I've visited a lot of gardens; big, small, manicured and stylised, unkempt and wild, food forest, farm like, permaculture, native. I would enjoy visiting this one, but I don't think the ideas are new. They get replicated and rehashed everywhere. Some people just make more noise about it than others.
They are all specific things that this is not, but it’s still strange that there’s no mention of anything like these methods in the article.
Unlike the ”traditional” (about 200 years old) model of a botanical garden, they have their basis in ecological principles and observation of natural systems. If the goal here is conservation and adaptation to climate change, that’s a much smarter way to go about things than the artificial everything-in-it’s-ordained-place overseen by the head gardener model which is more a reflection of British sensibilities at the height of the Empire than anything found in nature. And the lack of which these elderly nimbys seem to be decrying. It’s hilarious.
Yes and not. Nimbyism here can be justified. Invasive plants spreading out of the garden to private properties should be prevented. Not only will lower the value of everything around, it also will cost millions to the city. We have lots of similar cases and is economical ruin for a small village.
I assume that the man wants to keep the garden and made it a success, and sustainable economically. Good for him, but we need to remember that their good or bad decisions will affect the entire location.
wild gardening, agroforestry, permaculture, etc. Why do people feel the need to rename basic ideas
Anyways it seems very adjacent to theories and criticisms of invasion biology. See:
- Invasion Biology: Critique of a Pseudoscience (academic book)
- The New Wild: Why Invasive Species Will Be Nature's Salvation (popular science book)
- A systematic review of context bias in invasion biology (review, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182502)