Dr Nicky Rivers Living Landscape Development Manager [email protected] wildsheffield.com The Sheffield Living Highways Project Challenges in the urban environment Background Amey- 25 year ‘ Ahead’ contract with Sheffield CC. Includes management of 2.9M m2 (2900 km2) of verges, plus other small bits of greenspace (some with trees) and trees. InsertAll cutting specificationsname of were chapter set out in thein contract. hereCategory using% of network a blendFrequency of ofAdelle cut Height range Herbage A 0.4% Every 2 weeks 20-75mm fontsHerbage B 73.3% Every 3-4 weeks 20-100mm Herbage C 26.3% Twice a season 75-200mm Bulb sites First cut June Partnership aims • Enhance biodiversity, especially within core ecological networks • Improve ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, flood risk mitigation and air quality • Enhance the amenity and leisure use of verges creating additional social value • Reduce verge management and maintenance costs Implementation plans 1. University of Sheffield - literature review O’Sullivan et al (2017) available from Science Direct (or me) and soil sampling.

2. Identify suitable areas for a change in mowing and alternative mowing regimes → Allowing areas with an existing diverse sward to flower and enhance the habitat; and reduce maintenance costs.

3. Identify potential areas for wildflower re- seeding. Identify best native perennial mixes for seeding, consider meadow creation using green hay and yellow rattle → Aesthetic improvements to city gateways; enhance biodiversity; and reduce maintenance costs.

4. Include public engagement and consultation, plus volunteer engagement. 1. Challenges Literature review recommendations: Mosaic mowing, not implemented as the Streets Ahead contract states that grass must have a uniform appearance. Also increased operational costs as not very efficient. Twice-yearly cut and collect - too £ and arisings potentially too contaminated – not enough arisings from urban verges for anaerobic digestion. Soil sampling – most verges sampled had a high phosphate index (>2) – too fertile/productive to support a high biodiversity sward. 2. Challenges: mowing • PhD studies – reduced mowing • Public perception • Ecological surveys and GIS mapping identified verges that would be suitable for reduced mowing– too Insertcomplex name to implement of chapter in here• Amey usingtook their a ownblend decision of to identifyAdelle 20% of the herbage B to mow once a year starting in 2018 - £ fonts• Sheffield Business Park – bee orchids – agreed to start mowing later in the 2018 season but re-instated regular mowing in 2019 – neat and tidy • New pipeline opportunity missed Insert name of chapter in here using a blend of Adelle fonts Public perception of urban roadside verge management Olivia Richardson [email protected] Study questions 1. What are local residents’ perceptions of reducing the mowing frequency of urban road verges and what factors influence this ? 2. Which road verge management scenarios do local residents prefer in relation to aesthetic value and what factors influence this? 3. How do local residents perceive different verge management’s ability to support biodiversity? A number of trial verges were mown Q1. differently for a season

Verge mown Verge mown every 3-4 every 6-8 weeks weeks • 234 face to face questionnaires • 131 postal questionnaires Q1. • 54% return rate for postal questionnaires. Mowing frequency Every 3-4 weeks Every 6-8 weeks

Verge mown every 3-4 weeks preferred A – floristically diverse B – tarmac C – short dominated by white clover Q2. D – 3-4 weekly mowing E – 6-8 weekly mowing “Imagining that this is alongside a road in your area, please give a preference score for each road A B verge image from 0 to 10, where 0 is strongly dislike and 10 is strongly like”.

C D E Q2: Which road verge management scenarios do local residents prefer in relation to aesthetic value?

Order of preference D – 3-4 weekly mowing & C – short clover sward B – tarmac A – floristically diverse E – 6-8 weekly mowing

Coefficients for local residents preference scores to different roadside verge images (A-E) when compared with the current road verge management (Image D) using a cumulative link mixed model. Standard error and significance levels (*P<0.05;**P<0.01;***P<0.001) are shown. “Based on your experience from last spring and summer, please give a Q3. score from 0 to 10 for how good you think the road verge on your side of the road and the opposite side of the road were for supporting a wide range of plants and animals such as insects, where 0 is very poor and 10 is very good ”.

Verge mown Verge mown every 3-4 every 6-8 weeks weeks Q3.

People scored the verge mown every 6- 8 weeks as supporting greater levels of biodiversity than the verge mown every 3- 4 weeks Q4. Which road verge management scenarios do local residents perceive to be the best for supporting biodiversity?

“Looking at the same photographs as Question 1, please give a score from 0 to 10 for how good you think each of the five verges types are for supporting a wide range of plants and animals such as insects, where 0 is poor and 10 is very good”.

Order E – 6-8 weekly mowing A – floristically diverse C – short clover sward & D – 3-4 weekly mowing Coefficients for local residents preference scores to different roadside verge images’ (A-E) ability to support B – tarmac biodiversity when compared with the current road verge management (Image D) using a cumulative link mixed model. Standard error and significance levels (*P<0.05;**P<0.01;***P<0.001) are shown. Summary 1. Residents prefer short, frequently mown grass over other hypothetical scenarios and the less frequently mown grass. 2. Tarmacked road verges were perceived to be the worst for biodiversity and long, wildflower rich road verges were perceived to be the best 3. Residents who were for mowing less frequently were more likely to say that the mowing trial had a positive impact on wildlife. 4. Factors that were considered to be important to residents included litter, dog poo, verges looking neat and tidy. 3. Challenges: seeding • Survey and mapping identified areas suitable for different seed mixes: short native perennial, medium native perennial and shade-tolerant. • We designed bespoke seed mixes - not taken up. • Also looked at Wildflower turf – too £ Insert• Rigby Taylor/ nameEuroflor of– suppliers chapter of floral displays,in rather than suppliers of native wildflower seeds such as Emorsgate or hereNaturescape using. a blend of Adelle fonts• Floral displays – usually dominated by annuals (need to re- seed), often contain non-natives (escapes?) – look colourful, longer flowering season may support pollinators. • Native (bought or harvested) perennials, more sustainable. 2016 Top soil and seed mix ‘Hope Perennial Seed Mix’ from Rigby Taylor. Composition is unclear but includes ‘poppies, cornflowers & meadow plants’ Sward thicker and less floristic over time

2017 2019 Challenges: 0ther • Politics - We could not change the mowing regime in Spring 2015 due to upcoming whole-council elections – may not be publically acceptable • Communicating with the mowers Insert• Signs name disappearing of chapter in here• Key using staff loses a and blend restructuring of Adelle within Amey • Pressure to save money – reluctance to spend £, fontseven for longer-term savings • Changing priorities – intention but limited time • Sheffield street trees Achievements Public engagement- verge of the Yellow rattle and green month and south street hay trial site – 42 species despite various setbacks Volunteer engagement

Plus a few smaller sites and one gateway road…. Achievements

Bochum , 2015, 2018, 2019 and into the future? What we have learnt A greater understanding of what the limitations and pressures are. Low fertility is key – avoid the topsoil! Grassland management is complicated – each verge can be different. Need to have the involvement of people who understand grassland ecology. However contractors prefer simple changes. Public perception studies - when implementing management changes, undertake public engagement and show some element of care for greater acceptance. Although making changes can save £ and increase biodiversity over time, initial investment of £ and staff time and willingness to implement change is needed.