I have spent more than 30 years working in horticulture and many years communicating its wider value through national media. One question has stayed with me: if we know so much about the benefits of urban greening and nature-based solutions, why are they not more systematically integrated into our response to the challenges society faces?
My realisation is that making the case for those benefits takes us only so far. We also need to address how institutions identify opportunities, value outcomes, commission work, fund delivery, measure results and communicate with the people affected.
Through Beyond Gardens, I want to develop and test an approach that connects those decisions with practical horticultural knowledge. The ambition is to influence institutional policy and practice so that living infrastructure is considered at the outset, alongside the other essentials of a place.
The Wider Value Is the Starting Point
A well-planned planting project can contribute to several priorities together: health and wellbeing, biodiversity, climate resilience, education, food growing and placemaking. I describe that potential as the Horticulture Multiplier Effect.
It is a way of considering the combined contribution of an intervention. The outcomes depend on what is planted, where it grows, how people use the space and how it is cared for. The main Beyond Gardens page and its supporting themes explore the wider arguments, evidence and examples.
For a fuller discussion of recognising planting as infrastructure, read Are We Getting It Yet? Planting as Infrastructure.
For institutional decision-making, the next task is to identify which of those benefits a particular proposal can realistically deliver, and what is needed to realise them.
Where the Decisions Become Difficult
I believe one important barrier is that benefits can extend across several sectors while the costs and responsibility sit with one organisation or department. A project may serve health, climate, biodiversity and local economic objectives, yet be considered mainly through the immediate cost of its planting and maintenance.
Recognising wider value does not automatically establish who should contribute or how responsibilities should be shared. Those questions need to be addressed early, alongside the suitability of the intervention, community needs and the resources available.
How do we take a policy objective or proposed site, determine the benefits it can realistically deliver, identify who should contribute, ensure it works horticulturally, measure proportionate outcomes, and explain its value to the people affected?
Six Questions Before Implementation
I am developing the following approach as a basis for collaboration and testing with institutional and specialist partners. It is intended to help shape a useful brief before design and delivery decisions are fixed.
-
Identify the opportunity
Start with the policy objective, proposed site or community need. Where could living systems make a useful contribution?
-
Define realistic outcomes
Identify intended benefits, relevant evidence, uncertainties and trade-offs. What would success look like here?
-
Test the suitability
Check whether the intervention can work horticulturally and practically in the conditions it will face.
-
Consider people and contributors
Who benefits, who may be excluded, whose input is needed, and which organisations have relevant responsibilities or reasons to contribute?
-
Plan delivery and care
Establish the expertise, resources, ownership and maintenance needed for the intervention to endure.
-
Measure and communicate
Agree proportionate measures, baselines where needed, and how the purpose, choices and results will be explained.
The Horticulture Has to Work
Plant selection, soil conditions, rooting space, water, establishment and maintenance determine whether planting can thrive. These considerations belong at the beginning of the process. They influence which outcomes are realistic and what long-term care will cost.
Horticultural judgement needs to work alongside ecological, engineering, health, planning and other expertise appropriate to the project. Bringing those disciplines together early can help a proposal respond to the actual site and the outcomes being sought.
Measure What the Project Is Intended to Achieve
A count of trees planted or square metres greened records an output. It does not, by itself, establish survival, cooling, habitat quality or benefits to the people using a space.
Evaluation should suit the scale, purpose and resources of the project. Depending on the intended outcomes, it may require specialist advice, a baseline and monitoring over time. Claims should distinguish between benefits suggested by wider research, outcomes expected from the design and results actually measured on site.
Communication Is Part of the Approach
Communication belongs throughout the process. Listening to the people affected can help define the brief. Explaining the choices can make a proposal more understandable. Reporting results honestly can help others judge what has been achieved and what could be repeated.
My contribution brings horticultural credibility and practical experience together with national media communication. I want to help connect institutional ambitions, specialist knowledge and public understanding, making living infrastructure relevant and practical for decision-makers and communities alike.
Developing and Testing the Thinking
A small number of demonstrator projects could help test this approach within a clear strategy and implementation plan. Each would need defined outcomes, appropriate expertise and a funded plan for establishment, maintenance, evaluation and communication.
The purpose would be to learn what works, where the limits are, and how that learning could inform future briefs and decisions. I explore this proposal in After the WHO Summit: What Does Cork Do Now? Ireland is the starting point, with a longer-term ambition to explore whether the approach could be adapted across Europe.