Faced with the issue of climate change, urban planners have become increasingly concerned with the environmental sustainability of the spaces they design, beyond the creation of energy efficient landscapes. This approach, which encourages heightening the presence of natural environments within urban cities, is what sparked a study from the 4th Annual International Conference on Architecture and Civil Engineering. Investigating the shifting policy-making paradigm which considers Nature as its own entity, to one where Nature is integrated into the cities we live and play in, the paper examines the policies of four “Biophilic Cities” across continents, defined as those that “look for opportunities to repair, restore and creatively insert nature wherever it can”; namely, Curitiba, London, New York, and Singapore. The study also contextualizes the importance of creating, and enhancing access to, natural spaces in the age of digital media, where we no longer need physical spaces to interact with one another. With this point of view in mind, the paper ties the significance of nature not only to having ecological value, but also, of being critical to national identity and community building.
The policies implemented by these four cities can be organized into two main themes: Those aimed at infrastructure, and those aimed at increasing public involvement by incorporating nature into public spaces and into citizens’ lives.
Examples of the former include the creation of public parks, such as in Curitiba, Brazil, where by 1982, the amount of green area was about 10 m2 per inhabitant, close to the 2012 UN recommendation of 12 m2. Large reservoirs were also built inside the perimeters of these parks in order to mitigate the local flooding crisis. Additionally, this type of policy includes the transformation of degraded areas into preservation and wildlife observation regions, including the WWT Wetland Centre in London. In New York, public transportation infrastructure was improved, so as to reduce the city’s carbon footprint, and in Singapore, “green corridors” were created so that citizens could access parks more democratically, and so that wildlife migration became easier, aiding biodiversity. The study notes the uniqueness of Singapore’s green corridor approach, in its attempt to link different neighborhoods through one overarching system.
For the latter policy, nature caretaking programs were implemented across all four cities. In Curitiba, citizens were encouraged to water and take care of trees in their neighborhoods, prompting the slogan “We give shade, you the fresh water”. Over 60,000 trees on average were cared for each year through this program. In London, abandoned urban segments were restored, and the unemployed were offered educational programs so that they could use the area for small agricultural projects. The study cites the benefits of local food production as going just beyond the reduction of costs and CO2 emissions, to include the revitalization of social interactions between citizens. In New York and Singapore, tree planting programs were implemented, “The Million Trees NYC” and annual “Tree Planting Day” respectively. Another interesting initiative was the development of phone applications in London to advise citizens on how to mitigate their carbon footprints (for example, by showing them the quickest routes to reach their destinations). Through their PLANYC program, New York also aims to increase the “walkability” factor of their parks so that every New Yorker need only walk for 10 minutes to reach a park, based on research that claims people go to parks more when they can walk to them even though public transport may already make it accessible.
The study concludes by stating the value of these cities as models for the global transformation of cities from current conditions into one of ecological urbanism.
SOURCE STUDY: Costa, M.M., Lazos, A., Oliverida, R.R.d., 2016. The Role of Public Parks in the Creation of an Urban Identity. 4th Annual International Conference on Architecture and Civil Engineering, 212-216.