Nature-Based Justice: Who Gets Left Behind When Green Solutions Gentrify?

As cities embrace green infrastructure to combat the climate crisis, not everyone is reaping the benefits. From rain gardens to rewilded riverbanks, nature-based solutions (NbS) are transforming urban landscapes. But beneath the surface of sustainability lies a more uncomfortable truth: the communities most in need of green investment are often pushed out when it arrives.

The Promise of Green

Nature-based solutions are widely praised for their ability to improve climate resilience while enhancing quality of life. Initiatives such as urban wetlands, floodplain restoration, green roofs, tree planting, and permeable paving help cities manage stormwater, reduce the urban heat island effect, and support biodiversity. At their best, these schemes also offer space for recreation, better air quality, and mental health benefits.

Local authorities across the UK have been quick to promote their green credentials. London’s Sustainable Drainage Action Plan, Manchester’s “Green and Blue Infrastructure Strategy,” and Birmingham’s “Future City Plan” all place NbS at the heart of urban renewal.

But while the ecological case for green solutions is clear, the social implications are far more complex.

When Green Turns to Gold

What happens when an area improves so much that its long-time residents can no longer afford to stay? This is the dilemma of “green gentrification.” In many cases, the arrival of green infrastructure acts as a catalyst for property development, rising rents, and displacement.

A study by researchers at the University of Sheffield found that large-scale environmental investments in deprived urban areas frequently led to “environmental gentrification,” with developers quick to market homes near restored rivers, parks, or wetlands as part of a lifestyle brand. The resulting increase in land value benefits investors and middle-class newcomers, but not necessarily the working-class families who lived there through years of neglect.

The irony is painful: the very people who suffered most from flooding, poor air quality, or lack of green space are pushed out just as those issues are finally being addressed.

The View from the Ground

In Tottenham, North London, the restoration of the River Lea was heralded as a victory for nature and community wellbeing. Wetlands were reintroduced, cycle paths laid, and wildlife returned. But residents have watched in dismay as luxury flats rise along the riverside and artisanal coffee shops replace long-standing local businesses.

“None of this was done for us,” says Amina, a community organiser who has lived in the area for over 20 years. “It’s beautiful, yes, but now my son can’t afford to rent here. We’ve gone from neglected to priced out.”

Similar stories are playing out in parts of Birmingham and Glasgow, where neighbourhood-scale green investments have led to a wave of redevelopment, often with little protection for renters or small businesses.

Justice Must Be Built In

Nature-based solutions are not inherently unjust. In fact, they are essential tools for climate adaptation. But justice must be embedded from the start. That means involving local communities in the planning process, ensuring affordable housing is part of the equation, and resisting the urge to view green infrastructure solely through the lens of aesthetics or property value.

In Barcelona, planners introduced the concept of “Green Justice Indicators” to assess whether NbS were equitably distributed and whether marginalised groups were being excluded. Some UK councils are now beginning to take similar steps, but progress is patchy.

Designing with justice in mind also requires recognising historic inequalities. Many communities most vulnerable to climate change are those that have suffered decades of environmental degradation and underinvestment. Planners must understand that NbS is not simply about planting trees but about redressing past harms.

Who Is NbS For?

A fundamental question sits at the heart of this debate: who are we designing green cities for? If the answer is only those who can afford to stay in regenerated areas, then NbS risks becoming just another driver of inequality.

This is not an abstract concern. A 2024 report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation warned that green investment could widen housing inequality if not paired with robust protections for low-income residents. Among its recommendations were rent controls near large-scale green projects, community land trusts, and stronger tenants’ rights.

The report called for “climate justice impact assessments” to become a standard part of environmental planning, much like environmental impact assessments are today.

Greening Without Displacement

It is possible to pursue ambitious nature-based solutions while protecting vulnerable communities. In Leeds, for example, the Wyke Beck Valley project combined flood mitigation with social benefit, incorporating skills training and community-led decision-making. Crucially, affordable housing provisions were safeguarded as part of the plan.

Similarly, Nottingham’s “Blue-Green Infrastructure Strategy” placed social equity at its core, prioritising areas of greatest need and ensuring projects were not driven purely by developer interest.

These examples show that another model is possible—one in which green investment becomes a tool of inclusion, not exclusion.

A Call for Balance

As councils across the UK ramp up climate adaptation efforts, the risk of green gentrification cannot be ignored. NbS must be about more than beautifying cities or attracting investment. They must serve the people who live there now, not just those who may come in the future.

Nature-based justice is not a contradiction. But it does require humility, careful planning, and a commitment to fairness. If done right, NbS can help heal our cities, not just their landscapes, but their communities too.