What if our cities were designed for wildlife as well as people?
On a warm evening in May, swifts scream over rooftops, chasing insects above the traffic. A fox slips along a garden wall while gulls squabble on a supermarket roof. We tend to treat these animals as visitors. But they're residents too, living alongside us in places designed for people.
This article explores the concept of "multispecies justice" in urban planning, which challenges the traditional approach of designing cities primarily for human benefit. As more people live in urban areas and cities expand further into wildlife habitats, it's essential to consider the interests of the many species that already call these cities home.
The article examines various approaches to integrating nature into urban planning, such as environmental offsetting, sustainable development, and nature-based solutions like green roofs, street trees, and wetlands.
The research reveals that while these approaches effectively demonstrate how nature benefits people, they often fail to acknowledge the rights and interests of other species. This leads to situations where a tree is removed due to its inability to provide enough shade, or a wetland is sacrificed for development because it has become more valuable for other purposes.
The article introduces the idea of multispecies justice, which posits that animals, plants, and ecosystems are co-inhabitants of our shared cities, deserving of equal consideration in urban planning decisions. This perspective doesn't necessitate turning cities into wildlife reserves but encourages planners to think about the responsibilities we have towards the species coexisting with us.
For instance, before restoring a river, planners should assess whether the proposed changes will create conditions favorable for fish and frogs, and consider the impact of new roads on wildlife routes. They could also designate certain areas as off-limits during breeding seasons.
Examples of governments experimenting with this approach are provided, including New Zealand's recognition of the Whanganui River as a legal person with appointed guardians, and Colombia's Atrato River being granted rights in 2016. While these cases present unique challenges in implementation, they illustrate a different way of thinking about nature's value beyond its benefits to humans.
The article concludes by emphasizing the need to make the conflicts between human and wildlife interests more explicit, as urban planning often defaults to prioritizing human needs. Cities are already shared habitats, and it's time for planners to question whether they will continue designing cities primarily around human requirements or begin treating the flourishing of other species as a legitimate consideration in its own right.
Written by urgent.news from Phys.org's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
