Connecting people with place-specific nature in cities reduces unintentional harm

Abstract

There is an increasing disconnect between people and nature as we become more urbanised. Intensification in cities often results in a reduction of natural areas, more homogenised and manicured green spaces, and loss of biota. Compared to people in rural areas, urban dwellers are less likely visit natural areas and recognise and value biota. Reconnecting people with nature in the city not only benefits human mental and physical wellbeing but can also have positive effects on how people value biodiversity and act on conservation issues. However, in some contexts, the push to reconnect people with nature may have unintended negative outcomes on biodiversity, particularly if place-specific nature is not used in urban greening. In the current biodiversity crisis, using vegetation and green space design that is not reflective of the environmental context of a city can further disconnect residents, particularly Indigenous people, from their local environment and species, and further entrench extinction of experience and loss of environmental values. This disconnect can result in residents applying wildlife gardening practices, such as bird feeding, that are not specific to place, and benefit introduced species over indigenous species. Furthermore, cities are gateways for invasive species, and using species in greening projects that are not locally sourced has already left cities and their surrounding regions with a large weed legacy. Using place-specific nature and green space in cities can be less resource intensive, highly beneficial for biodiversity and give residents a unique sense of place. Rather than simply adding ‘more nature’ in cities, the messaging should be more complex, emphasising the need for urban greening to be context specific to avoid negative impacts on biodiversity and ecological and cultural services.