Why we need to prioritise biodiversity in our urban communities
To make progress for people, place, and biodiversity, Karen Anderson argues the need for improvements in the implementation of policy and practice and changing attitudes in all parties.
Summary: Prioritising biodiversity in the built environment
Policy and guidance on urbanisation
- Scottish policy should follow, and improve on, English standards in requiring measurable biodiversity net gain in all development proposals.
- Scottish Government should put in place a robust retrofit first (over new build) policy for all development with required fiscal incentives and a strict presumption of brown field over green field development. (NPF4 requires the latter but it is not happening.
Changing attitudes and practice
- A ‘green place’ initiative should be put in place for all Scottish Local Authorities with grant funding made available for projects that will deliver biodiversity in urban areas.
- Nature and sustainability education should be embedded in the primary and secondary curriculum as new subject material incorporating best practice to protect species and habitats , and covering stewardship of resources.
- New codes of practice and updated training to bring about changes in attitudes, behaviour, and performance throughout the construction industry.
Our places shape us. They affect our sensitivity to those we share them with; our attitudes and behaviour to people and other species. They are the ‘stage set’, the framework, within which we live our lives. The design of our urban places accommodates, or doesn’t, what we need for a fulfilled life. The community in a well-designed neighbourhood enjoys a playground for local children, a shared square to rest a while and watch the world go by, the proximity of a local park, and easy access to a planned green network to walk or cycle. Most importantly, the design of our neighbourhoods can accommodate or seed a passion for nature; an understanding and enjoyment of the natural environment.
Context
Except for perhaps the consummate shopper, I doubt anyone would disagree that the urban streets they enjoy most have trees, shrubs and other plants and the best cities have a network of landscaped squares. However in past years architects working in regeneration and urban housing have often had to ‘fight’ for these critical landscape elements. Their installation comes at the end of any construction project and often the budget is depleted, and the landscape is swingingly cut. Even with the funds secured, providing street trees in housing areas often instigates a perennial argument with roads engineers about the efficiency of root containment, suitable driver visibility or even leaves on the road; the concerned voice ‘who will maintain them?’ Often too maintenance of planting and wider landscape proposals was a barrier for their provision in social and affordable housing. The maintenance of fire alarm systems and roofs is a ‘must do’ but providing and maintaining common landscaped areas was seen as a burden particularly when budgets were tight and ‘ownership’ shared. Too much of the public realm in our post-war housing areas was designed as largely tree-less and shrub-less with only pockets of ‘mowable’ grass at bends and road junctions. The latter to ensure visibility for cars to travel at a steady 30mph. There was more specific design guidance for cars than for people. Nature did not enter into the discussion.
That picture was not universal though. With enlightened clients or planning officers and the perseverance of design teams, fruit trees and shrubs have been planted in gardens in social housing as a ‘starter’ for gardening. Working with landscape architects some new buildings and housing projects have well-designed high quality landscape as their setting.
In this context, arguing the need for good landscape, and by extension ‘nature’, the key issue was to provide ‘amenity’, for ‘us’, putting human experience as the priority, and therefore ‘nice to have’, not a necessity. It is only now that we have the pressing goal of reversing our depleted biodiversity that we have a reason to make the provision of diverse landscape an imperative. We now have a focussed and ‘quantifiable’ goal and the beginning of a better relationship between us and our natural environment; one that will have multiple benefits.
Bluntly put, our increasing ‘habitation’ has been threatened by the loss of natural habitat. The rapid extinction of thousands of species and 30% of biodiversity loss globally is attributable to the built environment where 50% of world’s population now lives and where by 2050 it is expected 70% of us will live [i] . There are other key contributors to climate change, but at a global level natural environments are being swallowed by growing cities and we need to act decisively, and we can. Studies show that cities can support a diverse range of habitats [ii] and this is borne out by daily experience where pocket parks and street trees encourage birds and insects, and good planning results in wildlife corridors with links to the wider countryside. All reason to do ‘more’ in new development and to ‘retrofit’ our treeless streets and impermeable hardstandings.
As with all our global challenges we can act at different scales and with different levers; locally using the energy and commitment of communities, and nationally with policy, support and incentives. However, given the lack of awareness and understanding in some communities, including parts of the construction sector, and the bottom-line economics of the development industry, as with the carbon and climate crises all initiatives need to be underpinned by awareness raising and a change in behaviour. Arguably, unlike the daunting infrastructure and built fabric challenges we face associated with net zero, augmenting biodiversity is in relative terms an easier task.
First and foremost, we have to move the thinking about this from a development ‘burden’ to a development ‘win’. This is a task made all the more attractive as integrating biodiversity into developments can deliver multiple benefits for our cities, regions, and communities, helping to create desirable places to live, work, and play whilst supporting climate resilience.
Policy and guidance
At the policy level in Scotland the National Planning Framework, now in its 4th iteration (NPF4) [iii], establishes its Spatial Strategy aims to ensure the delivery of:
- sustainable places, where we reduce emissions, restore and better connect biodiversity;
- liveable places, where we can all live better, healthier lives; and
- productive places, where we have a greener, fairer and more inclusive wellbeing economy.
It highlights improving biodiversity as a component of ‘Sustainable Places’ (and it is here that NPF4 cross references the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy [iv]) NPF4 states:
‘To respond to the global biodiversity crisis, nature recovery must be at the heart of future places. We will secure positive effects for biodiversity, create and strengthen nature networks and invest in nature-based solutions to benefit natural capital and contribute to net zero. We will use our land wisely including through a renewed focus on reusing vacant and derelict land to help limit the new land that we build on.’(NPF4)
However, places designed with nature as a key consideration have the potential to contribute to all of the high level ‘place’ aims and in designing for biodiversity it is that wide brief that we can take as our starting point.
As always in the statutory planning process specifics are important for it is to these that potential developers and their agents refer. NPF4 is augmented with Guidance from NatureScot ‘Developing with Nature’ [v] which states in particular that NPF4 Policy 3 ‘rebalances the planning system in favour of conserving, restoring and enhancing biodiversity and promotes investment in nature-based solutions, benefiting people and nature’ and that development proposals must demonstrate they will ‘conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity, including nature networks, so they are in a demonstrably better state than without intervention.‘
NPF4 directly observes that ‘Cleaner, safer and greener places and improved open spaces will build resilience and provide wider benefits for people, health and biodiversity, in a balanced way.’
If the planning system is to be ‘rebalanced’ what exactly does in a ‘balanced way’ mean? Unlike its equivalent in England, NPF4 has no statutory specific requirements. There is no detail on the metrics of what ‘better’ means and how that will be demonstrated. In contrast as of February 2024, Biodiversity Net Gain[vi] is a statutory requirement for Planning Consent for new developments in England. Developers must provide a 10% increase in diversity, measured against pre-construction biodiversity. Arguably this is not enough to re-balance the 30% loss associated with urban development, but it is specific and requires a biodiversity baseline, measured by an ecologist using the latest Defra Biodiversity Metric.
If the developer is unable to augment biodiversity on site, they can create new off-site habitats or, much as with carbon offsetting, they can purchase statutory credits using a complex, but tradable, option. On-site net gains are prioritised as nature brings collateral benefits in amenity, well-being and climate mitigation.
It is anticipated that the lack of specific measurable requirements is a timing issue and that Scottish Policy will catch up., Although according to the Natural History Museum Biodiversity Intactness Register [vii] Scotland has faired better than its UK counterparts and has retained just over half of its historic land-based biodiversity (!), we are still in the bottom 25% of nations for land-based biodiversity loss. Therefore there is a strong case for the Scottish Government, in preparing the Natural Environment Bill, to consider a Biodiversity Net Gain clause.
Wider policy aims
With, or without, more specific requirements in the Scottish planning process, given the reality of development economics, there is a tandem need to win hearts and minds to the imperative to improve, not deplete further, the ecology of our places. As designers and developers we can actively ‘push more buttons’ not only improving biodiversity in the built environment, but designing in way that highlights nature’s part in addressing the wider aims in NPF4’s Spatial Strategy. At every level benefits can accrue: property values are demonstrably higher on tree-lined streets, local food growing can play a part in addressing poverty and shared green spaces bring communities together improving societal cohesion.
Urbanisation
There is another urban development threat to biodiversity and key requirement to change attitudes: that we need to build less.
‘The most sustainable building is the one that is already built.’ -Carl Elefante [viii]
NPF4 states that in order for ‘liveable places to be consistent with our ambition for net zero and nature recovery, we will promote compact urban growth’ and that ‘We will limit urban expansion so we can optimise the use of land to provide services and resources, including carbon storage, flood risk management, blue and green infrastructure and biodiversity’.
However, it does not go far enough in outlining the priority to first re-purpose our empty commercial properties and vacant town centres. Therefore it does not fully grasp the nettle that existing buildings play a key part in preserving embodied carbon, and that mining, quarrying and other manufacture of most new construction materials uses energy and can deplete biodiversity. Compact urban growth can reduce the amount of infrastructure, roads, sewage, water and energy and thus environmental damage. Using what exists is better on many counts even with the need to ‘deep retrofit’ [ix] . Whilst repurposing is happening more and more in cities with high housing demand and land values, more can be done in other urban areas.
‘One of the greatest predicaments in the construction sector is how to respond to rapid urbanization and the growing need for more housing while also keeping the carbon emissions close to zero. And the unfortunate answer is, we can’t.’ – Henning Larsen [x]
Changing attitudes and practice
Whilst we ignore that key reality and aim to provide newbuild as the housing crisis ‘answer’, on sites of any colour, green, brown or grey, there will be a loss of habitats unless we design for nature and use the opportunity to design to change the experience and mindsets of those who have been de-sensitised by urban living. Urban design can achieve only so much if residents view ‘carpet’ lawns or hardstanding as a desirable option. If experience of nature is not a key part of daily life often it is viewed as something alien or to be ‘consumed’ in our national parks and beauty spots. Many homeowners wage war on the natural world with lawn mowers and insecticides. The counter organic food and farming movement is not mainstream or a choice for those on low incomes. A culture shift is needed in the population and development sector.
‘To really succeed in building sustainable societies, developers need to acknowledge that we are designing cities, not building projects. It all starts with a sustainable ambition that take all environmental aspects into account. And make a good place to live for all species, not just humans. That’s how I believe we will succeed with planet A.’ – Maren Hersleth Holsen, Division Leader, Urbanism, Oslo [xi]
Guidance and key principles
In addition to all the other parameters for development, it is easy for designers and developers to be overwhelmed by the ‘new’ requirements to design for Net Zero and biodiversity gain. They are critically linked. And the technical landscape is filled with new language: Nature based Solutions; Nature Positive; Regenerative Design; Biophilic Design; Circular Economy; Net Zero and Biodiversity Net Gain. All come together in the built environment and that too is fundamentally linked to the natural environment and our human experience and future.
The organisational landscape is crowded too with reports, guidance and certification by organisations aiming to set pathways and achieve better practice through collaboration. Amongst them the UK Green Building Council is notable as a 700+ strong network that links local authorities with built environment professionals, developers and construction companies. Their publication the Value of Nature-Based Solutions (May 2022) [xii] outlines with clarity summary actions and benefits for proposals and has a developed Value Framework for assessment and funding scenarios.
In its certification and guidance, Building with Nature [xiii] (BwN) is an excellent scheme which assists officials and developers in the planning process to integrate Nature based Solutions into building, landscaping and infrastructure works. Its Key Principles are a useful guide for developers and their designers outlining the need to design to restore and enhance ecosystems taking account of resilience in the face of Climate Change, and for built environment interventions that benefit all. Its standards are clear and comprehensive. Its award programme provides reference exemplar projects and signposts what ‘place makers’ planners, architects and their clients can do.
At core, adopting BwN’s Key Principles is an extension of present best practice. The starting point is a thorough understanding of the context by mapping the development site’s natural assets and those in the wider environment; working with ecologists and others to link to existing, or make new, habitats; aiming to mitigate biodiversity threats and maximising opportunities for nature; and for people to engage with the natural world. The latter requires designers to understand the social context; the demographics, economics and aspirations of residents, building users and the wider community. This is needed to encourage ‘ownership’ of shared green spaces and assist future stewardship. In some cases, resident or user workshops can be held to set a ‘nature’ mission. Projects with interventions that give maximum local benefit and initiatives that support future stewardship have the most chance of success.
As outlined, it is important to link biodiversity proposals to other goals. For better health, green corridors can accommodate running, cycling, outdoor gym areas and mitigate airborne pollution. Landscape design can provide contemplative space as well as shared places for coming together to build community or combat isolation. There are opportunities to incorporate designed areas for learning and knowledge share on flora and fauna and for growing healthy food. Providing biodiverse food growing areas, from urban allotments to raised planters, can help healthy eating as well as combat food poverty. Proximity to green infrastructure can augment property values, and in the ‘biggest’ picture landscape assists in carbon capture, helping to mitigate the effects of climate change, such as attenuating cloud bursts and providing summer cooling.
In promoting biodiversity as an asset which brings community, as well as environmental, benefit it is important to encourage developers to embrace all contexts. Brown and grey field sites can have rich ecosystems. It is not just the gift of wild and rural landscapes. Urban plants can be more diverse than agricultural crops and can provide diverse habitats for insects and pollination. Beyond the wider opportunities for creating fauna corridors, the designer can create micro climates by incorporating pocket parks and play spaces with a mixture of grasses, flowers, shrubs and trees.
Incorporating street trees and ‘starter’ garden planting as integral to development also fosters an interest in gardening. In particular, planting urban fruit trees provides local interest and spurs initiatives, such as the Children’s and Commonwealth Orchards. Similarly, incorporating bug hotels and other humanmade nature refuges can be part of learning about nature. Bird and bat boxes, bee friendly habitats and where appropriate space for beehives can be incorporated in buildings, walls and roofs as well as landscape. In buildings ‘designed in’ planters and patios encourage individuals to garden.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) can provide blue habitat and amenity, as well as a water retention function. Urban ponds and other water features, as part of grey water management, can work well in smaller developments. In all proposals, landscape architects can specify appropriate planting and if required ‘self-reliant’ proposals that need minimum maintenance but provide habitat; at its simplest, wildflowers can replace shorn grass.
Green roofs are much lauded and can be successful. Due to their aesthetics, they tend to be used in rural locations but where the site allows can be made to work in urban development. Green walls are used increasingly in new buildings in densely developed cities, where land for greenspace is simply not available. As well as providing habitat they can provide insulation, cooling and the ‘well-being’ of proximity to and seeing green!
Finally, we need to address the threats and opportunities in construction itself as the sourcing, production and transport of construction materials is both a huge carbon emitter and damages the environment and the construction process is extremely disruptive to existing habitat. Off-site manufacture can help minimise the latter and is becoming more prevalent. Contractor awareness too can reduce environmental damage through schemes like the Considerate Contractor [xiv] programme where protecting ‘mapped’ areas of habitat can be a contractual requirement.
Currently, in most projects the choice of construction materials is determined based on improving energy performance, but increasingly there is awareness of the emissions in transport, embodied carbon in the construction process and ‘whole life’ carbon. This is key to the global challenge of the climate change effects on biodiversity.
There is increasing research into nature-based bio-materials and moves to provide de-mountable construction that allows for re-use or re-cycling, all as part of aiming for a more Circular Economy. Already there are hubs for re-cycled materials planned or established in Scotland and bio products are gradually coming to the market. But the construction industry is ‘tanker-like’ in its ability to change course and unless government proposes really radical change, as suggested by international architect Henning Larsen (quoted below), it is in urban design that we can build on work to date and towards achieving the targets of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy [xv] . We have quite a challenge if we are to reverse our biodiversity loss but if we tackle this at all scales with local initiatives, and in all new development, large or small, we can begin to quite literally regain ground lost.
‘’ The most important mindset change would be a reconfiguration of the economy of construction. The bottom line is no longer simply the dollars and cents, the kroner and ører, rather, the environmental cost must be factored into the economy of the project.” – Henning Larsen
- This article is part of a series from the RSE’s Environment Community of Interest. The aim is to stimulate informed public debate on the many aspects and elements of this complex and vexed subject. We’d love to hear your thoughts about this piece, email us on publicpolicy@therse.org.uk.
- To be notified when the next article in this series is live, sign up to the RSE’s monthly policy advice newsletter.
- The RSE’s blog series offers personal views on a variety of issues. These views are not those of the RSE and are intended to offer different perspectives on a range of current issues.
References
[i] https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/05/cities-nature-positive/
[ii] https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/71/2/148/6102678?utm_medium=website&utm_source=archdaily.com
[iii] https://www.gov.scot/publications/national-planning-framework-4/
[iv] https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/strategy-plan/2023/09/scottish-biodiversity-strategy-2045-tackling-nature-emergency-scotland-2/documents/scottish-biodiversity-strategy-2045-tackling-nature-emergency-scotland/scottish-biodiversity-strategy-2045-tackling-nature-emergency-scotland/govscot%3Adocument/scottish-biodiversity-strategy-2045-tackling-nature-emergency-scotland.pdf
[v] ‘Scottish Governments’ advisor on all aspects of nature, wildlife management and landscape across Scotland’ https://www.nature.scot
[vi] Biodiversity net gain is an approach to development which leads to an overall positive impact on nature through the protection, restoration and enhancement of habitats.
[vii] https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/biodiversity-indicators/biodiversity-intactness-index-data?future-scenario=ssp2_rcp4p5_message_globiom&georegion=001&min-year=1970&max-year=2050&georegion-compare=null&future-scenario-compare=null&show-uncertainty=true&min-biigraph-y-axis=0&max-biigraph-y-axis=100&min-factorgraph-y-axis=0&max-factorgraph-y-axis=100&underlying-factor=crp
[viii] Carl Elefante Former President of the American Institute of Architects, National Trust Forum Journal, 2007
[ix] https://www.rockwool.com/group/advice-and-inspiration/renovation/energy-renovation/deep-energy-retrofit/#:~:text=A%20deep%20energy%20retrofit%20is,consumption%20as%20much%20as%20possible.
[x] https://henninglarsen.com/news/an-architects-guide-to-upfront-carbon
[xi] https://henninglarsen.com/news/world-environment-day
[xii] https://ukgbc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/UKGBC_WIP-Report_V09-LR.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866721002016
[xiii] https://www.buildingwithnature.org.uk/
[xiv] https://www.considerateconstructors.com/
[xv] https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-biodiversity-strategy-2045-tackling-nature-emergency-scotland/
