Prevalence of NFM relevant skills within the landscape architecture profession

• 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

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.