Should we see nature as infrastructure?

Forests, rivers and mountains store and filter water, reduce flooding and erosion, buffer storms and heat, and support the food and energy systems our very lives depend on. So, should our environment be considered infrastructure? Charitable trust Aotearoa Circle presented its Natural Infrastructure Plan to Parliament last week, saying just that. 

Aotearoa Circle convenes public- and private-sector partners to tackle environmental issues. It says that wetlands, forests, dunes, waterways and soils should be treated as productive infrastructure.

Chief executive Vicki Watson says addressing the infrastructure deficit requires urgency and new thinking. “70% of our exports depend on natural resources. Severe weather events are increasing, and they create economic uncertainty. Our natural systems already buffer floods, protect coastlines and support productivity, but we rarely account for their value and invest appropriately.”

The Plan wants natural infrastructure and its economic risks legally recognised. It calls on the private sector to raise awareness of the benefits of natural infrastructure to showcase financial opportunities and potential innovation. 

“We can’t afford to rely solely on traditional ‘hard’ engineering solutions,” Watson says. “Natural infrastructure provides a 1+1=3 opportunity – it can reduce flood and erosion risk, improve biodiversity, all while strengthening long-term economic resilience. It is a valuable tool in the infrastructure toolkit.

“We often believe that growth is at the expense of the environment. This plan shows we can have both.”

Executive chair of engineering consultancy Beca, David Carter, says that we tend to take the hidden value of natural infrastructure for granted until extreme events occur. “At this point the inability of ‘hard’ infrastructure to provide the required resilience alone is evident for all to see.”

Aaron Hewson is Aotearoa Circle’s Rangatahi Advisory Panel member for the Agricultural and Marketing Research and Development Trust (AGMARDT). He says the Plan presents opportunities for leaders. If we can minimise harm from adverse events, like communities and farms being flooded, then just imagine what that would free us up to invest in instead. 

“The opportunities are immense if we genuinely look after nature and recognise the value and opportunity it presents for our infrastructure, our economy, and our futures.”

NHC resilience report echoes sentiment

New research shows buildings designed to higher resilience standards pay for themselves in 10–15 years by avoiding repairs, disruption and carbon-heavy rebuilds after quakes. Homeowners expect more than minimum standards, prompting clearer guidance from the Natural Hazards Commission to meet those needs.

The Natural Hazards Commission’s 2025 Resilience Highlights Report points to evidence-based investments in resilience as a way to cut long-term costs and speed recovery from disasters. 

In Auckland, scientists uncovered five times more small quakes and hidden faults, refining the city’s risk profile for smarter land-use as it grows. Extreme rainfall clusters unpredictably, while new landslide guidance and zoning models cut vulnerable development by up to 19%, proving proactive planning works.

“We invest more than $10 million a year in research and resilience to strengthen our country’s knowledge base and improve our individual and collective resilience to natural disasters,” says Dr Jo Horrocks, NHC’s Chief Resilience Officer.

“We’re pleased to share this report, which gives a snapshot of the diversity of resilience work underway — from uncovering new insights into earthquake and climate risk, to improving building performance and supporting smarter land-use decisions across New Zealand.”

The risks of nature as infrastructure

Framing nature as infrastructure offers benefits but also raises challenges around reliability, accountability and resource allocation.

Engineered systems like pipes and dams provide predictable performance backed by standards and warranties, whereas natural systems such as forests or wetlands may underperform during extreme events, pests or drought due to their biological variability.

Responsibility for maintenance often becomes unclear—who funds and manages a wetland or slope when responsibility spans farmers, councils and agencies—unlike the defined ownership of built assets.

With NZ facing a $100B+ infrastructure deficit, prioritising restoration could compete with urgent upgrades to existing grey assets, while legal recognition might introduce disputes over liability without assured outcomes.

This approach risks broadening the infrastructure definition, potentially confusing public expectations for consistent, accountable performance from taxpayer-funded essentials.