CHAPTER 2 THE SURVEY OF LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE

2.1           INTRODUCTION

2.1.1         This chapter presents the findings of Task 1 of the study: the local and overseas review. Task 1 was undertaken in late 2001 to early 2002, and the findings on overseas studies presented herein were current at that date.

2.2           REVIEW OF LOCAL EXPERIENCE

                 Introduction

2.2.1         This section of the report reviews recent local experience in the fields of :

2.2.2         The objectives of the review of local experience are to:

                 Landscape and Townscape Mapping, Assessment and Description in Hong Kong

2.2.3         There is no single published work of landscape classification and assessment for the entire area of Hong Kong. The work which has been carried out and the analysis of landscape at a strategic level includes:

               Territorial Development Strategy Review (1996)

2.2.4         The 1996 Territorial Development Strategy Review (TDSR) includes a strategy for the landscape of Hong Kong. The landscape of Hong Kong is mapped and divided into a series of broad types. The TDSR’s landscape classification system covers both descriptive and evaluative content within the description of each landscape type (presumably to aid brevity of presentation), as follows: 

2.2.5        Each of the classifications corresponds to a broad development or conservation strategy which covers that area. It is notable that urban areas are excluded from this analysis. The strategy includes the following categories:

2.2.6         In addition, the TDSR also identifies a number of new areas proposed for conservation/protection.

Sub-Regional Planning and Development Studies

2.2.7         Planning and development studies are periodically carried out for the sub-regional areas in order to translate the territorial planning visions into more specific planning objectives. There are five sub-regional areas, namely:

Metroplan

2.2.8         Landscape - The Metroplan Landscape Strategy for the Urban Fringe and Coastal Areas (MLS) (1989) was prepared as a component of the Metroplan, the strategic planning document for the main urban areas of Hong Kong and Kowloon. The objective of the MLS was "to provide a comprehensive framework for landscape conservation and enhancement of the Metropolitan urban fringe and coastal areas"

2.2.9        The MLS began with a landscape appraisal during which both physical and visual landscape features were mapped. This in turn is used to develop a strategy plan which identifies:

2.2.10       The document provides a brief description of the key attributes of those areas covered by the above classification, identifies where the value or otherwise lies and proposes prescriptions for those areas.

2.2.11       The MLS also deals with recreation potential within the Study Area and deals in detail with the rehabilitation of a number of key degraded and recreational sites.               

2.2.12       Townscape - Metroplan provides an analysis of the urban context of Hong Kong, which identifies the following areas:

2.2.13       This plan is useful in that it integrates at a simple level landscape issues with the urban design context.

2.2.14       In addition, the Urban Design Statement – Key Plan of Metroplan provides a mapped analysis of the urban area together with an outline strategy, largely in terms of existing land use. Categories which are mapped include:

2.2.15       This plan is notable for its references to visual qualities and its integration of landscape issues with urban design issues.

Planning and Development Study on Hong Kong Island South and Lamma Island (2004)

2.2.16       The Planning and Development on Study on Hong Kong Island South and Lamma Island contains a stand-alone 'Landscape Value Appraisal’ Report. The report presents a comprehensive breakdown of the Study area into local ‘landscape character areas' (LCAs) with corresponding descriptions, rating of landscape sensitivity and detailed landscape planning guidelines for each LCA. There is also a broad landscape strategy for each LCA. Major landscape features are mapped (though woodland mapping is not presented in this report). The Landscape Appraisal Plan also identifies recreational provision and potential. Photographs of selected features are provided in the EIA report.

Planning and Development Study on North-east New Territories (2002)

2.2.17       The Planning and Development on Study on the North-east New Territories contains a fairly comprehensive description, mapping and evaluation of the landscape of the North-east New Territories (Technical Papers 6 and 7). Woodland is mapped and the landscape is broken down into Landscape Character Units (LCUs). The LCU's are in effect 'landscape character areas' and are accompanied by descriptions of features and landscape character, together with photographs of selected features. These LCU's are also assigned a value from 'low' through to 'high'.

Planning and Development Study on North-west New Territories (2003)

2.2.18       The Planning and Development Study on the North-west New Territories contains a limited description and mapping of the landscape of the North-west New Territories. Key landscape elements are mapped (woodland, topography and hydrological features). There is no mapping or classification of landscape types or landscape character.

Study on South-east New Territories Development Strategy Review (2001)

2.2.19       The Planning and Development on Study on the South-east New Territories contains a fairly comprehensive description of landscape character and quality, mapping and evaluation of the landscape of the South-east New Territories. Major landscape features are mapped and landscape is broken down into Landscape Character Units (LCUs). The LCUs are in effect ‘landscape character areas’ and are accompanied by appropriate descriptions of features and landscape character, together with photographs of landscape context and selected features. These LCUs are also assigned an evaluation from 'low' through to 'high'. Prescriptive strategic actions for landscape are included in the 'Tourism and Recreation Framework'. 

South-west New Territories Development Strategy Review (2001)

2.2.20       The South-west New Territories Planning and Development Study contains only limited reference to landscape values, as part of a wider conservation strategy. It identifies existing Country Park and proposed extensions as well as SSSIs, features of ecological interest and features of heritage interest. There are brief landscape descriptions within the Tourism and Recreation Proposals. 

Development Statements for the Urban Areas

2.2.21       Development statements have thus far been prepared for the following urban areas of Hong Kong and Kowloon:

2.2.22       Amongst other subjects, these statements develop the objectives for landscape and urban design established by Metroplan. Most therefore include (to some extent) an analysis of the landscape and townscape characteristics of their areas.

Hong Kong Island West Development Statement (1999)

2.2.23       Landscape - The Hong Kong Island West Development Statement provides a written description and analysis of the landscape of the Study area and provides an action plan which is linked to open space; recreation; pedestrian movement and streetscape and environmental objectives. Landscape is mapped largely in terms of the broad categories used in the Metroplan Landscape Strategy for the Urban Fringe and Coastal Areas. It also includes an action plan for future landscape improvements.              

2.2.24       Townscape - The urban environment is analysed (in the text) in terms of: 

2.2.25       Mapping of the existing qualities of the urban area includes:

Tsuen Wan/Kwai Tsing Development Statement (1992)

2.2.26      Landscape - The Urban Design, Landscape, Open Space and Recreational Frameworks Report for the study provides an analysis of landscape issues. This comprises an analysis of fung shui characteristics. A number of key landscape character areas are identified on relevant plans and described in the text with a limited amount of illustrative material. Specific key issues and problems are identified.

2.2.27       Key landscape areas are examined in more detail in a series of landscape studies focusing on the key landscape areas whereby key resources are mapped and described and photographed.

2.2.28       Townscape - The report provides a textual description of the character of the urban area, with a series of analysis plans based on function, including:

2.2.29       Elsewhere, the urban area is analysed in terms of:

2.2.30       Other analysis is based on form and includes:

2.2.31       Detailed design studies analyse local areas in terms of key view corridors and landmarks/major focal points/minor destinations and linkages.

South-east Kowloon Development Statement (1993)

2.2.32       Landscape – The South-east Kowloon Development Statement (SEKDS) does not offer a significant analysis or description of existing landscape conditions or features other than solid geology and shoreline conditions.

2.2.33       Townscape - There is a comprehensive mapping and description of land-use, geology, building height, building age, building condition and plot ratio. There is however no analysis of the less tangible, or aesthetic qualities of the SEKDS area.                

2.2.34       The report contains extensive landscape and urban design proposals for the new SEKDS area.

West Kowloon Development Statement (1993)

2.2.35       Landscape – The West Kowloon Development Statement contains a brief description of the key landscape characteristics of the area. A small number of key landscape issues are noted on plans included in the study.

2.2.36       Townscape - The report contains a brief description of the key urban design characteristics of the area. Key problems and shortcomings are noted. A small number of key urban design issues are noted on plans included in the study.

Central and East Kowloon Development Statement (1998)

2.2.37       Landscape – The Central and East Kowloon Development Statement provides a brief textual analysis of different land uses, which cover a number of landscape issues, including quarries, waterfront areas, undeveloped land, open space.                

2.2.38       Townscape - There is analysis in plan format of building age and building height. Brief text identifies key urban design issues in terms of:

2.2.39       Detailed urban design and landscape proposals are made for selected areas within the study area as well as a Landscape, Recreation and Pedestrian Circulation Action Plan for the entire area.

Government Technical Studies

Environmental Impacts Assessments (EIAs)

2.2.40       Landscape and visual impact assessments (LVIAs) have been carried out in Hong Kong for a number of years as part of the wider EIA process. Predominant professional practice has been to identify impacts on landscape character as part of which an analysis of existing landscape character and resources is required. 

2.2.41       Preparation of LVIAs was formalised under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Ord.No.9 of 1997) and its accompanying Technical Memorandum in 1998. Prior to this, there was considerable variation in the amount and quality of data included in LVIAs. After the Ordinance came into force, there has been a more consistent level of recorded data on landscape resources and character. Yet there remain often considerable differences in depth and scale of data recording between different projects (as is inevitable where projects are of different scales). An example of these discrepancies is in the recording of landscape units and landscape character. Certain LVIAs include landscape character areas only. Others use what could more accurately be described as landscape character types. Even in the case of LCAs, there is often a difference in the scale at which they are recorded (which is a legitimate professional decision made on the basis of the scale and type of the landscape, the scale of the project and the judgment of the professionals concerned).

2.2.42       Further problems with using LVIAs as a data source on landscape include their patchy coverage and the fact that many are now partly out of date, having been superseded by the pace of development in Hong Kong.

Other Government Studies

2.2.43       Other studies commissioned by Government may contain relevant data on landscape resources and character. In particular, the new town studies often contain assessments of pre-existing landscape conditions, many of these in considerable detail, such as the Tai Po Landscape and Recreation Study in 1979. Such studies are useful in offering methodological insight and in identifying a scale which might be most appropriate for landscape assessment in Hong Kong. However, in most cases, the landscape has changed so much after the construction of the new town, that the actual data within the studies is of only limited value.

Other Literature

2.2.44       In addition to Government commissioned technical studies and research, there remains a limited literature produced for the general public on the Hong Kong landscape and townscape. These fall broadly into technical literature and ‘recreational’ literature. Useful technical literature includes general studies on the geography and ecology of Hong Kong, such as Hills and Streams, An Ecology of Hong Kong (Dudgeon and Corlett, 1994), A Geography of Hong Kong (Chiu, 1983), The Soils and Agriculture of Hong Kong (Grant, 1962). The former Urban Council of the Hong Kong Government also published an extremely useful series of technical guides on the flora, fauna and earth sciences of Hong Kong.

2.2.45       Of the 'recreational literature', a number of studies in English have been produced which offer insights, descriptions and secondary historical information on the Hong Kong landscape. Of particular note are ‘The Hong Kong Countryside’ (Herklots, 1951), 'Hong Kong's Wild Places' (Stokes, 1995), 'Across Hong Kong Island' (Stokes, 1998), the 'Coastal Guides Series' (Friends of the Earth, various), and ‘The Green Dragon’ (Williams ed., 1994). The particularly informed guide on the Maclehose Trail, 'Hong Kong Landscapes: Along the Maclehose Trail' by Owen and Shaw contains much useful information, particularly on landscape geology and topography.

2.2.46       Covering the urban area, there are few non-historical books which deal with the urban landscape. There are numerous pictorial books have been published aimed at the recreational reader, notably the 'Over Hong Kong' series. These provide a limited amount of useful information, although much is quickly out of date. A reference of interest is 'Mapping HK' (Gutierrez and Portefaix, 2000) which deals with the townscape of Hong Kong from a 'popular geography' approach.

2.2.47       Considerable historic data on the Hong Kong landscape and townscape is available in popular literary sources. These range from historic maps in ‘Mapping Hong Kong’ (Empson, 1992) to the series of historic photographs published by former Urban Services Council in ‘City of Victoria - A Selection of the Museum’s Historical Photographs’ (Ho ed., 1994).

2.2.48       In summary, the technical literature relevant to the Hong Kong landscape provides useful supplementary material or commentary, which is of considerable help in the Study. Of the recreational literature, those documenting the history of the townscape and landscape through maps, photographs and paintings are of considerable use in tracing the development of the Hong Kong landscape and townscape. Other literature is of some value, though this is limited by an often unscientific approach, piece-meal coverage and by the fact that in Hong-Kong’s rapidly changing landscape, much of it is quickly out-of-date.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) In Hong Kong

2.2.49       GIS is an established technology widely used throughout Hong Kong within Government departments and bureaux, companies and educational institutions. A variety of data exists within these organisations which unfortunately, because of different project requirements and the lack of a commonly adopted data standard, is of varying quality. 

2.2.50       Within Government it is often difficult to find out what data exists. This is partially due to the fact that the potential value of data to external parties is not recognised by the custodians with the result that they rarely publicise its existence. Fortunately, some departments such as the Lands Department (LandsD) have recognised that their data is valuable to others and have successfully implemented mechanisms for data distribution. Other initiatives such as HPLB's Data Alignment Strategy aim to make organisations aware of the availability and location of public data. A variety of GIS software systems are being used in Hong Kong, the main two of which are ESRI's ArcGIS suite and Integraph's GeoMedia range of products.

2.2.51       The main Government departments with significant GIS capabilities include CSD, DSD, FSD, HKPF, HA/HD, WSD, LandsD, PlanD, CEDD, AFCD, EPD, TD and HyD. Of these, LandsD was among the first to recognise the benefit of storing data in GIS format. Over the last decade, it has converted topographic survey maps at scales of 1:1,000-1:50,000 to GIS format. PlanD have also led the field with a number of studies, this one included, with important GIS outputs. As different data-sets are made available, they can be used to assist with other projects drastically reducing the time needed to complete them. For example this project is likely to use outputs from SUSDEV21 such as habitat maps and digitised archaeological site boundaries. The expense of having to reproduce these, while not considerable, is still significant. This common element of cost saving seems to be one of the main attractions in using GIS to assist with projects.

2.2.52       GIS based projects that have been conducted in Hong Kong range in size from project level to territory-wide. The level of detail also varies greatly. Projects conducted by Government with a GIS component include LandsD’s topographic data capture program, PlanD's SUSDEV21, CEDD’s many natural terrain hazard studies, EPD's efforts in noise and air modelling and also dredging studies, TD's and HyD's projects for asset management and intelligent transport systems and AFCD’s habitat mapping work. Numerous other examples exist and the above examples serve to illustrate the variety in application of GIS technology.

Ecological Data Sources In Hong Kong

Introduction

2.2.53       Maps that show the extent of ecosystems and habitats and locate species records can be a useful indication of possible high value landscapes, because in general high value habitats are often natural in appearance. However caution is required in interpreting ecological maps in terms of landscape value. Although many natural landscapes (for example mature forests of native species) are considered to be highly attractive and are also of high ecological value, some places that would normally be considered eye-sores (for example derelict industrial sites) may be colonised by rare flora and fauna and may also develop high ecological value. Conversely, apparently natural-looking landscapes (for example forests of planted non-native trees or some reservoirs) may have relatively low ecological value but may be highly valued for their appearance.

Hong Kong Experience

2.2.54       No comprehensive, territory-wide survey of habitats based on site visits has been undertaken, however the World Wide Fund for Nature Hong Kong (formerly the World Wildlife Fund Hong Kong) (WWFHK) (1989 - data published 1993) have used aerial photography to map habitats at 1:50,000 scale. This work has proven useful in determining the extent and location of extensive vegetation belts (for example upland forests and grasslands) but is of limited use in identifying small scale features and is now rather outdated. SUSDEV21 (2000) also maps habitats on a territory-wide basis, but shows greater detail than the WWFHK study. 

2.2.55       Government maintains a schedule of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) which are designated for their ecological or geological importance. SSSIs are shown on Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs). Many of the SSSIs are natural features of both high ecological and landscape value (for example Ma On Shan). Others (for example some egretries) may not be of outstanding landscape value, being only one of several similar features in a particular district.

2.2.56       The Department of Biodiversity and Ecology of The University of Hong Kong in 1999 undertook a territory-wide study of biodiversity (entitled A Biodiversity Survey of Hong Kong). Although coverage is variable, records of species of flora and fauna, some common and others rare, are shown on plans. Rare species (most notably trees) particularly those associated with ancient habitats (mainly woodland) may be of use in identifying wooded landscapes of outstanding value.

2.2.57       AFCD have commissioned a Wetland Compensation Study, which includes a territory-wide survey of wetlands. The larger wetlands (for example Mai Po and Long Valley) are relatively well known and form distinct landscapes. Much of Hong Kong’s wetland consists of small fragmented sites (for example abandoned paddies in villages) which may not have the obvious appearance of a wetland or which may be intimately associated with another landscape type (for example an abandoned paddy as a clearing in a secondary forest). Such small wetland sites may not be large enough to be considered a distinct landscape division.

2.2.58       The sub-regional strategic planning studies commissioned by PlanD (for example those for NWNT, NENT and SENT) usually shows sites of high ecological importance in each region. These studies identify countryside areas often considered worthy of conservation on the basis of ‘naturalness’ which implies high ecological value. Usually these areas are also of outstanding scenic beauty (for example much of the Sai Kung coastal area is both visually attractive and of ecological value).

2.2.59       There are many EIAs which include mapping and evaluation of habitats within 500m of the project boundary. In the case of large infrastructure projects this means that the area mapped may be extensive. However such studies are likely to be of limited value in territory-wide landscape value mapping unless previously unknown or little appreciated features are identified.

Hong Kong Experience

2.2.60       In conclusion, the most useful references on the mapping of habitats in Hong Kong are as follows:

Historic / Cultural Data Sources In Hong Kong

Introduction

2.2.61       With the exception of the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO), who hold some digital data and a few project specific databases, mapping of cultural heritage resources in Hong Kong has been carried out manually by professionals, cultural heritage organisations, Government departments such as the Hong Kong Archaeological Society, the Public Record Office, Lands Department, local museums and local and overseas tertiary institutions. 

2.2.62       Since 1971, the AMO has been responsible for the management of the cultural heritage resources1 in Hong Kong. In the mid 1980s, a Territory Wide Archaeological Survey was undertaken to identify and map these archaeological resources2. While the results of this survey were the most comprehensive to that date, lack of resources meant that full coverage was unachievable.

2.2.63       In SUSDEV21 (2000), 67 declared monuments, 8 deemed monuments, 457 listed graded historical buildings and 206 archaeological sites from the 1990s surveys were input to a GIS. The purpose of this was to allow decision-making support to development planning to ensure that adverse impacts on sensitive cultural heritage areas could be avoided.

2.2.64       The sites collected under SUSDEV21 were considered those of most cultural heritage value. The remaining sites, which are held by AMO and not available for public viewing, are currently under review and it is possible that some may be upgraded to categories collected under SUSDEV21. Apart from AMO, the following organisations also hold maps of cultural heritage resources. 

The Hong Kong Archaeological Society

2.2.65       The society keeps all archaeological records from its research and keeps all the raw data from local archaeological investigations including maps, field records and archaeological finds for work carried out prior to 1971. The Society also publishes the Journal of Hong Kong Archaeological Society to present their archaeological and cultural heritage findings. However, since the Antiquities and Monument Ordinance (Cap. 53) was implemented in 1971 which states that the ownership of every relic discovered in Hong Kong after the commencement of the Ordinance belongs to the Government from the moment of discovery, all the post -1971 finds and archaeological investigation records of the Society are passed to AMO for record.

Public Record Office

2.2.66       The PRO keeps archives which have sufficient administrative, legal, financial or research value to be retained permanently. Archive materials include: military records, Japanese Administration archives during their occupation in Hong Kong, internment camp records, diaries, war-time records, old maps and old photographs of Hong Kong. 

Survey and Mapping Office of the Lands Department

2.2.67       The SMO keeps all maps prepared by the Government for various purposes. The earliest traceable maps date to 1840s. Maps which may contain information with some cultural heritage value include:

Local Museums

2.2.68       Museums often house various types of historical collections such as historical photographs, artefacts, maps, videos, old books etc. donated from private owners.

Local and Overseas Libraries

2.2.69       The best entry points for cultural heritage resources held in the libraries are the Hong Kong Special Collection Library in the University of Hong Kong and the Chinese University of Hong Kong. These libraries house comprehensive collections of historical materials related to Hong Kong including bibliographies, government publications and records, manuscripts, newspapers, directories, almanacs, pictures, biographies, audio-visual materials, microfilms, historical photos, posters related to Hong Kong, publications on Hong Kong history and theses on Hong Kong studies by undergraduates as well as postgraduates of the Universities, in which various kind of maps are contained.

2.2.70       Besides local libraries, overseas libraries and institutions also keep maps relating to Hong Kong in particular the military records and maps. The entry points include:

2.3           OVERSEAS CASE STUDIES                  

2.3.1         The Study Team have carried out an overview of overseas experience and researched six overseas case studies, in order to identify the range of possible approaches to landscape assessment currently in use world-wide.               

2.3.2         The Case Studies have been chosen primarily for their usefulness in defining an appropriate methodology for the current Hong Kong Study. They have therefore been selected by reference to a number of key criteria relevant to the Study on the basis that each criterion should be met by at least one case study:

2.3.3         Six case studies are presented in this report. Because the countries in which the field of landscape assessment is best developed are the USA, UK and New Zealand and because information in English is more readily available from these countries, five of the six case studies are drawn from them. A further Asian case study from Indonesia is also presented. The findings presented herein were current in early 2002.

2.3.4         The six case studies presented are:

2.3.5        The findings of each case study are presented under the following sub-headings:

Case Study 1 - Countryside Character Initiative, England, UK

Introduction and Background to the Assessment

2.3.6         The Countryside Character Initiative is the name for England’s national landscape assessment system, led by the Countryside Agency, the (UK) government’s adviser on countryside issues. The initiative is concerned with managing England’s countryside through an understanding of its character, which has evolved as a result of complex interactions between nature and human activity. Its aims are to help guide policy developments and national decision-making on landscape and countryside issues, and to give a context to local planning and land management initiatives by local authorities. Much of the Agency’s work on the initiative is undertaken in partnership with other government agencies, notably English Nature (the government’s adviser on nature conservation) and English Heritage (the government’s adviser on the historic environment). All three agencies report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

2.3.7         The Countryside Character Initiative came about because it was recognised that there was a need for a new approach to landscape assessment, which would examine the whole of England’s countryside rather than just its finest landscapes (National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), upon which attention had focused in the past. Specifically, it is intended to provide a consistent national framework within which more detailed assessments by local authorities and others will fit.                 

2.3.8         The initiative has been ongoing for around five years. It began in the late 1990s when the Countryside Commission (the Agency's predecessor body) and English Nature prepared the Character of England map, which identified joint Character Areas for the whole of England. This combines the Countryside Commission’s Countryside Character Areas (CCAs) with English Nature’s Natural Areas. The map is accompanied by detailed descriptions of the unique landscape character of each of the 159 Character Areas and of the pressure for change within each area (Figure 2.1). The descriptions are published in eight regional volumes and are also available on the Agency’s website (www.countryside.gov.uk/cci/character).

2.3.9         More recently, the Agency has embarked upon the preparation of a National Countryside Character Database, the aim being to provide a robust landscape decision-making framework for use by the Agency at a strategic level. This GIS-based project has included the development of a National Landscape Typology for England comprising 75 generic Landscape Character Types (LCTs) and a total of 587 individual LCT areas across England. The principal outputs of this project, which is nearing completion, will be ArcView GIS maps of the LCTs and an Access database containing information on landscape character and landscape change within each LCT in England.

2.3.10       The Countryside Agency is also undertaking a wide range of associated project work on landscape and countryside character, including:

2.3.11       This case study focuses mainly on the National Countryside Character Database but also provides basic information about the related projects in so far as they are relevant to Hong Kong.

Assessment Methodology

Overview

2.3.12        The National Countryside Character Database has been prepared by Entec UK Ltd, a multi-disciplinary environmental consultancy. Entec has been supported by a team of specialist consultants with expertise in landscape character assessment, GIS and database development. The team also includes experts from the University of Reading who have advised on land use change. The study has taken just over two years to complete and has had a substantial consultancy budget.                

2.3.13       Although commissioned by the Countryside Agency, the Steering Group for the project includes a representative from DEFRA, reflecting the fact that one particular purpose of the Database is to help the Countryside Agency and DEFRA in the targeting of agri-environment scheme funding to achieve optimal landscape benefit. English Nature and English Heritage have also been very closely involved, providing data for use in development of the typology and for input to the database.               

2.3.14       The first main phase of the work involved using national GIS data-sets on ArcView to divide each of the 159 CCAs in England into distinct and relatively homogeneous LCTs. Each LCT was then further characterised using data from existing landscape character assessments, including over 100 more detailed assessments by local authorities and others. The character data were entered onto an Access database and linked to the GIS data relating to the LCTs into which the CCAs had been divided. Through this system, detailed information about the character of each CCA and its constituent LCTs can be readily reviewed and interrogated. The maps and database for one Countryside Agency region were subject to a process of review by Countryside Agency staff and local authority partners and revised in light of comments received. This review process will be extended to other regions in future.                

2.3.15       In parallel with the characterisation process, agricultural land use data collected by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were analysed to identify agricultural land use changes that had taken place between 1975 and 1995 (Figure 2.2). The data selected for the analysis were considered to be indicative of changes affecting the character and quality of the landscape. This aspect of the work was intended to inform the development of an indicator of change in countryside character.                   

2.3.16        The second phase of the project was to apply the environmental capital approach to the character data with a view to providing a rigorous and transparent process for evaluating landscapes and informing policy decisions. This part of the work will be developed further in future.

Approach to Classification and Description and Use of GIS

2.3.17        The new typology has been prepared on the basis that the particular combinations of characteristics that are the strongest determinants of countryside character occur in many different parts of the countryside, i.e. they are generic. These three determinants are physiography (relief and structural geology), land-cover (ecological character from the interpretation of soils, tree cover and farm type) and cultural patterns (historic settlement and land use).

2.3.18       Existing digital data-sets were used to prepare a series of standardised maps of these definitive attributes. These were overlain within the GIS and repeating patterns of physical, ecological and cultural elements were identified and mapped as Land Description Units (LDUs), which can be seen as the building blocks of the landscape. The LDUs in turn were grouped and used to develop the LCTs, each of which has a unique three-letter code, as follows:

2.3.19       A unique reference code was given to each of the 587 LCT areas by prefixing the three letter LCT code with the relevant CCA number.

2.3.20       The accompanying database is a relational database with a central table to hold simplified data and a complex system of 'look-up' tables that make the database more efficient and versatile. Data-sets were input from both mapped and written sources at the LCT area scale. They included definitive attribute data from the classification process described above and descriptive attribute data from landscape character assessment reports and other sources (these latter sources, which can be unreliable, were given a confidence score). Descriptive attribute data included:

2.3.21       Finally, the impacts of agricultural change on landscape character were explored using time-series agricultural census data. The study identified three key indicators:

2.3.22       An analysis was made of the extent and magnitude of change in these three indicators and the results were also fed into the countryside character database. The system can be interrogated to show the patterns of landscape change across the country.

Approach to Evaluation

2.3.23       In two CCAs, the environmental capital approach was used to evaluate the landscape character data with a view to informing decision-making on the landscape. Environmental capital is a new, integrated decision-making tool that covers all aspects of the environment. It has been developed jointly by the four conservation agencies in England: the Countryside Agency, English Nature, English Heritage and the Environment Agency and has recently been expanded to cover social and economic as well as environmental considerations3. It offers a systematic way of recording which landscape areas and features (attributes) matter to people and why, by analysing the services (benefits) that they provide. For example, a landscape area or feature may be a local landmark, a valued habitat or a recreational resource. The approach helps place values on the commonplace as well as the unusual and rare; and allows stakeholder values to be seen alongside scientific and professional values.

2.3.24       TFor the National Countryside Character Database project, a tailored version of the methodology was developed and was tested by the consultants in the two pilot CCAs. The first step was to draw up a generic list of landscape benefits. Then, using the information from the CCA descriptions and the landscape character database, attributes that could provide those benefits were identified. Analysis of other aspects of environmental capital, namely importance, “enoughness” and trends relative to target was also undertaken. The findings were tested through discussions with local staff of the conservation agencies and local authorities. The result of these discussions was the recognition that further work was required to refine the methodology for use in conjunction with the Database.

Public Participation

2.3.25       Rather than developing an explicit public participation programme, the Countryside Character Initiative includes the values of the public and stakeholders in various implicit ways:-

Outputs of the Assessment

2.3.26       The National Countryside Character Database provides the first full, objective and consistent landscape baseline for England. It is an integrated assessment that is based upon and includes robust information on the physical, ecological and cultural character of the landscape and that can be readily expanded and updated. However, it does not pay explicit attention to the visual and perceptual character of the landscape. In this respect, it complements the Character of England map, which focuses more strongly on visual character and regional identity.

2.3.27       The assessment clearly separates the process of characterisation from evaluation. However the evaluative component of the project is not yet well developed, for two main reasons. The first is that the environmental capital approach tends to be difficult and time-consuming to apply. Although the principles and aims are laudable, in practice it is cumbersome to use and does not readily yield clear advice on comparative landscape values. The second possible reason that the pilot evaluation was unsuccessful was that it was carried out mainly by the consultants rather than by local stakeholders. In future a more strategic approach to evaluation is likely to be adopted4, with greater stakeholder involvement.

2.3.28       In terms of applications, it is still too early to comment, as the Database is only now nearing completion (early 2002). However it is widely welcomed. Key uses will be as a starting point and framework for new and updated local authority landscape character assessments; as a baseline for monitoring landscape change at national level5; and as a tool for targeting and evaluating the effectiveness of agri-environment and other landscape expenditure. It remains to be seen exactly how it will perform for each of these purposes.

2.3.29       The Countryside Agency plans a new project, starting in early 2002, to develop the Database further. The aims of that project are expected to include refinement of the typology and the database; further development of the environmental capital approach; and further development of indicators of change in countryside character and countryside quality to meet the requirements of the English Rural White Paper6.

Applicability to Hong Kong

2.3.30       The Countryside Character Initiative as a whole contains much that is of relevance to Hong Kong. Strengths of the English system are that:

2.3.31       The National Countryside Character Database may provide a useful model for GIS mapping and database development in Hong Kong, especially in relation to the choice of definitive and descriptive landscape attributes for landscape classification and description. The work on indicators is also of some relevance. However, the case study suggests that an evaluation system based on the environmental capital should be approached with caution.

2.3.32       The assessment is relatively broad-brush and in that sense is different to the detailed assessment being undertaken in Hong Kong. It copes well with a wide diversity of landscape types, but yields little useful information on how to tackle urban landscape assessment.

Case Study 2 - LANDMAP Information System, Wales, UK

2.3.33       The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) is the statutory adviser to government on sustaining natural beauty, wildlife and the opportunity for outdoor enjoyment throughout Wales. Since the late 1990’s, CCW has collaborated with many organisations in Wales (through the Wales Landscape Partnership Group) to develop a single, robust method of assessing landscape.

2.3.34       The method, which is known as LANDMAP8, is undertaken at county level and is based on creating a pool of landscape information stored in a GIS. The information is gathered, organised and evaluated into a nationally consistent dataset, with a step-by-step approach allowing judgments about the landscape to be traced back to their source. Central to the philosophy of LANDMAP is the assumption that specific landscape qualities such as biodiversity and history can each be examined in turn and then (if required) amalgamated into discrete landscape character areas.

2.3.35       The LANDMAP approach actively involves in the assessment process many of the stakeholders who already possess information relevant to the sustainable management of landscapes (Figure 2.3). The aim is to produce an assessment that is commonly ‘owned’, by sharing information and working together on the LANDMAP assessment. However, in practical terms, local authorities and national park authorities in partnership with CCW take the lead in preparing LANDMAP assessments. Assessments have been completed or are underway for most local authority areas in Wales; they cover both rural and urban areas. The remaining six authorities should commence their assessments in 2002. CCW is responsible for quality assurance of the assessments.

2.3.36       Overall, LANDMAP may be described as a decision-support system that can be used by a variety of users for a variety of purposes. These include identification of special landscapes for designation; development plan preparation; development control; preparation of land management plans, countryside strategies, local biodiversity action plans and plans for management of historic landscapes; indicative forestry strategies; and agri-environment schemes. The LANDMAP information system has received awards from the UK Landscape Institute and the Council of Europe in recognition of its innovative approach to landscape planning.

Assessment Methodology

Overview

2.3.37       A typical LANDMAP study takes around 18 months to complete and the normal working scale is 1:10,000. The software packages used are MapInfo and Microsoft Access. Much of the work is undertaken through desk study although some aspects do require field survey. The core team for the project includes a dedicated manager, an information co-ordinator and a CCW officer, advised by steering group members. However, the specialist work is undertaken by experts (Aspect Specialists) in the relevant disciplines, who may be drawn either from the Wales Landscape Partnership Group or from consultancy. They are selected, trained and approved by CCW. The local authority and CCW usually fund the work jointly.

2.3.38       The LANDMAP information system comprises:

2.3.39       There are effectively six stages in the assessment process. The first stage brings all the information providers and users together, forming a steering group chaired by the local authority. This group drives and sustains the assessment process. The second stage involves compilation on GIS of the contextual information on the spatial form and land use function of all land within the study area, using pre-determined hierarchical classification systems (Figure 2.4). In the third stage of the work, specialists in each particular Aspect classify and evaluate the land within the study area; this information is mapped and entered onto a database. As a fourth stage, LANDMAP requires a public perception study to identify the public landscape values, local identity and priorities for landscape change. The fifth stage of the assessment, which is optional, is integrated landscape characterisation and evaluation. The final stage, again optional, is to produce written information products such as landscape assessments, landscape strategies and action programmes that draw on management recommendations.

Approach to Classification, Description and Evaluation

2.3.40       These three tasks are integrated for each of the Aspects. To ensure consistency, there is a standard data capture form and a pre-defined typology for each Aspect. The typology is in the form of a hierarchical classification system for the Aspect. Generally there are four levels. For example for the Biodiversity Aspect, level 1 is based on habitat group, level 2 on broad habitat type, level 3 on habitat type and level 4 on habitat detail. Figure 2.4 illustrates the hierarchical levels for the Visual and Sensory Aspect. The next task is to describe the characteristics and features that distinguish one Aspect Area or group of Aspect Areas from another. The data capture forms provide detailed sets of tick boxes from which to select key descriptive terms (Figure 2.5). Clear definitions of each term are provided for reference.

2.3.41       Central to LANDMAP is the concept of evaluation, including assessment of value, condition and trend. In relation to value, LANDMAP provides a pre-defined list of criteria for assessing the value of the Aspect Area. The Aspect Specialist is asked to assess, based on the criteria given, the overall intrinsic value of the Aspect Area to the Aspect. The specialist is required for each criterion to use a scale of:

2.3.42        An overall evaluation using the same scale is also made. The criteria put forward are generally those that are known and accepted within that specialism; and many criteria are common to several aspects. Criteria include, for example, research value, educational value, rarity/uniqueness/representativeness, priority species and habitats, threat, distinctiveness, fragmentation, scenic quality, integrity, character, documentation, survival, vulnerability and diversity. The accompanying assessment of condition evaluates the current physical health of the Aspect Area (good/fair/poor/un-assessed) at the time of the assessment; while the assessment of trend evaluates change in condition (improving/constant/declining). Both these parameters require field survey. 

2.3.43        The next section of the data capture form is headed ‘Recommendations’, and aims to provide expert comment and advice on the current and future management of the Aspect Area. Existing management is scored on a ten-point scale, an overall (open) management recommendation is made, and up to three management guidelines may be made for conserving, restoring or enhancing particular landscape characteristics or features. The degree of urgency of management is also indicated. Lastly, there is the option to assess the degree of tolerance of change of each Aspect Area to a long list of pre-defined developments and land use changes.

Use of GIS

2.3.44       In summary, the following data-sets are compiled and entered on the GIS for each Aspect Area:

2.3.45        Unlike the English countryside character approach – a basic principle of which is integrated characterisation – preparation of an overall landscape characterisation is seen as an optional extra in Wales, on the grounds that landscape character will look after itself if the individual qualities that make up the landscape are properly taken into account in decision-making.

2.3.46       Nonetheless, the LANDMAP method offers advice on how to prepare an overall landscape characterisation. It defines a hierarchical classification system and describes how to identify landscape character types and areas, essentially by overlaying the different Aspect Area maps and looking for patterns and correlations. This part of the process closely resembles the approach to landscape characterisation that is used in England. Advice is also given on how an integrated landscape characterisation can be used to prepare landscape assessments, strategies, guidelines and action plans.

Public Participation

2.3.47        The LANDMAP process requires a public perception study that aims to identify:

2.3.48       Both ‘top down’ (expert-led) and ‘bottom up’ (community-led) approaches are intended to work in parallel. The top down approach serves as an immediate point of reference for the LANDMAP study, while the bottom up approach is part of a longer-term programme of community participation.

2.3.49       The principal tool used for the top down approach is a structured household survey of at least 100 respondents per local authority area, with face to face interviews exploring landscape values, identity and preferences for change in the respondent’s local landscape character area. This is complemented by a minimum of six focus group discussions in each local authority area, to add depth to the household survey data. The findings are integrated into the GIS database as an additional layer of information for each landscape character area.

2.3.50       The bottom up approach requires each community council throughout Wales to produce its own ‘parish map’ that encapsulates and annotates the main landscape characteristics of the area. Advice on this process is provided by the local authority or by CCW, and the outputs of the exercise are again fed into the LANDMAP GIS database.

Outputs of the Assessment

2.3.51       The final output of the LANDMAP process will be a complete, consistent, hierarchical map and database describing and evaluating the five landscape Aspects. Full, quality-assured coverage for Wales is expected to be complete within around three years. In the meantime the data is already being used by local authorities and other bodies throughout Wales for a variety of purposes.

2.3.52       The primary users of LANDMAP data are the local authorities. The data can inform both development planning and development control. For example, LANDMAP data has been used by Cardiff County Council to identify Special Landscape Areas for inclusion in its Unitary Development Plan; while Vale of Glamorgan Council has used LANDMAP to prepare design guidelines for environmental and economic regeneration. These will be adopted as supplementary planning guidance, making them a material consideration in planning decisions.

2.3.53       In the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park, the LANDMAP study will form the basis for the new National Park Management Plan. It will be used to help formulate a vision of the National Park and to define the actions needed to achieve that vision. In relation to biodiversity and the historic environment, strong links have been established to Biodiversity Action Plans and to the Welsh Register of Historic Landscapes – helping to ensure consistency of approach to the management of landscape assets. LANDMAP data is also expected to guide the expansion of forestry in Wales as it will be used in the preparation of Indicative Forestry Strategies. As in England, the assessment has a particular role in relation to agri-environment schemes, offering the potential to target specific landscape characteristics and features for conservation and enhancement, as well as allowing change in those features to be monitored.

2.3.54       It is envisaged that data on the system will be regularly reviewed and updated with new material from partner organisations being added in as it becomes available. CCW will be responsible for the updating process and for passing the update information on to other organisations.

Applicability to Hong Kong

2.3.55       The LANDMAP information system contains many elements of relevance to Hong Kong. Strengths of the system are that:

2.3.56       The principal weakness of the system is its emphasis on separate assessment of different landscape aspects, rather than on integrated characterisation. This, coupled with the very high level of detail within the assessment, means that it may be difficult for a layperson to understand. It is also less useful than other approaches for explaining and communicating key landscape policy issues and options at a strategic level.

2.3.57       Overall, the LANDMAP information system provides a very useful model for landscape assessment in Hong Kong. There is much to be learnt from the rigour with which the classification and evaluation systems have been constructed; the interactive way in which the assessment has been managed; and the sound approach to public participation.

2.3.58       The system deals with a wide range of landscape types, including urban, coastal and mountainous landscapes but offers little detailed guidance on how to tackle the assessment of urban landscapes comparable to those of Hong Kong.

Case Study 3 - Cleveland Bioregional Plan, Ohio, USA

Introduction and Background to the Assessment

2.3.59       Landscape planning has developed very differently in North America compared to the UK and indeed Europe. There are no common, agreed methods and no area-wide assessments at national or even at state or county level in most cases. This reflects the rather poorly-developed land use planning system, and the wide variation in approaches taken to land management by different government departments. Work similar to what we would call landscape assessment falls into three main categories.

2.3.60       First there are planning-based approaches, typified by the Metropolitan Landscape Planning Model (METLAND) developed by the University of Massachusetts. This approach is founded on principles of landscape as human habitat developed by the landscape architect Ian McHarg in the 1960s. Typically such approaches are applied to the planning and design of new and historic communities; they may also be used to address issues of greenway planning and conservation of agricultural land.

2.3.61       Secondly, there are approaches founded on management of the visual resource, that is the scenic component of the landscape. These approaches have been developed mainly as part of the land management functions of the very large public agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the US Forest Service. They tend to focus on issues such as forest design and the impact of land use change on the visual quality of undeveloped, semi-wilderness landscapes.

2.3.62       Thirdly, there are ecological approaches, often including landscape inventories on GIS. These have been developed for example by the US Department of Agriculture and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. They address issues of habitat management, watershed management, river restoration and other environmental change. To date, the landscape inventories prepared have tended to be fairly basic. Integrated characterisation has generally not been attempted.

2.3.63       The Cleveland Bioregional Plan is primarily a planning-based approach, although it also includes some visual and ecological elements. It has been prepared by Ecocity Cleveland, a non-profit organisation in northeast Ohio with almost twenty years’ experience in environmental reporting and planning, as a response to the land use and landscape issues that affect the Cleveland city region on the edge of Lake Erie. These are the twin problems of urban sprawl (affecting many of the region’s fine rural and historic landscapes and the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area, which runs through the heart of the city) and decline of the older, established urban centres. One of the perceived reasons for these problems is the lack of comprehensive planning. In common with many American states, Ohio has weak and poorly co-ordinated planning laws. In addition, state departments responsible for agriculture, development, natural resources, public works, water and transportation tend to pursue their missions narrowly, with no overall co-ordination. The cumulative effect on the landscape over the course of the last thirty years has been dramatic.

2.3.64       Ecocity Cleveland’s three major projects are:

Assessment Methodology

Approach to Classification, Description and Evaluation

2.3.65       Work to prepare the Ecocity Cleveland Citizens’ Bioregional Plan began9 in 1997. The first phase was completed and launched in 1999, when it was placed on the organisation’s website. Since then new material has been added and the plan has been further refined. The plan was prepared as an in-house exercise, but with extensive public consultation. In addition, as part of the mapping exercise that is central to the plan, a wide range of national and state agencies and other organisations contributed data to the analysis. Help on technical mapping issues was provided by a technical advisory committee of local GIS experts from the Northern Ohio Data and Information Service at Cleveland State University. The plan covers seven counties in northeast Ohio, centred on the city of Cleveland itself.

2.3.66       The plan starts from the assumption of growing concerns about development patterns in northeast Ohio, both in the urban core and out in the country – with development destroying communities and the places that people care about. At the same time, people lack mental images of more desirable patterns of land use; they lack a vision of the ‘bioregion’, which is defined as follows:

2.3.67       "A bioregion, or life-place, is a geographic area of interconnected natural systems and their characteristic watersheds, landforms, species and human cultures. It’s a place that ‘hangs together’ in ecological and human terms."

2.3.68       Uniqueness of place and the need to rebuild communities and develop in ways that preserve the distinctive features of landscape, local ecology and culture are also stressed.

2.3.69       The key assessment tool used in the plan is a series of GIS maps held on Ecocity Cleveland’s website. These can be viewed at various scales, manipulated on an interactive map server, and downloaded from the web site – hence encouraging members of the public to access and use them. They can be overlain, to see the patterns of features and changes that are occurring. No attempt is made to classify the region’s landscapes overall, and no explicit evaluation of landscape areas or features is made. However the plan does effectively identify the key landscape functions of different parts of the region and includes these in its future vision.

Use of GIS

2.3.70        Natural features mapping on GIS includes:

2.3.71       The accompanying commentary highlights the formative influences on the landscape, the key variations in landscape character that occur across the region, the patterns that can be seen by overlaying the different data-sets, and the economic and quality of life benefits associated with open spaces and forests.

2.3.72       Land use trends mapping on GIS examines:

2.3.73       'Vision' mapping for the region shows:

Public Participation

2.3.74        Preparation of the Citizens’ Bioregional Plan involved widespread public participation. Preliminary maps and concepts were presented at thirty meetings throughout the region, hosted by environmental groups, land trusts, soil and water conservation agencies and other organisations. Towards the end of the process, four public meetings were held to obtain final citizen comment on the draft plan. In all, nearly a thousand people attended the meetings. 

2.3.75       The plan is seen as the first step towards the preparation of a more detailed bioregional plan that would be the work of public planning agencies and would include a further programme of public involvement.

Outputs of the Assessment

2.3.76       The principal outputs of the Bioregional Plan are the bioregional zones themselves (Figure 2.8), which characterise the underlying patterns in the northeast Ohio landscape and townscape, and identify priorities for future planning and management of the landscape. Effectively, they present a 'citizens' agenda' for the region's landscape:

2.3.77       Urban cores are made up of the region’s historic cities and older suburbs. They are characterised by relatively dense street grids and other infrastructure, walkable neighbourhoods, and a healthy mix of housing, shopping and work places. Maintaining the region’s historic investment in these communities and promoting urban liveability are identified as the top priorities. The priorities are brownfield cleanup and land assembly, infill development, housing maintenance, historic preservation and an urban park improvement.

2.3.78       Edge suburbs are the newer communities within the region’s urbanised area. Most are still growing and they are developing at lower densities than the urban cores. There is heavy reliance on the car. Key priorities for this zone include development of town centres with mixed land uses and higher density housing, redesign of streets to improve pedestrian environments, and redevelopment of strip malls and office parks to create better public spaces and architectural character. Employment areas offer the opportunity to develop mixed-use nodes of activity with public transport as a practical alternative to the car.

2.3.79       The conservation development zone comprises areas that are rapidly being developed, often at extremely low densities with houses on large lots. Much of this land is in rural townships but some is also in historic Western Reserve towns with a charming New England, small town character. If these characteristics are to be conserved they need to develop less and more compactly. Priorities here are support for urban redevelopment, reformed zoning and building codes to require compact mixed use development adjacent to existing towns, open space conservation requirements for new housing, land trusts to protect land with conservation easements, right to farm laws and watershed protection programmes.

2.3.80       The Outer Emerald Necklace contains river floodplains, wetlands and other natural areas that should be preserved for future generations. Some of the land could be acquired by parks, but much of it could remain in private hands and be protected through a system of conservation easements. Priorities for this zone include a regional campaign to raise funds for open space preservation and new public-private partnerships to reach out to landowners.

2.3.81       The rural preservation zone is a truly rural landscape that ideally should see little development pressure. A working, rural landscape should be preserved. New housing should be located in rural towns and villages, rather than on road frontage lots that isolate farm fields. Priorities for this zone include new forms of agricultural zoning and programmes to support family farms.

Applicability to Hong Kong

2.3.82       Unlike the other case studies we have examined, the Ecocity Cleveland Citizens’ Bioregional Plan is a voluntary, non-governmental initiative. It adopts quite a different approach to landscape assessment – one that reflects a different administrative, planning and land management context. It does not include any formal landscape classification, characterisation or evaluation but does deal essentially with landscape planning issues. While providing relatively little depth or detail of information on landscape character or features, it does have a number of special strengths:

2.3.83       This case study underlines the need for Hong Kong’s landscape assessment system to address the landscape impacts of development and land use change. In particular, the complex interrelationships between urban and rural landscapes need to be properly understood. A second key message relates to the need to stand back from the detail of local landscapes to see the broader patterns and issues as well.

2.3.84       The strategic, visionary, consensual nature of the Cleveland Bioregional Plan offers a good model in these respects. It is also relevant in that it deals with a city region of similar size to Hong Kong, with a scenic and highly sensitive rural hinterland.

Case Study 4 - North Shore City Study, Auckland, New Zealand

Introduction and Background to Assessment

2.3.85       The North Shore City Study addresses an area of rural, natural and coastal land that directly abuts the northern margins of Auckland's Metropolitan Urban Limits. The eastern margins of the study face the Pacific Ocean, while the western and parts of its catchment are bounded by the upper reaches of the Waitemata Harbour. North of the study area lie the rural and coastal landscapes of Rodney District.

2.3.86       The Study was commissioned by North Shore City Council in 1998. The City Council has responsibility for all territorial planning within its city limits, taking into account the strategic overview outlined in the Auckland Regional Council's Auckland Regional Policy Statement and Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal. Although the regional council's prerogative 'on the land' is effectively limited to a coordinating, guiding role, it actually has statutory responsibility for coastal management below Mean High Water Springs.

2.3.87       Each territorial authority is required to prepare a 'district plan' every 10 years and this must embody a strategic direction, objectives, policies and rules for management of their city / district. Landscape conservation and management must be part of that strategy as specified in NZ's main planning statutes.

2.3.88       The assessment had two phases and two prime functions:

The Broad Scale Assessment

2.3.89       This involved comparative assessment of all areas that might be subject to development pressure in the foreseeable future to explore their relative sensitivities and provide a landscape dimension in the preparation of strategic directions for future growth. At the other end of the spectrum, the study also set out to identify those areas that are most sensitive to change and that retain values significant to the general community.

The Identification of Significant Landscape Features

2.3.90       At a much more detailed level, the second phase of assessment involved identification of all landscape features - down to individual streams, ridgelines and even trees - that could be regarded as locally significant and that should be subject to protection through specific rules and assessment criteria (in relation to proposed developments) within the North Shore City District Plan.

2.3.91       The following factors were used to determine whether or not individual features – individual trees, groups of trees, habitats, stream courses, coastal margins, ridges, etc – should be regarded as 'significant':

  1. Whether they contribute to the basic 'structure' of the landscape or can be regarded as ‘defining elements' within it, e.g.:

  1. Whether they have value as strong remnants of the endemic landscape particular to different localities (such as the stands of kauri trees along the eastern Lucas Creek Escarpment) or that they provide a substantial foundation for recovery of such elements in the future (as with the solid belts of manuka, tanekaha and rewa rewa in various parts of Greenhithe, Albany and Okura). 

  1. Whether they have core ecological as well as visual values (such as stream corridors or tracts of forest) and provide, or are part of, key ecological linkages.

  1. Whether they have an ornamental value.

2.3.92       The North Shore City Study covered approximately 83 sq. km. As such, its scale is relatively modest within the national context, but this factor also made the two level approach to assessment more practicable and affordable.

2.3.93       Despite this modest area, it covered a wide range of geophysical landscape types, including:

Assessment Methodology

Approach to Classification and Description

2.3.94       Development of the study method, field work and evaluation, and preparation of final reports was undertaken by one person over two separate periods: the broad scale assessment over a 3 month period and the landscape features assessment (more sporadically) over 18 months.

2.3.95       The former study involved minimal input and assistance from North Shore City, the second study was reliant upon the supply of 1:5000 scale colour aerials, then 1:2000 scale ortho-corrected aerial photos (with 5 metre contours) by the City's GIS department. That same department has been responsible for transferring the mapping undertaken in the field - of both landscape units and landscape features - onto an accurate GIS data base with the potential to supply hard copy versions of the final maps. Planners at North Shore City are still in the process of the drafting objectives, policies and rules to incorporate in a 'Variation' to the current District Plan that will give effect to the findings of the study. 

2.3.96       The only desk work undertaken was formulation of the method and 'tidying up' of mapping implemented in the field surveys and assessments.

2.3.97        Both phases of the study involved extensive field work, involving:

2.3.98       While the bulk of this work involved travelling in motor vehicles, parts of the Stage 2 field work also involved venturing onto individual private properties.

2.3.99       The assessment process initially involved subdivision of the landscape into character units, each of which displays a homogeneous and consistent landscape character derived from:

2.3.100      Such units were also sometimes 'catchments', partly defined by ridges and other topographic features recognising that opportunities for development were also likely to be affected by such matters as aspect and insolation (i.e. exposure to sunlight). Description took the form of a photographic record of every landscape unit (Figures 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12 to 2.13).

2.3.101      In the case of the 'significant landscape features' assessment, individual features were either deemed to be significant - on the basis of the broad parameters already described - or not and were mapped or not mapped accordingly (Figures 2.14 to 2.15).

2.3.102     The broad scale 'unit' assessment involved a number of clearly defined stages. These were:

Approach to Evaluation - Landscape Units

2.3.103     Each landscape unit was analysed and evaluated using a "Landscape Assessment Worksheet" (Figure 2.16) - this particular exercise being the major part of the assessment process. The process was subdivided into four parts, with each phase involving numeric evaluation on a scale of 1 - 7, from least to most sensitive.

2.3.104     PART 1 - LANDSCAPE VALUE - In evaluating LANDSCAPE VALUE, the sub-headings of Aesthetic Value, Heritage Value and Uniqueness / Rarity were used (drawn from the research undertaken by Stephen & Rachel Kaplan in the USA) and the full range of assessment criteria employed in that process are set out as follows:

  1. Aesthetic Value - Detailed analysis of the unit’s scenic / aesthetic value in terms of:

  • Vividness - How immediately impressive and memorable is the landscape as a result of its visual distinctiveness, diversity or other factors - both composition and geo-physical?

  • Complexity / Diversity - To what extent does the unit have a sense of richness and interest about it arising from the diversity of elements found within it - without that diversity leading to discontinuity?

  • Cohesion - Is there a continuity of key statements / patterns / themes / accents that give the landscape both character and a sense of unity?

  • Legibility - To what extent is it possible to develop a clear mental picture of the unit's landscape because of the clear definition of features and patterns within it that emphasise its 3 dimensional structure (layering); and identifiable landmarks (points of focus and reference)?

  • Mystery - Does the landscape's spatial structure and array of elements promote a sense of sequence and 'enticement' through the unit's space: the promise of 'more to unfold around the next bend' - just beyond the landscape that is immediately visible?

  1. Heritage Value - To what extent does the unit reveal and convey a distinctive sense of identity because of:

  • Endemic Associations - Arising from natural elements in the landscape that contribute to the character and sense of place of the locality and Region, e.g. the islands of the Hauraki Gulf, remnant Kauri forest.

  • Cultural Associations - Arising from man-made landscape elements that are distinctive and valued because of their association with both Maori and Pakeha (European NZer) cultures, e.g. old ‘pa’ sites, historic buildings.

  1. Uniqueness / Rarity - To what extent is the unit or key elements within it rare and unique at both the sub-regional and local Level?

2.3.105     PART 2 - VULNERABILITY TO CHANGE - In assessing each landscape unit's VULNERABILITY TO CHANGE, other criteria are employed, under the sub-headings of Visual Absorption Capability and Exposure / Visibility.

  1. Visual Absorption Capability (VAC) - Field evaluation of VAC using the following criteria to determine the capacity of the unit or view to visually absorb change without significant modification of its character:

  • Land Uses - How 'developed' is the existing landscape - from areas that are primarily native and natural to those which are highly developed and urbanised?

  • Vegetation Cover & Type - How extensive and varied is existing vegetation cover - from no cover and mono-cultural dominance to a high level of vegetated cover and diverse species?

  • Topography - Does the unit's terrain assist or limit viewing because of its character and the viewing angles that would typically arise between vantage areas and locations subject to modification - from the simplicity and openness of a plain or shallow ridgeline to incised foot hills with a high level of visual containment?

  • Location & Visibility - To what extent is the unit exposed to its general surrounds because of its location and relationship to key viewing areas, e.g. areas of existing habitation, public recreation areas, and transportation corridors?

  1. Adaptability – How adaptable is the unit to urbanisation without significant detriment in terms of landscape values:

  • Landform - Would residential urbanisation (of medium density) necessitate major earthworks and modification of the natural landform - to the point where landscape values are compromised?

  • Vegetation Cover & Patterns - To what extent would residential urbanisation necessitate the removal of existing vegetation cover and stands of trees that are important in terms of landscape and amenity values because of their individual aesthetic and their contribution to the visual patterns evident in the local landscape?

  • Water Bodies & Courses - To what extent would residential urbanisation be likely to threaten or modify significant watercourses and their associated flora and fauna?

  • Other Features - To what degree would residential urbanisation threaten other physical landscape elements?

  • Views & Future View Corridors - To what degree would residential urbanisation compromise existing views of significance (primarily from public vantage-points) over or through the unit and to what extent could development within specific parts of the unit (most probably on key ridges) reduce the potential for outward views from other areas of future urban development?

2.3.106      PART 3 - SENSITIVITY - The ratings recorded on the Landscape Assessment Worksheets provided composite ratings for 'Value' and 'Vulnerability'. These were then combined to establish SENSITIVITY rating for each unit, again on a 1 - 7 scale.

2.3.107      Within each landscape unit, the importance of individual elements (e.g. blocks of forest and open pasture) was also evaluated and, if significant, described in writing next to the relevant section. The combination of ratings and descriptive notes established the relative importance that should be attached to different components in the landscape throughout Parts 1 to 3, including identification of key factors that contributed to the overall Sensitivity rating.

2.3.108     Having determined the relative Sensitivity of each landscape unit to development and the constraints upon development associated with its landscape characteristics, it was also considered also important to arrive at an understanding of the OPPORTUNITIES presented by each unit. This included addressing the way in which particular elements and patterns within an individual unit, grouping of units, or large scale catchment, might be used to enhance the general quality of future development and perhaps even provide a thematic platform for it.

2.3.109      PART 4 - DEVELOPMENT ATTRIBUTE RATING - Detailed analysis of development opportunity in relation to:

Assessment Ratings - Landscape Units

2.3.110      In establishing cumulative ratings or ‘scores’ for any one group of criteria (e.g. for AESTHETIC VALUE) individual ratings were not simply added together and subtracted, as in any individual unit one or two variables may be considered more important than most, if not all, of the others. Accordingly, some cumulative ratings were weighted either up or down to reflect such imbalances and the same applies in relation to overall ratings for both Parts 1 and 2 and the final SENSITIVITY rating for each unit. 

2.3.111     The final ratings - those for SENSITIVITY (Figure 2.17) and for DEVELOPMENT ATTRIBUTES (Figure 2.18) – provided the foundation for comparison of development potential and suitability between the units. This then led to comparative ranking of all of the units within three major catchments (Greenhithe, Albany and Okura), as exemplified in Table 2.1 below. 

Table 2.1 North Shore City Study – Example of Rating of Landscape Units

Unit Nos.   Sensitivity Rating Attribute Ratings  Development Potential Ranking  Key Elements
1 3 4 7=

  • rolling pasture interspersed with mostly pine shelter-belts & 4 ha.lot development

  • facing Lucas Creek

  • relatively self-contained - isolated but for contact with North Shore Cemetery
2 4 3 12

  • extensive manuka / kanuka scrub with a pine canopy following a large natural water-course and gully system

  • facing Lucas Creek
3 2 4 3=

  • low lying area presently dominated by strawberry growing & other horticulture

  • abutting Lucas Creek but not over-looking it

  • next to the old Albany Highway
4 4 5 9 =

  • pockets of pasture on rolling land framed by scrub and pines emerging from Unit 2

  • some pockets of totara & kahikatea evident

  • significant ‘subdivision’ of unit by both vegetation & the natural topography
5 5 6 14

  • open pasture on ‘headland’ next to North Shore Cemetery

  • expansive views up and down the Lucas Creek valley & towards Greenhithe, Hobsonville & the northern Waitakere

  • significant exposure to Greenhithe & other parts of the Lucas Creek valley - reinforced by the convex landform and lack of vegetation cover
6 4  5  9=

  • unit lies on the floor of the Greenhithe Valley on gently rolling land

  • noticeably 'subdivided & patterned' by bands of manuka / kanuka following natural water courses, plus exotic amenity planting, shelter belts & stands of mature trees - generating contrast with pockets of pasture & a high level of aesthetic appeal

  • significant number of 'small holdings'

  • comfortable sense of containment & enclosure
7  3 4 7=

  • rolling succession of ridges & gullies extending down to Lucas Creek

  • mostly open pasture, partly broken up (and in places dominated by) 4 ha. Units and associated housing

  • fringe vegetation emerging from the edge of the Greenhithe escarpment, higher slopes and the edge of Lucas Creek

  • facing Lucas Creek
8 3 5 6

  • river flats mostly in pasture, with sports fields & a pony club

  • with physical and visual access to Lucas Creek

  • partly broken up by shelter-belts & vegetation following water courses through the unit
9 5 5 13

  • mid-slopes on the south side of the Greenhithe valley

  • mixture of open paddocks & extensive vegetation - manuka & revegetation with higher cover provided by pines; some significant pockets of regenerating kauri

  • views down valley & to the Lucas Creek escarpment
10 2 4 3=

  • pocket of recent suburban development on mid slopes near Greenhithe turn-off

  • dominated by remnant pine cover and scrub fringe
11 2  5 1= Residential fringe at the edge of Upper Harbour Drive· the mixed nature of housing, sporadic vegetation & poor spatial definition result in low value ratings· good outlook and high insolation 

Approach to Evaluation - Significant Landscape Features

2.3.112     The assessment and evaluation of more localised landscape features was again carried out employing a landscape assessment matrix. The factors used in the 1998 assessment and mapping were carried over into a set of criteria against which each landscape feature could be measured. Factors related to landscape "structure and definition", "endemic value", "ecological value" and "ornamental value".

2.3.113     The assessment matrix also included other components to assist in the evaluation of each feature's significance:

Public Participation and Use of GIS

2.3.114     Stakeholder & Public Participation has been limited to brief joint review of the physical scope of the studies, their objectives, the assessment criteria employed in them, and the provision of GIS support. Use of GIS was limited to mapping of units and features on the City's ArcView base.ants

Outputs of Assessment 

2.3.115     A series of maps were developed that highlighted the comparative ratings of the different landscape units. Together with the initial identification of major landscape features during the initial study these have provided part of the foundation for "Structure Plans" for Greenhithe and Albany which physically direct:

2.3.116      These are supported by policies and rules in the City's District Plan which support the landscape management objectives derived from the landscape unit study.

2.3.117     The Significant Landscape Features Study is still being transferred onto a GIS base and planners at North Shore are preparing a Variation to the District Plan that will make development which affects core features either a Non-complying Activity, (which must be proven to have minor environmental effects prior to approval) or a Discretionary Activity - subject to assessment against a set of criteria that set certain environmental standards.

2.3.118     These controls will also include management controls for key 'edges’, ridgelines and coastal margins in particular, with Council likely to have discretion over the siting and design and appearance of structures near such features, and over mitigation / amelioration to off-set any adverse effects.

Applicability to Hong Kong

2.3.119      The scale of the North Shore Study is relevant to the Hong Kong Study in that the assessment was carried out using 1:5000 data. It appears that the relatively small landscape units derived, might reflect the kind of scale that is useful in Hong Kong’s urban and urban fringe areas.

2.3.120     The North Shore Study has a strong orientation towards the combined evaluation of landscape units as well as landscape features and it is in this sense that it of considerable interest in terms of the current Study. 

2.3.121      The evaluation method used in the Study is interesting in that it employs assessment criteria which include ‘vulnerability to change’ and ‘sensitivity to development’, terms that have a particular policy orientation which is different to a statement of ‘value’. In breaking down landscape value into a number of different aspects, as shown on the Assessment Worksheets, there is potential for a high level of sophistication and transparency. At the same time, it is also notable that ultimately, value judgments appear to be made by experts, largely on the basis of aesthetic taste and professional knowledge and that the method of arriving at aggregate scores for evaluation appears to be largely undefined.

2.3.122     The method of looking at landscape both at an area level and in terms of its component features is also a useful way of classifying and evaluating landscape, and is one that the current Study might adopt, dependent on the practicality of data handling. Looking at landscape at the level of individual features is comfortable in terms of GIS mapping and data handling. However, this must be accompanied by a level of analysis that views the landscape holistically, in terms of its relationships between components (i.e. character).

Case Study 5 - Waitakere City Study, Auckland, New Zealand

Introduction and Background to Assessment

2.3.123     The Waitakere City Study addresses an area of rural, natural and coastal land, plus a major water catchment and range of hills that flank the western and south-western side of Auckland City. The western margins of the study face the Tasman Sea, while the southern edge of the City abuts the Manukau Harbour, its north-eastern flank faces the upper Waitemata Harbour and a large proportion of the Tasman Sea hinterland is occupied by the forest covered Waitakere Ranges. The Study was commissioned by the Waitakere City Council in 1995. The City Council has responsibility for all territorial planning within its city limits and the Resource Management Act (1991) and the NZ Coastal Policy Statement (1994) comprise the key statutes that dictate Plan preparation and implementation.

2.3.124     The assessment had the broad objectives of meeting the requirements of the Resource Management Act and of contributing to 'integrated resource management' as part of Waitakere City's adoption of its 'Eco City' concept.

2.3.125      This involved delineation of 4 major landscape catchments and 7 major landscape types, followed by identification of 19 policy areas that have a strong geophysical base (encompassing smaller scale land units), identification of generic landscape elements and description / identification of outstanding natural features and landscapes.

2.3.126     This hierarchy was directed towards identification of related hierarchy of objectives, policies and rules that would provide a strategic base at both the 'broad brush' district level and within much more localised areas and landscape catchments.

2.3.127      The Waitakere City Study covered approximately 340 sq kilometres. It covered a wide range of geophysical landscape types, including:

Assessment Methodology

2.3.128     Development of the study method, field work and evaluation, and preparation of final reports was undertaken by up to four persons.

2.3.129     The study involved minimal input and assistance from Waitakere City apart from initial briefing discussions to resolve the assessment methodology - with the City's planning staff - and the supply of 1:25,000 and 1:50,000 stereo-pair aerial photos. That same department has been responsible for transferring the mapping undertaken in the field - of catchments, landscape types, policy areas, land units, and landscape elements (including significant ridgelines) onto an ArcView data base.

2.3.130     Planners at Waitakere City have since developed objectives, policies and rules for the City's special character zones and its more broadly applied "General Natural Areas" and "Managed Natural Areas" that reflect the policy / management outcomes of the study. A more detailed study of the identified ridgelines has also led to definition of "Sensitive Ridgelines" in the District Plan which are subject to a range of controls, in conjunction with the Outstanding Natural Features / Landscape identified.

2.3.131     The main desk-work undertaken was the geophysical breakdown of the study area into broad Catchments and Sub-catchments (in concert with initial field work) and subsequent mapping of Landscape Types, Landscape Units / Policy Areas as result of on-ground analysis and boundary delineation.

2.3.132      All of the study involved extensive field work, in particular focusing upon:

Approach to Classification and Description

2.3.133     The assessment process initially involved subdivision of the landscape into four main catchments / sub-catchments on the basis of broad character and large scale, physical catchments (Figure 2.19), thus:

2.3.134     The landscape types identified at the next level down have a strong geomorphological base (Figure 2.20):

2.3.135      In turn, the delineation of 19 policy areas was derived from more detailed evaluation of landscape character related to the landform, land uses and physical sub-catchment boundaries - combining aspects of visual character with physical boundaries

2.3.136      Within each policy area (Figure 2.21), smaller, quite distinctive landscape units are presently being identified that reflect the local dominance of particular combinations of features, e.g. areas of open pastureland, bush-lot development, native forest, horticulture. These are often quite small scale and are not identified in the Boffa Miskell report. Rather, the land units are, and will be, identified as strategies are developed for individual growth areas via 'structure plans' (see the North Shore City Study - outputs).

2.3.137     A range of generic landscape elements (Figure 2.22) that repeat across the City, were identified:

2.3.138     Finally, the City's outstanding natural features and landscapes were briefly described, including (in addition to physical features) key views and related viewpoints.

2.3.139     Description at each level is indicated in Table 2.2 below. 

Table 2.2 Waitakere City Study – Description of Catchments

Catchments / Sub Catchments  Mapped
Landscape Types

Mapped

  • Broad written description of the character of each landscape type: its main physical features, level of development, visual and recreational attributes, etc

  • Identification of key issue related to each type, e.g. forest clearance, habitat protection, earthworks management, design and scale of development

  • Statement of core management goal, e.g. "to maintain and enhance the valuable forest resource whilst allowing sustainable and sympathetic development in limited locations"

  • Identification of key objectives, e.g. to minimise bush clearance, to eliminate grazing and browsing, to minimise the adverse effects of earthworks, to control run-off and effluent disposal, to enhance habitat values.
Policy Areas 

Mapped / Photographed

  • Written description of main characteristics and values

  • Identification of local issues, e.g. Protection and management of hazard prone and sensitive areas, protection of significant ecosystems and wildlife habitats, provision of recreational opportunities and facilities, potential wind erosion of slopes following removal of plantation planting.

  • Development of related Objectives & Policies for landscape management
Landscape Elements

Mapped / Photographed

  • Identification of Objectives & Policies for landscape management of each element
Outstanding Natural Features & Landscapes 

Mapped

  • Brief written description

2.3.140    The broad scale 'unit' assessment involved a number of clearly defined stages. These were:

 Approach to Evaluation

2.3.141     To achieve this, three methods of evaluation - related to Visual Quality (VQ), Visual Absorption Capability (VAC), and Visibility - were applied to each of the Policy Areas.

2.3.142     Visual Quality (VQ) referred to the inherent character of the landscape and the three criteria used to assess Visual Quality were vividness, coherence and intactness (Figure 2.23). The following are descriptions employed in the report to describe each:

2.3.143     VQ was rated for each policy area on a scale of 1 - 5. For a Policy Area to be given a high (ranked 5) VQ rating, it had to score highly in each of the three criteria. Landscapes given a high VQ rating were deemed to be visually powerful and memorable and have not been compromised by intrusions which detract from their essential character. Conversely, landscapes with a low VQ rating have no distinguishing or memorable features and have been severely modified thus compromising their essential character.

2.3.144      Visual Absorption Capability (VAC) was used to describe each policy area's ability to absorb development (Figure 2.24) based on:

2.3.145     The following are descriptions employed in the report to describe each.

2.3.146      Each of these criteria was ranked on a 5 graduation scale from low (1) to high (5) with overall values for VAC then being attributed to each unit, as for VQ. Policy Areas with high VAC were deemed more likely to have a high capacity for absorbing change whereas a low VAC meant the individual unit would have difficulty integrating change within its landscape.

2.3.147      Visibility - In addition, a third visual evaluation was made to define areas of greater visibility. “Visibility reflects the visibleness of an area that is, the extent to which an area is visible. It also includes a reflection of the number of people within the visual catchment or using it e.g. travellers on a particular stretch of road.”

2.3.148     Values for VQ and VAC were attributed to each Policy Area as a whole, with ratings averaged. It was recognised that this would inevitably result in localised areas within most units displayed values either side of this 'average', however this was considered appropriate at the Policy Area scale and could be addressed in a more focused manner at the Land Unit level subsequently.

2.3.149      The assessment matrices shown in Appendix 2 demonstrate the ratings process for a number of policy areas. It is noteworthy that since VQ measured the existing state of the landscape, whilst VAC and Visibility measured the ability of the landscape to absorb hypothetical change, these two 'layers' were separated out into separate matrix sheets under the titles: "Visual Sensitivity" and "Visual Attributes" (see both pages). Also identified on the matrix sheet were Landscape Elements within each Policy Area deemed to either enhance the Visual Quality or Detract from it and any Outstanding Natural Features or Landscapes.

Use of GIS

2.3.150     Use of GIS was limited to mapping of units and features on the City's ArcView base.

Public Participation

2.3.151     Stakeholder & Public Participation was limited to brief joint review of the physical scope of the study, their objectives, the assessment criteria employed, the provision of GIS support and the final review of both finding and Issues / Goals / Objectives / Policies.

Study Outputs

2.3.152      A series of maps was developed (Figures 2.23 and 2.24) that highlighted the comparative ratings of the different landscape policy areas. Together with more detailed assessment at the Land Unit level these comprise part of the foundation for "Structure Plans", particularly around the apron of the Waitakere Ranges and close to the servicing towns of Huapai, Kumeu and Riverhead. In this respect, the output has a similar function to that outlined for the landscape units in the North Shore City Study, ultimately influencing the location and provision of:

2.3.153      In addition, the objectives and policies established for the Policy Areas have been carried over into:

2.3.154     The individual Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes are identified in the District Plan and any development proposals that might affect them are subject to assessment against a range of landscape based criteria. They are also potentially subject to conditions directed at avoidance of conflict and/or integration with any key feature.

Applicability to Hong Kong

2.3.155     This is a Study in a landscape comparable to that found in Hong Kong, in that it contains a diverse mix of landscapes from uplands to coasts, to suburban landscapes. In this sense, the relatively small landscape units derived might be of the kind of scale that is useful in Hong Kong’s urban and urban fringe areas.

2.3.156     The approach to assessment is similar to that proposed for the current Study in that classification comprises LCAs (termed ‘Policy Areas’ in the Study) as well as LCTs.

2.3.157     The evaluation appears to be heavily orientated towards the visual qualities of landscape, or at least conceptualising features through their visual function. This tends to place less emphasis on the resource implications and values of individual landscape elements. That said, the sophisticated assessments based on terms such as ‘visual absorption capacity’ and ‘visual sensitivity’ are more useful than simply defining e.g. a ‘visual quality’ criterion, as they can clearly be linked to explicit planning mechanisms, an approach which the Study might usefully consider.

2.3.158      As in the North Shore City Study, the use of structured evaluation forms is useful in promoting transparency. Ultimately however, the approach is expert led, in which the precise rationale for evaluation appears to be based on intuitive reasoning.

2.3.159      The Waitakere Study appears to have made only limited use of the GIS database. 

Case Study 6 - the Ujung Kulon National Park Landscape Plan

Introduction and Background to Assessment

2.3.160     The Ujung Kulon Study addresses an area covering some 110,000 ha. of both marine reserve and two island habitats within the West Java Province of Indonesia (see Figure 2.25). 

2.3.161      Gazetted as a National Park by the Director of Conservation in November 1999, the tropical waters of the Sunda Straits and the lowland forests have been conserved because of their unique levels of biological / ecological diversity - generally in line with the IUCN's 1994 Category II classification of 'National Parks': a protected area managed primarily for ecosystem conservation and recreation, and its 1978 Category III for 'Natural Monuments': protected areas focusing upon the conservation of natural features. 

2.3.162      The terrestrial landscape is dominated by a mixture of alluvial lowlands / terraces and rapidly emerging mountains. While the mountains climb up to 560 metres above sea level, the bulk of both islands remain just above sea level, with shallow gradients and soil structures dominated by a mixture of clay based, grumosol and volcanic gravels, alluvium and sand.

2.3.163      The islands comprise a combination of the following land cover:

2.3.164      The fringes of both islands are dominated by swampland and mangroves, while secondary (partly re-growth) forest is intermixed with the mature canopies of established primary forest on the main terraces and closer to the mountains. The habitats formed by this divergent topography, soil structure and vegetation cater for a diverse array of fauna and lend the Ujung Kulon National Park the distinction of being exceptionally diverse and dynamic at the international level.

2.3.165      After establishment of the National Park, it was decided that a management plan should be drawn up to preserve landscape/ecological values, particularly with the objective of defining the various zonings recommended by IUCN. These are:

2.3.166      The objective of the Study was therefore to carry out an assessment which would identify different zonings and the various sensitivities of its different terrestrial areas and habitats in order to assist with the focusing of future conservation management. Results of the Study are as reported by Napitupulu, R. (2001).

Assessment Methodology

2.3.167     The Study was conceived as a ‘landscape plan’. This employed a definition of landscape involving “considerations both of land uses and natural resources, including physical, biological and cultural resources”. The Study saw ‘landscape planning as “one of several inputs in the comprehensive planning process along with economic planning and social planning. It is an action-orientated process with goals of avoiding and resolving conflicts in land use”.

2.3.168      The Study is focused on landscape ecology, an approach which is derived from the objectives of the Study: that is, as a management tool for landscape in the widest sense and especially for habitat management. Given the scale of Ujung Kulon, it was determined that an empirical, GIS based approach to assessment and evaluation should be employed, focusing upon four key parameters:

2.3.169      The objective of the plan was to define a series of ‘Management Zones’ - areas of similar sensitivity in terms of landscape ecology, which could form the basis of an action-orientated plan.

 Approach to Classification, Description and Evaluation

2.3.170      Each of the landscape parameters was broken down into segments, which were assigned ratings. The rating process employed a range from 1 to 5, with scores nearer the top of this range indicting greater ecological sensitivity. The criteria employed in this process, and related ratings, are shown in Table 2.3 below.

Table 2.3 Landscape Classification Parameters and Rating System

Parameter: Assessment Criteria: Rating:
a.) SLOPE More than 40% 5
  15 - 40% 4
  2 - 15% 2
  0 - 2% 1

 

b.) HEIGHT (elevation) More than 500m 5
  100 - 500m 4
  25 - 100m 3
  Less than 25m 1

 

c.) SOIL TYPE 1 Alluvial / alluvial associated  5
  Latosol 4
  Mediteran 3
  Regosol 2
  Grumosol 1

 

d.) LAND USES Primary Forest 5
  Secondary Forest 4
  Dense Forest 3
  Agriculture / Plantation / Housing 1

2.3.171     In line with the approaches first developed by Ian McHarg, the ratings for each of these parameters were combined to indicate both cumulative and specific sensitivities in different parts of Ujung Kulon Park. These are shown in Table 2.4 below.

Table 2.4 Table Showing Relationship of Total Rating Scores to Areas with Those Scores

Total Scores Count/Polygon Sum Area (ha)
4 10 22
5 34 229
6 77 1.382
7 78 783
8 157 5.249
9 256 952
10 192 2.611
11 219 6.854
12 213 8.246
13 177 3.857
14 218 4.557
15 236 2.761
16 294 6.268
17 233 3.613
18 89 4.986
19 8 9
Total 60.922

2.3.172     The scores were assigned sensitivity ratings (3-4 = Not Sensitive; 5-8 = Slight Sensitivity; 9-12 = Quite Sensitive, etc). In combination, (based on the sum totals for each criteria) it was determined that the following total areas and percentages of parkland correlated with different sensitivity levels:

Table 2.5 Table Showing Relative Areas of Landscape of Different Sensitivity

Sensitivity Level:   Total Area: Percentage of Total Parkland Area:
Very Sensitive 8,608 ha.s 14.1 %
Sensitive 44,687 ha.s 73.4 %
Less Sensitive 7,627 ha.s  12.5 %

2.3.173     The result is a map dividing the Study Area into zones of different sensitivity or management zones. This is shown in Figure 2.26.

2.3.174      There are a number of notable features with regard to this approach. In particular, it does not take value as its evaluation criterion, but sensitivity. This is a valid, if rather narrow method of ascribing importance to landscape. In addition, the process of classification and evaluation are carried out at the same time - the classification is in effect carried out on the basis of sensitivity, a fact that is openly acknowledged. In addition, the approach gives almost no regard to cultural or visual values, probably because this is not the focus of the Study.

Use of GIS

2.3.175      A characteristic of the case study is that the landscape assessment is based largely around objective measurement and capturing of information within a Geographic Information System. The methodology attempts to define Management Zones based on their sensitivity to change.

2.3.176     These areas have been determined through the digitising of contour and soil mapping, and digitising of the mapping and sampling of forest habitat types. Consequently, the study commenced with a quantitative 'analogue' data-base and finished with both detailed mapping of the ratings for each parameter and analysis of the total and percentile area corresponding to the same. For example Regosol soils covered some 6,922 ha.s or 11.34% of the park's terrestrial area, while 38.776 ha.s or 63.65% of the total land area was covered in primary forest. 

2.3.177     This use of GIS is more than simply as an information storage, retrieval or presentation tool (as in other studies) but rather as a method of overlaying different types of data (as per the McHarg method) in order to generate different management zones.

Public Participation

2.3.178     This assessment was carried out entirely based on physical measurement and parameters, without any explicit public participation.

Output of the Assessment

2.3.179     The immediate output of the Study is a comprehensive plan showing management zones, or zones of differing sensitivity (see Figure 2.26). Further work is planned on the system, and clearly the next stage would be to derive management policies for each of these zones. This is a fairly narrowly defined output, but might be expanded or redefined in the future to take on board other parameters.

Applicability to Hong Kong

2.3.180      The case study falls within the field of ‘landscape ecology’ and so is not directly analogous to the current Study in terms of its scope and objectives. Notably, the case study makes no attempt to evaluate the landscape character, values or human perceptions of Ujung Kulon. Nor has the Park been subdivided into units or catchments that reflect the sort of human perceptions of character or homogeneity; rather, the zones defined are so defined by virtue of their physical characteristics only. In addition, the case study does not seek to distinguish between the processes of classification and evaluation, which is an important aspect of the Hong Kong Study.

2.3.181      However, in certain senses, the case study is of relevance to more general landscape assessments and to the Hong Kong Study, in particular. The ‘overlay’ approach, assigning scores to different parameters is certainly reminiscent of that used by McHarg and one that is still in use for landscape assessment around the world, although the scoring of value or sensitivity has been subject to considerable criticism.

2.3.182     In addition, the method of assigning values to certain aspects or elements of the landscape and using GIS to find parametric relationships between them is one that is of relevance to landscape classification at a broader level and to the Hong Kong Study.

2.4           LESSONS LEARNT FROM OVERSEAS CASE STUDIES                

2.4.1         The review of these case studies has been used to inform the methodology used for the current study, particularly with regard to the issues of landscape classification and landscape evaluation. The applicability of the case studies to these two areas is described below, and summarised in Table 2.7.

Landscape Classification

2.4.2         From the case studies, two broadly different approaches to landscape classification and evaluation became evident, namely:

2.4.3         The resource-based approach emphasizes individual physical landscape components, which are classified individually (typified by traditional US methodologies, although classification was not a part of the Cleveland Bioregional Plan). 

2.4.4         The Ujong Kulon case study developed a fairly unique approach to classification in so far as the application of values (i.e. sensitivity) to objectively mapped landscape resource data, gave rise to the classification map. This approach demonstrates a close affinity with the resource based approach, but uses a value-laden set of judgments to synthesise that data and produce landscape units. This approach, developed for the field of landscape ecology, was deemed to be too specialised in its approach and not to be compatible with the broad approach identified in the Study Brief.

2.4.5         The LANDMAP system in Wales exhibited a high affinity with the resource based approach in so far as different Aspect Areas were mapped separately, although it is true that the classification system under the Visual and Sensory Aspect Area does seem to end up looking very much like what would be termed a ‘character-based’ analysis. 

2.4.6         By contrast, the character-led approach divides the landscape into different areas of common character and the areas themselves are then evaluated as a whole. The approaches to classification in the UK Countryside Character Initiative, the North Shore City Study and the Waitakere City Study in Auckland, New Zealand all largely followed the character-based approach to classification, but with a wide divergence in the scale of landscape units (very large in the case of the UK Study, whilst considerably smaller in the case of the New Zealand studies).

2.4.7         Using the selected approach (loosely termed the ‘Landscape Character Approach’), territories can be divided into different areas (termed ‘Landscape Character Areas’) based on differences in the character of the landscape. In general, landscape is given its character by, a number of natural and man-made features (see Table 2.6).

 Table 2.6 Features Contributing to the Character of Landscape

Natural Features Human Features
Solid Geology Built-form (Settlements)
Topography Land Use
Drift Geology (i.e. soils) Transportation Features
Natural Hydrological Features (e.g. streams, rivers, lakes) Features of Heritage/Cultural value
Vegetation Artificial Hydrological Features (e.g. fish ponds, nullahs, reservoirs)
Coastal Water (i.e. sea)   

2.4.8         Based on these features, landscape can be sorted into different types or units, each with a distinct, consistent and recognisable character. Two types of landscape unit can be identified i.e. Landscape Character Types (LCTs) and Landscape Character Areas (LCAs):

2.4.9         The way in which the landscape of Hong Kong has been broken down into LCTs and LCAs is described in Chapter 3.

Landscape Evaluation

2.4.10       The overseas case studies provide examples of a number of different approaches to landscape appraisal and evaluation.

2.4.11       Given it’s slightly unresolved status at the time of the case study, it is not recommended that ‘environmental capital’ approach adopted under the UK Countryside Character Initiative be employed in the current Study. Nor is it suggested that the rather dis-aggregative approach adopted by the LANDMAP study is wholly appropriate in the current Study, although the approach to the assessment of visual value, condition and sensitivity are of relevance.

2.4.12       The approaches to evaluation employed in the Cleveland Bioregional Plan and in the Ujung Kulon National Park Landscape Plan are targeted towards specific local circumstances and interests (regional planning in one case and landscape ecology in another) and are not really appropriate to a more comprehensive, general landscape assessment.

2.4.13       The case studies which best exemplified popular current practice in terms of landscape evaluation and which most fully reflect the many facets of the term 'landscape' are the North Shore City and Waitakere City studies. Though both are quite complex, the evaluation methods are certainly comprehensive in capturing the full range of landscape attributes which can be appraised (sensitivity, condition, aesthetic value, heritage, key landscape features which contribute to character). In addition, the separation of the value of landscape units from that of landscape features in the North Shore City Study offers potential to capture both the aggregate and dis-aggregate values of landscape.

2.4.14       As well as looking at 'visual quality' (from an expert-led approach) both studies also looked at issues such as 'visual sensitivity', 'visibility', 'vulnerability to change' and 'visual absorption capacity' which are useful assessments, as they can be directly linked to development planning policies. The use of structured evaluation forms in both studies was very helpful in promoting transparency.

2.4.15       The North Shore and Waitakere City studies therefore offer a useful starting point for the development of an evaluation methodology for the current Study, as they are comprehensive and represent popular best-practice world-wide. This is augmented by certain aspects from other case studies. The key aspects of these approaches which are reflected in the current Study are:

Table 2.7 Summary Of Appropriateness / Usefulness of Key Aspects of Case Studies to Current Study

CASE STUDY  KEY ASPECTS
Approach to Classification / Characterisation  Use of Geographic Information Systems  Approach to Evaluation  Approach to Public Consultation
Countryside Character Initiative, England

+ Character-led approach

+ Comprehensive national approach, using LCAs and LCTs

- Scale of LCTs too large for Hong Kong Hong Kong

+ GIS used to define character areas via computer software

+ GIS used as information storage and management tool

+ Data included both ‘pattern’ data and ‘feature’ data in both graphic and textual form

+ GIS used as a tool to analyse forces driving landscape change over time

- Rather complex environmental capital approach 

- No significant direct public consultation. Public consultation limited to implicit inputs through other sub-studies and stakeholder review.
LANDMAP Information System, Wales 

- Division of classification responsibility by Aspect area

- Classification system rather than ‘characterisation’ system 

+ GIS used as information storage and management tool

- GIS not (explicitly) used as a tool for classification / characterisation 

+ Separation of evaluation of Aspect areas from evaluation of character

+ Evaluation of Visual and Sensory aspect in terms of value, condition and trend

+ Transparent use of structured evaluation proformas

+ Separate assessment of sensitivity 

+ Formal public consultation

- Public consultation only on landscape character areas (not Aspect areas)
Cleveland Bioregional Plan, USA 

- Classification /characterisation not part of study methodology 

+ GIS used largely as a public communication tool

- No formalised evaluation method

+ Dissemination of information via the internet

+ Use of public fora
North Shore City Study, Auckland, New Zealand   

+ Character-led approach- Only one tier of characterisation

+ Reasonably small scale of LCTs 

+ GIS used as information storage and management tool

+ Separation of evaluation of landscape character and landscape features

+ Transparent use of structured evaluation proformas

+ Distinction between landscape value, sensitivity, vulnerability, key attributes

+ Public review of study scope, objectives, and assessment criteria.
Waitakere City Study, Auckland, New Zealand

+ Character-led approach+ 2 tiers of characterisation

 + Reasonably small scale of LCTs 

+ GIS used as information storage and management tool

+ Transparent use of structured evaluation proformas

- Concentration on visual values 

+ Public review of study scope, objectives, assessment criteria and study findings.
Ujung Kulon National Park, Indonesia 

- Integration of classification and evaluation

- No representation of human or cultural or visual parameters 

+ GIS used to manipulate parametric data and then to define landscape units via computer software

 - Integration of classification and evaluation

- Scoring of value/sensitivity now somewhat discredited

+ Use of sensitivity as an criterion of value

 - No evidence of public consultation

LEGEND

+ Approach potentially appropriate or useful to the current Study

 - Approach not appropriate or useful to the current Study

Aspect Area - A hierarchical classification system for information on earth science, biodiversity, visual and sensory, history and archaeology and culture.

 

1 Cultural Heritage Resource in Hong Kong mainly divided into two categories: Archaeological sites and (standing) historical building and features.

2 Peacock, B A V & Nixon, T J P (1986) Report of the Hong Kong Archaeological Survey (unpublished). Hong Kong: Antiquities and Monument Office.

3 The expanded approach is called the quality of life capital approach. Further details can be found on the website www.qualityoflifecapital.org.uk

4 The Countryside Agency envisages that evaluation will be undertaken by working groups of stakeholders at regional level and will focus on identifying targets for change in landscape attributes.

5 It will be a key part of the Countryside Agency’s annual state of the countryside reporting system. See Countryside Agency (2001) The State of the Countryside 2001, CA61, Countryside Agency, Cheltenham.

6 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (2000) Our Countryside: The Future, CM 4909, The Stationery Office, London.

7 The forthcoming Landscape Character Assessment Guidance and the Countryside Character Network provide excellent sources of further information on landscape character assessment and its applications at local authority level in England. Study of these sources may also yield important information for Hong Kong.

8 Countryside Council for Wales (2001) The LANDMAP Information System, Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor.

9 See www.ecocleveland.org/cbrplan for further details


 

Back           Main Page           Next