Perhaps it was writing my previous post that gave the final push and incentive: I've finally read the book I had asked for last Christmas. Ecosystem Services Come To Town is not a brand-new title, it was published in 2012. I would never have stumbled across it, not least because of the strange title. Unless you are working in climate research, landscaping, urban planning and a few other such fields, I doubt you'd know what Ecosystem Services means. Or is this just me? Anyway. Last autumn I went to a brief seminar about the urban landscape of the future, which I found incredibly inspiring. One of the experts talking was Gary Grant. He is the author of this book about "Greening cities by working with nature", its subtitle.

Starting point and basic motivation for the book is the fact that already more than half of the world's population lives in cities: "We therefore need to consider how we can make life in those cities as efficient, comfortable and fulfilling as we can without continuing to rely on the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources. It will not be straightforward and there will probably be no single solution, but the future will surely involve city greening. This book is intended to describe some of those difficulties and various ways that city greening can occur - not only for adornment and liveability, but also to make cities function in harmony with natural processes."

"Greening", in this context then, is much more than creating a few parks and adding some trees along the road or a few planters to a piazza. It is a far wider, more holistic approach. As Grant writes: "People are beginning to look differently at the way our towns and cities are designed, built and operated. This new approach goes beyond the necessary reduction in energy and water use and the mitigation of impacts on the wider environment. How mean-spirited it is to limit our ambitions to reducing negative environmental impacts!" In order to achieve this, he says later, "there must be a fundamental shift in the way we design and manage the built environment."

                          We are totally reliant on nature - even city dwellers

What is behind that - gradual and encouraged - shift? A growing body of evidence, of course. It's not just the moral but somewhat fluffy sense that nature should have a place, too, or that people prefer to live in nice, pretty environments. There are "proper, substantial reasons" even those only concerned with figures, economic data and the like will get. For their sake, perhaps, the horrible and abstract term "ecosystem services" has been coined. As Grant explains it: "There [now] is an acknowledgement that our society, our civilisation and our cities are reliant on the goods and services supplied free of charge by the natural world - so-called ecosystem-services." (And no, the term wasn't Grant's invention.)

These ecosystem-services, according to the book, can be classed in four groups: provisioning, cultural, regulating and supporting Ecosystem services. The most obvious perhaps, Provisioning, comprise fresh water, food, wood & fibre and fuel. Cultural services nature provides to us are those of an aesthetic, educational, recreational and spiritual kind. Among the regulating services are water purification (either through aquatic plants or geological layers), flood regulation (think river flood plains, the sponge effect vegetation has etc.), climate regulation and disease regulation.  Finally, primary production (including oxygen, I'd guess), soil formation and the nutrient cycle are grouped as supporting eco-system services.

Incidentally, the thought process behind this is mentioned in another - very different - book I've just read (and one I can highly recommend!): "A Brush with Nature - Reflections on the Natural World" is a collection of columns British nature writer Richard Mabey has written for BBC Wildlife magazine since 1984. One column from 2006, called "Nature: The New Prozac?", looks at the re-discovery of the health benefits of nature:

"There's been much discussion recently about encounters with nature being good for your health - physical and psychological. [...] But it's not new, really. The idea that you can be mended by the healing currents of the green outdoors, by engaging with rhythms and ways of life different from your own, goes back to classical times. [...] Now [though] there are statistics to back up this ancient common sense. [...] This is all exciting stuff, both for people and the natural world. It could lead to savings in health budgets and, reciprocally, to quantifiable economic value being put on natural habitats."

Today, open-source software such as i-Tree can calculate or quantify the economic value of even individual urban trees! (For those interested, click this for more about the i-Tree tools and projects, not just from London.) Mabey predicted the development, I guess. For although the i-Tree tools were first released in August 2006, initially this happened in and for the US. Only later were they adapted by interested practitioners, scientists and non-profit organisations around the world to their local conditions and requirements. I doubt Richard Mabey was aware of them when writing his column.

If all this sounds too abstract, lets look at more concrete examples: Cities usually are by some degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside. All the concrete and stone creates so-called heat islands, as is the relative lack of shade and lack of cooling from evaporation.  The sun's radiation is stored as heat in the materials our conventional buildings and streets are made of and emitted again at night, preventing the area from cooling down as much as non-built up tracts. That's the reasons why even when there's snow outside of London, even when it snows in London, it hardly ever settles on the ground. And it also is why everyone tries to flee cities in a really hot summer...

By introducing more plants - via street trees or as more parks, green roofs, green walls  - you reduce this "heating up". Air quality will improve. Plants can even reduce the level of noise city dwellers are constantly subjected to. And soil and plants will also mop up excessive rainwater - helping prevent flash floods. All "proper quantifiable benefits": people in offices that don't overheat so much are less likely to be "off sick" and probably more efficient at that. Insurance costs for flood damages - think overflowing drains after a downpour, for instance, or flooded  subways - are down, costs for air conditioning needed, too. For the number crunchers, you do not even have to point to the cultural services...

Unmistakably a reference book, Ecosystem Services Come To Town is strongly structured: ten main chapters are each divided into many subchapters - or perhaps "headlines for paragraphs", as you often find two of these "subchapters" to a page. In the introduction he sets out store: starting from a modern disconnect between nature and many city dwellers, the spike in urban populations and the human population in general he moves on to the limits to growth, global threats and why a good stewardship of nature (and ecosystem services with it) is vital. Greening cities, Grant says, is an essential and increasingly inevitable part of this.

The main body is divided into the following chapters: Origins of Cities (going right back to the emergence of humans), Modern Cities, Issues facing contemporary cities, Working with nature, Urban nature, Water and Cities, City-wide Greening (concerned with regional efforts like water catchment management or regional networks of linked spaces where wildlife and plants can thrive, such as green belts) and finally Greening Neighbourhoods and Buildings: green roofs and rooftop gardens, green walls or vertical gardens, so-called pocket parks etc..

In addition to the usual index plus "notes and references", there are two extensive appendices to the book. One presents over a dozen innovative projects which have won awards at the Integrated Habitats Design Competition. The latter is a contest instigated in 2009 by the author and two other experts. The second appendix is a well-structured list of resources, briefly explaining and providing the web link to a great number of institutions, concepts and documents encountered in the book.

So - what is the way forward then? What should the cities of the future look like? And, just as important, how can we actually get there (and I'm not thinking of means of transport, although these of course are part of the vision)? Grant feels sure that:

"Towns and cities do not need to be barren, hot and dry, they can be green and pleasant, with created habitats providing ecosystem services on and around buildings where people live and work. This means that landscapes on or around buildings and infrastructure can be more than an optional ornamental extra but a multi-functional layer of soil and vegetation  that controls surface water, provides food and wildlife habitats and keeps us cool, fit and sane.  To make this transformation from grey to green will require panoramic, trans-disciplinary thinking and coordinated action. We will need to move away from our over-specialisation and the widespread and common feeling that dealing with the conservation of nature is either irrelevant or in some cases, nice, but 'someone else's department'."

He finishes his book with the following conviction: "There will be a new direction for architecture that will stimulate further innovation. This will be accelerated by new ways of collaborating and thinking, but we do not need to wait for such changes in order to begin the green transformation of our cities". A heartening call to arms or, to remain civilian, to action!

              A great book to start you on the subject of greening cities for the future

My own conclusion? While Ecosystem Services Come To Town is a reference book, it is easy to read and - in my opinion - contains very little professional jargon, making it easy to understand for people with an interest but not much in the way of knowledge on the subject. Since so often talk of the future is framed in scenarios of gloom and doom - climate change, pollution, scarcity of resources, dwindling number of species - I especially like the author's positive attitude: "The intention is to be brief, informative, inspirational and practical. And optimistic - there is no benefit in being anything else." It is, in short, a very good introduction to a topic which will become ever more important and (hopefully) mainstream rather than a niche issue. And it is detailed enough to cater for a far wider audience than the interested layperson!

Oh, and since I've used the term in the headline but not in the post itself, I probably ought to explain "Green infrastructure".  I can't do it better than Wikipedia though, so in case you are still unsure I'll simply refer you to there.

The advert immediately grabbed my attention: a little girl playing with a pile of autumn leaves and the question "Does this matter?" - YES, I thought. I very very much believe it does! So on I read. And then went online to book a place at the first European Landscape Conference (ELC). It was held last weekend in the grounds of the Royal Agricultural University at Cirencester in the Cotswolds.

Initiator and conference director Jennifer Gayler, herself a garden designer by trade, cited a lecture as the spark that set the ball rolling: "A few years ago I went to a Society of Garden Designers event which focussed on What are gardens for?. After a talk by Dan Pearson that was all about beautiful perennials, fluffy grasses etc., Wendy Tidman stood up and asked the audience a number of questions: Did we know that a recent survey of British 7 - 11 year olds found being outside was the children's least favourite activity? Did we know that 5% of all British five year-olds were already obese? Did we know... and on she went. By the end of her talk pretty much everyone in the audience was left shocked and stunned." 

In the Welcome message for last weekend's event she explains her response: "This Conference has been launched because of a growing awareness of the impact of urbanisation, and its threat to mankind's traditional relationship with the natural world. Many talk about the issue, but we concluded that a suitable forum did not exist for those views to be brought together. We decided to bring together leaders to debate the issue, and to pave a way to perhaps legislate for landscape in the future."

Jennifer cited UN data whereby more than half the world's population already lives in an urban environment, this proportion being much higher in many developed countries. In the UK, for instance, the proportion of urbanites is 80% and the UN predicts in 2050 it will be 80% of all mankind globally. Rather than lament the fact, we should look into what can be done to include nature in the urban environment: the bits between buildings are key here. This is where landscape architects and garden designers come in. But it should not be just them: for it to really work and make a noticeable change for the better, there needs to be a broad alliance with policy makers, local authorities, developers, health care professionals, ... as well as the respective communities. "All stakeholders", then, in business-speak.

At this first ELC, there were mainly landscape architects and garden designers as well as some representatives from the horticultural nursery trade. But the topics of the talks were broad and varied. Because, of course, urban nature comes in many guises: from the obvious nature reserves and wetlands, to urban forests, parks, allotments, private gardens, ponds, roof and vertical greenery to street trees and unused open spaces, such as road verges or brown field sites colonised by "weeds".

Several speakers talked of the difficulties they encountered in their everyday work-life: private clients who are so disconnected from nature already, that they specify "We don't want any soil/ dirt in our garden!" Or who ask the garden designer: "There is leaf litter on the hard surfaces - what do I do?" Or the one who complained in March that nothing had grown much since his garden [in the Northern hemisphere] was planted in November... But likewise they despair about authorities, architects and developers without any understanding of how landscapes (and nature) work. A common complaint was that architects and developers care just about the built objects and often create completely unsustainable landscapes (as in: how buildings are sited on a given plot etc.) before even consulting a landscape designer. Once the buildings are up, however, these mistakes are almost impossible to undo.

In a very passionate talk landscape architect Brita von Schoenaich, for instance, told how her main aim these days is to ensure there are trees - and if at all possible trees that will have the chance to grow big and mature - in any given design or development she is involved with. And how difficult (and often downright impossible) this usually proves to be: due to building regulations, lack of root room for the trees (which tend to be holed up like battery hens), etc. Worried about the future of trees in the city, a future of cities without big street trees, she lobbies with the Tree Design Action Group and went as far as calling for "civil disobedience" amongst her profession in order to sneak in as many trees as possible and make sure they stood a chance of surviving.

And here is an example of just what mutual inspiration and unconventional thinking can do: Brita had mentioned she feared for the quite mature but relatively newly planted trees in London's Kings Cross Square: those responsible did not seem to have arranged any watering of their "green furniture" - which is, of course, vital for any plant until they are established. One of the delegates, Yasmeen, later suggested setting up a social media campaign encouraging all the commuters who pass by daily to empty their half-drunk water bottles on those tree pits. Of very little benefit individually, perhaps, but it could make a real difference when taken up en-masse. This, again, was a recurring theme: We need to communicate and work together and we need to do and start things ourselves rather than wait for authorities or legislators to take the first step.

Someone who took just this kind of self-initiative is Guy Watts. Currently Managing Director at the Sussex-base nursery Architectural Plants, he co-founded the charity Streetscapes. With this social enterprise he kills at least two birds with one stone (not literally, of course, it would rather defeat the purpose of advancing nature in the urban...). Watts noticed a real lack of young people entering the horticultural industry. Streetscapes therefore gives 18 - 25 year olds from disadvantaged backgrounds, usually long-term unemployed, the chance to learn a trade and gain skills and, ultimately, employment by providing apprenticeships in landscape gardening. It also helps to reconnect those young people with nature, of course.

Particularly encouraging in these times of cash-strapped local council coffers is the fact that the charity relies mainly on income from charging for the services they provide like any other landscaping business and receives very little public money, the remainder coming mainly from businesses. In reply to questions about whether it shouldn't be rolled out on a bigger scale, he said such venture needed to be done locally rather than nationally and should be fronted by people these young men and women could relate to, rather some remote celebrity. "Our best ambassadors are our own apprentices: get them to tell and talk about the scheme - that works incredibly well."

Another speaker I found particularly inspirational was Greek landscape architect Thomas Doxiadis. He surprised probably not just me with the theory of a North - South divide within Europe and the wider Mediterranean.  The North, he said, regarded nature as something of a "Big Mother" and awarded it a quasi-religious status. The South, by contrast, where for centuries many major religions had co-existed, clearly viewed nature below the divine and from a far more utilitarian perspective. And whilst Northerners swooned and harped on about the romantic ideal of nature, for Southerners the ideal space was the civic square, or piazza, where people would meet and socialize. Tree Lovers versus City Dwellers, Eco-rich versus Urbanistas, as he termed it. He might be on to something: myself, I'm most certainly the former...

He went on to show several projects he and his practice doxiadis+ had been involved with. Many were concerned with preserving the local landscape or re-introducing nature where it had been lost. Motivated by a deep love for the wild Greek landscape he grew up in, he tries to convince clients to work with rather than against it. Working with and incorporating what's there, rather than imposing some notion of "the Mediterranean". The one example in his talk that stood out for me was what he called Landscapes of Cohabitation. Approached by a developer who wanted to build several villas on a so-far comparatively sparse but native species-rich island site, he managed to persuade his client that the unique selling point would (or should) be precisely this unspoiled local nature rather than the 'swimming-pool plus lawn and bougainvillea-clad pergola' stereotype of a Mediterranean property. The knock-out argument, Doxiadis said, is that this approach is also much cheaper than the conventional alternative.

Starting from there, he worked with the natural territory. Roads, for instance, would follow or run in parallel with contours or existing structures of the land, such as dry-stone walling of ancient terraces. His plans even included a mock-up of construction areas because, he said, most damage to nature is not done by the buildings finally there but by access roads, dumping sites etc. needed during construction. As for the villa "gardens": only very close to the houses would there be irrigation, a compromise reached with the developer who feared otherwise being unable to "sell" them. But even the plants close to the houses would be from dry, sunny climes thus blending in with the surroundings. They also added native Greek plants, grown on contract, to the landscape. The principle here being that these additions would be sparser and sparser the further from the house, leaving room for local species to come in and mingle, the better to blend with the wild landscape beyond.

Whilst this project was not an urban one, there surely can be lessons for urban developments, too. After all, cities sprawl and new, previously rural sites, are added to it in many cases. Also, a brown field site  that is turned into, say, a new neighbourhood could be designed likewise by blending native species with those from similar climes to turn it into a "local" looking landscape rather than employing the conventional "ornamental" design approach.

An advocate of just such a blending of the natural with the cultural is James Hitchmough, Head of the Landscape Department at Sheffield University. Reminding us that "Nature" is a strongly constructed and contested idea, he suggested that the question always was and is: Who's nature? He argued there were three basic approaches to planting design: the traditional-conventional; the laissez-fair (best represented perhaps in habitat restoration where nature is left "to take its course") and, he said, his own work where he developed the territory between these two polar opposites.

Arguably his best-known work is that on the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in London where he and his colleague Nigel Dunnett put their ideas and research into practice. (The Olympic Park, a showpiece, inspiration and role model for modern urban landscaping, was the subject of another talk, by Dr Philip Askew of the London Legacy Development Corporation.) At the conference, however, Hitchmough more than anything made an impassioned plea to "get off this Native vs. Alien thing!" because any notion of what counts as a native and what counts as an alien species is no more than a snapshot in time. In geological terms, everything is in constant flux. The aliens of yesteryear are considered natives today, so will be the aliens of today in the future.

Returning to the theme of "Does this matter?", i.e. how to re-connect people with nature, Michael Westley made a strong case for getting all stakeholders on board and together at the table, so to speak. Especially those who are influential in health care funding and the planners and designers of public spaces and landscapes! 

Referring to statistics that show government funding of Public Health services and Children's Social Care has steadily increased over the past 50 years whilst funding for Parks and Recreation has decreased, he pointed out that there was a convincing argument to reverse this trend. More emphasis should be placed on preventing people to need these health and social care services in the first place. And a huge body of research shows that green spaces and nature can do just that! Yet far too often still is greenspace viewed as irrelevant or of indeterminable benefit to a community and thus as a luxury - rather than a necessity. But, Westley said, it is far more effective to spend £1 on improving or the upkeep of neighbourhood environments than on another strip of prescribed pills!

Maybe the European Landscape Conference could broaden its approach next time to include precisely those Public Health people and influentials. Or how about inviting people from e.g. the National Trust whose campaign "50 things to do before you are 11 ¾" I admire since they do so much to inspire children to get out of doors and connect with nature. Even though the NT's campaign is likely to be self-selective, i.e. the majority of children taking part is probably white and middle-class, they could talk about their campaign, the response of the public and the experiences they've gained.

Or how about starting an even broader debate? For instance: How about changing the national curriculum for primary school children so that they will go out on  "field trips" with a science teacher and learn to identify (or at least name) local trees and native wildflowers as was so common about 100 - 150 years ago? A debate about whether terms like acorn, cornflower or jay should be included in a junior dictionary. Linking up with as many interested parties as possible certainly seems advantageous - from horticultural therapy charity Thrive to forest schools.


       Getting together all the voices concerned with the subject can only strengthen the cause


And there certainly are hands-on initiatives about. I learned about one particularly interesting and encouraging example when I met Liz Ware, a fellow "audience member". Unlike me, however, she's far more involved in the subject matter already. One of her recent projects was to convince gardens open to the public to set aside part of their greenspace as "silent space" where the public is asked to switch off mobile phones etc. and just focus on the natural environment and its sounds. Because, she said, increasingly not even our greenspaces are places for quiet reflection. "Silent space" is trying to address and reverse this trend. 

Liz's project is part of the Landscape Gardens and Health Network, an online resource for anyone interested in the role of gardens and designed space for health. According to Liz who helped set it up, they want to compile and provide evidence beyond the purely statistical and include the often over-looked anecdotal as well - not least to bolster the argument for those trying to push for better funding, for new projects, for permission to start a community garden etc.. I've signed up to their free network before I even started working on this post :-)!

But to return to the European Landscape Conference: This time around, sadly there weren't nearly as many delegates as one would have wished to see. The organizers repeatedly stressed that this not-for-profit event had met with an enthusiastic response by almost all whom they'd approached to speak. And most attendees - like myself - will have felt it well worth their time (and money). But in the end the organizers will have to break even and I'm not sure the high-profile backing from the Society of Garden Designers and the British Association of Landscape Industries (BALI) as well as several more sponsors and supporters from the green industry will be enough in the long-run. Nonetheless: if not in conference form, then perhaps as an organized network - I sincerely hope now that the seed has been planted, the ELC will grow into  something big. It certainly is an important and timely topic. And if you feel so too, or know someone who might be interested in taking part, perhaps you could contact them so they know there is more than a theoretical demand out there.


You might also be interested in the following posts:

                   Urban wilderness - urban oasis: Phytology in Bethnal Green

                   City nomads against the gloom: Building a community