‘Nature in priority neighbourhoods’ What are we talking about?

January 2024

Agence nationale de la cohésion des territoires (ANCT)

To download : fp_qpv_nature_complet_29_janvier_0.pdf (11 MiB)

Nature: Elements Of Definition

Biologist Gilles Bœuf explains that nature refers to all existing systems, formed at the same time as the Earth (oceans, rocks, volcanoes, sediments, winds), whereas biodiversity is the living fraction of nature that begins when the first cells appear. Today, just over two million species (viruses, bacteria, fungi, plants, animals) make up biodiversity. These species combine to form ecosystems (forest, agricultural, marine, coastal, rocky, etc.), i.e. systems each made up of an environment (biotope) and all the species (biocenosis) that live, feed and reproduce there. The socio-economic benefits derived by humans from the sustainable use of the ecological functions of ecosystems are referred to as ecosystem services. The European Environment Agency distinguishes three types of ecosystem services:

• provisioning services: products obtained directly from the ecosystem, such as food, wood, energy, genetic or biochemical resources, medicinal or ornamental resources and fresh water;

• regulation services such as climate regulation, water regulation processes, water purification or disease regulation. Regulating services are also processes that channel certain natural phenomena and have a positive impact on human well-being: protection against natural disasters, mitigation of water and air pollution, etc… ;

• cultural services: non-material benefits enjoyed by humans thanks to ecosystems through reflection, recreation, aesthetics or cultural enrichment.

These ecosystem services show that in every region, nature is a source of tangible and intangible contributions such as :

• social cohesion: being in a communal green space encourages a sense of sharing and social cohesion. Green spaces can also be the venue for meetings and events, particularly around educational or participatory activities;

• employment and economic activity: nature supports economic activities such as agriculture, tourism (green tourism can be a way of preserving nature while strengthening the industry), the production of renewable energy, etc.

• physical and mental health and well-being. Research carried out by doctors and psychologists shows that there are positive links between an individual’s state of health and the presence of natural elements in their environment: green spaces reduce anxiety, stress and depression, and are thought to have an effect on obesity-related illnesses.

The concept of ecosystem service is therefore a way of understanding society’s dependence on nature. Over-exploitation of the service, destruction of the ecosystem or degradation of ecological functions lead to its reduction or even disappearance. The challenge therefore lies in preserving these ecosystems, restoring their functions and combating their degradation (artificialization, pollution, etc.).

Nature and Qpv: a little-known subject

From the 2000s onwards, studies and research began to focus on the sustainable development of urban neighbourhoods and, more recently, on their ecological transition. However, there are still very few of them, and they are often localised (at the level of an urban district or conurbation) and sector-specific (energy renovation, waste, etc.). This observation is even more marked in the case of nature in the QPVs.

On the one hand, there is a lack of statistical data on nature in urban neighbourhoods (inventory of species, quality of environments, etc.), and on the other, studies often confine the subject to urban agriculture (shared gardens, allotments, etc.). Nevertheless, a number of studies tend to show that the poorest people’s homes are the least well endowed in terms of biodiversity:

Diane Hope, a doctor in biogeochemistry, and Ann Kinzig, a professor at Arizona State University, showed in 2003 and 2005 that the diversity of plants and birds is positively correlated with residents’ income. In Phoenix, Arizona, for example, parks in wealthy neighbourhoods contain twenty-eight species of birds, while those in poorer neighbourhoods have ten fewer. A ‘luxury effect’ links the profusion of human resources and the specific diversity of urban ecosystems.

• In 2008, geographers Guillaume Faburel and Sandrine Gueymard drew up and cross-referenced an environmental typology and a socio-urban typology of Île-de-France municipalities. Their work shows that communes with sensitive urban zones (ZUS) are virtually absent from the group of communes with a good quality environment, while ZUS are over-represented in communes with a poor quality environmental profile.

• The report on taking ecosystem services into account in urban planning decisions, produced by the International Research Centre for Environment and Development, the National Centre for Meteorological Research and Natural Capital Project in 2021, points out that ‘current renaturation policies do not take into account the socio-economic and socio-demographic aspects of urban and peri-urban areas when targeting areas for renaturation.

For example, the master plan for the Île-de-France region provides for access to 10 m² of natural areas per inhabitant, with priority given to developing these in municipalities with less than 10% natural areas, regardless of the socio-economic characteristics of their inhabitants. […] This choice may be questionable from the point of view of social justice in Île-de-France, because although the city of Paris is fairly devoid of natural areas, its residents are among the most advantaged in terms of average income or education compared with the rest of Île-de-France, which means that they can ‘escape’ Paris fairly easily and benefit from access to natural areas that are further away, but of much better ‘quality’ than in Île-de-France.

However, this is not the case for the most deprived populations in neighbouring départements, who are forced to stay in their own communes, including during school holidays’.

• Also in 2021, economist Hugo Botton argued that while less than one in ten city dwellers (8.5%) did not have a green space within a kilometre of their home during the Covid 19 crisis, this average hid disparities according to the level of wealth in the neighbourhood. In fact, the proportion of households without access to a green space during this period was higher among the 10% of households living in neighbourhoods with the highest poverty rate (11.5%), i.e. almost three times higher than the 10% of residents living in neighbourhoods with the lowest poverty rate (4.5%).

Sources