Recomendaciones

The term ‘landscape’ is one which is both open to varied interpretations and is so widely and commonly used as to be commonly adopted into metaphor - the ‘political landscape’, the ‘emotional landscape’ and so on. Within the field of landscape architecture and landscape studies Swaffield and Foster have noted:

The understanding of ‘landscape’ ranges from scenery, or the visual appearance of land, to a comprehensive description of the biophysical environment (for example, soil-landscape systems, or ‘cultural’ landscapes), and on to the human experience of particular environments; integrated land-human systems; and the conceptualisation of environments as culturally meaningful ideals. (2000, p. 8)

How ‘landscape’ is defined is important because it determines what we can actually know about it and thus how we can investigate and assess it. If it has biophysical and cultural features then knowledge of ecology and geomorphology, agriculture and forestry may all be relevant to understanding landscape. If landscape is about the appreciation of scenery then

34

a knowledge of aesthetics may be needed. If it is about the interrelationship between human perception and the land then we need to study people.

The most common approach to defining landscape amongst the respondents is to separate the landscape into biophysical and, what was generally referred to as, perceptual aspects. By this I mean that the landscape is seen to have a biophysical form which is then perceived by people. There were a wide range of specific positions within this grouping, however. For Bailey the physical aspect of the landscape was slightly more important than the perceptual aspect. She commented that this ‘might partially be the background that I’m coming from’ and noted that ‘here [New Zealand] there is quite a strong focus on perception’.

Lesley defined landscape as:

…a cohesive area that has similar physical attributes, which is the biophysical definition of a landscape. Perceptual and visual – everything I can see. It is actually made up of elements that belong together.

Jessie was the only respondent who defined landscape in purely visual terms as ‘everything you can see’.

These definitions reflect an underlying objectivist paradigm of landscape. The objectivist paradigm assumes that landscape qualities and values reside in an independently observable landscape and thus are largely objective in nature and amenable to expert analysis. Swaffield noted in 1999 that many landscape architects in New Zealand worked under this paradigm resulting in a preponderance of purely expert assessments (Swaffield, 1999).

Cameron took a different approach to this. For him landscape is purely perceptual and comprises the aesthetic and other values which are attributed to an area of land by individuals and communities. The biophysical world is, in his view, the environment and the preserve of natural scientists. He did say, however, that landscape architects should be able to collate and synthesise such biophysical information. In a similar vein Jamie defined landscape by saying:

…to put it really simply it’s the human perception of an area of land. It sounds pretty airy fairy but I think we come back to the fact that a landscape is a perceived thing. One of those buggers, I can‘t remember which one, said all landscapes are imaginary. And they are. Landscapes are just a thing that exists in your mind. It there were no humans there’s be no landscapes. There’d be land.

Taylor eschewed offering a definition. She noted that the ‘classic definition talks about patterns, processes and perceptions’ but went on to say:

…I think that they are all wrapped up in it and trying to tease them all apart, you’d end up tying yourself in knots. So I think my experience has been that my energy is better spent trying to find a solution to whatever the problem is that brought me into it rather than the

35

intellectual exercise of defining it. I’m a practitioner rather than an intellectual, if you know what I mean.

Interestingly she was the only respondent who sought to define ‘landscape’ within any of the statements of evidence examined, and did so quoting an Environment Court decision (A18/2009)6:

As Judge Smith recently recorded, ‘…although the RMA does not specifically define landscape, it leads us to include both specific features of land and water, as physical objects which are to be qualitatively considered, and people’s values and perceptions of landscape. This in turn indicates a strong cultural basis to the definition of landscape.’ He went on to state: ‘the landscape is not simply what is out there, the open space, reclamation, the coastline and harbour or townscape. It is not simply what people see (although it includes this) but is what people perceive it to be and how they value landscape. This in turn is influenced by people’s relationship with the landscape: be it owner, leaseholder, resident, recreational user, or visitor’.

Landscape was seen by almost all respondents as having particular spatial qualities. Quinn described a landscape as an area with a definable set of characteristics and Lesley, similarly described it as being a cohesive area that has similar physical attributes, made up of elements which belong together. Most respondents considered landscapes to be areas of some size but this was contested by two who had quite different views. Jessie took the view that landscape is continuous and should only be broken down into landscape character areas which are the units which should be used in assessment. He described himself as ‘vexed’ that a particular Environment Court Judge consistently required landscape architects to define what the landscape is in any particular situation. Jessie discussed a decision of the Court in which it defined the minimum parameters of a landscape (C73/2003) and described its conclusion as ‘absolutely ridiculous’. He also complained that if he complied with this Judge’s requirement to define the boundaries of the landscape he was dealing with, ‘…then you get into an argument, well, you’ve incorrectly defined it because it’s too small or the unit you’ve used is too big and it could be broken into smaller units’. Jessie considered that ‘…you can describe the landscape at almost any level that you like as long as you’re clear what it is’. Lee considered that there can be huge differences in scale between one landscape and another and that landscapes and landscape features can both be addressed at all different scales. She noted, for example, that the Environment Court has determined the entire Marlborough Sounds to be a landscape feature, and that Banks Peninsula has been considered an outstanding natural feature within Canterbury.

An examination of the Long Bay – Okura Plan Change decision (A78/2008) indicates that the Environment Court supports a similar approach to landscape as is promoted by the

6 _{There are two systems of identifying Court decisions. The first is the correct legal form which is used for}

identifying cases which are reported in the law reports. The second is the form used here which is used for Environment Court Cases, many of which are not reported in the law reports. I will consistently use the latter system for Environment Court Cases whether or not they have been reported as it is simpler and consequently is the system most widely used within the landscape architecture and planning professions.

36

respondents7. This case related to a proposed plan change to enable the urbanisation of a tract of rural land north of Auckland. In Part 1 of the decision where the Court elucidates the facts of the case they discuss separately the geology, geomorphology and groundwater; ecosystems and terrestrial ecology; fresh water ecology; storm water and erosion; marine ecosystems; and the coastal environment; Once the biophysical aspects of the site were determined they then examined the history of Long Bay divided into historic heritage and ‘Tangata Whenua values’, and then the landscape, concluding with an examination of traffic and transportation.

The evidence heard by the Court relating to the ‘environment’ (as opposed to the landscape) was presented by a wide range of experts including geomorphologists, hydrologists, ecologists, and even a herpetologist. Landscape architects were heard with regard to the coastal environment and ‘landscape’ issues. An archaeologist, heritage experts and a representative of local iwi were heard with regard to heritage and ‘Tangata Whenua’ values and five landscape architects in regard to landscape issues, clearly identifying, if not the area of recognised expertise of these witnesses, then the areas which the Court, and others considered to be part of the expertise of other professions.

The Court begins their discussion of the facts of the case with the note that:

‘…some of the most contentious facts relate to the description of the environment and landscape of the LBSP area. For example, we may need to resolve disputes between witnesses over where any outstanding natural landscape begins or ends…’ (Emphasis mine) (A78/2008, Para 48, P 37)

Five landscape architects gave evidence and three are respondents in this study. A fourth gave extensive evidence which has not been examined for this study and a fifth provided a review of one of the other’s evidence. In the ensuing discussion of these witnesses’ evidence the Court made two particularly interesting comments. The landscape experts had agreed jointly that the features identified in a document, the North Shore City Significant Landscape Features Study, were indeed significant. The Court responded to this with the statement that:

While we agree with the descriptions in the North Shore City Significant Landscape Features Study, we draw attention to the fact that the study is about units - which are much too small to be landscapes so they are properly classified in the language of the RMA as features. (ibid, Para 131 P 76)

Further, of one landscape witness the Court said that he ‘…has not looked at the full picture and in particular, where the landscapes begin and end.’ (Para 142 P 81) Both of these comments reinforce the observation discussed above that the Court has a view that a landscape entails boundaries and is larger than a feature and supports Jessie’s experience of pressure to conform to this view.

7

This approach is widespread within the divisions of the Court and many decisions could have been used to illustrate this point. This one has been selected because three of the landscape architects who gave evidence to the Court are respondents in this study.

37