An everchanging social and regulatory environment
In an everchanging social and regulatory environment, the challenge of getting a seat at the decision-making table is more challenging than ever. Frazer Baggaley, a senior landscape architect and urban designer at Boffa Miskell, shares his thoughts on a future ‘communication strategy’ for the industry.
As landscape architects we have always had to fight for our place at the table. I think this is still very much true today. Even as people look to focus more on the role of nature and blue green networks - in helping respond to and mitigate climate change, as well as in the support of wellbeing – landscape architects still need to jostle for position. You would think that landscape architects would be naturally well-positioned to lead this change (re: responding to, and mitigating climate change), but I believe this will remain challenging for us for several reasons.
Data is playing an increasing role in decision making. You would have to say that this would not be seen (at least externally), as a strength of landscape architects.
As central and local government start to invest more in blue-green and climate resilient infrastructure, the other supporting disciplines (engineers, architects in particular) will look to redefine and refresh their offerings to win and lead these types of projects.
Resilience infrastructure will require business financing and business cases. Large engineering and planning-focused practices will ‘out compete’ and lead (as they currently do) landscape architects in this area. This will likely result in those practices having greater influence over projects in the early stages of development. As we know, this also delivers easier pathways to win design related work.
Central Government and recent policy are seemingly blind to the role of design. Design and amenity are given low priority and decision makers are poorly equipped to prioritise good design outcomes in their decision making.
Landscape architecture, alongside landscape and visual assessment, may face significant threat if central government adopts the infrastructure commission’s recommendation to streamline consenting by standardising and codifying the planning framework and introducing environmental limits. This may limit landscape architect’s inputs into infrastructure projects where the infrastructure delivers a public good, particularly:
“Focusing on environmental limits and targets for matters sustaining life (for example air, water, soil and biodiversity) rather than human values and preferences (for example heritage, character and amenity).”
Responding to climate change will challenge traditional landscape architecture projects. As resources (predominantly financial) become more constrained, there is greater competition for those resources. The focus could shy away from landscape architecture projects (e.g., street enhancement and ‘beautification’) that are seen as being overly expensive or indulgent.
As industry professionals, we will need to get better at quantifying and communicating the positive externalities/co-benefits that landscape projects deliver. Further, ensuring that the transition to a low emission economy prioritises people, culture and design is of significant importance – there is a real threat that this shift becomes dominated by an engineering worldview.
How do we do this?
Better align and communicate what we do as a discipline and align our work with international and national best practice policy - particularly the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, New Zealand Living Standards Framework, and climate and urban development policy frameworks
Quantify the contribution of our work, particularly in the areas of environmental gains, wellbeing, equity, and transition.
Our profession is uniquely equipped to utilise design to enable cultural considerations, facilitate access and mobility, and foster gender inclusivity. These are measurable equity outcomes.
Finally, as landscape architects, we are well-positioned to facilitate and support just transitions in our communities. We do this through the engagement processes undertaken during design decision-making and ensuring those most impacted by change are not ‘left behind’ in the process.
By supporting greater community resilience and a transition to a low emission economy, our profession has the opportunity to advocate for investment in ‘complete neighbourhoods’ - the benefits of which extend far beyond the physical manifestation of the project.
In our profession, we help parties understand the importance of responding ‘well’ to place. We use design to create / reinforce a sense of place and identity, including a sense of belonging. We also help define how the quality of the urban environment can contribute to better physical, psychological, and social outcomes e.g.: improved health outcomes by incorporating walking and cycling considerations into proposals, as well as the wider benefits of better community cohesion/participation through considered design and biophilia.
The creation of blue green and climate resilient infrastructure (with increased biodiversity, improved access to nature, and more active lifestyles as outcomes) are measurable wellbeing benefits.
Our profession is uniquely equipped to utilise design to enable cultural considerations, facilitate access and mobility, and foster gender inclusivity. These are measurable equity outcomes.
Finally, as landscape architects, we are well-positioned to facilitate and support just transitions in our communities. We do this through the engagement processes undertaken during design decision-making and ensuring those most impacted by change are not ‘left behind’ in the process. By supporting greater community resilience and a transition to a low emission economy, our profession has the opportunity to advocate for investment in ‘complete neighbourhoods’ - the benefits of which extend far beyond the physical manifestation of the project.