Using Environmental Landscape Management practices : an exploratory program assessment
CITATION THUMBNAILS PDF VIEWER PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00000407/00001
 Material Information
Title: Using Environmental Landscape Management practices : an exploratory program assessment
Abbreviated Title: Bulletin 287
Physical Description: Bulletin
Language: English
Creator: Israel, G. D.
Knox, Gary W. (Gary Wayne)
Brown, Sydney Park
Publisher: Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Publication Date: September 1, 1993
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: Hillsborough County, Florida
 Notes
Abstract: This report presents an assessment the impacts of a workshop held in Hillsborough County in May 1992 to encourage homeowners to adopt environmentally sound practices in landscape design and management.
Acquisition: Collected for University of Florida's Institutional Repository by the UFIR Self-Submittal tool. Submitted by Diana Hagan.
Publication Status: Published
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the submitter.
System ID: IR00000407:00001

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

( PDF )


Full Text
UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA
Florida Cooperative Extension Service
Bulletin 287
September 1993
USING ENVIRONMENTAL LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: An Exploratory Program Assessment1_
Glenn D. Israel, Gary W. Knox and Sydney Park Brown2
INTRODUCTION
Environmental Landscape Management is an educational program which is designed to minimize water use, energy consumption and pollution from excessive application of fertilizers and pesticides, while maintaining aesthetic and functional benefits for the user. The program also is designed to reduce the municipal waste stream through on-site mulching, composting, and recycling of yard trash.
Many Florida residents have misperceptions about proper landscape care and environmentally sound practices. Faced with Florida's diverse environmental conditions, well-meaning individuals often waste energy, water, fertilizer and pesticides through inappropriate landscape designs and improper landscape maintenance practices. These existing practices can contribute to the degradation of the environment through runoff, leaching, and misuse of resources.
Audiences
The intended audience for the program includes homeowners and renters, home gardeners, landscape maintenance personnel, landscape architects, landscape designers, landscape contractors, retail nursery personnel, master gardeners, environmental regulatory personnel, urban foresters, utility conservationists, garden writers, and others. The intended audiences vary from one program or series of programs to another.
Program Objectives
The goal of Environmental Landscape Management (ELM) is to promote the adoption of environmentally sound practices in the design and management of Florida landscapes. These integrate landscaping practices for energy conservation, water conservation, pest control, landscape waste recycling, and attracting wildlife with other horticulturally sound principles of landscape design and management. For example, proper landscaping can produce home energy savings of up to 30 percent in Florida (Black and Meerow, 1989). Using recommended irrigation practices can save about 30 percent of outdoor water use, while savings of 75 to 80 percent can be achieved from re-designing the home landscape and irrigation system and using proper irrigation practices (Gilman et al., 1991;Karlik, 1992; Nelson, 1987). Thus, the educational program provides a holistic approach to landscape design and management that will help conserve our resources and protect and enhance the environment.
It is anticipated that participants will adopt ELM practices which apply to their particular situation as a result of the program. The specific practices are those listed in the questionnaires in the appendix.
1. This document is Bulletin 287, a series of Program Evaluation and Organizational Development, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
2. Glenn D. Israel, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, and Extension Specialist, Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville FL 32611. Gary W. Knox, Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Horticulture, and Extension Specialist. Sydney Park Brown, Environmental Horticulture/Water Extension Agent, Hillsborough County.
The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function without regard to race, color, sex, age, handicap, or national origin. For information on obtaining other extension publications, contact your county Cooperative Extension Service office. Florida Cooperative Extension Service / Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences / University of Florida / John T. Woeste, Dean


USING ENVIRONMENTAL LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: An Exploratory Program Assessment
Page 2
Evaluation Plan and Scope
conservation also were not widely adopted.
The purpose of the evaluation is two-fold: to evaluate the impact of the program on landscape management practices of participants and to provide information concerning ways to improve the delivery and impact of the program. This report focuses on the impact of a single workshop, which was held in Hillsborough County in May, 1992. This workshop was aimed at the homeowner audience. The specific questions for this assessment are: Did homeowners who attended the program adopt ELM practices? If so, which ones? What practices appear to need greater emphasis in future ELM programs? These questions are addressed through comparison of pre-program information on the use of ELM practices with that of a follow-up conducted six months after the program.
Although this evaluation describes change in the use of ELM practices, it does not assess whether changes were, in fact, a result of the specific workshop or due to other programs by either Extension or other organizations. That changes can result from the influence of activities by other actors is recognized but beyond the scope of this exploratory study.
FINDINGS
Overall, activities relating to cultural conditions for plant growth or practices promoting lower maintenance were well-received by the audience. The data showed a pattern of improvement across a broad array of practices 6 months after the workshop. Many of the cultural practices are easy for participants to change or modify. Landscape practices that reduce maintenance are also very appealing to most home owners. In addition, some of the ELM recommendations are based on relatively recent research. Since these practices have not been widely promoted, the audience may have better retained information that was new to them.
After 6 months, the fewest changes in behavior were for practices costing money or those involving significant "work" on the part of the respondent (such as improvements to the irrigation system, redesign of the landscape, soil testing, etc.). Behavior changes relating to energy
Most homeowners held generally positive attitudes toward environmental landscape management of their landscape. A majority of respondents felt it cost more to initiate ELM practices even though most agreed that ELM practices would save money and time on yard work. The environmental considerations of using ELM practices were regarded as very important by 74 percent of respondents. To improve adoption of these practices, we need to quantify and emphasize the annual savings of ELM practices as well as the environmental benefits.
Site Analysis, Planting & Landscape Design
Prior to the workshop, the audience already was reporting high rates of use for general concepts relating to selecting adaptable plants, planting properly, and using plants in beds and for low maintenance landscaping (Figure 1). Less widely used were methods of selecting and grouping plants to conserve energy and water and reduce maintenance (Figure 2). These activities were more widely practiced 6 months after the workshop. Least appreciated were the benefits of soil testing to determine plant adaptability, protecting plants during construction, and using evergreen plants as wind breaks (the latter is not an important consideration in Hillsborough County). Soil should be tested for selection of adaptable plants. Low adoption of this
ED BEFORE EXTENSION WORKSHOP � SIX MONTHS AFTER WORKSHOP
USE ID GROUP
ADAPTED SUN/SHADE INTO PLANTS AREAS BEDS
PLANT AT DESIGN PROPER PROPER LOW MAINT.HOLE SIZE DEPTH AREAS
PROTECT PLANTS AT BUILDING
Figure 1. Percent of program participants using recommended practices related to site analysis, planting, and landscape design.


USING ENVIRONMENTAL LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: An Exploratory Program Assessment
Page 3
100%
? BEFORE EXTENSION WORKSHOP � SIX MONTHS AFTER WORKSHOP
GROUP BY SHADE GROUP BY PICK SLOW TEST TEST SOL EVOWEENS WATER EAST/WEST MAINT. GROWING SOIL PH DRAINAGE WOTECT WINDS NEEDS WALLS NEEDS PLANTS
Figure 2. Percent of program participants using recommended practices related to site analysis, planting, and landscape design (continued).
Irrigation
Prior to the workshop, several good irrigation practices were widely used, perhaps due to several years of water regulations and irrigation restrictions by the water management district encompassing the county. Plant-related aspects of irrigation practices, however, were not as recognized as the mechanical features of irrigation systems. After the workshop, many more respondents adopted the practices of applying the proper amount of water per irrigation and irrigating when lawn grasses folded their leafblades (Figure 3). These plant-related aspects of irrigation may have been information to which respondents had not been exposed as much as to water regulations that restricted when to irrigate.
practice conflicts with respondents' widespread practice of selecting plants adaptable to the landscape. This might mean that homeowners view the "adaptability" of plants for their landscape in ways other than soil pH and drainage. Our ELM programming may need to change to emphasize the significance of soil testing. Protecting plants during construction probably is not relevant to respondents unless they happened to be building a home or redesigning the landscape. This might explain why the percent of homeowners who reported using the practice declined after they had attended the program (and better understood this topic).
For homeowners who have permanent irrigation systems, relatively few reported using "hardware" irrigation features to save water. These include drip irrigation systems and rainfall shut-off devices (Figure 4). Use of these devices showed little gain 6 months after the workshop. This is despite the fact that both items have been extensively promoted by area water management authorities as well as by the
Of all the practices related to site analysis, planting, and landscape design, large increases in behavior change were measured for grouping plants by water needs and by maintenance requirements. This may have resulted from respondents' exposure to new information or it may indicate the types of practices that this audience could more easily do.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
88%
? BEFORE EXTENSION WORKSHOP � SIX MONTHS AFTER WORKSHOP
69%
61%
IRRIGATE FOR SEASON
Figure 3. Percent of participants using recommended practices for irrigating their landscape.


USING ENVIRONMENTAL LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: An Exploratory Program Assessment
Page 4
INSPECT SYSTEM MANUAL USE SEPA- CAU- USE MICRO RAIN
SYSTEM TIMER VALVE OVER- RATE BRATE DRIP IRRIGATE AUTO
HEAD ZONES SYSTEM SYSTEM SHRUBS SHUTOFF SPRINKLERS
Figure 4. Percent of participants who have a permanent that are using recommended equipment and practices.
Cooperative Extension Service. Reasons for the low rate of adoption may be that these devices require money to purchase and labor to install them, and they are relatively new technologies that consumers may be less familiar with. Information about these devices may need more emphasis in future ELM programming. Another area for increased emphasis might be the use of separate zones for plant beds and the lawn (since these usually have different water needs). There was essentially no change in the number of participants who were using this important design feature in their irrigation system. Like micro irrigation and rain shut-off devices, changing the system to use separate zones could be costly for homeowners.
Fertilization
Use of proper fertilization practices improved somewhat in the 6 months after the workshop. The percentage of homeowners who fertilized their lawns three times per year decreased somewhat (most changed to two times per year, Figure 5). Similarly, the percentage who fertilized their landscape three or more times per year decreased even further (Figure 6). This corresponds with the audience's apparent high regard for
irrigation system
information about proper fertilization practices. The data do suggest that respondents have a greater concern for appearance of the lawn than other parts of the landscape because they were more willing to reduce frequency of fertilization of landscape trees and shrubs than that of the lawn.
In addition to reducing the frequency of applying fertilizer, the percentage of homeowners who participated in the ELM program that used other recommended fertilizing practices also increased (Figure 7). The one exception was that the number of participants using iron sulfate to green up a lawn (instead of using nitrogen fertilizers) did not increase. Program participants also have relatively low adoption rates for avoiding special applications of fertilizer for established trees and shrubs and for applying nitrogen at the proper rate (1
pound per 1000 square feet).
Pest Control
The use of some ELM pest control practices increased dramatically during the 6 months after the workshop. Eliminating preventative or scheduled
?BEFORE EXTENSION WORKSHOP �SIX MONTHS AFTER WORKSHOP
25%
16%
a%
9%
10%
6% - 4%
1

2%
Never Two Three Four Six Other
Figure 5. Number of fertilizer applications per year for the lawn by program participants.


USING ENVIRONMENTAL LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: An Exploratory Program Assessment
Page 5
?BEFORE EXTENSION WORKSHOP �SIX MONTHS AFTER WORKSHOP
Never
Three
Monthly Other
Figure 6. Number of fertilizer applications per year for landscape trees, shrubs, and bedding plants by program participants.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
FOLLOW FERTILIZE USE SLOW LOW FERT, AVOID 1 NITRO LABEL WHEN RELEASE LESS SPECIAL LR/1000 WARNING NEEDED PRUNE FERT SOFT.
US� MOM
Figure 7. Percent of participants using recommended fertilizing practices
insecticide sprays and spot-treating only the infested area were two practices which were adopted by a large percentage of program participants (Figure 8). Other practices showed gains in usage while the number of people who followed label warnings was essentially unchanged. The overall pattern of improvement signifies great interest in environmentally sound pest control as well as information that was new to participants.
Running against this trend was a decrease in the percentage of respondents who would tolerate slight plant damage rather than use pesticides. Perhaps this represents the high value that some individuals place on appearance of the landscape and an intolerance of obvious pest damage. One area on which future ELM programs might focus is on motivating homeowners to tolerate slight plant damage. This might be combined with a focus on changing certain cultural practices (only half said that they were doing this) to further avoid plant damage from pests.
Mowing & Pruning
Proper mowing and pruning practices were used by a majority of homeowners 6 months after the program. Proper grass cutting height and branch collar-pruning showed significant improvement 6 months after the workshop, and this probably is because these represented new information to the audience (Figure 9). The percent of participants using hand pruners to trim shrubs and sharpening the mower blade did not change appreciably. One reason for the latter might be that blade sharpening is tied to other maintenance activities for lawnmowers, and thus, inconvenient to do at other times.
Mulching & Recycling
A number of recommended mulching and recycling practices were already used by a majority of participants prior to the workshop, possibly because of extensive recycling campaigns by the local Cooperative Extension Service and municipal waste management authorities (Figure 10). Indeed, four out of five homeowners already left grass clippings on the lawn to recycle nutrients and applied mulch in beds around trees and shrubs prior to participating in the program. Thus, the overall pattern of change for mulching and recycling was modest. The improvement noted for increasing the size of mulched area around trees and for pulling mulch away from plant stems probably results from the audience's exposure to new information.


USING ENVIRONMENTAL LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: An Exploratory Program Assessment
Page 6
? BEFORE EXTENSION WORKSHOP � SIX MONTHS AFTER WORKSHOP
FOLLOW AVOID OFTEN USE ID PEST TOLERATE ONLY CHANGE
LABEL SCHEDULED CHECK LEAST BEFORE SLIGHT SPOT- CULTURAL
WARNING SPRAYS LAWN HARMFUL USING DAMAGE TREAT PRACTICE
AREAS
Figure 8. Percent of participants using recommended pest control practices.
? BEFORE EXTENSION WORKSHOP � SIX MONTHS AFTER WORKSHOP
USE HAND SET MOWER SHARPEN PRUNE CUT LESS THAN
PRUNERS BLADE AT BEST MOWER BRANCHES BY 1/3 GRASS HEIGHT HEIGHT BLADES COLLAR
Figure 9. Percent of participants using recommended mowing and pruning practices.
grass clippings threw out the grass clippings (Shown in the pie charts in Figure 11).
Wildlife
Although other topics have greater emphasis in the environmental landscape management program, wildlife can be an important part of homeowners' landscaping practices. The data in Figure 12 show that use of some landscape practices to enhance wildlife increased after the workshop. The practices showing the largest amount of change are using plants which provide food, selecting plants which provide cover or nesting sites for birds, and reducing the use of pesticides to avoid harm to insect-eating birds. The increased use of these practices is consistent with the increases in using recommended practices for planting and landscape design and for pesticide use. We also note that the percent of homeowners who said they provided food with feeders remained unchanged. This particular practice is not recommended (in fact we discourage it). In summary, the pattern of practices used by program participants suggests that the audience is doing more to enhance wildlife in their landscape.
Information Sources
When participants were asked for their reaction to the information about environmental landscape management, most held a positive view toward it. Nearly all respondents found ELM information provided by the Cooperative Extension Service to be somewhat or very useful (Figure 13). Nevertheless, sixty percent of respondents felt they needed help in learning more about ELM.
Despite the limited amount of change across the set of mulching and recycling practices, it was nonetheless gratifying to see the decrease in the number of individuals who removed (bagged) grass clippings (Shown by comparing the bars in Figure 11). Furthermore, fewer people who continued to bag their
Despite some feeling that they still needed to learn more, participants perceived that ELM practices benefitted them in a number of ways. About nine out of ten said that ELM practices save time on yard work, save money on fertilizer, pesticides, and water, and that ELM practices are easy to use (Figure 14). Although most participants were positive about environmental


USING ENVIRONMENTAL LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: An Exploratory Program Assessment
Page 7
? BEFORE EXTENSION WORKSHOP � SIX MONTHS AFTER WORKSHOP
MULCH LEAVE TREES & GRASS SHRUBS CUPPINGS
USE USE MAINTAIN MULCH USE PULL INCREASE RECY- YARD 2-3 INCH UNDER COMPOST MULCH AROUND CLED TRASH DEPTH TREES PILE FROM TREES MATERIALS STEMS
Figure 10. Percent of participants using recommended practices for mulching and recycling yard waste in their landscape.
spoken to others about environmental landscape management and nearly all of these encouraged others to try it (Figure 15). This suggests that participants felt the information was of sufficient value and relevance to share it with others.
INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS
The pattern throughout the data is one of increased use of recommended ELM practices. The percentage increases are large for some practices and more modest for others. This indicates that participants are trying a variety of landscaping practices and adopting the ones which best suit their landscape needs and lifestyle. We know from previous adoption studies (Rogers, 1983; Brown, 1981) that practice change is often a slow process and not everyone
landscape management, monetary expenses and the availability of supplies are two apparent barriers to the use of these practices. Two-thirds of participants said that starting some ELM practices is going to cost them extra money and some of these are less likely to use ELM practices if they have to spend extra money. This may affect changes to irrigation systems more than any other set of ELM practices that homeowners will use. In addition, finding materials for using some ELM practices can be a problem sometimes (less than half of participants said that they had no problem finding environmentally safe pesticides to purchase).
Of all the measures of participants' satisfaction with the program, one of the best is based on what they tell other people. During the six months after the workshop, over three-fourths of the participants had
BEFORE EXTENSION WORKSHOP
Removal of grass clippings
Disposal of clippings
ALL THE-) 5% TIME
34% SOMETIME
NOT 50% REMOVED
THROW AWAY SOME 11%
THROW AWAY ALL 13%
24%
USED FOR MULCH
SIX MONTHS AFTER WORKSHOP
Removal of grass clippings
Disposal of clippings
ALLTHE
THROW AWAY SOME
NOT 58% REMOVED
THROW AWAY ALL 7%
OTHER
"7%
20%
USED FOR MULCH
Figure 11. Practices used by participants for collecting and disposing of lawn clippings.


USING ENVIRONMENTAL LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: An Exploratory Program Assessment
Page 8
? BEFORE EXTENSION WORKSHOP � SIX MONTHS AFTER WORKSHOP
REDUCE PROVIDE USE PLANTS USE FEEDERS PLANTS PROVIDE BRUSH PESTICIDE WATER WITH FOOD FOR NEST PILES FOR COVER
USE SITES
Figure 12. Percent of participants using selected practices for enhancing wildlife in their yard.
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
67%
31%
2%
VERY USEFUL
SOMEWHAT USEFUL
NOT USEFUL
Figure 13. Participants' rating of the usefulness of ELM information.
adopts. Thus, we view the program to be successful when some people adopt some of the practices.
Additional analysis of the data (not shown here) reveals that some people were using recommended practices prior to the program but then dropped the practice. In these instances the practice didn't meet their needs - it might have been too costly, physically
difficult, etc. But for almost every ELM practice, the number of people who adopted a recommended practice outweighed the number who dropped it. Our data analysis also indicated that those people who were new to extension (i.e., they had not obtained information from the Cooperative Extension Service prior to attending the ELM program) were somewhat more likely to adopt practices than those who had obtained information from extension previously. One reason for this is that previous extension users had already been exposed to ELM-related information and they were more likely to have adopted these practices. This suggests, however, that the impact of the program can be increased by attracting more first time participants to ELM programs.
METHODS
The procedures used for the evaluation and their limitations are reviewed in this section.
Procedures
Evaluation Design
A one-group pretest-posttest design was used for the evaluation. Although all quasi-experimental designs have weaknesses (Campbell and Stanley, 1963), this one is most appropriate for exploring the questions posed for this evaluation.
Data Collection
The pre-program data were collected with a questionnaire (a copy is in the appendix). Participants were given the instrument upon arrival at the site of the educational program and asked to complete the questionnaire before the program began. Participants' name and address were obtained to allow for follow-up. A total of 269 participants completed the questionnaire at the May, 1992 program.
The follow-up questionnaire was mailed to program participants in early November, 1992. A postcard


USING ENVIRONMENTAL LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: An Exploratory Program Assessment
Page 9
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS AGREEING WITH STATEMENT
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
92%
95%
87% 87%

90%
I�I ARE EASY TO USE
I�I SAVES TIME ON YARD WORK
|-1 SAVES MONEY ON FERTILIZER
�i SAVES MONEY ON PESTICIDES
_| SAVES MONEY ON WATER BILL
� STARTING THEM DOES NOT COST EXTRA MONEY
_ NO TROUBLE FINDING � ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE PESTICIDES H NOT LESS LIKELY TO USE IF COST MORE
45%
50%
Figure 14. Program participants' landscape management practices.
perceptions about environmenta
Have you talked to friends about ELM?
no
"10%
Encouraged anyone to use ELM?
Data Processing and Analysis
Information from completed questionnaires was entered into a File Express database for each questionnaire (pre-program and follow-up). The computer program SAS/PC was used to calculate the descriptive statistics for this report. When only pre-program information was analyzed, all 269 responses were used in the analysis. Only the matched set of 113 respondents are used for comparisons of pre-program and follow-up data.
Design Limitations
One major problem with pretest-posttest designs is the loss of data due to nonresponse to the follow-up questionnaire. Research shows that respondents often differ from nonrespondents and this can adversely affect the interpretation of the evaluation data. Comparison of pre-program information between respondents and nonrespondents to the follow-up indicates the following:
� A larger percentage of respondents were already using many (but not all) ELM practices before the program than were nonrespondents.
� A larger percentage of respondents had obtained information from Extension before the program than had nonrespondents.
Figure 15. Participants sharing of ELM information with others.
reminder was sent to nonrespondents. A total of 113 participants returned the follow-up survey.
The meaning of these differences is unclear. On the one hand, opportunities to find a sizable number of participants who adopted ELM practices are reduced because of the higher percentage of "pre-users" in the matched dataset. On the other hand, the percentages might be inflated because those people who were least likely to adopt ELM practices did not respond to the follow-up.
Another limitation concerns the timing of the evaluation. Much of the information included in the ELM program had been disseminated prior to the program in 1992. As a consequence, some people had


USING ENVIRONMENTAL LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: An Exploratory Program Assessment
Page 10
previously obtained ELM information from Extension and begun applying those practices in their landscapes. Because previous Extension users were somewhat over represented in the evaluation, this might suppress the real level of change (higher) than what is reported here.
REFERENCES
Black, R. J. and A. W. Meerow. 1989. "Landscaping to Conserve Energy." Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society. 102:142-144.
Brown, Lawrence A. 1981. Innovation Diffusion: A New Perspective. New York: Methuen.
Campbell, Donald T. and Julian C. Standley. 1963. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Gileman, Edward F. and Sydney Park Brown. 1991. Florida Guide to Environmental Landscapes. Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. SP114. 32 pp.
Karlik, John. 1992. "A Study in Xeriscaping." American Nurseryman. July 15. pp. 72-77.
Nelson, John O. 1987. "Water Conserving Landscapes Show Impressive Savings." Journal of the American Water Works. March, pp. 35-36, 38-42.
Rogers, Everett M. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRES
The pre-program questionnaire and the follow-up questionnaire, respectively, are included in the following pages.


ENVIRONMENTAL LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT HOMEOWNER QUESTIONNAIRE
If you are a homeowner, home gardener or you care for a single landscape, please complete this form and hand it in after the program. We would like to find out about your current landscape practices. This information will help us to identify additional programs for you and others like you. Your input also will provide a baseline for later follow-up surveys. This additional information will be used to determine the impact that residents and landscape professionals are having in protecting the environment and conserving water and energy.
Thank you for sharing this information.
For Office Use Only
County_
Date_
Program_
Number_
GENERAL INFORMATION
Who cares for your landscape (lawn, shrubs, trees, ground covers, and flowers)? Please check only one answer.
_ Yourself or family member
_ Lawn care service
_ Property management or association employee
_ Other (please specify)
For the landscape that you maintain, check the type of property that best describes it:
_ House
_ Condo or apartment unit
_ Mobile home
_ Multiple unit complex
_ A single business property
_ Other (please specify)
About what size is the property or lot that you manage? (Check the answer that best fits.)
_ 1/8 acre (about 5,000 square feet)
_ 1/4 acre (about 10,000 square feet)
_ 1/3 acre to 1/2 acre (about 15,000 to 20,000
square feet)
_ 1 acre (about 40,000 square feet)
_ Over 1 acre (specify) _
About what percent of the landscaped area is lawn (turfgrass)?
_ 0to25%
_ 26 to 50%
_ 51 to 75%
_ 76 to 100%
SITE ANALYSIS, PLANTING, AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN
Please check all of the practices listed below that you currently use.
_Protect existing trees and shrubs before and
during construction.
_Test drainage of water in the soil(s).
_Test the pH of the soil.
_Identify sun and shade patterns.


_Select plants adapted to the conditions (soil,
sun, etc.) where they will be planted.
_Select plants with moderate growth rates to
avoid pruning as often as fast-growing ones.
_Group plants into beds.
_Group plants by maintenance needs.
_Group plants by water needs.
_Plant trees and shrubs in holes twice as wide
as the root ball.
_Plant trees and shrubs at the proper depth
with the top of the root ball even with or slightly higher than the soil surface.
_Shade western and eastern walls of your home
or office.
_If in north and central Florida, plant evergreen
trees and shrubs to deflect northwest winter winds.
_Design low-maintenance areas into the
landscape (natural areas, ground covers, and mulched areas).
IRRIGATION
How is the landscape (trees, shrubs, lawn, etc.) usually watered?
_ Natural rainfall only
_ Hose and/or moveable sprinkler or watering
can
_ Permanent irrigation system
IF YOU HAVE A PERMANENT IRRIGATION SYSTEM, check all the items below that are true for your system.
_Drip, trickle, micro or other system that
applies water directly to the soil.
_Overhead, sprinklers, or other system which
sprays water to fall like rain.
_Irrigation system has a timer to turn on and
off automatically.
_System has a rain shut-off device.
_System has a manual valve.
_System has separate zones for plant beds and
the lawn.
_Use micro irrigation for trees and shrubs.
_Calibrate the irrigation system to apply the
appropriate amount of water.
_Check system frequently for clogged heads,
broken pipes, or misdirected water.
Please check all of the practices listed below that you currently use whether you have a permanent system or hoses, moveable sprinklers, etc.
_Water plant beds separately from lawn.
_Water plants early in the morning or in the
evening.
_Apply about 1/2 to 3/4 inch of water per
irrigation.
_Water lawn only when 30-40% of the grass
blades fold together or show other signs of stress.
_Irrigate according to season.
FERTILIZATION
How often do you fertilize the lawn?
_ Monthly
_ Six times a year
_ Four times a year
_ Three times a year
_ Twice a year
_ Never
_ Other_
How often do you fertilize other areas of the landscape (excluding the lawn)?
_ Monthly
_ Six times a year
_ Four times a year
_ Three times a year
_ Twice a year
_ Never
Other_


Please check all of the practices listed below that you currently use.
_Follow fertilizer package label warnings.
_Use fertilizers with slow release components.
_Fertilize when needed.
_Apply at rates of 1 pound (lb.) of actual
nitrogen per 1000 square feet.
_Use iron sulfate to "green up" the lawn in the
summer.
_Avoid special applications of fertilizer for
established trees and shrubs.
_Fertilize sparingly to slow excessive plant
growth and reduce the need for frequent pruning.
PEST CONTROL
Please check all of the practices listed below that you currently use.
_Follow pesticide container label instructions
and warnings.
_Routinely check the lawn and landscape plants
for pest problems.
_Identify the problem before using chemical
controls.
_Spot-treat only the infested area of the lawn
plus a 3-5 ft. buffer zone.
_Change cultural practices which affect the
problem (i.e. mowing height, watering time, fertilization).
_Tolerate slight plant damage.
_Eliminate preventive or scheduled insecticide
sprays.
_If a pesticide is needed, choose the product
with the least harmful impact on the environment.
MOWING
Please check all of the practices listed below that you currently use when you mow.
_ Set your mower at the appropriate height:
3 to 4 inches for St. Augustinegrass 2Vt inches for dwarf St. Augustine 3 to 4 inches for bahiagrass 1 Vi to 2 inches for centipedegrass 1 to 2 inches for zoysiagrass Vi to 1 Vi inches for bermudagrass
_Cut no more than 1/3 of the blade of grass
per mowing.
_Sharpen the mower blade when grass shows
ragged cut.
Are the clippings removed (e.g. bagged or raked)?
_Yes, all the time
_Yes, sometimes
_No
If YES, what do you do with the clippings?
_Throw them away
_Composted
_Used for mulch
_Other_
PRUNING
Please check all of the practices listed below that you currently use when you prune trees and shrubs.
_Prune branches from trees just in front of the
branch collar.
_Prune shrubs by cutting branches with hand
pruners.


MULCHING & RECYCLING
INFORMATION SOURCES
Is any of your landscape mulched?
_ Yes
_ No
Please check all of the practices listed below that you currently use.
_ Apply mulch, 2 to 3 inches deep, in beds
around trees and shrubs.
_ Use recycled materials for mulches (such as
pine straw, oak leaves, grass clippings, compost, etc.).
_ Increase the size of mulched areas around
trees and shrubs as they grow.
_ Add mulch to maintain a 2 to 3 inch depth.
_ Pull mulch away from shrub stems and tree
trunks.
_ Use a compost pile.
_ Use yard trash (leaves, pruning clippings,
grass clippings, etc.) on site for compost or mulch.
_ Use "self-mulching" areas under trees.
_ Leave grass clippings on lawn to recycle
nutrients.
When you need information about your landscape, who helps you determine what, if anything, to do? (Check all that apply)
_ Self
_ Neighbor or friend
_ Lawn care or landscape service
_ Pest control company
_ Retail nursery or garden center
_ Extension Service publications
_ Extension agent, master gardener, plant clinic
_ Public agencies (libraries, water management
districts, utilities, etc.)
_ Other_
Please provide your name and mailing address so that we may contact you about future programs.
NAME:_
STREET:_
CITY:_ ZIP:_
THANK YOU!
WILDLIFE
Please check all of the practices listed below that you currently use.
_ Use plants in landscape which provide food
for wildlife.
_ Provide food with feeders.
_ Provide brush piles for cover.
_ Provide source of water for wildlife.
_ Select plants which provide cover or nesting
sites for birds.
_ Reduce use of pesticides to avoid harm to \elmeval\home_pre.elm 10-1-92
insect-eating birds.


ENVIRONMENTAL LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT
HOMEOWNER FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRE
For Office Use Only
County_
Date_
ID Number
Earlier this year, we collected information about the landscaping practices from a number of people. It is our understanding that you answered one of the questionnaires. That information is being used to identify additional programs for you and others like you. Your responses to the earlier questionnaire and to this one will be used to determine the impact that residents and landscape professionals are having in protecting the environment and conserving water and energy. To complete the impact assessment, we would like to find out about landscape practices that you are using now. Please take a few minutes and fill out the questionnaire now. Thank you for sharing this information.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Have you made any major changes in your landscape or changed residence during the past 6 months? (Please check your answer.)
_ Yes
_ No
_ Not Sure
If YES, What were the changes?
SITE ANALYSIS, PLANTING, AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN
Please check all of the practices listed below that you currently use.
_Protect existing trees and shrubs before and
during construction.
_Test drainage of water in the soil(s).
_Test the pH of the soil.
_Identify sun and shade patterns.
_Select plants adapted to the conditions (soil,
sun, etc.) where they will be planted.
Select plants with moderate growth rates to avoid pruning as often as fast-growing ones.
Group plants into beds.
Group plants by maintenance needs.
Group plants by water needs.
Plant trees and shrubs in holes twice as wide as the root ball.
Plant trees and shrubs at the proper depth with the top of the root ball even with or slightly higher than the soil surface.
Shade western and eastern walls of your home or office.
If in north and central Florida, plant evergreen trees and shrubs to deflect northwest winter winds.
Design low-maintenance areas into the landscape (natural areas, ground covers, and mulched areas).
IRRIGATION
How is the landscape (trees, shrubs, lawn, etc.) usually watered?
_ Natural rainfall only
_ Hose and/or moveable sprinkler or watering
can
_ Permanent irrigation system


Please check all of the practices listed below that you currently use whether you have a permanent system or hoses, moveable sprinklers, etc.
_Water plant beds separately from lawn.
_Water plants early in the morning or in the
evening.
_Apply about 1/2 to 3/4 inch of water per
irrigation.
_Water lawn only when 30-40% of the grass
blades fold together or show other signs of stress.
_Irrigate according to season.
IF YOU CHECKED "PERMANENT IRRIGATION SYSTEM" IN THE QUESTION ABOVE, check all the items that are true for your system.
_Drip, trickle, micro or other system that
applies water directly to the soil.
_Overhead, sprinklers, or other system which
sprays water to fall like rain.
_Irrigation system has a timer to turn on and
off automatically.
_System has a rain shut-off device.
_System has a manual valve.
_System has separate zones for plant beds and
the lawn.
_Use micro irrigation for trees and shrubs.
_Calibrate the irrigation system to apply the
appropriate amount of water.
_Check system frequently for clogged heads,
broken pipes, or misdirected water.
PEST CONTROL
Please check all of the practices listed below that you currently use.
_Follow pesticide container label instructions
and warnings.
_Routinely check the lawn and landscape plants
for pest problems.
_Identify the problem before using chemical
controls.
_Eliminate preventive or scheduled sprays.
Spot-treat only the infested area of the lawn plus a 3-5 ft. buffer zone.
Change cultural practices which affect the problem (i.e. mowing height, watering time, fertilization).
Tolerate slight plant damage.
If a pesticide is needed, choose the product with the least harmful impact on the environment.
FERTILIZATION
How often do you fertilize the lawn?
_ Monthly
_ Six times a year
_ Four times a year
_ Three times a year
_ Twice a year
_ Never
_ Other_
How often do you fertilize other areas of the landscape (excluding the lawn)?
_ Monthly
_ Six times a year
_ Four times a year
_ Three times a year
_ Twice a year
_ Never
_ Other_
Please check all of the practices listed below that you currently use.
_Follow fertilizer package label warnings.
_Use fertilizers with slow release components.
_Fertilize when needed.
_Apply at rates of 1 pound (lb.) of actual
nitrogen per 1000 square feet.
_Use iron sulfate to "green up" the lawn in the
summer.


MULCHING & RECYCLING
Avoid special applications of fertilizer for established trees and shrubs.
Fertilize sparingly to slow excessive plant growth and reduce the need for frequent pruning.
MOWING
Please check all of the practices listed below that you currently use when you mow.
_ Set your mower at the appropriate height:
3 to 4 inches for St. Augustinegrass 2Vi inches for dwarf St. Augustine 3 to 4 inches for bahiagrass VAXol inches for centipedegrass 1 to 2 inches for zoysiagrass Vi to 1 Vi inches for bermudagrass
_Cut no more than 1/3 of the blade of grass
per mowing.
_Sharpen the mower blade when grass shows
ragged cut.
Are the clippings removed (e.g. bagged or raked)?
_Yes, all the time
_Yes, sometimes
No
If YES, what do you do with the clippings?
_Throw them away
_Composted
_Used for mulch
_Other_
PRUNING
Please check all of the practices listed below that you currently use when you prune trees and shrubs.
_Prune branches from trees just in front of the
branch collar.
_Prune shrubs by cutting branches with hand
pruners.
Is any of your landscape mulched?
_ Yes
_ No
Please check all of the practices listed below that you currently use.
_ Apply mulch, 2 to 3 inches deep, in beds
around trees and shrubs.
_ Use recycled materials for mulches (such as
pine straw, oak leaves, grass clippings, compost, etc.).
_ Increase the size of mulched areas around
trees and shrubs as they grow.
_ Add mulch to maintain a 2 to 3 inch depth.
_ Pull mulch away from shrub stems and tree
trunks.
_ Use a compost pile.
_ Use yard trash (leaves, pruning clippings,
grass clippings, etc.) on site for compost or mulch.
_ Use "self-mulching" areas under trees.
_ Leave grass clippings on lawn to recycle
nutrients.
WILDLIFE
Please check all of the practices listed below that you currently use.
_ Use plants in landscape which provide food
for wildlife.
_ Provide food with feeders.
_ Provide brush piles for cover.
_ Provide source of water for wildlife.
_ Select plants which provide cover or nesting
sites for birds.
_ Reduce use of pesticides to avoid harm to
insect-eating birds.


VIEWS ON ELM PRACTICES
Do you feel that environmental landscape management (ELM) practices are easy to use?
_ Yes
_ No
_ Don't know
Do you think that ELM practices can save you time on yard work?
_ Yes
_ No
_ Don't know
Is starting some ELM practices going to cost you extra money?
_ Yes
_ No
_ Don't know
Do you think using ELM practices saves money on fertilizer?
_ Yes
_ No
_ Don't know
Do you think using ELM practices saves money on pesticides?
_ Yes
_ No
_ Don't know
Do you think using ELM practices saves money on your water bill?
_ Yes
_ No
_ Don't know
Do you have trouble finding environmentally safe (biorational) pesticides to purchase?
_ Yes
No
Are you less likely to use ELM practices if you have to spend extra money to make changes in your irrigation system, modify planting beds, or buy new equipment?
_ Yes
_ No
_ Don't know
How important are environmental considerations to your use of specific landscape practices?
_ Very important
_ Somewhat important
_ Not important
_ Don't know
Have you talked to friends or neighbors about using ELM practices?
_ Yes
_ No
_ Don't know
IF YES, Did you encourage anyone to use ELM practices in their yard?
_ Yes
_ No
How useful has Extension's information on ELM been to your landscape maintenance practices?
_ Very useful
_ Somewhat useful
_ Not at all useful
_ Don't know
Do you feel that you need more help using environmental landscape management practices?
_ Yes
_ No
If YES, what kind of help do you need?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!
Don't know
\ELMEVAL\HOME_FOL.ELM 10-1-92




COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, John T. Woeste, Director, in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture, publishes this information to further the purpose of the May 8 and June 30,1914 Acts of Congress; and is authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function without regard to race, color, sex, handicap or national origin. Single copies of extension publications (excluding 4-H and youth publications) are available free to Florida residents from county extension offices. Information on bulk rates or copies for out-of-state purchasers is available from CM. Hlnton, Publications Distribution Center, IFAS Building 664, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611. Before publicizing this publication, editors should contact this address to determine availability.


University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2011 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated May 24, 2011 - Version 3.0.0 - mvs