Urban Living for Humans and Their Non-Human Neighbours: A Conversation with Benjamin Ong

As cities continue to expand and modern skylines and technology redefine the concept of progress, questions surrounding sustainability, livability, and harmony with nature become increasingly urgent. To explore these ideas, we spoke with Benjamin Ong, an urban ecologist from Malaysia whose work focuses on the intersection of ecology, biodiversity, and human communities in urban spaces. Having spent over a decade working on community-based conservation and environmental education, his insights bridge the realms of science, society, and sustainability.

For this month’s issue, we asked Mr. Ong to share his valuable thoughts on urban standards of living, how we define them, and how we can rethink the relationship between cities and nature. Here are his valuable insights:

Era: Good morning, Benjamin, and welcome to the interview. I'd like to start by asking about what you do. Can you tell us a little about your work?

Figure: Benjamin Ong

Benjamin: Sure. Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts. So, I come from Malaysia, and I have spent the last decade and a half working on urban ecology and biodiversity issues. My interest developed from observing two trends: Malaysia’s rapid urbanization since its independence and challenges with biodiversity conservation as a megadiverse country. While much of the conservation work happens outside urban areas, I was interested to look at what happens within them how people and nature coexist in urban spaces. For several years, I worked at the Rimba Ilmu Botanic Garden in Kuala Lumpur, focusing on education, community engagement, and providing policy advice. My work focuses on reconnecting people with their local ecosystems, particularly in rapidly developing urban areas.

Era: According to you, how does urbanization influence our understanding of a good standard of living?

Benjamin: I think standard of living is inseparable from our expectations, from what we imagine a good life to be. You can explore that idea philosophically or simply through everyday experience. Comfort is a big part of it. I’m not sure how much comfort features in the formal metrics used to assess urban sustainability, but in daily life, it matters a lot.

Comfort can mean many things the cleanliness of drains and rivers, the absence of unpleasant smells, or a sense of safety when you’re out in the city at night. It can also be about walkability and the kind of neighbors you have. And when I say “neighbors,” I don’t just mean humans. I also think about our non-human neighbors: the plants, animals, and other beings we share our cities with.

So, improving the urban standard of living isn’t only about infrastructure or technology. It also means learning how to live with the diversity of neighbors that make up our cities.

Era: Yeah, so you mentioned earlier that we need to be mindful of our neighbors, including our non-human neighbors. That’s basically where the idea of ecological balance comes in. However, most of the time, urbanization is characterized by features such as high-rise buildings, rapid industrial growth, and rapid economic expansion. Do you think that mindset, or those kinds of indicators, is a bit problematic when defining what a good standard of living looks like? Should we instead use different types of indicators, such as those that consider the human-nature relationship?

Benjamin: Yes, I do think those indicators are problematic. In Malaysia, the word for “development” is pembangunan, and within that word is bangunan, which literally means “building.” I think, subconsciously, we associate development with the act of building tall structures.

Now that I’m based in Scotland, pursuing my PhD. It’s interesting to notice the difference. Here, in a high-income and developed country, there aren’t nearly as many high-rises as you’d find across Southeast or South Asia, from Japan all the way to Bangladesh or India. So there’s something about the development model that many of our countries have adopted, one that equates futuristic skylines with progress. But it doesn’t have to be that way, like we see in Scotland, where development is independent of high-rise structures. 

Another question is how we make our cities more porous, allowing space for other species to live alongside us. In the UK, cities tend to have parks, green spaces, and gardens, and they’re often quite walkable. In Malaysia, and perhaps in Bangladesh too, cities are becoming less and less walkable. It’s inconvenient even if you have a car, because of traffic, but it’s also unpleasant if you’re walking: the pavements aren’t great, and drivers rarely stop for pedestrians. And there’s little to no room for nature to thrive.

Era: That’s very true. In Bangladesh, it’s pretty similar. We can’t walk much, and we rely heavily on rickshaws, which contributes to traffic congestion. We use these vehicles in the name of comfort. So, my next question is, do you think this pursuit of comfort in urban life contradicts living in harmony with nature?

Benjamin: I think it’s the opposite. Greater harmony with nature actually brings more comfort. But we need to rethink what “comfort” means. In Malaysia, buildings are becoming increasingly closed and air-conditioned. That keeps out the heat but also keeps out sunlight, wind, and ventilation. With indoor entertainment, people live in bubbles. Yes, comfortable, but disconnected.

If you look at Malaysian architecture up until the mid-20th century, it was designed with nature in mind, with high ceilings, ventilation, and natural light. These passive cooling systems made buildings energy efficient and suited to the local climate. Such models still exist, and some architects continue to design with these principles today. These approaches require courage from architects, engineers, and clients because they’re not mainstream. But they can be can be cost-effective, sustainable, and even create space for plants and animals.

The fear of nature often stems from a lack of familiarity. Many people fear a wide range of things, from leaves falling on their cars to encountering frogs or spiders in their gardens. That’s why my work also focuses on environmental education, helping urban communities understand that we can coexist with bees, bats, and overall nature. Take snakes, for example. In Malaysia, people often clear tall grass around buildings to avoid snakes, but that actually pushes snakes closer to their other habitat option, the residential buildings, because their natural habitat is destroyed. By maintaining grassy areas at a safe distance, we preserve their habitat and reduce the likelihood of encounters. It’s about understanding rather than eliminating nature.

Era: That’s fascinating. We’ve discussed what sustainable urbanization should look like. What do you think are the biggest challenges in achieving it?

Benjamin: One challenge is whether urban societies are ready to face discomfort, to live more closely with nature. Some people are open to it, but many prefer to stay in their comfort zones. Actual change happens through everyday experiences, not just policies or design. Another challenge is that global models of urban development, often from high-income nations, dominate the conversation. Ideas circulate quickly through global conferences and forums, and governments rush to adopt them. Meanwhile, local and experimental alternatives, like sustainable architecture rooted in local culture, remain on the fringes. We need to slow down, reflect, and ask whether there are local solutions better suited to our contexts.

Era: Yes, sometimes we focus too much on doing rather than planning thoughtfully. I’ll just ask one last question: according to you, what’s one thing that must be addressed immediately to ensure a good standard of living for both humans and non-humans in cities?

Benjamin: I think we need to start by asking: who are the invisible or overlooked neighbors in our cities? Recognizing them, whether they’re people, plants, or animals, is the first step toward inclusion. Once we make them recognized and visible, we can begin to ask how to make the city better for everyone living here. It’s a sensitive issue because acknowledging neglect or exclusion can be politically unpopular. But it’s necessary. We can’t talk about better standards of living without addressing this.

Era: I agree that awareness lays the groundwork for understanding what urban life should really look like. So, any final thoughts before we end the interview?

Benjamin: My background is in biology, and I often think of the tropical forest as a metaphor for the city: a dense, diverse ecosystem where many species coexist. If nature can achieve that balance, surely we can too, building cities that embrace diversity, both human and more-than-human.

About Benjamin Ong:

A Malaysian urban ecologist whose work focuses on biodiversity, environmental education, and community engagement. He is currently pursuing his PhD at the University of St Andrews, UK, where he explores the intersections between ecology, culture, and urban life. His research reimagines how tropical cities can coexist more harmoniously with nature, advocating for inclusive and ecologically regenerative approaches to urban development. He has been recognized with the Marsh Award for Education in Botanic Gardens and the James Martin Prize for his contributions to environmental learning and sustainable practice.