- Email: [email protected]
Is coppice a potential for urban forestry? The social perspective
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 129–138 www.elsevier.de/ufug
Is coppice a potential for urban forestry? The social perspective Anders Busse Nielsena,, Fanny Møllerb a
Department of Landscape Management, Design and Construction, Faculty of Landscape Planning, Horticulture and Agricultural Science, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 52, 230 53 Alnarp, Sweden b University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Life Sciences, Denmark
Abstract After years of decline and neglect, low woodland types based on coppice management experience renewed interest. Substantial research has demonstrated the potentials of coppice for biomass production and for nature conservation, and coppices are increasingly being suggested for urban situations. Yet, our understanding of the more social aspects of coppice woodlands in modern urban situations is limited. Against this background, this contribution classifies coppice management systems as a basis for identification of social aspects of coppices and their potential use in contemporary urban forestry. Based on this classification, the social perspectives and potential niches for urban coppices are discussed, while lines of research are suggested which will support the development of a thorough and up-to-date knowledge base, against which the social merits of urban coppice woodlands can be critically evaluated. r 2008 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved. Keywords: Children’s play; Public participation; Urban woodland design; Urban woodland management
Introduction After years of decline and neglect, low woodland types based on coppice management experience renewed interest. Coppice has always been a highly pragmatic management system in that it requires modest skills. Moreover, it has a rapid development and its grow-cut cycle varies in response to changing needs for products and services. The introduction of short-rotation-coppice with fast growing willow (Salix spp.) and poplar (Populus spp.) hybrids expands this versatility. Today, energy coppice is perceived as a central means for fulfilling the commitments to reduce the net CO2 emission (Scholz and Ellerbrock, 2002; Jansen and Kuiper, 2004; Hardcastle et al., 2006). There is also growing interest in the history of local culture, which has contributed to restoration of ancient Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 40415212.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A.B. Nielsen). 1618-8667/$ - see front matter r 2008 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2008.02.005
coppice woodlands all over Europe (Rydberg, 2000; Jansen and Kuiper, 2004) as well as in Japan (Takeuchi et al., 2003; Ichikawa et al., 2006). Often such restoration actions go hand in hand with nature conservation. Thus, coppice has been practised long enough to create its own ecosystem (Peterken, 1993), where the periodic changes in light conditions form the basis for an exceptional flora of species which need the extra light following the coppicing to build up their resources, yet need the shaded phase of the coppice cycle to avoid competition from species of more permanent clearings (Larsen et al., 2001; Rackham, 2003). Accordingly, by continuing the traditional form of management, coppicing is well designed to maintain biodiversity (Peterken, 1993; Gustavsson and Ingelo¨g, 1994; Rackham, 2003). Experiences from Great Britain show that even after an 80-year lapse, it is possible to restore much of the coppice flora (Rackham, 2003). In relation to this, the woody biomass from restored coppice woodlands in the Netherlands is branded as ‘Double green energy’,
ARTICLE IN PRESS 130
A.B. Nielsen, F. Møller / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 129–138
where double green refers, first of all, to the green energy generated (i.e., renewable) and second, to the positive ecological effects when coppice management is restored to a regular cutting cycle (Jansen and Kuiper, 2004). From a social perspective, reintroduction of low woodland types based on coppices has also – and increasingly – been suggested as a way of offering inspiring environments for children’s play (Hodge, 1995; Rydberg and Falck, 1998; Gustavsson et al., 2005) and as holding potential for engaging local communities in woodland management (Harmer, 1995; Hodge, 1995). Recently, the renewed interest in coppices has even given rise to experimental development projects across north-western Europe, where the potentials of coppice woods in modern urban situations are part of large-scale experiments. In the densely populated Ruhr region of Germany, for example, ways to combine recreation and production of biomass in urban coppice woodland landscapes are being explored (Lohrberg Stadtlandschaftsarchitektur, 2007). In Nottingham Meadows, UK, short-rotation coppice is used in green spaces as part of a community-based urban regeneration scheme (Harland, 2007). Moreover, in the new city district and landscape laboratory ‘Sletten’ in Holstebro, Denmark, low woodland types based on coppice are used south, south-east and south-west of houses and private gardens in order to avoid shading (Nielsen et al., 2005). Whereas substantial research has demonstrated the potentials of coppice for biomass production and for nature conservation, understanding of the more social aspects of coppice woodlands is less developed. The question therefore is which social potentials are connected with the development of new urban coppice woodlands such as those in the Ruhr, Nottingham and Holstebro. Departing from this research question, this contribution classifies different coppice management systems as a basis for identification of social aspects of coppices in contemporary urban forestry. Based on this classification, the social perspectives and potential niches for urban coppices are discussed. Finally, lines of research are suggested which will support the development of a thorough and up-to-date knowledgebase against which the social merits of urban coppice woodlands can be critically evaluated.
Methods Information was compiled through a literature review utilising the Elsevier scientific search engine Scopus (www.scopus.com). When using Scopus as a search engine, the amount of literature found is relatively large compared to using Web of Science, a tool by Thomson Scientific which only includes journals with a so-called ISI impact factor. As search terms, ‘coppice’, ‘coppice woodland’ and ‘coppice forest’ were used. As a second
step, the reference lists in the literature compiled during the first search were analysed for more relevant literature, using a kind of ‘snowball’ method. As a result of this second phase of the search, textbooks, handbooks and articles in national languages were also included. However, due to language restraints in the research team, only literature in English, German and Scandinavian languages were included, giving the review a north-western European focus. Only literature (articles, books and book chapters) referring to different coppice systems and use of coppices in urban situations are reported on in this paper. The literature reviewed had a much broader scope, including historic studies of coppice, their physical environment, the effects on flora and fauna and short-rotation-coppice for production of biomass. Our main focus was, however, to identify existing knowledge about the social aspects of coppices and their use in urban situations. Yet, the social perspective was not necessarily the key aspect in the reported literature. In all, more than 100 references were reviewed in detail, of which 21 were found to relate to social aspects of coppice woodlands and/or the use of coppice in urban forestry. The relevant literature found was analysed for information on:
Coppice management systems, i.e., different coppice management techniques and regimes. Social aspects of coppice management and/or use of coppice in modern urban situations.
Summary tables organised according to each of these two issues provide an overview of the findings (Tables 1 and 2).
Coppice management systems The fundamental feature of coppicing is the periodic felling of small trees and shrubs, initiating re-growth from the stump or ‘stool’, i.e., the permanent woodybase from which coppice shoots arise (Peterken, 1993). In this way, a successive yield of poles or ‘underwood’ is maintained (Poore, 1982; Rydberg, 2000). This ability of many deciduous tree species to re-sprout after harvest has been widely used since ancient times, when coppice woods were important contributors of a great variety of essential goods. The latter included material for fuel and charcoal-making, livestock fodder, material for hurdle-making, thatching, hedging and basket-making, for handcrafted day-to-day items and poles for bean, pea and hop crops (Worsøe, 1979; Poore, 1982; Rackham, 2003). Most coppice woods contained a dynamic mixture of species and their management was more or less organised
ARTICLE IN PRESS A.B. Nielsen, F. Møller / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 129–138
Table 1.
131
Coppice management systems and specific references to social aspects and the use of different types in urban forestry
Coppice system
Description
Comments
Reference to social aspects
Coppice-withstandards
Two-storey forest; coppice with scattered trees (standards) being grown to timber size.
Poore (1982), Gustavsson (2004)
Simple coppice
Consists entirely of coppice, all of which is worked on the same cycle from compartment to compartment, resulting in even-aged structures. More open coppice woods with wide tree spacing, but also well-wooded coppice were pasture was confined to permanent glades.
Standards may be of seedling origin or developed from a stump shoot. Traditonally, standards were often grown in groups in order to improve the timber quality and concentrate the damage to the underwood when felled. May consist of only one species (pure) or several (mixed).
In many grazed coppices, a special technique called pollarding was used. Here trees were cut of at 2–3 m above the ground so that the shoots which sprouted were not in danger from browsing. Many woods resembling high forest are stored coppice, owing to decline in coppice working during the last century. Monocultures of fast growing species such ad Populus spp. and Salix spp.
Gustavsson (2004), Rydberg and Falck (1996)
Grazed coppice
Stored coppice
Trees or stands of coppice origin as a result of growing coppice on beyond its normal rotation.
Short-rotation coppice
Simple coppice grown in short rotation to produce biomass for energy.
Selective coppice
Coppice with or without standards where trees are cut when they reach a certain height limit, resulting in an uneven-aged structure, which favours shade tolerant species.
Selective coppice is not to be confused with French selectioncoppicing (‘furetage’) of beech, where only a proportion of shoots were cut at any one time from each stool, which therefore bore a mixedaged population of shoots.
Poore (1982), Gustavsson (2004)
Coles and Bussey (2000), Gustavsson (2004)
Gustavsson and Fransson (1991), Bell (1994), Lohrberg Stadtlandschaftsarchitektur (2007), Harland (2007) Tregay (1986), Bell (1994), Rydberg and Falck (1996, 1998), Rydberg (2000), Gustavsson (2004)
Main sources for this overview: Poore (1982), Evans (1992), Peterken (1993), Rydberg (2000) and Rackham (2003).
(Staun and Klitgaard, 2000). However, as shown in Table 1, six coppice management systems are distinguished in the literature. Of these, three have roots dating back to ancient times (coppice-with-standards, simple coppice and grazed coppice), one is the result of the decline of coppicing during the last century (stored coppice) and two are of a modern origin (short-rotation coppice and selective coppice). The majority of the medieval woodlands were coppice-with-standards, where standard trees are scattered among the coppice, leading to a diversified structure with two canopy layers. In this way, during medieval times, a regular supply of underwood was combined with the production of large timber (Poore, 1982; Evans, 1992; Harmer, 1995). Other coppice woods were managed as simple coppice, which supplied only underwood. In simple coppice, the crop is divided into harvest units and clearcut in a rotation (Poore, 1982; Evans, 1992; Harmer,
1995). As with other clear-cut systems, this regime results in woodlands with even-aged blocks. Traditionally, coppice has also been closely linked to meadows and was commonly allowed to be grazed. In fact, many coppices were enclosed as deer parks and as with other grazed woodland types, the grazing in coppices led to open structures with glades as well as wide and varying tree spacing (Peterken, 1993; Rydberg and Falck, 1996; Gustavsson, 2004). Today, such structures are still found in many former coppice woods in the northern and western parts of Britain. These areas are now continuously grazed, but this is more a symptom of the decline of coppice than an integral part of it (Peterken, 1993). However, owing to the neglect of coppicing of large areas, the most common type of coppice nowadays is stored coppice, i.e., coppices grown beyond their normal rotation (Evans, 1992), whereby physically and visually open structures are developed (Gustavsson, 2004).
ARTICLE IN PRESS 132
A.B. Nielsen, F. Møller / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 129–138
Table 2. Social aspects of coppice-based systems in modern urban situations categorised according to the type of reference, i.e. hypothetic argument, experimental development project, management guideline or empirical research No.
Location of coppice wood
Social aspects reported
Hypothetic arguments 1 Harmer (1995) (Great Britain)
n.a.
2
n.a.
Creation of new areas of mixed coppice that are managed for their wildlife interest, suitability for community involvement and potential to yield products for local use. Selective coppice in neighbourhood woods managed by local residents who get the cut firewood. The small scale of coppices provide favourable opportunities for children’s play. For reasons of aesthetics, sheltering, biodiversity and children’s need of playgrounds, selective coppicing is suggested for urban forestry. Coppice in strips next to buildings in order to avoid urban forests shading of the sun and satellite signals, as well as to reduce the risk of damage to buildings in case of windblown trees. Suggests open coppice structures for urban situations by expanding the traditional coppicing regimes and including wider tree spacing and longer rotations (stored coppice) as well as by using grazed coppice. The dense and mysterious character of coppices as inspiring for children’s play. Suburban coppice forest landscapes (‘satoyama’) are recognised as providing public goods such as scenic beauty and recreation places.
3 4
Authors (country)
Rydberg and Falck (1996) (Sweden) Rydberg and Falck (1998) (Sweden) Rydberg (2000) (Sweden)
University Campus, Uppsala, Sweden Arlanda Airport, Stockholm, Sweden
5
Rydberg and Falck (2000) (Sweden)
n.a.
6
Gustavsson (2004) (Sweden)
n.a.
7
Gustavsson et al. (2005) (mixed nationalities) Ichikawa et al. (2006) (Japan)
n.a.
8
Experimental development project 9 Tregay and Gustavsson (1983) (UK and Sweden) 10 Tregay (1986) (UK)
Tokyo, Japan
Warrington, Oakwood, UK Warrington, Oakwood, UK
11
Nielsen et al. (2005) (Denmark and Sweden)
Landscape Laboratory, Holstebro, Denmark
12
Lohrberg Stadtlandschaftsarchitektur, 2007 (Germany) Harland (2007) (UK)
Landscape Laboratory, Dinslagen, Germany
13
Coppice used in the creation of nature-like plantations in the residential environment. Use of patchy coppicing in creative management of nature-like plantations in residential areas. Use of coppice woods south and south-west of houses and private gardens to avoid that the forest shades the sun. Integration of biomass production and recreation in short-rotation coppice.
Nottingham OZONE, UK
Short-rotation coppice in urban parks as part of a community-based urban regeneration scheme with the ambition to produce wood, improve human health and create energy.
Management guidelines 14 Hibberd (1989) (UK)
n.a
15
Bell (1994) (UK)
UK Countryside
16
Gustavsson and Ingelo¨g (1994) (Sweden)
The Hague, The Netherlands
17
Hodge (1995) (UK)
n.a.
In urban woodlands with limited to moderate public use some yield of timber is feasible by reintroduction of a regular coppice management. Design principles which help energy forests to fit into the landscape. Aesthetic and recreational considerations when designing energy coppices, exemplified by a designed energy coppice in a nature-like park on a location with very high moisture (wet soils). Potential to engage the public in urban forest management. Coppice as robust environment for children’s play as it is capable of regenerating itself easily in case of damage caused by the play.
ARTICLE IN PRESS A.B. Nielsen, F. Møller / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 129–138
133
Table 2. (continued ) No.
Authors (country)
Location of coppice wood
Social aspects reported
18
Rydberg and Aronsson (2004) (Sweden)
n.a.
Coppice-with-standards is suggested as a suitable management regime for urban forest areas which are set aside for dogs of the leash. Selective coppice in strips next to buildings in order to avoid shading of the sun and blocking of satellite signals while providing shelter and visual screening. Selective coppice in neighbourhood woods managed by local residents who get the cut firewood.
Hayley Wood, Bradfield Woods, Norsey Wood, UK
Coppicing done entirely by volunteers as well as volunteers supporting professional staff by clearance, stacking and processing the cut wood. Minimum sizes for different woodland types – including coppices – in order to be perceived as having a forest character. Local residents’ recreational use of and preferences towards urban woodlands including the ancient Walkwood coppice.
Empirical research 19 Poore (1982) (UK)
20
Gustavsson and Fransson (1991) (Sweden)
Furelund, Sweden
21
Coles and Bussey (2000) (UK)
Redditch, UK
As an alternative to the traditional systems, Tregay (1986) and Rydberg (2000) have more recently suggested ‘selective coppice’ specifically for urban situations. Here, trees are coppiced when they reach a certain height limit. As with other single-tree selection systems, the selective coppice approach favours a continuous tree cover and the development of an uneven-aged structure which favours shade-tolerant coppice species (Rydberg, 2000). Currently, the search for renewable energy has encouraged a ‘new’ type of simple coppice, the shortrotation-coppice. The area with ‘energy crops’ is growing year by year (Hardcastle et al., 2006).
Social aspects of coppice in contemporary urban forestry In total, 21 publications with reference to social aspects of coppice-based woodland types and their use in urban forestry were found (Table 2). Of these, eight made hypothetically suggestions, five referred to fullscale experimental development projects in urban settings, five comprised management guidelines for urban woodlands, while only three references reported findings from empirical research. The clear majority of the references were from the UK (9) and Sweden (8), two countries with a strong tradition for coppicing (Table 2). In relation to the type of social aspect referred to, public perception and public participation in woodland management and children’s play were those most frequently discussed. In the following, these aspects are described in greater detail. For a total list of the social
aspects addressed in the analysed literature, the reader is referred to Table 2.
Public perception and participation Coles and Bussey (2000) report about happy users of the ancient ‘Walkwood Coppice’ in Redditch, UK. This woodland has a history of management as coppice with oak standards, but it has grown out to a stored-coppice dominated by multi-stemmed oak trees with a mixed understorey of mainly hazel (Coles, personal communication). One of people interviewed about the woodland, a woman, made it clear that there was no way she would go into the main part of the wood on her own, even during day time. ‘‘You never know who might be there’’, as she described it (Coles and Bussey, 2000). It is likely that her perception of risk and anxiety is due to the low visibility and limited possibilities for free movements in traditional coppices (Bell et al., 2005). Thus, adults, and women in particular, generally prefer visually open woodland structures (Goodman, 2000). Yet, no studies on public perception of coppice structures were found in the present review. In relation to the perception and attitude toward urban woodlands, people’s emotional relationship to woodlands is an important contributor (Coles and Bussey, 2000). Recognising this, current government policy in many countries is to encourage public participation in woodland planning and management (Van Herzele et al., 2005). Regarding this topic, Harmer (1995), Hodge (1995) and Rydberg and Falck (1996) argue that coppice is suitable for public involvement in
ARTICLE IN PRESS 134
A.B. Nielsen, F. Møller / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 129–138
the practical management of urban woodlands. The cut wood is small and can be handled without a forester’s knowledge or work experience. Also, frequent coppicing is suitable for continuous community involvement (Hodge, 1995; Harmer, 1995; Rydberg and Falck, 1996). Hayley Wood, Great Britain, is an example of this. Here, the workforce is entirely made up of volunteers who have been managing this coppice-withstandards for decades (Poore, 1982). Also in Britain, in Bradfield Woods and Norsey Wood, volunteers help with clearing, stacking and processing the wood cut by professional staff (Poore, 1982). In Tokyo, Japan, volunteers take part in coppice management aimed at restoring the traditional ‘satoyama landscape’, comprising coppiced woodland on hillside, at the urban fringe (Takeuchi et al., 2003; Ichikawa et al., 2006). Closeness to residential areas and accessibility are other factors of great importance to public perception and the use of urban woodlands in particular. In general, the principle is: ‘the closer, the better’ (Coles and Bussey, 2000; Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2003). When woods are intimately mixed with housing, the limited height of coppices is argued to be favourable compared to the use of other forest types. This is at least the case for the northern part of Europe, where tall trees bordering residential areas often face opposition because they block out the sun from private gardens and houses. Tall trees also meet criticism because of their blocking of signals for satellite dishes and because of the risk of damage to buildings during storms. To meet these concerns, Rydberg and Falck (2000) suggest working with selective coppices in a strip of at least 30 m next to buildings (Table 2). In the 1980s, a similar idea was implemented in the New Town of Oakwood, Warrington, UK (Tregay and Gustavsson, 1983), and more recently as well in the city district and ‘landscape laboratory’ at Holstebro, Denmark, where private housing and neighbourhood woods are intimately mixed. In consideration of the relationship between forest character and specification of minimum size, coppice has also been suggested as a potential way to bring the forest close to housing by activating small sites and leftover areas inside cities (Rydberg and Aronsson, 2004). Gustavsson and Fransson (1991) found agreement among researchers that the minimum area for low woodland types such as coppice is 0.1 ha (30 30 m). For mixed forests, the minimum area was found to be 0.35 ha (60 60 m), while open, high forests stands should be at least 1 ha (100 100 m). Yet these specifications of minimum size needed for developing ‘forest character’ should be used with caution (Rydberg and Aronsson, 2004).
Children’s play Whereas adults mostly perceive woodland landscapes visually, children to a greater extent experience woods
through bodily interaction. Accordingly, from a child’s perspective, what you can do in the woodland is more important than how it looks. Research has shown that forests have positive impacts on children’s development in terms of confidence, social skills, language and communication, motivation and concentration, physical skills and knowledge and understanding (O’Brien and Murray, 2007). In relation to this, Gustavsson et al. (2005) emphasise the dense and mysterious character of coppices as inspiring for children’s play. Also, Rydberg and Falck (1998) mention that the ‘small’ scale of coppices provides favourable opportunities for children’s play (Table 2). Moreover, coppice is argued to be robust and capable of regenerating itself easily in case of damages caused by children such as braking of branches when they construct a bow or a hut in their play (Hodge, 1995; Rydberg and Falck, 1998; Gustavsson et al., 2005). This may be harsh on other types of woodland and damage trees that are meant to last for centuries. Yet, children often have favourite spots and their play will probably not extend to the entire woodland (Gustavsson et al., 2005).
Social perspectives and potential niches for coppice in urban forestry For urban forestry to advance and meet the increasing importance of providing woods for people, new types of management are constantly searched. In this context, the review has identified low woodland types based on coppice as a forgotten and overlooked possibility to progress the social agenda. Yet, hardly any (3) empirical studies of social merits of urban coppice woodland were found. It is possible that more information exists in publications in national languages other than those included in this study; expanding the review to include literature in French, Italian and Japanese would perhaps have supplied valuable information, as coppice management has a strong history in these countries (Peterken, 1993; Takeuchi et al., 2003). Moreover, interviewing experienced managers would perhaps have supplied valuable information as well. Having said that, the arguments for using coppice in urban situations appear to set a new agenda for urban woodland design and management. By pointing at the woodland–community relationship as affected by children’s play and public participation, argumentation for using coppices in urban forestry breaks with the way we currently designate proper urban woodland design and management, which is mainly based on research into public preferences, rooted in the scenic aesthetics of contemplation (e.g., Tyrva¨inen et al., 2003; Bell et al, 2005; Nielsen and Jensen, 2007). Accordingly, to better understand social aspects of urban coppice woodlands, traditional preference studies need to be supplemented
ARTICLE IN PRESS A.B. Nielsen, F. Møller / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 129–138
with more qualitative humanistic and social research aimed at understanding the intimate meeting between human mind and nature. From this perspective, the following sections discuss the social perspectives and outline potential niches for urban coppice woodlands, while also suggesting lines of research which will support the development of the social merits of urban coppice woodlands.
Public perception and participation The considerable body of research exploring preferences for forest landscapes shows that public preferences differ considerably between forest management practices (Tyrva¨inen et al., 2003; Nielsen et al., 2007). Yet, none of the many studies into public preferences has apparently focused coppice structures or even included coppice types in the work. How people actually perceive coppice woods as compared to other woodland types, as well as how they perceive different coppice management systems, therefore remains unclear. This said, low woodland types based on coppice are not suggested because they are regarded aesthetically appealing. Planning and management of urban woodlands have increasingly become a socially embedded practice, shifting from serving an abstract public interest to actively engaging the public (Van Herzele et al., 2005). Yet, in most cases the involvement ends when it comes to practical management, because the trees to be cut are too large for inexperienced volunteers to handle without risks for injuries or damages to other trees. Here, the small size of the cut wood and the frequent coppicing are argued to hold potential for supporting the development of new and deeper relationships between citizens and their wood, by tapping into people’s energy and commitment (Harmer, 1995). Yet, there is a general lack of empirical studies about public participation in urban woodland management, about how such activities can strengthen the community–woodland relationship, as well as about which types of woodland and stand structures would be particularly suited to promote this kind of interactions (Fig. 1). Elaborating on the above, coppice is also an interesting prospect when considering the current political focus on urban green spaces and nearby nature as a fundamental resource for human health and well-being. Stress and mental ill-health are becoming increasingly common for people living in modern societies. The World Health Organization (WHO, 2001) estimates that depression and depression related illness will become the greatest source of ill-health by the year 2020. In relation to this, there now exists strong evidence that engagement with nature and physical activity contribute to human health and well-being and that a synergic effect is achieved when engaging with nature, whilst at the same
135
time being physically active (Hansmann et al., 2007). From this perspective, public participation in management of urban coppice woodlands could contribute to the health and well-being of urban populations. Furthermore, experiences from Stubbs Garden in Oxford, UK, suggest horticultural therapy as a potential niche for coppice. Here, growing willow coppice and using the cut effects for basket-making has been found to contribute to the development of the self-esteem and confidence of mental health patients (Pretty, 2004). However, the health related aspects of engaging in coppice management and craftwork are complex and have not been subjected to research – at least no such research was found in the current review.
Children’s play Research has demonstrated that children who form associations with the natural world, for example, by playing in woods and parks, are much more likely to continue to do so as adults. Correspondingly, children’s use is an especially important social issue to consider when planning and managing urban woodlands (Bell et al., 2005). Recognising the importance of the natural environment for children’s development, forest and nature schools have been established in many European countries with the aim to offer children of all ages regular opportunities to achieve and develop confidence through hands-on learning in a natural environment (O’Brien and Murray, 2007). In relation to this, the present review identified great credit being given to the small-scale and mysterious character of coppice woodlands as stimulating for children’s play (Hodge, 1995; Rydberg and Falck, 1998; Rydberg, 2000; Gustavsson et al., 2005). Furthermore, coppice allows kids to engage in management activities with the possibility to use the cut wood for their play or for craftwork activities. The latter can be illustrated by the ‘‘Big Willow Art Project Event’’ on the Braham Estate, Scotland, where the Scottish Basketmakers’ Circle arranged willow art activities for schoolchildren, using locally grown willow (The Highland Council, 2006) (Fig. 2). As mentioned earlier, the limited height of coppices is argued to be favourable when woods are intimately mixed with housing (Rydberg and Falck, 2000). As children probably are the most frequent and enthusiastic users of smaller woodland lots within residential areas, coppice appears to be a particular relevant management regime to consider for this category of urban woodlands (Rydberg and Falck, 1996, 2000).
Concluding remarks In science, often the interest for at certain system or area arises when talking to colleagues and the interest grows when we start bouncing the idea back and fourth.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 136
A.B. Nielsen, F. Møller / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 129–138
Fig. 1. A group of volunteers preparing the management of a grazed coppice woodland, in Tja¨ro¨, Sweden. The small size of the cut wood and frequent coppicing make coppice suitable for public participation in the practical management of urban woodlands. Photo: Roland Gustavsson.
Fig. 2. Children playing in a young coppice with standards in Helsingborg, Sweden. The small-scale and mysterious character of coppices is stimulating for children’s play. Photo: Roland Gustavsson.
Unfortunately, this does not provide any facts as such, but just a taste of what could be. Generally speaking, the knowledge-base regarding the social aspects of low woodland types based on coppice and their use in modern urban situations can be seen from this
perspective. Yet, the potentials for creating urban coppice woodlands that are managed for multiple uses by local residents is an exciting prospect and one that will become increasingly in demand as the debate on nature conservation, climate change, and human health
ARTICLE IN PRESS A.B. Nielsen, F. Møller / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 129–138
and well-being intensifies. Accordingly, it is argued that research which can support the development of a thorough and up-to-date knowledge-base against which the social merits of urban coppice woodlands can be critically evaluated is urgent. This is evident given the current interest in energy coppice and restoration of ancient woods – also in or nearby urban areas – where little attention so far has been paid to the social dimension. In absence of such knowledge, there is a danger of neglecting the potential for coppices as socially important woodland types.
Acknowledgements Thanks to Stephan Pauleit for fruitful comments and editing of the manuscript. The study was partly financed by the Nordic Baltic Centre of Advanced Research on Forestry serving Urbanised Societies (CARe-FOR-US).
References Bell, S., 1994. Energy forest cultivation and the landscape. Biomass and Bioenergy 6, 53–61. Bell, S., Blom, D., Rautama¨ki, M., Castel-Branco, C., Simson, A., Olsen, I.A., 2005. Design of urban forests. In: Konijnendijk, C.C., Nilsson, K., Randrup, T.B., Schipperijn, J. (Eds.), Urban Forests and Trees. Springer, Berlin, pp. 149–186. Coles, R.W., Bussey, S.C., 2000. Urban woodland landscapes in the UK-progressing in the social agenda. Landscape and Urban Planning 52, 181–188. Evans, J., 1992. Coppice forestry – an overview. In: Buckley, G.P. (Ed.), Ecology and Management of Coppice Woodlands. Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 18–27. Goodman, A., 2000. ‘Designing out’ future problems when creating urban woodlands. Aspects of Applied Biology 58, 87–92. Grahn, P., Stigsdotter, U.A., 2003. Landscape planning and stress. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2, 1–18. Gustavsson, R., 2004. Exploring woodland design: designing with complexity and dynamics – woodland types, their dynamic architecture and establishment. In: Dunnett, N., Hitchmough, J. (Eds.), The Dynamic Landscape. Spon Press, London, pp. 184–214. Gustavsson, R., Fransson, L., 1991. Furulunds Fure. Stad & Land 96. Movium, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (in Swedish). Gustavsson, R., Ingelo¨g, T., 1994. Det Nya landskapet. Skogsstyrelsen, Jo¨nko¨ping, Sweden (in Swedish). Gustavsson, R., Hermy, M., Konijnendijk, C.C., SteidleSchwahn, A., 2005. Management of urban woodland and parks – searching for creative and sustainable concepts. In: Konijnendijk, C.C., Nilsson, K., Randrup, T.B., Schipperijn, J. (Eds.), Urban Forests and Trees. Springer, Berlin, pp. 369–397. Hansmann, R., Hug, S.M., Seeland, K., 2007. Restoration and stress relief through physical activities in forests and parks. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 6, 213–225.
137
Hardcastle, P.D., Calder, I., Dingwall, C., Garrett, W., McChesney, I., Mathews, J., Savil, P., 2006. A Review of the Potential Impacts of Short Rotation Forestry. LTS International Ltd., Edinburgh. Harland, A., 2007. Nottingham OZONE. Green Places 2007 (36), 30–33. Harmer, R., 1995. Management of Coppice Stools. Research Information Note 259. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh. Hibberd, B.G., 1989. Urban Forestry Practice. Forestry Commission, Handbook 5. HMSO Publication Centre, London. Hodge, S.J., 1995. Creating and Managing Woodlands Around Towns. Forestry Commission, Handbook 11. HMSO Publications Center, London. Ichikawa, K., Okubo, N., Okubo, S., Takeuchi, K., 2006. Transition of the satoyama landscape in the urban fringe of the Tokyo metropolitan area from 1880 to 2001. Landscape and Urban Planning 78, 398–410. Jansen, P., Kuiper, L., 2004. Double green energy from traditional coppice stands in the Netherlands. Biomass and Bioenergy 26, 401–402. Larsen, J.B., Emborg, J., Rune, F., Madsen, P., 2001. Skov og biodiversitet. Skovbrugsserien no. 30, Skov & Landskab, Hørsholm (in Danish). Lohrberg Stadtlandschaftsarchitektur, 2007. Landschaftslabor Urbane Waldnutzung im Emscher Landschaftspark, Stuttgart (in German). Nielsen, A.B., Jensen, R.B., 2007. Some visual aspects of planting design and silviculture across contemporary forest management paradigms – perspectives for urban afforestation. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 6, 143–158. Nielsen, A.B., Nielsen, J.B., Gustavsson, R., Sørensen, C.A.A., 2005. Nye modeller for bynære blandingsskove – Sletten landskabslaboratorium. Videnblad 3.1-53, Skov & Landskab. Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, Frederiksberg (in Danish). Nielsen, A.B., Olsen, S.B., Lundhede, T., 2007. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning 80, 63–71. O’Brien, L., Murray, R., 2007. Forest School and its impact on young children: case studies in Britain. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 6, 249–265. Peterken, G.F., 1993. Woodland Conservation and Management, second ed. Chapman & Hall, London. Poore, A., 1982. Coppice management in east Anglian woodlands and its application in urban fringe nature conservation. Arborcultural Journal 6, 81–94. Pretty, J., 2004. How nature contributes to mental and physical health. Spirituality and Health International 5, 68–78. Rackham, O., 2003. Ancient Woodland, Its History, Vegetation and Uses in England. Castlepoint Press, Colvend. Rydberg, D., 2000. Initial sprouting, growth and mortality of European aspen and birch after selective coppicing in central Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management 130, 27–35. Rydberg, D., Falck, J., 1996. Fakta Skog 8, 1996. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp (in Swedish). Rydberg, D., Falck, J., 1998. Designing the urban woodland of tomorrow: pre-commercial thinning adapted for use in urban areas in Sweden. Arboricultural Journal 22, 147–171.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 138
A.B. Nielsen, F. Møller / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 129–138
Rydberg, D., Falck, J., 2000. Urban forestry in Sweden from a silvicultural perspective: a review. Landscape and Urban Planning 47, 1–18. Rydberg, D., Aronsson, M., 2004. V(ar ta¨tortsna¨ra natur: en bok om fo¨rvaltning och sko¨tsel. Skogsstyrelsen, Jo¨nko¨ping, Sweden. (in Swedish) Scholz, V., Ellerbrock, R., 2002. The growth productivity, and environmental impact of the cultivation of energy crops on sandy soils in Germany. Biomass and Bioenergy 23, 81–92. Staun, H., Klitgaard, O.L., 2000. Stævningsskove pa( fyn og langeland, oversigt og status. Dansk Skovbrugs Tidsskrift 85, 53–104 (in Danish). Takeuchi, K., Brown, R.D., Washitani, I., Tsunekawa, M., Yokohari, M. (Eds.), 2003. Satoyama. The Traditional Rural Landscape of Japan. Springer, Berlin. The Highland Council, 2006. The Big Willow Art Project Event. /http://www.highland.gov.uk/yourcouncil/news/newsreleases/ 2006/May/2006-05-17-01.htmS (accessed 16.01.08).
Tregay, R., 1986. Design and ecology in the management of nature-like plantations. Ecology and Design in Landscape, 275–284. Tregay, R., Gustavsson, R., 1983. Oakwood’s new landscape. Designing for nature in the residential environment. Stad och Land 15. Movium, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp. Tyrva¨inen, L., Silvennoinen, H., Kolehmainen, O., 2003. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 1, 135–149. Van Herzele, A., Collins, K., Tyrva¨inen, L., 2005. Involving people in urban forestry. In: Konijnendijk, C.C., Nilsson, K., Randrup, T.B., Schipperijn, J. (Eds.), Urban Forests and Trees. Springer, Berlin, pp. 207–228. WHO, 2001. World Health Report, Geneva. Worsøe, E., 1979. Stævningsskovene. Danmarks Naturfredningsforenings Forlag, Copenhagen (in Danish).
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 129–138 www.elsevier.de/ufug
Is coppice a potential for urban forestry? The social perspective Anders Busse Nielsena,, Fanny Møllerb a
Department of Landscape Management, Design and Construction, Faculty of Landscape Planning, Horticulture and Agricultural Science, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 52, 230 53 Alnarp, Sweden b University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Life Sciences, Denmark
Abstract After years of decline and neglect, low woodland types based on coppice management experience renewed interest. Substantial research has demonstrated the potentials of coppice for biomass production and for nature conservation, and coppices are increasingly being suggested for urban situations. Yet, our understanding of the more social aspects of coppice woodlands in modern urban situations is limited. Against this background, this contribution classifies coppice management systems as a basis for identification of social aspects of coppices and their potential use in contemporary urban forestry. Based on this classification, the social perspectives and potential niches for urban coppices are discussed, while lines of research are suggested which will support the development of a thorough and up-to-date knowledge base, against which the social merits of urban coppice woodlands can be critically evaluated. r 2008 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved. Keywords: Children’s play; Public participation; Urban woodland design; Urban woodland management
Introduction After years of decline and neglect, low woodland types based on coppice management experience renewed interest. Coppice has always been a highly pragmatic management system in that it requires modest skills. Moreover, it has a rapid development and its grow-cut cycle varies in response to changing needs for products and services. The introduction of short-rotation-coppice with fast growing willow (Salix spp.) and poplar (Populus spp.) hybrids expands this versatility. Today, energy coppice is perceived as a central means for fulfilling the commitments to reduce the net CO2 emission (Scholz and Ellerbrock, 2002; Jansen and Kuiper, 2004; Hardcastle et al., 2006). There is also growing interest in the history of local culture, which has contributed to restoration of ancient Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 40415212.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A.B. Nielsen). 1618-8667/$ - see front matter r 2008 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2008.02.005
coppice woodlands all over Europe (Rydberg, 2000; Jansen and Kuiper, 2004) as well as in Japan (Takeuchi et al., 2003; Ichikawa et al., 2006). Often such restoration actions go hand in hand with nature conservation. Thus, coppice has been practised long enough to create its own ecosystem (Peterken, 1993), where the periodic changes in light conditions form the basis for an exceptional flora of species which need the extra light following the coppicing to build up their resources, yet need the shaded phase of the coppice cycle to avoid competition from species of more permanent clearings (Larsen et al., 2001; Rackham, 2003). Accordingly, by continuing the traditional form of management, coppicing is well designed to maintain biodiversity (Peterken, 1993; Gustavsson and Ingelo¨g, 1994; Rackham, 2003). Experiences from Great Britain show that even after an 80-year lapse, it is possible to restore much of the coppice flora (Rackham, 2003). In relation to this, the woody biomass from restored coppice woodlands in the Netherlands is branded as ‘Double green energy’,
ARTICLE IN PRESS 130
A.B. Nielsen, F. Møller / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 129–138
where double green refers, first of all, to the green energy generated (i.e., renewable) and second, to the positive ecological effects when coppice management is restored to a regular cutting cycle (Jansen and Kuiper, 2004). From a social perspective, reintroduction of low woodland types based on coppices has also – and increasingly – been suggested as a way of offering inspiring environments for children’s play (Hodge, 1995; Rydberg and Falck, 1998; Gustavsson et al., 2005) and as holding potential for engaging local communities in woodland management (Harmer, 1995; Hodge, 1995). Recently, the renewed interest in coppices has even given rise to experimental development projects across north-western Europe, where the potentials of coppice woods in modern urban situations are part of large-scale experiments. In the densely populated Ruhr region of Germany, for example, ways to combine recreation and production of biomass in urban coppice woodland landscapes are being explored (Lohrberg Stadtlandschaftsarchitektur, 2007). In Nottingham Meadows, UK, short-rotation coppice is used in green spaces as part of a community-based urban regeneration scheme (Harland, 2007). Moreover, in the new city district and landscape laboratory ‘Sletten’ in Holstebro, Denmark, low woodland types based on coppice are used south, south-east and south-west of houses and private gardens in order to avoid shading (Nielsen et al., 2005). Whereas substantial research has demonstrated the potentials of coppice for biomass production and for nature conservation, understanding of the more social aspects of coppice woodlands is less developed. The question therefore is which social potentials are connected with the development of new urban coppice woodlands such as those in the Ruhr, Nottingham and Holstebro. Departing from this research question, this contribution classifies different coppice management systems as a basis for identification of social aspects of coppices in contemporary urban forestry. Based on this classification, the social perspectives and potential niches for urban coppices are discussed. Finally, lines of research are suggested which will support the development of a thorough and up-to-date knowledgebase against which the social merits of urban coppice woodlands can be critically evaluated.
Methods Information was compiled through a literature review utilising the Elsevier scientific search engine Scopus (www.scopus.com). When using Scopus as a search engine, the amount of literature found is relatively large compared to using Web of Science, a tool by Thomson Scientific which only includes journals with a so-called ISI impact factor. As search terms, ‘coppice’, ‘coppice woodland’ and ‘coppice forest’ were used. As a second
step, the reference lists in the literature compiled during the first search were analysed for more relevant literature, using a kind of ‘snowball’ method. As a result of this second phase of the search, textbooks, handbooks and articles in national languages were also included. However, due to language restraints in the research team, only literature in English, German and Scandinavian languages were included, giving the review a north-western European focus. Only literature (articles, books and book chapters) referring to different coppice systems and use of coppices in urban situations are reported on in this paper. The literature reviewed had a much broader scope, including historic studies of coppice, their physical environment, the effects on flora and fauna and short-rotation-coppice for production of biomass. Our main focus was, however, to identify existing knowledge about the social aspects of coppices and their use in urban situations. Yet, the social perspective was not necessarily the key aspect in the reported literature. In all, more than 100 references were reviewed in detail, of which 21 were found to relate to social aspects of coppice woodlands and/or the use of coppice in urban forestry. The relevant literature found was analysed for information on:
Coppice management systems, i.e., different coppice management techniques and regimes. Social aspects of coppice management and/or use of coppice in modern urban situations.
Summary tables organised according to each of these two issues provide an overview of the findings (Tables 1 and 2).
Coppice management systems The fundamental feature of coppicing is the periodic felling of small trees and shrubs, initiating re-growth from the stump or ‘stool’, i.e., the permanent woodybase from which coppice shoots arise (Peterken, 1993). In this way, a successive yield of poles or ‘underwood’ is maintained (Poore, 1982; Rydberg, 2000). This ability of many deciduous tree species to re-sprout after harvest has been widely used since ancient times, when coppice woods were important contributors of a great variety of essential goods. The latter included material for fuel and charcoal-making, livestock fodder, material for hurdle-making, thatching, hedging and basket-making, for handcrafted day-to-day items and poles for bean, pea and hop crops (Worsøe, 1979; Poore, 1982; Rackham, 2003). Most coppice woods contained a dynamic mixture of species and their management was more or less organised
ARTICLE IN PRESS A.B. Nielsen, F. Møller / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 129–138
Table 1.
131
Coppice management systems and specific references to social aspects and the use of different types in urban forestry
Coppice system
Description
Comments
Reference to social aspects
Coppice-withstandards
Two-storey forest; coppice with scattered trees (standards) being grown to timber size.
Poore (1982), Gustavsson (2004)
Simple coppice
Consists entirely of coppice, all of which is worked on the same cycle from compartment to compartment, resulting in even-aged structures. More open coppice woods with wide tree spacing, but also well-wooded coppice were pasture was confined to permanent glades.
Standards may be of seedling origin or developed from a stump shoot. Traditonally, standards were often grown in groups in order to improve the timber quality and concentrate the damage to the underwood when felled. May consist of only one species (pure) or several (mixed).
In many grazed coppices, a special technique called pollarding was used. Here trees were cut of at 2–3 m above the ground so that the shoots which sprouted were not in danger from browsing. Many woods resembling high forest are stored coppice, owing to decline in coppice working during the last century. Monocultures of fast growing species such ad Populus spp. and Salix spp.
Gustavsson (2004), Rydberg and Falck (1996)
Grazed coppice
Stored coppice
Trees or stands of coppice origin as a result of growing coppice on beyond its normal rotation.
Short-rotation coppice
Simple coppice grown in short rotation to produce biomass for energy.
Selective coppice
Coppice with or without standards where trees are cut when they reach a certain height limit, resulting in an uneven-aged structure, which favours shade tolerant species.
Selective coppice is not to be confused with French selectioncoppicing (‘furetage’) of beech, where only a proportion of shoots were cut at any one time from each stool, which therefore bore a mixedaged population of shoots.
Poore (1982), Gustavsson (2004)
Coles and Bussey (2000), Gustavsson (2004)
Gustavsson and Fransson (1991), Bell (1994), Lohrberg Stadtlandschaftsarchitektur (2007), Harland (2007) Tregay (1986), Bell (1994), Rydberg and Falck (1996, 1998), Rydberg (2000), Gustavsson (2004)
Main sources for this overview: Poore (1982), Evans (1992), Peterken (1993), Rydberg (2000) and Rackham (2003).
(Staun and Klitgaard, 2000). However, as shown in Table 1, six coppice management systems are distinguished in the literature. Of these, three have roots dating back to ancient times (coppice-with-standards, simple coppice and grazed coppice), one is the result of the decline of coppicing during the last century (stored coppice) and two are of a modern origin (short-rotation coppice and selective coppice). The majority of the medieval woodlands were coppice-with-standards, where standard trees are scattered among the coppice, leading to a diversified structure with two canopy layers. In this way, during medieval times, a regular supply of underwood was combined with the production of large timber (Poore, 1982; Evans, 1992; Harmer, 1995). Other coppice woods were managed as simple coppice, which supplied only underwood. In simple coppice, the crop is divided into harvest units and clearcut in a rotation (Poore, 1982; Evans, 1992; Harmer,
1995). As with other clear-cut systems, this regime results in woodlands with even-aged blocks. Traditionally, coppice has also been closely linked to meadows and was commonly allowed to be grazed. In fact, many coppices were enclosed as deer parks and as with other grazed woodland types, the grazing in coppices led to open structures with glades as well as wide and varying tree spacing (Peterken, 1993; Rydberg and Falck, 1996; Gustavsson, 2004). Today, such structures are still found in many former coppice woods in the northern and western parts of Britain. These areas are now continuously grazed, but this is more a symptom of the decline of coppice than an integral part of it (Peterken, 1993). However, owing to the neglect of coppicing of large areas, the most common type of coppice nowadays is stored coppice, i.e., coppices grown beyond their normal rotation (Evans, 1992), whereby physically and visually open structures are developed (Gustavsson, 2004).
ARTICLE IN PRESS 132
A.B. Nielsen, F. Møller / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 129–138
Table 2. Social aspects of coppice-based systems in modern urban situations categorised according to the type of reference, i.e. hypothetic argument, experimental development project, management guideline or empirical research No.
Location of coppice wood
Social aspects reported
Hypothetic arguments 1 Harmer (1995) (Great Britain)
n.a.
2
n.a.
Creation of new areas of mixed coppice that are managed for their wildlife interest, suitability for community involvement and potential to yield products for local use. Selective coppice in neighbourhood woods managed by local residents who get the cut firewood. The small scale of coppices provide favourable opportunities for children’s play. For reasons of aesthetics, sheltering, biodiversity and children’s need of playgrounds, selective coppicing is suggested for urban forestry. Coppice in strips next to buildings in order to avoid urban forests shading of the sun and satellite signals, as well as to reduce the risk of damage to buildings in case of windblown trees. Suggests open coppice structures for urban situations by expanding the traditional coppicing regimes and including wider tree spacing and longer rotations (stored coppice) as well as by using grazed coppice. The dense and mysterious character of coppices as inspiring for children’s play. Suburban coppice forest landscapes (‘satoyama’) are recognised as providing public goods such as scenic beauty and recreation places.
3 4
Authors (country)
Rydberg and Falck (1996) (Sweden) Rydberg and Falck (1998) (Sweden) Rydberg (2000) (Sweden)
University Campus, Uppsala, Sweden Arlanda Airport, Stockholm, Sweden
5
Rydberg and Falck (2000) (Sweden)
n.a.
6
Gustavsson (2004) (Sweden)
n.a.
7
Gustavsson et al. (2005) (mixed nationalities) Ichikawa et al. (2006) (Japan)
n.a.
8
Experimental development project 9 Tregay and Gustavsson (1983) (UK and Sweden) 10 Tregay (1986) (UK)
Tokyo, Japan
Warrington, Oakwood, UK Warrington, Oakwood, UK
11
Nielsen et al. (2005) (Denmark and Sweden)
Landscape Laboratory, Holstebro, Denmark
12
Lohrberg Stadtlandschaftsarchitektur, 2007 (Germany) Harland (2007) (UK)
Landscape Laboratory, Dinslagen, Germany
13
Coppice used in the creation of nature-like plantations in the residential environment. Use of patchy coppicing in creative management of nature-like plantations in residential areas. Use of coppice woods south and south-west of houses and private gardens to avoid that the forest shades the sun. Integration of biomass production and recreation in short-rotation coppice.
Nottingham OZONE, UK
Short-rotation coppice in urban parks as part of a community-based urban regeneration scheme with the ambition to produce wood, improve human health and create energy.
Management guidelines 14 Hibberd (1989) (UK)
n.a
15
Bell (1994) (UK)
UK Countryside
16
Gustavsson and Ingelo¨g (1994) (Sweden)
The Hague, The Netherlands
17
Hodge (1995) (UK)
n.a.
In urban woodlands with limited to moderate public use some yield of timber is feasible by reintroduction of a regular coppice management. Design principles which help energy forests to fit into the landscape. Aesthetic and recreational considerations when designing energy coppices, exemplified by a designed energy coppice in a nature-like park on a location with very high moisture (wet soils). Potential to engage the public in urban forest management. Coppice as robust environment for children’s play as it is capable of regenerating itself easily in case of damage caused by the play.
ARTICLE IN PRESS A.B. Nielsen, F. Møller / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 129–138
133
Table 2. (continued ) No.
Authors (country)
Location of coppice wood
Social aspects reported
18
Rydberg and Aronsson (2004) (Sweden)
n.a.
Coppice-with-standards is suggested as a suitable management regime for urban forest areas which are set aside for dogs of the leash. Selective coppice in strips next to buildings in order to avoid shading of the sun and blocking of satellite signals while providing shelter and visual screening. Selective coppice in neighbourhood woods managed by local residents who get the cut firewood.
Hayley Wood, Bradfield Woods, Norsey Wood, UK
Coppicing done entirely by volunteers as well as volunteers supporting professional staff by clearance, stacking and processing the cut wood. Minimum sizes for different woodland types – including coppices – in order to be perceived as having a forest character. Local residents’ recreational use of and preferences towards urban woodlands including the ancient Walkwood coppice.
Empirical research 19 Poore (1982) (UK)
20
Gustavsson and Fransson (1991) (Sweden)
Furelund, Sweden
21
Coles and Bussey (2000) (UK)
Redditch, UK
As an alternative to the traditional systems, Tregay (1986) and Rydberg (2000) have more recently suggested ‘selective coppice’ specifically for urban situations. Here, trees are coppiced when they reach a certain height limit. As with other single-tree selection systems, the selective coppice approach favours a continuous tree cover and the development of an uneven-aged structure which favours shade-tolerant coppice species (Rydberg, 2000). Currently, the search for renewable energy has encouraged a ‘new’ type of simple coppice, the shortrotation-coppice. The area with ‘energy crops’ is growing year by year (Hardcastle et al., 2006).
Social aspects of coppice in contemporary urban forestry In total, 21 publications with reference to social aspects of coppice-based woodland types and their use in urban forestry were found (Table 2). Of these, eight made hypothetically suggestions, five referred to fullscale experimental development projects in urban settings, five comprised management guidelines for urban woodlands, while only three references reported findings from empirical research. The clear majority of the references were from the UK (9) and Sweden (8), two countries with a strong tradition for coppicing (Table 2). In relation to the type of social aspect referred to, public perception and public participation in woodland management and children’s play were those most frequently discussed. In the following, these aspects are described in greater detail. For a total list of the social
aspects addressed in the analysed literature, the reader is referred to Table 2.
Public perception and participation Coles and Bussey (2000) report about happy users of the ancient ‘Walkwood Coppice’ in Redditch, UK. This woodland has a history of management as coppice with oak standards, but it has grown out to a stored-coppice dominated by multi-stemmed oak trees with a mixed understorey of mainly hazel (Coles, personal communication). One of people interviewed about the woodland, a woman, made it clear that there was no way she would go into the main part of the wood on her own, even during day time. ‘‘You never know who might be there’’, as she described it (Coles and Bussey, 2000). It is likely that her perception of risk and anxiety is due to the low visibility and limited possibilities for free movements in traditional coppices (Bell et al., 2005). Thus, adults, and women in particular, generally prefer visually open woodland structures (Goodman, 2000). Yet, no studies on public perception of coppice structures were found in the present review. In relation to the perception and attitude toward urban woodlands, people’s emotional relationship to woodlands is an important contributor (Coles and Bussey, 2000). Recognising this, current government policy in many countries is to encourage public participation in woodland planning and management (Van Herzele et al., 2005). Regarding this topic, Harmer (1995), Hodge (1995) and Rydberg and Falck (1996) argue that coppice is suitable for public involvement in
ARTICLE IN PRESS 134
A.B. Nielsen, F. Møller / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 129–138
the practical management of urban woodlands. The cut wood is small and can be handled without a forester’s knowledge or work experience. Also, frequent coppicing is suitable for continuous community involvement (Hodge, 1995; Harmer, 1995; Rydberg and Falck, 1996). Hayley Wood, Great Britain, is an example of this. Here, the workforce is entirely made up of volunteers who have been managing this coppice-withstandards for decades (Poore, 1982). Also in Britain, in Bradfield Woods and Norsey Wood, volunteers help with clearing, stacking and processing the wood cut by professional staff (Poore, 1982). In Tokyo, Japan, volunteers take part in coppice management aimed at restoring the traditional ‘satoyama landscape’, comprising coppiced woodland on hillside, at the urban fringe (Takeuchi et al., 2003; Ichikawa et al., 2006). Closeness to residential areas and accessibility are other factors of great importance to public perception and the use of urban woodlands in particular. In general, the principle is: ‘the closer, the better’ (Coles and Bussey, 2000; Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2003). When woods are intimately mixed with housing, the limited height of coppices is argued to be favourable compared to the use of other forest types. This is at least the case for the northern part of Europe, where tall trees bordering residential areas often face opposition because they block out the sun from private gardens and houses. Tall trees also meet criticism because of their blocking of signals for satellite dishes and because of the risk of damage to buildings during storms. To meet these concerns, Rydberg and Falck (2000) suggest working with selective coppices in a strip of at least 30 m next to buildings (Table 2). In the 1980s, a similar idea was implemented in the New Town of Oakwood, Warrington, UK (Tregay and Gustavsson, 1983), and more recently as well in the city district and ‘landscape laboratory’ at Holstebro, Denmark, where private housing and neighbourhood woods are intimately mixed. In consideration of the relationship between forest character and specification of minimum size, coppice has also been suggested as a potential way to bring the forest close to housing by activating small sites and leftover areas inside cities (Rydberg and Aronsson, 2004). Gustavsson and Fransson (1991) found agreement among researchers that the minimum area for low woodland types such as coppice is 0.1 ha (30 30 m). For mixed forests, the minimum area was found to be 0.35 ha (60 60 m), while open, high forests stands should be at least 1 ha (100 100 m). Yet these specifications of minimum size needed for developing ‘forest character’ should be used with caution (Rydberg and Aronsson, 2004).
Children’s play Whereas adults mostly perceive woodland landscapes visually, children to a greater extent experience woods
through bodily interaction. Accordingly, from a child’s perspective, what you can do in the woodland is more important than how it looks. Research has shown that forests have positive impacts on children’s development in terms of confidence, social skills, language and communication, motivation and concentration, physical skills and knowledge and understanding (O’Brien and Murray, 2007). In relation to this, Gustavsson et al. (2005) emphasise the dense and mysterious character of coppices as inspiring for children’s play. Also, Rydberg and Falck (1998) mention that the ‘small’ scale of coppices provides favourable opportunities for children’s play (Table 2). Moreover, coppice is argued to be robust and capable of regenerating itself easily in case of damages caused by children such as braking of branches when they construct a bow or a hut in their play (Hodge, 1995; Rydberg and Falck, 1998; Gustavsson et al., 2005). This may be harsh on other types of woodland and damage trees that are meant to last for centuries. Yet, children often have favourite spots and their play will probably not extend to the entire woodland (Gustavsson et al., 2005).
Social perspectives and potential niches for coppice in urban forestry For urban forestry to advance and meet the increasing importance of providing woods for people, new types of management are constantly searched. In this context, the review has identified low woodland types based on coppice as a forgotten and overlooked possibility to progress the social agenda. Yet, hardly any (3) empirical studies of social merits of urban coppice woodland were found. It is possible that more information exists in publications in national languages other than those included in this study; expanding the review to include literature in French, Italian and Japanese would perhaps have supplied valuable information, as coppice management has a strong history in these countries (Peterken, 1993; Takeuchi et al., 2003). Moreover, interviewing experienced managers would perhaps have supplied valuable information as well. Having said that, the arguments for using coppice in urban situations appear to set a new agenda for urban woodland design and management. By pointing at the woodland–community relationship as affected by children’s play and public participation, argumentation for using coppices in urban forestry breaks with the way we currently designate proper urban woodland design and management, which is mainly based on research into public preferences, rooted in the scenic aesthetics of contemplation (e.g., Tyrva¨inen et al., 2003; Bell et al, 2005; Nielsen and Jensen, 2007). Accordingly, to better understand social aspects of urban coppice woodlands, traditional preference studies need to be supplemented
ARTICLE IN PRESS A.B. Nielsen, F. Møller / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 129–138
with more qualitative humanistic and social research aimed at understanding the intimate meeting between human mind and nature. From this perspective, the following sections discuss the social perspectives and outline potential niches for urban coppice woodlands, while also suggesting lines of research which will support the development of the social merits of urban coppice woodlands.
Public perception and participation The considerable body of research exploring preferences for forest landscapes shows that public preferences differ considerably between forest management practices (Tyrva¨inen et al., 2003; Nielsen et al., 2007). Yet, none of the many studies into public preferences has apparently focused coppice structures or even included coppice types in the work. How people actually perceive coppice woods as compared to other woodland types, as well as how they perceive different coppice management systems, therefore remains unclear. This said, low woodland types based on coppice are not suggested because they are regarded aesthetically appealing. Planning and management of urban woodlands have increasingly become a socially embedded practice, shifting from serving an abstract public interest to actively engaging the public (Van Herzele et al., 2005). Yet, in most cases the involvement ends when it comes to practical management, because the trees to be cut are too large for inexperienced volunteers to handle without risks for injuries or damages to other trees. Here, the small size of the cut wood and the frequent coppicing are argued to hold potential for supporting the development of new and deeper relationships between citizens and their wood, by tapping into people’s energy and commitment (Harmer, 1995). Yet, there is a general lack of empirical studies about public participation in urban woodland management, about how such activities can strengthen the community–woodland relationship, as well as about which types of woodland and stand structures would be particularly suited to promote this kind of interactions (Fig. 1). Elaborating on the above, coppice is also an interesting prospect when considering the current political focus on urban green spaces and nearby nature as a fundamental resource for human health and well-being. Stress and mental ill-health are becoming increasingly common for people living in modern societies. The World Health Organization (WHO, 2001) estimates that depression and depression related illness will become the greatest source of ill-health by the year 2020. In relation to this, there now exists strong evidence that engagement with nature and physical activity contribute to human health and well-being and that a synergic effect is achieved when engaging with nature, whilst at the same
135
time being physically active (Hansmann et al., 2007). From this perspective, public participation in management of urban coppice woodlands could contribute to the health and well-being of urban populations. Furthermore, experiences from Stubbs Garden in Oxford, UK, suggest horticultural therapy as a potential niche for coppice. Here, growing willow coppice and using the cut effects for basket-making has been found to contribute to the development of the self-esteem and confidence of mental health patients (Pretty, 2004). However, the health related aspects of engaging in coppice management and craftwork are complex and have not been subjected to research – at least no such research was found in the current review.
Children’s play Research has demonstrated that children who form associations with the natural world, for example, by playing in woods and parks, are much more likely to continue to do so as adults. Correspondingly, children’s use is an especially important social issue to consider when planning and managing urban woodlands (Bell et al., 2005). Recognising the importance of the natural environment for children’s development, forest and nature schools have been established in many European countries with the aim to offer children of all ages regular opportunities to achieve and develop confidence through hands-on learning in a natural environment (O’Brien and Murray, 2007). In relation to this, the present review identified great credit being given to the small-scale and mysterious character of coppice woodlands as stimulating for children’s play (Hodge, 1995; Rydberg and Falck, 1998; Rydberg, 2000; Gustavsson et al., 2005). Furthermore, coppice allows kids to engage in management activities with the possibility to use the cut wood for their play or for craftwork activities. The latter can be illustrated by the ‘‘Big Willow Art Project Event’’ on the Braham Estate, Scotland, where the Scottish Basketmakers’ Circle arranged willow art activities for schoolchildren, using locally grown willow (The Highland Council, 2006) (Fig. 2). As mentioned earlier, the limited height of coppices is argued to be favourable when woods are intimately mixed with housing (Rydberg and Falck, 2000). As children probably are the most frequent and enthusiastic users of smaller woodland lots within residential areas, coppice appears to be a particular relevant management regime to consider for this category of urban woodlands (Rydberg and Falck, 1996, 2000).
Concluding remarks In science, often the interest for at certain system or area arises when talking to colleagues and the interest grows when we start bouncing the idea back and fourth.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 136
A.B. Nielsen, F. Møller / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 129–138
Fig. 1. A group of volunteers preparing the management of a grazed coppice woodland, in Tja¨ro¨, Sweden. The small size of the cut wood and frequent coppicing make coppice suitable for public participation in the practical management of urban woodlands. Photo: Roland Gustavsson.
Fig. 2. Children playing in a young coppice with standards in Helsingborg, Sweden. The small-scale and mysterious character of coppices is stimulating for children’s play. Photo: Roland Gustavsson.
Unfortunately, this does not provide any facts as such, but just a taste of what could be. Generally speaking, the knowledge-base regarding the social aspects of low woodland types based on coppice and their use in modern urban situations can be seen from this
perspective. Yet, the potentials for creating urban coppice woodlands that are managed for multiple uses by local residents is an exciting prospect and one that will become increasingly in demand as the debate on nature conservation, climate change, and human health
ARTICLE IN PRESS A.B. Nielsen, F. Møller / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 129–138
and well-being intensifies. Accordingly, it is argued that research which can support the development of a thorough and up-to-date knowledge-base against which the social merits of urban coppice woodlands can be critically evaluated is urgent. This is evident given the current interest in energy coppice and restoration of ancient woods – also in or nearby urban areas – where little attention so far has been paid to the social dimension. In absence of such knowledge, there is a danger of neglecting the potential for coppices as socially important woodland types.
Acknowledgements Thanks to Stephan Pauleit for fruitful comments and editing of the manuscript. The study was partly financed by the Nordic Baltic Centre of Advanced Research on Forestry serving Urbanised Societies (CARe-FOR-US).
References Bell, S., 1994. Energy forest cultivation and the landscape. Biomass and Bioenergy 6, 53–61. Bell, S., Blom, D., Rautama¨ki, M., Castel-Branco, C., Simson, A., Olsen, I.A., 2005. Design of urban forests. In: Konijnendijk, C.C., Nilsson, K., Randrup, T.B., Schipperijn, J. (Eds.), Urban Forests and Trees. Springer, Berlin, pp. 149–186. Coles, R.W., Bussey, S.C., 2000. Urban woodland landscapes in the UK-progressing in the social agenda. Landscape and Urban Planning 52, 181–188. Evans, J., 1992. Coppice forestry – an overview. In: Buckley, G.P. (Ed.), Ecology and Management of Coppice Woodlands. Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 18–27. Goodman, A., 2000. ‘Designing out’ future problems when creating urban woodlands. Aspects of Applied Biology 58, 87–92. Grahn, P., Stigsdotter, U.A., 2003. Landscape planning and stress. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2, 1–18. Gustavsson, R., 2004. Exploring woodland design: designing with complexity and dynamics – woodland types, their dynamic architecture and establishment. In: Dunnett, N., Hitchmough, J. (Eds.), The Dynamic Landscape. Spon Press, London, pp. 184–214. Gustavsson, R., Fransson, L., 1991. Furulunds Fure. Stad & Land 96. Movium, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (in Swedish). Gustavsson, R., Ingelo¨g, T., 1994. Det Nya landskapet. Skogsstyrelsen, Jo¨nko¨ping, Sweden (in Swedish). Gustavsson, R., Hermy, M., Konijnendijk, C.C., SteidleSchwahn, A., 2005. Management of urban woodland and parks – searching for creative and sustainable concepts. In: Konijnendijk, C.C., Nilsson, K., Randrup, T.B., Schipperijn, J. (Eds.), Urban Forests and Trees. Springer, Berlin, pp. 369–397. Hansmann, R., Hug, S.M., Seeland, K., 2007. Restoration and stress relief through physical activities in forests and parks. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 6, 213–225.
137
Hardcastle, P.D., Calder, I., Dingwall, C., Garrett, W., McChesney, I., Mathews, J., Savil, P., 2006. A Review of the Potential Impacts of Short Rotation Forestry. LTS International Ltd., Edinburgh. Harland, A., 2007. Nottingham OZONE. Green Places 2007 (36), 30–33. Harmer, R., 1995. Management of Coppice Stools. Research Information Note 259. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh. Hibberd, B.G., 1989. Urban Forestry Practice. Forestry Commission, Handbook 5. HMSO Publication Centre, London. Hodge, S.J., 1995. Creating and Managing Woodlands Around Towns. Forestry Commission, Handbook 11. HMSO Publications Center, London. Ichikawa, K., Okubo, N., Okubo, S., Takeuchi, K., 2006. Transition of the satoyama landscape in the urban fringe of the Tokyo metropolitan area from 1880 to 2001. Landscape and Urban Planning 78, 398–410. Jansen, P., Kuiper, L., 2004. Double green energy from traditional coppice stands in the Netherlands. Biomass and Bioenergy 26, 401–402. Larsen, J.B., Emborg, J., Rune, F., Madsen, P., 2001. Skov og biodiversitet. Skovbrugsserien no. 30, Skov & Landskab, Hørsholm (in Danish). Lohrberg Stadtlandschaftsarchitektur, 2007. Landschaftslabor Urbane Waldnutzung im Emscher Landschaftspark, Stuttgart (in German). Nielsen, A.B., Jensen, R.B., 2007. Some visual aspects of planting design and silviculture across contemporary forest management paradigms – perspectives for urban afforestation. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 6, 143–158. Nielsen, A.B., Nielsen, J.B., Gustavsson, R., Sørensen, C.A.A., 2005. Nye modeller for bynære blandingsskove – Sletten landskabslaboratorium. Videnblad 3.1-53, Skov & Landskab. Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, Frederiksberg (in Danish). Nielsen, A.B., Olsen, S.B., Lundhede, T., 2007. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning 80, 63–71. O’Brien, L., Murray, R., 2007. Forest School and its impact on young children: case studies in Britain. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 6, 249–265. Peterken, G.F., 1993. Woodland Conservation and Management, second ed. Chapman & Hall, London. Poore, A., 1982. Coppice management in east Anglian woodlands and its application in urban fringe nature conservation. Arborcultural Journal 6, 81–94. Pretty, J., 2004. How nature contributes to mental and physical health. Spirituality and Health International 5, 68–78. Rackham, O., 2003. Ancient Woodland, Its History, Vegetation and Uses in England. Castlepoint Press, Colvend. Rydberg, D., 2000. Initial sprouting, growth and mortality of European aspen and birch after selective coppicing in central Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management 130, 27–35. Rydberg, D., Falck, J., 1996. Fakta Skog 8, 1996. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp (in Swedish). Rydberg, D., Falck, J., 1998. Designing the urban woodland of tomorrow: pre-commercial thinning adapted for use in urban areas in Sweden. Arboricultural Journal 22, 147–171.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 138
A.B. Nielsen, F. Møller / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 129–138
Rydberg, D., Falck, J., 2000. Urban forestry in Sweden from a silvicultural perspective: a review. Landscape and Urban Planning 47, 1–18. Rydberg, D., Aronsson, M., 2004. V(ar ta¨tortsna¨ra natur: en bok om fo¨rvaltning och sko¨tsel. Skogsstyrelsen, Jo¨nko¨ping, Sweden. (in Swedish) Scholz, V., Ellerbrock, R., 2002. The growth productivity, and environmental impact of the cultivation of energy crops on sandy soils in Germany. Biomass and Bioenergy 23, 81–92. Staun, H., Klitgaard, O.L., 2000. Stævningsskove pa( fyn og langeland, oversigt og status. Dansk Skovbrugs Tidsskrift 85, 53–104 (in Danish). Takeuchi, K., Brown, R.D., Washitani, I., Tsunekawa, M., Yokohari, M. (Eds.), 2003. Satoyama. The Traditional Rural Landscape of Japan. Springer, Berlin. The Highland Council, 2006. The Big Willow Art Project Event. /http://www.highland.gov.uk/yourcouncil/news/newsreleases/ 2006/May/2006-05-17-01.htmS (accessed 16.01.08).
Tregay, R., 1986. Design and ecology in the management of nature-like plantations. Ecology and Design in Landscape, 275–284. Tregay, R., Gustavsson, R., 1983. Oakwood’s new landscape. Designing for nature in the residential environment. Stad och Land 15. Movium, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp. Tyrva¨inen, L., Silvennoinen, H., Kolehmainen, O., 2003. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 1, 135–149. Van Herzele, A., Collins, K., Tyrva¨inen, L., 2005. Involving people in urban forestry. In: Konijnendijk, C.C., Nilsson, K., Randrup, T.B., Schipperijn, J. (Eds.), Urban Forests and Trees. Springer, Berlin, pp. 207–228. WHO, 2001. World Health Report, Geneva. Worsøe, E., 1979. Stævningsskovene. Danmarks Naturfredningsforenings Forlag, Copenhagen (in Danish).