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

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