As the landscape architect is often faced with tough choices in the design of a project and in what products to specify, manufacturers must also make tough decisions regarding the design of their products. In the case of site furniture, aesthetic design, strength, durability, and ease of maintenance must be balanced against cost and potential market share. Those choices can sometimes be made on a calculator. But what about the more complicated choices? Are the materials used really the best possible choices from both economic and environmental considerations? Are the materials and finishes environmentally safe? Are the materials of the very best quality available?

When D. M. Braun Company sets out to find the ideal wood species from which to manufacture benches, we established the following criteria to guide the selection process:

1. Durability. This was defined as the ability to withstand decay and insect damage while in contact with soil. The All-Heart Redwood we were familiar with was rated in the highest category (25 years plus) and we decided the ideal wood species should have a similar rating.


2. Hardness. The Redwood we were using passed every test but this one. We needed a material that could stand up to the heavy use of park and recreation applications, and still maintain its beauty. A rating known as the Janka Side Hardness Test became our reference to comparing impact resistance.


3. Resistance to Checking and Cracking in Use. Many species of lumber which make beautiful benches for interior use can not be used outdoors because of their tendency to check, crack, or warp when exposed to temperature and moisture changes. White and Red Oak are examples of very hard and beautiful woods which have this fault when used outdoors. The technical term for this characteristic is “movement in service” and it caused us to eliminate several species from consideration.


4. Availability. Since our criteria was quickly eliminating most domestic wood species, this became very important. We decided that we would require that the ideal wood species would be stocked in the U. S., in a kiln-dried condition.


5. Cost. Our research turned up several interesting and expensive exotic possibilities, but since our research did not show a large potential market for benches costing $3,000 each, we eliminated these species from consideration.


6. EnvironmentalConsideration.

A. Some species considered were acceptable by all criteria except durability. Pressure treating the lumber with chemicals to provide resistance to decay and insect damage would have solved the problem. However, the Environmental Protection t Agency has identified and listed several chemicals, commonly used in the pressure treatment of lumber, as ?EUR??,,????'??hazardous”, and we chose not to expose our woodworkers or our end-users to this potential hazard.

B. We were also aware of the studies being done by environmental groups regarding the destruction of the tropical rain forests, in part caused by the harvesting of timber. We decided that we would not contribute to this devastation and that we would select a commercially-grown wood species?EUR??,,????'???a renewable source.

We were not sure that a species existed to fit out ideal criteria and, in fact, our choices were very limited.

Our final selection was an Australian hardwood, Eucalyptus Marginata, commonly known as Jarrah.

The durability of this material has been proven by years of use as railroad ties, mine shaft supports, and boardwalks. It is beautiful, hard, strong, and not susceptible to movement in service in typical bench lengths. It is readily available, not unreasonable in cost, and commercially grown under a harvesting and reforestation program overseen by the Australian government.

The establishment of strict criteria gave us the ability to rapidly eliminate hundreds of potential choices and gave us the incentive to continue the research over several months until the final selection was made.