Rivers, birds and microbes as legitimate actors in urban governance: a concept that radically transforms the utilitarian vision of nature in the city.

The city ​​planning is responding to environmental emergencies with rooftop parks, urban reforestation, and ecological corridors. The starting point for these interventions, however, remains almost always the same: nature is valuable to the extent that it serves us. In a recent study published in the Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, researcher Saman Sobhani proposes to overturn this paradigm by introducing the concept of multispecies justice.

According to this approach, cities cease to be a purely human matter to become shared ecosystems in which plants, rivers and animals are real cohabitants and political subjectsNature, in short, is not there to provide a service to humans, but has interests to protect and claims to make.

Saman Sobhani: Why Multispecies Justice?

If there's one thing entirely based on human needs, scale, and desires, it's the city. Of course, over time, some cities have ended up embracing a more cumbersome concept of humanity—that of large infrastructures, corporations, and real estate brokers. But even urban settlements that have completely lost the scale of living humanity are ultimately designed around the needs of the only apes who invented concrete and used Earth's metals to build their shelters.

Cities, however, do not belong only to humans. The plants, animals and rivers we encounter on our urban paths also have their own interests, and these should be integrated into city governance. This is what is argued Saman Sobhani, a PhD student at Aberystwyth University, Wales, in a study recently published in Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. As he explains in an article published on The Conversation,

"The problem isn't simply how to make cities greener. It's who we think cities are for."

At best, urban planners wonder how nature can make cities better for humans: trees are planted because they're refreshing and beautiful, parks and green spaces are funded because they improve our mental and physical health, wetlands are protected (always too little) because they protect us from floods. Nature, more often than not, is considered a simple service providerEven advanced frameworks such as those linked to Sustainable Development and Nature-based Solutions (NbS) only confirm this uncritically anthropocentric approach.

Sobhani introduces a concept that invites a radical change of perspective, as it starts from a completely different premise, in which plants, animals and ecosystems “They are not simply services that bring benefits to man. They are cohabitants of the places we share.”. We are talking about Multispecies Justice.

Rivers, plants and animals of the city as political subjects

Approaches that aim to integrate nature into urban planning, including nature-based solutions that make use of green roofs and street trees, are increasingly adept at showcasing the benefits that nature brings to humans, explains Sobhani, “but much less willing to to ask whether other species also have their own interestsTake the example of swifts in the UK. As the researcher explains, these birds nest in crevices under eaves and roof tiles, which can suddenly disappear when older buildings are demolished or renovated. Thus, since 1995, the number of swifts in the UK has declined by around 60%. And in 2021, the species was added to the list of birds most at risk of extinction.

These conflicts between humans and nature, but also between different species in the same urban habitat, are commonplace—and are almost always resolved by giving absolute priority to human interests. Multispecies justice, Sobhani explains, requires us to make these choices more explicit. Because the nonhuman beings with whom we share the city, in short, are political subjects in all respects – with interests to protect and demands seeking their space.

Cities are not "built" on nature, but are metabolic and interspecific assemblages: shaped by soil, infrastructure, hydrology, fungi, birds, and bacteria. For example, wetlands regulate stormwater, soil microbes support urban vegetation, and birds and pollinators depend on migratory routes, nesting sites, and seasonal habitats within the city. From this perspective, living beings are not "beneficiaries" of good planning, but rather agents with territorial, ecological, and temporal claims on the city itself.

it is written in the study.

The example of the Whanganui River in Aotearoa/New Zealand

The paradigm of multispecies justice redefines the city as “interdependent collectivity of human and non-human life”, and recognizes the non-human co-inhabitants and co-constituents who possess agency and intrinsic value. Rivers, insects, plane trees, microbes, and urban foxes thus become political subjects, that is, legitimate holders of claims.

“This goes beyond legal personality; it means granting ontological equality to all beings,”

explains the author.

Adopting this approach, Sobhani specifies, doesn't mean turning cities into nature reserves. Rather, it requires a shift in perspective capable of influencing the decisions that shape urban life. There are already examples of governments experimenting with this more-than-humanist approach. One of the most significant is the legal recognition of Whanganui River in Aotearoa/New ZealandAs the research states,

This example is not limited to the recognition of the river as a legal entity, but is grounded in Māori cosmology and institutionalized through shared stewardship agreements. Under the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act, the river is represented by two guardians: one from the Māori tribe (Ngāti Tūwharetoa) and one from the Crown.

that is, of the New Zealand government. The river is not simply recognized as a legal person, but has the dignity of a living ancestorIt's not just a matter of extending human rights to animals and rivers, a still anthropocentric perspective, but of "granting ontological equality to all beings."

“The challenge for planners is to decide whether to continue to design cities primarily for human needs, adding nature only where it provides a benefit, or to begin to consider the prosperity of other species as a legitimate element in its own right.”

concludes the author.

Here are three insights that might interest you:

Designing for Biodiversity: From Architects to Habitat Creators
Rapa Nui, the indigenous community protecting the Sacred Sea
Ecological design: how city parks are changing