What is a biophilic city?

by Jim

Visitor Question: I'm rather new on our city's planning commission. Other members have mentioned biophilic city a couple of times, and I don't know what they are talking about. I came upon this website and noticed you answer questions about planning terms, so I wanted to throw this one out there. Is this something I should be concerned about, or is this just a professor trying to impress with a fancy term?

Editors Reply: The idea behind this talk is biophilia, the belief that humans inherently love and even crave nature. So proponents of meeting that human need within cities cite the benefits of nature for individual persons and for the community.

Visible nature that can be experienced in a city may entail parks of any size ranging from pocket parks on one lot to large urban parks, green spaces, and walkable places where people can enjoy small bits of nature because they are traveling at a speed conducive to noticing birds, insects, and even the small mammals. Some cities go further and promote or create urban forests, urban agriculture, pollinator gardens, and green rooftops.

Although I am using the term “forests,” as proponents of this idea do, obviously a forest within a city would be small unless it lies on the outskirts. Likewise, community gardens and even larger-scale gardens where vegetables or flowers are grown are modest in size in comparison to family or corporate farming you might find in a rural area. Some cities and individual developers promote green roofs, where actual gardens are planted on rooftops; obviously this is possible only where the underlying structure will support the weight of soil and the plumbing necessary to provide water.

The benefits of a biophilic-minded city could include improvements in health, resilience, safety, economic well-being, equity, and biodiversity.

What supports the argument for these supposed benefits, you might ask. Candidly, the evidence for some is better than for others.
Psychologically, a number of small studies have supported the notion that regular exposure to nature lowers anxiety and depression and decreases aggression.

Parks, green spaces, trails, and other accommodations for walking and bicycling make it easier and more pleasant for many people to exercise and thereby improve their physical health.

Socially, regular interactions with nature may afford opportunities for socializing outdoors with neighbors and people of a variety of ages, ethnicities, and economic circumstances. The result may be greater cohesiveness as a community and acquaintance with a broader cross-section of the community than is ordinarily occurring indoors.

In terms of resilience, pointing a city in the biophilic direction could mean increased ability to absorb storms without catastrophic damage, better air quality (both in general and especially when wildfires are nearby), and even the capacity to quickly begin to grow food locally if and when typical supply routes for fruits and vegetables are interrupted.

Economically, over the long haul it is thriftier for governments to install and maintain green infrastructure than gray infrastructure. OK, I’ll admit to now introducing even more planning jargon for you to digest. An easy example of green infrastructure is choosing to use plants in a median that will absorb, slow down, and even clean stormwater, instead of installing typical gray infrastructure, which would be a curb and gutter system designed to send water on its way as fast as possible. The gray infrastructure fails to provide any cleansing of pollutants near their source and creates the possibility of flash flooding in the extreme storms we are now experiencing. While this particular type of green infrastructure requires some coddling, especially in the first couple of years, the installation cost is dramatically lower and the environmental results are much higher.

Lastly, I mention increased biodiversity, which means support for a large variety of plants and animals. Green spaces, especially when they are interconnected, may mean that there is enough habitat for the survival of a particular species that might one day provide a new pharmaceutical, serve as food for a desirable plant or animal, or otherwise provide insights and delight for future humans.

I have covered the highlights of what many proponents of the biophilic city idea would say. If you want to think of a “green city,” “nature-friendly city,” or any similar term, you will still have the right idea.

As a planning commissioner, you could investigate ways to encourage private landowners to help create or preserve a nature-oriented city. You could add measures to your site plan review regarding preservation or planting of trees, addition of vegetative cover, or permitting substitution of two strips of driving surface in a driveway instead of requiring an asphalt or concrete driveway 10 or 12 feet wide. You could encourage proactively zoning areas that are undeveloped right now as green space, should your state's case law give that measure a fighting chance of survival.

These are a few ideas about how you can at least follow the planning commission discussion of a biophilic city. Perhaps you will want to become a cheerleader for the idea, which has many possible benefits to your community.

Join GOOD COMMUNITY PLUS, which provides you monthly with short features or tips about timely topics for neighborhoods, towns and cities, community organizations, and rural or small town environments. Unsubscribe any time. Give it a try.