Nepal's cities are expanding rapidly, transforming once-quiet towns into busy urban centres with new roads, buildings, and markets. While this growth has created jobs, improved services, and new opportunities, it has also reduced urban forests, wetlands, farmland, and other natural spaces that keep cities healthy and resilient. This raises an important question: What kind of cities are we building? Urban development should not come at the expense of the ecosystems that sustain life. As climate change intensifies and urban populations grow, protecting urban nature is no longer just an environmental priority, it is essential for public health, climate resilience, and sustainable development.
Sustainable and successful cities are built by balancing social inclusion and environmental stewardship. They invest in resilient infrastructure, protect natural ecosystems, provide accessible public spaces, and ensure that all residents have safe, equitable access to services and opportunities. Cities that integrate nature with development are better prepared to thrive in the face of climate change and rapid urbanization. Parks and open spaces are more than places for recreation, they are living infrastructure that cools cities, manages stormwater, supports biodiversity, and strengthens urban resilience.
Encouragingly, Nepal is beginning to demonstrate that urban development can follow a different path. Through the Cities 4 Women: Inclusive and Climate Resilient Urbanization in Nepal initiative (Funded by European Union and Government of Finland), seven municipalities are reimagining public open spaces as multifunctional assets that benefit both people and nature. Rather than viewing parks, wetlands, and open areas as undeveloped land awaiting construction, the initiative promotes their protection, restoration, and enhancement as essential urban infrastructure that strengthens biodiversity, climate resilience, livelihoods and community well-being. This represents an important shift in Nepal's approach to urban planning, where public open spaces are increasingly being designed not only for recreation and social inclusion but also for ecological conservation and climate adaptation. Two examples illustrate how this approach is being put into practice.
Let us start with Kamal Pokhari in Tansen. Though modest in size, this urban wetland is alive with fish, amphibians, birds, insects, reptiles, aquatic and semi-aquatic plants. It naturally stores and regulates water, cools the surrounding environment, and serves as an important refuge and stepping-stone habitat for wildlife within an increasingly built-up urban landscape. Yet wetlands like Kamal Pokhari are too often viewed as vacant land waiting for development rather than as vital ecological assets. Through modern planning and nature based design the area is now transferred into a vibrant piece of living infrastructure that serves both people and nature.
Similarly, Hupra Chaur in Hetauda demonstrates how thoughtful urban design can transform open spaces into valuable living infrastructure. The park has been designed to moderate urban heat, improve air quality, store carbon, recharge groundwater, reduce stormwater runoff, and provide habitat for birds, pollinators, and other urban wildlife. Beyond its ecological benefits, it also serves as an emergency evacuation space, supports local livelihoods through a dedicated market area, and offers inclusive spaces
for recreation, environmental education, and community events- strengthening both climate resilience and quality of life.
Biodiversity surveys recorded higher observed species richness and diversity at Hupra Chaur than at Kamal Pokhari. Hupra Chaur had a Shannon Diversity Index of 2.49, compared with 1.83 for Kamal Pokhari. Likewise, the Berger–Parker Dominance Index was higher at Kamal Pokhari (0.36) than at Hupra Chaur (0.26). This suggests that the wetland community was more strongly dominated by a few abundant species. The balanced distribution of species observed at Hupra Chaur is likely attributable to human management practices, including the preferential planting and maintenance of selected species. However, Kamal Pokhari's wetland habitat supports far greater ecological complexity and performs functions that biodiversity indices alone cannot fully capture. Together, these two sites highlight an important lesson: Natural wetlands and well-managed urban green spaces each make unique and complementary contributions to conserving biodiversity, reducing climate risks, and building more resilient cities.
These examples remind us that biodiversity is not something that exists only in national parks or protected forests. It also belongs in our cities. Unfortunately, many urban landscaping projects still favour ornamental exotic plants chosen mainly for their appearance. While attractive, many provide little value for local wildlife, and some even become invasive, displacing native species. Planting indigenous trees, shrubs, and flowering plants would create habitats for birds, butterflies, and bees while requiring less maintenance because they are naturally adapted to local conditions.
This calls for a different way to look into the planning of our cities. Biodiversity should not be treated as an afterthought but as essential urban infrastructure. Municipalities should protect mature trees, restore wetlands instead of filling them, create green corridors along rivers and roads, increase permeable surfaces, and make ecological mapping a standard part of urban planning. Even relatively small design decisions can significantly improve the ecological value of urban spaces and substantially increase habitat quality and ecological connectivity. These include retaining deadwood where safe, planting native vegetation, creating nesting opportunities for birds and bats, nest boxes, providing water sources for wildlife, reducing unnecessary night lighting, creating wildlife passages, ecological corridors, amphibian tunnels beneath roads, pollinator-friendly planting, and nature-inclusive infrastructure into new developments and urban renewal projects. These measures recognise that even highly urbanised landscapes can support biodiversity when cities are intentionally designed to accommodate the needs of wildlife.
These are not environmental luxuries. They are practical investments in safer, healthier, and more resilient cities. Healthy ecosystems reduce flood risks, improve air quality, moderate urban temperatures, lower heat-related health costs, store carbon, support pollinators, enhance mental well-being, and make cities more attractive places to live and invest. We also need to rethink how we measure progress. Instead of celebrating only the kilometres of roads paved or buildings constructed, we should also ask: How many wetlands were protected? How many mature and native trees were conserved? How many hectares of connected habitat were restored? Are more birds, butterflies, and pollinators returning? Are our cities becoming cooler, healthier, and more resilient? These are equally meaningful indicators of sustainable urban development.
As Nepal continues to urbanize, we face a simple choice. We can continue replacing nature with concrete and pay the environmental price later. Or we can design cities where development and nature work together. The experience from municipalities across Nepal shows that this is not only possible - it is already happening. Parks, wetlands, river corridors, and community open spaces can become climate refuges, biodiversity havens, and healthier places for everyone. The debate is no longer about whether Nepal should invest in nature-based urban planning. It is about whether we are willing to leave future generations to bear the cost of our inaction.