Nature and the City or Nature in the City?

If I were to ask a typical citizen what comes to mind when they hear the word ‘nature,’ they would likely think of jungles, oceans, and forests. Logical, because when the media talks about how ‘nature is declining’ it usually refers to declining ‘natural’ habitats such as coral reefs, the Amazon Rainforest or the polar ice caps. Most people associate nature with these kinds of environments, where humans have little presence, allowing animals and plants to thrive undisturbed by our presence. A city is certainly not considered nature, as it is inhabited and constructed by humans. This distinction is what most people would attribute to the concept of nature: Nature can never be ‘man-made’. Humans themselves are however considered to be animals by the general public, and our descendance from apes has (now) been widely accepted to be a fact. However, ask the general public if humanity is natural or could be considered as nature and opinions may strongly diverge. Does being an animal not already place humans into the, admittedly vague, concept of nature? Or does our understanding of technology and capacity to manipulate place us outside this realm? And what does this mean for our cities and other creations?

In 2020, Frédéric Ducarme and Denis Couvet published a paper called “What does ‘nature’ mean?”, emphasizing that the definition of nature differs between scientists to this day. Some scientists avoid using the term nature and opt for words such as ‘biosphere’ or ‘ecosystems’, to more accurately portray the processes at work. These terms point towards what many people seem to think of nature, namely the interactions of animals and other organisms with their environment. But usually, nature is defined by all that happens independently of humanity, e.g the weather or the sea (Cambridge Dictionary). This leads us to an intriguing paradox: as humans continue to shape the planet, it becomes increasingly challenging to find spaces untouched by our influence. Even so-called “natural” areas may have been significantly impacted by human activities, from reforestation efforts to climate change. This prompts us to reconsider our understanding of nature and its relationship to humanity.

Urban areas are a great environment for understanding this dynamic. Cities are generally not considered to be natural areas as they are completely man-made. Yet, they contain many species of diverse plants, animals, fungi, and microbes. Many birds, mammals and even some reptiles have lived in these cities for hundreds of years. Are they not nature? In the Netherlands seagulls are known to nest near beaches and fly many miles visiting different cities for food, successfully incorporating these cities in their natural cycle. Many animals call these cities their home and alternate food chains have formed. For example, a study by Kettel et al., 2019 showed that peregrine falcons are generally more successful when considering nest size in cities compared to more rural areas. I personally remember sitting in the backseat of the car driving past the Zuidas in Amsterdam always trying to spot the falcons who nested on the tall banking buildings. They are considered to be true locals in the city and many friends of mine have seen the falcons and refer to them as ‘meest sympathieke zuidassers’ (Dutchies will get it). They even got to be movie stars in ‘De Wilde Stad’, a movie that came out in 2017 about life in Dutch cities. In my opinion they truly deserve the spotlight as these amazing apex predators are a great example of how nature can thrive in the city.

It’s arguable whether cities can be considered truly natural, given that they are constructed by humans and their technology rather than by natural Earth processes. This raises the question: what about ant-hills or beaver dams? Beaver dams, for instance, are notorious for rapidly altering ecosystems, sometimes to the point of destruction from certain perspectives. When flooding rivers change the landscape, forcing species to relocate, does the new environment they create still qualify as nature? Termites and ants have been “urbanizing” their environments for millions of years, significantly transforming them in the process. On the subject of ants, they even domesticate aphids for a sugar source. Livestock is usually excluded when talking about nature, so should domesticated aphids also be excluded? These examples highlight the intricacies of defining nature and the blurred lines between natural processes and human interventions.

Humanity created many urban environments, just like beavers, termites and ants. These environments have been colonized by many other animals, so why can’t this be nature? In my opinion the concept of nature is too vague. Nature is life finding a way, independent of where or how. I am not proposing that a rainforest is the same as a city and that conservation is useless because cities are nature too. Cities are of course very young compared to most ecosystems, which in some cases took millions of years to form. This makes them valuable, as the species formed during these time spans can be one of a kind and very fragile. To truly understand our biosphere as a species, it is time to incorporate our own cities into the concept of nature, recognizing their possible role in fostering biodiversity and ecological resilience.