Overseas Case Study

                   

 

 

 

 

2.1           INTRODUCTION

2.1.1         The Study Brief requires that under Task 1, the Consultants research a minimum of five overseas case studies, in order to identify the range of possible approaches to landscape assessment currently in use world-wide.

2.1.2         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:

2.1.3         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.

2.1.4         The six case studies presented are:

2.1.5         The findings of each case studies is presented under the following sub-headings:

2.2            CASE STUDY 1 - COUNTRYSIDE CHARACTER INITIATIVE, ENGLAND, UK

                BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

2.2.1         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).

2.2.2         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.

2.2.3         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 (1) , 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 (2) and are also available on the Agency's website (www.countryside.gov.uk/cci/character).

2.2.4         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 (3) . 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.

2.2.5        The Countryside Agency is also undertaking a wide range of associated project work on landscape and countryside character (4), including:

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

                 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

                OVERVIEW

2.2.7         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.

2.2.8         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.

2.2.9         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 98 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.

2.2.10        In parallel with the characterisation process, agricultural land use data collected by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (6) 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.

2.2.11        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

2.2.12        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).

2.2.13        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:

2.2.14        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.

2.2.15        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 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:

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

 2.2.17       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

2.2.18        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 considerations (7). 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.

2.2.19        For 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

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

                 OUTPUTS OF THE ASSESSMENT

2.2.21        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.

2.2.22        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 adopted (8) , with greater stakeholder involvement.

2.2.23        In terms of applications it is still too early to comment, as the Database is only now nearing completion. 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 level (9); 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.

2.2.24        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 Paper (10).

                APPLICABLILITY TO HONG KONG

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

   2.2.26    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.

2.2.27       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.

2.3           CASE STUDY 2 - LANDMAP INFORMATION SYSTEM WALES, UK

  2.3.1       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. Over the last four years, CCW has collaborated with many organisations in Wales (through the Wales Landscape Partnership Group) to develop a single, robust method of assessing landscape.

2.3.2         The method, which is known as LANDMAP (12), 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 judgements 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.

2.3.3         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 will be commencing their assessments in 2002. CCW is responsible for quality assurance of the assessments.

2.3.4         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

2.3.5         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.

2.3.6         The LANDMAP information system comprises:

2.3.7         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

2.3.8         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.

2.3.9         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:

2.3.10        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/unassessed) at the time of the assessment; while the assessment of trend evaluates change in condition (improving/constant/declining). Both these parameters require field survey.

2.3.11        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

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

2.3.13        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.

2.3.14        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

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

2.3.16        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.

2.3.17        The principal tool used for the top down approach is a structured household survey of at least 98 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.

2.3.18        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

2.3.19        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.

2.3.20        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.

2.3.21        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.

2.3.22        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

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

2.3.24        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 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.

2.3.25        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.

2.3.26        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.

2.4           CASE STUDY 3 - CLEVELAND BIOREGIONAL PLAN, OHIO, USA

2.4.1         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.

2.4.2         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.

2.4.3         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.

2.4.4         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.

2.4.5         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.

2.4.6         Ecocity Cleveland's three major projects are:

             ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

            APPROACH TO CLASSIFICATION, DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION

2.4.7         Work to prepare the Ecocity Cleveland Citizens' Bioregional Plan (13) began 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.

2.4.8         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:

2.4.9        "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."

2.4.10        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.

2.4.11        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

2.4.12        Natural features mapping on GIS includes:

2.4.13        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.

2.4.14        Land use trends mapping on GIS examines:

   2.4.15        'Vision' mapping for the region shows:

                    PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

 2.4.16      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.

2.4.17        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

2.4.18       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:

2.4.19       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 improvements.

2.4.20       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.

2.4.21       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.

2.4.22       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.

2.4.23       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

2.4.24       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:

2.4.25       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.

2.4.26       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.

2.5            CASE STUDY 4 - NORTH SHORE CITY STUDY, AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND

                 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO ASSESSMENT

2.5.1         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 lies the rural and coastal landscapes of Rodney District.

2.5.2         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.

2.5.3         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.

2.5.4         The assessment had two phases and two prime functions:

THE BROAD SCALE ASSESSMENT

2.5.5         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 LANDS

2.5.6         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.

2.5.7         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' :

 2.5.8        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.

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

                 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

                APPROACH TO CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION

2.5.10       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.

2.5.11       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.

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

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

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

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

2.5.16       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. Description took the form of a photographic record of every landscape unit (Figure 2.9, Figure 2.10, Figure 2.11, Figure 2.12, Figure 2.13).

2.5.17        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. (Figure 2.14 to Figure 2.15).

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

                 APPROACH TO EVALUTION - LANDSCAPE UNITS

2.5.19       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.

 2.5.20      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 :

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

  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

2.5.21       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:

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

2.5.22       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.

2.5.23       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.

                 APPLICABILITY TO HONG KONG

2.5.24        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.

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

ASSESSMENT RATINGS - LANDSCAPE UNITS

2.5.26       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.

2.5.27       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.

                APPROACH TO EVALUATION - SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE FEATURES

2.5.28       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".

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

                PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND USE OF GIS

2.5.30       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 ArchView base.

                 OUTPUT OF ASSESSMENT

2.5.31       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:

2.5.32       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.

2.5.33       The Significant Landscape Features Study is still being transferred onto a GIS base and planners at North Shore are currently 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.

2.5.34       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

2.5.35       he 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.

2.5.36      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.

2.5.37      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 judgements 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.

2.5.38      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).

2.6            CASE STUDY 5 - WAITAKERE CITY STUDY, AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND

                INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO ASSESSMENT

2.6.1         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.

2.6.2         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.

2.6.3         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.

2.6.4         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.

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

                ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

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

2.6.7         The study involved minimal input and assistance from Waitakere City part 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 ArchView data base.

2.6.8         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.

2.6.9         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.

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

                APPROACH TO CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION

2.6.11       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:

                ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

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

2.6.13        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.

2.6.14        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).

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

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

2.6.17        Description at each level is indicated in Table 2.2. Additional information is provided in attached Appendix 1 , 2, 3, 4.

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

                APPROACH TO EVALUATION - SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE FEATURES

2.6.19       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.

2.6.20        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:

 2.6.21      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.

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

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

2.6.24       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.

2.6.25        Visibility. - In addition, a third visual evaluation was made to define areas of greater visibility.

2.6.26       "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."

2.6.27       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.

2.6.28       The assessment matrices shown in Appendix 3 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

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

                PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

2.6.30       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

2.6.31       A series of maps was developed (Figure 2.23 and Figure 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:

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

2.6.33       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

2.6.34       This is a Study in a landscape comparable to that 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.

2.6.35       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.

2.6.36       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.

2.6.37       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.

2.6.38        The Waiketere Study appears to have made only limited use of the GIS database.

2.7            CASE STUDY 6 - THE UJUNG KULON NATIONAL PARK LANDSCAPE PLAN

                 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO ASSESSMENT

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

2.7.2         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 focussing upon the conservation of natural features.

2.7.3         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.

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

2.7.5         The fringes of both islands are dominated by swampland and mangroves, while secondary (partly regrowth) forest is intermixed with the mature canopies of established primary forest on the main terraces and closer to the mountains.

2.7.6         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.

2.7.7         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:

2.7.8         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 focussing of future conservation management. Results of the Study are as reported by Napitupulu, R. (2001).

                ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

2.7.9         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?quot;

2.7.10       The Study is focussed 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.

2.7.11       Given the scale of Ujung Kulon, it was determined that an empirical, GIS based approach to assessment and evaluation should be employed, focussing upon four key parameters:

2.7.12       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

2.7.13       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.

2.7.14       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 Table 2.4.

2.7.15       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, are shown in Table 2.5.

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

2.7.17       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

2.7.18       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.

2.7.19       These areas have been determined though 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.

2.7.20       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

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

                 OUTPUT OF THE ASSESSMENT

2.7.22       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.

2.7.23       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

2.7.24       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.

2.7.25       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.

2.7.26       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.

2.7.27       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.

2.7.28       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.

2.8            IMPLICATIONS OF CASE STUDIES FOR STUDY METHODOLOGY

 2.8.1         From the review of overseas case studies above, a number of key issues are apparent. These are described below.
Orientation of Study Brief

2.8.2         Taken together, the case studies confirm the viability of the fundamental Study predicates and assumptions:

2.8.3         Key issues arising from review of overseas case studies, which are appropriate or useful for the Study are identified below and summarised in Table 2.6.

                APPROACH TO CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION

2.8.4         As noted in the Study Brief, LCTs and LCAs can be classified at almost any scale. The case studies demonstrate the considerable range of scales at which classification is possible from a local scale as in the North Shore City Study, through to considerably larger landscape units, as in the case of the Countryside Character Initiative. In particular, studies such as the North Shore City and Waitakere studies suggest that the reasonably small scale of LCTs implied in the Study Brief is workable.

2.8.5         The Ujung Kulon and Countryside Character Initiative Studies also demonstrate that in modern landscape assessment practice, GIS is a key tool both in the storage and manipulation of data, but also as a tool for the classification of landscape, through the use of GIS software packages, such as TWINSPAN.

                APPROACH TO EVALUATION

2.8.6         Lessons learnt from the Countryside Character Initiative suggest that the environmental capital approach to evaluation be approached with caution due to its complex, cumbersome and time consuming characteristics and it is not proposed that Study adopt this approach. Instead, the approach adopted by the North Shore City study, in which there is a clear distinction between evaluation of landscape resources and evaluation of landscape character appears to offer a useful method of approaching evaluation. Evaluation of landscape resources is useful in that it is readily compatible with GIS and is useful in terms of identifying indicators of change. At the same time, a second level of evaluation of landscape character is also necessary, as it is only through the precise inter-relationship between landscape resources that the full value dimension of landscape is realised.

2.8.7         Prima facie, this two-tier method appears to be a potentially useful approach to evaluation. However, it is something that requires further investigation. Whether and how such an approach can be realised will be explored in Task 3 of the Study. Transition Zones - areas for multipurpose use with Intensive Human Activities.

2.8.8         In addition, assessing landscape in terms other than (but in addition to) 'value' enables other qualitative attributes of landscape to be captured. Therefore, appraisal of 'sensitivity' or 'condition' (as in the North Shore, Waitakere and Ujung Kulon studies) seems to be a very useful approach to assessment and should be used to support assessments of more generalised 'landscape value'.

2.8.9         The use of structured proformae in carrying out evaluation (as in LANDMAP, North Shore City or Waitakere City) promotes transparency and accountability where qualitative judgements are made, and should be used in the Study.

                USE OF GIS

2.8.10       GIS can be used simply as a data storage and management tool as in the cases of the LANDMAP, Waitekere City and North Shore City studies. It can (provided software appropriate to the scale and circumstances of the Study is available) also be used as a reasonably objective tool for generating preliminary LCTs or LCAs for verification later in the Study, as demonstrated by the Countryside Character Initiative and Ujung Kulon case study.

                APPROACH TO PUBLIC CONSULTATION

2.8.11       Given the requirement for public consultation as part of the Study, public review of broad study methodological issues as in North Shore City and Waitakere City studies appears to be appropriate. This can usefully be augmented by dissemination of relevant study results via the Internet as well as public fora, as in the Cleveland Bioregional Plan.

 

Go to previousGo to main pageGo to next