01579 372140 info@wrt.org.uk

Amenity Areas/Lawn

Amenity grassland is usually intensively managed, closely mown grassland found in parks, sports grounds, village greens or around buildings. It provides a permeable surface and so enables source control and infiltration. Vegetation can filter and trap sediments, which means it can contribute to improving the water quality.

For an overview of the references and further information, see here: Tree Intervention References

 


Access

Amenity lawns come in all shapes and sizes, but they are almost always accessible and provide patches of green in the urban landscape. They can very easily be used for recreational activities.

Air Quality

Vegetation can be able to trap pollutants and dust, but closely mown lawns are unlikely to contribute too much – rough grassland areas are more likely to have an impact.

Pluvial Flooding

A reduction of up to 99% of runoff compared to asphalt is possible, reducing peak flows and flow volume.

However, this may be compromised by high footfall on the area and subsequent compaction as well as soil type. Shrubs and trees can increase performance by improving soil structure.

Fluvial Flooding

Strategically placed open green spaces can act as storage for fluvial flooding

Climate Regulation

Surface temperatures of grassed areas can be 25 degrees lower than asphalt, with an effect on air temperature and so the UHI effect – depending on the size. Additionally, carbon can be sequestered (in plants and soil), but management activities are likely to offset the net carbon benefits.

Habitat Provision

Invertebrates can find habitat in highly managed grassed areas, for other animals (e.g. birds) it is likely the area would have to be less managed (e.g. transformed into rough grassland). Combined with structurally more diverse GI (for example within a golf course or park), it can provide significant benefits.

?

Low Flows

The permeable soil allows infiltration and can so promote groundwater recharge.

U

Water Quality

Sediment and pollutants can be trapped and to an extent degraded in the soil. However, fertilisation and pesticide application can impact water quality negatively – depends on type of management.

Aesthetics

Greenspace can improve the visual quality of urban areas. It is very versatile, but a less interesting feature than other interventions.

Cultural Activities

Potentially important part of cultural spaces, e.g. village greens. Allows cultural activities like picnicking, playing golf, etc. Depends on size and accessibility, although even the view of lawns plays a part in cultural identity and place making.

Property Values

Lawn areas on properties have been shown to add value to properties, but only when well maintained. Lawn in public spaces can also increase rental prices in a neighbourhood.

Flood Damage

Taking up water from their own area and surrounding areas can help reduce the risk of flooding and the extent of flooding on a larger scale.


Considering the Bigger Picture

On the left, you can find an example of how different interventions can be incorporated into the urban landscape. Amenity areas are present along roadsides, under trees, in public open spaces and as recreation grounds.

Grassed areas intercept runoff and allow infiltration while also slowing flows down. Impermeability of urban areas is one of the main factors in exacerbating surface water flooding. The cumulative effect of vegetated areas (which can also include green roofs or, where hard surfaces are necessary, permeable paving) in infiltrating runoff can mitigate this, although it has to be taken into account that waterlogged soils will effectively be impermeable.

 

 

Designing amenity areas with surface water in mind can help maximise the benefits. Slightly depressed areas can provide attenuation and collect runoff from additional areas (in effect working similar to detention basins or swales) and keeping open, vegetated areas alongside rivers provides a space to safely attenuate floods.

If the amount of rainfall exceeds the amount that can be taken up by the soil, these areas become waterlogged and therefore effectively impermeable. Combining amenity areas with other structures that either improve their soil structure – for example planting trees – or collect and convey water – like swales, detention basins or retention ponds – is necessary to provide comprehensive management of runoff.

In the picture above, you can see where some of these measures have been taken: there are swales alongside the playing field, leading water into a wetland, and ponds and trees are incorporated into open spaces.

Costs

 

£££

Cost: Grass seed mixture costs: 0.07£/m2 – 0.6£/m2 (Low).

Factors: Instalment of a new lawn may include stripping down old one. Options for establishing new grass area are natural colonisation (minimal cost), grass seed mixtures and turf.

 

 

Feasibility

 

Context:Suitable in all areas, any size, as long as soil infiltration rates are sufficiently high. If high footfall is expected or vehicular access necessary, soil can be structurally strengthened (increasing cost). Infiltration rates depend on soil type and intensity of use. High groundwater levels can slow infiltration down.

To be effective, a fairly high land take is necessary, protection/restoration might therefore be prefereable over new establishment of these types of green spaces where housing density is high.

 

 

Maintenance

 

Costs:  1,600-2,200£/ha/a (0.02-0.22£/m2/a).

 

Typical maintenance activities: Depends on how it is maintained (hand/gang mown, frequency). Mowing, intensity depends on aesthetic requirements. However, maintenance costs likely to increase proportionally with smaller size.

 

 

Additional Benefits

 

 

Trade-offs and Potential Dis-services

(Mental) Health

Closely mown grasses have the benefit of less risk of triggering allergies. The proximity of greenspace is beneficial on mental and physical health, improving social wellbeing and saving health related costs. Grass areas are main predictors for the potential of a greenspace to have restorative effects (with size of a greenspace being the most important factor), providing stress relief and an “escape”.

Multifunctionality

Highly multifunctional area that can easily be enhanced by other SuDS/GI and does not have any safety concerns that may come with water bodies.

U

Water Quality

Poor maintenance may lead to erosion, litter. Dog fouling may become a problem. This can lead to a decrease in the visual quality and also impact the watercourses the area might drain to. Erosion and sediment input can lead to clogging, decreasing the infiltration rate and so decreasing the ability of the area to eliminate runoff. Fertilisation and pesticide use can have negative effects on water quality, care has to be taken to ensure a management and maintenance regime that avoids these impacts.

Climate Regulation

In dry periods, or even as a natural development, plants may wilt and dry. This can be perceived as ugly, unhealthy or even a fire hazard (depending on the length of grass). Irrigation to counteract this can decrease the ability to infiltrate water, but increases the cooling potential of the area. However, it means a greater demand on water use and energy.

This could to an extent be mitigated by rainwater harvesting on site.

y

Noise Reduction

Soft lawns can decrease noise by 3db, providing mental and physical health benefits and so improved wellbeing.

Antisocial Behaviour

Poor maintenance and design can encourage anti-social behaviour and so have a negative impact on the surrounding areas.

Case Studies

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

References:

  1. (2014). Demonstrating the multiple benefits of SuDS – a business case.
  2. Woods Ballard, B., Wilson, S., Udale-Clarke, H., Illman, S., Ahsley, R., Kellagher, R. (2015): The Suds Manual. London: CIRIA.
  3. Armson, D., Stringer, P. and Ennos, A. R. (2013) ‘The effect of street trees and amenity grass on urban surface water runoff in Manchester, UK’, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(3), pp. 282–286.
  4. Beard, James B, and Robert L. Green. (1994) “The Role of Turfgrasses in Environmental Protection and Their Benefits to Humans.” Journal of Environment Quality 23 (3). American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America: 452.
  5. Bolund, Per, and Sven Hunhammar. (1999) “Ecosystem Services in Urban Areas.” Ecological Economics 29 (2): 293–301.
  6. Chamberlain, D.E., S. Gough, H. Vaughan, J.A. Vickery, and G.F. Appleton. (2007) “Determinants of Bird Species Richness in Public Green Spaces: Capsule Bird Species Richness Showed Consistent Positive Correlations with Site Area and Rough Grass.” Bird Study 54 (1). Taylor & Francis Group: 87–97.
  7. Davis, A. P., Shokouhian, M., Sharma, H. and Minami, C. (2001) ‘Laboratory study of biological retention for urban stormwater management.’, Water environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation, 73(1), pp. 5–14.
  8. Gill, S.E., M.A. Rahman, J.F. Handley, and A.R. Ennos. (2013) “Modelling Water Stress to Urban Amenity Grass in Manchester UK under Climate Change and Its Potential Impacts in Reducing Urban Cooling.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12 (3): 350–58.
  9. Lamond, Jessica E., Carly B. Rose, and Colin A. Booth. (2015) “Evidence for Improved Urban Flood Resilience by Sustainable Drainage Retrofit.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Urban Design and Planning, September. Thomas Telford Ltd.
  10. Nordh, H., Hartig, T., Hagerhall, C. M. and Fry, G. (2009) ‘Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration’, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8(4), pp. 225–235.
  11. Saphores, Jean-Daniel, and Wei Li. (2012) “Estimating the Value of Urban Green Areas: A Hedonic Pricing Analysis of the Single Family Housing Market in Los Angeles, CA.” Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (3-4): 373–87.
  12. Yang, Jin-Ling, and Gan-Lin Zhang. (2011) “Water Infiltration in Urban Soils and Its Effects on the Quantity and Quality of Runoff.” Journal of Soils and Sediments 11 (5): 751–61.
  13. http://www.newport.gov.uk/en/Leisure-Tourism/Countryside–Parks/Wildlife-walks/Amenity-grassland.aspx
  14. Susdrain (2016): http://www.susdrain.org/delivering-suds/using-suds/suds-components/source-control/other-permeable-surfaces/index.html
  15. Forestry Commission (2016): http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/urgc-7edjsm
  16. Costs: http://www.thegrassseedstore.co.uk/environmental/grass-only-meadow/native-meadowgrass.html, http://www.rolawn.co.uk/turf/rolawn-medallion-turf?gclid=CNvH5f7OrssCFQcUGwod3v4L-A#tabDescription, http://www.turfonline.co.uk/
  17. The Woodland Trust (2011) Trees orTurf ?
  18. Armson, D., Stringer, P. and Ennos, A. R. (2012) ‘The effect of tree shade and grass on surface and globe temperatures in an urban area’, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(3), pp. 245–255.