Landscape – Great Idea! X-LArch III - Department für Raum ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

66 Green Idea/Grey Reality Carl Smith Department of Landscape Architecture, 235 Memorial Hall, the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, 72701, USA. (e-mail cas002@uark.edu) Abstract Landscape is a great idea. Bio-diverse landscape is even an better one: a ‚green idea‘. This is particularly true within residential development, as the environmental qualities of housing is central to achieving a sustainable society. A sustainable residential landscape must, inter alia, protect and enhances a site’s biodiversity. This paper describes fifteen UK housing schemes that purport to be sustainable, and identifies to what degree biodiversity has informed the design and management of their landscapes. The assessment highlights a generally poor level of ecological consideration; bio-diverse residential landscape is a green idea, but one that was seldom put into practice, resulting in standardized built outcomes or ‚grey realities‘. Through undertaking interviews with stakeholders associated with a selection of the case-sites, key factors behind this apparent disregard for biodiversity were identified. These included belated employment of landscape and ecological professionals on projects and the prioritization of other development elements over vegetation. Perhaps more intriguingly, stakeholders perceived impediments to bio-diverse landscapes stemming from conflicts with two other facets of sustainable design: community/resident needs and the preservation of local identity. These perceptions were, however, founded on a lack of community input and a lack of appreciation for the versatility of bio-diverse landscapes. Key words soft-landscape is often based on simple compositions of mown turf, a few emergent trees, and low diversity shrub mass (Dunnett & Clayden 2007). These approaches are antithetical to the green idea of bio-diverse landscapes and represent, to use the Robert L. Thayer’s metonymic device, a grey reality. A seemingly obvious application of bio-diverse landscapes is in ‘sustainable housing’ (Baines 1998). Although there has been some studies of ‘sustainable’ UK housing schemes built though Urban Village and Millennium Community initiatives and Building Research Establishment (BRE) certification (Barton & Kleiner 2000; DETR 2000; Biddulph et al. 2003), they have failed to fully consider whether or not bio-diverse landscapes have been implemented by the developers, and the reasons why. This paper looks to begin to fill these gaps in knowledge. Material and methods Between October 2001 and August 2005, the author undertook a study of fifteen ‚sustainble‘ English housing schemes investigating, inter alia, biodiversity though landscape design. The sites were selected to provide variety in unit density, tenure and context (Fig.1). Each of the case-sites was assessed using a checklist based on the most recent BRE certification method, Eco- Homes (see Rao et al. 2000). This allowed their performance to be quantified and benchmarked. Site drawings were analysed and each site was visited, whereupon observations relating to ecological criteria were recorded. Although EcoHomes covers biodiversity, the new checklist used substitute critera better suited to the qualitative on-site assessments [see Fig. 2]. The developments were ranked on the EcoHomes scale of fail, pass, good, very good or excellent, with a score of good or above considered to benchmark a significant move towards biodiversity. Subsequent, semi-structured interviews with developers, designers and contractors identified the reasons behind the observations at sites 2, 3, 7, 9, Fig. 1: The fifteen housing case-sites sustainable housing, ecological design, greenspace. Introduction Biodiversity – the variety of living species – is a key global resource (Williams & Cary 2002). Although one might picture bio-diverse landscapes as untouched wilderness, they can be deliberately created through the works of landscape architecture (Dunnett 1995). Man can even create bio-diverse landscapes unintentionally; for example the habitat mosaics of urban wastelands (Gilbert 1989) and garden suburbs (Owen 1991). These landscapes may appear different, but they share common traits such as species diversity and variety in vegetative layers and ages. Unfortunately, standard developer-led
67 Fig. 2: The ecological checklist criteria 13 and 14. The number of sites covered in this phase was limited due to time constraints, and were selected to cover a range of densities, tenures, contexts and levels of landscape biodiversity. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and undertaken in line with best practice described by Burgess (1984). Results and discussion Only case-sites 3, 5 and 9 attained a good rating or above. Vegetation within the fifteen sites was generally poorly connected and had simplistic structure: small, ornamental shrubs and closely mown grass. Overall there was reluctance on the part of the developers to undertake new tree or significant shrub planting. In the few instances where more extensive vegetation was provided, it was at the periphery of the site, unconnected and isolated. Green roofs, artificial habitat features such as bird boxes and ecologically sensitive management were extremely rare (all restricted to inclusion on one site each). According to stakeholder interviews, the observed dearth of vegetation can be driven by a lack of space. This pertained to the low-rise, moderately compact development of site 13 and also the very loose fabric of site 14 (in fact, a correlation analysis of all 15 case-sites showed that tree cover was not negatively related to increased density). Given the current model of omitting significant front gardens and providing for multiple carownership, even low density development can appear to provide few planting opportunities for developers. The truth of course, is that vegetation can be accommodated in even tight developments if its location and requirements are considered early in the development process: this had not occurred where a lack of planting space was cited. Calls for housing developers to think earlier about vegetation are not new (see Aldous 1979) but persist (for example Higgins 2004), suggesting an entrenched attitude. Certainly most of the landscape architects and ecologists interviewed bemoaned the significance and timing of their input: too little, too late. The exceptions were those involved with sites 3 and 9, and it is notable that in these cases, better quality landscapes and higher levels of biodiversity were realized. An important early role for the landscape architect on site 3 was to consult the community on the planting proposals. The resulting orchards, layered borders, allotments and composting areas are thus underpinned by a sense of community ownership, but may not be everybody’s idea of a haven for nature. Research, however, would suggest that such habitat diversity, connectivity and planting structure, rather than abundance of natives, will encourage urban biodiversity (Hitchmough et al. 2004); hence the high ecological value of established suburbs noted in the introduction. The funding for site 3, through a Housing Action Trust, provided landscape management support, and was conditioned on the aforementioned community input. According to the public housing developers at sites 2 and 7, this is not usually the case. The Housing Corporation grants for these schemes were not for landscape management – that was to be covered through residents‘ service charges. With no requirement for community participation, the developers’ assumed that the residents would resent any planting, or more specifically the service charges, and vandalize the vegetation. Putting the maintenance issue aside, this and previous research suggests that a range of bio-diverse residential landscapes can be aesthetically acceptable to local communities if they are consulted, and the degree of anthropogenic intervention (such as mowing strips and exotic plant proliferation) is adjusted to suit their sensitivity to ‘wildness’. For example at site 3, the community welcomed relatively bio-diverse plantings but vetoed green roofs complaining that they didn‘t want to live in or near an ‚eco-experiment‘. Similarly, Jorgensen (2003) and Nassauer (1993) recorded positive resident reactions to, respectively, contextually sensitive woodland edge planting and meadows, but only within certain aesthetic limits of extent and management intensity. Such approaches compromise full potential biodiversity to public taste (Schulof 1989) but on the other hand, they provide relatively high species diversity and conservation value Gobster (1994) whilst helping with public acceptance – a vital component of successful sustainable landscape (Dunnett & Hitchmough 2004). Interestingly private developers at sites 13 and 14 provided mown grass and a few colorful, ornamental shrubs on the basis that, not only did they perceive a lack of space for anything else, but that it was also what house-buyers found attractive. In the light of the above findings, and the fact that new English house-buyers have actually been shown to prefer leafiness and trees (CABE 2005), their approach probably represents needless conservativism. Yet again the importance of community participation in facilitating sustainable landscape design (for example see Thompson & Sorvig 2000) is reiterated. However it may not have improved matters on some of the public sites investigated here, unless there was a concomitant removal of potential maintenance burdens on the tenants. This research also identified stakeholders‘ perceived conflict between biodiversity and protecting local identity (another element of sustainable design). The developer of site 13, responding to the posited benefits of green roofs, stated that they would look ‘out of place’. A similar Papers
Page 1 and 2:
University of Natural Resources and
Page 3 and 4:
Authors of the papers are fully res
Page 5:
3 Day 2 Thursday, April 30, 2009 Se
Page 8 and 9:
6 The “Landscape-Infrastructure
Page 10 and 11:
8 a) b) Fig. 2 : Study of the perme
Page 12 and 13:
10 Endnotes [1] Bernetti, Casini, M
Page 14 and 15:
12 Urban landscapes need great idea
Page 16 and 17:
14 the term “overall expression
Page 18 and 19: 16 Fig. 2: Initial overall pictures
Page 20 and 21: 18 Evaluation of Open Space Form an
Page 22 and 23: 20 Fig. 5: Other vegetation This st
Page 24 and 25: 22 Type of activity: • Exercise/p
Page 26 and 27: 24 Landscaped, Modern, or Social? T
Page 28 and 29: 26 Fig. 2: Rose and Perennial Show
Page 30 and 31: 28 Herbert Bayer’s Megastructures
Page 32 and 33: 30 a large extent the Japanese deve
Page 34 and 35: 32 A Fertile Wilderness: The CPR’
Page 36 and 37: 34 Fig.3 as their destination. The
Page 38 and 39: 36 The Method of Structuralist Land
Page 40 and 41: 38 Fig. 2: SLA implements gender eq
Page 42 and 43: 40 Landscape Evaluation Process. A
Page 44 and 45: 42 systematic application of certai
Page 46 and 47: 44 holders (as Piemonte Region, Riv
Page 48 and 49: 46 Frameworks - Preparing rural lan
Page 50 and 51: 48 The issues are organized into fa
Page 52 and 53: 50 Do Landscape Architects make the
Page 54 and 55: 52 within the larger landscape piec
Page 56 and 57: 54 Landscape as Urban Structure: th
Page 58 and 59: 56 city extension area but also in
Page 60 and 61: 58 housing neighborhoods. Construct
Page 62 and 63: 60 “massive change, required - ni
Page 64 and 65: 62 architecture’s ability to conc
Page 66 and 67: 64 cape Journal 6 (1): 4-12 Jackson
Page 70 and 71: 68 argument was put forward for omi
Page 72 and 73: 70 Green Streets Potential for Down
Page 74 and 75: 72 size of rain garden through the
Page 76 and 77: 74 Climate Change asks for Sustaina
Page 78 and 79: 76 Fig. 2: Simplified example (livi
Page 80 and 81: 78 Sustainability in Park Design -
Page 82 and 83: 80 Fig 2: Integrative Design Approa
Page 84 and 85: 82 Preserving community gardens in
Page 86 and 87: 84 the City applied the military so
Page 88 and 89: 86 Endnotes [1] Anyone interested i
Page 90 and 91: 88 Urban imageability & open space
Page 92 and 93: 90 ning up degraded wetlands, plant
Page 94 and 95: 92 How to balance the multiple role
Page 96 and 97: 94 to the site. The public domain i
Page 98 and 99: 96 public spaces in the HBA, and by
Page 100 and 101: 98 Questions of scale for sustainab
Page 102 and 103: 100 Fig. 4: Nested structure of an
Page 104 and 105: 102 Fig. 8: Fragmentary planning mo
Page 106 and 107: 104 Moving Land: International Buil
Page 108 and 109: 106 Fig. 3: Concept Desert/Oasis We
Page 110 and 111: 108 Exploring a New Mode of Sustain
Page 112 and 113: 110 Serveral private sectors initia
Page 114 and 115: 112 Structuring the Concept of Land
Page 116 and 117: 114 transformation; the regulative
Page 118 and 119:
116 Anti-planning, anti-design? Exp
Page 120 and 121:
118 ate them, provided they still r
Page 122 and 123:
120 Complexity Ethos + Strategies:
Page 124 and 125:
122 cher” from a twenty-five foot
Page 126 and 127:
124 Great Ideas in Landscapes Seen
Page 128 and 129:
126 Depending on motivation, these
Page 130 and 131:
128 The traditions of landscape sch
Page 132 and 133:
130 Landscape Insertions: Operation
Page 134 and 135:
132 Fig. 02: Llorca Stéphanie, AXY
Page 136 and 137:
134 and creative innovation that in
Page 138 and 139:
136 Significance of the post-mining
Page 140 and 141:
138 Designing the post-industrial c
Page 142 and 143:
140 Hidden landscapes - The Enclose
Page 144 and 145:
142 Fig. 3: Paley Park is an inters
Page 146 and 147:
144 House and Exterior in the archi
Page 148 and 149:
146 Fig. 4 architectonical work“
Page 150 and 151:
148 The socio-cultural role of peri
Page 152 and 153:
150 Ecological networks representat
Page 154 and 155:
152 Veneto integrated water landsca
Page 156 and 157:
154 Fig. 2: Ponte di Piave 2025 (A)
Page 158 and 159:
156 Observing the Landscape Roland
Page 160 and 161:
158 Fig. 2: signalman house and rai
Page 162 and 163:
160 Mobility and Territory Sanja Cv
Page 164 and 165:
162 Kevin Lynch’s Openness of the
Page 166 and 167:
164 Phytoremediation as an Experien
Page 168 and 169:
166 Fig. 2: Rhizotron: An undergrou
Page 170 and 171:
168
Page 172 and 173:
170
Page 174 and 175:
172
Page 176 and 177:
174
Page 178 and 179:
176
Page 180 and 181:
178
Page 184:
Many Thanks to our Supporters ILA -
show all

Landscape – Great Idea! X-LArch III - Department für Raum ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?