Marion Shoard’s defining edgelands essay in which observations on the interfacial landscape between urban and rural characterize the space and are argued as spaces for wildlife and plants, in the process questioning if these sites need protection from planners. Though written in 2000 it is still relevant today and is often cited within contemporary work on Edgelands.
The edgelands ... are raw and rough, and rather than seeming people-friendly they are often sombre and menacing, flaunting their participation in activities we do not wholly understand. They certainly do not conform to people’s idea of the picturesque by presenting a chocolate-box image, suitably composed and textural. On the contrary, they seem desolate, forsaken and unconnected even to their own elements let alone to our preferred version of human life. (Shoard, 2000, p. 121)
The subversiveness of interfacial land perhaps explains why children often value it more than other groups, seeming to find the edgelands a wonderful place to play. Why? This landscape offers an obviously varied environment which is often wild, with plenty of places to hide and things to play with. Its dereliction stimulates the imagination. This seems to apply not only to children but also to some kinds of creative artist. (Shoard, 2000, p. 130)
The aura of excitement which goes with the apparent lawlessness of the edgelands has been exploited in such films of the 1990s as Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Seven, Things to Do in Denver When you’re Dead, Fargo and The Straight Story. (Shoard, 2000, p. 130)
Interfacial sites often enjoy biological diversity partly because they are ignored. Being ignored, they go unmanaged. The clutter of the interface, which would be tidied out of sight by those concerned with creating an acceptable landscape there, often enhances wildlife by creating new niches which wild creatures can exploit. (Shoard, 2000, p. 129)