CONFLICTING NATURES
Alexander João Pereira Witte
Where different imaginaries on nature collide, conflicts and struggles for authority emerge. Here, nature becomes more than something neutral, more than something purely natural.
This project is grounded in the assumption that nature is inherently social. Rather than existing as a fixed and objective truth, nature is shaped by interests, policies, and power relations. Drawing on the concept of Social Nature, Conflicting Natures explores how particular ideas of nature define what gets recognised, valued and realised as ‘nature’ in the city.
Conflicting Natures refers to encounters between such different understandings of nature as socially produced forms that emerge from different narratives, priorities, and influences. When these understandings meet, they can lead to tensions in the planning and design process, for example when having to decide between the ideals of planned nature and spontaneous habitats, or between ecological ambitions and recreational use.
This can be observed in Shtromka, where the Putukaväil was created. Using it as a case study, Putukaväil will serve as an example as to how these social productions and the concept of Social Nature work in the field.
From a Utility Corridor...
The area that is now becoming the Putukaväil has previously been used as a shared utility corridor for a railway and overhead transmission line. The former railway connection from the (eventually set to close) Kopli goods station to a quarry and rail lines to the south has been closed in 1990. Since then, nature “has taken over” in the area, that was mostly left on its own from human use [1]. In this time different forms of nature have settled and created self-sustaining habitats, especially for a set of pollinator-species that have been studied explicitly [2]. Also, by 2021 all overhead power lines in the area were replaced with new underground lines, thus clearing the previous utility corridor of any surface infrastructure uses [3].
... to an Urban Park
In 2021, the city of Tallinn has been awarded the ‘European Green Capital Award’ by the European Commission for 2023 [4] for its political commitment to its “green transition”. In this context, the Putukaväil has been named as one of the cities ‘large-scale’ “flagship projects” [5] with design and planning work beginning subsequently. Now, the Putukaväil corridor – translated as Pollinator Highway – is set to be a linear park stretching for 14 kilometres from Telliskivi to the southern suburbs beyond Mustamäe and is divided into nine sections. With funding secured in 2023, the first two sections of Paavli and Pelguranna have just been realised in 2025 in the form of an urban park.
The following shows a before and after of the first opened sections of Putukaväil, also showing
the extend of paved surfaces in the park.
The Pollinator Narrative
When moving through the finished sections, it becomes very apparent that this is a park primarily for human use. Many and large paved surfaces, play and rest areas are divided by patches with different types of greenery. A strong focus in the design language is placed on pollinators, particularly in the form of their most recognisable representative: bees. They are featured throughout the park in pavement patterns, signage, murals, and other elements, visually reiterating the project’s framing as a pollinator highway.
References to pollinators in design elements found in Putukaväil, usually using a stylised bee as
the most commonly known pollinating insect.
bee-graffiti on a mural
(alexander joão pereira witte, 2025)
insect hotels/ bee nesting blocks
(alexander joão pereira witte, 2025)
bee-inspired play elements/ spring riders
(alexander joão pereira witte, 2025)
honeycomb-inspired paving stones, in bee-stripe colours
(alexander joão pereira witte, 2025)
floral blossom-inspired play elements/ spring-mounted platfrom and bee stripe-inspired rubber surfacing
(alexander joão pereira witte, 2025)
bee symbol on the ground
(alexander joão pereira witte, 2025)
map of the park Putukaväil using the bee symbol
(alexander joão pereira witte, 2025)
wayfinding signs using the stylised bee
(alexander joão pereira witte, 2025)
information sign using the stylised bee symbol (alexander
joão pereira witte, 2025)
Previous Understandings of Nature
Technocratic and Ecocentric
What materialises or even gets highlighted in projects like these is never random. The decisions about what becomes visible reflect the understandings and narratives of nature that have shaped this park by guiding the planning and design process.
For a long time, nature has predominantly been understood through technocratic or ecocentric perspectives. Both have also shaped the narrative of the Putukaväil.
In what is described as the technocratic approach to understanding nature, actors seek to address the ‘big questions’ of an era, while only rarely addressing fundamental socioeconomic processes. These concern primarily problems and possibilities resulting from the human alteration of natural resources, environments, and organisms [6, p. 2], mostly by managing ecological functions. In the case of the Putukaväil, this becomes visible in the emphasis on measurable benefits for humans, such as improved air quality or health benefits for nearby residents.
By contrast, the ecocentric approach asks for a fundamental respect for, and stresses the need for humanity to get back to, nature. This ‘nature-first approach’ essentially understands nature to be something pure and authentic, worth to be preserved and protected [6, p. 3]. This framing of nature plays a key role in Putukaväil, as the preservation of urban nature through biodiversity is repeatedly stated as a central goal. The idea of ‘getting back to nature’ is also reflected in claims that city and nature should not be understood as opposites.
While both approaches have differences in important aspects, both rely on a similar idea. This idea is the belief in a nature of nature, where key assumptions or conceptions are taken for granted. Within these, Noel Castree identified three chief definitions of nature, which include External Nature, Intrinsic Nature, and Universal Nature. What they all have in common is the assumption of nature as fixed and objective. By leaving out the social dimension of how nature is produced, nature can be used as a ‘neutral’ foundation for value judgements. Facts then appear to speak for themselves, even though they are always voiced through individual interests and biases [6, p. 4-7].
This is also an essential argument for the relevance of nature in questions relating to power and decision-making. As an objective good, nature can be used to legitimise priorities, mask (e.g. private) interests behind higher motives, and reinforce existing forms of authority. All this, through grounding values in the supposed non-social objectivity of nature [7].
The Concept of Social Nature
With these limitations in mind, Social Nature provides a different approach – one that doesn’t treat nature as neutral.
And with this, the key takeaway for Social Nature is relatively simple: what we understand as ‘nature’ is always socially constructed.
But first things first: Social Nature doesn’t deny the material reality of nature. Rather, it argues that materiality alone does not provide us with the full picture. Nature cannot be defined independently of the social, cultural, and political contexts in which it is understood and acted upon.
With this perspective, the question “what is nature?” is one that isn’t answered objectively or entirely through science. It is instead answered in a social and political sphere, where power relations, interests and values shape how nature is defined and made meaningful. The questions then asked about nature are “Which meanings of nature become accepted?”, “Who gets to define them?”, and “Whose interests do these definitions serve?” [6, p. 10-19].
When applied to Putukaväil, the narrative can be read as constructing a necessity for intervention. The plants and habitats for pollinators were significantly reshaped in the creation of the park and are presented as an improved state. Put somewhat pointedly, the spontaneous insect habitats that developed when the corridor was unused are implicitly positioned as accidental, unmanaged, and ‘not quite right’. The newly designed park, by contrast, is framed as intentional, improved, and a functionally appropriate form of nature for this area and its pollinators.
This produces a dualism between unwanted and curated nature, which, importantly, is not ecological. Both are produced forms of nature but shaped by different histories and conditions. The distinction itself is a constructed one – through the narrative of the ‘pollinator highway’, subsequent planning choices and expectations about what urban nature should be.
The perspective of the Putukaväil as an improved form of nature now can be reconsidered. It is not an ecological inevitability, but the outcome of particular narratives, priorities, and decisions. With this, we can now understand how this narrative and dualism become powerful.
Applying Social Nature to Putukaväil
One way this dualism gains power is through what Castree calls the politics of nature [6, p. 18].
The pollinator narrative gives the new park a moral purpose: it claims to protect and improve urban biodiversity. When framed as the ‘pollinator highway’, the design is not just a spatial intervention, creating a park for human use, but an ethical one – it appears to serve nature itself.
This makes the planned landscape seem inherently desirable and the unplanned habitats inherently insufficient. Facts appear to speak for themselves: pollinators need help, the city provides a solution. But in practice, this narrative simplifies a more complex reality. Studies found substantial pollinator diversity in the earlier habitats and recommended reducing human activity. Some of the recommendations were followed, for example certain plant communities were planted and mowing is reduced as well as modified to reduce the disturbance to insects. Yet, overall, the new park actually intensifies human activity, especially by creating new and more paths, play and activity areas as well as implementing lighting at night.
Here, the narrative turns this intervention into an unquestioned good. One form of nature gets legitimised and prioritised, while another becomes less visible.
A second way this narrative becomes powerful is through the social production and economic exploitation of nature.
Projects like the Putukaväil do not only shape ecological meaning – they also shape economic value. A ‘green corridor’ aligns with Tallinn’s broader branding as a sustainable and innovative city and supports surrounding real-estate development [8]. As an example: the nearby real estate development, by investor and developer hepsor, Manufaktuuri Kvartal promotes its location in part through the proximity to the developing ‘green corridor’ Putukaväil, which also connects to other marketable destinations [9].
This shows how the curated version of nature gains not only ecological meaning but also economic value. It fits the broader development of the city and becomes part of how the area is marketed.
Conclusion
Finally, it should be noted that the purpose of the Social Nature concept is not a tool to judge projects or make planning decisions. Using this lens, the Putukaväil can neither be considered a success nor a failure. Rather, it becomes a case that reveals how ideas of nature can be mobilised to recreate urban nature.
The concept of Social Nature does not aim to replace ecological knowledge or planning expertise. Instead, it can provide a critical perspective to help understand the narratives, interests, and power relations at play when interacting with nature.
In practice, the concept can also serve as a tool for self-reflection and reassessment during planning and design. It helps actors to question which assumptions guide their decisions, whose interests are being served, and whether these are aligned with the values and outcomes they seek to promote.
Maybe by acknowledging this complexity, we can engage with projects like Putukaväil more critically, more honestly, and more responsibly.
References
[1] Tallin European Green Capital 2023 (2022): The longest section of the Putukaväil takes into account the safety of different mobility options and leads people into nature (online)
https://greentallinn.eu/en/putukavaila-pikim-loik-arvestab-eri-liiklejate-ohutusega-ja-juhatab-inimese-loodusesse/ [accessed December 2025]
[2] Sõber, V., Soon, V., Tiitsaar, A. and Mesipuu, M. (2019): Tolmeldajate Lääne-Tallinna rohekoridori funktsionaalsuse analüüs. Tartu
& Sõber, V., Soon, V., Tiitsaar, A. und Mesipuu, M. (2019): Kopli Kaubajaama-Pelguranna (Putukaväila) Tolmeldajate Uuring. Tartu
[3] elering (2019): Elering will continue replacing overhead transmission lines with underground cable lines in the Õismäe and Astangu districts in Tallinn (online)
https://elering.ee/en/article/elering-will-continue-replacing-overhead-transmission-lines-underground-cable-lines-oismae [accessed December 2025]
[4] European Commission (n. d.): Tallinn European Green Capital 2023 (online)
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/urban-environment/european-green-capital-award/winning-cities/tallinn-2023_en [accessed December 2025]
[5] Tallin European Green Capital 2023 (n. d.): The Pollinator Highway. City’s biodiverse green corridor (online)
https://greentallinn.eu/en/flag-projects/the-pollinator-highway/ [accessed December 2025]
[6] Castree, N. (2001): Socializing Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics. In: Castree, N. and Braun, B. (2001): Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics. Malden, Mass. and Oxford: Blackwell
[7] Katz, C. (1998): Whose Nature, Whose Culture?. In: Braun, B. and Castree, N. (1998): Remaking Reality: Nature at the millenium. London and New York: Routledge
[8] Kurik, K. (2022): Rethinking Preservation (online)
https://ajakirimaja.ee/en/rethinking-preservation/ [accessed December 2025]
[9] hepsor (n. d.): Manfaktuuri Kvartal Location (online)
https://hepsor.ee/manufaktuur/en/location/ [accessed December 2025]