Co-exist and cooperate

Supporting biodiversity in cities requires cultural alignment and fluency, social acceptance, and a sense of nature-connectedness [1-3]. This category focuses on how people perceive, value, and live alongside the natural world. Design and maintenance strategies need to honour diverse worldviews, foster sensory and emotional connection, communicate care, and reduce conflict [4]. These approaches may help embed biodiversity into urban life in meaningful, accepted, and enduring ways [5].

This section includes five interconnected sub-categories, each offering a strategy for strengthening human–nature relationships:

  1. Embed human–nature relationships and worldviews
  2. Foster biophilic and eco-revelatory experiences
  3. Design for ecosystem services
  4. Signal cues to care and support stewardship
  5. Manage human–nature conflict

Design Implications
Designing for human-nature coexistence means working with both ecological and cultural systems as intertwined considerations [4]. Designers can embed stories, values, and sensory experiences through material choices, spatial cues, and multispecies awareness [5, 6]. Cues to care, visibility of ecological benefits, and emotional resonance are all essential [7]. Equally, anticipating and reducing sources of conflict or discomfort may ensure biodiversity is embraced rather than resisted [4].

Planning Implications
Planners can strengthen cooperation between people and biodiversity by embedding cultural values and ecosystem services into urban policies and development requirements. Such cooperation can provide mutual benefits for people and biodiversity, enhancing people’s understanding, respect and support for ecological processes, habitats and sustaining species.  Supporting co-stewardship, providing interpretive tools, managing risk and legitimising diverse worldviews and cultural systems, including those of te ao Māori, can foster more inclusive and resilient urban ecologies. 

References:

  1. Mihaere, S., Holman-Wharehoka, M., Mataroa, J., Kiddle, G. L., Pedersen Zari, M., Blaschke, P., & Bloomfield, S. (2024). Centring localised indigenous concepts of wellbeing in urban nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation: case-studies from Aotearoa New Zealand and the Cook Islands. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 12, 1278235.
  2. Nilon, C. H., Aronson, M. F., Cilliers, S. S., Dobbs, C., Frazee, L. J., Goddard, M. A., … & Yocom, K. P. (2017). Planning for the future of urban biodiversity: a global review of city-scale initiatives. BioScience, 67(4), 332-342.
  3. Richardson, M., Dobson, J., Abson, D. J., Lumber, R., Hunt, A., Young, R., & Moorhouse, B. (2020). Applying the pathways to nature connectedness at a societal scale: a leverage points perspective. Ecosystems and People, 16(1), 387-401.
  4. Jolly, H., & Stronza, A. (2025). Insights on human−wildlife coexistence from social science and Indigenous and traditional knowledge. Conservation Biology, 39(2), e14460.
  5. Arrizabalaga, N.F. (2020). Urban interiority in the anthropocene. Interiority, 3(1), 83-96.
  6. Haldrup, M., Samson, K., & Laurien, T. (2022, August). Designing for multispecies commons: Ecologies and collaborations in participatory design. In Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference 2022-Volume 2 (pp. 14-19).
  7. Li, J., & Nassauer, J. I. (2020). Cues to care: A systematic analytical review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 201, 103821.

1. Embed human–nature relationships and worldviews

This sub-category recognises that how people relate to nature is shaped by cultural values, beliefs, and worldviews. Designing for coexistence with nature requires consideration of how people relate to each other and their environment, emotional connection, and people’s sense of belonging [1]. Mātauranga Māori and other Indigenous knowledge systems emphasise interdependence and kinship with the natural world, offering powerful frameworks for ecological care and design [2]. Place-based strategies that reflect these values, such as customary harvest areas, and working with culturally significant species, traditional calendars, or seasonal ecological markers, may embed deeper meaning into biodiversity initiatives and foster more inclusive, enduring relationships with place [3, 4].

References:

  1. Richardson, M., Dobson, J., Abson, D. J., Lumber, R., Hunt, A., Young, R., & Moorhouse, B. (2020). Applying the pathways to nature connectedness at a societal scale: a leverage points perspective. Ecosystems and People, 16(1), 387-401.
  2. Mihaere, S., Holman-Wharehoka, M., Mataroa, J., Kiddle, G. L., Pedersen Zari, M., Blaschke, P., & Bloomfield, S. (2024). Centring localised indigenous concepts of wellbeing in urban nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation: case-studies from Aotearoa New Zealand and the Cook Islands. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 12, 1278235.
  3. Warbrick, I., Makiha, R., Heke, D., Hikuroa, D., Awatere, S., & Smith, V. (2023). Te Maramataka—An Indigenous system of attuning with the environment, and its role in modern health and well-being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(3), 2739.
  4. Wickham, S.B., Augustine, S., Forney, A., Mathews, D.L., Shackelford, N., Walkus, J., & Trant, A.J. (2022). Incorporating place-based values into ecological restoration. Ecology and Society, 27(3).

2. Foster biophilic and eco-revelatory experiences

Design can deepen human–nature relationships by integrating sensory, emotional, and cognitive encounters with living systems. Biophilic strategies respond to and harness the innate human need for connection with nature, enhancing wellbeing and comfort for people [1, 2] . Eco-revelatory design seeks to reveal and celebrate ecological processes, such as water flow, decay, seasonal change, or species interactions, and make these visible and legible [3]. Together, these methods normalise and make visible biodiversity in everyday life while cultivating curiosity, empathy, and stewardship. Examples include green walls, biodiverse balconies, multisensory planting, exposed stormwater systems, and spaces where people can observe or participate in natural cycles. These experiences help foster a culture of care and ecological literacy in cities [4, 5].

References:

  1. Kellert, S.R. (2018). Nature by design: The practice of biophilic design. Yale University Press.
  2. Söderlund, J., & Newman, P. (2015). Biophilic architecture: a review of the rationale and outcomes. AIMS environmental science, 2(4), 950-969.
  3. Arisoy, N.K. (2013). Eco-revelatory design. In M. Özyavuz (Ed.), Advances in landscape architecture (pp. 209–226). InTech.
  4. Beatley, T., & Newman, P. (2013). Biophilic cities are sustainable, resilient cities. Sustainability, 5(8), 3328-3345.
  5. Pedersen Zari, M. (2023). Understanding and designing nature experiences in cities: a framework for biophilic urbanism. Cities & Health, 7(2), 201-212.

3. Designing for ecosystem services

Ecosystem services are the benefits that nature provides to people, such as air purification, cooling, flood protection, and pollination [1]. This sub-category focuses on making those services visible, functional, and appreciated in urban design. Examples include water-sensitive planting, food gardens, shade trees, and natural play spaces. Designing for ecosystem services shows that biodiversity is not only a conservation issue but a practical and essential part of sustainable urban living [2]. 

References:

  1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis (Island Press, Washington, DC)
  2. Pedersen Zari, M. (2018). Regenerative urban design and ecosystem biomimicry. Routledge.

4. Signal cues to care and support stewardship

Places that support more biodiversity are often more complex, and may appear ‘messy’ to  some. Perceptions of ‘naturalness’ do not necessarily align with expectations of tidiness and care [1]. When spaces appear unfamiliar or messy, cues may be needed to make them socially acceptable [2].

Design strategies that provide “cues to care” can signal ecological intention and invite stewardship. These may be subtle, such as mown edges around wilder areas, or more explicit, such as interpretive signage, citizen science stations, or community-managed gardens. These strategies encourage respect for urban nature and help build long-term public investment in biodiversity [3].

References:

  1. Hoyle, H., Jorgensen, A., & Hitchmough, J. D. (2019). What determines how we see nature? Perceptions of naturalness in designed urban green spaces. People and nature, 1(2), 167-180.
  2. Unterweger, P.A., Schrode, N., & Betz, O. (2017). Urban nature: perception and acceptance of alternative green space management and the change of awareness after provision of environmental information. A chance for biodiversity protection. Urban Science, 1(3), 24.
  3. Li, J., & Nassauer, J. I. (2020). Cues to care: A systematic analytical review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 201, 103821.

5. Managing human–nature conflict

Coexistence with nature is not always harmonious. Biodiversity can sometimes pose challenges, whether it’s perceived risk, allergens, pests, or safety concerns [1]. This sub-category addresses those tensions directly, encouraging design responses that reduce conflict while still supporting ecological goals. Examples include predator-proofing, bird-safe windows, well-placed lighting, pet containment, or thoughtful planting around paths and playgrounds. Managing these issues proactively makes biodiversity feel less like a threat and more like a welcomed part of everyday life [2].

References:

  1. Jolly, H., & Stronza, A. (2025). Insights on human−wildlife coexistence from social science and Indigenous and traditional knowledge. Conservation Biology, 39(2), e14460.
  2. Visintin, C., Garrard, G. E., Weisser, W. W., Baracco, M., Hobbs, R. J., & Bekessy, S. A. (2025). Designing cities for everyday nature. Conservation Biology, 39(1), e14328.