Future Natures in the Making: Implementing Biodiversity in Suburban Land-Use Planning

Abstract

This paper uses a suburban master planning process to study the consequences of the domination of scientifically defined nature in urban green governance. The analysis of knowledge practices and discursive framings shows that in this case the domination arose through “amplification of the biodiversity claim”, a largely self-organizing process between the participating actors, and produced a widely accepted understanding of a stable urban nature emphasizing present biodiversity values. As a normative response to the current situation this paper develops a concept of “future natures”, indicating the need for a more dynamic and deliberative planning idea for conserving urban biodiversity.

Keywords:

• Biodiversity
• discursive framing
• knowledge practices
• land-use planning
• policy implementation
• urban green governance

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the three anonymous referees and also Maria Åkerman and Juha Hiedanpää, who commented on early drafts of the manuscript. The study was supported by the City of Tampere, Nessling Foundation, Kone Foundation, and the Academy of Finland (project 122306).

Notes

1. Excerpts in this paper are translated from Finnish to English by the authors.

2. These were 1) landscape and nature management areas which are reserved to preserve and maintain diversity of landscapes and biological nature, 2) large natural areas reserved for nearby recreation, outdoor activities, sports and nature experiences, and 3) constructed parks, playing fields and playgrounds lying near the residential areas.

3. The reform of the building legislation in 1999 that emphasizes the importance of biodiversity values, citizen participation as well as the role of court instead of conflict mediation by administration, makes it possible for participants to involve natural values more efficiently than before. Consequently, planners feel they are only planning for the court (Leino, 2006), actually meaning that the reform has transferred the controlling power from state authorities to citizens, who are expected to be sufficiently aware to be able to complain about plans if needed. And often they really are, as was the case in Vuores.

4. Altogether 122 opinions or statements were given on the sketch of the master plan when it was put on public display in May–June 2002, and respectively 108 opinions or statements when the proposal was put on display February–May 2003. Many of these dealt with the plan's detrimental effects on nature, loss of the sense of wilderness, and the decline in recreational opportunities. In addition, the inhabitants and neighbours of the Vuores area produced alternative ideas to the official master plan, but their suggestions were rejected by the city (Leino, 2006).