•
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).
22
