Vernacular Landscape Language: An investigation into preference for native or imported vegetation in suburban residential front yard gardens
Over the next decade it is anticipated that Melbourne will have to accommodate over 620,000 extra houses in suburban growth corridors (Melbourne 2030: planning for sustainable growth, 2002; State Government of Victoria, 2014), seeing not only the respective ecological footprint of Australian cities increase to an unprecedented level, but subsequent sociological impacts towards the liveability of the city (Peterson et al., 2012; Seto et al., 2014; State Government of Victoria, 2014). Whilst Victorian Government based sustainable growth management schemes have been considered in Plan Melbourne and Melbourne 2030 strategies, Zheng, Zhang, and Chen (2011) acknowledge the importance of understanding current cultural norms in order to further influence policy making and implementation.
Scientific research inquires as to whether homeowners with residential gardens are able to mitigate against land clearing by actively replanting native vegetation (Helfand, Sik Park, Nassauer, & Kosek, 2006; Kendal, Williams & Williams, 2012; Nassauer, 1988, 1993; Nassauer et al., 2009; Peterson, Thurmond, Mchale, Rodriguez, Bondell, & Cook, 2012; Purcell & Lamb, 1998; van den Berg, & van Winsum-Westra, 2010; Zheng et al., 2011), creating favourable habitats to influence native fauna to remain in the region (Kendal et al., 2012).
However, according to current research, residential landscape design rarely integrates indigenous species since ecological quality isn’t commonly associated with attractiveness (Nassauer, 1995). Leading accounts from Nassauer (1988, 1993, 1995) and subsequent research studies (Cary et al., 2000; Helfand et al., 2006; Nassauer et al., 2009; Peterson et al., 2012; Zheng et al., 2011) suggest underpinning landscape language, including elements of neatness, stewardship and naturalness, constitute cues to care, recognisable to localities, regions or cultures, which heavily guide preference for environments. Cues to care can be defined as symbols, germane to cultural, social or local norms, which signify human intention, communicating a landscape as under caretaker supervision (Nassauer, 1993). Additionally, cues to care assist to package unfamiliar environments that have large ecological value, such as native ecosystems, in an attractive and culturally acceptable manner.
Current studies however, have heavily concentrated on successful cues to care of formal landscapes and as a result highlight unsuccessful readings of informal (native) ecosystems, but, as such fail to inquire about alternative reasons behind successful informal topologies.
The present study aims to investigate whether there is a preference for imported plant species in suburban residential front yard gardens over indigenous species, and as such intends to strengthen research introduced in studies by Nassauer (1988, 1993, 1995). It is hypothesised that front yard gardens with a higher percentage of indigenous vegetation will have lower preference amongst participants due to a lack of understanding of underpinned language (cues to care) in regard to natural environments. Results from this study will be examined to elucidate whether there is a current successful vernacular language that can support cultural groups better understand the ecological services of native garden typologies.
Method
Participants
An invitation to partake in the present study was sent to a convenience sample of 12 residents of Metropolitan Melbourne, with 3 respondents selected to participate. Participants were chosen to represent an age range of 26 to 64, with a mean age of 42.3 years, across both gender orientations consisting 33.3% male, 66.6% female, varying educational backgrounds, occupations and ethnicity. Place of residence was taken into account to ensure participants covered urban, suburban and rural settings. Participants were asked to record their background information as seen in Table 1, including educational background, and additionally respond to a knowledge question to ascertain whether they recognised the difference between imported and native plant species.
Materials
The stimuli consisted of 4 colour photographs showcasing the front gardens of four different lots on Temby Street in the northern suburb of Watsonia, Victoria. Photographic sites were selected in close proximity to one another to maintain similar neighbourhood socioeconomic standing (Figure 1). Individual sites were chosen based on the percentage of vegetation of imported or native species in the front yard, and ranged from 100% imported species to 100% native species, as well as varying degrees of neatness, stewardship and naturalness as per Nassauer’s (1995) landscape care descriptors. Photographs were chosen with similar front garden plot sizes and similar background architectural house styles (one storey, front facing, plainly coloured, austere post-war style). Photos were both comparable in quality and perspective, and were taken using a smart phone on the same day within an hour time period to ensure similar lighting conditions.
Procedure
Prior to commencing the survey, participants were read a set of preliminary instructions verbally during a face-to-face interview (Appendix A). Participants were then shown four sample colour photographs one at a time in a random order on a laptop computer with a 1080p resolution screen. After viewing an image for 30 seconds participants were asked to respond to a series of five questions verbally, before continuing onto the next photograph. Participants were asked to rate their preference for each photograph on a 10-point scale from 1 = strongly do not like to 10 = strongly like. Only after responding to the 6-part questionnaire for each photograph, participants were asked a knowledge question (see Appendix B). Questionnaires were recorded digitally and transcribed after the event (Appendix C – E).
Results & Discussion
Results, on average, are consistent with previous studies by Nassauer (1988, 1993, 1995) and Nassauer et al. (2009), indicating that neatness and stewardship cues to care are intimately linked with preference for environment. Photograph 1 (100% imported species) and 3 (100% native species) rated highest amongst participants, averaging 5.5 and 6.6 respectively, whilst Photographs 2 and 3 (mixed imported and native species sites), both with an average preference rating of 3 out of 10, were least preferred by all study participants (see Table 2). Whereas preference ratings for photographs 2 and 3 support the hypothesis that front yard gardens with a higher percentage of indigenous vegetation will have lower preference amongst participants due to a lack of understanding of underpinned language (cues to care) in regard to natural environments, photograph 4, with 100% native vegetation, challenges this theory, displaying the highest average preference ratings of all four sites.
As seen in table 3, participants defined photograph 1 with strong neatness descriptive indicators, suggesting that the level of attractiveness of the garden was understood through intentional stewardship. Supporting previous studies by Nassauer (1993) and Zheng et al., (2011) suggesting that attractiveness, care and neatness and interrelated, participant 3 commented that photograph 1 “looks so alive”, “…people must spend a lot of time in the garden watering”, “appears as though someone cares” and “…everything fits into a section, everything has a border”. Nassauer et al. (2009) proposes formal cues (see Table 3 for neatness descriptors mentioned during interviews) (Cary & Williams, 2000; Nassauer, 1988; van den Berg, & van Winsum-Westra, 2010) described in the aforementioned comments by participants regarding site 1 (see Table 3, Appendix C, D, E), together symbolise acts of labour and respect for the neighbouring community. This is further illustrated when participant 3 identifies that caretakers of photograph 1 “care about a space that makes me happy not just them”, signifying the prominence of neighbourhood views on the choice of vegetation for front-yard gardens for landowners.
Subsequently, participant interviews support Nassauer’s (1995) research regarding the sense of neighbourliness with landscape language, suggesting that representations of front-yard gardens have a two-fold effect of representing personality traits of the caretaker themselves and additionally, their position in a broader community. This can be seen in comments such as “looks like they could be people you want to know living here” (Participant 1, Photograph 1) and “doesn’t make me want to be friends with them” (Participant 3, Photograph 2), where either positive or negative personality traits are associated with cultural readings and preferences of environments.
Table 2 indicates that there were similar patterns of preference between photographs 2, 3 and 4, however, displays photograph 1 as having a split of predilection. Participant 2 described site 1 as “…clinical and…lacking any character. It makes me feel like a show home.” A key to account for the difference in preference can be found in the research of Nassauer (1995) and Peterson et al., (2012), where it is noted that neighbourhood norms can have a strong influence on the intricacies of language communicated through cues to care. Subsequently, it is argued that either the Greek heritage or the rural residency in Lara, Victoria, (See Table 1 for participant characteristics) or potentially a combination of both cultural attributes of participant 2, could explain the variance of preference of site 1.
Results from the study further suggest an intimate relationship between neatness and naturalness. Whilst Zheng et al., (2011) suggests that there is commonly a preference for neatness over naturalness, results more convincingly indicate that photographs with high attractive neatness indicators also display unattractive naturalness indicators (see Table 4). Furthermore, photographs with mixed native and imported species (sites 2 and 3) display high unattractive neatness values and medium naturalness indicators. Such landscapes, participants commented looked as though “…the garden they had when they moved in and have kept it the same since then”, where naturalness principles were mistaken for lack of care. Conversely, consistent with research results by Nassauer (1995), photograph 1, with 100% imported vegetation, displayed the highest value of attractive neatness, however, represents the site with the least natural ecological significance. Such observations indicate that there exists a clear paradox between neatness and naturalness.
Interestingly, whilst native elements in photographs 2 and 3 were viewed by participants as “overgrown” (Participant 1), “neglected” (Participant 2) and “cluttered” (Participant 3), naturalness in photograph 4 (exhibiting the highest attractive naturalness values – see Table 4) was described as “represent(ing) some sort of authenticity” (Participant 1) and creating a “balance between natural and garden” (Participant 2). Furthermore, site 4 also resulted in the most consistent preference scores from participants (see Table 2). Considering participants were sourced to ensure differences in ethnicity, cultural backgrounds and place of residence were accounted for, these results may suggest that there is a more general native landscape language that is exclusive of cultural or neighbourhood norms. With that said, results do however correlate with studies by Nassauer (1995); Purcell & Lamb, (1998); Zheng et al., (2011) suggesting natural landscapes are more easily read when packaged within an understandable framing system, demonstrating medium attractive neatness attributes.
As such, this study has highlighted implications for research into environment preference of front yard garden typologies. Findings from this study clearly demonstrate that attractive neatness indicators are commonly read through the lens of cultural, social or neighbourhood norms, as is demonstrated by the negative reaction of participant 2 to photograph 1. Nevertheless, it is important for research to focus on successful readings of natural landscape typologies, in order to determine if there is a landscape language that operates independent from cues to care, as is indicated by unanimous preference for site 4.
This research has not been immune to limitations. In order to elucidate clear elements of successful attractive naturalness language a larger study is needed with higher participant numbers. This research was conducted with participants across naturalised or first generation Australian English speaking backgrounds, and as such, represented a generalised minority of environmental preferences. Further research sampling a larger variety of participants as well as exhibiting larger photographic scope of varying Australian suburbs, native garden typologies and styles is needed.
Conclusion
The present study has provided further evidence which suggests attractiveness, care and neatness are interrelated concepts in preference for imported or indigenous plant species in suburban residential front yard gardens. Whilst is was revealed that neatness and naturalness may have an inverse relationship, cultural or neighbourhood norms had stronger implications towards preference of environment, as results did not give a clear indication of preference for or against native vegetation. However, results did contrast current research which suggests higher native vegetation landscapes correlate to lower preference ratings, as was seen in photograph 4, with 100% native vegetation cover and the highest preference scores amongst all participants.
Current research results into this field of study have concluded that in order to create understandable native landscapes, neatness indicators must work with naturalness, rather than against, for example mowing areas into borders around indigenous plants (Nassauer, 1993), planting native trees into a formal patterns (Nassauer, 1993) or most commonly suggested, increasing the knowledge of cultural groups to translate the function of ecological spaces into an recognisable language (Nassauer, 1993, 1995; Purcell: Zheng). It is strongly recommended from observations in this study that cultural or neighbourhood norms will continue to place higher value on landscape preference, and as such, solutions should be implemented on neighbourhood and cultural scales. More research into alternative reasons behind successful informal typologies is needed in order to ascertain a landscape language that will serve to improve ecological services amongst environmental preference.
Cary, J. W., & Williams, K. (2000). The value of native vegetation: urban and rural perspectives. Canberra: Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, 2000.
Helfand, G. E., Sik Park, J., Nassauer, J. I., & Kosek, S. (2006). The economics of native plants in residential landscape designs. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78,229-240. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.08.001.
Kaplan, R. (2007). Employees’ reactions to nearby nature at their workplace: The wild and the tame. Landscape and Urban Planning, 82,17-24. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.01.012
Kendal, D., Williams, K. J., & Williams, N. S. (2012). Plant traits link people's plant preferences to the composition of their gardens. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105,34-42. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.023.
Melbourne 2030: planning for sustainable growth. (2002). Melbourne: Dept. of Infrastructure, 2002.
Nassauer, J. I. (1993). Ecological Function and the Perception of Suburban Residential Landscapes. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report Nc, (163), 55-60.
Nassauer, J.I. (1995). Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal, 14 (2), 161-169.
Nassauer, J. (1988). The aesthetics of horticulture: neatness as a form of care. Hortscience (USA), 23(6), 973-977.
Nassauer, J. I., Wang, Z., & Dayrell, E. (2009). What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92,282-292. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.010.
Ode, Å., Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Messager, P., & Miller, D. (2009). Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 375-383. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013.
Peterson, M. N., Thurmond, B., Mchale, M., Rodriguez, S., Bondell, H. D., & Cook, M. (2012). Predicting native plant landscaping preferences in urban areas. Sustainable Cities and Society, 5(Special Issue on Third Global Conference on Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency for Desert Region - GCREEDER 2011), 70-76. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2012.05.007.
Purcell, A. T., & Lamb, R. J. (1998). Preference and naturalness: An ecological approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42, 57-66. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00073-5.
Seto K. C., S. Dhakal, A. Bigio, H. Blanco, G. C. Delgado, D. Dewar, L. Huang, A. Inaba, A. Kansal, S. Lwasa, J. E. McMahon, D. B. Müller, J. Murakami, H. Nagendra, and A. Ramaswami. (2014): Human Settlements, Infrastructure and Spatial Planning. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
State Government of Victoria. (2014). Plan Melbourne (p. Chapter 5). Melbourne: State Government of Victoria.
Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape & Urban Planning, 13(1), 29-44.
Ulrich, R. S. (1979). Visual landscapes and psychological well‐being. Landscape Research, 4(1), 17-23. doi:10.1080/01426397908705892.
van den Berg, A. E., & van Winsum-Westra, M. (2010). Manicured, romantic, or wild? The relation between need for structure and preferences for garden styles. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9,179-186. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2010.01.006.
Zheng, B., Zhang, Y., & Chen, J. (2011). Preference to home landscape: wildness or neatness?. Landscape and Urban Planning, 99, 1-8. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.08.006.