Restoration and the City: looking for a framework for social and ecological restoration
1
Landcare Research , PO Box 40, Lincoln,
New Zealand
2
Community & Environment Consultancy, 1/68a Puriri Street,
Riccarton, Christchurch 8004, New Zealand
Reference as: Kilvington, M., Taylor, R. & Allen, W. (2000) Restoration and the City: looking for a framework for social and ecological restoration. In: Stewart, G. & Ignatieva, M eds.Urban biodiversity and ecology as a basis for holistic planning and design. Lincoln University International Centre for Nature Conservation Publication Number 1. Christchurch, Wickcliffe Press Ltd. pp. 72-79.
"The weeds in a city lot convey the same lessons as the redwoods ... Perception ... cannot be purchased with either learned degrees or dollars, it grows at home as well as abroad, and he who has a little may use it to as good advantage as he who has much" (Aldo Leopold quoted in Light 2000)
Urban environments are undeniably human environments. However, many attempts at ecosystem restoration in urban areas founder because they do not effectively engage with local people. In particular, they fail to consider the diverse values for the natural environment that are important to local people and pay little attention to processes that result in long-term care by these residents.
Currently in New Zealand many leading metropolitan agencies, supported in their mandate by international legislation and national policy (such as the Biodiversity Convention 1992 and New Zealand's response through the Biodiversity Strategy 2000) are working towards the dual goals of increasing biodiversity and revitalising natural processes in urban areas. To achieve these they need to create a framework within which to understand the interlinked physical and human processes at work in the urban environment.
At present the common default mechanism for determining the character of the natural component of a city could be described as an ad hoc process of mediating a path between aesthetics and opinions based on prevailing and emerging cultural norms. These are essentially arguments of what 'I believe is/looks best'. Local examples include the 'Garden City' concept in Christchurch and its recent challenger - the 'Aotearoa - New Zealand' concept. Advocates of the former cite the colonial cultural heritage of Christchurch and the sheer public popularity of colourful exotic trees and flowers, while advocates for the latter call for greater representation in our landscapes of the iconic symbols of indigenous New Zealand and in particular a reinstatement of those images pertinent to Māori. The difficulty lies not in the validity of the arguments, but in the absence of process beyond reliance on advocates or lobby groups to construct convincing arguments and rally public and political support to win the day. Participants in the debate remain polarised in their views. Furthermore it leaves advocates for biodiversity restoration (particularly when using indigenous vegetation) with the challenge of replacing existing value sets with opposing ones and offers no long-term opportunity for engaging the community at large.
In searching for an alternative approach one of the first questions is- why do we concern ourselves with biodiversity in the urban environment? The introductory quote by one of the foremost spokesmen for the development of an ethical relationship with the natural environment suggests something about this. Leopold reminds us that it is our connection with 'the natural' and our opportunity to learn, understand and develop a relationship with it that is important, no matter how humble this experience may be. In only rare circumstances does the urban environment represent our only possibility to preserve fauna and flora for what could be considered traditional conservation motives - i.e. that their very continuance is threatened. Furthermore (and regardless of the possible benefits of nurturing human and natural interactions in terms of greater environmental awareness and potentially more environmentally sympathetic behaviours) there is ample evidence to suggest that people living in urban environments have strong physiological and deep psychological needs of nature. For example, in recent work that assessed people's responses to vegetation in the urban environment, participants identified a number of important values. In addition to the obvious physiological benefits of providing screening for sound and privacy, shade and wind protection and other such ecosystem services, vegetation was most consistently valued for its ability to generate feelings of peace and tranquillity, the aesthetic value of its form and texture, and its ability to link people with the natural processes of seasonal growth and decay (Kilvington et al. 1998).
The main advocates for changing our urban landscape have largely been the 'expert' sector of ecologists and environmental enthusiasts. Consequently the model of transformation that has emerged is founded on an eco-centric starting point, the basis of which is identifying once common eco-types to reinstate dominant flora and fauna in local environments (see Figure 1). Its roots lie in approaches developed in wilderness conservation over the last 50 years. While it has much to contribute to ecological understanding of vulnerable and often fragmented urban ecosystems, and has the benefits of working toward clear, targeted biodiversity gains (and validation through international mandates), it can offer little regarding human communities and behaviour.
 |
| Figure 1. Eco-centric approach to landscape transformation |
The primary difficulty with enacting this eco-centric framework lies, firstly, in the perceptional mismatch of the problem between the 'expert' and the general public, and secondly, with the lack of associated processes for managing change. The 'biodiversity problem', as defined in this way, is a problem for science and conservation specialists and solutions driven from this perspective are targeted to produce specific ecological outcomes. In contrast the general public, while they have many values for the natural component in the urban context, don't necessarily share the views of ecologists and planners about their landscape. They also don't have single-purpose goals but rather expect their environment to meet multiple requirements - many of which are unarticulated, but are nonetheless important (such as development and ownership of a 'sense of place'; Ley 1989). This wider vision could be expressed as the challenge of creating integration between the urban and natural environment as defined through understanding the social and physical needs of all people, while solutions are targeted to meet multiple goals and outcomes.
Working within an eco-centric framework to protect or enhance urban biodiversity relies principally on expert information, the support of statutory planning processes or the sanction of public authorities, and lastly the recruitment of willing volunteer labour from the community. Such an approach provides limited opportunities for public engagement and does little to engender long-term commitment in sectors of the community which do not already share ecocentric values. Ultimately agencies that take up the mandate to increase biodiversity in the urban environment are still faced with the challenge of the gap between the actions they advocate to transform the landscape, and public understanding and support for such initiatives.
Research (and common sense) indicates that people are not generally opposed to the increase in biodiversity or reinstatement of natural systems in urban areas. Rather it is largely hostility to the 'processes of change' that generate aversion, disconnection and apathy in urban communities. Consequently it is important to consider what processes of change should characterise any framework for considering both social and ecological restoration in the urban environment.
 |
| Figure 2: Different approaches to encouraging community change |
Figure 2 illustrates two contrasting approaches to the management of change. The common public experience of change, typical of many urban development and planning processes, is that it appears as a moment of crisis, of which the general affected public are made aware at the last minute. Furthermore these processes are set up to be adversarial and people's opinions are sought rather than their true participation in creating a solution. Such processes frequently involve the consideration of limited alternatives (such as should the motorway go through area A - parkland, or area B - residential land, rather than considering alternative means of managing transportation problems without building a motorway at all). The results are predictable and commonplace - groups of people are motivated to take short term action, they have polarised opinions, often take desperate 'nimby' stances and rely on their existing knowledge rather than being open to new ideas. Such groups are unlikely to form lasting productive relationships with either the planning agencies or the other groups involved. The result of failure to 'win' is a sense of disempowerment and doom, which is carried into any future interactions with the agencies and groups involved.
However, the process of change can be creative and collaborative. Such a change process is characterised by efforts to foster trust and the exchange of ideas. It focuses on learning, and the best conditions for this, builds relationships and networks, and involves people in setting the direction of the change rather than discussing alternatives. The consequences of such a change process are more positive connections between agencies and the public, long-term commitment to progressing the change, and participants whose sense of empowerment leads them to move on to new initiatives when their original purpose for involvement has ended (Allen 2000, Taylor 1997).
A framework for social and ecological restoration that uses this latter process of change, and recognises the multiple values associated with the nature in the city, could be represented by Figure 3. |
| Figure 3: A framework for addressing the natural/social relationship in urban environments |
The starting point for this framework addresses a core social need of 'sense of place' (often referred to but seldom adequately explored or defined; Ley 1989). To recognise this in an integrated process of social and ecological restoration is to give expression to the feelings of local people regarding the 'uniqueness', and 'specialness' of the most humble of symbols of their local environment regardless of the thoughts and opinions of others of the quality of this environment. This may include trees that indicate street corners, hedges and parks that mark the boundaries of neighbourhoods, and other such sites of special insignificance. Ownership and degree of control over these spaces is a frequently mentioned source of concern amongst those interviewed in a Christchurch study of attitudes to vegetation in the urban environment (Kilvington & Wilkinson 1999). Supporting this sense of place is possible through promoting ownership of and involvement in locally based projects. However, tied to this is the need to work towards empowerment of people to seek out positive change through building constructive agency/public relationships, and the capacity to seek out and use networks and information. Another important component of this framework is to focus efforts on enhancing quality of human life and meet the pragmatic needs of urban living through the better integration of natural components for ecosystem services (such as the use of natural systems in the management of waterways, addressing sound and privacy barriers, traffic calming measures).
Finally, nurturing the already evident psychological attachment to 'the natural' within urban life can be achieved by encouraging involvement in initiatives such as community gardens and adopt-a-park schemes. Such projects may simply be about 'green space' and serve to strengthen people's appreciation of basic natural processes of growth, decay and seasonality; without at this stage adding what can be intimidating expert concepts of valid indigenous ecosystems. To accept that such initiatives have any direct role in the reconstruction of viable, ecosystems with high indigenous ecological values within the urban environment requires some conviction that taking this seemingly sideways steps has longer term benefits of engagement and empowerment that will ultimately lead to participation in projects with a higher ecological value. However, there is much international community development experience to support this (Warburton 1998; Borrhi-Feyerabend et. al. 1997; Taylor 1997; Gibson & Bishop 1996; Roelof, 1996).
The benefits of this proposed framework are the low barriers to entry and the commitment to long-term processes of change and learning. This process is based on non-elite information. However, it is still dependent on input from 'experts' with knowledge of natural systems and planning (experts on tap - not experts on top). This is important if achieving the aforementioned goals of a community with a greater understanding of natural systems and appreciation for the place of indigenous species within the urban context are to be realised.
Associated workshopFollowing the above presentation the speakers and workshop participants explored the values which that motivate each of us, and their relationship to change, with reference to the challenge of urban ecosystem restoration. [Step 1] Following an exercise designed to stimulate the right and left sides of the brain, participants were invited to think about their home or street, and select a specific spot, a familiar place, and preferably one that included some plant and animal life. They were asked to visualise this space (using all of their senses), and to list ten reasons why they like or 'value' this place. The results of this were collected and the variety of values were noted such as feelings of peace and ability to escape and spend time on their own, the useful functions of natural space for recreation, the constant movement and change in waterways, the topography of hills, the comparative wildness/naturalness and contrast with the order of urban streets, the sense of creativity in being part of generating this naturalness etc. When these values were shared participants noted surprise at the range of values expressed in a short exercise. There was some discussion on how valuing local space i.e. having a 'sense of place', was a basis for care while nonattachment can be the basis of lack of care. [Step 2] Few places, or people for that matter, are fixed and unchanging; and change can bring unknowns. The next step involved consideration of this. Participants were first asked to write the word 'uncertainty' on a page in front of them. They were then asked to think of an example from their life of being in a state of uncertainty and asked to write down their reaction from memory. Participants were then questioned as to how typical this was of their response to change, and asked to think of how they generally responded to change in their surroundings (listing five examples from their own life experience). Participants responded in a variety of ways. Some saw change as 'improvement' if they agreed with it, but felt that if ways of influencing the change were not obvious to them, they would generally concede to a negative change in their environment. Others saw change as simply a challenge - whether good or bad. [Step 3] Within the two-day workshop previous speakers had advocated change in urban landscapes, and had been dissatisfied with the exotic-plant-dominated status quo of cities such as Christchurch. This exercise asked people to think of the disempowerment, the scariness or uncertainty that often accompanies change and ways in which this can be alleviated. Although there was insufficient time in this session to undertake this last step of the exercise, the questions to consider for 'agents of change' are: When we plan a project, how do we anticipate human needs and the range of values which people ascribe to their local places? What are the processes needed to engage with various sources of human motivation and interest, emotional as well as intellectual? Can we find the common ground between various motivations in which biodiversity interests link with other human needs? |
References and selected reading
Allen, W. 1998-2000: NRM-changelinks: Improving community participation in environment & development. Available from http://nrm.massey.ac.nz/changelinks
Borrini-Feyerabend, G.; Buchan, D. 1997: Beyond fences: Seeking social sustainability in conservation. (2 vols) IUCN, Cambridge,UK.
Common Ground 1994: Celebrating local distinctiveness (Publication for Rural Action), London.
Craig, G.; Mayo, M. 1995: Community empowerment: A reader in participation and development. Zed Books, London.
Gibson, G.; Bishop, M. eds 1996: For a common cause: Case studies in communities and environmental change. Downer, ACT.
Horsbrugh, B.; Warburton, D.; Keen, J. 1994: Thinking globally, enabling locally: Improving support for local environmental action. WWF-UK
Kilvington, M.; Rosier, J.; Wilkinson, R.; Freeman, C. 1998: Urban restoration: social opportunities and constraints. NZ Symposium on Restoring the health and wealth of ecosystems, 28-30 September 1998.
Kilvington, M.; Wilkinson, R. 1999: Community attitudes to vegetation in the urban environment: A Christchurch case study. Landcare Research Science Series No. 22.
Ley, D. 1989: Modernism and the struggle for place. In: Agnew, J.A.; Duncan , J.S. (eds), The power of place. Bringing together geographical and sociological imaginations. Unwin-Hyman, Boston. Pp. 44-65.
Light, A. 2000, Elegy for a Garden: Thoughts on an Urban Environmental Ethic, New York University, U.S
O'Mera, M. 1999: Reinventing cities for people and the planet.Worldwatch Institute, Washington DC.
Roelofs, J. 1996: Greening cities: building just and sustainable communities. Bootstrap Press, New York.
Roseland, M. ed .1997: Eco-city dimensions: Healthy communities, Healthy planet. New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, Penn.
Selman, P.; Parker, J. 1997: Citizenship, civicness, social capital and local Agenda 21. Local Environment 4(2): 47-60.
Taylor, R. E. 1997: Community environmental action and the sense of place in rural England. Proceedings of the Institute of Australian Geographers and New Zealand Geographical Society, Second joint conference, Hobart, 1997. Department of Geography, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
Warburton, D. ed. 1998: Community and sustainable development:Participation in the future. Earthscan Publications, London.
Wilcox, D. 1994: Guide to effective participation. Partnership Books/Joseph Rowntree Foundation, UK. Parts on-line in 1999 at: http://www.partnerships.org.uk/guide/
Page last updated:Friday, September 14, 2001