nearly all the 44 tribes and 47 Counties, a raw translation of the term stewardship gives Uwakili, meaning being an advocate of. “Wakili” is an adjective coined from the noun Wakili which means an advocate. Another word, Wakilisha translates to represent, as it is in the case of a lawyer appearing before the court of law in place of their client.

Steward is also widely implied to a manager or person in charge. In local Swahili context, the term Msimamizi is in this case used, instead of Wakili. Good examples include Msimamizi wa hali ya hewa (air steward), Msimamizi wa duka (shop steward), and Msimamizi Mkuu (chief steward). In this regard, the steward is directly in charge and answerable to their respective areas of jurisdiction. Stewardship is also used to depict leadership.

As a largely religious country, Kenya’s faithfuls regularly use the term and execute stewardship in their contexts. In Christianity, for example, the Bible depicts Jesus Christ as the steward of the Church, with practical incidences in which He takes care of his flock and looks out for his lost sheep. Christians believe that Jesus is their leader, and they walk in His footsteps. In essence, the word “Christian” is a direct derivative of the term “Christ”, who is the Biblical head of the church. Furthermore, Christians are mandated to “Pro-create” and take care of all the creatures that God created. In Islam, Prophet Mohammed is another supreme being who is largely associated with the ethical stewardship and growth of the religion. Christians and Muslims in Kenya and by extension the world, are taught to live by the teachings of the Bible and the Quran, the respective Holy books that are expected to guide them.

In day-to-day local applications, stewardship is also used to mean a guardian, a servant, and an agent. In rural villages where farming is predominant, farmers are regarded as stewards of their lands, farm animals, and produce. On the other hand, in cities such as Nairobi, people are employed to take care of businesses, government and private property. Think of security officers, human resource managers, chefs, cleaners, gardeners, civil servants, and many other professions—they are all in-charge of a certain jurisdiction. In some cases, stewardship is also viewed as a specialization, with a certain level of understanding, professionalism, set of skills, experience, and abilities expected of the persons in question.

The mantle of stewardship can be passed down from one generation to another. In Maasai cultural setups in Kenya, sons are trained by their fathers on proper livestock techniques while mothers instill homestead management skills to their daughters. Since they are pastoralists, the Maasai people move with hundreds of heads of cattle from one place to another in search of pasture and water. The young boys are, in essence, taught proper stewardship of the cattle—livestock is a highly precious aspect of the family unit and a symbol of wealth. When they become of age, the young boys and girls are initiated into adulthood through a rite of passage in which they are taught how to take care of families and execute husband and wife duties responsibly. In more formal setups such as workplaces, handing over ceremonies depict the same aspect.

Stewardship elements also came out strongly in the olden Kenyan justice systems. Before colonization and subsequent independence that came with the current court systems, the commonly used traditional method of solving conflict and crime cases was through the jury system. In this case, the accused persons were presented before a council of elders who would listen to both the accused and the accuser, and in some cases witnesses, before making a final verdict on whether the person was guilty or innocent of the claims placed against them. The council of elders in this regard were stewards of the principles of the communities and guarded the moral values considered to be acceptable in society.

In ancient times, communities peacefully co-existed with nature. The Maasai and Ogiek people of Kenya are perfect examples, as their lives directly depended on the sustainability of forests and wildlife. While the Maasai exclusively practiced pastoralism and hunted wild animals for food, the Ogiek lived inside forests, depending directly on them for livelihood. This instilled a sense of conservation awakening and environmental stewardship. Well, until modern conservation happened.

Beatriz Ruizpalacios

About the Writer:
Beatriz Ruizpalacios

Beatriz Ruizpalacios is a PhD student in Sustainability Science in Mexico City. She has worked with different communities in urban and rural settings facilitating sustainable development processes.

Beatriz Ruizpalacios

Stewardship means nurturing a thing or a place and the relationship we keep with it. We become responsible, and in turn the thing is a repository of our affection and care. There is no particular word for this kind of stewardship, but we prefer to use verbs that emphasize our responsibility and agency: Cuidar, Proteger.
Stewardship is a diffuse concept. We don’t have a specific translation into Spanish, at least not in Mexico.

Many governmental and private programs promote stewardship as being guardians of the environment. Stewards in protected natural areas are hired as park rangers encouraged to enforce regulations and communicate biodiversity and environmental services highlights to visitors. In many protected areas park rangers are residents whose traditional livelihoods depended on the use of natural resources. As the area was declared a protected area and regulations were implemented to control biodiversity use and change in land cover, the residents were considered problematic in formal conservation efforts, so they were offered jobs as park rangers, known in Mexico as “guarda parques”.

Another embodiment of stewardship is promoted by companies with outreach programs that involve their employees and neighbors in conservations efforts. Reforestation is a favorite because it gathers families, friends, and co-workers in collective outdoor activities that last a full day and offer the opportunity to reconnect with nature and strengthen community ties. Participants are encouraged to become defenders or guardians of trees and forests and hence of nature, while reclaiming public spaces and a sense of community and belonging. At the end of the day, these “guardianes de la naturaleza” go back home knowing they are part of a bigger movement that aims at building a better world for all species to thrive.

When we talk about the personal sphere, however, as civilians with personal initiatives in our community or family members in a household, stewardship entails a personal relationship with specific things. It becomes a one-to-one relationship with things that we are interested in, that we like, that we are fond of, that carry part of our history, and which we wish to preserve. In these intimate environments, stewardship means nurturing a plant or a place and the relationship we keep with it. We become responsible for its continuity and wellbeing and in turn the thing is a repository of our affection and care. It becomes part of our daily routine and something worth our energy and money. There is no particular word for this kind of stewardship, but we prefer to use verbs to describe the relationship emphasizing our agency and the subject in diminutive form, which expresses our affection towards it: “Yo cuido a mis plantitas”, which in English would be translated as “I take care of my little plants.” It is a personal relationship of ownership and responsibility of something tangible based on interests, personal experience and memory, and that derives into a relationship of obligation towards its welfare.

When I’ve talked to people in Mexico City about how they engage in stewardship actions, they are always careful to make the distinction between participating in activities promoted by the government, private companies, or large NGOs, from those they carry out as a hobby or personal interest by themselves. There is a growing interest in participating in community gardens, however, that works as an extension of their personal spheres and connects people to a larger community. These settings are a combination of guardians of nature and carers of plants they own, linking the sense of engaging in community and even planetary actions while still keeping personal relationships with things they can see grow. Whenever I mention the word ecoguardas or guardianes de la naturaleza, they associate it with specific activities and initiatives or need further explanation of what I mean. So far, we haven’t come up with any particular word that we agree upon and that fully expresses the care we put into things. The formality of the words most commonly used still lack the personal touch and endearing relationship that taking care of something really means. This makes me think that the conversation about being agents who can influence the world at different scales through care is just beginning.

Xin Yu

About the Writer:
Xin Yu

Xin Yu (aka Fish) is Shenzhen Conservation Director and Youth Engagement Director of The Nature Conservancy China Program. Since 2017, he has overseen TNC’s first City project in Shenzhen, China, focusing on Sponge City

Xin Yu (aka Fish)

In China, “stewardship” seems to be a word related more to rural conservation, and its core idea of “taking care” embeds an emotional tie to the object, connecting to us equally. The relationship becomes much weaker and passive in an urban context.
Stewardship in Chinese and my work

My environmental NGO career has mostly taken place in urban China since 2006, previously as a campaigner in Beijing and then in Shenzhen as an urban conservationist with The Nature Conservancy. When I started thinking about “stewardship” in the Chinese language, I recalled that this word hasn’t been used much in my daily work in English communication. So, in order to help make sure my contribution brings broader understanding on the term, I asked several colleagues of mine who have worked much longer in rural China. Here is some interesting feedback I heard back.

Bob (Asia Pacific Cities Program Director): I remember having a discussion with TNC China staff about the meaning of stewardship almost 20 years ago. And it was used a lot in TNC in those days. For example, the old science department was called Science and Stewardship for many years. As I remember, the straight translation was “management” in Chinese, as in nature reserve management. That was the simplest way to translate it and I think that is what we mostly used. That’s my historical perspective.

Bo (Shanghai Conservation Director): I still remember the first time we met people from the Alliance for Water Stewardship, and I asked Bob what’s the meaning of stewardship. It was almost two years ago. After that, there has been no more chance to use the word with others. It is really a kind of challenge to give a nice and proper Chinese translation. Is this the same challenge for “city with nature” or “nature-based solution”?

Yue (Strategy & Planning Director): I think “stewardship” means two things in general: sustainable use and care. The specific translation for the term depends on the context. For instance, we usually say rangers carry out stewardship programs. In this case, it means 管护,management and protection. We also say environmental stewardship is everyone’s responsibility. In this case, it means 维护/保护, care/protection. We say the park has a citizen steward group, in this case, it means 守护, care/safeguard. Water stewardship should be in this category.

Lulu (Hong Kong Conservation Director): I personally understand stewardship as “to take care of something/some people/some place”. We often say at TNC we do our best to cultivate local stewardship by empowering local people, which is really to ensure people to take care of their natural environment after they understand the dependent relationship people have with nature.

* * *

It seems to me that “stewardship” is a word related more to rural conservation, and its core idea of “taking care” embeds an emotional tie to the object, such as land, water and wildlife. We think they are connecting to us equally, as if everyone has a share of them. Nevertheless, the relationship becomes much weaker and passive in an urban context. People do not easily carry a feeling of responsibility about the built environment because it is always with a legal possessor, e.g. developers take the land, rich people buy building units, greening space is under property management, parks are managed by a park service… Urban residents use the term “protection” more frequently due to the urgency of their built environment being damaged. But passionately taking care of something (assumedly) owned by another party? Hardly a common phenomenon of urban mentality in today’s China.

The subtle difference between wildness stewardship and environmental protection reveals an essential effort of my daily work. We keep trying not only to lift the importance of biodiversity in the city environment—people have yet to recognize it as a basic need—but also to cultivate or recapture a citizenship where everyone has a stake in their city.


How Large Parks Complete Cities

Many voices. Greener cities. Better cities.

A review of Large Parks, edited by Julia Czerniak and George Hargreaves. 2007. ISBN 1-56898-624-6. Princeton Architectural Press, New York. 255 pages. Buy the book.

“Large parks are priceless, and those cities that do not have an effectively designed one will always be the poorer.” –James Corner

As a Regional Park Planner, I have to say up front that I love large parks, especially those embedded within urban areas. To me, there is nothing quite so compelling as temporarily leaving behind the sights, sounds, and smells of a bustling modern city and slipping into the magical realm of a large park. The jolt to my senses as I transition from one realm to the other is always profound.

When I am in a large park, I wake up to my surroundings—I become immersed in the sights, sounds, and smells of the world around me. As a regular large park visitor, I get to witness the playing out of natural and social processes over time, such that themes of constancy and change become a mirror to my own lived experience. To me, a large park completes a city and a large park completes my city experience.

“Large Parks” is at once thought provoking and sophisticated, helping us understand why large parks are complex—and vital.

That’s why I was so excited to be able to read and review Large Parks, a 2007 Princeton Architectural Press book edited by Julia Czerniak and George Hargreaves. The essays in this volume explore many of the dimensions of large urban parks from a landscape architecture perspective. Large Parks is at once thought provoking and sophisticated in its arguments and narratives. The contributors to Large Parks are some of today’s leading landscape architects, architects, design theorists, critics, and historians.

Large Parks emerged out of a series of events, including a conference held at Harvard University Graduate School of Design in April 2003, where ideas about the significance of size in relation to parks launched discussions relative to the planning, design, and management of past and future large parks. Subsequent colloquia, meetings, discussions, and debates helped to shape the eight essays contained in this volume. Large Parks follows The Landscape Urbanism Reader (2006) and Recovering Landscape (1999) as the third in a series of publications from Princeton Architectural Press that focus on a continuing and abiding interest in landscape.

James Corner starts things off with a stimulating Foreword that paints a picture of large parks as “extensive landscapes that are integral to the fabric of cities and metropolitan areas, providing diverse, complex, and delightfully engaging outdoor spaces for a broad range of people and constituencies.” He recognizes that large parks are also valuable for their ecological function, providing habitat for a rich variety of plant, animal, bird, aquatic, and microbial life, as well as essential ecosystem services such as storm water filtration, air purification, and climate regulation. Corner believes that large urban parks function as “green lungs,” helping to cleanse, refresh, and enrich city life.

While these essential functions of large parks have been fundamental to their establishment and on-going public support, Corner states that the creation of most contemporary large parks are now a by-product of expansive development schemes, or as remediation projects for abandoned industrial sites. Unfazed, Corner says these sites present us with enormous opportunities to create entirely new types of public parkland that still provide essential ecological benefits while also embracing often uncomfortable site histories. According to Corner, “the time to reinvent large parks has never been better.”

Corner lays out a central thesis of the essays contained in Large Parks by stating that the ecological, operational, and programmatic aspects of large parks is vitally important, but not very well understood in the development of large urban parks today. These concerns are particularly significant to landscape architects, because large parks are usually designed spaces.

Corner carefully argues that the creation of large parks is a long-term process, subject to revision and change over time. The trick for landscape architects, according to Corner, is to design a large-park framework “sufficiently robust to lend structure and identity while also having sufficient pliancy and ‘give’ to adapt to changing demands and ecologies over time.”

Central Park in New York City. Photo: David Maddox

Corner contends that if a large park design cannot address serious issues such as park stewardship, maintenance, cost, security, programming, and ad-hoc politics, that the result will be “the typical bland, populist pastoral pastiche that passes for most recreational open space today, with none of the grandeur, theatricality, novelty, or sheer experiential power of real large parks.”

In her Introduction to the essays, author Julia Czerniak delves deeply into the two words forming the title of this volume—“Large” and “Parks.” Czerniak makes the case that studying parks selected by size allows us look at parks not usually considered together. She argues that due to the present number of large parks in various stages of conceptualization, planning, and development, that a study of large park design, management, and use is timely and necessary.

Czerniak highlights the relevance of “large” in relation to parks, saying that size has practical and disciplinary consequences, and that as the “sole criterion,” the term becomes critical. For the purpose of the essays in this volume, Czerniak defines a park that is at least 500 acres in size as large. This definition in part derives from a statement made by Andrew Jackson Downing during the development of New York’s Central Park that “five hundred acres is the smallest area that should be reserved for the future wants of such a city…”

Oslo Park. Photo: Tim Beatley

Czerniak argues that large amounts of land are indeed necessary for ecological resiliency and for economic sustainability, in the sense that today’s parks must be big enough to include the resources for their own making. To Czerniak, size also implies ambition—or the embrace of “big plans” as exemplified by Daniel Burnham in talking about his plans for Chicago. Largeness also requires “considerable energy, vision, commitment, and innovation” by those who work to make these parks happen.

In her discussion of the term “park,” Czerniak acknowledges it is one of the most debated forms of landscape. While early park advocates tied its meaning to green open space with turf and trees, Czerniak notes that now the “character and image of parks, the roles they play, their emergence relative to cities, and their use by various publics has certainly changed.”

Czerniak rightfully notes that, together, “Large” + “Parks” claim a complex conceptual territory which allows for “inquiry at multiple scales and through diverse frameworks that may give rise to how we think about parks today.”

In her contribution to the book, “Sustainable Large Parks: Ecological Design or Designer Ecology?,” Nina-Marie Lister delves into recent shifts in perceptions of ecosystems as deterministic and closed to a more nuanced view of living systems as open, self-organizing, and unpredictable. To Lister, this view of ecological processes demands a new approach to the design and management of large parks. Lister argues that complex natural processes must inform how parks are envisioned to allow for self-organizing and resilient ecological systems to emerge. Lister further argues that designing a park to allow for an “operational ecology” is a basic requirement for long-term sustainability. Lister makes a clear case that large parks within metropolitan areas warrant special consideration and study, and that planning, management, and maintenance must provide for “resilience in the face of long-term adaption to change, and thus for ecological, cultural, and economic viability.”

Park connector in Singapore. Photo by Tim Beatley.

Landscape historian and theorist Elizabeth K. Meyer builds on Lister’s essay in “Uncertain Parks: Disturbed Sites, Citizens, and Risk Society,” where she discusses how many contemporary large parks are created from ecologically and culturally disturbed sites, such as abandoned factories, landfills, and military bases. These damaged sites are a byproduct of industrial era expansion and modern consumer culture. As such, they are “constituted by debris and toxic byproducts of the city.” Meyer doesn’t ask us to erase these site histories, but rather to view them as spaces to recollect and interpret precise site histories. Meyer interestingly advocates for telling the site’s particular story through park design and programming that reveal and blur the boundaries between “toxicity and health, ecology and technology, past and present, city and wild.” Meyer believes this will allow the public to confront “perceptions of ourselves as a collective of citizen-consumers and as residents of a risk society.”

Architect Linda Pollack’s contribution, “Matrix Landscape: Construction of Identity in the Large Park,” posits that a preoccupation with “thin green veneers” often masks a park’s heterogeneous character. She focuses her essay on the Fresh Kills Landfill, a 2,200-acre site that had served for more than 50 years as New York City’s landfill. An international design competition was held for the redevelopment of the site after it was closed in 2001. The design team Field Operations In New York won the design competition, and in 2006, a draft master plan was released for Fresh Kills Park. The project website stated that “the Parkland at Fresh Kills will be one of the most ambitious public works projects in the world…” Pollack elaborates on the conceptual and representational design strategy used by Field Operations, which she calls the “matrix.” According to Pollack, Field Operations conceptualized the project as a “reconstituted matrix of diverse life forms and evolving strategies” as represented in the spatial framework of threads, islands/clusters, and mats—which, Pollack says, can be understood as the “agent of a fluid set of ecological systems, allowing the interaction of programmatic, cultural, and natural elements to create the complex, synthetic environment.”

In his essay, landscape architect George Hargreaves asks, “why large parks”? To Hargreaves, who approaches the question from a design perspective, size does matter. In his words, large parks “afford the scale to realistically evaluate the degrees of success or failure of many of the issues embedded in public landscapes: ecology, habitat, human use and agency, cultural meaning, and iconographic import, to name but a few.” Hargreaves believes that these issues can’t be understood without considering the physical characteristics of the site itself, and that large parks reveal the importance of the designer’s attitude towards the site and its physical forms and natural systems. He argues, “the extent to which designers embrace or fight the physical history and systems of a site is an important determinant of a park’s long-term success.” Hargreaves provides seven case studies of parks that he has visited and photographed to showcase the work of designers who have grappled with these issues with varying degrees of success.

Landscape theorist Anita Berrizbeitia’s essay, “Re-placing Process,” examines potential associations between making places of lasting identity and value, and facilitating the natural and cultural processes that transform them. Berrizbeitia recognizes that large urban parks are complex and diverse systems that respond to change through time, and as such that they require a process-driven design approach that is open-ended and adaptable. Berrizbeitia believes that large parks “absorb the identity of the city as much as they project one, becoming socially and culturally recognizable places that are unique and irreproducible.” According to Berrizbeitia, successful large parks are the product of deliberate decisions that leave them flexible in terms of management, program, and use, and that they result from “equally conscious decisions that isolate, distill, and capture for the long term that which makes them unique.” Berrizbeitia’s essay captures the relationship between process and place, between those practices that leave a site open to “contingency and change,” and that also capture a place’s “enduring qualities.”

In his essay “Conflict and Erosion: The Contemporary Public Life of Large Parks,” critic John Beardsley writes about the “multiple, often conflicting publics that use large parks” and the possibility of even finding a large park anywhere in the world today that is fully public. To Beardsley, this means a park that is “entirely free and accessible in all places at all times and fully supported by public funds.” Beardsley writes that the complexity of large parks has an impact on how they are designed, such that there is an increased focus on “adaptability to accommodate different user groups at different times.” Beardsley is alarmed at what he sees as the most disturbing trend of all in contemporary parks, which is the increasing expectation that they will pay their own way. He states that “the pastoral park is obsolete; parks are now looking more like commercial landscapes or entertainment destinations…” In the end, Beardsley believes we must reaffirm that “unimpeded access to public parks is a crucial element of environmental justice,” and that we must reclaim large parks as “key features in functioning urban social and ecological systems.”

Editor Czerniak closes the book with her essay “Legibility and Resilience,” in which she looks at how large parks have “significant ecological, social, and generative roles in the contemporary city.” Czerniak argues that successful large parks share two essential characteristics: legibility and resilience. By this she means that a park must be understood in its design scheme, and it must be able to experience disturbance while maintaining its identity and function. Czerniak elaborates on the locational shifts of many contemporary large parks from the urban core to the periphery, where redevelopment lands are often located. She highlights winning schemes from recent international design competitions as case studies, examining how large parks can play vital roles in the city in three ways: as social catalysts, as ecological agents, and as imaginative enterprises. Understandably, Czerniak believes that “the large, the park, the city, and the future are intimately related” and that parks are something that, “both literally and metaphorically, must be cultivated.” She finally calls on those within the design field to understand why parks are necessary, the roles they can play, and how they can look.

The essays in Large Parks are individually and collectively stimulating, thought provoking, and often challenging in their observations and conclusions. The writers are at such a high-level that non-landscape architects may find the material a bit difficult to work through, particularly if they are not familiar with landscape design language and concepts. That being said, a careful read through Large Parks is well worth it, particularly if you are interested in gaining a greater understanding of some of the theoretical and practical considerations that design professionals are concerned with at this level.

As a regional park planner, I am familiar with natural area parks in an urban context, although the parks I work with are not “designer parks” per se; by Julia Czerniak’s standard, they would probably lack “legibility.” That being said, I’ve been fortunate to visit some of the world’s great large urban parks and I can certainly attest to their enduring and irreplaceable qualities, which I now believe stem in large part from successful landscape design strategies that facilitate emergent processes and spontaneous interactions, while also celebrating the familiar and beloved characteristics that bring people back time and again.

It would be hard to imagine the world’s great cities without their iconic parks. However, after reading Large Parks, I better understand the complexities inherent in designing, planning, and managing these often contested public spaces, and I have a greater appreciation of the challenges that they face now and into the future. I would recommend Large Parks to anyone interested in learning about one of our most important and enduring forms of public space from a highly informed landscape architecture perspective.

Lynn Wilson
Vancouver

On The Nature of Cities

Click on the image to go to Amazon and buy the book. A portion of the proceeds returns to The Nature of Cities.

How Much Nature in Cities Should Be Set Aside?

Many voices. Greener cities. Better cities.
How do we translate global nature goals into actionable goals for nature in cities? The Nature-Needs-Half movement, applied to cities, is a possibility.
Even in an era of extreme political divisiveness across the globe, clean air, clean water, and land conservation are extremely important goals across the political spectrum. According to recent bi-partisan polling in the US, 84 percent believe we can protect land and water and have a strong economy at the same time, up from 76 percent in 2009. My work at The Conservation Fund (the Fund) has been a 25-year crusade to have land and water conservation in tandem with a strong economy. The organization was founded to develop solutions that make environmental and economic sense, demonstrating that land conservation is key for our future prosperity in human communities. Land conservation at multiple scales within cities and metropolitan regions are key to the future of both people and wildlife.

A hot topic within both global and metropolitan land conservation circles lately has been to articulate bold targets for land set asides. The highest profile of these recent efforts has been the Half-Earth Project, spearheaded by the E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation. In 2016, Dr. Wilson, in an article in the New York Times, recommended that 50 percent of the Earth’s surface be conserved in a natural state to support and maintain biodiversity, which he felt was “the only way to save upward of 90 percent of the rest of life”. Since this declaration, the Half-Earth Project expanded in 2019 to include a Half-Earth Pledge and a Half-Earth Day on 7 October 2019.

While this has been the highest profile effort to date, the earliest article I could find researching the topic from a city perspective was on the Nature of Cities website by Lynn Wilson. In her 2014 article entitled “Nature Needs Half”, she documents the work of the WILD Foundation and its WILD Cities Project and references the Fund’s pioneering work establishing a conceptual green infrastructure framework and implementing green infrastructure at multiple scales to explain how the Capital Region District in British Columbia, Canada could consider and implement the Nature Needs Half concept, which advocates protection of 50 percent of the planet by 2030.

In April 2019, some of the same principals involved in the Nature Needs Half initiative reframed the aspiration in an article in ScienceMag by promoting a Global Deal for Nature, which targets 30 percent of the Earth to be formally protected and an additional 20 percent designated as “climate stabilization areas”, which, as defined by the article, are “habitats like mangroves, tundra, other peatlands, ancient grasslands, and boreal and tropical rainforest biomes that store vast reserves of carbon and other greenhouse gases”.

In the US in August 2019, a political advocacy group, the Center for American Progress (the Center), jumped on the bandwagon to try to convince policy makers they should adopt and implement a goal of protecting 30 percent of US lands and oceans by 2030. The Center is correct that the US “lacks a clear, common vision for how much nature it wishes to conserve, in what form, at what cost, and for whom” and therefore has vastly underutilized its capacity to conserve nature. I could not agree more on that point!

In our book The Science of Strategic Conservation: Protecting More with Less, Dr. Kent Messer and I point out that billions have been spent on land conservation but too little attention has been paid to how strategic and cost-effective these investments have been. To get to 30 percent or 50 percent protection of the globe or a specific geography, understanding priorities and the opportunity cost of investing in one form versus another is essential. And as the Center correctly points out in its Issue Paper: “A discussion of how much nature to protect—and how, where, and for whom—must honor and account for the perspectives of all people, including communities that are disproportionately affected by the degradation of natural systems; communities that do not have equal access to the outdoors; tribal nations whose sovereign rights over lands, waters, and wildlife should be finally and fully upheld; communities of color; and others.”

So how do we translate these global goals into actionable goals for nature in cities? Tim Beatley wrote about the Half-Earth project in his monthly column in Planning magazine in July 2018. He discussed the potential role of cities in implementing the concept with Paula Ehrlich, CEO of the E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation. Beatley correctly points out that “urban areas can and must be part of the Half-Earth vision and strategy for it to succeed”.

To realistically move towards any aggregate protection goal in the US, or the world, will require metropolitan areas to establish bottom-up goals based on the geographies of their region. One such effort is being spearheaded by Houston Wilderness. In a precursor project to the Regional Plan completed in 2013 focused on green infrastructure and ecosystem services, the Fund found out that in a 13-county area in Houston, 62 percent of the land provided 91 percent of the ecosystem service benefits (see the map below).

A map of the Houston region’s ecosystem service benefits.

The 2019 Gulf-Houston Regional Conservation Plan covers eight counties in and around the City of Houston, the fourth largest US city by population, and has the following three goals: (1) Increase the current 9.7 percent in protected/preserved land in the eight-county region to 24 percent of land coverage by 2040; (2) Increase and support the region-wide land management efforts to install nature-based stabilization techniques, such as low-impact development, living shorelines, and bioswales, to 50 percent of land coverage by 2040; and (3) provide research and advocacy for an increase of 0.4 percent annually in air quality offsets through carbon absorption in native soils, plants, trees, and oyster reefs throughout the eight-county region. In implementing this 2019 plan, it will be important to understand a key lesson learned from the 2013 ecosystem service analysis that it is not just important to reach 50 percent but that it needs to be the right 50 percent. 

Clearly, to come close to meeting percentage targets like this by a certain date are going to require significant investments at multiple scales. For instance, the US Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund will need to have appropriations much closer to its maximum annual accrual limit of US $900 million, and the magnitude of state and local bonds will need to increase (over US $3 billion in 2018). 

Metropolitan areas in the US, such as Portland, Oregon, have developed Regional Conservation Strategies to help them protect strategically important areas and spend available money wisely, but they have not emphasized specific targeted percentages. The Intertwine Regional Conservation Strategy, in tandem with the Biodiversity Guide for the Greater Portland-Vancouver Region, defines the challenges that the region faces to protect local wildlife and ecosystems and offers a vision, framework, and tools for moving forward collaboratively to protect and restore natural systems.

In synthesizing all of these global and city initiatives, my concern goes back to some of the fundamental principles of green infrastructure that the Fund helped outline starting back in the early 2000s, culminating in the book: Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. These percentage goals are not a substitute for a strategic analysis for identifying what is important to protect that keeps natural systems and human communities thriving. These goals are also not a substitute for building local constituencies to support achieving conservation goals, as the bi-partisan polling referenced at the beginning of the article suggests there is a disconnect between the general public and current political leadership on these topics. As I like to say: “Figure out where the green infrastructure should be and then build the gray infrastructure around that”. In city contexts, these percentage goals could have the unintended consequence of establishing protected lands that have little relative value for wildlife and people. In the case of both Portland and Houston, both are backed by rigorous analysis of the needs, and it is not that relevant that one has specific numerical goals and the other one does not. What’s most important are that there are intelligent, data-driven goals, and those goals will vary based on the metropolitan area. 

Even if one has a conceptual problem with oversimplifying land conservation into percentages, Beatley articulates the value of these types of efforts. Embracing this type of vision “reflects the philosophy that all forms of life matter, that they have inherent worth, and that cities have an ethical duty to blanch biological hemorrhaging.” Beatley asks: “Is it possible a new kind of urban ethic could emerge, one that understands the imperative of cities to conserve and protect nature, local and distant? Can we enlist cities and urbanites in the global struggle to preserve species and ecosystems that are often removed from their daily sight or consideration?” Houston Wilderness and The Intertwine have made statements that they are serious about their role in global conservation. Who else will join them?

Will Allen
Chapel Hill

On The Nature of Cities

How much should we worry about exotic species in urban zones? How do we reduce damage from exotic invasives when management resources are limited? Are there conflicts between management or eradication efforts and building general support for urban biodiversity?

Many voices. Greener cities. Better cities.

Every month we feature a Global Roundtable in which a group of people respond to a specific question in The Nature of Cities.
show/hide list of writers
Hover over a name to see an excerpt of their response…click on the name to see their full response.

Pippin Anderson, Cape Town
Cape Town is heavily invaded, most significantly by Australian species. But many of the original reasons for their introduction still hold.

David Burg, New York
A surprising number of our millions of residents are willing to volunteer their time to keep the parks and green spaces they love weed free

Mark Davis, St Paul
It is important to remember that ‘harm’ or ‘damage’ is in the eye of the beholder

Ana Faggi, Buenos Aires
Ordinary people do not see differences between exotic and native species at all!

Katie Holzer, Davis
Attempts at invasive species management that don’t succeed in the long run may simply be a non-ideal use of limited resources, but there is also increasing evidence that many intensive management actions have the potential to directly or indirectly harm native species.

Madhusudan Katti, Fresno
A surprising number of our millions of residents are willing to volunteer their time to keep the parks and green spaces they love weed free

Deborah Lev, Portland
Inviting community stewardship of our natural lands is a tremendous opportunity to introduce people to nature and build an appreciation for natural systems, ecosystem services, and the value of biodiversity.  

Timon McPhearson, New York
We should worry. Urban exotics species often have negative ecological and economic impacts and understanding the complex interactions among simultaneous exotic effects is very challenging. Let New York serve as a case study since it is one of the most “infested” states in the U.S.

Matt Palmer, New York
Cities are heterogeneous. There are habitats that should be managed to maintain indigenous species. But also there are neglected green spaces—often with exotic species. These could be managed with a more inclusive view of urban nature.

Toby Query, Portland
I have shifted my thinking from  “combat all evil invasives” to a more nuanced approach that targets thresholds and moves the system to a healthier state with the lowest overall impact.

Carmen Silva, Los Rios
We would prefer to design and plan parks and plazas with native plants only; however, the cultivation of native species and the knowledge about their management ) and behavior is still limited in Chile.

Glenn Stewart, Christchurch
In the southern hemisphere our cities are filled with cultivated gardens and lawns dominated by Northern hemisphere grasses, woodlands full of species from around the globe, urban birds from every continent and mammals from the European hedgehog to the Norway rat!

Paula Villagra, Los Rios
We would prefer to design and plan parks and plazas with native plants only; however, the cultivation of native species and the knowledge about their management ) and behavior is still limited in Chile.

Peter Werner, Darmstadt
We should not be worried about exotic species in urban areas! Some species are pests or cause diseases, but that is not only true for exotic, also for native species.

Pippin Anderson

About the Writer:
Pippin Anderson

Pippin Anderson, a lecturer at the University of Cape Town, is an African urban ecologist who enjoys the untidiness of cities where society and nature must thrive together. FULL BIO

Pippin Anderson

Invasive alien plants in the City of Cape Town present a real conundrum. The City is heavily invaded, most significantly by Australian species, in particular Acacias and Eucalypts. These species were actively introduced for various reasons and have since run rampant, with huge losses in indigenous biodiversity, much of which is endemic. They use more water than indigenous flora with hydrological losses of a scale worthy of attention. As species from a similar fire-driven system, they are favoured by the fires that sustain the Cape Flora, but their much higher fuel loads serve to alter fire regimes and create hotter and longer fires, to the detriment of the local flora. So at a glance it seems like a clear case where the call for the eradication of these alien invasive species is imperative and without question the right thing to do.

However, the original reasons for their introduction in some cases still hold. For example Acacia cyclops and Acacia saligna were introduced to stabilize mobile dune systems across the Cape Flats. While obviously it would be ideal to have pristine, and indeed mobile, dune systems, the truth is that now these areas are heavily inhabited, largely by the City’s poor, and if these dunes started to move once again it would present a massive management problem. The indigenous flora of the Cape is typically shrub dominated, with few trees. In light of this, large stands of woody invasive aliens are a source of wood, used both for energy provision and as a livelihoods supplement by the urban poor who gather wood and sell it by the side of the road. A further complicated benefit is in the government public works schemes, such as Working for Water, which employs the indigent to clear invasive aliens to improve water gains.

So where does that leave us? I certainly feel the problem needs to be contained, and that there should be no further loss in biodiversity to invasive aliens. But in the case of Cape Town, the plight of the poor is no trifling matter and associated benefits of these emergent novel ecosystems have to be taken in to consideration. So, I would put my money behind biological control. Biological control requires that some of the original population of any invasive species remains to serve as host population to the control agent, but sees the invasive species contained. Much research is needed in this area, so that would be an area of critical importance. An additional spin off might be an associated public works scheme with the poor employed in control distribution, the clearing of die off, and the cultivation of control agents for distribution.

So it seems to me to be a problem that does not present an either-or answer, but rather one that requires a middle-road.

David Burg

About the Writer:
David Burg

David Burg has been working on the environmental issues of New York and other metropolitan regions for over thirty years. He first started working as a naturalist in 1966, as a field assistant for the Department of Ornithology at Yale University. He subsequently worked odd jobs while hitch-hiking around North America, Central America, and Europe before resuming his naturalist career in New England and Israel.

David Burg

The real Invasive Worm in the Big Apple

Like most mega cities, New York has worlds within worlds. There are the well known human divisions of class and culture; most of us know that even if we live on the edge of an outer borough we can hop on a bus to a subway and travel from neighborhoods of chitlins and greens to Kosher Bukharian lamb, of Sichuan soup dumplings or gnocci Bolognese. But there is another New York.

Visit Breezy Point Queens in mid-winter and snow buntings swirl with real snow while white gannets dive for fish offshore. Almost every year a snowy owl roosts by day on the white dunes and watches the white breakers curl over the green waves. Or visit Pelham Bay Park in the Bronx in summer when the Great Granny Oak stretches her ancient limbs towards the Golden Meadow where goldenrod flowers are visited by clouds of butterflies and shiny green native bees. Prairie grasses nod in the wind next to little white orchid blossoms, all a three minute walk from the egrets feeding in the high marsh of Long Island Sound. In the blue dusk a great horned owl lands in the old oak and hoots softly while the fire flies twinkle below. Yes, there is real nature in cities, and it is good. Yes, we should be very afraid, very afraid of invasive species that wipe out our remnants of ancient ecosystems.

Even in the most highly built sections of cities wild nature persists. Native cherry trees and daisy flea bane flowers duke it out with invasive ailanthus trees in abandoned vacant lots. Peregrine falcons and red-tailed hawks breed on the cliff-like walls of the concrete canyons. We can do much more to encourage nature in the cities but we need to start by understanding and protecting what we still have.

Because big cites are global transit hubs they are often epicenters for invasive species, as they are for new diseases of humans. The cities are where the wooden boats brought in the first farm weeds from Europe, and where containerized cargo ships now bring in insects pests like Asian long-horned beetles that have stowed away in wooden packing crates. Cities are where jet liners bring in people with HIV and ebola and West Nile Virus.  Preventing new invasions of pathogens should be a much higher priority than it has been. Ounce of prevention vs. pound of cure is trite but true.

On the other hand, when it comes to the expense of dealing with invasive plant control cities and suburbs have a built in advantage. A surprising number of our millions of residents are willing to volunteer their time to keep the parks and green spaces they love weed free. In more than thirty years of working to protect nature in cities there has been  nothing more gratifying to me than the last twelve years of hands-on work to remove the few rampant invasive species that pose a threat. The Earth Tenders program of WildMetro has organized invasive control events to protect native diversity with a terrific diversity of humans. Everyone from an hundred bank employees doing community service to small numbers of inner city youth have helped. As in many such programs in cities around the world, people from eight to eighty are happy to get involved. Great exercise, great comaraderie — a classic case of doing well while doing good.

And except for a couple of times when we accepted some gloves and hand tools, we cost the city nothing. We use no power tools, no chemicals and we plant nothing. No need to. In site after site one sees that given a whiff of a chance even delicate species like wild roses come roaring back. Such conservative and cheap management of nature has a long history, and it is just common sense. While we were working in our quiet, patient, labor intensive way we were surprised to learn of the Bradley Method. This is a nearly identical approach developed by two sisters in Australia. We have not used any conservation grazing yet, but around the world, and even in New York City, goats and other animals are being carefully used to control weeds. Volunteers and other animals are the sensible, and affordable way to tackle the weed problem.

Sadly, these simple methods are not popular now with most government or non-profit agencies. Currently favored means of nature management and invasives control may indeed jeopardize public support for nature protection. Right now in New York City and much of the rest of the United States, the standard way of handling weeds is to use a variety of harmful options. So many government agencies now use what I call the 4Ps approach. They use Plowing, Plastic mulch, or Poison, then they Plant. These are modern industrial techniques at work. No thought of using careful slow hand work to nurture and protect the last of our ancient lineages of native species with their unique genetic heritage. We have had to overcome obstacles to just get permission to volunteer in parks, even though our results have been outstanding.

There are two really troubling aspects to current methods. The first is that tons of herbicides being supplied. New evidence continues to emerge about the dangers of even “safe” poisons like Round Up, one of the most commonly used formulations. Yes, the same chemical Monsanto developed to spray on genetically modified corn just went off patent and various formulations are now widely used in natural areas. And in addition to the harm they do in the environment, there is risk in the manufacture, storage, transportation and handling of any toxic substance. I recently learned that several government agencies in the city have been using Oust, a poison that is designed to kill all plants and seeds even before they emerge in the spring. Though some chemicals can be carefully painted on cut stems, I have recently seen the city using broad cast spraying of these poisons. This kills indiscriminately. Both the target species and the last native plants are eliminated.

But never fear, the agencies have a solution to the scorched earth policies they use.  Giving the lie to the affordability argument, New York City alone is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to come in and plant trees. This is the second troubling aspect of current vegetation control. The trees they plant cost an average of $1400 a piece. They are a mix of native and non native, but few are raised from local seed. What is so insane about this is that even on vacant lots it takes work to keep trees from coming in on their own. Each tree can produce hundreds of thousands of seed a year. Many are carried by wind and birds. Planting trees in an abandoned lawn or meadow is a case of carrying coals to Newcastle. It is only a matter of time before citizens get outraged at this harmful waste. I only hope they do not turn against all urban nature protection in reaction.

Invasives are not the only threat to urban green spaces. For several years now New York and other cities have developed a mania for paved asphalt recreation roads for bicycles, roller blades and other devices with wheels. I love bikes, but these are often placed in the last green spaces. One such road (to add insult to injury they are often called Greenways) that was built on Staten Island went right through a patch of rare plants. Another one planned for Pelham Bay may be about to go right through a patch of rare iris and native sunflowers. And any large green space, especially near waterfront or low income neighborhoods, is fair game for housing development, sports stadiums, new highways and recently new gas pipelines. The impact of invasives on our last bits of urban nature is only one of many threats that are working together to unravel our green blanket. These weeds are, however, one of the more controllable problems. In cities we still have the opportunity to reweave the blanket, if we only have the will. The real worm in the Big Apple is not an invasive plant or animal species. It is greedy and ignorant people.

Mark Davis

About the Writer:
Mark Davis

Mark Davis is Dewitt Wallace Professor and Chair of Biology at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA.

Mark Davis

Like native species, some non-native species cause problems, some produce desirable effects, and most we do not think much about. When it comes to management, it is important that we worry about the right things. We should always worry about species that threaten human health, negatively affect the economy, and/or undermine ecological services. We should worry much less about species that are not producing any of these effects but are simply altering the composition of communities and other ecological processes. We should worry less about the latter species because we need to utilize the public’s limited management resources on the first group of species. Cities simply do not have the luxury to consider as harm mere ecological change.

It is important to remember that ‘harm’ or ‘damage’ is in the eye of the beholder.  Normally, there is little disagreement over what constitutes a harmful species when the harm consists of threats to human health, the economy, and/or to ecological services.  However, citizens may differ dramatically in how they view other non-native species.   While a non-native plant may be viewed as harmful to a nativist simply because it is occupying space that could be occupied by a native plant, the same species may be viewed as desirable by an herbalist, and beautiful to someone else. Urban managers need to be careful not to assume that their view of such species is shared by all, or even a majority, of the public, i.e., those who are paying their salaries and funding their departments and agencies.

While we should worry about some non-native species, we need to remember that many non-native species are contributing positively to the environment and to the life of urban residents (human and non-human). For example, like native plants, non-native plants fix carbon, provide shade and reduce air temperatures, reduce erosion, provide habitat and food for native animals (including native pollinators), and many enhance the aesthetic experience of urban human residents. Since, in many instances, these species are growing in places where native plants do not thrive, eradicating the non-natives actually will compromise ecological services and quality of life of the human residents.

Without question, the traditional nativism approach to managing urban biodiversity has created obstacles to gaining widespread public support for the management of urban environments. While most of those schooled in conservation over the past several decades have been taught to prefer native over non-native species, simply on the grounds of their origins, many in the public have continued to take a much more nuanced approach to species, judging individual species on their actual effects and not on how long they have been here. Since many of these species have been in the city longer than any human currently alive, some of the non-native species actually contribute to the residents’ sense of place. A good example of this is the recent public backlash in San Francisco against a proposal to remove thousands of eucalyptus trees from a park and natural area. The wooded environment provided by these non-native trees had been highly valued by many area residents. If destroying a place they loved were not enough, the eradication methods were to involve large amounts of chemicals.

The public is getting smarter and less tolerant of the types of methods commonly used to eradicate and manage non-native species. Unless managers of urban environments abandon the simple-minded nativism approach, and begin following the public’s wisdom and start taking a more nuanced approach to species, they can expect to encounter an increase in public backlash in the future.

Ana Faggi

About the Writer:
Ana Faggi

Ana Faggi graduated in agricultural engineering, and has a Ph.D. in Forest Science, she is currently Dean of the Engineer Faculty (Flores University, Argentina). Her main research interests are in Urban Ecology and Ecological Restoration.

Ana Faggi

How much should we worry about exotic species in urban zones?

Urban habitats are more or less intense modifications of the original matrix and native plants are often either eradicated or replaced with exotic ornamentals, since the structure of the city is heavily influenced by the cultural tastes of society and its fashions.

Urban green is in many cities a necessary component to improve the microclimatic conditions and make cities more livable. In Argentina, the urban forest in towns located in arid or semiarid zones are almost entirely composed of exotic trees such as blackberry, poplar, ash, etc. In such cases, there is no real chance of having an urban forest composed only by native woodland.

As cities extend across the rural landscape, they bring about the fragmentation of biotopes, thus creating novel habitats for alien organisms. Nevertheless, a certain degree of “naturalness” can be found in the riverine vegetation along watercourses, although natives species coexist with exotic trees and shrubs. This vegetation has important benefits for human welfare. In my opinion, the positive of promoting native species is that people can become familiar with them. Exotics, provided they are not invasive, are welcome, taking in account that they are very much appreciated.

How do we reduce damage from exotic invasives when management resources are limited?

Here it would be necessary to involve the local community in eradication programs. Students of forestry, agronomy and environmental science could lead projects involving other volunteers of all ages. These actions are ideal opportunities for the local community to connect more deeply with nature working together towards a common goal. Simultaneously they would allow people to understand the relationships between cultural and ecological processes.

Are there conflicts between management or eradication efforts and building general support for urban biodiversity?

Ordinary people do not see differences between exotic and native species at all! Generally they do not understand why the exotics should be eradicated. Therefore, exotic management in the city needs to be well communicated to the public, explaining with concrete examples the grim consequences of invasions in the local ecosystem.

Katie Holzer

About the Writer:
Katie Holzer

Katie works with city managers to create urban natural areas that benefit both people and wildlife. She is a Ph.D. Candidate in Conservation Ecology at the Univ. of California-Davis.

Katie Holzer

What are major goals for urban natural areas, and how do invasive species management actions fit, or not fit, with them? In the face of continued urban growth worldwide and rapid climatic changes, one major goal for urban natural areas may be to create and maintain resilient, functional, and healthy ecosystems into the future, which may or may not be comprised entirely of native species. Another major goal for urban natural areas could be to provide a place for local residents to connect with and enjoy nature.

Cities house over 50% of the world’s human population, but take up less than 3% of the land surface. This demonstrates that cities may not be priority areas for conservation of rare native species, but they may be the most important place for many humans to develop an appreciation for, and connection with, nature. By understanding that they are part of nature, rather than removed from it, this can make people more likely to work to preserve it. If child in a city ventures out to a local pond to wade among the cattails and catch a frog, does she care more that there is a pond, cattails, and a frog that she can interact with, or that those species are native?

I think almost everyone can agree that it is important to isolate introduction pathways and vigilantly apply early detection and rapid response techniques to prevent introduction and spread of invasives in cities. It is of course also important to make sure that urban exotic species don’t become invasive outside of cities. But what about species that were introduced decades or centuries ago and are now well established in altered urban ecosystems? Control of established invasives is often more difficult in cities than elsewhere both because the landscape is more disturbed and because cities are a patchwork of management agencies, organizations, and private owners with differing goals, schedules, means, and methods. Consequently, particular invasive species are often controlled over small areas or short timeframes with low long-term success.

Holzer picture_urban youth
Urban youth enjoying pond with native and non-native species

Attempts at invasive species management that don’t succeed in the long run may simply be a non-ideal use of limited resources, but there is also increasing evidence that many intensive management actions have the potential to directly or indirectly harm native species. This harm can occur for a number of reasons, many of which are more pronounced in urban areas. Invasive control actions can produce substantial short-term disturbances (e.g. mowing or chemical removal of large stands of plants) which have the potential to negatively impact native species in any landscape, and can be especially detrimental in small, isolated urban natural areas where native organisms may not have other suitable places to move to for refuge. Urban organisms are often already stressed by many other factors, making them less able to cope with a sudden loss of cover.

In addition to potential increased harm by control methods, it is possible that urban wildlife species are less in need of maintaining entirely native species composition. Most native wildlife species have not been able to persist in urban habitats, and the subset that do are often those able to rapidly adapt to novel ecosystems and make use of new habitats that they may not have experienced before. These relatively adaptable species are often more able to utilize introduced plants as habitat than species that do not occur in cities.

Due to the unique challenges, potential harms, and possible lessened necessity of some invasive management actions in cities, invasive species management may not always have a strong place in working towards the major goals of urban natural areas.

Madhusudan Katti

About the Writer:
Madhusudan Katti

Madhusudan is an evolutionary ecologist who discovered birds as an undergrad after growing up a nature-oblivious urban kid near Bombay, went chasing after vanishing wildernesses in the Himalaya and Western Ghats as a graduate student, and returned to study cities grown up as a reconciliation ecologist.

Madhusudan Katti

Reconciling native and non-native species in urban biodiversity

Humans are the most invasive species on Earth. Our cities, ecosystems we build and replicate around the world, are also focal points from which other species have invaded native habitats. Just as wanderlust defines our species, so does the biophilia which makes us take living elements of our habitats with us wherever we go. Carrying a suite of species as sources of food, comfort, companionship, and beauty, has always been part of our cultural and evolutionary baggage. Invasiveness is something evolution tends to reward, and our own evolutionary success springs from a certain restless invasiveness.

We have spent millennia figuring out how to make some species grow where and when we want them. Meanwhile, other species have latched on to our coattails making the most of this new mode of hyper-efficient long-range dispersal: the hairless ape that travels the world, with baggage. Only recently have we realized the often devastating consequences of bringing exotic species into native habitats. Invasive species fuel some of the most intense debates among conservationists, often laden with hysterical rhetoric about alien, exotic, invaders who must be exterminated. Yet we tiptoe around the fact that we are the most invasive, disruptive species on Earth.

Cities are where most humans now live, where we often first introduce new species, and whence some of these species launch invasions into new habitats. Indeed, cities themselves seem like invasive habitats proliferating in and destabilizing ecosystems around the world. Cities must therefore be central to our efforts to address the challenge of invasive species. Cities embody the contradiction between our desire to control nature, shaping entire ecosystems to suit our purposes, and our growing desire to conserve nature and biodiversity.

How do we reconcile our innate desire to build habitats for our own biological and cultural needs with a growing awareness that perhaps we should leave nature alone? It must start with owning our central role in this ecological conundrum. It requires us to transform our role beyond the dichotomy of active perpetrator / passive bystander in the drama of invasive species. We must embrace the role of more deliberate stewards of the lands we now dominate.

As more people recognize the problems of invasive species, many now seek ways to build native species friendly urban landscapes. Ecologists are good at understanding the effects of non-native species in native habitats, and in raising the alarm about invasive species. We haven’t done enough to actually transform the practices that contribute to the invasive species problem. Urban ecologists have been lax in engaging with one group who arguably wield the greatest influence on this challenge: gardeners, nurseries, and landscapers. The growing desire to make urban gardens native-friendly is constrained by lack of available species options in local nurseries, and of expertise in nurturing native species. Ecologists must fill this knowledge gap by developing better ways to support native species in urban habitats in partnership with the people who actively transform the landscape.

Forget “leave nature alone”; in cities we must become better ecosystem engineers, designing habitats more consciously to enhance native biodiversity while limiting opportunities for non-native species. We must also recognize that some non-native species have become naturalized to play important roles in their adoptive ecosystems, so simply eradicating them is not the ideal solution. People move and grow plants and animals to fulfill complex social, cultural, aesthetic, and emotional needs. We must develop a broader vision of biodiversity that includes both the ecological roles of species and their cultural resonance for people. Balancing these will be key to managing invasive species in and around urban landscapes.

Deborah Lev

About the Writer:
Deborah Lev

Deborah Lev is about to retire from the position of City Nature Manager for Portland Parks & Recreation in Portland, Oregon, overseeing natural area management, environmental education, urban forestry, and community gardens.

Deborah Lev

As an increasing percentage of the world’s population lives in cities, biodiversity becomes more an urban issue. In recent decades, authors have expressed surprise and delight at the discovery of urban biodiversity hot spots. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. Throughout history, people have gathered and established settlements in locations where we would expect biological diversity: the confluence of rivers, along estuaries, and at geographic transitions such as mountains to plains. Over these same few decades, we have seen an expansion of the world’s cities and an attendant expansion of invasive species.

It is not a surprise that high concentrations of people beget high concentrations of invasive exotic species; managing urban natural areas, it is apparent that invasive species are the primary threat to remaining habitat patches. Most of the terrestrial plant invaders that threaten our natural areas were brought to the region intentionally by people as garden ornamentals or land reclamation projects. People also serve as unintentional vectors of invasive species. Naturalized invaders from adjacent gardens and compost piles threaten our urban natural areas while hikers, bikers and their pets inadvertently spread seeds along park roads and trails.

People, of course, can be part of the ongoing management of these species as well.  Inviting community stewardship of our natural lands is a tremendous opportunity to introduce people to nature and build an appreciation for natural systems, ecosystem services, and the value of biodiversity. Raising the awareness of invasive species in the urban population is necessary to combat these pests on private lands as well as public spaces. Community volunteer stewardship can also become a valuable tool in the resource constrained efforts to control invasives. Our integrated pest management system includes hand pulling of weeds by volunteers as well as use of herbicides by state-licensed staff and contracted crews. We deploy volunteers on sites where we will continue to invest in maintaining the improved conditions. Often, volunteer hand-pulling of vines and ground cover weeds is paired with the work of professionals to remove invasive trees or apply chemical herbicides where required.

ivy_removal
Removing ivy.

Another way to manage scarce resources in the invasive species battle is to prioritize where to fight. Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) manages more than 8,000 acres (> 3000 ha) for habitat. A matrix of sites with axes of ecological health and ecological function potential dictates where resources are deployed. In general, we focus on maintaining the ecological health of sites already in good condition and improving the health of sites where ecological function can be achieved by combatting the invasive species. Other factors considered in setting work priorities include connectivity to other sites and community support, especially from an organized friends group willing to assist in management activities.

As a local government land manager we directly treat terrestrial plant invaders. We are also well aware of the key role that urban areas play in the migration of other critical invasive species. One example: international cargo ships, potentially harboring invasive species, call at coastal ports, primarily in urban areas. Entomologists predict that the Asian long-horned beetle is likely to appear in Portland via cargo ship. We are training park staff and volunteer partners to recognize this insect and its characteristic damage to trees. The preferred target species for these insects are maple trees which comprise 40% of Portland’s street trees and 60% of the trees in Forest Park, at 5200 acres (2100 ha), our largest City natural area. Portland is a likely entry spot for the continent — just one example of a potential threat in one port city.

Timon McPhearson

About the Writer:
Timon McPhearson

Dr. Timon McPhearson works with designers, planners, and local government to foster sustainable, resilient and just cities. He is Associate Professor of Urban Ecology and Director of the Urban Systems Lab at The New School and Research Fellow at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies and Stockholm Resilience Centre.

Timon McPhearson

Exotic invasive species are damaging but here to stay

We should worry. Urban exotics species often have negative ecological and economic impacts and understanding the complex interactions among simultaneous exotic effects and feedbacks is ecologically very challenging. Let New York serve as a case study since it is one of the most “infested” states in the U.S.

Forests across New York State, including urban forests, are filled with exotic earthworms. Exotic earthworms have slowly re-invaded these forests since the last glaciation, first arriving with European settlers in the balls of soil around plants and soil used for ballast in ships. The earthworm invasion hasn’t stopped, if anything it is probably accelerating. For example, when people buy worms for their urban compost bins they buy exotic worms, and these get out and spread to local backyards and forests. Now there are about 45 species of exotic earthworm species in the New York region.

So what? For starters, exotic earthworms change nutrient dynamics and thereby alter the community structure and species assemblages of forests. Most forests have a layer of decomposed material (duff) that was laid down over thousands of years through the accumulation of deciduous trees dropping their leaves in the fall. Duff protects soil from erosion and provides critical habitat for many native species (ferns, wildflowers, salamanders). Earthworms chew through this later, aerating it, releasing carbon (a greenhouse gas), adding nitrogen, and thereby changing soil chemistry. This can completely alter forest diversity, structure, function, and may affect the provisioning of urban ecosystem services.

Indeed, scientific studies are showing that native plant species grow better when there aren’t any worms. Not only that, where exotic earthworms have invaded, so do other exotics, like Japanese barberry and Asiatic bittersweet, both invasive plants that are damaging forest diversity. So, exotic invasives not only can have direct negative ecological impacts, they can also create the conditions for further invasion by other exotics. How many simultaneous and interacting exotics can our natural areas handle before they shift into complete different system states or even collapse?

emerald ash borer map ny 2014
Quarantine areas in New York State for the Emerald Ash Borer.

EmeraldAshBorerNew York City (NYC) is an epicenter for invasive species in the U.S. and functions as a major pathway for invasive species to the rest of the continent. One of the challenges we have in managing urban ecosystems is dealing with the wide variety of exotics, including their ecological interactions and feedbacks. Natural resource managers in the NYC region have to worry about Asian longhorn beetle, Emerald ash borer, Hemlock wooly adelgid, and many other insects pests, in additional to a wide range of aquatic (zebra mussels, water chestnut) and terrestrial (kudzu vines) exotic invasives. Chestnut blight wiped out American chestnut populations — more than 9 million acres of American chestnut forest from Mississippi to Maine. Ash trees, which are common in towns and cities, as well as in backyards of homeowners, are likely to experience the same fate from the Emerald ash borer (EAB). This beetle has killed 50 million ash trees in Michigan alone since 2002 and it is closing in on New York City. Unlike chestnut blight, EAB will probably end up killing off 20 different species of ash trees. As Ash trees start dying, removing the dead trees before they fall and cause property and other damage will be financially costly for municipalities and homeowners. The USDA Forest Service has estimated the emerald ash borer will cost communities in a 25-state area as much as $10.7 billion by 2020. In New York City, forested areas include 900 million ash trees, approximately 10% of the total NYC urban forest.

Map of outbreaks of Emerald ash borer across New York State. New York City is under quarantine to prevent infestation of the urban forest. (Source: NY Department of Environmental Conservation)

The impending decline of ash trees, is just one of a very long list of major ecological and economic effects of invasive exotic species. In urban areas like NYC, where we are trying to promote natural areas that both preserve native biodiversity and provide important ecosystem services for urban residents, invasives pose a difficult management challenge since multiple interacting species are already well established. Realistically though, we have probably already lost the battle over exotic invasives and need to begin turning our attention toward adaptation. Like climate change, exotic species are here to stay, and we need to spend some portion of the money spend to control invasives to develop innovative ways to harness their rapid growth, fast reproduction, and competitive ability for green infrastructure solutions to pressing urban challenges. For example, we may find from stormwater absorption, flood control, and air pollution to carbon removal and urban cooling, that some exotics are more effective than native species. Comparative scientific studies in cooperation with local management could go a long way towards improving our understanding of the potential benefits of exotics and how they can be employed to meet sustainability and resilience goals.

Matt Palmer

About the Writer:
Matt Palmer

Matt Palmer is a senior lecturer in the department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology at Columbia University. His research interests are primarily in plant community ecology, with emphases on conservation, restoration and ecosystem function.

Matt Palmer

Some exotic species are certainly causing problems in cities. In patches of remnant native vegetation, invasive exotics may be the primary threat to preserving native biodiversity. Those native species are important not just for the services they provide (e.g., habitat for wildlife, stormwater management, aesthetics), but also for the role they can play in connecting people to the nature of a specific place. In cases like this, managing invasive exotics — while almost always difficult — is probably a fight worth fighting.

For example, the Thain Family Forest in the New York Botanical Garden is a 16 ha old-growth forest in New York City. It is one of the few places that one can experience the landscape that once covered most of the city. There are several invasive exotic species present that displace native species. Staff from the Garden manage the forest quite intensively — including removing exotic species and planting native species — in an effort to maintain the forest in its historic condition. Urban restoration efforts like these may require so much effort that they essentially become gardening, but if the end goal is the preservation of indigenous species in their historical landscapes then intensive management may be the only way to succeed.

This being said, cities are full of wild or semi-wild areas that bear little resemblance to their historic condition. The environment has very likely changed with altered microclimate, hydrology, soil composition, and other factors. The kinds of disturbances and their frequency and intensity have likely changed — fires, floods, trampling, and pest outbreaks all have different dynamics in an urban matrix. And the plants, animals, and microbes that live in these areas are almost certainly different than those that were there before the city arrived. There’s a distinct set of cosmopolitan urban species — the “weeds” and “pests” familiar all over the world.

These weeds and pests — the classification of which is subjective — provide services that are generally undervalued. Exotic species in highly disturbed sites may be most of the biomass, which means those are the species doing the “greening”. For example, if the primary services provided by vegetation on a vacant lot are capturing some stormwater, cooling the air through evapotranspiration, and providing some habitat for insects and birds, these functions can be accomplished by both native and exotic species.

Some might argue that the urban ecosystem services provided by exotic species are less than those provided by native species. This may be correct, though I don’t think there is much convincing data on this question. However, it’s not really appropriate to compare the services from exotic species (which are often abundant in cities) with the services that could be provided by native species if they were present. If the native species are absent, rare, or declining, it generally consumes a lot of resources to manage them in a way that maintains their abundance. Those kinds of management require long-term investments of resources and face many practical challenges. There’s a much lower investment required to increase whatever services are desired from the species already present without worrying too much about which are native or exotic. It’s easier to tweak the system with the species you already have than to try to rebuild some historic system.

Cities are heterogeneous places. In almost every city, there are habitats that should be managed to maintain their indigenous species. But every city also has the neglected green spaces — often populated with exotic species — and these could be managed wisely with a more inclusive view of urban nature.

Toby Query

About the Writer:
Toby Query

Toby Query is a father, husband, and ecologist. As part of the City of Portland’s Revegetation Program since 1999, he stewards natural areas for all Portlanders. He most values his work in collaboration and co-management with Indigenous peoples where he sees the possibilities of land and community healing. He founded the discussion group Portland Ecologists Unite! which created spaces to learn, discuss, and connect over ecological issues. Besides fungi, he loves to be in conversation with plants, emergent strategies, and artists.

Toby Query

As a manager of natural areas for the City of Portland, Oregon for the past 15 years, I have slowly shifted my thinking from one that “combats evil invasives” to a more nuanced approach. This approach targets thresholds and moves the system to a healthier state with the lowest overall impact. Interventions to restore habitat need to better evaluate the impact on the ecosystem as a whole.

In the past our crews cut down invasive Armenian blackberry (Rubus bifrons) around our planted seedlings in the middle of bird nesting season. We destroyed the occasional nest in blackberry bushes, but didn’t realize that many were “species of concern” including the little willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii brewsteri). In 2006, another City of Portland initiative, the Terrestrial Ecology Enhancement Strategy, published documents demonstrating how to avoid damage to nesting birds. These documents, along with discussions with wildlife biologists, led us to shift our treatments to avoid the bird breeding season along with goals to reinstate lost structure and function for target species.

Each invasive species should be evaluated for its current and projected impact to the system, how well it is established, and if its presence is a sign of a degraded system or it is the cause of a community shift. In my experience, established invasive species will resist eradication even with the best orchestrated attempts unless they are detected early on. Thus, we should shift resources towards prevention of new arrivals and start to embrace some of our invasive species.

An example of this involves the much-reviled Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense).  It occurs on most restoration sites that we manage, but how much damage is it doing, and can we effectively replace it? Canada thistle arrived in North America in the 1600’s and other species have been coevolving with it ever since. The seeds are an excellent food source for goldfinches, and the plant and nectar are valuable habitat for many native bees and butterflies. With this knowledge, ecologists, including myself, are starting to accept it, putting value on its services for our regions’ wildlife.

Our “love to hate” invasives mantra has led us urban restoration practitioners to potentially harm wildlife in our quest for eradication and control. Restoration performance success often involves meeting a minimum threshold of invasive plant species cover percentage. This needs to be re-evaluated, especially in an urban context, and instead use goals and objectives involving habitat structure and function. By choosing focal species’ preferred habitat (i.e. dense patches of shrubs for the flycatcher) or desired functions (like shading a stream), we will have a clearer path forward without jeopardizing what we seek to improve.

We need to do more evaluation of the causes of the stress to the system and fix those, rather than address the symptoms of a disturbed habitat (which can be expressed through the abundance of invasive plant species). Some of these fixes are outside the ecologist’s hands, such as nitrogen deposition and hydrological changes, but we can work to advocate for these solutions. This approach can save resources as well as build public support. When we frame our work as land managers as a war against invasives, rather than well thought out plans to improve ecological health, we have the potential of making simple decisions that don’t solve the problem. When evaluating an invasive species, we need to involve ornithologists, herpetologists, entomologists and others to more accurately assess what the effects of the “war” might be on the system as a whole. We need a more complex dialogue to reflect the challenges that we face as ecologists and continue to seek new pathways to enhance our urban wildlife habitat.

Glenn Stewart

About the Writer:
Glenn Stewart

Glenn Stewart is Professor of Urban Ecology, Lincoln University, NZ. Current research is on Southern Hemisphere urban ecosystems and invasive species, successional processes and predicted changes in global climate.

Glenn Stewart

These are my views from the colonies of Empire downunder. Here I am including South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Although some of these thoughts and issues probably relate to North America as well. To put my views in context you need to know a quick bit of history here. The British Empire (god bless their soul) carried all things familiar to them to the colonies (to make them “feel at home”). And they took “exotic” plants and animals from the colonies back to mother England (but that is another story for another time). So in New Zealand for example we have many species of plants and animals that “do not belong”. Add to this the fact that the native flora and fauna evolved over millions of years in the absence of mammal browsing and in the absence of mammalian predators. That is why we have flightless birds and strange and wonderful ancient plants! At least 85% of all native plants, birds, frogs, and reptiles found in NZ are endemic to NZ. That is why we are one of the 25 global biodiversity “hotspots”. So what is the situation now after 800 years of Polynesian settlement and 150 or so years of occupation by Europeans? Here is a quick summary (numbers approximate):

2300 species of native plants, 2700 species of naturalised exotic plants (that reproduce and are invading), 33 species of naturalised mammals (the only terrestrial mammals prior to human settlement were 3 species of bats), and countless species of exotic birds. We also have on the order of 30,000 to 40,000 species of exotic plants in cultivation. And one of these species becomes naturalised every 3 months! That’s why NZ has such a stringent border control program!

So what does this mean for urban environments in New Zealand? Basically it means that our cities are dominated by exotic plants and animals — cultivated gardens of exotic species, lawns dominated by Northern hemisphere grasses, woodlands constituted of species from around the globe, urban birds from every continent on the planet and mammals from the European hedgehog to the Norway rat!!! And many of these mammals are predating our native birds and invertebrates. So one of the biggest challenges we face is to reduce the “exotic” influences and enhance and restore indigenous nature. Hence a real focus in the last 20 years or so on restoring native plant communities, and associated bird life. It is an enormous challenge!!

So the removal/reduction of exotic animal and plant species are one of the foremost issues that challenge us in restoring indigenous biodiversity in our cities. And also in restoring vital ecological services to enhance sustainable ecosystems.

Paula Villagra

About the Writer:
Paula Villagra

Paula Villagra, PhD, is a Landscape Architect that researches the transactions between people and landscapes in environments affected by natural disturbances.

Paula Villagra and Carmen Silva

Our thoughts on this topic are influenced by our experience in landscape planning, design and ecology in the Chilean environment which lack of enough nurseries to produce native plants in the amount and standards needed for the development of urban landscape projects. Of course, we would prefer to design and plan parks and plazas with native plants only; however, the cultivation of native species and the knowledge about their management (e.g., water requirements in urban environments) and behavior (e.g., survival to municipalities’ management practices) is still limited (although developing fast!).

In this context, exotic plants are useful, because they are easily available, grow faster than many natives (at least faster than ours in Chile) and depict dramatic seasonal changes in terms of color and canopy density, which adds visual and temporal diversity to urban sites, making them attractive to people.

Nonetheless, including exotics in urban zones can be highly problematic if the selection and management is not taken care of. Exotic plants have higher water demands which on one hand is not sustainable, and on the other hand, if enough water is not provided, exotics take it from other plants, deteriorating the overall design and affecting mostly our natives (which do not have the standards to compete with them). Under extreme conditions, the exotic plants die faster, creating unattractive environment.

Other exotics usually used in urban sites in Chile (e.g., Acacia dealbata) can expand due to their invasive qualities and the ‘comfort’ they find in urban parks and plazas where water is provided regularly. Indeed, this kind of issue is usually ‘solved’ with environmentally toxic insecticides, diversifying the problem into the environment.

Besides, native plants commonly used in our cities increase health problems. Some (e.g., Platanus orientalis) cause severe allergies by the spread of seeds in the reproductive times of the year. While others (e.g., Melia azedarach), pollute the urban environment after the fruits fall and glue themselves to the pavement.

In terms of species interaction, the overuse of exotic plants has increased the presence of exotic over native fauna, altering urban “natural” systems. For example, exotic species are chosen due to their ornamental benefit (e.g., the fruit of the Cotoneaster sp.), which can be very attractive visually. However, they do not provide food for birds, which, as a result, leaves the urban environment resource-poor and require wildlife to search for other sites with better survival advantages.

All together, the problem of introducing exotic plants in urban sites affects ecological aspects, visual landscape qualities, and human well-being. In addition, it can cause a deep misunderstanding among the public, influencing human behaviors and the developing of environmentally unfriendly urban practices. In terms of the private landscaping developed by the general public, most people copy from public parks and plazas what they like and see. Hence, to overcrowd the public areas with exotics plants can convey urban dwellers the wrong message. If that is the case, people will introduce exotics into their private gardens (or increase the amount they have), which in turn, can intensify the problems exposed before, developing a local culture unaware about the role of native plants and their ecological and social values in urban sites.

We do not disagree with using exotics in the design and planning of urban environments when other options are not available; however, in our experience, the selection of exotic plants, the amount which they are introduced, and their distribution should be carefully studied by experienced professionals in landscape and urban ecology. Good results can be achieved when natives already on site are included in the landscape design, when exotics are chosen due to their aesthetic as well as ecological values, and when the community is involved during the process of design.

Carmen Silva

About the Writer:
Carmen Silva

Carmen Paz Silva is a PhD student at Universidad Austral de Chile and is particularly interested in the effects of urbanization on biodiversity.

Peter Werner

First of all, I have to state that I know more about plants than animals and that I have an European bias.

My answer for the first question is rather clear. We should not be worried about exotic species in urban areas! Some species are pests or cause diseases, but that is not only true for exotic, also for native species (e. g. rats, allergic potential of hazelnut). Exotic species and urban areas — these belong together. Why?

Cities are centers for political power, money, culture, ideas, goods, and so on. Therefore, they are locations of exchange and accumulation. They are market places, connected with the world, and that includes goods, which come from outside. Introduction of nearly everything is an inevitable feature of cities. It is estimated that around 16,000 ornamental plant species were brought to European cities from all over the world (Dehnen-Schmutz et al. 2007).

Urban areas are also places where strange, foreign persons, ideas, and things can exist, rather than outside of cities. The German phrase “urban airs makes you free” underlines it, describing a principle of law in the Middle Age. That includes the idea that exotics are not dangerous per se, but they are an enrichment for the society. Many humans become scared of the otherness.

In my mind you can transfer that picture to plants and animals, too. That means, as I mentioned above, you cannot imagine a livable, busy city in which exotics, including plants and animals, do not play an important role.

As you look to the fact, then you can see the following. Native species represent the majority of species in cities, more than exotics, and this is valid for birds and plants (see publication of Aronson et al. 2014, a working group which analyzed more than 100 cities worldwide). Common native species are still the dominant species in European cities, and that is also true for the inner urban areas. With respect to the species richness, the exotics enrich the fauna and flora in urban areas and compensate the lost of native species. The number of flowering plants, especially of the ornamental plants, and their blossom time over the year are increased in cities, and a lot of insects, notably pollinators, benefit from them.

Some species, for example the goldenrod (Solidago gigantea) in German cause problems in natural and semi-natural areas, but not in cities. Many people like the goldenrod as an ornamental plant in their gardens or gather it from wasteland, as I see it in my neighborhood, to bring it at home for a bunch of flowers. A problem can be that such exotic plants spread out from gardens to the outside, like fashion, which spread out from cities to rural areas, impacting cultural and natural landscapes.

How One Mostly Unknown Man Shaped Environmental Policy for a Nation: A Tribute to Robert Semple, Jr.

Many voices. Greener cities. Better cities.

“The up and down cycle [is what] I’ve experienced…we’re down now, but we have a way of battling back, in the courts and in the court of public opinion”, says Semple. “I hope the American people will come to their senses”.
On 11 January 2018, a party was held to celebrate the retirement after 54 years of a man many people have never heard of, whose words, published in anonymity, have helped shape the United States’ environment and environmental policy for decades.

Robert B. Semple, Jr. worked for the New York Times for more than five decades, including 25 years as an editorial writer, and was the mostly unsung hero of the modern environmental movement. His carefully crafted editorials never bore his byline—unlike the reporters at the Times—but he was a confidant of Presidents, Secretaries of the Interior and Environment, leaders of national environmental organizations, and Senators and Members of Congress. His access to those leaders, and his unique ability to translate science and policy into credible explanations, made him the environmental conscience of the U.S.

And I say “mostly unsung” because, in 1996, Semple and the Times won a Pulitzer Prize for ten editorials he wrote the prior year, a rare honor for the writers who primarily toil out of sight, unrecognized by the byline that other journalists get.

Semple’s half-century tenure at the Times parallels the extraordinary growth of the environmental movement from marginal to mainstream and the creation of the nation’s most important and historic environmental protection laws and agencies. It is also likely that Semple’s work led directly to major environmental victories, influencing the nation’s leaders and environmental advocates to stop projects that imperiled some of our most precious parks and natural areas.

I had the good fortune to know Bob when he was writing, both through his wife Lisa Semple’s work on behalf of non-profit organizations I was affiliated with, and though his interaction with The Trust for Public Land and our press director, Tim Ahern. Tim is also semi-retiring after a distinguished career as a reporter and spokesman for governmental organizations and political operations, and he interacted with Semple when he was Press Secretary for the U.S. Department of the Interior and its Secretary, Bruce Babbitt. I recently had lunch with Semple and Ahern, and between bites of fried clams and oyster pan roast at the Oyster Bar in Grand Central Terminal in New York, got a download of that extraordinary half-century of political and environmental news and occurrences.

It was far from preordained that Semple would become an environmental super-hero. Given his youthful endeavors editing the Phillips Andover Phillipan and the Yale Daily News, a career in journalism might have been inevitable. He earned degrees in history from Yale and the University of California at Berkeley (Master’s), and spent a year as a Yale teaching fellow. After a few years working at Dow Jones, Semple’s career at the Times began when he was hired by then-Washington, DC Bureau Chief James Reston, in the fall of 1963. He started with a traditional but important role working on the Washington Bureau news desk, just before the assassination of President Kennedy.

When Thomas Wicker succeeded Reston, he made Semple the White House Correspondent, responsible for covering the White House of President Lyndon B. Johnson, among other things. Another management change, this time bringing Max Frankel to the Bureau, got Semple covering federal agencies. Then, in keeping with a peculiar tradition at the Times, a coin flip led to Semple’s getting the assignment of covering Richard M. Nixon’s presidential campaign and the subsequent six years of his presidency. Semple wrote the Timeslead story on Nixon’s inauguration, and was assailed by then Secretary of State George Schultz in 1971 for the publication of the Pentagon Papers (that daring act, kept secret from all but a handful of Times senior staff, was something that Semple was also surprised to learn of by hearing the news from Schultz).

Semple also got to see a Nixon who gave eloquent speeches on the importance of protecting the environment, and under whose presidency a number of the most important environmental laws, including the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But Semple credits political savvy and pressure from Democrats and the public with forcing Nixon’s hand.

President Richard Nixon signs the Clean Air Act on December 31, 1970. Credit: Photographer unknown

“Nixon saw the first Earth Day—he was no fool, he jumped right in on the environment”, Semple remembers. “Nixon didn’t really care about the environment, but taking those actions got Congress off his back”.

Robert B. Semple, Jr. accepting the 1996 Pulitzer Prize in Editorial Writing. Credit: Photographer unknown

Subsequent assignments included Deputy National Editor, London Bureau Chief, Foreign Editor, and five years on the Op-Ed Page of the Times. In 1988, Semple was assigned to the Editorial Page, a position he occupied for the next three decades, serving as part of the prestigious, courted, and feared Times Editorial Board, writing hundreds of editorials, and developing a niche in the world of energy and the environment that won him and the Times that Pulitzer Prize.

But how did Semple develop that niche, and more importantly, turn environmentalism from an ancillary and obscure topic into a hot-button issue, allowing the Times to influence national and global policy for decades? Semple, who is willing to give everyone praise except himself, credits two key mentors at the Times. “With the help of Jack Rosenthal, and particularly Howell Raines [Rosenthal and Raines both served as Editorial Page Editor], we put environmental issues at the center of the New York Times”, says Semple. Environment and energy were not “A issues”, compared to crime, the economy, and politics, Semple related, but two things happened to pique his interest. The first was the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, which forced Semple to learn about energy and environmental matters, and the second was President George Bush and EPA Administrator Bill Reilly’s proposed updates of the Clean Air Act, with significant reforms and the introduction of emissions trading, among other factors.

Sensing the importance of the issues, Semple says he was “forced to learn the issues from scratch”. So he turned to experts both in government and the environmental advocacy community, including Katie McGinty, (Council for Environmental Quality Chair, 1995-1998), Paul Bledsoe (Director of Communications of the White House Climate Change Task Force, 1998-2000), Russell Train (the first chair of the newly created Council on Environmental Quality under President Nixon, and later the second head of the EPA); Mike Oppenheimer and Joe Goffman at the Natural Resources Defense Council, who were particularly helpful on the politics and science of power plants; and in particular Bruce Babbitt and his Press Secretary, Ahern.

“The good guys in the administration and in the advocacy groups were my sources”, Semple recalls. “But you had to choose them with care because not everyone is a scientist. You depended on people who would help you understand the science and the laws, and you have to get your facts straight so that your readers would believe you”.

On the other side of the equation, government agencies and experts knew Semple was extremely valuable—someone who could get their issues in front of Times readers, but more important, in front of the decision makers and shapers. In a time before social media, there was nothing more important than a New York Times front page story or editorial for getting your message out.

“When Bob Semple would call, the Interior Secretary [Babbitt] would drop everything”, says Ahern, whom Semple counted on to explain to him the complexities of the Antiquities Act. McGinty, head of the Council on Environmental Quality for President Clinton, would call from Capitol Hill, Semple recalls, and say “can you get something in the first edition?” McGinty turned out to be a key player in the issue that perhaps more than any showed Semple’s power to impact national policy—to get a President to act on a very specific issue—the Yellowstone/New World Mine.

When a Canadian company wanted to develop a gold and copper mine just three miles outside of Yellowstone National Park, Semple wrote a series of editorials in 1995 that helped turn the political tide against this “monumental and irreversible environmental catastrophe…[a] disaster-in-waiting…” as Semple wrote in his lead editorial on the topic. Semple went right at President Clinton in two August editorials, making him the key player in this eco-drama: “Mr. Clinton has been making an effort in recent days to polish up his environmental credentials”, Semple writes in an August 14, 1995 editorial. “Figuring out a way to stop this mine would surely help. He alone can make this a national issue it deserves to be. At risk is the oldest and greatest of our national parks”. Almost exactly a year later, President Clinton, in a ceremony at Yellowstone on Aug. 12, 1996, announced an agreement to end the mine, praising scores of people but not mentioning the anonymous man whose writing had possibly stirred him to action.

President Clinton addresses the crowd at the New World Mine buyout ceremony in 1996. Credit: Yellowstone National Park, Jim Peaco

“Yellowstone was entrusted into our care as a people, a whole people, more than 120 years ago now”, Clinton said that day. “And today we are saying to the rest of the world, to the rest of the country, and to future generations of America, that we have been worthy of that trust, and we are giving it to our children and our children’s children”. On a related note, it was The Trust for Public Land which put the final touches on the closing down of the mine threat, when in June 2010 it announced that it had purchased the “772 acres of mining claims in the New World Mining District near Yellowstone National Park”.

A dilapidated cabin sits on a bluff above a green valley in the New World Mining District outside Yellowstone National Park. Credit: The Trust for Public Land, Alex Diekmann

For those four editorials on the Yellowstone mine, and six others, including the much-lauded “Bud Shuster’s Dirty Water Act“, calling to task the then-Congress member (Republican, PA) for attempting to eviscerate the Clean Water Act—Semple and the Times won a Pulitzer Prize. This was the first Pulitzer ever awarded for editorials on the environment.

So what does the future hold for the not-completely-retired Semple, and for our nation and its environmental legacy? First, Semple will still be writing, perhaps a couple of new editorials a month. On 16 January 2018 for example, he penned an editorial lauding New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio for suing oil companies for their role in exacerbating climate change and its impact on NYC (while gently chiding the mayor for his penchant for driving in an SUV convoy to a gym 12 miles away most mornings). In the bigger picture—national and global—Semple worries about President Trump and his cabinet.

“Right now, in terms of environmental progress, we are in the pits”, says Semple. “We are in the pits because President Trump has appointed sworn enemies of the environment. He has hired people who not only don’t want things to get better—they want to roll all the progress back. The guy knows nothing and cares less about the environment. He’s therefore vulnerable to whatever somebody pours into his head”.

That said, Semple has a world view based on his five decades covering presidents and politics that leans to optimism:

“The up and down cycle [is what] I’ve experienced…we’re down now, but we have a way of battling back, in the courts and in the court of public opinion,” says Semple. “I hope the American people will come to their senses”.

We need Semple’s voice, and voices like his, to make sure that happens.

Adrian Benepe
New York City

On The Nature of Cities

How Perspectives of Field Arborists and Tree Climbers are Useful for Understanding and Managing Urban Forests

Many voices. Greener cities. Better cities.

When there is a storm, trees can cause damage to homes, cars, and people—ultimately, the tree itself is a casualty of a storm.

The key to knowledge exchange is first to respect all actors for the individual roles they play in our urban fabric.

At these moments, generally, the public perceives arborists as the heroes of storms—arborists remove the “problem” from their properties. But at most other times during the year, when people see an arborist pruning or removing a tree, they perceive them negatively.

1_Arb
Photo: Julian Ambrosii

Throughout my doctoral research (2015), several narratives emerged from interviews conducted with field arborists and climbers across Southern Ontario, Canada—one of those stories was that public perception of arborists seems to change with the seasons or variances in weather. The arborists I interviewed considered themselves to be environmentalists and nurturers of the urban forest—general public opinion often contrasted this image with stereotypes that arborists mainly perform removals, or harm trees.

2_Arb
Photo: Adrina Bardekjian

Don Blair’s poem about the Oak men and Euc men (1993) comes to mind.

Oak is Oak and Euc is Euc and if the twain should meet;
although the work is better now, a Euc Man’s hard to beat.
The Oak Man tries to reason sense…The Euc Man’s more direct.
Make a cut too close these days, it’s a flush cut you’ll regret.

My interviewees raised the issue that they can be either glorified or vilified, depending on the season and whether there is a storm involved. When the public perceived them negatively, participants felt undervalued given their integral role in urban forest management and maintenance; this story is latent with power dynamics. As one participant noted, “We can do so much damage” (not just to trees, but to ourselves). Field arborists and climbers hold the power to physically shape the urban forest canopy of the future. Their awareness of their position and, often, the modesty with which they perform their roles, has earned my utmost respect.

One interesting story revolved around the notion that nature has its own agency and trees should be valued as living organisms for their own merits, not solely for the services they provide to humans. This was particularly true for large trees. One of my interviewees asserted: “You don’t really know how big a tree is until it’s lying on the ground, vulnerable, exposed and, at that point, dead. Then you truly appreciate its majesty even if you don’t understand its worth.” There is an interesting paradox in the conceptions of the public between the veneration and appreciation of large, older, heritage trees, and the lack of attention for smaller seedlings.

Within the subject of agency, participants included stories about decay and defenses and how vulnerability is a factor in preservation and management efforts. Climbers and grounds crews continually negotiate their positions according to the size and species with which they are working on a given day. Species type made a difference in some participants’ feelings towards their work. Specifically, Oaks and Maples were often regarded as good trees to climb, whereas Honey locusts and willows were not.

3_Arb
Photo: Julian Ambrosii

Lastly, the notion of control is enmeshed and often hidden in arborists’ experiences. Most arborists take pride in caring for trees as living organisms. Arborists do not fell trees needlessly; they manipulate trees carefully and knowledgeably. Arborists spend time with trees, touch trees, shape and construct trees; how these decisions are made is fundamentally based on understanding the variability of nature’s agency while simultaneously contending with the lack of a decision-making model that results from this variability.

Other stories revolved around language constructions; labour equality and gender issues; the material reality of nature’s agency; and the impact of educational inconsistencies (Bardekjian, 2015). Considering the perspectives of field arborists and tree climbers is useful for understanding tree growth and long-term sustainability for urban forests.

The key to knowledge exchange is first to respect all actors for the individual roles they play in our urban fabric; to keep an open mind and actively listen to one another; and, finally, to keep the lines of communication open through as many avenues and tools as possible (e.g. conferences, workshops, listservs, open-access resources, discussion forums, formal and informal education, community events). Examples of formal networks at our national level include the Canadian chapters of the International Society of Arboriculture and the Canadian Urban Forest Network. I would like to see more dialogue between these two groups of membership. A transdisciplinary approach that focuses on problem-based research and better integrating formal curriculum with critical social issues can help with exchanging knowledge (see here for a recent blog, “The Social Side of Things). In addition, alternative models of sharing knowledge and stories through media platforms and artistic interventions can challenge our own biases and enable us to envision better collaboration between the different groups.

4_Arb
Photo: Adrina Bardekjian

Furthermore, I have always valued centres such as the Humber Arboretum & Centre for Urban Ecology for their work with surrounding communities, students, and public engagement; thus, the creation of provincial arboreta with learning or education centres is something that I’ve felt to be necessary in Canada—this could include programs featuring provincial trees coupled with stories of regional histories (e.g. social, ecological, aboriginal, political, economic). The location of such centres can be in conjunction with research or educational institutions, in collaboration with environmental non-government organizations and municipal partnerships. As the first line of inquiry and care, arborists are community educators on the ground and in the treetops and have a wealth of knowledge to share.

5_Arb
Photo: Julian Ambrosii

I had the privilege of working on a short film during my doctoral work called “Limbwalkers.” What I learned from this experience is that capturing stories of participating arborists on film was invaluable for communicating specific narratives to the public—in this case, a snapshot into climbers’ insights about a variety of topics. I’m hoping to secure funding to continue a series of micro-docs from the footage we have compiled over the years, which is currently sitting in post processing.

When talking about agency and considering the place and influence of non-human nature in our physical environment, artistic interventions can be powerful. For example, likening a dead tree (or one in the process of removal) to the art installation by Su-chen Hung, called “Tree with Arteries”, can evoke a visceral reaction—towards trees, towards workers. It invokes questions about vulnerability, affect, and agency.

TREE WITH ARTERIES, Su-chen Hung, GOING GREEN: New Environmental Art Taiwan, 2010. Image: http://wead.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com
TREE WITH ARTERIES, Su-chen Hung, GOING GREEN: New Environmental Art Taiwan, 2010. Image: http://wead.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com

It also goes back to the quote above regarding the perception of large trees and understanding their presence and grandeur only after they are lying on the ground. However, it’s important to keep in mind that this is also an abstraction and can sensationalize the issue at hand, while also propagating negative feelings about workers as discussed above.

My interest in urban forestry revolves around stories—people, trees, and the places each inhabit. I’m particularly interested in the notion of familiarity and how that stirs affect and motivates action. I am also interested in the connections between greenspaces and public health, particularly mental health. As such, I’m interested in continuing to contribute to the discourses of urban forestry and arboriculture by sharing social narratives that came out of my doctoral research through various methods, and by conducting new research with interested collaborators. It is important to me to share the stories of my participants because they raise significant issues in the fields of urban forestry and arboriculture that are rarely discussed.

Like my participants, I want to see the trade of arboriculture and the provision of tree services move from voluntary to mandatory licensing under the College of Trades and Ministry of Labour. This will take time and more discussion to balance disparate needs and interests. There is a strong feeling that mandatory certification towards a Red Seal‎ Trade will encourage proper urban forest maintenance as well as garner public respect for the profession.

Lastly, I would like to inspire interest in younger generations to see arboriculture and urban forestry as a career they will want to pursue. I hope to see more efforts for collaborative and inclusive education, such as the partnership between Sir Sandford Fleming College and the University of New Brunswick and more formal urban forestry programs such as the Bachelor in Urban Forestry at the University of British Columbia.

Adrina Bardekjian
Montreal and Toronto

On The Nature of Cities

Further reading and resources

Bardekjian, A. (2015). Towards social arboriculture: Arborists’ perspectives on urban forest labour in Southern Ontario, Canada. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening: DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2015.10.014.

Bardekjian, A. (2015). Learning from Limbwalkers: Arborists’ stories in Southern Ontario’s urban forests (doctoral dissertation). York University, Toronto.

Sandberg, L. A., Bardekjian, A, & Butt, S. (Eds.). (2014). Urban forests, trees and greenspace: A political ecology perspective. Routledge: London.

Selected publications are posted on my website under the “writing” tab.

How Tactical Urbanism “Adds Up”

Many voices. Greener cities. Better cities.

A review of Tactical Urbanism: Short-term Action for Long-term Change, by Anthony Garcia and Mike Lydon. 2015. ISBN 9781610915267. Island Press, Washington. 256 pages.

Tactical Urbanism: it’s one of the buzz words in the emerging people-centred planning paradigm. If you do a Google News search of the term, you’ll find articles from all the news sites beloved by urbanists: Next City Daily, CityLab, Slate, ArchDaily, et al. Often used in the context of citizen-led improvements to the urban environment, it can mean everything from small beautification projects to major city-led revitalization efforts. To me, it evokes images of renegade city-dwellers armed with spray paint, bollards, and patio furniture, taking urban planning matters into their own hands to improve their small piece of the city. But Tactical Urbanism can mean a lot of things: there is no unified definition to place it into the larger dialogue about citizen action in urban planning.

TacticalUrbanismCoverThese many meanings are captured in Tactical Urbanism: Short-term Action for Long-term Change, a book by American urban planners Anthony Garcia and Mike Lydon, both leaders in civic advocacy and principals of The Street Plans Collaborative. By clearly laying out what tactical urbanism is—the authors define it simply as an approach to neighbourhood building and activation using short-term, low-cost, and scalable interventions and policies (in other words, according to Professor Nabeel Hamdi, Tactical Urbanism is “making plans without the usual preponderance of planning”)—the groundwork is laid to build on this theory of change by providing successful examples and providing guidance for making it work in practice.

I found it to be an accessible read, heavy on place-based examples, personal narratives, and photographs, while touching on planning and public space theory. As a person who studied urban planning and is most interested in working in the community sector, I found this book to effectively bridge the worlds of quick and visible on-the-ground action with less exciting but very rigorous long-term planning that sets out comprehensive frameworks for development. It also does a great job of celebrating the many successes of citizen-led action, while acknowledging an integral part of the iterative “build-measure-learn” cycle of tactical urbanism: having the courage to fail.

tactical_urbanism_build_measure_learn
The Tactical Urbanism cycle: It’s about trying things out, then continually adapting and refining.

I found the tone to strike a positive yet pragmatic balance: it has a “you can do it” inspirational voice, but includes frank discussion of the bureaucratic obstacles that continue to prevent the kinds of straightforward, low-cost interventions championed in the text. This left me with the impression that it is possible to create lasting change in one’s community—but don’t expect it to be smooth sailing. A note on terminology: while this book uses minimal planning jargon, the term tactical urbanism itself may not resonate widely in its attempts to capture a movement that presents an alternative to the long-range municipal planning processes that shape our cities. An alternative term used by New York’s Project for Public Spaces is “lighter, quicker, cheaper”. Jaime Lerner’s term “urban acupuncture” also seems to have leverage with a non-planning audience, although it refers specifically to pinpointing vulnerable areas and then using design to re-energize them. “Trial-and-error urbanism” might also capture Garcia and Lydon’s framework: rather than spending a lot of time, money, and resources on coming up with the best plan, we would do better to test things out on a small scale to see if there is potential for wider applicability and sanctioned change.

I found the weaving through of examples that illustrate how we shape our cities by doing something in the short-term, with the view of changing conditions for the long-term, to be immensely helpful in understanding the strategic nature of tactical urbanism. While any intervention that alters the urban landscape, such as yarn bombing a chain-link fence or adding life to an underpass with graffiti or paste-ups, can change people’s perceptions of a space, what makes tactical urbanism tactical is its efforts to shift thinking and patterns of development by demonstrating what is possible with a little creativity and often a whole lot of DIY smarts.

Throughout the book, Lydon and Garcia highlight examples in which an unsanctioned project was eventually supported by government—often a city’s planning or public works agency. This gradual shift from unsanctioned to sanctioned can ease some of the burden of project maintenance on volunteers while allowing cities to take leadership on facilitating bottom-up planning. However, the authors embrace the idea of having a spectrum of projects, from those steeped in DIY culture all the way to “tactical economies”, such as setting up pop-up businesses to attract private investment in a stagnant area. Not all tactical urbanism efforts will be okayed by government, and that should not necessarily be the end goal of citizens looking to test out urban interventions.

This dance between citizen-led action and long-term policy change was a motif throughout the book, and one that I think has potential to provoke conversations about shifting public participation in planning from “show-and-tell” to deep collaboration. It was incredible to read about such a range of stories about projects that began as one-off, localized efforts but have now been scaled up or out by budging municipal policies. For example, on a recent visit to Portland, OR, I noticed that neighbourhood intersections were often adorned with murals.

Portland Sunnyside Plaza_credit daily.sightline.org
A welcoming intersection in Portland’s Sunnyside neighbourhood

Turns out, this is thanks to a crew of Portlanders who, concerned about road safety in their neighbourhoods, obtained a block party permit to undertake “intersection repair”: painting a mural across the intersection, adding a tea station, community bulletin board, and more. Despite initially meeting resistance from the Portland Bureau of Transportation, the group persisted, demonstrating improvements to quality of life through resident surveys. Eventually, the City saw the light: facing a decrease in funding for art and public spaces, yet needing to fulfill livability and sustainability policies, they eventually adopted an Intersection Repair Ordinance. Examples like this show what is possible when residents pave (or unpave!) the way for city-level policies that enable more efficient and people-friendly planning.

For those who already have a tactical urbanism idea in mind, the book makes effective use of basic diagrams to explain the practice: one in particular that budding tactical urbanists might want to consult is the Tactical Spectrum, showing the range of projects from unsanctioned to sanctioned.  In this context, unsanctioned refers to projects that citizens can go ahead and do without any government support; sanctioned describes projects that require support and approval from government, usually city departments, by nature of their scale or complexity.

Print
The Tactical Spectrum: Where does your project fit?

While budgeting, permit application, and other logistical matters aren’t the most exciting parts of planning your tactical urban intervention, it is helpful to think about how much government support you will need so you don’t find yourself facing unforeseen obstacles.

Overall, though, the authors stress that no matter the nature, scale, and degree of government implication in the project, the most important consideration is how it will affect the community. This is something that I find often goes missing in conversation about urban revitalization: who is doing the revitalizing, for whom, and to what ends?  In the second-to-last chapter, “A Tactical Urbanism How-To”, the authors present a series of questions that one needs to ponder before getting a project underway, from sourcing materials, to leveraging community support, to maintenance. I liked the emphasis on thinking through what the effects might be on the surrounding communities: it is easy to forget that what you think is a swell idea might not actually be what a particular group of people needs or wants.

This concern for ensuring that tactical urbanists do not end up adversely affecting the communities they are trying to improve gets to the crux of whether planning should come from the grassroots or “grasstops”. While tactical urbanism can bring alternative methods and accelerated timelines to municipal decision-makers’ attention, ultimately their goals are not so different than those espoused by planning policy: what city’s Official Plan doesn’t use words such as sustainable, vibrant, and resilient? One aspect of tactical urbanism that merits more exploring is what happens when the landscape of projects starts to become saturated. As with anything, the more people involved, the greater the need becomes for checks and balances. Does this kind of “lighter, quicker, cheaper” intervention only work when few people are doing it? How can multiple groups with competing visions negotiate the space of tactical urbanism without undermining each other’s’ efforts—and the visions, guidelines, and plans laid out by city government?

While these big questions aren’t answered in this book, the authors do suggest, through examples of informal partnerships between citizen groups and city government, the possibility of a new planning practice. This practice derives rigour from harnessing residents’ skills, energy, and imaginative foresight to balance comprehensive, long-term planning with the kind of quick-win, prototyping work that can get folks excited about improving the places they live. To refer back to Portland, the City’s Office of Neighbourhood Involvement coordinates a 95 neighbourhood-strong network of district coalitions and offices which provide support and technical assistance to volunteer-based neighborhood associations, community groups and individual citizen-activists. It may be in this type of supportive partnership that the strengths of both tactical urbanism and bureaucrat-led planning can be leveraged to build communities that are both functional and personable.

Until that happens, though, people will continue to find ways to mobilize and to shape the places they care about. It may sound cheesy, but seeing photos showing regular people doing work in their communities, wearing normal clothes, and using simple methods, reinforces the authors’ emphasis that truly, anyone can do tactical urbanism. It’s hard not to be inspired by the go-getters described in this book: from Baltimore resident Lou Catelli, who painted a crosswalk at a dangerous intersection when city staff failed to do the job, to Matt Tomasulo who created simple wayfinding signs to encourage people to actively rediscover their city.

Crosswalk

Walk your city
Getting it done: Lou Catelli painting a crosswalk in Baltimore; Matt Tomasulo’s wayfinding signs in Raleigh.

In particular, understanding how to exploit loopholes in the web of planning regulations is a great skill to have in one’s pocket: from feeding the meter to roll out a temporary park in a parking space, to using a catch-all special events permit for “build a better block” programming, there are a surprising number of instances in which seemingly hard-and-fast rules can be reinterpreted, at least in the short term. Another takeaway message that seems obvious but may be underappreciated is the value of developing allies in city staff by getting them on board early in the process by documenting successes, including community buy-in. If staff perceive value in what you’re doing, they’re that much more likely to put pressure in their departments to make the big policy changes that can facilitate and even mandate what you’re championing.

Throughout the book, the authors encourage the reader to reconsider in-between spaces that often do not fit into traditional land-use planning. One shining example is an Orlando community group’s efforts to activate a strip mall parking lot by setting up a temporary night market: the Audubon Park Community Market. The market was so successful—thanks to buy-in from residents and nearby business owners—that the organizers have now opened a brick-and-mortar market two blocks away. This probably would not have been possible had they not demonstrated the demand for and benefits of a temporary community market. If a group of engaged residents can transform one of the least people-friendly places—the surface parking lot—into two thriving markets, I’d say we have a lot to be excited about for the future of city-building.

While it is the individual stories of citizen-led action that bring the book to life, the authors also provide context to these stories by tracing the evolution of five broad categories of tactical urbanism: Intersection Repair, Guerilla Wayfinding, Build a Better Block, Parkmaking, and Pavements to Plazas. These in-depth explorations trace the origins of each approach while sharing resources that readers can draw from along the way. For example, understanding the genesis of now-iconic programs such as New York City’s Pavements to Plazas (see: Times Square, Park Ave, and many more) highlights how far the idea of people-centric planning has come in a short time period—and what we can look forward to as these ideas become championed by municipal leaders such as the formidable Janette Sadik-Khan (check out her TEDTalk: NYC’s Streets Are No So Mean Anymore). One aspect of the book that folks with great ideas but limited resources will appreciate is that often the best interventions are simple, and start on a small scale. Daniel Burnham famously proclaimed “Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood…”; rather, Lydon and Garcia posit that it is by testing new approaches in small ways that we create the kind of bigger shifts we’re yearning for in cities.

In addition to contextualizing tactical urbanism as a whole, the book brings in a bit of history: while the term is new to the city-building lexicon, the concept dates back more than a century, when city dwellers faced many of the same concerns that pervade discussions about cities today. For example, I didn’t know that Open Streets (championed in Canada by organizations like 8-80 Cities) can be traced back to Safe Streets for Play movements in New York in the early 1900s. It is inspiring to witness the progression of this simple idea—turning streets from car-centric transportation corridors to paved parks for all—that is now being embraced by diverse communities (see: Bogota’s Ciclovía, LA’s CicLAvia, Austin’s Viva Streets, Ottawa’s Sunday Bikedays, and many more). It’s a prime example of tactical urbanism because it starts with a simple action: replacing spaces for cars with spaces for people—and over time has become embraced by municipal planners (although perhaps not yet traffic engineers). Other fun historical tidbits: the bouquinistes along Paris’ Seine as early examples of unsanctioned commerce; Sears’ pre-fab, mail order houses as a basis for today’s shipping container architecture; bookmobiles as informing mobile services before city infrastructure is  put in place

Bookmobile
An early Bookmobile in New York City.

I would recommend this book to both world-weary city planners seeking to be re-inspired to improve public spaces and the next generation of municipal “intrapreneurs” who are driven to catalyze big changes—as well as folks working on the ground in their communities seeking guidance on strategic and logistical matters. While many of the examples may be familiar to anyone interested in urbanism, I certainly found a few new ideas that sparked further research. Plus, the “how-to” parts of the book ensure that you’re not trying to reinvent the wheel: the wonderful thing about tactical urbanism is that it’s open-source by nature, so learning from others’ successes and drawbacks is part of the process.

If you don’t have time to read the whole book, I would recommend spending an hour with the last two chapters. I guarantee you’ll come out with a practical idea or two on improving your own neighbourhood through tactical urbanism—while avoiding getting caught behind a wall of red tape.

Sarah Bradley
Montreal

On The Nature of Cities

PostscriptAre you keen to get you own tactical urbanism project a try? 100in1 Day is a good way to get started. It’s a global festival of civic engagement, designed to embrace our power as urban citizens by spending one day of the year testing out small urban interventions to ultimately improve one’s city. These can range from activities, to education, to installations that temporarily change the built environment. In 2015, 100in1 Day happened on June 6 in four Canadian cities. Check out the 100+ urban interventions that happened in Halifax (Nova Scotia), Hamilton (Ontario), Toronto (Ontario), and Vancouver (British Columbia).

Cities for People also hosted a webinar on 100in1 Day and Active Citizenship featuring Juan Carlos Londono and Cédric Jamet, two Montrealers who launched the 100in1Day movement in Canada. You can watch it here.

How the White House Went Green: The Environmental Legacy of President Lyndon B. Johnson and Lady Bird Johnson

Many voices. Greener cities. Better cities.

Which American president administration of the last century has the strongest record on preserving the environment and natural beauty? Presidents Theodore or Franklin Roosevelt, who created the National Wildlife Refuge System (protecting 230 million acres) and established the Civilian Conservation Corps, putting 2.5 million people to work building trails and planting trees, respectively? President Kennedy, who created the Cape Cod National Seashore? President Nixon, who signed the Clean Air Act and created the EPA? President Obama, who has led international efforts to address climate change?

Or was it the president who hosted a White House Conference on Natural Beauty, and spoke stirringly on the importance of a clean environment in his first State of the Union message?

CCC - Camp Roosevelt
Civilian Conservation Corps – Camp Roosevelt, Camp No. 1. Image: Everett Collection

In fact, the U.S. president with the strongest environmental track record (particularly focused on land conservation and the protection of natural beauty) is President Lyndon B. Johnson, who—alongside his activist first lady, Lady Bird Johnson—signed more than 300 conservation measures into law, establishing the legal foundations for how we protect the nation’s land, water and air.

What would President and Mrs. Johnson think now, as partisan politics and fringe political movements in the U.S. work to strip environmental legislation of its power?

Growing up in the 1960s, I found President Johnson to be a larger-than-life figure. Unfortunately, I associated him primarily with the start and the growth of the Vietnam War, a quagmire which grew deeper throughout his administration. But recently, and particularly with the 50th anniversary of his signing of the Highway Beautification Act (known derisively at first as “Lady Bird’s Law”) on October 22, my appreciation for the environmental legacy of President and first lady Johnson has deepened.

A1537-17
President Johnson signing the Highway Beautification Act. Image: White House Photo Office Collection

Lyndon Baines Johnson, or LBJ, was vice president under President John F. Kennedy, following a long career in Texas state politics and both houses of the U.S. Congress. He became president after Kennedy was assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963. He, his wife and two daughters moved into the White House soon thereafter, and he was elected president in November 1964.

President Johnson’s wife, born Claudia Alta Taylor in 1912 and nicknamed “Lady Bird” by her nanny, had spent much of her childhood in the meadows and woodlands of Karnack, Texas. She attended and graduated from both St. Mary’s College at Dallas and the University of Texas at Austin. She and the future president met and were married in 1934.

There is a lot of speculation as to why President and Lady Bird Johnson were so keenly interested in the environment and natural beauty; some think it is rooted in Mrs. Johnson’s loss of her mother at a very young age, after which she found solace in the flowers and plants around her childhood home. President Johnson—who led the passage of groundbreaking civil rights legislation and many other significant domestic policy acts of the “Great Society”—fully acknowledged his wife’s role as instigator of, and inspiration and advocate for much of his environmental legislation.

President Johnson’s environmental track record was established early. Just one year after being sworn in as president aboard Air Force One, he conveyed a strong and prescient philosophy towards the importance of a clean and improved environment in his State of the Union Address, in January 1965:

The Beauty of America

“For over three centuries the beauty of America has sustained our spirit and has enlarged our vision. We must act now to protect this heritage. In a fruitful new partnership with the States and the cities the next decade should be a conservation milestone. We must make a massive effort to save the countryside and to establish—as a green legacy for tomorrow—more large and small parks, more seashores and open spaces than have been created during any other period in our national history. A new and substantial effort must be made to landscape highways to provide places of relaxation and recreation wherever our roads run.

Within our cities imaginative programs are needed to landscape streets and to transform open areas into places of beauty and recreation.

We will seek legal power to prevent pollution of our air and water before it happens. We will step up our effort to control harmful wastes, giving first priority to the cleanup of our most contaminated rivers. We will increase research to learn much more about the control of pollution.

We hope to make the Potomac a model of beauty here in the Capital, and preserve unspoiled stretches of some of our waterways with a Wild Rivers bill.

More ideas for a beautiful America will emerge from a White House Conference on Natural Beauty which I will soon call.”

Less than two months later, at the urging of his wife and aides—including Nash Castro, White House liaison and deputy regional director of the National Capital Parks for the National Park Service—President Johnson and volunteer Chairman, Laurance S. Rockefeller, convened an unprecedented and never-imitated “White House Conference on Natural Beauty.” More than 800 people attended the two-day conference, held in late May. Castro, now 96, remembers the conference was so large they planned to hold it on the White House South Lawn. However, as Castro recalled in a recent phone interview, “the heavens opened up and we had to squeeze 800 people indoors—President Johnson stood at the door like a shepherd, herding the guests, saying ‘Come on in—hurry up.’ ”

Recently, the nonprofit organization Scenic America hosted a two-day event in Washington, heralding the accomplishments of Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson and Laurance Rockefeller. In a draft report (discussed below), they note “The Governors of 35 states subsequently [to the 1965 White House Conference] convened statewide natural beauty conferences. A wave of citizen action followed, dedicated to neighborhood improvement, protection of the countryside and preservation of historic sites.”

The conference was both preceded by and paved the way for many legislative and executive accomplishments, foremost among them the Highway Beautification Act, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (which uses offshore oil and gas leases instead of taxes as a funding source), the Clean Water Act, the Wilderness Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and many more, including the creation of 47 new national parks.

Lady Bird Johnson first became known for the beautification of Washington via the Committee for a More Beautiful Capital, which she formed in 1964 with the help of philanthropist Mary Lasker; Washington Post publisher Katherine Graham; philanthropist Brooke Astor; Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Louchheim; architects Nathaniel Owings and Edward Durell Stone; Laurance S.Rockefeller and other donors. Castro can still recite the precise accomplishments: I million daffodils planted throughout the city; 10,000 azaleas planted on Pennsylvania Ave; 1,000 dogwoods and a large portion of the cherry trees on Hains Point (part of a total of 3,800 cherry trees planted by 1965, which compose the annual, festive cherry blossom splendor for which the capitol is now known).

Lady Bird with Azaleas_med
Lady Bird Johnson and two young people standing among blooming white azaleas. Image: LBJ Library/ Robert Knudsen

Lady Bird planting_med
Lady Bird Johnson plants pansies as Sec. Stewart Udall and others look on. Image: LBJ Library/ Robert Knudsen

Lady Bird Johnson’s best-known accomplishment may be the Highway Beautification Act, a piece of legislation her husband fought for and which was mockingly referred to by Senator Bob Dole as “Lady Bird’s Law.” Castro and others recall how President Johnson promised a dinner and reception at the State Department, featuring a cameo from actor Fredric March. Despite Republican objections, the bill was finally passed, and the Congress got their promised reception very late at night.

Beyond the Washington political intrigue and drama worthy of a “House of Cards” episode, the Highway Beautification Act, though watered down somewhat by the billboard industry, led to the control of outdoor advertising, the removal of certain types of signs along the interstate highways, and the removal or screening of junkyards. It also encouraged scenic enhancement, which led to the requirement that a certain percentage of federal funds on highway projects be used for planting native flowers, plants and trees. Never resting on her laurels (or her azaleas), Mrs. Johnson made forays out to the national parks across the country on at least 11 separate trips, often with Castro and the media in tow, calling attention to the need to conserve, protect and enhance natural beauty.

Lady Bird at California Scenic Highway 1
Lady Bird Johnson dedicates California’s Highway 1 as the country’s first scenic highway. Image: LBJ Library/ Robert Knudsen

What drove Lady Bird Johnson in her mission to beautify an entire nation, from hardscrabble inner-city neighborhoods to vast national parks and highway systems?

Warrie Price, a very close family friend to the Johnson family (and roommate to first daughter, Lynda Johnson Robb, while they were freshmen at the University of Texas), recalls that natural beauty and plant life was “part of [Lady Bird Johnson’s] DNA as a child in Karnack…Outdoor life was her companion, partner, best friend.” According to Price, the “tragic ascension“ to the White House “put [Lady Bird Johnson] in a place where she decided that she would be a ‘doer’ nationally.” (Interestingly, Price herself went on to move to New York City from her home in San Antonio, where she also became a “doer” and led the creation of The Battery Conservancy, whose features include a spectacular perennial wild garden. Fellow San Antonians Elizabeth Barlow Rogers and Robert Hammond would create the Central Park Conservancy and Friends of the High Line—both urban repositories of great natural beauty—respectively. This prompts one to ask: What was in the water in San Antonio?

At the conclusion of the Johnson administration in 1968, the president presented his wife with a plaque adorned with 50 pens used to sign 50 laws related to natural beauty and conservation, and inscribed: “To Lady Bird, who has inspired me and millions of Americans to try to preserve our land and beautify our nation. With Love from Lyndon.”

After leaving the White House, Mrs. Johnson focused on Texas, leading the creation of a 10-mile trail around Town Lake in Austin (later renamed Lady Bird Lake) and promoting the beautification of Texas highways by awarding prizes for the best use of native Texas plants to enhance scenery. Her culminating action on behalf of nature was the creation of the National Wildflower Research Center in 1982, the year she turned 70. The Center, later moved to a new location in the Hill Country southwest of Austin, opened in 1995 as the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center. The world-renowned organization, now spread across more than 279 acres, has more than 700 plant species on display and provides programs for adults and children. Alongside the American Society of Landscape Architects, the center also played a lead role in the development of the “Sustainable Sites” program, a rating system for sustainable landscape design similar to LEED for architecture.

So what would President and Mrs. Johnson think now, as partisan politics and fringe political movements work to strip environmental legislation of its power, to sell off federal lands for profit and exploitation, and to hold hostage the renewal of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which expired in September 2015 due to Congressional inaction?

Happily and hopefully, the environmental legacy and passion for public-private partnerships between citizens and government continues to inspire citizens and nonprofit groups. On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of both the White House Conference on Natural Beauty and the Highway Beautification Act, Scenic America convened a conference and is working on a plan whose recommendations include increasing funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund; establishing a national inventory of parks and open spaces; restoring the defunct National Scenic Byways Program; undergrounding overhead wires; and enacting federal and state legislation to prohibit the removal of trees to increase billboard visibility, among many conservation-oriented action plans. Other major groups, including The Trust for Public Land and The Nature Conservancy, are working as a coalition to press Congress to reauthorize and fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund. And as we all travel on highways and enjoy beautiful views of fields of wildflowers, we can remember with appreciation a White House that cared passionately about native plants, vibrant parks, a clean and healthy environment, and the values of natural beauty.

Scenic America Photo 1 - second version
Before and after tree cutting on Interstate 95 in Jacksonville, Fla. Image: Scenic America

Scenic America Photo 2
Billboards along an otherwise scenic I-85 in Georgia allowed because of a nearby business. Image: Scenic America

Adrian Benepe
New York City

On The Nature of Cities

How To Build a New Civic Infrastructure

Many voices. Greener cities. Better cities.

See the full list of Essays
Introduction, Toni L. Griffin, Ariella Cohen and David Maddox Tearing down Invisible Walls Defining the Just City Beyond Black and White, Toni L. Griffin In It Together, Lesley Lokko Cape Town Pride. Cape Town Shame, Carla Sutherland Urban Spaces and the Mattering of Black Lives, Darnell Moore Ceci n'est pas une pipe: Unpacking Injustice in Paris, François Mancebo Reinvigorating Democracy Right to the City for All: A Manifesto for Social Justice in an Urban Century, Lorena Zárate How to Build a New Civic Infrastructure, Ben Hecht Turning to the Flip Side, Maruxa Cardama A Just City is Inconceivable without a Just Society, Marcelo Lopes de Souza Public Imagination, Citizenship and an Urgent Call for Justice, Teddy Cruz and Fonna Forman Designing for Agency Karachi and the Paralysis of Imagination, Mahim Maher Up from the Basement: The Artist and the Making of the Just City, Theaster Gates Justice that Serves People, Not Institutions, Mirna D. Goransky Resistance, Education and the Collective Will, Jack Travis Inclusive Growth The Case for All-In Cities, Angela Glover Blackwell A Democratic Infrastructure for Johannesburg, Benjamin Bradlow Creating Universal Goals for Universal Growth, Betsy Hodges The Long Ride, Scot T. Spencer Turning Migrant Workers into Citizens in Urbanizing China, Pengfei XIE The Big Detox  A City that is Blue, Green and Just All Over, Cecilia P. Herzog An Antidote for the Unjust City: Planning to Stay, Mindy Thompson Fullilove Justice from the Ground Up, Julie Bargmann Elevating Planning and Design Why Design Matters, Jason Schupbach Claiming Participation in Urban Planning and Design as a Right, P.K. Das Home Grown Justice in a Legacy City, Karen Freeman-Wilson Epilogue: Cities in Imagination, David Maddox
6. HechtIn the United States of America cities have long been gateways to opportunity. For centuries, people from all over the country and the world, including my own grandparents, came to our cities chasing the promise of a better life. America’s bargain with its citizens, rich and poor was, in many ways, a model for the world.

A new civic infrastructure, impact investing and civic engagement will drive change. But ultimately, leaders must have the motivation to build resilient structures, practices and solutions to sustain it.
Today, U.S. cities produce 85 percent of the nation’s GDP, are home to more than 50 percent of the population, and spend billions of dollars annually to educate, house and protect their citizens. Meanwhile, American cities are undergoing a major demographic shift. By 2040, America will be a majority-minority nation. And, events in Ferguson and Baltimore have underscored the destructive nature of existing disparities of income, education and opportunity between whites and non-whites.

Addressing these disparities is one of the key social issues of our time. But our current trajectory is too slow, obsessed with short-term wins and incrementalism, where leaders are constantly reinventing the wheel instead of building on the work of those who came before them. We celebrate improvements in one school on one block while tiptoeing around the fact that it is the entire system that needs fixing. We tell heartwarming stories about 100 kids served or 100 young adults placed in good jobs while averting our eyes from the millions more who remain disconnected from opportunity. We talk about how far we have come since the civil rights movement, but are uncomfortable with discussing how far we still must go to achieve true racial equity. Unless we ferociously change course, the new American majority will be less educated, less prosperous and less free.

To build truly just cities, we need a new type of urban practice aimed at achieving dramatically better results for low-income people, faster. This new urban practice will require cities to get key public, private and philanthropic leaders to work together differently, to better harness impact investing dollars, and to leverage technology to engage all residents in solutions.

A New Civic Infrastructure

In this new urban practice, local leaders will need to come together to build a new, more resilient and sustainable civic infrastructure that is focused on getting results.  In many places, like Cleveland and other older industrial cities, the old civic infrastructure disappeared when Fortune 500 companies moved away. Today, public, private, philanthropic and nonprofit leaders are distributing the leadership needed for change so their efforts can survive inevitable turnover and drive large-scale results.

There is no better example of this dynamic than Detroit. With the government in disarray, local philanthropic organizations and business leaders have shared the leadership for more than a decade, making investments that now position the city to take advantage of its fresh start. For example, The Kresge Foundation was the first investor in the city’s new public light rail line with a grant of $35 million.  Quicken Loan’s Dan Gilbert has invested $1 billion of his own money in downtown Detroit and moved 7,000 employees there.

However, one of the most exciting emerging movements around the U.S. is around municipal innovation. From the Offices of New Urban Mechanics in Boston and Philadelphia and the rise of Innovation Teams in the U.S. and Israel, to the racial equity work spearheaded by the City of Seattle, local government is changing the way it works, looking at issues through a racial lens and adopting innovative practices, so that its institutions not only contribute to a new civic infrastructure but its money gets better results for low income people. For example, Boston’s Citizens Connect, a maintenance-request app for reporting problems from broken windows to potholes, has been downloaded tens of thousands of times and been replicated in more than 20 countries. Its Discover BPS product is a Boston public school search engine that helps low income parents understand where their children are eligible to go to school.

Better Harness the Impact Investor 

There is an emerging, global movement around impact investing. From what we know so far, impact investors look much like the charitable giver—they want their dollars to make a difference. They invest in what they’re passionate about and privilege investing in places, like their hometowns or other communities they feel a connection with. To date, a majority of impact investing dollars have gone to the developing world. Now, as more and more people look to cities as units of change, we need to give investors reason to believe there are investable opportunities in U.S. cities. And leaders must come together and create mechanisms for those dollars to land in cities and communities that need them the most.

Luckily, an exciting amount of place-based investment opportunities and approaches have emerged over the past few years, including pay for success, crowd-funding, peer-to-peer lending and locally funded venture capital.   For example, Living Cities and other private and philanthropic funders have invested $27 billion in the Massachusetts Juvenile Justice Social Innovation Financing (SIF) Project, a pay for success initiative. The effort focuses on reducing recidivism and increasing employment for more than 1,000 at-risk, formerly incarcerated young men in the three Massachusettes cities: Boston, Chelsea and Springfield. As private investors, we assume the risk by financing the services up front, getting repaid only if agreed-upon measurable social impacts are achieved. In exchange for taking the risk, the investors receive a financial return. This means that precious government resources are spent only in the event of proven success and government savings.

Institutions like Living Cities and others committed to building this field must figure out how to promote, aggregate and form these options into market so people can more easily invest in the local context. We need to accelerate their growth everywhere.

Civic engagement with a focus on technology 

America has long had a unique brand of civic participation—a combination of individual commitment and group action. Unfortunately, trends over the past few decades show that both are in decline. The 2014 midterm election had an individual voter turnout of 36 percent—the lowest in any election cycle since World War II.

Encouragingly, the work we are actively engaged in at Living Cities is providing us with evidence of a nation that is actively confronting these trends. Now, we have the opportunity to once again be a model for the rest of the world. We must embrace civic engagement not just as a ‘town-hall,’ but as a tool for cities to co-create solutions with their residents. We must use all the power of modern technologies to engage people and communities who have been historically left out of the processes.

We’ve already seen this idea taking seed in New York City, where a participatory budgeting experiment that began in 2011 with four Council Districts has now grown to 24 Districts. The city harnessed digital technologies to open budgeting decisions to community members.  “So far, I love feeling like we have some say in what is done,” said Maggie Tobin, a participant from Kensington, Brooklyn, in Council District 39, to the New York Times. But as the ideas pass to the city agencies involved, she said, “I find myself already being distrustful.”  The process has resulted in better budgeting decisions and arguably better results. In addition, more people of color turned out to vote, and Hispanics, in particular, voted at twice the usual rate. More needs to be done to ensure that those who participate, like Maggie Tobin, have faith that the process will result in meaningful change.

Ultimately just cities are built when leaders are committed to justice as a fundamental, long-term priority. As former Bogota, Colombia Mayor Antans Mockus recently said, “Change isn’t the biggest political challenge, sustaining it is.” Change happens when leaders decide they want to make it happen. I have made that commitment as the leader of Living Cities. I am also committed to supporting public and private leaders to do the same nationwide. These three elements—a new civic infrastructure, impact investing and civic engagement—will drive that change. But ultimately, leaders must have the motivation to build resilient structures, practices and solutions to sustain it. Only then will we have built a just city.

Ben Hecht
Baltimore

 

The Just City Essays is a joint project of The J. Max Bond Center, Next City and The Nature of Cities. © 2015 All rights are reserved.

How to Make Urban Green Verdant and Sustainable: Designing “Wild” Swedish Lawns

Many voices. Greener cities. Better cities.

Sweden, especially its capital, Stockholm, is a very famous “green” city. Indeed, Stockholm’s green infrastructure wedges system is one of the most recognized and cited around the world because of the significant ecosystem services that it provides and because it acts as a source of natural biodiversity for an urban environment. These wedges are remnants of old royal and nobility’s parks and forests. Stockholm was also an initiator of the world’s first Urban National Park (27km2 in size).

Changing people’s attitudes towards “real nature” requires understanding “designed nature’s” historic precedents.

However, “ordinary” urban landscapes in Stockholm and other Swedish cities were created during the era of the multifamily “People’s Home” (1940-1959) movement and the “Million Program” (1960s- mid-1970s) later in the end of the 20th century, and employed quite a simple model for urban green development. A global, modernistic, prefabricated design was based on intensively managed lawns (as a major “matrix” of neighborhood green “canvas”) with some scattered trees and decorative shrubs and perennials (see photos below). There is a sharp edge between ”real nature” and this “designed nature”. By “real nature”, we mean native ecosystems (for example forests or grasslands) that developed as the result of natural processes, with no or limited human intervention.

The domination of prefabricated design in Swedish multifamily houses: canvasses of lawn with some scattered trees and decorative shrubs and perennials. Million Programme Holma, Malmö and People’s Home area Tunabackar in Uppsala. Photos: Maria Ignatieva

The tidiness and clear visibility of management are the main pillars of today’s vision of urban green areas in the majority of Swedish cities. Why are the most artificial, expensive resources and energy-consuming elements, such as lawns (or groups of trimmed exotic decorative shrubs) understood as real, truly “green”, and, ultimately, a substitute for the real nature?

One of the solutions for returning real nature to our urban neighborhood is creating a new landscape architecture style—which I call biodiversinesque—which will employ biodiversity and natural processes as major design tools that will make nature-based solutions clearly visible for urban citizens. Since lawns cover the most significant parts of urban green areas, searching for an alternative lawn is very timely.

In our ongoing transdisciplinary project “Lawn as an ecological and cultural phenomenon: searching for sustainable lawns in Sweden” we found that 51.8 percent of total urban green areas in Swedish cities are covered by lawns. Lawns are both a source and a sink for greenhouse gases. Based on our research, we concluded that grass mowing was the main contributor to greenhouse gases from most lawns. Reduced mowing frequency and the use of electrified machinery can lessen the carbon footprint of lawns.

We found out that majority of people love lawns and see them as a “must have” trivial element of green areas. However, even with this attachment to conventional lawns, a high number of dwellers would like to see more biodiverse meadows in their neighborhoods.

Swedish municipalities are also quite cost-conscious; therefore, they are open to alternatives to traditional lawns.

In the spring-summer of 2016, we established several alternative, experimental types of lawns in Ultuna Campus, Uppsala (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences) and in Sundbyberg public park at the request of Sundbyberg Municipality (see photo below). We found inspiration for Swedish alternative solutions in rethinking and re-evaluating the history of the Lawn within a Western vision of the relationship between Man and Nature. The answer to how we can change people’s attitude towards the acceptance of “real nature” can also be found within its historic precedents.

Alternative lawn in Sundbyberg Park, Stockholm, July 2016. Photo: Maria Ignatieva

In Ancient Greek culture, nature had a very rich inner life animated by the spirits of the mountains and valleys, lakes and streams. Nymphs of flowers—anthousai—and nymphs of trees—dryads—inhabited forests and meadows. Architectural monuments and houses were included in surrounding landscapes and there were not too many disturbances to nature. People admired flowers in natural grasslands and forests. There were no gardens as they exist today. Education and exercises took place in sacred groves and valleys.

Pragmatic Romans completely changed attitudes to nature. Now, the World of Nature and the World of Gods had become separate spheres. From this particular moment, the predominantly materialistic view of the natural world developed in Western society. It was the starting point of a growing detachment from nature and “Withdrawal of spirits from human awareness”. Nature was seen as something “out there” to be viewed and exploited by human technological power. Roman poet Publius Papinius Statius (45-96 AD) expressed a pretty clear departure from nature when he started to associate “wild” with “unlovely” (Naydler 2006). Since Roman times, the concept of beauty has been linked with the concept of the human “taming” (training) of nature and human aesthetic control. In this sense, topiary—the art of clipping plants—introduced by the Romans is the finest concept of human ownership of nature. Through the practice of topiary, plants were made “faceless” and, inevitably, lost their spiritual essence (see photo). Roman gardens became specially arranged places for human well-being and pleasure, and reinforced human power over the natural world. Such a turn mirrored Roman culture’s basis on slavery and the master-slave relationship, which also extended to human dealings with the natural world. Even if there is no direct evidence that lawns were used in Roman gardens, ideologically, lawns—artificially created elements which need a tremendous amount of maintenance—could fit into Roman culture extremely well.

Topiary art is the finest example of human ownership of nature. Parterre in Isola Bella, Italy. Photo: Maria Ignatieva

Most researchers believe that the lawn, as a purely decorative, artificially-created plant community based on grass species (namely, a “velvet green carpet”), first appeared in medieval gardens. Green grass strips were used in small amounts (in turf benches and some pathways). Medieval enclosed formal gardens symbolized God’s soul triumphing over Nature (since gardens were created by humans, which are themselves created in God’s image). However, medieval people still felt that nature was an alive phenomenon full of spirits. Virgin Mary, the spiritual patron of every medieval garden, was interchangeable with Lady Natura. That is why flowery meadows were quite a common feature at that time. In this case, freely flowering meadows (which were also available in nearby nature) were not about control, but about the enhancement of natural beauty in a religious direction (each plant was symbolic and connected to the Bible). This particular period of medieval flowering meads came to be an inspiration for modern, grass-free (tapestry) lawns. This concept of lawns, comprising specific, mowing-tolerant, low-growing plants instead of grass, was introduced by Lionel Smith in the U.K. at the beginning of the 21st century.

Flowery meadows were quite a common feature in medieval gardens. “The Virgin Seated on a Low Wall Picking a Flower for the Christ Child, Saint Agnes, Saint Dorothea, and another female saint (possibly Saint Barbara) in an Enclosed Garden Beyond, an Extensive River Landscape with a City in the Distance,” by the Master of the Tiburtine Sibyl, oil on panel. Dated 1468.

The subsequent history of a Western vision of Nature continued the Roman’s concept of human ownership over nature. In the Renaissance, a garden displayed the classical culture of its owner and demonstrated human sovereignty over nature. In baroque formal gardens, lawns (decorative parterres), which departed from nature even further, started to be one of the essential features. Regularly cut green carpets emerged as perfect elements to serve human desire and express aesthetic ideals. From this particular point of view, green areas started to become the province of architects and were designed on drawing boards.

Interestingly enough, the modern vision of a global landscape is based on a Picturesque convention of using extended pastureland and lawns, which seemed so close to nature. However, this vision was mistaken for ecological quality, and this conception of an “ideal” landscape was accepted as a “real nature”, first in England and, later, in the rest of the world (e.g. Stowe Park). It is not surprising that modernistic urban landscapes follow this Western vision of Nature as something distant from people, and accept that it is a “right” attitude to create and design this “lovely” nature subservient to humans.

The results of the social studies of our LAWN Project in Swedish multifamily housing areas were not so different from U.K. or U.S. social studies’ findings in private gardens. People become attached to conventional lawns over generations, as they grow up amongst “designed” nature. Three alternative versions of lawns (grass-free lawn, a meadow-like lawn surrounded by mown strips (“cues to care”), and flowering annual pictorial meadows) received a range of opinions. For example, in some neighborhoods, grass-free lawns were considered very attractive. However, people stated that they were afraid of walking on such lawns because they worried about destroying nice flowers. Swedish stakeholders of multifamily housing areas advised placing meadow-like lawns in the periphery of housing areas. Meadows framed by mown lawns received quite a few positive responses.

Stowe Park: the English picturesque “ideal” landscape was accepted as “real nature”. Photo: Maria Ignatieva

Our vision of alternative lawns for Sweden was inspired by old, traditional Lövangar—trees within the meadow. Even though Sweden still has a significant number of native ecosystems, the amount of grasslands (natural and semi-natural) has dramatically declined. Our vision of alternative lawns is to create biodiverse, aesthetically pleasing, and cost-effective plant communities based on the diverse native Swedish flora. Such biodiverse lawns can help to return real nature into the urban environment. We work closely with the Swedish firm Pratensis—a pioneer in the conservation of natural Swedish grasslands that is promoting the use of biodiverse alternative solutions for lawns. The firm collects seeds only from natural plant communities within different parts of Sweden. Pratensis is grounded in local plants that are extremely cost-efficient and suitable for our northern climate. Our suggestions for biodiverse meadow-alternatives to lawns correspond to the character of meager Nordic nature, with its modest color and texture (see photo below). Such meadows were used and seen as beautiful by many Swedish generations of peasants and also in the 1930s by dwellers of Stockholm’s functionalist landscape school, which used meadows instead of lawns.

Meadows from Swedish native plants created from Pratensis seed mixture in the municipal park in Växjö. Photo courtesy of Maria Ignatieva

Our vision of creating meadows with only native plants contrasts with modern British and U.S. approaches of promoting a more “pictorial” aesthetic for alternative plantings. The British and U.S. argument asserts that modern people will accept naturalistic plantings in urban environments only if they have more color and texture (for example, by planting exotic flowering plants from prairies or Asian grasslands). It is clear to me that this is very much a continuation fo the Western trend and vision of “taming” nature, of creating “improved” and “lovely” nature. Such a vision insists on the inability of modern man to love unvarnished nature, with its weeds and untidiness. Why not to try to find a solution wherein people appreciate nature as it is? In its “wild” originality?

The question which needs to be decided in the nearest future is: How can we design “wild” nature in urban environments? How can we teach urban dwellers without special knowledge to appreciate “wild” plant communities next to their houses, and not to be afraid of them—that they can experience grass-free lawns by stepping or sitting on them?

Grass-free lawn in SLU, Ultuna Campus Demonstration Trial. Photo courtesy of Maria Ignatieva

Results of our LAWN project social surveys have shown that people are tired of the monotonous lawns that surround them. Actually, people are ready for variety in green areas. We believe that our new types of alternative lawns, based on native plants and models of plant arrangements which mimic native plant communities, can be one of the types of “designed real nature” in urban environments. Why not suggest, at the level of neighborhood design, to arrange different solutions that include conventional lawns (recreational and sport field) and different ranges of “mixed nature”, such as “cues to care” (combinations of meadow-like lawns framed by regularly cut lawns), as well as “designed real nature”, such as grass-free lawns, and biodiverse meadows?

Suggestion for variety of alternative lawns in one of neighborhoods in Göteorg. Design: U. Bergbrant and S. Andersson

The most important part of this new paradigm’s development for designing urban “real nature” is experimentation and trying new solutions to ascertain what is suitable for each country and even for a particular neighborhood.

Grass free lawn (tapestry lawn) with 29 native plants at SLU Campus experimental site in Ultuna, Uppsala. Photo: Maria Ignatieva

Meadow bench in SLU Campus, Ultuna Photo: Maria Ignatieva

Maria Ignatieva
Uppsala

On The Nature of Cities

How To Put Information, Transparency, and Communities at the Center of Resilience Planning

Many voices. Greener cities. Better cities.

A review of Planning for Community Resilience: A Handbook for Reducing Vulnerability to Disasters, by Jamie Hicks Masterson, Walter Gillis Peacock, Shannon S. Van Zandt, Himanshu Grover, Lori Felid Schwarz, and John T. Cooper Jr. 2014. ISBN: 9781610915854. Island Press, Washington. 256 pages. Buy the book.

Resilience certainly is the buzzword of our time, symptomatic of an era of greater uncertainty and risk, and more regular shocks and crises. But as some commentators argue, the more or less universal uptake of resilience is itself a way of framing challenges that fits with a neoliberal agenda—placing the burden of action on individuals, households, and communities, while deflecting attention from the systemic failings of states and markets that are contributing to emerging vulnerabilities and risks. It is in this context that guidebooks about how to operate at the community level need to be considered.

An engaged process, as outlined in this book, could be a catalyst for a type of planning that addresses some of the core systemic (and political) concerns that resilience building tends to neglect.

Guides, toolkits, and toolboxes proliferate. There is clearly a need. It’s often difficult to know what, exactly, resilience means. Indeed, there have been a number of campaigns recently to encourage people to explain, in their own terms, what resilience means to them. There is a danger here that resilience will come to mean all things to all people and, as such, that it means everything and nothing. There are several attempts now available to guide us through building resilience, with much of this focused on the level of community.

Here, two powerful buzzwords—resilience and community—come together, yet often with little critical reflection. Both words combine an everyday meaning with positive connotations, as well as a more technical meaning from social and ecological theory. When they enter the realm of public policy, they can support a whole range of (sometimes) unexpected policy narratives; both resilience and community are often associated with narratives of standing on one’s own feet, of being stoical in the face of shocks and crises. As such, they, can deflect attention from the very causes of crisis, and the need for more transformative—often political—change, and the role of the state in providing support.

Community resilience building opens a conceptual and discursive quagmire; there is clearly a need for how to steer some meaningful action. Working one’s way through the maze of resilience theory, discourse, and practice is a challenge—perhaps there is a need for a guidebook to the guidebooks. Each set of tools seems designed to offer a unique perspective, with innovative approaches that mark them out from others that are available. But it is often unclear whether what is being proposed is anything new.

coverWith the proliferation of climate related shocks and crises, building resilience in the face of shocks and crises surely is a good thing, and any contribution to helping us make sense of what this might mean and how it might be achieved is certainly welcome. Planning for Community Resilience: A Handbook for Reducing Disasters is a comprehensive book, which is quite an achievement in less than 200 pages.

The book begins with a compelling explanation of the emerging threat, pulling no punches with the introductory chapter: “The Era of Catastrophes.” It then outlines an overall approach to resilience preparedness, a seven-step process that forms the structure of the book itself: Organize; Connect; Assess; Envision; Prioritize; Implement; Monitor, Evaluate; and Update. This is the basis of the substance of the book, with a series of exercises that are intended to guide planners, citizens, researchers, and other concerned stakeholders through a community-scale resilience building process. Part of the motivation here appears to be to overcome current disaster management practices that emphasize structural infrastructure solutions over soft solutions that might focus on ecological responses, or those that address underlying planning weaknesses.

Yet the book is also based on extensive research and analysis, and a thorough post-mortem of disasters, particularly the experience of Galveston, Texas. Presenting such research insights in an accessible how-to guidebook poses a difficult balance to strike, with the risk that the expectations of two very different readerships might not be met.

For me, reading Planning for Community Resilience: A Handbook for Reducing Disasters has been something of a journey to another world. Sitting in one of Asia’s mega-cities as we are about to approach a drought, only a few years after devastating floods, the book provided insight into a planning context in which actual planning appears to occur; where legislation operates with land use planning, zoning, and building codes; where communities have access to public finance, with rights and the capacity to organize; and where there is a degree of accountability and transparency. I couldn’t help but marvel at the differences, while also wondering about the applicability of the handbook for other parts of the world, outside of the United States.

This is clearly unfair. The handbook targets a part of the world I know little about. But nonetheless, I found myself wondering how more marginalized, poorer communities, and local authorities with limited capacity and financial resources, might begin a process of community resilience building, while also facing other demands and pressures. In some ways, the handbook is too comprehensive—it makes the task seem overwhelming, in a way that is all too familiar. With so much to do, so much detailed analysis, mapping, and consultation, where would one begin? Are there shortcuts, or stripped down approaches that could be applied and modified?

Throughout the book, the emphasis is on building a process of public engagement as the basis for community resilience. Such an emphasis is very much welcome. The authors highlight the importance of public participation and inclusive processes, while also pointing to the necessity of understanding and planning around community dynamics and differentiation. Too much of resilience writing presents it as a rather managerial, technical exercise for experts often overlooking the need to make choices, each with winners and losers. It is less common to find such insights into how to bridge the technical dimensions with a process that can mobilize stakeholders, and put the choices in the public domain.

They do so by introducing concepts of assets and capabilities, drawing on the sustainable livelihoods literature that is probably more familiar to the development and humanitarian world than to urban planners. This is welcome. Going back to established concepts grounded in the political economy of vulnerability that have often been neglected in the sphere of resilience takes some of the burden off resilience theory, which is notoriously weak at addressing issues of power. Rather than mold resilience to something for which it is not designed, it makes more sense to complement resilience theory with such approaches as sustainable livelihoods. Framing the book in this way allows the authors to ‘pull together the pieces,’ including the social, ecological, political, and institutional dimensions, of community resilience. The authors have done an impressive job of assembling a great deal of material from different disciplines. It is rare to come across planners presenting a handbook that also talks about issues of power and participation, critical—but often overlooked—elements of community engagement and action.

Early on, the authors delve into explaining what resilience is. However, this is balanced by being largely based on an array of definitions, with an interesting set of boxes spread over several pages offering definitions from different authors and disciplines. This provides a useful resource for students of resilience, but it is not clear what the value of the boxes is within the overall purpose of the handbook. As important as it is to define resilience as a term, greater effort is needed in laying out the theory of resilience. There is an intellectual history to resilience thinking that tends to be neglected in favor of attempts to capture its richness in simple definitions. Fortunately, the authors then point to some of the risks of applying these kinds of definitions to what they term ‘social systems,’ because there may well be something so fundamentally wrong with the ‘system’ itself, that building resilience really requires transformation of that system. For a handbook on community resilience, this is an important argument, but one that has obvious dimensions of politics, power, rights, and justice.

In addition to discussing definitions of resilience, the book would have benefited from outlining some of the key concepts of resilience theory and how they might be applied to community-scale actions. For example the book would have benefited from a deeper discussion of core urban systems—water, food, energy, transport, waste—and an explanation of critical theory, which underscores the dependence cities on infrastructure and technology; issues of interconnected and interlinked dependencies; cascading impacts of shocks and crises beyond location; and the increasingly complex institutional arrangements that these require. Similarly, including information about the characteristics of resilience, such as safe-failure, redundancy, and diversity might have helped structure some of the later sections of the book. It is in this area of characteristics of resilience that much of what is new about resilience theory becomes more meaningful, providing insight into what it would mean to reimagine and reshape urban systems around managing potential failure as a result of shocks and crises; rather than managing around unrealistic hopes for fail-safe urban systems.

The meat of the handbook takes the reader through a lengthy step-by-step journey of planning. There is a huge amount of information guiding us through each step, interspersed with tables, photographs, and graphics to make it more accessible. This is a thorough section but requires some patience to work one’s way through. It details a method that is enormously data-intensive, requiring a range of data and information, analytical tools, and processes. The authors seem aware that this might be overwhelming and try to point to ways in which data needs can be met.

The book is targeting a readership of planners, citizens, and researchers that have access to a wealth of resources, and a planning process that is based on evidence. I am not convinced that this is the situation in communities across the U.S. It certainly is not the case in most parts of the world. The book could have been strengthened by considering the case of marginalized communities in the U.S. itself, and how such a public process as they outline could be implemented.

There is clearly a balance that needs to be struck between the need for data and information and the need for a process that is public and driven by citizens as much as by planners. If approached from a more aspirational perspective, the book has value for those working in other parts of the world. Even from a baseline of limited (and largely inaccessible) data, an engaged process as outlined in this book could itself be a catalyst for a different type of planning—for generating publicly owned data and opening public spaces that can be empowering and that can foster innovation, and thereby addressing some of the core systemic (and political) concerns that resilience building tends to neglect.

Richard Friend
Bangkok

On The Nature of Cities


How to Sell “Nature in Cities” to the Middle Class

Many voices. Greener cities. Better cities.

As long as public transport and high-rise living is seen to be a “budget option”, the middle class is bound to aspire to vehicle ownership and detached homes as an upgrade. The solution could be counter-intuitive, but might lie in making these lifestyle choices more expensive, at least for some people.
Cities are not only hosting 68% of the world’s population by 2050, but a growing population of mobile-toting, car driving, and home ownership aspiring middle class. For rising middle class cities such as Jakarta and middle-income trapped citieslike Kuala Lumpur—middle income trapped cities are cities in countries that are unable to push GNI per capita above $12,056 per annum—the immediate pain of an unaffordable mortgage is often felt more intensely than the global impacts of climate change. Land-locked cities often push affordable housing to the suburbs, encouraging sprawl that further chokes the city with highways and fuel burning vehicles.

The solution, some suggest, is to build affordable housing back in the city to reduce commute times and enhance livability for the growing middle class. But in a land-sparse city like Kuala Lumpur, this line of logic has led to defenseless green spaces being targeted for redevelopment, justified by the need for affordable housing. Several prominent green spaces in Kuala Lumpur have already been sacrificed, including football fields, parks, and even areas adjacent to forest reserves. How then can we ensure adequate provision of affordable housing while preserving nature in cities? Are both these aspirations a dichotomy?

Not necessarily.

The premise for divergence rests on the lack of land in the city. Land scarcity is in turn a function of city living preferences such as landed detached homes and car commute as the desired option. Cities can well afford more space for nature if preferences swing towards high-rise living and public transport-based commuting. Therefore, the true challenge is to convince the person on the street that nature in cities is of greater value than his or her middle-class lifestyle aspirations.

But how?

Like all sales tasks, the first step is to gather intelligence about our citizens and their current behaviors. Do they value living in high-rises or public transportation? Why not? In Kuala Lumpur, we attempted to understand this with data of home prices within walking distance of urban rail systems. Turns out, citizens are frustrated with station construction and prices of homes is practically flat on completion, indicating that residents don’t value public transport much currently.

Price premium of homes close to completed and under construction rail train stations. To read this chart, each par represents a premium or discount paid by a homeowner for a property relative to average neighborhood prices. We then classified the bars to within 500m from a train station or within 1km of a train station. Here, it shows that homebuyers mostly paid only 1% more than neighborhood prices to be within 500m of a train station. Credit: Chaly Koh

The second step to convert our middle-class neighbors into people who value green is to build rapport that resonates with their values and priorities. One way is to convert the value of “nature in cities” to a monetary value that they can directly compare to their immediate concerns of mortgages and housing value. In Kuala Lumpur, we achieved this by showing that homes within walking distance of green spaces were valued 3% higher than those without. In other words, the removal of parks and forest reserve translates to a $3,000 depreciation on a $100,000 home. Most middle-class folks would think twice before letting $3,000 wrung out of their wallets!

Perhaps the most complicated step would be step three, when we attempt to place our middle class to a desired future, where his or her change of behavior would bring a positive impact to their individual lives (not the greater good). A practical approach to this would be to highlight the individual wealth creation of public transport commuting and highrise living in a nature-rich city. In Kuala Lumpur today, 12.7% of household disposal income is spent on transport, which translates to $US3,338 annually, based on median income.

The monetary value would help with the rational hemisphere of the brain, but it boils down to the emotive aspiration that would turn the tables. This is because as long as public transport and high-rise living is seen to be a “budget option”, the middle class is bound to aspire to vehicle ownership and detached homes as an upgrade.

How then can we reframe this world view?

The answer could be counter-intuitive, but might lie in making these lifestyle choices significantly more expensive, at least for some people. Consider the Starbucks effect, which has benefitted coffee distributors all over the United States at the turn of the century. Starbucks gave all coffee and not just Starbucks coffee a new cachet, increasing the desirability of all coffees. In other words, the offering of a luxury version of a product could elevate the overall desirability of the product class of coffee without pricing people out, because not everyone needs to have Starbucks. In Kuala Lumpur, we see the rise of the cafes had such a strong impact that its presence impacted home prices.

Can this convert the middle class to nature-friendly city lifestyles?

The idea, like Starbucks effect, is to create a luxury brand could elevate the status of ALL types of coffee,  while still maintaining the price range and options. Not everyone has to have a Starbucks but now there is more demand for coffee.

Similarly, not everyone needs a $50,000 bicycle but it might get more people to buy other bikes and use them instead of cars. We are beginning to see this change with the rise of ultra-luxury bicycles and the status that comes with penthouse living. Maybe, if all the marketing and advertising agencies harness their superpowers for nature in cities, public transport can be as sexy as the next BMW release.

Cha-ly Koh
Kuala Lumpur

How Would You Design an Urban Eco-village?

Many voices. Greener cities. Better cities.

What would you do if you had the opportunity to design and build a new village or city? These opportunities do not come around often, so when one does we have to make the most of it!! The opportunities abound in Christchurch after the devastating earthquakes of 2010 and 2011. Now a new city must be built!

For some background and to see the amazing opportunities available in re-building a new city watch this short video: http://vimeo.com/46589834

As part of the city rebuild a competition was established. It is called “breathe”—the new urban village project….. an international competition to design and build a new place for living in the Central City.

A design competition for a new urban village
A design competition for a new urban village

Designers and developers from all around the world were invited to submit entries for a sustainable and commercially viable urban village for Christchurch, to inspire fresh creativity in the city’s rebuild following the devastating February 2011 earthquake. The challenge was to develop a concept for medium density living—a new urban village that provided a variety of housing options and lifestyle choices based on sustainability, innovation and a strong sense of community. Architects were given three months to create a concept in three drawings that would change the way people think about urban living, by designing an exemplar housing development that will be the catalyst for modern urban living in the heart of the city, and attract a new and diverse residential community back into the Central City.

Fifty-eight valid entries were received from fifteen countries, and the judges identified four finalists and three highly commended concepts. To view the finalists, visit the “breathe” site.

The four finalists now have three months to take their initial concepts through to a more developed design. The winning concept will be built adjacent to Latimer Square, offering its residents an exceptional quality of life, with local parks, entertainment, recreational facilities, and the central business area nearby.

“These are visions of Central City living in our city’s exciting and prosperous future”

Being an alternative life-styler, an ecologist, and an advocate of anything green, sustainable and native it is not surprising that my favourite of the four finalists is The Viva Project. [Full disclosure: I am not a judge for this contest.] Viva! is an exciting project that was initiated by a group of Christchurch people committed to actively promoting sustainable developments for the central Christchurch rebuild. The team’s vision was:

“to create a vibrant urban village, an innovative and inspiring example of sustainable design and connected community.”

The Viva folks have been collaborating with Jasmax on the development of their entry in the competition. Together, their unique strengths make for a powerful combination. Viva! represents the collective voice and participatory leadership of the people of Christchurch and Jasmax brings its cutting edge design experience, as well as the sustainable values of the Living Building Challenge, “the built environment’s most rigorous performance standard.”

img2

Community gardens in the northern courtyard http://thevivaproject.org.nz/
Community gardens in the northern courtyard http://thevivaproject.org.nz/

The ‘Living Village’ team comprises the Viva! Project, a 300-strong collective of Christchurch citizens passionate about creating a sustainable rebuild for Christchurch, and award-winning New Zealand architectural practice, Jasmax, with additional support provided by developer Evergreen Realty, whose mission is to create affordable and sustainable living environments.

Jasmax Principal and Design Team Leader Greg Boyden commented:

“The collaborative vision for the ‘Living Village’ community is to create an innovative village model, based on social, environmental, cultural and financial sustainability. The design incorporates a housing model that optimises the needs of the individual as well as the wider community.”

 

Aerial view from the northwest http://thevivaproject.org.nz/
Aerial view from the northwest http://thevivaproject.org.nz/

The judging panel, including international judge Kevin McCloud from the UK commended the design stating:

“The village uses natural materials and native plants to harness rainwater and capture energy from the sun to deliver an exemplar of ‘one-planet’ living. The design delivers a strong sense of place and community created through its diverse housing and shared amenities surrounded by an inviting garden city setting. A further strength of this unique community-based development model is that its modest approach addresses housing affordability issues.”

The judges particularly praised the strong community involvement and very high sustainability standard. This Living Village is based around three courtyards with a community centre near the heart and a mix of houses, apartments and a small amount of retail. It is net zero energy, very efficient in water use and the physical design encourages a strong sense of community, with many informal gathering places and layers between private and common areas. The landscape and architectural design acknowledges the history of the land, its natural environment and the cultures that have passed over the land.

North entry from Armagh Street http://thevivaproject.org.nz/
North entry from Armagh Street http://thevivaproject.org.nz/

The design draws on local identity and wisdom reflecting, both Tangata Whenua (Maori, the early Polynesian arrivals to New Zealand 800 years BP) and Pakeha (white Europeans who arrived and settled in NZ 150 years ago) influences. Innovative design features include solar electric panels, organic food-growing areas, on-site water treatment, a café, green space, a community house and positioning of homes to encourage social interaction.

Viva! Project Co-Convener, Jane Quigley said:

“Being selected to progress onto the next stage of the competition is a huge honour and an endorsement for all involved in this ‘people-led’ design. We believe that the Living Village will serve as a flagship example of what can be achieved not only in Christchurch, but around the world. We also commend the organisers of the competition for giving the people of Christchurch the opportunity to have an authentic say in the rebuild and revitalisation of their city.”

Wow! Maybe Jane is onto something here!

If you would like to know more about successful eco-villages in New Zealand then I urge you to check out one of the most well known, the eco-neighbourhood in Auckland called Earthsong. The founders of Earthsong were committed from the very beginning, in 1995, to building a neighbourhood that was as socially and environmentally sustainable as possible, with a vision:

“to establish a cohousing neighbourhood based on the principles of permaculture, that will serve as a model of a socially and environmentally sustainable community.”

Here is a recent snapshot of the village, about 12 years after establishment in 2001.

img6Glenn Stewart
Christchurch

On The Nature of Cities

If Nature is the Answer to Climate Change, What are the Questions?

Many voices. Greener cities. Better cities.

Recognizing nature’s inherent resilience and adapting that utility to mitigate coastal and riverine flooding, sea- level rise, and other climate-induced hazards are two different things.

Recently, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo announced the launch of “Restore Mother Nature”, an aggressive program for habitat restoration and flood reduction. “We must begin restoring the natural balance we disrupted,” said the Governor. “Mother Nature had a plan, she had resiliency built in. We are the ones who destroyed it.”  His call is echoed in the latest effort of President Biden to funding nature-based approaches to coastal community and ecosystem resilience, who has pledged support for nature-based approaches through the National Coastal Resilience Fund and other measures.

These announcements are just the latest indication of the growing interest in the use of natural and nature-based features (NNBF) as alternatives to conventional (typically hardened shoreline) approaches to coastal erosion and flooding.

But recognizing nature’s inherent resilience and adapting that utility to mitigate coastal and riverine flooding, sea-level rise, and other climate-induced hazards are two different things. The questions posed by local communities, landowners, funders, and regulators — Will my home be safer? Can we continue to enjoy the waterfront? Will this project help fish and other wildlife? — require a coherent framework and quantifiable information that can evaluate the relative performance of different interventions.

Over the last two years, the New York–New Jersey Harbor & Estuary Program has been working with a team of researchers led by the Science and Resiliency Institute at Jamaica Bay and funded by New York State to create a set of common metrics and monitoring protocols that will help provide this guidance. Our goal is to encourage others, in New York and elsewhere, to evaluate and share the performance of shoreline sites and build the community of practice of this growing but still a novel set of NNBF strategy and tactics.

Student interns from the Natural Areas Consevancy work with NYNJHEP and NYC Parks to collect ecological data from the Bronx Kill living shoreline created on Randall’s Island in New York City.” Photo: Sara Powell, NYNJHEP

Why natural and nature-based resiliency?

Balancing competing values and uses of urban shorelines is a common need in cities around the world. It is no different in New York Harbor, where crowded urban and maritime uses, rich ecological resources, and increasing demand for public access make it imperative to stack functions across our 2500 km shoreline.

The need to squeeze as much utility as possible from the waterfront has been amplified by climate change. All across the estuary, communities and landowners are developing coastal resiliency plans and advancing capital projects to address sea-level rise and the growing risk of coastal flooding. With the states of New York and New Jersey anticipating an increase of one to two feet in the mean high tide by 2050, the risk of regular tidal and storm-based flooding will increase dramatically.  For many of these stakeholders, the damage wrought by Hurricane Sandy in 2011 is a fresh memory.

These coastal resiliency projects present an opportunity to enhance the ecological performance of shorelines and shallow waters, a Target Ecosystem Characteristic (TEC) of the Hudson Raritan Estuary Comprehensive Restoration Plan. Shallow and shoreline habitat is defined as the near-shore waters of less than four meters, intertidal areas regularly inundated during high tides, and the riparian zones that experience occasional flooding. The estuary’s massive tidal flux helps support high densities and a rich diversity of organisms along its shorelines, particularly when vegetated. Due to high densities of invertebrates like oysters, slower current velocities, and available refuge, this habitat supports resident populations of small fish, blue crabs, and other crustaceans, as well as provides a critical nursery for transient species. Larger fish, notably striped bass, enjoy adjacent deeper water habitat where they feed on invertebrates and small fishes carried outward by tidal currents.

Unfortunately, the ecological value of these areas for much of the area has been compromised, as they have been extensively modified for a variety of uses. Fill has replaced shoals and other shallow-water habitats. About 30% of the shoreline of the estuary, including marshes and tributaries up to the head of the tide, is hardened with bulkheads or engineered structures. For a meta-analysis of the impacts of shoreline hardening, see Gittman et al (2016).

These challenges have drawn the interest of ecologists, coastal engineers, and urban planners. There are a number of projects that have sought to enhance the ecology of urban shorelines while stabilizing the shoreline, reducing erosion, and/or preventing or mitigating flooding. In general, these projects have sought to do this by increasing the physical complexity of the site through stone or other breakwaters, adding texture and using materials that encourage colonization by bivalves, and providing additional intertidal habitat by creating beneficial shallow slopes and ledges, included planted wetlands. By offering new opportunities for estuary education and civic science programs, these projects can also improve the quality of public access and community engagement in management decisions. The best sites include accessible get-downs to the water and other educational infrastructure (including running water, shade, and adjacent wet labs and indoor classrooms). Notable examples in New York City include Hunters Point South Park, Brooklyn Bridge Park, Roberto Clemente State Park Tide Pools, and Randall’s Island Park’s Living Shoreline. A map of the estuary’s shoreline and thumbnail description of some current shoreline projects is here.

Student interns from the Natural Areas Consevancy work with NYNJHEP and NYC Parks to collect ecological data from a restored tidal wetland in Soundview Park in the Bronx, New York. Photo: Emily Stephan, NYC Parks

How does innovation become normal?

The advancement of such tactics and designs should be an important consideration for all proposed shoreline projects. Indeed, a number of local, national, and international guidance and planning documents have encouraged the use of NNBFs. For example, an assessment of how these projects could be deployed throughout the New York City waterfront is included in the Coastal Green Infrastructure Plan for NYC. At the federal level in the United States, see the United States Army Corps of Engineers Research Development Center. The European Union has offered a Research and Innovation policy agenda for Nature-Based Solutions. On a site/design project scale, the Waterfront Enhancement Design Guidelines, or WEDG, created by Waterfront Alliance, provides a certificate approach to encourage landowners, consultants, and community members.

Despite this growing interest and experimentation, widespread adoption of NNBFs remains limited. One clear reason is the relative lack of data on how such shoreline features actually perform over time, whether its ecological enhancement, social benefits, or, and perhaps especially, risk reduction. Absent of such data, not every decision-maker is willing to commit to such technology. This is true for the public or private landowner, their consulting engineers, permitting agency, or the surrounding community.

To help address this need, a number of partners worked with New York State to develop a coherent shoreline monitoring framework for shoreline features across New York State. Measuring Success – Monitoring Natural and Nature-based Shoreline Features in New York State is a two-year initiative, managed by the Science & Resilience Institute at Jamaica Bay and sponsored by the NYS Department of State (DOS), with funds from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and NYS Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). The final monitoring framework includes a matrix summarizing (1) performance parameters, (2) indicators for monitoring performance relative to those parameters, (3) monitoring protocols to collect data to track those indicators, and (4) a database structure to make data easily available for reports and trend analysis.

Several important considerations guided this work. To provide the best information, the framework is intended to be used for all shorelines, spanning from traditional hard engineered shorelines to natural wetlands, beaches, and rocky shorelines. This is critical to being able to gauge the effectiveness of greening gray infrastructure or installing breakwaters and sills to protect wetlands and other natural areas. The system seeks to monitor the full spectrum of values associated with the shoreline: risk reduction, structural integrity, ecological value, and social benefits. Given its purpose to encourage data collection across New York’s diverse shoreline and accommodate the always limited amount of funding available for monitoring, the framework is flexible and scalable.

Perhaps most importantly, the project process was also intended to grow the network of shoreline managers, researchers, and other stakeholders interested in adopting and using the monitoring framework in the future. The protocols have been piloted in the field through several seasons, but the framework’s success will only be evident with consistent use over time. Changing behavior requires data to support future decisions.

Can we adapt and thrive?

Our shorelines are, by nature, resilient, with plants and animals adapted to a dynamic environment. This dynamism has always dictated the terms of human efforts to control coastal erosion and flooding. Climate change is amplifying this reality, making the need to accommodate multiple values on our shoreline ever more challenging.

Indeed, as New Jersey’s Chief Resilience Officer expressed at a recent conference on restoration and resilience “If the universe ever gave us a grace period to react to climate change, that period is over”.

Addressing this imperative with works built on the hope of creating something better, rather than just fear of preventing disaster, is difficult. Only with confidence based on experimentation and shared experience can we move forward.

Rob Pirani
New York City

On The Nature of Cities

If We Plant the Plants Will the Insects Follow?

Many voices. Greener cities. Better cities.

Remnants of indigenous vegetation in urban and rural areas often are the only remaining examples of ecosystems that were once more extensive before human settlement. They are therefore vital for preserving and promoting biodiversity. Remnant vegetation also serves as a refuge for indigenous plants, fungi and animals that would not otherwise be found in an urban environment. A major influence on the flora and fauna of natural remnants is the type of surrounding habitat (for example, Doody et al. 2010). In cities, the surrounding matrix is often residential houses and their gardens. These gardens can provide food, shelter and connectivity between green spaces making them an important habitat for some wildlife, including invertebrates. Terrestrial invertebrates are a major component of biodiversity in all ecosystems including urban environments. They are logical choice for studying the effects of urbanisation; they are diverse, have short generation times, are fairly easy to sample, represent a spectrum of trophic levels and are important components of human altered landscapes. They fulfill many important and roles such as decomposers and pollinators therefore are an ideal subject for monitoring biodiversity in urban ecosystems.

And here we begin today’s story…

Christchurch City, New Zealand is an ideal urban environment to explore questions about invertebrates in indigenous remnants, private gardens and also restored native vegetation. And the dispersal or otherwise of invertebrates between different vegetation types. There is a large (c. 8 ha, Riccarton Bush) indigenous forest remnant in the city, thousands of private gardens and also quite a number of areas of native woody vegetation that have been planted over the last 20 years. And, as luck would have it, a scientist (Richard Toft) investigated the invertebrate communities of all 3 vegetation types in 2003. He sampled beetles (Coleoptera), moths and butterflies (Lepidoptera) and fungus gnats (Diptera). So that leads us to the current study.

By re-sampling the sites that Toft sampled in 2003 we can ask the question: if we plant the plants do the insects follow? That is, by planting the plants are we achieving the goals of increasing indigenous biodiversity and restoring fully functioning ecosystems? After 20 years do the planted native vegetation sites contain similar invertebrate assemblages to the remnant forest?

In 2013, one of us (Denise Ford) here at Lincoln University resampled the Toft sites. Using malaise traps (as Toft did in 2003) the 3 groups of invertebrates were sampled at the same sites as in 2003. Six sites in the forest remnant (4 more than Toft), 1 on the edge of the remnant, 7 in private gardens, and 2 in a c. 20 year old area of planted native vegetation (Wigram Detention Basin). We also sampled a few extra sites in 2013 but we won’t report on these here. And so what did we find??

A malaise trap in the native forest remnant (Riccarton Bush) in 2013. Photo: Denise Ford
A malaise trap in the native forest remnant (Riccarton Bush) in 2013. Photo: Denise Ford

Despite sampling in an urban environment, the invertebrate communities were predominantly native—in 2003, 84% to 16% adventive. Interestingly though, 28% of the native taxa were confined to the forest remnant. Few adventive species were found in the forest remnant. Suburban gardens also contained a surprising number of native taxa, especially Lepidoptera even though adventives dominated in richness and abundance (82%, 70%). In 2003, the planted native forest site (then c. 10 years old) had more taxa in common with private gardens than the forest remnant.

All four sites had distinct species assemblages as indicated by their separation in the ordination, a statistical technique that describes and analyses differences among complex sets of attributes, such as ecological communities (Fig.1). The remnant native forest is clearly different in species composition from the restoration site and private gardens for all 3 insect groups. Interestingly, the forest edge site was intermediate in terms of compositional similarity between the remnant and the other sites. The gardens and restoration sites were similar in composition for all 3 insect groups, as indicated by similar positions on Axis 1 (Fig. 2.). However, Coleoptera were widely spread along axis 2, indicating that Coleoptera composition was not as similar between gardens and restoration sites as Lepidoptera and Fungus Gnats (less spread on Axis 2). So in 2003, the insect composition was quite different between the native forest remnant and edge, and the restoration site and private gardens (which were similar in composition). The former dominated by native species, and the latter by adventive ones.

Three-dimensional nonmetric multi-dimensional (NMDS) ordinations for Coleoptera in 2003 and 2013. The distance between sites on the ordinations is a relative measure of their similarity in composition. 2003 sites are represented by triangles, 2013 sites by circles. Image: Denise Ford
Three-dimensional nonmetric multi-dimensional (NMDS) ordinations for Coleoptera in 2003 and 2013. The distance between sites on the ordinations is a relative measure of their similarity in composition. 2003 sites are represented by triangles, 2013 sites by circles. Image: Denise Ford

Species compositional differences were apparent between the two surveys. Take Coleoptera as an example. The forest remnant and remnant edge were separated from the other sites on Axis 2 in the ordination (Fig. 3, top left graph; bottom left graph). Interestingly, the composition in the remnant forest and edge had changed over the 10 years, as indicated by a separation on Axis 1 of the ordination (Fig. 3, top left; top right). Similarly the Coleoptera composition of gardens had changed between 2003 and 2013 (Fig. 3, top left; top right; black triangles and black circles).

Two-dimensional nonmetric multi-dimensional (NMDS) ordinations for all 3 groups of invertebrates at the 12 sites in 2003. The distance between sites on the ordinations is a relative measure of their similarity in composition. Image: Denise Ford
Two-dimensional nonmetric multi-dimensional (NMDS) ordinations for all 3 groups of invertebrates at the 12 sites in 2003. The distance between sites on the ordinations is a relative measure of their similarity in composition. Image: Denise Ford

One might expect that at some stage the planted native forest will begin to contain more of the taxa present in the native forest remnant (3.5 km away). But after 10 year’s (since Tofts study) the remnant was still dominated by native species of insects, and the gardens and restoration site by adventive species. The planted native forest site in 2013 did share a few native insect species exclusively with the forest remnant, however, a greater number of species found in the planted site were also found in gardens (many of which were absent from the remnant). Lepidoptera was the only insect group in the planted site that indicate that species composition was getting more similar to the remnant. Insect composition in the planted sites will be influenced by vegetation structure and the characteristics of the species themselves, proximity to source areas, and their ability to disperse and establish a viable population. Many species might be incapable of dispersion and therefore in need of translocation. Others might just find the garden matrix between the remnant and the restoration sites unfavourable to cross?

Aerial view of Riccarton Bush, Christchuch City. The native forest (dominated by an endemic podocarp tree, Dacrycarpus dacrydioides) is in the middle and lower left of the image (dark green) and on the right is a woodland of planted European species of trees that are now c. 150 years old. Photo: Google Earth
Aerial view of Riccarton Bush, Christchuch City. The native forest (dominated by an endemic podocarp tree, Dacrycarpus dacrydioides) is in the middle and lower left of the image (dark green) and on the right is a woodland of planted European species of trees that are now c. 150 years old. Photo: Google Earth

The interior of Riccarton Bush. The Dacrycarpus trees are c. 30-35 metres tall and c. 450 years old. Photo: www.riccarton house.co.nz
The interior of Riccarton Bush. The Dacrycarpus trees are c. 30-35 metres tall and c. 450 years old. Photo: www.riccarton house.co.nz

One finding of our re-survey was that we collected at lot less species from all sites than in 2003. For Riccarton Bush a substantial decline in the number of the larger Lepidoptera compared to 2003 is of real concern, and was contrary to what we expected. This does not bode well for the maintenance (or perhaps even enhancement?) of invertebrate biodiversity.

The results of the surveys also illustrate the importance of regular sampling to evaluate restoration success towards a fully functioning forest ecosystem and to monitor the health of the restored sites. Although a 10 year interval appears to be too long to show the trends we found. Hence we cannot say much about the implications for ecosystem function.

Our re-survey indicates that it may take many decades yet for the planted patches of native forest to contain invertebrate taxa in common with the native forest remnant. So, in answer to our original question—if we plant the plants will the insects follow?—indications after 20 years are positive but it maybe too early to tell just yet.

Denise Ford
Glenn Stewart
Christchurch

On The Nature of Cities

Doody, B, Sullivan, J, Meurk, C., Stewart, G. & H. Perkins. 2010. Urban realities: the contribution of residential gardens to the conservation of urban forest remnants. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 1385-1400

Glenn Stewart

About the Writer:
Glenn Stewart

Glenn Stewart is Professor of Urban Ecology, Lincoln University, NZ. Current research is on Southern Hemisphere urban ecosystems and invasive species, successional processes and predicted changes in global climate.

 

If You Build It, They Will Come: Modifying Coastal Structures for Habitat Enhancement

Many voices. Greener cities. Better cities.

Since the founding of modern Singapore in 1819 by Sir Stamford Raffles, the small island nation has developed from a sleepy fishing village into a modern day metropolis, and has lived up to the adage, “if you build it, they will come”. Particularly over the last eight decades, Singapore’s coastal landscapes have gone through significant transformation. From an island skirted by mangroves and mudflats, this modern-day coastal city state has become one of the most populated metropolises in the world. Seawalls, headlands, and breakwaters were built along the coast to protect valuable land and inland assets from coastal erosion and inundation. The majority of Singapore’s contemporary coastline is thus reinforced by sea defences and other forms of coastal infrastructure.

The marriage of engineering and ecological knowledge is imperative to create or modify coastal structures that protect the coast and support biodiversity.

Sea defences to shore up the coastlines are a fundamental need for small coastal city states like Singapore, especially in the context of land scarcity, expanding population and impacts from climate change. While sea defences and coastal infrastructure are largely permanent engineered structures that are not purpose-built for supporting biodiversity, one strategy to enhance the capacity of these structures to compensate for and replace lost biodiversity without compromising their intended functions would also come through purposeful engineered modifications. This requires a mindset change that challenges us to understand the functions of coastal infrastructure beyond engineering goals and to explore opportunities for supporting and restoring biodiversity. Ecologically informed engineering in the design and construction of coastal infrastructure can reduce the loss of intertidal and shallow water biodiversity on artificial shorelines.

Biodiversity by chance

As it provides valuable economic, social and functional services, coastal infrastructure—such as jetties, floating pontoons, and seawalls—can also contribute directly and indirectly to habitat and biodiversity loss, as the construction of such infrastructure usually takes place in the shallow areas fringed by biodiversity rich intertidal and reef areas. However, as the character Dr. Ian Malcolm famously uttered in the 1993 movie “Jurassic Park”, “Life will find a way”, recent observations and studies in Singapore have shown that far from being barren, these artificially engineered structures can support unique assemblages of marine organisms. In particular, seawalls support a relatively high diversity of intertidal organisms and share several metrics with rocky shores, such as the number of species present and dominant species. For example, the presence of hard substrates, such as granite armour rocks used for shoreline reinforcement, can support the recruitment of biodiverse corals and other reef organisms in areas where reefs either used to exist, or could exist if suitable substrate were present. We observed this phenomenon along seawalls at reclaimed sites such as Pulau Semakau, East Coast, and Marina East, which continue to support rich assemblages of corals in less than a decade after the completion of reclamation works. We observed similar biodiversity revival within marinas, where the submerged walls of the floating pontoons used for berthing boats supported rich assemblages of marine organisms. In particular, the concrete coating used for the submerged walls provided suitable surfaces that encouraged the recruitment of marine organisms. However, the uniformity of seawall construction material, the inclination of their surfaces, and the lack of microhabitats such as holes, cracks, crevices and rock pools resulted in lower biodiversity assemblages compared to natural rocky shores.

Biodiversity by choice and reverse engineering

Our observations of biodiversity occurring by chance along artificially engineered coastal structures presented us with the perfect opportunity for studying the factors that facilitated their successful development, such as surface material, rugosity, slope gradient and hydrodynamic regimes, among others. We adapted and then applied these factors to intentionally enhance the biodiversity of other existing and future coastal structures. Recent investigations suggest that larval supply of marine organisms is not limited in Singapore. However, the availability of suitable habitat is limited in many areas. By introducing appropriate substrates in the right environment, coupled with effective management of human activities, we believe that marine biodiversity can be revived or enhanced along otherwise barren areas. One way to do this is through the reverse engineering of structures—i.e., the process of extracting design information from a manmade structures/objects and using this information to enhance other structures/objects—to understand the design and engineering aspects and environmental factors that facilitated the recruitment of organisms in the examples described above. We looked at the nature of the built structure from the type of material used, the methods of construction, surface complexity, inclination, hydrodynamic conditions, exposure to varying tidal regimes and anthropogenic activities, and the historical condition of the sites that contributed to their ability to host and support biodiversity. Based on those metrics, we investigated different strategies for biodiversity enhancement and developed the following framework to assess coastal structures and their capacity to host biodiversity [Figure 1].

figure-1_a-framework-to-assess-coastal-structures-and-their-friendliness-toward-biodiversity
Figure 1: A framework to assess coastal structures and their friendliness toward biodiversity.

Based on this framework, we identified and investigated strategies for increasing heterogeneity and complexity of built surfaces, introducing novel habitats such as tidal pools, enhancement units, and textured tiles, substrate manipulation, planting of coastal vegetation, and incorporating purpose built elements to coastal structures.

We found that for enhancement on existing seawalls and coastal structures, surface complexity is the most important and also the most easily manipulated amongst all assessment criteria. Complexity can be manipulated at different spatial scales, ranging from millimetre to metre, and targeting different organismal behaviour. We worked with four complexity parameters that were developed in a separate research project by our research collaborators from the National University of Singapore, namely (1) the number of object types; (2) the relative abundance of object types; (3) the density of objects; and (4) the variability and range in the objects’ dimensions, to design reverse engineered tidal pool units to be introduced along an existing stretch of seawall with a barren horizontal surface.

These tidal pool units consisted of purpose-designed and fabricated concrete modules measuring 1.5m x 1.0m x 0.3m. They were fabricated with concrete suitable for the marine environment using negative fibreglass moulds, and were designed to collect seawater during high tide and to retain it during low tide to mimic a tidal pool environment. These tidal pool units are expected to create habitats that are similar to natural rock pools, to provide additional niches, and to encourage more diverse assemblages of marine organisms to thrive within the area.

Janine M. Benyus’ description of biomimicry as “the conscious emulation of life’s genius” (1997) served as a source of inspiration for our design. To design the units, we first studied natural rock pool habitats to identify attributes that made them suitable for certain marine organisms to colonize and thrive, and found that a combination of crevices, grooves, and pits provided ideal niches and succession for a variety of marine organisms. These attributes were then incorporated in the design process, according to the four complexity parameters, to create conceptual designs that would most closely mimic natural tidal pool habitats. Multiple designs were created based on the different complexity combinations, and two designs were selected for testing.

The first design is a pool with a combination of evenly distributed grooves with pits of three sizes – 30 small pits (20mm diameter), 30 medium pits (40mm diameter) and 30 large pits (70mm diameter) [See Figure 2]. The multiple sizes of the pits enabled us to increase the spatial scale of this feature. Pits and groves are cast on an inverted topographic surface. This surface plan mimics a natural hilly landscape in Singapore (Central Catchment Nature Reserve), where the complex topography houses significant biodiversity.

The second design is a pool of the same surface area with a randomised arrangement of steps. The steps’ thickness was calculated based on the aforementioned complexity parameters [See Figure 2]. The angular edges and offset create niches for marine organisms. We also embedded some pits (3mm) into some of the units of this design to test out the combination of pits and steps.

figure-2a1

figure-2a2

figure-2a3

Figure 2A: (1) Design of the pool with pits and grooves [top]; (2) Cross section A-A [middle]; (3) Casted pool [bottom]

Janine M. Benyus’ description of biomimicry as “the conscious emulation of life’s genius” (1997) served as a source of inspiration for our design. To design the units, we first studied natural rock pool habitats to identify attributes that made them suitable for certain marine organisms to colonize and thrive, and found that a combination of crevices, grooves, and pits provided ideal niches and succession for a variety of marine organisms. These attributes were then incorporated in the design process, according to the four complexity parameters, to create conceptual designs that would most closely mimic natural tidal pool habitats. Multiple designs were created based on the different complexity combinations, and two designs were selected for testing.

The first design is a pool with a combination of evenly distributed grooves with pits of three sizes – 30 small pits (20mm diameter), 30 medium pits (40mm diameter) and 30 large pits (70mm diameter) [See Figure 2]. The multiple sizes of the pits enabled us to increase the spatial scale of this feature. Pits and groves are cast on an inverted topographic surface. This surface plan mimics a natural hilly landscape in Singapore (Central Catchment Nature Reserve), where the complex topography houses significant biodiversity.

The second design is a pool of the same surface area with a randomised arrangement of steps. The steps’ thickness was calculated based on the aforementioned complexity parameters [See Figure 2]. The angular edges and offset create niches for marine organisms. We also embedded some pits (3mm) into some of the units of this design to test out the combination of pits and steps.

figure-2b1

figure-2b2

figure-2b3Figure 2B: (1) Design of the pool with randomized steps [top]; (2) Cross section A1-A1 [middle]; (3) Casted pool [bottom]

We studied the hydrodynamic conditions of the site that may affect the service life of the tidal-pool structures. Through hydrodynamic modelling, we calculated mean current speed and changes in bed thickness per year to identify whether the seawall is subjected to strong erosion or accretion. Mean current speed is also an indicator that helps determine if the coast is subjected to strong hydrodynamic forcing, which might result in lateral movement or even dislodgement of the fitted tidal pool structures. While there are studies suggesting that introduced artificial structures can have a positive impact on sandy shoreline stabilisation, the introduction of these structures should not compromise the ability of the engineered coastal infrastructure to perform its primary function. In the case of seawalls, which are built for sea defence, the enhancement measures have to preserve sea wall structural integrity, as well as connectivity of coastal processes.

We are currently studying the relationship between the tidal pool designs and community assemblage and succession by assessing their ability to provide shade and regulate temperature using drained and un-drained units. In order to reduce bias and account for treatment or site effect, we positioned the different design configurations randomly along a linear stretch of seawall, and introduced control plots to assess the effectiveness of introduced structures versus no modifications. A control plot in this context is an empty plot on the seawall that is of the same size as the tidal pool units [See Figure 3]. Data collected on these control plots will act as a baseline against which the treatments/modifications will be compared.

figure-3_the-tidal-pool-units-positioned-in-a-randomised-layout-with-control-plots
Figure 3: The tidal pool units positioned in a randomised layout with control plots (empty slot without any tidal pool unit).

Currently, we are monitoring the units biweekly to gather data on recruitment and succession of fauna and flora, as well as environmental parameters such as temperature, conductivity, and irradiance. Preliminary results indicate that the tidal pools were occupied by turf algae within the first week after installation and, shortly after, this single species was replaced by an assemblage of algae including Bryopsis spp., Dictyota sp., Enteromorpha spp., Ceramiales spp. and Ceramium spp. Faunal diversity and abundance increased over time and, after several weeks, we recorded periwinkle and nerite snails, crabs, tube and fire worms, feather stars, and bead anemones. The performance of each tidal pool design and its complexity elements are also being monitored. The outcomes of this study are expected to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the combination of complexity treatments on species recruitment and biodiversity.

Projected sea level rise poses the most immediate threat to Singapore, and protecting our coastline has been identified as a priority in dealing with the effects of climate change. The current efforts to defend our coastal areas from erosion include the construction of walls and stone embankments. Thus, the marriage of engineering and ecological knowledge is imperative to create or modify coastal structures that both protect the coast and better support biodiversity. Ecologically informed engineering in design and construction of coastal infrastructure would reduce loss of intertidal biodiversity on our artificial shoreline.

Nhung NGUYEN, Karenne TUN, and Lena CHAN
Singapore

On The Nature of Cities


Karenne Tun

About the Writer:
Karenne Tun

Karenne’s current work at NParks covers issues related to the management and conservation of Singapore’s coastal and marine environment (CME) and the biodiversity they support. She leads a team that serves as Secretariat for the Technical Committee on Coastal and Marine Environment, an inter-agency committee that undertakes studies, provides technical inputs for policy making, and builds capacity in CME related issues.



If You’re Feeling Stressed in These Times of COVID-19, a Picture of Nature Can Be Restorative!

Many voices. Greener cities. Better cities.

Humans find natural scenes restorative. But what within natural scenes make them easier to process, leading to stress recovery or attention restoration? Green. Scenes with water. And even a picture of these things.
More than half the world’s population now lives in cities, where nature, at the best of times, can seem hard to find and enjoy. The restorative value of nature has long been acknowledged but how can we access it in these strange times of social distancing and isolation as COVID-19 sweeps the globe? We can look out our window at a nearby tree, a patch of green, or even a water feature!

Robert Ulrich, in 1984 (View through a window may influence recovery from surgery), showed that surgical patients recovered more quickly if they had a view of nature. He compared two groups of patients in a suburban hospital in Pennsylvania, USA. One group could see a small stand of deciduous trees through their hospital ward window. The other group looked out on to a brown brick wall. Patients with the view of the trees spent less time in hospital, seemed brighter during their stay, required less pain relief, and had fewer post-operative complications. Wisely, Ulrich cautioned us that we can’t necessarily generalise these results to all built views or all patient groups. The results might have been different if the alternative to a view of trees was a dynamic view of the city, especially for patients who had been in hospital for a long time or were bored. But subsequent studies have supported these findings: nature is restorative and a substitute such as a natural view through a window or paintings, photos, videos or computer-generated virtual reality, can also be effective. Immersive computer-generated virtual reality might even be a surrogate for experiencing real nature (Restorative effects of virtual nature settings).

Green oasis in the densely settled inner-city suburb of South Melbourne. Photo: A. Miller

Ulrich and his contemporaries Stephen and Rachel Kaplan produced seminal studies in the 1970s and 1980s, exploring landscape perception, landscape preference and the restorative capacity of nature. They concluded that people prefer natural views over urban views lacking natural vegetation. Views of vegetation, especially with water, held interest and attention more effectively than urban views. This was despite both types of view containing equivalent visual information, i.e. the same amount of content to process. Ulrich proposed that natural views elicited positive feelings, reduced fear in people that were stressed, held their interest and reduced stressful thoughts. He focused on nature restoring people’s physiological stress and anxiety and developed Stress Recovery Theory. In contrast, Stephen Kaplan interpreted the restorative capacity of nature in terms of attention fatigue, and developed Attention Restoration Theory.

Non-urban nature Photo: M. Dobbie

Of course, some nature can be threatening. Just think of an African savannah with a pride of lions stalking zebra, or an Australian nature reserve that is a red-belly black snake sanctuary. So Ulrich believed that the restorative power of unthreatening natural landscapes relieved psycho-physiological stress (Stress Recovery During Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments). Stress has been defined as the condition that results when people find themselves in a situation that demands more of their biological, psychological or social resources than they feel are available. This leads to increased physiological arousal and negative emotions. Ulrich posited that recovery from psycho-physiological stress requires a positive change in emotional state. His research, and that of others since, using self-ratings of emotions of respondents and physiological measures of heart rate, muscle tension, skin conductance and blood pressure, found that exposure to natural environments does, indeed, produce positive mood changes, mediating the negative effect of stress, reducing negative mood states, e.g. fear, anger, sadness and aggression, and enhancing positive emotions, such as feeling carefree, friendly or affectionate. Even exposure to a small amount of nature is beneficial: urban environments with trees generated more positive emotions, fewer negative emotions, and positive physiological responses compared with urban environments with no natural features. Exposure to environments with no natural features evoked anxiety, anger, frustration and sadness.

Landscape painting: “Broad Acres, Western District, Victoria”, by William Dargie (1947). Photo: M. Dobbie

In contrast, Kaplan in 1995 argued that restoration of attention fatigue underlay favourable responses to nature (Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward and Integrative Framework). He did not dismiss Ulrich’s theory but rather argued that stress and mental fatigue were related: stress could lead to mental fatigue, and mental fatigue could increase vulnerability to stress. He studied attention, distinguishing voluntary attention from involuntary attention. He argued that voluntary, or directed, attention is essential for human effectiveness in everyday life. It is required for clear thinking, planning and follow-through, positive emotions, and, most importantly, inhibition of inappropriate behavior. Thus, loss of directed attention could lead to negative emotions, irritability, impulsiveness, impatience, reduced tolerance for frustration, insensitivity to interpersonal cues, decreased altruistic behaviours, reduced performance and increased likelihood of taking risks. Sleep is generally required to restore directed attention, but insomnia can accompany the loss of directed attention. Kaplan posited that the cure for loss of directed attention is “another mode of attending that would render the need for directed attention temporarily unnecessary” (p. 172). That cure, he suggested, is through involuntary attention.

He described involuntary attention as having four components: fascination, being away, extent, and compatibility. Fascination can be “hard”, e.g. watching car racing, or “soft”, e.g. bird watching. Being away and extent can be conceptual rather than physical. For example, a change in the direction of one’s gaze can be sufficient to “be away”; extent must be sufficient to offer the tired mind another world in which to escape. The compatibility must be between the new environment and its intended purpose for the person. So, in viewing nature we are taken away from our current situation, engaging with the soft fascination of birds, plant life, waterbodies, etc. The natural view suggests something beyond what we see, a broader extent, and is compatible with our need for respite from the everyday. The restorativeness of a setting is determined by assessing the performance of tasks that require mental attention and self-rating on four scales of fascination, getting away, extent and compatibility.

View of a leafy green courtyard in a Melbourne suburb. Photo: S. Keyes-Pearce

In a study similar in concept to Ulrich’s study of surgical patients, published 11 years later in 1995, Carolyn Tennessen and Bernadine Cimprich (Views to nature: Effects on attention) found that students living in dorms with all natural or partly natural views were more able to direct attention than those with partial or full views of built landscapes. They concluded that looking through a window on to a natural scene might be “an easily accessible ‘micro-restorative’ activity” (p. 78). Again, the authors were cautious about extending results to other population groups, e.g. office workers and elderly people, but the evidence is mounting.

Stress Recovery Theory and Attention Restoration Theory are now viewed as complementary rather than in competition and offer two perspectives on understanding our favourable response to nature, and in fact our human need for it. Rita Berto wrote a good review of them in 2014 (Literature review on restorativeness), which provides more detail than given here.

Nature from a balcony in inner Melbourne. Photo: E. Walker

But why do humans respond so positively to nature, to the extent that we need it for our psycho-physiological well-being? Both Ulrich and Kaplan believed that the restorativeness of nature had an evolutionary basis. Ulrich argued that human preference for natural landscapes and their restorative quality is a consequence of human evolution in natural landscapes. We feel most comfortable in the landscape in which we evolved. Edward Wilson described this as biophilia: humans have an innate connection with and love for nature and natural places. Kaplan’s theory assumed that humans have an inherent predisposition to pay attention and respond positively to natural content and to landscape configurations that are characteristic of settings that supported human survival through evolution.

But these ideas are not accepted without challenge. In a fascinating paper published in 2011, Yannick Joye and Agnes van den Berg dissect all the arguments for an evolutionary basis of the restorative capacity of nature (Is love for green in our genes? A critical analysis of evolutionary assumptions in restorative environments research). They conclude that biophilia cannot be supported by empirical evidence. They do acknowledge the evidence supporting the importance of unthreatening nature, and especially green vegetation, in the restorativeness of natural landscapes. But, in place of biophilia, they propose Phytophilic Response Module. They don’t dispute that a green vegetative setting is restorative but argue that this is not necessarily hardwired in humans through evolution. Rather they suggest that the ease with which a green vegetated landscape can be visually processed is critical to restorativeness. Processing fluency is the ease with which a person feels able to process a visual stimulus or sight. Fluent processing is often accompanied by positive emotions. So, the Perceptual Fluency Account of restoration states that unthreatening natural scenes are evaluated more positively than unthreatening urban scenes because our visual system processes certain aspects of the visual structure of natural scenes more easily than those of urban scenes. Restoration, thus, lies in the ability of positive emotions to undo stress. The positive emotions are due to processing fluency rather than evolutionary memory. Processing green natural settings would require less mental effort than processing urban scenes, which is consistent with the findings within Attention Restoration Theory that viewing natural scenes is better than viewing urban scenes to restore directed attention. So, we can see that both stress reduction and attention restoration can be related to processing fluency. In proposing this, Joye and van den Berg remind us that processing fluency relates to the effortless processing that Kaplan attributed to fascination, and also to the ease and efficiency of processing natural scenes that Ulrich attributed to the evolution of the human brain and its sensory systems in natural environments.

Seasonal variation in a leafy inner Melbourne courtyard. Photo: A. Miller

So, humans find natural scenes restorative. But what within natural scenes make them easier to process, leading to stress recovery or attention restoration? The components of restorative landscapes, in a study of small parks in Oslo, Norway, conducted in 2011, were trees, grass and the presence of other people. Decorative elements such as flowers and water features were less important to people looking for somewhere to rest (Assessing restorative components of small urban parks using conjoint methodology). However, in another study published the previous year, the presence of water was restorative, even in urban scenes. In fact, built landscapes with water were as restorative as entirely green natural landscapes (Blue space: The importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes).

Joye and van den Berg suggest that it is the coherence of a landscape that is important to it being restorative. Coherence is the way that a landscape “hangs together” and can be viewed as a whole. Natural landscapes have been found to be more coherent than urban landscapes. More coherent landscapes might be easier to process visually, leading to greater processing fluency and restorativeness. Joye and van den Berg attribute this coherence to the fractal structure of natural landscapes. Fractals predominate in nature, in which patterns repeat themselves at different scales. They give the example of a tree, in which branches are scaled-down versions of the whole tree. The fractal structure of nature provides perceptual predictability. This pattern repetition facilitates fluent processing of the landscape, and fluent processing is often accompanied by positive emotions.

So, as we remain in isolation, some of us will be lucky enough to have green leafy gardens in which to restore our positive emotions and relieve mental fatigue. Those of us who live in dense urban locations might have a leafy balcony to retire to, or a window on to a park or perhaps street trees. The rest of us should not despair, though. Stress recovery and mental restoration are still possible through viewing pictures of green vegetated landscapes on our walls or even virtual reality. Whatever our circumstances and wherever we are, the restorative benefits of nature can still be enjoyed.

Meredith Dobbie
Victoria

On The Nature of Cities

Illuminating New York Harbor

Many voices. Greener cities. Better cities.

A review of Heartbeats in the Muck: The History, Sea Life, and Environment of New York Harbor, Revised Edition, by John Waldman. 2012. Fordham University Press, New York. ISBN: 9780823249855. 160 pages. 38 black and white illustrations.

New York Harbor is a murky place by nature. The mixing of fresh and salt waters, combined with a rich flow of nutrients from its watershed, makes visibility of two or three feet the norm. For a public accustomed to images sun-dappled fish and sandy bottoms, the opacity of the Harbor’s waters renders its vitality a mystery.

IMG_0032Shining a bright light on this underwater world is Heartbeats in the Muck, John Waldman’s terrific book about the teeming life below the surface and the environmental history of this most urban estuary. Having read the original shortly after it was published in 1999, I recently picked up the Revised 2012 edition. Dr. Waldman’s stories of how life in the Harbor survives and even thrives despite a variety of environmental insults are still poignant.

It is remarkable but perhaps not surprising that, despite the expansion of waterfront recreation and environmental awareness since the book was first published 14 years ago, Waldman’s “man bites dog” storyline about life in Gotham’s waterways still works. It is easy to make cocktail conversation about eels, oysters, humpback whales (whales!) and the other remarkable creatures that share New York City with us.  While more than 500 acres of new waterfront parks and have been built in this region in the 21st century, the life beneath the waves is still unknown to most New Yorkers.

But revealing this urban ecosystem offers the reader more than just good bar banter.

New York Harbor
New York Harbor

Heartbeats in the Muck is an engaging narrative for anyone interested in urban waterways in general and New York in particular. There are important lessons about the management of urban waters and shorelines. It is a great choice for a college or high school environmental science reading list. For advocates of nature and cities, the book also raises important questions of how best to raise the public’s eco-literacy and engage people in our conversations and challenges.

Heartbeats in the Muck is organized in a series of logical chapters that provide the reader with a brief natural history of the estuary, and then dives deeper into the management challenges of sustaining the Harbor’s ecology while providing for  the needs of 20 million people and a half trillion dollar economy. The book’s chapters include an overview of the complex geography of the Harbor, and then investigations of the “Vitae Marinae”, the watery “Medium” so useful for human settlement, and the physical “Vessel” defined by the Harbor’s banks and bottom. The concluding chapter provides a Waldman a chance to answer a question he hears often: “How is the Harbor doing” relative to human use past and present. The revised edition adds an epilogue that informs the reader about some developments since 2000. There is a very useful annotated bibliography. Wonderful pictures from the past and present estuary add to the text.

Heartbeats in the Muck provides a clear and readable overview of the science of the estuary. There are other books to find this science in more exacting detail. This includes The Hudson River Estuary (Cambridge University Press, 2006), a textbook edited by Waldman and Jeffrey Levinton, as well as Donald Strayer’s The Hudson Primer (University of California Press, 2012).

Egrets and the Empire State Building. Photo: Hugh Carola, Hackensack Riverkeeper
Egrets and the Empire State Building. Photo: Hugh Carola, Hackensack Riverkeeper

Terns in Jamaica Bay, with New York skyline. Photo: Don Riepe, American Littoral Society
Terns in Jamaica Bay, with New York skyline. Photo: Don Riepe, American Littoral Society

Heartbeat in the Muck is notable for providing this information in connection to the people living and working in the Harbor. From his vantage point as a senior scientist at the Hudson River Foundation, Waldman was in a unique position to work with and get to know fellow scientists, natural resource managers for public agencies, advocates, and fisherman plying the water of the estuary. (Full disclosure: the Hudson River Foundation is my current employer. Dr. Waldman is now at the City University of New York). It is their voices who tell the story of the Harbor, from the 17th century Reverend Wolley, who extolled the water’s “sweet and wholesome breath” to Alita Vaughn, a 21st Century New York City high school student, who confesses that she “never knew there was a Hudson” before arriving at the New York Harbor School on Governors Island.

Fishing in Jamaica Bay, with New York skyline. Photo: Don Riepe, American Littoral Society
Fishing in Jamaica Bay, with New York skyline. Photo: Don Riepe, American Littoral Society

In between, there are discussions of Waldman’s encounters with fisherman (legal and otherwise) looking for fish and crabs, birders documenting herons and osprey, sewage treatment plant operators, and dredgers. His telling of their stories makes real the challenges facing the harbor. Some of these are well known, such as oil spills, industrial contamination, and combined sewer overflows. Other challenges are subtler, including understanding shifting baselines in an urbanizing environment or the cascading impacts of invasive zebra mussels.

My only real complaint is that the revised edition does not fully integrate the new information into the body of the text. The revision seems for the most part to be relegated to a new epilogue. The major chapters would have benefited from updated information about oyster restoration, current Superfund efforts, and the crash of shad and herring populations (something that Waldman has documented in his more recent book Running Silver). Discussion of the impact of Hurricane Sandy and options for adapting to climate change and sea level rise are also lacking.

Despite these minor flaws, the essence of the book still shines through. The story of this most urban ecosystem told through the eyes and deeds of those actively working its waters. The book is a solid four stars-plus.

Dr. Waldman’s intent in writing the book is clear: celebrating the Harbor and its creatures, human and otherwise, in the cause of raising understanding and involvement in its management. He succeeds at that. Stories of fishing for stripers in the shadow of skyscapers are remarkable. It seems clear to me that sharing such experiences will encourage people to seek their own watery adventures and perhaps become more interested in decisions about this or any urban estuary.

In this way Heartbeats in the Muck belongs squarely within a tradition of environmental literature in the United States. Books such as Aldo Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac, The Pine Barrens by John McPhee or Robert Boyle’s The Hudson River: A Natural and Unnatural History are all landmark efforts that told stories of a place and its people, and raised consciousness about environmental concerns and ecological management.

But as great and as inspirational as such literature can be, books are not the only medium for awakening 21st century consciousness. I was recently at a meeting where a university professor confidently projected that people were no longer interested in exhibits of live animals or the kind of touch tanks familiar to marine educators. The future is digital, he stated, and the ability to stream data in visually compelling ways is what will excite. My colleagues all fired back with anecdotes and data about experiential learning. How animals can compete successfully with screen time for an eight (or 38) year old’s attention. That seeing (or hearing about) real scientists and managers at work provides a deeper understanding and engagement.

But the digital gauntlet had been thrown. We all know that the wealth of information available at one’s fingertips today creates a deep clutter that is difficult to penetrate no matter how compelling the story. And that today’s technology also offers new and more interactive means of engaging a distracted public and their political leadership.

For those working to address the special challenge of urban ecosystems, part of the answer lies in the work of architects and landscape architects adept at creating public spaces, buildings and infrastructure that reveal ecological processes. Such places, such as green infrastructure or living shorelines, enable non verbal learning where people may experience, learn about, and (hopefully) appreciate and engage in discussions of managing those processes. Working in urban settings also provides opportunities to take advantage of crowd sourcing to create 21st century almanacs, where pictures, data, and stories about the workings and wonder of urban ecosystems can be shared online and real time.

Books like Heartbeat in the Mucks will forever provide a means of inspiration (and enjoyment). I hate to think that a fine books like this one are just nostalgia, a memoir of a time that has been passed by. Perhaps what is truly different 12 years after the first edition is not the need to illuminate the life within shadowy waters, but the kind of flashlights that are available.

Rob Pirani
New York City

On The Nature of Cities

Imagine A City Where No One Sleeps Outside: Eden Village, A Model to End Homelessness

Many voices. Greener cities. Better cities.
Two major obstacles separating homelessness and a home are acquiring the first and last month’s rent required by landlords, and a deposit to a local utility company. With no rental security deposit required at Eden Village, or need for a utility deposit—as well as low rent—these obstacles are lowered.

When Dr. David and Linda Brown retired, they moved into a loft in downtown Springfield, Missouri. Very quickly they got to know and become friends with their new urban neighbors. But rather than visiting in with these neighbors in their apartments or lofts, their conversations were always on the streets, as the streets were where they lived. The Browns’ new friends were homeless. 

Soon recognizing gaps in services for their new friends, one of which was no place to be in the evening, in 2010 the Browns, along with several others from the greater Springfield community, opened The Gathering Tree. It is a place for persons who are homeless to gather in the evening to rest, have a hot cup of coffee, play a board game, watch a movie and simply enjoy fellowship with their neighbors.

After successfully running the Gathering Tree for seven years, the Browns decided to take on filling the most important gap in their friends’ lives: a safe place to lay their heads at night. Within the span of just two years from the first dollar raised to handing out the first key, the Browns, along with supporters, staff, volunteers, and community partners, had created Eden Village. Eden Village is a community of 31 tiny homes and a community support center that provides a permanent home and services to the chronically, and disabled homeless. The Gathering Tree organization in Springfield, Missouri, USA aims to create a city where, “No one sleeps outside”, through its tiny home community, Eden Village.

“The causes of homelessness cannot be successfully treated until the fundamental needs of the individual, food, clothing and shelter, are met.”
Eden Village

A model to permanently house the chronically disabled homeless

On average 210-215 people sleep outside in Springfield, Missouri each night. To begin to put an end to this, the Gathering Tree purchased an abandoned mobile home park, made improvements, and planned to place 390square-foot tiny homes on site. Twenty-five have already been completed at the time this was written. Eden Village includes a community center at its entrance, which houses a medical, and mental health clinic, mental health and social service offices, business office, community room, and kitchen. Often preyed upon, it is thought that the residents will be safer with a thumb print entry to the gated community. All visitors must be checked in as well. 

Eden Village is a master-planned, gated community to house our friends with dignity in a place they can call home, permanently. 
— Nate Schlueter, COO Eden Village

Costs are kept well below traditional models for low-income housing as infrastructure such as streets, water, sewer, and electric are already in place. Additional savings are created by placing half of the homes on one of two municipal electric meters, saving the minimum monthly hook-up charge of $19 per meter which would have been times 31 homes per month. There are also plans for a solar array large enough to meet the energy needs of the entire community which will take the monthly expenses even lower. 

Two major obstacles between the homeless and a roof over their heads are acquiring the first and last month’s rent required by landlords and a deposit to a local utility company. Saving money for these deposits is nearly impossible while living on the streets as these folks are enduring the expense of eating out every meal and other inefficient expenses to keep them alive on the streets. With no rental security deposit required at Eden Village or need for a utility deposit, as well as low rent, the obstacles are removed and it becomes easy for residents to move in immediately. 

Each resident pays $300 per month (inclusive of utilities) to live at Eden Village. All residents receive a modest social security check that more than covers the monthly rent. Paying rent is believed to give the residents a sense of ownership and dignity. This also helps to ensure the long-term sustainability of the community. 

Support for the residents equals savings for the city

Case workers and mental health professionals have been permanently assigned by a local hospital and mental health organization to Eden Village. Bringing medical professionals and case workers to the residents rather than expecting those in need to take the typical 1 ½ hour bus ride to see their case worker or to seek medical care makes it more likely they will receive the care they need in a timely manner rather than waiting until their issues are critical. 

“The onsite clinic will be able to triage and take care of things that typically take our homeless friends to the emergency room for unnecessary issues and/or triggers police, fire and ambulance services and the costs associated”, says Schlueter. 

In the long run, it will be less expensive to assign medical professionals to Eden Village. According to Schlueter, these services cost the city of Springfield upwards of $30,000 per homeless person in social resources and capital per year. 

Eden Village also enjoys local municipal support as officials and administrators see long-term savings and less demand on services.

Home Team

Building friendships. It is the Gathering Tree’s intent that those who sponsor a home create a “Home Team” for their resident. “The Home Team becomes a friend to the resident and walks through this new journey in life with the resident”, says David Brown. 

“Poverty is not just an economics issue but also a relationships issue.”
— Tim Stagner, Pastor, Vineyards Church

The first goal of the friendship is to help the resident adjust to living inside a home again. This usually takes a month for every year they have been on the streets. Most of the residents have been homeless for 5 to 10 years, so it takes a while for them to adjust. The Home Team will help guide and remind them of how to do some of the basics in the beginning like remembering to turn off the stove, doing laundry, and keeping the house clean. 

Having their basic needs met, residents are free to hope and dream again because they are out of “struggle and survival” mode. “We tell the residents that they are now CEOs of their own lives, but we are going to provide you with a board of directors”, says Schlueter.

A sense of community

The goal of building community and connecting the residents to it is layered throughout the village. Connections begin with the front porch. Each home has a covered front porch with two chairs facing the neighborhood. The porches have become integral to community building, as residents are often seen gathering on porches and waiving to neighbors. 

Picnic tables and grills alternate with raised community garden beds in between every house. Permaculture is planned and will run the length of the community. Eden village also provides residents with the opportunity for skill building and community participation. Fruit trees have been planted on site, and a community garden grows vegetables needed for the preparation of a popular dish and product produced at Eden Village: salsa. Residence are provided with classes on growing, harvesting, preparation, and canning and selling/marketing to create a dignified income for those who wish to participate. 

Planned activities in the community center are available for those interested. A community laundry facility promotes folks engaging one another in the community center. All of these elements are designed to promote getting out and connecting to the Eden Village community. 

External connections to greater Springfield begin with the home teams. Home team members can be seen visiting frequently, although Eden Village recommends visiting at least once per month.  

Architecture and Inspiration: not your typical DIY tiny home

The approach taken to provide a dignified home for the residents was to make homes look “just like ours” says Schlueter. Each home greets the internal walking street with a front porch, promoting interaction and a sense of connection to the Eden Village community. As you enter the home you arrive in an open-feeling space that holds a fully-functioning kitchen and a modest living space. The ceilings are lofted, allowing natural light to flood the space from a clerestory window above the kitchen cabinets. To the rear of the house is a hall closet, full bathroom, and lovely bedroom with a built-in dresser and two closets. The 390 square-foot tiny homes are nothing like those you see on television. The television version is much smaller and embraces quirky spaces and kitschy décor. The Eden Village homes have a few similarities to the craftsman style with a “Sears and Roebuck” approach—affordability through mass production. The homes are pre-manufactured, delivered and set up in village in the same manner in which a mobile home would be delivered. 

This old house is a classic America style. www.thisoldhouse.com

All of the homes in Eden Village are the same floor plan; however, the plan is often flipped, and each is painted differently inside and out to reflect the preferences and personality of the individual resident. As the home team gets to know the resident in the months or weeks in advance of the pre-manufactured home arriving on-site, color choices and décor become obvious.

Linda Brown coordinates furnishings and décor with donors and each resident. The homes are extremely elegant, personal, and have a comforting feeling.  Visitor reaction to the style, decor and quality of the home is overwhelmingly positive. Most articulate a desire to live in one of the homes.  

Red House. Courtsey Eden Village

Drury University’s Design-Build program studies resiliency and client-centered design

Urbana Sears house.

Drury University’s Design-Build Program was given the opportunity to study improving the resiliency of mobile homes and how architecture could support and improve the lives of the residents in Eden Village. Fourteen architecture students in their Fifth-year Explorations Studio spent eight weeks researching and designing followed by an eight-week build of a tiny home for the village. 

Paired with a future resident, the students were given a once in a lifetime experience. The chosen client was their age (22 years old), talented, intelligent, funny, and he also happened to be deaf. “MJ” had been living on the streets since he was seventeen. Getting to know MJ and realizing that the only difference between themselves and MJ was a set of circumstances, was  eye-opening, and perhaps a life-changing experience for the students. 

Drury University Jordan Valley Community Health Center Tiny House by Traci Sooter

As a result of their research, the students determined that a visual-centric approach to the design would best support a person who is deaf. Examples of this approach are constant visual control  of the interior environment and wall color choices that provide good contrast for hands while signing. Many other design decisions were made based on MJ’s needs, personal preferences, and interests, such as his love of reading. One example is the “library” of shelves in the living space that turns and transitions into a reading nook. The placement of the nook provides visual control of the front door and living space and a view out a window as well as easy viewing of the television. A custom game/dining table was designed and built by the students to be stored under the nook. 

While the front porch is the same size as all of the other homes in the village, the staircase reaches out into the community inviting guests as it wraps the front and south side. This welcoming staircase doubles as seating for passersby who want to pause and visit for a while. Planter boxes at each end of the stairs, one of which provides a lockable place for bicycle storage, create an additional sense of comforting space. 

Reading Nook & Chess table, by Traci Sooter

As Eden Village is located in “tornado alley” of the Midwestern United States, tornado resistance was an important design goal. The students detailed the wall system to meet FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) specifications for a wood storm shelter to achieve tornado resistance and remain affordable. Using typical wood framing materials has the added benefit of familiarity to local trades, and readily available materials. The home is resistant to tornadic wind loads and the impact of flying debris through the combination of the FEMA wall assembly and engineered connections from roof to ground. 

Bedroom, by Traci Sooter

The students named the home the SIGN house: Sustain, Integrate, Gather, Nestinspired by our client’s communication using American Sign Language, Eden Village’s inclusive philosophy, the visual-centric design approach, and tornado-resistant attributes. (click for video tour here)

Replicating the Eden Village model starts with the right property

The Eden Village model could be easily replicated in cities across America and the world. The most important step is choosing a property that is properly zoned. 

Bathroom, by Traci Sooter

Too often, efforts across the United States similar to Eden Village die or are stagnated for years because well-intentioned folks choose a piece of property that is not zoned correctly. Zoning hearings are then triggered and lead to official posted notices and community devised flyers mailed to neighbors that call for “you should be against this” attitudes. This often leads to the development of a “not in my backyard” movement and a fight that can create delays that can last for years or completely kill the project.  

To avoid a “not in my backyard” movement, the Gathering Tree staff researched local zoning laws and found that zoning for mobile home parks or highway commercial gave them the legal right to put in an RV (Recreational Vehicle) park. All the tiny homes in Eden Village are mobile and under 400 square feet which makes them legally a recreational vehicle, and therefore compliant for this zoning. A home near this square footage is the perfect size for a single person and has enough room for all of the amenities of a typical home: living, dining, kitchen space, bedroom, and full bathroom. 

The Gathering Tree located and purchased an abandoned, blighted, mobile home park that would hold 31 tiny homes and a community center. Although well within their rights to begin construction and start setting the mobile homes immediately, the staff of the Gathering Tree went door-to-door in the neighborhood, sharing their vision and intentions with the neighbors. The Eden Village staff were met with great enthusiasm and support from the neighborhood as the new community center and tastefully-designed tiny homes would be a great improvement to the blighted site. 

Avoiding planning and zoning hearings and a potential “not in my back yard” movement enabled Eden Village to hand out the first key to a resident after only two years from the first dollar raised. Most similar projects across the United States take eight to ten years to get off the ground. When there is not a “not in my back yard” movement people are excited about tiny homes, giving folks a second chance, and helping homeless people move into a permanent home. (Schlueter)

Community support is key to the success of  Eden Village. Funding for the community center and improvements to the infrastructure came from local and national grants. Funding for the homes came from local businesses, organizations, churches, families and individuals who sponsored the houses. 

With the exception of the Drury University house, each house is pre-manufactured and delivered to the site. Each home costs approximately $37,000 delivered to the site. (Brown)

Who lives at Eden Village? 

A resident of a Eden Village tiny home is an adult from Greene County, Missouri, USA who has an Axis I mental health diagnosis or physical disability, has a history of involvement in the Criminal Justice System, has a history of homelessness and as a result of these previous issues, are high utilizers of Green County resources such as 9-1-1 calls, ambulance services, emergency room services, police engagement, county shelter services, incarceration for violations like trespassing, vagrancy, public intoxication, panhandling, etc. Combining all of these issues results in being disqualified from the majority of all other housing options. The individuals selected to live in Eden Village truly are the most vulnerable to dying on the streets and most expensive consumers of public services in Springfield.

Residents who will be living in the Village are individuals who due, to their  background as listed above and other extenuating circumstances, are incapable of “graduating” from a program and gaining full time stable independence. Residents may live at the Village, forever, as long as they are a good neighbor to the rest of the village community. 

Eden Village is nearly complete awaiting the delivery of the last few homes. However, they already have their sights on phase two and 50 more homes for their friends. With wide spread community support and many grant sources available, Eden Village hopes to have enough housing within 10 years so that Springfield becomes a city where no one sleeps outside. (Schlueter)

Traci Sooter
Springfield

On The Nature of Cities

Imagine an “ecological certification” for urban design. What are such a certification’s key elements?

Many voices. Greener cities. Better cities.

Every month we feature a Global Roundtable in which a group of people respond to a specific question in The Nature of Cities.
show/hide list of writers
Hover over a name to see an excerpt of their response…click on the name to see their full response.

Ankia Bormans, Cape TownPerhaps a more sustainable approach would be to develop a strategy of assessment where it is ascertained how ecological considerations can enhance or assist in alleviating socio-economic issues.

Katie Coyne, AustinCertification, if fulfilled, should be more than just a trophy, but lead to greater resource efficiency, quantifiable benefits to the local community, and lower life-cycle costs to the owners of the project.

Sarah Dooling, Austin/BostonLEED v4 social equity credits broaden conventional certifications beyond technical standards, but must go further to fundamentally address persistent inequities in design among neighborhoods.

Nigel Dunnett, ScheffieldBasing ecological certification on species lists alone, as is often done in the U.K., is not good ecology, and is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of plant communities and of dynamic ecological functions.

Ana Faggi, Buenos AiresAn ecological certification for urban site design should guarantee that the project has considered the site as a living system. This could also help to create inspirational places engaging communities in valuing sustainable sites.

Sarah Hinners, Salt Lake CityNo one should assume that checking a certain number of boxes in a certification scheme assures that you’ve done all you need to do to save the world, even one project at a time.

Mark Hostetler, GainesvilleWhat happens during the construction and postconstruction phases can ruin the ecological value of ecology-sensitive designs. Current certifications schemes don’t address this.

Jason King, SeattleWhile SITES and Salmon Safe begin to address ecological issues, a true ecological certification, in the sense of one that measures actual place-specific ecological value, does not currently exist.

Marit Larson, New YorkTwo key factors should be incorporated in urban ecological urban design — and in an ecological certification program: (1) continued research on the ecological assumptions of design; (2) planning for maintenance and adaptive management.

Nina-Marie Lister, TorontoEcological design is a package deal: ecological performance plus human response — and that is more than a measure. It’s a long-term investment plus passion and care.

Travis Longcore, Los AngelesThree elements are needed for any certification: bird-friendly design; reduction in light pollution; and rules for pesticides and wildlife interactions.

Colin Meurk, Christchurch The first solution for competent decision making is for a certified ecologist to be a required member at all board and governance tables.

Diane Pataki, Salt Lake CityMany people should have a say in developing an ecological certification, but scientists need to speak up too. These days it’s ineffective at best and dangerous at worst to wait for someone else to generate the checklist for us.

Mohan Rao, BangaloreTerms like rating, ranking, and certification need to be replaced with evaluation and benchmarking. This is not merely pedantic nitpicking but an important step towards reimagining both the process and outcome.

Aditya Sood, DelhiIt can’t just be about “sites”. The impact of sites is felt not just within urban limits, but much beyond it.

David Maddox

About the Writer:
David Maddox

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.

Prompt

Urban sites gets planned. Urban sites get designed. Urban sites get built. Many of them are labelled as “sustainable”, or “ecological”. Are they so? How would we know? What do we even mean by the words sustainable and ecological, especially when put alongside the more common design descriptors relating to aesthetics and social function? Integrating these ideas suggests the need for various disciplines — ecology, landscape architecture, and planning, at least — to hash out the common principles into a shared understanding to advance evidence-based and ecologically sound design. Conversations like this can easily turn to certifications.

The Oxford Living Dictionary gives the following definition for the noun “certification”:

The action or process of providing someone or something with an official document attesting to a status or level of achievement.

A certification is a professional seal of approval, based on a set of professionally confirmed metrics. Indeed, we certify people for their expertise; there are certifications for organic produce; for fair trade coffee; and many more. And if we want to call urban sites that are designed to be “ecological” or “sustainable”, then we could certify these too. In theory, it would hold designers to a standard. It would give managers and policy makers confidence. It would put the ecology into ecological design.

That is, if we could actually agree on which underlying values and metrics should be built into such a certification. This is the conservation we are having here in this roundtable, and the responses are all over the map. What the specific metrics are, and at what phase of  a project they should be applied — even whether it is a good idea at all — are offered in diverse and sometimes provocative  answers.

Some examples of ecological design certifications already exist. LEED, owned by Green Business Certification Inc, has evolved to include more ecological and social parameters. The Sustainable SITES Initiative is a metric-based scheme that, according to their website, “ushers landscape architects, engineers and others toward practices that protect ecosystems and enhance the mosaic of benefits they continuously provide our communities…” There the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method — BREEAM — based in the U.K. Other certifications exist to focus on species or systems, such as Salmon Safe. There are some created by and for specific cities. New York has developed several certifications, including  the Waterfront Edge Design Guidelines, or WEDG (“WEDG is doing for the waterfront what LEED® has done for buildings”, says their website). The always environmentally progressive Singapore created a Landscape Excellence Assessment Framework, or LEAF). [Note: This is not meant to be a comprehensive list, just an illustrative one.] 

So, a number of certifications exist that are relevant to our theme, and each emphasizes a different but overlapping set of ecological and social parameters. Perhaps none are perfect, but all try to build some ecology into the worldview of design. Enough ecology? The right ecology? Do interdisciplinary teams lack a shared vocabulary? (Yes, as we discussed here in a previous roundtable.) What is needed to move froward?

We have gathered 15 designers and ecologists to talk about ecological design certifications. They were invited to celebrate or criticize existing systems, if they cared to. But mostly they were prompted to talk about the key principles and core metrics that would make the phrase “ecological design” harmonize the words ecological and design.

Ankia Bormans

About the Writer:
Ankia Bormans

I came to Landscape Architecture by serendipity. I have many passions and perhaps the greatest passion is curiosity, as that allows me to immerse myself in the process without bothering or caring too much for the end result.

Ankia Bormans

Site analysis and evaluation in a developing country

Mechanisms for site analysis and evaluation have been developed, with the most notable that of SITES, GBC (Australia) and LEED (USGBC). The Green Building Council of South Africa have amended and adopted GBC and have adjusted the document to apply to the environmental and building legislation of South Africa. The document allows for the assessment of a building and more importantly the assessment of a green precinct.

Perhaps a more sustainable approach would be to develop a strategy of assessment where it is ascertained how ecological considerations can enhance or assist in alleviating socio-economic issues.
Although this is a great step forward, the development of a tool to assess any site, be it a rural landscape/site or an urban landscape/site, needs to be developed even further to apply to all the constraints that face us in a developing country.

In both the cases of SITES and GBCSA, the tools are relevant and useful but fall short when it comes to addressing the social and economic issues communities are faced within a developing country such as South Africa. These communities are often faced with more immediate needs, such as ensuring community safety, providing basic needs, developing sufficient public health systems, transport systems and education. These needs take precedence, often at the cost of ecological considerations.

Although there is a section in both SITES and GBCSA relating to the ecological rehabilitation of a site and the responsibility to healthy communities, it fails to address the issues when communities are already established and are in the process of being upgraded in situ.

It is understood that better ecological design will enhance and benefit communities, however pressing socio-economic issues often take precedence to the suggested ecological issues. This is particularly true in situations where immediate remediation is required in order for the community to benefit. Transport systems are a good case in point, where an immediate need to develop a sufficient transport system will take precedence over the rehabilitation of an adjacent river corridor or the upgrade of the stormwater run-off of an existing system. There are simply not enough resources to provide both, nor is there the time to develop an overarching strategy.

One can argue that this is exactly when an ecological assessment is required, but a strategy must be developed where the assessment of the site and the needs of the people can be accommodated without compromising one or the other.

There is a perception that taking a responsible ecological approach will miraculously change the way people respond to their immediate environment; that it will make a project instantly sustainable!

Questions remain. To what extent is the landscape (and inferred ecological responsibility) the appropriate tool to act as a catalyst to social change? What issues can be resolved or assisted through the change or upgrade in the landscape rather than expecting the ecological approach and upgrade of the landscape to be the miraculous answer to the complex issues facing developing countries?

As stated before, the issue is not merely to have a system of site assessment and ecological responsiveness, but how to act on, or within a site, remain ecologically responsible, and still take the needs of the community into account.

Sustainability should not only hinge on ecological factors but should take equality and accessibility and socio-economic factors into account. Perhaps a more sustainable approach would be to develop a strategy of assessment where it is ascertained how ecological considerations can enhance or assist in alleviating socio-economic issues.

More often than not projects or situations of this nature are in the public realm. Developing a strategy where ecology “dove-tails” with socio-economic issues the question around funding is also answered to a certain extent.

I certainly do not have the perfect answer, but feel the ecological assessment of urban sites is perhaps too reductive and do not address complexities in urban developments.


Katie Coyne

About the Writer:
Katie Coyne

Katie co-leads the Urban Ecology Studio at Asakura Robinson where she is a passionate advocate for design informed by studying the overlap between social and ecological systems.

Katie Coyne

Can an ecological certification help fix the critical problems in ecological design and Planning? 

Certification should be more than just a trophy, but lead to greater resource efficiency, quantifiable benefits to the local community, and lower life-cycle costs to the owners of the project.
Before considering what the key elements of an ecological certification are, it’s important to consider what a certification is trying to accomplish. My initial concern is that some proponents of certification schemes are trying to over-simplify complex systems, minimizing the ecology of a site to a series of checkboxes evaluated by the site’s designer.

I hope not, and believe a carefully considered certification should be a catalyst for interdisciplinary collaboration, raising the bar for what we expect from ecological design and planning work. We should start the conversation about what to include in a certification by understanding the most pressing problems we’re trying to solve and prioritize from there. The following outlines are what I see as our prevailing problems in ecological design and planning today and how a certification could be a part of the solution.

1. Disconnection: There is a disconnect between scientists and designers in language, rigor, practice spaces, value systems, and access to research and literature.

If you say “transect” an ecologist will think you’re talking about field sampling, but a designer will think of a graphic, depicting variables across a spatial gradient. A lack of common ground in language translates to an inability to understand expectations of rigor across disciplines and exacerbates physical and theoretical disconnections between disciplines by creating gaps between scientists and designers even when they are both at the table. For scientists, learning to be “bilingual” means they need to be more willing to understand how landscapes hold different value for different people and that ecological value is only one piece of the pie. When designers understand the value of ecological knowledge informing practice, they are often met with literature so filled with jargon that it remains inaccessible because they often do not know how to translate technical scientific data into design principles.

2. Interdisciplinarity: There is a lack of expectation for truly interdisciplinary teams which translates to designs that do not maximize multifunctionality.

Design firms are becoming more interdisciplinary internally — a step in the right direction. Even so, scientists who practice within their field should be regular parts of design teams. Lack of interdisciplinarity means that teams miss opportunities for multifunctional design and favor focusing only on the functions the team is most knowledgeable about.

3. Scale: Many designs focus on sites but do not address neighborhood, city, or regional scales.

Landscape architects and planners are not collaborating enough with each other; and, ecologists are not expounding on the impact larger regional networks have on systems function. Many city policies promote site-scale sustainability but miss neighborhood to regional scales. Policies promoting green infrastructure (GI) decoupled from a city-wide GI plan result in piece-meal development of projects thereby promoting concentrations of GI rather than distributed networks and resulting in differential distributions of GI across socio-economic gradients.

This image shows 5 scales of green infrastructure projects in either Houston or Austin, Texas as compared to Austin’s Waller Creek Watershed. While the Mueller Development has been heralded as a prime example of networked, ecologically-informed, neighborhood-scale landscape design, the most recent widely-celebrated project is Bagby Street—a 0.62 mile green street project in Houston. Image: Katie Coyne, 2017

4. Money: Even for projects with explicit urban ecological goals, there is typically not enough budget to pay ecological consultants as part of the design team or pay for monitoring before, during, and after project implementation.

All too often, academic expertise is expected to be provided free of charge and instead of these experts being integrated parts of design teams, their involvement is reduced to a single meeting. A limited number of informed clients willing to allocate sufficient funding for a consultant team to carry out rigorous research further exacerbates this problem.

All this considered, if an ecological certification is to be successful it must:

  1. Create a common language across multiple disciplines.
  2. Find a middle ground in expectations of rigor.
  3. Create universal metrics across disciplines that provide an accurate measure of project effectiveness against project goals and other projects.
  4. Create a forum whereby scientists and designers can regularly collaborate.
  5. Promote an understanding in ecological partners that ecological value is an equal part of a larger, holistic value set.
  6. Create an open-access database of academic research “translated” for non-scientists.
  7. Mandate the inclusion of interdisciplinary team members with verifiable expertise.
  8. Mandate that designs meet a minimum level of socio-cultural and ecological multifunctionality.
  9. Provide a certification opportunity for site, neighborhood, city and regional scales.
  10. Minimize the cost burden of the certification fee by creating a variable fee structure.
  11. Mandate that academic partners are equitably compensated members of the consultant team.
  12. Mandate socio-ecological research occur before, during, and after a design or planning process.
  13. Promote grant opportunities to help fill funding gaps.
  14. Emphasize that the certification, if fulfilled, will be more than just a trophy for a project but lead to greater resource efficiency, quantifiable benefits to the local community, and lower life-cycle costs to the owners of the project.

As an accredited professional with an existing certification program called Sustainable SITES, I can say that this program hits many of the key elements above, but not all. Most notably, SITES only certifies projects when constructed, leaving the possibility of certifying something like a neighborhood scale or larger green infrastructure plan unlikely, even if there are tangible results on the ground. LEED has a good precedent for what this model could look like with their LEED – Neighborhood Development certification. LEED-ND provides certification opportunities for new land development projects or redevelopment projects containing residential uses, nonresidential uses, or a mix at any stage of the development process, from conceptual planning to construction. Hopefully, SITES will prove to be the dynamic program it needs to be, evolving with practice and the input of its interdisciplinary supporters and critics, expanding its certification offerings to encourage rigorously designed landscapes across scales and contexts, and promoting more interdisciplinary conversations with designers, ecologists, and planners.


Sarah Dooling

About the Writer:
Sarah Dooling

Sarah is an interdisciplinary urban ecologist, with 17 years of experience in urban ecology, social work, and wildlife management. She works on colaborative design projects and policy development efforts that integrate ecological design, environmental planning and social equity issues.

Sarah Dooling

Expanding the social Work of site design: Certification of design mentoring programs in LEED social equity credits

The development of cities is driven by politics and social prejudices that concentrate the creation of aesthetically pleasing and ecologically functional green spaces in wealthier neighborhoods. Site designs, likewise, are also value laden, indivisible from larger cultural and economic systems that generate inequities. However, site designs can also be tools that weaken dominant views that poor neighborhoods are negligible and that the future of community residents is pre-determined by poverty and insufficient opportunities. Many designers feel overwhelmed by the seemingly unstoppable power of speculative economics and underlying racist policies that thwart attempts among design teams to resist the machinations of urban development. One approach for mainstreaming a social justice agenda within the design process is to expand the existing social equity credits of performance-based certification programs, to include credits that award points for sustained relationships between design teams and under-served communities that create possibilities for vibrant futures.

LEED v4 social equity credits broaden conventional certifications beyond technical standards, but must go further to fundamentally address persistent inequities in design among neighborhoods.

Certification creates and enforces standards about the construction and quality of a given product. For the design professions, including ecological design and landscape architecture, certification establishes areas of expertise and skills required in making site designs. Landscape professionals have not historically been trained to integrate social equity concerns into site design plans. However, in 2014 the LEED certification program, which awards points for new construction projects for buildings and master planned neighborhoods, created three social equity credits. Last year, the Landscape Architecture Foundation published The Declaration of Concern which called for broadening the social impact of designs and mitigating root causes of degradation. Momentum is gaining to make the design professions ecologically and socially progressive.

LEED v4 social equity credits clearly broaden conventional LEED site performance metrics from building material selections and energy use to corporate cultural practices that recognize the up and downstream processes involved in creating goods and bads for people and the environment. The first credit focuses on corporate responsibility, and awards companies points if they pay the prevailing regional wage for construction workers and provide adequate safety training for workers. The second credit awards points to companies who develop a community engagement process to determine what the community’s needs are relative to the company’s project. Social responsibility in supply chains is the third credit awarded to companies that prioritize worker health and safety, uphold non-discrimination practices, establish grievance procedures and maintain a harassment-free construction site.

However, certification programs, including LEED v4, must go further in order to achieve truly progressive change in design and development practices. With a widening gap between the wealthy and the poor, the seemingly unstoppable devastation created by gentrification pressures and the unrelenting criminalization of people of color, design professionals must be creative and fearless in their commitment to creating equitable futures. What does “an equitable future” look like for an African American young man who stops attending an under-funded public school and helps pay his family’s rent with money earned by selling drugs? What does an equitable future look like for a community of mothers who worry that their children will quit school and end up in prison?

Expanding the social impacts of design means that designers become aware of and listen to community concerns. Certification programs, like LEED, have been criticized for promoting feature indicators over indicators that assess actual performance. For communities struggling with school-to-prison pipelines, the modification of the physical environment alone remains necessary yet insufficient for addressing root causes of poverty and racism. One possible approach is to establish Design Mentoring programs that partner with local public schools to work with students.

Mentors offer youth opportunities to learn design skills and to explore how modifying physical space can improve their own neighborhood. Youth offer mentors experiences about precarious living and the opportunity to understand that the future is about collaborative survival. The site design process becomes the point of departure for building relationships that heal and open up dialogues where we begin to know more about ourselves and each other.

Incorporating Design Mentoring Programs credits into LEED Social Equity credits legitimizes this broader understanding of the design process and performance goals.

Site Performance Goal: Cultivate a culture of leadership and self-respect within at-risk community youth.

Metric 1.1: Number of public school students involved in mentoring programs involving design team members.

Metric 1.2: Number of public school students who successfully complete a one-year mentoring program and admitted into a post-secondary degree program.

The Design Mentoring Program would require basic technical training, including computer design programs (e.g., InDesign, CAD), hand-drawing and model building. Students would be involved in discussions about project scoping and attend community meetings to observe the influence of political and cultural dynamics on design decisions. Design team members would sign a one-year contract for each mentee, and develop learning goals with the mentee. Participating students would present at the end of their enrollment in the Design Mentoring Program to mentors and clients. Equally important, design team members would publically present their experiences of working closely with their mentees to clients, parents and education administrators.

Creating a Design Mentoring Program is no easy task for design firms. However, such a program is an investment in the future of places and people for whom the future is bleak. Certifying something like a Design Mentoring Program mainstreams the expectation that design professions work to empower historically marginalized communities. Building resilient communities must start where people, and their biotic neighbors, are hurting. Establishing Design Mentoring Program credits establishes the site design process through which learning and leadership converge in the lives of community residents who have the most at stake in reversing the patterns of inequitable development.


Nigel Dunnett

About the Writer:
Nigel Dunnett

Nigel Dunnett is Professor of Planting Design and Urban Horticulture, University of Sheffield, UK, integrating ecology, horticulture and urban design.

Nigel Dunnett

I’m a botanist and ecologist by training and much practical field experience, but I live my life as a researcher, teacher and practitioner in the field of landscape architecture, and specifically in introducing green infrastructure into new and existing developments, often in high-density urban contexts.

Basing ecological certification on species lists alone, as is often done in the U.K., is not good ecology, and is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of plant communities and of dynamic ecological functions.

One thing that my knowledge and personal observations have taught me is that in ecology, nothing is ever black and white, and universal truths are hard to come by. Instead of binary “good and bad” concepts, ecology is really all about gradients, and most things can be seen as being on a continuum between two extreme points. Moreover, what is seen as an absolute ecological rule by scientists in one generation, is then superceded by another, as further research and insight shows that in actual fact things were never that simple in the first place. Viewed in this light, ecological certification schemes can, highly ironically, potentially cause actual ecological damage if applied in an unthinking ways.

In the UK, ecological certification (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method, or BREEAM), as applied to landscape developments rather than buildings, comes down to lists of species: it’s a tick-box approach, based on a complex formula that is based primarily on the number of native species included in a scheme. “Biodiversity” is the key word, and great weight is placed on this at the planning permission stage of developments. Of course, biodiversity itself is a rather meaningless and nebulous term, especially when non-experts are responsible for making planning decisions. Does it mean the total number of species, or does it mean how closely it meets target native plant communities, or is it all about very rare and threatened native species?

Current ecological science journals are filled with articles that are based on extreme quantitative approaches, mathematical modeling, and complex advanced statistics that are a million miles from the more descriptive origins of the science. While quantitative approaches are perfect for certification schemes that largely cover materials, life-cycle costs, energy performance, etc. for buildings, can the same sort of methodology be applied to dynamic, living systems? Too often, as in the UK example, ecological goodness is reduced to a tick-box listing of native plants — the fact that they are native (however that is defined) is seen as the key thing, regardless as to whether they are appropriate for that situation or not.

And this is the key point. The ecological environment in a city is usually far removed from that of the surrounding hinterland or countryside. Soils are highly disturbed, modified, or non-existent. On green roofs and other landscapes over structure, there is no contact with natural soils or geologies. Temperatures are elevated (often significantly so) through the heat island effect, and other microclimatic elements are also modified. It therefore makes so scientific sense whatsoever to insist upon native species of the region, or to look to plant communities that may be typical of the area, or to hark back to some pre-development ideal that represents what would have happened in a pristine world on that site, using the oft-cited argument that native species of the region are best adapted to the climate and soils of that region.

Furthermore, the true urban ecological plant communities that are truly adapted to local conditions, and fully site-specific, are the recombinant communities based upon easily dispersed species that can reach and survive on tough, inhospitable urban sites — and they are composed of alien non-natives that have found their home in the city, alongside native species. These novel ecosystems are truly urban, cosmopolitan, spontaneous, and hugely metaphorical in terms of having great cultural resonance. And yet they would never be recognized in “purist” ecological certification schemes as being a valid basis for high scoring.

I’ve worked on many projects where ecological certification has meant the removal of a wide range of species from the original proposals — species that would have brought huge ecological benefit in terms of pollinator resources, fruits and seeds, and many other benefits, purely on the basis that they were not native. I’ve been heavily involved with green roof schemes, where certification has insisted that “green roofs for biodiversity” are installed, following restrictive sets of rules, only to see them fail because plant species selection has been wholly inappropriate, again because of a purist tick-box approach.

One of the big problems with this method of certification is that ecological factors trump aesthetic ones. Where landscapes are visible and useable, they must work for people, not just for biodiversity. Ecological certification is definitely a good idea, but it must be enlightened and flexible. Basing it on species lists alone is not good ecology, and is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of plant communities and of dynamic ecological functions. We need to move from the taxonomic idea that a plant community or ecosystem is composed of a standard list of species, to a functional approach, where it is the ecological functioning of the system that is of key importance. And we need to ensure that such schemes do not do active ecological damage in terms of the those processes and functions


Ana Faggi

About the Writer:
Ana Faggi

Ana Faggi graduated in agricultural engineering, and has a Ph.D. in Forest Science, she is currently Dean of the Engineer Faculty (Flores University, Argentina). Her main research interests are in Urban Ecology and Ecological Restoration.

Ana Faggi

An ecological certification for urban site design should guarantee that the project has considered the site as a living system. As such it could also help to create inspirational places engaging communities in valuing sustainable sites.
I believe that site certification could help to move away from technocratic, design-conforming local agency standards and codes whose advances are too slow (or nonexistent) to sufficiently keep to keep up with the design challenges imposed by the Anthropocene.

Many cities around the world continue to be built with paradigms of the past that do not consider the challenges imposed by climate change, geological and geomorphologic constraints, soil quality, water sources, the loss of biodiversity and the homogenization of the landscape. An ecological certification for urban site design should guarantee that the project has considered the site as a living system. As such it could also help to create inspirational places engaging communities in valuing sustainable sites.

Therefore, an ecological certification should include indicators of natural patterns such as topography, drainage, soils, local weather, and vegetation to be layered on manmade patterns such as land uses, transportation and facilities.

To develop an ecological certification framework one should set goals and define indicators to measure performance in meeting them. To pose an example, I present in the following table a checklist for a multi-scale assessment that allows assigning values to some variables discussed by Bry Sarté (2010) in his book Sustainable Infrastructure.

Assessment for an ecological certification of urban design, following Bry Sarté (2010).

Following this example, an urban site could reach the environmental certification if it scores at least 52 points (26 variables x 2 [the score for adequate]).

Nevertheless, as each site and design are unique, variables should be discussed on site following a participatory process. Evaluating these resources as key design assets will help people meet important community values and help to protect those saving costs of impacts mitigation in the future.

In closing, one question that I want to pose is: who should be responsible for ecological design certification? The city council? Professional councils? NGOs? Universities? Who can we trust for ecological certification without making a project more expensive?

Bibliography
Bry Sarté, S. 2010. Sustainable infrastructure. The Guide to Green Engineering and Design. John Wiley & Sons,, New Jersey.


Sarah Hinners

About the Writer:
Sarah Hinners

Sarah Hinners is a landscape and urban ecologist focused on bridging the gap between academic research and real-world planning and design applications. She is the Director of Research and Conservation at Red Butte Garden and Arboretum in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Sarah Hinners

No one should assume that checking a certain number of boxes in a certification scheme assures that you’ve done all you need to do to save the world, even one project at a time.
Designing for social-ecological systems

I am generally skeptical of anything that involves a checklist, a point system, a prescribed set of “design principles” or “best practices”. At most, these things should be a starting point, not an end in themselves. On principle, I disapprove of any certification system where project planners and designers sign off and walk away, where a certification plaque is displayed somewhere and everyone goes home feeling good about themselves. I am an ecologist, and I know through the challenges of trying to convey the nature of ecological science the tenuous balance that exists between the broadly generalizable and the locally unique. Seeing the world through a lens of complex adaptive systems means that in every place nature, culture and chance events interact to produce an emergent social-ecological system that is different from anywhere else, despite the best efforts of national and international forces to make every place look the same. As the world changes around us at dizzying speed, I see the fulcrum shifting toward the local, rendering generalized recommendations less relevant.

We live in the time of a great social-ecological transition. All of the new human habitat we build for ourselves now should be preparing the next several generations for that transition and the post-transition world. Most of the certification systems that I’m familiar with (namely LEED and SITES) are focused on conservation of ecological resources and minimizing pollution. Wise use of resources and conservation of natural systems are a good and necessary step of course, but how does that prepare the next few generations of humans, other than making resources go a bit further? It just hands off the current maladaptive system, with a little less fuel to run it. What tools do they need? The majority of humans that now live within urban areas are disempowered: they are uninformed, disconnected, and vulnerable to disruptions in the complex global-scale networks of economics and infrastructure that support their lives. These networks are ultimately rooted in the biophysical world of our planet but ordinary individuals and households have essentially zero power to pull any levers to influence that system. (The power of the individual consumer as a market force is oversold in most cases.)

I argue that what the next few generations need from their human habitat is a combination of knowledge, connections, and options. That is, knowledge to understand what they see and experience, how the everyday world around them works, and their place in it. Connection, to place, to each other, to their community and to other living things. And options, to change course, to try something different, to fix something that isn’t working, to adapt to changing conditions. This is a social-ecological conceptualization of resilience in that it embeds the human designers and inhabitants of the built environment within that environment and within “nature”, particularly local nature.

Therefore, the questions I would ask (not the same as criteria but a step in that direction) are:

  1. Social-ecological integration: What human community is associated with this project and how is their ongoing relationship with this system integrated into the design?
  2. Knowledge: What knowledge or understanding will be enhanced by this project, particularly for its local human community?
  3. Connections: How does this project enhance social-ecological connections within the human community and with place?
  4. Options: How does this project build capacity for social-ecological adaptation?

One final question about certification programs concerns me. What is the moment at which certification is earned? Upon completion of construction (the norm)? One year post-construction? Five years? Fifty years? At the end of its lifespan, whatever that means? I think that certification should be given by the next generation, quite frankly, but this removes the incentive.

In the end, working as I do now in the reality of the present, I find systems like SITES useful as a reference point, and as an approach to starting a discussion that “speaks the language” of the current way of doing things. But no one should assume that by checking a certain number of boxes that you’ve done all you need to do to save the world, even one project at a time.


Mark Hostetler

About the Writer:
Mark Hostetler

Dr. Mark Hostetler conducts research and outreach on how urban landscapes could be designed and managed to conserve biodiversity. He conducts a national continuing education course on conserving biodiversity in subdivision development, and published a book, The Green Leap: A Primer for Conserving Biodiversity in Subdivision Development.

Mark Hostetler

What happens during the construction and postconstruction phases can ruin the ecological value of ecology-sensitive designs. Current certifications schemes don’t address this.
Most certifications, while raising awareness about sustainable practices, are lacking in two areas: 1) all do not (adequately) go beyond design and address long-term management, and 2) functional, biodiversity conservation measures are sorely lacking in most certifications. This published article discusses these two points in detail, and I will highlight some concerns in this blog.

Most development certifications, such as LEED Neighborhood Design, spend most of their emphasis, and point allocation, on design. For example, design points given for appropriate placement of built areas and conserved areas. This, of course, is important; one would want to conserve the most highly valued ecological areas. However, what occurs during the construction and postconstruction phases can ruin the ecological value of these conserved areas. Typically, no certification points or very few points are available to project components outside of design.

Construction impacts: In a development project, contractors and sub-contractors sculpt the land, installing transportation systems and building lots. Earthwork machines raise and lower grades to meet local building regulations. This whole process is an extreme disruption of the development site. For example, after a rain event, sediment concentrations coming from construction sites are often 10 to 20 times greater than runoff from agricultural land and 1,000 to 2,000 times greater than forest areas. A nearby, protected wetland can be heavily impacted from an influx of large amounts of sediment, chemicals, and other pollutants. As another example, large, ecologically significant trees may be marked for conservation, but construction activities can kill them. Trees and their roots are extremely vulnerable to construction activity. Vehicles that run over the root zone cause soil compaction, reducing the ability of tree roots to absorb essential nutrients and water. Around 80% of soil compaction occurs in the first pass of a vehicle. Fencing that is placed around the trunk of the tree is usually flimsy and not monitored. Where I live in Florida, heavy machinery is often parked beneath trees for shade.

Another critical issue during construction is how land clearing creates conditions where invasive exotic plants can gain a foothold. Many invasive plants are adapted to disturbance and when native vegetation is removed, and they are typically the first to spread into an area. Earthwork machines, which are transported from other construction sites, may carry invasive plant seeds and propagules to the construction areas. Once invasive plants gain access to a site, they can spread into conserved natural areas and displace native plants, ultimately impacting native plant and animal communities and ecosystem services. Careful monitoring and removal of invasive plants SHOULD occur during construction, but alas, very little attention is given in most certification programs.

Postconstruction impacts: Any sustainable development design can still fail depending on what happens during the postconstruction phase. The way people manage their homes, yards, and neighborhoods dictates how ecologically functional a development is over time. The list of inappropriate behaviors is quite extensive and includes:

  • Excessive irrigation—Watering excessively draws down local groundwater supply, causing nearby wetlands to dry up. Also, overwatering causes an increase in leaching sending large amounts of pollutants to nearby streams, lakes, and wetlands.
  •  Excessive fertilization and pesticide use—Combined with overwatering, excessive amounts of nutrients and pesticides can enter waterbodies, causing a decline in water quality.
  • Spread of invasive plants and animals—How homeowners manage their pets and decisions made on landscaping can have dramatic consequences for conserved natural areas. For example, free roaming cats can kill a surprising number of birds, lizards, and frogs. Released pets, such as Burmese pythons (Python molurus bivittatus), have caused extensive ecosystem problems (e.g., the Florida Everglades). If a homeowner purchased and installed an invasive-exotic plant (e.g., Coral Ardisia Ardisia crenata), this plant would may spread into natural areas and outcompete native vegetation.
  • Replace native landscaping with exotics—Uninformed homeowners could replace natives with exotics and this would not only reduce biodiversity, but may also increase their use of fertilizers, pesticides, and irrigation.
  • Improper management of Low Impact Development (LID) features—LID features must be properly maintained by homeowners if they are to remain effective. Permeable pavements require annual vacuuming, swales and rain gardens should not be filled in, and cars and other vehicles should not park on swales. Lack of maintenance results in a loss of soil permeability preventing water from percolating into the ground.
  • All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and foot traffic in conserved areas—If people and ATVs are not kept on designated trails, they can disrupt wildlife populations and destroy native vegetation.
  • Feeding wildlife and other human/wildlife conflicts—If people feed wildlife, wildlife species lose their fear of humans and can become a nuisance. Feeding alligators, raccoons, and squirrels may cause these animals to become aggressive. This is especially a problem with alligators, as their threat can be lethal.
  • Conflicts with natural area management practices—For example, many natural habitats (e.g., longleaf pine uplands) are maintained by prescribed fire. If homeowners are not supportive of prescribed burns, these natural areas would revert to something other than what was intended.

While design is important, I believe a majority of the total certification points should be allocated towards construction and postconstruction issues. I conclude by listing several key construction and postconstruction practices (again, taken directly from my online article). These practices should be implemented by the built environment professionals and supported by appropriate certification programs.

Construction

  • Reduction or elimination of turfgrass lawns. A number of native groundcovers and native shrubs and trees covers are available.
  • Utilization of stem wall construction for houses. Often, fill dirt is required to raise the grade of a lot to meet flood requirements. However, when using stem wall construction, only the footprint of the home is raised by the required amount to meet flooding standards. The whole site does not need to be graded; conserving topsoil on a lot-by-lot basis.
  • Establishment of clearly marked construction site access and routes that coincide with eventual streets and roads. This practice limits compaction of the soil to areas that will eventually contain roadways for the subdivision.
  • Designation of parking and stockpiling sites for vehicles and building materials. Limit and clearly mark these areas so contractors know where to park vehicles, to mix materials, and to store materials. Riparian buffers, in particular, should be off limits to vehicles and construction activities.
  • Avoidance of lowering or raising the grade around trees and natural areas as lowering the grade damages roots and raising the grade smothers them. Sturdy, protective fences must be installed at least around the dripline of trees.
  • Regular construction equipment checks for invasive-exotic material. Establish an effective monitoring system to identify and eradicate any invasive species and also to clean machines before they enter a construction site.
  • Construction and maintenance of silt fences. It only takes is one fence blow out to impact nearby wetlands.
  • Development of environmental covenants and contracts for all contractors and subcontractors. In particular, contracts should clearly identify areas and landscape features that are protected; list financial penalties for contractors that damage these areas. Even bonuses could be included where contractors do no damage to protected areas.

Postconstruction

  • Creation of strict Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions (CCRs) that address environmental practices and long-term management of yards, homes, and neighborhoods. These CCRs should describe environmental features installed on lots and shared spaces and appropriate measures to maintain these. An example of an environmental CCR can be found at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw248.
  • Develop and install an on-site education program that includes educational kiosks along primary walkways and a web site that provides detailed information about local environmental and conservation issues (see example here).
  • Establish a homeowner association that includes a sub-group to oversee conservation issues associated with built and conserved areas.
  • Create a funding source to help with the management of natural areas. Funds can be collected from homeowner association dues, home sales (and resales), and the sale of large, natural areas to land trusts with some of the funds retained for management.
  • Hire a landscaping company that understands environmental management techniques for shared common areas, such as stormwater retention ponds, forested areas, and riparian buffers.


Jason King

About the Writer:
Jason King

Jason King is a landscape architect focusing on urban ecology, practicing at GreenWorks, blogging at Landscape+Urbanism, and researching at Hidden Hydrology.

Jason King

Made to measure: Rating system for ecological performance

Certification systems are valuable drivers of change in development, shifting paradigms by offering added value to developers and owners to differentiate their products from those that merely meet codes. That said, many of these certifications continue to be primarily building-centric, including LEED, Living Building Challenge, BREEAM, and One Planet Living to name a few. The focus on building performance is laudable and have raised the bar for energy use, indoor air quality, and water usage. Additional certifications such as EnvisionSTARS and Green Roads, provide non-building project certification for infrastructure and transportation. Together, these certifications provide opportunities to address sustainability issues in a systematic way, however none of these address ecology holistically, with often simplified metrics of open space and habitat.

While SITES and Salmon Safe begin to address ecological issues, a true ecological certification, in the sense of one that measures actual place-specific ecological value, does not currently exist.
There have emerged in recent years some interesting new examples of certification that move beyond building-centric approaches, while adding a sharper focus on ecology to the mix. Sustainable Sites focuses on non-building projects, and offers new broad strategies that go beyond simple metrics to measure water, soils, vegetation, materials, and maintenance. Transdisciplinary in nature, the system developed robust metrics. For example, the biomass density index (BDI) goals for projects, provides a methodology that goes beyond a mere land cover to assign ecological values that are weighted to difference structural vegetation types.

On the west coast, Salmon Safe uses aquatic and ecosystem health for charismatic megafauna as the touch point for a certification system for parks, farms, campuses and urban sites. Focusing on water quality, habitat, urban ecosystem health, reduced use of chemical and pesticides, and proper construction practices, the system provides guidance for projects ranging from many acres to small parcels. Salmon Safe is unique in being less prescriptive, with guidelines for teams and that are evaluated by an interdisciplinary assessment team of experts in ecology, stormwater, habitat, integrated pest management (IPM), and landscape architecture convened as an assessment team to meet with project teams and evaluate success.

While SITES and Salmon Safe begin to address ecological issues, a true ecological certification, in the sense of one that measures actual place-specific ecological value, does not currently exist. The development of a good certification system requires the ability to both provide clear direction on expectations and levels of compliance with key targets and ensure a reasonably streamlined and consistent way to measure success. This is possible in ecological systems, but more difficult to translate into a metric that is widely adoptable or able to be simplified in a manner that is consistent from project to project. On one hand, a level of specialized knowledge would be needed to provide the necessary data to accomplish the measurements, for instance, using Shannon Diversity Index, conducting Floristic Quality Assessments. On the other hand, this level of rigor would ensure that projects employ a range of professional expertise (ecologist, wildlife biologists) to evaluate and measure pre- and post-development success in ways that are more scientifically rigorous. The certification system must also grapple with the dilemma of regional variation, with different bioregional variables that belie standardization due to the fact that most places have divergent ecological parameters.

At a minimum, the ecological certification system must:

  • Be specific to the ecoregion and promote the key indicators that are unique to a local condition, such as key indicator species, unique ecosystem goals, and specific challenges. The place-based approach would need to employ reviewers that are familiar with the location of the project, and
  • Have clear and measurable goals and objectives so users know the specific targets to achieve appropriate certification levels. This can take the form of a checklist approach, or a rating system via a number of points, or, use a less prescriptive approach, similar to Salmon Safe, using a panel of experts to assess project success.
  • Be developed by an interdisciplinary team, including designers, scientists, planners, and engineers. This allows for vetting and cross-pollination of ideas from multiple fields, but also ensures a combination of rigor and applicability.
  • While the challenges of creating such an ecological certification are not insignificant, the value in raising awareness and expanding our ability to measure project success becomes more vital as we address growing wicked problems. A true measure of projects with a focus on ecological health, and habitat value, provides key data in our strategies to address the impacts of climate change and resilience.


Marit Larson

About the Writer:
Marit Larson

Marit Larson is the Chief of the Natural Resources Group (NRG) at NYC Parks. NRG manages over 10,000acres of natural areas including forests, grasslands and wetlands, stormwater green infrastructure and a native plant nursery.

Marit Larson

Two key factors should be incorporated in urban ecological urban design—and in an ecological certification program: (1) continued research on the ecological assumptions of design; (2) planning for maintenance and adaptive management.
Ecological landscape design requires an understanding of how soil, hydrology and vegetation interact, and can be used to mimic, expand and protect native ecological communities, processes and functions. In urban areas, each of these basic elements of site design is usually disturbed or constrained. The extent of these constraints varies greatly, even within one city, due to different positions in the landscape, and age and types of development. An ecological certification would help planners, regulators and land managers who are trying to preserve and protect natural resources in complex urban environments.

Two examples in New York City show how ecological certifications, or variants thereof, are being tested. One is the Waterfront Edge Design Guidelines (WEDG), which was developed by the Waterfront Alliance to promote a resilient and accessible waterfront in a city with 520 miles (840 km) of shoreline. A large portion of the city waterfront is continuously in some state of construction or repair, as aged infrastructure is replaced and industrial zones on the water’s edge are repurposed. Though WEDG does not focus entirely on ecology — other principles include equity, community input, and access — it provides a good example of an ecological credit system for design. After all, there are few locations in a dense urban area where ecological objectives are the only considerations. In WEDG, ecological design credits are associated with a range of design actions, according to specific waterfront types (residential / commercial; parkland; industrial). Some of the key ecological design components in WEDG include: conduct a thorough site assessment; avoid impact to existing habitat; remove artificial fill or structures; maximize habitat complexity; utilize native vegetation; plan for invasive plant removal and control; minimize stormwater runoff and maximize detention; and use natural materials.

A second example is the effort under way by the New York City Department of City Planning to update rules in the Special Natural Area Districts (SNAD), which were established to manage construction in environmentally sensitive areas. Special districts, which cover about 30 sq mi (78 sq km), were designated to preserve the diversity and integrity of native habitats, as well as neighborhood character. Over the decades, however, the outcomes for both protection of natural features and construction have been unreliable. To be successful, this planning effort needs to present clear criteria for design and construction that are not too onerous to follow, particularly for small homeowners making renovations.

The new SNAD requirements include key elements for ecological site design such as: assessment of current site conditions (wetland boundaries, vegetation communities, rare plants, invasive species, and other features); native planting that provides biodiversity, connectivity, and structural complexity; reduction of impervious area; management of stormwater; and invasive plant control. The applicant will have access to reference information such as site-appropriate vegetation community types, plants species lists, and priority planting locations that will facilitate the process for both applicants and reviewers. One question is how to ensure developers can access the expertise needed to develop and ecologically sensitive design, without posing an excess burdens, particularly to small property owners. An ecological certification process could eventually provide a resource to help landowners understand expectations and find expert advice.

Several common elements of ecological design from both these New York City examples can generate quantitative (or semi-quantitative) metrics. Hydrologic performance, for example, can be measured by a comparison of stormwater runoff at a site under natural vegetated compared to built conditions. Plant selection criteria can include percentage of native species, numbers of species, and forms of species. Use of natural materials can be evaluated in volume, or area. These or other metric can be compared across ecological certification programs over time to assess how effective they are in producing desired outcomes of protecting natural resource over time.

Two more key factors should be incorporated in urban ecological urban design — and in an ecological certification program. One is science and research: whenever possible, assumptions about what ecological benefit a specific design element brings should be tested and quantified. The other is planning for maintenance and adaptive management. In theory, a sustainable design requires little maintenance. In practice, however, in an urban area, many sites are vulnerable to environmental stressors, such as invasive species and pollutants, as well as disturbance — if not directly on the site then on adjacent sites, which can add to more environmental stressors. An ecological certification program can help assure that these factors, which are usually afterthoughts, are seen as integral to effective ecological design.


Nina-Marie Lister

About the Writer:
Nina-Marie Lister

Nina-Marie Lister is Graduate Program Director and Associate Professor in the School of Urban + Regional Planning at Ryerson University in Toronto.

Nina-Marie Lister

Ecological Design-By-Numbers: Metrics for Success or Measuring Minutiae?

What is the measure of good ecological design? Is it in litres, degrees, and watts, or in happiness, heartbeats, and scent? Humans can establish measures for anything, and with it, as the maxim goes, we can know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Certification systems abound, and more recently, several new ones that establish criteria and associated performance measures for sustainability. But do they advance ecological design or fall short?

Ecological design is a package deal: ecological performance plus human response — and that is more than a measure. It’s a long-term investment plus passion and care.
Sym Van der Ryn and Stuart Cowan first described ecological design in 1996 as design that minimizes environmental harm while integrating itself with living processes*. This definition implies performance, which certification systems purport to measure. From ISO systems of manufacturing to LEED Green Buildings, rating and certification systems posit measures for success of materials, building and landscape projects; they are targeted at improving economic as well as environmental and health performance. In the context of landscape and environment, a new player on the ratings circuit has been the Sustainable SITES Initiative, a rating and certification system intended to evaluate the sustainability of landscape designs. Over the last decade, the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) developed the SITES Initiative through a partnership with the University of Texas at Austin, using the Ladybird Johnston Wildflower Garden as a test case. Grounded in a framework of sustainable principles, SITES developed a variety of specific performance measures for design and construction practices that protect ecosystems and enhance their ecological benefits — such as climate regulation, carbon storage and flood mitigation. SITES-certified landscape designs are those that reduce water and energy consumption; filter and reduce stormwater runoff; provide and enhance wildlife habitat; improve air quality; improve human health; and increase outdoor recreation opportunities. The resulting rating system, now in its second version, was recently acquired by the U.S. Green Building Council, which also administers the LEED rating system for buildings. (See more here and here.)

But none of these factors and measures tell us about the quality and impacts of design on the human user (and they certainly don’t address perceptions of non-humans). How should ecologically designed projects look? What responses should they evoke? How should they make us feel? Should they inspire? Create joy? Be beautiful? These outcomes are both the essence and the nuances of design; while related to performance, some would argue, the emergent qualities of design cannot usefully be reduced to, let alone assessed by a single measure. As Ursula Franklin wryly observed, that which is easiest to measure often reveals the least. The challenge for certification and rating systems that relate to ecological design for landscapes and living systems is to integrate rather than reduce. Akin to living systems themselves, a robust rating system needs more than performance measures — it needs monitoring and assessment of human use, the quality of changes over time, adaptation and regeneration, and yes, emergence through design. Such complexity is hard to imagine, and certainly beyond the scope of a single profession or discipline. Rather, it suggests value in exploring processes by which we design, e.g. embracing active transdisciplinarity to develop integrated systems of knowledge, evaluation and monitoring. As useful as it can be to evaluate and rate performance, much depends on which performances are evaluated, and to what ends. Measuring changes in human attitude and beliefs is more challenging than measuring behaviour for example — but these are often connected phenomena and the link between them is essential to learning, and certainly to adaptation and response. When we measure and assess human responses to ecologically designed landscapes (e.g. parks in our cities) we learn much that can inform and improve future designs.

Although SITES is grounded in broad principles of sustainability, like most rating systems, it is silent on the matter of how a landscape should look, how it should make humans feel, or the response it should evoke. Design, at its core, is the act of creation through deliberate direction and intention. In an ecological context, this act embraces the processes of life itself: unfolding, evolving and adapting. Surely this integrative act is more than the sum of performance measures. To be clear, SITES and other related certification systems are positive steps to mainstreaming sustainability through tangible projects and markets, while cultivating political and public acceptance of ecological design. In an era of climate change and a growing challenge to design with nature in our cities, the development of resilient public landscapes demands rigourous evidence-based design with effective performance measures. But arguably more importantly, resilient ecological design will rest on the nuanced and critical social assessment of human use and response to the landscapes that ultimately sustain us. Ecological design is a package deal: performance plus response — and that is more than a measure. It’s a long-term investment plus passion and care.

*Van der Ryn, S & Cowan, S. 1996. Ecological Design. Washington: Island Press.


Travis Longcore

About the Writer:
Travis Longcore

Travis Longcore studies nature and cities. He teaches students at the University of Southern California in the Master of Landscape Architecture and B.S. in GeoDesign programs.

Travis Longcore

Wildlife interactions should be incorporated into ecological site certification

To imagine an ecological certification for urban site design requires development or establishment of a normative definition for ecology. The study of ecology, in theory, is about understanding how interrelated systems work and does not set out aspirational goals, even though many ecologists have such goals. In everyday language, however, “ecological” tends to be used to distinguish a concern for other species and their habitats in addition to concerns that are more anthropocentric. In that usage, an ecological certification could be useful in that it welcomes and encourages consideration of other species and their needs within human settlements. It is necessary because one could have designs that are at the pinnacle of energy efficiency and yet are devoid of life and detrimental to other species (e.g., bird-killing glass boxes with no landscaping so as to avoid the water use).

Three elements are needed for any certification: bird-friendly design; reduction in light pollution; and rules for pesticides and wildlife interactions.
The City Biodiversity Index (aka Singapore Index) is a useful tool to encourage thinking about other species and their needs at the municipal scale. It focuses on establishing a baseline of native species in some required and other user-specified categories and encourages municipalities to think about how biodiversity is integrated into local government and educational systems. It is not, however, well suited to guide project-level assessments and would cause only frustration if applied in that manner. Rather, it provides incentives for cities to create local biodiversity action plans that might include recommendations for project-level features that would encourage native biodiversity in a locally appropriate manner (for which the City would then improve its score on the Index). The SITES scorecard is an appropriate project-level tool for site design and contains several attributes that would be part of an ecological site certification: protect wetlands, floodplain function, and threatened species; conserve and use native plants, special status vegetation, and soils; and reduce light pollution. The SITES program stops short of making deeper and more explicit connections to native wildlife and their habitats and some point categories are couched in predominantly human terms (e.g., reduce light pollution).

For urban sites, an ecological certification that has co-existence with and promotion of native biodiversity could have many metrics. I offer three for this discussion.

First, bird-friendly design is essential, because even the most urban site will have some native bird species and could have more with some thought. The literature on avoiding bird deaths at windows is large and growing and detailed guidelines are available and have been adopted by major jurisdictions in the United States. Once collision hazards are addressed, site design can encourage bird use through provision of native plants, which provide needed food in the form of insects, seeds, and berries. Bird conservation science now identifies survival during the migratory period as critical to the future of many birds of forests and grasslands and designing bird-friendly cities is one way to help conserve birds across the continents.

Second, sophisticated guidance for reducing light pollution is needed in a manner that recognizes how differently other species perceive and react to light at night compared with humans. An ecologically certified site would minimize lighting to the times and places necessary, use the lowest possible illumination necessary, and avoid the shorter wavelengths of light (blue, violet, ultraviolet) that contribute most the physiological disruption of circadian rhythms and alterations in behavior such as insect attraction. “Dark-sky” recommendations are a good start in this direction, but are insufficient to address ecological concerns.

Third, any ecological certification of an urban place needs to have an enforceable set of regulations that govern interactions with wildlife. Urban wildlife specialists have clear recommendations that designers and project planners should incorporate from the start. For just a few examples: do not use anticoagulant rodenticides (they kill mammalian and avian predators); do not use neonicotinoid pesticides (they kill pollinators and birds); do not allow feeding of mammals (that includes unintentional feeding through unsecured trash and intentional feeding, such as feeding outdoor cats, which increases their concentrations and results in conflicts with predators such as coyotes); and remove stray and feral animals. Long-term ecological value depends on how a site is managed, and designers and planners can build that management into the site and set good standards at the outset.

These and other elements as a certification could provide benchmarks for designers to design better for native biodiversity in cities in a way that I believe would measurably improve outcomes in this area over other available certification schemes.


Colin Meurk

About the Writer:
Colin Meurk

Dr Colin Meurk, ONZM, is an Associate at Manaaki Whenua, a NZ government research institute specialising in characterisation, understanding and sustainable use of terrestrial resources. He holds adjunct positions at Canterbury and Lincoln Universities. His interests are applied biogeography, ecological restoration and design, landscape dynamics, urban ecology, conservation biology, and citizen science.

Colin Meurk

The profession of ecology is in a state of crisis — dismissed often as the preoccupation of “greenies” and “tree-huggers”, and yet an ecological lens and ecologically informed decisions about managing the planet and urban environments has probably never been more crucial. Ecology brings a particular holistic approach to analysing issues and problems and devising innovative, joined-up solutions. As they say, some of my best friends are landscape architects, ecological engineers, planners, environmental lawyers, etc., but unfortunately, at least in New Zealand, ecology is not part of their curriculum. And yet these other professions have largely usurped the role of ecology in urban planning and design with their powerful mantras of control, order, safety, colour, fashionable imagery, public health, and 3-D fly through graphics.

The first solution for competent decision making is for a certified ecologist to be a required member at all board and governance tables.
This imbalance can result in costly installations and designs devoid of meaning or historic connection and worst of all may be unsustainable because of lack of basic ecological knowledge about plant succession and the role of stress and disturbance in dictating vegetation potential and management. This feature (visible connection of landscape to history) has been described in the landscape architecture profession as “legibility”. Ironically, the profession that gave rise to this concept sometimes has to be reminded! Despite the emergence, in the 1990s, of the Triple Bottom Line concept to highlight the urgent need for at least three pillars of sustainability (business, sociology, ecology) to be part of decision-making, ecology has remained a poor cousin to the other, taken for granted, considerations. How many governments, boards, committees, and executives have an ecologist as a permanent member? No, ecology is seen as “common knowledge” so therefore why would you need an expert? As I’ve been told by an executive, “our board has very talented and experienced people, and when we have an environmental problem, we know to come and ask”. I said to him, “ok how about if the whole board was very experienced and talented ecologists, and when we have a business or engineering problem we know to come and ask”. While this inversion is somewhat funny, there is no requirement to change, and so we have the same kind of gate keepers who “don’t know that they don’t know” deciding when we need some green fluff added to the grand plan.

This is a slight deviation from ecological certification, but it is one thing to be certified, and quite another for there to be a protocol/rule/law in place that requires ecological input as an equal partner with the other pillars. This is a “metric” that needs to be applied to city hall and business rather than to ecologists. That is, decision-making bodies that evaluate or permit land management, natural values, development, etc., shall have equal representation of business/economics, sociology (in the broad sense, including cultural considerations and aesthetics), and ecology (may include environmental engineering but must have an experienced, ecosystem scale ecologist). Once this is achieved, we can be confident that more integrative, inclusive and sustainable decisions will be made.

So the first solution for competent decision making is for a certified ecologist to be a required member at all board and governance tables—to spot the risks and define the opportunities at an early stage of planning, to save wasting resources and to capture benefits. Ecology should be the hand-maiden of all site evaluation (making sure there isn’t some rare thing being sacrificed for someone’s “amazing” creation), planning, design (using appropriate species in appropriate/sustainable ways), AND implementation. Having an ecologist on all boards is not pretending that they are “neutral”, but it is acknowledging that the business and social representatives aren’t neutral either. It is critical to have an advocate defending all the values at the co-creation stage, not as a “nice-to-have” after thought.

Certification: Boards and clients need to have faith in the integrity and knowledge of the professionals working for them. So some standards are needed. New Zealand does have ecological members of environment courts, but more often than not they are people who have a good understanding of environmental law rather than ecology per se. Maybe I can elaborate on their standards later.

Criteria: Apart from having holistic credentials and expertise in given subfields of ecology, there is a need to demonstrate that one is capable of considering, evaluating and accommodating a broad cross-section of values and needs, and importantly is widely networked to all the sub-disciplines so that opinion can be sought from other appropriate expertise when required. Well, that sounds a bit like the gate keeper again, but at least it is a little closer to the coal face. Attention to minutiae as well as the big picture is essential, as is understanding the difference between a natural ecosystem and a restored or offset one. I’m somewhat protecting my own situation here — decades of experience (based on careful observation of nature in my own country and internationally), but inevitably old school in terms of modern statistical techniques. It seems that paper qualification is one measure, but years of (field) experience should also count.

So, paper qualifications, at least 5 years of field experience (perhaps engaged with community groups), publications, demonstration of wide multi-disciplinary networks, and references from peers and former clients/employees should be in the mix.


Diane Pataki

About the Writer:
Diane Pataki

Diane Pataki is a Professor of Biological Sciences, an Adjunct Professor of City & Metropolitan Planning, and Associate Vice President for Research at the University of Utah. She studies the role of urban landscaping and forestry in the socioecology of cities.]

Diane Pataki

Many people should have a say in developing an ecological certification, but scientists need to speak up too. These days it’s ineffective at best and dangerous at worst to wait for someone else to generate the checklist for us.
Three components (and caveats) of an ecological certification for urban site design

Just the other day I was in a dissertation defense quizzing a student on the definition of the term ecology. This led a colleague from another discipline to suggest that ecological scientists should stop claiming “ownership” of the term ecology, since the word is now used by many different groups to mean many different things. That’s the first issue that comes to mind when thinking about the question of ecological certification. It’s undoubtedly true that even within the intersecting fields of urban ecology, planning, and design, “ecological” means different things to different people.

Which brings me to my first concern about ecological certification:

1) We’ll actually have to agree on what we mean by ecological

Sometimes the term is highly normative, meaning something that’s more “natural” in some sense and therefore basically “good”. Scientists tend to bristle at the suggestion that a particular ecosystem can be “good” or “bad” (although if you scratch at the surface there’s a whole value system embedded in even the most “scientific” ecology). Similarly, my colleagues from the social and environmental sciences often use words like “interconnectedness” and “holistic” to describe places and ideas that are more ecological. This bears some relationship to the ways in which scientists envision ecology at the systems-level, though still, sometimes these words also give me pause, scientifically. Is everything really connected? Everything, in a literal sense? If so, it might be a tall order to understand all of these connections, and an even taller order to account for them explicitly in site design.

Nevertheless, there is some commonality across disciplines in the idea of systems interconnected with each other, and with the outside world. So one element of an ecological certification would probably be about connected-ness, both internally and to the external environment. Understanding how a site is connected to outside systems such as air, water, wildlife habitat, other natural resources, and hopefully the wellbeing of people is tractable, and could bring together several uses of the term “ecology”.

2) We need to talk about who gets to decide what’s important, and who’s willing to decide

This connectedness component presents its own problem though, in that some kind of prioritization is necessary to decide which relationships we should focus on. It’s not uncommon in certifications to generate some kind of checklist that contains all of the possible options we can think of, and then to let someone else decide what’s important: some group of stakeholders, clients, policymakers, or “the community” (which opens up a host of questions about how and why certain members of the community were consulted).

My colleagues on the social science side of the aisle are also quick to point out dynamics of power that determine who gets a seat at the table in deciding the components of ecological certification. The regulatory environment is hugely influential as well. In my experience in U.S. cities, environmental initiatives are still heavily influenced by the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, and their accompanying mandates to meet standards for the criteria air pollutants and Total Daily Maximum Loads. These were both critically important pieces of legislation that should be protected (as they are currently in some danger).

However, they’re also more than four decades old. It’s striking to me that in the last 45 years, we’ve made relatively little progress in coming to a consensus about basic metrics of environmental standards that facilitate human health outside of these federal mandates. Even coordinated efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are stalled in the U.S. at the federal level (though admittedly much less so in the rest of the world). Perhaps the accelerating political actions of U.S. scientists responding to federal inaction will finally spur some scientific consensus on environmental metrics and desired outcomes that government mandates cannot. Because while many diverse stakeholders and community members must have a say in developing an ecological certification, scientists need to speak up too. These days it’s ineffective at best and dangerous at worst to wait for someone else to generate the checklist for us.

3) We need to be willing to do this the hard way, not the easy way

So that said, I think full greenhouse gas accounting needs to be part of an ecological certification. While many carbon accounting protocols have been developed for regulatory purposes, urban landscapes have unique issues that differ significantly from, say, avoiding deforestation in the tropics. In my opinion, too many projects seek to claim carbon “credits” either formally or informally by adding up the things that are easy to add, such as carbon contained in soils and trees.

But the climate system is not a carbon calculator. It sees everything: the fossil fuel emissions generated by an offsite nursery to grow the plants; the energy used to pump, treat, and spread irrigation water; the energy consumption and nitrous oxide emissions associated with inorganic fertilizer; and the emissions associated with excavation, transporting equipment, and maintenance.

If we want to promote sites that really contribute to solving climate change we need to do full life cycle accounting of landscapes, in the same way that the full life cycle of products is now commonly accounted for. It will take more information than is generally available for most projects, but it’s still tractable, and it’s the only way to know we’re making real progress in meeting climate goals through landscape projects.


Mohan Rao

About the Writer:
Mohan Rao

Mohan S Rao, an Environmental Design & Landscape Architecture professional, is the principal designer of the leading multi-disciplinary consultancy practice, Integrated Design (INDÉ), based in Bangalore, India

Mohan Rao

Ecological certification for Urban Site design – a really bad idea!!

The idea of a certification or rating is premised on the hypothesis that there is a single perfect solution against which a given intervention / proposal is weighed. One has to only examine the well-meaning but misplaced idea of certification prevalent in buildings. Focused on efficiency, the system has effectively flattened the very nature of built environment across the globe. In its efforts to standardize, the system has not only become highly prescriptive, but more dangerously, has reduced all built form into simplistic templates.

Terms like rating, ranking, and certification need to be replaced with evaluation and benchmarking. This is not merely pedantic nitpicking but an important step towards reimagining both the process and outcome.
If an ecological certification is deemed necessary, the first question would be: Why? What is the need for such a certification and what purpose does it serve? This may seem to be a moot point, but it is critical examine this before developing such a system. Is the purpose to conserve a sensitive ecology, maximize ecosystem services, reduce risk and/or increase resilience, perhaps all of these? Any intervention — urban or otherwise — invariably impacts the site, often in irreversible ways and one of the purposes of an ecological rating would be to ensure minimal damage to the environment. Current processes of certification are extremely building centric and thus have very limited applicability to natural processes.

In other words, if the intent is to mimic LEED-like certification for ecological performance, then yes — it is a bad idea. However, if the intent is to enable a framework for assessment of site level interventions for their ecological performance, the way to go would be creation of comprehensive benchmarking processes as against a mere certification akin to LEED. This is all the more critical given the negative experience of building certification.

An ecological evaluation process would have three necessary characteristics: diversity, prioritization, and temporality; aspects entirely missing from processes such as LEED.

Diversity is obvious, since the process needs to address the immense diversity of ecological processes. Even assuming that this would not be a global standard but one tailored to each country / region, the process would still encounter a wide variation in ecological parameters. One can see immense variation in soil quality, stratification, topography, etc., between sites separated by even a few kilometers.

Prioritisation is a bit more difficult since it may not be strictly objective. Even within a small geo-climatic context, behavior of natural elements and their interaction with each other is complex and varied. For example, a standard framework like zero-discharge cannot be universally applied across contexts. One will have to go beyond urban drainage demands and factor in ecological base flows upstream and downstream and to address capacity and resilience. The other aspect of prioritization comes to the fore when socio-cultural layers are laid over the site and context. The process should allow for subjective prioritization of issues based on both the natural and development context of the site. While not strictly technical, these parameters often determine the success or failure of an intervention.

Temporality is the ability to be able to not only interpret the process and outcome but also allow for dynamic changes in the system’s behavior over time. For example, one may develop a “manicured” landscape as a short-term measure to address erosion and dust but the desired outcome in the long term may be a gradual progression to natural landscapes. It is important to note that unlike building centric rating systems that are concerned with a product, an ecological evaluation process has to address the behavior of and changes in a natural system over time. Temporality becomes all the more critical if one has to integrate climate change challenges over the lifecycle of the intervention.

The ecological benchmarking process should necessarily address three broad aspects: Capacity, Flows and Resilience.

  • Capacity, or Natural Capacity, is the intrinsic capability of the system for generating, sequestering and/or recycling a given resource. This will be a factor of both geological and atmospheric agents to establish capacity of the site with respect to critical resources: water, biodiversity, nutrition, carbon, micronutrients, etc.
  • Resource Flow captures all the resources that are part of the natural system including key elements such as carbon, phosphorous, nitrogen, etc.
  • Resilience of the system maps key parameters likely to render the system vulnerable and disrupt its equilibrium.

The central idea of the ecological evaluation process would be to ascertain the changes in natural processes of the site and the extent to which the final product would enhance, support or disrupt these processes. Only when the benchmarking process is well established can the proposed intervention be evaluated for its impact on the site. This would imply a non-linear evaluation of each aspect of the development, unlike the silo approach seen in LEED-like rating systems. Based on the need, context and expected outcome, the intervention can be evaluated for overall performance. It is important to distinguish from conventional rating processes where above-average performance in one criterion can be offset by suboptimal performance in another (extremely good energy efficiency with very low water conservation, for example).

A critical difference between an ecological evaluation and LEED-like rating systems would be the benchmark. While building-centric conventional rating systems rely on the norm or business-as-usual models for comparison, an ecological evaluation system would derive benchmarks based on natural processes. An intervention would be evaluated for not how it compares with other conventional developments but on the degree of change it brings to the site in its natural state and manner in which that change is managed.

To illustrate one possible way in which ecological ratings may be actualised, one could examine water. LEED-like systems rate an intervention based on the idea of efficiency: reduction in demand, extent of recycling, quality of wastewater output, water harvesting, etc. The entire understanding of water here is one of demand management within piped networks. An ecological evaluation would encompass the complete water cycle: precipitation, run-off, atmospheric humidity, soil moisture, deep aquifer, fossil waters, embedded water in biotic systems, etc. The evaluation process would use the natural capacity of site and systems towards resource management and establish a baseline against which the proposed intervention is examined. The three characteristics of the benchmarking process — diversity, prioritization, temporality — will help address the changed hydrological cycle within the given context and develop strategies based on site specific priorities and over time. It should be noted that unlike LEED-like systems, development strategies are neither static nor dependent on the nature of development (industrial, housing, etc.), but are dynamic and defined by the intrinsic natural capacity of the site. (A part of this process is illustrated in the image below).

To address the original provocation — of ecological certification as a bad idea — the focus is on evaluation based on rigorous benchmarking of ecological processes and not comparative ranking and rating of interventions. Terms like rating, ranking, and certification need to be replaced with evaluation and benchmarking. This is not merely pedantic nitpicking but an important step towards reimagining both the process and outcome.

The process outlined above is by no means comprehensive or conclusive. It captures some of the essential elements I have used in my own work across diverse geographies over the last two decades. And it should be pointed out that the framework undergoes continuous changes when applied to a new site!

Credit: Mohan Rao. Click on the image to expand it.



Aditya Sood

About the Writer:
Aditya Sood

Aditya Sood has a diverse research and professional experience in water resource management, civil and environmental engineering, and in software development. He enjoys hiking, bird watching, photography, and occasional dabbling in oil paints.

Aditya Sood

It can’t just be about small sites. The impact of sites is felt not just within urban limits but much beyond it.
As the world population becomes more urbanized, urban centres will play a critical role in our quest for sustainable development. By its very nature, an urban centre is a densely-populated area with high per capita income and high consumption patterns. Hence its footprint goes much beyond its boundaries. The resources required to meet the demands of the population in an urban centre and the impact of waste generated by urban centres extend thousands of miles outside its boundaries. Sometimes the negative externalities that result cannot be directly linked to cities. It is also critical to look at the environment within the urban centres, since that impacts the wellbeing and heath of urban residents (and hence of the majority world population). Improving resource use within urban centres also helps in reducing conflict between urban and rural sectors. Efficient resource use within urban centres puts less pressure on rural sectors and forests, reduces pollution and hence is also beneficial for conservation.

Certification to a city cannot be a single matrix. It needs to incorporate different aspects of the city. I would group “Ecological Certification” for cities into 2 categories:

Resource Use Certification
This certification helps control the influence of cities beyond their boundaries.

  • Minimal waste: The goal of the city should be towards zero waste. This implies that all the components of a product produced are reused, thus leaving nothing for landfills. This requires a product life-cycle redesign in a way that allows for the reuse of its components. Since most of the industries are in cities, cities can play a significant role in changing the industry practices with the help of incentives and disincentives. The cities could also set up recycling units with active participation from industry.
  • Small footprint: Footprint implies amount of land (or atmosphere) required to sustain the use of natural resources. Cities consume food and water and pollute air and water. How far these impacts go and how large these areas are, should be part of the certification. Cities should encourage urban/peri-urban agriculture and buy food items grown locally or from nearby areas. Water should not be transported from large distances. Instead there should be well developed rainwater harvesting systems, water reuse mechanisms and proper use and management of local groundwater. Strict regulations should be in place for reducing air pollution. The wastewater generated should be treated and reused.
  • Energy self-sufficiency: Cities are the largest consumers of energy. Energy production is the main driver of climate change. Certification should be given based on how many of the buildings in city are energy efficient (LEED certification) and how much of the demand is being met from within city through renewable energy – such as building-integrated solar systems, geothermal, wind etc.
  • Stormwater management: The current goal of building stormwater drainage systems is to remove water immediately from the city through a network of pipes to a river or creek nearby. This is very detrimental to the health of the river or creek. The impervious surface created by a city increases runoff to rivers during storm events and reduces flow in dry season — both of which impact the aquatic biodiversity. With proper combination of decentralized stormwater management systems, storms should be managed to have minimum impact on natural river flows.

City Planning Certification
This certification is more to control a city’s impact within its boundaries.

  • Public transport: A city requires a good network of comfortable public transport with last-mile connectivity that encourages people to not use individual vehicles for their daily commute. This will help to decongest a city, reduce energy consumption, reduce environmental pollution, and reduce stress. There should be infrastructure and encouragement from the city to make people cycle or walk to nearby destinations.
  • Integration of green and grey infrastructure: As part of certification, there should be a way to reward a city for its emphasis on green infrastructure. For example, wastewater can be treated with a conventional system of sewage treatment plants or it can be done as a combination of conventional with green treatment (such as built wetlands).
  • Mixed development: Segregated development of society by residential, business areas and shopping areas lead to large travelling distances for work and even small needs. There should be proper integration of different categories of buildings to reduce daily travel.
  • People-friendly spaces: There could be other interventions such as parks, tree cover, car free plazas etc., which could enhance the living experience within a city.
  • Less noise pollution: A city should also focus on reducing noise pollution to bring down stress levels. Some examples: keeping railway lines away from residential areas, restrictions on use of loud speakers, proper design of expressways near residences.