(Mis)-Designed Coexistence

The perception of a separation between humans and nature is rooted in the prevailing Western notion that positions humans in a distinct category, creating a perceived isolation from the broader natural world. Consequently, due to this misconception, many individuals today view themselves as entirely detached from nature (^{Braito et al., 2017}; ^{Clayton, 2019}; ^{Pett et al., 2016}; ^{Stryker, 2013}). This belief system or practice carries significant implications for how societies interact with and perceive the environment, influencing aspects ranging from resource utilisation to environmental policies. As articulated by ^{Stryker (2013}), this perspective creates “an emotional and cognitive distance” from nature, resulting in an indifference to “the need to feel empathy or to take moral and ethical responsibility for the consequences of our (humans) actions.” Furthermore, as highlighted by ^{Soga & Gaston (2016}), maintaining a distance from nature also poses the risk of escalating missed opportunities to engage with the broader natural world, leading to various associated negative impacts on both human and ecosystem well-being. As a ripple effect, the implications of restricted exposure to nature could contribute to a broader narrative of detachment from and disregard for nature (^{Rosa et al., 2018}). Expanding on this context, ^{Bekoff (2014}, p. 34) emphasizes how the contemporary human lifestyle continuously erodes the connection with the natural world, intensifying a pervasive sense of alienation:

“Yet our modern world undermines this constantly. It unwilds us. We experience alienation from nature when we learn about, or participate in, the wanton killing of wild species, when fields and forests are clear-cut and paved over for suburban developments, and when ecosystems are ruined by pollution or other human impacts. We experience firsthand our separation from nonhuman animals when we keep them in cages in zoos. And we instill alienation from nature in our children by teaching them primarily indoors at desks and in front of computer screens. Alienation flows from the belief that humans are superior to all other animals and that we are meant to dominate other species and use the Earth solely for our benefit.”

At this point, perhaps, the understanding of the origins of this separation becomes crucial. The roots of this mindset that pose humans as separate from nature can be traced back to the Neolithic Revolution (^{Descola, 2013}, p. 52). Accordingly, the simultaneous taming of animals and plants appears to have given rise to a more pronounced contrast between human and wild spaces. This detachment from nature was further intensified by Christianity and subsequently heightened by the Industrial Revolution. While Romanticism may have rekindled an interest in nature, contemporary society appears to have become “denatured.” On top of that, these historical developments have also exerted a substantial influence on architecture and the cognitive framework of designers as they strive to adapt and reshape the landscape. Indeed, ^{Houston et al. (2018}) asserts that "urban planning has a history of viewing cities as somehow separate from nature," attributing this perspective to a "human exceptionalism" approach in designing cities and buildings. Likewise, ^{Magle (2017}) clarified how cities have been intentionally designed as "oases of civilisation," with the explicit aim of keeping nature and the wild outside at a distance. While humans have indeed derived some advantages from modifying the landscape to suit their habitat preferences (see, e.g. ^{Heerwagen & Orians, 1993}), this lifestyle has brought about significant challenges and drawbacks. Drawing from Rousseau's historical analysis as presented by Mendham (2011) - suggesting that upon entering civilisation, humans lost more than they gained - the question arises: why are most of humans incapable of seeing the benefits linked to coexisting with nature?

Contrary to the common perception of cities as devoid of wildlife, they have become significant hotspots for wild animals. For example, ^{Ives et al. (2016}) emphasise the importance of urban areas for threatened species in Australia. ^{Sterba (2012}) sheds light on the remarkable resurgence of wild animals in U.S. cities, bringing inhabitants closer to them than ever before in history. ^{Werner and Zahner (2010}) report a substantial presence of biodiversity in urban areas, challenging the notion that wildlife is absent in densely populated regions. Additionally, ^{Clarke et al. (2019}) emphasise the considerable diversity of wild species in the urban context, whether their presence is driven by “necessity or choice.” Likewise, ^{Turrini and Knop (2015}) showed that urban areas have the potential to serve as habitats for more biodiversity compared to rural areas.

Controversially, despite the increasing presence of animals in human settlements, the separation from nature appears to have rendered humans unable to perceive them fully in their daily lives. As observed by ^{Caffo (2017}, p. 9), “in our daily lives, animals simply do not exist”. Possibly, this explains the restricted awareness of species among ^{Beatley's students (Beatley, 2011}, p. 1) or the limited understanding of invertebrates and their diversity among the general population (^{Wilson, 2016}, p. 28). Aligned with this tendency, ^{Pilgrim et al. (2008}) report a concerning and growing deficiency in ecological knowledge within contemporary Western societies. The implications of this knowledge deficit manifest directly in architecture and planning, where designers often lack adequate environmental knowledge, limiting their capacity to comprehend information and data related to natural ecosystems (^{Kay et al., 2021}).

The failure of architects and planners to incorporate nature and wildlife in their designs may have pushed wild animals to inhabit forgotten spaces within human settlements, commonly referred to as "marginal spaces." These areas are usually avoided by humans and mainly inhabited by animals perceived, from the human perspective, as out of place and not belonging in close proximity to them (^{Philo & Wilbert, 2000}).

As these unwanted animals inhabit the immediate surroundings of humans, the likelihood of encounters among them unavoidably increases. The dynamics of interactions between them and humans in shared spaces, once considered marginal, emphasise the broader impacts of neglecting nature in landscape reorganisation. Indeed, the growing presence of unwanted wildlife in densely populated areas may lead to tensions and disputes between the animal inhabitants and human residents (^{Soulsbury & White, 2015}). As highlighted by ^{Bekoff (2013}), this tendency to "ignore and redecorate nature in incredibly self-serving ways" is particularly dangerous as it poses a significant threat to the broader goal of ensuring justice and ethical treatment for non-human species.

An Endless Battle for Taming the Urban Wilderness

At this point, it becomes evident that adopting a mindset of separation from nature when implementing changes to the landscape has resulted in spatial and environmental injustice that not only significantly impacted nature but also humans themselves. The ecosystem disservices, stemming from architects' and planners' inadequate attention to the presence of nature in human settlements, might have diminished human interest in nature. This reduction in interest further diminishes the probability of humans experiencing nature, which, besides the impact on human well-being (^{Keniger et al., 2013}; ^{Wilkes-Allemann et al., 2022}), escalates their sense of disconnection from it (^{Clayton, 2019}; ^{Pett et al., 2016}; ^{Rosa et al., 2018}; ^{Soga & Gaston, 2016}).

Neglecting the acknowledgement of nature and inadequately providing it space and consideration sets the stage for the formulation of policies to address emerging "socio-ecological consequences," leading to the categorisation of certain species as "pests and weeds" (^{Houston et al., 2018}). The separated spatial dimensions defined from the current social attitude in regard to animal geographies and in which architects and planners work, as delineated by ^{Weisser and Hauck (2017}), result in labelling species that traverse these boundaries as intruders, forcing humans to intervene and restore the division. Indeed, if the construction industry fails to integrate the existence of local species, thereby reshaping the meaning of the landscape, the animals inhabiting the area may be viewed as misplaced. ^{Brownlow’s (2000}) study in the Adirondacks illustrates this phenomenon, demonstrating that alterations in landscape description and meaning led to the reclassification of the wolf, native to the area, as "out of place." Subsequently, these changes contributed to eradicating the wolves from the region. As observed previously, the significance of a place can readily shift to the marginal category based solely on the presence of a specific species, subsequently leading to human rejection of that place (^{Philo & Wilbert, 2000}). This implies that architecture, through its permanent alterations to the landscape, holds the potential to impact the sociocultural values attributed by humans to specific places, consequently influencing the social acceptance of particular species. The transformation of physical spaces by architectural interventions not only shapes the environment but also contributes to the construction of meaning and the social dynamics associated with cohabitation between humans and other species.

Following this trajectory, it is possible to quantify that the influence that architecture gained from a denaturalised social system also has had implications for the residents' interest and willingness to share living spaces with non-human species. For example, ^{Rosenzweig (2003}, p. 178) explained the growing inclination of humans to reject and ignore nature using the concept of shifting baseline syndrome. Essentially, individuals' perceptions and expectations adapt to the current state of the environment, making it challenging to recognise and lament losses or changes over, particularly when such experiences have never been encountered or witnessed. Similarly, ^{Soga and Gaston (2016}) highlight the repercussions of diminishing direct interaction with the natural world as an integral component of individuals' daily routines, a phenomenon identified as the "extinction of experience." Drawing inspiration from ^{Pyle (1993}), they emphasise the negative implications of a growing "disaffection" from nature. This significance amplifies when considering that individuals’ values and attitudes toward nature are conditioned based on the frequency of their experiences and interactions with nature, suggesting an even broader impact (^{Bauer & von Atzigen, 2019}; ^{Braito et al., 2017}; ^{Clayton, 2019}; ^{Soga & Gaston, 2016}). Interestingly, the repercussions of this loss of engagement with nature extend beyond the individual well-being of human and non-human actors, as it poses a significant obstacle to broader efforts aimed at reversing the overall environmental crisis. Indeed, the loss of connection with the natural world not only hinders efforts to reverse the ongoing environmental degradation but also complicates endeavours to broaden the concept of justice within spatial and environmental realms. Consequently, challenging speciesism in architecture and planning-moving beyond human exceptionalism to provide space and consideration for other-than-human species-is not only a crucial step in restoring the connection between humans and nature but also an essential aspect of designing equitable places that promote justice for all living entities.

Beyond Human Boundaries

Despite the expanding consideration of a multispecies approach in diverse disciplines, architecture and planning practices and theories seem to lag behind in embracing such perspectives (^{Houston et al., 2018}). This discrepancy raises questions about the extent to which these fields are equipped to address the complex interconnections between humans and the broader ecological community within the built environment. The urban environment, as described by ^{Weisser and Hauck (2017}), often becomes a battleground where design and nature engage in a continuous fight, with nature typically emerging as the disadvantaged party. This raises concerns regarding the capacity of design to broaden spatial and environmental justice for entities beyond humans and the potential repercussions for both human and non-human inhabitants.

The difficulty to progress in biologically informed architecture, identified by ^{Kay et al. (2021}), points to challenges faced by architects due to inadequate training in environmental systems and limited exposure to transdisciplinary research. ^{Wilkes-Allemann et al. (2022}) draw attention to the disconnection between theory and practice as a primary obstacle in transferring scientific knowledge about urban biodiversity, emphasising the need for collaboration. Concurrently, ^{Kueffer et al. (2020}) advocate for developing competencies aimed at fostering biodiversity in urban settings. In light of these challenges and the continuous struggle between design and nature in urban environments, ^{Weisser et al. (2023}) propose the need for enhanced methods and tools to reintegrate nature into urban settings effectively. The development of such tools, or the relative environmental knowledge capable of incorporating ecological knowledge into design processes, becomes crucial for providing necessary support to architects and planners.

The gap between the growing understanding of multispecies dynamics in other disciplines and the slower integration of these perspectives in architecture and planning raises urgent questions about the future of urban environments. This issue takes on added significance given the global commitment in December 2022, where 198 countries signed the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) during the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP15) in Montreal. The framework aims to "halt and reverse" the decline of biodiversity, with the ultimate goal of "living in harmony with nature" by 2050 (^{CBD, 2022}). Despite considerable opportunities to enhance biodiversity status in the urban environment, encouraging individuals who perceive themselves as detached from nature to “live in harmony with” it can pose considerable challenges. Currently, there is a critical need to better understand people's perceptions of nature in urban areas and explore ways to foster a positive attitude towards it (^{Weisser et al., 2023}; ^{Wilkes-Allemann et al., 2022}). As seen, the acceptance of nature in cities plays a vital role in the success of any intervention measures (^{Apfelbeck et al., 2019}; ^{Canepa et al., 2022}; ^{Catalano et al., 2021}; ^{Garrard et al., 2018}; ^{Vegezzi, 2021}; ^{Weisser et al., 2023}; ^{Weisser & Hauck, 2017}). This underscores the importance of bridging the gap between urban residents and nature, recognising that positive perceptions and acceptance are integral not only to the effective implementation of biodiversity-enhancing initiatives in urban planning but also to promote justice for all living entities.

Considering the scientific consensus advocating for the reservation of half of the Earth's surface for conservation purposes to reverse habitat loss, prevent ecosystem collapse, and facilitate biodiversity recovery (^{Dinerstein et al., 2017}; ^{Wilson, 2016}), the challenge for the field of architecture becomes increasingly evident. This is especially pertinent given that setting aside two separate spaces for human habitation and conservation may lead to numerous difficulties and consequences. As articulated by ^{Rosenzweig (2003}, p. 7), adopting a reconciliation ecology approach emerges as a more pertinent option. Acknowledging that humans extensively utilise the majority of the world's land surface, the development of a well-studied architectural framework capable of integrating specific wild habitats that harmonise with human environmental needs becomes crucial. This approach holds the potential to be fundamental in reversing the ecological crisis and fostering a more ecologically informed and respectful social coexistence with nature. Such an integrated approach can not only influence environmental policies but also contribute to the broader discourse on justice in shaping an equitable and respectful relationship between humans and nature.

Given the premise that “conservation is all about people” and can only be achieved through behavioural change (^{Bekoff, 2014}, p. 58), architects and planners are encouraged to contemplate the impact of their designs on residents. This reflection leads to a fundamental question:

“What does it really mean to be part of nature in the twenty-first century? Will we be spectators, disruptors, or participants?”

Harry W. Greene (^{Louv, 2019}, p. 131)

Moving forward

This article concerns the pressing need to broaden the discussion on environmental and spatial justice to include all living beings. The rich diversity of species that have become humans’ co-citizens over time calls for a rethinking of traditional approaches to urban design, advocating for a more inclusive architectural framework. Addressing the persistent spatial separation between humans and non-humans pursued by prevailing planning systems requires the urgent implementation of comprehensive training programs for future theorists and practitioners.

Interdisciplinary education, integrating ecological knowledge with social sciences, holds significant potential to empower professionals to navigate the complexities of designing environments that accommodate the needs of both human and non-human inhabitants. Moreover, integrating research and development initiatives focused on innovative multispecies methodologies within the broader discourse of ‘sustainable design’ is indispensable to producing more inclusive urban spaces.

Fostering a culture of continuous learning and innovation within the architectural and planning professions can better equip future generations to confront the complex environmental challenges posed by rapid urban expansion. Achieving justice for all living beings necessitates a paradigm shift in architectural and urban design, going beyond the notion of cities as exclusively human domains.

As advocated by ^{Bekoff (2013}), overcoming human exceptionalism and speciesism is essential in redefining interactions between humans and non-humans in ethical terms. The transition towards design and planning theories that prioritise the needs of both parties represents a critical step in this transformative journey towards a more equitable and respectful urban coexistence.