Show Gardens – Good or bad?

I hope that the contractors, who had to dismantle the show during the record May temperatures, are now sipping iced-tea in the shade by a pool somewhere restful.

I only had three hours at the showground this year and didn’t get time to take enough photos and absorb its flavours, but it left a good impression and I was happy that my ex-judge’s instinct was aligned with the RHS’s decision to award Sarah Eberle’s ‘On The Edge’ garden Best in Show. A masterclass in design, spectacle and craftmanship.

Since hanging up my Chelsea boots three years ago I’m often asked what would tempt me back and the answer is still a firm “Nowt”. That’s not to say that I didn’t enjoy the experience of every show garden I’ve been fortunate enough to be involved with, but the fact that they demand so much time and energy for very little return (in terms of commissions) has taken their toll. These days I much prefer seeing what the next generation of garden designers have up their sleeves while enjoying the best month of the year at home and at the allotment.

There are also nagging thoughts about how appropriate show gardens are in terms of excess and waste. Fine for me to say I know, but some of the flack aimed at show gardens over the last few years from a sustainability point of view is justifiable, especially given the ongoing cost of living crisis and concern for the environment.

However, I often wonder whether the debate needs a little more perspective. The carbon cost of constructing temporary gardens shouldn’t be ignored, but neither should the educational, cultural and environmental influence these gardens can exert over millions of people.

Show gardens are, without a doubt, resource intensive. Hard landscaping materials are manufactured, transported across the country, installed and then either recycled or skipped. Trees are root-balled, craned into place and thousands of plants are grown under protected conditions before being discarded or replanted elsewhere to take their chances, often during a drought such as what we’re experiencing right now. Add to this the travel emissions generated by exhibitors, contractors and visitors, and the environmental footprint quickly spirals.

But while the optics of sustainability-themed gardens that themselves require significant carbon expenditure might be seen as problematic, the entire carbon footprint of the Chelsea Flower Show is tiny when compared with many other forms of leisure and entertainment that attract far less scrutiny.

Take football, for example. Sorry, I promised myself that I’d keep football out of Urban Gardener (revived) but bear with me.

Football generates enormous emissions through stadium construction, floodlighting, broadcasting infrastructure, catering, merchandising and especially travel. A single major football tournament such as the FIFA World Cup can produce millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Even domestic football has a considerable footprint: hundreds of thousands of supporters travelling weekly by car, train and plane throughout a season, combined with the energy demands of large stadiums and global broadcasting networks.

While estimates suggesting that the 2022 World Cup in Qatar generated over three million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent, remain contested, even a resource-heavy flower show like Chelsea occupies a minuscule environmental niche by comparison. This doesn’t excuse waste within horticulture, but it does suggest that show gardens are sometimes judged more harshly especially when they present themselves as environmentally conscious in the first place.

Gardening also differs fundamentally from many spectator activities because it doesn’t just entertain, it has the capacity to change behaviour beyond the event itself. A show garden may influence public attitudes towards biodiversity, drought-tolerant planting, rainwater harvesting, wildlife-friendly design, pollinator-friendly planting, food and reduced peat use.

The educational ripple effect is difficult to quantify but even small behavioural shifts can produce meaningful ecological benefits and could cumulatively outweigh the emissions associated with a temporary exhibition.

Show gardens might even act symbolically as cultural envoys for environmental thinking bringing ecological ideas into mainstream conversation in ways that scientific reports often can’t. A well-designed garden communicates emotionally as well as intellectually, allowing people to experience artistic expression through nature directly; a welcome break from endless statistics about climate change and ecological collapse.

Indeed, the greatest value of show gardens may lie in their ability to reframe what people think a desirable garden looks and feels like. Recent shifts towards naturalistic planting, habitat creation and climate resilience have partly been accelerated through high-profile show gardens and the media attention surrounding them.

My garden for Centrepoint in 2023 (sponsored by Project Giving Back) was a far cry from the ‘horticultural perfection’ one usually associates with Chelsea. A half-demolished house (a visceral metaphor for homelessness) colonised with a mix of ornamental and native plants was never going to win new clients but it shone a light on the charity’s good work in stitching people’s lives together and the notion that even the most unlikely collection of waste materials and ‘weeds’ could provide habitat, sustenance and a garden for all lifeforms, including humans.

Considering that no human activity is environmentally neutral, the question is not whether show gardens have a carbon footprint (they clearly do) but whether the benefits they generate justify the cost and whether that cost can be reduced over time. Measured against global emissions sources, show gardens are environmentally modest. Measured against their potential to influence public behaviour, they may actually offer unusually good value.

The danger lies not in horticultural exhibitions themselves but in complacency. If show gardens become merely luxury entertainment for affluent audiences, their environmental contradictions will be harder to defend. But if they continue evolving into platforms for ecological literacy, sustainable planting and public engagement with nature, then their temporary carbon expenditure may represent an investment rather than a waste.

In an age increasingly detached from the natural world, gardens still possess a rare ability to reconnect people with living systems. That cultural and educational value is difficult to measure in tonnes of carbon, but perhaps we should take this into consideration more often when assessing the true sustainability of horticultural shows.

https://circularecology.com/news/carbon-footprint-of-a-garden-exhibition

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/63689011

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65834022

https://www.gardensillustrated.com/chelsea/waste-chelsea-sustainable