42 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AOTEAROA
how rural a natural landscape might be . All rural landscapes will display a degree of natural character , but the level of natural character expressed will be inversely related to the degree of human intervention in the landscape .
An as-yet unrealised possibility exists to use archetypical images of rural landscapes as a frame of reference for the assessment of natural character . This could be achieved through the compilation of examples of rural landscape imagery characteristic of each range within a 7-range scale of natural character - a typology of natural character .
In effect , examples of rural landscape imagery could be used as surrogates for assessments according to natural elements , natural patterns and natural processes . To some extent we probably do this subconsciously when undertaking assessments - most of us , I am sure , have mental models of what , in landscape terms , constitutes degrees of natural character across the scale . The challenge is to standardise this approach and validate it through field testing .
5 . If rural character is determined to be relevant to natural character values assessment and evaluation , how does it ‘ stack up ’ against other aspects of natural character values such as biophysical ( natural science ) values – is there a priority ?
This question appears to presume that the answer to the previous question is yes - rural character is relevant to the assessment of natural character . I don ’ t understand this to be the case .
Again , the distinction between values and characteristics is confused , as is the distinction between the descriptive and evaluative phases of assessment .
Natural character is a construct requiring a descriptive , rather than an evaluative approach to assessment . So , on the basis that natural character assessment is a descriptive exercise , what factors are relevant to natural character assessment ? All questions in landscape assessment should begin with a definition - what we assess is totally dependent on how we define the concept that is to be the focus of our investigation .
Consider the following generally accepted definition of natural character ( yes , several variations of this exist ): Natural character is the expression of natural elements , natural patterns and natural processes in the landscape or coastal environment , rated according to the degree of modification through human agency ( management or intervention ).
Taking our lead from this definition , there are three key factors to be considered : the expression of natural elements , natural patterns and natural processes . Each of these is a biophysical aspect of the landscape , but as applied to natural character assessment , they are not biophysical ( or natural science ) values per se , as the question suggests . For the purposes of natural character assessment , they are landscape descriptors . We consider each of these factors with respect to how human agency ( ongoing management or intervention ) has influenced their expression in the landscape or coastal environment . There is nothing else : biophysical characteristics , understood in terms of natural elements , natural patterns and natural processes , is all we need .
Of these three factors , the expression of natural processes can be regarded as having particular relevance in determining when a landscape passes the threshold of natural character to be regarded as a natural landscape for section 6 ( b ) assessment . For the purposes of s6 ( b ) assessments then , we might give greater weight the role of natural processes over that of natural elements and natural patterns in identifying whether a landscape is a natural landscape .
6 . Why do you think the term rural character has gained so much traction in our statutory planning provisions ? Is the commonly understood distinction that landscapes are either ‘ rural ’ or ‘ urban ’ helpful ?
The simplistic categorisation of landscapes as either urban or rural has been muddied as variations of both urban and rural have evolved . While what is urban is relatively unambiguous , notions of what is rural are subject to individual constructions , and thus are diverse and contested . Rural and urban meant more in medieval England than they do today in New Zealand . We need a new , more relevant typology of rural landscapes - a typology sensitive to the very significant differences apparent in differing expressions of rural .
7 . Rural residential and countryside living zones are rural zones and statutory provisions usually require the maintenance of rural character values , despite lots being so small as to be unproductive . Is the maintenance of rural character as defined achievable and if so , what are the sort of attributes that characterise rural residential development that maintain rural character values ? Are they universal or context specific ? When does a rural residential landscape become urban ?
That term ‘ values ’ raising its head again where it oughtn ’ t to be ! The purpose of statutory provisions is to maintain rural characteristics and qualities - presumably because they are valued , but it is not