Unequal Greening: Why Social Status Matters in Nature-based Solutions
What municipalities often present as green solutions, such as green roofs in newer expensive housing developments, are not always perceived as such.
By interviewing and surveying marginalised residents in Bucharest, Amsterdam, Turin and Brussels, the GREEN-INC consortium partners explored what perceptions local communities had, and one of their findings were that marginalized residents often engaged in practices of environmental stewardship but found minimal or little to no recognition of their actions. With environmental stewardship, authors refer to protect, care for or responsibly use the environment. Social status, then, becomes a structural barrier in nature-based solutions participation, according to their findings. In addition, residents felt that wealthier neighbourhoods are prioritized over others. So, what can municipalities do to address these perceptions?
Recognising who protects and cares for the city’s green spaces
Policymakers in municipalities should account for the different knowledges present in communities. This need can be illustrated by the case of a migrant in Brussels, who expressed how a feeling of increasing responsibilities was placed onto the community by the municipality. However, according to the results, with little support or assistance to actively maintain these projects, any efforts initiated by the inhabitants themselves will likely dissipate. Similarly, in spite of deep knowledge about soil health and nature-based solutions, an unhoused male in Bucharest experienced the feeling of being voiceless because his homeless status hindered him from engaging or being taken seriously with the municipality through formal channels.
"A key recommendation to policymakers is to rather than imposing a new maintenance regime, they should build on and foster existing practices within communities of environmental stewardship for nature-based solutions maintenance,” said Danielle MacCarthy, postdoctoral researcher at the University of Amsterdam.
Expanding low tech nature-based solutions across the city
Residents perceive deterioration, environmental degradation and disinvestment in neighbourhoods. According to the results, residents associated nature-based Solutions such as green roofs and walls with newer expensive housing developments and with developments in the city centre. Thus, renewal projects are not evident the neighbours. “Respondents felt that some neighbourhoods are prioritized over others,” MacCarthy added. In all four cities (Bucharest, Amsterdam, Turin and Brussels), respondents in a survey of the University of Bucharest disagreed that nature-based solutions should be valued for benefits related to increases in property value.
A key recommendation to policymakers is to construct nature-based solutions across the city, which should address local community needs and preferences. A way forward is demonstrated in the Urban Living Labs, where the GREEN-INC consortium is experimenting with inclusive nature-based solutions. The pilots showcased that many nature-based solutions can actually be low-tech solutions, such as a simple rain tank or facade garden, supporting both communities and ecosystems.
To achieve more just, equitable and inclusive implementation of nature-based solutions in cities, municipalities should consider the lessons learned, recommendations and co-design principles that the authors have shared. These and other GREEN-INC project findings have been recently published in "Turning nature-based solutions into inclusive climate actions" policy brief.
