Urban planning in times of climate adaptation: anticipating green gentrification while implementing nature-based solutions in Vienna

Abstract

Many European cities are increasingly focusing on greening to improve individual well-being as well as to respond to the negative consequences of a warmer climate. Aware of this risk, urban policies and planning practices have shifted from general strategic plans towards a stronger orientation at climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies, including the mainstreaming of greening and nature-based solutions for instance (McPhearson, Kabisch and Frantzeskaki, 2023). And yet, a significant policy challenge today is how to ensure a climate resilient city without increasing the risk of displacement of vulnerable groups. So-called green or environmental gentrification is a serious social justice issue in different urban regions across the globe (Anguelovski et al., 2022). However, there is still a) limited information on how local policymakers on different policy levels perceive the risk of green gentrification (Shokry et al., 2022); and b) how policymakers can strategically account for the risks of green gentrification while implementing necessary actions against climate change (Beretta and Cucca, 2019). Against this background, the aim of the paper is to explore possible challenges at the crossroads of urban greening strategies, strategies to prevent or avoid gentrification, and possible multilevel governance constraints and conflicting interests. Based on a qualitative analysis of over 30 expert interviews among planners, policymakers, and other relevant stakeholders in Vienna, the paper will focus on policy makers’ awareness of unintended effects resulting from implementing nature-based solutions, such as socio-economic exclusion. We will show whether policymakers are aware of the social justice implications of urban greening for and vis-à-vis Vienna’s main housing market segments and whether greening policies are considered as important drivers of increasing gentrification and decreasing housing affordability. Vienna, in that regard, is an interesting case study because a large part of the housing stock still is social housing (around 40%) in the form of municipal housing and limited-profit housing, whereas the private housing market is increasingly exposed to risks of gentrification (Friesenecker, Thaler and Clar, 2023). They main findings of our analysis show that most policy makers recognize a risk of gentrification in the private rental housing market or similar tendencies. However, it is also acknowledged that the effects of possible displacement are attenuated through the considerable segment of social housing, which is considered a safety net. However, policy makers do not consider these risks on the private rental market to be associated with greening either at public sites or at the building itself. This is largely explained because of a deregulated, but still existing national tenancy law, building regulations at state level that aim to minimise rental price exploitation and the fact that location surcharges – which are also regulated in the national tenancy law – for proximity to green areas are not possible. For the social housing segments, risks of green gentrification cannot apply per definition, challenges rather arise from trade-offs between providing affordable housing while at the same time developing additional green. The case of Vienna, which has its origins in a strong housing policy, presents a resilient policy mix to limit unintended effects of urban greening, such as green gentrification. For Vienna, the danger is rather that green spaces for reducing the heat load for vulnerable groups in urban heat islands are not planned quickly and strategically enough.