Ecologist Karin Albers: ‘More nature in built-up areas is important if we want to counter biodiversity loss.’
In her book Every Street Deserves Nature, ecologist Karin Albers offers guidance on achieving a nature-inclusive society. ‘The road to a greener living environment is full of bumps and potholes.’
‘It hasn’t sunk in for everyone yet, but a nature-rich living environment makes people healthier, more productive and happier, buffers the effects of climate change and increases property values. What’s more, more nature in built-up areas is important if we want to counter biodiversity loss. Plenty of benefits, in other words’, says ecologist Karin Albers. ‘Fortunately, local councils are increasingly aware of this: their nature-inclusive ambitions have improved considerably in recent years and can even be described as good. Sadly, things still tend to go wrong in practice.’
That is partly why Albers wrote the book Every Street Deserves Nature, which was published last November. In it, she addresses everyone professionally involved in greening the built environment: from policymakers and urban planners to designers and land managers. ‘The road to a greener living environment is full of obstacles. Budgets are tight, there are many apparently conflicting interests, and the sheer volume of rules and information means many people can no longer see the wood for the trees.’ The book therefore focuses primarily on approach and process: how do we actually achieve nature-inclusive villages and towns?
‘The book is really a distillation of my more than 25 years of experience as a landscape ecologist working in built-up areas’, says Albers, who founded her own consultancy, Ecologica, in 1996. About five years ago she made a career change and began giving courses and presentations to get organisations and individuals moving towards making well-considered nature-inclusive choices. ‘To prevent a good intention from ending up as two nest boxes and a buddleia.’
‘The loudest voices win the day – that’s what I hear back from councils’
‘It often comes down to having the right knowledge. Take the use of seed mixes for developing flower-rich vegetation. In the design phase of a project things usually go well enough, and people opt for a nicely diverse mix of native species. But during implementation it can happen that a particular seed mix is temporarily unavailable or more expensive than anticipated. A contractor will then quickly reach for a cheap alternative containing non-native species and flowers with no nectar or pollen. If the site supervisor doesn’t have the right knowledge, that gets approved without a second thought.’
Another example of green policy and practice being miles apart is the IJ Boulevard behind Amsterdam Centraal station. ‘That is a vast expanse of stone, without a single blade of green, yet it is listed as a nature-inclusive project.’ According to Albers, this is because the green measures were taken below the waterline. ‘That is of course wonderful, because promoting biodiversity in the water is often overlooked, but there is so much more that could be done there.’
Lawns
It shows that aesthetics and functionality can clash with nature and biodiversity. In other words: people generally prefer neat and bare, with long sightlines. They like tidy lawns, not untidy verges with long grass. Yet these two extremes can coexist perfectly well, Albers believes. ‘You can easily have an urban park with neat paths and close-cropped lawns near the houses, but with natural, wilder vegetation further away – there are plenty of examples where such a combination works as a whole and where people mostly enjoy it and complain little if at all.’ The complaints from residents are, incidentally, a thorny issue according to Albers. ‘The loudest voices win the day – that’s what I hear back from councils. What I mean by that is that the people who shout the loudest often get their way. I regularly see nature-inclusive choices within built-up areas being completely overturned because two residents have complained. We really need to push back against that, because the vast majority who are perfectly happy never make themselves heard. On the other hand, communication plays a crucial role here: a nice sign saying “this long grass is here for bees and butterflies” can make all the difference.’
Although the nature-inclusive ambitions of councils are fairly high, Albers notes that nature is often the first thing to be sacrificed. ‘There are no hard standards for nature, unlike parking or noise, where the boundary conditions are clearly defined. I’ll admit: that is of course much harder for nature, because promoting biodiversity is bespoke work and differs from project to project. Even so, there are plenty of ways to make a nature target binding within a council, for example by working with a points system or target species. Ideally, every council should have at least one ecologist on the payroll. Fortunately, that is increasingly the case, especially in larger cities it has become standard practice. It is time for all smaller councils to follow suit. Though they do face a challenge, because for the first time in my career there is a shortage of ecologists.’
Cabinet
All in all, the wind is fairly in our sails when it comes to nature-inclusive development, Albers says. ‘Ecologists are working alongside contractors, organisations are becoming increasingly convinced of the importance of a green environment, and at the local level ambitions are growing – that is also where the most can be gained. But at the national level things do not look good: with this cabinet, I am afraid we are genuinely taking a step backwards. With municipal budget cuts on the horizon, nature will not escape unscathed. Fortunately, I am a born optimist: nature is extraordinarily resilient, which means that small or simple choices can have a major impact. Spontaneous, natural greenery is also, thankfully, cheaper than neatly manicured ornamental planting.’