Why chopping down our last remaining forests will not lower my rent.
The search for a place to call home is becoming increasingly difficult for millions of residents of Europe. At the same time, our nature is rapidly declining. Nearly all of Europe’s species and habitats are facing an uncertain future unless urgent and more ambitious action is taken. While conservation effort over the last decades have brought some signs of recovery in specific areas, much left is to be done if Europe is to meet its own biodiversity strategy.
At first glance, housing and nature seem to be competing for the same shrinking resource: space. But is it really a zero-sum game? We need both, and we have the solutions that work for both. A healthy society depends just as much on secure, affordable homes as it does on thriving ecosystems.
Nature as a scapegoat for a broken housing system
It’s seductively simple to frame the housing crisis as a mere problem of supply and demand: too few homes, solution – build more. By implying that indiscriminately building new is the main way to solve this critical issue, we fall into the trap of removing any possible competition to the lands e.g., nature protection – implied here by a position by European People’s Party. But this framing misrepresents the real issues at play. It pits housing against nature, ignoring the deeper structural dysfunction in the housing market – and offering false hope that bulldozing green space will magically produce equitable cities.
Between 2011 and 2022, the number of dwellings per capita in the EU has actually increased, keeping up with population growth. Yet, in the same decade, the average cost of buying a home has hiked up by 50%, showing that affordability is not just a supply issue.
The real crisis lies in how housing is treated – as an asset class rather than a social good. Generations of policies have encouraged speculative ownership, short-term vacation rentals, and corporate landlordship, especially in cities like Berlin or Madrid where data show the outsized influence of financial actors. Homes are increasingly hoarded as investments or rented back at unaffordable rates.
Instead of sacrificing the last remnants of nature and wasting decades of conservation efforts, policymakers should address the structural forces that commodify housing: restrict short-term rentals, tax vacant properties, regulate rent more effectively, and fund public housing. The goal should not simply be to build more housing – but to make sure the current stock of housing is affordable, available, and equitable.
No nature, no cities
While nature is not causing Europe’s housing crisis, our relentless “build-build-build” culture is a major driver of biodiversity loss. The expansion of urban sprawl into natural landscapes fragments ecosystems, pollutes air and water, leads to soil sealing, and accelerates deforestation – all without significantly easing housing affordability. The reality? Destroying biodiversity won’t solve the housing crisis. But losing biodiversity will make cities unlivable.
Urban biodiversity isn’t a luxury – it’s a necessity. Biodiversity in cities boosts disaster resilience and are our best defense against the impacts of climate change like flood. Green areas like wetlands and urban forests – many protected under the Natura 2000 network – naturally filter water, sequester carbon, and cool city streets by up to 2°C. They improve air quality, support pollinators, and are essential for mental wellbeing – particularly for low-income communities with the least access to nature.
EU- and national-, and city-level biodiversity strategies must be bolder and stronger with its enforcement. Some examples are the Nature Restoration Law, which sets targets for the restoration of urban ecosystems, and the Soil Strategy includes a land take hierarchy and a push for more land recycling in urban development projects, which was only at 13.5% between 2006-2012. As of now, the EU is far from meeting its own biodiversity targets, and urban areas provide ample ground for rewilding our direct environments. All residents deserve fair access to healthy nature, shaded streets, and native planting. Because the choice isn’t housing or habitat – it’s whether we build cities where both people and nature can thrive.
Twin crises, one shared solution
Europe’s housing market isn’t short of walls and roofs – it’s short of fair access. Even as 17 % of EU residents cram into overcrowded flats, a staggering 38 million homes sat vacant in 2011 and more than a third of dwellings were under-occupied by 2021. Meanwhile, millions of Europeans hand 40 % of their disposable income just to keep a roof over their head.
Enter “sufficiency.” Championed by the IPCC and echoed by UNEP and the European Environment Agency, the idea is simple: curb resource demand while safeguarding well-being. In housing, that means right-sizing rather than over-building – think adaptive reuse of empty offices, building only on degraded land instead of pristine one, deconstruction over demolition, smarter material choices, and prioritising multi-family or co-living models that ensure all demands are met without exhausting financial and material means.
Want the nuts and bolts? Read our introduction to sufficiency to know more about policy levers, from vacancy taxes to renovation grants that reward space-efficient retrofits. Because solving Europe’s twin crises of housing and habitat starts with using what we already have better.
One home
The “nature vs. housing” debate is not a binary choice but rather a challenge to find innovative and sustainable solutions that can address both the needs of people and the environment. Whether it’s housing or habitat, we share one home as inhabitants of this planet. By prioritising strategic planning, sustainable design, and community engagement, it is possible to create housing developments that are both environmentally responsible and socially equitable.
