Conclusion

If the strategy of advocating for Urban Wilds preservation is based in intentional linking of Urban Wilds to policy problems faced at the neighborhood and city level, a series of opportunities and constraints will be created. On balance, the greater number of constraints than opportunities point to the problems in relying on this strategy alone for future Urban Wilds advocacy.

Opportunities

Both the Urban Wilds Initiative and non-profits such as the Boston Natural Areas Network are faced with limitations on the staff time and budget available for Urban Wilds advocacy. Focusing attention on areas where a problem has been identified by another group that can be solved through Urban Wilds preservation is an efficient use of the limited resources available for Urban Wilds advocacy.

Typically, advocacy involves a great deal of energy expended while generating general interest in a given issue. By capitalizing on the interest in solving a specific problem faced by a community, the strategy of coupling Urban Wilds as solution with policy problems avoids the need to funnel ongoing energy into generating broad based support for the Urban Wilds.

Constraints

Without traditional, continuous advocacy to create ongoing support for the Urban Wilds, the understanding of what roles the Urban Wilds could play in Boston will decrease over time. Currently, the limited budget of the Urban Wilds Initiative within the Parks Department demonstrates one form this lack of understanding can take. These spaces are presently understood to have less value for recreation than traditional parks and playgrounds and are funded accordingly.

The pairing of the Condor Street Urban Wild and a fairly traditional park demonstrates the expansive definition of what an Urban Wild is. Using this broad definition to guide the coupling of Urban Wilds and community needs for open space may create an opportunity for future transformations of what is now wild into more traditional park space. If this strategy were to be pursued, an update and clarification of the definition of Urban Wilds is necessary to assure that future advocacy in singular Urban Wild correlates to a broader vision and does not dilute the strength of ongoing advocacy.

If the match between an organization or community and the Urban Wilds is less than perfect, the result of coupling Urban Wilds preservation and a community problem may not result in the ideal outcome from the perspective of the Urban Wilds. The St. Sebastian Urban Wild is a prime example of this possible outcome, in which the community succeeded in blocking an unwanted development, yet the Urban Wild was still lost.

If waiting for instances in which Urban Wilds can be paired with policy problems is the only strategy for increasing Urban Wilds preservation, a great deal of damage could be done to individual Urban Wilds or to the Urban Wilds Initiative in the interim. In situations where the main reason for advocacy is the inherent value of an Urban Wild as a part of a unique network of public spaces, rather than a match between the given Urban Wild and a separate problem, a more proactive strategy will be necessary to provide assurance that individual Urban Wilds are not lost to development.