Urban Forestry & Urban Greening xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ufug

Review

Biocultural diversity: A novel concept to assess human-nature interrelations,

nature conservation and stewardship in cities
⁎
B.H.M. Elandsa, , K. Vierikkob, E. Anderssonc, L.K. Fischerd,e, P. Gonçalvesf, D. Haaseg,h,
I. Kowarikd,e, A.C. Luzf, J. Niemeläi, M. Santos-Reisf, K.F. Wiersuma
a
Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University & Research, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
b
Strategic Research, Research Services, University of Helsinki, Yliopistonkatu 3, P.O. Box 53, 00014, Finland
c
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Kräftriket 9A, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
d
Department of Ecology, Ecosystem Science/Plant Ecology, Technische Universität Berlin, Rothenburgstr. 12, D-12165 Berlin, Germany
e
Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), D-14195 Berlin, Germany
f
Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Campo Grande 1749-016, Lisboa, Portugal
g
Humboldt Universität Berlin, Department of Geography, Rudower Chaussee 16, 12489 Berlin, Germany
h
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department of Urban and Environment Sociology, Permoser Straße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany
i
Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences and Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS) University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014, Helsinki,
Finland

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Biocultural diversity is an evolving perspective for studying the interrelatedness between people and their
Biocultural diversity natural environment, not only in ecoregional hotspots and cultural landscapes, but also in urban green spaces.
Novel concept Developed in the 1990s in order to denote the diversity of life in all its manifestations―biological, cultural and
Human-nature interrelations linguistic―co-evolving within complex socio-ecological systems such as cities, biocultural diversity was iden-
Nature conservation
tified in the GREEN SURGE project as a response to recent challenges cities face. Most important challenges are
Stewardship
Cities
the loss of nature and degradation of ecosystems in and around cities as well as an alienation of urban residents
Urban from and loss of interaction with nature. The notion of biocultural diversity is dynamic in nature and takes local
Europe values and practices of relating to biodiversity of different cultural groups as a starting point for sustainable
living with biodiversity. The issue is not only how to preserve or restore biocultural practices and values, but also
how to modify, adapt and create biocultural diversity in ways that resonate with urban transformations. As
future societies will largely diverge from today’s societies, the cultural perspective on living with (urban) nature
needs careful reconsideration. Biocultural diversity is not conceived as a definite concept providing prescriptions
of what to see and study, but as a reflexive and sensitising concept that can be used to assess the different values
and knowledge of people that reflect how they live with biodiversity. This short communication paper in-
troduces a conceptual framework for studying the multi-dimensional features of biocultural diversity in cities
along the three key dimensions of materialized, lived and stewardship, being departure points from which
biocultural diversity can be studied.

1. Biocultural diversity: an appealing concept animals and people and the supernatural. This is reflected in the con-
cept of biocultural diversity (BCD), which was developed in the 1990s
1.1. Its origins in order to denote the diversity of life in all its manifestations – bio-
logical, cultural and linguistic – which co-evolved within complex
The way we think, feel and act regarding nature is fundamentally socio-ecological systems (Maffi, 2005, 2012). It is based on the notion
cultural determined. Throughout history the interaction between so- that cultural expressions resonate in a variety of rules, knowledge and
cieties and nature has resulted in a variety of world views, cosmologies practices to maintain venerated natural places and to make sense of and
and narratives that reflect relations and relationships among plants, use biodiversity in a culturally informed and informing manner. This is

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B.H.M. Elands), kati.vierikko@helsinki.fi (K. Vierikko), [email protected] (E. Andersson), leonie.fi[email protected] (L.K. Fischer),
[email protected] (P. Gonçalves), [email protected] (D. Haase), [email protected] (I. Kowarik), [email protected] (A.C. Luz), [email protected] (M. Santos-Reis),
[email protected] (K.F. Wiersum).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.04.006
Received 21 December 2017; Received in revised form 7 April 2018; Accepted 7 April 2018
1618-8667/ © 2018 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: B.H.M., E., Urban Forestry & Urban Greening (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.04.006
B.H.M. Elands et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

expressed by the Declaration of Belem, that characterizes BCD as “hu- processes and cultural heritage” and that “the predominantly biocultural
mankind’s accumulated reserve of learned responses to the environment that and multifunctional European landscape assimilates economic, social, cul-
make co-existence between man and nature and self-recognition possible” tural and environmental processes in time and space” (Agnoletti and
(UNESCO, 1992). Rotherham, 2015: 3156).
The concept was a response to global concerns regarding the dis- This acknowledgement resulted in increased attention to the cul-
appearance of tropical forests and other fragile ecosystems, the ex- tural interactions with biodiversity in modern urban areas. These are
tinction of many plant and animal species and the disruption of in- often overlooked as urban areas have traditionally been conceived of as
digenous cultures around the world. These concerns resulted in the antipodes of nature. It was gradually recognised that urban green areas
establishment of a global coalition for BCD, which emphasized the can be considered as a cultural landscape embodying a specific type of
historical continuity of the cultures of indigenous people and its rela- co-evolution between nature and culture.
tion to their sustainable practices in living with their natural environ- This is illustrated by the ‘four natures-approach’, introduced by
ment (Posey and Dutfield, 1996; Maffi, 2005). It was formalized in Kowarik in 1992 (cf. Kowarik, 2018), which articulates the variety in
1992 by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity that identified the human-driven transformations of natural landscapes: (i) remnants of
need to maintain not only biodiversity at the genetic, species and pristine ecosystems, such as forests and wetlands, (ii) patches of ancient
landscape scale, but also the biodiversity-related knowledge, innova- agrarian landscapes, (iii) designed urban greenspaces ranging from
tions and practices of indigenous people. Since then, many research parks to garden and allotment complexes and recreational areas, and
activities resulted in the growing recognition of BCD as an expression of (iv) novel urban ecosystems that arise by chance or as a side-effect of
how cultural practices (e.g. worldviews, storytelling, livelihoods, norms other developments (wastelands, derelict industrial sites, etc.). This
and institutions) reflect and influence relations among plants, animals diversity in urban landscapes is reflected in a wealth of biodiversity
and people (Posey, 1999; Pretty et al., 2009). It also resulted in gradual studies that revealed a large variety of either organically evolved or
shifts in the understanding of the significance of the concept. specifically designed assemblages of urban biodiversity and their re-
levance for biodiversity conservation (e.g. Niemelä, 1999; Barthel et al.,
1.2. From a ‘crisis narrative’ to a ‘dynamic narrative’ 2005; Goddard et al., 2010; Müller and Werner, 2010; Kowarik, 2011;
Puppim de Oliveira et al., 2011). Hereby, species may be either pre-
The original perspective of studies on BCD emphasized the dual loss adapted, or can adapt genetically or behaviourally, to urban environ-
of local cultures and wilderness. It was characterized as “a product of ments (McDonnell and Hahs, 2015). Specific assemblages of urban
crisis narrative” (Brosius and Hitchner, 2010:143). This interpretation biodiversity are increasingly culturally appreciated (Millard, 2010).
highlights modernization as the main threat to nature conservation This has resulted in the development of culturally interpreted (novel)
(Pilgrim et al., 2007; Pretty et al., 2009). Several of the original bio- wilderness concepts (Wiersum, 2017; Kowarik, 2018; Threlfall and
cultural studies focused on the identification of so-called ecoregional Kendal, 2018) and efforts to stimulate a greener economy (Moreno-
hotspots characterised by a unique combination of biodiversity and Peñaranda, 2013).
linguistic diversity (Loh and Harmon, 2005). While it is true that many Despite this rich variety of urban natures, many people in urbanised
indigenous and tribal groups have developed protective regimes to- societies live without having close contact with nature. Researchers
wards their natural environment, the idea that they have always acted even warn, echoing the ‘crisis narrative’, for the ‘extinction of experi-
as nature conservationists has become under dispute. Opponents argued ence’, arguing that due to the loss of interaction with nature, ecological
that culture is dynamic and that BCD is not inevitably lost with mod- knowledge, positive attitudes towards nature protection and pro-en-
ernization (e.g. Cocks and Wiersum, 2014). The initial interpretation vironmental behaviour will decline (Soga and Gaston, 2016). In line
was also criticized for its conservation implications; it became char- with the dynamic conceptualisation of BCD, the combatting of the
acterized as “representing nothing less than a new regime of enclosure (….) ‘extinction of experience’ in urban living with biodiversity does not
by establishing a set of comprehensive blueprints for the future of the planet” only involve the conservation of historic forms of cultural interaction
(Brosius and Hitchner, 2010, p. 153). Those blueprints gave little input with biodiversity, but also the development of novel BCD practices.
for the dynamics of practices of people living with biodiversity. Con- These may not only be developed by professional organisations, but
sequently, rather than relying only on professional practices that tend also by non-professional (urban) residents (Groth and Corijn, 2005;
to be based on ecosystem thinking, in which living with biodiversity is Elands et al., 2015). Building on this line of thought of ongoing bio-
subordinate or even excluded, there was a call for a more inclusive cultural dynamics, Elands and Van Koppen (2012:181) introduced the
nature conservation aiming at the stimulation of local-level biocultural term ‘biocultural creatives’: “groups of people who, driven by an engage-
practices (Brosius and Hitchner, 2010). In response to cultural dy- ment with society and nature, create new cultural models and practices for
namics the co-evolution of people and nature may result in new forms interaction with biodiversity”. In order to understand the diversity of local
of BCD, e.g. in the form of agrobiodiversity (Pretty, 2002; Kareiva et al., practices it is important to recognise the different cultural orientations
2007). and related knowledge and value frameworks of people, as well as the
variation in how they have set up their stewardship arrangements for
1.3. From ecoregional hotspots to urban areas maintaining BCD. As future societies will largely diverge from today’s
ones, the cultural perspective and it’s dynamics on living with (urban)
Although it is true that BCD is critical to indigenous communities nature needs careful attention.
that live in natural areas, the original concept of biocultural diversity
was also criticized as tending “to privilege only one part of humanity – 1.4. Biocultural diversity in cities
those small, diverse indigenous communities living in places of high biodi-
versity” and as implying that “places less diverse are sacrifice zones” As illustrated by the different approaches to studying BCD, the
(Brosius and Hitchner, 2010: 143). The recognition of BCD being also a concept is open to different interpretations. The newly evolving per-
feature of cultural landscapes, where biodiversity was modulated over spectives relating BCD to acculturalized urban landscapes formed the
centuries by traditional agricultural practices, extended the focus of starting points for the EU FP7 GREEN SURGE project on linking people
BCD studies to the modern societies in Europe (White, 2004; Taylor and and green space in urban environments. The project identified BCD as a
Lennon, 2011; Pungetti, 2013). In 2014, the Florence declaration on the key concept for (i) understanding the integration between biological
links between biological and cultural diversity in Europe recognised variety in the Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI) and the cultural spe-
that “the current state of biological and cultural diversity in Europe results cificities of the users of UGI, and (ii) developing innovative approaches
from a combination of historical and ongoing environmental and land use to planning and governance of UGI (Vierikko et al., 2017a). Considering

2
B.H.M. Elands et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

the prevailing processes of socio-cultural transitions in European cities (up to the survival) of the ecosystem. This raises justice and equity-
the GREEN SURGE approach towards assessing BCD was not only based questions of ‘who benefits’ or ‘who loses’, not only from a social, but
on its interpretation as an inextricable link between nature and culture, also from an ecological perspective (Buizer et al., 2016). Thus, the
but also as the outcome of not only green urban heritage but also of the concept of BCD can highlight both potential opportunities as well as
ongoing processes of urban transformation. Hence, the GREEN SURGE vulnerabilities for the management and conservation of urban green
approach was based on the argumentation that “If biocultural diversity spaces.
can be associated with dynamic social processes, then the issue is not only Through the interaction with urban green, people develop a bond
how to preserve or restore culture practices and values, but also how to with it and it becomes a meaningful ‘place’. The process of place
modify, adapt and create culture in ways that reconnect people with and bonding is dynamic and relational and comes into being as people in-
enhance the diversity of nature.” (after Elands and Van Koppen, 2012: teract with particular spaces. This interaction might lead to a stronger
184). The GREEN SURGE project thus aimed at the further development engagement with urban green in the form of environment stewardship
of theoretical and conceptual thinking of BCD in the urban context. (Mathevet et al., 2017), involving taking responsibility for the sus-
tainable use and conservation of specific biocultural manifestations.
2. Assessing urban biocultural diversity Through ‘civic ecology practices’ (Krasny and Tidball, 2012), citizens
create and maintain bioculturally significant places through nature
The urban green infrastructure (UGI), consisting of e.g. parks, de- volunteering, urban gardening, public participation in green space de-
relict lands, urban gardens, canals and green roofs, is of utmost im- velopment, protesting against development plans in nature areas and
portance for both the use and well-being of the residents in the em- the self-governance of urban nature (Buijs et al., 2016; Mattijssen et al.,
bedding cities and the functioning and survival of plants and animals. 2018). Such local stewardship is supplemented by the professional
UGI, as indicated by this definition, is not an ecological network ex- landscape designs and the city government’s responsibility for main-
isting independently and in parallel to social life and activities; it is co- tenance of the entire UGI with its complex of biocultural assemblages
constructed by people and ecosystem dynamics in multiple ways: “By its (Elands et al., 2015). In doing so, professional managers should be
emphasis on diversity, biocultural diversity can account for the many ways cognizant about the variety of socio-cultural values of different urban
in which people live with green areas in the urban landscape, acknowledges groups and how this is related to a variety of local practices in place
the different knowledges this involves, and can reveal conflicts and am- attachment and place making. They should also recognize that place
bivalence that may be at stake” (Buizer et al., 2016: 7). The BCD concept making by one group may exclude uses and values of other groups and
focuses on the interrelationships and interdependencies between people that place-making is inherently political as it involves power differences
and nature, and, as expressed in terms like ‘humans-in-nature’, con- between groups of people. In dealing with such conflicts and searching
siders humans as agents of ecosystem change (Buizer et al., 2016; for tradeoffs through the creation of new forms of biocultural hybridity,
Vierikko et al., 2017b). This becomes particularly articulated through professional managers of UGI must recognise the importance of en-
the practices by which people develop a relationship with specific gagement with different social groups, recognize the diversity in cul-
places they live, work or recreate in. They are also articulated in the tural and intangible values and the need to interact with local stake-
specific constellations of the urban ecosystems that develop in reaction holders about this diversity and strive for the development of
on these practices. Both cultural and utilitarian (productive, regulatory) ‘commonly accepted frameworks’ (Chan et al., 2012).
services of biodiversity feature in the daily practices by which various Thus, in its studies to relate the concept of BCD to the UGI in
cultural groups enjoy, understand and protect biodiversity and thus European cities the GREEN SURGE program took the notion of ‘hu-
sustain a specific distribution and richness (poverty) of species at place. mans-in-nature’ (Folke, 2006) as a starting point and acknowledged the
Human practices are embedded in a complex set of perceptions and variety of cultural values assigned to urban green. It considered that
values (Botzat et al., 2016). Nature’s response is embedded in the this diversity of values and perceptions is reflected not only in a high
complex biophysical human-made and human-influenced setting of an diversity in biophysical manifestations of BCD, but also in a variety of
urban ecosystem (Niemelä, 2011). practices for the day-to-day use of urban green spaces including the
Although in general people value green places positively, different place-making activities of specific (groups of) people (Fischer et al.,
cultural groups can differ in their valuation and understanding of bio- 2018b). The diversity is also reflected in a variety of biocultural
diversity—which is, however, largely unexplored (Botzat et al., 2016; memory carriers, such as artistic objects, oral traditions or monuments
but see Fischer et al., 2018a). Some urban green spaces might have (Andersson and Barthel, 2016) and in the diversity in the contents of
unique or universal values in respect to their interaction with nature, policy or management plans for urban green (Elands et al., 2015). The
but most urban green spaces have multiple values assigned by the dif- cultural expressions and policy statements represent two types of bio-
ferent groups of people interacting with specific spaces (Stephenson, cultural manifestations: they both express how, as humans, we look at
2008). As reflected in the diversity in urban green spaces the presence nature from a cultural perspective and how we value it being, at the
of such multiple values is especially relevant in urban societies in which same time, part of the ecosystem ‘city’ ourselves.
a variety of cultural groups with different ethnic background, religion, We developed a conceptual framework for studying the multi-di-
lifestyles, etc. use and connect with public green (e.g. Kloek et al., mensional features of BCD (Vierikko et al., 2017a) (Fig. 1). The core
2013). This diversity is steadily increasing and altering by ongoing idea of the BCD concept is that biodiversity and cultural diversity are
processes of immigration and trans-cultural exchange. This results in inherently connected: for that reason the framework, in contradiction
cultural hybridization and increasing heterogeneity of socio-demo- with the social-ecological system framework, does not distinguish be-
graphic (age, household types, etc.), ethnic, religious and perceptional tween them. The figure depicts three layers: materialized, lived and
characteristics of green space users. Such dynamics indicate that culture stewardship, being departure points form which BCD can be studied.
is neither one-dimensional nor static, but multidimensional and dy- Changes in one layer automatically impact the other two layers. The
namic. Although it is widely acknowledged that the diversity in which figure illustrates that both established and innovative forms of BCD can
cultural groups live with biodiversity in green spaces is a key de- exist next to another transversally; moreover, the governance of BCD
terminant for the maintenance and adaptation capacity of social-eco- often integrates past, current and future UGI practices. Each of the
logical systems (Folke, 2006; Andersson and Barthel, 2016), diversity layers of this conceptual framework does not only refer to a specific
can also be a source of disputes and conflicts (Vierikko et al., 2017a). dimension of BCD, but also requires specific methods for BCD assess-
The experiences of a particular urban green space by one group might ment.
be at the expense of possibilities for ‘outsiders’ to use it in an alternative At the heart of framework is “lived BCD” as this relates to the day-
culturally embedded manner or may be at the expense of the integrity to-day practices of people experiencing green places, encompassing

3
B.H.M. Elands et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework for the study on and governance of biocultural diversity in cities.

both biological and cultural features. There is a growing recognition of surveys on different scales of biodiversity, cultural landscapes and
the emergent, co-produced outcome of human-nature interactions. biocultural heritage, etc. Data sources and collection methods include
Lived BCD is concerned with the perceived and experienced qualities. census data, surveys, inventories and historical records. While arguably
These are mediated by our senses and minds, and concern complex objects can be said to have individual, independent identities, they also
systems of values, norms, traditions, knowledge and sensory percep- include additional levels of meaning that we attach to them, which is
tions. Different scientific approaches and conceptualizations emphasize something more akin to and expressly addressed under “lived BCD”.
different aspects and factors to be considered in assessing lived BCD. While lived BCD in some ways can be said to be more passive and
Under some circumstances knowledge and active cognition may serve primarily mediated through perceptions on the culturally-embedded
as imperative indicators, in other situations relational and embodied relevance of different assemblages of biodiversity, “stewardship of
perspectives may be more informative. Data collection and analyses are BCD” is an active, conscious engagement in the shaping of such as-
context-sensitive and require attention to qualitative methods of re- semblages. This engagement reflects a bonding. From a scientific point
search, e.g. sense of place research, narrative analysis, environmental of view, the analysis of stewardship of BCD overlaps with the analysis of
history and artistic research that are based on qualitative interviews, lived BCD in its interest in motivations, values, actions, norms, etc. In
interpretive reading and observational studies. This qualitative assess- addition, it highlights knowledge in its different forms and how
ment can be complemented by more quantitative methods, e.g. ques- knowledge informs and influences the motivations to actively maintain
tionnaire surveys, public participation geographical systems (PPGIS), the esteemed BCD or to further develop it in a process of co-production.
mobile apps for self-reporting, and visitor counts can be used to assess Moreover, it emphasizes the bonding with nature that arises from it,
how different groups make use of different bioculturally specific places. and as such it is the ultimate consequence of the ‘humans-in-nature’
Whereas the quantitative methods tend to answer the question what, principle (see also Vierikko et al., 2017b). Assessing stewardship needs
where, and who, these qualitative methods may focus more on the why attention to both individuals and to group processes, and shares the
and how. qualitative―quantitative duality of the assessment of lived BCD. Sci-
Through lived BCD practices, the world around us is being produced entific themes of relevance include social movements and social orga-
and reproduced. “Materialized BCD” is the tangible articulation of nization, local ecological knowledge, environmental psychology, etc.
these (re)production processes. Materialized BCD is primarily con- The methods for data collection include interviews, document analysis,
cerned with the identification and quantification of the biophysical observational studies, (observational) surveys and cognitive studies.
expressions of BCD in the form of different types of spontaneous and In this framework, BCD is not conceived of as a definite concept
domesticated ecological communities and related cultural or technical providing prescriptions of what to see (e.g. threatened biocultural
artefacts of the various components of UGI. The identification of such heritage in need of conservation) but as a reflexive and sensitising
features is based on the ontological assumption that these discrete ob- concept that can be used to assess different values and knowledge of
jects exist (and are managed) regardless of our perception, and that people that reflect how they live with biodiversity in cities (Turnhout
they can be measured, quantified and monitored. Such tangible BCD et al., 2013; Buizer et al., 2016). It recognizes urban biocultural di-
lends itself relatively well to large-scale monitoring and cross-case versity as embracing both heritage values and expressions of newly
translation and replication, even though the features and indicators that evolving forms of living with biodiversity. It also recognizes the di-
are most relevant in a specific case may vary. Methods for data col- versity in professional and laymen’s practices in actively engaging with
lection include a combination of (remotely sensed or locally sampled) biodiversity in a variety of stewardship systems. Thus, it calls attention

4
B.H.M. Elands et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

to the diversity in ontological and epistemological interpretations of the These approaches aim to stimulate endogenous innovation within local
concept of biocultural diversity and the moral and political implications communities and to promote diversity in active citizenship practices.
in developing increased awareness of the multiple expressions of urban Thus, the notion of BCD offers to transcend and move us beyond ‘crisis
biocultural diversity as both a heritage-based and a dynamic phenom- narrative’ of urban areas as man-made biotopes almost devoid of
enon. nature. Instead, it offers a ‘dynamic narrative’ that acknowledges the
diversity and dynamics in co-evolutionary interactions between people
3. Implications for UGI-policy makers, planners, managers and nature in urban areas and the hybridity in the multiple manifes-
tations of urban BCD.
Formal governance has several important roles in cultivating and
supporting BCD. First, it is deeply involved in the stewardship aspect of Acknowledgement
BCD through professional planning, design and maintenance of UGI.
Second, it creates or shapes many of the conditions that set the This research was supported by the European Commission, 7th
boundaries for BCD. Given the anchoring of BCD in formal governance Framework Programme Grant GREEN SURGE collaborative project,
and considering the GREEN SURGE notion of BCD as a reflexive concept FP7-ENV.2013.6.2-5-603567.
that pays tribute to the diversity in contextual situations in respect of
how people live with and act as stewards for biodiversity, we provide References
the following recommendations for policy makers and professional
planners and managers: Agnoletti, M., Rotherham, I.D., 2015. Landscape and biocultural diversity. Biodivers.
Conserv. 24 (3), 3155–3165.

• Use BCD as a tool not only to preserve, restore or stimulate cultural

Andersson, E., Barthel, S., 2016. Memory carriers and stewardship of metropolitan
landscapes. Ecol. Indic. 70, 606–614.
practices and values that support biodiversity, but also to recognize Barthel, S., Colding, J., Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., 2005. History and local management of a
and make space for the inherent socio-cultural diversity in people’s biodiverse-rich, urban cultural landscape. Ecol. Soc. 10 (2), 10.
Botzat, A., Fischer, L.K., Kowarik, I., 2016. Unexploited opportunities in understanding
living with biodiversity and in actively engaging with its steward- liveable and biodiverse cities: a review on urban biodiversity and valuation. Global
ship. In doing so, attention must be given to the compatibility and Environ. Change 39, 220–233.
conflicts between the various manifestations of BCD, the related Brosius, J.P., Hitchner, S.L., 2010. Cultural diversity and conservation. Int. Soc. Sci. J.
199, 141–168.
value-embedded practices, and to their dynamic nature.
•
Buijs, A.E., Elands, B.H.M., Havik, G., Ambrose-Oji, B., Gerőházi, E., Van der Jagt, A.P.N.,
Engage with biodiversity as something more than (threatened) Mattijssen, T.J.M., Steen Møller, M., Vierikko, K., 2016. Innovative governance of
species and ecosystems and explicitly include the human domain, urban green spaces: learning from 18 innovative examples across europe. Green
Surge Deliv. 6 (2). http://greensurge.eu/working-packages/wp6/files/Innovative_
e.g. by involving heritage species or urban green that reflects our
Governance_of_Urban_Green_Spaces_-_Deliverable_6.2.pdf.
long history of co-evolution of living with different ecological Buijs, A.E., Mattijssen, T.J.M., Van der Jagt, A.P.N., Ambrose-Oji, B., Andersson, E.,
communities. Elands, B.H.M., Steen Møller, M., 2017. Active citizenship for urban green infra-

• Use BCD dynamically, going beyond manifestations of historic structure: fostering the diversity and dynamics of citizen contributions through mo-
saic governance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 22, 1–6.
urban landscapes reflecting urban heritage to include also ongoing Buijs, A.E., Hansen, R., Van der Jagt, A.P.N., Ambrose-Oji, B., Elands, B.H.M., Lorance
processes of cultural dynamics and urban transitions. Rall, E., Mattijssen, T.J.M., Pauleit, S., Runhaar, H., Stahl Olafsson, A., Steen Møller,

• Be aware of the multiple contributors to BCD dynamics and the M., 2018. Mosaic governance for urban green infrastructure: upscaling active citi-
zenship from a local government perspective. Urban For. Urban Greening.
broad range of opportunities these create for making biodiversity Buizer, M., Elands, B., Vierikko, K., 2016. Governing cities reflexively—the biocultural
and green spaces more meaningful to people. Urban green spaces, diversity concept as an alternative to ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Policy 62,
like other cultural landscapes, have multiple layers of place identity. 7–13.
Chan, K.M.A., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., Bostrom,
The cultural interactions with biodiversity in such multi-identity A., Chuenpagdee, R., Gould, R., Halpern, B.S., Hannahs, N., Levine, J., Norton, B.,
landscapes is informed by shifting artistic trends and values, on- Ruckelshaus, M., Russell, R., Tam, J., Woodside, U., 2012. Where are cultural and
going storytelling and other processes of actively making sense of social in ecosystem services: a framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience
62, 744–756.
the space specific groups of urban people live in.
•
Cocks, M.L., Wiersum, F., 2014. Reappraising the concept of biocultural diversity: a
Recognize diversity and dynamics within cultural values and their perspective from South Africa. Hum. Ecol. 42, 727–737.
reciprocal connections to diverse ways of living with and relating to Davidson-Hunt, I.J., Turner, K.L., Pareake, Te, Mead, A., Cabrera-Lopez, J., Bolton, R.,
Idrobo, C.J., Miretski, I., Morrison, A., Robson, J.P., 2012. Biocultural design: a new
urban biodiversity, and of place-specific stewardship arrangements.
conceptual framework for sustainable development in rural indigenous and local
This diversity offers a rich source of inspiration for how to maintain communities. Sapiens 5 (2).
and how to further stimulate the preservation and development of Elands, B.H.M., Van Koppen, C.S.A., 2012. Biocultural diversity in the Netherlands: from
bioculturally significant urban spaces. However, note that it may ecologically noble savages towards biocultural creatives. In: Arts, B.J.M., Van
Bommel, S., Ros-Tonen, M.A.F., Verschoor, G.M. (Eds.), Forest-people Interfaces;
also lead to conflicts between different socio-cultural groups and Understanding Community Forestry and Biocultural Diversity. Wageningen
perspectives over the desired nature of specific urban spaces. Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp. 181–193.

• Base policy, planning and management of urban green spaces on an Elands, B.H.M., Wiersum, K.F., Buijs, A.E., Vierikko, K., 2015. Policy interpretations and
manifestation of biocultural diversity in urbanized Europe: conservation of lived
inclusive approach that does not only consider threats to BCD, but biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 24, 3347–3366.
that also acknowledges the diversity in place-specific expressions of Fischer, L.K., Honold, J., Cvejić, R., Delshammar, T., Hilbert, S., Lafortezza, R., Nastran,
living with biodiversity and in stewardship arrangements for M., Nielsen, A.B., Pintar, M., van der Jagt, A., Kowarik, I., 2018a. Beyond green:
broad support for biodiversity in multicultural European cities. Global Environ.
maintaining BCD as well as in creating new types of biocultural Change 49, 35–45.
manifestations in response to urban dynamics. Fischer, L.K., Honold, J., Botzat, A., Brinkmeyer, D., Cvejić, R., Delshammar, T., Elands,
• Be aware that BCD living and stewardship practices are highly di- B., Haase, D., Kabisch, N., Karle, S.J., Lafortezza, R., Nastran, M., Nielsen, A.B., van
der Jagt, A.P., Vierikko, K., Kowarik, I., 2018b. Recreational ecosystem services in
verse; they may not only differ between different cultural groups, European cities: sociocultural and geographic context matters for park use. Ecosyst.
but also between professionals and lay people. As such, BCD is not Serv. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.015. in press.
‘neutral’, but a concept that recognizes the political nature of UGI Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems
analyses. Global Environ. Change 16, 253–267.
planning and management.
Goddard, M.A., Dougill, A.J., Benton, T.G., 2010. Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity
conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 90–98.
These recommendations can be translated into effective practice Groth, J., Corijn, E., 2005. Reclaiming urbanity: indeterminate spaces, informed actors
through governance approaches such as biocultural design (Davidson- and urban agenda setting. Urban Stud. 42, 503–526.
Kareiva, P., Watts, S., McDonalds, R., Boucher, T., 2007. Domesticated nature: shaping
Hunt et al., 2012), biocultural creativity (Elands and Van Koppen, landscapes and ecosystems for human welfare. Science 316, 1866–1869.
2012) and mosaic governance (Buijs et al., 2017; Buijs et al., 2018).

5
B.H.M. Elands et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Kloek, M.E., Buijs, A.E., Boersema, J.J., Schouten, M.G.C., 2013. Crossing borders: review Programme.
of concepts and approaches in research on green space, immigration and society in Pretty, J., Adams, B., Berkes, F.F., de Athayde, S., Dudley, N., Hunn, E., Maffi, L., et al.,
Northwest European countries. Landsc. Res. 38, 117–140. 2009. The intersections of biological diversity and cultural diversity: towards in-
Kowarik, I., 2011. Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environ. tegration. Conserv. Soc. 9, 100–112.
Pollut. 159, 1974–1983. Pretty, J., 2002. Agri-culture. Reconnecting People, Land and Nature. Earthscan
Kowarik, I., 2018. Urban wilderness: supply, demand, and access. Urban For. Urban Publications, London.
Green. 29, 336–347. Pungetti, G., 2013. Biocultural diversity for sustainable ecological, cultural and sacred
Krasny, M.E., Tidball, K.G., 2012. Civic ecology: a pathway for Earth Stewardship in landscapes: the biocultural landscape approach. In: Fu, B., Jones, K. (Eds.), Landscape
cities. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 267–273. Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 55–76.
Loh, J., Harmon, D., 2005. A global index of biocultural diversity. Ecol. Indic. 5, 231–241. Puppim de Oliveira, J.A., Balaban, O., Doll, C.N.H., Moreno-Peñaranda, R., Gasparatas,
Müller, N., Werner, P., 2010. Urban biodiversity and the case for implementing the A., Iossifova, D., Suwa, A., 2011. Cities and biodiversity: perspectives and governance
convention on biological diversity in towns and cities. In: M̈ uller, N., Werner, P., challenges for implementing the convention on biological diversity (CBD) at city
Kelcey, J.G. (Eds.), Urban Biodiversity and Design. Wiley-Blackwell, UK, pp. 3–34. level. Biol. Conserv. 144, 1302–1313.
Maffi, L., 2005. Linguistic, cultural and biological diversity. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 34, Soga, M., Gaston, K.J., 2016. Extinction of experience: the loss of human-nature inter-
599–617. actions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 94–101.
Maffi, L., 2012. Biocultural Diversity Conservation. Earthscan, UK (p. 5). Stephenson, J., 2008. The Cultural Values Model: an integrated approach to values in
Mathevet, R., Bousquet, F., Raymond, C.M., 2017. The concept of stewardship in sus- landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plann. 84, 127–139.
tainability science and conservation. Biol. Conserv. 217, 363–370. Taylor, K., Lennon, J., 2011. Cultural landscapes: a bridge between culture and nature?
Mattijssen, T., Buijs, A., Elands, B., Arts, B., 2018. The ‘green’ and ‘self’ in green self- Int. J. Herit. Stud. 17, 537–554.
governance – a study of 264 green citizen initiatives. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 20, Threlfall, C.G., Kendal, D., 2018. The distinct ecological and social roles that wild spaces
96–113. play in urban ecosystems. Urban For. Urban Green. 29, 348–356.
McDonnell, M.J., Hahs, A.K., 2015. Adaptation and adaptedness of organisms to urban Turnhout, E., Waterton, C., Neves, K., Buizer, M., 2013. Rethinking biodiversity: from
environments. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46, 261–280. goods and services to ‘living with’. Conserv. Lett. 6, 154–161.
Millard, A., 2010. Cultural aspects of urban biodiversity. In: Müller, N., Werner, P., UNESCO, 1992. Declaration of Belem. Third UNESCO Science and Culture Forum.
Kelcey, J.G. (Eds.), Urban Biodiversity and Design. Wiley-Blackwell, UK, pp. 56–80. Towards eco-ethics: alternative visions of culture, science, technology and nature.
Moreno-Peñaranda, R., 2013. Biodiversity and culture, two ingredients for a truly green Belem, Para, Brazil, 6–10 april 1992.
urban economy: learning from agriculture and forestry practices in Kanazawa city, Vierikko, K., Andersson, E., Branquinho, C., Elands, B., Fischer, L.K., Gonçalves, P., Grilo,
Japan. In: Simpson, R., Zimmermann, M. (Eds.), The Economy of Green Cities: a F., Haase, D., Ioja, C., Kowarik, I., Lindgren, J., Mendes, R., Niemelä, J., Pieniniemi,
World Compendium on the Green Urban Economy. Springer, Dordrecht (NL), pp. M., Príncipe, A., Puttonen, M., Santos-Reis, M., Teixeira, D., Vieira, J., Yli-Pelkonen,
337–349. V., 2017a. Identifying, quantifying and qualifying biocultural diversity. assessment of
Niemelä, J., 1999. Is there a need for a theory of urban ecology? Urban Ecosyst. 3, 57–65. biocultural diversity. Green Surge Deliv. D 2 (3).
Niemelä, J., 2011. Introduction. In: Niemelä, J., Breuste, J.H., Guntenspergen, G., Vierikko, K., Elands, B.H.M., Niemela, J., Andersson, E., Buijs, A.E., Fischer, L.K., Haase,
McIntyre, N.E., Elmqvist, T., James, P. (Eds.), Urban Ecology; Patterns, Processes and D., Kowarik, I., Kabisch, N., Luz, A.C., Stahl Olafsson, A., Száraz, L., Van der Jagt, A.,
Applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C., 2017b. Considering the ways biocultural diversity
Pilgrim, S.E., Cullen, L.C., Smith, D.J., Pretty, J., 2007. Ecological knowledge is lost in helps enforce the urban green infrastructure in times of urban transformation. Curr.
wealthier communities and countries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 1004–1009. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 22, 7–12.
Posey, D.A., Dutfield, G., 1996. Beyond Intellectual Property: Traditional Resource Rights White, R., 2004. From wilderness to hybrid landscapes: the cultural turn in environmental
for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. International Development Research history. Historian 66, 557–564.
Centre, Ottawa, Canada. Wiersum, K.F., 2017. New interest in wild forest products in Europe as an expression of
Posey, D.A., 1999. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. A Complementary biocultural dynamics. Hum. Ecol. 45, 787–794.
Contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment. United Nations Environment