ABSTRACT
The dictionary cannot answer the quest for defining “nature” to encompass the diversity of ways in which the word is used. We raise the question of “whose definition” to highlight that the defining qualities of urban nature depend on many issues. In the context of the discussion here, a particularly salient consideration is the background or experience of the person who would be answering the question. Ecologists, planners, managers, and restorationists may define nature in different terms. Their perspectives, in turn, may contrast in important ways from public notions of what constitutes nature. In other words, the answer to what constitutes “nature” is strongly influenced by the kind of training and experience one has had. The issue of what to call it and whose characterization to use are not a matter of semantics or of getting agreement on a formal definition. People’s notion of what does or does not constitute “nature” (or, more specifically “urban nature”) has ramifications that reflect deeply felt differences in the values associated with the nearby natural environment. Intense controversies and strong emotions surrounding some restoration efforts offer vivid examples. For example, the “Chicago restoration controversy” (Gobster 2000) can be viewed as public opposition to restoration practices, although what outraged many residents was the removal of healthy trees in their viewshed (Shore 1997). The emotional storm led to a moratorium on all restoration activities in the Forest Preserve District of Cook County (Illinois) with some restrictions sustained for a decade. Embedded in the diverse views of “nature” is far more than professional understanding of restoration ecology. As Nelson et al. (2008) observed, societal values must also be understood if the intentions of managing the urban natural resources are to be achieved. The focus in this chapter is on these societal values or social factors, or put another way, on the perspectives of “nature” that characterize those with no particular professional training. The empirical evidence that has informed our understanding of these perspectives has had quite a few surprises. Perhaps least expected was the consistency across diverse groups and cultures. For the public, as we shall see in the next few pages, the notion of urban nature is broad and inclusive as opposed to purist. At the same time, however, it does not subsume any and all vegetation.
