The copy-edited version of this article was published in the journal Science and Technology Studies in April 2014. This version is the last version of the published article that was sent to the journal before the proof-reading process and it only contains some spelling mistakes and the title was changed by the editors to follow the journal guidelines. Of course for direct quotes, please refer to the peer-reviewed published article. If you cannot access the journal article, please send me an email at henrik.ernstson@uct.ac.za or ernstson@kth.se . Please cite this article as follows: Ernstson, Henrik (2014). Book Review. Greening Berlin: The Co-Production of Science, Politics, and Urban Nature. Science and Technology Studies, 27(1), 113–116. Ecology and place: Lachmund’s “Greening Berlin” (2013) is a much-needed account on the value (and hubris) of ecologists By Henrik Ernstson Stanford University and KTH Royal Institute of Technology Greening Berlin: The Co-Production of Science, Politics and Urban Nature (MIT Press, Cambridge and London, 320 pages), written by historian and German science-technology researcher Jens Lachmund is a well-researched book that traces how ecologists in post-war Berlin translate ecological field work into a political tool for urban planning. As such the Berlin school of urban ecology, lead by Herbert Sukopp, one of book’s two main characters—the other being Berlin itself —came to influence the organization of urban ecological science. From c.1960-1990, we get to follow how a small research group tries to put into action their grand vision of “urban renewal under the guidance of ecology” (p. 231) by including new type of field sites (wastelands and “bombed lots”), develop the “biotope category”, and create maps to mobilize planners, political parties, and activists. Lachmund stays away from simplifying the story, but sensitizes readers to the continuous negotiations and internal tensions of this emergent “biotope protection regime”. Based on sound archival records and complementary interviews, this book is of great interest to human geographers, political ecologists, science-technology students, environmental historians, and ecologists—but also, albeit more cursory perhaps, to historians of Europe and Berlin and its reunification. The main aim of the book is “to shed light on the changing place of nature in the modern city” and “to understand the political use of science [in] environmental conflict” (p. 3). This links to debates on science and value statements (Latour 2005; Ernstson and Sörlin 2013), but also how the modern city has figured as a scene to rework and understand urban nature (Gandy 2005, 2014; Kaika 2005; Heynen et al. 2006; Karvonen 2011). Another aim revolves around the role of place in ecology (here Berlin), or in field sciences more generally (Evans 2011; Vetter 2011). He delivers on all three through effectively demonstrating how an historical narrative can be interspersed with theoretical analysis, following in the tradition of science and technology studies. The book contains six empirical chapters, plus an introduction and conclusion. The first empirical chapter describes four previous “regimes” of urban nature protection since the 1900s, while the second chapter introduces Herbert Sukopp through his 1973 article that recognizes the city as an object of ecological research. While breaking with ecologies wilderness tradition, this was also part of a wider effort among ecologists in industrialized countries to “link their expertise to the