If humans were removed or restricted from the continuation of urban sprawl, how would nature rebound and reclaim its once untouched surfaces?

Main Project Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MgUkWsYetQ

The following essay is a collection of thoughts prompted by our observations, as we set out to answer this question.

We drove around Aberdeen and up the Wynoochee Valley, mostly in search of abandoned and dilapidated buildings to examine the ways that natural processes affect them in the absence of human maintenance. The areas we explored were on a rural fringe, far different from anything considered “urban.” However, this edge demonstrated the effects of land use change, as it precedes urbanization. In these areas, while humans have not laid down vast swathes of pavement or constructed skyscrapers yet, they have hewn out treeless areas, changed the topography to some degree, and impacted vegetative composition. In addition to the obvious signs of persisting human impact on vegetation, such as mowing, there are impacts less obvious the casual viewer. For example, the extensive logging history of this area (Wilma, 2006) means that the size of trees present in the forests we observed is likely influenced by this past land use.

We were struck by the fact that landscape alterations seemed to persist far longer than our flimsy buildings. Long after roofs have collapsed and rot has set into boards, the edges between modified and unmodified land remain pronounced. This appears to be partially intentional. Multiple sites we observed seemed to have experienced recent mowing and maintenance of modified land, even though the structures on them had fallen into severe disrepair. This is interesting because it shows that our man-made structures are far less durable than we often think. Indeed, much of the reason we think of human construction as “unnatural” is our perception that it will not fall and be reborn as does everything else in “nature.” This does not appear to be the case. In addition, one would think that buildings would be the priority for maintenance, but it turns out that we humans are more preoccupied with maintaining our tenuous attempts to carve habitat out of wilderness by preventing its encroachment on land we have altered, rather than our monuments to ingenuity.

On the other hand, it makes sense that people understand that manicured vegetated areas can easily be infiltrated by wild plants, and therefore put forth the effort to maintain them, whereas nature’s reclamation of buildings is much more insidious. Several studies demonstrate the detrimental effect that even bacteria and algae can have on historic buildings, creating a constant battle for their custodians (Barberousse et al., 2007; Mishra et al., 1995; Watt, 2006). It’s interesting to think of this in the context of readings we have done for class, specifically about green roofs and walls, such as Francis and Lorimer’s (2011) article about reconciliation ecology. On the surface, it’s ironic that some people are fighting the presence of vegetation on their buildings, while other’s advocate for encouraging it. Is there a deeper paradigm, though? Environmentalists are often critical of the “humans vs. nature” battle. It seems unnecessary and unnatural. Is it also unrealistic? On one hand, the previously mentioned articles show that “fighting nature” is to some degree necessary to maintain our existence as we know it, even in very subtle ways. On the other hand, is this just a case of, “if you can’t beat them, join them?” Does it benefit us to incorporate these attempts at “green” architecture simply because the alternative is a losing battle?

This was also apparent at the abandoned Olympia Brewery below Tumwater Falls. Even from across the river, we could see plants growing from the walls and roofs. The line between reconciliation ecology and nature beating us may be blurry indeed. In less than 100 years the old brewhouse has gone from a functioning brewery to preservation emergency (City of Tumwater, 2018).

Tumwater Falls is a great example of how a river that was previously further manipulated than it is currently has begun to reclaim its course, but still faces a certain amount of diversion, in addition to remnants of previous channelization. Views down the river show an interesting juxtaposition of the wild river with decaying remnants of previous industries, all overshadowed by modern freeways and buildings. In the remnants of early industry, such as old stone and cement walls, plants and moss can be seen overtaking the man-made surfaces. Even on the pillars of the modern freeway bridge, life is beginning to infiltrate the concrete. However, blackberries and invasive ivy seem to be the most dominant plants to colonize these newer surfaces. While it’s clear that they do not completely exclude life, it’s interesting how urban areas tend to favor highly adaptable, monoculture-forming plants. The life strategies of the species mimic that of the cities themselves, as the spread into a global monoculture.

Johns River is an example of how nature rebounds when intentional efforts to undo land use change are applied. Areas that previously served as commercial cranberry bogs and logging docks have been restored to their wild character. Now they serve as a wildlife area, supporting a wide variety of biodiversity and providing for human recreation activities such as hunting and birdwatching (WDFW, 2018).

We found multiple examples of wildlife utilizing urban or otherwise human-altered landscapes. This could be considered an example of coexistence between wildlife and humans rather than an example of what might happen if humans suddenly disappeared. However, as discussed previously, the impacts of land-use change, even on vegetation, seem to persist for longer than one might think. For example, we observed elk grazing in an open field likely cleared for farming. It would take some time for this area to be overtaken by forest, and in the meantime, wildlife is still able to reclaim it. Capitol Lake was another example; the lake was artificially created by people, and the concrete barriers that maintain its edges are likely to persist for many years into the future, even if humans were to cease maintenance. Many species of birds seem to enjoy the habitat provide by the lake. One telling example is an area of the lake where a concrete viewing platform for human use juts out from the edge, creating an artificial cove. We observed a Blue Heron foraging here, and several ducks. This area was especially modified by human structures, even compared to the rest of the lake, yet birds congregated here. These examples show that while humans and wildlife may come into conflict, in the absence of humans, urban landscapes themselves may not be so incompatible with wildlife habitation. Indeed, as demonstrated by evidence in a National Geographic article, many species are quietly and elusively adapting to urban environments, even large mammals such as coyotes and mountain lions (Dell’Amore, 2016). Rather than biding their time in the wilderness, waiting for humans to vacate urban areas, these wild creatures have already infiltrated urban environments, and are already reclaiming them.

The fungus colonizing spaces impacted by clear-cuts shows the demonstrates an example of natural processes, such as decomposition, persisting in areas heavily modified by humans. These small, slow, subtle processes likely play a relatively invisible but important role in the reclamation of urban spaces by nature. Other examples, such as wooden structures rotting and concrete weathering, show that the role of microscopic organisms in this reclamation process is just as important, if not more so, than the role of plants and animals.

In conclusion, our observations suggest that all types of “nature,” from bacteria to large predators, are perpetually reclaiming urban edges, even as urbanization continues.

References

Barberousse, H., Ruot, B., Yepremian, C., & Boulon, G. (2007). An assessment of façade coatings against colonisation by aerial algae and cyanobacteria. Building and Environment, 42(7), 2555-2561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.07.031

City of Tumwater. (2018). Old Brewhouse Tower. Retrieved from: http://www.ci.tumwater.wa.us/about-tumwater/history/old-brew-house

Dell’Amore, C. (2016). How Wild Animals Are Hacking Life in the City. National Geographic. Retrived from: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160418-animals-urban-cities-wildlife-science-coyotes/

Francis, R. A., & Lorimer, J. (2011). Urban reconciliation ecology: the potential of living roofs and walls. Journal of environmental management, 92(6), 1429-1437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.01.012

Mishra, A. K., Jain, K. K., & Garg, K. L. (1995). Role of higher plants in the deterioration of historic buildings. Science of the total environment, 167(1-3), 375-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(95)04597-T

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2018). Johns River Wildlife Area. Retrieved from: https://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/wildlife_areas/johns_river/

Watt, D. (2006). Managing Biological Growth on Buildings. Historic Churches. Retrieved from: http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/bio/bio.htm

Wilma, D. (2006). Grays Harbor County – Thumbnail History. Retrieved from: http://www.historylink.org/File/7766