documenng living collecons - cornell university living collecons: ... preferably in the country of...

1
Documen)ng living collec)ons: A study of current plant records prac)ces, challenges, and solu)ons for historic gardens Emily Detrick, MPS Hor)culture 2016, Cornell University Methods Results & Discussion Background & Objec)ves References BGCI. Partnerships and collabora)ons for conserva)on. Retrieved September 28, 2014, from hQp://www.bgci.org/resources/ar)cle/0690/ Galbraith, D. & Wyse Jackson, P. Ex Situ Conserva)on on the Interna)onal Stage. The Public Garden: Journal of the American Public Gardens Associa8on. 2004 (3): 12-13, 35-36. Guthe, C. E. 1. (1970). Documen8ng collec8ons: museum registra8on & records ([Rev. ed.].) Nashville: American Associa)on for State and Local History. Hohn, T. C. (2008). Curatorial Prac8ces for Botanical Gardens. Plymouth, UK: Altamira Press. Acknowledgments Support provided by: Douglas Dockery Thomas Fellowship in Garden History and Design (Garden Club of America &Landscape Architecture Founda)on) Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future Academic Technology Center Through a mixed qualita)ve and quan)ta)ve design, this exploratory project followed the induc)ve process of Grounded Theory Methodology to observe, collect data, then code and sort themes describing current plant records prac)ces, challenges, and solu)ons. Filmed interviews were conducted on-site with staff of 10 preserva)on gardens located across the United States in the summer and fall of 2015. Five curatorial experts were also interviewed concerning overarching themes of plant records prac)ces and challenges. Results of interviews informed the design of a na<onal, web-based survey of a purposive sample of preserva)on gardens (n=61). Data was analyzed by cross tabula)ng quan)ta)ve and qualita)ve responses to reveal substan<ve significance, convergence, and divergence of themes in order to develop grounded theory about prac<ce. Criteria for selec<on of gardens Originally private estates that have transi)oned to public gardens Maintain websites expressing mission and informa)on about plant collec)ons Affilia)ons with one or more of the following organiza)ons: American Public Gardens Associa)on, Botanic Garden Conserva)on Interna)onal, The Garden Conservancy, The Trustees of Reserva)ons, or The Na)onal Trust for Historic Preserva)on Addi)onally, as a group, the interviewed gardens were selected to represent: Diverse geo-poli)cal regions across the United States (variety of states, near a range popula)on densi)es (urban to rural), ecosystem types, and climate zones) A range of annual opera)ng budgets, landscape sizes, and years open to the public Diverse collec)on foci (natural areas, rare plants, regional na)ves, etc.) Target 8 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conserva<on is to secure “at least 75% of all threatened plant species in ex situ collec8ons, preferably in the country of origin, and at least 20% available for recovery and restora8on programs” by 2020. In 2013, 220 ins<tu<ons with living plant collec<ons worldwide contributed informa)on about their collec)ons (BGCI, 2013). There are nearly 800 botanic gardens in the United States that could poten)ally contribute to this effort, but their ability to do so is con)ngent on their documenta)on prac)ces. A living plant collec)on is the physical manifesta)on a botanic garden’s mission, and comprises the cri)cal material that ins)lls these ins)tu)ons with relevance and purpose in our society. Value lies not only in the plants themselves but also in the informa)on that accompanies them (Guthe, 1970). My work focuses on the plant records prac)ces in historic landscapes of the United States that have transi<oned from private estates to public gardens (termed preserva’on gardens by The Garden Conservancy). These collec)ons omen include rare plants, heritage cul)vars, and unusual taxa that may not be represented elsewhere in cul)va)on or in the wild, offering untapped poten)al for conserva)on and research. Preserva)on gardens face a unique set of challenges, and resources detailing appropriate best prac)ces for documen)ng historic collec)ons are not readily available. Primary objec<ve: Inves)gate and describe current plant records prac)ces, challenges, and solu)ons at preserva)on gardens. Secondary objec<ve: Based on findings, develop recommenda)ons for plant records prac)ces, with the inten)on to both improve internal organiza)on and increase poten)al for historic gardens to contribute to larger-scale efforts by sharing data with researchers, other ins)tu)ons, and the public. Fig. 1 Loca)ons of preserva)on gardens iden)fied for interviews and survey (plus Juneau, Alaska). The survey was designed to collect data in 3 key areas: the general profile of preserva<on gardens, the transi<on period from private to public rela<ve to plant records prac<ces, and current plant records prac<ces and challenges. Survey response was 62% (n=60). 1. Profile of Preserva<on Gardens Geographically, preserva)on gardens are primarily located on the east and west coasts (fig. 1), echoing the larger popula)on of APGA members. Plants in their collec)ons have significant preserva)on and conserva)on value in addi)on to display value (fig. 2). The majority of the gardens surveyed operate on less than $1 million annually (fig. 3), again echoing the larger popula)on: 75% of the ins)tu)onal members of the American Public Garden Associa)on have annual budgets of less than $1 million (APGA, 2016). Preserva)on gardens have typically small land holdings, with 50% cul)va)ng 6 acres or less, but some garden more than 200 acres (fig. 4). Plants that are classified by state, regional, or na)onal standards as rare, endangered, or threatened (40%) Plants that the garden considers to be of unique historic significance (90%) Plants that have another type of conserva)on value (31%) 50% 3% 17% 14% 9% 5% Largest Smallest Mean Median Budget Over $2 million (18%) Less than $1 million (74%) Less than $1 million Less than $1 million Acreage of cultivated gardens 200+ acres 1 acre 30 acres 6 acres Years Open 150+ years 2 years 40 years 40 years Fig. 4 Characteris)cs of surveyed gardens: budget, acreage, years open to the public. Fig. 3 Annual opera)ng budget of surveyed gardens. Fig. 2 Living collec)ons holdings: preserva)on & conserva)on values 2. Transi<on Period Gardens that transi)on from private estates to public gardens undergo unique sequences of events that influence their organiza)on’s ability to maintain plant records, artude toward the prac)ce, and protocols for doing so. Surveyed gardens described what worked well for their gardens during the )me of transi)on in regards to plant records prac)ces (fig. 5). Cause for success Descrip<on 1. Preservation of historic records 57% Paper documents scanned and data manually input into database; original paper documents saved and archived Presence of historic photos Original directors of horticulture established methodical records practices and passed on knowledge of early record attempts in the garden Grant obtained to support digitization of handwritten records and oral histories Founders involved in development of database Founders happened to be detail oriented: kept lists and records well organized, preserved, and passed on with estate Relatives, friends, and staff of former owners available to answer questions Historical societies curate archives of family correspondences and history and makes available as needed Ownership of/access to records was transferred during transition 2. Records systems (methods, protocols, database) developed by skilled and knowledgeable personnel 37% Original directors of horticulture, landscape designers, and/or founders trained in curatorial practices, established methods Curator and founder developed database jointly Adoption of selected packaged database software well-received by staff, usable Skilled staff developed system to verify plant ID when no labels present, map, and assess Staff or volunteers exercise innovation, adaptability, time, and patience Successful transition from older, simpler database to newer, more sophisticated package; migration supported by software company 3. Planning documents developed 17% Design Management Guide described plantings in terms of character and community Map of Garden Maintenance Zones developed by graduate student created the structure for digitally recording inventories Historic Landscape Report undertaken Coincided new record keeping system with a garden redesign New plantings strictly adhere to original planting plans 4. Inventories taken at time of transition 10% Staff performed cursory tree ID, assessment, and mapping Professional contracted to perform inventory No plants labeled; staff or volunteers developed system to identify many cultivated varieties of historic perennials Fig. 5 What worked well for preserva)on gardens during transi)on period and percent of popula)on ci)ng each theme. 3c. Current Prac<ces: Database and Mapping Fig. 6 (top) Existence of collec)ons policy and/or wriQen guidelines detailing plant records protocols. Fig. 7 Prac)ces for accessioning and tracking informa)on on plants in collec)ons. Fig. 8 Criteria used to determine for which plants in collec)ons accession records will be created 3a. Current Prac<ces: Policies, Accessioning, & tracking Just over one third of surveyed gardens currently have a collec)ons policy. Of those, the majority also have a document detailing wriQen guidelines for the maintenance of plant records (fig. 6). Developing detailed protocols for plant records prac)ces (independent of a collec)ons policy) was frequently cited by study par)cipants as a cri)cal factor in the efficiency and accuracy of plant records. The majority of gardens create accession records for “some” plants in their collec)ons, and iden)fied specific criteria guiding the selec)on (fig. 8 & 9). Accession Decisions Fig. 9 Percent of gardens that accession some, all, or no plants in their collec)ons Key Uses of a Documenta8on System. Adapted from Roberts (1988) as quoted by Hohn (2008) Advising provided by: The Garden Conservancy American Public Garden Associa)on Na)onal Trust for Historic Preserva)on Many thanks to all gardens that par8cipated in this study 3d. Current Prac<ces: Challenges 3b. Current Prac<ces: Staff & Board Staff at preserva)on gardens perceive plant records as a higher priority than do board members (fig. 10). Several interviewed gardens cited challenges in educa)ng non-plant records staff and board about the value of documenta)on. Most (57%) of preserva)on gardens do not have curatorial posi)ons; of those that do, half of those are internships (fig. 11). Overall, most plant records tasks are performed by non- permanent posi)ons, underlining the percep)on of low priority level (fig. 12). Fig. 12 Posi)ons responsible for most plant records tasks at preserva)on gardens. Fig. 11 Distribu)on of )tles at the 43% of preserva)on gardens with curatorial posi)ons. Fig. 10 Staff and board artudes toward priority level of plant records.

Upload: vuongnhan

Post on 24-Feb-2018

215 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Documenng living collecons - Cornell University living collecons: ... preferably in the country of origin, and at least ... cultivated gardens 200+ acres 1 acre 30 acres 6 acres

Documen)nglivingcollec)ons:Astudyofcurrentplantrecordsprac)ces,challenges,andsolu)onsforhistoricgardensEmilyDetrick,MPSHor)culture2016,CornellUniversity

Methods

Results&DiscussionBackground&Objec)ves

ReferencesBGCI.Partnershipsandcollabora)onsforconserva)on.RetrievedSeptember28,2014,fromhQp://www.bgci.org/resources/ar)cle/0690/Galbraith,D.&WyseJackson,P.ExSituConserva)onontheInterna)onalStage.ThePublicGarden:JournaloftheAmericanPublicGardensAssocia8on.2004(3):12-13,35-36.Guthe,C.E.1.(1970).Documen8ngcollec8ons:museumregistra8on&records([Rev.ed.].)Nashville:AmericanAssocia)onforStateandLocalHistory.Hohn,T.C.(2008).CuratorialPrac8cesforBotanicalGardens.Plymouth,UK:AltamiraPress.

AcknowledgmentsSupportprovidedby:DouglasDockeryThomasFellowshipinGardenHistoryandDesign(GardenClubofAmerica&LandscapeArchitectureFounda)on)AtkinsonCenterforaSustainableFutureAcademicTechnologyCenter

Throughamixedqualita)veandquan)ta)vedesign,thisexploratoryprojectfollowedtheinduc)veprocessofGroundedTheoryMethodologytoobserve,collectdata,thencodeandsortthemesdescribingcurrentplantrecordsprac)ces,challenges,andsolu)ons.Filmedinterviewswereconductedon-sitewithstaffof10preserva)ongardenslocatedacrosstheUnitedStatesinthesummerandfallof2015.Fivecuratorialexpertswerealsointerviewedconcerningoverarchingthemesofplantrecordsprac)cesandchallenges.Resultsofinterviewsinformedthedesignofana<onal,web-basedsurveyofapurposivesampleofpreserva)ongardens(n=61).Datawasanalyzedbycrosstabula)ngquan)ta)veandqualita)veresponsestorevealsubstan<vesignificance,convergence,anddivergenceofthemesinordertodevelopgroundedtheoryaboutprac<ce.

Criteriaforselec<onofgardens•  Originallyprivateestatesthathavetransi)onedtopublicgardens•  Maintainwebsitesexpressingmissionandinforma)onaboutplantcollec)ons•  Affilia)onswithoneormoreofthefollowingorganiza)ons:AmericanPublicGardensAssocia)on,BotanicGardenConserva)onInterna)onal,TheGardenConservancy,TheTrusteesofReserva)ons,orTheNa)onalTrustforHistoricPreserva)on

Addi)onally,asagroup,theinterviewedgardenswereselectedtorepresent:•  Diversegeo-poli)calregionsacrosstheUnitedStates(varietyofstates,neararangepopula)ondensi)es(urbantorural),ecosystemtypes,andclimatezones)

•  Arangeofannualopera)ngbudgets,landscapesizes,andyearsopentothepublic•  Diversecollec)onfoci(naturalareas,rareplants,regionalna)ves,etc.)

Target8oftheGlobalStrategyforPlantConserva<onistosecure“atleast75%ofallthreatenedplantspeciesinexsitucollec8ons,preferablyinthecountryoforigin,andatleast20%availableforrecoveryandrestora8onprograms”by2020.

In2013,220ins<tu<onswithlivingplantcollec<onsworldwidecontributedinforma)onabouttheircollec)ons(BGCI,2013).Therearenearly800botanicgardensintheUnitedStatesthatcouldpoten)allycontributetothiseffort,buttheirabilitytodosoiscon)ngentontheirdocumenta)onprac)ces.

Alivingplantcollec)onisthephysicalmanifesta)onabotanicgarden’smission,andcomprisesthecri)calmaterialthatins)llstheseins)tu)onswithrelevanceandpurposeinoursociety.Valueliesnotonlyintheplantsthemselvesbutalsointheinforma)onthataccompaniesthem(Guthe,1970).Myworkfocusesontheplantrecordsprac)cesinhistoriclandscapesoftheUnitedStatesthathavetransi<onedfromprivateestatestopublicgardens(termedpreserva'ongardensbyTheGardenConservancy).Thesecollec)onsomenincluderareplants,heritagecul)vars,andunusualtaxathatmaynotberepresentedelsewhereincul)va)onorinthewild,offeringuntappedpoten)alforconserva)onandresearch.Preserva)ongardensfaceauniquesetofchallenges,andresourcesdetailingappropriatebestprac)cesfordocumen)nghistoriccollec)onsarenotreadilyavailable.

Primaryobjec<ve:Inves)gateanddescribecurrentplantrecordsprac)ces,challenges,andsolu)onsatpreserva)ongardens.

Secondaryobjec<ve:Basedonfindings,developrecommenda)onsforplantrecordsprac)ces,withtheinten)ontobothimproveinternalorganiza)onandincreasepoten)alforhistoricgardenstocontributetolarger-scaleeffortsbysharingdatawithresearchers,otherins)tu)ons,andthepublic.

Fig.1Loca)onsofpreserva)ongardensiden)fiedforinterviewsandsurvey(plusJuneau,Alaska).

Thesurveywasdesignedtocollectdatain3keyareas:thegeneralprofileofpreserva<ongardens,thetransi<onperiodfromprivatetopublicrela<vetoplantrecordsprac<ces,andcurrentplantrecordsprac<cesandchallenges.Surveyresponsewas62%(n=60).

1.ProfileofPreserva<onGardensGeographically,preserva)ongardensareprimarilylocatedontheeastandwestcoasts(fig.1),echoingthelargerpopula)onofAPGAmembers.Plantsintheircollec)onshavesignificantpreserva)onandconserva)onvalueinaddi)ontodisplayvalue(fig.2).Themajorityofthegardenssurveyedoperateonlessthan$1millionannually(fig.3),againechoingthelargerpopula)on:75%oftheins)tu)onalmembersoftheAmericanPublicGardenAssocia)onhaveannualbudgetsoflessthan$1million(APGA,2016).Preserva)ongardenshavetypicallysmalllandholdings,with50%cul)va)ng6acresorless,butsomegardenmorethan200acres(fig.4).Plantsthatareclassified

bystate,regional,orna)onalstandardsasrare,endangered,orthreatened(40%)

Plantsthatthegardenconsiderstobeofuniquehistoricsignificance(90%)

Plantsthathaveanothertypeofconserva)onvalue(31%)

50%

3%

17% 14%

9%

5% Fig. Characteristics of Surveyed Gardens: Budget, Acreage, Years Open to the

Public (n=58)

Largest Smallest Mean Median

Budget Over $2 million (18%)

Less than $1 million (74%)

Less than $1 million

Less than $1 million

Acreage of cultivated gardens

200+ acres 1 acre 30 acres 6 acres

Years Open 150+ years 2 years 40 years 40 years

Fig.4Characteris)csofsurveyedgardens:budget,acreage,yearsopentothepublic.

Fig.3Annualopera)ngbudgetofsurveyedgardens.Fig.2Livingcollec)onsholdings:preserva)on&conserva)onvalues

2.Transi<onPeriodGardensthattransi)onfromprivateestatestopublicgardensundergouniquesequencesofeventsthatinfluencetheirorganiza)on’sabilitytomaintainplantrecords,artudetowardtheprac)ce,andprotocolsfordoingso.Surveyedgardensdescribedwhatworkedwellfortheirgardensduringthe)meoftransi)oninregardstoplantrecordsprac)ces(fig.5).

CauseforsuccessDescrip<on1. Preservation of historic records 57%

● Paper documents scanned and data manually input into database; original paper documents saved and archived

● Presence of historic photos ● Original directors of horticulture established methodical records practices and

passed on knowledge of early record attempts in the garden ● Grant obtained to support digitization of handwritten records and oral histories ● Founders involved in development of database ● Founders happened to be detail oriented: kept lists and records well organized,

preserved, and passed on with estate ● Relatives, friends, and staff of former owners available to answer questions ● Historical societies curate archives of family correspondences and history and

makes available as needed ● Ownership of/access to records was transferred during transition

2. Records systems (methods, protocols, database) developed by skilled and knowledgeable personnel 37%

● Original directors of horticulture, landscape designers, and/or founders trained in curatorial practices, established methods

● Curator and founder developed database jointly ● Adoption of selected packaged database software well-received by staff, usable ● Skilled staff developed system to verify plant ID when no labels present, map,

and assess ● Staff or volunteers exercise innovation, adaptability, time, and patience ● Successful transition from older, simpler database to newer, more sophisticated

package; migration supported by software company

3. Planning documents developed 17%

● Design Management Guide described plantings in terms of character and community

● Map of Garden Maintenance Zones developed by graduate student created the structure for digitally recording inventories

● Historic Landscape Report undertaken ● Coincided new record keeping system with a garden redesign ● New plantings strictly adhere to original planting plans

4. Inventories taken at time of transition 10%

● Staff performed cursory tree ID, assessment, and mapping ● Professional contracted to perform inventory ● No plants labeled; staff or volunteers developed system to identify many

cultivated varieties of historic perennials

Fig.5Whatworkedwellforpreserva)ongardensduringtransi)onperiodandpercentofpopula)onci)ngeachtheme.

3c.CurrentPrac<ces:DatabaseandMapping

Fig.6(top)Existenceofcollec)onspolicyand/orwriQenguidelinesdetailingplantrecordsprotocols.Fig.7Prac)cesforaccessioningandtrackinginforma)ononplantsincollec)ons. Fig.8Criteriausedtodetermineforwhichplantsincollec)onsaccessionrecordswillbecreated

3a.CurrentPrac<ces:Policies,Accessioning,&trackingJustoveronethirdofsurveyedgardenscurrentlyhaveacollec)onspolicy.Ofthose,themajorityalsohaveadocumentdetailingwriQenguidelinesforthemaintenanceofplantrecords(fig.6).Developingdetailedprotocolsforplantrecordsprac)ces(independentofacollec)onspolicy)wasfrequentlycitedbystudypar)cipantsasacri)calfactorintheefficiencyandaccuracyofplantrecords.Themajorityofgardenscreateaccessionrecordsfor“some”plantsintheircollec)ons,andiden)fiedspecificcriteriaguidingtheselec)on(fig.8&9).

AccessionDecisionsFig.9Percentofgardensthataccessionsome,all,ornoplantsintheircollec)ons

KeyUsesofaDocumenta8onSystem.AdaptedfromRoberts(1988)asquotedbyHohn(2008)

Advisingprovidedby:TheGardenConservancyAmericanPublicGardenAssocia)onNa)onalTrustforHistoricPreserva)onManythankstoallgardensthatpar8cipatedinthisstudy

3d.CurrentPrac<ces:Challenges

3b.CurrentPrac<ces:Staff&BoardStaffatpreserva)ongardensperceiveplantrecordsasahigherprioritythandoboardmembers(fig.10).Severalinterviewedgardenscitedchallengesineduca)ngnon-plantrecordsstaffandboardaboutthevalueofdocumenta)on.Most(57%)ofpreserva)ongardensdonothavecuratorialposi)ons;ofthosethatdo,halfofthoseareinternships(fig.11).Overall,mostplantrecordstasksareperformedbynon-permanentposi)ons,underliningthepercep)onoflowprioritylevel(fig.12).

Fig.12Posi)onsresponsibleformostplantrecordstasksatpreserva)ongardens.Fig.11Distribu)onof)tlesatthe43%ofpreserva)ongardenswithcuratorialposi)ons.

Fig.10Staffandboardartudestowardprioritylevelofplantrecords.