BOTANIC GARDEN CREATION and MANAGEMENT: the FEASIBILITY and DESIGN of NEW BRITISH COLLECTIONS [On-Line Edition]

BOTANIC GARDEN CREATION AND MANAGEMENT: THE FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN OF NEW BRITISH COLLECTIONS [On-line Edition]

PhD Thesis University of Reading School of Plant Sciences James Furse-Roberts [email protected] June 2005

Abstract Introduction Chapter 1 - Overview of Botanic Gardens Chapter 2 - Survey of British Botanical Collections Chapter 3 - Case Studies of Selected Botanic Collections Chapter 4 - Discussion of Botanic Collections Elements Chapter 5 - Design & Interpretation Chapter 6 - Eden Project Case Study Chapter 7 - Market Research Chapter 8 - Carymoor Case Study Chapter 9 - Alternative Solutions Chapter 10 - Conclusion Bibliography Appendix Botanic Garden Creation & Management Chapter 3 1 2 3 Case Studies of Selected Botanic Collections

The previous chapter concluded by outlining the characteristics of the nine types of collection identified by the results of the botanical collections survey and identified three methods by which the collections in these groups obtain the majority of their funding (1 - government or local council, 2 - affiliated organisation, 3 - visitor admissions or sales). This chapter will examine the hypothesis that a collection’s history and its method of funding affect its character and roles.

3.1 Methodology The information included in the case studies of the ten botanical collections covered in this chapter was compiled from a variety of sources. These include the information gathered through the botanical collections survey (chapter 2), written material, including that on the organisations own website, and interviews with present or past members of staff. When possible, interviews took place at the interviewee’s place of work and, on average, lasted for one hour. They were conducted using what Robson (2002) defines as the ‘unstructured interview’ technique. This means that instead of using a set of predefined questions the interviewer starts the interview with a guide list of topics to be covered before the end of the interview. These topics varied depending on who was being interviewed and which collection they were associated with but all fell within the following areas; history of the collection, present management and funding, as well as the roles of the collection. The benefit of this style of interviewing is that it allows the interviewer to pick up and explore further items within the responses of the interviewees. This does mean that the results of every interview differ and it is therefore harder to use them for direct comparison or quantitative analysis but with such a small sample size recording the breadth of ideas held is more important.

Ten collections were chosen as case studies for this section. For the purposes of this section the organisations were looked at as a whole, including satellite gardens if they have them. Four of these are botanic gardens (sensu stricto), four are university botanic gardens while the remaining two are examples of alternative approaches to holding botanical collections. Of the botanic gardens, The Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew and Edinburgh represent large government funded institutes; the National Botanic garden of Wales was included as it is one of the most recent attempts at establishing a botanical garden (the Eden Project is discussed separately in chapter 6). The Chelsea Physic Garden has been included as an example of an established non-government funded botanic garden. Of the four university botanic gardens, two, Oxford and Cambridge University Botanic Gardens, are representatives of those university botanic gardens that are open to the public and charge for entrance. Bristol University Botanic Garden is open to the public but does not charge for entrance while public access to the Harris Garden at the University of Reading is limited. The location of all the gardens discussed in this section and their satellite gardens are illustrated in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1 - Map of Britain showing the location of those botanical collections reviewed in chapter 3

3.2 Botanic Gardens

3.2.1 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, London

Date Founded: 1759 Size: 324-hectares (800-acres) Annual Budget: £29,000,000 Number of Species: 30,000 Number of Visitors: 1,000,000 p.a.

Kew Bedgebury Wakehurst Gardens Pinetum Place 1750 1759 1775 1800 1825 1850 1875 1900 1924 1950 1965 1975 2000

Figure 3.2 - Timeline showing the use of different gardens by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Ray Desmond (1995) in his book ‘Kew: The History of the Royal Botanic Gardens’ gives a detailed account of the events at Kew between 1631 and 1994, from which the following synopsis was made. In addition to this interviews with Gail Bromley, head of education, and Katy Steel, from the interpretation unit, give an insight into how Kew delivers the educational section of its mission.

1759 - William Aiton recruited from Chelsea Physic Garden to manage the physic garden at Kew

1772 - Kew’s first collector, Francis Masson, sent to the Cape of South Africa

1789 - 1st edition of Index Kewensis published following Linnaean taxonomy

1838 - Government threatens Kew with closure

1840 - Threat of closure finally abated

1848 - First economic botany museum opened in what is now Museum No. II

1851 - The Pleasure Grounds, the area outside the botanic garden, starts to be converted into an arboretum.

1858 - New acquisitions required the building of an additional museum, now Museum No. I

1916 - Mon, Wed, Thur, Sat Entrance charge1d, Student days Tue + Fri 6d Sunday Free

1924 - 1d Entrance charge abolished but 6d for student days maintained

1926 - 1d Entrance charge reintroduced

1929 - 1d Entrance charge abolished

1931 - 1d Entrance charge reintroduced

1938 - Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries recommend the abolition of 6d charge for student days

1944 - British flora extended with chalk garden on east side of the icehouse

1949 - Australian house gifted to Kew by the Australian Government following a visit their by the director.

1951 - Morton agreement divides the world between Kew and the National History Museum. Entrance charge increased to 3d; student day charge abolished

1957 - MAFF request that a Committee (Ashby Visiting Group) is set up to report on issues specifically affecting Kew.

1958 - Work done in preparation for the Royal visit in 1959 to celebrate Kew’s bicentenary

1959 - Royal visit to celebrate Kew’s bicentenary. Wood museum removed from the Orangery so that the latter could be returned to its original use.

1960 - First guide-lecturer appointed

1963 - Three-year diploma launched

1965 - Kew acquires the management of Wakehurst Place to extend the range of plants that could be grown.

1971 - Keeping plants in the Orangery was speeding up the spread of dry rot so it was converted into a visitor orientation centre. Scanning electron microscopes installed in 49 The Green and Jodrell. With decimalisation the 3d entrance charge became 1p.

1973 - Roof of temperate house became unsafe so it was closed to the public

1975 - Kew hosts their first conservation conference (Minter 2000)

1977 - Temperate house restoration begins improving the roof/heating and re-landscaping the interior. Plants replant geographically. Standing commission on museums and galleries approves the sitting of a new museum between the herbarium and Kew palace.

1980 - Entrance charge 10p

1982 - Temperate house reopened to the public

1983 - Entrance charge 15p

1984 - Work begins on the Princess of Wales conservatory

1984 - On the 1st of April responsibility for the garden was passed from MAFF to the trustees

1985 - Work begins on the Banks building. Entrance charge 25p

1987 - Princess of Wales Conservatory opens to the public. Entrance charge 50p

1986 - Kew ceases to be the intermediate quarantine station

1989 - Entrance charge £1

1990 – Prof. Prance set up Kew Foundation whose sole objective is to raise money for Kew (£2million a year). Entrance charge £3. Banks building opened

1992 - Entrance charge £3.30

1993 - Entrance charge £3.50

1994 - Entrance charge £4. Kew commissioned its first television commercial. Evolution House opened.

2005 – Entrance charge adults £10, children up to and including 16 years free (RBG Kew Website 2005)

The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, is not the oldest botanic garden in Britain but is probably the best known and certainly has the largest annual budget. Kew’s collection is held at two sites; Kew Gardens, located in Richmond, Surrey, consists of 136-hectares (336-acres) and Wakehurst Place, Kew’s satellite garden in West Sussex, has 188-hectares (465-acres).

As is shown in the chronological history above, Kew gardens carries a royal title because it originated from a private garden in a royal palace. This origin, as a private garden that later took on a more public role, makes it difficult to place a date on the garden’s foundation. However, the commonly accepted date is 1759, the year in which William Aiton was recruited from the Chelsea Physic Garden to manage a small area of the palace grounds referred to as the physic garden.

As has been described in the first chapter of this thesis, the first half of the eighteenth century was a transitional period between the old physic garden style and the new taxonomic and imperial gardens. The physic garden at Kew was not untouched by these changes and within its first thirty years had sent out plant collecting expeditions, arranged its collection taxonomically and created a catalogue of the species held. In 1771 Joseph Banks was returned from his voyage with Captain Cook on the Endeavour with many new species, which were presented to the King. This marks the beginning of Banks’s role as advisor to the King George III and the start of his role in “making it [Kew] a central

© James Furse-Roberts 61 Botanic Garden Creation & Management Chapter 3 clearing house for an imperial trade in agricultural development” (Fara 2003). By 1788 Kew contained approximately 50,000 plants and by 1804 Sir Joseph Banks and the plant collector Francis Mason were both referring to ‘His Majesty’s Botanic Garden’ and the ‘Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew’.

In 1881, George III suffered a severe ‘fit of madness’ and from then, until his death in 1820, his eldest son took over as regent. The succession of George IV to the throne combined with the death of Sir Joseph Banks, the driving force behind the previous developments to the garden, marked a period of neglect at Kew, which by 1838 resulted in the government questioning whether the royal gardens, including Kew, should be closed. Thanks to the help of John Lindley, then the curator of the Chelsea Physic Garden, this threat was avoided and in 1840 the gardens were transferred to the authority of the Office of Woods and Forests, and so began Kew’s association with government funding.

In 1839, the botanic garden started opening daily to the public for five hours in the afternoon. From this date to the present there have been numerous changes to who was admitted to which part of the garden and on which days. In 1916, the first admission fees were charged and these too over the years have been abolished, reinstated and altered with dramatic increases over the last twenty years.

In 1988 Professor Sir Gillian Prance was appointed as director of the garden and over the next years set about moulding the gardens into a more professional organisation that would be capable of raising a greater proportion of the funds needed to keep it running. To this effect two organisations were created, the Kew Foundation, and the Friends of Kew, with the sole aim of raising money for the garden by different means. In an attempt to improve visitor numbers Kew commissioned its first television commercial in 1994. 1999 saw the end of Professor Prance’s term as director and in this year Professor Crane took over the position. He has continued the theme of trying to generate greater income for the garden but, whereas Prance left the fabric of the garden unchanged and concentrated on the management structure and the external funding mechanisms, Crane has made many changes to the physical structure of the garden. For example, the Filmy Fern-house, which was located behind the Orangery, might well have been the largest of such displays in Britain but because of its unpublicised location received few visitors. This was recently removed to extend the catering capacity of the Orangery restaurant. The area once known as the bakery has been extended and re-branded White Peaks and now contains a display area as well as a point of sale for food and merchandise. To increase visitor numbers, and alter the demographic of those that visit, a series of quarterly themed events have been put into action, these are both botanical and, like the Easter children’s petting zoo, non-botanical in nature.

In addition to providing a green space within a city, Kew has two primary roles; the first is science, which includes research and conservation, the second is education. Evans (1999) describes how these two groups derived from the Corporate Strategic Plan and that new acquisitions to Kew’s living plant collection must fit into at least one of them.

Science has traditionally had a strong role in Kew’s activities. The first laboratory was built in 1877 (Desmond 1995). At present three departments comprise the majority of Kew’s scientific activity. They are the laboratory, the herbarium, and the economic-botany unit. The majority of the work conducted within these departments is independent of the wider living collection. The economic-botany unit and the herbarium mostly rely on their own collections of herbarium specimens and artefacts, and while the laboratory does use live plant material the majority is purpose-grown by a dedicated horticultural unit. In total approximately 10% of the living collection is used for research.

As can be seen from the list of Kew’s conservation activities given below, the majority do not rely on the use of a living collection. Indeed, only 40 species from the collection are part of a conservation programme.

• Acting as the UK CITES Scientific Authority for Plants • Seed conservation at the Millennium Seed Bank • Threatened Plants Appeal • Training courses in plant conservation techniques • Research on the commercial use of wild and traditionally managed plants in the UK • Participating in collaborative research throughout the world (RBG Kew Website 2004a)

Gail Bromley, the head of education at Kew, describes how delivery of Kew’s education mission is divided into three areas, higher and further education, public education, and schools education (2004 pers. comm.). Higher and further education, which includes Kew’s internship and PhD programmes, is run through the herbarium, while the public and schools education comes under the remit of the education department.

Kew uses a number of methods to convey its messages to the public and school visitors including interpreters in the guises of guides, facilitators and education staff, and static interpretation in the form of the website, labels and signs.

Kew receives visits from 70,000 school children every year. All school visits are entitled to free entry into the gardens, but if they wish to make use of the education team and their resources there is a fee of £2 per child. Initially, with the high numbers of school visits and only one member of staff available, schools education was delivered through teacher training sessions and self-use material. Over the last two decades the education department has grown in response to the recognition of a need to deal directly with the children. However, unable to support more full-time staff, this growth has been primarily through the recruitment of volunteers and part-time staff, of which there are varying types. 30 schools teachers, who work on a pro rata basis, are available to run educational visits. Approximately 45% of visiting schools opt for these. Kew does not have a schools entrance and the logistics of processing them through the ticket offices at the same time as visitors was causing problems. To address this problem local parents, who are free during the school hours, were enlisted as ‘meeters & greeters’ and as such they coordinated the schools entrance into the garden and on busy days their passage around the garden to increase the ease and effectiveness of the visit for the schools and to try and reduce the impact of the schools on the other visitors experience. In addition to these, facilitators are positioned in the Palm house where their role is to engage the schools and other visitors with the plants and try to control the flow of visitors around the house. Often storytellers will be brought in to tell stories relevant to an exhibit or festival that is running. The core messages for all workshops etc. are conservation, biodiversity and sustainability.

Kew used to supplement the garden education programme with an outreach programme. However funding for this was switched to provide an additional internal position

The volunteer guide scheme was established in 1992 with the aim of providing adult visitors with an alternative to the written interpretation. Prospective guides must successfully complete a training course and are then regularly assessed whilst guiding. Each guide is free to adapt their tours but must include certain aspects of Kew’s science, conservation and historical messages. The training they receive means that the method of their delivery is “drag and brag” (Bromley 2004 pers. comm.), that is to say that there is little attempt to engage in a dialogue with the visitors. Bromley recognises that

© James Furse-Roberts 63 Botanic Garden Creation & Management Chapter 3 there are benefits to a more Socratic approach to guiding, indeed this is what the facilitators use, but also points out that some people, such as European visitors, expect and prefer to have the ‘drag and brag’ style of tour and providing them with anything else would be off-putting for them (Bromley 2004 pers. comm.). The guides in conjunction with staff are also used to give specialist toursfor visiting further and higher education groups when the need arises. By knowing each guide’s specialist interests a suitable match can be found for the group.

The gardens at Kew are bordered by two communities, the Richmond side of the river is populated by a predominantly white community who are financially well off while the community of the Brentford and Isleworth side of the river is less well off and predominantly Asian. The majority of Kew’s local visitors come from the Richmond community. To address this, the education department is running a programme to increase interaction with the ethnic minorities. They have been working with women’s groups from this community to record the traditional uses of plants and incorporate these into the interpretation on site. To encourage more visits from this group articles discussing the project and its results have been included in the civic newsletter that gets delivered to every house in the area. Using Kew’s website this project has been expanded to ethnic minority communities further a field.

Bromley (2004 pers. comm.) believes that not enough research and evaluation of the success of interpretation methods is being conducted in British botanic gardens and that they should be following the example set by British museums. However, Kew does not have a specific member of staff whose job it is to carry out evaluations of whether it is successfully fulfilling its aims. Some pre- evaluation research is conducted when major exhibits are installed but a lot of interpretation material is not evaluated before being used. A good example of this is the Evolution House, the result of a major project to renovate a glasshouse, it opened in 1994 and utilises a landscape immersion approach, which was a new method of plant display for Kew. However, no evaluation has been conducted to establish how this compares with other display techniques and whether the story of evolution is being conveyed to visitors.

Both Bromley (2004 pers. comm.) and Steel (Steel, K. 2004 pers. comm.) stated that Kew did not have a formally agreed interpretation policy. Bromley believes that not enough of the garden’s staff see education as a core activity but instead view it, and especially adult education, as a commercial venture rather than an altruistic act.

Summary Kew’s origins on a royal estate ensured that during its creation it had financial backing, access to supplies of rare plants and plenty of land in which to expand. At the time of its creation the current trends in British botanic gardens were taxonomic and imperial. The personal interests of people George III and Sir Joseph Banks ensured that Kew also followed these trends. Although in recent times Kew has embraced other roles such as conservation and education, a great deal of what it does today is still influenced by the concepts associated with the imperial and taxonomic trends. Another legacy of Kew’s origins as royal property is that the government took over responsibility for it’s funding and now contribute a significant annual grant without which Kew could not function.

This review of Kew illustrates that recently there has been an increased demand for botanic gardens to become financially sustainable and a change in their roles. Education, either as a specific activity or through recreational visits, is becoming more relevant while more traditional roles, such as taxonomy, are becoming less so. As the role of education becomes more prominent there is a need for more evaluation to be conducted to ascertain whether the aims of this role are being met.

3.2.2 Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh, Scotland

Date Founded 1670 (Fletcher & Brown 1970) Size: 118-hectares (292-acres) Annual Budget: £6,730,000 Number of Species: 15,500 Number of Visitors: 740,000

In 1970, to mark the tercentenary of the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, Harold Fletcher and William Brown wrote an account of the garden’s history to date. The majority of Fletcher & Brown’s book, ‘The Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh: 1670-1970’, deals with the history of the key people involved with the garden. However, from this an understanding of how the garden developed can be gleaned and a summary of this given below.

The garden can trace its origin back to 1670 when, seeing a need to organise the medical profession in Edinburgh, a gentleman named Balfour, who had founded the college of physicians, and another called Sibbald, who had a private collection of plants, raised subscriptions from local apothecaries for the lease of a 12m x 12m (40ft x 40ft) plot and the cost of a gardener. The garden quickly amassed 900 species and began to outgrow the small plot. From this point on the garden has taken a number of different forms in a variety of locations, the diagram below (Figure 3.3) illustrates these and the following text describes why these changes occurred.

Broompart Benmore Logan Dawyck Trinity College Holyrood Leith Estate, Botanic Botanic Botanic Hospital Garden House Walk Inverleith Garden Garden Garden

1675 1695 1700 1724 1750 1761 1763 1775 1800 1820 1825 1850 1875 1900 1925 1928 1950 1969 1975 1978 2000 2004

Figure 3.3 – Timeline showing the use of different gardens by the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh

1675 – A plot near to Trinity Hospital was leased from the Town Council. It was initially referred to as the Physic Garden but this quickly changed to the Botanic Garden. This plot measured 91m x 58m (300ft x 190ft), contained 2,000 species and was divided into six areas. Two areas contained systematic beds, another an area for flowers, one had medical plants arranged alphabetically, a further area was set aside for a nursery and a pond in which to grow aquatic plants, the sixth area was used for trees and shrubs.

1683 – At this time the use of the collection was described as being; ornamental, educational and commercial (supply of plants that had until then been brought in from abroad)

1689 – During the siege of Edinburgh a loch was drained, which resulted in the flooding of the Trinity Hospital garden and the loss of a number of plants.

1695 – Two further gardens came under the care of the Keeper of the Botanic Garden. These were the ‘college garden’ and the royal garden at Holyrood House.

The financial arrangements of the period meant that the Town Council used to pay a salary to the position of Keeper of the Garden. From this he had to pay for the lease of the gardens and the running of the garden. Money from the student fees as well as the profit from the sale of plants and produce from the garden supplemented this salary.

At this time the position of Regius Keeper of Botany at the University of Edinburgh came with the title of Keeper of the Botanic Garden and the person who occupied this position was usually made King’s Botanist. Thus the running of the botanic garden involved the university, the town council and the King.

1724 – The ‘college garden’ was removed from the care of the master of the gardens due to neglect

1740s – During this period the study of plants was neglected in favour of materia medica. This is illustrated by the fact that at this time the master of the garden (Alston) was researching the effect of quicklime for medicine. “From these two volumes, as well as from the fact that Alston’s teaching was strongly biased to materia medica, it is clear that botany in Edinburgh at this time, as in many places elsewhere, was still nothing more than the hand-maid of medicine.” (Fletcher & Brown 1970)

[1759 – Kew founded]

1761 – Richard Walker, Vice-Master of Trinity, bought and presented 2-hectares (5-acres) in the centre of Edinburgh to the university for use as a botanic garden. This is now the site of the Cavendish Laboratories.

1763 – Due to atmospheric pollution the gardens at Trinity Hospital and Holyrood House were moved to Leith Walk. At the same time a permanent endowment from the Government was secured. The new garden was 2-hectares (5-acres) and divided in to two. One half contained medicinal plants while the other was used for botanical specimens.

1768 – Materia medica was traditionally taught in the winter months and botany in the summer of the medical course. However, after 1768 botany was split from the teaching of medicine to become a subject in its own right

1820 – The collections had outgrown the 2-hectare (5-acre) garden and were moved to 5.9-hectare (14.5-acre) site on the Broompart Estate in Inverleith. It took two years to complete the transfer, which included moving many trees of which at least thirty were between 3-13m (10- 43ft) tall.

1836 – Botanical Society of Edinburgh founded, which although separate from the botanic garden would have close ties with it.

1847 – Management of the garden transferred to being under the direction of Her Majesty’s Commissions of Woods and Forests. This resulted in a number of improvements to the garden.

By 1864 the neighbouring Royal Caledonian Horticultural Society garden was in financial difficulty. The government paid them £1000 to surrender their lease and thus adding 4-hectares (10- acres) to the botanic garden. In 1879 the grounds of Inverleith House were also acquired.

1872 – The Botanical Society of Edinburgh herbarium had grown to big for the society to manage so was handed over to the government and housed at the botanic garden

1873 – The garden contained 86,000 specimens

1858-75 – William McNab used his knowledge from the botanic garden to suggest ways of improving Edinburgh (landscape architecture/town planning)

1874 – More space was needed for an arboretum and to extend the herbaceous collection so the neighbouring grounds of Inverleith House, which amounted to 11.3-hectares (28-acres), were acquired. The argument given to the Hon. Lord Lennox for this by the Botanical Society of Edinburgh was that-

• The creation of an arboretum would allow for the study of arboriculture, needed to manage the forests of India and the Colonies and which was not presently given in Britain. • The garden purchasing the land would prevent buildings being placed on it, which would add to the atmospheric pollution. • The trees already growing on the land are needed to shelter the garden • They also pointed out that as an arboretum the cost to run it would be cheaper than the present cost of running the botanical garden.

1889 – Following a failed attempt to pass control for the botanic garden to the University of Edinburgh, the arboretum and botanic garden were formally united as one garden. The resulting free access to the public meant that paths had to be widened to accommodate them.

1890 – The issue of who was responsible for the botanic garden and arboretum, arising fromits historic links with the town council, university, government and the crown, was tidied up so that it was clear that the government was ultimately responsible. As part of this an enquiry was launched to review the running of the garden and make suggestions to its improvement.

1923 – A field that neighboured the garden was acquired for use as a forestry commission nursery and experimental plot.

1928 – When the Forestry Commission acquired the Forest of Glenbranter they set aside 20.2- hectares (50-acres) for trialling imported conifers and for the establishment of rhododendrons and other shrubs in association with the botanic garden. This was not meant to be a formal arboretum but instead a low cost, low maintenance, project. Before the project could be completed Younger of Benmore gifted 4,128-hectares (10,200-acres) to the nation. The forestry commission used most of this but a portion was set aside for another botanic garden. It was a suitable site because of its easy access to the general public, its closeness to steamer communication; it had buildings for accommodation and already had a collection of mature trees.

1969 – Logan garden comprises of 1.4-hectares (3.5-acres) of walled garden, planted with southern hemisphere plants of wild origin, and 4.9-hectares (12-acres) of woodland. The garden was created in 1869 but by 1969 the money to manage it had run out so it was given to the botanic garden (RBG Edinburgh Website 2004). Its very mild climate allowed for the growth outside of plants that would otherwise be considered tender in either Edinburgh or Benmore. Thus the acquisition of this garden would have extended the growing range of the botanic garden.

1969 – The jurisdiction of the garden changed from Her Majesty’s Commissions of Woods and Forests to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

1970 – The botanic garden consisted of 30.4-hectares (75-acres) in Edinburgh, 40.5-hectares (100- acres) at the Younger Botanic Garden in Benmore and the Logan Garden.

1978 - Colonel Alistair Balfour, gifted the Dawyck arboretum to the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. The arboretum was started in the 1690s and added to by successive owners until 1978. The arboretum has many mature specimens of trees grown from wild-collected seed and therefore represents an important botanical addition to the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh (RBG Edinburgh Website 2004).

Summary As can be seen from this history, the Edinburgh Botanic Garden has had to move to accommodate a growing collection, however in later years it was fortunate enough to be situated close to land that could be bought up when it became available. When this resource had been exhausted the garden set about taking on additional gardens elsewhere this has had three mane benefits; firstly, as illustrated by the Younger Botanic Garden, it allows for a greater diversity of climates to be utilised. Secondly, as a national collection the distribution of the collection throughout the country allows for easier access to the public. Thirdly, the division of the collections over a number of gardens reduces the impact of natural disasters, such as hurricanes, as they are unlikely to occur in all localities at the same time.

3.2.3 National Botanic Garden of Wales, Carmarthenshire, Wales

Date Founded 2000 Size: 230-hectares (568-acres) Annual Budget: £2,000,000 (De Bruxelles 2003a) Number of Species: 3,500 Number of Visitors: 175,000

The National Botanic Garden of Wales (NBGW), located at Middleton in Carmarthenshire, Wales, is Britain’s largest single botanical garden and only comes second to The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, in the total area of botanical gardens managed by one institute (respectively 230ha and 324ha (Comprising of 136ha at Kew and 188ha at Wakehurst Place).

The garden opened to the public on 24th May 2000 and was the first major British botanical garden for two centuries. Dan Clayton-Jones, the organisation’s chairman, describes the National Botanic Garden of Wales as “…a dedicated centre of excellence for science, education, horticulture and leisure, set in an exquisite eighteenth-century landscape park. Wales’s latest national institution is an object of pride for its people and a legacy for future generations to learn from and enjoy” (Clayton-Jones 2001). Charles Stirton, the garden’s director, expands on this further in an article he wrote in Plant Talk (Stirton 2000) in which he describes that as the first botanic garden for two hundred years to be built from scratch they have an opportunity to assess how best to create a garden for the 21st century. Stirton outlines three themes that underlie the design and management of the garden: sustainability, conservation and the visitor. His vision for the garden is for it to be sustainable both financially, as an integral element of regional economic development, and in its day-to-day running, for instance the glasshouse is heated using bio-fuel boilers. Conservation is seen as being the principal message that the garden will deliver. The director wishes to engage the public “Our visitors must become missionaries not only for the conservation of plants and habitats but also to change their own lives.” With regard the physical design of modern botanic gardens Stirton believes that “new gardens should develop a sense of place. Structures should ‘emerge’ from the landscape and the culture.”

The total capital cost for the project was £43,286,750 of which £21,643,375 was received from Millennium Commission grant and £20,478,418 from match funding from other sources (Millennium Commission 2003). During its first year the garden was visited by in excess of 250,000 people (Clayton- Jones 2001). In 2001 a report by the Welsh Assembly Government gave the following overview of the gardens business plan.

“The Garden forecast to operate at a deficit in its first year, as it was necessary to initiate science, education and the estate. In its second and subsequent years it is forecasting to breakeven and then generate small surpluses. The Garden as a visitor attraction cannot afford to incur operating deficits after its first year of operation and will not generate funding to achieve its fundamental aimsof science, education and the estate.” (Welsh Assembly Government 2001)

Unfortunately, after being on-target for the first year visitor figures in subsequent years have fallen and by 2002/03 paying visitor figures were around 82,000 (Welsh Assembly Government 2004) resulting in a shortfall of £500,000 p.a., 25% of the £2million annual running costs (De Bruxelles 2003a). As predicted by the aforementioned Welsh Assembly report this loss of income was not sustainable and as a result by September 2003 the NBGW was in talks with the Welsh Assembly to try to raise additional funds. Despite the use of ‘national’ in the gardens title neither the British government nor the Welsh Assembly had any official role in the project. In fact from the start the NBGW has been a private venture under the control of its own trust.

As a result of this financially unsustainable situation 70 jobs were cut at the garden in October 2003 (De Bruxelles 2003b; National Botanic Garden of Wales 2003a).

The uncertain future of the NBGW prompted a lot of discussion from many quarters including a several questions and debates in the Welsh Assembly. The following extracts are from the statement given by Alun Pugh, The Minister for Culture, Welsh Language and Sport, to the assembly in February 2004. They clearly outline the financial trouble facing the garden and highlight some of the difficulties that can be incurred when a private organisation takes on the role of a national organisation.

“…Despite several substantial injections of taxpayers’ money, and a considerable amount of non-financial support, the independent trustees who are responsible for the management and the operation of the garden have not been successful in resolving the financial problems, which are considerable.

…A series of dates for closure and deadlines have come and gone, and I understand that the trustees are now considering closing the garden on Monday of next week. The financial problems are not new. They date back to 2002, when it became clear that the numbers of visitors, the key driver of the garden’s finances, were well below target and falling. With no marketing strategy, and no comprehensive vision for the garden, owned by all of the trustees collectively and backed by a business strategy, it was clear then that there was serious trouble ahead.

…In August 2003, the garden presented a business plan to the Welsh Assembly Government. This plan was based on a capital investment of £8 million, with ongoing revenue support of around £750,000 per annum. I have consistently made clear that the Welsh Assembly Government is not prepared to fund such an ongoing subsidy, and for this reason, Ministers were unable to support the business plan.

…In October 2003, the trustees informed us that they were in a critical financial position again. We were told that they would face closure without immediate financial support. In the light of this, we provided further funding in conjunction with Carmarthenshire County Council and the Millennium Commission. We contributed £150,000 towards a total grant of £353,000. It was made clear at the time that this funding was a final attempt to buy the trustees the necessary time to develop a workable strategy to secure the garden’s future.

In early December 2003, the trustees provided me with their latest recovery strategy for the garden. At that time, we were told that if the Assembly Government would not bankroll that strategy, the garden would again face immediate closure. In presenting their recovery strategy, the trustees acknowledged that they had not been successful in developing the organisation in key areas. They acknowledged that they should have focused resources on achieving the founding principle of the garden, that income—primarily from visitor numbers—would match the day-to-day costs of running the garden, and that the trustees would provide an informative and pleasurable day out for the general public, for families as well as botanists. The relentless fall in visitor numbers tells its own story.

…Ministers concluded that we could not provide the support that was requested. The strategy was not viable. It was dependent on far too many financial uncertainties. Effectively, we were faced with a demand for £3million of taxpayers’ money, with a potential open- ended subsidy.

…there has been a substantial failure to market the garden, and many people have remarked that is insufficiently attractive to the wider market and less attractive to families for a day out than it is to a specialist audience. Consider the peak visitor numbers year on year: in 2000-01, 144,000 people paid to go through the gates; this figure fell the following year to 110,000; the year after it was some 82,000; and in 2003-04, it was 77,000. That relentless fall in visitor numbers year on year is at the heart of the financial difficulties now faced by the garden.

…We need to be clear about the distinction between the garden and the trust. Ultimately, at the root of all the financial difficulties is the trustees’ failure to execute the original…if the garden closes, it will be the end of the trust, but it need not be the end of the garden. The Welsh Assembly Government remains committed to working with anyone who can make this project work” (Pugh 2004)

In the extracts above Alun Pugh highlights insufficient marketing as being one on the factors that contributed to low visitor numbers. This is a view supported by a number of people including Professor Gerald Goodhardt of the Cass Business School at the City University, London (Goodhardt 2003). These views would seem to be upheld by the fact that on Sunday th5 October 2003, following national coverage of the plight of the garden and the replacement of an entry charge with voluntary donations, the gardens broke all of its previous records by attracting 4,500 visitors (National Botanic Garden of Wales 2003b). In total the garden received 7,500 visitors that weekend which, if it could be sustained for every other weekend, equates to 187,500 people a year even assuming that no one turns up on the other 315 days of the year.

While not explicitly stated, it could be suggested that one of the reasons for the creation of the NBGW, and the choice of its name, was political, to provide Wales with an equivalent organisation to the RBG Edinburgh and RBG Kew. Despite talk of sustainability and paying attention to the visitors, the garden that was created strongly resembled a traditional government funded garden in that it concentrated on science and research while doing little marketing or effective interpretation of the site. However, as has been seen, the NBGW differs from a traditional government funded garden in not having the government funding that, until recently, allowed this behaviour.

Summary As the National Botanic Garden of Wales is a good illustration of the need for new botanic garden projects to have a clear understanding of where finance is going to come from, not just for the initial capital but also for sustaining the project in the long-term. The decisions made about the size, location, publicity and revenue streams of this garden are responsible for financial position that the garden is in at the time of writing.

3.2.4 Chelsea Physic Garden, London

Date Founded 1673 (Minter 2000, Compton 2001) Size: 1.5-hectares (3.8-acres) Annual Budget: £? Number of Species: 4,500 Number of Visitors: 20,000

The majority of the following account is constructed using Sue Minters book about the garden, ‘The Apothecaries’ Garden’ (Minter 2000), and an article by James Compton, head gardener at the Chelsea Physic Garden 1984-90 (Compton 2001). Information from other sources is cited within the text.

In 1595 the herbalist John Gerard, who himself had a garden in Holborn containing over a thousand varieties, was pressing the Company of the Barber Surgeons to create a physic garden for the education of apothecaries (Burnby 1994). The Company discussed the proposal then and at various intervals over the next eighty years but nothing came of it until January 1673 when the Worshipful Society of Apothecaries of London made the decision to buy a barge for ‘herbarizing’. They were having difficulty finding a place to house it until the property at Chelsea became available in October of that year, which they leased for sixty-one years.

For thirty-nine years the gardens underwent a number of management styles, the majority of which were not that successful and left the garden in a precarious financial situation. In 1712 the Chelsea manor, which included the land occupied by the physic garden, came up for sale. At the time the society could not afford the £400 freehold that the owner was offering. As it happened, Sir Hans Sloane, who himself had trained in the Chelsea Physic Garden, bought the Chelsea manor and in 1722 transferred ownership of the physic garden site to the Society of Apothecaries via a deed of covenant, thus saving the gardens from its first major threat.

This deed of covenant has proved a useful document for the garden because within it defines the purpose of the garden, the types of plant that are to be grown, it helps define the scientific role of the collection and even lays down a procedure that was to be followed if the society could no longer afford to run the garden. In affect, the deed is probably the first example of a management plan and collection policy.

Sloane, however, did not provide the garden with an endowment and its finances were precarious as a result. In 1774 Forsyth complained of insufficient salary and, as a result, was allowed to sell superfluous plants under certain restrictions. Later he was allocated a portion of the garden in which to raise plants. The sale of plants was a common source of income during this period, for example prior to 1796 melons were cultivated, their sale providing funds to support the herborizing days. Despite this the garden still made significant contributions to science by providing people such as William Aiton (later to be curator at RBG Kew) and Scot William Forsyth (after which the shrub Forsythia is named) with training and experience. The garden’s curators have also made significant contributions such as Robert Fortune, who brought back many new species from China, William Curtis, who was the author of ‘Flora Londinensis’ and later founded ‘Curtis’s Botanical Magazine’, and John Lindley, who whilst curator at Chelsea was significant in helping to save the gardens at Kew.

At the end of the nineteenth century the garden was once again facing crises. As a result of a compulsory purchase, to make room for the Chelsea embankment road, the garden lost its river frontage and a significant amount of land. At the same time the Earl of Cadogan, heir to Sir Hans Sloane, was

© James Furse-Roberts 72 Botanic Garden Creation & Management Chapter 3 threatening to take back possession of the land. The then director at Kew, William Thiselton-Dyer, repaid Lindley’s actions fifty years earlier by securing the ownership of the land through the City Parochial Foundation, an organisation set-up to preserve London’s educational establishments.

To provide an income, the garden conducted research and provide the University of London with botanical specimens. However, during the 1970s there was a change in culture of the organisations for which they supplied these services, which meant that they were no longer required. This loss of income placed a garden in to another period of uncertainty. In an attempt to prevent closure or moving the garden the City Parochial Foundation placed the garden in the care of a set of trustees who set about instigating a fundraising programme and, in 1981, opened the garden to the public for the first time. In 1984 the City Parochial Foundation formally handed the garden over to the new Chelsea Physic Garden Company under whose care in now remains.

As a small garden located in London, the demand to visit the garden far outweighs the capacity of the garden. Therefore one of the challenges of managing this garden is balancing the visitor numbers in order to maximise the revenue without causing physical damage to the garden or losing the feeling of privileged entrance into a secret-garden that is part of its allure.

Summary Chelsea’s history as a privately owned garden created as an educational aid for apothecaries has shaped the garden that exists today. The focus on medicinal plants is as strong as ever while the encroachment of London around its walls has restricted its expansion. The location of the garden has aided the transition from a private garden supported through subscription to a garden supported through visitor entrance fees, although the small size of the garden does restrict the numbers that can be admitted. Chelsea Physic Garden’s deed of covenant has provided staff with a clear understanding of the purpose of the collection and procedures to be followed if the garden got into financial difficulty. Although the direct influence of this document cannot be proved, this early example of a botanic garden management plan must have made some contribution the longevity of this garden.

3.3 University Botanic Gardens

3.3.1 University of Oxford Botanic Garden, Oxfordshire

Date Founded 1621 (Hayms & MacQuitty 1969) Size: 33-hectares (81-acres) Annual Budget: £700,000 Number of Species: 6,500 Number of Visitors: 250,000

Henry Danvers, Earl of Danby, wanted to contribute to Oxford University, in particular its faculty of medicine. In 1621 therefore he leased from Magdalen College 2-hectares (5-acres) of meadow, situated outside of the city next to the river Cherwell. He presented this to the university for use as a botanic garden, but it took several years for enough additional soil to be added to the site to raise it above the flood level and for a wall to be built enclosing 1.2-hectares (3-acres) of the 2-hectares (5-acres).

When founded, the garden was referred to as the physic garden and fulfilled the roles of such by providing a facility where students at the faculty of medicine could study plants.

The collection gradually grew over the next twenty-five years to the 1,600 species listed in the gardens first catalogue, published in 1648. During the early years of the garden whoever possessed the position that would now equate to curator was very influential in determining the content of the collection. For instance, in 1679 Robert Morison was interested in ‘striped’ plants and as a result started a collection that, to this day, exists in the form of the garden’s variegated collection. As with other gardens of the period, such as the physic garden in Edinburgh, Oxford had to raise funds itself, to pay for garden work and to supplement wages. This was often done by the sale of seeds and fruit grown in the garden (Oxford Botanic Gardens 1972).

During the first half of the nineteenth century the role of the garden moved away from that of a physic garden towards the roles of education, recreation and research associated with modern botanic gardens. To improve the garden’s recreational role, Professor Daubeny, who was then in charge of the garden, installed fountains and pools and wrote a guide to the garden He also started charging a shilling to see the Amazon water lily (Victoria amazonica) when it was in flower. “For Daubeny the purpose of the garden was no longer to help herbalists in concocting their potions, …but to discover what plant study could do in all fields of science and industry” (Oxford Botanic Garden 1972) to reflect this change of roles in 1840 the term ‘physic garden’ was dropped in favour of ‘botanic garden’. The research role of the garden was also flourishing at this time with the acquisition oflandfor field trials of fertilizer. However, this particular exercise was rather short lived with the experimental garden being moved off-site and then sold fifty years later but these trials did inspire one student, John Bennet Lawes, to found the agricultural experimentation centre at Rothamsted.

Within the walled garden the original cruciform arrangement of the paths is still maintained, dividing the garden into four quarters. This was a common arrangement for gardens developed at this time, and is symbolic of the Garden of Eden. The paths are symbolic of the four rivers of the world, the Euphrates, the Tigris, the Phison and the Gihon. The four quarters, in which the plants are grown, represent the four continents (Europe, Africa, Asia and America). This style of arrangement predates the sixteenth and seventeenth century and can be found in Persian ‘Paradise Gardens’, where the four quarters represent the ‘four corners of the world’ (Potteiger & Purinton 1998)

Over time the basic design of the garden has been kept, but the arrangement of the plants has changed to suit the needs and thinking of the times. In 1850, Professor Charles Daubney, following the Linnaean System, laid out the order beds. They were changed in 1884 by Professor Isaac Bayley Balfour to follow Bentham and Hooker’s system and more recently, in the winters of 2002-3 and 2003-4, they were changed again to follow the recent findings of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (RHS 2004).

In 1873, Oxford Botanic Garden faced the threat of being moved from its site on the High Street to a five-acre (2-hectare) portion of Oxford’s parks. With help from Dr Hooker, the Director of Kew Gardens, this idea was finally rejected in 1876 and today the parks and the botanic garden exist as separate but complementary departments, fulfilling different functions (Craig & Bulloch 2004).

By 1954 genetics had become a topic of general interest, to reflect this a ‘Genetic Garden’ was built with the aim “…to illustrate the process of evolution actually taking place in nature and in cultivation today” (Oxford Botanic Gardens 1972). This component of the garden remained at the High Street site for ten years before being moved, in 1964, to a site in a neighbouring park where, having been redesigned in 1995 to reduce maintenance, it remains today (Craig & Bulloch 2004).

The size of the botanic garden meant that it was not possible to develop an arboretum. However, in 1949 the University purchased Nuneham Courtenay, an estate formerly owned by Lord Harcourt. In 1962 the university decided to sell the woodland but retain 1.9-hectares (4.6-acres) for use by the Botany School. Professors form the school inspected the site and found an extensive mature arboretum that had been planted in the 1850s on soil that varies from acid to alkaline making it ideal for growing a variety of plant species. Based on this they suggested that the whole area be kept for use as an arboretum. This proposal was rejected and the land sold, however the buyer proposed a 99- year lease which was accepted. The university purchased a further 4-hectares (10-acres) and in 1969 the University Arboretum at Numeham Courtenay opened to the public for the first time with the mission “…to display the most splendid trees and shrubs and woodland plants that can be grown in England” (Oxford Botanic Gardens 1972).

Summary The University of Oxford Botanic Garden is a good illustration of how the decisions and beliefs of the past influence the present character of a garden. The size and location of the initial gift of land set the parameters within which the garden would operate. This later forced the purchase of additional land to house an arboretum. The beliefs of the original designers set the cruciform arrangement of paths, while the arrangement of plants have been altered by later designers to illustrate their beliefs. The content of the collection has also been influenced by the gardens history. For example, the present collection of variegated plants is a result of research conducted in 1679.

3.3.2 University of Cambridge Botanic Garden, Cambridgeshire

Date Founded 1846 Size: 16-hectares (40-acres) Annual Budget: £750,000 Number of Species: 8,000 Number of Visitors: 120,000

The following case study of Cambridge University Botanic garden has been compiled from a variety of sources, including written material and the reply to the botanical collection survey. In additions to this a great deal was ascertained from an interview with the garden’s superintendent Tim Upson in 2004.

Cambridge has had two botanic gardens. The first, founded in 1760, was 2ha (5acres) located near the city centre and was built as a physic garden (Young 1987). In 1831 John Stevens Henslow, then Professor of Botany, purchased 15ha (40acres) of land 1.2km (3/4mile) from the centre on which to build a new larger botanic garden more suited to the needs of the time. This garden opened to the public in 1846 (Hotine 1997; Cambridge University BG Website 2004). Although plans had been drawn up for the whole plot only half was developed. The remaining half was let out as allotments. It was only in 1950 that the garden received a bequest that allowed the full development of the site (Young 1987).

Both Tim Upson, in his reply to the botanical collection survey, and Caroline Hotine, in her paper on the garden’s education programme (Hotine 1997), describe the roles of Cambridge University Botanic Garden as being education, research and amenity.

The amenity value of the garden has been recognised since its creation when it was laid out aesthetically as well as practically. The garden has always been open to the public. Upson sees that one of the challenges of the collection is to display plants in ways that maximise their amenity value while also fulfilling at least one of the other roles of the collection.

The educational role of the gardens is divisible into three parts; schools education, adult education and educational activities linked with the university. Official schools and adult education programmes are relatively recent, but growing, areas of involvement. Seven years ago the garden employed an information and records technician who took on the responsibility of providing some formal contact with visiting groups (Hotine 1997). Now the garden employs two education officers and a member of administration staff to deal with school visits and has plans to build an education centre that will house two classrooms, outdoor work spaces and lunchroom (Parker 2004). The education of adults is treated in two ways. The less formal approach is through the sites interpretation. Nearly all the plants are labelled with Latin name, family, distribution and accession number. These data are supplemented with guidebooks that cover various parts of the garden and topics. Through the university a more formal adult education programme is run that includes horticulture, plant identification and arts and crafts workshops.

Upson reports a recent increase in the use of the garden by the university for teaching purposes. This follows the decline in the teaching of subjects that required plant identification skills that has been occurring in past years.

The garden tries to be actively involved in research projects. When possible the garden’s staff conducts research but in addition to this researchers from Cambridge University, as well as other organisation,

© James Furse-Roberts 76 Botanic Garden Creation & Management Chapter 3 make use of the facilities. The garden has an area reserved for experimental plots but recently these have become less popular as a method of conducting research. In response to this a plant growth room is being built on them to extend the facilities that the garden can offer. Not all the research is plant based. The garden provides a stable habitat, which can be useful for studying the fauna that use it. As a result there are several ongoing projects looking at the birds, bats and aquatic species resident in the garden.

Conservation is not considered one of the roles of the Cambridge Botanic Garden, although it does participate in some conservation activities. The existing collections are not of significant conservation importance as they are not genetic collections. However, a few species that are of conservation importance are managed as genetic collections. There is also collaboration with other organisations on species recovery programmes. The garden also houses a number of NCCPG collections. In addition to this the garden makes its facilities, such as its library, available to visiting guests and participates in information exchange with botanic gardens in other countries as well as. For instance, staff from Cambridge Botanic Garden, working with BGCI, have recently run a training week in Greece and links with Limbe Botanic Garden, Cameroon, led to Cambridge BG paying for a member of the Limbe BG staff to travel to Australia to attend a Botanic Gardens Education Network Conference.

Cambridge University Botanic Garden is funded as follows-

40% Cambridge University 40% Cory Endowment Fund 20% Admissions, sales, rentals etc.

The university funds the gardens for two main reasons. Firstly, as a facility to support thework conducted in the university, either in research or teaching. Secondly, as a ‘shop-front’ for the university, i.e. a means by which the university can present itself to the public. During the 1980s the need for a collection of plants to support the educational role of the university had dwindled as the type of courses being taught had changed. This led to the proposed closure of the garden. Had the garden not been publicly accessible it probably would have been closed.

The Cory endowment fund provides the garden with 40% of its annual revenue and allowsthe employment of additional staff to do work that is not essential to the fulfilment of roles associated with the university. Without this, or a similar revenue stream, Cambridge BG would be struggling to remain operational.

Although visitors have been coming to the garden since it opened in 1846 the way they are viewed has recently changed. The garden’s staff used to just label the plants and open the gates with little further concern for who used the garden, for what and when. Now however, partly out of the necessity of revenue generation but also because public education has become a more important role, the staff has a greater interest in visitor numbers, demographics and efficiency of conveying the gardens messages.

The garden does not have a specific marketing department although a development officer is employed who raises funds and does some marketing. Cambridge BG sees itself as being in competition with other gardens in the area, especially Anglesey Abbey Garden, a local National Trust property. This garden recently developed a winter walk that was proving popular. The interest in this prompted Cambridge BG to raise public awareness of the winter border that they have had for twenty-five years. To do this a leaflet was developed that informed visitors of the contents of the border as well as other areas of the garden that were of interest at that time of year. The garden already had some areas of snowdrops (Galanthus ssp.) but these have been expanded to add interest.

Summary The University of Cambridge Botanic Garden is a rare example of where the partial development of acquired land has allowed for expansion of the garden at a later date. Had only the land for which there was money on which to develop a garden in 1831 been bought, or the additional land used for building on, one hundred years later the garden would have found itself penned in by the expansion of the city in the intervening years. One of the main factors that allowed this expansion was the Cory fund bequest without which the existence of the garden today would be doubtful.

3.3.3 The Harris Garden, University of Reading, Berkshire

Date Founded 1972 Size: 5-hectares (12-acres) Annual Budget: £6,300 (excluding staff costs) Number of Species: Unknown Number of Visitors: Restricted access to the public

At present the University of Reading has three campuses. The Whiteknights campus, acquired by the University in 1947, was once the site of a country estate that in the 1860s was split into six smaller estates each with a large house (University of Reading Website 2004). In 1970, the Plant Science building was built in an area that was originally the grounds of house known as ‘The Wilderness’. An area of paddock adjacent to the Plant Science building was divided up into an area for a botanical garden and an area for experimental plots; by this time the gardens of the original house had disappeared although some mature trees and a walled garden still remain. In 1989 the Department of Horticulture was relocated into the Plant Science building bringing with it the staff that had maintained a garden at its original location. These staff took over the running of the botanic garden. The botanic garden was re-named the Harris Garden in memorial to Prof. Tom Harris, a palaeo-botanist at Reading.

The Harris garden is only open to the public on occasional open-days. At other times access is restricted to staff and students of the university and the Friends of the Harris Garden. The Friends group was set up in 1990 and consists of approximately 200 members form the local community with an interest in the garden. Friends groups require a financial input to run, for example members of the university staff write and edit the Harrisiana, the garden’s newsletter, and arrange event programmes. From a purely financial point of view, there is a point beyond which a Friends group will start to generate revenue. Although in addition to this the good will that is generated by such a scheme may be valued at more than the cost of subsidising a group that does not break even.

The way the Harris Garden was established means that, in theory at least, it operates separately to the glasshouse facility that services the Plant Sciences’ research and education at Reading, although in practice there is cooperation between the two units. Two people, whose salaries are paid from the Universities central funds, staff the Harris Garden. The budget provided by the university to run the garden is small and covers the basic maintenance. Money raised by the Friends group supplements this, allowing the development of additional features such as the crab-apple (Malus sylvestris cvs) and cherry (Prunus spp.) collections as well as non-plant items such as a pond liner.

The small budget, lack of a curator and the presence of a number of stakeholders all with changing requirements of the garden, means that no collection policy has been written. The garden is used on an ad-hoc basis for a number of uses, for example, as a supply of plant material for plant identification and research, ecological work such as beetle trapping, as a location for practical work for horticultural students as well as for landscape design demonstrations and as an amenity space for staff. According to Bisgrove (2004 pers. comm.) the Harris Garden does not function as a true botanic garden although it is considered to be a botanic garden by other botanic gardens. For example, it is included on the Index Seminum but due to staff pressures no seed collection happens at the moment.

Although at the moment there is good will towards the garden, its future, especially with no clearly defined role, is not secure. It is unlikely that the garden will be built on in the foreseeable future. One factor that prevents this is the fact that the Whiteknights campus straddles two district councils. Wokingham District Council, in which the Harris Garden is located, is very tight on planning while Reading District Council is more lenient, thus any future development is likely to occur on the Reading

© James Furse-Roberts 79 Botanic Garden Creation & Management Chapter 3 side. However, the garden could be integrated into the rest of the campus and be maintained in the same fashion i.e. not as a botanical collection.

Only a small percentage of the Harris Garden collection is accessioned (approximately 5%) and it does not hold species of great conservation importance. The University of Reading does hold some very rare plant species but these are kept in the glasshouses, which are not viewed as being part of the Harris Garden.

In the past the lack of a clear purpose and direction has allowed fluid changes in the use of the garden and its collection, which may have allowed for its survival till now. However, Bisgrove believes that the elements that exist, such as the Friends group, the various stakeholders within the university, and the collection, need to be brought together with a more structured approach that would allow the collection to be more productive.

Summary Compared with the university botanic gardens at Oxford and Cambridge, the Harris Garden is a relatively new botanic garden. Although staff and students at Reading appreciate the garden, it is not thriving as a botanic garden. The reasons for this are twofold, firstly, at present the garden does not have a clearly defined role that is understood and accepted by everyone. Without this it is difficult to persuade the university’s budget allocators that increased investment in the garden is needed. Linked to this issue of funding is the second reason. The location of the garden, and in particular the already high demand for the existing parking, means that opening the garden to the public, so as to generate an income, is not feasible.

3.3.4 University of Bristol Botanic Garden, Bristol

Date Founded 1882 (Delany & Winn 2002) Size: 2-hectares (5-acres) Annual Budget: £140,000 Number of Species: 4,500 Number of Visitors: 10,000

Published in 2002, ‘How did this garden grow?’ by Rosalind Delany and Gillian Winn, tells the history of the University of Bristol Botanic Garden. In this the authors recount the turbulent past of the garden and chart its relocation to four different sites. The book finishes with the authors emphasising that the garden “…is a cultural resource that deserves to be cherished and preserved.” However, in July of the year of the books publication it was announced that the garden would be moving yet again (Bristol BG Website 2002).

The description given below, of the events surrounding the relocation of the garden on the various occasions, unless stated otherwise, is based on the history of the garden as given by Delany & Winn (2002). Figure 3.4 illustrates the use of the different gardens by the university.

2nd Hiatt 1st Baker/ 3rd 4th 5th Botanic Field Failand Bracken Botanic Garden Garden House Hill Garden 1878 1882 1888 1898 1908 1917 1928 1935 1938 1948 1958 1959 1968 1978 1988 1998 2004 2005 2008 ??

= In Use = Owned/Partial Use Figure 3.4 - Timeline showing the use of different gardens by Bristol University

The University of Bristol began as the Bristol University College in 1876. Despite not becoming fully independent until 1909, the university started to create its first botanic garden in 1882. Adolph Leipner, the university’s lecturer in botany, took charge of the project and with £15 from the university 1 and £74 15s 4 /2d raised from elsewhere, he purchased 509 plants and 247 packets of seeds to be planted in a triangular plot near the department of biology, which had been provided by the university. By 1890 contemporary accounts suggest that the garden was well established and in regular use by the students. In 1894 Leipner died and a year later a laboratory was built in the garden as a memorial. For the next fifteen years a high turnover of staff meant that there was little alteration to the garden. Dr. Darbishire was appointed head of the botany department in 1911 and put into action a series of changes among which was the building of an ecology garden, to aid the teaching of the ladies’ classes, which the university had taken over from the Day Training College. A laboratory greenhouse was built in 1912 and in the same year the public were admitted for the first time, albeit for only four hours a week. It was also under Darbishire’s reign that the first seed lists were produced.

In 1917 the University received a donation of land from Henry Herbert Wills. Included in this donation was a field, 0.24-hectare (3/5-acre) in size, opposite the existing botanic garden that Wills wanted to see developed as a second botanic garden. This became known as the field garden.

In 1935 Professor Skene took over the running of the botanic garden, submitted proposals for alterations and in 1938 the garden was renamed the Hiatt Baker Botanic Garden in honour of one of the university’s benefactors. However, between 1939-53 the University extended its buildings into the garden, which resulted in the garden being gradually transferred to the field garden across the road. By 1959 the transfer was finalised with the demolition of the final garden buildings and the creation of a car park on the site.

In 1930 another benefactor donated a property, Failand House, for use as a botanic garden. The garden was used for eight years but then it was decided that the best use of the property was to sell it to raise funds for an herbarium. The university retained a field and the use of a collection of fields for a further fifty years.

In 1959, at the same time as the site of the first botanic garden was being turned in to a car park, the site of the second (the Hiatt Baker botanic garden) was also being surrendered to allow for more university buildings to be erected. Luckily, several years earlier, in 1946, the university had acquired a house and garden called Bracken Hill. Between 1946 and 1959 the garden had not been developed but with the aid of £1,200 and a Bedford van the Hiatt Baker garden was relocated to this site. Since 1978 Bracken Hill has remained the only site of Bristol University’s botanic garden but in 2002 it was announced that the Bracken Hill site was needed for building and that the botanic garden would need to be moved. When this has happened in the past the university has already been in possession of suitable sites and there was invariably a gradual move from one to the other. However, this time a suitable plot is not already owned and, as can be seen by the extract below, the relocation time is very short.

“There is a lot of angst about this move. The University has not been overly helpful and it seems more interested in selling the existing plot to help its finances than splash money on an exciting new garden. However, they do acknowledge that the Uni needs a teaching garden and the new one is being designed as such. The Committees have dragged their feet on making a decision and the poor staff had had a really rough time. Also, the time constraints are becoming more and more difficult- they want us out by Spring 2005 but are not getting on with planning permission for the new site - the move has to start this autumn otherwise it just won’t work.” (Badley 2004 pers. comm.) © James Furse-Roberts 82 Botanic Garden Creation & Management Chapter 3

The opportunity to start again, if accompanied by a suitable level of funding, can allow the garden to address its present needs and remove aspects that are no longer relevant. However, some plants, such as trees, cannot be moved and as a result would be lost. The female ginkgo tree (Ginkgo biloba) planted in the first Bristol University Botanic Garden is a good example of this: only recently has it matured enough to fruit but the botanic garden has moved and now this specimen grows in a car park.

Summary When a botanic garden is reliant on a parent organisation to support it financially it will always have to demonstrate its relevance to that organisation to ensure continuation of its funding. If the use of a botanic garden is seen as being a luxury rather than a core requirement of the running of the parent company it will also be amongst the first things to be considered when financial cutbacks are required. The University of Bristol Botanic Garden has repeatedly found itself being moved in order to make way for the expansion of the university and this has resulted in the loss of specimens and a disjointed distribution of those trees that have remained in-situ.

3.4 Botanical Collections

3.4.1 National Wildflower Centre, Liverpool

Date Founded 2000 Size: 14.5 Hectares Annual Budget: £200,000 Number of Species: 200 Number of Visitors: 25,000

The following account is based on the returned questionnaire from the botanical collections survey and an interview with the Chief Executive of the National Wildflower Centre, Grant Luscombe, in October 2004. Where other sources have been used the relevant references are included in the text.

In 1975 Landlife was set-up as a charity with the aim of providing creative conservation for people. Initial this was done by sowing wild flowers in gap sites around Liverpool, pieces of land between existing buildings available for short periods before being developed. Using the skills developed from these sites, Landlife began advising other organisations on habitat creation and set up a commercial company (Landlife Wildflowers Ltd) to grow and sell seed in bulk of approximately 50 common species for use in habitat creation projects. For the new millennium Landlife set up a new charity, and with the help of Millennium Commission funding, the National Wildflower Centre (NWC) was established “…to promote the creation of new wildflower landscapes for people to enjoy and where wildlife can flourish and develop. By educating the public in creative conservation, town and country can be given a helping hand to bring wildlife back into peoples’ lives.” (NWC Website 2004). In addition to this the centre also aims to promote discussion about issues of habitat creation, such as provenance and best practice. All three aspects of this organisation (Landlife, the NWC and Landlife Wildflowers Ltd) share the same site located on 14.5-hectares (36-acres) of Court Hey Park, Liverpool, leased from the local borough council. On this are a café, offices, nursery, seed storage and conference facilities, as well as the various public display areas. The centre is closed for six months of the year between 30th September and 1st April because there is not enough flowering to interest the public, although the café does stay open during this period. To extend the amount of time visitors are able to see plants a conscious effort has been made to include plantings that extend either end of the season.

Due to the links with Landlife and Landlife Wildflowers Ltd the finance for the NWC are not particularly clear. However, using figures from various sources, including the data returned from the botanical collection survey (see chapter 2) it could be established that the NWC has an annual turnover of between £150,000 (Charity Commission Website 2004) and £200,000 (botanical collections survey). Of this, between £63,000 and £84,000 (42%) comes from product sales and between £48,000 to £64,000 (32%) from event hosting (botanical collections survey). The centre receives 25,000 visitors a year and charges £3.00 for adults and £1.50 for children (NWC Website 2004). Therefore admissions probably account for the majority of the remaining £39,000 to £52,000.

Both during the interview and on the botanical collection survey form Luscombe made the point of stating that the NWC was not a botanical collection. With regard one of the primary characteristics discussed in chapter one, that of maintaining plant records, the NWC does not conform to the common understanding of what a botanic garden should do. However, when the roles of the organisation are examined an argument could be made that it reflects many of the activities of collections found in groups A and B of Figure 2.1, especially when the plant supply services of the commercial company are included.

The reason for the NWC not accessioning its plants does not stem from a lack of expertise or awareness. Instead Luscombe does not see a need for maintaining records of the provenance of their plants as it has little bearing on their approach to conservation. Luscombe believes that most of the land in Britain has been manipulated by man and that a large amount is species poor (Luscombe 2004 pers. comm.). Plant movement is so great in Britain that the concept of regional provenance is redundant, with the exception of some species for which genetic differences may be found within populations separated by metres rather than counties (Luscombe 2004 pers. comm.). He also believes that the climate change expected over the next couple of decades will increase the speed of plant migration. These assertions form the basis of the NWC, and Landlife’s, approach to habitat creation. Rather than trying to create complex habitats that match those given in Rodwell’s National Vegetation Classification scheme (Rodwell 1991a, 1991b, 1993, 1995 & 2000) the NWC and Plantlife create basic swards using a set of common plants supplemented with those common to the area. This initial sowing provides visual interest and a starting point from which natural processes will result in further biodiversification suitable for that precise location. For example, Luscumbe cites examples of areas, originally sown with a mix consisting of 18 species, which eight years later have in excess of 80 species of plant on them. It can be seen that with this approach the need to maintain plant records does not exist.

The NWC does not have a research programme or employ dedicated research staff. However,in conjunction with Landlife it has developed new techniques for habitat creation, which it has published. The facilities at the NWC are used for the discussion and dissemination of ideas through conferences and workshops that have been attended by approximately 2,000 people since opening. External bodies such as universities have also conducted more formal research.

There is a strong social element included in the way the NWC operates. According to Luscombe, one of the aims of the centre is to provide visitors with an emotional experience involving plants as a way of allowing them to reconnect with the natural world. In their book ‘Wildflowers Work: A guide to creating and managing wildflower landscapes’, Luscombe and Scott (2004) state that “conservation can have little meaning if it does not affect our everyday lives and is confined to sites of strictly scientific interest”. This approach is included within the eight-step plan to conservation in which the first step is to include the public in the design and location of the site and the eighth is a specific instruction to enjoy the plants when they grow (Luscombe and Scott 2004).

As with the Eden Project (see chapter 6), the NWC has been using art as a means of helping people relate to the natural world. This is done both through the instillation of art around the site as well as hosting workshops to teach art and running competitions such as the nature photography competition, the results of which were on display in the centre in October 2004.

Summary The National Wildflower Centre has evolved as a direct response to the needs of Landlife and has done so in such a way that it has not tried to emulate existing botanical collections. The result is a hybrid between botanical garden, nature reserve and visitor centre. The main characteristic that distinguishes the NWC from a botanic garden sensu stricto is the absence of plant accessioning. However, this is conscious decision based on an assessment that it is not required rather than an unawareness of the practise and benefits of accessioning. The NWC, as the only example of a botanical collection dedicated solely to displaying the British flora, highlights that during the winter months there is little to attract the public to the garden. This is an issue that would need to be addressed if a similar organisation were to be established without the support of a parent organisation.

3.4.2 National Council for the Conservation of Plants and Gardens (NCCPG)

Date Founded 1978 Size: Unknown Annual Budget: £? Number of Species: Total Not Available Number of Visitors: Unknown

The National Council for the Conservation of Plants and Gardens (NCCPG) was founded following a conference in 1978 that was hosted to address the problem of preventing a loss of garden cultivars (Donald 2003). The NCCPG consists of a national office, which is manned by eight paid staff, and a membership totalling approximately 6,000. The organisation itself does not own or look after any living collections. Instead, it offers a framework that supports collections kept and owned by its members. In total there are 630 collections held by its members; most of which are genera based with a collection member concentrating on developing a complete collection of species/cultivars for that genus. Where the genera are to large for this to be feasible then the genera are split so for instance one collection may concentrate on bearded cultivars of Iris while another will cover the spuriae series. Management of such a large number of collections dispersed throughout the country by such a small paid staff has been achieved by dividing the country into five regions each containing a number of areas. Each area, of which there are 40 in total, has an NCCPG member who acts as co-ordinator and they in turn are managed by a regional co-ordinator. This tiered hierarchy means that much of the day-to-day administration is done by the co-ordinators, leaving staff free to concentrate on the overall management of the organisation. This includes ensuring that the quality of existing collections is maintained, helping to re-house collections and assessing collections that are applying to join the scheme. On average there are between 80-100 applications being processed, each one taking about a year to go through the process.

The organisation acts as a network, through which collection holders can discuss problems they have encountered, and assists the members in disseminating their research through a number of media, including the publishing of monographs and guides to genera. The NCCPG requests that each collection holder returns an annual report detailing plants added to their collections in the last year, plants lost, desired plants, recent developments and setbacks, a list of people who have used the collection for research and a list of any publications by the collection holder. In addition to the yearly reports the collection holders are meant to submit a full plant list at least once every five years. However, according to Ros Johnson (NCCPG Plant Conservation Officer), there is only a 50% return rate for annual reports at the moment and plant lists that are submitted in paper form are kept but there is not enough staff to analyse their contents ( Johnson 2004 pers. comm.). This means that ultimately the NCCPG is in the same position of being unable to give a definitive answer as to if a species is held and, if so, where. To help rectify this situation the NCCPG has been developing a database software program called Demeter.

The aim of the Demeter project is to produce a single piece of software that allows the various types of collection holder to record and update information about their collections. This would have the twofold effect of prompting collection holders to submit comprehensive details for each accession and allowing full species lists to be submitted more frequently to the national office and in a common format that was easily interpretable. Johnson pointed out that because the collection holders were volunteers, giving their own time and money to manage the collections, the NCCPG has to be diplomatic when trying to persuade them to operate at a certain level of quality or to submit information about their collections. She explains that they must feel that they are still in charge of the collection and to this

© James Furse-Roberts 86 Botanic Garden Creation & Management Chapter 3 effect they will be allowed to withhold data from the NCCPG if they wish. The collection holders will be able to use Demeter to make access to their records available over the internet, but the NCCPG has no plans to allow its own centralised database to be accessible in the same way because, as Johnson explained, it is not their information to be making available ( Johnson 2004 pers. comm.).

Summary The collections coordinated by the National Council for the Conservation of Plants and Gardens are an interesting example of how meta-collections dispersed throughout the country can be coordinated to create a collection equivalent to a conventional botanic garden. For this to work well there is a necessity for good communication with the individual collections. The implementation of the Demter software will increase the efficiency of communication and thus increase its scientific value

3.5 Summary The purpose of this chapter was to review ten botanical collections and assess whether their history and methods of funding affect their characters and roles. A comparison of the summaries of each case study illustrate that botanical collections are unique organisations that are shaped by series of decisions and happenstance over numerous years. However, some common themes can be observed.

The ten botanical collections reviewed in this chapter are of varying sizes and, with perhaps the exception of the National Botanic Garden of Wales, have all developed funding and management strategies that compliment each other, that is to say they generate enough income to cover the cost of their activities or have tailored their activities to match the funding available. There does not appear to be an optimum size for botanic gardens.

Outgrowing their existing gardens is a common problem encountered by the gardens reviewed. There are three ways gardens can respond to this. The first option is to remain at its existing size as the Chelsea Physic Garden has done. The second option is to move the whole garden to a larger site. While this option has the advantage of keeping the collections in one location and providing the opportunity to design the garden from scratch it will, as has been demonstrated by Bristol Botanic Garden, invariably result in the loss of mature specimens. The third option, best demonstrated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh, is to acquire satellite gardens. This has a number of advantages, by choosing a location that differs climatically or in soil type a wider range of plants can be grown. The physical separation of the collections is likely to reduce the impact of loss through natural disasters, as they are unlikely to occur in the same place. It also increases the number of people who are likely to visit, thus providing a wider audience for the organisations message. However the best tactic, if it can be afforded, is to initially purchase an excess of land so the garden can be extended without calling on the options described above. This was most notably achieved by the Cambridge University Botanic Garden.

Over the timescale in which botanic gardens are envisaged to last, it is inevitable that they will experience periods of financial difficulty and neglect. As has been demonstrated by the Chelsea Physic Gardens charter, the chance of surviving these episodes will be greatly increased if the garden has prepared in advance for it. The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and the Harris Garden, Reading, both illustrate how the lack of an interpretation or collection policy can slow or prevent progress in the gardens development.

One of the major influences of the development of botanical collections is funding. In many of the cases studied the reasons for the present funding mechanisms are, in part, serendipitous. For example, Kew’s vast annual grants from the government have come about because it was originally a royal garden and, through a series of decisions, the government took over its running and differentiated it from other parks under its care. Where the botanical collection is a self-contained financial entity its continuing survival is based on its ability to raise sufficient funds to match its expenditures. However, where a collection is reliant on a parent organisation for all or part of its funding there is a different dynamic. The collection must continually demonstrate a worth to that organisation in order to continue receiving its support and financial pressures on the parent organisation can become a threat to the collection.

For some time, botanic gardens such as those at Oxford and Cambridge have adapted their designs to facilitate the recreation of their visitors. However, as Pine & Gilmore (1998) explain, we are now entering an ‘Experience Economy’ where customers are paying for the experience of eating a hamburger in a themed restaurant rather than the hamburger itself. When this is applied to botanic gardens, it can be noted that where once the provision of fountains and a few benches sufficed now visitors are expecting more and are comparing a visit to a botanic garden with a visit to a theme park. As the NBGW has found to its cost, gardens must now be actively marketed and must provide what the visitor expects in a way that is in-line with the messages they wish to convey. This is something that British museums appear to have been aware of for sometime but which British botanic gardens are only now taking on-board. The National Wildflower Centre is a good example of the seasonal nature of visits to botanic gardens. Thought needs to be given to finding ways of extending these seasons.

This chapter has alluded to the complex set of activities that comprise botanical collections. Chapter 4 will attempt to examine these individually.