In the rapidly evolving landscape of urban development, the pursuit of sustainability has become a defining challenge of the 21st century. Yet, as cities continue to expand and densify, new questions arise about the ways in which justice, time, and ecological complexity intersect within these human-dominated environments. In a groundbreaking study published in npj Urban Sustainability, researchers Gillespie, Penny, and Hamilton address these issues head-on by investigating the procedural hurdles that impede the flourishing of multi-species communities in urban contexts. Their work provides a nuanced framework that challenges conventional environmental policymaking and urban planning, revealing systemic barriers embedded in the governance and temporal structuring of urban nature.
Urban environments are not simply backdrops for human activity but are complex socio-ecological systems where diverse species coexist, compete, and collaborate. However, despite the rhetoric of biodiversity preservation and "green" urban initiatives, many city planning processes remain anthropocentric, sidelining the intrinsic needs of non-human life. Gillespie and colleagues argue that the temporal rhythms and justice considerations that underpin urban governance critically shape which species benefit from -- and which are excluded by -- urban nature initiatives. Their research emphasizes a shift from purely spatial or ecological metrics to procedural justice, where who gets heard, when, and how decisions unfold over time are scrutinized as much as their outcomes.
The core contribution of the study lies in unveiling how procedural barriers operate as unseen forces that complicate efforts toward multi-species flourishing. These barriers are embedded in institutional timelines, public consultation processes, and legal frameworks that prioritize human schedules and political cycles over the ecological timescales essential for species survival and adaptation. For example, planning meetings often occur at times inconvenient for marginalized human communities, let alone for non-human stakeholders represented through ecological proxies. Moreover, short-term project funding disproportionately favors immediate, measurable outcomes rather than the slow, iterative processes many species depend on to establish viable populations in urban areas.
One technical insight that emerges from the paper involves the disjunction between ecological temporality and political temporality. Ecological processes such as plant maturation, soil rehabilitation, or wildlife habitat establishment unfold over years or decades, whereas political and administrative cycles operate on monthly, quarterly, or electoral schedules. This misalignment creates a chronic invisibility for non-human needs, institutionalizing a form of environmental injustice that manifests as procedural exclusion. The authors use detailed case studies illustrating how urban greening projects disrupt existing habitats when hurried through typical bureaucratic timelines without considering seasonal breeding cycles or migration patterns, thereby inadvertently exacerbating species decline.
A fascinating dimension the authors explore is the role of 'temporal justice' as a framework to redress these asymmetries. Temporal justice demands recognition of diverse temporalities within governance -- acknowledging that different species and human communities experience and require different forms of time allocation to participate effectively. Practically, this could mean redesigning public engagement periods to extend consultation windows, embedding long-term monitoring commitments into policy frameworks, and recalibrating funding structures to reward sustained stewardship rather than one-off interventions. Such reconfigurations challenge entrenched institutional practices and require innovative legal and administrative reforms.
The study also highlights the intersectionality of urban justice concerns, noting how procedural barriers to multi-species flourishing overlap with socio-economic inequities. Marginalized human communities often share neighborhoods with degraded ecological conditions, and their limited political influence mirrors the exclusion faced by non-human urban dwellers. Gillespie et al. advocate for integrative approaches that simultaneously address social justice and ecological integrity, proposing policy tools that amplify the voices of diverse urban constituencies through inclusive governance mechanisms. These mechanisms go beyond traditional public hearings, incorporating participatory mapping, community science, and co-management frameworks to democratize urban nature stewardship.
Technically, the authors employ a mixed-methods approach to unravel these complex dynamics. Combining qualitative interviews with planners, community activists, and ecologists, alongside GIS-based spatial analyses and longitudinal ecological data sets, the research achieves a granular understanding of how procedural barriers manifest and persist. Their methodological rigor allows for precise identification of "decision bottlenecks" and temporal mismatches, offering concrete entry points for reform. Moreover, their interdisciplinary synthesis bridges urban ecology, public policy, and environmental justice literature, pushing disciplinary boundaries toward more holistic conceptualizations of urban sustainability.
Another key insight involves the challenge of multi-species representation in urban governance, a task complicated by the lack of direct political agency for non-human entities. Gillespie and colleagues engage with emerging legal and philosophical debates around "rights of nature" and ecological personhood, investigating how procedural justice frameworks might incorporate proxies or guardians for non-human interests. This raises profound questions about the legitimacy, accountability, and operationalization of such representation and calls for experimental governance models that can navigate these ethical and practical complexities. The authors underscore that achieving multi-species justice is not only a technical design problem but a fundamental rethinking of the democratic contract.
The implications of this work extend far beyond academic circles and urban policy arenas. Rapid urbanization is a global phenomenon, and cities are frontline battlegrounds for climate resilience and biodiversity conservation. By framing procedural justice as a critical axis of sustainability, Gillespie et al. offer a pathway toward more equitable urban futures. Their research challenges policymakers, planners, and civil society to reconsider the temporal and procedural dimensions of environmental governance to better align with ecological realities and justice imperatives. This requires sustained political will, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the courage to embrace complexity over simplistic quick fixes.
Technological innovations may play a supportive role in overcoming procedural barriers. The paper discusses how digital tools -- ranging from interactive planning apps to real-time environmental sensor networks -- can democratize participation and surface ecological data relevant to decision-making at appropriate temporal scales. However, the authors caution that technology alone cannot solve underlying structural issues of power and exclusion. Instead, such tools must be embedded within frameworks that explicitly prioritize multi-species justice, avoiding the pitfalls of techno-optimism divorced from political contexts.
The study also critically examines how existing urban sustainability frameworks often prioritize measurable ecological indicators, such as tree canopy cover or air quality indices, without adequate attention to the procedural dimensions of justice. Gillespie and colleagues argue that this outcome-focused approach risks reinforcing systemic inequities by overlooking who is involved in shaping these outcomes and how long-term ecological processes are supported institutionally. They advocate for reorienting sustainability assessments to integrate procedural metrics -- such as fairness in consultation processes, temporal inclusivity, and sustained commitments to stewardship -- as key success indicators.
One of the most compelling sections of the paper delves into case studies where procedural reforms have demonstrably improved multi-species outcomes. These examples span cities in different global contexts, showcasing innovative governance models that experiment with extended consultation periods, polycentric management structures, and legally recognized ecological advocates. The authors critically reflect on the scalability and transferability of these models, highlighting the importance of local context and the iterative nature of institutional learning. Such empirical grounding bolsters the paper's theoretical claims, illustrating how procedural justice can be operationalized in concrete urban settings.
Furthermore, the authors address the ethical tensions arising from competing claims to urban space and the accompanying socio-ecological trade-offs. Procedural justice frameworks provide tools not just for inclusion but also for negotiation and conflict resolution among human and non-human stakeholders. Gillespie et al. argue that embracing such frameworks can transform urban nature from a battleground of exclusion to a shared project of co-flourishing, fostering novel alliances that transcend species boundaries. This vision aligns with emerging ideas in urban sustainability that emphasize relationality and care rather than domination and control.
In conclusion, this pioneering study by Gillespie, Penny, and Hamilton marks a significant advance in how we understand and enact urban sustainability. By foregrounding procedural barriers and temporal justice, it opens new avenues for research, policy, and activism aimed at dismantling systemic obstacles to multi-species flourishing. Their work calls for a fundamental reimagining of urban governance -- one that not only acknowledges but embraces the temporal rhythms and justice claims of all urban inhabitants, human and non-human alike. As cities continue to grow and global environmental challenges intensify, such transformative approaches offer crucial hope for building vibrant, just, and resilient urban ecologies.
Subject of Research: Procedural barriers to multi-species flourishing in urban environments and the interplay between time, justice, and urban nature governance.
Article Title: Time, justice, and urban nature: procedural barriers to multi-species flourishing.
Article References:
Gillespie, J., Penny, D. & Hamilton, R. Time, justice, and urban nature: procedural barriers to multi-species flourishing.
npj Urban Sustain 5, 17 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-025-00207-x