Social, environmental, economic and health benefits of botanic gardens Aldous

Social, environmental, economic and health benefits of botanic

gardens
David E. Aldous

Faculty of Land and Food Resources, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Introduction

By 2015 in excess of 80% of the North American, European and Australasian populations will be living in
urban areas (State of the Worlds Cities 2006-7). Within this framework of a structure we call a ‘city’” there
is going to be an increased demand for energy sources and greater use made on our non-renewable natural
resources (Hirano 1999). These population pressures, in association with the significant issues associated
with climate change start to raise concerns, not only for our biological systems and the broader natural
environment, but how these conditions will impact on our quality of life. Some scenarios may include the
continued degradation of our natural systems, a loss in function of these natural green spaces and
ecosystems, and in other cases a loss of biodiversity and possible extinction of plant and animal species. The
major threats to human health and wellbeing could include poor nutrition and disease in the less developed
countries and in the case of the more highly developed countries increasing obesity, declining physical
activity, and growing rates of mental illness. Theorists, such as Wilson (1984) have shown that “humans are
dependent on nature – not just for their material needs but also for their psychological, emotional and
spiritual needs”. Research now shows the psychological, physiological, economical, social and health
benefits of humans coming in contact with the natural environment (Pretty and Ward 2001). Parks, public
nature reserves and other green spaces are often the only possible sources of connecting with the natural
world (Maller et al.. 2002; 2006).

For a botanic garden to be sustainable and to make best use of the benefits that natural green space provides,
managers are now beginning to understand that their agency is linked to their social, environmental and
financial performance in the market place. The objective of this paper is to discuss a range of benefits
offered by nature and the natural green space of botanic gardens and how these benefits can be sustained in
terms of triple bottom-line reporting.

Functions of botanic gardens

Today much of the natural environment in and around our urban and peri-urban areas is considered as part of
the “green web of society” (Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Space Trust 2005). These green spaces take on
many forms that can range from transport corridors, drainage areas and wetlands, to urban forests through to
the more formal sport and recreation facilities of parks and reserves and botanic gardens. More specifically
botanic gardens see themselves as sources of “growing plants for public enjoyment, scientific, horticultural,
conservation, or educational purposes, and have a local, national or international role (Botanic Gardens
Australia and New Zealand Inc. (http://www.anbg.gov.au/chabg/constitution/index.html). Willis (2005) sees
botanic gardens as “providing professional skills in horticulture and tourism and supporting national,
regional and international networks for the conservation, sustainable use and appreciation of native and
naturalized flora”.

Benefits of botanic gardens

The green spaces associated with botanical gardens are often seen as providing “health, employment,
education, recreation, aesthetic and landscape benefits, as well as building civic pride and community spirit,
and reducing crime” (The Green Cities, Sustainable Cities Conference 2003). More specifically botanic
gardens are seen as protectors and conservers of plants and biodiversity, educators of the environment,
providing for sources of economic business opportunities and tourism destinations, and providing programs
and service that impact on the social and cultural health of the community.

3rd Global Botanic Gardens Congress 1

Adlous Social, environmental, economic and health benefits of botanic gardens

Plant conservation and protection of biological diversity

Jorgensen (1986) showed that natural green space provides suitable habitat to conserve wildlife as well as
protect biological diversity. The latter in particular, leads to an appreciation of the natural habitat, to an
improved understanding of the threats and consequences in changing biodiversity, and to the range of
measures that can be taken. Botanic gardens have been shown to play a key role in the conservation of plant
species, their communities and the wider natural and contrived landscapes, raise public awareness on
biodiversity issues, as collectors of living and preserved plants, and advocates in the saving rare or
threatened species of plants, many of which are now rare or threatened in the wild.

Education and environmental awareness

Education and training is a strength of botanic gardens that allows them to communicate the message of plant
conservation, as well as reaching out to diverse audiences on issues of environmental awareness. In many
countries this is often achieved through park wardens, park rangers and educational officers, employed by
the agency, that host a range of walks and talks with local schools and associations to raise awareness and
appreciation of their surrounding environment. Opened in 2004 the Ian Potter Foundation Children's Garden,
is located in Melbourne’s Royal Botanic Gardens and is a major environmental education garden specifically
designed for children with the aim to educate children about plant life through play, discovery and adventure
using a range of key environmental learning themes and outdoor classroom structures.

Environmental benefits
Natural green spaces have been shown to play an important part in counteracting the ‘heat island’ effect in
urban communities by ameliorating climate (Finnigan et al. 1994), improving the hydrological processes
(Carne 1994), absorbing pollutants (Nowak et al. 2002), as well as providing shelter and restoring
biodiversity (Xinian 1999). Stable vegetative surfaces can also provide benefits in controlling soil erosion
and stabilising dust (Fatahi, cited in O’Keefe, 2006), reducing glare, noise and visual pollution, and
improving the safety of transport on roadsides (Beard and Green 1994). The holistic environmental benefits
of green space have been recently quantified by Xinian (1999) for the City of Beijing, P.R. of China. Nearly
2 billion m2 of residential, public, roadside and urban forest “greenland” was found to absorb nearly 4
million tonnes of CO2, and release 3 million tonnes of O2 and 439 million tonnes of water vapour back into
the atmosphere on an annual basis. Natural green space acts not only as a fuel source and sink for
atmospheric carbon, but can assist in reducing global warming, by slowing down the accumulation of
atmosphere carbon (Nowak et al. 2002).

Economic benefits
Although natural green spaces have long contributed to a region’s economy in the form of income (general
entry fees, cafes or restaurants for visitors, merchandise in garden shops, or fee-for-service income for a
range of horticultural or landscaping advice), as well as employment, botanical gardens have been known to
contribute to the region’s economic stability by attracting residents, businesses, partnerships, and tourism
activities. Jenner and Smith, cited in Goodwin (1996), valued the USA ecotourism market at some $US50
billion in 2000. In SE Asia, international garden shows, like the Malaysian International Landscape and
Garden Festival (2006) and the International Garden and Horticulture Exhibition, Pacific Flora (2004)
attracted some 500,000 and 5 million visitors respectively into their respective regions. Closer to home,
turnstile counts recorded 180,000 visits to Canberra’s Floriade 2000 with total direct expenditure being
A$9.6 million (up from A$7.5 million in 1999). The Melbourne International Flower and Garden Show
annually generate in excess $3 million and attract some 122,000 visitors into the City of Melbourne.

Direct economic benefits of natural green space are often associated with energy costs, with natural green
space lowering local air temperatures by transpiring water and shading surfaces, resulting in a reduction in
building energy use and cooling costs. McPherson (1992) estimated that the cost-benefit implications, of a
single Arizona tree plantation, could provide up to $US236.5 million in net environmental benefit over a 40-
year time frame. In addition researchers Bauman and co-workers (2001) and McKenna (2003) have
demonstrated an economic link between the high cost of health and the potential use of natural green space
in reducing these health costs.

2 3rd Global Botanic Gardens Congress

Social, environmental, economic and health benefits of botanic gardens Aldous

Social and cultural health

From the social perceptive, working with/in natural green space is more likely to develop closer friendships
with neighbours (Dunnett and Qasim 2000); provide for a more active lifestyle (Waliczek et al. 2005),
provide for “green exercise” (Pretty et al. 2005), improve worker productivity (Lohr et al. 1996), reduce staff
turnover costs and absenteeism (Wood 2003), and reduce domestic violence and crime (Kuo and Sullivan
2001). However the impact of such green space in preventative health care has only recently been
acknowledged. Recent studies have looked at the human response to plants in relation to health has shown a
more quicker recovery from mental fatigue (Bennett and Swasey 1996), improvements in self-esteem (Smith
and Aldous 1994), the alleviation of stress (Kaplan 1992), reductions in the potential for anger (Ulrich and
Parsons 1992), the number of headaches (Kaplan et al. 1988), and the risk of dementia (Simon et al. 2006),
and well as providing for less time recovering in hospital (Ulrich 1984). Natural green space can embrace
some aspects of community culture. In Melbourne Australia, community activities such as the Australian
Open Tennis Tournament, cricket, and the Australian Grand Prix provide for community cohesion in sports
and recreation. Botanic gardens often have a key involvement in organising and delivering a range of cultural
events from local sports sessions, to summer play activities offering visual arts, music and cinema. More
recently The Royal Botanic Gardens in Melbourne has been involved with the Australian Shakespeare
Company presenting “A Midsummer Night's Dream” over summer out under the stars.

Botanic gardens, sustainability and the triple bottom-line

In terms of the triple-bottom-line the different elements of ‘environmental sustainability’, ‘social

sustainability’ and ‘economic sustainability’ need to be incorporated into a holistic model. Therefore for a
botanic garden to be sustainable, in the medium to long-term, it must be financially secure (economic
performance); it must minimize its negative environmental impacts (environmental performance); and
conform to the communities’ expectations (social performance). Increasing numbers of agencies are now
incorporating these principles and practices as part of the reporting process in their management programs.
Some of the agencies in Australia where the triple bottom-line approach has been adopted are The City of
Melbourne’s parks group (Anon. 2002), and the National Botanical Gardens, in Canberra, Australian Capital
Territory (http://www.environment.gov.au/about/publications/tbl/04-05/pubs/summary-report.pdf). To
sustain such development, botanic gardens, associated municipalities, communities and individuals need to
work together to improve the economic, social and environmental performance of their own triple bottom-
line. The concept of the triple bottom-line reporting process will enable agencies to achieve real and lasting
change which can have a positive impact on the well being and prosperity of their organization.

References

Aldous, D.E. and A.L. Binkley. 2001. The people-plant-park-paradigm. In: Proceedings of the International
Federation of Park and Recreation Administration, Cape Town, South Africa.

Anon, 2002. Growing Green-an environmental management plan for Melbourne’s parks, gardens and
recreational facilities. Draft Paper, The City of Melbourne, June, 31pp.

Beard, J., and R. Green. 1994. The role of turf grasses in environmental protection and their benefits to
humans. Journal of Environmental Quality, 223:542-460.

Bauman, A. E., Schroeder J R., S. E Furber and A. J. Dobson. 2001. The epidemiology of dog walking: an
unmet need for human and canine health. Medical Journal of Australia, 175: 632-634.

Bennett, E., and J. Swasey. 1996. Perceived stress reduction in urban public parks. HortTechnology, 6 (2):
125-128.

Botanic Gardens Australia and New Zealand Inc. (http://www.anbg.gov.au/chabg/constitution/index.html)

(cited January 2007).

Carne, J. 1994. Urban vegetation: ecological and social value. Proceedings of the 1994 National Greening
Australia Conference, October 4-6, Fremantle, Western Australia, pp. 211-226.

3rd Global Botanic Gardens Congress 3

Adlous Social, environmental, economic and health benefits of botanic gardens

Dunnet, N. and M. Qasim 2000. Perceived benefits to human well being of urban gardens. HortTechnology,
10(1), 40-45.

Finnigan, J., Raupach, M, and H. Cleugh. 1994. The impact of physical environment of the impact of cities.
Proceedings of National Greening Australia Conference, October 4-6, Fremantle, Western Australia,
pp.23-37.

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Space Trust. 2005. http://www.greenspace.org.uk/_greenspace.asp

Goodwin, H. 1996. In pursuit of ecotourism. Biodiversity and Conservation 5: 277-291.

Hirano, K. 1999. Creation of urbanised society emphasizing the environmental and the role of open space.
In: Proc. of IFPRA Asia Pacific Congress, Hangzhou, China, September, pp. 12-16.

Jorgenson, E. 1986. Urban forestry in the rear view mirror. Arboricultural Journal 10(3): 177-190.

Kaplan. R. 1992. The psychological benefits of nearby nature. In: D. Relf (Ed.). The Role of Horticulture in
Human Well-Being and Social Development: A National Symposium. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.

Kuo, F.C. and W.C. Sullivan. 2001. Environment and crime in the inner city: does vegetation reduce crime?
Environment and Behaviour 33(3): 343-267.

Lohr, V., Pearson-Mims, C., and G. Goodwin. 1996. Interior plants may improve worker productivity and
reduced stress in a windowless environment. J. Environ. Hort. 14(2): 97-100, June.

Maller, C., M. Townsend, P. Brown, and L. St Leger. 2002. Healthy Parks Healthy People: The health
benefits of contact with nature in a park context: A review of current literature. Social and Mental Health
Priority Area Occasional Paper Series, Vol. 1. Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, Deakin
University, Burwood, Australia.

Maller, C., M. Townsend, A. Pryor, P. Brown and L. St Leger 2006. Healthy nature healthy people: ‘contact
with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promotion
International, 2006 21(1):45-54.

McPherson, E.G. 1992. Accounting for benefits and costs of urban green space. Landscape and Urban
planning. 22:41-51.

McKenna, T. 2003. Parks-for plants or for people? – How Newcastle develops its park policy with a health
aspect. Proc. of the IFPRA Europe Conference, Stavager, June 16-19, Norway, 8pp.

National Botanical Gardens, Department of the Environment and Heritage.

http://www.environment.gov.au/about/publications/tbl/04-05/pubs/summary-report.pdf (cited January
2007).

Nowak, D.J., J.C. Stevens, S. M. Sisinni, and C. J. Luley 2002. Effects of urban tree management and
species selection on atmospheric carbon oxide. Journal of Arboriculture 28(3): May, pp. 113-122.

O’Keefe, B. 2006. Trees on track to save millions. The Australian newspaper, Higher Education
Supplement, June 14, page 30.

Pretty, J., Peacock. J., Sellens, M., and M. Griffin. 2005. The mental and physical health outcomes of green
exercise. Int. J. Environ. Health. Res. 2005 Oct; 15(5):319-37.

State of the World Cities. 2006/2007. The millennium goals and urban sustainability. 2006/2007. Report of
the UN-Habitat, Vol. 10. No 1.

Scottish Executive 2001. Rethinking Open Space, The Stationery Office, Kit Campbell Associates,
Edinburgh.

4 3rd Global Botanic Gardens Congress

Social, environmental, economic and health benefits of botanic gardens Aldous

Simon, L.A., J. Simons, J. McCalum and Y. Friedlands. 2006. Lifestyle factors and risk of dementia: Dubbo
study of the elderly. Medical Journal of Australia, 184: 2: 68-70.

Smith, D., and D.E. Aldous. 1994. Effect of therapeutic horticulture on the self-concept of the mildly
intellectually disabled student. (Ed. Mark Francis, Patricia Lindsey and Jay Stone Rice). The Healing
Dimensions of People-Plant Relations 12 pp.

The Green Cities, Sustainable Cities 2003. Joburg congress looks at green space, November 18 (2002). http:
www.ruaf.org/events/2002/11south_africa.html

Ulrich, R., and R. Parsons. 1992. Influences of passive experiences with plants on individual well being and
health. In D. Relf (Ed.). The role of horticulture in human well being and social development: a national
symposium. Timber Press, Portland, Ore.

Walicek, T.M., J.M. Zajicek, and R.D. Lineberger 2005. “The influence of gardening activities on consumer
perception of life satisfaction”. HortScience, Vol. 40(5):1360-1365, August.

Willis, C. 2005 National Botanical Gardens: Embassies of South Africa’s Biodiversity and Culture Volume 2
Number 2 - July 2005. (http://www.bgci.org/worldwide/article/0380/)

http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/botanicgardens/pdfs/strat_plan_promotion.pdf

Wilson, E.O. 1984. Biophilia. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Wood, R.A. 2003. Improving the indoor environment for health, well-being and productivity”. Greening
Cities: a new urban ecology, 30th April, Australia Technology Park, Sydney, 11pp.

Xinian, Z. 1999. Quantitative evaluation of environmental benefits of urban greenland in Beijing City.
Proceedings of IFPRA-Asia/Pacific Congress, Hangzhou, China, September, pp. 315-323.

3rd Global Botanic Gardens Congress 5