Nature spaces 'need to be next to where people live'

Urban planners and conservation groups are arguing that wildlife habitat must be integrated into residential neighbourhoods, not confined to distant nature reserves. The case is straightforward: access to green space correlates with public health outcomes, and proximity matters. Communities separated from nature by distance or infrastructure don't experience the documented benefits – reduced stress, improved air quality, measurable shifts in environmental behaviour.

This isn't a new observation, but the framing has shifted. Where previous campaigns emphasised preservation of pristine landscapes, this push centres on urban design as a mechanism for both ecological restoration and equitable access. Green spaces within walking distance of homes become planning infrastructure, not amenities.

The tension is real. Urban land is expensive and contested. Converting space to wildlife habitat means trade-offs with housing density, commercial use, or existing infrastructure. Some cities have moved faster: Copenhagen's rewilding of industrial sites, parts of London's green corridor network, certain Dutch municipalities expanding native planting in public areas. Others have stalled.

What matters for ESG-minded organisations: this is materiality in motion. Biodiversity loss and urban health are converging as risks and opportunities. Companies operating in cities or developing real estate face mounting pressure – from regulators (EU Biodiversity Strategy), investors (nature-related financial disclosures), and resident expectations – to demonstrate land-use decisions that account for ecological value. The question isn't whether nature belongs in cities. It's how organisations embed that into procurement, supply chain siting, and facility planning.