In an era marked by accelerating urbanization and environmental crisis, nature-based solutions (NBS) have emerged as a beacon of hope for reconciling human development with ecological integrity. However, a revolutionary new study published in npj Urban Sustainability challenges conventional wisdom by rethinking the inherent trade-offs embedded in these solutions through a multispecies justice lens. Authored by Wijsman, K., Pineda-Pinto, M., Sarkki, S., and collaborators, this groundbreaking research provocatively argues that the prevailing approaches to implementing NBS often prioritize human interests, inadvertently marginalizing other species that share urban ecosystems. The authors call for a paradigmatic shift from anthropocentric frameworks to more inclusive, justice-oriented methodologies that transcend single-species priorities.
Nature-based solutions encompass a broad spectrum of interventions—restoring wetlands to improve flood resilience, urban tree planting to reduce heat islands, or green roofs to foster biodiversity and air quality. Traditionally, these strategies are engineered with primarily human-centric objectives: resilience of infrastructure, wellbeing of urban populations, or economic gains. Yet, as Wijsman and colleagues elucidate, these approaches frequently mask complex and unresolved tensions among multiple species, particularly when benefits to humans come at the cost of other organisms’ survival and thriving. This research pioneers the argument that sustainability must be re-envisioned as an equitable interplay among all species that cohabit urban landscapes, not just as the optimization of ecosystem services for human usage.
Central to their thesis is the concept of “multispecies justice,” a framework that moves beyond the typical metrics of ecological effectiveness, incorporating ethical considerations about the rights and wellbeing of non-human life forms. The framework challenges established NBS to critically examine whose needs are being met and whose are being sidelined or compromised. Such an ethical recalibration demands robust interdisciplinary integration, combining ecology, urban planning, sociology, and environmental ethics. By doing so, the study showcases how urban sustainability can be reframed as a dynamic, pluralistic process that respects the intrinsic value of other species, even when their needs conflict with dominant human interests.
One of the most compelling contributions of this work is the detailed analysis of trade-offs frequently glossed over in NBS implementation. The researchers dissect case studies ranging from urban wetlands restoration to the refurbishment of green corridors, highlighting scenarios where human-focused benefits—such as improved air quality or recreational spaces—occur at the expense of habitats critical to endangered amphibians or pollinator populations. This nuanced study emphasizes that the pursuit of NBS should no longer rely on traditional cost-benefit analyses that prioritize human utility, but instead adopt multifaceted evaluative frameworks capable of accounting for the complex interdependencies in urban ecosystems.
The authors contend that technological optimism often underpins NBS championing, bolstered by narratives that technology and natural processes can seamlessly integrate for mutual benefit. While such optimism is vital to inspire action, Wijsman et al. caution against simplistic solutions that ignore ecological hierarchies and interspecies power dynamics. For example, urban tree planting programs that prioritize monocultures or non-native species for rapid canopy cover can inadvertently displace native flora and dependent fauna, thus exacerbating biodiversity loss. The multispecies justice perspective demands a deeper interrogation of such practices to ensure that ecological, cultural, and ethical dimensions are holistically addressed.
In methodological terms, this study employs an innovative mix of participatory urban governance analyses and ecological assessment tools that explicitly account for non-human agency and vulnerability. By integrating citizen science data, ecological fieldwork, and policy review, the authors illustrate how urban sustainability projects can incorporate the voices and needs of multiple species, albeit indirectly, through habitat modeling and ecological indicators. Their approach highlights the feasibility of embedding ethical pluralism within urban environmental governance structures, thereby transforming how cities conceptualize and operationalize sustainability.
Further, the results underscore a paradox inherent in many NBS initiatives: while aiming to increase urban biodiversity, they often simplify ecosystems to accelerate implementation and demonstrate quick wins. This simplification risks marginalizing species with specialized habitat needs or complex lifecycles. Wijsman and colleagues argue that the rush to deliver benefits for human populations—especially in economically disadvantaged areas—must be tempered with patience and ecological foresight. This demands policy frameworks that embrace long-term monitoring and adaptive management, ensuring that both human and non-human stakeholders are considered over the lifespan of urban projects.
The study meticulously dissects urban development policies that superficially embrace green infrastructure but continue to prioritize infrastructural imperatives over ecological justice. The authors propose pathways to redress such imbalances, advocating for greater institutional support for multispecies justice in urban planning, including expanding legal definitions of urban nature protection and embedding multispecies considerations in environmental impact assessments. This vision aligns with growing international commitments to biodiversity conservation and equity, urging planners to move beyond tokenistic gestures toward genuine systemic transformation.
Wijsman et al. also engage with the philosophical underpinnings of environmental justice, expanding it to incorporate more-than-human considerations. They explore how environmental justice movements can form innovative alliances with animal rights and biodiversity advocacy, creating a unified front that challenges anthropocentrism in urban sustainability paradigms. This integrative perspective is not merely academic but is posited as instrumental to achieving resilient, adaptive cities in an era of deep ecological crisis.
Highlighting the practical implications, the authors call for novel funding models and participatory processes that involve ecological experts, ethicists, and communities in co-defining urban spaces that are equitable across species lines. This includes reimagining public green spaces as shared habitats rather than mere recreational amenities, designing built environments that foster coexistence, and promoting diverse biotic assemblages as integral to urban identity and health.
In line with these recommendations, the research challenges urban practitioners to embrace complexity and ambiguity in nature-based design, resisting oversimplification and linear planning models. It encourages iterative experimentation informed by multispecies feedback loops, enabling cities to dynamically respond to ecological signals and social justice demands in tandem. This paradigm shift offers a transformative blueprint for integrating urban sustainability with ethical pluralism and ecological mindfulness.
The implications of this research ripple beyond urban planning. It invites a reconsideration of humanity’s role within the broader biosphere, shifting from dominion and control to stewardship and reciprocity. By illustrating how ethical inquiry can enrich ecological science and vice versa, the study offers hope for nurturing urban environments where human flourishing does not eclipse other forms of life but coexists in mutual respect.
Ultimately, this pioneering multispecies justice approach demands that societies recalibrate value systems governing urban nature. Moving away from anthropocentric metrics opens imaginative possibilities for inclusive futures where equity encompasses all species. As cities worldwide confront mounting environmental challenges, the insights from Wijsman and colleagues provide a timely, rigorous call to action—advocating for a deeper justice that honors the vibrant tapestry of life sustaining urban existence.
This visionary work redefines the boundaries of nature-based solutions, injecting ethical depth and ecological sophistication into urban sustainability science. It promises to invigorate discourse among scholars, policymakers, and activists alike, setting a new standard for justice in the Anthropocene city. As urban populations continue to swell, embracing these multispecies perspectives is not only an ethical imperative but a strategic necessity for forging resilient and vibrant urban futures inclusive of all terrestrial life.
Subject of Research: Nature-based solutions in urban environments analyzed through the framework of multispecies justice to reassess trade-offs affecting biodiversity and ethical considerations across species.
Article Title: Rethinking trade-offs in nature-based solutions from a multispecies justice perspective.
Article References:
Wijsman, K., Pineda-Pinto, M., Sarkki, S. et al. Rethinking trade-offs in nature-based solutions from a multispecies justice perspective. npj Urban Sustain 5, 67 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-025-00261-5
Image Credits: AI Generated
