Restored Nature, Familiar Culture: Contesting Visions for Preferred Environments in Australian Cities

Abstract

How are preferences for “native” and “introduced” species of plants and animals given expression in Australian cities? Given the nation's predominantly European cultural heritage, how do urban Australians articulate multiple desires for living environments encountered in everyday life? In examining the cases of inner city parks, backyards, and more general views about flora and fauna appropriate for the city, the paper considers a range of deeply enculturated attachments to familiar landscapes. While residents have considerable interest in the possibilities of urban ecological restoration, our interviews, ethnographic observation, and textual analysis also reveal cultural preferences for introduced species and emplaced attachments to historically modified landscapes. These preferences and attachments are linked to senses of identity developed during formative life experiences. In the relatively young post-settler society of Australia, such drivers of environmental desires can sit uneasily alongside science-driven propositions about what is good for biodiversity and ecological sustainability.

Ready for more-than-human? Measuring urban residents’ willingness to coexist with animals

“…Non-native animals (rabbits, cane toads, feral cats) appear to violate not only a physical, but also a place-specific ideological boundary by trespassing into spaces where they are perceived not to belong. This phenomenon has been reported and discussed previously (Trigger & Head 2010). Yet some nonnative animals enjoy wide acceptance (cattle, sheep, chickens), while others gain little sympathy from their native status (snakes, bats, dingos).…”

“…In comparison, familiarity was extremely high (94%) in Brisbane, but no data are available for Australia that would allow a direct comparison. The high familiarity could be a result of public debates around wildlife conflicts, in which nativeness plays a prominent role (Trigger & Head 2010). In contrast, the difference between the cities was far less pronounced in residents' attitudes towards nature and their opinion about wildlife protection and human lifestyle (Rupprecht et al 2015b).…”

Finding a middle-ground: The native/non-native debate

“…despite the local community's attachment to them. The proposal would have removed key sources of shade in the park and replaced them with native species known to potentially cause hayfever and allergic reactions (Trigger and Head, 2010). Chew and Hamilton (2011) offer an interesting example of origin-based decision-making in an occurrence in Britain.…”

Alternative Approaches to Urban Natural Areas Restoration: Integrating Social and Ecological Goals

“…Along with these structural constraints there is a host of social and political issues that further de fi ne what conditions should be restored in urban settings (e.g., Trigger and Head 2010 ) . Demand for open space by a diverse range of user and interest groups not only limits the number and size of restoration projects within a program but also what other uses might take place, how sites are managed, and by whom.…”