The main idea in this article by Bolund and Hunhammar is that nature and cities are not mutually exclusive. As New Yorkers, we always like to say that we want to go upstate, to Long Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, or even New England to experience the “great outdoors”, and it is true that many of the resources that we use in our city come from far outside our metropolitan area, such as water from reservoirs in the Catskills. At the same time, our city contains an abundance of ecosystems and even rare species that cannot be found outside of cities, such as birds that nest on skyscrapers or those that pass directly over New York City along their migration routes.
The authors did an exceptional job at detailing the different types of ecosystems that occur in cities, making reference not just to the organisms that inhabit it, but the crucial non-living components as well, such as water, rocks, and other landforms. They made a good point by stating that “it is difficult to generalize a discussion like the one in this paper to reflect the importance of the ecosystem services in all cities of the world. Both the actual service and its value are site-specific and can vary significantly around the world” (Bolund and Hunhammar 294). But I do not think that Stockholm, or any other city for that matter, can serve as a good comparison for New York City. Even though both are located near bodies of water, Stockholm’s metropolitan area serves 1.5 million people compared to more than 23 million for New York City’s metropolitan area, has a much milder climate, is not part of a landmass that is as large as North America, and has different cultural practices, history, and demographics. Thus, some of the processes that are mentioned may not work as well in New York City. For example, air pollution may be filtered out due to vegetation, but it may be trapped in a valley like the Hudson; New York City has a much larger population density relative to its suburbs and consequently a greater urban heat island effect; lastly, New York City has many large buildings that may actually funnel winds and accelerate them, not slow them down.
Nevertheless, some of the proposals that the authors alluded to can definitely work in New York City. In addition to micro climate regulation, I noticed that all seven urban ecosystem types can generate local and direct services for recreational and cultural values (Bolund and Hunhammar 299). This sector is probably the most directly related to humans, since it affects us not just physically but also psychologically. Cities often make us feel blasé and uninterested in our surroundings, so we should definitely preserve our biodiversity for aesthetic and health reasons, build parks and leisure areas not just for vegetation but to relax and participate in fun activities, and even use land in innovative ways, such as in medians in roads or shoulders for traffic calming procedures. As always, political corruption and the desire for profit by corporations can hinder progress, but every step taken to emphasize the importance of our relationship with nature will eventually add up in the end.
