The Potential Role for Landscape Architects in Natural Flood Management by Theresa Dendy

Woody dams and riparian woodland upstream of Pickering (Forest Research, no date)

THE POTENTIAL ROLE FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS IN NATURAL FLOOD MANAGEMENT MA in Landscape Architecture Dissertation Theresa Dendy September 2020

CONTENTS

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Literature review

The science and evidence behind NFM

Social, economic and cultural barriers to implementing NFM

Prevalence of NFM relevant skills within the landscape architecture profession

Discussion

Endnote

References

Appendix – SWOT analysis

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1: NFM interventions

Figure 1: NFM themes/landscape disciplines Venn diagram

Figure 2: Literature map

Figure 3: NFM interventions

Figure 4: A farm in the Pontbren catchment

Figure 5: LWD habitat enhancement

Figure 6: Woody dams slow the passage of water

Figure 7: Proposed competency framework

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With thanks to my supervisor Dr Ross Cameron for his online tuition and encouragement in these strange times.

ABSTRACT There is increasing government and public interest in using methods based on natural processes to reduce flooding. The evidence base for natural flood management (NFM) is growing, but still insufficient to be confident about its use on a large-scale. There are a number of economic, social and cultural barriers to implementing NFM. Against this background, the role for landscape architects in implementing NFM projects is considered. Based on the Landscape Institute’s survey of the profession and research in the Netherlands, there may be landscape architects with the planning, spatial and public participation skills that would allow them to take a strategic role in NFM projects. Understanding agri-environmental policy is key to working with farmers and landowners to implement coordinated NFM projects. Post-Brexit changes to agricultural subsidies in the UK present an opportunity to rethink upland land use. By adding knowledge of agrieconomics and agri-environmental policy to existing knowledge and skills, landscape architects can position themselves to take a pivotal role in introducing NFM to rural landscapes. As with all other professionals engaging in NFM, landscape architects should be prepared to work with uncertainty and add to the evidence base.

INTRODUCTION This systemic literature review examines whether there is a potential role for landscape architects in natural flood management (NFM). There are two reasons for asking the question: •

the growing profile of and interest in NFM, and the work opportunity presented

•

to use a framework (NFM) to examine the skills of the landscape architecture profession.

There are already published literature reviews on NFM and assessments of the evidence. For instance, the Environment Agency has produced a literature review of over 300 pages (Ngai et al., 2017). However, this dissertation looks at NFM from a particular perspective, that of landscape architects, with the aim of determining whether landscape architects have the skills and knowledge to lead or make a valuable contribution to NFM projects.

Three steps have been taken to answer the question: 1. a review of the science supporting NFM, focussing on the use of woodlands 2. an exploration of social, cultural and economic barriers to NFM 3. a review of the skills of landscape architects.

Following these steps, it has been possible to describe the skills needed to make a meaningful contribution to NFM projects and take a view on whether landscape architects have those skills.

Why use NFM as a framework for examining the skills of landscape architects? The Landscape Institute (LI), the professional body for landscape architects in the UK, as part of its strategy for 2018-2023 wants to be a body that:

‘Develops the skills, knowledge and behaviours of its members to help them create a sustainable future which is responsive to such challenges as demographic shifts and climate change.’ (Allman Horrocks Consulting, 2018) 4

Focussing on the second challenge, climate change, we are to expect more frequent and severe flooding in the UK as the climate changes and NFM is proposed as a sustainable method to respond to this challenge (Pitt, 2008). Rather than being a niche topic for academic papers or engineering journals, NFM is increasingly discussed in the news. When the government announced it latest flood strategy in July 2020 (Defra, 2020a), it was ‘natural solutions’ that grabbed the media’s attention (BBC, 2020). Awareness of the limitations of traditional engineered flood management is increasing. Due to its high cost, engineered flood management is not an option for some communities at risk of flooding cost-benefit analyses rule it out (Norbury, Shaw, & Jones, 2018). In response, communities are turning to NFM as an alternative, affordable solution. Perhaps now is the moment for more landscape architects to shift their focus beyond the urban environment, and embrace the strategic challenge of NFM.

METHOD This is a wide-ranging dissertation constrained by time and word count. A systematic literature review approach was chosen over a case study approach as the question required an exploration of various themes rather than an application of theory to a selection of case studies. In terms of geographic reach, this dissertation focusses on NFM and landscape architects in the UK, although literature covering research beyond the UK has been reviewed. It was not possible in the time available to search and review all relevant literature; accordingly literature that is most relevant to each step of the enquiry was prioritised. The research process started with developing an understanding of NFM from the Environment Agency’s (EA) body of work (Environment Agency, 2017) and from a primer paper (Lane, 2017). Grey literature was also scanned. A selection of key papers from the EA review were referred to understand UK examples and some of the issues and barriers.

NFM, with a focus on woodlands, was examined through the lens of landscape architecture. To enable this, at an early stage, a Venn diagram (Fig 1), placing NFM themes within the three main spheres of influence of the landscape architecture profession, was drawn.

MANAGEMENT

DESIGN Species Coppicing Experimentation

NFM intervention design Performance Heritage Aesthetics Layout design Leaky dam design

Natural flod m a nageme nt Consultation Climate change Biodiversity Long-term visioning Recreation Social Accessibility Spatial design

Productivity - biomass Agri-Environemntal policy Habitat creation NFM intervention maintenance

Land use Land ownership Landscape designation PLANNING

Flood management programmes Catchment wide planning Landscape designations Land use policy Opportunity mapping Woodland applications o

Figure 1: NFM themes/landscape disciplines Venn diagram

A range of themes that appeared most relevant, including barriers to NFM being used, were then selected for the next stage of research.

Searches were carried out using two databases - StarPlus (University of Sheffield) and Scopus. Boolean operators (‘‘ ”, *, AND and OR) were used as appropriate. Articles were read around a given theme only while there were fresh insights. Once references and ideas appeared to be ‘recycled’, research on a theme was concluded. More recent articles were prioritised unless abstracts suggested that earlier articles would be key or where literature on a topic was limited (as was the case for the skills of landscape architects). This was on the basis that later articles tend to reference and summarise earlier ones. A wide range of terms were searched as the question is wide-ranging. However, much more time would be required to search all alternative terms. Reference lists to articles were read to find further key articles.

References were saved using an online reference manager, Mendeley, which weekly suggests recent articles related to those already saved. These recommendations were reviewed.

Over a period of 6-7 weeks 40+ peer reviewed academic papers were reviewed. Additional selective grey literature, govt briefings and policy documents were reviewed and in the early stage of research the film High Water Common Ground (Clark, 2018) was watched.

Academic literature yielded limited information on the skill of landscape architects. Relatively current data was obtained from publicly available Landscape Institute reports.

Initial search terms included:

Flood management

Aesthetics

Natural Flood Management

Pontbren

Large woody debris

Coppice

Leaky dam

Flood(ing)

Riparian woodland

Designated landscapes

Landscape

Profession

Climate change

Skills

Agri-environmental

Moorland

Landscape architect(ure)

Cultural landscapes

Role of landscape architect

Conservation

Beauty

Afforestation/reforestation

Sustainability

Uplands

Figure 2 maps out the themes ultimately researched and their connections.

Cost-benefit

Productivity

Biodiversity Agrienviromental policy

Beavers Ecosystem services

Farmers/ landowners

Woodlands

Economics Public attitutes

Riparian

Barriers

NATURAL FLOOD MANAGEMENT & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

Public Cultural participation landscapes

Mechanisms

Moorlands Values

Working in NFM

Evidence base

Floodplains Climate change Crossslopes

Landscape Architects Skills

Large Woody Debris

Professional body

Risks/ maintenance

Other professions

Figure 2: Literature map following Meth & Williams (2006)

LITERATURE REVIEW The science and evidence behind NFM NFM incorporates a wide range of interventions falling within the following definition, adopted by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency:

‘Natural flood management involves techniques that aim to work with natural hydrological and morphological processes, features and characteristics to manage the sources and pathways of flood waters. These techniques include the restoration, enhancement and alteration of natural features and characteristics, but exclude traditional flood defence engineering that works against or disrupts these natural processes.’ (Forbes, Ball, & McLay, 2015)

The general principles by which NFM reduces downstream flooding includes reducing rapid runoff on hillslopes, detaining water in the event of high waters and the partial disconnection of runoff sources from potential flood zones (Lane, 2017).

The Environment Agency groups potential NFM interventions into four categories; river and floodplain management, woodland management, run-off management, and coast and estuary management (Table 1) (Ngai et al., 2017). For concision, the focus in this NFM review has been on woodland management interventions and large wood debris (or leaky dams). The latter can be part of the natural river-wood cycle and unless engineered, relies on the presence of woodlands. River and floodplain management River floodplain restoration Wetland restoration Remeander rivers Leaky dams/woody dams

Woodland management Wider catchment woodland Cross-slope woodland Floodplain woodland Riparian Woodland

Run-off management Land and soil management practices Moorland grip blocking Gully blocking Run-off attenuation features

Coast and estuary management Managed realignment Saltmash, mudflat and dune restoration Beach recharge/nourishment Beach bypassing

Table 1: NFM interventions (Ngai et al., 2017)

Figure 3: NFM interventions (Burgess-Gamble, 2017)

How woodlands reduce the impact of storm events varies, depending on their location, e.g. uplands vs floodplain, but there are universal mechanisms: •

Interception of rainfall – greater for conifers than broadleaf trees

•

Improving soil conditions for soil infiltration. However, this becomes less effective if soil is saturated.

•

Evapotranspiration – greater for conifers than broadleaf trees

•

Surface roughness

•

Sediment retention, which prevents sediment entering water courses and reducing capacity.

(Marshall et al., 2014)(Ngai et al., 2017)

Effectively woodlands create a filter that smooths the spatial and temporal variability of rainfall (Lane, 2017).

The example of the Pontbren catchment in upland Wales is a well-documented NFM project initiated by farmers planting trees in the 1990s to create shelter for their sheep (Clark, 2018). It provides empirical evidence of tree planting increasing soil infiltration(Marshall et al., 2014). Two treatments, Figure 4: A farm in the Pontbren catchment (Forest Research, no date)

removal of sheep and removal of sheep with tree planting were compared to a control using

12mx12m plots for each treatment in four different sites. It was found that runoff was reduced by 48% on the ungrazed plots and 78% on the ungrazed and tree-planted plots. The median soil infiltration rate 5 years after treatment was found to be 67 times greater in the plots planted with trees, compared to the grazed pasture. The scale of increase may seem implausible, but grazing can create a thin near impermeable layer of soil and the soil infiltration rates for the control areas were very low. The soil infiltration rates before treatment were only measured once, compared to three times post treatment, so this may add some uncertainty to the result. Hillslope studies elsewhere revealed soil infiltration rate increases due to woodlands just 5-8 times greater than grazed pasture (Ford et al., 2020). These studies were of mature woodlands compared to newly planted trees in Pontbren. Furthermore, before reaching a conclusion on the differing results. there is a wide range of variables to investigate, such as soil properties, topography and tree species composition.

Slow the Flow at Pickering is a Defra NFM pilot scheme in response to the 2008 Pitt Review. Cost-benefit analysis indicated that a traditional engineered flood management scheme would not meet the thresholds for implementation. The main elements of the Pickering project were bunds, but additionally there was planting of riparian and farm woodland and installation of over 150 large woody debris (LWD) dams. The project was unable to meet its planting goals for reasons discussed later. However, modelling showed that planting 50 ha of riparian woodland and construction of 100 LWD dams would reduce the peak discharge in a 1 in 25 year event an amount equivalent to 21% of the necessary margin to reduce the flood peak to the level at which the town of Pickering starts to flood (Nisbet et al., 2015). It is not a complete solution, but it would still be a significant contribution to flood prevention.

LWD in water courses has been used for a range of purposes before being used for natural flood management. LWD provides ecosystem services including habitat creation and flow heterogeneity, which can benefit salmonids and eel species (Moffat, 2010). When used on land it increases hydraulic roughness and stores water temporarily in storm events. When used in water courses it can be held at a raised level so that it only becomes an obstacle to Figure 5: LWD habitat enhancement (Woodland Trust, no date)

water at high levels. Interventions can be highly engineered or be the kickstarting of a self-sustaining natural wood cycle fed by riparian woodlands. There are uncertainties and risks attached to LWD, such as maintenance and the risk of downstream blockages if it is dislodged and jams against features such as bridges (Grabowski et al., 2019). Movement can be prevented with holding posts, but this may not be relevant if a natural processes strategy is being used

Figure 6: Woody dams slow the passage of water (Woodland Trust, no date)

in preference to engineered woody barriers.

More knowledge is needed to support woody debris activities mimicking the complex feedback processes of riparian vegetation (Gurnell, England, & Burgess-Gamble, 2019) Wood that is incorporated into rivers can form ‘hard points’ that resist erosion and allow further development of riparian vegetation (Grabowski et al., 2019). There is more to be learnt about using different tree species. Intensive tree management can result in river margins dominated by pioneer species (willows and alders), which produce smaller wood that quickly decays in rivers (Gurnell, England, & Burgess-Gamble, 2019).

Closely linked to LWD is the reintroduction of beavers to rivers in Devon and Scotland. Beavers bring multiple benefits, quickly restoring landscapes to near original wetland status, providing ecosystem services such as removing pollutants from water, particularly phosphates, and increasing plant and animal biodiversity. They can also bring tourists to an 12

area (The Guardian, 2017). A family of beavers constructed six dams upstream of the floodprone village of East Budleigh, Devon, consequently significantly reducing peak flood flows through the village (University of Exeter, 2020). The Devon trial also revealed that that beaver activity can have adverse impacts on farmland. These issues were addressed by removing dams or installing ‘beaver deceivers’ (pipes through dams which reduce surrounding water-levels). The contribution beavers make to water retention and peak attenuation in flood events is not settled. Beaver dams cause noticeable peak attenuation, but the effect is not remarkable for flood events with return periods of more than two years (Neumayer et al., 2020).

There is concern about the current ability to reach conclusions on the effectiveness of NFM measures in large-scale catchments and in larger flood events (Dadson et al., 2017). Regarding the latter, once soils become saturated, the effect of increased soil infiltration due to NFM is no longer significant. Regarding the former caution is raised against simple extrapolations from smaller studies to larger catchment areas. Research and modelling on a larger scale, in the 260 km2 Hodder catchment, indicated that the effects of land use change diminish as the scale increases (McIntyre & Thorne, 2013). It is necessary to assess effects in the contexts of the whole catchment, which could be varied in in many ways. A complicating factor in determining the effect of land use change on flooding is that one needs to extract the effects of river modifications and climate change (Dadson et al., 2017).

NFM has been shown to provide benefits beyond flood prevention, which will be helpful for cost-benefit analyses. At Pickering an evaluation of ecosystem services produced a benefitcost ratio for the woodland measures of 5.6. The most significant services provided were climate regulation, flood regulation, habitat provision, community engagement, erosion regulation and education and knowledge (Nisbet et al., 2011). A cost-benefit analysis for afforestation of the Eddleston Water catchment in Scotland revealed that flood regulation only represented 1% of the total benefits of hillslope afforestation in that catchment (Dittrich et al., 2019). Benefits calculated in addition to flood benefits included regulatory (climate change, water temperature and quality), cultural and biodiversity services. Positive net positive values (NPVs) were found for all afforestation models at Eddleston, but flood risk management benefits only outweighed the costs in riparian woodlands, where it 13

accounted for 50% of the benefits. An ecosystems/natural capital approach should increase the chances of NFM projects getting off the ground as it creates additional motivation.

How effective will NFM be over time at reducing flooding, particularly as we experience to a greater extent the effects of climate change? Evidence from the UK on the potential reductions in peak flows was applied to UKCP09 climate change projections. It was concluded that as time progresses NFM measures are less likely to mitigate the effects of climate change (Kay et al., 2019). This is another reason to factor in wider ecosystem services into decision making.

Based on the evidence to date, woodlands as an NFM tool and NFM more broadly seem to be affective on a small scale, but evidence to support them as a large-scale catchment tool or as a long-term tool is lacking. The results from Pontbren and Pickering show tangible benefits, but there needs to be a realistic understanding of the limitations of the evidence. If we wait for perfect and conclusive data sets, it will be very hard to get NFM off the ground. The evidence base has to be built as projects are implemented. Given the time it takes for trees to grow and for projects to unfurl at a catchment scale, the picture is going be built up slowly. NFM projects need to be monitored and reviewed over the long term. Ideally the professionals instigating the projects should be in a position to commit to the long term and to building the evidence base.

Social, economic and cultural barriers to implementing NFM The Defra pilot at Pickering highlights some barriers to using woodlands to alleviate flooding (Nisbet et al., 2011). While initial calculations suggested a net gain when offsetting the costs of the measures and loss of agricultural use against the benefits, these calculations did not factor in agricultural subsidies. It was concluded that funding policies would mean that benefits were unlikely to outweigh the costs for private landowners, especially on floodplains which are more agriculturally productive. Other identified barriers were landscape designation and the value people attach to cultural landscapes, i.e. public concerns about reforestation of open moorland, wetlands and sites of archaeological importance.

Considering barriers such as these, provides insights into the skills and attitudes that are needed to implement NFM projects. This section considers a range of social, cultural and economic barriers to NFM, and briefly looks at the roles of public participation and management structures in overcoming these barriers.

Traditional flood management professionals NFM may be beyond the comfort zone of those working in traditional flood management (TFM, engineered physical control of river systems) (Waylen et al., 2018) and there may be a need for a paradigm shift among traditional flood management professionals (Spray et al., 2016). Interviews with flood management experts in Scotland revealed tension between TFM and NFM. Three themes ran through the interview responses: •

NFM was viewed as a good but contested idea. It was liked in principle but there was hesitancy as it did not match the professionals’ understanding of what flood management is.

•

NFM was seen as a socio-political concept. It was associated with ‘popular’ initiatives and viewed as an ‘environmental issue’ rather than a scientific one.

•

NFM was viewed as scientifically uncertain. It was seen as common sense but lacking the necessary science. Respondents emphasised its likely inability to limit large-scale flood events.

Flooding experts were judging NFM ‘using criteria, knowledge and expectations’ derived from TFM, creating a resistance to NFM that may be a difficult barrier to overcome (Cook et al., 2016). It underlines that to work with NFM, one needs to be comfortable with uncertainty and have an experimental mindset. Additionally it could be beneficial for landscape architects to understand flooding modelling and be able to use the terminology of flood experts.

Farmers attitudes Interviews with and a survey of farmers in North East Scotland found multiple reasons for

farmers not to engage with NFM: •

Amongst farmers who had not already adopted NFM, over half thought their land was too valuable to change its use, with 38% considering current funding schemes inadequate.

•

Over half (58%) would be incentivised by external funding to consider NFM. There were long-term concerns over land values and the costs of returning the land to its original state or finding that land use change would be permanent.

•

A general lack of knowledge of and advice on NFM - approximately 6 out of 10 farmers knew very little about NFM. Amongst farmers who had not implemented NFM, two thirds thought they had insufficient advice.

•

More than half of farmers who had not installed NFM did not believe that it would reduce downstream flooding. Possibly this is a reflection of an insufficient evidence base.

•

Concerns about being viewed as ‘slipper farmers’ or ‘subsidy junkies’, i.e. farmers who collect subsidies without growing crops or rearing animals.

•

Tradition and a pride in the drainage and improvement work carried out by previous generations to increase agricultural intensification.

•

A reluctance to move away from food production.

•

Wider planning policy, i.e. concern that NFM would be used to allow the continuation of building downstream on the floodplain. A need for NFM to be an integrated catchment wide approach was expressed by 38% of respondents.

(Holstead et al., 2017).

Despite these barriers, farmers cited benefits to NFM interventions, including increased wildlife, less flooding on farms, increased income, and reduced diffuse pollution. It was concluded that farmers should be given support and advice through a trusted intermediary who is external to government. Interviews conducted with farmers in Nottinghamshire two years’ previous (Spray et al, 2016) and later PhD research (Wells et al., 2020) drew conclusions that support the above.

The response of farmers in Pontbren to media coverage of the NFM measures implemented in that catchment confirms sensitivities around land use change and the relationships farmers have within their own community (Wynne-Jones, 2016). It has been argued that media sensationalism using terms such as ‘sheepwrecked’ has undermined the ‘good-will and engagement’ of participating farmers. It seems that for NFM projects to work at scale, landowners/farmers need to feel that they are in it together.

The success of Pontbren is thought to rest on the early identification of synergies (WynneJones, 2016). The farmers’ ability to encourage other farmers to adopt NFM measures relies on them still being productive farmers and NFM contributing to successful farming outcomes. There is a concern that the success of Pontbren will be translated by others with a different agenda into a drive for less synergistic reforestation projects. One journalist whose writing has added to the furore is George Monbiot, who raises concerns over the effect of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on upland land use (Monbiot, 2014).

Agri-environmental policy and subsidies At least 70% of land in the UK is currently farmed (Alison & Wentworth). The Total Income from Farming in 2019 was £5,278 million, with £3,296 million of the total coming from subsidies (Defra, 2020b). During the UK’s EU membership and in the subsequent Brexit transition period, farmers in the UK have been receiving payments under the CAP. CAP payments are made under two pillars. The first is the Basic Payment Scheme (over 80% of payments), which is conditional on farmers maintaining land in ‘good agricultural condition’, suitable for grazing or cultivation, i.e. free of trees and scrub. This is incompatible with using woodland for NFM. The second pillar covers schemes to promote rural development and agri-environmental schemes such as the Countryside Stewardship scheme (Defra, 2020b).

The UK’s departure from the EU is an opportunity for the government to rethink agricultural polices to meet environmental aims set by its 25 Year Environment Plan. A new system of payments, Environmental Land Management (ELM), will replace the CAP, and is being consulted on in 2020 to go live in 2024. The system is based on the concept of ‘public money for public goods’. Three tiers of payments are proposed under ELM. In stream 17

interventions, such as large woody debris, would be covered by Tier 2 payments and Tier 3 would pay farmers to implement landscape scale land use changes to deliver environmental outcomes, such as forest and woodland creation. (Defra, 2020a).

A review of UK agri-environmental schemes draws lessons applicable to future subsidy schemes: •

Menu approaches prescribing standard management actions may result in interventions that are insensitive to local conditions. Variation within landscapes needs to be recognised by management approaches in order to sustain ecosystem functions.

•

Historically agri-environmental schemes have been output focused. A more holistic approach, which considers how changes cumulatively affect a landscape’s character and quality is more appropriate.

•

An audit approach, which limits measures to those that are easily verified, may prevent farmers from exercising judgement and initiative.

•

Recently people, customs and values of ‘agri-cultures’ have not be considered in the English approach to subsidy.

•

If schemes are applied piecemeal, there is a risk of losing spatial coherence at the landscape scale – this could be detrimental to the landscape’s cultural value.

(Dwyer, 2014)

The end of the CAP in the UK means that the financial disincentives to implement NFM cited by farmers may be removed, particularly for those farmers who have less productive land which can only be farmed profitably under receipt of the CAP Basic Payment. If landscape architects are to take a leading role in NFM, they will need to understand the agri-culture and agri-economic pieces of the puzzle. They will need to use their understanding to help farmers develop strategies that take advantage of new subsidy policies. With regard to the risk of piecemeal approaches, landscape architects, who are expected to have an appreciation of social and spatial aspects of landscape, could coordinate across property boundaries to achieve spatial coherence across a catchment.

Conservation of cultural landscapes As experienced at Pickering, ‘cultural landscapes’ can present a challenge in terms of adapting the landscape to climate change (Nisbet et al., 2011). Cultural landscapes can be considered to be ‘at the interface between nature and culture, tangible and intangible heritage, biological and cultural diversity’ and a ‘symbol of the growing recognition of fundamental links between local communities and their heritage, humankind and its natural environment’ (Rössler, 2006). Cultural landscapes are intertwined with concepts of statutory protection and in the UK could include National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

In this dissertation’s context, we consider agricultural landscapes as cultural, since the hedgerows, field boundaries and land use are the result of economically and culturally driven farming practices that continue and evolve. They could be described using UNESCO terminology as ‘organically evolved continuing landscapes’ (Rössler, 2006) ,as could UK moorlands, which were manmade by deforestation and burning to enable pastoral farming. Many perceive moorlands as ‘natural’ environments, rather than maintained by land management. However, it could be argued that the state to which we choose to return moorlands and other cultural landscapes is arbitrary (Holden et al., 2007). An issue is that these modified landscapes have been adopted by species of conservation concern in their own right.

The direction of travel for moorlands in the UK is partial reforestation. Woodlands account for only 13% of land use in the UK, whereas in most European countries it is higher. Most recent reforestation has consisted of commercial conifer plantations, but governmental and non-governmental initiatives are planting native broadleaf trees. Much of this reforestation is on upland heathland/moorland (Douglas, Groom, & Scridel, 2020). There may be negative effects to upland reforestation. It was found from early coniferous commercial plantations on moorlands that reforestation can cause a decomposition of organic soil and the release of CO2 (Holden et al., 2007)

A study of the benefits and costs of native reforestation for songbirds in temperate forests. showed that an overall net gain in bird species can result from native reforestation (Douglas, 19

Groom, & Scridel, 2020). However, some open-ground birds, including those of conservation concern are disadvantaged by this type of land use change. The needs of woodland and open ground wildlife have to be considered. Professionals leading on NFM projects that result in land use change need to understand and communicate the environmental and biodiversity implications of land use change.

Landscape architects need to be alert to the financial risk of lost tourism revenue when changing cultural and protected landscapes, and demonstrate how changes can attract tourists, as in the case of the Devon beavers. Models indicate that globally protected areas receive approximately 8 billion visits annually , with at least 80% being in Europe and North America. Approximately $600 billion of direct in-country expenditure arises from these visits. However, only $10 billion is spent safeguarding the same protected areas. The value of the recreational/tourism ecosystem service of protected areas outstrips the cost of maintaining them (Balmford et al., 2015).

Visitors’ idealisation of cultural landscapes could make it difficult to adopt strategies to adapt to climate change (Grant & Edwards, 2007). A survey of Sheffield residents revealed evidence of some openness towards land use change for the purposes of mitigating climate change, such as onshore windfarms. However, there was a level of general antipathy to rural land use change. After youth, educational attainment was the second likeliest predictor of openness to landscape change (Jung Jin Park & Selman, 2011). This would suggest that education could be a used to break down barriers to NFM.

Public participation and management structures A tool that may overcome social barriers to land use change for NFM is public participation. The European Landscape Convention expects the tool to be used in landscape planning (von Haaren et al., 2014). There are mixed conclusions on the efficacy of participation processes. On one hand there are claims that it leads to legitimate and fair decisions, improves decision making, and increases trust and acceptance of final decisions. On the other, there are critics who would say that these claims cannot be backed by evidence and that opposite outcomes could arise, such as anger, social distrust and reinforced privilege (Rouillard et al., 2014). A body of evidence on the role of public participation in NFM projects is building. 20

An intensive public participation process in the Bowmont–Glen catchment between land managers and government agencies, set up to encourage land use change through a catchment management plan following a flood event, was observed. The process was found to improve relationships between land managers and agencies, leading to a collectively agreed management plan. However, this plan was reached by participants focusing on their compromises, not on new understandings. It is questionable as to whether that is sustainable outcome (Rouillard et al., 2014).

Community involvement was found to be vital in a nature based solutions project (NBS, of which NFM is a branch) in the Stroud Frome catchment, however, it did also bring complexity. Pivotal to the project was the engagement by the local authority of a project officer (professional background was not explained), who engaged with existing community flood groups and landowners. Additionally, the experience showed that a clear governance structure is key and should be communicated from the outset. It is suggested that a comanagement and adaptive process will lead to solutions that are sympathetic to the local context and the current state of knowledge, and ultimately will result in the implementation of agreed interventions (Short et al., 2019). The Stroud Frome catchment was fortunately within one administrative boundary. Catchments do not necessarily obey administrative boundaries, and where they do not, responsibility will need to be shared.

A successful catchment management plan requires working across scales and the reconciliation of national and local priorities (Waylen et al., 2018) To link those governing the process from above and those pushing from below, there may be a role for a ‘trusted intermediary’. This could be a local authority or even an individual. (Rouillard & Spray, 2016)

NFM requires the involvement of a wide range of bodies, beyond those immediately associated with flood management (statutory bodies responsible for flood risk management, hydrologists and engineers). It could include: •

public sector bodies for water management, biodiversity conservation and regional government 21

•

utilities responsible for drinking water and/or sewerage

•

third sector organisations concerned with conservation

•

consultancies such as farm extension services

•

landowners.

It is suggested that resourcing and initial management costs for NFM may be more complex than for traditional flood management (Waylen et al., 2018).

It seems that there is plenty of scope to refine public participation and partnership models. Projects would benefit from being coordinated by someone who has an appreciation of the skills and knowledge that different bodies bring, can coordinate their contributions and has the communication skills to engage with all groups.

Prevalence of NFM relevant skills within the landscape architecture profession There is scant research to be found on the present skills of landscape architects. The work of two landscape architects on three projects in the Dutch integrated flood risk management programme ‘Room for Rivers’, was examined using the conceptual framework of ‘boundary spanning’ and ‘boundary spanners’. Boundary spanners are defined as ‘especially sensitive to and skilled in bridging interests, professions and organisations’. The study started with the premise that the role of landscape architect had broadened. It is no longer sufficient to rely on knowledge of spatial functions and social needs, there is a need to have the requisite social skills to engage in collaboration activities. The extent to which the landscape architects were found to act as boundary spanners was influenced by the conditions of the project. At one end of the spectrum, a landscape architect worked as a ‘domain expert’ with little influence over the wider project. At the other end, the landscape architect was more of a project manager and likened their role to the that of the ‘conductor of an orchestra’. Based on this very limited study, landscape architects need to make a deliberate choice and actively define their role in a project at an early stage to operate as a ‘boundary spanner’. Otherwise, it seems they run the risk of being restricted by the discipline’s ‘traditional, content orientated, and sectoral design image’ (van den Brink et al., 2019).

It has been argued that the landscape architecture profession needs to put a greater emphasis on evidence and reflection. There seems to be a poor record in landscape architecture of recording evidence and a lack of reflection in terms of reviewing projects and their outcomes . The notion of ‘Evidence Based Landscape Architecture’ (EBLA) has been proposed in place of ‘Eminence Based Landscape Architecture’. EBLA is defined as the ‘deliberate and explicit use of scholarly evidence in making decisions about the use and shaping of land’ (Brown & Corry, 2011). Perhaps NFM provides the opportunity for landscape architects to demonstrate EBLA, by taking an evidence based, evidence building and long-term approach to NFM projects and their involvement in them. The concerns about the limited evidence base for NFM create a case for contributing to the base.

As well as skills, we can consider the values of landscape architects. A value study was undertaken 18 years ago (Thompson, 2002). It cannot be assumed that the values have remained static. However, not to dismiss the findings of the study, summed up under the title ‘Ecology, Community and Delight’, there are some conclusions relevant to this enquiry: •

Collaborative processes are more likely to achieve long-term success.

•

Landscape architects were more concerned with landscape conservation, i.e. scenic quality and cultural meaning, than nature conservation.

•

Landscape architects did not consider themselves as social scientists but were able to intuit the issues. Public participation was seen as a means to an end.

•

Only a very small minority thought that they were translating their professional concerns into political engagement.

•

The extent of a landscape architect’s environmental commitment may be decided by who is employing or engaging them.

•

It would be beneficial to research the external perception of the profession.

•

A unique quality of the profession may be its ‘respect for the existing qualities of a place’ and its use as the starting point for projects.

In 2018 the Landscape Institute (LI) published its ‘State of Landscape Report’ (Allman Horrocks Consulting, 2018) with the aim of better understating its 5,000 members and the

nature and extent of skills within the landscape architecture profession in the UK. The research has limitations. Members were asked whether certain skills were relevant to their work, but the step of assessing the level to which the members actually possess and exercise all of those skills was not taken. Nevertheless, the report gives insights into the breadth of the profession and how some of the skills and knowledge relevant to NFM may only be found in pockets.

When asked about general professional skills only 104 out of 512 respondents selected legal and regulatory skills as relevant to their role and of these 81% indicated that trees, woodlands and hedgerows laws were relevant, but only 13% indicated that riparian law was relevant. With regards to community/stakeholder engagement/facilitation skills there was a correlation with length of experience. Among respondents with over 25 years’ experience 57% had particular expertise, compared with only 29% of those with less that 5 years’ experience. One third of the respondents did not consider communication or presentation skills relevant to their role. While collaboration and partnership working was not considered a relevant skill by just under a half of respondents.

Moving on to more technical/subject matter skills, members were first asked if design and construction, landscape planning, landscape management, landscape science and urban placemaking were relevant to their role. Landscape Planning was quite relevant (35%) or very relevant (45%) for 80% of respondents. Only 20% of respondents saw landscape management as very relevant, with even fewer acknowledging landscape science. Design and construction were very relevant for 61%.

Questions were narrowed down for respondents based on the main areas that were relevant. The questions on design and construction had a stronger emphasis on design for urban settings rather than rural, and offer little information on skills relevant to NFM.

Among the answers to specific skills relevant to landscape planning, there was some evidence of NFM relevant skills being identified. 87% of respondents considered landscape character skills as relevant. Mapping of landscape spatial data was recognised by 48%. Only 38% of those who stated landscape planning skills as relevant identified severe weather 24

events/climate change as something to take into account when devising solutions. This is reflected in conclusions reached elsewhere that landscape architecture teaching has only superficially addressed climate responsive design (Lenzholzer & Brown, 2013). Only 21% of those questioned considered farming needs as relevant when in solution negotiation situations, and in the context of regulatory frameworks only 13% thought that agrienvironmental policy was relevant.

Among the 59% of respondents who considered landscape management quite or very relevant only 15% considered river basin/catchment management relevant. However, there was a stronger response to area management plans/projects (41%) and protected landscapes (38%).

Following the ‘Future State of Landscape’ report, the LI has redesigned its route to chartership, and a new competency framework will be phased in in 2021 (Landscape Institute, 2020). The LI’s ambitions are to ‘ensure that skills related to sustainability, climate, resilience and biodiversity are central to the work of landscape architects and related landscape professionals going forward’ and to be ‘focused more on professional, people and human skills’.

Figure 7 sets out the proposed competency framework, under which all new members will need to have at least an understanding (Level A) or in some cases have experience of applying (Level B) all landscape and professional competencies. All candidates will need to have achieved Level B in the landscape competency of ‘sustainability, climate and resilience’. The LI consider the landscape competencies to ‘define the unique nature’ of the profession and within this group are a range of skills that would support the implementation of NFM projects, such as community engagement, landscapes as systems, physical and social context, and research and analysis. Among the professional competencies, communication, negotiation, influencing and engagement would support partnering and public participation initiatives, as would economic systems and context. Candidates will also be examined on a selection of specialist competencies which may be relevant to NFM, e.g. natural capital and ecosystem services, and water management.

Feedback from a limited number of self-selected respondents to the draft framework, suggests that there needs to be more focus and emphasis on the economics of landscape and community engagement (Hirst, 2020), which would be very apt for NFM. The respondents were also invited to self-assess their skills, but there is insufficient detail in the reporting to draw meaningful conclusions.

Figure 7: Proposed competency framework (Landscape Institute, 2020)

What about the LI’s NFM activity as a professional body? What lobbying activity has there been on the part of the LI regarding flood management or NFM? In the 2016, the then president of the LI, Sue Illman, wrote in the LI’s magazine, ‘Landscape’, that she had been

‘promoting an integrated catchment approach to government on behalf of the Institute since 2014’. In 2015, she was an expert witness to the All Party Parliamentary Group for Excellence in the Built Environment Inquiry into Flooding. Illman also served as the Construction Industry Council’s champion for flood mitigation and resilience (Illman, 2016). The LI has also produced technical notes for its membership on the ‘Catchment Approach’ (Odell, 2015) and ‘Water, Flooding & Landscape’ (Gray, 2020), but it is not known to what extend they have been referred to. The earlier technical note proposes several small ways that landscape architects might take on a role in a catchment partnership and these chime with conclusions regarding NFM reached through this literature review. For instance, it is suggested that landscape architects’ understanding of landscape character enable them to see connections and opportunities.

Information that reveals the extent to which landscape architects have worked or are currently working on NFM projects is not easily available. Searching the internet with the terms ‘landscape architect’, ‘CMLI1’, ‘natural flood management’ and ‘flood management’, brings up limited results. A chartered landscape architect, Amanda McDermott is a founder of the NFM initiative, Slow the Flow Calderdale, and is participating as an affected resident and as a landscape architect (Gray & McDermott, 2019). Searches also led to a Catchment Landscape Vision for the Cole Valley written by a CMLI (Lanchbury, 2019). Although not strictly an NFM project, it is an example of how a landscape architect can lead a catchment wide project from an early strategic stage.

CMLI – Chartered Member of the Landscape Institute

DISCUSSION The journey through the evidence base for NFM, the barriers to its implementation and a survey of the skills of landscape architects brings us to answer the question ‘Is there a role for landscape architects in NFM?’ In short, there is, but how is that qualified?

In general, the literature examining NFM case studies and pilots does not spell out the professionals actually engaged in the projects. Based on the journals referred to in this literature search, one can assume the involvement of water engineers and hydrologists, and NFM projects may also require the expertise of natural scientists, social scientists and the local community itself. However, overall the literature is rather quiet on landscape architects taking a role in NFM. Contributions of landscape architects to NFM projects in the Netherlands are documented and from the author’s experience it seems that there are landscape architects focussing their efforts on NFM within the Environment Agency.

Through this literature review, it is possible to describe a unique planning, design and coordination role in NFM, by listing a number of relevant skills and qualities: •

Strategic landscape planning skills

•

Ability to design for spatial coherence and temporal change

•

Understanding of the legal frameworks

•

Understanding of the social and cultural aspects of landscape

•

Appreciation for the quality and character of landscape

•

Strong communication, facilitation and public participation skills

•

Ability to coordinate landowners, other professionals, authorities and communities and build partnerships where appropriate

•

Ability to see synergies

•

Ability to use and understand terminology used by other professionals and stakeholders

•

Understanding of agri-economics and the impact of agri-environmental policies

•

Ability to apply a multifunctional approach to land use and an understanding of ecosystem services and natural capital

•

Understanding of the biodiversity and ecological impacts of land use change

•

Ability to strategically set out the problems of climate change and flooding

•

Visual skills to make processes visible to stakeholders and communities

•

Understanding of basic catchment modelling techniques

•

Comfortable working with an uncertain evidence base

•

Commitment to gathering data and evidence, and long-term monitoring

•

Ability to reflect, review and critique projects.

Essentially the above is a description of a professional who can see the bigger picture and bring together the scientific, spatial, cultural and economic elements of NFM. This role description is the main finding of this dissertation.

Limited information makes it difficult to determine whether the above skills are abundant in the landscape architect population. The LI survey results, and also the limited study of landscape architects as ‘boundary spanners’, would indicate that there are a number of landscape architects who have the required combination of skills, but such skills are certainly not universally held and further research would be needed to test this conclusion. The weaknesses of the LI survey have been discussed, i.e. it does not actually survey for the presence of skills. However, for the purpose of this discussion it is assumed that individuals citing a skill as relevant also have the skill in some measure. It their favour, the majority of LI members have landscape character and mapping skills along with landscape planning skills, which is a good start. Amongst the more experienced members a majority consider themselves to have the public participation skills that seem to be essential to NFM projects. It may be less than half, but still 38% recognise climate change as a priority. The obvious areas of weakness to address seem to be around understanding rural/agricultural considerations and policies, and catchments. Less experienced landscape architects need to develop communication, partnership and collaboration skills. The LI is setting ambitions regarding the skills its new members should have, and these are aligned to a role in NFM. If the new competency framework is successful, then there should be a flow of landscape architects able to make significant contributions to NFM. There may be some dependence, however, on which non-compulsory specialist competencies are selected.

The LI survey does raise the question as to whether the term ‘landscape architect’ is too broad and is perhaps misleading. There is the established framework of breaking down the work of landscape architects into design, planning and management and it could be broken down further. It seems that most landscape architects specialise, and one would not expect someone with a keen focus on urban design for instance to rush to lead NFM projects. Not all landscape architects will be suited or have a desire to work in NFM.

There are some professional risks that landscape architects would need to overcome to take a pivotal role in NFM projects. They would need to avoid being marginalised by other professionals and carve out their roles at an early stage in projects. There is need to disprove negative and restricted external perceptions of the profession (van den Brink et al., 2019). One way to do this would be to lead on the strategic visioning at the start of the project, using visualisation skills to illustrate the problem and the possible solutions on a large strategic scale. Based on the author’s experience, landscape architects learn to synthesise spatial, environmental and social data to develop strategies as part of their initial training. They also learn to assess a landscape’s character and to consider it holistically. Another risk landscape architects need to avoid is being just facilitators during the public participation process instead of recognised experts with unique skills, knowledge and insights that could improve the outcomes of the project.

An alternative approach that could have been taken in this study is a theoretical one. While it is difficult to find literature on the actual skills of landscape architects in practice, there is theoretical research that examines landscape design and planning theories, and also compares them (von Haaren et al., 2014). This may provide insights or may again point to the need for research to establish the actual skills of landscape architects.

A review of some of the pioneers in landscape architect may also offer some clues as to whether the landscape architects could take a key role in NFM. An obvious pioneer to examine would be Ian McHarg, who developed theories on landscape design and planning which relied on understanding the natural processes of place and built on ecological science. He was also both a self-critical and reflective landscape architect (Steiner, 2016). Another 30

relevant example is Dame Sylvia Crowe who wrote in detail about afforestation (Crowe et al., 1975) and was consultant to the Forestry Commission (1964-1976)(Curl & Wilson, 2015). Crowe brought together both the ‘ecosystematic and the aesthetic’ (Selman) . She designed forests to improve the visual landscape, addressing topography and paying attention to the margins (Crowe et al., 1975). Crowe’s work was more on the planning side; the designs were large scale and looked into the future, and she had to work with the complexity of the landscape and its economic use (Selman). These are skills that a landscape architect would need to apply to use woodlands on a catchment scale for NFM purposes. Are these skills being nurtured in universities and practices today? Some heads of practice complain that new landscape graduates are only focussed on producing images (Allman Horrocks Consulting, 2018). Meanwhile academics might be concerned that they are producing graduates who can be ‘plugged into the office’, rather than rounded landscape architects with the deeper theoretical understanding to allow them to make long-term valuable contributions (Thompson, 2002). McHarg and Crowe are figures from the past. Are there landscape architects who are working on exemplar projects now that can inspire and inform practitioners with ambitions to work in NFM?

Brexit and the end of the CAP is certainly an opportunity to be seized by landscape architects. Changes to agri-environmental policy could lead to a total rethink of uplands land use. For the LI and its members, it is time to be vocal on policy and be at the vanguard of driving projects to help communities manage their landscapes so that they are economically viable and delivering multiple goods. The profession may have a tendency to temper its political edge so as not to risk its work pipeline (Thompson, 2002), but supporting NFM is unlikely to upset the profession’s traditional clients, particularly as it may subsequently benefit urban areas.

If landscape architects are to take a strategic role in NFM, how should they be engaged? Should it be as consultants in private practice who are able to move from project to project, spreading expertise and experience, or should they be lodged in bodies like the environment agency? An opportunity to interview and interrogate would help to answer the question.

University Covid-19 restrictions have prevented the use of interviews or surveys, which would significantly strengthen this dissertation. In depth answers to how landscape architects are already working on NFM projects are at fingertips’ distance and could provide a definitive answer. It has been necessary to carry out wide-ranging research to meet the aim of this dissertation, covering many themes that could be subject to detailed literature reviews. This breadth means that it has not been possible to compare all the arguments and conclusions that would be necessary to provide the sharpest critique on each theme. Breadth also means that the literature review may initially appear less systematic that typical systematic reviews. This review has resulted in the development of an informed and logical narrative, based on academic literature, that leads to a discussion of the landscape architecture profession and its role in NFM. At its inception this enquiry focussed on the use of woodlands as an NFM intervention. While this focus helped to restrict the research, it was not strictly necessary for answering the question about the role of the landscape architect in NFM. Furthermore, the wider points on skills and role could possibly be applied to landscape scale projects other than NFM.

This study reveals several potential fields of research: •

An exploration of the actual skills held by UK landscape architects and research into the external perception of the profession. Do the landscape architects really have the skills they believe they should have? Do the external perceptions of the profession restrict landscape architects?

•

The urban/rural divide. Are landscape architects in general more focussed on the urban environment? Do they see the interdependence of the rural and urban? Does the balance need adjusting?

•

The experience of landscape architects who are currently contributing to NFM using interviews, surveys and case studies to understand the nature and extent of their contributions

•

A comparison of the skills and contributions of all professions that could be involved in NFM

•

The outcome of the consultation on Environmental Land Management (ELM) and its impact on the landscape in terms of economics, environmental benefits and aesthetics, or more narrowly its impact on NFM

•

On the ground catchment scale NFM projects and research. Computer modelling is a valuable tool for planning NFM interventions, but at the larger catchment scale research needs to move beyond the modelling phase.

NFM research is still at an early stage, but climate change will not wait for all the creases to be ironed out. With their understanding of the quality and character of landscapes architects can carve out a unique role in leading or contributing to NFM projects. It is a matter of them recognising the opportunity, determining whether they have enough of the required skills and attributes, upskilling, and acquiring the necessary knowledge. They will then be able to springboard themselves into this very current and different area of expertise.

ENDNOTE

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic the scope of MA in landscape architecture dissertations has been reduced for the academic year 2019/2020, prohibiting research, including interviews and surveys. Informal conversations with contacts, connected to employment opportunities have revealed instances of landscape architects involved in NFM. Whilst details cannot be included in the dissertation, examples are noted here for future note or research.

Landscape architects within Groundwork have worked with landowners on river naturalisation/reconnection projects.

Landscape architects within the Environment Agency (EA) are directly engaged in NFM projects, carrying out assessments, developing strategies, managing partnerships, applying for funding and delivering projects.

The EA also engages landscape architects in private practice through various framework agreements. For instance one practice was engaged to develop interventions for the catchment surrounding Derwent Water. The landscape architects used GIS to understand the topography and walked over the site to develop an NFM interventions guide specific to the area that the EA could then use as a discussion tool with landowners.

REFERENCES Alison, J. & Wentworth, J. (2016). Rewilding and Ecosystem Services. POSTNOTE 537. London: Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. [Viewed 27 July 2020]. Available from: https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0537/ Allman Horrocks Consulting. (2018). State of Landscape Research Report. Warwickshire: Allman Horrocks Consulting Ltd. [Viewed 27 July 2020]. Available from: https://www.landscapeinstitute.org/news/future-state-landscape-briefing/ Balmford, A., Green, J. M. H., Anderson, M., Beresford, J., Huang, C., Naidoo, R., Walpole, M. & Manica, A. (2015). Walk on the Wild Side: Estimating the Global Magnitude of Visits to Protected Areas. PLoS Biology. 13(2). BBC News, (2020). Natural Solutions Boosted to Help Prevent Floods[online]. BBC News. [Viewed 14 July 2020]. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53396977 van den Brink, M., Edelenbos, J., van den Brink, A., Verweij, S., van Etteger, R. & Busscher, T. (2019). To Draw or to Cross the Line? The Landscape Architect as Boundary Spanner in Dutch River Management. Landscape and Urban Planning. 186, 13–23. Brown, R. D. & Corry, R. C. (2011). Evidence-Based Landscape Architecture: The Maturing of a Profession. Landscape and Urban Planning. 100(4), 327–329 Clark, A. (2018). High Water Common Ground. Top of the Tree. [Viewed 22 June 2020]. Available from: https://www.highwaterfilm.co.uk/common-ground Cook, B., Forrester, J., Bracken, L., Spray, C. & Oughton, E. (2016). Competing Paradigms of Flood Management in the Scottish/English Borderlands. Disaster Prevention and Management. 25(3), 314–328. Crowe, S., Johnston, D., Cripps, J., Boyce, S. & Richardson, S. (1975). Forests in Relation to Landscape and Amenity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Science. 271(911), 199–211. Curl, J. &Wilson, S. (2015). A Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture [online]. 3ed. Oxford University Press, [Viewed 28 August 2020]. Available from: www.oxfordreference.com Dadson, S. J., Hall, J. W., Murgatroyd, A., Acreman, M., Bates, P., Beven, K., Heathwaite, L., Holden, J., Holman, I. P., Lane, S. N., O’Connell, E., Penning-Rowsell, E., Reynard, N., Sear, D., Thorne, C. & Wilby, R. (2017). A Restatement of the Natural Science Evidence 35

Concerning Catchment-Based ‘Natural’ Flood Management in the UK. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 473(2199). Defra. (2020a). Multi-billion pound investment as government unveils new long-term plan to tackle flooding [online]. Gov.uk. [Viewed 14 July 2020]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/multi-billion-pound-investment-asgovernment-unveils-new-long-term-plan-to-tackle-flooding Defra. (2020b). Total Income from Farming in the United Kingdom, First Estimate for 2019. [Viewed 24 July 2020]. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach ment_data/file/884101/agricaccounts-tiffstatsnotice-07may20i.pdf Defra. (2020c). Environmental Land Management Policy Discussion Document. [Viewed 28 July 2020]. Available from: https://consult.defra.gov.uk/elm/elmpolicyconsultation/supporting_documents/ELM% 20Policy%20Discussion%20Document%20230620.pdf Dittrich, R., Ball, T., Wreford, A., Moran, D. & Spray, C. J. (2019). A Cost‐benefit Analysis of Afforestation as a Climate Change Adaptation Measure to Reduce Flood Risk. Journal of Flood Risk Management. 12(4). Douglas, D. J. T., Groom, J. D. & Scridel, D. (2020). Benefits and Costs of Native Reforestation for Breeding Songbirds in Temperate Uplands. Biological Conservation. 244. Dwyer, J. (2014). Policy Integration for Sustainable Agricultural Landscapes: Taking Stock of UK Policy and Practice. Landscape Research. 39(2), 174–189. Environment Agency. (2017). Working with natural processes [online]. Gov.uk. [Viewed 17 June 2020]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/working-with-natural-processes-toreduce-flood-risk Ford, H., Smith, A., Pagella, T. & Healey, J. (2020). Trees, Water Storage and Flooding in Upland Agricultural Landscapes: Why Do We Need to Know More? Forestry & Timber News. April 2016, 27-28. Grabowski, R. C., Gurnell, A. M., Burgess-Gamble, L., England, J., Holland, D., Klaar, M. J., Morrissey, I., Uttley, C. & Wharton, G. (2019). The Current State of the Use of Large Wood in River Restoration and Management. Water and Environment Journal. 33(3). Grant, M. J. & Edwards, M. E. (2007). Conserving Idealized Landscapes: Past History, Public Perception and Future Management in the New Forest (UK). Veget Hist Archaeobot. 17, 551–562.

Gray, R. (2020). Water, Flooding & Landscape [online]. London: Landscape Institute. [Viewed 19 August 2020]. Available from: https://landscapewpstorage01.blob.core.windows.net/www-landscapeinstituteorg/2018/01/20-3-Water-flooding-landscape.pdf Gray, R. & McDermott, A. (2019). Tackling Flooding in the Calder Valley. Landscape – 2019 Issue 4. 40–41. The Guardian (2017). Dam It! How Beavers Could Save Britain from Flooding [online]. The Guardian. [Viewed 14 August 2020]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/08/dam-it-how-beavers-savebritain-from-flooding Gurnell, A., England, J. & Burgess-Gamble, L. (2019). Trees and Wood: Working with Natural River Processes. Water and Environment Journal, 33(3). von Haaren, C., Warren-Kretzschmar, B., Milos, C. & Werthmann, C. (2014). Opportunities for Design Approaches in Landscape Planning. Landscape and Urban Planning. 130(1), 159–170. Hirst, Christina, (2020b). Developing a New Landscape Institute Competency Framework [online]. Landscape Institute. [Viewed 30 August 2020)] Available from: https://landscapewpstorage01.blob.core.windows.net/www-landscapeinstituteorg/2019/07/li-entry-standards-competency-consultation-report-201907.pdf Holden, J., Shotbolt, L., Bonn, A., Burt, T. P., Chapman, P. J., Dougill, A. J., Fraser, E. D. G., Hubacek, K., Irvine, B., Kirkby, M. J., Reed, M. S., Prell, C., Stagl, S., Stringer, L. C., Turner, A. & Worrall, F. (2007). Environmental Change in Moorland Landscapes. EarthScience Reviews. 82(1–2), 75–100. Holstead, K. L., Kenyon, W., Rouillard, J. J., Hopkins, J. & Galán-Díaz, C. (2017). Natural Flood Management from the Farmer’s Perspective: Criteria That Affect Uptake. Journal of Flood Risk Management. 10(2), 205–218. Illman, S. (2016). Flooding Matters. Landscape. Summer 2016, 32-25 Jung Jin Park & Selman, P. (2011). Attitudes Toward Rural Landscape Change in England. Environment and Behavior. 43(2), 182–206. Kay, A. L., Old, G. H., Bell, V. A., Davies, H. N. & Trill, E. J. (2019). An Assessment of the Potential for Natural Flood Management to Offset Climate Change Impacts. Environmental Research Letters. 14(4). Lanchbury, I. (2019) Cole Valley Catchment Landscape Vision. [Viewed 24 August 2020]. Available from: http://www.tamevalleywetlands.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Cole-ValleyCatchment-Landscape-Vision-Report-2.pdf

Landscape Institute, (2020). Landscape Institute Entry Standards Consultation [online]. Landscape Institute. [Viewed 17 July 2020] Available from https://landscapewpstorage01.blob.core.windows.net/www-landscapeinstituteorg/2020/04/landscape-institute-entry-standards-consultation-may-2020-12274v3.pdf Lane, S. N. (2017). Natural Flood Management. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water. 4(3). Lenzholzer, S. & Brown, R. D. (2013). Climate-Responsive Landscape Architecture Design Education. Journal of Cleaner Production. 61, 89–99. Marshall, M. R., Ballard, C. E., Frogbrook, Z. L. & Solloway, I. (2014). The Impact of Rural Land Management Changes on Soil Hydraulic Properties and Runoff Processes: Results from Experimental Plots in Upland UK. Hydrological Process. 28, 2617–2629. McIntyre, N. & Thorne, C. (ed.), 2013. Land use management effects on flood flows and sediments – guidance on prediction. CIRIA Report C719. London: CIRIA. Meth, P. & Williams, G. (2006). Literature Reviews and Bibliographic Searches. In: V. Desai & R. B. Potter, eds. Doing Development Research. London: SAGE. pp209-221 Moffat, N. (2010). Fish Live in Trees Too! Stafford: Staffordshire Wildlife Trust. [Viewed 10 August 2020]. Available from: https://www.therrc.co.uk/MOT/References/WT_Fish_live_in_trees_too.pdf Monbiot, G. (2014). Feral. London: Penguin. pp. 161-163 Neumayer, M., Teschemacher, S., Schloemer, S., Zahner, V. & Rieger, W. (2020). Hydraulic Modeling of Beaver Dams and Evaluation of Their Impacts on Flood Events. Water (Switzerland). 12(1). Ngai, R., Wilkinson, M., Nisbet, T., Harvey, R. & Addy, S. (2017). Working with Natural Processes – Evidence Directory Appendix 2: Literature Review. Bristol: Environment Agency. [Viewed 17 June 2020]. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach ment_data/file/654443/Working_with_natural_processes_evidence_directory_append ix_2_literature_review.pdf Nisbet, T. R., Marrington, S., Thomas, H., Broadmeadow, S. & Valatin, G. (2011). Defra FCERM Multi-Objective Flood Management Demonstration Project. London: Defra. [Viewed 7 July 2020]. Available from: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKE wiVsdHDgnrAhVAWhUIHd9KBboQFjABegQIBRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.forestresearch.gov .uk%2Fdocuments%2F1013%2Fstfap_final_report_Apr2011.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0grxZ3u pBvPz8YfD8CMVXg

Nisbet, T., Roe, P., Marrington, S., Thomas, H. & Broadmeadow, S. (2015). Defra FCERM Multi-Objective Flood Management Demonstration Project. London: Defra. [Viewed 7 July 2020]. Available from: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKE wiKoszmgnrAhUzRxUIHZENCwcQFjAAegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.forestresearch.gov. uk%2Fdocuments%2F242%2FFR_STF_Pickering_P2_May2015_MWh9JJA.pdf&usg=AOv Vaw107XplbyNz-HXCZYqMT_Ph Norbury, M., Shaw, D. & Jones, P. (2018). Combining Hydraulic Modelling with Partnership Working: Towards Practical Natural Flood Management. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Engineering Sustainability. 172(7). Odell, S. (2015). The Catchment Approach [online]. London: Landscape Institute. [Viewed 19 August 19 2020]. Available from: https://landscapewpstorage01.blob.core.windows.net/www-landscapeinstituteorg/2016/01/Catchment-Approach-TIN-7-15-Final-rev.pdf Pitt, M. (2008). Pitt Review: Lesson Learned from the 2007 Floods. London: Cabinet Office. [Viewed 14 July 2020]. Available from: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100702215619/http://archive.cabinetof fice.gov.uk/pittreview/thepittreview/final_report.html Rössler, M. (2006). World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: A UNESCO Flagship Programme 1992 – 2006. Landscape Research. 31(4), 333–353. Rouillard, J. J., Reeves, A. D., Heal, K. v. & Ball, T. (2014). The Role of Public Participation in Encouraging Changes in Rural Land Use to Reduce Flood Risk. Land Use Policy. 38, 637–645. Rouillard, J. J. & Spray, C. J. (2016). Working across Scales in Integrated Catchment Management: Lessons Learned for Adaptive Water Governance from Regional Experiences. Regional Environmental Change. 17, 637-645. Selman, Paul (2010) Centenary paper: Landscape planning - preservation, conservation and sustainable development. Town Planning Review. 81 (4). pp. 381-406. C., Clarke, L., Carnelli, F., Uttley, C. & Smith, B. (2019). Capturing the Multiple Benefits Associated with Nature-Based Solutions: Lessons from a Natural Flood Management Project in the Cotswolds, UK. Land Degradation and Development. 30(3). Spray, C., Arthur, S., Bergmann, E., Bell, J., Beevers, L., & Blanc, J. (2016). Land management for increased flood resilience. Centre of Expertise for Waters (CREW) Facilitation Team, James Hutton Institute. [Viewed 21 July 2020] Available from: https://www.crew.ac.uk/publication/land-management-increased-flood-resilience Steiner, F. (2016). The Application of Ecological Knowledge Requires a Pursuit of Wisdom. Landscape and Urban Planning. 155, 108–110.

Thompson, I. H. (2002). Ecology, Community and Delight: A Trivalent Approach to Landscape Education, in: Landscape and Urban Planning. 60(2), 81–93. University of Exeter, (2020). Trial finds benefits to people and wildlife from beavers living wild in English countryside [Online], University of Exeter. [Viewed 14 August 2020]. Available from: https://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/homepage/title_778479_en.html Waylen, K. A., Holstead, K. L., Colley, K. & Hopkins, J. (2018). Challenges to Enabling and Implementing Natural Flood Management in Scotland. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 11, S1078–S1089. Wells, J., Labadz, J. C., Smith, A. & Islam, M. M. (2020). Barriers to the Uptake and Implementation of Natural Flood Management: A Social-Ecological Analysis. Journal of Flood Risk Management. 13(S1). Wynne-Jones, S. (2016). Flooding and Media Storms – controversies over farming and upland land-use in the UK. Land Use Policy. 58, 533–536. IMAGES Burgess-Gamble, (2017). [NFM interventions]. [Viewed 17 June 2020]. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach ment_data/file/654440/Working_with_natural_processes_one_page_summaries.pdf Forest Research, (no date). [Woody dams and riparian woodland upstream of Pickering] [digital image] and ]A farm in the Pontbren catchment] [digital image]. [Viewed 3 July 2020]. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach ment_data/file/654440/Working_with_natural_processes_one_page_summaries.pdf Sussex Flow Initiative, (2016). [LWD habitat enhancement] and [Woody dams slow the passage of water]. [Viewed 3 July 2020]. Available from: https://assets.sussexwildlifetrust.org.uk/sfi-wt-using-wood-towards-natural-floodmanagement-2.pdf

Appendix Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis – Landscape architects (LA) working in NFM Strength Profession encompasses wide range of specialisms LA skilled at understanding sites and their context Plant knowledge - untested Design/aesthetics knowledge Experience, particularly among experienced members in community/stakeholder facilitation Mixture of cognitive and social skills

Weakness Focus seems to be on urban rather than rural Only a minority 21% see relevant of farming needs and practice and only 13% thing agrienvironment policy is relevant - same for forestry and water management Not enough LAs with experience of working at landscape scale Small professional group – LI only 5,000 members Relevance of climate change to role not universally recognised

Opportunity • Growing awareness that what happens outside the city affects the city • Government and media interest in NFM and holistic flood risk management • Build upon Landscape Character and LVIA experience • Build on legacy of pioneering landscape architects such as Ian McHarg • New LI competency framework prioritises ‘sustainability, climate and resilience’ as universal landscape competency • Natural capital and ecosystem services recognised as a specialist competency by LI

Threat • Other professions and professional bodies are further ahead at understanding and communicating the issues to their members and beyond • Influence lost when LAs are brought into projects at late stage • Increasing focus of new professionals on design and visualisation rather than wider picture • Failure to strengthen scientific and evidence basis for landscape architecture