Nature Based Infrastructure and Justice (SOS 310 Final Paper)

Lack of Nature-based Infrastructure in Cities as a Social Injustice

Currently, the entire globe is experiencing an urban migration of staggering and historically unprecedented proportions (Haaland & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, 2015). As populations of cities and their fast growing suburbs continue to increase there are environmental, social, and economic issues intersecting on their choked streets. Roads clogged with commuters and their pollution, the Urban Heat Island (UHI) affect corroding livability, lack of green spaces both private and public, as more and more housing development takes priority over other land uses, are just a few of the expanding concerns around urban migration and its sprawl (Hedblom, et. al., 2019; Haaland & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, 2015).

Humans need safe, equitable access to green spaces to live healthily (Hedblom, et. al., 2019; Louv, 2008; Seddon & Smith, et. al., 2021; Wolch, et. al., 2014). Therefore, the lack of nature based infrastructure in cities is a matter of social injustice. This paper focuses on the injustices that intersect with human wellbeing at a social, and societal level. However, injustices in cityscapes certainly extend to non-human entities, the environment, and often have systemic impacts that can reach far beyond city lines. To support this thesis three examples of city-specific biophilic design will be explored. Firstly, the protected outdoor areas most think of primarily: the presence of parks. Several cities with notable parks will serve as examples for how just, equitable, and sustainable parks can be arranged. Secondly, the importance of public transit, specifically through the design lens of transit oriented development (TOD), which allows less space to be dedicated to roads and parking lots, while also helping connect different green spaces to the population of a community, and a community to their livelihoods and third spaces. Lastly, private green spaces, and the increasingly creative pockets for gardens, private parks, and pervasive biophilic design will be mentioned to show where individual action and city planning can overlap in an ongoing effort to support collective social wellbeing.

For the sake of this argument nature based solutions, biophilic design, and sustainable infrastructure can all be thought of as interchangeable definers of the same eco-conscious coin. This paper leans on the term nature based solutions most heavily, because it is easily recognizable in academic research and ongoing urban design data. All these concepts focus on an integration of environmental presence and human interaction. It is actually only relatively recently in human history that there has been a disconnect between the human species and earthly seasons, wildlife, and home grown foods (Louv, 2008). Yet, as world population rises, urban areas especially bear the strain of increasing development, urban sprawl, enlarged road systems, which in turn leads to more and more destruction of natural and wild spaces. Nature based solutions seek to heal fragmented land parcels, incorporate lost wildlife, and balance human needs with their planet’s (Seddon & Smith, et. al., 2021).

The absence of these kinds of nature based solutions is an injustice on several fronts. Justice, defined here as the inherent right to fair and equitable resources (Stanford Encycl., 2021), is strikingly unavailable to many living in cities. Expand on this brief definition of justice by adopting a Rawlsian approach to equitable resources by employing his thought experiment of The Veil of Ignorance, a tool where one does not know where, to whom, or under what circumstances they will enter and live in the world. John Rawls first proposed this idea as a political and economically framed discourse (Rawls, 2000) but in this paper the invitation is to expand the envisionment in how we interact together. Beyond measurements often attributed to quality of life, such as stable employment and adequate housing, how might one envision their social lives, their outdoor recreation, their quality of air and water, their nearness to their food?

As city populations rapidly increase, so have food deserts, poor transportation infrastructure, air pollution, watershed issues, and unaffordable housing (Remington-Doucette, 2017; Seddon & Smith, et. al., 2021; Wolch, et. al., 2014). Sustainable design, defined through the lens of resilience, meets the physical, mental, spiritual, and social needs of both contemporary and future generations (Remington-Doucette, 2017). The upcoming examples are applied to the context of social needs, but may also positively impact other needs, through cultural heritage preservation, or spiritual or ritual land uses (Haaland & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, 2015). These practices could be viewed as a blend of social and spiritual needs, like a subcategory of this paper’s context. It is important to remain distinct though, so as to stay within the scope of the thesis, that social wellbeing is currently harmed by a lack of nature based solutions, and can be properly, fairly, addressed through thoughtful, sustainable infrastructure. However sustainable development often sits at the crossroads of many possible benefits, unforeseen outcomes, and disruptions (Campbell, 1996; Remington-Doucette, 2017).

With these terms as generalized benchmarks, we can see how the average citizen of the average city suffers ongoing injustice through a lack of biophilic design. Though basic physical needs are often thought of as food, clothing, shelter, clean water, clean air, and livable temperatures are all also vital for homeostasis. Cities' poor air quality, lack of natural temperature regulation, and absence of nature-scaped mobility are especially focused on in the upcoming examples. Though not a focus in this paper, it is notable that injustice also occurs to the environment in and around cities, as urban sprawl displaces and destroys native flora and fauna (Cook, 2016). There are also, arguably, injustices presented economically, as the most affordable housing and lowest income areas in highly populated cities are typically those most adjacent to polluting factories, concrete “deserts,” and/or farthest removed from significant park spaces (Wolch, et. al., 2014). To clarify, this paper narrows in on the matters of social injustices perpetrated by a lack of nature based design. Humans engaged in healthy social habits are supported by spaces that are public, easily accessible, potentially recreational, and otherwise conducive to gathering and lingering. It is understood that parks are an especially powerful city planning feature to provision these things (Larsen, et. al., 2016).

It is well documented that outdoor, nature centric green spaces lower stress, increase wellbeing, and have been used as a way for people to protest and otherwise gather throughout the world (Hoover & Lim, 2021; Wolch, et. al., 2014). This universal use of park spaces speaks to their ability to shape citizens' ability to be well, and to provide space to disrupt other systems of injustice. The public park can define a city, or generate its very epicenter; consider Central Park in New York City, Grant Park in Chicago, Miami Beach in Miami, New Orlean’s City Park, Boston’s Commons and Public Garden, the string of parks that creates the foundation of Washington D.C.’s many monuments, St. Louis’s Forest Park which houses its zoo, art museum, and botanical gardens, and is flanked by its science museum, community college, and iconic restaurants. Cities that lack these greenery focused epicenters, whether intentionally or unintentionally, cut off their citizens from spaces that provide pedestrian centric ease of movement, communal spaces for gathering without cost, and a biophilic web of connective opportunities.

Ultimately, for matters of social justice to be addressed, social change must occur (Schwalbe, 2020). However, it is difficult to facilitate social change when there is a lack of non-cost prohibitive third spaces available for citizens to gather, interact, and even simply meet. Such spaces are increasingly rare, perpetuating a loneliness epidemic in the U.S. (Rashid, 2023). Connective opportunities are vital for human wellbeing, and is the central focus of this paper, through the lens of mobility, communal spaces, and the collective urban benefits of urban green infrastructure. But, it is amiss to not mention that there is growing, though currently considered inconclusive, evidence that human beings have lower stress, greater happiness, and greater health when exposed to nature sights, sounds, and smells (Hedblom, et. al., 2019). Biophilia is the term used to describe the presumed inherent, evolutionary, and universal love of natural forms, scents, visuals, and sounds (Cook, 2016). It is possible that in the future such examples and arguments could be amended to include or disclude the understood positives of being in outdoor green spaces. To clarify, this paper’s position is that access to recreational, communal spaces that are nature centric is required for the health of humans, as these provide the fabric of social and mobility frameworks for cities.

In addressing the social and recreational sustainability concerns of access to parks and transit oriented development (TOD), structural injustices rampant in most cities are also reimagined (Salgado, et. al. 2022). We’ll take a closer look at some specific injustices of health and wellbeing that manifest in the forms of increased mortality due to temperature dysregulation and air pollution.

Urban Heat Islands (UHIs), or the urban heat island effect, is the term used to describe the process of stone materials absorbing heat in the form of solar radiation during the day and slowly releasing it during the night after the sun has set. Understood and experienced globally, our cities tend to be highly paved, full of stone, concrete, and blacktop built areas, all materials that capture solar heat. This heat capture and slow release process increases urban temperatures drastically compared to less developed areas in the same, or similar, geographical areas and is studied as a major effect of climate change (Rodríguez-Gómez, 2022). One of the primary strategies for addressing UHIs is to develop more shaded areas, and cool existing infrastructure by increasing the amount of greenery and reflective surfaces, such as with tree plantings and water features. An iconic park space, like those listed in the prior paragraph, all share these concepts. They contain water areas, significantly more green than paved areas, and large mature trees.

Something else these notable parks share is meaningful mobility, both within the park space, and as a means between it and other areas of their respective cities. Public transportation is one of the most daunting and drastic measures cities must plan for as they grow (Renee, et. al., 2016). Public transit can include everything from buses, metro lines, safe bike lanes and walking paths, to open green fields for humans to cross. New Orleans City Park has streetcar stops at both south corners, Boston’s Common has bike lanes running across it, St. Louis’s Forest Park has a combination of walking paths and automobile friendly roads. A sustainably designed city park is one that increases movement options within and around it, as well as from it to other key epicenters.

Even outside of park specific areas public transportation has innumerable benefits to a city and its society (Manzi, et. al., 2010; Renee, et. al., 2016). More people traveling in less vehicles allows less area to be devoted to roadways and parking lots. Public transit can also significantly decrease road noise, air pollution, and vehicle accident fatalities (Renee, et. al., 2016). Public transportation increases the livability of a city (Rodríguez-Gómez, 2022). It is more efficient when used regularly and consistently by citizens, and offers a sustainable disruption to car centric mobility, which is inaccessible for many children, elderly, and disabled people, amongst others. A lack of decent public transportation harms people’s ability to find and keep work, and connect them to necessary resources like grocery stores and doctors offices (NADTC, 2018). Human wellbeing is tied to meaningful mobility (Manzi, et. al., 2010).

Adding to Rawlsian visions of unbiased justice, Martha Nussbaum's work on the capabilities approach can help add depth to this concept of meaningful mobility. As in, mobility options alone, though often helpful, are not necessarily reshaping the unjust to the just. In Nussbaum’s own words, “Instead of focusing on goods, focusing on what those goods do for human beings” is the essence of the capabilities approach (Harvard University Press, 2011). This approach to justice looks at the interactions humans experience with goods or resources, and asks how their lives are improved or impaired by them. In the case of public transportation, when thrown into cityscapes without the support of other transit oriented development- such as the inclusion of pedestrian only hubs, safe bike paths, or limited parking lot sizes- the benefits of them are often a mixed bag (Manzi, 2010).

Injustices around meaningful mobility are abundant, especially for city dwellers who can not afford a vehicle and/or are disabled, elderly, or too young to drive. Other ongoing sustainability concerns tied to city population are equally addressed when TOD is. UHIs, the nemesis of most modern cities, can be mitigated significantly through good public transit infrastructure. Not only is this kind of infrastructure more prime for biophilic design, such as winding bike lanes, but it decreases the amount of paved surfaces required to move many people from one point to another. It decreases air pollution, road noise, and parking lot developments (Haaland & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, 2015). There is no kind of citizen that is not benefited by TOD.

Clean air, another basic need increasingly lacking in growing cities, is significantly addressed through TOD, as the main source of urban air pollution is generated by motorized road usage (Mueller, et. al., 2017). Premature deaths affected by lack of physical activity and air pollution, two items addressed through intentional mobility designs, is estimated to be five million, globally (Mueller, et. al., 2017). Social wellbeing is especially impacted by commute times, the individual nature of single car ownership and usage, and the fragmentation of sprawling urban areas (Wolch, et. al., 2014).

So far these examples have focused on public spaces collectively provided by cities through intentional urban design. However, the growing experimentation of private green spaces is of equal importance. There are also some urban greenery examples that are not specifically private, nor are they a defined park. These kinds of nature-focused design elements include trees lining a boulevard, planter pots next to a bus stop, native planted easements at the front of home’s yards (shared ownership), swales along roadways or sidewalks, weeds growing around light poles. However, all these pockets of greenery can still benefit humans and the environment in most cases (Haaland & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, 2015). Privatized examples include household and community gardens and green roofs. Though privately determined and maintained, these “pockets” of greenery still provide socially beneficial infrastructure that assist in issues of air pollution, UHIs, and groundwater restorations. Pervasive biophilia could be incentivized through city policies, such as updates in coding and zoning, though ultimately a cultural shift towards environmental values would need to occur in a significant way (Orr, 1994).

Biophilic design emphasizes the importance of not only greenery, but soft lines, natural flows and paces, and harmony between humans and their environment. With this in mind consider the many private, or privately shared spaces that are green, or could be green-ified. Rooftop gardens are one example gaining in recent popularity (Haaland & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, 2015). Green roofs in general, whether they be on a skyscraper, a five star hotel patio, or over a humble garden shed, are all excellent examples of the spaces that could be made more human and earth friendly. Other examples include tree plantings as standard along residential roads, empty plots being turned into community gardens, unused alleys turned into “greenways,” demolished building lots transformed into water feature parks, no mow grasses and lawns becoming normalized for homes and easements, connective non-car paths which allow a buffer of nature on either side, etc. (Haaland & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, 2015; Rodríguez-Gómez, 2022; Longfeng & Seung Kyum, 2021).

TOD is a key factor in the accessibility of green spaces. Reinserting green spaces in cities is not valuable, as in, their capabilities are not realized, if the citizens of that city cannot interact with them (Larsen, et. al., 2016). This is in part why both public parks and private green spaces should both be invested in as a means of addressing urban injustices.

This paper has focused on the injustices experienced in densely populated cities through the lens of UHIs, air pollution, accessibility, and general wellbeing. Though these issues of justice sit at the center of this discussion, a great many other injustices sit at their periphery. These include but are not limited to land sovereignty and indigenous land rights and restoration, automobile accident fatalities, noise pollution, light pollution, local food systems, racially motivated highway development and red-lining, human recreation, and environmental and human safety.

Justice, the need for fair and equitable resources, cannot coexist within unsustainable infrastructure and developments. A lack of nature based solutions perpetuates injustices in city centers and urban sprawl alike. From a social lens, those most reliant on public transit, and most removed from outdoor recreational areas benefit immediately from nature based solutions in city design. The good news is that sustainable, biophilic design, addresses these social injustices and disrupts urban environmental degradation (Wolch, et. al., 2014). As Edward Cook summarizes, “Linking science, policy, planning, and design is the most promising way to integrate ecology into cities and help provide a foundation for a more sustainable future” (2016). An unsustainable future, one that continues to participate in current urban systems of fragmentation, inaccessibility, disconnected people and places would only further magnify the injustices of the modern growing city. As cities expand in size, population, and impact they must move forward fairly, prioritizing communal spaces, availability of movement options, and incentives to incorporate greenery into every available pocket. Public parks, transit oriented development, and private green spaces are all excellent places to start addressing the social injustices increasing as city populations do.

References

Campbell, S. 1996. Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the

contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning

Association 62 (3): 296-312.

Cook, E. (2016). Biophilic Urbanism: Making Cities Sustainable

through Ecological Design. International Conference on Civil, Architecture and Sustainable Development (CASD-2016), London(UK). Accessed July 18, 2023 from https://alsi.sdp.sirsi.net/client/en_US/PeoriaPL/search/detailnonmodal/cs:$002f$002f-624015687$002f0$002f6205af4383d4d5146228b197/email?qu=Biophilic+cities&d=cs%3A%2F%2F-624015687%2F0%2F6205af4383d4d5146228b197%7E%7E0&te=-624015687&lm=P0_ALL-PPL

Fainstein, Susan S. 2010. Introduction: Towards an Urban Theory of Justice. In Fainstein,

Susan S. 2010. The Just City. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Fainstein, Susan S. 2010. Philosophical Approaches to the Problem of Justice. In Fainstein,

Susan S. 2010. The Just City. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Francisco Rodríguez-Gómez, Rafael Fernández-Cañero, Gabriel Pérez, José del Campo-Ávila,

Domingo López-Rodríguez, Luis Pérez-Urrestarazu, Detection of unfavourable urban areas with higher temperatures and lack of green spaces using satellite imagery in sixteen Spanish cities, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Volume 78, 2022, 127783, ISSN 1618-8667, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127783.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866722003260

Haaland, C., Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. (2015). Challenges and strategies for urban

green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp. 760-771, ISSN 1618-8667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.009.

Accessed July 15, 2023 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S161886671500103X

Harvard University Press. (2011). Creating Capabilities [Video]. YouTube.

https://youtu.be/AoD-cjduM40

Hedblom, M., Gunnarsson, B., Iravani, B. et al. (2019). Reduction of physiological stress by

urban green space in a multisensory virtual experiment. Sci Rep 9, 10113. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46099-7

Hoover, F.A., Lim, T.C. Examining privilege and power in US urban parks and open space

during the double crises of antiblack racism and COVID-19. Socio Ecol Pract Res 3, 55–70 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-020-00070-3

Larson, L. Jennings, V., Cloutier, S., (2016). Public Parks and Wellbeing in Urban Areas of the

United States. PLOS ONE 11(4): e0153211. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153211

Longfeng W., Seung Kyum, K., (2021). Exploring the equality of accessing urban green

spaces: A comparative study of 341 Chinese cities. Ecological Indicators, Volume 121, 107080, ISSN 1470-160X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107080. Accessed July 12, 2023 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X20310190

Louv, R. (2008). Last Child in the Woods. Algonquin Books. U.S.A.

Lucy, W. H. 1981. Equity and planning for local services. Journal of the American

Planning Association, 47(4), 447-457.

Manzi, T., Lucas, K., Jones, T. L., and J. Allen. 2010. Understanding Social Sustainability:

Key Concepts and Developments in Theory and Practice. Transport Planning for Sustainable

Communities. Chapter 7 in Manzi, T., Lucas, K., Jones, T. L., and J. Allen. 2010.

Social Sustainability in Urban Areas: Communities, Connectivity and the Urban

Fabric. Earthscan: Washington, D.C.

Mueller, N., Rojas-Rueda, D., Basagaña, X., Cirach, M., Cole-Hunter, T., Dadvand, P.,

Donaire-Gonzalez, D., Foraster, M., Gascon, M., Martinez, D., Tonne, C., Triguero-Mas, M., Valentín, A., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2017). Urban and Transport Planning Related Exposures and Mortality: A Health Impact Assessment for Cities. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(1), 89–96. https://doi-org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1289/EHP220

NADTC (National Aging and Disability Transportation Center). (2018). New National Poll:

Inability to Drive, Lack of Transportation Options are Major Concerns for Older Adults, People With Disabilities and Caregivers. PRNewswire. Accessed July 13, 2023 from https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-national-poll-inability-to-drive-lack-of-transportation-options-are-major-concerns-for-older-adults-people-with-disabilities-and-caregivers-300761774.html

Orr, D. (1994) Earth in Mind. Island Press. Washington D.C., U.S.A.

Rashid, R. (2023). How to Talk to People; The Infrastructure of Community [Podcast]. The

Atlantic. Accessed July 30, 2023 from https://open.spotify.com/episode/2sySKIIKiInGJLQHz5phP4?si=yzD-H-MaS26gpCcj-2RygA

Rawls, J. (2000). The Original Position. In What is justice?: classic and contemporary readings,

eds. R. C. Solomon and Murphy, 100–106. New York: Oxford University Press.

Remington-Doucette, S. (2017). Sustainable World: Approaches to Analyzing and Resolving

Wicked Problems. Second Edition. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.

Renne, J., Tolford, T., Hamidi, S., Ewing, R. (2016). The Cost and Affordability Paradox of

Transit-Oriented Development: A Comparison of Housing and Transportation Costs Across Transit-Oriented Development, Hybrid and Transit-Adjacent Development Station Typologies. Housing Policy Debate, Vol 26, pp. 819-834. https://doi-org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1080/10511482.2016.1193038

Salgado, Yuan, Z., Caridi, I., & González, M. C. (2022). Exposure to parks through the lens of

urban mobility. EPJ Data Science, 11(1), 42–42. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-022-00351-9

Seddon, N., Smith, A., Smith, P., Key, I., Chausson, A., Girardin, C., House, J., Srivastava, S.,

Turner, B. (2021). Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Global Change Biology, Vol 27, pp. 1518-1546. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15513.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (revision 2021). Justice. Retrieved July 3, 2023 from

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/

Schwalbe, M. (2020). Making a Difference. Oxford University Press.

Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental

justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough.’ Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 125, 234-244, ISSN 0169-2046, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017. Accessed July 14, 2023 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204614000310