Renaturation, Aggradation, and the Ethics of Care: Toward a Socio-Ecological Ethics of Urban Design

Renaturation, Aggradation, and the Ethics of Care: Toward a Socio-Ecological Ethics of Urban Design | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Renaturation, Aggradation, and the Ethics of Care: Toward a Socio-Ecological Ethics of Urban Design Marie Asma Ben-Othmen, Youssef Bouery This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8070855/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Cities around the world are confronting interconnected challenges, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and an increasing disconnection between people and nature. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with urban professionals in France and the United Kingdom, including urban planners, architects, landscape designers, and agricultural engineers, this paper examines renaturation and aggradation as design principles that reframe urban nature from ornamental to living infrastructure, grounding socio-ecological ethics in urban design. Our findings highlight a disciplinary gradient, while ecologists and landscape architects favor soil health, ecological processes, and long-term spontaneous evolution of nature, architects and planners emphasize legibility, predictability, and client-driven aesthetics. The results also show that across urban professions, some tension crystallizes around how much autonomy we can grant ecological processes to enable their cultural expression and legibility without sliding into performative greening. In this paper, we distinguish three pathways toward a socio-ecological ethics of design: (1) shifting from a mindset of controlling nature to one of co-evolution and adaptive management, (2) mobilizing an aesthetics as “cues to care” that make ecological complexity perceivable, and (3) organizing collective stewardship that treats urban nature as a public good. We argue that renaturation and aggradation, although not widely used in current professional discourse on urban green space planning, can operate as ecologies of repair, integrating biodiversity, soil recovery, and cultural memory. The paper concludes with implications for governance and professional education to sustain multispecies urban futures. renturation aggradation urban nature socio-ecological practice ecology of care wildscapes Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Introduction The accelerating biodiversity loss, coupled with a growing emotional disconnection from nature in major cities worldwide, has led to a phenomenon Pyle described in 1978 as the extinction of experience, highlighting the diminishing opportunities for urban residents to engage with nature, a trend exacerbated by rapid urbanization. As a result, a feedback loop is created where individuals with limited interactions with nature are less likely to protect it. (Pyle, 1978) predicted that the extinction of experience would be especially severe in cities where most of the worlds population lives and biodiversity is declining daily, prompting an endless cycle of biodiversity loss. Forty-five years later, as this article is being written, the loss of experiences is still being driven by biodiversity decline, particularly in urban areas affected by climate change. The loss of opportunities to connect with nature weakens emotional bonds with the natural world, leading to a gradual erosion of human-nature interactions. This shift could become one of the pivotal environmental issues of our time (Gaston & Soga, 2020; Soga & Gaston, 2016). An increasing body of literature acknowledges cities as socio-ecological systems that are dynamic networks in which ecological processes, social practices, and cultural expressions co-evolve according to a systems perspective (Colding & Barthel, 2019; Frank et al., 2017; Kokroko et al., 2024a; Ponstingel, 2022). By considering environments as living ecologies shaped by human and non-human agencies, this perspective challenges the notions of recognizable boundaries between “nature” and “cities.” Hence, acknowledging cities as socio-ecological systems allows moving beyond dualisms of control and wilderness to conceive urban design as a practice of both mediation and adaptation within a complex environment. From this standpoint, modern urban planning and design have moved beyond the question of whether nature can exist in cities to how these practices can support the reciprocal relationships that are critical for the resilience of socio-ecological systems (Suárez et al., 2019). Spontaneous nature, referred to in scholarly work as intentional wilderness (Sikorska et al., 2021)or spontaneous urban vegetation (Robinson & Lundholm, 2012) has frequently been overlooked as mere disorder. However, it serves as a lens for observing the interaction, adaptation, and regeneration of ecological processes and cultural memories in cities (Hoyle et al., 2017). In this paper, we build on the idea of spontaneous urban nature, highlighting its importance as a fundamental basis for biodiversity, regenerative potential, and cultural memory in urban landscape design. Our discussion aligns with the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) definition of nature, encompassing biodiversity, ecosystems, evolution, and biocultural diversity (Stenseke, 2024). We argue that bringing and maintaining nature in cities goes beyond just planting trees and shrubs. It requires a major change in how people see these areas and how much they promote a sense of respect rooted in human-nature interconnectedness(Kanav & Kumar, 2024; Louv, 2008; Nisbet et al., 2009; Richardson, 2019). Nature exists on a spectrum of naturalness, influenced by natural cycles and human actions rather than being confined to a strict classification (Benton-Short & Short, 2013). This complexity offers opportunities to shape and maintain cultural memory (Zoderer et al., 2024). Several recent studies have focused on categorizing modern cultural expressions of nature into types, including native or “gifted,” spontaneous, cultivated, and designed (Ignatieva et al., 2025; Yang et al., 2024). These typologies underscore that the urban green spaces are not merely aesthetic measures but, instead, spatial practices that can foster deeper socio-ecological connections between people and their inhabited environments. Moreover, authors underscore the role of urban green spaces in fostering cultural landscapes that promote community engagement, shared memories and local traditions (Mumford, 2016). This perspective is particularly emphasized in the work of Gilles Clément, who argues that nature can flourish even with minimal human intervention (Clément, 2015; Clément et al., 2004), inviting practitioners to reassess their role within the broader ecosystem. The challenge, then, lies in whether we—as Homo sapiens—can reclaim our place in nature without exerting dominance and causing harm? This question leads to the notion of intentional design, in which urban green spaces function not as decorative additions but rather as active agents of ecological regeneration. Mainly, renaturation and aggradation – the latter stands as the antithesis of degradation – urban design can instigate both ecological and cultural meanings of cities, reinforcing them as living socio-ecological systems. To address this question, in this research, we first draw on emerging ecological frameworks that challenge traditional design paradigms and encourage co-evolution with nature rather than control. From this perspective, the concepts of renaturation and aggradation call for a rethink of the extent of agency granted to natural processes. In other words, how much freedom is allowed for ecosystems to shape the urban environment on their own becomes a must. Renaturation refers to the restoration of natural conditions within altered environments (Rey Benayas & Bullock, 2012), whereas aggradation –that is, originally a term borrowed from geology- describes the gradual accumulation of soil and organic matters that rehabilitate degraded lands (Márquez et al., 2017). In landscape design scholarship and practice, however, aggradation is emerging as a conceptual and practical counterpoint to degradation, focusing on ecosystem functionality and resilience through minimal human intervention (Bakhmatova et al., 2022). Unlike traditional restoration approaches that often rely on active efforts to revert ecosystems to their so-called original states (Aradottir & Hagen, 2013), aggradation offers a vision of ecological processes and biodiversity that highlights a more passive and long-term evolution. From this perspective, urban spaces can be more than just aesthetic or recreational areas; they can serve as living socio-ecological systems where soil, vegetation, and humans interact to regenerate ecological processes and cultural significance. This framework urges a more comprehensive cultural reflection, going beyond biophysical processes to promote understanding and restore our relationship with nature in urban settings. Drawing on ecological theories, design philosophies, and indigenous worldviews, this paper presents urban renaturation and aggradation not merely as technical solutions but as meaningful cultural acts that can help halt the extinction of urban experience and ultimately spread a sense of ethics of care. The paper is grounded in qualitative methodology involving semi-structured interviews with ecologists, urban planners, agricultural engineers, and landscape architects conducted in France and the UK. This diverse group provided insights into the promises and challenges of renaturation and aggradation in urban planning projects, and into their application across various professions. The methodological goal was not to reach a consensus but to identify contradictions, tensions, and emerging paradigms that could help understand how spontaneous urban nature, which is marginalized and overlooked, at the time of this paper writing, could be instead regarded and used as a powerful tool for ecological regeneration, cultural memory, and ethical landscape design. Drawing on ecological theories and design philosophies, this paper examines renaturation and aggradation not as purely technical interventions, but as culturally grounded and ethically sound practices capable of counteracting the “extinction of urban experience.” Based on 33 semi-structured interviews with a wide range of practitioners, including ecologists, urban planners, agricultural engineers, and landscape architects in France and the United Kingdom, this research explores three primary and interrelated research questions: (1) how the naturation and aggradation concepts are understood and applied across disciplines and professional field, (2) what type of tensions arise between ecological objective, cultural and institutional dimensions of urban landscape practice, and (3) how might spontaneous urban nature contribute to reframing the ethics of care in socio-ecological design? Literature & Background 1. Urban nature as a socio-ecological system The various expressions of nature found in urban areas are gaining recognition as significant research topics in both natural and social sciences. While these discussions frequently focus on urban greenery, plants, and non-human elements, the literature surrounding urban nature presents a wide array of perspectives aimed at balancing the challenges posed by urbanization and industrialization with the need to preserve ecological systems within cities. As a result, cities are increasingly viewed as socio-ecological systems. These discussions are often shaped across disciplines, including ecology, geography, conservation biology, and philosophy. Researchers have sought to operationalize the concept of urban nature as a cornerstone of resilient cities (Haaland & van den Bosch, 2015 ; Ignatieva et al., 2011 , 2023 ). For example, urban designers and planners typically use the term “urban nature” in a broad sense, encompassing a diverse array of green spaces for various species, including urban parks, gardens, forests, wetlands, and even abandoned areas with spontaneous vegetation (Breuste, 2023). The term “ One urban nature ” adopted by urban planners and policymakers is promoted as a pragmatic and comprehensive framework that centers on the management of large-scale, open urban green spaces. These areas are referred to in the literature as green infrastructure, understood as an interconnected network of diverse natural, semi-natural, informal, spontaneous, or designed green areas (Alves et al., 2019 ; Ying et al., 2022 ); More recently, "nature-based solutions" (NbS) have gained prominence as integrative approaches and guiding principles for planning ecologically friendly and sensitive cities, underscoring the importance of ecosystem services and biomimicry (Xie & Bulkeley, 2020 ). Together, these converging perspectives indicate a broader shift in urban thinking, moving from viewing green spaces as mere decorative amenities to recognizing them as essential elements of functional and cultural infrastructure. They encompass a variety of initiatives that redesign techno-ecological systems—from parks, municipal or community gardens, greenbelts and greenways, rain gardens, green roofs and walls, to restored waterways—highlighting a desire to integrate ecological processes into the city fabric (Anguelovski et al., 2020 ). 2. From “order” to “rewilding”: Rethinking aesthetic norms Traditional urban landscape aesthetics have historically emphasized order, symmetry, and decorative control rooted in the aristocratic heritage of European garden design (Campbell, 2016; Conan, 2002). While these landscapes may be visually appealing, they often impede ecological processes and overlook the significance of unregulated life (Campbell, 2019). Contemporary ecological design philosophies, however, challenge these conventions by emphasizing co-creation with natural dynamics. Mainly, Gilles Clément, a French landscape designer and botanist, champions a "hands-off" approach to landscape management and design, emphasizing spontaneity. The " Third Landscape ," also known as “ Le Tiers Paysage ” —a “space left over by man for landscape evolution”—is central to Clement’s approach, as it refers to natural spaces that evolve through ecological processes rather than human intervention. These include areas, such as neglected railway embankments, urban wastelands, and roadside verges, where nature can reclaim and regenerate the environment without human influence. Instead of being seen as voids, these spaces can be homes where spontaneous ecological processes can flourish, creating habitats and pathways for various plant and animal species (Clément, 2015). Another significant contribution of Clément’s work is the introduction of the “ Garden in Motion ” - or “ Jardin en Mouvement , ”which advocates for a symbiotic connection between the natural processes of growth, change, and decay, acknowledging there the evolution of plants over time, which require practitioners to working with nature by allowing natural dynamics to unfold instead of imposing rigid control (Clément, 2015). While extending Clément’s work, recent scholarship positions “urban disorder” within socio-ecological systems and advocates for “rewilding” cities (Bonthoux & Chollet, 2024 ; Jørgensen, 2015 ). While related to urban greening, rewilding is more explicitly rooted in conservation ecology, seeking to recognize biotic and ecosystem processes to steer social-ecological systems toward self-sustaining and resilient forms of urban nature (Pettorelli et al., 2018 ). In doing so, rewilding projects influence ecological processes on a large scale, whether through species reintroduction, habitat creation, or other conservation-oriented interventions, by promoting non-aesthetic ecological processes like decay, and providing a degree of ecological autonomy often associated with the “wild” (Soulé & Noss, 1998 ). It is worth noting that although rewilding has initially been developed in rural Europe and North American wilderness settings, until recently, rewilders have had very little to say about cities (Lorimer et al., 2015 ). In their paper “(Re)wilding London: Fabric, politics and aesthetics ,” Turnbull et al. ( 2025 ), further expand this idea into the urban realm. They argue that, while urban rewilding remains a nascent field, it should not be understood as a mere ecological experiment. It should rather be considered a socio-political project that redefines the public's relationship with the non-human world, creating communities of practice, resetting the public’s experience of “the wild,” and forging new modes of governance. 2. Spontaneous nature as cultural memory Spontaneous vegetation in urban environments that often thrives in neglected or abandoned areas, such as railway verges, industrial ruins, and roadside embankments, is collectively referred to in the literature as informal green spaces (IGS) or urban wildscapes (Nicol & Blake, 2000 ). Since 1996, the Spanish architect and philosopher Ignasi de Solà-Morales (1996), popularized the concept of “ terrain vague ,” for describing these “ non-spaces ” existing outside the boundaries of conventional urban forms and that are frequently depicted in many popular photomontages. Although apparently marginalized, these urban fabric niches are increasingly recognized for sustaining ecological functions and cultural memories (Rupprecht & Byrne, 2014 ; Thompson, 2002 ). Socio-ecological values of informal green spaces are highlighted in a burgeoning body of research. In Warsaw, Sikorski et al. ( 2021 ) describe the “ value of doing nothing ,” showing that informal green spaces provide ecosystem services comparable to those of managed urban parks. The authors, however, highlight an interdependence between ecosystem services and local biodiversity that varies across area types, from parks to informal green spaces, as each can offer unique benefits depending on its design and practical uses. In parks, the authors found that the most critical links were between regulating and supporting services, suggesting that these areas play a central role in maintaining ecological balance. On the other hand, in informal green spaces, cultural services stood out as being more significant, highlighting the value of these areas for community engagement and well-being. Foster ( 2014 ), similarly documents the “Petite Ceinture” in Paris, a decommissioned 19th-century railway reborn as a biodiversity refuge and living archive of industrial history. Established in 1845, the “Petite Ceinture” was the first strategic railway line in Paris, connecting central facilities, including factories, wine depots, and slaughterhouses, with locations on the outskirts. This contributed to its historical significance, as well as to its role in shaping Paris’s industrial landscape and broader regional economic growth. After its closure in 1993, this railway evolved into an unexpected urban biodiversity hotspot, providing a refuge for a diverse range of species. In her article, Foster highlights that these types of spaces can spark spontaneous socio-ecological dynamics recording past land uses while generating new ecological and social meanings. In the same vein, a systematic review on the significance of informal green spaces for residents,(Rupprecht & Byrne, 2014 ) highlight that these areas stand out because they have developed through thoughtful yet casual efforts. This gives informal spaces a special atmosphere due to the ambiguous legal, social, and environmental contexts in which they operate. The authors describe these places as “ liminal ,” emphasizing their unique position as they move between being official and unofficial, or public and private, which can shape their identity beyond traditional boundaries, making them meaningful spaces for the communities that use them. Additionally, the authors point out that residents typically prefer a balance between areas influenced by human activity and those left in their natural, undisturbed state. Developing this point further, Bouery (2022) argues that informal green spaces should be viewed as unexpected pockets of life." Instead of considering them as abandoned areas, urban professionals should recognize cultural values that reflect their past uses and the histories of the communities that once lived there. This approach suggests designing cities as socio-ecological systems in which residents can appreciate the organic nature of informal green spaces, valuing not only their ecological importance but also their cultural significance as bearers of both symbolic and historical meaning. In the literature, this reframing of urban nature's cultural and relational dimensions connects directly to broader ontologies of care(Wiesel et al., 2020 ), within which indigenous knowledge is understood as systems that have long resisted the Western separation between humans and the natural world (Ludwig, 2016 ). Hence, integrating indigenous stewardship principles that acknowledge treating land as kin —dynamic partners in sustaining socio-ecological systems—could inspire and offer valuable insights for sustainable urban development (Gosnell-Myers, 2022 ). When applied to urban green landscape design, indigenous knowledge and native science resonate with the concept of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), as they share a common ground in international and adaptive management literature (Whyte, 2013 ). Numerous examples of TEK can be found in the literature. These range from ancestral practices that enhance biodiversity at the landscape level, such as long-term changes in forest structure through the creation of forest islands in the Amazon (Gadgil et al., 1993 ), to the practical uses of indigenous controlled burning for land management and climate change mitigation in North America(Lake et al., 2017 ) and the observations of changes in sea and lake water levels, as well as animal population movements (Berger et al., 2024 ). Literature frequently discusses TEK as a valuable system of knowledge production that has often been overlooked by scientists, policymakers, and institutions (Harding, 2011 ) highlighting a persistent bias against non-Western knowledge systems. In some instances, TEK is viewed as a rival to scientific authority, which can create a division between indigenous experts and scientific experts (McGregor, 2008 ). While recognizing the importance of bridging this gap, Whyte ( 2013 ) emphasizes that the TEK concept should be understood as a collaborative process that brings together a diverse group of people to continuously learn from one another about how these different methods can work together to protect and manage environmental and natural resources better. In recent theoretical work, these relational ethics intersect with posthumanist thoughts, which further challenge human exceptionalism (Blanco-Wells, 2021a ). The notion of “ecologies of repair" extends this perspective, framing damaged environments as active participant in their regeneration (Braidotti, 2013 ). From this viewpoint, "ecologies of repair" arise in significant scholarly work that advocates for fully considering non-human agencies that shape the world, as specific environments—whether collective or systems, human or non-human—can serve as sites or agents of restoration, healing, and transformation. (Braidotti & Bignall, 2018 ; de La Bellacasa, 2017). These ecologies are not just passive backgrounds; they are active, dynamic socio-ecological networks where damaged relationships — whether social, ecological, technological, or historical — can be reconsidered, reshaped, and potentially repaired. In " Ecologies of Repair: A Post-Human Approach to Other-Than-Human Natures ," Blanco-Wells (2021) emphasizes deep damage or strong affection as drivers of unleashing creative forces through the agency of people, living organisms, and other materials, all of which are key to rebuilding broken relationships and damaged ecosystems. When applied to green landscape design in urban areas, the ecologies of care principles require going beyond simply conserving green spaces to actively restore, enrich, and diversify urban ecologies. This approach not only involves ecological intervention but also requires a rethinking of human-nature relationships within our environment. This shift aligns with the work of Aroussiak Gabrielian, whose speculative design narratives imagine symbiotic futures in which human and vegetal life are intertwined through sensory as well as spatial interdependence. Her vision exemplifies the posthuman ethics of cohabitation, proposing that design can serve as a medium for rebalancing relationships among living beings (Gabrielian, 2024 ). Methodology 3.1. Research approach This research adopts a qualitative, interpretative methodology to reveal and explain the reciprocal relationship between knowledge and practice within socio-ecological systems. (Kokroko et al., 2024). Through semi-structured interviews (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2018 ; Creswell & Clark, 2017 ), our research aims to understand how professionals involved in urban design, planning, and ecological management conceptualize and operationalize the concepts of aggradation and restoration on the one hand, and how these concepts influence their own practice, design choices, and ethical alignment toward nature in cities. Instead of testing predefined hypotheses, our approach is to adopt an exploratory, inductive logic that aims to highlight the diverse ways in which practitioners negotiate ecological autonomy and human interventions. In doing so, our approach is particularly suited to socio-ecological inquiry, where meaning is co-constructed and where contextual nuance is critical for practice understanding. 3.2. Context and participants This research was conducted in France and the United Kingdom, two European contexts that, although differing in their cultural perceptions of nature and planning traditions, share a public and policy commitment to ecological transition. Both countries have introduced policies that promote biodiversity, renaturation, and nature-based solutions. In this way, they provide a relevant backdrop for comparing professional practices and discourses. Participants were identified through purposive and snowball sampling to ensure disciplinary and geographic diversity (Shaw, 1999 ). A wide range of professionals, including ecologists, urbanists, landscape architects, and agricultural engineers, who were expected to be involved in restoration and aggradation projects in the urban environment, and who had at least five years of professional experience in ecological or urban design projects, have been identified and contacted via email as a first step to gauge their interest and availability to participate in this research. A total of 33 semi-structured interviews were carried out between January and May 2024. Participants represented five professional groups directly engaged in urban ecological transformation. Ecologists (8) Landscape architects (7) Urban planner (6) Architects (6) Agricultural engineer (bioengineering) (6) 3.3. Data collection and analysis The interviews were conducted either in person or via video conference, lasting between 45 and 90 minutes. A semi-structured interview guide was created based on the theoretical framework outlined in the background section. It incorporated themes from ecological theory, posthuman ethics, and design principles. The questions were designed to encourage participants to reflect on and articulate their perspectives regarding renaturation, aggradation, and the spontaneous aspects of city planning. The primary objective of these interviews was not to seek consensus but to explore potential contradictions and emerging paradigms. Additionally, the survey aimed to assess how the principles and concepts of renaturation and aggradation are perceived and applied across fields that shape the urban environment. The interview guide was structured around five major themes: 1. Familiarity and perception of renaturation and aggradation, 2. The balance between natural processes and human interventions, 3. Evaluation and measurement of renaturation outcomes, 4. Clients’ expectations and project constraints, and 5. Spontaneous nature and the future of landscape design. In addition to open-ended questions, the survey included multiple-choice and Likert-scale questions (ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”). All interviews were recorded with participants' consent. The transcribed verbatim were anonymized to protect confidentiality. Ethical approval was obtained in advance in accordance with institutional research protocols. Results 1. Understanding and applying renaturation and aggradation: limits of control and greenwashing Familiarity with and integration of renaturation and aggradation concepts vary significantly across the surveyed professions, indicating a disciplinary gradient (Fig. 2 ). However, urban planners show a relatively good understanding of renaturation (mean score: 4), their familiarity with aggradation is less pronounced (mean score: 3). They have an even weaker focus on soil aggradation (mean score: 2.5) and on applying renaturation principles in their projects. This suggests that, however planners understand ecological principles conceptually, institutional and regulatory frameworks often limit their practical implications. Architects exhibit a lower understanding of aggradation (mean score 2.8) and assign a limited importance to soil regeneration (mean score 2.2). Their responses indicate an aesthetic and anthropocentric orientation focusing more on visual orders. Nonetheless, the majority of the interviewed architects emphasized their growing awareness of native species, describing this as “ the first step toward designing with, rather than against, nature ” Agricultural engineers scored higher on both concepts. Their engagement with nature and cultivated systems – agrosystems – makes them more attuned to soil processes and ecological productivity. As one participant explained, “ We see soil as a living infrastructure; if you don’t’ feed it, nothing else will work.” Landscape architects and ecologists are on the higher end of the scale in terms of their familiarity with renaturation and aggradation in urban landscape design. While ecologists mainly emphasized the selection of native species, soil aggradation, and the long-term evolution of ecosystems, landscape architects underscored the need to merge design aesthetic with ecological functionality. This variety of perspectives, as shown in our participants' answers, highlights both gaps and opportunities for collaboration regarding what they believe constitutes successful green landscape design in cities. For example, ecologists and landscape architects could work together to bridge the divide between aesthetic-driven design and ecological functionality. Most of our respondents emphasized that this potential, however, is often limited by outside pressures from clients and institutions. This can lead to increased tension between ecological value and aesthetic expectations. As explained by an architect, “ Clients often desire neat, decorative green spaces, resulting in 'greenwashed' designs that, however natural they look, lack ecological depth ”. As a result, “ fake plants, manicured lawns, and insignificant motifs are favored over soil health, biodiversity, and ecological functions .” “ We end up designing green façades instead of ecological processes ,” as explained by another architect. Landscape professionals expressed comparable concerns. However, they emphasized that design and ecology need not be opposed. “ The issue is not the intervention itself, but rather the intention behind it. A project can actually be ecologically robust even if it is highly designed, as long as it is informed by knowledge and care for living systems. The big challenge is resisting the dominance of image over ecological process.” 2. Balancing autonomy and intervention in urban ecological design Our results reveal distinct patterns in how different professions negotiate the balance between natural autonomy and human intervention in urban ecological design (Fig. 3 ). Ecologists and landscape architects consistently emphasized the value of nature’s self-regulating processes. Both groups express strong support for spontaneous ecological dynamics (mean values of 5.0 and 4.0, respectively) and endorse the preservation of “sanctuary” spaces for spontaneous vegetation (mean values of 5.0 and 4.8, respectively). One ecologist explained, «Our task is to recognize when not to intervene. Sometimes the best design decision is patience. A landscape architect further extended this idea of minimal intervention, which could be intentional. “It is not about doing nothing but about creating conditions where life can take its own path…spontaneous vegetation should be treated as a material—valued for both its ecological benefits and aesthetic potential.” However, both professional families advocated minimal interference; landscape architects often described their work as framing ecological processes for public engagement. One designer explained, “We choreograph counters rather than control outcomes; design should help people notice what nature is already doing in their environment. ” In contrast, urban planners and architects seem to adopt a more functionally and managerially driven perspective. Indeed, urban planners expressed interest in integrating ecological processes and dynamics into dense urban environments, yet they emphasized the need for guidance: “ We can’t just let the city just rewild itself; we have to make wilderness legible and safe for everyone.” Architects’ responses added to extending the perspective of institutional risks and aesthetic expectation that constrain ecological autonomy in design practice: “ I admire the idea of spontaneous vegetation, but cities run on liability, if someone trips on a fallen branch, the experiment ends…people panic when vegetation looks unkempt, if we do not frame it properly, it’s seen as neglect. ” Agricultural engineers, however, adopted an intermediary stance, aligning with an ecological emphasis on natural processes but defending selection for regeneration and productivity, as one engineer explained, “ Intervention is not domination, it’s part of stewardship, you prune so the plant can grow stronger. ” Their position highlights that both human action and natural evolution are co-dependent stages of the same regenerative cycle. 3. Designing for living systems: how professionals prioritize restoration and aggradation Our results highlight that, across professional groups, participants articulated differing priorities of what restoration and aggradation should achieve (Fig. 4 ). Ecologists and landscape architects ranked biodiversity and soil quality as their highest targets. For both, the central goal of restoration is to restore dynamic living systems rather than produce a fixed aesthetic. As one ecologist explains: “ Renaturation is not about making a space look green again, it’s about letting the cycle of life rebuild itself, soil first, then everything will follow .” This systemic view was similarly echoed by landscape architects emphasizing regeneration over image, “ We design the conditions, not the picture. The moment you treat soil and water as design partners, resilience starts to emerge. ” Although both agricultural engineers and urban planners recognized the significance of biodiversity and soil quality, they tended to view renaturation as a single step within a broader framework of multifunctional planning and land use. As described by an urban planner: “it is one single tool in a larger planning box , ,” while an agricultural engineer highlighted its productive side: “ renaturation should not be understood as in contradiction with uses; it is about finding new productive ecologies that work both for people and ecosystems .” For architects, however, functionality appeared secondary to spatial configuration and aesthetics. Finally, it is worth noting that, although several acknowledged the relevance of biodiversity, most emphasized visual continuity. An architect commented, “ If a project doesn't look good, I don't think anyone will be concerned about how many species were preserved… It's important for people to identify and grasp meaning before they acknowledge biodiversity.” Water management also sparked differing opinions among participants. Urban planners and architects saw it as a vital part of urban infrastructure and linked it to climate adaptation and flood risk management. Ecologists, however, emphasized the importance of contextual sensitivity, arguing that the success of urban water management heavily depends on the site's history and hydrological patterns. As one ecologist emphasized, “ Soft water management works only if the land remembers how to absorb water. You can’t force infiltration on a site that has forgotten its river .” Finally, it is essential to highlight the differing opinions among participants regarding soil amendments. Ecologists favored minimal soil disturbance and organic enrichment, rating such interventions lower than most as they prefer to “ let the soil heal itself .” Urban planners and architects viewed amendments as pragmatic but not essential, often dictated by budget and construction timelines. 4. Clients' expectations, aesthetic pressures, and the challenges of maintenance Our findings reveal significant differences in client perceptions and expectations regarding ecological processes and their cultural aspects, as well as how these are framed across various professional fields. Indeed, our findings show that architects and landscape architects often encounter only moderate support for ecological approaches, along with budget and compliance challenges. As an architect explains, “ Clients want visible results, not evolving systems; they fund what they see, not what grows slowly underground. ” In the same vein, most interviewed ecologists, agricultural engineers, and urban planners report lower levels of client interest in renaturation and aggradation principles as they focus on practicality and aesthetics. Ecologists in particular expressed frustration at the lack of appreciation for ecological timeframes: “ People expect instant nature…they forget that regeneration takes years, not months ” Maintaining green spaces has become a widespread concern among professionals, particularly among ecologists, who ranked it as their top issue with an average score of 4.75. They emphasized that ecological design, if genuinely based on natural processes, should require less maintenance, not more. Respondents noted that clients often prefer managed landscapes as they associate green space management with cleanliness and safety. An urban planner expressed this tension: “ We still live in a culture that trims what it can’t understand and fears it….a messy landscape is perceived as neglected rather than alive .” On the other hand, urban planners acknowledged that this perception often affects project maintenance budgets and design choices: “ We end up always mowing meadows to reassure people that the city is still in control .” Together, these findings underscore a deeply rooted cultural belief in controlling urban nature, reinforced by institutional frameworks that prioritize order and predictability. The aesthetic aspects of urban green spaces also play a crucial role in client decisions, as our participants noted. Architects have found that clients value visual attractiveness, with a mean score of 4.67. An architect noted, “ A few ornamental species can bring satisfaction to our clients quicker than a complex soil aggradation and regeneration plan, which they probably could not understand .” This focus on aesthetics often results in what our respondent terms “performative greening,” in which ecological images are prioritized over ecosystem health. On the other hand, landscape architects have identified potential for aesthetic mediation; as one noted, “ Beauty can be our bridge… If we make complex ecologies understandable, clients will start to care .” Our findings highlight not only the contrasts between disciplines but also the broader cultural patterns that have long influenced how urban ecologies are addressed and maintained in urban planning projects. Ecologists face a dual challenge: they must advocate deeper ecological integration while managing persistent maintenance and aesthetic expectations. In contrast, landscape designers and architects must balance ecological integrity with effective visual communication, making sustainability perceivable without compromising its significance. Despite these tensions, most respondents acknowledged opportunities for transformation. Many argued that developing visually compelling, low-maintenance, and culturally relevant designs could bridge the gap between client expectations and ecological outcomes.. Such an approach could foster environmental literacy and foster recognition of diverse knowledge systems, including traditional and community-based practices. Accordingly, ecological design becomes more than a technical process; it evolves into an act of care and reconnection. As a landscape designer observed, “ Landscapes serve not only as functional ecosystems but also as emotional geographies. Here beauty transcends visual perfections; it becomes about resonance that evokes care, curiosity, and memory .” 5. Spontaneous nature and the future of urban landscape design Our findings underscore the varying degrees of support expressed by our interviewees for the spontaneous nature of future urban project design. Figure – illustrates that ecologists display the strongest support for this approach. Architects and urban planners generally show moderate support for the spontaneous nature. While architects are more inclined to support more contextual and holistic methods for the renovation project, they may even prefer more defined designs. As an architect explains, “ We do like the idea of wilderness, but it still needs a frame as people need to understand where to walk, and distinguish what belongs to them, from what belongs to nature .” When asked about their approach to landscape design, architects seem to share a common viewpoint, advocating managed green environments in cities that resemble Central Park in New York or Gardens by the Bay in Singapore, both recognized as highly controlled, managed landscapes. For us as researchers, this perspective reflects the potential gap — or even tension—between their theoretical understanding and support for minimal human intervention and the structured, visually appealing landscapes they typically create. Among the interviewed architects, some are drawn to images of “organic” landscapes to illustrate what they term “renaturation.” Their preferences, however, often gravitate toward heavily managed environments that mimic natural aesthetics while lacking ecological substance, which could be interpreted as a reluctance to embrace spontaneous ecological processes fully. As an architect commented, “ There is a difference between looking natural and being natural. We still design too much mainly for appearance .” Urban planners show more flexibility among our interviewees. Even though they have a wide range of preferences, some still prefer a highly structured landscape, such as Gardens by the Bay in Singapore. Finally, not surprisingly, ecologists remain the most consistent group in their preference for spontaneous nature in renaturation projects, favoring self-sustaining environments like Henri Matisse's Paris, with its entirely natural landscape. This indicates that they not only value these natural systems in theory but also see them as an effective model for sustainable restoration. While our results highlight some areas of convergence in understanding renaturation and aggradation across participants' discourse and answers, they also underscore tension between control and co-evolution that cuts across professional boundaries. Landscape designers, architects, and urban planners strive for legibility and public acceptance, whereas ecologists advocate for balancing processes and autonomy. Despite this, many respondents acknowledged that the future of urban renaturation and aggradation lies between those lines: designing frameworks that welcome spontaneous nature without suppressing it. A landscape architect summarizes this vision as follows: “ The future of green space design is not about control or chaos; it is about learning how to host and deal with uncertainty .” This statement particularly captures a paradigm shift toward adaptive spontaneity, defining socio-ecological and practice by designing cities as evolving habitats where care and adaptation replace rigid control. Discussion: Pathways toward a socio-ecological ethic of design This paper examined how urban professionals from different disciplines conceptualize and operationalize renaturation and aggradation, and to what extent these practices reveal broader tension between control and care in urban landscapes and planning operations. The findings highlight not only disciplinary contrasts but also a shared willingness to redefine design within socio-ecological systems (Folke, 2006 ; Walker & Salt, 2012 ). Three interrelated pathways emerge from our results. 5.1. From control to co-evolution: rethinking urban design paradigms Participants in our study recognized that the traditional meaning and expression of aesthetics, along with an order- and safety-focused approach to managing urban nature, often impede ecological autonomy. Ecologists and landscape architects described design as a facilitator rather than an imposition, echoing Clément’s concept of the Third Landscape that values unmanaged and “left over” spaces as biodiversity reservoirs (Clément et al., 2004 ). Additionally, their view aligns with contemporary urban rewilding frameworks that advocate recognizing urban biota and processes to restore self-sufficient, self-sustaining ecosystems (Lorimer et al., 2015 ; Pettorelli et al., 2018 ; Turnbull et al., 2025 ; Wartmann & Lorimer, 2024 ). Architects and urban planners, by contrast, are limited by frameworks of liability and clarity. These findings support Nassauer’s ( 1995 ) argument about the importance of aligning landscape language that communicates human intention. In “ Messy ecosystems, orderly frames ,” Nassauer explains that when the goal is to care for the landscape, it creates a strong vocabulary for design aimed at improving ecological quality. She notes that, since ecological functions are not easily recognizable to those not trained to see them, public acceptance depends on the visibility of "cues to care” as a cultural language that provides context for ecological functions. Recent work by (Qiu et al., 2025 ) reinforces the importance of these deliberate approaches in landscape design to promote landscape sustainability sciences. Our results show that many urban professionals are increasingly accepting uncertainty and change as valid components of design. This viewpoint aligns with the core principles of the adaptive management paradigm, which emphasize experimentation and feedback as essential tools in the design process. (Holling, 1978 ; Walters, 1986 ). These results also connect to recent work on knowledge co-production principles in sustainability science. These involve iterative and collaborative processes that engage diverse knowledge sources and actors to generate context-specific understanding and develop pathways toward sustainability (Armatas et al., 2025 ; Norström et al., 2020 ). Thus, this shift from designing fixed objects to creating evolving systems demonstrates a coevolutionary mindset, in which ecological and cultural processes continually influence one another. 5.2. Aesthetics, culture, and politics of care The second pathway identified in our results highlights how aesthetic norms and cultural expectations shape ecological approaches in urban professional practice. Similar to early studies on landscape preferences, many clients still associate tidiness with safety and neglect with disorder (Kaplan, 1995 ). Our findings reflect an ongoing debate about the relationship between aesthetics and ecology, as well as the concept of an "ecological aesthetic" that influences landscape planning, design, and management (Gobster et al., 2007 ). Ecologists in our study described a “ culture that trims what is fears ”, confirming the persistence of a control approach. Nonetheless, participants also proposed that aesthetics could become a tool for a pedagogy of care, which aligns with Zakharova et al. ( 2025 ) work on the aesthetic perception of urban biodiversity, demonstrating that aesthetics and ecology in cities can interact in both complementary and contradictory effects. In this view, aesthetic experience is not perceived as superficial but formative. By making ecological complexity understandable, designers can transform spontaneous urban nature into a form of empathy that aligns with the "politics of care," as articulated by Tronto ( 2020 ), who argues that care should be organized as a collective political resource rather than identified as an individual moral attitude. Building on this idea, in " Matters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More than Human Worlds ," de La Bellacasa (2017)extends this notion of care beyond just the human sphere to connect ethics, ecology, and everyday practices, to envision design as a tool of shared responsibility and cultural memory. In the same vein, Ressiore C. & De La Rosa ( 2025 ) argue that “ care ” extends beyond repairing a situation that is “wrong” or uncomfortable, it involves negotiating differences and adapting to relational complexities. Research on urban wildscapes further grounds this idea: informal and liminal spaces, however visually “messy”, create both strong social bonds and cultural memories (Hu & Lima, 2024 ; Jorgensen & Keenan, 2012 ; Kowarik, 2018 ). When people perceive such landscapes as intentional rather than neglected, they often experience curiosity, reflection, and attachment rather than discomfort (Southon et al., 2017 ). This suggests that aesthetic design can serve as a mediator of environmental meaning, helping citizens recognize ecological processes as part of the urban identity and collective heritage. Hence, reframing aesthetics as an expression of shared identity rather than control can bridge ecological and cultural divides. This approach of “ visible care ,” according to de La Bellacasa (2017) offers a pathway to legitimize spontaneous and adaptive landscapes while re-embedding human emotions and meaning within ecological processes. 5.3. Toward collective stewardship and socio-ecological learning Our findings indicate that, beyond design and aesthetic qualities, the success of renaturation and aggradation heavily depends on how they are governed and maintained through shared responsibility. Participants in our study often emphasized that ecological outcomes depend not only on the technical aspects of the design process but also on how collaboration and learning are organized among different disciplines, institutions, and local communities intended to benefit from these projects. Specifically, ecologists and landscape architects described their projects as “ living laboratories ” where knowledge continuously evolves through observation, care, and adjustments (Galafassi et al., 2018 ). This viewpoint goes beyond individual designers' individual reflexivity to encompass institutional and civic responsibility. It reframes ecological care as a collaborative effort rather than a single step in an urban project, thereby echoing socio-ecological systems research by highlighting the interconnectedness of science, practice, and governance. (Berkes, 2017 ; Bodin, 2017 ; Charles et al., 2020 ; Norgaard et al., 2009 ). Our findings can also be understood through the perspective of sustainability science frameworks, putting forth that knowledge gains significance through inclusive and interactive dialogue among diverse actors (Mauser et al., 2013 ). Extending beyond professional collaboration, our findings highlight that shared stewardship within the renaturation and aggradation projects requires a cultural shift toward ecological maintenance as a public good (Ostrom & Ostrom, 2019 ). In this view, ecological care becomes both a governance strategy and a civic practice. This approach emphasizes the importance of engaging citizens in what some participants refer to as a “ slow partnership ” among citizens, experts, and ecosystems. Adopting this participatory method necessitates transformative governance, a concept highlighted in recent resilience research. In fact, resilience and sustainability are increasingly viewed as reliant on multi-level coordination and social learning, rather than on top-down control (May, 2022 ; Ribeiro et al., 2025 ). In this light, renaturation and aggradation projects can operate as ecologies of repair, rebuilding not only habitats but also social connections and reframing professional cultures. (Blanco-Wells, 2021b ). By reconceptualizing practices, the ethics of care are expanded from interpersonal relations to the broader scales of institutions, territory, and collective memory. Finally, our results support a vision of collective stewardship that transforms renaturation and aggradation projects from technical interventions into a socio-ecological learning process—one that teaches cities to adopt, remember, and care for the landscapes they cultivate. It defines what (Ressiore C. & De La Rosa, 2025 ) described as engaging in a cycle of reflection and adjustment that redefines relational competence grounded in listening and reciprocity. Accordingly, renaturation and aggradation projects become tools for pedagogy and learning for both professionals and the public, cultivating the forms of ecological citizenship required to sustain urban life within planetary limits (Campos et al., 2024 ). Conclusion This research contributes to the scholarship on socio-ecological practices by exploring how renaturation and aggradation can reframe the relationship among human agency, ecological processes, and design culture, ultimately promoting socio-ecological ethics in urban design. Through 33 semi-structured interviews with urban professionals in France and the United Kingdom, our study identifies both tensions and opportunities for transformation at the intersection of ecological science, design culture, and public expectations. Our findings reveal a notable disciplinary divide among designers, ecologists, and urban planners, highlighting conflicting views on aesthetics and human relationships with nature. While ecologists and landscape architects emphasize spontaneity and soil renewal, architects and urban planners typically focus on forms and usability, driven by client expectations and urban regulatory frameworks. Our findings echo those emphasized in “Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities,” which addresses these interdisciplinary conflicts and discusses how (Beatley, 2012 ). It's essential to recognize that integrating urban planning with ecological principles is not a recent idea. Architects have been discussing this topic since the 1980s. In “ The Granite Garden: Urban Nature and Human Design ,” Spirn, ( 1984 ) broadens ecological theory into urban design and argues it should have widespread influence and application, thereby generating immediate and lasting interest in ecological planning and design. The many works that followed her contributions have helped address the historical neglect of integrating nature into urban environments during the 19th and 20th centuries, documenting and advancing diverse interpretations of urban nature. Nonetheless, while most of this scholarship has offered a stimulating reading of cities as lively and more-than-human assemblages, it has yet to engage systematically with the active installation of nature (Turnbull et al., 2025 ). Our results support this viewpoint and highlight a noticeable shift in urban design from a conventional, static approach to a dynamic model that emphasizes stewardship and acknowledges the agency of nature and its transformative processes through renaturation and aggradation. The second main contribution of this paper is the necessity, according to urban professionals, to redefine natural aesthetic in terms of legibility and care. Urban designers can mitigate public resistance to new interpretations of green spaces' aesthetics in cities, thereby fostering city dwellers' civic responsibility towards urban ecologies. This is particularly relevant given recent research findings showing that “ordinary members of the public” can distinguish subtle differences between seemingly similar designs or natural vegetation (Hoyle et al., 2017 ). The third contribution of this paper is that it enhances the existing literature by emphasizing the need for long-term, cross-disciplinary partnerships that incorporate ecological knowledge through renaturation and aggradation, thereby requiring tailored participatory governance. Our findings suggest a need for a transformative approach to urban nature planning, evaluation, and maintenance. This approach should be guided by urban planning regulations that prioritize not only short-term aesthetic considerations but also ecological performance metrics, such as soil health and the ability of ecosystems to self-regenerate. These metrics should be incorporated into both design approvals and post-occupancy assessments. Additionally, maintenance strategies should regard ecological care as a vital investment in infrastructure. Additionally, policies need to support adaptive management initiatives by allocating funding for monitoring and citizen participation instead of focusing solely on construction and maintenance contracts. To achieve these goals, education and training reforms are critical for instilling ecological literacy and transdisciplinary curricula in professional accreditation systems, which should incorporate competencies in socio-ecological ethics. Furthermore, European sustainability frameworks, such as the EU Green Deal or Nature Restoration Law, must be leveraged to implement renaturation and aggradation as measurable socio-ecological strategies for urban resilience, promoting the idea of maintenance as a public good. Finally, it is worth recalling that although this research examines the perspectives of various urban professionals across France and the U.K. regarding renaturation and aggradation projects, it does not delve into specific practices within each country. It initiates an important conversation, and future studies should deepen and broaden the empirical foundation of our conclusions. Primarily, future research should focus on comparative studies across diverse bioclimatic and cultural contexts to explore how care ethics are reflected in different planning traditions. Another area for future inquiry is policy design experiments that test co-management models involving various stakeholders from municipalities and designers to local communities as learning alliances. Such initiatives have the potential to transform cities into laboratories for ecological restoration, providing a replicable governance model that integrates cultural heritage, biodiversity, and civic stewardship. Declarations A cknowledgement The authors would like to express their gratitude to all the professionals who agreed to share their perspective by participating in the survey. Their contribution was essential to the development of this research. We extend special thanks to Gary Grant, Marc Barra, Rosie Whicheloe, and Blanch Cameron, whose valuable insights and support in gathering data greatly enriched the quality and depth of this study. Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used AI in order to improve the readability and grammar of this paper. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication. No generative AI was used to create the content of this paper. References Alves, A., Gersonius, B., Kapelan, Z., Vojinovic, Z., & Sanchez, A. (2019). Assessing the Co-Benefits of green-blue-grey infrastructure for sustainable urban flood risk management. Journal of Environmental Management , 239 (February), 244–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.03.036 Anguelovski, I., Brand, A. L., Connolly, J. J. T., Corbera, E., Kotsila, P., Steil, J., Garcia-Lamarca, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Cole, H., Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., del Pulgar, C. P., Shokry, G., Sekulova, F., & Argüelles Ramos, L. (2020). Expanding the Boundaries of Justice in Urban Greening Scholarship: Toward an Emancipatory, Antisubordination, Intersectional, and Relational Approach. Annals of the American Association of Geographers , 110 (6), 1743–1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1740579 Aradottir, A. L., & Hagen, D. (2013). Ecological restoration: approaches and impacts on vegetation, soils and society. Advances in Agronomy , 120 , 173–222. Armatas, C. A., Hollingsworth, T. N., Black, C., & Taylor, J. J. (2025). Reflecting on the co-production ideal through practice. Socio-Ecological Practice Research , 7 (1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-024-00211-y Bakhmatova, K. A., Matynyan, N. N., & Sheshukova, A. A. (2022). Anthropogenic soils of urban parks: a review. Eurasian Soil Science , 55 (1), 64–80. Beatley, T. (2012). Green urbanism: Learning from European cities . Island press. Benton-Short, L., & Short, J. R. (2013). Cities and nature . Routledge. Berger, J., Bleich, V. C., & Terry Bowyer, R. (2024). Must we lose our biological connection to nature to endure changing times? The Journal of Wildlife Management , 88 (7), e22639. Berkes, F. (2017). Environmental governance for the anthropocene? Social-ecological systems, resilience, and collaborative learning. Sustainability , 9 (7), 1232. Blanco-Wells, G. (2021a). Ecologies of Repair: A Post-human Approach to Other-Than-Human Natures. Frontiers in Psychology , 12 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633737 Blanco-Wells, G. (2021b). Ecologies of repair: A post-human approach to other-than-human natures. Frontiers in Psychology , 12 , 633737. Bodin, Ö. (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science , 357 (6352), eaan1114. Bonthoux, S., & Chollet, S. (2024). Wilding cities for biodiversity and people: a transdisciplinary framework. Biological Reviews , 99 (4), 1458–1480. Braidotti, R. (2013). Posthuman humanities. European Educational Research Journal , 12 (1), 1–19. Braidotti, R., & Bignall, S. (2018). Posthuman ecologies: Complexity and process after Deleuze . Rowman & Littlefield. Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2018). Doing interviews . Campos, I., Fuchs, D., Repo, P., Jager, W., Klöckner, C., Wang, S., Lamas, D., Cots, F., Barchiesi, E., Löfström, E., Peniche, D., Sion, Y., Buth, V., Limão, J., Oliveira, S., Diaz, C. R., & Živčič, L. (2024). What roles can democracy labs play in co-creating democratic innovations for sustainability? Socio-Ecological Practice Research , 6 (4), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-024-00197-7 Charles, A., Loucks, L., Berkes, F., & Armitage, D. (2020). Community science: A typology and its implications for governance of social-ecological systems. Environmental Science & Policy , 106 , 77–86. Clément, G. (2015a). “ The Planetary Garden” and Other Writings . University of Pennsylvania Press. Clément, G. (2015b). “ The Planetary Garden” and Other Writings . University of Pennsylvania Press. Clément, G., Clément, G., Clément, G., & Clément, G. (2004). Manifeste du Tiers paysage . Sujet/Objet Paris. Colding, J., & Barthel, S. (2019). Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years later. Ecology and Society , 24 (1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10598-240102 Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research . Sage publications. de La Bellacasa, M. P. (2017a). Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds (Vol. 41). U of Minnesota Press. de La Bellacasa, M. P. (2017b). Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds (Vol. 41). U of Minnesota Press. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change , 16 (3), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002 Foster, J. (2014). Hiding in plain view: Vacancy and prospect in Paris’ Petite Ceinture. Cities , 40 , 124–132. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.09.002 Frank, B., Delano, D., & Caniglia, B. S. (2017). Urban systems: A socio-ecological system perspective. Sociology International Journal , 1 (1), 00001. Gabrielian, A. (2024). Landscape Fictions and Future Realities. In Contemporary Absurdities, Existential Crises, and Visual Art (pp. 64–79). Intellect. Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. AMBIO-STOCKHOLM- , 22 , 151. Galafassi, D., Daw, T. M., Thyresson, M., Rosendo, S., Chaigneau, T., Bandeira, S., Munyi, L., Gabrielsson, I., & Brown, K. (2018). Stories in social-ecological knowledge cocreation. Ecology and Society , 23 (1). Gaston, K. J., & Soga, M. (2020). Extinction of experience: The need to be more specific. People and Nature , 2 (3), 575–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10118 Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., & Fry, G. (2007). The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology , 22 (7), 959–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x Gosnell-Myers, G. (2022). Co-creating the cities we deserve through Indigenous knowledge. In Sacred Civics (pp. 80–90). Routledge. Haaland, C., & van den Bosch, C. K. (2015). Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening , 14 (4), 760–771. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.009 Harding, S. (2011). The postcolonial science and technology studies reader . Duke University Press. Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive environmental assessment and management . John Wiley & Sons. Hoyle, H., Hitchmough, J., & Jorgensen, A. (2017). All about the ‘wow factor’? The relationships between aesthetics, restorative effect and perceived biodiversity in designed urban planting. Landscape and Urban Planning , 164 , 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.03.011 Hu, X., & Lima, M. F. (2024). The association between maintenance and biodiversity in urban green spaces: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning , 251 , 105153. Ignatieva, M., Dushkova, D., Martin, D. J., Mofrad, F., Stewart, K., & Hughes, M. (2023). From One to Many Natures: Integrating Divergent Urban Nature Visions to Support Nature-Based Solutions in Australia and Europe. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 15 (5). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054640 Ignatieva, M., Stewart, G. H., & Meurk, C. (2011). Planning and design of ecological networks in urban areas. Landscape and Ecological Engineering , 7 (1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-010-0143-y Jorgensen, A., & Keenan, R. (2012). Urban wildscapes . Routledge. Jørgensen, D. (2015). Rethinking rewilding. Geoforum , 65 , 482–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.11.016 Kanav, A., & Kumar, J. (2024). Exploring the preferences of vulnerable populations in green spaces: a systematic review. Socio-Ecological Practice Research , 6 (4), 411–432. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 15 (3), 169–182. Kokroko, K. J., Leipold, W., & Hovis, M. (2024a). Applying a pedagogy of interdisciplinary and cross-cultural collaboration as socio-ecological practice in landscape architecture education. Socio-Ecological Practice Research , 6 (1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-023-00175-5 Kokroko, K. J., Leipold, W., & Hovis, M. (2024b). Applying a pedagogy of interdisciplinary and cross-cultural collaboration as socio-ecological practice in landscape architecture education. Socio-Ecological Practice Research , 6 (1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-023-00175-5 Kowarik, I. (2018). Urban wilderness: Supply, demand, and access. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening , 29 , 336–347. Lake, F. K., Wright, V., Morgan, P., McFadzen, M., McWethy, D., & Stevens-Rumann, C. (2017). Returning fire to the land: celebrating traditional knowledge and fire. Journal of Forestry , 115 (5), 343–353. Lorimer, J., Sandom, C., Jepson, P., Doughty, C., Barua, M., & Kirby, K. J. (2015). Rewilding: Science, Practice, and Politics. In Annual Review of Environment and Resources (Vol. 40, pp. 39–62). Annual Reviews Inc. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021406 Louv, R. (2008). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder . Algonquin books. Ludwig, D. (2016). Overlapping ontologies and Indigenous knowledge. From integration to ontological self-determination. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A , 59 , 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.06.002 Márquez, C. O., García, V. J., Schultz, R. C., & Isenhart, T. M. (2017). Assessment of soil aggradation through soil aggregation and particulate organic matter by riparian switchgrass buffers. Agronomy , 7 (4), 76. Mauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer, B. S., Hackmann, H., Leemans, R., & Moore, H. (2013). Transdisciplinary global change research: The co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. In Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability (Vol. 5, Issues 3–4, pp. 420–431). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.001 May, C. K. (2022). Complex adaptive governance systems: a framework to understand institutions, organizations, and people in socio-ecological systems. Socio-Ecological Practice Research , 4 (1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-021-00101-7 McGregor, D. M. D. (2008). Linking traditional ecological knowledge and western science: aboriginal perspectives from the 2000 state of the lakes ecosystem Te of the lakes ecosystem conference. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies , 28 (1), 139–158. Mumford, L. (2016). The culture of cities (Vol. 19). Open Road Media. Nassauer, J. I. (1995). Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal , 14 (2), 161–170. Nicol, C., & Blake, R. (2000). Classification and use of open space in the context of increasing urban capacity. Planning Practice and Research , 15 (3), 193–210. Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior , 41 (5), 715–740. Norgaard, R. B., Kallis, G., & Kiparsky, M. (2009). Collectively engaging complex socio-ecological systems: re-envisioning science, governance, and the California Delta. Environmental Science & Policy , 12 (6), 644–652. Norström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., Bednarek, A. T., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., de Bremond, A., Campbell, B. M., Canadell, J. G., Carpenter, S. R., Folke, C., Fulton, E. A., Gaffney, O., Gelcich, S., Jouffray, J. B., Leach, M., … Österblom, H. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability , 3 (3), 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2 Ostrom, V., & Ostrom, E. (2019). Public goods and public choices. Alternatives for Delivering Public Services: Toward Improved Performance , 7–49. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429047978-2 Pettorelli, N., Barlow, J., Stephens, P. A., Durant, S. M., Connor, B., Schulte to Bühne, H., Sandom, C. J., Wentworth, J., & du Toit, J. T. (2018). Making rewilding fit for policy. Journal of Applied Ecology , 55 (3), 1114–1125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13082 Ponstingel, D. (2022). The governance of community gardens as commons and its role in the socio-ecological outcomes of gardening in Austin, Texas, USA. Socio-Ecological Practice Research , 4 (4), 355–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-022-00133-7 Pyle, R. M. (1978). The extinction of experience. Horticulture , 56 , 64–67. Qiu, J., Nassauer, J. I., Ahern, J., Huang, L., Reed, J., Ding, S., Guo, J., Liu, Z., Ou, W., Ouyang, Z., Shi, P., Tao, Y., Yang, R., Zheng, X., & Wu, J. (2025). Advancing landscape sustainability science: key challenges and strategies for integration with landscape design and planning. In Landscape Ecology (Vol. 40, Issue 2). Springer Science and Business Media B.V. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-024-02042-4 Ressiore C., A., & De La Rosa, G. (2025). Transdisciplinary care in practice: reflections from the Council of Care. Socio-Ecological Practice Research . https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-025-00229-w Rey Benayas, J. M., & Bullock, J. M. (2012). Restoration of biodiversity and ecosystem services on agricultural land. Ecosystems , 15 , 883–899. Ribeiro, J. D., Moniz, J., Campos, I., & Falanga, R. (2025). Can democratic innovations tackle social-ecological challenges? Gaining insights on transformative governance across European cases. Socio-Ecological Practice Research . https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-025-00225-0 Richardson, M. (2019). Beyond Restoration: Considering Emotion Regulation in Natural Well-Being. Ecopsychology , 11 (2), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2019.0012 Robinson, S. L., & Lundholm, J. T. (2012). Ecosystem services provided by urban spontaneous vegetation. Urban Ecosystems , 15 (3), 545–557. Rupprecht, C. D. D., & Byrne, J. A. (2014). Informal urban greenspace: A typology and trilingual systematic review of its role for urban residents and trends in the literature. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening , 13 (4), 597–611. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.09.002 Shaw, I. (1999). Qualitative evaluation . Sikorska, D., Ciężkowski, W., Babańczyk, P., Chormański, J., & Sikorski, P. (2021). Intended wilderness as a Nature-based Solution: Status, identification and management of urban spontaneous vegetation in cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening , 62 , 127155. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127155 Sikorski, P., Gawryszewska, B., Sikorska, D., Chormański, J., Schwerk, A., Jojczyk, A., Ciężkowski, W., Archiciński, P., Łepkowski, M., Dymitryszyn, I., Przybysz, A., Wińska-Krysiak, M., Zajdel, B., Matusiak, J., & Łaszkiewicz, E. (2021). The value of doing nothing – How informal green spaces can provide comparable ecosystem services to cultivated urban parks. Ecosystem Services , 50 , 101339. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101339 Soga, M., & Gaston, K. J. (2016). Extinction of experience: the loss of human–nature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment , 14 (2), 94–101. Soulé, M., & Noss, R. (1998). Complementary goals for continental conservation. Wild Earth , 8 (Fall), 39–64. Southon, G. E., Jorgensen, A., Dunnett, N., Hoyle, H., & Evans, K. L. (2017). Biodiverse perennial meadows have aesthetic value and increase residents’ perceptions of site quality in urban green-space. Landscape and Urban Planning , 158 , 105–118. Spirn, A. W. (1984). The granite garden: urban nature and human design. (No Title) . Stenseke, M. (2024). On IPBES’ framing of the values of nature . https://doi.org/10.54612/Keywords Suárez, M., Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Onaindia, M. (2019). Assessing socio-ecological resilience in cities. In The Routledge handbook of urban resilience (pp. 197–216). Routledge. Thompson, C. W. (2002). Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning , 60 (2), 59–72. Tronto, J. (2020). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care . Routledge. Turnbull, J., Fry, T., & Lorimer, J. (2025). (Re)wilding London: Fabric, politics, and aesthetics. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers , 50 (3). https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12748 Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2012). Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world . Island press. Walters, C. J. (1986). Adaptive management of renewable resources . Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Wartmann, F. M., & Lorimer, J. (2024). Messy natures: The political aesthetics of nature recovery. People and Nature , 6 (6), 2564–2576. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10743 Whyte, K. P. (2013). On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept: A philosophical study. Ecological Processes , 2 , 1–12. Wiesel, I., Steele, W., & Houston, D. (2020). Cities of care: Introduction to a special issue. Cities , 105 , 102844. Xie, L., & Bulkeley, H. (2020). Nature-based solutions for urban biodiversity governance. Environmental Science and Policy , 110 (May), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.002 Ying, J., Zhang, X., Zhang, Y., & Bilan, S. (2022). Green infrastructure: systematic literature review. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja , 35 (1), 343–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.1893202 Zakharova, K., Rodela, R., & Lehtilä, K. (2025). Aesthetic perception of urban biodiversity: a review of methodologies and statistical approaches. In Cogent Social Sciences (Vol. 11, Issue 1). Cogent OA. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2025.2484629 Zoderer, B. M., Hainz-Renetzeder, C., & Vuolo, F. (2024). Mapping wild nature areas to identify priority areas for urban rewilding in cities: A process-oriented approach. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening , 101 , 128549. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8070855","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":542254462,"identity":"abc86970-7ea3-4aa0-8518-8a927fcb6344","order_by":0,"name":"Marie Asma Ben-Othmen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"UNiLaSalle","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marie","middleName":"Asma","lastName":"Ben-Othmen","suffix":""},{"id":542254465,"identity":"c643e820-7946-4d27-a9c7-211d4b81cd4c","order_by":1,"name":"Youssef Bouery","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"UNiLaSalle","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Youssef","middleName":"","lastName":"Bouery","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-11-09 18:53:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8070855/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8070855/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":95619699,"identity":"9c956bc8-ab27-4749-88bb-e23b47a60e04","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 09:25:22","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":2748195,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SEPRV5.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/0b8ff9d9759f721854832fa9.docx"},{"id":95656279,"identity":"29bf31f0-6151-45ce-9bff-1f612c1afc8c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:18:19","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5031,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"0a9069820d9b41d994eeaa74cbecac59.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/25a1997471bf16318997a25f.json"},{"id":95619700,"identity":"d8e9c1c8-f579-49e8-8f74-10e2891cd2d2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 09:25:22","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":184833,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"0a9069820d9b41d994eeaa74cbecac591enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/bd3a10d5d6c9af70c7b42a94.xml"},{"id":95619692,"identity":"23c93013-ad58-49dc-b09b-074c97396615","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 09:25:22","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":104167,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/ca7442a6dcaead55a78b7352.jpeg"},{"id":95657061,"identity":"71a71361-e07b-47b0-b496-d7f2dcd74def","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:20:04","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":133873,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/161726165d6900540e8c52e1.jpeg"},{"id":95657857,"identity":"23d26c17-60b0-477b-a1db-c3432fb3f157","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:22:15","extension":"jpeg","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":133902,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/a146c86425b79af160d53d17.jpeg"},{"id":95619701,"identity":"449ae34c-1588-4e2e-8469-ac642d181dd3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 09:25:22","extension":"jpeg","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":86150,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/17a7f4a7bcf37d20d21ad708.jpeg"},{"id":95619702,"identity":"339c3ece-a0fc-48aa-b44f-2b774ba47f3c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 09:25:22","extension":"jpeg","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":66013,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/de22171b430b113365c03638.jpeg"},{"id":95658087,"identity":"ec783c25-5fa7-430a-9f79-b4349eb3ff44","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:22:54","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1695401,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/a269d28b907de12ee554ddec.png"},{"id":95657905,"identity":"03c1fb9c-ebdf-4aa5-89aa-cce955ee833d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:22:23","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":29703,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/5b8d44d76a18d035c466dbd4.png"},{"id":95657600,"identity":"ae321f8d-8d5c-4ca2-8ebe-84f4dc445d4c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:21:19","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":27443,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/c793609c88b74d76ae7d9f76.png"},{"id":95619708,"identity":"3ce0dda9-cea9-49b9-b82d-72bf489b69b7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 09:25:22","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":26636,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/849db64b2a9e1cb972e3735f.png"},{"id":95619709,"identity":"cd01cc67-94c8-4b3e-a577-c1248be0208f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 09:25:22","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":24005,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/4631725a88bab6bb1ca6ef80.png"},{"id":95619706,"identity":"047c4fa2-13df-4301-952e-988a960555d3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 09:25:22","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":14244,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/ed9fd02475e9384e1a133c47.png"},{"id":95619710,"identity":"c0d15254-c7a1-4919-92b3-4093f9cf56f4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 09:25:22","extension":"png","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":259841,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/4f984645bab27ee15ab995ac.png"},{"id":95619711,"identity":"7a53e735-177e-4d77-9ab1-d6b1d135d0af","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 09:25:22","extension":"xml","order_by":15,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":183544,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"0a9069820d9b41d994eeaa74cbecac591structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/20d637868f76833ef1d8b8fb.xml"},{"id":95656956,"identity":"aaffd929-886d-40e7-a10e-e46554dd41d7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:19:47","extension":"html","order_by":16,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":191026,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/4e26802db7a8b4ea931774cb.html"},{"id":95619689,"identity":"b1659677-86d7-47da-85b1-85068ecce99b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 09:25:22","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":118126,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 2.\u003c/strong\u003e Familiarity with the concepts of renaturation and aggradation, as expressed on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/6f991e31cb2b77bec2bd0c55.png"},{"id":95619690,"identity":"ace45961-7c8b-4eaa-bb54-ceaf9d227813","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 09:25:22","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":146954,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFigure 3. Respondents’ opinion of the role of natural processes and human intervention as expressed on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/2456d00fe45d6dc3303baef3.png"},{"id":95656537,"identity":"58bb7eab-4a89-433d-ada0-9596a9df6672","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:18:58","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":150294,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFigure 4. Practitioners' perspectives on the evaluation and measurement of renaturation as expressed on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/0fe71a5ce3fe7826a94bf827.png"},{"id":95619697,"identity":"998aad37-597f-41ec-9cb1-0781bbbd3e8a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 09:25:22","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":101945,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 5. \u003c/strong\u003eClients' preferences and challenges in renaturation projects\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/00b598c9772c0258d6bdfcce.png"},{"id":95656678,"identity":"8e8483da-143c-4a9e-9b2e-fdb1c2ca3a5f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:19:18","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":77899,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 6.\u003c/strong\u003e Respondents’ perspective on the spontaneous nature and future urban landscape design\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/136acb950e8264c115b1848f.png"},{"id":95619693,"identity":"9c58d261-2772-4125-9c76-ff9dc31c2d0d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 09:25:22","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":395403,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 7.\u003c/strong\u003e Different types of landscapes with their relative level of human intervention\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/e0ccd24ea20b39833ba3d6e7.png"},{"id":95660472,"identity":"81fc3a45-78b0-4771-8c1a-7def620e7e12","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:32:17","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2001290,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8070855/v1/b74700c1-105c-46b1-bfb7-f05f8f97fcd9.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Renaturation, Aggradation, and the Ethics of Care: Toward a Socio-Ecological Ethics of Urban Design","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe accelerating biodiversity loss, coupled with a growing emotional disconnection from nature in major cities worldwide, has led to a phenomenon Pyle described in 1978 as the extinction of experience, highlighting the diminishing opportunities for urban residents to engage with nature, a trend exacerbated by rapid urbanization. As a result, a feedback loop is created where individuals with limited interactions with nature are less likely to protect it. (Pyle, 1978) predicted that the extinction of experience would be especially severe in cities where most of the worlds population lives and biodiversity is declining daily, prompting an endless cycle of biodiversity loss.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eForty-five years later, as this article is being written, the loss of experiences is still being driven by biodiversity decline, particularly in urban areas affected by climate change. The loss of opportunities to connect with nature weakens emotional bonds with the natural world, leading to a gradual erosion of human-nature interactions. This shift could become one of the pivotal environmental issues of our time (Gaston \u0026amp; Soga, 2020; Soga \u0026amp; Gaston, 2016). \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAn increasing body of literature acknowledges cities as socio-ecological systems that are dynamic networks in which ecological processes, social practices, and cultural expressions co-evolve according to a systems perspective (Colding \u0026amp; Barthel, 2019; Frank et al., 2017; Kokroko et al., 2024a; Ponstingel, 2022). By considering environments as living ecologies shaped by human and non-human agencies, this perspective challenges the notions of recognizable boundaries between \u0026ldquo;nature\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;cities.\u0026rdquo; Hence, acknowledging cities as socio-ecological systems allows moving beyond dualisms of control and wilderness to conceive urban design as a practice of both mediation and adaptation within a complex environment. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom this standpoint, modern urban planning and design have moved beyond the question of whether nature can exist in cities to how these practices can support the reciprocal relationships that are critical for the resilience of socio-ecological systems (Su\u0026aacute;rez et al., 2019). \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpontaneous nature, referred to in scholarly work as intentional wilderness (Sikorska et al., 2021)or spontaneous urban vegetation (Robinson \u0026amp; Lundholm, 2012) has frequently been overlooked as mere disorder. However, it serves as a lens for observing the interaction, adaptation, and regeneration of ecological processes and cultural memories in cities (Hoyle et al., 2017). \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIn this paper, we build on the idea of spontaneous urban nature, highlighting its importance as a fundamental basis for biodiversity, regenerative potential, and cultural memory in urban landscape design. Our discussion aligns with the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) definition of nature, encompassing biodiversity, ecosystems, evolution, and biocultural diversity (Stenseke, 2024). We argue that bringing and maintaining nature in cities goes beyond just planting trees and shrubs. It requires a major change in how people see these areas and how much they promote a sense of respect rooted in human-nature interconnectedness(Kanav \u0026amp; Kumar, 2024; Louv, 2008; Nisbet et al., 2009; Richardson, 2019). \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eNature exists on a spectrum of naturalness, influenced by natural cycles and human actions rather than being confined to a strict classification (Benton-Short \u0026amp; Short, 2013). This complexity offers opportunities to shape and maintain cultural memory (Zoderer et al., 2024). Several recent studies have focused on categorizing modern cultural expressions of nature into types, including native or \u0026ldquo;gifted,\u0026rdquo; spontaneous, cultivated, and designed (Ignatieva et al., 2025; Yang et al., 2024). These typologies underscore that the urban green spaces are not merely aesthetic measures but, instead, spatial practices that can foster deeper socio-ecological connections between people and their inhabited environments. Moreover, authors underscore the role of urban green spaces in fostering cultural landscapes that promote community engagement, shared memories and local traditions (Mumford, 2016). This perspective is particularly emphasized in the work of Gilles Cl\u0026eacute;ment, who argues that nature can flourish even with minimal human intervention (Cl\u0026eacute;ment, 2015; Cl\u0026eacute;ment et al., 2004), inviting practitioners to reassess their role within the broader ecosystem. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe challenge, then, lies in whether we\u0026mdash;as Homo sapiens\u0026mdash;can reclaim our place in nature without exerting dominance and causing harm? This question leads to the notion of intentional design, in which urban green spaces function not as decorative additions but rather as active agents of ecological regeneration. Mainly, \u003cem\u003erenaturation\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eaggradation\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ndash; the latter stands as the antithesis of degradation \u0026ndash; urban design can instigate both ecological and cultural meanings of cities, reinforcing them as living socio-ecological systems. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eTo address this question, in this research, we first draw on emerging ecological frameworks that challenge traditional design paradigms and encourage co-evolution with nature rather than control. From this perspective, the concepts of \u003cem\u003erenaturation\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eaggradation\u003c/em\u003e call for a rethink of the extent of agency granted to natural processes. In other words, how much freedom is allowed for ecosystems to shape the urban environment on their own becomes a must. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eRenaturation refers to the restoration of natural conditions within altered environments (Rey Benayas \u0026amp; Bullock, 2012), whereas aggradation \u0026ndash;that is, originally a term borrowed from geology- describes the gradual accumulation of soil and organic matters that rehabilitate degraded lands (M\u0026aacute;rquez et al., 2017). In landscape design scholarship and practice, however, aggradation is emerging as a conceptual and practical counterpoint to degradation, focusing on ecosystem functionality and resilience through minimal human intervention (Bakhmatova et al., 2022). \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnlike traditional restoration approaches that often rely on active efforts to revert ecosystems to their so-called original states (Aradottir \u0026amp; Hagen, 2013), aggradation offers a vision of ecological processes and biodiversity that highlights a more passive and long-term evolution. From this perspective, urban spaces can be more than just aesthetic or recreational areas; they can serve as living socio-ecological systems where soil, vegetation, and humans interact to regenerate ecological processes and cultural significance. This framework urges a more comprehensive cultural reflection, going beyond biophysical processes to promote understanding and restore our relationship with nature in urban settings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDrawing on ecological theories, design philosophies, and indigenous worldviews, this paper presents urban renaturation and aggradation not merely as technical solutions but as meaningful cultural acts that can help halt the extinction of urban experience and ultimately spread a sense of ethics of care. The paper is grounded in qualitative methodology involving semi-structured interviews with ecologists, urban planners, agricultural engineers, and landscape architects conducted in France and the UK. This diverse group provided insights into the promises and challenges of renaturation and aggradation in urban planning projects, and into their application across various professions. The methodological goal was not to reach a consensus but to identify contradictions, tensions, and emerging paradigms that could help understand how spontaneous urban nature, which is marginalized and overlooked, at the time of this paper writing, could be instead regarded and used as a powerful tool for ecological regeneration, cultural memory, and ethical landscape design. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDrawing on ecological theories and design philosophies, this paper examines \u003cem\u003erenaturation \u003c/em\u003eand \u003cem\u003eaggradation \u003c/em\u003enot as purely technical interventions, but as culturally grounded and ethically sound practices capable of counteracting the \u0026ldquo;extinction of urban experience.\u0026rdquo; Based on 33 semi-structured interviews with a wide range of practitioners, including ecologists, urban planners, agricultural engineers, and landscape architects in France and the United Kingdom, this research explores three primary and interrelated research questions: (1) how the \u003cem\u003enaturation \u003c/em\u003eand \u003cem\u003eaggradation\u003c/em\u003e concepts are understood and applied across disciplines and professional field, (2) what type of tensions arise between ecological objective, cultural and institutional dimensions of urban landscape practice, and (3) how might spontaneous urban nature contribute to reframing the ethics of care in socio-ecological design? \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature \u0026 Background ","content":"\u003ch3\u003e1. Urban nature as a socio-ecological system\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe various expressions of nature found in urban areas are gaining recognition as significant research topics in both natural and social sciences. While these discussions frequently focus on urban greenery, plants, and non-human elements, the literature surrounding urban nature presents a wide array of perspectives aimed at balancing the challenges posed by urbanization and industrialization with the need to preserve ecological systems within cities. As a result, cities are increasingly viewed as socio-ecological systems. These discussions are often shaped across disciplines, including ecology, geography, conservation biology, and philosophy. Researchers have sought to operationalize the concept of urban nature as a cornerstone of resilient cities (Haaland \u0026amp; van den Bosch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Ignatieva et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). For example, urban designers and planners typically use the term \u003cem\u003e“urban nature”\u003c/em\u003e in a broad sense, encompassing a diverse array of green spaces for various species, including urban parks, gardens, forests, wetlands, and even abandoned areas with spontaneous vegetation (Breuste, 2023). The term “\u003cem\u003eOne urban nature\u003c/em\u003e” adopted by urban planners and policymakers is promoted as a pragmatic and comprehensive framework that centers on the management of large-scale, open urban green spaces. These areas are referred to in the literature as green infrastructure, understood as an interconnected network of diverse natural, semi-natural, informal, spontaneous, or designed green areas (Alves et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Ying et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e); More recently, \"nature-based solutions\" (NbS) have gained prominence as integrative approaches and guiding principles for planning ecologically friendly and sensitive cities, underscoring the importance of ecosystem services and biomimicry (Xie \u0026amp; Bulkeley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Together, these converging perspectives indicate a broader shift in urban thinking, moving from viewing green spaces as mere decorative amenities to recognizing them as essential elements of functional and cultural infrastructure. They encompass a variety of initiatives that redesign techno-ecological systems—from parks, municipal or community gardens, greenbelts and greenways, rain gardens, green roofs and walls, to restored waterways—highlighting a desire to integrate ecological processes into the city fabric (Anguelovski et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2. From “order” to “rewilding”: Rethinking aesthetic norms\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTraditional urban landscape aesthetics have historically emphasized order, symmetry, and decorative control rooted in the aristocratic heritage of European garden design (Campbell, 2016; Conan, 2002). While these landscapes may be visually appealing, they often impede ecological processes and overlook the significance of unregulated life (Campbell, 2019). Contemporary ecological design philosophies, however, challenge these conventions by emphasizing co-creation with natural dynamics. Mainly, Gilles Clément, a French landscape designer and botanist, champions a \"hands-off\" approach to landscape management and design, emphasizing spontaneity. The \"\u003cem\u003eThird Landscape\u003c/em\u003e,\" also known as “\u003cem\u003eLe Tiers Paysage\u003c/em\u003e” —a “space left over by man for landscape evolution”—is central to Clement’s approach, as it refers to natural spaces that evolve through ecological processes rather than human intervention. These include areas, such as neglected railway embankments, urban wastelands, and roadside verges, where nature can reclaim and regenerate the environment without human influence. Instead of being seen as voids, these spaces can be homes where spontaneous ecological processes can flourish, creating habitats and pathways for various plant and animal species (Clément, 2015). Another significant contribution of Clément’s work is the introduction of the “\u003cem\u003eGarden in Motion\u003c/em\u003e” - or “\u003cem\u003eJardin en Mouvement\u003c/em\u003e, ”which advocates for a symbiotic connection between the natural processes of growth, change, and decay, acknowledging there the evolution of plants over time, which require practitioners to working with nature by allowing natural dynamics to unfold instead of imposing rigid control (Clément, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile extending Clément’s work, recent scholarship positions “urban disorder” within socio-ecological systems and advocates for “rewilding” cities (Bonthoux \u0026amp; Chollet, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Jørgensen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). While related to urban greening, rewilding is more explicitly rooted in conservation ecology, seeking to recognize biotic and ecosystem processes to steer social-ecological systems toward self-sustaining and resilient forms of urban nature (Pettorelli et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). In doing so, rewilding projects influence ecological processes on a large scale, whether through species reintroduction, habitat creation, or other conservation-oriented interventions, by promoting non-aesthetic ecological processes like decay, and providing a degree of ecological autonomy often associated with the “wild” (Soulé \u0026amp; Noss, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is worth noting that although rewilding has initially been developed in rural Europe and North American wilderness settings, until recently, rewilders have had very little to say about cities (Lorimer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In their paper \u003cem\u003e“(Re)wilding London: Fabric, politics and aesthetics\u003c/em\u003e,” Turnbull et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), further expand this idea into the urban realm. They argue that, while urban rewilding remains a nascent field, it should not be understood as a mere ecological experiment. It should rather be considered a socio-political project that redefines the public's relationship with the non-human world, creating communities of practice, resetting the public’s experience of “the wild,” and forging new modes of governance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2. Spontaneous nature as cultural memory\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpontaneous vegetation in urban environments that often thrives in neglected or abandoned areas, such as railway verges, industrial ruins, and roadside embankments, is collectively referred to in the literature as informal green spaces (IGS) or urban \u003cem\u003ewildscapes\u003c/em\u003e (Nicol \u0026amp; Blake, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Since 1996, the Spanish architect and philosopher Ignasi de Solà-Morales (1996), popularized the concept of “\u003cem\u003eterrain vague\u003c/em\u003e,” for describing these “\u003cem\u003enon-spaces\u003c/em\u003e” existing outside the boundaries of conventional urban forms and that are frequently depicted in many popular photomontages. Although apparently marginalized, these urban fabric niches are increasingly recognized for sustaining ecological functions and cultural memories (Rupprecht \u0026amp; Byrne, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Thompson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocio-ecological values of informal green spaces are highlighted in a burgeoning body of research. In Warsaw, Sikorski et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) describe the “\u003cem\u003evalue of doing nothing\u003c/em\u003e,” showing that informal green spaces provide ecosystem services comparable to those of managed urban parks. The authors, however, highlight an interdependence between ecosystem services and local biodiversity that varies across area types, from parks to informal green spaces, as each can offer unique benefits depending on its design and practical uses. In parks, the authors found that the most critical links were between regulating and supporting services, suggesting that these areas play a central role in maintaining ecological balance. On the other hand, in informal green spaces, cultural services stood out as being more significant, highlighting the value of these areas for community engagement and well-being.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFoster (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), similarly documents the “Petite Ceinture” in Paris, a decommissioned 19th-century railway reborn as a biodiversity refuge and living archive of industrial history. Established in 1845, the “Petite Ceinture” was the first strategic railway line in Paris, connecting central facilities, including factories, wine depots, and slaughterhouses, with locations on the outskirts. This contributed to its historical significance, as well as to its role in shaping Paris’s industrial landscape and broader regional economic growth. After its closure in 1993, this railway evolved into an unexpected urban biodiversity hotspot, providing a refuge for a diverse range of species. In her article, Foster highlights that these types of spaces can spark spontaneous socio-ecological dynamics recording past land uses while generating new ecological and social meanings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the same vein, a systematic review on the significance of informal green spaces for residents,(Rupprecht \u0026amp; Byrne, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) highlight that these areas stand out because they have developed through thoughtful yet casual efforts. This gives informal spaces a special atmosphere due to the ambiguous legal, social, and environmental contexts in which they operate. The authors describe these places as “\u003cem\u003eliminal\u003c/em\u003e,” emphasizing their unique position as they move between being official and unofficial, or public and private, which can shape their identity beyond traditional boundaries, making them meaningful spaces for the communities that use them. Additionally, the authors point out that residents typically prefer a balance between areas influenced by human activity and those left in their natural, undisturbed state. Developing this point further, Bouery (2022) argues that informal green spaces should be viewed as unexpected pockets of life.\" Instead of considering them as abandoned areas, urban professionals should recognize cultural values that reflect their past uses and the histories of the communities that once lived there. This approach suggests designing cities as socio-ecological systems in which residents can appreciate the organic nature of informal green spaces, valuing not only their ecological importance but also their cultural significance as bearers of both symbolic and historical meaning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the literature, this reframing of urban nature's cultural and relational dimensions connects directly to broader ontologies of care(Wiesel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), within which indigenous knowledge is understood as systems that have long resisted the Western separation between humans and the natural world (Ludwig, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Hence, integrating indigenous stewardship principles that acknowledge treating land as kin —dynamic partners in sustaining socio-ecological systems—could inspire and offer valuable insights for sustainable urban development (Gosnell-Myers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen applied to urban green landscape design, indigenous knowledge and native science resonate with the concept of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), as they share a common ground in international and adaptive management literature (Whyte, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Numerous examples of TEK can be found in the literature. These range from ancestral practices that enhance biodiversity at the landscape level, such as long-term changes in forest structure through the creation of forest islands in the Amazon (Gadgil et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e), to the practical uses of indigenous controlled burning for land management and climate change mitigation in North America(Lake et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) and the observations of changes in sea and lake water levels, as well as animal population movements (Berger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLiterature frequently discusses TEK as a valuable system of knowledge production that has often been overlooked by scientists, policymakers, and institutions (Harding, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) highlighting a persistent bias against non-Western knowledge systems. In some instances, TEK is viewed as a rival to scientific authority, which can create a division between indigenous experts and scientific experts (McGregor, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). While recognizing the importance of bridging this gap, Whyte (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) emphasizes that the TEK concept should be understood as a collaborative process that brings together a diverse group of people to continuously learn from one another about how these different methods can work together to protect and manage environmental and natural resources better.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn recent theoretical work, these relational ethics intersect with posthumanist thoughts, which further challenge human exceptionalism (Blanco-Wells, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021a\u003c/span\u003e). The notion of “ecologies of repair\" extends this perspective, framing damaged environments as active participant in their regeneration (Braidotti, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). From this viewpoint, \"ecologies of repair\" arise in significant scholarly work that advocates for fully considering non-human agencies that shape the world, as specific environments—whether collective or systems, human or non-human—can serve as sites or agents of restoration, healing, and transformation. (Braidotti \u0026amp; Bignall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; de La Bellacasa, 2017). These ecologies are not just passive backgrounds; they are active, dynamic socio-ecological networks where damaged relationships — whether social, ecological, technological, or historical — can be reconsidered, reshaped, and potentially repaired.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn \"\u003cem\u003eEcologies of Repair: A Post-Human Approach to Other-Than-Human Natures\u003c/em\u003e,\" Blanco-Wells (2021) emphasizes deep damage or strong affection as drivers of unleashing creative forces through the agency of people, living organisms, and other materials, all of which are key to rebuilding broken relationships and damaged ecosystems. When applied to green landscape design in urban areas, the ecologies of care principles require going beyond simply conserving green spaces to actively restore, enrich, and diversify urban ecologies. This approach not only involves ecological intervention but also requires a rethinking of human-nature relationships within our environment. This shift aligns with the work of Aroussiak Gabrielian, whose speculative design narratives imagine symbiotic futures in which human and vegetal life are intertwined through sensory as well as spatial interdependence. Her vision exemplifies the posthuman ethics of cohabitation, proposing that design can serve as a medium for rebalancing relationships among living beings (Gabrielian, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003ch2\u003e3.1. Research approach\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research adopts a qualitative, interpretative methodology to reveal and explain the reciprocal relationship between knowledge and practice within socio-ecological systems. (Kokroko et al., 2024). Through semi-structured interviews (Brinkmann \u0026amp; Kvale, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Creswell \u0026amp; Clark, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), our research aims to understand how professionals involved in urban design, planning, and ecological management conceptualize and operationalize the concepts of aggradation and restoration on the one hand, and how these concepts influence their own practice, design choices, and ethical alignment toward nature in cities. Instead of testing predefined hypotheses, our approach is to adopt an exploratory, inductive logic that aims to highlight the diverse ways in which practitioners negotiate ecological autonomy and human interventions. In doing so, our approach is particularly suited to socio-ecological inquiry, where meaning is co-constructed and where contextual nuance is critical for practice understanding.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2. Context and participants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research was conducted in France and the United Kingdom, two European contexts that, although differing in their cultural perceptions of nature and planning traditions, share a public and policy commitment to ecological transition. Both countries have introduced policies that promote biodiversity, renaturation, and nature-based solutions. In this way, they provide a relevant backdrop for comparing professional practices and discourses.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants were identified through purposive and snowball sampling to ensure disciplinary and geographic diversity (Shaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). A wide range of professionals, including ecologists, urbanists, landscape architects, and agricultural engineers, who were expected to be involved in restoration and aggradation projects in the urban environment, and who had at least five years of professional experience in ecological or urban design projects, have been identified and contacted via email as a first step to gauge their interest and availability to participate in this research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 33 semi-structured interviews were carried out between January and May 2024. Participants represented five professional groups directly engaged in urban ecological transformation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eEcologists (8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eLandscape architects (7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eUrban planner (6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eArchitects (6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eAgricultural engineer (bioengineering) (6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3. Data collection and analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe interviews were conducted either in person or via video conference, lasting between 45 and 90 minutes. A semi-structured interview guide was created based on the theoretical framework outlined in the background section. It incorporated themes from ecological theory, posthuman ethics, and design principles. The questions were designed to encourage participants to reflect on and articulate their perspectives regarding renaturation, aggradation, and the spontaneous aspects of city planning. The primary objective of these interviews was not to seek consensus but to explore potential contradictions and emerging paradigms. Additionally, the survey aimed to assess how the principles and concepts of renaturation and aggradation are perceived and applied across fields that shape the urban environment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe interview guide was structured around five major themes: 1. Familiarity and perception of renaturation and aggradation, 2. The balance between natural processes and human interventions, 3. Evaluation and measurement of renaturation outcomes, 4. Clients’ expectations and project constraints, and 5. Spontaneous nature and the future of landscape design. In addition to open-ended questions, the survey included multiple-choice and Likert-scale questions (ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll interviews were recorded with participants' consent. The transcribed verbatim were anonymized to protect confidentiality. Ethical approval was obtained in advance in accordance with institutional research protocols.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results ","content":"\u003ch3\u003e1. Understanding and applying renaturation and aggradation: limits of control and greenwashing\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eFamiliarity with and integration of renaturation and aggradation concepts vary significantly across the surveyed professions, indicating a disciplinary gradient (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). However, urban planners show a relatively good understanding of renaturation (mean score: 4), their familiarity with aggradation is less pronounced (mean score: 3). They have an even weaker focus on soil aggradation (mean score: 2.5) and on applying renaturation principles in their projects. This suggests that, however planners understand ecological principles conceptually, institutional and regulatory frameworks often limit their practical implications.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eArchitects exhibit a lower understanding of aggradation (mean score 2.8) and assign a limited importance to soil regeneration (mean score 2.2). Their responses indicate an aesthetic and anthropocentric orientation focusing more on visual orders. Nonetheless, the majority of the interviewed architects emphasized their growing awareness of native species, describing this as “\u003cem\u003ethe first step toward designing with, rather than against, nature\u003c/em\u003e”\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAgricultural engineers scored higher on both concepts. Their engagement with nature and cultivated systems – agrosystems – makes them more attuned to soil processes and ecological productivity. As one participant explained, \u003cem\u003e“ We see soil as a living infrastructure; if you don’t’ feed it, nothing else will work.”\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLandscape architects and ecologists are on the higher end of the scale in terms of their familiarity with renaturation and aggradation in urban landscape design. While ecologists mainly emphasized the selection of native species, soil aggradation, and the long-term evolution of ecosystems, landscape architects underscored the need to merge design aesthetic with ecological functionality.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis variety of perspectives, as shown in our participants' answers, highlights both gaps and opportunities for collaboration regarding what they believe constitutes successful green landscape design in cities. For example, ecologists and landscape architects could work together to bridge the divide between aesthetic-driven design and ecological functionality. Most of our respondents emphasized that this potential, however, is often limited by outside pressures from clients and institutions. This can lead to increased tension between ecological value and aesthetic expectations. As explained by an architect, “\u003cem\u003eClients often desire neat, decorative green spaces, resulting in 'greenwashed' designs that, however natural they look, lack ecological depth\u003c/em\u003e”. As a result, “\u003cem\u003efake plants, manicured lawns, and insignificant motifs are favored over soil health, biodiversity, and ecological functions\u003c/em\u003e.” “\u003cem\u003eWe end up designing green façades instead of ecological processes\u003c/em\u003e,” as explained by another architect.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLandscape professionals expressed comparable concerns. However, they emphasized that design and ecology need not be opposed. “\u003cem\u003eThe issue is not the intervention itself, but rather the intention behind it. A project can actually be ecologically robust even if it is highly designed, as long as it is informed by knowledge and care for living systems. The big challenge is resisting the dominance of image over ecological process.”\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003e2. Balancing autonomy and intervention in urban ecological design\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur results reveal distinct patterns in how different professions negotiate the balance between natural autonomy and human intervention in urban ecological design (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Ecologists and landscape architects consistently emphasized the value of nature’s self-regulating processes. Both groups express strong support for spontaneous ecological dynamics (mean values of 5.0 and 4.0, respectively) and endorse the preservation of “sanctuary” spaces for spontaneous vegetation (mean values of 5.0 and 4.8, respectively). One ecologist explained, \u003cem\u003e«Our task is to recognize when not to intervene. Sometimes the best design decision is patience.\u003c/em\u003e A landscape architect further extended this idea of minimal intervention, which could be intentional. \u003cem\u003e“It is not about doing nothing but about creating conditions where life can take its own path…spontaneous vegetation should be treated as a material—valued for both its ecological benefits and aesthetic potential.”\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, both professional families advocated minimal interference; landscape architects often described their work as framing ecological processes for public engagement. One designer explained, “We choreograph \u003cem\u003ecounters rather than control outcomes; design should help people notice what nature is already doing in their environment.\u003c/em\u003e” In contrast, urban planners and architects seem to adopt a more functionally and managerially driven perspective. Indeed, urban planners expressed interest in integrating ecological processes and dynamics into dense urban environments, yet they emphasized the need for guidance: “\u003cem\u003eWe can’t just let the city just rewild itself; we have to make wilderness legible and safe for everyone.”\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eArchitects’ responses added to extending the perspective of institutional risks and aesthetic expectation that constrain ecological autonomy in design practice: “\u003cem\u003eI admire the idea of spontaneous vegetation, but cities run on liability, if someone trips on a fallen branch, the experiment ends…people panic when vegetation looks unkempt, if we do not frame it properly, it’s seen as neglect.\u003c/em\u003e” Agricultural engineers, however, adopted an intermediary stance, aligning with an ecological emphasis on natural processes but defending selection for regeneration and productivity, as one engineer explained, “\u003cem\u003eIntervention is not domination, it’s part of stewardship, you prune so the plant can grow stronger.\u003c/em\u003e” Their position highlights that both human action and natural evolution are co-dependent stages of the same regenerative cycle.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003e3. Designing for living systems: how professionals prioritize restoration and aggradation\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur results highlight that, across professional groups, participants articulated differing priorities of what restoration and aggradation should achieve (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Ecologists and landscape architects ranked biodiversity and soil quality as their highest targets. For both, the central goal of restoration is to restore dynamic living systems rather than produce a fixed aesthetic. As one ecologist explains: “\u003cem\u003eRenaturation is not about making a space look green again, it’s about letting the cycle of life rebuild itself, soil first, then everything will follow\u003c/em\u003e.” This systemic view was similarly echoed by landscape architects emphasizing regeneration over image, “\u003cem\u003eWe design the conditions, not the picture. The moment you treat soil and water as design partners, resilience starts to emerge.\u003c/em\u003e”\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough both agricultural engineers and urban planners recognized the significance of biodiversity and soil quality, they tended to view renaturation as a single step within a broader framework of multifunctional planning and land use. As described by an urban planner: “it is \u003cem\u003eone single tool in a larger planning box\u003c/em\u003e, ,” while an agricultural engineer highlighted its productive side: “\u003cem\u003erenaturation should not be understood as in contradiction with uses; it is about finding new productive ecologies that work both for people and ecosystems\u003c/em\u003e.”\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor architects, however, functionality appeared secondary to spatial configuration and aesthetics. Finally, it is worth noting that, although several acknowledged the relevance of biodiversity, most emphasized visual continuity. An architect commented, “\u003cem\u003eIf a project doesn't look good, I don't think anyone will be concerned about how many species were preserved… It's important for people to identify and grasp meaning before they acknowledge biodiversity.”\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWater management also sparked differing opinions among participants. Urban planners and architects saw it as a vital part of urban infrastructure and linked it to climate adaptation and flood risk management. Ecologists, however, emphasized the importance of contextual sensitivity, arguing that the success of urban water management heavily depends on the site's history and hydrological patterns. As one ecologist emphasized, “\u003cem\u003eSoft water management works only if the land remembers how to absorb water. You can’t force infiltration on a site that has forgotten its river\u003c/em\u003e.”\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, it is essential to highlight the differing opinions among participants regarding soil amendments. Ecologists favored minimal soil disturbance and organic enrichment, rating such interventions lower than most as they prefer to “\u003cem\u003elet the soil heal itself\u003c/em\u003e.” Urban planners and architects viewed amendments as pragmatic but not essential, often dictated by budget and construction timelines.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003e4. Clients' expectations, aesthetic pressures, and the challenges of maintenance\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings reveal significant differences in client perceptions and expectations regarding ecological processes and their cultural aspects, as well as how these are framed across various professional fields. Indeed, our findings show that architects and landscape architects often encounter only moderate support for ecological approaches, along with budget and compliance challenges. As an architect explains, “\u003cem\u003eClients want visible results, not evolving systems; they fund what they see, not what grows slowly underground.\u003c/em\u003e”\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the same vein, most interviewed ecologists, agricultural engineers, and urban planners report lower levels of client interest in renaturation and aggradation principles as they focus on practicality and aesthetics. Ecologists in particular expressed frustration at the lack of appreciation for ecological timeframes: “\u003cem\u003ePeople expect instant nature…they forget that regeneration takes years, not months\u003c/em\u003e”\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMaintaining green spaces has become a widespread concern among professionals, particularly among ecologists, who ranked it as their top issue with an average score of 4.75. They emphasized that ecological design, if genuinely based on natural processes, should require less maintenance, not more. Respondents noted that clients often prefer managed landscapes as they associate green space management with cleanliness and safety. An urban planner expressed this tension: “\u003cem\u003eWe still live in a culture that trims what it can’t understand and fears it….a messy landscape is perceived as neglected rather than alive\u003c/em\u003e.” On the other hand, urban planners acknowledged that this perception often affects project maintenance budgets and design choices: “\u003cem\u003eWe end up always mowing meadows to reassure people that the city is still in control\u003c/em\u003e.” Together, these findings underscore a deeply rooted cultural belief in controlling urban nature, reinforced by institutional frameworks that prioritize order and predictability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe aesthetic aspects of urban green spaces also play a crucial role in client decisions, as our participants noted. Architects have found that clients value visual attractiveness, with a mean score of 4.67. An architect noted, “\u003cem\u003eA few ornamental species can bring satisfaction to our clients quicker than a complex soil aggradation and regeneration plan, which they probably could not understand\u003c/em\u003e.” This focus on aesthetics often results in what our respondent terms “performative greening,” in which ecological images are prioritized over ecosystem health. On the other hand, landscape architects have identified potential for aesthetic mediation; as one noted, “\u003cem\u003eBeauty can be our bridge… If we make complex ecologies understandable, clients will start to care\u003c/em\u003e.”\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings highlight not only the contrasts between disciplines but also the broader cultural patterns that have long influenced how urban ecologies are addressed and maintained in urban planning projects. Ecologists face a dual challenge: they must advocate deeper ecological integration while managing persistent maintenance and aesthetic expectations. In contrast, landscape designers and architects must balance ecological integrity with effective visual communication, making sustainability perceivable without compromising its significance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite these tensions, most respondents acknowledged opportunities for transformation. Many argued that developing visually compelling, low-maintenance, and culturally relevant designs could bridge the gap between client expectations and ecological outcomes.. Such an approach could foster environmental literacy and foster recognition of diverse knowledge systems, including traditional and community-based practices. Accordingly, ecological design becomes more than a technical process; it evolves into an act of care and reconnection. As a landscape designer observed, “\u003cem\u003eLandscapes serve not only as functional ecosystems but also as emotional geographies. Here beauty transcends visual perfections; it becomes about resonance that evokes care, curiosity, and memory\u003c/em\u003e.”\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003e5. Spontaneous nature and the future of urban landscape design\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings underscore the varying degrees of support expressed by our interviewees for the spontaneous nature of future urban project design. Figure – illustrates that ecologists display the strongest support for this approach. Architects and urban planners generally show moderate support for the spontaneous nature. While architects are more inclined to support more contextual and holistic methods for the renovation project, they may even prefer more defined designs. As an architect explains, “\u003cem\u003eWe do like the idea of wilderness, but it still needs a frame as people need to understand where to walk, and distinguish what belongs to them, from what belongs to nature\u003c/em\u003e.”\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen asked about their approach to landscape design, architects seem to share a common viewpoint, advocating managed green environments in cities that resemble Central Park in New York or Gardens by the Bay in Singapore, both recognized as highly controlled, managed landscapes. For us as researchers, this perspective reflects the potential gap — or even tension—between their theoretical understanding and support for minimal human intervention and the structured, visually appealing landscapes they typically create. Among the interviewed architects, some are drawn to images of “organic” landscapes to illustrate what they term “renaturation.” Their preferences, however, often gravitate toward heavily managed environments that mimic natural aesthetics while lacking ecological substance, which could be interpreted as a reluctance to embrace spontaneous ecological processes fully. As an architect commented, “\u003cem\u003eThere is a difference between looking natural and being natural. We still design too much mainly for appearance\u003c/em\u003e.”\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUrban planners show more flexibility among our interviewees. Even though they have a wide range of preferences, some still prefer a highly structured landscape, such as Gardens by the Bay in Singapore. Finally, not surprisingly, ecologists remain the most consistent group in their preference for spontaneous nature in renaturation projects, favoring self-sustaining environments like Henri Matisse's Paris, with its entirely natural landscape. This indicates that they not only value these natural systems in theory but also see them as an effective model for sustainable restoration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile our results highlight some areas of convergence in understanding renaturation and aggradation across participants' discourse and answers, they also underscore tension between control and co-evolution that cuts across professional boundaries. Landscape designers, architects, and urban planners strive for legibility and public acceptance, whereas ecologists advocate for balancing processes and autonomy. Despite this, many respondents acknowledged that the future of urban renaturation and aggradation lies between those lines: designing frameworks that welcome spontaneous nature without suppressing it. A landscape architect summarizes this vision as follows: “\u003cem\u003eThe future of green space design is not about control or chaos; it is about learning how to host and deal with uncertainty\u003c/em\u003e.” This statement particularly captures a paradigm shift toward adaptive spontaneity, defining socio-ecological and practice by designing cities as evolving habitats where care and adaptation replace rigid control.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion: Pathways toward a socio-ecological ethic of design","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis paper examined how urban professionals from different disciplines conceptualize and operationalize renaturation and aggradation, and to what extent these practices reveal broader tension between control and care in urban landscapes and planning operations. The findings highlight not only disciplinary contrasts but also a shared willingness to redefine design within socio-ecological systems (Folke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Walker \u0026amp; Salt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Three interrelated pathways emerge from our results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.1. From control to co-evolution: rethinking urban design paradigms\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants in our study recognized that the traditional meaning and expression of aesthetics, along with an order- and safety-focused approach to managing urban nature, often impede ecological autonomy. Ecologists and landscape architects described design as a facilitator rather than an imposition, echoing Clément’s concept of the Third Landscape that values unmanaged and “left over” spaces as biodiversity reservoirs (Clément et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, their view aligns with contemporary urban rewilding frameworks that advocate recognizing urban biota and processes to restore self-sufficient, self-sustaining ecosystems (Lorimer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Pettorelli et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Turnbull et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Wartmann \u0026amp; Lorimer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eArchitects and urban planners, by contrast, are limited by frameworks of liability and clarity. These findings support Nassauer’s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e) argument about the importance of aligning landscape language that communicates human intention. In “\u003cem\u003eMessy ecosystems, orderly frames\u003c/em\u003e,” Nassauer explains that when the goal is to care for the landscape, it creates a strong vocabulary for design aimed at improving ecological quality. She notes that, since ecological functions are not easily recognizable to those not trained to see them, public acceptance depends on the visibility of \"cues to care” as a cultural language that provides context for ecological functions. Recent work by (Qiu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) reinforces the importance of these deliberate approaches in landscape design to promote landscape sustainability sciences.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur results show that many urban professionals are increasingly accepting uncertainty and change as valid components of design. This viewpoint aligns with the core principles of the adaptive management paradigm, which emphasize experimentation and feedback as essential tools in the design process. (Holling, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e; Walters, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e). These results also connect to recent work on knowledge co-production principles in sustainability science. These involve iterative and collaborative processes that engage diverse knowledge sources and actors to generate context-specific understanding and develop pathways toward sustainability (Armatas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Norström et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, this shift from designing fixed objects to creating evolving systems demonstrates a coevolutionary mindset, in which ecological and cultural processes continually influence one another.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2. Aesthetics, culture, and politics of care\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second pathway identified in our results highlights how aesthetic norms and cultural expectations shape ecological approaches in urban professional practice. Similar to early studies on landscape preferences, many clients still associate tidiness with safety and neglect with disorder (Kaplan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). Our findings reflect an ongoing debate about the relationship between aesthetics and ecology, as well as the concept of an \"ecological aesthetic\" that influences landscape planning, design, and management (Gobster et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Ecologists in our study described a “\u003cem\u003eculture that trims what is fears\u003c/em\u003e”, confirming the persistence of a control approach.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNonetheless, participants also proposed that aesthetics could become a tool for a pedagogy of care, which aligns with Zakharova et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR93\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) work on the aesthetic perception of urban biodiversity, demonstrating that aesthetics and ecology in cities can interact in both complementary and contradictory effects. In this view, aesthetic experience is not perceived as superficial but formative. By making ecological complexity understandable, designers can transform spontaneous urban nature into a form of empathy that aligns with the \"politics of care,\" as articulated by Tronto (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), who argues that care should be organized as a collective political resource rather than identified as an individual moral attitude. Building on this idea, in \"\u003cem\u003eMatters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More than Human Worlds\u003c/em\u003e,\" de La Bellacasa (2017)extends this notion of care beyond just the human sphere to connect ethics, ecology, and everyday practices, to envision design as a tool of shared responsibility and cultural memory. In the same vein, Ressiore C. \u0026amp; De La Rosa (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) argue that “\u003cem\u003ecare\u003c/em\u003e” extends beyond repairing a situation that is “wrong” or uncomfortable, it involves negotiating differences and adapting to relational complexities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch on urban \u003cem\u003ewildscapes\u003c/em\u003e further grounds this idea: informal and liminal spaces, however visually “messy”, create both strong social bonds and cultural memories (Hu \u0026amp; Lima, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Jorgensen \u0026amp; Keenan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Kowarik, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). When people perceive such landscapes as intentional rather than neglected, they often experience curiosity, reflection, and attachment rather than discomfort (Southon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This suggests that aesthetic design can serve as a mediator of environmental meaning, helping citizens recognize ecological processes as part of the urban identity and collective heritage. Hence, reframing aesthetics as an expression of shared identity rather than control can bridge ecological and cultural divides. This approach of “\u003cem\u003evisible care\u003c/em\u003e,” according to de La Bellacasa (2017) offers a pathway to legitimize spontaneous and adaptive landscapes while re-embedding human emotions and meaning within ecological processes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.3. Toward collective stewardship and socio-ecological learning\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings indicate that, beyond design and aesthetic qualities, the success of renaturation and aggradation heavily depends on how they are governed and maintained through shared responsibility. Participants in our study often emphasized that ecological outcomes depend not only on the technical aspects of the design process but also on how collaboration and learning are organized among different disciplines, institutions, and local communities intended to benefit from these projects. Specifically, ecologists and landscape architects described their projects as “\u003cem\u003eliving laboratories\u003c/em\u003e” where knowledge continuously evolves through observation, care, and adjustments (Galafassi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This viewpoint goes beyond individual designers' individual reflexivity to encompass institutional and civic responsibility. It reframes ecological care as a collaborative effort rather than a single step in an urban project, thereby echoing socio-ecological systems research by highlighting the interconnectedness of science, practice, and governance. (Berkes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Bodin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Charles et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Norgaard et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Our findings can also be understood through the perspective of sustainability science frameworks, putting forth that knowledge gains significance through inclusive and interactive dialogue among diverse actors (Mauser et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExtending beyond professional collaboration, our findings highlight that shared stewardship within the renaturation and aggradation projects requires a cultural shift toward ecological maintenance as a public good (Ostrom \u0026amp; Ostrom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In this view, ecological care becomes both a governance strategy and a civic practice. This approach emphasizes the importance of engaging citizens in what some participants refer to as a “\u003cem\u003eslow partnership\u003c/em\u003e” among citizens, experts, and ecosystems. Adopting this participatory method necessitates transformative governance, a concept highlighted in recent resilience research. In fact, resilience and sustainability are increasingly viewed as reliant on multi-level coordination and social learning, rather than on top-down control (May, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Ribeiro et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). In this light, renaturation and aggradation projects can operate as ecologies of repair, rebuilding not only habitats but also social connections and reframing professional cultures. (Blanco-Wells, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021b\u003c/span\u003e). By reconceptualizing practices, the ethics of care are expanded from interpersonal relations to the broader scales of institutions, territory, and collective memory.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, our results support a vision of collective stewardship that transforms renaturation and aggradation projects from technical interventions into a socio-ecological learning process—one that teaches cities to adopt, remember, and care for the landscapes they cultivate. It defines what (Ressiore C. \u0026amp; De La Rosa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) described as engaging in a cycle of reflection and adjustment that redefines relational competence grounded in listening and reciprocity. Accordingly, renaturation and aggradation projects become tools for pedagogy and learning for both professionals and the public, cultivating the forms of ecological citizenship required to sustain urban life within planetary limits (Campos et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research contributes to the scholarship on socio-ecological practices by exploring how renaturation and aggradation can reframe the relationship among human agency, ecological processes, and design culture, ultimately promoting socio-ecological ethics in urban design. Through 33 semi-structured interviews with urban professionals in France and the United Kingdom, our study identifies both tensions and opportunities for transformation at the intersection of ecological science, design culture, and public expectations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings reveal a notable disciplinary divide among designers, ecologists, and urban planners, highlighting conflicting views on aesthetics and human relationships with nature. While ecologists and landscape architects emphasize spontaneity and soil renewal, architects and urban planners typically focus on forms and usability, driven by client expectations and urban regulatory frameworks. Our findings echo those emphasized in \u0026ldquo;Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities,\u0026rdquo; which addresses these interdisciplinary conflicts and discusses how (Beatley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). It's essential to recognize that integrating urban planning with ecological principles is not a recent idea. Architects have been discussing this topic since the 1980s. In \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eThe Granite Garden: Urban Nature and Human Design\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026rdquo; Spirn, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e) broadens ecological theory into urban design and argues it should have widespread influence and application, thereby generating immediate and lasting interest in ecological planning and design. The many works that followed her contributions have helped address the historical neglect of integrating nature into urban environments during the 19th and 20th centuries, documenting and advancing diverse interpretations of urban nature. Nonetheless, while most of this scholarship has offered a stimulating reading of cities as lively and more-than-human assemblages, it has yet to engage systematically with the active installation of nature (Turnbull et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Our results support this viewpoint and highlight a noticeable shift in urban design from a conventional, static approach to a dynamic model that emphasizes stewardship and acknowledges the agency of nature and its transformative processes through renaturation and aggradation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second main contribution of this paper is the necessity, according to urban professionals, to redefine natural aesthetic in terms of legibility and care. Urban designers can mitigate public resistance to new interpretations of green spaces' aesthetics in cities, thereby fostering city dwellers' civic responsibility towards urban ecologies. This is particularly relevant given recent research findings showing that \u0026ldquo;ordinary members of the public\u0026rdquo; can distinguish subtle differences between seemingly similar designs or natural vegetation (Hoyle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The third contribution of this paper is that it enhances the existing literature by emphasizing the need for long-term, cross-disciplinary partnerships that incorporate ecological knowledge through renaturation and aggradation, thereby requiring tailored participatory governance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings suggest a need for a transformative approach to urban nature planning, evaluation, and maintenance. This approach should be guided by urban planning regulations that prioritize not only short-term aesthetic considerations but also ecological performance metrics, such as soil health and the ability of ecosystems to self-regenerate. These metrics should be incorporated into both design approvals and post-occupancy assessments. Additionally, maintenance strategies should regard ecological care as a vital investment in infrastructure. Additionally, policies need to support adaptive management initiatives by allocating funding for monitoring and citizen participation instead of focusing solely on construction and maintenance contracts. To achieve these goals, education and training reforms are critical for instilling ecological literacy and transdisciplinary curricula in professional accreditation systems, which should incorporate competencies in socio-ecological ethics. Furthermore, European sustainability frameworks, such as the EU Green Deal or Nature Restoration Law, must be leveraged to implement renaturation and aggradation as measurable socio-ecological strategies for urban resilience, promoting the idea of maintenance as a public good.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, it is worth recalling that although this research examines the perspectives of various urban professionals across France and the U.K. regarding renaturation and aggradation projects, it does not delve into specific practices within each country. It initiates an important conversation, and future studies should deepen and broaden the empirical foundation of our conclusions. Primarily, future research should focus on comparative studies across diverse bioclimatic and cultural contexts to explore how care ethics are reflected in different planning traditions. Another area for future inquiry is policy design experiments that test co-management models involving various stakeholders from municipalities and designers to local communities as learning alliances. Such initiatives have the potential to transform cities into laboratories for ecological restoration, providing a replicable governance model that integrates cultural heritage, biodiversity, and civic stewardship.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA\u003cem\u003ecknowledgement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to express their gratitude to all the professionals who agreed to share their perspective by participating in the survey. Their contribution was essential to the development of this research. We extend special thanks to Gary Grant, Marc Barra, Rosie Whicheloe, and Blanch Cameron, whose valuable insights and support in gathering data greatly enriched the quality and depth of this study.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDeclaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used AI in order to improve the\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ereadability and grammar of this paper. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo generative AI was used to create the content of this paper.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlves, A., Gersonius, B., Kapelan, Z., Vojinovic, Z., \u0026amp; Sanchez, A. (2019). Assessing the Co-Benefits of green-blue-grey infrastructure for sustainable urban flood risk management. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e239\u003c/em\u003e(February), 244\u0026ndash;254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.03.036\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnguelovski, I., Brand, A. L., Connolly, J. J. T., Corbera, E., Kotsila, P., Steil, J., Garcia-Lamarca, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Cole, H., Bar\u0026oacute;, F., Langemeyer, J., del Pulgar, C. P., Shokry, G., Sekulova, F., \u0026amp; Arg\u0026uuml;elles Ramos, L. (2020). Expanding the Boundaries of Justice in Urban Greening Scholarship: Toward an Emancipatory, Antisubordination, Intersectional, and Relational Approach. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of the American Association of Geographers\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e110\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1743\u0026ndash;1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1740579\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAradottir, A. L., \u0026amp; Hagen, D. (2013). Ecological restoration: approaches and impacts on vegetation, soils and society. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Agronomy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e120\u003c/em\u003e, 173\u0026ndash;222.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArmatas, C. A., Hollingsworth, T. N., Black, C., \u0026amp; Taylor, J. J. (2025). Reflecting on the co-production ideal through practice. \u003cem\u003eSocio-Ecological Practice Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 17\u0026ndash;28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-024-00211-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBakhmatova, K. A., Matynyan, N. N., \u0026amp; Sheshukova, A. A. (2022). Anthropogenic soils of urban parks: a review. \u003cem\u003eEurasian Soil Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e55\u003c/em\u003e(1), 64\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeatley, T. (2012). \u003cem\u003eGreen urbanism: Learning from European cities\u003c/em\u003e. Island press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBenton-Short, L., \u0026amp; Short, J. R. (2013). \u003cem\u003eCities and nature\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerger, J., Bleich, V. C., \u0026amp; Terry Bowyer, R. (2024). Must we lose our biological connection to nature to endure changing times? \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Wildlife Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e88\u003c/em\u003e(7), e22639.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerkes, F. (2017). Environmental governance for the anthropocene? Social-ecological systems, resilience, and collaborative learning. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1232.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlanco-Wells, G. (2021a). Ecologies of Repair: A Post-human Approach to Other-Than-Human Natures. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633737\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlanco-Wells, G. (2021b). Ecologies of repair: A post-human approach to other-than-human natures. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e, 633737.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBodin, \u0026Ouml;. (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e357\u003c/em\u003e(6352), eaan1114.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBonthoux, S., \u0026amp; Chollet, S. (2024). Wilding cities for biodiversity and people: a transdisciplinary framework. \u003cem\u003eBiological Reviews\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e99\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1458\u0026ndash;1480.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraidotti, R. (2013). Posthuman humanities. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Educational Research Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraidotti, R., \u0026amp; Bignall, S. (2018). \u003cem\u003ePosthuman ecologies: Complexity and process after Deleuze\u003c/em\u003e. Rowman \u0026amp; Littlefield.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrinkmann, S., \u0026amp; Kvale, S. (2018). \u003cem\u003eDoing interviews\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCampos, I., Fuchs, D., Repo, P., Jager, W., Kl\u0026ouml;ckner, C., Wang, S., Lamas, D., Cots, F., Barchiesi, E., L\u0026ouml;fstr\u0026ouml;m, E., Peniche, D., Sion, Y., Buth, V., Lim\u0026atilde;o, J., Oliveira, S., Diaz, C. R., \u0026amp; Živčič, L. (2024). What roles can democracy labs play in co-creating democratic innovations for sustainability? \u003cem\u003eSocio-Ecological Practice Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(4), 367\u0026ndash;380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-024-00197-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCharles, A., Loucks, L., Berkes, F., \u0026amp; Armitage, D. (2020). Community science: A typology and its implications for governance of social-ecological systems. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science \u0026amp; Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e106\u003c/em\u003e, 77\u0026ndash;86.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCl\u0026eacute;ment, G. (2015a). \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo; The Planetary Garden\u0026rdquo; and Other Writings\u003c/em\u003e. University of Pennsylvania Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCl\u0026eacute;ment, G. (2015b). \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo; The Planetary Garden\u0026rdquo; and Other Writings\u003c/em\u003e. University of Pennsylvania Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCl\u0026eacute;ment, G., Cl\u0026eacute;ment, G., Cl\u0026eacute;ment, G., \u0026amp; Cl\u0026eacute;ment, G. (2004). \u003cem\u003eManifeste du Tiers paysage\u003c/em\u003e. Sujet/Objet Paris.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eColding, J., \u0026amp; Barthel, S. (2019). Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years later. \u003cem\u003eEcology and Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10598-240102\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell, J. W., \u0026amp; Clark, V. L. P. (2017). \u003cem\u003eDesigning and conducting mixed methods research\u003c/em\u003e. Sage publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ede La Bellacasa, M. P. (2017a). \u003cem\u003eMatters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 41). U of Minnesota Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ede La Bellacasa, M. P. (2017b). \u003cem\u003eMatters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 41). U of Minnesota Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFolke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Environmental Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(3), 253\u0026ndash;267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFoster, J. (2014). Hiding in plain view: Vacancy and prospect in Paris\u0026rsquo; Petite Ceinture. \u003cem\u003eCities\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e, 124\u0026ndash;132. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.09.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrank, B., Delano, D., \u0026amp; Caniglia, B. S. (2017). Urban systems: A socio-ecological system perspective. \u003cem\u003eSociology International Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(1), 00001.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGabrielian, A. (2024). Landscape Fictions and Future Realities. In \u003cem\u003eContemporary Absurdities, Existential Crises, and Visual Art\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 64\u0026ndash;79). Intellect.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGadgil, M., Berkes, F., \u0026amp; Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. \u003cem\u003eAMBIO-STOCKHOLM-\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e, 151.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGalafassi, D., Daw, T. M., Thyresson, M., Rosendo, S., Chaigneau, T., Bandeira, S., Munyi, L., Gabrielsson, I., \u0026amp; Brown, K. (2018). Stories in social-ecological knowledge cocreation. \u003cem\u003eEcology and Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(1).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGaston, K. J., \u0026amp; Soga, M. (2020). Extinction of experience: The need to be more specific. \u003cem\u003ePeople and Nature\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(3), 575\u0026ndash;581. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10118\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., \u0026amp; Fry, G. (2007). The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? \u003cem\u003eLandscape Ecology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(7), 959\u0026ndash;972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGosnell-Myers, G. (2022). Co-creating the cities we deserve through Indigenous knowledge. In \u003cem\u003eSacred Civics\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 80\u0026ndash;90). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaaland, C., \u0026amp; van den Bosch, C. K. (2015). Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. \u003cem\u003eUrban Forestry \u0026amp; Urban Greening\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(4), 760\u0026ndash;771. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarding, S. (2011). \u003cem\u003eThe postcolonial science and technology studies reader\u003c/em\u003e. Duke University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHolling, C. S. (1978). \u003cem\u003eAdaptive environmental assessment and management\u003c/em\u003e. John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoyle, H., Hitchmough, J., \u0026amp; Jorgensen, A. (2017). All about the \u0026lsquo;wow factor\u0026rsquo;? The relationships between aesthetics, restorative effect and perceived biodiversity in designed urban planting. \u003cem\u003eLandscape and Urban Planning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e164\u003c/em\u003e, 109\u0026ndash;123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.03.011\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHu, X., \u0026amp; Lima, M. F. (2024). The association between maintenance and biodiversity in urban green spaces: A review. \u003cem\u003eLandscape and Urban Planning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e251\u003c/em\u003e, 105153.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIgnatieva, M., Dushkova, D., Martin, D. J., Mofrad, F., Stewart, K., \u0026amp; Hughes, M. (2023). From One to Many Natures: Integrating Divergent Urban Nature Visions to Support Nature-Based Solutions in Australia and Europe. \u003cem\u003eSustainability (Switzerland)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054640\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIgnatieva, M., Stewart, G. H., \u0026amp; Meurk, C. (2011). Planning and design of ecological networks in urban areas. \u003cem\u003eLandscape and Ecological Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 17\u0026ndash;25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-010-0143-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJorgensen, A., \u0026amp; Keenan, R. (2012). \u003cem\u003eUrban wildscapes\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJ\u0026oslash;rgensen, D. (2015). Rethinking rewilding. \u003cem\u003eGeoforum\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e65\u003c/em\u003e, 482\u0026ndash;488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.11.016\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKanav, A., \u0026amp; Kumar, J. (2024). Exploring the preferences of vulnerable populations in green spaces: a systematic review. \u003cem\u003eSocio-Ecological Practice Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(4), 411\u0026ndash;432.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(3), 169\u0026ndash;182.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKokroko, K. J., Leipold, W., \u0026amp; Hovis, M. (2024a). Applying a pedagogy of interdisciplinary and cross-cultural collaboration as socio-ecological practice in landscape architecture education. \u003cem\u003eSocio-Ecological Practice Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 21\u0026ndash;40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-023-00175-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKokroko, K. J., Leipold, W., \u0026amp; Hovis, M. (2024b). Applying a pedagogy of interdisciplinary and cross-cultural collaboration as socio-ecological practice in landscape architecture education. \u003cem\u003eSocio-Ecological Practice Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 21\u0026ndash;40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-023-00175-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKowarik, I. (2018). Urban wilderness: Supply, demand, and access. \u003cem\u003eUrban Forestry \u0026amp; Urban Greening\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e, 336\u0026ndash;347.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLake, F. K., Wright, V., Morgan, P., McFadzen, M., McWethy, D., \u0026amp; Stevens-Rumann, C. (2017). Returning fire to the land: celebrating traditional knowledge and fire. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Forestry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e115\u003c/em\u003e(5), 343\u0026ndash;353.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLorimer, J., Sandom, C., Jepson, P., Doughty, C., Barua, M., \u0026amp; Kirby, K. J. (2015). Rewilding: Science, Practice, and Politics. In \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Environment and Resources\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 40, pp. 39\u0026ndash;62). Annual Reviews Inc. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021406\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLouv, R. (2008). \u003cem\u003eLast child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder\u003c/em\u003e. Algonquin books.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLudwig, D. (2016). Overlapping ontologies and Indigenous knowledge. From integration to ontological self-determination. \u003cem\u003eStudies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e59\u003c/em\u003e, 36\u0026ndash;45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.06.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eM\u0026aacute;rquez, C. O., Garc\u0026iacute;a, V. J., Schultz, R. C., \u0026amp; Isenhart, T. M. (2017). Assessment of soil aggradation through soil aggregation and particulate organic matter by riparian switchgrass buffers. \u003cem\u003eAgronomy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(4), 76.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer, B. S., Hackmann, H., Leemans, R., \u0026amp; Moore, H. (2013). Transdisciplinary global change research: The co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. In \u003cem\u003eCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 5, Issues 3\u0026ndash;4, pp. 420\u0026ndash;431). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMay, C. K. (2022). Complex adaptive governance systems: a framework to understand institutions, organizations, and people in socio-ecological systems. \u003cem\u003eSocio-Ecological Practice Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 39\u0026ndash;54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-021-00101-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcGregor, D. M. D. (2008). Linking traditional ecological knowledge and western science: aboriginal perspectives from the 2000 state of the lakes ecosystem Te of the lakes ecosystem conference. \u003cem\u003eThe Canadian Journal of Native Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(1), 139\u0026ndash;158.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMumford, L. (2016). \u003cem\u003eThe culture of cities\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 19). Open Road Media.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNassauer, J. I. (1995). Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. \u003cem\u003eLandscape Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(2), 161\u0026ndash;170.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNicol, C., \u0026amp; Blake, R. (2000). Classification and use of open space in the context of increasing urban capacity. \u003cem\u003ePlanning Practice and Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(3), 193\u0026ndash;210.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., \u0026amp; Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals\u0026rsquo; connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment and Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(5), 715\u0026ndash;740.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNorgaard, R. B., Kallis, G., \u0026amp; Kiparsky, M. (2009). Collectively engaging complex socio-ecological systems: re-envisioning science, governance, and the California Delta. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science \u0026amp; Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(6), 644\u0026ndash;652.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNorstr\u0026ouml;m, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., L\u0026ouml;f, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., Bednarek, A. T., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., de Bremond, A., Campbell, B. M., Canadell, J. G., Carpenter, S. R., Folke, C., Fulton, E. A., Gaffney, O., Gelcich, S., Jouffray, J. B., Leach, M., \u0026hellip; \u0026Ouml;sterblom, H. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. \u003cem\u003eNature Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(3), 182\u0026ndash;190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOstrom, V., \u0026amp; Ostrom, E. (2019). Public goods and public choices. \u003cem\u003eAlternatives for Delivering Public Services: Toward Improved Performance\u003c/em\u003e, 7\u0026ndash;49. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429047978-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePettorelli, N., Barlow, J., Stephens, P. A., Durant, S. M., Connor, B., Schulte to B\u0026uuml;hne, H., Sandom, C. J., Wentworth, J., \u0026amp; du Toit, J. T. (2018). Making rewilding fit for policy. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Ecology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e55\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1114\u0026ndash;1125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13082\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePonstingel, D. (2022). The governance of community gardens as commons and its role in the socio-ecological outcomes of gardening in Austin, Texas, USA. \u003cem\u003eSocio-Ecological Practice Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(4), 355\u0026ndash;376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-022-00133-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePyle, R. M. (1978). The extinction of experience. \u003cem\u003eHorticulture\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e56\u003c/em\u003e, 64\u0026ndash;67.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQiu, J., Nassauer, J. I., Ahern, J., Huang, L., Reed, J., Ding, S., Guo, J., Liu, Z., Ou, W., Ouyang, Z., Shi, P., Tao, Y., Yang, R., Zheng, X., \u0026amp; Wu, J. (2025). Advancing landscape sustainability science: key challenges and strategies for integration with landscape design and planning. In \u003cem\u003eLandscape Ecology\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 40, Issue 2). Springer Science and Business Media B.V. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-024-02042-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRessiore C., A., \u0026amp; De La Rosa, G. (2025). Transdisciplinary care in practice: reflections from the Council of Care. \u003cem\u003eSocio-Ecological Practice Research\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-025-00229-w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRey Benayas, J. M., \u0026amp; Bullock, J. M. (2012). Restoration of biodiversity and ecosystem services on agricultural land. \u003cem\u003eEcosystems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e, 883\u0026ndash;899.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRibeiro, J. D., Moniz, J., Campos, I., \u0026amp; Falanga, R. (2025). Can democratic innovations tackle social-ecological challenges? Gaining insights on transformative governance across European cases. \u003cem\u003eSocio-Ecological Practice Research\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-025-00225-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRichardson, M. (2019). Beyond Restoration: Considering Emotion Regulation in Natural Well-Being. \u003cem\u003eEcopsychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(2), 123\u0026ndash;129. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2019.0012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRobinson, S. L., \u0026amp; Lundholm, J. T. (2012). Ecosystem services provided by urban spontaneous vegetation. \u003cem\u003eUrban Ecosystems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(3), 545\u0026ndash;557.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRupprecht, C. D. D., \u0026amp; Byrne, J. A. (2014). Informal urban greenspace: A typology and trilingual systematic review of its role for urban residents and trends in the literature. \u003cem\u003eUrban Forestry \u0026amp; Urban Greening\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(4), 597\u0026ndash;611. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.09.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShaw, I. (1999). \u003cem\u003eQualitative evaluation\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSikorska, D., Ciężkowski, W., Babańczyk, P., Chormański, J., \u0026amp; Sikorski, P. (2021). Intended wilderness as a Nature-based Solution: Status, identification and management of urban spontaneous vegetation in cities. \u003cem\u003eUrban Forestry \u0026amp; Urban Greening\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e62\u003c/em\u003e, 127155. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127155\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSikorski, P., Gawryszewska, B., Sikorska, D., Chormański, J., Schwerk, A., Jojczyk, A., Ciężkowski, W., Archiciński, P., Łepkowski, M., Dymitryszyn, I., Przybysz, A., Wińska-Krysiak, M., Zajdel, B., Matusiak, J., \u0026amp; Łaszkiewicz, E. (2021). The value of doing nothing \u0026ndash; How informal green spaces can provide comparable ecosystem services to cultivated urban parks. \u003cem\u003eEcosystem Services\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e, 101339. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101339\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSoga, M., \u0026amp; Gaston, K. J. (2016). Extinction of experience: the loss of human\u0026ndash;nature interactions. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(2), 94\u0026ndash;101.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSoul\u0026eacute;, M., \u0026amp; Noss, R. (1998). Complementary goals for continental conservation. \u003cem\u003eWild Earth\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(Fall), 39\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSouthon, G. E., Jorgensen, A., Dunnett, N., Hoyle, H., \u0026amp; Evans, K. L. (2017). Biodiverse perennial meadows have aesthetic value and increase residents\u0026rsquo; perceptions of site quality in urban green-space. \u003cem\u003eLandscape and Urban Planning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e158\u003c/em\u003e, 105\u0026ndash;118.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpirn, A. W. (1984). The granite garden: urban nature and human design. \u003cem\u003e(No Title)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStenseke, M. (2024). \u003cem\u003eOn IPBES\u0026rsquo; framing of the values of nature\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.54612/Keywords\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSu\u0026aacute;rez, M., G\u0026oacute;mez-Baggethun, E., \u0026amp; Onaindia, M. (2019). Assessing socio-ecological resilience in cities. In \u003cem\u003eThe Routledge handbook of urban resilience\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 197\u0026ndash;216). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThompson, C. W. (2002). Urban open space in the 21st century. \u003cem\u003eLandscape and Urban Planning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e60\u003c/em\u003e(2), 59\u0026ndash;72.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTronto, J. (2020). \u003cem\u003eMoral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTurnbull, J., Fry, T., \u0026amp; Lorimer, J. (2025). (Re)wilding London: Fabric, politics, and aesthetics. \u003cem\u003eTransactions of the Institute of British Geographers\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12748\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalker, B., \u0026amp; Salt, D. (2012). \u003cem\u003eResilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world\u003c/em\u003e. Island press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalters, C. J. (1986). \u003cem\u003eAdaptive management of renewable resources\u003c/em\u003e. Macmillan Publishers Ltd.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWartmann, F. M., \u0026amp; Lorimer, J. (2024). Messy natures: The political aesthetics of nature recovery. \u003cem\u003ePeople and Nature\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(6), 2564\u0026ndash;2576. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10743\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhyte, K. P. (2013). On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept: A philosophical study. \u003cem\u003eEcological Processes\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWiesel, I., Steele, W., \u0026amp; Houston, D. (2020). Cities of care: Introduction to a special issue. \u003cem\u003eCities\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e105\u003c/em\u003e, 102844.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXie, L., \u0026amp; Bulkeley, H. (2020). Nature-based solutions for urban biodiversity governance. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science and Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e110\u003c/em\u003e(May), 77\u0026ndash;87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYing, J., Zhang, X., Zhang, Y., \u0026amp; Bilan, S. (2022). Green infrastructure: systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eEconomic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja \u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(1), 343\u0026ndash;366. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.1893202\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZakharova, K., Rodela, R., \u0026amp; Lehtil\u0026auml;, K. (2025). Aesthetic perception of urban biodiversity: a review of methodologies and statistical approaches. In \u003cem\u003eCogent Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 11, Issue 1). Cogent OA. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2025.2484629\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZoderer, B. M., Hainz-Renetzeder, C., \u0026amp; Vuolo, F. (2024). Mapping wild nature areas to identify priority areas for urban rewilding in cities: A process-oriented approach. \u003cem\u003eUrban Forestry \u0026amp; Urban Greening\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e101\u003c/em\u003e, 128549.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":false,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"renturation, aggradation, urban nature, socio-ecological practice, ecology of care, wildscapes","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8070855/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8070855/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eCities around the world are confronting interconnected challenges, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and an increasing disconnection between people and nature. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with urban professionals in France and the United Kingdom, including urban planners, architects, landscape designers, and agricultural engineers, this paper examines renaturation and aggradation as design principles that reframe urban nature from ornamental to living infrastructure, grounding socio-ecological ethics in urban design. Our findings highlight a disciplinary gradient, while ecologists and landscape architects favor soil health, ecological processes, and long-term spontaneous evolution of nature, architects and planners emphasize legibility, predictability, and client-driven aesthetics. The results also show that across urban professions, some tension crystallizes around how much autonomy we can grant ecological processes to enable their cultural expression and legibility without sliding into performative greening. In this paper, we distinguish three pathways toward a socio-ecological ethics of design: (1) shifting from a mindset of controlling nature to one of co-evolution and adaptive management, (2) mobilizing an aesthetics as \u0026ldquo;cues to care\u0026rdquo; that make ecological complexity perceivable, and (3) organizing collective stewardship that treats urban nature as a public good. We argue that renaturation and aggradation, although not widely used in current professional discourse on urban green space planning, can operate as ecologies of repair, integrating biodiversity, soil recovery, and cultural memory. The paper concludes with implications for governance and professional education to sustain multispecies urban futures.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Renaturation, Aggradation, and the Ethics of Care: Toward a Socio-Ecological Ethics of Urban Design","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-11 09:25:17","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8070855/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"6c1ba144-304e-41c7-b3f1-199f910ee387","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 11th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-19T14:55:20+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-11 09:25:17","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8070855","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8070855","identity":"rs-8070855","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}