The relationship between design and management: a review of Piet Oudolf landscapes in England.

October 2018

The relationship between design and management: a review of Piet Oudolf landscapes in England S.W.R.MARSHALL

The University of Sheffield Department of Landscape Architecture

Samuel WR Marshall

Academic Supervisor - Dr. Sally O’Halloran

The relationship between design and management: a review of Piet Oudolf landscapes in England

MA in Landscape Management - LSC6140

This rearch project required a University of Sheffield Research Ethics application which was approved on 08.06.17.

October 2018 Word Count (Including References) - 25661 Submission date -

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge those who I have had the pleasure of meeting along the duration of this study and recognise the support of those around me.

To Isabelle, Annie and Paul Smith at Scampston Walled Garden, thank you for your welcoming nature. A big thank you for the help when I locked my keys in my car on that cold winter night.

Carol, Vance and team at Trentham Gardens and to Michael Walker for his warmth and generosity and numerous tours around the gardens.

To Matt and Jonathan Pearce at Pensthorpe Natural Park thank you for taking the time to accommodate this project.

With thanks to Helen Povall and Ian Mould at Potters Fields Park for your time and assitance.

To Matthew Pottage, Diana Turton and Peter Jones. To Verity Bradbury and Joshua Hackett for the kindness and hospitality shown to me across my numerous visits to RHS Garden Wisley.

Huge thanks go to Piet and Anja Oudolf who took the time out of a special occasion to meet with me. I must take you up on the offer of a trip to Hummelo.

With special thanks to my dissertation supervisor, Dr. Sally O’Halloran for her guidance and mentorship over the last eighteen months. I would like to express my gratitude to all of those at the University of Sheffield for a truly life changing and thoroughly rewarding experience.

Thank you to Janet McQuillan and Alex Garrett of Greenbelt for allowing me the flexibility and support of carrying out a research project of this magnitude.

It is with great appreciation that I have taken this opportunity of professional development.

Thank you to my family for their continued support, love and encouragement.

Finally, I would like to thank Chloe for her love and constant support throughout this project, and my studies as a whole over the past two years. Without her, I would truely not have been able to have done this.

05

06

Abstract

Over the duration of Oudolf’s career, his pioneering use of perennials and grasses have established his position at the pinnacle of naturalistic planting to much esteem. It is his approach to planting design that has influenced a generation of landscape professionals; whilst England provides a precedent for a number of Oudolf’s earliest and career forming landscapes – it is the aim of this research to understand the management of these landscapes, as well as the ideas of the designer to provide clarity on the exemplar approach to managing naturalistic planting.

Assigned with reviewing the management of a number these English landscapes; the research aims adapted in which Oudolf’s relationship to management and the management staff’s relationship to design that took focus. Five case study landscapes participated in this review of the management of their Oudolf landscape. Exploration of Oudolf’s own literature dictated themes designed within interview and questionnaires to investigate the staff’s perspective of managing the landscape. A thematic analysis of managerial staff interviews exposed themes which then allowed for analysis against garden staff and volunteer data and then finally the themes from an interview with Oudolf.

Numerous findings were analysed from the data and then discussed in some depth when reviewed against Oudolf’s own literature. This in turn exposed the new emphasis of the research into the approach and disposition of those managing the landscapes and the role of the designer.

figure 001 - [left] Autumn display at Pensthorpe Natural Park 2017 - Author.

07

Contents

Acknowledgements______________________________________________ 03 Abstract_______________________________________________________ 05 Contents______________________________________________________ 07-09 Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Background___________________________________________

1.2 Research Aims_________________________________________

1.3 Methodology__________________________________________

1.3.1 Approach_____________________________________

1.3.2 Participants___________________________________

1.3.3 Ethics________________________________________

1.3.4 Interviews____________________________________

1.3.5 Questionnaires________________________________

1.3.6 Data Analysis__________________________________

1.3.7 Literature Review______________________________

1.3.8 Limitations____________________________________

10-12 12 13 13 13-15 15 16 16-17 17 18 18

Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.1 Background___________________________________________

2.2 The Evolution of Oudolf’s Design Ideas_____________________

2.3 Management & Maintenance______________________________

2.4 Making Physical Changes in the Landscape___________________

20 20-21 21-24 24-28

Chapter 3 Case Study Landscapes__________________________________

3.1 Scampston Walled Garden_______________________________ 3.1.1 Background____________________________________

3.1.2 Oudolf Landscape_______________________________

3.1.3 Staff Structure__________________________________

3.2 Pensthorpe Natural Park_________________________________ 3.2.1 Background____________________________________

3.2.2 Oudolf Landscape_______________________________

3.2.3 Staff Structure__________________________________

3.3 RHS Garden Wisley_____________________________________ 3.3.1 Background____________________________________

3.3.2 Oudolf Landscape_______________________________

3.3.3 Staff Structure__________________________________

32 32 32 33 36 36 36 36 40 40 40 40

09

3.4 Trentham Gardens______________________________________ 3.4.1 Background____________________________________

3.4.2 Oudolf Landscape_______________________________

3.4.3 Staff Structure__________________________________

3.5 Potters Fields Park______________________________________ 3.5.1 Background____________________________________

3.5.2 Oudolf Landscape_______________________________

3.5.3 Staff Structure__________________________________ Chapter 4 Interview and Questionnaire Analysis

4.1 Management Staff Interview Analysis_______________________

4.1.1 The Management Professionals____________________

4.1.1.1 Horticultural Work Experience to Date_____ 4.1.1.2 Horticultural Education__________________

4.1.1.3 Learning from Other Oudolf Landscapes____

4.1.2 Oudolf & His Design of the Landscapes_____________

4.1.2.1 Managements Understanding of Naturalistic Planting & Oudolf’s Design Concept________ 4.1.2.2 Design Suitability________________________

4.1.2.3 Regonition of Oudolf_____________________

4.1.2.4 Oudolf’s Involvement in the English Landscapes

4.1.3 Managing the Landscape__________________________

4.1.3.1 Managing the Design_____________________

4.1.3.2 Managing the Landscape__________________

4.1.3.3 Assigned Rescource on the Landscapes______

4.1.3.4 Using Contractors as a Rescource__________

4.1.3.5 Reviewing the Landscape_________________ 4.1.3.6 Management Issues______________________

4.1.4 Maintaining the Landscape________________________ 4.1.4.1 Maintenance____________________________ 4.1.4.2 Garden Staff____________________________ 4.1.4.3 Managing Weeds________________________

4.1.5 Changes in the Landscapes________________________

4.1.5.1 Age of the Landscape_____________________

4.1.5.2 Making Changes to the Oudolf Landscape____

4.1.5.3 Informing Oudolf of Change_______________

10

44 44 44 44 48 48 48 48 52 52 52 53 53 53 53 54 55 55 56 56 56-57 57 58 58-59 59 60 60 60 61 62 62 62 63

4.2 Garden Staff & Volunteer Questionnaire Analysis______________

4.2.1 Work Experience and Qualifications________________

4.2.2 Knowledge and Source of Information______________

4.2.3 Maintaing the Oudolf Landscape___________________

4.3 Piet Oudolf Interview Analysis____________________________

4.3.1 Oudolf: The Professional__________________________

4.3.1.1 The Designer’s Considerations at Design Stage

4.3.1.2 Oudolf’s Approach to Design & Management__

4.3.1.3 Oudolf’s Professional Involvement in the Long-term Management___________________

4.3.1.4 The Landscapes Effect on Oudolf’s Reputation_

4.3.2 Managing the Landscape__________________________

4.3.2.1 Management of the Landscapes_____________

4.3.2.2 Maintenance Task of Division_______________ 4.3.2.3 Changing Landscapes_____________________

4.3.2.4 The Requirements of Managing an Oudolf Landscape______________________________

4.3.3 The Landscapes Now____________________________

4.3.3.1 Oudolf’s Successful Landscapes_____________

4.3.3.2 Oudolf’s Un-successful Landscapes__________

4.3.3.3 Maturity of the Landscapes________________

4.3.4 Future Landscapes______________________________

4.3.4.1 The Future of Naturalistic Planting__________

4.3.4.2 Role of the Landscapes___________________

64 64-65 65 65-69 70 70 70 71 71 72 72 72 73 73 73 74 74 74 75 75 75 75

Chapter 5 Discussion

5.1 Those Involved in Managing the Landscapes__________________ 79-81

5.2 Managing & Maintaining the Oudolf Landscape_______________ 82-87

5.3 Changes in the Landscape________________________________ 88-90 Chapter 6 Conclusion____________________________________________ 92

6.1 Future Research________________________________________ 93 References_____________________________________________________ 94-96 Websites________________________________________________ 97-98 Table of Tables__________________________________________________ 100 Table of Figures_________________________________________________ 100 Appendices____________________________________________________ 102

11

Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1 - Background

Over the last 40 years, Piet Oudolf has established himself as one of the most influential figures in the landscape profession. His pioneering approach to planting design has led to him being at the pinnacle of the industry (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2010); achieving great accolade and award. Today his work is experienced around the globe; providing exposure for naturalistic planting to a wider audience through some of the world’s highest-profile urban landscapes (Richardson 2013). This study examines some of Oudolf’s oldest landscapes in England; created in the infancy of his design career and overseen by a multitude of management arrangements. Since their inception, Oudolf’s career has been elevated to the highest level; his influence has significantly changed the landscape profession (Gustafson 2005). In this time his work has been much replicated; and serves as inspiration to what is shaping the designed landscape around us today. Therefore, this study set out to explore the management of these landscapes and what has developed as part of the research is a theoretical consideration of the requirements of establishing a relationship between design and management.

Oudolf, a native of the Netherlands started his career as a nurseryman in the early 1980s. The nursery, established out of his home near the town of Hummelo; in an eastern province of the Netherlands. With his wife Anja and driven by his frustration of not being able to source plants for his design work the Oudolf ’s were able to succeed in amassing a collection of plants from around the globe that excelled in their suitability for contemporary gardens (Gerritsen & Oudolf 2003). This has ultimately revolutionised planting design by development of a new planting palette through their meticulous plant selection (Diblik 2014; Kingsbury & Oudolf 2009). Oudolf was able to develop his skills learning an intimate knowledge of plants. Kingsbury and Oudolf (2013) describe this extensive understanding of plant performance as the key aspect of his success. This inherent understanding combined with his artistic skill and theoretical underpinning have shaped Oudolf ’s aesthetic as something that ‘looks wild, but is actually a stylised version of nature’ (Kingsbury 2013 pp.5).

Relatively unheard of in England in the mid-90’s; Oudolf caused controversy with his radical planting design using grasses and perennials within his first English commission (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2010; Port 2018). Despite the initial controversy, Oudolf recognised that England played a pivotal role in his career (Port 2018); with a number of landscapes seen across the country today.

The ‘New Perennial Movement’ in which Oudolf can be considered a pioneer

12

figure 002 - Portrait of Piet Oudolf in Sheffield July 2018 - Author.

(Kingsbury & Oudolf 2010); also known as naturalistic planting, has been defined as a contemporary approach to planting design utilising the influence of the species ecological factors and strength (Kingsbury 2014). Lacey (2001) explains that world trends have swung in the direction of the naturalistic approach to planting as opposed to the high-maintenance alternatives of the past. Dunnett (2016) confirms that the movement’s distinct style holds great influence over much of planting and landscape design today. This increased exposure dictates a requirement for a greater understanding of the management of these landscapes.

13

However, with Oudolf ’s early works across England now approaching twenty years in existence; this study will provide the first review of the management of some of these landscapes to develop our understanding as the discipline continues to evolve. This study should provide a perspective of those responsible for managing these landscapes; evidence of the issues they face and their assumptions of change in regards to the future of these landscapes. A review of Oudolf ’s own written work will inform themes for interviews and questionnaires to be administered with staff across five case study landscapes across England. The data that is generated will allow for themes to be drawn out in which can be analysed alongside Oudolf ’s literature and data from an interview with Oudolf personally. It is the intention that the conclusion of this research should be utilised by management and maintenance staff as a resource to inform management of Oudolf ’s landscape as an inaugural study into how these landscapes are and should be managed. In addition, it has the potential to provide landscape architects and designer with information into how some of the oldest landscapes of the pioneering designers planting are being managed; providing an educational tool to inform any future practice.

1.2 - Research Aims

14

The principle aim of this study is to review the management and the variables governing five Oudolf landscapes in England. In doing this it will assess the impact on the original design or concept and ultimately Oudolf’s opinion of the landscape now. Initial objectives were designed to explore management and maintenance techniques undertaken on the landscapes, however this developed throughout the study to define the key research aim as exploration of management staff’s knowledge and how that has informed their approach to management of the Oudolf landscapes.

1.3 - Methodology

1.3.1 - Approach

The study was carried out over an 18-month period, which has allowed for a number of research methods to be applied. Utilising a mixed-method approach has enabled an enhanced range of findings to be collated by approaching the research from a number of perspectives. Denscombe (2008) describes how a mixed method approach is a methodology that allows for both qualitative and quantitative approaches to be incorporated within a single research project.

It uses the principals of ‘triangulation’ that Greene et al. (1989) establish that investigations using multiple methods strengthen the validity of their results.

Denscombe (2008) adds that it is these alternative perspectives that create a fuller, more complete picture of the research subject. It is with this understanding that the following approaches were utilised; targeted at a range of participants to pursue accuracy and clarity from the data. The methodological approaches of interview and questionnaire were adopted by the researcher.

These two techniques of sourcing data followed a sequential design approach in which both qualitative and quantitative data were generated; and considered an equivalent status (Denscombe 2008).

The research period allowed for an aspect of ‘prolonged engagement’ which effectively enables the researcher ‘adequate time observing various aspects of a setting, speaking with a range of people, and developing relationships and rapport with members of the culture’ (Guba & Lincoln 1985). This ultimately facilitated a greater understanding and meaning of the study between the researcher and the identified participants; rewarded with the benefits of trust between the researcher and the participants (Guba & Lincoln 1985).

1.3.2 - Participants

At proposal stage, the seven Oudolf landscapes across England were identified via reviewing literature and online resources. This was proceeded by an introduction to the research project sent out via email to managerial positions held at the respective gardens and parks. Those who responded with an expression of interest were therefore included within the research project. Due to time and travel limitations in place; this was narrowed down to five case study landscapes despite one additional landscape expressing their interest in the study they were respectively discarded due to these limitations.

15

Those included as case study landscapes are; Scampston Walled Garden

Pensthorpe Natural Park

RHS Garden Wisley

Trentham Gardens

Potters Fields Park

table 001 presents the five case study landscapes included within this study.

A purposive sampling of participants was identified due to their involvement with the case study landscapes and their position within respective staffing structures in place (Laerd Dissertation 2012). The ‘prolonged engagement’ period of this research project allowed for the researcher to make this judgement accordingly by providing a focus on the characteristic of certain participants which can best answer the research questions (Laerd Dissertation 2012).

Managerial staff were identified for interview; garden staff and volunteers working on the landscape were chosen to participant in a questionnaire; finally, Oudolf engaged in an interview.

It was concluded that one person holding a managerial position per landscape would be able to accurately answer the questions designed in order to meet the research objectives. In the case of Potters Fields Park, two participants were interviewed due to their shared responsibility and involvement on the landscape. A larger sample size was selected to participate in questionnaires due to the element of flexibility that questionnaires provide (Denscombe 2008). With an awareness that all participants are currently in full-time employment or volunteering in their own time and to maintain confidentiality and anonymity; their identities have been excluded from the research and will be referred to by codes assigned in tables 002 & 003. All of those recruited for participation were provided with a detailed information sheet in advance for both ethical and practical reasons (Denscombe 2008) – see appendix 01.

16

Position

Landscape

Interview Type

Head Gardener

Scampston Walled Garden

In person

Participant Code E

Head Gardener

Pensthorpe Natural Park

Skype

A

Garden Manager for Hardy Ornamental

RHS Garden Wisley

Telephone

Head of Garden & Estate

Trentham Gardens

In person

F

Park & Events Manager

Potters Fields Park

Skype

C

Head Gardener

Potters Fields Park

Telephone

B

Piet Oudolf

-

In person

PO

D

table 002 displays interviewees and by which form. Code refers to the interview transcript and codes found in appendix 002. The order of the codes is in reference to table 001 and the order maybe subject to change throughout this study.

Position

Landscape

Questionnaire Type

Volunteer

Scampston Walled Garden

Online

H.8

Volunteer

Scampston Walled Garden

Online

G.7

Assistant Gardener

Pensthorpe Natural Park

Online

D.4

Volunteer

Pensthorpe Natural Park

Online

A.1

Horticulturalist

RHS Garden Wisley

Online

B.2

Horticulturalist

RHS Garden Wisley

Online

C.3

Acting Supervisor

Trentham Gardens

Online

F.6

Garden Team Leader

Trentham Gardens

Online

E.5

table 003

Participant Code

display those who participated in the online questionnaire. Code refers to the questionnaire transcript and codes found in appendix 003. The order of the codes is in reference to table 001 and the order maybe subject to change throughout this study.

1.3.3 - Ethics

Due to the nature of this study and the inclusion of human participants; an ethics application was submitted to the University of Sheffield at the initial stages of the project. Ethical approval was obtained for the study on the basis that the ethical guidelines were met and the participants agreed to the points made clear in the consent form when can be found in appendix 001. Informed consent makes it clear that inclusion in the research is completely voluntary and that their withdrawal from the project would be acceptable at any time (Denscombe 2008). Denscombe (2008) explains that it is generally agreed that participants should not suffer for their involvement in research; it is with this understanding that no personal information has been disclosed in order to protect the identities of those participating. This consent was acquired by all participants in writing. Storage of digital data was all kept in a password protected file that was only accessible to the research team; in line with the University of Sheffield’s ethic policy (University of Sheffield). The recording device was kept in a locked cabinet and identifiable data was destroyed once it had been electronically transcribed and personal information blanked out when given. Any written or physical copies with personal data were again stored within the locked cabinet.

17

1.3.4 - Interviews

The adopted interview process is justified due to its value as a source of privileged information from key participants (Denscombe 2008). Denscombe (2008) adds that it provides an insight and depth of information if successful. A semi-structured interview approach was adopted in a one-to-one environment. The semi-structured interviews allowed for some flexibility which allows the interviewer and interviewee the opportunity to discuss any wider relating topics (Denscombe 2008). Due to the nature of this research subject and the previous engagement with the majority of the participants; this interview style was particularly suitable by creating openings for narrative for further data to be explored and recorded (Galletta 2013). Twenty-eight interview questions were devised by the researcher; designed in an open question format, which enabled the interviewee to elaborate on answers. Oudolf had eighteen answers to question again following the same format. As table 002 has highlighted, participants were interviewed using three different means due to time and travel constraints. Interviews lasted on average between forty to one hundred minutes. All interviews had an audio recording device present in which to secure the audio content of the interview; which was then transcribed to allow for analysis. Where participants deviated off topic, this was noted within the transcription including the amount of time. The researcher maintained the same approach during all the interviews; however, in the interview with Piet Oudolf photographs from previous case study landscape visits were used to prompt discussion. Incorporated into question ten, the photographs mainly depicted negative elements of the landscapes to explore further into Oudolf’s opinion – these photographs can be found in appendix 004.

1.3.5 - Questionnaire

Due to a larger sample of participants, questionnaires were utilised to collate mainly quantitative data from the garden staff and volunteers. Auriat and Siniscalco (2005) state that the questionnaire allows for the researcher to collate a wider range of information from facts, opinions and level of knowledge.

Adopting this approach on the designated sample allows researcher to investigate the alternate perspective to provide clarity the research objectives (Denscombe 2008). This was achieved by adopting both a descriptive and analytic design when designing the questionnaires (Oppenheim 2005). Again, twenty-eight questions were designed with nine questions encouraging participants to expand upon their answer under a descriptive design. The remaining nineteen questions followed the analytic design rules. The design was split between open and multiple-choice questions. The questions were developed using similar themes or topics included in the interviews to managerial staff.

Mark & Shotland (1987) suggest this confirms the benefits of complementary questions for interpreting results. This resulted in a mixed data set; with both quantitative and qualitative outcomes evident. Questions were devised using an online service (Google forms) and sent to participants via email.

18

The introductory information sheet and consent forms had been sent out in advance to all participants. Results were analysed automatically when returned using the google platform and protected via a password protected account.

1.3.6 - Data Analysis

The analysis of the data was split into three sections; - Management Staff Interview Data (Qualitative) - Garden Staff & Volunteer Questionnaire Data (Quantitative & Qualitative) - Piet Oudolf Interview Data (Qualitative) All qualitative data, underwent a six-step thematic analysis to extrapolate themes from the combined data set (Braun & Clarke 2006). Braun & Clarke (2006) describe thematic analysis as ‘a method for identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data’, ensuring a rich and detailed account of the data. The transcribed answers were collated in response to each answer and manually coded by identifying the topics drawn out of the data. A list of codes was then collated into themes regarding the focus of subject of each code. Themes were reviewed and condensed in order to discussed the results within this study.

Questionnaire data, as previously discussed was both quantitative and qualitative. Qualitative data sets were analysed as using the six-step thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke 2006). Quantitative data was reordered in the form of a nominal data set (Paltridge & Phakiti 2010). Paltridge & Phakiti (2010) explain that nominal data cannot be assigned a numerical value or code but is instead discussed in terms of percentages or frequency. This approach was taken and frequency of participants answers discussed within the analysis of this data set. Again, the benefit of the ‘prolonged engagement’ allowed the researcher the freedom of observation which enabled photographic evidence to be documented. Photographs were taken on each case study site visit and have been used throughout this research document as supporting evidence; merely to illustrate or support any points made within the text.

Again, the benefit of the ‘prolonged engagement’ allowed the researcher the freedom of observation which enabled photographic evidence to be documented. Photographs were taken on each case study site visit and have been used throughout this research document as supporting evidence; merely to illustrate or support any points made within the text.

19

1.3.7 - Literature Review

A review of academic literature was required for the researcher to better enhance their knowledge of published material relating to the subject matter, from which their own conclusions were drawn (Fink 2005). Fink (2005) insists that the research must be informed by the highest-quality literature in order to present the most accurate account of the subject. Due to the fact Oudolf had agreed to participate within this study; the decision to review only Oudolf ‘s publications was duly taken. This allowed the researcher to examine all of his published works in order to establish a systematic approach to the literature review (Fink 2005). This approach was taken in order to clearly understand what Oudolf has stated during his career thus creating the soundest source of information in relation to the research title. The key aim of the literature review is to summarise the existing research into the subject by identifying patterns and themes (Müller & Seuring 2008). Müller & Seuring (2005) add that the review of literature conclusively allows for theory development. Oudolf’s books were obtained from University of Sheffield library or members of the research team’s personal collection. They were reviewed in chronological order in order to understand the development of theory and underpinning knowledge of the authors.

1.3.8 - Limitations

Resource costs in term of finance and time was considered a limitation during the initial stages of this research project. Despite travel being funded by the researcher’s employer this had to be respected and governed the extent of the research project and the case study landscapes included in this research project. Again, time was a consideration that had to be accounted for; firstly, the time to visit all of the landscapes; and secondly the time for the research to be carried out, analysed and then written into this report. These limitations have had an effect on information gathering as questionnaires were employed as a time saving mechanism at the cost of a richer source of data. The wealth of published information that could have been accessed had to be limited to the focus on Oudolf’s work solely; again, along with other constrictions such as time and word counts. However, the inclusion of Oudolf in this study justifies this approach by allowing the researcher to directly compare his written work and what has been discussed in interview.

This could however be construed as a selective analysis of the literature (Fink 2005).

figure 003 - [right] the ‘Floral Labyrinth’ at Trentham Gardens - July 2017 - Author.

20

Chapter 2 - Literature Review

This chapter analyses the key texts written by Piet Oudolf; these are all co-written with Oudolf as English is not Oudolf’s first language (Table 004).

There is an assumption that this shows Oudolf’s ‘voice’ and the second author is there largely to translate and share ideas. Books have been selected as they are available to all garden management staff unlike published articles that may require paid access so have not been included in this analysis. Themes from within the text have been drawn out which correspond with the themes used in later questionnaires, interviews and are the key themes of the research i.e. design, management and maintenance. They are written in chronological order to get the best overview of the evolution of these ideas.

2.1 - Background

Book Title

Authors

Designing with Plants

Noel Kingsbury & Piet Oudolf

Year of Publication 1999 / 2009

Dream Plants for the Natural Garden

Henk Gerritsen & Piet Oudolf

2000 / 2013

Planting the Natural Garden

Henk Gerritsen & Piet Oudolf

2003

Planting Design: Gardens in Time & Space

Noel Kingsbury & Piet Oudolf

2005

Piet Oudolf: Landscapes in Landscapes

Noel Kingsbury & Piet Oudolf

2010

Planting: a New Perspective

Noel Kingsbury & Piet Oudolf

2013

Hummelo: A Journey Through a Plantman’s Life

Noel Kingsbury & Piet Oudolf

2015

Gardens of the High Line: Elevating the Nature of Modern Landscapes

Rick Darke & Piet Oudolf

2017

table 004 shows the key text written by Oudolf and others that are reviewed in this study.

2.2 - The Evolution of Oudolf’s Design Ideas

22

Oudolf’s progression as a designer and his approach to planting design appears to change throughout his writing. In Oudolf’s first book, Designing with Plants published in 1999, he clearly affirms the importance of structure as the key part of planting design when designing with perennials (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2009). The book is largely describing individual plants and their combinations to create moods with very little mention of ecology other than the sectioned titled ‘Natural Planting’ covering 3 pages. However, by 2003, Planting the Natural Garden, Gerritsen and Oudolf (2003 pp.125) state that ‘Ecology, architecture, atmosphere, color, and shape all play a role, but no one factor is all-important’; this opinion seems to alternate throughout some of his later publications.

In 2005, Kingsbury & Oudolf (2005 pp.102) clearly state that ecology is the initial key consideration and that any visual or aesthetic approach must follow incidentally. Within the 2010, Landscapes in Landscapes, the authors argue that structure is the most important aspect of planting design (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2010) with no mention of ecology. However, when describing his planting design; Kingsbury and Oudolf (2013 pp.233) do state that ‘in the context of planting design as a discipline which is continuing to develop, to evolve and, we hope, to advance and improve’ expressing a constant change and state of learning even from the authors themselves. Although this is a progressive statement showing Oudolf wants to be forward thinking as someone trying to manage or maintain an Oudolf landscape, this would create confusion.

2. 3 - Management & Maintenance

Oudolf’s fourth published book, Planting Design: Gardens in Time & Space (2005), written alongside co-author Noel Kingsbury, is the first book to demonstrate his consideration of the management and maintenance of the landscape from the initial planning stages. There is no direct reference to this in any of his work prior to this book. Kingsbury and Oudolf (2005) described this as a ‘fundamental’ and ‘crucial’ aspect of the planning stage. They expanded upon agreeing ‘goals’ which would incorporate plans for an end result along with discussions of resource with the client (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005). Kingsbury and Oudolf (2005) also went on to state that there would be a requirement to set out maintenance specifications for the staff responsible for future management. However, they would go on to add that this specification could be amended if required following further consultation and training for the staff provided by the designer (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005).

However, it is in this book that Kingsbury and Oudolf (2005 pp.150) send out a clear message that ‘however generous or minimal the provisions for its maintenance may be, the ongoing engagement of the designer is crucial for the success of a planting’. This belief is emphasised within this text as, Kingsbury and Oudolf (2005) take the opportunity to reinforce the message to management staff regarding the value of retaining the services of the designer for the long-term management of their design. They argued that the ‘best gardens’ are those that choose to incorporate the role of the designer into the process of management due to the concept that design and management are so intrinsically interlinked (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005 pp.13). Kingsbury and Oudolf (2005) suggest that the best a designer can do is emphasise the importance of this to those responsible with the aim of agreeing on advisory visits; as a landscape is never finished when it has been ‘signed off ’. It is in this text that Kingsbury and Oudolf (2005) question at what point a garden is actually finished. Could Kingsbury and Oudolf (2005 pp.125) possibly be contradicting themselves in the statement ‘the designer needs both to plan ahead and to react to circumstances in order to create a planting that gives pleasure and fulfils its function for many years’ 23

suggesting that if planned thoroughly the landscape will be performing as it should with little requirement for designer intervention or involvement. However, it is the inclusion of the phrase ‘react to circumstance’; which indicates the possible requirement for the designer’s input in the long-term management of his design in order to deal with this aspect of change.

As stated earlier, Oudolf ’s early publications effectively acts as a catalogue of plants in that can be utilised and combined to create a naturalistic landscape.

It would appear that its aim was ultimately to spread awareness of the variety of species, their combinations and their benefits aligned with the principles of naturalistic planting. His first book however, Designing with Plants, does provide some thought into management and maintenance. Although quite brief it effectively glosses over maintenance as two tasks, cutting back and weeding (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2009). Division is discussed; however only briefly to suggest that this task is not really a requirement due to the effectiveness of the design and Oudolf ’s planting choice (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2009). Kingsbury and Oudolf (2009) do set out that level of skill or knowledge is required in managing these landscapes. A theme that is almost constant throughout his written work.

In Oudolf ’s next book, first published a year later in 2000, this time written with Henk Gerritsen, would see Gerritsen and Oudolf (2013) setting out a precedent of little maintenance on the planting, urging managers of a natural garden to keep intervention to a minimum. It was not until Oudolf ’s fourth published book in 2005, Planting Design: Gardens in Time & Space, that management and maintenance was discussed at some length. It is the only book with a dedicated chapter on the subject titled ‘Practicalities and Maintenance’; it covered 23 pages in a book of 175. More research has now been carried out into the management of such landscapes; research carried out by German professor Cassian Schmidt has been summarised in this book. Schmidt had categorised levels of maintenance on perennial landscapes following studies into the time spent on certain perennial based planting (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005). Kingsbury and Oudolf (2005 pp.151) delineate the difference between ‘Extensive’ and ‘Intensive’ maintenance on naturalistic planting and clearly asseverate that ‘contemporary naturalistic planting can be said to be somewhere in the middle’. It did provide guidance to those who would be managing the landscape on an intimate basis, providing direction from site implementation and the importance of weed eradication and the timing of the annual cut back of herbaceous material (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005). However, some of the writing within this book is contradictory with regards to management of the design; the statement ‘’One ongoing role of maintenance in such plantings is to maintain a sense of proportion within the planting, so that there is a harmonious balance between the constituent species’ (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005 pp.151) suggests that the design must be maintained with planting conserved within its designated position. This is then superseded by the following statement of 24

‘to stick to the original plan is often to deny the possibility of exciting spontaneous developments’ (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005 pp.153) which reverts back to the earlier attitude of minimal intervention.

In 2013 in Planting: A New Perspective, Kingsbury and Oudolf (2013) again added in a rather idealistic way that the role of management should be to orchestrate the changes that are inevitable within this type of planting; but must preserve and enhance the visual qualities like species diversity which again does not provide complete clarity as to the management approach that must be taken. The two applications of maintenance discussed above in the 2005 book, Planting Design: Gardens in Time & Space, is echoed in Kingsbury and Oudolf ’s later work, Planting: A New Perspective. Kingsbury and Oudolf (2013 pp.37) describe the two approaches as ‘low-key, relatively passive’ or ‘more active’ within this book. However, the maintenance tasks they have categorised within ‘low-key’ management is an improvement on the previous ‘extensive’ approach suggesting an evolution of research and theory. The level of maintenance is again discussed in brief in Oudolf ’s latest piece of work, Gardens of the High Line: Elevating the Nature of Modern Landscapes, where Darke and Oudolf (2017) advise that these landscapes require more management than their naturalistic appearance would suggest. This demonstrates the progression in ideas and notion towards combined management and maintenance.

As cited before; the skill of management and garden staff was initially addressed in Oudolf ’s first piece of literature. This topic is not examined in any detail until Planting Design: Gardens in Time & Space in 2005 and then Planting: A New Perspective in 2013. It is in this book where Kingsbury and Oudolf (2005) first discuss the level of maintenance staff and the effect that this has on Oudolf ’s choice of design. Examples are given of planting in an ‘intermingled’ or ‘block’ style as the rationale offered is suitability for garden staff (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005). It is also in this text that the authors-initiated discussions of plant survival strategy and how this knowledge can affect maintenance; summing this up ‘It cannot be stressed too much how a knowledge of plant characteristics is vital for the implementations of successful maintenance’ (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005 pp.157). It is in this book that plant survival strategy first features within Kingsbury and Oudolf ’s literature; this is then again highlighted in the 2013 book, Planting: A New Perspective. Again, Kingsbury and Oudolf (2013) reiterate the principle of amending design complexity to suit the varying skills of staff in order to show how this planting style can work both in the public and private garden realm. Kingsbury and Oudolf (2013) also show an awareness to the increasing use of this style of planting and acknowledge the following skills as requirements of managing these landscapes; ‘greater knowledge of ecological issues or at least a greater awareness of long-term performance’ (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2013 pp.12) and ‘requiring greater access to technical information about plant establishment and management, and to ideas about the visual aspect of their use’ (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2013 pp.10). These statements are 25

confirmed later by a declaration that the authors believed less time for maintenance is possibly needed only if the skill and expertise of the staff are in place (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2013).

The 2013 book does declare that the information within it could be used by a variety of landscape professionals, including maintenance professionals, as well as that of amateur gardeners (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2013); presenting a more professionally orientated piece of work as opposed to the focus of some of the earlier works which had a heavy emphasis on design. A final point is made within this book that ‘the skills required by gardeners are clearly different for this new vegetation-style planting’ (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2013 pp.237) and is very much reiterated in Oudolf ’s most recent piece of literature with Rick Darke in which the following statement is made ‘it takes a special kind of gardener, with an artist’s eye’ (Hammond 2017). To digress slightly, the 2013 book, Planting: A New Perspective, casts an eye forward, in which Kingsbury and Oudolf envisage the qualities and skills required for the landscape manager or gardener of the future. They state that there is a requirement for those professionals to have some experience in ecological science to enable them to use these skills in managing the ever-increasing complexed planting schemes (Kingsbury and Oudolf 2013). A plea is made to those responsible for training these professionals to recognise this requirement.

2.4 - Making Physical Change in the Landscape

26

It is within Oudolf’s first book, Designing with Plants, that the adaptability of his planting design and element of change within the landscape is first discussed. A statement is made in this text that gardeners should always be ready for that element of change, to improve the planting by moving things around (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2009). This reiterates the point that highlights the fact that the landscape is never finished. Kingsbury and Oudolf (2009 pp.43) call this the ‘evolving process of gardening’ in which new ideas or improvements are evident post design stage, and utilising this by having a flexible approach.

This does expose the potential reader base of this book as gardeners with varying skills from amateur to professional.

Again, it is in the 2005 book, Planting Design: Gardens in Time & Space, that change within the landscape is explored in some depth. Kingsbury and Oudolf (2005) make the statement that those manging this type of planting will be faced with constant change within the landscape, and indeed these inevitable changes will require effective management. This is supported by warnings that certain changes could comprise the desired effect and ultimately alter the balance within the design or landscape (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005). The following statement from the same book really raises questions regarding the authors’ concept of change, ‘demonstrated the visual success of some very well-established ecological plantings where natural processes have so shuffled the original plant selection that the outcome is only partly a result of human design’ (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005 pp.101). Kingsbury and Oudolf (2005) suggest to the reader that natural change within the planting which alters the design can be visually successful. This however does contradict the statements highlighted previously that the management of change is required.

Change within the landscapes were not mentioned in the 2010 title, Landscapes in Landscapes, despite providing an opportunity by means of a case study breakdown across a number of Oudolf ’s landscapes around the globe.

Much of the same messages are repeated in the later Kingsbury and Oudolf 2013 book, Planting: A New Perspective. Released eight years later, the authors’ will have had a better understanding of the changes on a number of the landscape. It would appear that Kingsbury and Oudolf were very much aware of the changes within the planting, and accepting of it, Kingsbury and Oudolf (2013) contemplate the adverse effects on visual and species diversity, which may ultimately degrade the original concept. However, in his latest book; Robert Hammond who has written the introduction in this book; adds that Oudolf ’s approach is open to change and allows the plants the freedom to do so (Hammond 2017). Kingsbury and Oudolf (2013) do attempt to explain the reasons for these possible changes to provide the wider audience with information to consider. Again, elements of plant performance and plant survival strategy were discussed; however, in this context it aids the reader to visualise the changes within the landscape using examples of change (Kingsbury and Oudolf 2013). Kingsbury and Oudolf (2013 pp.236) do question change within these landscapes in terms of their longevity and the desired outcome with the following statement ‘However, simply relying on long-lived plants over time can be remarkably static. Is this what we want? Long term predictability may work for some situations but is in many ways unrealistic’. This does raise the question whether the landscapes have a life span and what should be done when they reach a certain age.

27

It is in Planting Design: Gardens in Time & Space, that Oudolf starts to question the longevity of his landscapes; Kingsbury and Oudolf (2005) do acknowledge that this planting and therefore his landscapes have a life span.

They expand on this by adding that perennial planting within a large public setting generally has an acceptable duration of between five to ten years (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005). Kingsbury and Oudolf (2013 pp.36) start their 2013 book, by asking the question ‘How long do perennial plantings last?’ and will later add a ten-year benchmark. Reverting back to the literature in 2005, Kingsbury and Oudolf (2005) do state that when the landscapes have matured to that point of perfection in their owners or managers eyes; decline is almost certain to begin. Is this the ten-year marker that they have set out?

However, the authors do express an understanding that this is difficult to judge as ultimately the perception of the planting is inevitably subjective (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2013). The following declaration does offer consideration for those involved in managing these naturalistic landscapes in light of what has been found within the text highlighted in all of the above; ‘even with the most skilled management, a point is reached when some sort of restoration becomes necessary’ (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2013 pp.40).

This is interlinked with a number of the points already highlighted within this review. Again, it is in Kingsbury and Oudolf’s 2005 book, where restoration or regeneration of the landscape is first mentioned. Kingsbury and Oudolf (2005) delineate their idea of the life cycle of a garden seen in figure 004.

Maintenance has been touched upon in 2.3 and a number of the other items are self-explanatory, however it is the items, ‘Regeneration’ and ‘Senescence’ that Kingsbury and Oudolf would go on to discussed these ideas.

Senescence or old age in relation to the landscape is described as ‘A garden may continue to develop without receiving occasional regenerative maintenance. Plants that die may not be replaced, and some may completely overcome others. Whether the skeleton of the old layout remains apparent or the original design intention is unknown, such gardens need restoration. Often they are simply impractical or undesirable for contemporary use and will need a new design’ (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005 pp.124). This book is states that all landscapes will reach this level and that a more drastic intervention is required to restore the balance where general maintenance will not suffice (Kingsbury and Oudolf 2005). The practicalities of this have been considering and possible solutions are suggested within the text. The authors justify this restorative approach as stating that it is more feasible than constant skilled attention as long as this regeneration is thoroughly planned and under the guidance of either the designer or a skilled horticulturist (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005). The process of reviewing the landscape has again been illustrated in figure 005. which has been devised as a management tool in line with figure 004.

28

idea>design>implementation>establishment>maintenance>senescence>regeneration> maintenance> senescence>idea. figure 004 - Kingsbury and Oudolf’s life cycle of a garden. Planting Design: Gardens in Time & Space (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005 pp.124).

figure 005 - Flow chart which has been devised to show the choices management must encounter in the life cycle of a naturalistic landscape. Planting Design: Gardens in Time & Space (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005 pp.152)

29

The same directive is discussed in Kingsbury and Oudolf’s 2013 book, Planting: A New Perspective .The authors’ draw attention to the ten-year benchmark again by expressing ‘In the (for the sake of argument) ten years since the planting was made, the following will have happened: it will have become obvious which species are problematic, new species and cultivars will become commercially available, ideas about planting design will have changed’ (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2013 pp.40). This is not necessarily suggesting a complete renovation of the landscape as the literature in 2005 suggest, but could be providing an alternative option at the ‘regeneration’ stage. In addition, the authors expressed that new species and ideas need to be considered, so that the original planting can coexist alongside new plants highlighting the passage of time across the landscape (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2013). Kingsbury and Oudolf (2013) add that an exact restoration of the original design is favoured by many; however, in light of new ideas and plant species available now, describe that approach as inappropriate and urge those to approach it as more of a ‘Renovation’ project.

figure 006 - [right] Perennial Meadow at Scampston Walled Garden pre-cut back. January 2018. Author.

30

Chapter 3 - Case Study Landscapes

[3.4] Trentham Gardens, Staffordshire

32

[3.1] Scampston Walled Garden, North Yorkshire

figure 007 - Map of the UK with England highlighted and case study landscape locations displayed. Aerial imagery taken from Edina.Digimap.

[3.2] Pensthorpe Natural Park, Norfolk

[3.3] RHS Garden Wisley, Surrey

[3.5] Potters Fields Park, London

33

This chapter provides a brief introduction to the five case study landscapes identified as part of this research project and the landscapes that Oudolf has created in England (Figure 007). They have been discussed in chronological order, from his earliest work to latest design. They will also show the management structure which highlights the different approaches to management in every site. It is these case study landscapes and their staff that I will refer to throughout this study; often being referred to as landscape, gardens or parks.

3.1 - Scampston Walled Garden

Address: Scampston, Malton, North Yorkshire, England Area of Oudolf landscape: 15,000 m2 Creation of Oudolf landscape: 1999 [Open to the public in 2005]

3.1.1 - Background

The hall at Scampston situated in the North Yorkshire countryside, dates back to the 1700’s when the land was acquired by the St. Quintin family (Scampston 2016). It was a member of the St.Quintin family who later that century wrote to Lancelot ‘Capability’ Brown regarding a design for the wider estate and it is believed that the walled garden itself dates back to this time (Scampston 2016). Built as a kitchen garden the walled garden was left derelict until the hall was acquired by the Legard family through marriage in the late 20th century. The garden, along with the hall itself underwent a huge renovation project, authorised by Sir Charles and Lady Caroline Legard in the mid 1990’s. It was during this time when Piet Oudolf was commissioned to create a contemporary visitor attraction within this former working kitchen garden.

3.1.2 - Oudolf Landscape

Oudolf’s design for the landscape was to create eight distinct gardens (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2010). Kingsbury and Oudolf (2010) explain that Oudolf created a variety of visions within each ‘room’ of modernist formality, utilising rivers of grass and perennials alongside more conventional landscape features such as yew and beech hedging. Set within its historic surroundings, the Oudolf landscape provides a contemporary approach to the traditional English walled garden experience (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2010). Oudolf was first engaged in 1999, with the garden eventually opening to the public in 2005. In an interview, Lady Legard discussed the challenge of funding the quantities of plants specified within Oudolf’s designs, propagating and dividing plants to meet their requirements (Lacey 2008). It remains one of Oudolf’s largest commissions in England.

34

3.1.3 - Staff Structure

The landscape is managed by a ‘Head Gardener’ with support from a staffing structure as depicted in the diagram – figure 008. Yellow indicates the level of the interview participant and pink the questionnaire participants.

figure 008 - shows the staff structure in place at Scampston Walled Garden.

35

figure 009 - original layout for Scampston Walled Garden - November 1999 - Piet Oudolf. figure 010 - original planting plan for Scampston Walled Garden - date unknown - Piet Oudolf.

36

figure 011 - Spring at Scampston Walled Garden - May 2017 - Author. figure 012 - Summer at Scampston Walled Garden - August 2017 - Author. figure 013 - Autumn at Scampston Walled Garden - November 2017 - Author. figure 014 - Winter at Scampston Walled Garden - January 2018 - Author.

37

3.2 - Pensthorpe Natural Park

Address: Pensthorpe, Fakenham, Norfolk, England Area of Oudolf landscape: 4,500 m2 Creation of Oudolf landscape: 2000 [Renovation 2008]

3.2.1 - Background

The site of Pensthorpe Natural Park was once just rolling farmland before previous owner Bill Makin transformed the site over a 50-year period (BBC Norfolk 2009). Conservationist Makin sustainably extracted over 1 million tonnes of gravel from the site to create a sanctuary for wildlife (Pensthorpe 2018; BBC Norfolk 2009). In 2003, the Jordans – of Jordans Cereal – purchased the reserve to take the development to the next level. Pensthorpe is now a 200-acre plus nature reserve which is host to a variety of habitats including lakes, woodland, marsh and grassland. These habitats create a rich landscape in which a variety of birds, mammals, invertebrates and plants species can flourish. The primary aim for the Pensthorpe Trust was to encourage public access to the nature reserve when Oudolf was commissioned to design a landscape to serve as a visitor attraction (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2010).

3.2.2 - Oudolf Landscape

Oudolf’s contemporary planting style was welcomed at Pensthorpe when initially commissioned to design a landscape for the new millennium, duly Pensthorpe named the Millennium Garden (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2010). Kingsbury and Oudolf (2010) explain that this was Oudolf’s second commission in the UK; and was deemed revolutionary at the time as his use of grasses are not commonly seen in a British garden (Stuart-Smith, 2013). Piet was invited back in 2008 by Pensthorpe to redesign the Millennium Garden which was completed at the end of the decade (Pensthorpe 2018). Pensthorpe (2018) stated that the original design has been compromised due to some overcrowding within the beds and some perennials had been completely lost all together.

3.2.3 Staff Structure

The landscape is managed by a ‘Head Gardener’ with support from a staffing structure as depicted in the diagram – figure 015. Yellow indicates the level of the interview participant and pink the questionnaire participants.

38

figure 015 - shows the staff structure in place at Pensthorpe Natural Park.

39

figure 016 - planting plan for the redesign at Pensthorpe Natural Park

40

- December 2008 - Piet Oudolf.

figure 017 - Spring at Pensthorpe Natural Park - May 2017 - Author. figure 018 - Summer at Pensthorpe Natural Park - July 2017 - Author. figure 019 - Autumn at Pensthorpe Natural Park - November 2017 - Author. figure 020 - Winter cut back at Pensthorpe Natural Park - February 2018 - Author.

41

3.3 - RHS Garden Wisley

Address: Wisley, Woking, Surrey, England Area of Oudolf landscape: 3,400 m2 Creation of Oudolf landscape: 2001

3.3.1 - Background

The RHS garden at Wisley dates back to the late 19th Century when the majority of the site we see today was wooded farmland (Royal Horticultural Society 2018). The RHS were given the site in 1903 following the death of previous owner and gardener George Fergusson Wilson and the gardens were opened a year later in 1904 by King Edward VII to mark the centenary of the society.

Over the last 114 years the RHS expanded Wisley into a 240-acre ornamental garden whilst developing the educational and scientific aspect of the site over this time (Royal Horticultural Society 2018). It is now considered the flagship garden of the RHS and is one of the UK’s most visited gardens. The formally shaped Edwardian double border, 150 meters long by 12 meters wide, was the area Oudolf was commissioned to provide a contemporary rework.

3.3.2 - Oudolf Landscape

As Kingsbury and Oudolf (2010) report, Oudolf provided the RHS with a considerably radical design of sophisticated plant combinations. It is felt that Oudolf succeeded in creating an avant-garde border; achieved by dividing the borders into 66 diagonal bands or ‘rivers’ as they’re referred to; each river contains three to four perennials or grasses which have been combined due to their compatibility aesthetically throughout the year (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2010; Royal Horticultural Society 2018). No combination is ever repeated which shows the variety of species on display (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2010). In 2010 Kingsbury and Oudolf believed that the initial reaction to the landscape was mixed; but has grown into the jewel in the crown at Wisley.

3.3.3 - Staff Structure

The landscape is managed by ‘Garden Manager for Hardy Ornamental’ with an extensive staff structure as detailed in the diagram – figure 021. Yellow indicates the level of the interview participant and pink the questionnaire participants.

42

figure 021 - shows the staff structure in place at RHS Garden Wisley.

43

figure 022 - planting plan for the glasshouse borders at RHS Garden Wisley

44

- October 1999 - Piet Oudolf.

figure 023 - Spring at RHS Garden Wisley - May 2017 - Author. figure 024 - Summer at RHS Garden Wisley - July 2017 - Author. figure 025 - Autumn at RHS Garden Wisley - November 2017 - Author. figure 026 - post Winter cut back at RHS Garden Wisley - March 2018 - Author.

45

3.4 - Trentham Gardens

Address: Trentham, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, England Area of Oudolf landscape: 12,300 m2 Creation of Oudolf landscape: 2004 – 2007

3.4.1 - Background

Formerly the seat of the Duke of Sutherland; the house and gardens were built at Trentham in the early 19th Century. It was around this time that ‘Capability’ Brown designed the parkland landscape including a 1.6-kilometer long lake; added to later by Victorian additions such as a formal Italian Garden. As the area thrived in the late 19th Century and became heavily industrialised; the Sutherland family abandoned the estate which resulted in the property being demolished in 1911 (Martin 2008). Current owners St Modwen bought the estate in 1996 after it had further fallen into disrepair; and subsequently spent £100 million transforming the estate in line with their renovation plans (Trentham Estate). This vision included restoring the gardens at Trentham. Alexander Sinclair (2014) revealed that St Modwen took a sensitive but contemporary approach to restoring the gardens and subsequently appointed Piet Oudolf and Tom Stuart-Smith. St Modwen have successfully redeveloped the estate into a visitor attraction with a range of amenities such as restaurants, shops and a number of new gardens.

3.4.2 - Oudolf Landscape

Oudolf has designed two adjoining areas at Trentham, the Floral Labyrinth & Rivers of Grass. The Floral Labyrinth is a collection of thirty beds using a variety of tall, floral dominant perennials, which provides a contemporary contrast to the surrounding eighteenth-century landscape (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2013). The Rivers of Grass, separated from the Floral Labyrinth by a row of Betula nigra [River Birch], has been designed as ‘stylized marshland’ due to Oudolf’s dominant use of grasses, and in particular, two cultivars of Molinia caerculea (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2010). This matrix of grass has been embedded with perennials and small shrubs for early summer interest.

The River Trent runs through the garden and is within close proximity to the Oudolf landscape. Kingsbury and Oudolf (2010) contend that Oudolf was aware that the area was prone to flooding, and that he had to incorporate this challenge into his design with his planting choice being tolerant of occasional waterlogging.

3.4.3 Staff Structure

The landscape is managed by a ‘Head of Garden & Estate’ with support from a staffing structure as depicted in the diagram – figure 027. Yellow indicates the level of the interview participant and pink the questionnaire participants.

46

figure 027 - shows the staff structure in place at Trentham Gardens.

47

figure 028 - original layout for the ‘Rivers of Grass’ at Trentham Gardens - March 2006 - Piet Oudolf. figure 029 - original planting plan for the ‘Floral Labyrinth’ at Trentham Gardens - March 2006 - Piet Oudolf.

48

figure 030 - Spring at Trentham Gardens - May 2017 - Author. figure 031 - Summer at Trentham Gardens - August 2017 - Author. figure 032 - Autumn at Trentham Gardens- November 2017 - Author. figure 033 - Winter at Trentham Gardens - February 2018 - Author.

49

3.5 - Potters Fields Park

Address: London, England Area of Oudolf landscape: 2,500 m2 Creation of Oudolf landscape: 2007

3.5.1 - Background

The site in which Potters Fields Park resides on the south bank of the river Thames in central London has had a dynamic history. In the early 1600’s the area was famous for Dutch potters making Delftware after fleeing persecution in Holland – this is presumably the origin of the parks name today.

Potters worked in the area and on the site itself until the mid-19th century when two granaries then populated the site (Potters Fields 2018). Following the completion of neighbouring Tower Bridge later that century the park also became a cemetery, with a number of gravestones are still visible today.

The area was redeveloped as a public park in the early 1980s to incorporate both a garden space and a culture and events space (Potters Fields, 2018; Kingsbury & Oudolf 2010). It was part of the 2006 major refurbishment work when Oudolf was commissioned by landscape architects Gross Max to design the planting within the park. The park is managed by a Trust set up with aims of managing public space in the area in the interest of public welfare and sustainability (Potters Fields 2018). The establishment of the trust has been described by Kingsbury and Oudolf (2010) as fundamental to the long-term success of the park.

3.5.2 - Oudolf Landscape

The landscape was created to instil an atmosphere of a ‘secret garden’ by bringing the experience of nature into the heart of London (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2010). The design consists of geometric shaped beds consisting of a series of ‘stripes’. Kingsbury & Oudolf (2010) declare that each ‘stripe’ consists of a variety of compatible perennials which work harmoniously with the species within the adjacent ‘stripe’. As Kingsbury and Oudolf (2010) explain, a pathway bisects the planting; leading visitors from the entrance on Tooley Street to the heart of the park.

3.5.3 - Staff Structure

The landscape is managed by a ‘Park & Events Manager’ with support from a contracted ‘Head Gardener’ position as depicted in the diagram – figure 034. Yellow indicates the level of the interview participant.

50

figure 034 - shows the staff structure in place at Potters Fields Park.

51

figure 035 - planting plan for the landscape at Potters Fields Park - February 2006 - Gross Max.

52

figure 036 - Spring at Potters Fields Park - May 2017 - Author. figure 037 - Summer at Potters Fields Park - August 2017 - Author. figure 038 - Autumn at Potters Fields Park - November 2017 - Author. figure 039 - Winter at Potters Fields Park - February 2018 - Author.

53

Chapter 4 - Interview and Questionnaire Analysis

4.1 - Management Staff Interview Analysis

Interviews were carried out with one managerial staff member from each case study landscape with the exception of Potters Fields Park where two participants were interviewed due to shared responsibilities. The method of interview have been specified in table 005. Interviews were all recorded for transcription which allowed for a six-step thematic analyses (Braun & Clarke 2006) to form the themes of discussion as below. All the questions and transcribed answers can be found in appendix 002.

Position

Landscape

Interview Type

Head Gardener

Scampston Walled Garden

In person

Participant Code E

Head Gardener

Pensthorpe Natural Park

Skype

A

Garden Manager for Hardy Ornamental

RHS Garden Wisley

Telephone

Head of Garden & Estate

Trentham Gardens

In person

F

Park & Events Manager

Potters Fields Park

Skype

C

Head Gardener

Potters Fields Park

Telephone

B

D

table 005 reminds the reader of those interviewed.

4.1.1 - The Management Professionals This theme explores the experience and education of the participants with a view of analysing how this has assisted them manage their Oudolf landscape.

4.1.1.1 - Horticultural Work Experience To Date

54

There is a vast amount of experience across the six participants interviewed, with numerous experiences and opportunities within the horticulture industry listed. Three of the participants interviewed had experience working across a number of traditional estate gardens prior to taking their current positions; participant A had previously worked at the Eden Project, Cornwall as well as on other schemes abroad. All of those interviewed alluded that this was the first Oudolf landscape they have worked on and managed. A varying range of time was shown working on the Oudolf landscape; this ranged from one to fourteen years. Interestingly, only one of the participants had no horticultural or landscape management experience.

4.1.1.2 - Horticultural Education

Four of the six participants had a formal qualification in horticulture; two having no qualification in landscape or horticultural which would inform their work. The highest qualification was an RHS Diploma. One of the six participants interviewed, participant E has a landscape design qualification on top of their horticultural qualification.

4.1.1.3 - Learning From Other Oudolf Landscapes

In response to being asked if they had visited another of Oudolf landscapes, two had not visited another Oudolf landscape at all, however expressed a desire to visit one in the future. The Glasshouse Borders at RHS Garden Wisley was the most visited landscape with three of the participants having visited there. Two had visited Oudolf’s own garden in Hummelo, being described as “very inspirational” and “wonderful to see”. One of these visits was classified as being on a professional basis and the rest confirmed as personal visits.

4.1.2 - Oudolf & His Design of the Landscapes Participants discussed Oudolf, his design for their landscape and Oudolf’s involvement from the earliest inception to future management which have all been encapsulated within this theme.

4.1.2.1 - Managements Understanding of Naturalistic Planting & Oudolf’s Design Concept

The participants showed an awareness of understanding the concept of naturalistic planting. One participant expressed a greater understanding with reference to Oudolf’s use of matrix planting, whilst others acknowledged his literature, with reference in particular to Noel Kingsbury and Oudolf. Two of those interviewed did elaborate on the concepts impact on maintenance, stating “Oudolf’s style is that, that thing where you can really, level the maintenance out across the year, you’re not really getting massive peaks and troughs in terms of maintenance” and “that the idea that is reduced maintenance by the fact that you only do an annual cut back once a year”. Participant F added “it takes a long time to get that understanding” on reflection of their staff’s understanding of the concept.

55

4.1.2.2 - Design Suitability

All six participants agreed that the design was fitting to the site and structure in place to manage the landscape. Interestingly, participant D reflected on the design and stated that the restrictive brief had an impact on the way the landscape is viewed, “they do very well, but it doesn’t actually allow you to appreciate the skill of his planting design”. Themes emerging from the design stage varied; from the design and the brief provided, to issues experienced.

Two of the participants commented on the contemporary design within its more traditional surroundings as an element of the brief provided. Participant E explains that some difficulties at design and implementation stage were experienced, “the budget was getting shorter and shorter” which resulted in it“effectively it got half made”. As a result, it was revealed that limited plans were created - see figure040 which shows plans drawn retrospectively for the ‘perennial meadow’ area at Scampston Walled Garden.

figure 040 shows one of four hand drawn plan created retrospectively from what had been planted – year unknown. Scampston Walled Garden.

November 2017. Author.

56

4.1.2.3 - Recognition Of Oudolf

One participant in particular showed awareness of Oudolf’s career and the progression that they have witnessed in the time since designing the landscape they manage. All participants would confess to being a fan of Oudolf’s work, some stating that they had been for a number of years. Participant D articulated Oudolf’s influence, stating they were “quite inspired by his ethos towards horticulture and garden design”. Experience of Oudolf’s wider influence was cited, two of the participants described replicating this planting style within different areas of the park or different parks entirely. Participant B added that the landscape has had an impact on a larger scale as “it has led to the ecology being improved in the whole area”.

4.1.2.4 - Oudolf’s Involvement in the English Landscapes

Besides RHS Garden Wisley, Oudolf has not been invited back in a professional capacity to any of the landscapes used within this study. Answers were unanimous across all participants (with the exception of RHS Garden Wisley) that he has had little to no involvement with the landscapes; some confessing they have had no contact with him at all. Oudolf was known to have had contact with a number of their predecessors or members of their team that are no longer there and that level of contact no longer in place. Reasons for the lack of contact were discussed however one participant added that there were no funds for consultation as management of the landscape was now reliant on the garden team’s own knowledge. Participant F explains “Piet’s commission was that he would be involved in establishing the scheme maybe for the first year, but therefore after...we are not going to continue to pay Piet, when we have a full time, professional garden team here”. Two participants explained how Oudolf had in fact visited their landscapes in the past on his own accord as opposed to professional, paid visits. It was participant D from RHS Garden Wisley who discussed the newly found working relationship with Oudolf; believing in the importance of investing in this consultation to benefit the landscape. The following statement was made to support this belief; “to build a better working relationship with him as we wanted to continue to develop and evolve his contribution”.

57

4.1.3 - Managing The Landscape The following themes were collated from numerous subordinate themes derived from the interview data to best represent the role of managing the Oudolf landscapes.

4.1.3.1 - Managing the Design

Three skills in particular were mentioned as essential in assisting to manage Oudolf’s designed landscape. Namely; awareness of plant performance, identifying competitive species and the importance of timing. The importance of timing was believed to be a skill that would inform maintenance to assist with issues experienced onsite. When asked directly, all participants confirmed that a management plan or long-term vision statement to inform management of the landscape was never provided by Oudolf. One participant did question what that would state. Although no written documents had ever been produced

by Oudolf, participant E explained that there was verbal instruction which has been passed down between staff members. With regards to managing change within the design; one participant stressed that it was “important that I keep to his design, and it’s probably easier to keep to his design…we are not going to change it”. Another referred to Oudolf’s written work as a resource, stating “there is also a lot of written work by Oudolf and Noel again to fall back on, in terms of how does the sort of concept works”. When answering question fifteen, the participants reflected on the concept of naturalistic planting design and its impact on how the landscape was supposedly managed. Four out of the five agreed that the concept would allow them some aspect of flexibility throughout the year.

4.1.3.2 - Managing the Landscape

This theme describes the approach in which the participants take to managing the landscape under their responsibility. Participant B described the need for “flexibility and opened mindedness!”. Participant D described their approach as “being mindful and getting a good understanding of the plants within that scheme” as well as “being brave enough” to make decisions. The roles and team structures varied considerably across the five case study landscapes; ranging from small teams supported by volunteers to large in-house teams of specialist horticulturalists or gardeners. Participant E described how the team structure had “slowly evolved” over time, and would now describe it as a “contemporary garden staff model to go with the contemporary garden”.

With regards to Potters Fields Park, participant C expressed their requirement for a specialist contractor in which to manage and maintain the landscape.

Whereas participant F express the requirement of having good continuity and understanding of the landscape from their staff.

58

Further themes were exposed from the data, including the funding models in place, marketing opportunities and commercial aspects of this landscape.

Financial implications of the landscape were discussed with two of the participants adding that very little money had been spent on the landscape under their management. Those interviewed explained that information would be provided to their staff, mainly via verbal means or by example of working alongside them on the landscape. One expanded on the importance of communication “communication is key to make sure there is an understanding of what is required and what is the standard that is expected”. Of the five-case study landscapes, only two would produce a written report following their annual assessment. Participant D stated “we have been working to build up our own kind of management notes” to assist maintenance staff understand and manage the landscape. Finally, a number of the participants would compare the landscape against a more traditional, herbaceous landscape or garden; and raise awareness of the differences in the level of resource between the two styles of planting.

4.1.3.3 - Assigned Resource on the Landscape

The majority of participants agreed resource was adequate to manage the landscape. Participant F stated that “the most amount of resource in that area than we have had for a quite while” and that they were able to “not just to sustain it but to improve it”. Participant A from Pensthorpe Natural Park suggested they didn’t have the right amount of resource currently due to their lack of time in the garden. Participant D explains that “maintenance required fluctuates, but we have increased the resources for that area to ensure that we can continue to manage it”, adding that there is a member of staff now working five days a week on the landscape. Additional roles and work requirements were another key element of this theme; the time of the participants or that of their staffs being required elsewhere was revealed to be a resource issue.

Four of the five case study landscapes utilised volunteers as a resource and had them working on the Oudolf landscape. It was considered that volunteers would usually have a good horticultural knowledge, however the principles of managing a naturalistic landscape would require some explaining. Two of the participants would state that they had access to an in-house propagation resource in which they could use when required on the landscape. There was no mention of propagation from the other four participants which would suggest they may have to source replacement planting externally.

59

4.1.3.4 - Using Contractors as a Resource

When asked about the use of outside contractors, the participants response was split. Participant F believed that contractor assistance would “release the team from the burden of doing a chore that doesn’t require a great deal of skill”. However, it became evident that the use of contractors had not always successful at Trentham Gardens and their involvement has been limited over the years as a consequence of this. Difficulties arose whilst working with contractors “it was successful for the first and the second year, and after that it became very unsuccessful, and the team became very disconnected with the contractors so, they were not being properly supervised or supported”.

However, the same contractors are still used on the landscape today. From discussions with participant B and C, it would appear that the use of contractors at Potters Fields Park was in place due to economic constraints; although it was emphasized that the contractors in place were “horticultural specialists”.

The three other participants were adamant they would not use contractors on their landscape. One describing it as “not an option” due to the skills of the in-house staff. The final two participants would provide examples of why it would not work in their opinion; one believed that contractors have “very little understanding of the timing and the rhythms within the site”. Participant A believed that this landscape is “too difficult to manage on a contract” due to time constraints and weather conditions effecting when certain tasks could be carried out. Participant B, the only contractor interviewed, believes it does work when asked directly if having contract in place was good for both parties involved. Participant C, from the same landscape, Potters Fields Park; further supports this by suggesting “there is sort of a mutual support I think…I’ve always felt that we are one team”.

4.1.3.5 - Reviewing the Landscape

Reviews of the landscape occurred against Oudolf’s original plan across all of the case study landscapes. The period of time between each review or assessment was the variable in this case. Some participants stated that it was reviewed constantly, to more formal annual reviews with reports produced, to a review on a 3-4-year cycle. Two of the participants would oversee the review but it would be the responsibility of the maintenance staff to coordinate this, again with varying outcomes as one participant explains “some people have been much more meticulous than others at addressing that”. The word ‘hindsight’ was mentioned a number of times by a number of participants throughout the interviews. In hindsight, participant F stated that they would be asking different things of Oudolf, if commissioned today. The greater part of participants expressed an in-depth knowledge of their sites and the landscapes they managed. Discussions of how the landscape performed seasonally, reference of the topography of the landscape down to aspects of plant performance within the Oudolf landscape were all made. When discussing the landscapes throughout the interview, a number of participants would express

60

response to their landscapes. A sense of pride was cited as the most common response from the participants, with many extremely proud of what they have achieved with regards to the appearance of the landscape.

4.1.3.6 - Management Issues

Various management issues obtained from the research have been encapsulated in this theme. One of the participants experienced issues with members of the public and the problems associated with managing a public space such as litter. The four other case study landscapes did not experience any of these issues. The funding mechanism for this park and the impact of that on the staff was seen as a concern from the data. Management issues regarding staff was a common topic, however issues varied from the lack of “continuity” in staff, to reflection on the staffing model in place proving to be “harder to manage” for one participant. One stated that they have had “numerous challenges” with the landscape over the years which shows a number of approaches or changes have been made in order to adapt the landscape to these pressures.

Two participants discussed changes to the planting in order to combat the issues they face. Participant B is considering a substantial change to the design to combat issues with the homeless, removing a whole area of the original design. The other is making informed planting changes when certain species fail on the landscape.

61

4.1.4 - Maintaining the Landscape Within this theme more specific maintenance tasks or requirements were obtained from the data.

4.1.4.1 - Maintenance

This theme incorporates discussions of maintenance that came out of the data.

Some participant discussed exact maintenance techniques applied, for example “we do not stake anything, you know we do not water anything unless it’s a new plant just getting established, but we do not water or stake, we don’t use any chemical”. The level of maintenance was also drawn out of the data, participants reflected on the level of maintenance that is currently assigned to the landscape with reflection on how this has evolved over time. It was evident that management has significant effects on the maintenance of the landscape.

Potters Fields Park’s use of events as funding, has had an adverse effect on the maintenance teams. The events and volume of guests had consequences that seemingly took priority over the maintenance of the landscape. Participant B explains that “it gives us more rubbish to pick up, and it stops us gardening”.

4.1.4.2 - Garden Staff

Consideration to their staff varied in the data, topics such as, staff experience and qualifications, the staff’s approach or connection to the landscape were all discussed. Generally, all participants spoke positively about their staff and their capabilities in maintaining the landscape. The interviewees experienced some difficulties managing staff. One stated that they had difficulties retaining some staff members, whilst two had to challenge staff’s approach to maintaining the landscape, one even admitting “I don’t think his way of maintaining it is necessarily the best and efficient way of doing it”. A number of the participants discussed training of their staff with great pride. One describing it such “we like to invest a lot in our staff to try and ensure that they have the resource or the tools required to do the job”. In answer to question twelve, the participants reviewed their trust in the staff; when asked to which point would they allow the unsupervised maintenance of the landscape to them. One participant stated there was “a big responsibility with the scheme”; another stated “I think it is more down to time than knowledge” which seemed to be a common answer amongst those interviewed. It was stated that requirement could be anything from a couple of months, to having witnessed the staff member work on the landscape for all four seasons.

62

The vast majority of the participants would express that they have inherited 4.1.4.3 - Managing Weeds in the Landscape weed problems and it is evident that it is still a problem across a number of the landscapes as can be seen in figures 041 to 045. Other than weeds, the main issue that emerged from the data appeared to be the quality of work at implementation stage; which is now causing issues for the current staff managing and maintaining the landscape. Three of the participants asked admitted weeds were a problem, one stating it is the biggest challenge they face on the landscape. The perennial weed Equisetum [mare’s tail] was a common problem across the case study landscapes. Participant B revealed a relaxed approach adding that “we could let the garden be full of weeds for the whole summer and we would get one or two complaints” – suggesting visitors were either not noticing or reporting this issue. Participant D however added “occasionally we will get a comment on say, levels of perhaps Mare’s tail or if there are issues of bind weed but that is part of our job to address the maintenance” which perhaps emphasises the types of visitors across the landscapes.

Participants would go on to elaborate on their individual approach to managing the weed issues within their landscape. The results from the data would suggest that the overall approach would be to conservatively manage the issue rather than adopting more drastic measures of eradicating them. Participant D from RHS Garden Wisley explaining “we have a ‘live with’ policy where we allow the mare’s tail to get to a certain point…where it is in its full foliage growth, and we will remove it down to ground level and that would normally keep it at bay for the rest of the year”. One described their approach to management as “having the right level of resource and expertise on the ground and picking up the problems”, another stating you “build it into your maintenance program”.

figure 041 - 045 - weeds within the Oudolf planting across the five case study landscapes - from left to right, Scampston Walled Garden, Trentham Gardens, RHS Garden Wisley, Potters Fields Park, Pensthorpe Natural Park - 2017 - Author.

63

4.1.5 - Changes in the Landscape As the majority of these English landscapes approach twenty years of age, this theme demonstrates management staff’s awareness of this and the change within the landscapes as a consequence of this.

4.1.5.1 - Age of the Landscapes

The participants showed an awareness of the age of their landscapes a number of times throughout the interviews. It was obvious from the data, that the participants had an awareness of the maturity of the landscape and its consequent performance in relation to that. One stated that the planting was the “best planting that we have in the garden for its longevity” and another that it “it still performs…20 years almost since it was put in”. One participant suggested that the maturity of the landscape was now posing questions on how to manage certain species or aspects of the landscape. The participants did show a consciousness to the cycle of the landscape when reflecting on it over the last year. Participant A suggested his landscape was “never the same every year” and emphasised that it was “important that I keep to his design” to encounter this.

4.1.5.2 - Making Changes to the Landscape

From the data it revealed that all the case study landscapes have had to make adaptations or changes to the landscapes or Oudolf’s design. Varying opinions of change and how that effected the design of the landscape was also drawn out of the dataset. One participant stated they were “continuously looking at ways of adapting it, to suit our environment” possibly suggesting that some things may have been overlooked initially. Changes that were to be made would be in keeping with Oudolf’s design philosophy, one participant stating that if they were to make changes then “it would be inspired by...so I don’t think that we would necessarily lose anything in that respect”. Certain plant specie failure was another common issue that the managerial staff faced, again with varying approaches to engage with this issue; participant D believed that “if something has died out then, it has completely died out for a reason so we need to evolve and move with time”. Another stated that even when they have changed species specified that had not been quite successful either. One elaborated that Oudolf supported their choice of alternative species due to their knowledge of plants and the site conditions. It was evident throughout the data that participants were trying to identify a scale to the amount of change within the landscape, with large and small changes discussed. Participant E from Scampston Walled Garden confirmed the garden is marketing as an Oudolf garden and clarified that they would not be making any changes as not to affect this. Another discussed changes they believed were required to the landscape but was conscious that “I would be compromising Piet’s scheme”.

64

4.1.5.3 - Informing Oudolf of Change

When asked directly if they would consult Oudolf regarding any changes to the landscape, all the participants overwhelming stated that they would. Two of the participants however, confirmed that they have not had any contact with Oudolf in a number of years. A number of the participants confirmed that the last contact with Oudolf was via their predecessor or another member of staff who is no longer employed there. Only one participant D, stated that Oudolf was engaged in a consultancy capacity and had visited recently to discuss the landscape. Another confirmed that unfortunately their employer would no longer pay for Oudolf’s consultancy and any contact in the past had been in a ‘unofficial’ manner. When asked directly if the participants believed that Oudolf would support any of the changes they were authorising, it was unanimous that they believed he would. All the changes that we being made were seen in a positive manner and assumptions were made that Oudolf therefore would support it. However, as expressed, little contact had been made with Oudolf for a number of years. Participant D; the only participant consulting Oudolf, described him as “very receptive to change and so as long as you stay pure to his design concept” and that “he has lots of observations about his earlier design”, which suggests that Oudolf is reflective of his previous work. When participant F from Trentham Gardens was asked about the inclusion of sculpture within their landscape, they would be “very surprised” if Oudolf did not support that due to an element in the brief for an “adaptable space”; this reveals that changes are being made to the landscape without Oudolf’s input or consultation. It was disclosed within the interviews that RHS Garden Wisley & Trentham Garden were in advanced discussions with Oudolf regarding continued involvement within their gardens. Participant A also showed an awareness that their landscape may need a redesign in the future. Participant D believed Oudolf’s design style had evolved over the time their landscape had been implemented, and that this new opportunity would be to “represent his work in a more modern style”.

65

4.2 - Garden Staff and Volunteer Questionnaire Analysis

The online questionnaire of twenty-eight questions related to those questions proposed to the management staff with a purpose of providing a more in-depth understanding of the management of these landscapes. Across the five case study sites all the managerial staff were asked to provide two participants for the questionnaire. Four of the five participated; Potters Fields Park was the only one case study landscape that did not - resulting in a total of eight participants as seen in table 006. Five of those asked were directly employed by the case study gardens and three were volunteer staff. Participants were prompted to elaborated on themes or topics; the analysis of this has been incorporated into the overall analysis.

Position

Landscape

Questionnaire Type

Participant Code

Volunteer

Scampston Walled Garden

Online

Volunteer

Scampston Walled Garden

Online

G.7

Assistant Gardener

Pensthorpe Natural Park

Online

D.4

Volunteer

Pensthorpe Natural Park

Online

A.1

Horticulturalist

RHS Garden Wisley

Online

B.2

Horticulturalist

RHS Garden Wisley

Online

C.3

Acting Supervisor

Trentham Gardens

Online

F.6

Garden Team Leader

Trentham Gardens

Online

E.5

H.8

table 006 serves as a reminder of those who participated in the questionnaire.

4.2.1- Work Experience and Qualifications

66

Participants experience in time spent working on the Oudolf landscapes varied. The longest serving participant had been working on the landscape for eight years part-time; the longest serving full time participant had worked on the landscape for almost seven years. The shortest serving participant was a volunteer who had three months service. Work experience of the garden staff and volunteers varied also; one stated that they had none at all whilst all three volunteers previous experience consisted of working in their own gardens. Three had a professional background in horticulture; two had experience working within RHS gardens, another working in a number of botanic gardens around the world. When analysing their level of qualifications; only three stated to have professional horticultural qualifications or diplomas, one via a botanical garden and the two through the RHS. Another had a national certificate in amenity & decorative horticulture whilst the three volunteers had no formal qualification in horticultural. One participant believed that both their work experience and qualifications have helped them maintain the landscape; another two would solely refer to the previous work experience and final two to their education. One participant C.3; expressed that he felt ‘extremely

fortunate’ to be working alongside his colleagues at RHS Garden Wisley who have worked in the garden for a number of years and their experience is valuable as a source of information and assistance.

4.2.2 - Knowledge and Source of Information

Seven out of the eight participants believed they had been provided adequate information to understand the maintenance requirements onsite by the managerial staff. The eighth participant stated that more information would be constructive. It was participant E.5 from Trentham Gardens who expressed the need for more information to assist with maintenance of the landscape.

They expressed a specific requirement for additional literature on the following ‘ecological role of herbaceous plants in their habitats; being informed and understanding the difference between traditional Victorian borders and New Perennial Movement planting’. All participants were asked if they had gained a better understanding from a range of books on the subject; only three have read books regarding the management of perennials and their role within Oudolf’s design. All three who answered had read ‘Planting: A New Perspective’ by Noel Kingsbury and Piet Oudolf which provides an insight into the concept of naturalistic planting design with elements of management discussed. Whilst two of those three participants extended their knowledge into perennials and the management of them having read two additional books on the topic. When questioned if they had a good understanding of plant performance, the results came back with a 50-50 split. Further investigation into their understanding of Grime’s Ecological Strategy, revealed a resounding no from all eight participants. Participant C.3 whilst expanding upon question eight, added that they believe the RHS’s effective record keeping of the planting within the landscape as a valuable resource in which they have access to.

67

4.2.3 - Maintaining an Oudolf Landscape

Results were slightly distorted when returned for question sixteen; seven of the participants gave an answer to every month, whilst one participant a volunteer from Scampston Walled Garden could only give a representation of two months due to a limited time working on the landscape. However, contradicting results are evident; participants stating different levels of maintenance for the same month which have made some of the results difficult to interpret.

May is clearly the month with the highest level of maintenance assigned to the landscape. The months of March, July and August were highlighted as months of high maintenance also. Surprisingly there were high levels of maintenance in July and August. February and October were revealed the two months with the lowest level of maintenance assigned to the landscape. The results for September, November and December indicate periods of level maintenance.

Three of the seven/eight participants believed that the landscape had a number of months with no maintenance throughout the year. All of this data has been represented in figure 046.

In addition, six of the participants believe they required more time to work on an Oudolf landscape. Five of them believe that additional staff is required; four also stated money as an additional requirement. Two participants from two different case study landscapes accepted resource is adequate and nothing is required to assist their work. These results are represented in figure 047.

68

figure 046 shows results from participants to represent the level of maintenance assigned to the landscape throughout the calendar year.

figure 047 represents the requirements of garden staff and volunteers to assist them with their work on the landscape.

69

Additional querying into which month garden staff and volunteers believed additional resource is required; resulted in six out of seven participants believing that June was the month that requires the most additional resource. March, April, May and August have been identified as requiring additional resource by five of the seven participants. Only one participant believed that no month required any additional resource at all. When asked what maintenance task the participants require additional support with, six of the eight unanimously answered weed control, the results can be seen in figure 048. Participant C.3 elaborated on the fact that they were not given enough time to manage the landscape affectively in their opinion. It was their belief that lack of time to weed the landscapes in particular; was affecting the aesthetic of the landscape, describing the impact as ‘the landscape’s first wave of interest is weedy’. Participant C.3 would go further to add that ‘I’ve not had enough time to get on top of it at the start of the growing season’ which proves to be difficult for the team to maintain the Equisetum spp. growth as can be seen in figure 049.

Two participants however believed that no additional resource is required on any specific maintenance task; suggesting resource is adequate within their garden and park. To summarise the results from the series of questions between sixteen and twenty-one which were in relation to resource; suggest that additional time and staff are required mainly in June to prioritise weeding tasks on the landscape. When asked directly, six out of the eight who took part in this questionnaire believe that this landscape was not ‘low maintenance’.

70

figure 048 shows specific maintenance tasks in which garden staff and volunteers believe require additional support.

figure 040 shows Equisetum spp. [mare’s tail] evident in the landscape at RHS Wisley early in the season as participant C.3 discusses. May 2017 - Author.

71

4.3 - Piet Oudolf Interview Analysis

In a personal interview with Piet Oudolf lasting thirty-nine minutes a number of themes were generated following a semi-structured interview consisting of eighteen initial questions. The questions and therefore answers have some correlation to those asked in the managerial staff interviews and garden staff and volunteer questionnaires. This dataset has allowed the researcher to gain an alternative perspective in which to enhance the results of this study (Denscombe 2008).

4.3.1 - Oudolf: The Professional Oudolf has worked as a landscape professional for almost 40 years, these themes explore Oudolf’s approach as a professional practitioner across a number of topics in which centre around Oudolf as a designer and his involvement in the long-term management of his landscapes.

4.3.1.1 - The Designer’s Considerations at Design Stage

72

Oudolf discussed his approach to site assessment, awareness of the management structure in place, which would affect his designs process were key findings of this theme. He described the initial stages of the commission as getting a “feel” for the project, who would be involved and their requirements for management. He expressed that having good management in place would allow him to be “more daring” because he could go “more into the deep with complexity, with other matrix because instead of block planting, matrix needs more knowledge” clearly display managements significant impact on the designer’s approach. Oudolf also stated “you have to look where it is and... also about space, is important, how many people will visit the park” suggesting his evaluation of the space and its users are also thoroughly considered at the initial stages.

4.3.1.2 - Oudolf’s Approach to Design & Management

“my focus is on design, on beauty, on aesthetics”

4.3.1.3 - Oudolf’s Professional Involvement in the Long-term Management

Oudolf confirmed that he does not write management plans for the long-term management of his landscapes, he suggested that nobody would read them.

He states that none of the landscapes used in this study have invited him back on an advisory or consultancy basis. He described the arrangement with most of these landscapes as a “free base” where he would provide little advice, answering questions with much input on his behalf. Oudolf stated that during the assessment of the landscapes, if asked back, then he provides management recommendations verbally, he called it a “teaching moment”. Oudolf added that he has a desire to be involved in the long-term management of his landscapes. Explaining that if the situation is “right” then he would receive an invitation to come back as a consultant. He would go on to express that if the garden or park would not invest in his time or guidance then he would not invest any time in that landscape; shifting the emphasis that “they’re responsible, not me”. Oudolf did expressed his displeasure in some arrangements, suggesting some gardens are “not interested in me, they’re only interested in sort of…yeah the business element”; stating that the use of his name for the garden took precedent over his long-term involvement. Oudolf stressed the importance of communication by saying “good management communicates, and bad management never communicates and that is essential for our work” – clearly stating that the importance of communication between designer and management staff is paramount for the success of these landscapes.

It was evident from the data that Oudolf’s had a focus on detail and a belief that this approach should be replicated by those managing the landscapes.

His comment “I am very precise in that, so if people do not see the difference, then they will probably not see the difference in whatever I suggest” reaffirms the statement above. Oudolf reflected on his approach to his work and designs, admitting that his approach has evolved over his career, emphasizing that he now has a new focus of “ecology and design, my work is ecology based nowadays, you see I make a lot of mistakes in the past”. He openly admitted that he was still learning as a designer and changing with what he is learning “there are new ideas...there is sort of...yeah...there are new combinations, maybe sort of new wildness”. He stated that whilst the aesthetic was an important role of his approach as a designer, longevity is also important to design approach. Oudolf was able to reflect on his career and talk openly about the ‘mistakes’ he has made. He reflected on lessons he has learnt whilst dealing with clients and that the approach that they take is not necessarily the one he would concur with.

73

4.3.1.4 - The Landscapes Effect on Oudolf’s Reputation

During the interview, the subject of Oudolf’s reputation and what impact these case study landscapes have had on that were discussed. The effect of lack of involvement and the changes encountered by these landscapes were highlighted by Oudolf. Although, slightly disappointed with the standard of some of his English landscapes today; Oudolf was confident that they would not harm his reputation as a designer, affirming that “people know what I do, and I think they cannot harm my name so much”. In addition, Oudolf added that he could use the poorer landscapes as an example of what happens if he is not consulted in the long-term management of the landscapes, explaining “if it has affect then it say this is what you should do...this is how it gets if you don’t put the effort in…”.

4.3.2 - Managing the Landscape As this research project looked at the management of Oudolf’s landscapes in England from the perspective of the staff on site it was necessary to explore Oudolf’s views on management.

4.3.2.1 - Management of This theme explores Oudolf’s awareness of the management of the landscapes the Landscapes but also his expectations from management. He described some managerial approaches as ‘commercial’; with Trentham and Pensthorpe being categorised as such within this interview. It was Oudolf’s belief that the landscape should be maintained to the standard that he maintains his own garden. In the interview he also expressed an awareness of staffing challenges and the requirements he believed were required to manage the landscape. He stated “it’s hard to get people you know, with a real designer intent...with the good standards…”. Oudolf provided an example of a situation experienced in America; where he is often consulted and explained the benefits of working out management issues together where they changed planting to deal with the issues encountered. Throughout the interview, a number of comparisons between the US management approach and the English approach to the management of his landscapes were made. When asked if he had a different arrangement in place with these US commissions; Oudolf confirmed that he did not, but added that they recognised the value in his long-term involvement having built up good working relationships with the management staff in the US.

74

4.3.2.2 - Maintenance Task of Division

One maintenance task in particular was drawn out of the data, this was division. Oudolf expressed that if technique was utilised correctly it would assist in keeping the landscapes rejuvenated. Oudolf emphasised that “you can keep it fresh, only when you divide plants” but believes that this is not being done across the English landscapes by stating that they’re “never as refreshed, never divided, never...replanted”. Furthermore, he added that division is something that he was promoting to the clients at design stage and believes that this is something that is being consistently overlooked by the managerial staff.

The following statement suggests that the longevity qualities of these plants are allowing the division to be disregarded, “these plants are soo strong, they can survive...year after year and you think “oh no, looks good, why should we do something?”.

4.3.2.3 - Changing Landscapes

It was evident from the data that Oudolf is open to change within the planting of his landscapes, “the plan is never what is was, if the garden looks good after ten years, it will never be sort of 1 to 1 with the plan, not even half”. The comment “changes is what makes the garden better!” clearly shows Oudolf’s support and allowance for change within the landscape. Unforeseen change within the landscape is anticipated and is something Oudolf has suggested should be managed together. He also stated that he will support ideas of change but only if they’re right, however some are not supported by Oudolf. Another referral to ‘commercial’ change was made by Oudolf, stating his opinion had no influence over commercial decisions on certain landscapes. For example, the inclusion of sculpture within the Rivers of Grass at Trentham, led Oudolf to categorically stating that he did not support the use of sculptures within his landscape. However supportive of the ‘right’ change, Oudolf suggested that some changes resulted in a detrimental effect with visitors seeing “it’s not my garden anymore”.

4.3.2.4 - The Requirements of Managing an Oudolf Landscape

It was evident from the data that Oudolf believed his participation in the management of the landscape was critical for its success. It was emphasized twice throughout the interview that his involvement in the landscape, post design and implementation stage would make the landscapes “better”. He described his involvement as the “process” in which he suggested the gardens or parks must invest in order to get it right – again he remarks that it is responsibility of the gardens and parks to get it right. “They need to be aware that it is a garden, that is their garden, and if they want to get it right, then they should do something with it…and invest not only in the first time but also, not only in maintenance but also in...the sort of the...the processes”. This theme also encapsulated the clear approach Oudolf believed was required by staff to manage his landscapes. Oudolf suggested that the English gardens saw the landscapes in more of a horticultural light in which they can “interfere” as opposed to “planting as design”. He stated that there was more to gardening than just knowing plants and that design was equally as important for the long-term management of his designs.

75

4.3.3 - The Landscapes Now As part of the interview, the five case study landscapes under review were discussed. Current photographs were shown to Oudolf to prompt conversation as had not been to many of these landscape in a number of years. The reader will find these images in appendix 004.

4.3.3.1 - Oudolf’s Successful Landscapes

Of the five case studies landscapes, there were two which Oudolf spoke positively about; RHS Garden Wisley and Trentham Gardens. In particular, Oudolf expressed his appreciation to participant F at Trentham Gardens for the management of the landscape there due to its scale. With regards to RHS Garden Wisley, Oudolf was very happy with his landscape there and revealed it was “tired, in a positive way”. He added however that it was ready for the next step, a change.

4.3.3.2 - Oudolf’s Unsuccessful Landscapes

It would appear from the data that Oudolf discussed the remaining three case study landscape within a slightly negative context. Oudolf described Potters Fields Park as “living its own life” and that it is no longer his design. He would go on to add that he believed it required a redesign, to start again.

So too, Pensthorpe was described as “living its own life”, the lack of recent communication Oudolf expressed could have been the reason for this. Oudolf mentioned neglect of the landscape in the past at Pensthorpe Natural Park being due to the fact they were previously “cheap on gardeners”; this accumulated in the redesign of the landscape in 2008. In addition, he had not seen the landscape in four or five years; due to communication stopping when the last head gardener left. At Scampston Walled Garden, the lack of attention to detail specifically with regards to the hedges were mentioned a number of times throughout the interview. Oudolf expects the yew hedging would be kept to the standard of the yews within his own garden at Hummelo, explaining that he had provided Scampston Walled Garden with the detail of how he expected it to be maintained, he expressed that ultimately “they should treat it better”.

76

4.3.3.3 - Maturity of the During the interview, Oudolf displayed an awareness of the age and majority English Landscapes of the English landscapes. Oudolf revealed that he believed there was a life span on his landscapes – he explained that to be “20 years” suggesting this was a time to look at new ideas for the landscape. A common description of the landscapes used by Oudolf throughout the interview was that of a “machine”. He used this word to describe the way the landscape performed i.e. its annual cycle. “what I say, a car...it’s not a car but I think it gets sort of tired” and “if you drive a car for 20 years, you think “I need a new car”.

4.3.4 - The Future Landscape To conclude the interview, it was useful to explore the future of Oudolf’s work and the impact this style of planting had on a world stage.

4.3.4.1 - The Future of Naturalistic Planting

“the movement is more about awareness nowadays”

4.3.4.2 - Role of the Landscapes

Despite what Oudolf thinks of the condition of some of his landscapes now, he elaborated on the importance of these landscapes in the world. He alluded to their role in raising awareness and acting as inspiration to what can be achieved within public landscapes, describing them as “examples in the world, that are...only examples, never become mainstream, but they are teaching more...teaching places...teaching for people what you can do, with your surroundings, with your environment, and I think that is most important of making gardens in public”.

Oudolf stressed the importance of public awareness of the naturalistic planting style. He believed that more and more people were becoming conscious of the approach as more and more people were utilising this style of planting.

He emphasised the fact that those who were involved in creating green space have an important role in increasing exposure of this planting concept.

77

78

79

figure 050 & 051 - the glasshouse borders at RHS Garden Wisley - November 2017 - Author.

Chapter 5 - Discussion

This chapter will now raise discussion into what has been found via interviews and questionnaire with management and garden staff and the words and literature of Piet Oudolf. Tables 007 & 008 are to remind the reader of the participant codes used within this discussion.

Position

Landscape

Interview Type

Head Gardener

Scampston Walled Garden

In person

Participant Code E

Head Gardener

Pensthorpe Natural Park

Skype

A

Garden Manager for Hardy Ornamental

RHS Garden Wisley

Telephone

Head of Garden & Estate

Trentham Gardens

In person

F

Park & Events Manager

Potters Fields Park

Skype

C

Head Gardener

Potters Fields Park

Telephone

B

Piet Oudolf

-

In person

PO

Position

Landscape

Questionnaire Type

Volunteer

Scampston Walled Garden

Online

H.8

Volunteer

Scampston Walled Garden

Online

G.7

Assistant Gardener

Pensthorpe Natural Park

Online

D.4

Volunteer

Pensthorpe Natural Park

Online

A.1

Horticulturalist

RHS Garden Wisley

Online

B.2

Horticulturalist

RHS Garden Wisley

Online

C.3

Acting Supervisor

Trentham Gardens

Online

F.6

Garden Team Leader

Trentham Gardens

Online

E.5

D

Participant Code

table 007 & 008 show all of the participants involved within this study, reminding the reader of their codes which are used throughout this chapter.

80

5.1 - Those Involved in Managing the Landscapes

It was a priority of this research project to gain a greater understanding of those managing these landscapes with an emphasis on their skills and knowledge which can then inform the management of the landscapes themselves.

Oudolf’s message remains consistent throughout his literature and the interview within the study; in which he displays an awareness of staff’s skills and abilities at the earliest stage. It is not discussed in any depth until his fourth book, co-written with Noel Kingsbury, Planting Design: Gardens in Time & Space. In this book, Kingsbury and Oudolf (2005) state this consideration of management as a ‘fundamental’ part of the design process. Oudolf revealed during the interview that the level of knowledge shown by management staff can alter his design; Oudolf is designing for the capabilities of the staff in place. Of those interviewed, five out of the six came from a gardening or horticultural background in both an educational and employment sense; one came from an events background so was unable to answer more horticultural based questions and had to rely heavily on the contractor in place for such matters. However, it appeared that this was the first Oudolf landscape that the majority had managed and worked on; participant E stating that he had learnt a lot about Oudolf and Kingsbury’s work whilst studying, gained experience working in other more traditional gardens, before then having the opportunity of managing a naturalistic style landscape. Four of the six participants had a similar career; moving around a number of more traditional estate gardens; one with experience of a more contemporary garden set up at the Eden project before taking the opportunity of managing an Oudolf landscape. Kingsbury and Oudolf (2013 pp.237) make the statement in their 2013 book, Planting: A New Perspective, ‘the skills required by gardeners are clearly different for this new vegetation-style planting’ - has the managerial staff’s previous experience and education set them up for this contemporary approach to gardening or have they had to adapt? When the garden staff & volunteers were asked directly within the research questionnaire what experience or education has assisted them in maintaining this type of landscape, it was a mixed response that a combination of education and work experience that has enabled them to develop the skills required.

Managerial staff were mostly in agreement that it was time (experience) that they required to see from their staff as opposed to the knowledge they possessed. This also reveals a possible lack of opportunities in managing such landscapes; this reflects the fact that management staff tend to stay in place for anything up to fourteen years, as shown in this study. Similar results were evident with garden staff also with a number of long serving staff members having experience of maintaining these landscapes; this was seen as a benefit for participant C.3 who felt fortunate that their colleagues had a wealth of experience to inform maintenance.

81

Oudolf expressed a keen interest in who would be managing his landscapes; this was evident from the interview and across his literature. Hammond (2017) states in Oudolf’s 2017 book, Gardens of the High Line, ‘it takes a special kind of gardener, with an artist’s eye’. This message was echoed in the interview with Oudolf when he states “it’s hard to get people you know, with a real designer intent” suggesting not only did the staff have to have horticultural experience but an element of design skill also. Only one participant, E, had a qualification in landscape design in addition to their horticultural studies. Oudolf and Kingsbury (2005) did also state that the requirement for staff to understand plant characteristics was vital for maintenance of these landscape. Kingsbury & Oudolf mirrored this in their 2013 book, Planting: A New Perspective, where Grime’s theory of plant survival strategy is first mentioned; three of those participating in the questionnaire have stated to have read this. However, when asked directly if they had a good understanding of this in question ten; all eight participants stated they did not. Only four of them believed that they had a good knowledge of plant performance suggesting that there is some work requirement for staff to be at the level at Oudolf and Kingsbury feel necessary. However, seven out of the eight participants state that they believed they had been provided with adequate information to maintain the landscape which suggests a lack of awareness of the literature.

Interestingly, participant E.5, expressed a requirement for additional information and expressed a specific requirement for additional books on the following ‘ecological role of herbaceous plants in their habitats’ which shows a great understanding of the landscape and the personal skill requirements to maintain it. This point is echoed in Kingsbury and Oudolf’s (2013 pp.10) remark on providing staff with ‘greater access to technical information about plant establishment and management, and to ideas about the visual aspect of their use’.

It is Oudolf’s belief and one that resonates throughout his written work that his involvement in the management of his landscapes is ‘crucial for the success of a planting’ (Kingsbury and Oudolf 2005 pp.150). Kingsbury & Oudolf (2005 pp.13) articulate their belief that ‘design and management are closely interlinked, so the best gardens are those which are created by people who combine the role of designer and gardener, or at least have an input and involvement with the management process’. This message was current in the data from the interview with Oudolf; he stated “you could make it much more better if you involve someone”. Management participants were asked about Oudolf’s involvement during their interview; all of the landscapes except RHS Garden Wisley concurred that Oudolf has not been involved in a professional basis since the design and implementation stage of the landscape.

82

It was participant D from RHS Garden Wisley who reiterated Oudolf’s theory, stating that they had invested time in consulting Oudolf “to continue to develop and evolve his contribution” towards the landscape. Participant F would talk frankly, suggesting that the garden was “not going to continue to pay Piet, when we have a full time, professional garden team here”; however, in light of what Oudolf has stated before, that is not enough for a successful landscape. “I want to stress to the client that it is...they’re responsible, not me” is Oudolf’s message in the interview with him, adding that “if they’re business people then they should know what it means to have a good garden” and that success is achievable by this approach; “invest not only in the first time but also, not only in maintenance but also in...the sort of the...the processes”. Of the case study landscapes, the majority had had little to no contact with Oudolf at all. Some would state that their predecessors or other members in their organisation had contact which had now ceased. Participant E, stated that contact with Oudolf was “quite a lot of verbal...instruction from Oudolf, certainly which was then, it was then, been passed down through several, several sort of gardeners who have been here and will probably carry on so” would suggest that Oudolf’s initial thoughts on the landscape were being shared and not changed or adapted as the landscape did. This was also recognised in the interview with Oudolf also, in answer to question 7 he reflects on the levels on communication with the different gardens; but would propose that “good management communicates, and bad management never communicates and that is essential for our work”. This suggests that the level of involvement and communication has been lost or dissolved over time from the management staff in place. Ultimately, it is his inclusion or involvement that Oudolf believes can assist with the management of the landscape; within his book with Noel Kingsbury in 2005, the authors state that ‘a designer who revisits the site will be able to amend the specifications as and when necessary, and carry out some staff training. Building up relationships with staff and ‘leading from the front’ are vitally important if they are to build up a sense of ownership and commitment’ (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005 pp.156). This endorses Kingsbury and Oudolf’s belief that his involvement would improve the landscapes. Oudolf provides an example within his interview that displayed how this theory was put into action; the example he gave was dealing within crowd control in a garden in the United States by amending planting to deter visitors trampling the landscape. Participant B, revealed they were facing issues of a similar nature expressing how they were “constantly looking at ways of using planting to manage the park”. However, in this occasion it appears to have adverse effects as Oudolf points out in his interview that “it is not my design anymore”.

83

5.2 - Managing and Maintaining the Oudolf Landscapes

It was evident when reviewing the literature that Oudolf and Kingsbury’s attention to management and maintenance of the landscape had increased by the time his fourth book was published, in Planting Design: Gardens in Time & Space, a whole valuable chapter in which management and maintenance was addressed in detail for the first time. In their previous works, the authors had limited the roles of maintenance down to two tasks in particular, cutting back and weeding (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2009). However, by 2005, more research had been conducted which Kingsbury and Oudolf could discuss within this publication. Two of the managerial staff would describe the level of maintenance as “Oudolf’s style is that, that thing where you can really, level the maintenance out across the year, you’re not really getting massive peaks and troughs in terms of maintenance” and “And that the idea that is reduced maintenance by the fact that you only do an annual cut back once a year”.

Interestingly this had some correlation to what was found from the staff in the results of the questionnaire shown in figure 047. The results matched much of what Kingsbury and Oudolf were describing; with seasonal spikes in relation to cutting back and weeding tasks. However, maintenance peaked on the landscape for certain garden staff and volunteers in July and August to suggest possible additional tasks such as hedge pruning and grass cutting have been taken into account. In addition, participant D explain “maintenance required fluctuates” when referring to the landscape at RHS Garden Wisley which suggests that the maintenance requirements can be quite unpredictable and not as straight forward as possibly stated in some literature. In, Planting Design: Gardens in Time & Space, Kingsbury & Oudolf (2005 pp.151) clarify that ‘contemporary naturalistic planting can be said to be somewhere in the middle’ of Schmidt’s categorisation of ‘intensive’ and ‘extensive’ maintenance following his research. This was echoed in the garden staff and volunteer’s questionnaire results where 75% would not describe the landscape as low maintenance suggesting that Kingsbury and Oudolf’s development of understanding towards maintenance has indeed been correct.

Resource was a theme generated from the data; managerial staff during interview all agreed that levels of resource were adequate to manage the landscape.

Participant D and F would express that the landscapes were now receiving increased resource in which to manage it. However, this contrasts with the results from the garden staff and volunteer questionnaire where 75% believed that specifically more time was required to manage the Oudolf landscape. This was followed by 62.5% of them believing further staff would be helpful. It was evident from the interview data that managerial found staff to be a slight problem. Participant F in particular discussed the lack of ‘continuity’ at times with garden staff working on the landscape in which had affected on the landscape; and recognised the importance of having staff who knew Oudolf ’s landscape;

84

“ it is really important to Piet’s work, you know to, it’s a difference between a, just bringing somebody in, and weeding it or having somebody that is really deeply connected with it”. Participant B, specifically declared that they have had issues with staff in the past but stated that was down the individuals and nothing else. It was not disclosed within the interview data what the exact issue of retaining staff was across the landscapes; however, it could be the lack of support or resource given to them whilst maintaining this landscape that may have had an effect.

Staff structures varied across the landscapes as interpreted in chapter 3; the majority utilised volunteer help, which participant E felt had ‘evolved’ over time to create a more contemporary staff structure. However, contractor assistance as a resource split opinion amongst those interviewed. Participant A believed that their landscape was too difficult to manage in a contract; participant F however added that they were employed to “release the team from the burden of doing a chore that doesn’t require a great deal of skill”. It was evident from the data that contractor’s skill sets were discussed in a slightly inferior light and acknowledged with an aspect of caution. Oudolf hinted in his interview that if a contractor was being employed then this would influence his design. Kingsbury and Oudolf (2005 pp.156) add that ‘when contractors are used and the planting is not regularly maintained by the same personnel, its future is likely to be very insecure’; this was exemplified at Trentham Gardens where participant F admitted “it was successful for the first and the second year, and after that it became very unsuccessful”. In contrast, at Potters Fields Park is a contracted head gardener, participant B, who has been there for ten years; and identifies the firm he is employed by as “horticultural specialist”. Oudolf, in his interview states that if you have a contractor with an interest in perennials then it is fortuitous, suggesting therefore, in his opinion, that the skills set and dedication of that person is important.

Management expressed awareness of other job requirements or projects limiting their own time and that of their staff’s time despite believing resource time was adequate. Time or lack of it on the landscape was evident in both data sets. For instance, participant B faces pressures managing the volume of litter that builds up in the public park; describing the negative effects of the events that take place there as “it gives us more rubbish to pick up, and it stops us gardening”. They describe the fact that they “could let the garden be full of weeds for the whole summer and we would get one or two complaints, and if we let the litter lay on the ground for half an hour we are full of complaints straight away” to suggest that litter takes priority when managing this landscape. Weeds are evident at Potters Fields Park (figure 052) as they are in all the other landscape. Managerial staff show full awareness of the impact of weeds in their landscapes and all expressed having weed problems when asked during their interview, perennial weed Equisetum spp. being a common issue.

85

Managerial staff on the whole believed that they have inherited this weed problem in some shape or form, Kingsbury and Oudolf provide consideration of this in their 2005 text with technical advice on how to deal with this.

Within this book, Kingsbury and Oudolf (2005) suggest possible chemical solutions despite its undesirability.

Participant B at Potters Fields Park reiterates this by explaining the use of chemicals as a source of weed management is indeed against the trust’s ‘wildlife and ecology policy’ in which they add “is against what we’re trying to do with the ecology in the area”. However, what Kingsbury and Oudolf do state again in their 2005 book, Planting Design: Gardens in Time & Space, that ‘weeds threaten the aesthetic and often the ecological integrity of plantings’ clarifying that it is probably more beneficial for the biodiversity within the landscape to reduce the invasive weed species as opposed to using chemical treatment (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005 pp.165). Participant D argues that there is limited chemical intervention that can assist with removal of Equisetum spp. (mare’s tail), they describe they have deployed a ‘live-with’ policy with regards to the weed on the landscape at RHS Garden Wisley. This would appear to be more of a prevention exercise as opposed to taking the more extreme measures to eradicate the problem. In the questionnaire data when asked what task the garden staff and volunteers believed additional resource is required 75% agreed it would be to support during the weeding tasks. Participant C.3 categorically stated that they felt they were not given enough time to manage the weeds within the landscape; adding ‘I’ve not had enough time to get on top of it at the start of the growing season’. Participant C.3 shows an awareness of how the weeds impact the aesthetic of the landscape early in the season – this can be seen in figure 053 - as already pointed out, comprises the aesthetic and ecological integrity (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005).

Kingsbury and Oudolf make the observation that ‘there may be real problems with having enough time, or staff, to control them’ (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005 pp.168); as this research has found, this may be the case for a number of the case study landscapes.

86

figure 052 shows an established Equisetum spp. [mare’s tail] problem the beds at Potters Fields Park taken August 2017 – Author.

figure 053

shows the Equisetum spp. [mare’s tail] in May 2017 as participant C.3 refers to its impact visually on the landscape. RHS Garden Wisley – Author.

87

It has already been highlighted earlier in this chapter Oudolf’s opinion on his own involvement in ongoing management. As this study has illustrated, four of the five case study landscapes are currently not engaging Oudolf in reviewing the landscape and initial plans on a professional basis. During the interviews, managerial staff were asked directly how often they reviewed the landscape against Oudolf’s original plans. Results of different review schedules emerged from the data with varying outputs, such as reports to inform the next year’s maintenance. Participant A, from Pensthorpe Natural Park, expressed that “it’s important that I keep to his design” which would inform the maintenance assigned to the landscape. It became evident whilst reviewing the literature that Oudolf was almost against this level of control expressing the sentiment ‘to stick to the original plan is often to deny the possibility of exciting spontaneous developments’ in the valuable 2005 book (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005 pp.153). This approach is reiterated in the interview with Oudolf where he continues “changes is what makes the garden better!” and that the garden should not mirror the plan after a number of years. Oudolf notably added in his interview that this could possibly be a cultural issue; in which English gardens see much of planting as an opportunity to “interfere” as opposed to seeing “planting as design” much like the discussion earlier in this chapter. Participant E, shared their questions in relation to this in their interview “it raises the question of when do you interfere and when don’t you interfere” adding that they tended not to intervene at Scampston Walled Gardens – see figure 054 for photograph of the perennial meadow with little ‘interference’. Kingsbury and Oudolf stated in 2005, that ‘one ongoing role of maintenance in such plantings is to maintain a sense of proportion within the planting, so that there is a harmonious balance between the constituent species’ (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005 pp.151). This statement is slightly contradictory suggesting that intervention within the planting is indeed required.

From the data, the best example of this is again at RHS Garden Wisley, Eryngium giganteum ‘Silver Ghost’ which was only designated space in three out of the thirty-five rivers; and now evident in a high percentage of the rivers – see figures 055 & 056. This has been raised within the staff’s annual reports at RHS Garden Wisley and resource assigned to reduce the amount within the borders by two thirds. Are these findings highlighting that without Oudolf’s professional guidance the landscapes are not reaching their maximum potential and that the designer is the only professional who can decide how much change can occur within the planting? ‘even with the most skilled management, a point is reached when some sort of restoration becomes necessary’ (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2013 p.40).

88

figure 054 shows the planting within the ‘Perennial Meadow’ at Scampston Walled Garden – August 2017 – Author figure 055 & 056 shows the prosperity of Eryngium giganteum ‘Silver Ghost’ amongst the borders at RHS Garden Wisley. July 2017 – Author.

89

5.3 - Changes in the Landscape

90

In light of what has been discussed in this chapter and the findings of this research project, Kingsbury & Oudolf (2013 pp.40) assume that ‘even with the most skilled management, a point is reached when some sort of restoration becomes necessary’, conclusively setting out that some change is inevitable within the planting. This study has revealed that change is evident, in some way or form across all of the case study landscapes. It is well documented within Oudolf’s literature that change is an element of his design style and ethos. It is again in his book from 2005, Planting Design: Gardens in Time & Space, where Oudolf and Kingsbury set out guidelines for ‘restorative’ or ‘regenerative’ maintenance. In the same text Oudolf & Kingsbury (2005) set out a requirement for more drastic intervention at times, rather than simply just general maintenance within the landscapes; providing guidance to the reader in how to evaluate the landscape. It is worth pointing out that none of the garden staff & volunteers who participated in the interview have read this book.

It was evident through the interviews that management were only authorising such works as to combat weed issues with participants A, B and D confirming so. However, participant D added that “if something has died out then, it has completely died out for a reason so we need to evolve and move with time” showing thinking more aligned with Kingsbury and Oudolf’s view; it would appear however that these decisions were made by themselves with no professional consultation with Oudolf. The idea of regeneration comes as a consequence of age; Oudolf declares in his interview “it stands there for 18 years, one place, you know, coming and going, coming and going, sort of...never as refreshed”; comparing the landscape to that of a machine throughout. Referring to the condition of the landscape, he added “I think it gets sort of tired…if you drive a car for 20 years, you think “I need a new car”. This resonates with what Oudolf and Kingsbury argue in their writing ‘a garden may continue to develop without receiving occasional regenerative maintenance, plants that die may not be replaced, and some may completely overcome others. Whether the skeleton of the old layout remains apparent or the original design intention is unknown, such gardens need restoration’ (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005 pp.124). As mentioned previously a number of the managerial staff are making changes within the landscape; however, it would appear that this significant change unfortunately is not a consideration at this moment. Kingsbury and Oudolf (2013) do state that this is difficult to predict as the perception of the landscape is subjective. That is echoed in the interview data with participants not wanting to comprise the design and the opinion that “still performs you know, 20 years almost since it was put in”.

This attitude was discussed in the interview with Oudolf with his answer showing great awareness of the mentality of management; Oudolf confirmed that “these plants are soo strong, they can survive...year after year and you think “oh no, looks good, why should we do something?”. This is again questioned in the 2013 book, ‘However, simply relying on long-lived plants over time can be remarkably static. Is this what we want?’ (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2013 pp.236). Kingsbury & Oudolf (2005) describe this stage in a garden’s life cycle as ‘senescence’ and ‘regeneration’.

What the authors are suggesting regarding the more drastic renovation of the landscapes would potentially not be a desirable approach in the commercial, visitor orientated gardens where much of these landscapes are situated (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2005). That point combined with the thought process that was discussed earlier, is possibly preventing management from adapting and implementing significant change within the landscape.

Managerial staff, during interview, were well aware of the age of the landscapes they manage with numerous references to the maturity of the planting throughout the individual interviews. Oudolf also expressed this understanding during his interview. The literature reviewed showed the same awareness, with the later publications adding great emphasis on the life span of Oudolf landscape. From this research, Oudolf’s landscapes did have a life span of between five and twenty years. All of the case study landscapes are now within this age range. It is within this time frame that Oudolf suggests during his interview that the landscape need reviewing; making a connection back to his and Kingsbury’s theory highlighted in table 004 in chapter 2. Oudolf illustrates his point by adding that management of the landscapes can “and keep it or say it’s time for something else”. There are many examples provided in the literature regarding Oudolf’s opinion of change within his landscapes but fundamentally it is the notion that ‘ideas about planting design will have changed’; which reverberates throughout his interview. Participant D, who has had some consultation with Oudolf recently, adds that Oudolf “has lots of observations about his earlier design” to show his ability to reflect professionally. As discovered in the literature, Oudolf’s approach to design has adapted and changed throughout his career and adds in the interview very openly that “you see I make a lot of mistakes in the past”. In Kingsbury & Oudolf’s 2013 book, Planting: A New Perspective, they reflect on the fact that the planting design is still continuing to develop, evolve and improve (Kingsbury & Oudolf 2013).

The concept of a life span upon the landscape could now be present Oudolf with the opportunities to rectify the mistakes within the landscape he mentions, providing him with opportunities to attempt new ideas as his ideas towards planting design change. With a redesign having already occurred at Pensthorpe Natural Park in 2008; two of the case study landscapes are addressing this now; RHS Garden Wisley and Trentham Gardens are both in discussions with Oudolf regarding some element of renovation on both the landscapes. Participant D, added that this entire redesign would allow a “represent his work in a more modern style” as “his design and style has moved on”.

As this landscape is the only in consultation with Oudolf, it would appear that Oudolf ’s ideas of change could have possibly influenced this decision. The alternative, for those landscapes that are not considering implementing change, they become “classics” as Oudolf proposes in his interview.

91

However, Oudolf states in within his interview that certain landscapes do require a redesign, stating that Potters Fields Park was no longer his design.

This reveals that without the advised review process and neglection of a ‘regeneration’ or ‘renovation’ strategy, potentially there are adverse effects. With regards to his reputation, Oudolf rather honestly adds “if it has affect then it say this is what you should do...this is how it gets if you don’t put the effort in…”; utilising these more unsuccessful landscapes to support his concept of change within the landscape. To finish, Oudolf adds that regardless of the condition of these landscapes; they have an important role in creating awareness of naturalistic planting for the wider public, advocating their extended role as “teaching for people what you can do, with your surroundings, with your environment, and I think that is most important of making gardens in public”.

92

figure 057 - Spring interest at Potters Fields Park - May 2017 - Author.

93

Chapter 6 - Conclusion

Each landscape faces its own particular challenges and elements of change in order to adapt to the pressures of landscape management in the 21st century.

These changes do have some impact on the original design concept in varying effects. It has been made clear that these landscapes do have a life span which must either be accounted for in additional funds or resource in order to secure the continuation of the life span of a ‘successful’ Oudolf landscape. It soon became evident as this research project developed that no assessment was being completed regarding how these landscapes were being managed and maintained; despite some interesting findings. It had developed into an understanding of the attitudes of those responsible for managing these landscapes.

The pinnacle findings of this study revolve around what skills and knowledge do staff possess, and how do they use this to interpret the design to inform the management of these landscapes.

It is down to the interpretation of the reader if these landscapes do require the designer’s intervention and guidance as they remain designed landscapes, despite the envision of natural change within the planting; or that a greater understanding of naturalistic design and plant knowledge is indeed required on an industry wide scale in order to manage these designs. This study could potentially therefore be considered by management and maintenance staff as a tool in which they can reassess the approach in which they manage their Oudolf landscape. This may inform change, it may not; however, the findings are clear that Oudolf; the designer, believes his landscapes should change and evolve as his ideas on planting do.

This ultimately comes at a cost to the garden or park; in designer consultation and staff training or to the potential visual success of the landscape.

94

6.1 - Future Research

Opportunities for further research topics are evident throughout the findings of this research project. Due to the limitations in place as discussed in chapter 1 a wider sample of case study landscapes could not be incorporated within this study mainly due to the implications on time and the funds necessary to complete a study on such a scale. Had this not been the case, a more in-depth study could have been carried out to incorporate a wider sample selection in which further comparisons or differences could be considered to assist answering the research question with further clarity. This study has exposed an attentive approach or requirement from/for the designer within their landscape’s future management plans. This provides the opportunity for future research into a larger sample of Oudolf’s landscapes, comparing and contrasting those who do employ his guidance and involvement in management against those who do not. This would allow the researcher to answer new questions that have been derived from the data such as the success or benefits of this approach.

Another opportunity for potential future research revolved around the findings with regards to exposing requirements from management and maintenance staff’s skill sets from the designer. It has become apparent that Kingsbury and Oudolf believe those responsible for long term management of the landscapes should have more of design qualities in order to inform their management of such landscapes. A further study would explore if these competencies would indeed have an effect; and could therefore impact on the future education of horticulturists and landscape managers.

95

References

Alexander Sinclair, J., (2014) Trentham: the garden makeover of the decade?

The Telegraph [online]. 08 March. [Viewed 18 September 2018]. Available from: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/gardenstovisit/10681541/Trentham-the-garden-makeover-of-the-decade.html Auriat, N., & Siniscalco, M.T., (2005). Questionnaire Design: Module 8; Quantitative research methods in education planning. Paris, France: International Institute for Educational Planning/UNESCO. Braun, V., & Clarke, V., (2006). Using Thematical Analysis in Psychology.

Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3 (2), 77-101.

Darke, R. and Oudolf, P., (2017) Gardens of the High Line: Elevating the Nature of Modern Landscapes. 1st ed. Portland, Oregon. Timber Press.

Denscombe, M., (2008). The Good Research Guide, For small scale social research projects. 3rd ed. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

Diblik, R., (2014). The Know Maintenance Perennial Garden. Portland, Oregon, US. Timber Press.

Dunnett, N., (2016). According To Dunnett ... Shaping the future of great British planting design. Horticulture Weekly [online]. pp.24.

Fink, A., (2005) Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications.

Galletta, A., (2013). Mastering the Semi-Structured Interview and Beyond: From Research Design to Analysis and Publication. New York, US and London, England: New York University Press.

Gerritsen, H. and Oudolf, P., (2003) Planting the Natural Garden. 1st ed.

Portland, Oregon. Timber Press.

Gerritsen, H. and Oudolf, P., (2013) Dream Plants for the Natural Garden.

2nd ed. London. Frances Lincoln Ltd.

96

Guba, EG., & Lincoln, Y.S (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA, US: Sage Publications.

Gustafson, K., (2005). Foreword. In: Kingsbury, N. and Oudolf, P., Planting Design, Gardens in Time & Space. 1st ed. Portland, Oregon, US. Timber Press. pp. 7.

Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J. and Graham, W.E., (1989). Towards a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 11(3), 255-74.

Hammond, R., (2017) Introduction. In: Darke, R. and Oudolf, P., Gardens of the High Line: Elevating the Nature of Modern Landscapes. 1st ed. Portland, Oregon. Timber Press.

Kingsbury, N., (2013). Preface. In: Gerritsen, H. and Oudolf, P., Dream Plants for the Natural Garden. 2nd ed. London, UK: Frances Lincoln Ltd. pp.4-5.

Kingsbury, N., (2014). Contemporary Overview of Naturalistic Planting Design. In: Dunnett, N. and Hitchmough, J., The Dynamic Landscape. 3rd ed.

Abingdon, UK & New York, US: Routledge. pp.58.

Kingsbury, N., (2014). Gardening with Perennials, Lessons Chicago’s Laurie Garden. London, UK. The University of Chicago Press Ltd. Kingsbury, N. and Oudolf, P., (2005) Planting Design: Gardens In Time And Space. 1st ed. Portland, Oregon. Timber Press.

Kingsbury, N. and Oudolf, P., (2009) Designing with Plants. London. Conran Octopus Ltd. Kingsbury, N. and Oudolf, P., (2010) Piet Oudolf Landscape in Landscapes.

1st ed. New York: The Monacelli Press.

Kingsbury, N. and Oudolf, P., (2013) Planting: A New Perspective. 1st ed.

Portland, Oregon. Timber Press.

97

Kingsbury, N. and Oudolf, P., (2015) Hummelo: A Journey Through a Plantsman’s Life. 1st ed. The Monacelli Press.

Lacey, S., (2001). New ground rules. The Telegraph [online]. 10 June. [Viewed 10 October 2018]. Available from: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/ gardenstovisit/3291721/New-ground-rules.html Lacey, S., (2008) The Walled Garden at Scampston pushes the boundaries.

The Telegraph [online]. 18 July. [Viewed 8 September 2018]. Available from: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/3349179/The-Walled-Garden-atScampston-pushes-the-boundaries.html Mark, M.M., & Shotland, R.L. (1987). New directions for program evaluation. Multiple methods in program evaluation. San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.

Martin, K., (2008) A Touch of Tuscany. BBC Stoke & Staffordshire [online].

15 November. [Viewed 27 September 2018]. Available from: http://www.bbc. co.uk/stoke/content/articles/2008/11/10/trentham_gardens_history_feature. shtml Müller, M., & Seuring, S., (2008). From a Literature Review to conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production [online]. 16 (2008), 1699–1710.

Oppenheim, A.N., (2005). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurements. 11th ed. London, England and New York, US: Continuum.

Paltridge, B., & Phakiti, A., (2010). Continuum Companion to Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. London, England: Continuum.

Richardson, T., (2013). First glimpse of Piet Oudolf’s new garden in Somerset. The Telegraph [online]. 13 August. [Viewed 10 October 2018]. Available from: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/gardenprojects/10237841/ First-glimpse-of-Piet-Oudolfs-new-garden-in-Somerset.html Stuart-Smith, T., (2013) Dutch master: the garden design genius of Piet Oudolf. The Telegraph [online]. 04 May. [Viewed 25 September 2018]. Available from: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/10036592/Dutch-master-thegarden-design-genius-of-Piet-Oudolf.html

98

Websites

BBC Norfolk., (2009). Bill Makin: The man who created Pensthorpe [online].

BBC Norfolk. [Viewed 27 September 2018]. Available from: http://news.bbc. co.uk/local/norfolk/hi/people_and_places/nature/newsid_8223000/8223032. stm Laerd Dissertation., (2012) Purposive sampling [online] Lund Research Ltd. [Viewed 03 October 2018]. Available from: http://dissertation.laerd.com/purposive-sampling.php Pensthorpe Conservation Trust., (2018) About Us [online] Pensthorpe Natural Park. [Viewed 25 September 2018]. Available from: https://www.pensthorpe.com/about-us-history/ Pensthorpe Conservation Trust., (2018) Wildlife [online] Pensthorpe Natural Park. [Viewed 25 September 2018]. Available from: https://www.pensthorpe. com/gardens-wildlife/wildlife/ Port., (2018). Piet Oudolf [online] Port. [Viewed 10 October 2018]. Available from: http://www.port-magazine.com/issue-22/piet-oudolf/ Potters Fields., (2018) About Us [online] Potters Fields. [Viewed 25 September 2018]. Available from: https://pottersfields.co.uk/about-us/ Royal Horticultural Society., (2018). What makes RHS Garden Wisley unique? [online] Royal Horticultural Society. [Viewed 27 September 2018].

Available from: https://www.rhs.org.uk/gardens/wisley/about-wisley Royal Horticultural Society., (2018). History of Wisley garden [online] Royal Horticultural Society. [Viewed 27 September 2018]. Available from: https:// www.rhs.org.uk/gardens/wisley/about-wisley/history Royal Horticultural Society., (2018). Glasshouse Borders [online] Royal Horticultural Society. [Viewed 27 September 2018]. Available from: https://www. rhs.org.uk/gardens/wisley/garden-highlights/Glasshouse-Borders Scampston Estate., (2016) History of Scampston Hall [online]. Scampston.

[Viewed 8 September 2018]. Available from: https://www.scampston.co.uk/ at-scampston/scampston-hall/history

99

Scampston Estate., (2016) The Walled Garden at Scampston [online]. Scampston. [Viewed 8 September 2018]. Available from: https://www.scampston. co.uk/at-scampston/walled-garden Trentham Estate., (no date) About Us and St Modwen [online] The Trentham Estate. [Viewed 27 September 2018]. Available from: https://www.trentham. co.uk/useful-information/about-us-st-modwen/ University of Sheffield. Ethics Policy Governing Research Involving Human Participants Personal Data and Human Tissue: General Principles and Statements [online] University of Sheffield. [Viewed 03 October 2018]. Available from: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.112655!/file/General-Principles-and-Statements.pdf

100

Table of Tables

Table

Description

001

Five Case Study Landscapes

Page 14

002

Interview Participants

15

003

Questionnaire Participants

15

004

Literature Reviewed in this Study

20

005

Managerial Staff Interview Participant Codes

52

006

Garden Staff & Volunteer Questionnaire Participant Codes

64

007

All Interview Participants

78

008

All Questionnaire Participants

78

Table of Figures

Figure

Description

001

Autumn display at Pensthorpe Natural Park

05

002

Portrait of Piet Oudolf in Sheffield

11

003

The ‘Floral Labyrinth’ at Trentham Gardens

18

004

Kingsbury and Oudolf’s life cycle of a garden

27

005

Flow chart that shows the choices management must encounter in the life cycle of a naturalistic landscape.

27

006

Perennial Meadow at Scampston Walled Garden pre-cut back

28

007

Map of the UK & Case Study Landscapes

31

008

Staff structure in place at Scampston Walled Garden

33

009

Original layout for Scampston Walled Garden

34

010

Original planting plan for Scampston Walled Garden

34

102

Page

011

Spring at Scampston Walled Garden

35

012

Summer at Scampston Walled Garden

35

013

Autumn at Scampston Walled Garden

35

014

Winter at Scampston Walled Garden

35

015

Staff structure in place at Pensthorpe Natural Park

37

016

Planting plan for the redesign at Pensthorpe Natural Park

38

017

Spring at Pensthorpe Natural Park

39

018

Summer at Pensthorpe Natural Park

39

019

Autumn at Pensthorpe Natural Park

39

020

Winter at Pensthorpe Natural Park

39

021

Staff structure in place at RHS Garden Wisley

41

022

Planting plan for the Glasshouse borders at RHS Garden Wisley

42

023

Spring at RHS Garden Wisley

43

024

Summer at RHS Garden Wisley

43

025

Autumn at RHS Garden Wisley

43

026

Winter at RHS Garden Wisley

43

027

Staff structure in place at Trentham Gardens

45

028

Original layout for the ‘Rivers of Grass’ at Trentham Gardens

46

029

Original planting plan for the ‘Floral Labyrinth’ at Trentham Gardens

46

030

Spring at Trentham Gardens

47

031

Summer at Trentham Gardens

47

032

Autumn at Trentham Gardens

47

033

Winter at Trentham Gardens

47

034

Staff structure in place at Potters Fields Park

49

035

Planting plan for the landscape at Potters Fields Park

50

036

Spring at Potters Fields Park

51

037

Summer at Potters Fields Park

51

038

Autumn at Potters Fields Park

51

039

Winter at Potters Fields Park

51

040

Hand drawn plan created retrospectively at Scampston Walled Garden

55

041

Weeds at Scampston Walled Garden

61

042

Weeds at Trentham Gardens

61

043

Weeds at RHS Garden Wisley

61

044

Weeds at Potters Fields Park

61

045

Weeds at Pensthorpe Natural Park

61

046

Questionnaire results that represent assigned monthly maintenance

67

047

Questionnaire results that represent required additional rescource

67

048

Questionnaire results that represent specific tasks that require additional support

69

049

Photograph showing Equisetum at RHS Garden Wisley

70

050

The glasshouse borders at RHS Garden Wisley

76

051

The glasshouse borders at RHS Garden Wisley

77

052

Photograph of Equisetum at Potters Fields Park

85

053

Photograph of Equisetum at RHS Garden Wisley

85

054

Photograph of planting within the ‘Perennial Meadow’ at Scampston Walled Garden

87

055

Photograph of Eryngium giganteum ‘Silver Ghost’ amongst the borders at RHS Garden Wisley

87

056

Photograph of Eryngium giganteum ‘Silver Ghost’ amongst the borders at RHS Garden Wisley

87

057

Spring interest at Potters Fields Park

91

103

Appendices

Appendices 001 - 002 - 003 - 004 can all be found on the usb memory stick delievered on submission of this research project and categorised as the following: Appendix 001 - Participant Information Sheet & Consent Form.

Appendix 002 - Management Staff Interview Questions, Themes, Codes & Transcripts Appendix 003 - Garden Staff & Volunteers Questionnaire Questions, Themes, Codes & Transcripts Appendix 004 - Piet Oudolf Interview Questions, Themes, Codes & Transcripts

104

105

s_wr_marshall.co.uk