The Aesthetic Attributes of Green Infrastructure

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The Aesthetic Attributes of Green Infrastructure a Study of the Perceptions of Beauty, Ecological Significance, and Naturalness for a Stormwater Treatment Area by Three College Populations with Different Educational Backgrounds
Physical Description:
1 online resource (164 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Zhang, Bo
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Design, Construction, and Planning, Design, Construction and Planning
Committee Chair:
Carr, Margaret H
Committee Members:
Schnadelbach, Raymond Terry
Peng, Zhong-Ren
Hansen De Chapman, Gail Marie

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
aesthetic -- ecological -- naturalness -- perception
Design, Construction and Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Landscape Architecture -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Design, Construction, and Planning thesis, Ph.D.
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
This dissertation studied subjects’ perceptions of green infrastructure in order to inform the evolving theories of landscape aesthetics and emerging ecological aesthetic claims, while also practically aiding ecological design and supporting management through design guidelines. The dissertation addresses three questions: (1) Does the appearance of an ecological design affect people’s perception of its ecological significance? (2) Which is more valid for an ecological design, conventional aesthetics or ecological aesthetics? (3) Does one’s educational background influence one’s perception of the beauty of an ecological design? Stormwater treatment areas in the city of Gainesville, Florida are used to create sixteen test images.   Students (n=138) rated their perceptions of beauty, ecological significance, and naturalness for each of the sixteen images. They comprised three test populations: majors in landscape architecture, soil and water science, and a catch-all category for other miscellaneous academic departments on the University of Florida campus. By collecting the responses and conducting mean value ranking, ANOVA tests, correlation analyses, and ordinal regressions, the study questions were answered and explained. This study found that: (1) appearance is important in green infrastructure design and management because the perception of beauty largely determines the perception of ecological significance. (2) Most conventional aesthetic principles remain valid for design and management of green infrastructure. A new aesthetic appreciation of green infrastructure is emerging; however, it is not yet the dominant aesthetic. (3) Educational background influences the acceptance of the “new aesthetics,” however, conventional aesthetics have more weight in determining the common perception of beauty in different populations. The study concludes that the appearance of green infrastructure and the adjacent human activities should be addressed through policy enactment. Specific design guidelines for fence/rail, background, and vegetation at water’s edge are discussed in detail in this dissertation.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Bo Zhang.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
General Note:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2013.
General Note:
Adviser: Carr, Margaret H.
General Note:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2014-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID:
UFE0044664:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THE AESTHETIC ATTRIBUTES OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE A STUDY OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF BEAUTY, ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE, AND NATURALNESS FOR A STORMWATER TREATMENT AREA BY THREE COLLEGE POPULATIONS WITH DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUNDS By BO Z HANG A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013

PAGE 2

2 2013 Bo Zhang

PAGE 3

3 To my family

PAGE 4

4 ACK NOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my deepest and most sincere appreciation to many people, especially my committee members, who guided and supported me throughout this process. I would like to thank my chair, Professor Peggy Carr, who, while handling tr emendous administrative and academic loads, put enormous effort into guiding and helping me clearly express my ideas. Professor Terry Schnadelbach showed me the great depth and richness of the discipline of landscape architecture. Dr. Gail Hansen offered m e great guidance and excellent comments in developing the dissertation. Dr. Zhongren Peng gave me vigorous assistance in both methodology and writing. Professor Tina Grrucharri gave me great opportunities to teach many courses in the Department of Landsca pe Architecture. Professor Mary Padua gave me a great deal of support in developing both professional techniques and teaching skills. My thanks also go to Professor Glenn Acomb, Professor Les Linscot t Professor Bob Grist, Professor Kay Williams and Profes sor Kevin Thompson. They all made my experiences in this department unique and unforgettable. Finally, I am grateful to my family. My wife, Xi Liu, accompanies and grows with me. Not only did she take on all the responsibilities of a great wife but was a good critic of my academic work. My parents and parents in law gave us invaluable back up, both financial and emotional. I thank them for their sacrifices.

PAGE 5

5 T ABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 14 Important Definitions Related to Ecological Aesthetics ................................ ........... 16 Ecologic al Design ................................ ................................ ............................. 16 Green Infrastructure ................................ ................................ ......................... 16 Ecological Aesthetics ................................ ................................ ....................... 17 A Historical Overview of Ecological Aesthetics: Theoretical Needs ........................ 17 Major Debates in Ecological Aesthetics ................................ ................................ .. 21 Argument 1: The Imp ortance of Aesthetics in Ecological Design ..................... 22 Landscape architecture perspective ................................ .......................... 22 Societal perspective ................................ ................................ ................... 25 Argument 2: The Relationship of Conventional Aesthetics in Ecological Norms ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 28 Argument 3: The Function of Ecological Knowledge in Appreciating Ecol ogical Design ................................ ................................ .......................... 31 Stormwater Treatment Area as a Representative Type of Green Infrastructure ..... 36 National and Floridian Policies o n Stormwater ................................ ................. 38 Social Aspects of S tormwater Treatment Areas ................................ ............... 39 A Vehicle to Study Ecological Aesthetics ................................ ......................... 40 The Structure of the Dissertation ................................ ................................ ............ 41 2 LITERATURE REVIEW: LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS, PRECEPTIONS OF ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND NATURALNESS, AND THE I MPACTS OF KNOWLEDGE TO PERCEPTIONS ................................ ................................ ........ 43 Landscape Aesthetic Theories ................................ ................................ ................ 43 Biological Theories ................................ ................................ ........................... 44 Cultural Theories ................................ ................................ .............................. 47 Hybrid Theories ................................ ................................ ................................ 49 The Image Factors That Determine Landscape Perceptions ................................ .. 51 Natural Factors ................................ ................................ ................................ 51 Cultural Factors ................................ ................................ ................................ 57 Summary of Elements ................................ ................................ ...................... 59 The Perception of Natur alness ................................ ................................ ............... 59

PAGE 6

6 The Perception of Ecological Significance ................................ .............................. 62 Perception of Ecological Significance as a Measurement ................................ 65 Perceptions of Ecological Significance and Beauty ................................ .......... 65 The Su bjective Factors that Determine Landscape Perceptions ............................ 66 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 69 Creation of the Sample Images ................................ ................................ .............. 69 The Case City ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 69 Base Pictures Taken and Preparation ................................ .............................. 70 The Basic Variables Determ ination ................................ ................................ .. 73 Orthogonal Array ................................ ................................ .............................. 75 Framing Pictures ................................ ................................ .............................. 76 Design of the Survey Questionnaire ................................ ................................ ....... 77 The Perceptions of Sample Images ................................ ................................ 78 The Questions on Background ................................ ................................ ......... 78 Questions on Understanding Stormwater Treatment Areas ............................. 79 Survey Distribution and Data Collection ................................ ................................ .. 80 Respondent Selection ................................ ................................ ...................... 80 The Number of Respondents ................................ ................................ ........... 82 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 82 4 RES U LTS AND ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ..................... 86 Descriptive Information ................................ ................................ ........................... 87 Demographic Information ................................ ................................ ................. 87 Results of the Answers to the Questions on Knowledge of Stormwater Issues ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 90 Analysis of the Survey Results ................................ ................................ ............... 94 Correlations of Three Perceptions ................................ ................................ .... 94 The correlation between aesthetics and ecological significance ................ 94 The correlation between perceptions of beauty and naturalness ............... 95 The correlation between perceptions of ecological significance and naturalness ................................ ................................ ............................. 96 Comparison of Results for Three Populations Based on Means ...................... 97 Perception of beauty ................................ ................................ .................. 98 Perception of ecological significance ................................ ....................... 106 Perception of naturalness ................................ ................................ ........ 113 ANOVA Multiple Comparisons ................................ ................................ ....... 120 Perception of beauty ................................ ................................ ................ 120 Perception of ecological significance ................................ ....................... 121 Perception of naturalness ................................ ................................ ........ 122 Factor Weights in Three Perceptions ................................ ....................... 123 Perception of beauty ................................ ................................ ................ 124 Perception of ecological sign ificance ................................ ....................... 125 Perception of naturalness ................................ ................................ ........ 127

PAGE 7

7 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ....... 129 Importance of Appearance ................................ ................................ .................... 129 Hypothesis 1 is supported ................................ ................................ .............. 129 Hypothesis 2 is supported. ................................ ................................ ............. 130 Old Aesthetics Versus New Aesthetics ................................ ................................ 132 Hypothesis 3 is supported ................................ ................................ .............. 132 Hypothesis 4 and Hypothesis 5 are supported ................................ ............... 133 Hypothesis 6 is supported ................................ ................................ .............. 134 Hypothesis 7 is partly supported ................................ ................................ .... 135 The Impact of Educational Backgrounds in the Cognitive Process ....................... 136 Hypothesis 8 is not supported ................................ ................................ ........ 136 Hypothesis 9 is not supported ................................ ................................ ........ 137 Hypothesis 10 is supported ................................ ................................ ............ 137 Practical Implications ................................ ................................ ............................ 141 Importance of Policy About the Appearance of Green Infrastructure ............. 141 Management of Components of a Stormwater Treatment Area ..................... 142 The Limitation and Future Research Needs ................................ ......................... 143 The Low R Square Values ................................ ................................ .............. 143 Survey Subjects ................................ ................................ ............................. 144 The Tested Design Types ................................ ................................ .............. 144 APPENDIX A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL LETTER ................................ ... 146 B QUESTIONAIRE ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 147 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 154 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 164

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Population growth from 1950s 2000s in the City of Gainesville and the State of Florida ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 70 3 2 Selected big commercial facilities in the City of Gainesville ................................ 71 3 3 Basic commercial facilities in the City of Gainesville (image number consistent with Table 3 2) ................................ ................................ ................... 74 3 4 The image factors of 16 tested images ................................ ............................... 75 3 5 16 tested images prepared for the questionnaire ................................ ................ 77 4 1 ........................ 87 4 2 ................................ ........................ 88 4 3 ................................ ................. 89 4 4 Enrollment by ethnicity fall semester 2009 University of Florida ......................... 89 4 5 ................................ .......... 90 4 6 memb er?) ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 90 4 7 unaffected by future development if the dumping of garbage into water bodies can be prevented.) ................................ ................................ .................. 91 4 8 become more severe as more land becomes developed.) ................................ 92 4 9 ecosystems by slowing down the release of water into lakes and rivers. ) ........ 92 4 10 rs to Question 12 (The quality of stormwater affects the ................................ 93 4 11 stormwater knowledge ................................ ................................ ........................ 93 4 12 Pearson correlations between the perception of beauty and ecological significance for three populations (n = 46; n = 46; n = 46) ................................ .. 94

PAGE 9

9 4 13 Pearson correlations between the perception of beauty and naturalness for three populations (n = 46; n = 46; n = 46) ................................ ........................... 96 4 14 Pearson correlat ions between the perception of ecological significance and naturalness for three populations (n = 46; n = 46; n = 46) ................................ .. 97 4 15 hree populations ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 98 4 16 The rankings of sixteen images according to the mean value of rated perception of beauty by three populations ................................ ........................ 100 4 17 The ranking of sixteen images according to the mean value of rated perception of beauty by the soil and water science student population ............ 101 4 18 The ranking of six teen images according to the mean value of rated perception of beauty by the landscape architecture student population ........... 102 4 19 The ranking of sixteen images according to the mean value of rated perception of beauty by the general student population ................................ ... 103 4 20 Mean values of the rated perceptions of ecological significance of sixteen images by three populations ................................ ................................ ............. 107 4 21 Three rankings of sixteen images according to the mean value of rated perception of ecological significance by three populations ............................... 107 4 22 The ranking of sixteen images according to the mean value of rated perception of ecological significance by the soil and water science student population ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 109 4 23 The ranking of sixteen images according to the mean value of rated perception of ecological significance by the landscape architecture student population ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 110 4 24 The ranking of sixteen images accordi ng to the mean value of rated perception of ecological significance by the general student population .......... 111 4 25 Mean values of the rated perception of sixteen images of naturalness by three populations ................................ ................................ .............................. 114 4 26 Three rankings of sixteen images according to the mean value of rated perception of naturalness by three populations ................................ ................ 114 4 27 The ranking of sixteen images according to the mean value of rated perception of naturalness by the soil and water science student population .... 115

PAGE 10

10 4 28 The ranki ng of sixteen images according to the mean value of rated perception of naturalness by the landscape architecture student population ... 116 4 29 The ranking of sixteen images according to the mean value of rated perception of naturalness by the general student population ........................... 117 4 30 ANOVA multiple comparison significance values for 16 Images in terms of perception of beauty by th ree populations ................................ ........................ 120 4 31 ANOVA multiple comparison of significant values for 16 images in terms of perception of ecological significance by three populations ............................... 121 4 32 AN O VA multiple comparison of significant values for 16 images in terms of perception of naturalness by three populations ................................ ................ 122 4 33 Coefficient of each image factor in terms of perception of beauty by three populations ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 124 4 34 Coefficient of each image factor in terms of perception of ecological significance by three populations ................................ ................................ ...... 126 4 35 Coefficient of each image factor in terms of perception of naturalness by three populations ................................ ................................ .............................. 128 5 1 Number of images showing significant correlations for the three populations ... 130

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Large commercial facility sites in the Ci ty of Gainesville, FL (with/without stormwater treatment areas) ................................ ................................ ............... 72 3 2 The frame of a sample image ................................ ................................ ............. 76 4 1 The distributi on of mean values for the perception of beauty by the three populations. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 104 4 2 The distribution of mean values on the perception of ecological significance among three populations. ................................ ................................ ................. 112 4 3 The distribution of mean values on the perception of ecological significance by three populations. ................................ ................................ ........................ 118

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Gradua te School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE AESTHETIC ATTRIBUTES OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE A STUDY OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF BEAUTY, ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE, AND NATURALNESS FOR A STORMWATER TREATMENT AREA BY THREE COLLEGE POPULATIONS WITH DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUNDS By Bo Zhang August 2013 Chair: Margaret H. "Peggy" Carr Major: Design, Construction, and Planning ns of green infrastructure in order to inform the evolving theories of landscape aesthetics and emerging ecological aesthetic claims, while also practically aiding ecological design and supporting management through design guidelines. The dissertation addr esses three questions: (1) Does the significance? (2) Which is more valid for an ecological design, conventional aesthetics or ecological aesthetics? (3) perception of the beauty of an ecological design? Sto rmwater treatment areas in the C ity of Gainesville, Florida are used to create sixteen test images. Students (n=138) rated their perceptions of beauty, ecological significan ce, and naturalness for each of the sixteen images. They comprised three test populations: majors in landscape architecture, soil and water science, and a catch all category for other miscellaneous academic departments on the University of Florida campus. By collecting the responses and conducting mean value ranking, ANOVA tests, correlation analyses, and ordinal regressions, the study questions were answered and

PAGE 13

13 explained. This study found that: (1 ) appearance is important in green infrastructure design an d management because the perception of beauty largely determines the perception of ecological significance. (2) Most conventional aesthetic principles remain valid for design and management of green infrastructure. A new aesthetic appreciation of green inf rastructure is emerging; however, it is not yet the dominant aesthetic. (3) Educational background influences the acceptance of the h owever, conventional aesthetics have more weight in determining the common perception of beauty in differ ent populations. The s tudy concludes that the appearance of green infrastructure and the adjacent human activities should be addressed through policy enactment. S pecific design guidelines for fence/rail, background, and vegetation at water s edge are discu ssed in detail in this dissertation.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION E cological design is increasingly gaining academic recognition as more and more projects are designed, executed, and established based on its principles. Ecological aesthetic theories ha ve emerge d from this background, and these theories in turn inform ecological design practices with philosophical arguments, design guidelines, and explanations regarding appreciation mechanisms. Evolving ecological aesthetic theories inevitably generated competing theoretical proposals and created tension among existing landscape aesthetic theories. This dissertation summarizes and addresses these conflicts with three study questions: (1) Does the appearance of an ecological on of its ecological significance? (2) Which is more valid for an ecological design, conventional aesthetics or ecological aesthetics? (3) Does the beauty of an ecological design? Stormwater trea tment areas have been selected as a vehicle to address the theoretical questions about ecological aesthetics Design of stormwater treatment areas, including retention and detention pond s, are intended to enhance stormwater infiltration which can in turn alleviate severe urban runoff issues in areas under development and alleviate potential contamination of surfaces waters or an aquifer, Given that st or mwater treatment areas are not part of the indigenous landscape, they may not be immediate ly accepted an d appreciated by the general public With recent evidence indicating a negative perception of stormwater treatment areas and the associated management strategies, it is worth questioning whether people will ever perceive them as beautiful and ecologically significant.

PAGE 15

15 study. Stormwater treatment areas in the City of Gainesville, Florida were used to create sixteen test images. A survey then asked students (n=138) to rate their images. Th r e e student population s were selected from different academic departments: landscape architecture, soil and water science, and other miscellaneous academic d epartments on the University of Florida campus. The analysis of the perceptions among these three populations provided evidence needed to address the above mentioned study questions. The value and importance of this dissertation is two fold. First, it in forms new and growing ecological aesthetic theories. It reveals the relationship between the perception of beauty and ecological significance, explains the response to new design proposals that were tested, and the impact of knowledge on viewer preference By doing so, it moves towards a resolution of the conflicts among ecological aesthetic theories and existing landscape aesthetic theories. Secondly, this study offers practical guidelines for stormwater treatment areas thus aiding ecological design and su pporting management In this chapter, important concepts related to ecological aesthetics are defined. The importance of addressing aesthetic issues in ecological design is examined and reviewed in a historical context. Three major theoretical arguments a bout ecological aesthetic s are summarized and discussed. The ecological function of stormwater treatment areas and the challenge for their public acceptance are introduced.

PAGE 16

16 Important Definitions Related to Ecological Aesthetics Ecological Design Ecologica l design is defined as "any form of design that minimizes environmentally destructive impacts by integrating itself with living processes" (Van der Ryn and Cowan 1996, 18) and has its goal sustaining environmental health and integrity. Ecological design ap plies scientific findings about ecosystems to the practice of design, construction, and management rather than engaging in scientific study itself. Some writers in landscape architecture distinguish between ecological planning and ecological design (Thayer 1976). The former refers to regional scale arrangements and processes, while the latter deals with human scale form and space. This study accepts and adopts this distinction. Depending on the intensity of human intervention, ecological design can be cate gorized into four types: preservation of existing, functioning ecological systems; enhancement or re establishment of degraded ecological systems (restoration); intensification of ecological processes to mitigate potential or existing ecological degradati on; and environmental interventions which can reduce non renewable resource consumption (Monzingo 1997). Green Infrastructure Green infrastructure is an important category of ecological design that uses the inter supportive mechanisms of natural processe s, versus human constructed or engineered infrastructure. Vegetation, water, soils, and even animals can be components of a functional green infrastructure while the ir processes lead to environmental healing. Compared with other ecological design categorie s, green infrastructure adds resiliency to the design of the land.

PAGE 17

17 Stormwater treatment areas are the ecological design type selected for this study. The urgency and significance of stormwater management is reflected in the adoption of the Clea n Water Act and its subsequent amendments. The US Environmental Protection Agency defines green infrastructure as an approach communities can choose to maintain healthy waters, provide multiple environmental benefits and support sustainable communities (Environment Protection Agency, 2012). Ecological Aesthetics Webster.com 2011). That same dictionary defines person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or Webster.com 2011). Th e definition of aesthetics suggests that aesthetic perception originates from s ensual stimuli, and the emotional reactions they generate For the purpose of this study, I define ecological aesthetics to be the creation and appreciation of appearance of ecological design. Generally, ecological aesthetics is a sub branch of environmen tal aesthetics, while at the same time drawing criteria from or making connections with ecological knowledge. Ecological aesthetics does not examine biophysical effects; instead, it addresses subjective appreciation and perception. A Historical Overview of Ecological Aesthetics: Theoretical Needs Aesthetics are not often discussed in ecological studies but are always a topic in the landscape architecture discipline. When ecological knowledge and methods were absorbed into the discipline of landscape archite cture, not only were the core values society also called for new theoretical input.

PAGE 18

18 When ecological design is communicated and implemented society wide, understanding a nd acceptance can be achieved in various professional disciplines, particularly those involving aesthetics. For landscape architects addressing ecological issues exceeded purely technical applications and largely shook the status of aesthetics that once was dominant in landscape design. P ublic approval of mandatory ecological design and constructi on codes and voluntary adoption of ecological strategies rely on perception and cognition that can be addressed through research on aesthetics. A deeply rooted t riad of truth, goodness, and beauty in Western philosophy can help explain the challenge of incorporating ecology into landscape architecture Historically, the criticism of landscape architecture was developed as an alliance between goodness and beauty. I n this reciprocal model a landscape was rarely described as true or false since it was created from metaphysical concepts rather than empirical data M oral judgments describing the landscape as good and bad were based on aesthetics, and these judgments ev olved according to social and design style changes. The principles of beauty were explored through concepts such as proportion, scale, texture and color, which did not address ecological necessities. Concepts such as the golden mean ratio were also celebr ated to the point of becoming an ideology. It was not until McHarg published Design with Nature (1969) that the emphasis on goodness and beauty in landscape architecture began to shift. In his seminal book, McHarg prescribed a logical analytical landsc ape suitability model base d on a landscape designers and managers. The introduction of an analytic model directed ] the problems of modern

PAGE 19

19 development and present[s] a methodology or process prescribing compatible solutions." (Schnadelbach 2001, 228). This marked the point at which criticism of landscape architecture shifted from the goodness borrowed from ecologists to create a concept, suitability and for artifices. McHarg advocated that the landscape suitability model supersed es other considerations, and that aesthetic considerations be (McHarg 1969, 163). Practices that do not prioritize ecological health were thus labeled as false. New ecological discoveries about water resource protection, biodiversity, brownfield remediation, and other processes largely determine the rules for evaluation. Thus the linear truth goodness model was called on to replace the reciprocal goodness beauty model to access a landscape. Since Ian McHarg linked truth as manifested by ecology with environmental goodness in landscape architecture, he created the possibility of a complete triad of truth, goodness, and beauty in the discipline. However, until quite recently this ideal of ecological design has not been recognized, largely because aesthetics were overshadowed by the emphasis on ecological functionality The neglect of aesthetics has been criticized as an ecological determinism, which represents humanism, and a onzingo 1997, 57). The efforts t o combine aesthetics with ecolog ical norms came from multiple disciplines: landscape architects seeking design guidelines land managers looking for more effective maintenance, and soci ety needing a medi um to communicate en vironmental ethic s and tools to better manage ecological design projects. T he

PAGE 20

20 ultimate theoretical legitimacy of a link between aesthetics and ecological norms is marked by 0 McHarg received the National Medal of Art from President George H. W. Bush in recognition of his contributions to ecological design. This was the first time a landscape architect was awarded this honor, the highest honor ever received by a member of the disciplin e. There was some irony in this, given that the medal was called the National Medal of Art and McHarg regarded himself as a spokesman for science. In the first century w 1997, 331). This about in environmental protection Two years after he received the National Medal of Art, McHarg spoke of the legitimacy of aesthetics in ecological design at a symposium at Arizona State University in1992 He admitted that ecological design will require a fusion Four alternatives may be used to combine aesthet ic s and ecological considerations: a landscape can be (1) beautiful and ecologically function al (2) ecologically function al but not beautiful, (3) beautiful but not ecologically function al (4) not beautiful and not ecologically functional The second and third alternatives suggest an inconsistency between aesthetics and ecology. McHarg s or m and process is indivisible as expressed in Alternative 1, (McHarg 1969, 163) is basically open to test. L andscape architecture and ecology are two distinct disciplines N either the research methods nor the indices of the two disciplines are the same. While ecological

PAGE 21

21 design attempts to absorb the finding s of ecological research, many ecological strategies and techniques do not translate directly into visually appealing landscape elements. For example, many communities express concern about the visual impact of solar panels and wind turbines. The same is the case for stormwater treatment areas, addressed in this study. Major Debates in Ecological Aesthetics Varying theoretic al approaches that recognize the legitimacy of the consideration for visual appearance of ecological design offer persuasive reasoning about the beauty of a landscape with ecological integrity and at the same time, reflect diff erent research motivations and purposes Diverse or even contrasting principles of ecological aesthetics are helps explain this phenomenon. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), Ku hn proposes the concept of a paradigm as a philosophical construct to reflect a knowledge shift in scientific communities. A paradigm codifies viable approaches to solving problems that were unsolvable by a previous knowledge community. As a knowledge terr ain is forming, this paradigm evolves through stages : forming, gaining legitimacy, competing theories, and resolutions. Design with Nature prescribed an ecological planning method which led the design disciplines to an emphasis o n biophysical health and at the same time disparaged the role of aesthetics in design. This shift soon evoked proposals for recognizing the legitimacy of 1976 article Visual Ecology can be regarded as part of the formative stage of ecological aesthetics. This stage lasted until 1997 when McHarg admitted that

PAGE 22

22 (s) This signaled that ecological aesthetics had gained legitimacy, though its potential for application needed further exploration. Currently, emergent design principles suggest the paradigm is in its third phase, characterized by competing theories. In t he subsequent sections, I summarize three arguments currently being addressed in competing theories: (1) Does the appearance of a green infrastructure affect the perception of ecological significance? (2) Are the conventional and new aesthetic principles s till valid for a green infrastructure ? (3) Does ecological knowledge affect perceptions about a green infrastructure ? Argument 1: The Importance of Aesthetics in Ecological Design Discourses from landscape architects and society as a whole about the need to re emphasize aesthetics after ecological principles evolved appeared as early as the 1970s and continue to the because it implies the two can be related. The following sections summarize the reactions from landscape architects and the general public. Landscape architecture perspective Landscape architects were not satisfied with simply complying with ecological codes, fulfilling ecological planning guidel ines, and applying new ecological techniques. The discussion of ecological aesthetics among landscape architects also reflects their desire to make connections at multiple levels between this established profession and emerging discoveries. Revealing the l imitations of ecological design, the discussion redefines and expands the scope, value, and territory of both landscape architecture and ecological design.

PAGE 23

23 First, r ecognizing and incorporating biophysical processes into design is an important concept. Unf ortunately, McHarg offered almost no clues on how human scale designs should follow. And not surprisingly, his method offered few specifics for a revision of current human scale design convention s For Peter Walker, ecological planning methodology only sat isf ies people who are interested in saving and preserving things while disappointing those interested in making things ( See Gillette 1996, 26). Ecological determinism that prioritizes ecological concerns over aesthetics is argued to be empty and unjustifi ed by the likes of Peter Walker. McHarg asserted that (McHarg 1970, 179). Marc Treib noted that McHarg's method insinuated that a cause effect relationship existed between the right landscape process and a beautiful (2001) notes that McHarg had been unab le to translate the planning ideas into constructible forms and space in The Woodlands (a project in Texas McHarg directed in 1970s), a weakness which hindered the firm in commissioning projects. Many landscape architects embracing environmental ethics, planning guidelines, and techniques find their professional territory of parks, gardens, civic open spaces, and residential developments and design processes largely unchanged since the ecological norms were introduced. Landscape architects gain their prof essional status through

PAGE 24

24 physical manifestation of art (Thayer 1976) in these areas of their discipline. The call for discussions on the relationship between ecological norms and aesthetics from landscape architects indicates a disturbing gap between practi ce and theory. Initially, the criticism of some practitioners as lacking ecological sensitivity did not affect design practice. Instead it remained centered on giving form and creating place. scape architects] to order nature, in that order existing an opportunity to produce the happiest marriage between What n ature looks like, or is supposed to of daily remained unchanged. Eckbo described the relevance of ecology as an impetus for approach was void of human expression. Neither the rejection of conventional aesthetics nor the diminishing importance assigned to aesthetic s as a subject helps answer the fundamental question: should designers change the ir human scale design methodology in addition to their landscape planning methodology in response to ecological considerations; or, do the conventional design approaches s till work? The lack of discussion on design methodology le ft practitioners at loose ends. Late Twentieth Century theories d id not adequately enable landscape architects to generate beautiful human scale design scenarios that were also ecologically respons i ve or sound.

PAGE 25

25 This situation wa observation (1976), college landscape design studios lack the theories and processes to enable design to progress logically from ecological analysis to satisfyi ng human scale composition. Therefore, students are taught the innovative methods of analysis but traditional philosophies of landscape design. While the old design aesthetics are not necessarily inappropriate, they should, however, be discussed, justifie d or refined in the context of ecological functions and new societal and cultural norms. Many landscape architects show enthusiasm for potential stylistic changes in aesthetics brought about by the calls for ecological integrity. For some ambitious land scape architects and historians, there was an urgent need to define a new and appropriate aesthetic under the ecological norm. In history, design disciplines formed a firmly rooted tradition that theorizes design aesthetics according to social change. Unde r this tradition, theoreticians propose new aesthetics within the new social and technical contexts in response to ecological ethics and technologies. At the same time, practitioners seek new formal and spatial expressions inspired from social settings. Th e narrative of landscape architecture history always r egard s a stylistic transition as a critical land mark. Accordingly, a stylistic change inspired by ecology is expected by some landscape architects Societal perspective An ecological design becomes pa rt of societal existence when executed and about adopting ecological techniques and enacting environmental codes and laws are largely a social matter; at the same time, the landscape can act as a didactic medium to convey social values to its users.

PAGE 26

26 s suitability method barely touched upon social issues beyond the discussion of environment al healing and planet curing ( Laurie, 1997). This ch anged as the 1980s progressed, when McHarg integrated social elements into both his writing and practice. In 1981, he wrote Human Ecological Planning at Pennsylvania and completed a few projects incorporating social factors. In this article, McHarg clearl y acknowledged that no systems in the environment are the likeliness of human dominance over the global environment (1981). McHarg sought to extend ecology by adding deemed an adaptive strategy (1981, 43). The emergence of social elements in the overlay method, such as transportation, housing, commercial, and others signified that McHarg acquiesced to the reality of human beings in renewed concept of ecological design is therefore no longer a socially empty place, but is now full y occupied by humans This leaves room for the consideration of appearances in the ecological design of the future. At almost the same time, John Lyle published his book Design for Human Ecosystem (1985). This book suggests expanding the notion of ecosystem to include human activities. This holistic approach includ es not only the preservation of natural systems but also all human activi ties, such as restoration agricultural production, and nature as one of the most essential and meaningful mechanisms that affect the health of the environment Thoughts an d visions that guide human activities, specifically aesthetics, become an indispensable part of human ecosystem research.

PAGE 27

27 Given that ecological design is defined as an ethical activity (Mozingo 1997), scholars link ecological aesthetic s to environmental e thics. In this view, the appearance of landscape can be used as a medium to convey environmental ethics. Aesthetics of the outdoor environment convey or remind people about environmental ethics more effectively than more literal methods (Meyer 2008). Lands capes provide opportunities for people to experience surroundings as part of their everyday activities (Kaplan 1985). As Thayer proposes, if landscape as used in advertisements can help promote the sales of cars, cigarette s and shampoo, it can also be use d to promote concern for an optimal man nature relationship (Thayer 1976). With the growth of environmental concern landscapes not only convey environmental values, but they also constitut e a medium for users to communicate their concerns. Echol (2007) su ggests that clients with environmental knowledge may expect artistic landscape interventions to articulate their ethics. Scholars try to explain the importance of landscape appearance in social life from different angles. Meyer emphasizes the belief that subjective experiences in landscape translate into changed attitudes. Pleasing aesthetic experiences evoke positive moods and feelings towards the environment, which then creates the foundation for evolving environmental values and potential legislation. T he moods listed by Meyer include written literal documents, or by concrete statistical data. The se highly civilized humane

PAGE 28

28 exalts environmental ethic s further engagement in the environment al movement (Nadenicek and Ha stings 2001) Howett (1987) and Thayer (1989, 1998) propose to apply symboli c theory from architecture to communicate li t eral ideas th r ough landscape forms. Certain forms of landscape elements, such as windmills, stormwater ponds, and solar panels, produc e tangible environmental benefits and possess unique, clear and definite meanings. Howett even states that every designed landscape ought to be an ecological sign, or a composition of signs as every landscape has some relationship with the natural world (H owett 1987). These signs can in turn transmit significant ecological meanings. The appearance of landscape can be reinforced through landscape management while combining cultural and ecological norms Nassauer ( 1992, 1997) offered empirical studies which demonstrate that order ed landscapes are more likely to be better maintained than those randomly shaped. The proper adoption of aesthetics facilitates a merger of environmental functions and human uses for the same piece of land. Th ese ideas have evolved fr om the theory, methodology and testing of visual resource management. Argument 2: The Relationship of Conventional A esthetics in Ecological Norms Scholars question whether conventional aesthetics can respond to newly revealed ecological techniques and env ironmental values. Social determinists hold the belief that aesthetics evolve chronologically and respond to the unique cultural and technical context of a specific era. Howett stresses that there is a one to one relationship: only press specific time and culture (Howett 1987). The writings of design history traditionally pair social and cultural changes with new aesthetic tastes.

PAGE 29

29 This tradition is also reflected by those proposing that the fusion of ecology with aesthetics would gen erate a new aesthetic (Howett 1987). Criticizing the conventional theories and practices is a convenient way to redefin e to the rationale for denying the import ance of aesthetics as an essential element in ecological norms. For example, the picturesque landscape (or pastoral landscape) is always criticized as an inappropriate ecological aesthetic type, because of the link to environmental degradation, including h ighly artificial plant communities, sizes, expensive maintenance (Spirn 1984), and the use of fertilizers and herbicides associated with these landscapes Howett suggests putting aside the old scenic conventions (Howett 1987) in order to appropriately symb olize new practices. Visual uniqueness is adopted as a deciding standard for the new ecological aesthetics (Mozingo 1997, Meyer 2008) This viewpoint suggests that landscapes with more eye catching and innovative features are capable of conveying ecologic al messages more effectively, while ordinary forms and elements are less successful. Mozingo suggests that an ecological landscape that is also aesthetically successful lan this goal, landscape scenes should be celebrated by creating contrast with their physical context (Monzigo 1997). This theory suggests that landscapes that follow or

PAGE 30

30 intensify ecological processes do not lend them sel ves to perceivable order in the landscape (Mozingo 1997) While some deem innovation a must for achieving ecological aesthetics, others suggest the employment of conventional aesthetics can also achieve beauty while maintaining ecological sensitivity (Nassauer 1997, Gobster 1999, 2007). This approach sugg ests drawing inspiration from history and social conventions. Compared to the innovative approach discussed above t his approach focuses on borrowing human assets rather than creating fine arts. Such design strategies employ conventional landscape elements 1992, 246). Nassauer suggests i.e., commonly seen ng the harmonious relationship of people with nature. Phenomenological theory also supports this argument by emphasizing the connection of people with on site experiences. Common place aesthetics are idealized heroic, sel f actualizing, ego transcending image of of human designed environment, is set as the ideal. In this notion, conventional landscapes set a better apex for human activitie s than eye catching artistic installations (Koh 1988, Thayer 1989). The human environment relationships are described as holistic and interactive (Berleant 1970, Koh 1988), as opposed to a view and be viewed approach that isolates the beholder from the env ironment. Compared with those viewing

PAGE 31

31 uch unity is a way to achieve harmony, generates aesthetics (Koh 1988). Should one be innovative or conventional? Testing these theories in different ecosystem types and scales will help reveal the answer. In this study, I will test the appearance of stormwater treatment areas as a representative type of green infrastructure. The definition of green infrastructure excludes new and highly engineered ecological design ty pes, such as wind turbines or photovoltaic arrays that need to be studied. This ecological design type is comprised of natural elements and constitutes a good vehicle to test the complementarity of conventional aesthetic theories and innovative aesthetic a cclaims. Argument 3: The Function of E cological Knowledge in Appreciating Ecological Design As Olin states, art and ecology are basically two independent matters (Olin 1997). Ecologically health y landscapes are not necessarily beautiful; landscapes with greater potential for environmental health are not necessarily more beautiful. The incorporation of technology into the landscape is sometimes not visua l l y appealing (Thayer 1989). Both ecological knowledge and ecological planning challenge the rather lim ited human sensory system, and methods of appreciation. In a landscape analysis system that uses overlays, Kaplan(1976) suggests that the higher the level at which b iophysical conclusions are summarized for a landscape suitability model the less informati on is perceivable by ordinary human sensors In addition, the various scales represented by ecological knowledge (from micro to macro scales) may invalidate the conventional appreciation mechanism that takes places only at the human scale

PAGE 32

32 The fusing of ec ological goals and aesthetic goals assumes that people have the ability to connect the two, which would make the appreciation of ecological aesthetics a cognitive process. For this to be the case, necessarily affect t heir visual perception, regardless of whether the objective is designed using new or conventional landscape elements. The effect of ecological knowledge on visual perception is the third major debate in ecological aesthetics. Seeing appreciation as a cogni tive process links landscape aesthetics to Webster.com 2011). This mean s landscape appreciation is influenced by more than visual perception of color, texture, shape, an d composition, but also by ecological knowledge. An emphasis on ecological knowledge adds depth to landscape practice beyond visual determinism. Howett notes that the appreciation process should involve human minds and souls as well as sensory perception (1987). Highlighting the understanding of biophysical effects on appreciation offers a connection between aesthetics and their ecological significance. sustainable merits con tained in the ecological information (1989). And he suggests adopting the concept of perception to replace aesthetics, since he regards the latter concept as being insufficient to contain indispensable ecological information. Ittleson (1974) further define s environmental perception as an information processing system. In this system, individuals are supposed to actively explore their surroundings and to extract information through constant human environment interaction. Scientific understanding lead s to a r outine of thinking and fill s in gaps of ambiguity which amends

PAGE 33

33 and updates purely sensory aesthetic experiences. The introduction of a cognitive (purely sensory aesthetics) (Or nstein and Erlich1989). In aesthetic research, the roles of visual information, related knowledge, and their interaction are at the center of understanding cognitive aesthetics. Emerging knowledge from ecological research provides new opportunities to enri ch the cognitive aesthetic theory. The recognition of the importance of ecological knowledge has practical ramifications. Improved landscape aesthetics can be achieved by better ecological g to the essential knowledge that higher education should impart. Mozingo also proposes that ecological reduce s preferences and increases the role of environmental ethics by involving landscape design It should be noted that there is a risk of overstating the importance of ecological knowledge to landscape appreciation. While the importance of embedded information is suggested above, l andscape appreciation can hardly happen without the initial input of sensory informatio n. First, sensory stimulation is an inevitable part of cognitive aesthetics. Howett suggests that people trust their vision, so that a judgment about the quality of a landscape is deliberately manipulated to conform to certain visual norms (Howett 1987). A ppleyard (1976) observes a paradox: that as designers become more adept and sophisticated at conceptualizing environment s with the assistance of aerial photographs, maps, statistics, and mathematical modeling, they will distance

PAGE 34

34 themselves from the city or landscape they are examining This suggests that an increase in objective knowledge has the potential to isolate designers from real human involvement and tangible perceptions of landscape. Therefore, the importance of sensory information to aesthetic app reciation should not be overlooked Separating ecological information from visual and other sens ory inputs will lead to co n clusions about aesthetics that in the end will not serve landscape design and management well. Second, overstating the role of ecolog ical knowledge may lead to the cause effect sections. Though the leader of the ecological determinism school, McHarg, acknowledged aesthetics in ecological design, but he ne ver achieved the integration of the two Lyle also h e ld this illusion : he suggests that if the inherent elegance of ecological process is manifested in form, that form will be meaningful, even beautiful, in terms of process and context (Lyle 1994). Third, the relationship between perception and cognition should be discerned. Arnold Berleant (1985) the environment as a field of forces that engages both perceiver and perceived in dynamic unity. Ko h regards visual sensation and cognitive understanding as not only mutually complementary but also indivisible (Koh 1988). Like other researchers, he proposes pairs of opposing concepts that relate to aesthetics which interact with each other automatically These pairs include disciplined aesthetics and intellectual judgment, irrational unconsciousness and rational consciousness, subjective and objective views, and ego centered and ego transcending views of the environment (Koh 1988). Idealizing the interac tion between perception and cognition may blur the very specific

PAGE 35

35 relations between the two. At the same time, the proposed integrity of perception and cognition requires empirical testing. As suggested by Howett (1987), applying a cognitive mechanism to e xplain the appreciation mechanism of ecological designs competes with the appreciation mechanism explained by symbolic theory. Both theories recognize the relevance of ecological knowledge in defining a new aesthetic. The former stresses the role of ecolog ical knowledge in the appreciation process, while the latter uses icons that the society has recognize d as representative of related ecological effects. The formation of a symbolic landscape and the acceptance of a visual factor as representative of a n aes thetic consensus require a rather long period of development. Once formed, the recognition of this image or object stays rather stable, and will be admired, preserved, and most tellingly imitated society wide (Mozingo 1997). On the other hand, well receive d symbols, such as solar panels, reinforce environmentalism and shape social consciousness, which can change the design trend of landscape architecture. As Monzingo states, becoming iconic is the way that ecological designs are redefined as good landscape forms (Mozingo 1997). This process transmits ecological knowledge into shared cultural meanings embodied in landscape symbols (Spirn 2001, Tuan 1974). The recognition of well accepted icons does not require the qualification of ecological knowledge for eac h beholder. To some, asking a person at a scene if they think it is In order to determine the degree to which ecolog ical knowledge affects visual perception further studies must be done. An understanding of the role played by

PAGE 36

36 ecological knowledge has the potential to affect the landscape architecture discipline. de signed landscapes to convey ecological information, or should we expect the education of ecological aesthetics will inform landscape architecture with prescriptive d esign guidelines, while the latter asks for more environmental education, which is less relevant to design practice. If ecological aesthetics rely on ecological knowledge to gain popularity, then is this perception a real aesthetic reaction or a knowledge judgment? Will an ugly but sustainable landscape be perceived as more beautiful or perhaps acceptable if the viewer possesses more ecological knowledge? And are there universal aesthetic principles that can be employed if the viewers possess such ecologic al knowledge? To summarize, the three arguments above present the complexity and uncertainty of ecological aesthetics. Argument 1 focuses on the importance of aesthetics in ecological design. Argument 2 develops prospective aesthetic prescriptions, while argument 3 stresses the new appreciation mechanism. This study regards over generality as the source of these arguments. Assuming deducted categories will be matched with appropriate prescriptive design principles, this study chooses green infrastructure a s one approach to ecological design, and more specifically, uses the stormwater treatment area as a representative type of green infrastructure. Therefore, a philosophical debate is avoided between the dynamics of aesthetics and the diversity of ecological design. Stormwater Treatment Area as a Representative Type of Green Infrastructure This study uses stormwater treatment areas as a vehicle to test the three argument s The design and construction of stormwater treatment areas is a relatively

PAGE 37

37 new type of green infrastructure that address es issues of water quantity and quality U rban development requires prompt conveyance of stormwater off constructed areas to avoid flooding. Stormwater treatment area s deal with flood control, and simultaneous ly remove cont aminants from storm w ater before recharg ing surface water and / or underground aquifer. Design of retention and detention pond s are intended to enhance the stormwater infiltration and alleviate potential contamination of the aquifer. With increasingly effec tive technological solutions to point source pollution, nonpoint source pollution became the major cause of water quality degradation in the Unite d States in the late twentieth century (Environment al Protection Agency 2002) Uncontrolled stormwater, includ ing agricultural runoff and urban runoff, degrades the environment in several ways (1) The runoff decreases the top soil on which the growth of vegetation relies. (2) The sediments carried by runoff into bodies of water cause turbidity, which reduce s ligh t penetrat ion and negatively affects aquatic plants and animals. (3) Nutrients like phosphorous and nitrogen from fertilizers cause rampant growth of algae and consumption of oxygen, which results in hypoxia in the aquatic system. (4) Pathogen s bacteria, heavy metal s and grease also affect the water quality and the health of the aquatic system ( Environmental Protection Agency 2002) The urban runoff issue is even more severe in areas under development. The state of Florida is a typical example. Stormwate r brings contaminants from the increased impermeable urban surfaces, such as roads, parking lot s building roof s etc., and some permeable surfaces, such as lawns where pesticides and fertilizers are used, into the water body. More impervious surfaces mean more potential to ac c umulate and transport pollutants, and less opportunit y to hold back and filt er the contaminants.

PAGE 38

38 As difficult as it is to determine specific discharge locations where pollution caused by storm water accumulates construct ing stormwat er treatment areas at each development site for the storage, conveyance, and infiltration of runoff would be a viable and practical way to manage stormwater The need s to recharge groundwater and to reduce downstream volumes of stormwater have resulted in the preferred practice of constructing stormwater treatment areas near or at developed sites. T he design and construction of stormwater treatment areas, which often involv e landscape architects and hydrological engineers contributes to the image of the po st development landscape. Policies on Stormwater : U .S. and State of Florida A stormwater treatment area is introduced into landscape design and management to eliminate pollutants and to enhance the health of the hydrological system. A research project conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency between 1979 and 1983, the first comprehensive study of urban storm water pollution across the nation, found that "wet basins (designs which maintain a permanent water pool) have the greatest performan ce capabilities" ( Environmental Protection Agency 1984) The state of Florida began to enact law s to address the stormwater issue in the late 1970s. According t o Chapter 40C 42, F.A.C., any project that exceeds the following thresholds is required to addre ss the stormwater issue in order to acquire an Environment Resource Permit. (a) Construction of 4,000 square feet or more of impervious or semi impervious surface area subject to vehicular traffic. This includes roads, parking lots, driveways, and loading zones. (b) Construction of 9,000 square feet or more of impervious surface.

PAGE 39

39 (c) Construction of 5 acres or more of a recreational area. Recreational areas include but are not limited to golf courses, tennis courts, putting greens, driving ranges, or ball f ields. These requirements mandate that a stormwater treatment area be provided as green infrastructure for each development project that exceeds the thresholds Social Aspects of S tormwater T reatment Areas To satisfy environmental regulations a large num ber of sto r mwater ponds are dug all over Florida dramatically alter ing the original topography. Considering the effects of increasing population and the resultant development, the construction of stormwater treatment areas will continue and impose endurin g environmental and visual impacts on the landscape in forthcoming decades. This study focuses on the perception of stormwater treatment areas instead of their biophysical characteristics. Given that st or mwater treatment areas are not part of the indigeno us landscape, they may not be immediate ly accepted and appreciated by the public because t hey are sometimes perceived as dangerous and uninviting. In the City of Gainesville, Florida, most stormwater treatment areas are located at the back of major buildin gs and development sites According to my survey of the Orlando Sentinel, the major newspaper in the Orlando Metropolitan Area more than 24 events o f child drowning s and driving accidents associated with stormwater ponds were reported during the period fr om 2005 to 2010. Residents and human access be limited demonstrate that this landscape feature is far from being perceived as a n amenity With so much evidence indicating a negative perception about stormwater treatment areas and the consequential management strategies, it is worth

PAGE 40

40 question ing whether people can still perceive them as beautiful and ecological ly significant A Vehicle to Study Ecological Aesthetics A stormwater treatment area, while ecological ly beneficial possesses unique visual characteristics. This ecological design feature fits the study s need for a vehicle to gauge the potential changes in landscape aesthetics. natural e lements, such as water, soil and vegetation. Unlike ecological installations that take readily identifiable forms such as solar panels and windmills, a stormwater have been used throughout the history of landscape architecture design, even when the A stormwater treatment area utilizes the process es of natural elements. Compared with other gre en infrastructure, the simple ecological goal of the stormwater treatment area (runoff quality and quantity issues) makes it a good vehicle to discuss ecological aesthetic issues. Other types of green infrastructure, such as forests, have conflicting value s, i.e., utilitarian use versus environmental healing, which can make the aesthetic discussion complex. The concept of ecological aesthetics offers a model to understand the subjective perception of a landscape image when its ecological function is recogn ized. Perception is not isolated. W hat people appreciate about a landscape is not the individual elements of soil, water, or vegetation, but the whole scene itself with all its elements. The water cleaning mechanism, which is beneficial to long t erm enviro nmental health and resource sustainability, is neither in our genetic memory nor our visual memory This

PAGE 41

41 study seeks to determine whether the previous aesthetic theories can be applied to this new landscape type to generate new theoretical findings and per haps greater acceptance of green infrastructure. The Structure of the Dissertation invisible pr eceding discussions suggest that ecological aesthetics are still being formed. In this process, aesthetic conventions are contemplated, new infrastructure types are emerging, and environmental messages and social ideas are being communicated. The study qu estions are: (1) ecological significance? (2) Which is more valid for an ecological design, conventional aesthetics or ecological aesthetics? (3) an ecological design? This study provides evidence to reveal the degree of change that ecological considerations bring to landscape aesthetics. At the same time, the application of landscape aesthetics to gre en infrastructure is tested. The results i nform not only the theoretical constructs, but also the management of green infrastructure. compositions and new appreciation mechan isms. As Eaton (1990) suggests, the aesthetics of every era only communicate within an already existent language and cultural system. This study will apply existing landscape aesthetic theories to produce

PAGE 42

42 test images. The image components are captured from stormwater treatment area s in the city of Gainesville, Florida. T his work is arranged into the following chapters: In Chapter 2, the landscape aesthetic theor ies that direct the visual preference assessment are discussed its relationship to aesthetic perception is also discussed. In this chapter, the perception of ecological significance is defined as a third perception for subsequent testing. R esearch design is discussed in Chapter 3 which includes discussion of the development of the survey, the selection of participants, the preparation of tested images, and the analysis method ology employed. The hypotheses and their relationships to the study questions are also discussed. In Chapter 4 the result s of the study ar e described and analyzed In Chapter 5 the result s are discussed within the context of existing literature on aesthetics and ecological norms and how they may inform theoretical constructs and ecological design and management practices. The limitation of this study and areas for future study are also identified

PAGE 43

43 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW: L ANDSCAPE AESTHETICS, PRECEPTIONS OF ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICA NCE AND NATURALNESS, AND THE IMPACTS OF KNOWLEDGE TO PERCEPT IONS As suggested by Thayer (1989), there is a ne ed to construct perceptions other than the aesthetic perception, and study to their relationships with the aesthetic perception. Th is research proposes to employ the perceptions of beauty, ecological significance, and naturalness as three major measurement s to test on images of specific stormwater treatment areas. The review of existing literature centers on landscape aesthetic theories, since they are more struct ure d c ompared to other categories of perceptions. Many researchers have expressed the idea that perception and aesthetic preference should be regarded as synonyms. Landscape aesthetic theories depict mechanism s for the way people perceive or judge the beauty of a landscape. These mechanisms can be challenged in perceiving an ecological design. T his study will test the theoretical framework of landscape aesthetics in structuring an image of a green infrastructure, and adopt s this framework to test two other perceptions and ecological aesthetic proposals. Landscape Aesthetic Theories Landscape aesthetic theories explain how and why aesthetic responses happen which in turn help s predict the preferences of viewer s for landscape design and management In structuring an image as various components by different composition al rules landscape aesthet ic theories benefit landscape architects by aid ing them to recognize well received landscape images Empirical studies collect evidence to test prescriptive design proposals, which in turn adjust and enrich the se theories. Existing

PAGE 44

44 literature can be catego rized into two groups of mechanisms : the biological theor ies and the cultural theor ies Biological Theories Biological theories regard landscape aesthetics as a genotypic phenomenon, whereas the aesthetic appreciation of landscape images results from accu mulation of a long human evolutionary history (Appleton 1975) The appreciation of a landscape has been generated and accumulated unconsciously by humans from their early habits of seeking places of survival, health and welfare. S ome habits do not change even in the face of dwelling enhancements that aimed to overcome harsh environmental conditions. The remaining landscape segments in memory became modes of landscape aesthetics. pe cues 11). Biological theories trace back to the childhood of the human species, when man made crafts and constructs were scarce. The long time void of man made co nstruct s memory of natural elements shapes human aesthetic appreciation Even when humans had already acquired the dominant power to shape the living environment, r equests for natural elements always surpassed constructed environment al elements. The aspiration to include natural elements in environmental design has been promoted to cure the negatives of urbanism This has been true since the beginning of the urban beautiful movement and as recently as the latest landscape urbanism proposition s While human affection for naturalness is regarded almost as universal and constant, the variety of natural elements in landscapes is perceived differently. The

PAGE 45

45 differences in type, shape, color, amount, and composition of natural elements have been studied to depict the degree of being natural, or The history of the garden vividly demonstrates the persistence of this habit. Jay Appleton (1975) and Rene Dubos (1 980) both expand on a general preference principle prospect refuge theory suggests that the most endur ing genetic memory is the type of survival environment where early human beings could see their prey in an open view (as prospect), while at the same time screen them from being seen by their predators (as refuge). This model suggests the image structure of an open view w ith a protected front cover (Appleton 1975; Balling and Falk 198 2; Bourassa 1990, 1991). s the ideal naturalness composition by analyzing the original cradle of early human beings the African Savannah which is also anthropological ly grounded The landscape image in this reg ion presents a composition of a clear land with clustered trees and shrubs. Comparing the image compositions of Appleton and Rubos, the two largely coincide and illuminate each other: landscape aesthetics are genetically inherited as reminiscences of ances tral memory from the survival environment of the African S avannah. Yet, prospect refuge theory goes beyond the original savannah composition to a more applicable landscape model. The prospect refuge model, which prescribes the image composition rather than tracing the original informs environment al selection and construction with elements other than vegetation such as a cabin by water and a residence at the fringe of forest (Thayer 1994). Chinese Fengshui theory also partly coincides with the models Apple ton (1975) and Rubos

PAGE 46

46 (1980) propose, which presents a n ideal place enclosed by northern mountains flanked by eastern and western mountains and facing a southern open plateau Biological theories further support the fundamental validity of aesthetics in h uman life and suggest that some aesthetic preferences re main stable despite societal and environmental also demonstrate that the prevailing picturesque landscape all over the world is not a purely cultural phenomenon. The long affection of humans for scenery structure such as scattered trees in a n opened lawn also has a biological base T he expansion of b iological theories to ecological designs needs further empirical study. Existing theories only offer explanatory r ather than prescriptive principles. Even the most specific prospect refuge theory only specified elements such as open space and a foreground, while the size, color, texture, proportion, texture of the visual components are open to testing. Biological theo ries inform the study of perception s of stormwater treatment areas through the following aspects First, the correlation of beauty and naturalness is taken for granted by biological theories. This correlation leads to an immediate aesthetic reaction when o riginal natural features are disturbed, such as when deforestation, erosion, and water pollution occur. Also, some ecological infrastructures with no natural elements can hardly find supports from biological theories such as solar panels and wind turbines The manmade elements, such as railings and fences erected for safety reasons, are not recognized as positive elements for the perception of beauty in various biological theories.

PAGE 47

47 Second, in regard to biological theories the forming of aesthetics take s a longer time than other theories suggest. Biological theories imply that aesthetics do not necessarily match the current understanding of the mechanisms of the ecological infrastructure tatus of a natural landscape. The stormwater treatment areas, which use natural elements and dramatically change the original landscape of the site constitute a study topic to test biological theories. Cultural Theories Cultural theories draw clues from societal, religious, racial, and historical aspects to justify people s aesthetic reactions that associate with human activities (Bourassa 1990). M ost manmade environments, including structures and designed landscapes, take their forms from the past three thousand years. Design style change s in landscape architecture reflect human reactions to geographic climatic differences as well as cultural and societal needs, which in turn contribute to aesthetic tastes A ll these have little to do with human survival needs but still contribute to the persistent aesthetic language system It is worth noting that the geographical factors that shape the designed landscapes are also credited via cultural dimensions, such as climate, local construction materials and native plant needs and shape the accumulated design and construction techniques which in turn define the aesthetic characteristics of landscapes. The presence of facilities for leisure and recreation activities, or physical and visual access to a resource has been proved to impact landscape preferences (Zedler and Leach 1998, Booth 2005, Tahvanainen et al. 2001). Strategically adding

PAGE 48

48 recreational facilities and access to a pure natural environment has been reported t o increase aesthetic acceptance (Gobster and Westphal 2004). The elements that facilitate better appreciation of nature redefine the space into a place where people can appreciate a landscape as a n amenity rather than wilderness. This theory suggests that the presence of man made structures can also contribute to landscape beauty if they are regarded as appropriate facilit ies The diversity of landscape aesthetic perceptions can be traced to geographic, racial, and time factors. Cosgrove (1998) regards l andscape beauty as a product of cultural and societal changes. He suggests that the history of European landscapes can be seen as a series of reflections on the chronicle of changing world views. The formal aesthetic principles, such as symmetry, balance, contrast, and dimension, work variably across cultures and time. The geographical and chronological variations of designed landscape are largely ascribed to cultural reasons, such as transition of tastes, traditions, and productive forces. As specified in Chapter 1 writers of ecological aesthetics suggest that emerging environmental ethics, laws, and technologies create a new social background for the evolution of aesthetics. Cultural theories indicate various clues of aesthetics exist among different po pulations. T he value, understanding, and tradition of individuals or groups are always ascribed. Landscapes constitute a medium for people to communicate their validated values and beliefs (Appleyard 1979, Nohl 1987, Buchecker et al. 2003). Intended or un i ntended uses of landscape images, such as film backgrounds, postcard pictures, this process, the requests for identity, status, and communication are presented as

PAGE 49

49 lan dscape images, while the aesthetic appreciation is a result of the acceptance of aesthetics theories help explain the diversity of landscape preferences. Cultural theorie s also suggest that interventions can perceptions. P professional/daily experiences create divergence and change the appreciation process. In ecological norms, cultural aes thetic theory offers a theoretical base through which ecological considerations can generate new cultural elements Acceptance and validation of these new cultural elements can happen rather quickly Recently, Mogen (2010) reported a gradual aesthetic per ception change towards wind turbines. They were viewed as industrial monsters before, and have recently been accepted as high tech energy generative devices, which symbolize the technologies and ethics of sustainability. Hybrid Theories Landscape aestheti c theories inform landscape practice with appropriate selection of design elements and compositions. However, landscape architects should be mindful of potential disputes among the various theories. For example, the design idea of adding more vegetation to increase naturalness, suggested by the biological theories, can conflict with the theory of increasing cues for human use and recreation, suggested by cultural theories. In practice, landscape architects ask for the specific composition of image elements that achieve the ideal landscape aesthetics. Therefore, a merger of landscape aesthetic theories is needed. In a review of existing landscape visual quality assessment methods, Daniel and Vining (1983) claim that without adequate merger of other theories, no single aesthetic

PAGE 50

50 model can serve as the sole determinant. Bourassa (1990) also suggests a comprehensive theory encompassing biological, cultural, and personal dimensions of landscape aesthetics. Vygotskii and Cole (1978) have designed a tripartite fra mework combining phylogenesis (biological evolution), sociogenesis (cultural history), and ontogenesis (individual development). A hybrid theory assembles indicators from different theories under one umbrella. The variety of landscape types asks an appropr iate selection of applicable indicators (as image factors in this study) from a comprehensive framework. Ode, Tveit, and Fry (2008) suggest that in most landscape assessments it may be unnecessary, if not impossible, to apply all indicators. For example, t he ideal s avannah landscape landscape that requires intensive development. Bourassa (1990) suggests that biological aesthetic theories are more applicable to natural landscapes ; while cultural aesthetic theories apply better in the urban settings Price (1995) also concludes that principles dominate the landscapes with human presence Ode, Tveit, and Fry (2008) propose a series of filters that identify the suitable visual indicators that apply to certain to specific landscape type), quantifiablity, mapablit y, relevance (project and context sensitive), and availability of data. It is necessary to situate ecological aesthetic claims with conventional aesthetic theories. This study examines the perceptions of stormwater treatment areas by adopting a hybrid of landscape aesthetic theories. Th e selection of i mage factors in the

PAGE 51

51 study is based on the major arguments of ecological aesthetics stated and the characteristics of a stormwater treatment area as introduced in Chapter 1. The Image Factors That Determine Landscape Perceptions The burgeoning ecological designs in landscape practice urgently require testing for their aesthetic qualities. Existing landscape aesthetic theories and new ecological aesthetic arguments together constitute the theoretical framewor k for this study. B y (Ode, Mari S. and Fry 2008, 90) test ing and analy sis of the visual quality of image factor s offers applicable design principles. In this section, the image factor s constructing a stormwater treatment area image are summarized, as outlined in the follow ing two groups: n atural factors and h uman factors. In each subsection, not only were the general characters of each image factor revi ewed, but their relevance to stormwater treatment area s will be also evaluated and reviewed. Natural F actors Natural factors are the most frequently mentioned feature s that affect landscape beauty. The term nature itself can refer to the pristine status of an environment free of elements of human existence; a t the same time it can refer to an environment comprised of natural elements just for human enjoyment and appreciation Many classic writings suggest that nature is an unchanged and stable status compa red to the ever changing human construction and pursuit of social activities (Plato 1993 ). However, this notion has changed given the continuous encroachments on the environment since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. While nature was affected by intense human exploitation the understanding of natural elements evolved, both for their ecosystem service and for their visual quality.

PAGE 52

52 M odern city plan proposals such as Ebenezer Howard's garden city theory (1902), propositions (1999), repeatedly demonstrate the impo r t a nce of natural elements in an urban context All these scenarios recogn ize that natural elements alleviate urban rigidity and enhance quality of life, which can be critical components for human habitats as well as providing an organizing structure in the urban context As specified in Chapter 1, stormwater treatment areas pre sent several natural elements. The most relevant elements are two: (1) visibility of water and (2) vegetation. (1) The aesthetics of water can be explained by both biological and cultural aesthetic theories. W ater can hardly be overst ated in the context of any era and location of human history. At the same time, surface water can create an open space for distant views that satisfies the prospect refuge theory The celebration of water is also evident both in garden history and urban d esign history. Almost every garden typology uses water (either a fountain or still water) to vivify the static vegetation image, as can be seen in Roman, Italian, French, Middle East, or Chinese gardens. Empirical studies also advocate the aesthetic qualit y of water (Kaplan and Kaplan 1982, Palmer 1978). The popularity of stormwater discussions reflects persistent concerns about water quality and quantity issues in academia and societ y. Based on existing literature, we can speculate that visible water in t he stormwater treatment area can increase aesthetic perceptions. However, the mechanism of stormwater treatment areas indicates that the

PAGE 53

53 treated by bio chemical pro be made water features and natural ponds. Second, it is not a perfect landscape element due to its biophysical quality, which can compensa te for the idealized aesthetic convention. Third, since it is an element to be treated immediately, the positive implication can also contribute to better aesthetic perception. (2) The importance of vegetation in the aesthetic perception is not o nly theoretically justified by biological theories and cultural theories as stated in the previous section, but also by repeated tests in empirical experiments (Gallage 1977, Ulrich 1981, Vining, Danial, & Schroeder 1984, Ribe 1990, Schroeder 1991, Purcell and Lamb 1998, Hull et al. 2001, Nassauer 1992, 2004, Gobster and Westphal 2004). In order to assess their impacts, natural elements are described as quantitative data, such as the ratio of the vegetated/water area in the image (Arriaza et al. 2004, Ayad 2005, Brabyn 2005, Palmer 2004), and the total number of species of vegetation and wildlife (Nassauer 2004). Some other data, such as shape, texture, and height of vegetation, are also important in describing the natural elements (Palmer 2004, van Mansvel t and Kuiper 1999, Junker and Buchecker 2008) and can be quantified. Besides the ratio of the vegetation, the two most commonly used variables that reflect the complexity in the image are the texture of vegetation elements and numbers of layers. Many theo rists proposed that coarse texture vegetation can symbolize a more efficient ecological process (Howett 1987, Meyer 2001, 2008). There is some doubt however, about whether the coarseness of texture and their ecological effects basically are proportionall y correlated (Lyle 1991). Like many studies on the perception of green

PAGE 54

54 infrastructure, this study focuses solely on subjective perceptions of components of stormwater treatment areas while leaving undecided the relationship between the vegetation and real biophysical effects. The coarse texture, when compared with vegetation containing fine texture, implies a greater efficiency of natural process. The coarse texture of vegetation is regarded as a visual medium that can be differentiated from conventional icons, and constitutes an innovative vocabulary in ecological design (Meyer 2008). The roughness symbolizes both the fertility and the resilience of the land. The lushness of vegetation, as the production of land, denotes the efficient functioning of the e cosystem service. In this regard, aquatic plants are not only considered a device to infiltrate stormwater, but are also a byproduct of the process. The growth of vegetation constitutes a meter recording the functionality. C oarse vegetation texture provi des a scene better configuring the abstract concept of biodiversity. The complex scene involved with vegetation enables the viewer to visualize the relationship between organisms and their environment. The high leaves may suggest more space in between as h abitats for wildlife and more potential for interactions. Koh proposes that ecological aesthetics calls for an environment in which one can be involved, rather than an object to be seen (Koh 1982 ) The diversity and richness of the coarse plants forms the presentation that meets this requirement better than the clearly mowed lawn. The two points listed above echo to mystery character of a landscape proposed by Kaplan and Kaplan hidden features o f a landscape. The emerging ecological norms pose a new intellectual

PAGE 55

55 myth to the society, as they enrich the depth and broaden the understanding of a landscape. Given the diverse cultural, geographical, biological, and professional settings, reactions to t he ecological myth can vary greatly. However, the visually coarse vegetation may well match society s expectation for a new myth. As opposed to those endorsing the ecological symbolism of coarse vegetation, other scholars suggest that neatness of vegetat ion contributes to a positive perception by Nassauer (1995) suggests that the appetite for neatness of humans plays a big role in assessing landscape beauty. This theory suggests that a neat landscape is preferred because its appearance shows it has been managed and cared for (Burgess et al 1988, Kaplan 1984, Millward and Mostyn 1989, Nassauer 1995, Schroeder 1991, t only the type of maintenance which eliminates the wilderness of natural elements, but also environmental stewardship (Ulrich 1986, Gobster 1995). Human elements, such as (3) The concept of landscape depth and layers also describes the complexity of natural elements. While biological theories explain the origin of landscape layers, scholars suggest that the higher degree of complexity (compared with a two layer landscape image as suggested by the prospect refuge theory) is advanced (Thayer 1994). The perception of place not only recalls the tough survival necessary during prehistoric times, but also asks for more stimulations of perceptual enjoyment. Kaplan and Kaplan (1982) su ggest a model of two dimensions, the coherence complexity dimension and the legibility mystery dimension, that situates an appropriate and

PAGE 56

56 beautiful landscape. This model suggests two opposite values that both contribute to landscape beauty. An identifiabl e and familiar landscape image can be beautiful, which can also generate redundancy and a static environment. Diversity and richness of landscape elements can prevent a monotonous landscape and stimulate interest in exploration, yet can also lead to confu sion and getting lost. Studies show that landscape image is always a balance. An ideal landscape should contain a high degree of depth and a moderate to high degree of complexity (Appleton1975, Ulrich 1983, Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Hunziker 1995, Hunziker and Kienast 1999, Misgav 2000). Research also demonstrates that the least preferred landscapes tended to be the least natural and those with the least structural and coarse te xtured vegetation better symbolizes the ecological process. landscape complexity in terms of layers. Nassaur suggests clear and well defined image layers as a constantly construct ed orderly frame in which a messy ecosystem can be allowed its own dynamic nature (Nassaur 1995). In terms of visual assessment of stormwater treatment areas, there are existing empirical research results that can illuminate this study though these previ ous studies don t always reach a consensus Recently, Kim composition of a stormwater treatment area suggests that a visible body of water with medium height vegetation as foreground is regarded as most beautiful, the mown l awn the middle perception, and high vegetation the least preferred. The study on the river edge by Junker and Buchecker (2008) discovered that the mown lawn as a water edge

PAGE 57

57 is least preferred, while medium high vegetation is most preferred, and high vegeta tion is in the middle. Cultural Factors Cultural structures are also regarded as methods for enhancing the aesthetic perception of a landscape, since they facilitate various human activities and expand human accessibility to the natur al world The cues of s afety, management, and entertainment concerns can explain the positive impacts of the presence of human structures on the aesthetic perception (Gobster and Westphal 2004). Anthropocentric views s uggest that the presence of human structure brings relief i dentity, and security, tamed nature that is firmly associated with cultured aesthet ic compositions. This dimension will be adopted to help select the photos used in the present research. The split between the natural and the built landscape aesthetic studies is repeatedly tested Some research regards human s tructures as an antagonistic and inferior factor to natural elements Abundant evidence indicates that natural landscapes, such as hills, rivers, and deserts, are regarded as more beautiful than the built environment (DeLucio and Mugica 1994, Nassauer 1995, M u gica and DeLucio 1996, Ul rich1983, Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Lamb and Purcell 1990, Hartig and Staats 2005). The split between human and natural elements is also endorsed by biological theories ( Kaplan and Kaplan 1995 ) These studies support proposals to increase natural elements in urban environments, which coincide with contemporary landscape urbanism theory. At the same time, those studies focusing on the pure natural image lack the strength to address a landscape image composition with both natural and built elements,

PAGE 58

58 as are need ed in most designed landscapes. The recognition of human structures expands the landscape aesthetic theories beyond those landscape images with only natural elements. The presence of human structures helps to increase the feeling of safety, which compensat es for the negative wilderness under a pure natural context. Recent empirical studies show that safety concerns related to purely natural landscapes still exist (Herzog and Kutzli 2002, Van den Berg and Ter Heijne 2005). These studies also indicate the des ire of people to include scenic compositions in their landscapes. Human factors can be complementary to natural factors, since human structures are inevitable in human habitats. The resolution of natural elements and human structures can be beneficial to landscape practice in an urban context. Sullivan et al. (2004) find that the presence of human structures encourages the use of outdoor spaces and the social activity that takes place within them, which therefore increases the aesthetic perception of a lan dscape image. Peron et al. (2002) found that restored landscapes with built elements tend to be just as restorative (as related health and emotion) as restored landscapes with no built elements. Junker and (2008) on the aesthetics of rive r restoration revealed a more complicated picture: the presence of human structures influences a positive visual response only if naturalness is perceived to be very low, while human structures show detrimental effects in visual assessment when the natura lness is high. Thayer (1994) suggests technophilia (the love and affection for technology) and technophobia (fear of the negative side effects of technology), along with topophilia (the love of and dependence on nature) are emergent topics of current land scape theory,

PAGE 59

59 which also endorses the aesthetic quality of the advanced cultural elements that may not directly facilitate human activities in the landscape. T echnophilia can be the source through which new ecological infrastructures can be visually apprec iated. In a stormwater treatment area, cultural elements include signs, fences, benches, and overflows. For safety concern s fences are most commonly seen. Th is study will fence Summary of Elements Landscape aesthetic th eories provide descriptive and explanatory suggestions regarding constructing an ideal landscape image. Understanding individual image factors and their compositional principles provide guidelines for design and management practice. Empirical studies are a lways needed to justify the validly of landscape aesthetic theories in different ecosystems and social settings. In Chapter 3, I will use these factors to build my research methodology. The P erception of N atur alness Nature has obviously been the core co ncept in landscape architecture. Creating and organizing natural elements constitutes the major stewardship of landscape architects. Reasoning and prescribing the methodology and the composite vision of natural elements is one of the fundamental aspects of the landscape architecture profession, as previously discussed. A long held ideology naturalness establishes close relationship s with other landscape values. As Junker and Buchecker (2008) stated, Existing literature confirms that higher rates of naturalness in the environment are associated with more environmental healing effects and potentially higher visual asses sment (Nassauer 1992, 2004, Kellert

PAGE 60

60 and Wilson 1995, Hull et al. 2001, Williams and Cary 2002, Gobster and Westphal 2004). This study will test the relationship between the perception of beauty and ecological significance for the type of stormwater treat ment area The importance of naturalness specified here, as well as its importance in the perception of aesthetics specified in the last section, largely represents conventional aesthetics. The potential evolution of this concept and its relationships wi th other values are open to debate under the norm of ecological design. which we can examine using the following aspects. First, the wide use of geographic information systems (GIS) changes the perception of nature by introducing macro scales far beyond normal perspectives. vegetation T he recent spread of the use of Google Maps and Internet based mapping applications expands this perspective from professional s to the general publ ic. The transition challenges the original notion of natur alness If we say that the sensitivity of the environment in the industrial age is generated by tangible results of environment degradation, digital technologies offer tools to look at nature beyond the limits of our human senses. Aided by GIS techniques, people are more likely to understand the significance of stormwater treatment in a systematic way. Digital mapping techniques generate new experiences of viewing, considering, and comprehension whi ch change the introduction, using geographic information systems can also distance human

PAGE 61

61 sensory contacts from the tangible environment, which may lead to indifference t owards environmental issues water, air, soil, and all living beings, from the most microscopic to macroscopic, and of course to include the planet itself, but that now that view of th e whole has broken down as science focuses more and more on very specific areas E colog ical research at finer scales beyond human visual sensory limits altered the way knowledge was accumulated as well as how nature is perceived and redesigned. The landsc ape process concept now reveals invisible (yet very essential ) mechanisms at microbiological levels under the superficial appearance of a landscape. While more ecological discoveries reveal the natural processes in greater detail, the principles and pro cesses in nature are validated by evidence, even while being broken up into segments. Natural elements can be recognized according to their ecological performance, so it is necessary to test the correlation between the perception of naturalness and ecologi cal significance quantity of natural elements in a landscape setting Therefore, the wilderness was always excluded from naturalness Since nature is deemed as the model of perfection, naturalness is treated as a holistic concept. The analysis of the naturalness of each image factor is very rare. The stormwater treatment area follow s and reinforce s the which uses natural elements to achieve environmental balance and sustainability. These natural elements such as vegetation, soil, and water, used to be recognized as the visual components of a beautiful landscape image, and can be

PAGE 62

62 regarded as presentations of biophysical mechanisms, which possess the symbol ic meaning of a chain in a natural process. This rationale suggests that each element may play a different role in terms of aesthetics, naturalness, and ecological significance The question we need to answer is this: Researchers may speculate about the potential change by checking the corresponding ecological effects of each image factor. For this study, the correlation between the perception of ecological significance and that of naturalness will be rec onsidered. The renewed aesthetic tastes could help to paint a comprehensive picture that demonstrates how the conventional view of n ature has evolve d recently according to ecological concerns. This study will also explore the composition of a stormwater t reatment area that is viewed in terms of naturalness in a contemporary societal setting. It is expected that those who view the image will develop a new understanding within the frame of that image. The research will also explore whether the contribution of other elements to the natural elements in an image contribute to the perception of naturalness. The compositional weight of each element in the perception of naturalness will be compared with those in the perception of beauty and ecological significance The Perception of Ecological Significance Sand County Almanac la ys the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends initiate d environmental ethics by expanding the moral discussions from person to person to those between people and environment M eanwhile, this statement points out the importance of the appearance of landscape as

PAGE 63

63 bridges ecological health and aesthetics. We can see the need for the perception of e cological significance as a concept in recent discussion s which have already touched on the social reflections of ecological design, but have not yet codified the core concept into a terminology language?. In the discipline of landscape architecture alone, theoreticians and designers invented a series ecology (Zimmerman 1994), visual ecology (Thayer 1976), deep ecology (Nadenicek used abov e suggests the increasing richness and complexity of ecological design when communicated in disciplines other than biology. The perception of ecological significance serves as a useful measurement reflecting the transition of ecological knowledge into a c omprehensive set of principles. It provides a lens to observe how the fundamental scientific ecological effects differ from, but also relate to, social consciousness To define the perception of ecological significance researchers must expand the concept of ecology because multiple meanings of ecology exist. Corner suggests that the wide use of ecology has with moral, aesthetic, and religious claims (Corner, 1997). The concept of the perception of ecological significance

PAGE 64

64 vocabularies, attitudes, customs, beliefs, social forms, and material characteristics of a 1997, 84). Understanding the perceptions of e cological significance directly benefits the practice of landscape architects To many pr actitioners, the gap between absorbing scientific discoveries and creating humane places seems hard to overcome. Eminent landscape architect Laurie Olin made a distinct dichotomy between art and ecology by stating that art is a cultural matter, one which h as little to do with ecology (Olin 1997). On the contrary, treating ecology as a societal perception in addition to its scientific effects, is common among landscape architects, which in turn aid s the translation from ecolog ical concerns into design The perception of ecological significance also requires resolving competing ecological concerns. The selection of ecological techniques is subject to the project program (conservation or development), climatic geographical context (urban, rural, or natural), a nd the availability of materials and energy. Ian Thompson breaks environmental ethics into four categories, egocentric, homocentric, biocentric and ecocentric. Depending on these varying core values, the same biophysical performances can be perceived diffe rently (Thompson 1998). Evaluating the appearance of landscapes as a medium, the perception of ecological significance comes from at least two sources. First, the mechanism of landscape aesthetic s may still succeed as a framework to influence the perceptio n of ecological significance. Second, the perception may come from a comprehensive cognition of recognizable ecological information, related or unrelated to the landscape appearance. As opposed to the general ideology of nature discussed in the last secti on,

PAGE 65

65 the perception of ecological significance may relate to the various ecological f unctions of each landscape component, since scientific research offers information depicting the performances. Perception of Ecological Significance as a Measurement Corne imagination of its advocates: It conjures up particular ways of seeing and relating to (Corner 1 997, 84). This description sheds some light on using perceptions of ecological significance as a measurement to test attitudes from various populations. (1) The perception of ecological significance can consist of a quantitative measurement. (2) The percep tion of ecological significance is influenced by the known knowledge, ways of of ecology, knowledge of ecology, and aesthetic principles can be compared. Perception s of Ecolog ical Significance and Beauty The perception of ecological significance bridges the aesthetics of a landscape with the ecological effects. The perception of ecological significance can be greatly affected by aesthetics. McHarg once regarded Lawren since it symbolizes the natural process (McHarg 1996), though rigid examination of on of image factor s The concept of significance and the perception of beauty. When regarding a landscape as a medium, it is critical to test the correlation between the percept ion of ecological significance and the perception of beauty. Societal

PAGE 66

66 perception of ecological design can be an interactive rather than a one way process. In one way, the aesthetic assessment can affect the perception of ecological significance. In anothe r way, perception of ecological significance is informed by the understanding of ecological knowledge and the framework set up by landscape aesthetics The correlation of the two is probable but more evidence is needed. An interesting situation can occur when a landscape is perceived as ecologically significant but not aesthetic, which means the value of ecological knowledge may exceed the dominant value of aesthetics in appreciating a landscape. Otherwise, the aesthetics still hold and correlate to other value judgments of a landscape. The Subjective Factors that Determine Landscape Perceptions Argument 3 that the understanding of ecological knowledge can influence the appreciation of an ecological design as stated in Chapter 1, includes the theoretica l bases and empirical testing in the study of subjective factors in landscape aesthetic base, divide a general participant population into different groups, which reveals the characteristics and biases of each group and suggests possibilities for further interventions (e.g. education). The differences among these groups can be cultural background s (Yang and Brown 1992), educational and professional background s ; exposure to the environment (daily users versus tourists); or instant knowledge exposure in the survey process ( Hodgson and Thayer 1980 ). The studies have both theoretical and utilitarian values. Comparison of different groups helps better understand image factors. Moreover, the uniqueness as well as the bias revealed by each suggest potential educational or design interventions. This study will focus on the preference differences expressed by the groups with different

PAGE 67

67 backgrounds. Existing literature presents the co mparison between professionals (as knowledgeable population) and lay people in relation to various landscape types, including forest (More 1979), roadways (Kent 1993), and buildings (Gifford et al2000, Fawcett et al 2008). In the field of environmental desi are supposed to shape their unique aesthetic perceptions, which can be simultaneously regarded as bias by other professions. In Fawcett Ellingham, and Platt (2008), the researchers found that laypersons pre fer buildings with a pitched roof, while architects prefer other strong architectural characteristics. B oth groups evaluated the u nique pitched roof high ly their design education, which stre sses the ideas rather than to express research and political concerns. Other studies suggest that design literature and communication also help shape s which sets up the value of the desi gn profession as makers instead of talkers (Wilson 1996, Wilson and Canter 1990). Groat reports that post modern principles were not recognized in the aesthetic judgment of laypersons which suggests that some design theories are only communicated within t he professional group (Groat 1982). practice, communication, and management. The divergence of aesthetic tastes between designers and laypersons illuminates uniqueness and the limitation of design education Empirical studies always challenge and adjust t he self evident belief that the designed environment should be liked by users. Designers are critiqued narrowly by defining design as art and their creativity is often also lim ited (Blau 1984). The narrowness of

PAGE 68

68 professional focus not only impedes design practice by causing it to be fitted into the societal context (Boyer & Mitgang, 1996), but it also incurs criticisms o f the stewardships of designers Jack Nasar, professor of u rban planning (1999) radically states that policy enactment should deny the counsel of architects who insist on the primacy of elitist artistic statements. Obviously, t he exclusion of designers in environmental design is also risky, because their tastes al ways enlighten the tastes of the general public and can hardly be predicted by the visual assessment method Therefore, the compatibility of different populations needs to be revealed in empirical studies ( Fawcett et al 2008 ). The differences between aest hetic tastes are also found between environmentalists and others. More and his colleagues (1979) found environmentalist s and the public generally share similar opinions about the implications of forest damage ; however, a correlation exists between their di fferences of opinions and their knowledge of forest disease. The progress of ecological design is a joint work involving multiple disciplines. As Gobster suggests, the interested professional populations range from natural scientists, modelers, geographer s, land planners, designers, and managers as well as social scientists, environmental philosophers, and others (Gobster 2007). This broad involvement not only indicates the significance of ecological aesthetic discussions, but also suggests the necessity of testing their consensus and tensions for this study.

PAGE 69

69 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY A survey is the primary method used for gathering data for th is study. A questionnaire was administered to willing subjects on the campus of the University of Florida to gauge t heir perception of sixteen images of stormwater treatment areas. This chapter explains the creat ion of sample images, the design of the survey questionnaire the questionnaire distribution and data collection process, and the data analysis process. Creati on of the Sample Images I created 16 composite images comprised of five landscape variables. I began by collecting visual images of elements and materials used in stormwater treatment areas I then captured base images and composed th e sixteen image s in Ph otoshop The Case City For this study, pictures from the City of Gainesville, Florida were taken. In addition to its proximity to my home university, Gainesville was chosen because: 1) The post war expansion of Gainesville represents the development trend s for the State of Florida. Table 3 1 indicates the population increase of the city and state during each decade. The development, which took place for various reasons, inevitably resulted in (and will result in) a trend of city expansion, dramatic land us e change, and take over of natural and agricultural lands which could lead to environmental degradation and affect water resources. As population increased, the construction of community shopping facilities followed the development trend. 2) Construction of large community shopping facilities in Gainesville over the years also reflects the evolution of stormwater regulations in the State of Florida. The

PAGE 70

70 progress of environmental codes partly shaped the way stormwater treatment areas were constructed. No st ormwater treatment facilitates were required until the enactment of the 1972 Florida Water Resources Act. The required best management plan and consequent infrastructure construction improved stormwater management but at the same time, changed the origina l land forms. Table 3 1. Population growth from 1950s 2000s in the City of Gainesville and the State of Florida City of Gainesville State of Florida Year Population Percentage Population Population 1940 13,757 31.5% 1,900,000 29.2% 1950 26,861 95.3% 2,776,000 46.1% 1960 29,701 10.6% 4,960,000 78.7% 1970 64,510 117.2% 6,800,000 37.1% 1980 81.371 26.1% 9,766,000 46.3% 1990 84,770 4.2% 12,960,000 32.7%. 2000 95,447 12.6% 16,005,000 23.5% 3) Stormwater infrastructure affiliated with commercial facilities in Gainesville includes various types and different types of management. The variety of appearances offers the potential to test the theor y of ecological aesthetics. Base Pictures Taken and Preparation A thorough survey of large shopping facilities in Gainesville was conducted (defining large community shopping centers as those parcels with structures occupying more than 100,000 sq. feet). A Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to manage the C ity of Gainesville parcel data to identify 38 initial sites. These are shown in Figure 3 1 and are classified by the decade of construction.

PAGE 71

71 Table 3 2. Selected big commercial facilities in the City of Gainesville No. Object ID Year of Built Address Acres 1 18657 1985 3301 West University Ave 5.528 2 70522 1987 2340 North Main Street 13.498 3 20415 1988 3812 Newberry Road 11.838 4 25655 1988 5000 NW 34th Street 4.660 5 9625 1989 7225 NW 4th Boulevard 11.938 6 25536 1989 6250 NW 23rd Street 11.714 7 25538 1989 6250 NW 23rd Street 4.973 8 40845 1990 4006 NW 22nd Drive 4.323 9 67902 1990 12 5 NW 23rd Avenue 2.453 10 8971 1992 3910 SW Archer Road 12.021 11 59267 1994 2304 SE Hawthorne Road 9.579 12 31156 1995 3720 NW 13th Street 10.572 13 24678 1995 6419 NEWBERRY Road 76.792 14 9935 1999 6901 NEWBERRY Road 9.531 15 24647 2006 5200 SW 34t h Street 8.120 These 38 sites possess common as well as diverse characteristics. Most of the shopping plazas (except one in the downtown area) were erected after WWII and are composed of a large front parking lot and a series of linked shopping buildings (or a single big box).A chronological array of these sites also shows an evolution in the way the construction of commercial fac i lities began to address environmental concerns. No trees were seen in the parking lots of the early commercial centers; nor w ere stormwater treatment areas. In the 1980s, wet detention ponds began to emerge. By checking Google satellite maps and field visits of each site, I finally determined that there were 15 stormwater treatment areas (as shown in Table 3 2) from which I deve lop ed landscape images

PAGE 72

72 Figure 3 1. Large commercial facility sites in the City of Gainesville, FL (with/without stormwater treatment areas) ( Figure developed by the author)

PAGE 73

73 The Basic Variables Determination These 15 stormwater treatment areas possess varying visual and ecological qualities: Stormwater treatment area locations vary. Some are between streets and parking area s in front of structure s some on the side, and some at the back of the major commercial buildings, hidden from view. From the survey, I found four at the front, two at the side, and ten at the back. While most were in the back, those in the front are all newer. The rear location s might have been intentionally selected to hide stormwater infrastructure from p ublic view Five of these have signs prohibiting general trespass, while two are visually blocked by dense vegetation. Of the visible stormwater ponds, seven are fenced while eight others are still approachable. Two kinds of fences are used. One is 8 foot high chain link, and the other a three foot high square tubulin painted black. The stormwater facilities include retention ponds and detention ponds; the total included thirteen wet ponds and three dry ponds. As previously discussed in the lit largely determine s the visual character of a pond, with one extreme being mowed lawn, and the other extreme being dense and high vegetation. Most stormwater facilities include a combination of vegetation types In most cases, the vegetation is not the direct result of the original design, as volunteer plants have matured and altered the original plantings. In this sense, the current study also provides some clues for preferred landscape management. Besides the low vegetation at the edge of a pond, trees are often planted on the bank. In some cases, these are small and will remain so; in other cases the trees are mature or will be mature with extensive canopies. All the characteristics discussed above are summa rized in Table 3 3. Some characteristics are frequently discussed in landscape aesthetic literature, such as vegetation, slope, and water; others, such as the location of the ponds and the presence of fences and signs, are seldom discussed. I speculated th at these factors and on the design decisions of landscape architects.

PAGE 74

74 Table 3 3. Basic commercial facilities in the City of Gainesville (image number consistent with Tabl e 3 2) No. Year of Built Category Visibility from Street Visible(V)/ Not Visible(N) Fence Fenced (F) / Not fenced (N) Dry (D) /Wet (W) Location to Major Building Back (B)/Front(F)/Side(S) Shape Circular (C) / Rectangular (R) Vegetation Texture High (H) / Low (L) / Medium High (M) / Dense (D) / Scattered (S) / Lawn grass ( G) Water Visibility Visible (V)/ Invisible (I) Trees Small Trees (S) / Big Trees (B) / No Tree (N) Slope Steep (S)/ Moderate(M) /Gentle (G) Sign With Signs (W) / Without Signs (N) 1 1985 Wet Detention Y N W B C M/D I S S W 2 1987 Wet Detention Y Y W B C L/M V S S N 3 1988 Dry Detention Y Y D B C L/D I N S N 4 1988 Wet Detention Y N W S C M/D V N M W 5 1989 Wet Detention Y N W S C G I S S N 6 1989 Wet Detention Y N W F R L/D V B S N 7 1989 Wet Detention N Y W B C H/D I S S N 8 1990 Retention Y N D F C G I N G N 9 1990 Retention Y N D B C L/S I B M N 10 1992 Wet Detention Y Y W B C L/D V S S W 11 1994 Wet Detention Y Y W B C L/M V B G N 12 1995 Wet Detention Y N W B C G I N -W 13 1995 Wet Detention N Y W B S L/D I N G W 14 1999 Wet Detention Y Y W B C L/D I N -N 15 2006 Wet Detention Y N W F R L/S V N M N Based on the survey and the feasibility of construct ing a visual perception test, five factors were selected to test their influence on the visual perception of stormwater treatment areas: (a) fences, (b) setting, (c) trees, (d) texture of the vegetation, and (f) presence /absence of water. This study does not address signs, since this factor relates not only to the physical presence of signs but also literal information on the signs. This can be a topic for another study. Each selected factor was classified based on the following conditions: Presence of fences: presence of low fences; presence of high fences; abs ence of fences.

PAGE 75

75 Setting of the pond (implied by the background of the image): commercial building facade as background; natural vegetation as background. Trees: presence of small trees at foreground; presence of canopy trees at foreground. Texture of the v egetation: mowed clear to s edge; scattered low dense vegetation; medium dense vegetation; and high dense vegetation. Water: the presence of water is directly associate d with the height of vegetation. All images have visible water except those with h igh dense vegetation. Orthogonal Array Using Orthogonal Design in SPSS, 16 basic picture compositions were created to test each of the five variables above, as shown in Table 3 4. By using this method, the number of testing images is reduced by 67 % (fr om forty eight images to sixteen images). Table 3 4. The image factors of 16 tested images Image No. Fence Background Tree Edge Vegetation 1 High Fence Built Background Big Tree Clear Edge 2 Low Fence Natural Background Small Tree Clustered Vegetation 3 No Fence Natural Background Big Tree High Shrub 4 No Fence Built Background Big Tree Clustered Vegetation 5 High Fence Natural Background Small Tree Clear Edge 6 7 No Fence Natural Background Small Tree Clustered Vegetation High Fence Natural B ackground Big Tree Medium High 8 No Fence Built Background Small Tree Medium High 9 Low Fence Built Background Small Tree Medium High 10 No Fence Natural Background Small Tree Clear Edge 11 High Fence Built Background Big Tree Clustered Vegetation 12 High Fence Built Background Small Tree High Shrub 13 No Fence Natural Background Big Tree Medium High 14 Low Fence Built Background Big Tree Clear Edge 15 No Fence Built Background Small Tree High Shrub 16 Low Fence Natural Background Big Tree High Sh rub

PAGE 76

76 Framing Pictures Having determined the four variables to be sampled within each image, the researcher constructed the frame of a sample image (Figure3 2) for each. Figure 3 2. The frame of a sample image (Figure developed by t he author) Each of 16 sample images was prepared with typical elements from site visits, while consistently following the guidelines below: The sky occupies 10% of the image; The background occupies 30% of the image; s not go beyond the lower 50% area of the image; The water line forms an angle of 28 degree s with the horizon line; The bank occupies 60% of the right margin. To accommodate the use of SPSS orthodox, 16 testing images are generated, as shown in Table 3 5.

PAGE 77

77 Table 3 5. 16 tested images prepared for the questionnaire Image 1 Image 2 Image 3 Image 4 Image 5 Image 6 Image 7 Image 8 Image 9 Image 10 Image 1 1 Image 12 Image 13 Image 14 Image 15 Image 16 (Images devel oped by the author) Design of the Survey Questionnaire The questionnaire asks respondents about three categories of information: their perceptions of the sixteen sample images, their background information, and their understanding of a stormwater treatme nt area. The first category was used as dependent variable s in analysis, while other data were used as independent variables.

PAGE 78

78 The Perceptions of S ample Images Responses were sought about perceptions of beaut y ecological health and naturalness in sixteen sample images of stormwater treatment areas. The respondents were asked to rate their perception s on a five level Likert scale where five signif ies the most positive attitude and one signif ies the most negative attitude. T hen, they were asked to select t he most and least preferred picture in each category of perception. The following t hree questions were asked for each sample image : 1. How beautiful is this stormwater treatment area? 2. How ecologically significant is this stormwater treatment area? 3. H ow natural is this stormwater treatment area? Data were analyzed based on the ratings of sixteen images in each of the three categories listed above. After they rated each image the respondents were asked to rank the three images most preferred and the t hree images least preferred based on perceptions of beauty, ecological significance, and naturalness. The results from the ir ranking will be compared with those from the rating in order to test the consistency of the latter. Since the results from the subj ect s rankings d o not include all the tested pictures, th ese data were not used for further quantitative analysis. The Questions on Background As was noted in the preceding chapter, existing literature suggests a correlation between aesthetic perception an d the knowledge. T o examine this relationship, t he questionnaire included three questions that reflect knowledge possessed by the respondents. In this section, questions are also included about the

PAGE 79

79 backgrounds Questions 4, 5, and 7 controlled the representativ e nature of the respondent sample 4. Your Age:18 22, 22 25, 25 30, 30 40, 40 50, 50 60, 60 and above 5. Your Ethnicity: African American, White, Latino American, Asian American, Other 6. Your Major : Landscape Architec ture, Environment Engineering, Or______ 7. Your Gender: Female, Male 8. Are you an environmental organization member? No Yes, The name of the organization __________ ___ ___ ___ Questions 6 and 8 probed the education al backgr ounds and their affiliation with environmental organizations. Questions on Understanding Stormwater T reatment Area s The third section examined respondents knowledge by asking the m to respond to the four statements below Questions 9 and 12 probed quality issues of stormwater management while questions 10 and 11 focused on the quantity issues Their responses to these four questions were used to knowledge about stormwate r The questions were: 9. The water quality of G ainesville will be unaffected by future development if the disposal of garbage into bodies of water can be prevented. Agree Disagree

PAGE 80

80 10. Urban flooding problems are likely to become more severe as more land becomes developed Agree Disagree 11. Stormwater ponds protect natural ecosystems by slowing down the release of water into lakes and rivers. Agree Disagree 12. The quality of stormwater affects the health of ecosystems; the qua ntity of Agree Disagree The whole questionaire is attached as Appendix B. Survey Distribution and Data Collection Respondent Selection Students at the University of Florida were invited to participate in the surve y. The surveyor distributed the survey package to potential respondents during class breaks on the University of Florida campus. In order to guarantee the response rate, the surveyor contacted instructors of twelve courses, and received their permi ssion to approach their students In some case s instructors gave extra credit to students who participate d in the survey. This study assumes that students in different academic departments have differing understanding and perceptions of stormwater treatment areas The curriculum of the Landscape Architecture Department conveys a knowledge of stormwater management

PAGE 81

81 in a variety of courses. The major course introducing stormwater management is LAA 3420 Landscape Construction I. Knowledge about stormwater treatment is also covered in courses such as LAA 2532 Landscape Management, LAA 4450 Landscape Design Implementation, and LAA 4260 Design of Green Roofs. Studio courses, such as LAA 4356 Environment Planning Studio, and LAA 3352 Planting Design Studio, als o apply principles of stormwater design and management. The curriculum in the Soil and Water Science Department provides a range of courses focusing on stormwater management, such as SWS 4244 Wetlands, SWS 4932 Wetlands Seminar, SWS 5115 Environment Nutrient Management, SWS 5246 Water Sustainability, and SWS 5248 Wetland Water Quality. The first three courses mentioned above provide a concrete focus on the mechanism of stormwater treatment areas and the roles of plants. While both departments c over the content of stormwater management, different professional values and foci result in different emphases, class formats and outcomes. Lecture and seminar courses are the major formats to convey content in both departments The Department of L andscape Architecture uses the studio as a teaching format, both for stormwater management and other topics. Students in the Soil and Water Science Department also receive their training in laboratories. The students in Landscape Architectur e are expected to apply stormwater management principles in their design work. In these exercises, students demonstrate the ability to locate, size, shape, sculpt, and plant stormwater treatment areas. The Soil and Water Science Department expects its students to have an in dept h understanding of the stormwater

PAGE 82

82 treatment mechanism, especially quantitative testing of the biochemical processes of water, vegetation, and soil. Based on the comparison above, the project assumed that students in the design programs are m ore sensitive to form and space and have the ability to shape the land. Students from the Soil and Water Science Department have more knowledge of stormwater treatment mechanisms. So it was assumed the student s in both program s would be sensitive to aesthe tics and would have at least a basic understanding of stormwater treatment. These assumptions were open to testing and verification through the survey process. To engage the first two populations, the investigator contacted twelve course instructors (inclu ding four in the Landscape Architecture Department, four in the Soil and Water Science Department, and four in other departments). The questionnaires were distributed during a class break period to students who showed their willingness to participate. The Number of Respondents The research recommendations for the sample size in the conjoint analysis differ. Akaah and Korgaonkar (1988) stated that rather small sample sizes (less than 100) are typical in conjoint analysis. Since the numbers of students in t he L andscape Architecture Department and the Soil and Water Science Department are rather small, this study targeted a participant number of around 100. In fact the total number of participants was 138. Research Design This study employed the perceptions o f beauty, ecological significance, and

PAGE 83

83 images about stormwater treatment areas in order to inform the arguments about ecological aesthetics. The analysis included four pa rts: Correlations among three rated categories (the correlations of aesthetics and ecological significance, of ecological significance and naturalness, and of aesthetics and naturalness) were run for the 16 images for each of the three populations. Mean va lues of the sixteen images rated by the three populations were ranked. For each perception, three rankings by the three populations were compared in three categories of perceptions. ANOVA multiple comparisons among the three populations were run for the s ixteen images. Ordinal regressions were run in order to reveal the weights of each image factor, based on three perceptions by three different populations. The competing image factors will be coordinated according to the samplings. The specific compositio n and the use of elements will be identified. To answer Question 1 ( Does the appearance of an ecological design affect ) t he study tested the following two hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: The correlations b etween the perception of beauty and ecological significance are significant. Hypothesis 2: The image factors having no biophysical functions affect the perception of ecological significance (shown in the image raking and image factor weight comparison). T hat both hypotheses are supported by testing results can suggest that the perception of ecological significance is influenced by aesthetics. That Hypothesis 1 is supported while Hypothesis 2 is not can suggest a strong relationship between the perceptions of aesthetics and ecological significance. That neither hypothesis is supported can indicate that the perception of ecological significance is independent of landscape aesthetics.

PAGE 84

84 To answer Question 2 ( Which is more valid for an ecological desig n, conventional aesthetics or ecological aesthetics? ), the study tested the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 3: The tubular fence, compared with the chainlink fence, positively affects the perception of beauty. Hypothesis 4: The natural background, co mpared with the built background, positively affects the perception of beauty. Hypothesis 5: The absence of chainlink fence, compared with the presence of chainlink fence, positively affects the perception of beauty. Hypothesis 6: The presence of small tre es, compared with canopy trees, positively affects the perception of beauty. Hypothesis 7: The presence of coarsely textured vegetation, compared with mown lawn positively affects the perception of beauty. Hypotheses 3 through 7 were tested by the results of the image ranking and factor weight comparison. Image factors and their compositions represent relevant landscape aesthetic theories in the test images. As specified in Chapter 2, Hypotheses 3 through 6 tested conventional aesthetic claims, while Hypo thesis 7 tested the new ecological aesthetic. By observing the ranking and comparing the relative weights, the validity and the importance of each theory were revealed. To answer Question 3 ( perception of the beauty of an ecological design? ), the study will test the following three hypotheses: H ypothesis 8: The soil and water science student population is most likely to differentiate among the three perceptions; while the general student population is least likely to do so. Hypothesis 9: The soil and water science student population is mo st likely to recognize the effects of image components that have biophysical functions and also affect their perception of beauty ; while the general student population is least likely.

PAGE 85

85 Hypothesis 10: The soil and water science student population is mo st willing to r coarse vegetation as a feature of beauty and ecological integrity; while the general student population is least likely. These three hypotheses tested the three perceptions, the ability to identify impacts of non biophysical elements, and the acceptance of a new aesthetics respectively.

PAGE 86

86 CHAPTER 4 RES U LTS AND ANALYSIS The researcher received permis sion to conduct interviews from the Institutional Review Board on November 9, 2011. The survey was administered in December, 2011 on the campus of the University of Florida. Survey questionnaires were distributed to twelve classes on campus, including four courses in the Soil and Water Science Department, four courses in the Landscape Architecture Department, and four courses open to students from any major This chapter includes descriptive information about the participants and analytic results from the survey. The former presents an overall picture of the survey participants, including age, ethnicity, gender, affiliation with an environmental group, as well as answers to questions testing stormwater knowledge. The second part uses analytic tools to test hypotheses Recall that three student populations were surveyed : students trained in landscape architecture, those trained in soil and water science, and other students from other majors who represent the general public. Comparisons for each group were ma de using the following measures: (1) three correlations for each of two of the three rated categories of beauty, ecological significance, and naturalness, (2) ranking of mean values of the sixteen images in each of the three categories of perceptions rated by the three populations, (3) ANOVA multiple comparisons among the three populations for the sixteen images, and (4) the rating of image factors revealed by ordinal regressions for each of the three rated categories of beauty, ecological significance, and naturalness.

PAGE 87

87 Descriptive Information Demographic Information (1) Educational background. Table 4 1 presents the educational background of the survey participants. There were 46 from S oil and W ater S cience 46 from the Landscape A rchitecture, and 46 f rom other departments. Their majors include d Agriculture, Animal Science, Building Construction, Chemistry, Computer Science, Econom ics Education, Electrical Engineering, Horticulture, Industrial Engineering, Interior Design, Mass Communication s Material Science, Real Estate, Resource Management, and Urban and Regional Planning. Students from Computer Science, Table 4 1. Education Background No. Percentage Soil and Water Science 46 33.33 Lan dscape Architecture 46 33.33 General Group 46 33.33 Agriculture 2 1.45 Animal Science 1 0.72 Building Construction 2 1.45 Chemistry 4 2.90 Computer Science 7 5.07 Econom ics 1 0.72 Education 2 1.45 Electrical Eng ineering 2 1.45 Horticulture 8 5.80 Industrial Engineering 1 0.72 Interior Design 1 0.72 Mass Communication s 3 2.17 Material Science 1 0.72 Real Estate 1 0.72 Resource Management 1 0.72 Urban & Regional Planning 7 5.07 No ne reported 2 1.4 5 Total Student Surveyed 138 100

PAGE 88

88 Horticulture, and Urban and Regional Planning comprised more than 5% of the participants in this survey. (2) Age Question 4 asks for the age of participants by providing six choices: 18 22, 22 25, 25 30, 30 40, 40 50, and 50 60. The results in Table 4 2 indicate that the representative populations meet the original expectation. Of the 138 respondents, 56 were in the age range from 18 to 22 and account for 40.6% of the total. Within the range from 22 to 25, t he 27 participants accounted for 33.3% of the total. Excluding one participant who did not provide age information, 93.5% of the respondents range in age from 18 to 30, while 6.5% range in age from 30 to 50. No participant in this survey was older than 50 The soil and water science students who participated in the survey were mostly younger (18 22), while the landscape architecture and general student population had older participants (22 25 and 24 31). Table 4 (Age) Age Range Soil and Water Science Landscape Architecture General Summary No. % of this population No. % of this population No. % of this population No % of total population 18 22 32 69.6% 13 28.3% 11 23.9% 56 40.6% 22 25 6 13.0% 21 45.7% 19 41.3% 46 33.3% 25 30 6 13.0% 8 17.4% 13 28.3% 27 19.6% 30 40 2 4.4% 4 8.7% 2 4.4% 8 5.8% 40 50 0 0 1 2.2% 1 0.7% 50 60 0 0 0 0 No data 0 0 0 0 Total 46 100% 46 100% 46 100% 13 8 100% (3) Ethnicity. Table 4 3 provides informa tion about the ethnicity of the respondents. The majority were White, accounting for 66.7%, followed by Latin American (12.3%), African American (8.7%), and Asian American (3.6%). Compared

PAGE 89

89 with the 2009 University of Florida Enrollment data (Table 4 4), Wh ites and Latin Americans are over represented by 7.6% and 4.1% respectively, while Asian Americans are underrepresented by 9.7%. The Asian American and African American population is under represented because of low enrollment by African Americans and As ian Americans in the l andscape a rchitecture and s oil and w ater s cience. Ethnicity was not used as a critical variable in the analysis and th is demographic bias was not further addressed in this study. Table 4 city) Ethnicity Soil and Water Science Landscape Architecture General Summary No % of this population No. % of this population No % of this population No. % of total population African American 4 8.7% 3 6.5% 5 10.9% 12 8.7% White 29 63.0% 35 76.1% 28 60.9% 92 66.7% Latino American 7 15.2% 3 6.5% 7 15.2% 17 12.3% Asian American 1 2.2% 1 2.2% 3 6.5% 5 3.6% Others 5 10.9% 4 8.7% 3 6.5% 12 8.7% Not reported 0 0 0 0 Total 46 100% 46 100% 46 100% 138 100% ndicates American Indian and Non resident Alien. Table 4 4. Enrollment by ethnicity fall semester 2009 University of Florida Age Range No. Percentage African American 4,305 8.47 White 30,033 59.07 Latino American 4,158 8.18 Asian American 6,624 13. 03 Non resident Alien 3,846 7.56 Not Reported 1,610 3.17 American Indian 268 0.53 No data 1 1.1 50,844 100 (4) Gender. From Table 4 5, we can tell the gender composition of the respondents, which is 47.1% female and 52.9% male.

PAGE 90

90 Table 4 5. Respond Gender Soil and Water Science Landscape Architecture General Summary No. % of this population No. % of this population No. % of this population No. % of total population Female 21 45.7% 23 50% 21 45.7% 65 47.1% Male 25 54.3% 23 50% 25 54.3% 73 52.9% No data 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 46 100% 46 100% 46 100% 138 100% (5) Affiliation with e nvironmental organizations. Table 4 6 summarize s the affiliation of respondents with various environmental organizations. A to tal of 90.6% of respondents report no affiliation with any environmental organizations Of the 13 respondents who claimed affiliation 7 are members of the S tudent C hapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects. The samples are too small to analyz e and thus the affiliation with environmental organizations was not evaluated further Table 4 8 ( Are you an environmental organization member? ) Environmental Organization member Soil and Water Science Landscape Archi tecture General Summary No. % of this population No % of this population No % of this population No. % of total population Yes 4 8.7% 9 19.6% 0 0 13 9.4% No 42 91.3% 37 80.4% 46 100% 15 90.6% No data 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 46 100% 46 100% 46 100% 13 8 100% Results of the Answers to the Questions on Knowledge of Stormwater Issues In the questionnaire, the last section included four statement s designed to test the knowledge of participants about various areas of stormwater treatment. These statement s were: The water quality of Gainesville will be unaffected by future development if the dumping of garbage into water bodies can be prevented.

PAGE 91

91 Urban flooding problems are likely to become more severe as more land becomes developed. Stormwater ponds prot ect natural ecosystems by slowing down the release of water into lakes and rivers. The quality of stormwater affects the health of ecosystems; the quantity of stormwater does not. T he data suggests that the majority of respondents possessed a solid unders tanding of stormwater For question 9 that addresses non point source pollution (Table 4 7) 111 respondents ( 80 4 %) recognize d that the dumping of garbage is not the only cause of water pollution The landscape architecture student population had the high est rate of correct responses (93.5%), while the general student population received the lowest rate (65.2%). Table 4 unaffected by future development if the dumping of garbag e into water bodies can be prevented.) Answers to Question 9 Soil and Water Science Landscape Architecture General Summary No. % of this population No. % of this population No. % of this population No. % of t otal population Correct 3 8 82.6% 43 93.5% 30 65.2% 111 80.4% Incorrect 8 17.4% 3 6.5% 16 34.8% 27 19.6% No data 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 46 100% 46 100% 46 100% 138 100% For question 10 (Table 4 8) 123 respondents ( 89.1% ) recognize d urban development as a direct cause of stormwater quantity issue s The landscape architecture student population had the highest rate of correct answers, while the general student population had the lowest rate of correct responses

PAGE 92

92 Table 4 ooding problems are likely to become more severe as more land becomes developed.) Answers to Question 10 Soil and Water Science Landscape Architecture General Summary No. % of this population No. % of this population No. % of this population No. % of t otal population Correct 42 91.3% 44 95.7% 37 80.4% 123 89.1% Incorrect 4 8.7% 2 4.3% 9 19.6% 15 10.9% No data 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 46 100% 46 100% 46 100% 138 100% The responses to Q uestion 11 suggest that 123 respondents ( 88.4% ) understand the importance of stormwater treatment area s for maintaining clean water (Table 4 9) Surprisingly, the general student population had the highest rate of accurate responses (95.7%), while the soil and water science student population rec eived the lowest (76.1%). Table 4 ecosystems by slowing down the release of water into lakes and rivers. ) Answers to Question 11 Soil and Water Science Landscape Architecture Ge neral Summary No. % of this population No. % of this population No. % of this population No. % of t otal population Correct 35 76.1% 43 93.5% 44 95.7% 122 88.4% Incorrect 11 23.9% 3 6.5% 2 4.3% 16 11.6% No data 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 46 100% 46 100% 46 100% 138 100% Question 12 received the fewest correct answers (Table 4 10). The fact that only 90 respondents (65.2%) had the correct answer, suggests fewer people fully understand that water quality as well as water quantity creates environmental impacts On this particular question, the general student population produced the highest rate of correct answers (78.2%), while the soil and water science student population produced the lowest (56.5%). Correct results for the landsc ape architecture student population were slightly higher than the soil and water science student population.

PAGE 93

93 Table 4 ) Answers to Question 12 Soil and Water Science Landscape Architecture General Summary No. % of this population No. % of this population No. % of this population No. % of t otal population Correct 26 56.5% 28 60.9% 36 78.2% 90 65.2% Incorrect 20 43.5% 18 39.1% 10 21.8% 48 34.8% No data 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 46 100% 46 100% 46 100% 138 100% Table 4 11 summarizes the results of the knowledge questions. The results show that all three populations produce high correct rates (a round 80%). This result indicates that all three populations have a good understanding of the basics of stormwater management. Also, all three populations produce very similar rates of correct answers. The general student population had the highest correct response rate (83.2%), while the landscape architecture student population had the lowest correct response rate (77.7%). Table 4 stormwater knowledge Answers to 4 Questions Soil and Wa ter Science Landscape Architecture General Summary No. % of this population No. % of this population No. % of this population No. % of t otal population Question 9 26 56.5% 28 60.9% 36 78.2% 90 65.2% Question 10 42 91.3% 44 95.7% 37 80.4% 123 8 9.1% Question 11 35 76.1% 43 93.5% 44 95.7% 122 88.4% Question 12 26 56.5% 28 60.9% 36 78.2% 90 65.2% Total 149 81.0% 143 77.7% 153 83.2% 445 80.6% Given the similarity in the correct response rates among the three populations, the accuracy of their s tormwater knowledge will not be used as a variable for further analysis. All three populations will be considered to have a similar understanding of stormwater issues.

PAGE 94

94 Analysis of the Survey Results Correlations of Three Perceptions The correlations a mong the ratings for the three categories (the correlations of aesthetics and ecological significance, ecological significance and naturalness, and aesthetics and naturalness) are run for the 16 images of each of the three populations. Pearson correlation values marked with one star denote significant correlations between two perceptions (p<0.05), while two stars suggest higher levels of significance (p<0.01). The correlation between aesthetics and ecological significance Table 4 12 summarizes Pearson correlations between the perception of beauty and ecological significance for the three populations. Table 4 12. Pearson correlations between the perception of beauty and ecological significance for three populations (n = 46; n = 46; n = 46) Soil and W ater Science Landscape Architecture General 1 .381 ** .109 .505 ** 2 .292 .427 ** .424 ** 3 .585 ** .235 .607 ** 4 .576 ** .441 ** .657 ** 5 .322 .405 ** .524 ** 6 .475 ** .464 ** .333 7 .491 ** .340 .529 ** 8 .557 ** .500 ** .555 ** 9 .534 ** .560 ** .503 ** 10 .434 ** .526 ** .459 ** 11 .553 ** .337 .653 ** 12 .635 ** .421 ** .761 ** 13 .449 ** .209 .427 ** 14 .465 ** .666 ** .581 ** 15 .376 ** .434 ** .616 ** 16 .548 ** .408 ** .520 ** Two tailed significance p < 0.01. ** Two tailed significance p < 0.05.

PAGE 95

95 Note t hat the correlations for sixteen images are present in one table in order to save space and present the consistency, which is different from the conventional format in which the correlation is normally presented. The results demonstrate significant correl ations for all three populations. Among these three, the general student population shows the strongest relative correlation, while the landscape architecture student population shows the weakest correlation. For the general student population, fourteen im ages demonstrate significant correlations at the 0.01 level and two images at the 0.05 level. For the soil and water science student population, fifteen images demonstrate significant correlations at the 0.01 level and one image at the 0.05 level. The land scape architecture student population has eleven images with significant correlations at the 0.01 level and two images at the 0.05 level. For the landscape architecture student population, three images (Image 1, 3 and 13) do not demonstrate significant cor relation between the perception of beauty and ecological significance. The correlation between perceptions of beauty and naturalness Table 4 13 summarizes Pearson correlations between the perception of beauty and naturalness for the three populations. T he results demonstrate significant correlations for all three populations. Among the three, the general student population shows the strongest relative correlation, while the landscape architecture student population shows the weakest relative correlation. However, the difference is not large among the three populations. For the general student population, all sixteen images demonstrate significant correlations at the 0.01 level For the soil and water science student population, thirteen images demonstrate significant correlations at the 0.01 level and three images were

PAGE 96

96 significant at the 0.05 level The landscape architecture student population has thirteen images demonstrating significant correlations at the 0.01 level and two images at the 0.05 level. Th e landscape architecture student population has one image (Image 3) that does not demonstrate significant correlation between the two perceptions. Table 4 13. Pearson correlations between the perception of beauty and naturalness for three populations (n = 46; n = 46; n = 46) Soil and Water Science Landscape Architecture General 1 .448** .376* .518** 2 .439** .438** .619** 3 .339* .190 .491** 4 .528** .642** .595** 5 .462** .689** .422** 6 .444** .583** .510** 7 .305* .381** .537** 8 .606** .489* .549** 9 .571** .627** .494** 10 .503** .665** .474** 11 .529** .398** .631** 12 .654** .315* .752** 13 .554** .635** .718** 14 .586** .665** .595** 15 .326* .548** .469** 16 .430** .573** .502** Two tailed significance p < 0.01. ** Two tailed significance p < 0.05. The correlation between perceptions of ecological significance and naturalness Table 4 14 summarizes Pearson correlations between the perception of ecological significance and naturalness for the three populations. The results dem onstrate significant correlations for all three populations. Among the three, the general student population and the soil and water science student population show the strongest correlations, while the landscape architecture student population demonstrates the weakest relative correlation.

PAGE 97

97 Table 4 14. Pearson correlations between the perception of ecological significance and naturalness for three populations (n = 46; n = 46; n = 46) Soil and Water Science Landscape Architecture General 1 .630** .183 .465** 2 .411** .265 .603** 3 .419** .381** .692** 4 .817** .483** .573** 5 .499** .438** .548** 6 .408** .586** .412** 7 .556** .381** .631** 8 .562** .633** .704** 9 .694** .609** .511** 10 .640** .654** .564** 11 .615** .622** .687** 12 .744* .527** .819** 13 .540** .259 .508** 14 .619** .700** .781** 15 .608** .521** .637** 16 .617** .555** .700** Two tailed significance p < 0.01. ** Two tailed significance p < 0.05. For the general student population and the water and soil science p opulation, all sixteen images demonstrate significant correlations at the 0.01 level In the landscape architecture student population, thirteen images demonstrate significant correlations at the 0.01 level The landscape architecture student population ha s three images (Image 1, 2, and 13) that do not demonstrate significant correlations between the two perceptions. Comparison of Results for Three Populations Based on Means A s stated in the methodology chapter, t he ratings of the three perceptions are gr ouped according to the subject s educational background. Table 4 15 4 20, and 4 25 present the mean value s of each image for the ratings according to a five level Likert scale of perception of beauty ecological significance, and naturalness respectively

PAGE 98

98 M ean value s with a difference between the two populations of greater than 0.3 were indicat ed in a bold font. The differences in the rankings of each image between the two populations were also compared. If the ranking gap for an image was greater than or equal to 3, the rank value from both populations was indicated in a bold font For each of three perceptions, the most preferred six images were targeted for comparison. Perception of beauty Table 4 15 presents the mean values of the rated perception of beauty for each image by the three populations. Table 4 16 ranks each image according to its mean value for each of the three populations, which are visually presented as Tables 4 17, 4 18, and 4 19. Table 4 eption of beauty by three populations Image No. Soil and Water Science Population Landscape Architecture Population General Population 1 1.50 1.85 2.15 2 3.83 4.04 3.85 3 3.89 3.57 3.54 4 2.74 2.85 3.30 5 1.89 2.38 2.52 6 3.89 4.11 4.17 7 2.20 1.91 2.26 8 2.98 2.94 2.80 9 3.22 2.81 2.70 10 3.72 3.87 3.91 11 1.91 1.87 1.94 12 2.67 2.22 3.00 13 3.72 3.52 3.57 14 2.85 2.68 3.17 15 3.13 2.80 2.96 16 3.98 3.46 3.57

PAGE 99

99 For Image 1, 5, and 12, the three populations have differences larger than 0.3. The soil and water science student population gave images 3, 9, 15 and 16 higher ratings, and image 1 and 5 lower ratings than the other two populations. For Image 7 and 12, the landscape architecture student population gave significantly lower rating s than those given to the other two populations. For Images 1, 4, 5, 12 and 14, the general student population gave them significant higher ratings than the other two populations. In Table 4 16, if the ranking gap was greater than or equal to 3 positions, the ranking value of both populations was indicated in a bold font. From this we can also conclude that the three populations have no consensus on Images 8 and 9, and that the ranking of Image 12 by the general student population is significantly higher t han the other two populations. Generally, the ra nki ngs of landscape architecture student population and the general student population are close, while the ra nk ings of the soil and water science student population are most different.

PAGE 100

100 Table 4 16. Th e rankings of sixteen images according to the mean value of rated perception of beauty by three populations Image No. Soil and Water Science Population Landscape Architecture Population General Population 1 16 16 16 2 4 2 3 3 1 4 6 4 11 8 7 5 15 1 2 13 6 1 1 1 7 13 14 14 8 9 7 11 9 7 9 12 10 5 3 2 11 14 13 15 12 12 13 9 13 5 5 4 14 10 9 8 15 8 10 10 16 3 6 5

PAGE 101

101 Table 4 17. The ranking of sixteen images according to the mean value of rated perception of beauty by the soil and water scie nce student population Image 3 (3.89) Image 6 (3.89) Image 16 (3.89) Image 2 (3.83) Image 13 (3.72) Image 10 (3.72) Image 9 (3.22) Image 15 (3.13) Image 8 (2.98) Image 14 (2.85) Image 4 (2.74) Image 12 (2.67) Image 7 (2.20 ) Image 11 (1.91) Image 5 (1.89) Image 1 (1.5) (Images developed by the author)

PAGE 102

102 Table 4 18. The ranking of sixteen images according to the mean value of rated perception of beauty by the landscape architecture student population Image 6 (4.11) Image 2 (4.04) Image 10 (3.87) Image 3 (3.59) Image 13 (3.52) Image 16 (3.46) Image 8 (2.96) Image 4 (2.87) Image 9 (2.83) Image 15 (2.80) Image 14 (2.68) Image 5 (2.39) Image 12 (2.22) Image 7 (1.93) Image 11 ( 1.87) Image 1 (1.87) (Images developed by the author)

PAGE 103

103 Table 4 19. The ranking of sixteen images according to the mean value of rated perception of beauty by the general student population Image 6 ( 4.17 ) Image 10 ( 3.91 ) Image 2 ( 3.8 5) Im age 13 ( 3.5 7) Image 16 Image 3 Image 4 Image 14 ( 3.5 7) ( 3.54 ) ( 3.30 ) ( 3.17 ) Image 12 Image 15 Image 8 Image 9 ( 3 .00) ( 2.9 6) ( 2.80 ) ( 2. 70) Image 5 Image 7 Image 1 Image 1 1 ( 2.52 ) ( 2.26 ) (2.15) (1.93) (Images develope d by the author)

PAGE 104

104 Soil and water science student Landscape architecture student General student Figure 4 1. The distribution of mean values for the perception of beauty by the three popu lations. ( Figure developed by the author) The mean values of the rated perception of sixteen images for each population are summarized into three rankings. These are presented visually in Tables 4 17, 4 18, and 4 19. While reviewing the visual presentations of the three tables, the following conclusions were found. (1) For all three populations, the ranking of 16 images can be eas ily divided into three ranges, high, medium, and low. The highest ranked images are characterized with a na tural background and without a chain link fence as foreground. The images in the medium range are characterized with a building as background and without a chain link fence as a foreground. The images in the low range are characterized

PAGE 105

105 with a chain link fe nce as foreground. The only exception appears in the general student population in their review of Image 12 (with a chain link fence as foreground). By doing an inventory of the mean values of 16 images as reviewed by three populations in Figure 4 1, the pattern of three ranges is also quantitatively evident. (2) For all three populations, the gaps between the images ranked No. 6 and No. 7 are very clear as are the gaps between the images ranked No. 12 and No. 13. If we compare the top six image s, the following conclusions are generated: (a) The top six images in the three tables are the same, but in different positions. The six images are Images 2, 3, 6, 10, 13, and 16. (b) Comparing the positions of the top six images in Table 4 16, it was discovered that the positions of the top six images by the landscape architecture student population and the general student population rank close to each other. (3) Compared with the other two populations, the soil and water science student population put Image 3 and Image 16 at higher positions (ranked No.1 and No.3), though their mean values are close to the other images ranked in the top six. The ranking gap for I mage 3 between the soil and water science student population and the other two populatio ns are as large as five places. The landscape architecture student population and the general student population put Images 2 and 10 at high positions. We can conclude that the landscape architecture student population and the general student popu lation are identical in their ratings of beauty, while the soil and water science student population is distinct. (4) Figure 4 1 indicates that the mean values of the top six images by the soil and water science groups are very close. The results presen t a clear gap between the top three and the rest of the top six images for both the landscape architecture and the general student population. Tables 4 18 and 4 19 demonstrate that the top three images of these two populations (they are Images 2, 3, and 6) all have clustered vegetation or mown lawn We can conclude that the soil and water science student population prefers the images with a buffered water edge (medium high or high vegetation at water edge) to those images reflec ting the open water edge (cluster vegetation or mown lawn the general student population view images with open or buffered water edges more or less equally.

PAGE 106

106 Perception of eco logical significance Table 4 20 presents the mean values of the rated perception of ecological significance for each image by three populations. Table 4 21 ranks each image according to its mean value for each of three populations, which are visually prese nted as Tables 4 22, 4 23, and 4 24. In Table 4 20, the numbers are marked in bold for those results whose values have a difference greater than 0.3 when compared to the other two populations. For Image 1 and 12, the three populations have differences gre ater than 0.3. The soil and water science student population gave images 4 and 5 significantly higher ratings and images 6, 10 and 14 lower ratings than the other two populations, while the landscape architecture student population and general student popu lation have close ratings on these images. For Image 16, the landscape architecture student population gave it significantly lower ratings than those given by the other two populations. The general student population gave image 13 a significantly higher ra ting and image 11 a lower rating than those given by the other two populations. From Table 4 21, we can also conclude that the soil and water science student population rates Images 4, 5, 6, and 14 lower, and Image 12 higher than the other two populations The landscape architecture student population rate d images12 and 15 lower, and Image 1 higher than the other two populations. The general student population rate d Images 2 and 8 lower, and Image 14 higher than the other two populations. Tables 4 20 and 4 21 reveal that the perceptions of the landscape architecture student population and the general student population are similar, while the perceptions of the soil and water science student population are distinct.

PAGE 107

107 Table 4 20. Mean values of the rated perc eptions of ecological significance of sixteen images by three populations Image No. Soil and Water Science Population Landscape Architecture Population General Population 1 2.37 3.28 2.7 2 2 3.65 3.81 3.63 3 3.98 3.68 3.9 4 4 2.78 3.32 3. 20 5 2.78 3 .19 3.15 6 3.59 4.00 3.8 5 7 2.98 3.00 3.04 8 3.11 3.23 3 .00 9 3.15 3.09 3 .00 10 3.35 3.63 3.7 4 11 2.85 2.93 2.52 12 3.26 2.89 3.5 9 13 3.52 3.43 3.80 14 2.72 3.02 3.13 15 3.30 3.09 3.2 4 16 3.83 3.52 3. 70 Table 4 21. Three rankings of sixteen i mages according to the mean value of rated perception of ecological significance by three populations Image No. Soil and Water Science Population Landscape Architecture Population General Population 1 16 8 15 2 3 2 6 3 1 3 1 4 13 7 9 5 14 10 10 6 4 1 2 7 11 12 12 8 10 9 13 9 9 12 13 10 6 4 4 11 12 15 16 12 8 16 7 13 5 6 3 14 15 13 11 15 7 11 8 16 2 5 5

PAGE 108

108 The mean values of the rated perception of sixteen images of each population are summarized into three rankings. These are visually pre sented in Tables 4 22, 4 23, and 4 24. While viewing the visual presentations of the three tables, the following conclusions were found. (1) For all three populations, the ranking of 16 images can be divided into three ranges, the high range, medium rang e, and low range. The highest ranked images are characterized with a natural background and without a chain link fence as foreground. Most images in the medium range are characterized with a building as background and without a chain link fence as foregrou nd. Most images in the low range are characterized with a chain link fence as a foreground. The patterns are clear though there are exceptions. By doing an inventory of the mean values of 16 images as ranked by three populations in Figure 4 2, the patte rn of three ranges is also quantitatively evident. (2) For the soil and water science student population, the gaps between the images ranked No. 5 and No. 6 and between the images ranked No.11 and No. 12 are evident. For the landscape architecture stude nt population, the gaps between the images ranked No. 5 and No. 6 and between the images ranked No.10 and No. 11 are evident. For the general student population, the gaps between the images ranked No. 7 and No. 8 and between the images ranked No.11 and No. 12 are very clear. In Table 4 20 and 4 21, more numbers are marked bold for the soil and water science student population than for the other two populations. It can be concluded that the perceptions of the landscape architecture student population and th e general student population are similar, while the perceptions of the soil and water science student population are distinct.

PAGE 109

109 Table 4 22. The ranking of sixteen images according to the mean value of rated perception of ecological significance by the soil and water science student population Image 3 ( 3.97 ) Image 16 ( 3.82 ) Image 2 ( 3.65 ) Image 6 ( 3.58 ) Image 13 ( 3.52 ) Image 10 ( 3.35) Image 15 ( 3.30 ) Image 12 ( 3.26 ) Image 9 ( 3.15 ) Image 8 ( 3.15 Image 7 ( 2.98 ) Image 11 ( 2.84 ) Image 4 ( 2.78 ) Image 5 ( 2.78 ) Image 14 ( 2.72 ) Image 1 ( 2.37 ) (Images developed by the author)

PAGE 110

110 Table 4 23. The ranking of sixteen images according to the mean value of rated perception of ecological significance by the lands cape architecture student population Image 6 ( 4.00) Image 2 ( 3.82) Image 3 ( 3.70) Image 10 ( 3.63) Image 16 ( 3.45) Image 13 ( 3.43) Image 4 ( 3.32) Image 1 ( 3.28) Image 8 ( 3.24) Image 5 ( 3.20) Image 15 ( 3.09) Image 9 ( 3.08) Image 14 ( 3.02) Image 7 ( 3.00) Image 11 ( 2.93) Image 12 ( 2.89) (Images developed by the author)

PAGE 111

111 Table 4 24. The ranking of sixteen images according to the mean value of rated perception of ecological significance by the general s tudent population Image 3 Image 6 Image 13 Image 10 ( 3.9 4) ( 3.8 5) ( 3.80 ) ( 3.7 4) Image 16 Image 2 Image 12 Image 15 ( 3. 70) ( 3.63 ) ( 3.5 9) ( 3.2 4) Image 4 Image 5 Image 14 Image 7 ( 3. 20) ( 3.15 ) ( 3.13 ) ( 3.04 ) Image 8 Image 9 Image 1 Image 11 ( 3 .00) ( 3 .00) ( 2.7 2) ( 2.52 ) (Images developed by the author)

PAGE 112

112 Soil and water science student Landscape architecture student General student Figure 4 2 The distribution of mean values on the perception of ecolo gical significance among three populations. ( Figure developed by the author) If we compare the top six images, the following conclusions are generated: (1) The top six images for the three populations are the same, but in different pos itions. The six images are Images 2, 3, 6, 10, 13, and 16. (2) By checking these images in Tables 4 22, 4 23, and 4 24, the importance of visual components of an image are revealed. For the soil and water science student population, Images 3 and 16 are more highly valued (ranked No.1 and No.2), while Images 2 and 6 have lower rankings (ranked No.3 and No.4). For the landscape architecture student population, Images 6 and 2 are more highly ranked (ranked No.1 and No.2), while Images 3 and 16 (ranked No. 3 and No.5) have lower rankings.

PAGE 113

113 Comparing the positions of the top six images in Table 4 20 also reveals the gaps which exist between the top two images and the rest of the images. We can conclude that the landscape architecture student population pref ers the images with an open water edge ( clustered vegetation or mown lawn edge) to those images with a buffered water edge (medium high or high vegetation with an open or buffered water edge more or less equally. The general student population does not demonstrate this difference. (3) The importance of a tubular steel fence as an image factor is revealed by comparing the differences between Images 3 an d 16 and Images 2 and 6. Their differences also can be found in Figure 4 2. The soil and water science student population revealed that the presence of tubular steel fence does not have a significant impact on perception compared with an image without the fence. The landscape architecture student population and the general student population showed that the presence of tubular steel fence diminishes the perception of ecological significance when compared with an image without the fence Perception of natura lness Table 4 25 presents the mean values of each image for the three populations. Table 4 26 ranks each image according to its mean value for each of three populations, which are presented with images as Tables 4 27. 4 28, and 4 29. In Table 4 25, the nu mbers are marked in bold for those results whose values have a difference greater than 0.3 when compared to the other two populations. For Image 5 and 12, the three populations have differences bigger than 0.3. The soil and water science student population gives image 12 significantly higher ratings and images 1, 2, 4 and 5 lower ratings than the other two populations. The soil and water science student population gives image 7, 12, and 16 significantly lower ratings and image 15 a higher rating. The genera l student population gives image 5, 6 and 10 significantly higher ratings.

PAGE 114

114 Table 4 25. Mean values of the rated perception of sixteen images of naturalness by three populations Image No. Soil and Water Science Population Landscape Architecture Popul ation General Population 1 1.67 2.06 2.3 5 2 3.35 3.79 3.7 4 3 4.11 3.87 4.37 4 2.52 2.94 3.0 9 5 2.22 2.64 2.9 8 6 3.65 3.89 4.3 3 7 2.74 2.36 2.65 8 2.76 2.72 2.78 9 2.80 2.55 2.65 10 3.35 3.37 3.8 3 11 2.24 2.13 2.15 12 2.93 2.13 3.5 7 13 3.50 3.5 4 3.8 3 14 2.39 2.39 2.15 15 3.11 2.76 3.17 16 3.80 3.41 3.7 2 Table 4 26. Three rankings of sixteen images according to the mean value of rated perception of naturalness by three populations Image No. Soil and Water Science Population Landscape Ar chitecture Population General Population 1 16 16 15 2 6 3 5 3 1 2 1 4 12 7 9 5 15 10 10 6 3 1 2 7 11 13 14 8 10 9 12 9 9 11 13 10 5 6 3 11 14 15 16 12 8 14 7 13 4 4 4 14 13 12 11 15 7 8 8 16 2 5 6

PAGE 115

115 Table 4 27. The ranking of sixteen imag es according to the mean value of rated perception of naturalness by the soil and water science student population Image 3 ( 4.11) Image 16 ( 3.80) Image 6 ( 3.65) Image 13 ( 3.50) Image 10 ( 3.35) Image 2 ( 3.34) Image 15 ( 3.11) Image 12 ( 2.9 3) Image 9 ( 2.80) Image 8 ( 2.76) Image 7 ( 2.73) Image 4 ( 2.52) Image 14 ( 2.39) Image 11 ( 2.24) Image 5 ( 2.21) Image 1 ( 1.67) (Images developed by the author)

PAGE 116

116 Table 4 28. The ranking of sixteen images according to t he mean value of rated perception of naturalness by the landscape architecture student population Image 6 ( 3.91) Image 3 ( 3.89) Image 2 ( 3.80) Image 13 ( 3.54) Image 16 ( 3.41) Image 10 ( 3.37) Image 4 ( 2.96) Image 15 ( 2.76) Image 8 ( 2.74) Image 5 ( 2.65) Image 9 ( 2.57) Image 14 ( 2.39) Image 7 ( 2.37) Image 12 ( 2.13) Image 11 ( 2.13) Image 1 ( 2.06) (Images developed by the author)

PAGE 117

117 Table 4 29. The ranking of sixteen images according to the mean value of rated perception of naturalness by the general student population Image 3 Image 6 Image 10 Image 13 ( 4.37 ) ( 4.3 3) ( 3.8 3) ( 3.8 3) Image 2 Image 16 Image 12 Image 15 ( 3.7 4) ( 3.7 2) ( 3.5 7) ( 3.17 ) Image 4 Image 5 Image 14 Image 8 ( 3.0 9) ( 2 .9 8) ( 2.80 ) ( 2.78 ) Image 9 Image 7 Image 1 Image 11 ( 2.65 ) ( 2.65 ) ( 2.3 5) ( 2.15 ) (Images developed by the author)

PAGE 118

118 Soil and water science student Landscape architecture student General student Figure 4 3 The distribution of mean values on the perception of ecological significance by three populations. ( Figure developed by the author) The mean values of the rated perception of sixteen images for each population are summa rized into three rankings. These are visually presented in Tables 4 27, 4 28, and 4 29. Viewing the visual presentations of the three tables, revealed the following conclusions: (1) In all three populations, the ranking of 16 images can be divided into t hree ranges the high range, medium range, and low range. The highest ranked images are characterized with a natural background and without a chain link fence as

PAGE 119

119 foreground. Most images in the medium range are characterized with a building as background a nd without a chain link fence as foreground. Most images in the low range are characterized with a chain link fence as foreground. The patterns are clear though there are more exceptions than for the results on the perception of beauty. (2) By doing an inventory of the mean values of 16 images as reviewed by three populations in Figure 4 3, the pattern of three ranges is also quantitatively evident. For all three populations, the gaps between the images ranked No. 6 and No. 7 are very clear. For the soi l and water science student population and the landscape architecture student population, the gaps between the images ranked No. 12 and No. 13 are clear. If we compare the top six images, the following conclusions are generated: (a) The top six im ages in the three tables are the same, but in different positions. The six images are Images 2, 3, 6, 10, 13, and 16. (b) By checking these images in Tables 4 27, 4 28, and 4 29, the importance of visual components of an image are revealed. For the soil and water science student population, Images 3 and 16 are more highly ranked (ranked No.1 and No.2), while Images 2 and 6 have lower rankings (ranked No.3 and No.6). For the landscape architecture student population, Images 6, 3, and 2 are highly ranked ( ranked No.1, No.2, and No. 3), and their mean values are tight, as indicated in Figure 4 3. For the general student population, the mean values of Images 3 and 6 and the mean values of Images 2 and 16 are tight. In terms of the perception of naturalness we can be conclude that the soil and water science student population prefers the images with a buffered water edge (medium high or high vegetation at water edge) to images with an open water edge ( clustered vegetation or mown lawn at water edge). The ge neral student population perceives images with a buffered water edge and an open edge more or less equally. (3) The importance of tubular steel fence as an image factor is revealed by comparing the differences between Images 3 and 16 and Im ages 2 and 6. Their differences also can be the same in Figure 4 3. We can conclude that the presence of tubular steel fence has a negative impact in evaluation of naturalness for all three populations.

PAGE 120

120 ANOVA Multiple Comparisons ANOVA multiple comparison s were run for sixteen images. In each of the three populations, the respondents were paired with those from the other two populations. In Tables 4 30, 4 31, and 4 32, for the perceptions of beauty, ecological significance, and naturalness respectively, t he results reveal significant differences between population s for each image Perception of beauty Table 4 30 presents wh ich images were rated significantly differently by the three population pairs. Table 4 30. AN O VA multiple comparison significance val ues for 16 Images in terms of perception of beauty by three populations Soil and water science student population with landscape architecture student population Soil and water science student population with general student population Landscape architectu re student population with general student population 1 .014 .000 .059 2 .179 .893 .226 3 .158 .107 .840 4 .493 .003 .025 5 .005 .000 .457 6 .198 .095 .698 7 .150 .718 .073 8 .914 .390 .452 9 .034 .005 .478 10 .403 .283 .811 11 .809 .904 .716 1 2 .053 .166 .001 13 .296 .416 .816 14 .350 .081 .008 15 .092 .366 .429 16 .008 .036 .578 The mean difference is significant if the value is less than 0.05.

PAGE 121

121 The soil and water science student population and the landscape architecture student populati on showed significant differences in rating Images 1, 5, 9, and 16. The soil and water science student population and the general student population showed significant differences in rating Images 1, 4, 5, 9, and 16. The landscape architecture student popu lation and the general student population showed significant differences in rating Images 4, 12, and 14. Perception of ecological significance Table 4 31 presents images that were rated significantly differently by the three population pairs in terms of ec ological significance. Table 4 31. AN O VA multiple comparison of significant values for 16 images in terms of perception of ecological significance by three populations Soil and water science student population with landscape architecture student populati on Soil and water science student population with general student population Landscape architecture student population with general student population 1 .000 .115 .011 2 .280 .892 .224 3 .131 .816 .201 4 .006 .035 .503 5 .031 .051 .818 6 .024 .151 .4 01 7 .910 .735 .822 8 .502 .576 .220 9 .740 .439 .658 10 .088 .019 .510 11 .687 .133 .057 12 .098 .143 .002 13 .606 .096 .030 14 .139 .045 .595 15 .258 .734 .428 16 .079 .449 .314 The mean difference is significant if the value is less than 0.05

PAGE 122

122 The soil and water science student population and the landscape architecture student population showed significant differences in rating Images 1, 4, 5, and 6. The soil and water science student population and the general student population showed sign ificant differences in rating Images 4, 10, and 14. The landscape architecture student population and the general student population showed significant differences in rating Images 1, 12, and 13. Perception of naturalness Table 4 32 presents images that we re rated significantly differently by three pairs among three populations in terms of naturalness. Table 4 32. AN O VA multiple comparison of significant values for 16 images in terms of perception of naturalness by three populations Soil and water science student population with landscape architecture student population Soil and water science student population with general student population Landscape architecture student population with general student population 1 .030 .000 .116 2 .014 .035 .723 3 .2 54 .171 .013 4 .057 .014 .565 5 .020 .000 .079 6 .149 .000 .023 7 .054 .648 .139 8 .919 .919 .839 9 .232 .446 .663 10 .903 .008 .011 11 .574 .653 .910 12 .001 .009 .000 13 .808 .071 .117 14 1.000 .035 .035 15 .081 .742 .039 16 .625 .625 1.000 The mean difference is significant if the value is less than 0.05.

PAGE 123

123 The soil and water science student population and the landscape architecture student population showed significant differences in rating Images 1, 2, 5, and 12. The soil and water scienc e student population and the general student population showed significant differences in rating Images 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, and 14. The landscape architecture student population and the general student population showed significant differences in rating Im ages 3, 6, 10, 12, 14, and 15. Factor Weights in Three Perceptions Ordinal regressions were run based on the three perceptions from the three different populations. The results suggest the significance of each perception category, as presented in Tables 4 33, 4 34, and 4 35 for the perceptions of beauty, ecological significance, and naturalness, respectively. Note that the results for three populations are present ed in one table in order to save space and present the consistency, which is different from th e conventional format used to present correlation. I chose the most common condition in reality as the reference condition for each reference conditions for the categories of fence, background, foreground trees, and water edge vegetation respectively. an increase or decrease of apply relative to the reference condition, given that all of the other variables in the model are held constant. For example, in Table 4 33, that the estimate for the condition of levels higher

PAGE 124

124 student population in contributing to the overall rating of an image. The significance value of each condition that less than 0.05 suggest that this condition is significant. Perception of beauty The estimate of eac h image factor is revealed in each category in Table 4 33. In the category of fence, all three populations show that both conditions of tubular steel fence and absence of any fence have significant positive impacts compared to a chain link fence. Table 4 33. Coefficient of each image factor in terms of perception of beauty by three populations Soil and water science Landscape architecture General Estimate Significance Estimate Significance Estimate Significance Fence Absence of Fence 2.41 5 .000 2.299 .000 2.020 .000 Tubular Steel Fence 2.704 .000 2.115 .000 1.810 .000 Chainlink Fence 0 a 0 a 0 a Background Natural Background 1.266 .000 1.425 .000 1.126 .000 Built Background 0 a 0 a 0 a Foreground trees Small Tree .327 .018 .524 .000 .339 .014 Canopy tree 0 a 0 a 0 a Water edge vegetation High Shrub 1.166 .000 .058 .766 .162 .410 Clustered Vegetation .568 .004 .421 .033 .217 .271 Medium High .510 .010 .453 .021 .674 .001 Clear edge 0 a 0 a 0 a Pseudo R Square ( Cox and Snell ) .404 .377 .299

PAGE 125

125 In the category of background, all three populations indicate that the natural background has significant positive impacts on the perception of beauty compared with a built background. In the category of foreground trees, all three populations indicate that small trees have significant positive impacts on the perception of beauty, compared with canopy trees. In the category of water edge vegetation, the three populations indicate diff erences: the high shrub was only perceived by the soil and water science student population as having a significant positive impact. The significant positive impact of clustered vegetation is recognized by both the soil and water science student population and the landscape architecture student population. All three populations recognized medium high vegetation as a condition that has significant impacts on the perception of beauty. Yet the soil and water science student population regarded this condition as having a positive impact, while the other two populations regarded it as having a negative impact Perception of ecological significance The coefficient of each image factor is revealed in each category in Table 4 34. In the category of fence, all thr ee populations showed that both the conditions of tubular steel fence and absence of any fence have significant positive impacts compared to a chain link fence. In the category of background, all three populations showed that a natural background has sign ificant positive impacts on the perception of ecological significance, compared with built background.

PAGE 126

126 Table 4 34. Coefficient of each image factor in terms of perception of ecological significance by three populations Soil and water science Landscap e architecture General Estimate Significance Estimate Significance Estimate Significance Fence Absence of Fence .746 .000 .622 .000 .791 .000 Tubular steel fence .819 .000 .440 .016 .535 .004 Chainlink Fence 0 a 0 a 0 a Backg round Natural Background 1.070 .000 .678 .000 1.052 .000 Built Background 0 a 0 a 0 a Foreground trees Small Tree .266 .055 .058 .671 .149 .275 Canopy tree 0 a 0 a 0 a Water edge vegetation High Shrub 1.288 .000 .069 .724 .66 1 .001 Clustered Vegetation .620 .002 .376 .054 .028 .887 Medium High .582 .003 .237 .224 .113 .562 Clear edge 0 a 0 a 0 a Pseudo R Square ( Cox and Snell ) .177 .074 .143 In the category of foreground trees, all three populations sh owed that small trees have significant positive impacts on the perception of ecological significance, compared with canopy trees. In the category of water edge vegetation, the three populations showed differences in recognizing different conditions: The landscape architecture student population does not regard any condition as a substantial contribution to the perception of ecological significance compared with the mown lawn Soil and water science student

PAGE 127

127 population regarded all three conditions as havin g significant positive impacts on the perception of ecological significance. The general student population recognized the condition of high shrub as having a significant positive impact. Perception of naturalness The relative importance of each image fa ctor is revealed in each category in Table 4 35. In the category of fence, all three populations demonstrated that having a tubular steel fence and the absence of any fence have significant positive impacts compared to the chain link fence. In the catego ry of background, all three populations showed that a natural background has a significant positive impact on the perception of naturalness, compared with the built background. In the category of foreground trees, the soil and water science student popula tion and the landscape architecture student population did not recognize the differences between small trees and canopy trees in impacting the perception of naturalness. The general student population showed that small trees have significant positive impac ts on the perception of naturalness, compared with canopy trees. In the category of water edge vegetation, the three populations showed differences in recognizing different conditions: The landscape architecture student population regarded the conditions of high shrub and clustered vegetation as making an important contribution to the perception of ecological significance compared with the mown lawn The soil and water science student population regarded all three conditions as having significant positive impacts in the perception of ecological significance. The

PAGE 128

128 general student population recognized the conditions of high shrub as having a significant positive impact. Table 4 35. Coefficient of each image factor in terms of perception of naturalness by three populations Soil and water science Landscape architecture General Estimate Significance Estimate Significance Estimate Significance Fence Absence of Fence 1.478 .000 1.544 .000 1.251 .000 Tubular steel fence 1.380 .000 1.133 .000 645 .000 Chainlink Fence 0 a 0 a 0 a Background Natural Background 1.390 .000 1.587 .000 1.397 .000 Built Background 0 a 0 a 0 a Foreground trees Small Tree .146 .295 .034 .802 .270 .047 Canopy tree 0 a 0 a 0 a Water edge vegetation High Shrub 1.757 .000 .524 .008 1.010 .000 Clustered Vegetation .787 .000 .689 .000 .323 .097 Medium High .815 .000 .059 .764 .240 .216 Clear edge 0 a 0 a 0 a Pseudo R Square ( Cox and Snell ) .320 .296 .263

PAGE 129

129 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCL USION The analytical results of this study answer the three research questions by offering supportive evidence (or a lack of evidence) for each. The study found that: (1) the appearance of ecological infrastructure is critical in its design and management because the perception of beauty largely determines the perception of ecological significance. (2) Most conventional aesthetic principles are still valid for the design of green infrastructure. A new aesthetics for ecological design is emerging although it remains weak compared to conventional aesthetics. (3) Educational backgrounds, not necessarily comprehension of ecological knowledge, have a limited impact on the acceptance or rejection lications and limitations of this study are discussed at the end of the chapter Importance of Appearance The study confirms what the existing literature suggests that naturalness is firmly associate d with the perception of beauty. At the same time, this study suggests that the visual appeal of an ecological design not only determines the perception of beauty, but also the perception of ecological significance. Hypothesis 1 is supported Hypothesis 1, which states that the correlations between the percep tion of beauty and ecological significance are significant, is supported. The correlations of two of the three perceptions analyzed in the last chapter are summarized as Table 5 1. The correlations among the three perceptions are strong for the three popul ations. In each correlation, the majority of sixteen images (> 80% for the landscape architecture student population, 100% for the soil and water science student population and the general

PAGE 130

130 student population) show strong correlations ( p < 0.05 ). This sugge sts that for stormwater treatment areas, the three populations perceive beauty, ecological significance, and naturalness similarly. Table 5 1. Number of images showing significant correlations for the three populations Two tailed significance level Soil and Water Science Landscape Architecture General Correlations between the perception of beauty and naturalness p < 0.01 13 13 16 p < 0.05 16 15 16 Correlations between the perception of beauty and ecological significance p < 0.01 14 11 15 p < 0.05 1 6 13 16 Correlations between the perception of ecological significance and naturalness p < 0.01 16 13 16 p < 0.05 16 13 16 The number of images with p < 0.01 is also counted into the numbers of images with p < 0.05. T he correlations of the percepti ons between beauty and ecological significance were almost significant in every image tested, as suggested by the correlation analysis for the three populations (Table 4 12 and Table 5 1 ) which supports hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 is supported. Hypothesis 2, which states that the image factors having no biophysical function affect the perception of ecological s ignificance, is supported. T wo analytic results allow for this conclusion: (a) the comparison between the rankings about perception of beauty and th ose about the perception of ecological significance ( Tables 4 22, 4 23, 4 24 ), and (b) the comparison of the weights of image components that contribute to the perception of beauty and those that contribute to the perception of ecological significance (Ta ble 4 34)

PAGE 131

131 In the se two analyses a ll the image components, including those components having no biophysical impact on ecological health, such as the use of tubular steel fence, chain link fence, or the presence of background trees or background building s contribute to the assessment of ecological significance Moreover, it was found that the foreground and background elements have greater impact on the perception of ecological significance than do those elements that do affect ecological health such as t he presence of trees adjacent to stormwater treatment areas, and vegetation at the water s edge As shown in Tables 4 22, 4 23, and 4 24, the foreground or background elements determine the high or low ranges of image preference From the above evidence, we can conclude that t he perception of ecological significance of a stormwater treatment area is largely prescribed by the conventional principles of landscape aesthetic s Therefore, the perception of ecological significance basically employs the construc t of landscape aesthetics. The evidence from the literature, that ecological design s should be well maintained and present human care clues (Nassauer, 1997, 2004), is supported An ecological infrastructure that is not perceived as improving ecological hea lth would negate the environmental message designers and managers try to convey. It is appropriate to conclude that there is an inseparable relationship between the three perceptions. Unlike ecological determinism that clearly defines ecological design in terms of truth, goodness, and beauty (McHarg, 1969), landscape in society is regarded as a medi um that connect s and overlap s with different value systems (for example, in this study, beauty, ecological significance, and naturalness). While participants in this study well understand the stormwater treatment mechanisms as

PAGE 132

132 reflected in their answers to the knowledge questions, it seems they do not tend to separat e their subjective attitudes into different value systems (Corner 1997). Rather, the appearance of the landscape overrides In other words aesthetic perception becomes the hat influence s others. Old Aesthetics Versus New Aesthetics In this research, testing of image elements presented in the analytical results of the rankings of the three perceptions and weights of different image components provided evidence to prove or disprove landscape aesthetic theories. These include conventional aesthetic theories as well as emerging ecological aesthetic theories. While the importance of each image category in determining the perceptions of beauty is identified, the hierarchies of the applicability of these theories are also revealed. Hypothesis 3 is supported In ranking perceptions (Tables 4 17, 4 18, and 4 19) and testing the factor wei ght (Table 5 32), hypothesis 3, that the tubular steel fence positive ly impacts the perception of beauty, is supported. The results of this research support the theory that the presence of human elements helps to increase the perception of beauty (Herzog a nd Kutzli 2000, Gobster and Westphal 2004, Van den Berg & Ter Heijne 2005). According to this theory, the security implied by a tubular steel fence and its positive aesthetic impact in a stormwater treatment area image is advantageous for two reasons: firs t, it physically prevents drowning ; and s econd, it suggests that the environment is tamed for human use and recreation. T he presence of a tubular steel fence constitutes a clue about human use even though no human being s were shown in the test photos T he results also show that the images that include the tubular steel fence creates a positive impact as opposed to the condition of the absence of a tubular steel fence to

PAGE 133

133 the perception by all three populations. This suggests that human structures can cont ribute to the perception of beauty of a stormwater treatment area as much as natural element s can This result indicates human structure theory can be as valid as naturalness theory (biological theory) in affecting aesthetic preference. In other words, wel l managed human structure s can be viewed as as beautiful as natural elements Hypothesis 4 and Hypothesis 5 are supported Hypothesis 4, which states that a natural background positive ly impacts the perception of beauty (compared with the built backgroun d) and Hypothesis 5 which states that the absence of a chain link fence positive ly i mpacts the perception of beauty (compared with the presence of a chain link fence), are supported. In ranking perceptions of beauty for all three populations (Tables 4 17, 4 18, and 4 19), the three ranges (high, medium, and low) are divided according to the presence of a chain link fence as foreground and the presence of a building as background. The highest ranked images are characterized with a natural background and abs ence of a chain link fence as foreground. The images in the medium range are characterized with a building as background and without a chain link fence as a foreground. The images in the low range are characterized with a chain link fence as foreground. Th is result is also endorsed by the weights of different image components. Table 4 32 suggests that the chain link fence (compared with the absence of fence or tubular steel fence) and built background (compared with natural background) have significant ly co ntribute to to the perception of beauty. Both results not only support the theory of naturalness (Appleton 1975, Zube, Sell, and Taylor 1982, Thayer 1994), but also indicate that this theory dominates the perceptions of green infrastructure.

PAGE 134

134 From the c orrelation analysis for the three populations (Table5 12) the correlations between the perception of beauty and naturalness were almost significant in every image tested. This confirms previous studies that found naturalness is associated with aesthetic p erceptions (Zube, Sell, and Taylor 1982, Kaplan & Kaplan 1982, Palmer 1978, Gallage 1977, Ulrich 1981, Vining, Danial, & Schroeder 1984, Ribe 1990, Schroeder 1991, Purcell and Lamb 1998, Hull et al. 2001, Nassauer 1992, 2004, Gobster and Westphal 2004). Th is is true specifically for a landscape scene with mostly natural elements (Price, 2004). Elements other than natural ones do not necessarily contribute a negative impact to perception. As mentioned in the previous section, the cl ues to access and to parti cipation in the landscape differentiate the human structure (such as a tubular steel fence in this study) from other manmade structures (like a chain link fence and built background in this study). Hypothesis 6 is supported Hypothesis 6, which states t hat the presence of small trees positive ly impacts the perception of beauty, compared with canopy trees, is supported by testing the factor weight (Table 5 32). This result informs us that the theory of complexity is supported. The images with canopy trees demonstrate the prospect refuge theory (Appleton 1975; Balling & Falk 1982; Bourassa 1990, 1991), as canopy trees create framed environments for viewers. The images with small trees demo nstrate the complexity theory ( Appleton1975, Ulrich 1983, Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989, Hunziker 1995, Hunziker and Kienast 1999, Misgav, 2000 ). In the present study, the latter theory is supported. a body of water with edges of mown lawn wit h other vegetat ed materials. The low trees at the front and the scatter ed plants at the edge increase the number of

PAGE 135

135 layers of the image composition The texture s of the vegetation materials (lawn, tree, scattered vegetation, background forest) are clearly defined visual components And the texture and color of these materials are contrasting. T hese character istic s validate conventional landscape aesthetic theories. In fact, many public parks that have water bodies manage the water edge in the same way. U ti to make ecological design visually more acceptable is valid. Hypothesis 7 is partly supported Hypothesis 7, which states that the presence of coarse ly texture d vegetation positive ly impacts the perception of bea uty compared with a mown lawn, is partly supported. Table 4 32 revealed that only the soil and water science student population rec ognizes the significance of high and coarse shrub s to the perception of beauty. The significant positive impact of cluster ed vegetation is recognized by both the soil and water science student population and the landscape architecture student population, with the former population being more sensitive. All three populations recognized medium high vegetation as a condition that has significant impact on the perception of beauty, though the soil and water science student population regarded this condition as having a positive impact while the other two populations regarded it as having a negative impact. From comparisons among Ta bles 4 17, 4 18, and 4 1 9, it can be concluded that vegetation at the water s edge plays a far less important role in determining the perception of beauty than background and foreground elements. To sum up, we can conclude that most conventional aesthe tic pri nciples are still valid for green infrastructure. A new aesthetics is emerging, but it is not yet dominant.

PAGE 136

136 As suggested in the previous section, the appearance of ecological design set up the framework for other perceptions. The conventional theori es of aesthetics can also predict the perception of ecological significance. The Impact of Educational Backgrounds on the Cognitive Process Th e analytical results also provide new evidence about the cognitive mechanism of landscape appreciation As stated in the research design, this study uses the subject s education al background as a controlled variable to represent their ecological knowledge. H ypothesis 8 is not supported H ypothesis 8 that the soil and water science student population is mos t likely to differentiate between the three perceptions, while the general student population is least likely is not supported. T he landscape architecture student population was most likely to differentiate between the three perceptions, while the general student population was least likely to do so In three categories, 48 correlations were run as presented in Table 5 1. The general student population had 47 correlations with two tailed significance levels less than 0.01. And the soil and water science s tudent population had 4 3 correlations with two tailed significance levels less than 0.01. Therefore, the general population shows the strongest correlation among the three perceptions, followed closely by the soil and water science student population. Bot h populations show 48 correlations with a two tailed significance level less than 0.0 5 The landscape architecture student population shows the weakest correlation, with 37 correlations with two tailed significance levels less than 0.01. This population fo und that one image do es not have significant correlations between the perception of beauty and naturalness three images image

PAGE 137

137 that do not have significant correlations between the perception of beauty and ecological significance and three images that d o not have significant correlations between the perception of naturalness and ecolog ical significance Though results reveal that the landscape architecture student population is the most likely to differentiate between the three perceptions, t he differen ces among the three populations are not great Hypothesis 9 is not supported Hypothesis 9, that t he soil and water science student population would be more likely to recognize the impacts of image components that have biophysical functions to the percept ion of beauty was not supported As revealed in t he comparison of Tables 4 17 4 18 and 4 19, the ranking of the perception of beauty f or all three populations can be eas ily divided into three ranges, the high range, medium range, and low range. The high est ranked images have trees in the background and no chain link fence as foreground. The images in the medium range have a building as background and no chain link fence as foreground. The images in the low range are characterized with a chain link fence as foreground. The only exception appears in the general student population with Image 12 (with a chain link fence as foreground). The result does not indicate any difference between the three populations i n evaluating whether image components that have bi ophysical functions have an impact on the perception of beauty Hypothesis 10 is supported Hypothesis 10, that t he soil and water science student population is more willing to rate coarse vegetation as a feature of beauty and ecological integrity, as o pposed to other populations, is supported by several analytical results, including the comparisons

PAGE 138

138 of the mean values the comparison of weights of image components, and the ANOVA tests The comparison of image ranking for the perception of beauty ( Table s 4 17 4 18 and 4 19 ) suggests that the soil and water science student population prefers the those images reflecting a clear water s edge ( clustered vegetation or mown lawn at the the general student population mostly view images with clear or buffered clustered vegetation equally. T he soil and water science student population ranked Image 3 and Image 16 ( featuring tall shrubs) more high ly than the other two populations. The ranking gap for I mage 3 between the soil and water science student population and the other two populations was significant ( as great as five places ) The landscape architecture student population and the general student population highly ranked Images 2 and 10 (featured with clearly mown water edges). According to the ANOVA tests that suggest significant differences in each pair ing of the three populations about the perception of beaut y, the soil and water science student population and the landscape architecture student population showed significant differences in rating Images 1, 5, 9, and 16. The soil and water science student population and the general student population showed sign ificant differences in rating Images 1, 4, 5, 9, and 16. The landscape architecture student population and the general student population showed significant differences in rating Images 4, 12, and 14. Among these images, only Image 16 is ranked in the top 6 by all three populations.

PAGE 139

139 The analysis of the weights of image components also provides evidence that support s the hypothesis. H igh shrub s are only recognized by the soil and water science student population as positively influential The significant po sitive impact of clustered vegetation is recognized by both the soil and water science student population and the landscape architecture student population with the former population being more sensitive. All three populations recognized medium high vege tation as a condition that has significant impact on the perception of beauty. On the other hand, the soil and water science student population regarded this condition as having a positive impact, while the other two populations regarded it as having negat ive impacts. This reveals that the soil and water science student population is most affected by coarse materials, while the general student population is least affected. Th is trend supports the hypothesis that populations with different educational backg rounds have different preferences in landscape aesthetics. At the same time, the results of this study reveal a more complex mechanism than existing literature suggests. First, ecological knowledge does not appear to be sufficient to result in a new ae sthetic preference Given that the three populations show no significant difference in knowledge about the stormwater treatment area s (Table 4 11) (ecological knowledge) may not automatically trans late new aesthetic apprecia tion). E cological design can n ot be tangibly perceived as a coherent aesthetic This confirms that aesthetic appreciation is based on a cultural recognition process, not an analytical process Second, the preset aesthetic framework in professional education can be a factor that the landscape architecture student population distances from the ecological

PAGE 140

140 aesthetics. While t he recent prevalence of ecological aesthetic discussion originated in landscape architecture, this discussion does not alter the desire of the landscape architecture student population to use symbolic icons to represent ecological concerns. As this study demonstrated, t he landscape architecture student population still hold s on L andscape architectural educat ion focuses on conventional landscape aesthetic theories as a framework of communication when c ompared with the training in the soil and water science department The students in the landscape architecture department are more e ffective at relating abstrac t mechanism s with vivid visualizations For this reason, the students prefer established aesthetic Third, societal reaction to new landscape representations is slow The landscape architecture s tudent population and the general student population share a number of taste reflects societal taste. On the other hand, g iven the curriculum about stormwater treat ment the landscape architecture students have studied, aesthetic change is not manifested as quickly as some aestheticians suggest. While the first section of this chapter discusses the importance of aesthetics in ecological design and management, this sec tion basically suggests that it would take a considerable amount of time for ecological knowledge to alter prevailing aesthetic tastes. Therefore, it will be more if a goal is to have these landscape appreciated Finally, it has to be noted that the e image composition is still small. As rankings shown in Tables 5 16, 5 17, and 5 18

PAGE 141

141 demonstrate, the difference s in the water s edge v egetation did not determ ine the aesthetic preference of the three populations Practical Implications Importance of Policy About the Appearance of Green Infrastructure This study suggests the appearance of green infrastructure is important Though people acquire knowledg e about the mechanisms of storm water treatment, it is quite unlikely they w ill use that understanding to reshape the way they appreciate a landscape. is closely associate d with th e general aesthetic assessment. The effect of a lack of design and maintenance on aesthetic quality of a stormwater treatment area can lead to a negative assessment about its ecological soundness. Education can still be important. The gap between the peop le s visual preferences and the reality of biophysical effects does exist. This experiment demonstrates that there is a very limited opportunity to fill that gap. At this point, comparing the evidence that can be ascribed to professional differences, emplo ying conventional landscape aesthetics provide s the mo st viable way to create well perceived and well received green infrastructure. While environmental policies may require the design and installation of green infrastructure, the chance that this in frastructure will have poor aesthetic quality is evident from this study. Many may justify the poor visual quality of green infrastructure by stressing that their ecological attributes are more important than the visual. This study reveals that if a landsc ape is perceived ugly it will also be perceived as ecologically insignificant, even when the viewer is ecological ly knowledg eable This leads to the following suggestions:

PAGE 142

142 A policy is needed to address the visual quality of green infrastructure It sh ould require thorough consideration of appearance at the design stage and consistent management strategies regarding appearance after the project is installed As suggested in this study, better visual quality is firmly associated with perception of ecolog ical significance. Landscape architects should be involved in the development and implementation of green infrastructure policies. On one hand, landscape architects may use their understanding of landscape aesthetics to help identify, evaluate, and adjust the potential visual outcomes of different management modes. On the other hand, landscape architects will also be alert to professional biases when contributing to design and policy. More comprehensive land use policies should direct the design of futur e green infrastructure. They should encourage multiple use of places that are designated to improve ecological health. Allowing for human use of these areas would expand the quality and quantity of existing open spaces. When more human activities are strat egically located in and/or around green infrastructure, the beauty of landscapes will be revealed fully, and knowledge and ethics can be conveyed more efficiently. Management of Components of a Stormwater Treatment Area While recognizing the varied imp ortance of different image factors, this study also suggest to designers and managers several guidelines concerning the organization of components of a stormwater treatment area. Three basic suggestions are summarized here, as follows: The fence of a storm water treatment area should be carefully selected The use of a decorative fence, such as the tubular steel fence used in this study can meet security needs and will be perceived more positively than the use of a chain link fence. People prefer a natural settin g as the background for a storm water treatment area. H igh trees can be planted to create a visual buffer of natural elements for the storm water treatment system. The vegetation at the edge should be organized into neat patterns. T he vegetati on can be fine or coarse textured, but the edge should be defined. For better ecological performance, high shrubs may be planted to replace mown lawn. However, regular maintenance will be required to achieve positive visual response of each image frame.

PAGE 143

143 As indicated in Table 3 1, in the C ity of Gainesville, the current trend in stormwater treatment area design is to reveal them rather than hiding them behind vegetation. However, the current management of these features is still far from adequate because rarely are they perceived to be an amenity for the public good. Usually stormwater ponds are located apart from the main shoppin g building and parking lot. S eating or walkways are rarely provided which suggests the business does not endorse t he use of the se areas. Thus policies are needed to encourage the use of stormwater treatment area s as amenit ies Limitation of This Study and Future Research Needs L imitation of this study that included low R square values, survey subjects, and tested design types, are discussed below. In addition, prospective research directions are described Low R S quare Values R ead ing the R square values in Tables 4 33, 4 34, and 4 35 can generate questions about the reliability of this study. For example, in Table 4 33, around for ty percent of the variation in the response variable can be explained by the explanatory variables. The low strength of association can be partly traced to the Orthogonal Design (which reduced the number of the testing images from forty eight to sixteen an d make this study feasible). The remaining percent can be attributed to unknown variables Since this study first investigate image components in the perceptions of ecology and naturalness, these results are adopted for further analysis. To further refine the findings about image component for the three perceptions, the interactions among the image components must be explored in the future.

PAGE 144

144 Survey Subjects The sampling of survey subjects can be improved in the future. Due to the constraints of time and money, this study used university students from different departments to represent differing educational backgrounds. The study could be more accurate if repeated among professional practitioners (landscape architects as well as hydrologic engineers). Other interesting populations to test would include people who have potential to see or have contact with a stormwater treatment area (e.g., customers using a parking lot where a stormwater treatment area can be seen, and residents living adjacent to a st ormwater treatment area). This study originally intend ed to use affiliation with an environmental association as a controlled variable. Too few student s were environmental association members to make this analysis feasible An attempt to capture this or similar association populations would be an interesting exercise. Tested Design Types The images tested in this study were manipulated from the existing stormwater treatment areas in the city of Gainesville. All of these systems are austerely designed to meet the minimum requirements of mandatory stormwater regulations Yet t stormwater treatment areas represent a commonly practice from all over the nation. The theory of ecological aesthetics asks for green infrastructure to be designed with more consideration for human interaction, meaning that it should make better use of the land, involve human activities, symbolize environmental values, and convey ecological knowledge and concerns. In recent landscape archite cture practice some artistica lly designed green infrastructure has emerged. Notable examples include the Oregon Convention Center

PAGE 145

145 and the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. These projects not only store and filt er stormwater, but they teach the uses about the process by which stor mwater is conveyed into the system These projects can be used as new design types to test ecological aesthetic theories. All the stormwater treatment areas examined in this study were adjacent to big box retail centers and the stormwater treatment area s were isolated fro m human activities. More recent development models, such as new urbanism and landscape urbanism, require more integrated functionality and provide new opportunities to explore the perception of stormwater treatment areas. The City Creek C enter in Salt Lake City, Utah, is a prominent example. It situates stormwater treatment areas within the retailing area and r eveals the process by which stormwater is collected and cleansed This type of stormwater treatment area used more constructed elem ents rather than natural ones It can provide another project type which if further explored could expand our understanding of ecological aesthetic theory.

PAGE 146

146 APPENDIX A I NSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL LETTE R

PAGE 147

147 APPENDIX B QUESTIONAIRE Informed Con sent Protocol Title: Aesthetic attributes of constructed stormwater management areas Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to (1) Determine the visual composition of stormwater treatment areas preferred by people. (2) Determine the factors that influence preferences of people from different professional backgrounds. (3) lan dscape. What you will be asked to do in the study: In the first section of the survey, you will be presented 16 pictures. Please circle the number that Please note there are small differences between each im In the second section, you will be asked basic background information. In the third section, you will be asked questions concerning your attitudes about stormwater management. Time required: 1 0 15 minutes Risks and Benefits: Since the survey only requires response to a written questionnaire, the risk is very small. We do not anticipate that you will benefit directly by participating in this experiment. Compensation: No compensation for p articipating in this research. Confidentiality:

PAGE 148

148 You will not be asked to offer your identity in this study. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Bo Zhang, PhD Student, Depar tment of Landscape Architecture, Cell 352 871 5910. Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone 392 0433. Agreement: I have read the proced ure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: ___________________________________________ Date: _________________ Principal Investigator: ____________________________ _______ Date: _________________

PAGE 149

149 1 2 1. How beautiful is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 1. How beautiful is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 2. How ecologically significant is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very significant 1 2 3 4 5 2. How ecologically significant is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very significant 1 2 3 4 5 3. How natural is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very natural 1 2 3 4 5 3. How natural is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very natural 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 1. How beautiful is this stormwat er management area? Not at all ----very beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 1. How beautiful is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 2. How ecologically significant is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very significant 1 2 3 4 5 2. How ecologically significant is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very significant 1 2 3 4 5 3. How natural is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very natur al 1 2 3 4 5 3. How natural is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very natural 1 2 3 4 5 5 6

PAGE 150

150 1. How beautiful is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 1. How beautiful is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 2. How ecologically significant is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very significant 1 2 3 4 5 2. How ecologically significa nt is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very significant 1 2 3 4 5 3. How natural is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very natural 1 2 3 4 5 3. How natural is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very natural 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 1. How beautiful is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 1. How beautiful is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 2. How ecological do you describe this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very ecological 1 2 3 4 5 2. How ecological do you describe this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very ecological 1 2 3 4 5 3. How natural is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very natural 1 2 3 4 5 3. How natural is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very natural 1 2 3 4 5 9 10 1. How beautiful is thi s stormwater management area? Not at all ----very beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 1. How beautiful is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 2. How ecologically significant is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very significant 1 2 3 4 5 2. How ecologically significant is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very significant 1 2 3 4 5 3. How natural is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very natural 1 2 3 4 5 3. How natural is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very natural 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 151

151 11 12 1. How beautiful is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 1. How beautiful is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 2. How ecologically significant is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very significant 1 2 3 4 5 2. How ecological ly significant is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very significant 1 2 3 4 5 3. How natural is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very natural 1 2 3 4 5 3. How natural is this stormwater managemen t area? Not at all ----very natural 1 2 3 4 5 13 14 1. How beautiful is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 1. How beautiful is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 2. How ecologically significant is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very significant 1 2 3 4 5 2. How ecologically significant is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very signifi cant 1 2 3 4 5 3. How natural is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very natural 1 2 3 4 5 3. How natural is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very natural 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 152

152 15 16 1. How beautiful is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 1. How beautiful is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 2. How ecologically significant is this storm water management area? Not at all ----very significant 1 2 3 4 5 2. How ecologically significant is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very significant 1 2 3 4 5 3. How natural is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very natural 1 2 3 4 5 3. How natural is this stormwater management area? Not at all ----very natural 1 2 3 4 5 (Images developed by the author) 1. Please rank the three most beautiful stormwater management are as, and the three least beautiful stormwater management areas from the 16 pictures. (Please fill in the blank with the number that represents the image) (left most beauitiful) (right leas t beautiful) 2. Please rank the three most ecologically significant stormwater management areas, and the three least ecologically significant stormwater management areas from the 16 pictures. (left most ecologically significa nt ) (right least ecologically significant ) 3. Please rank the three most natural looking stormwater management areas, and the three least natural looking stormwater management areas from the 16 pictures. (left most natural) (right least natural)

PAGE 153

153 Background Information 4. Your Age 18 22, 22 25, 25 30, 30 40, 40 50, 50 60, 60 and above 5. Your Ethnicity African American, White, Latino American, Asian American, Other 6. Your Major Landscape Architecture Environment Engineering Or______________ 7. Your Gender Female Male 8. Are you an environmental organization member? NO, Yes, The name of the organization ___________________ Your attitude about stormwater treatment area s 9. The water quality of Gainesville will be unaffected by future development if the dumping of garbage into water bodies can be prevented. Agree Disagree 10. Urban flooding problems are likely to become more severe as more land becomes developed. Agree Disagree 11. Stormwater ponds protect natural ecosystems by slowing d o wn the release of wat er into lakes and rivers. Agree Disagree 12. The quality of stormwater affects the health of ecosystems; the quantity of stormwater Agree Disagree (End of the questionaire)

PAGE 154

154 LIST OF REFERENCES Akaah P, and P Korgaonkar. 1988. A Conjoint Investigation of the Relative Importance o f Risk Relievers i n Direct Marketing. Journal of Advertising Research 28:4, 38 44. Appleton, Jay. 1975. The experience of landscape London: Wiley. Appleyard, Donald. 197 6. Planning a Pluralist City: Conflicting Realities in Ciudad Guyana Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. a Social Symbol: Within a Theory of Journal of the American Planning Association 45(2): 143 153. Arriaza, M., Caas Ortega, J.F., Caas Madueo, J.A., and P. Ruiz Aviles. 2004. t he Visual Quality o Landscape and Urban Planning 69(1): 115 125. a nd GIS i n Modeling Visual Landscape Change: A Case Study o f the Northwestern Arid Coast o Landscape and Urban Planning 73(4) 307 325. Environment and B ehavior 14(1): 5 28. Berleant, Arnold. 1970. The Aesthetic Field: A Phenomenology of Aesthetic Experience Springfield, Ill: C. C. Thomas. Be Selected Studies in Phenomenology and. Existential Philosophy (no.11 ) Edited by Don Ihde and Hugh J Silverman 125. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Blau, Judith R. 1984 Architects a nd Firms: A Sociological Perspective o n Architectural Practice Cambridge, M ass: MIT Press. Booth ,Derek B. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24:724 737. Bourassa, Steven C. 199 0 P aradigm for L andscape A behavior 22(6): 787 812. Bourassa, Steven C. 1991. The A esthetics of L andscape London: Belhaven Press.

PAGE 155

155 Boyer, Ernest L., and Lee D. Mitgang. 1996. Bu ilding Community: A New Future f or Architecture Education and Practice: A Special Report Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation f or the Advancement of Teaching. Brabyn Lars 23 34 Landscape and Urban Planning 64(1 2): 29 46 tal Manipulation o f Leisure Sciences 2: 221 238. a nd Proximate Determinants Of Child Maltreatment: Natural S election, Ecological Instability And In Sociobiological Perspectives on Human Development Edited by K. MacDonald, 293 319. New York: Springer Verlag. L andscape as A gents of C reativit Ecological Design and Planning Edited by Thompson George, Steiner Frederick, 80 108. New York: Wiley. Cosgrove, Denis. 1998. Social formation and Symbolic Landscape Madison, W I : University of Wisconsin Press. Daniel, Terry C., and Joanne Vining.19 Behaviour and the Natural Environment Edited by Irwin Altman, and Joachim F. Wohlwill, 39 83. New York: Plenum Press. DeLucio, Jos V., and Marta M ugica and Behavior of 3):145 160. D ubos, Rene. 1980. Quest: Reflections on Medicine, Science, and Humanity San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Eaton, Marcia Muelder, 1999. "Responding to the Call for New Landscape Metaphors." Landscape Journal 9: 22 27. i Journal of Green Building 2(4):1 19. Eckbo, Garret 1970. An Eckbo Porterfield Ecological Exchange. Landscape A rchitecture 60 (3): 200 202

PAGE 156

156 Environment al Pr o tection Agency. 1984. Stormwater National Report. Washington DC. Environment al Pr o tection Agency. 2002. Stormwater National Report. Washington DC. Environment al Pr o tection Agency. 2012. Green Infrastructure. ht tp://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/index.cfm L 147 1 57. Reconciling t he Architectural Preferences o f A rchitects a nd the Public: The Ordered Preference Model Environment & Behavior 40(5): 599 618. Gallagher, Thomas Justin. 1977. Visual Preference f or Alternative Natural Landscapes. Ph.D. dissertation. Ann Arbor, M I : The University of Michigan. Gillette, J ane Brown. 1996. "Under Cover." Landscape Architecture 86(7): 26 31. Gifford, Robert, Hine, Donald W., Muller Understanding the Aesthet Environment & Behavior 32: 163 187. Landscape Journal 18(1): 54 64. Gobster, Paul H. and Kathleen E. Dickhut. 1995. Exploring I nterspace: Open Space Opportunities in Dense Urban Areas. In Inside Urban Ecosystems: Proceedings of the 7th National Urban Forestry Conference. Edited by Cheryl Kollin and Michael Barrett, 70 73. New York, NY. Gobster, Paul H., Nassauer, Joan I., Daniel, Landscape Ecology 22: 959 972. Greenways: Planning For Recreation and Relate Landscape and Urban Planning 68:147 165 Modern Architecture: An Examination Using The Journal of Environmental Psychology 2: 3 22. reference for environments with their From Landscape Research t o Landscape Planning: Aspects o f Integration, Education a nd Application Edited by Brbel Tress, Gunther Tress, Gary Fry, and Paul Opdam, 279 292. Dordrecht: Springer.

PAGE 157

157 a nd Perceived Danger i n Environment and Behavior 34: 819 835. Hodgson, Ronald W., and Robert Thayer. 1980. Implied human influences reduces landscape beauty. Landscape Pla nning, 7: 171 179. Home, Robert, Bauer, Nicole, and Marcel Hunziker. 2010. Green Spaces Cultural and Biological Determinants in the Evaluation of Urban Environment and Behavior 42(4): 494 52. Howard, Ebenezer. 1902 (1946 Reprint). Garden Cities of To Mo rrow London: Faber and Faber. Landscape Journal 6(1): 1 12. Understandings of Natur Society and Natural Resources 14: 325 340. Lands: Perception and Aesthetical Assessment by Locals and T Landscape and Urban Planning 31: 399 410. Hunziker Marcel Activities on Scenic Beauty A Prototypical Technique for Automated Rapid Landscape Ecology 14: 161 176 Ittleson, William. H.. 1974. Environmental Perception: An Introduction to Environmental Psychology New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Objectives in River Restoratio Landscape and Urban Planning 85 (3 4): 141 154. Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective New York: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. 1982. Cognition and Environment : Functioning in an Uncertain World New York: Praeger. Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. 1995. The Experience of Nature New York: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, Stephen. 1976. Adaptation, Structure and Knowledge. In Environmental Knowing: Theories Perspectives and Methods Edited by Gary T. Moore, Reginald G. Golledge, 32 45. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.

PAGE 158

158 Environmental preference and landscape management Edited by A. S. Devlin and S. L. Taylor. New London, CT: Connecticut College. a Children's Environmental Quarterly 2(3):19 21. Kellert, Stephen R., and Edward O. W ilson. 1995. The Biophilia Hypothesis Washington, DC: Shearwater Books/Island Press a long Highways: A Cognitive Landscape and Urban Planning 27(1):29 45. Kimberly, Heiss S. 2007. Visual Pref erence for Stormwater Pond Edge Treatments: Design Guidelines for Enhanced Stormwater Ponds in Open Space Subdivisions. MLA Thesis, University of Florida. Modern Design Paradigm of Holistic Philosophy and Evol 84 Landscape Journal 7(2): 177 191. Kuhn, T. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lamb, R. J. and A. T. Purcell. 1990. Landscape and Urban Planning 19(4): 333 352. Leopold Aldo. 1949 A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There New York, NY: Oxford University. Lyle, John Tillm an. 1985. Design for Human Ecosystems: Landscape, Land Use, and Natural Resources. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Lyle, John Tillman. 1991. Can Floating Seeds Make Deep Forms? Landscape J ournal 10 (1) :37 47 Lyle, John Tillman. 1994. Regenerative Design f or Sustainable Development. New York: John Wiley. McHarg, Ian L. 1969. Design with Nature Garden City, NY: The American Museum of Natural History [by] the Natural History Press. McHarg, Ian L. 1970. Architecture in an Ecological View of the World. In: F. R. Steiner, & I. L. McHarg, (Editors). To heal the earth: Selected writings of Ian L. McHarg. Washington, D.C: Island Press. 175 185.

PAGE 159

159 McHarg, Ian L. 1996. A Quest for Life: An Autobiography New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Ecological Design and Planning Edited by George F. Thompson and Frederick Steiner 321 332. New York: John Wiley. Landscape Architecture 65 (1) : 78 89. Merriam Webster.com s.v. appreciation :// merriam webster.com (accessed 9 Jan 2011). Merriam :// merriam webster.com (accessed 9 Jan 2011 ) Merriam :// merriam webster.com (a ccessed 9 Jan 2011 ). Meyer, Elizabeth K.. 200 1 Earth Day Conundrum: Translating Environmental Environmentalism in Landscape Architecture Edited by Michel Conan, 187 244. Washington, D.C: Dumbarton Oaks Research Lib rary and Collection. Meyer, Elizabeth Landscape Architecture 98(10): 92 131. Millward, Alison and Barbara Mosty n.1989. People and Nature in Cities London: Nature Conservancy Council. Misgav Ayala. 2000 Vegetation Landscape and Urban Planning 48(3 4):143 159. ogical Design: Seeing Science as Landscape Journal 16(1): 46 59. More, Thomas A., and Gregory J. Buhyoff 1979. Managing Recreation Areas for Quality User Experiences: A Theoretical Framework.(Forest Service research Paper). Broomall, PA: Northe as tern Forest Experiment Station. Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture, Maastricht, Neth erlands, May 12 14, 2010. M u Site Experience on Journal of Environmental Management 47: 229 239.

PAGE 160

160 Nadenicek, Daniel Joseph, a nd Catherine M. Hastings 2001 Environmentalism in Landscape Architecture Edited by Michel Conan, 133 162. Washington, D.C: Dumbarton Oaks Re search Library a nd Collection. Nasar, Jack. 1999. Design by Competition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nassauer Joan Iverson. Landscape Ecology 6(4): 239 250. Nassauer Me ssy Ecosystems Orderly Frames Landscape Journal 14(2): 161 170. Nassauer Joan Iverson. In Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology Edited by Joan Iverson Nassauer Washington, D. C : Island Press.. Nassauer Joan Iverson. 2004 Monitoring the Success of Metropolitan Wetland Restorations: Cultural Sustainability and Ecological Function. Wetlands 24(4): 756 765. traces of Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 4 (3): 212 227. Lands cape Research 33(1): 89 117. Olin, Laurie, 1997. Landscape Design and Nature. In Ecological Design and Planning Edited by George F. Thompson and Frederick Steiner 109 139. New York: John Wiley. Ornstein, Robert E., and Paul R. Ehrlich. 1989. World New Mi nd: Moving Toward Conscious Evolution Malor Books. Priorities for Environmental Design Research Edited by Sue W eidemann and James R. Anderson, 92 103. Washington, D.C: Environmental Design Research Association. Palmer, James F.. 2004. Using Spatial Metrics to Predict Scenic Perception in a Changing Landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning 69 (2 3), 201 218. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano 3: 19 34.

PAGE 161

161 Plato, and Robin Waterfield. 1993. Republic Oxford: Oxford Univ ersity Press. Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature Edited by William Cronon, 186 203. New York: Norton W. W.. Purcell A.Terrence, and Richard J Lamb.199 N aturalness: An E cological A Landscape and Urban Planning, 42: 57 66. Ribe Robert G. Landscape Journal 9:86 101. Rubos, Rene. 1980. Quest: Reflections on Medicine, Science, and Humanity San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Sancar, Fahriye Hazer, and Baris Eyikan. 1998. Studio Instructors Talk about Skills, Knowledge, and Professional Roles in Architecture and Landscap e Architecture. Environment and Behavior 30(3): 378 397. Fifty key thinkers on the environment Edi ted by Joy Palmer, David Cooper and Peter Blaze Corcoran, 228 241. London, New York: Routledge. Schroeder, Herb ert W., 1991. The Spiritual Aspect of Nature: A Perspective from Depth Psychology In Proceedings of Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium 25 30. Saratoga Springs, NY. Schroeder, Herbert W., and L. M. Anderson. 1984. Perception of Personal Safety in Urban Recreation Sites. Journal of Leisure Research 16(2):178 194. Spirn, Anne Whiston. 1984. The Granite Garden: Urban Nature a nd Human Design New York: Basic Books. Spirn, Anne Whiston. 2000. Ian McHa rg, Landscape Architecture, a nd Environmentalism: Ideas and Methods in Context. In Environmentalism in Landscape Architecture Edited by Michel Conan, 97 114. Washington, D.C: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Sullivan, William C, Anderson, buffers at the rural urban fringe: an examination of approval by farmers, residents, 69: 299 313. ual Ecology: Revitalizing the Aesthetic of Landscape Landscape 20(2): 37 43. Landscape Journal 8(2):101 110.

PAGE 162

162 Thayer, Robert. 1994. Gray World, Green Heart: Technology, Nature and Sustainable Landscape. New York: Wiley. Journal 17: 118 129. Thompson, Ian H. 1998. Environmental Ethics and the Development of Landscape Architectural Theory. Landsc ape Research 23(2) : 175 193. Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape. Edited by James Corner, 29 44. Princeton Architectural Press. Tuan, Yi fu. 1974. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Atti tudes, And Values Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Environment and Behavior 13: 523 556. Human Behavior and Environment Edited by Irwin Altman, Joachim F. Wohlwill, 85 125. New York: Plenum Press. n Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association Edited by J. Wineman, R. Barnes and C. Zimring, 115 122. Washington, D.C.: EDRA. United Nations General Assembly, 1987. Report of the World Co mmission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427 Development and International Co operation: Environment. Retrieved on: 2009 02 15. Van der Ryn, Sim, and Stuart Cowan.1996. Ecological Design Washington, DC: Island Press Checklist for Sustainable Landscape Management Edited by Jan Diek Mans velt and M. J. Van Der Lubbe, 116 134. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Journal of Leisure Research 16(2): 124 135. Cole. 1978. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Williams, Kathryn J. H., and John Cary. 2002. Landscape Preference, Ecological Quality And Biodiversity Protection. Environment and Behav ior 34(2): 258 275.

PAGE 163

163 Wilson, Margaret A.. 1996. The Socialization of Architectural Preference, Journal of Environmental Psychology 16(1): 33 44. Wilson, Margaret A., and David V. Canter. 1990. The Development of Central Concepts during Professional Educatio n: An Example of a Multivariate Model of the Concept of Architectural Style. Applied Psychology 39(4): 431 455. Yang Byoung E and Terry J. Brown 1992. A Cross Cultural Comparison of Preferences for Landscape Styles and Landscape Elements. Environment a nd Behavior 24: 471 507 Zimmerman, Michael E. 1994. 1997. Postmodernity Berkeley: University of California Press. Zedler, J.B. and M.K. Leach. 1998. Managing urban wetlands for multiple use: research, restora tion, and recreation. Urban Ecosystems 2: 189 204. Landscape Planning 9: 1 33.

PAGE 164

164 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Bo Zhang was born and raised in Wuhan, China. He received his Bachelor of Architecture (BA) and Master of Architecture (MA) degrees from Huazhong University of Science and Technology. At this university, he also received a Bachelor of Law. He accepted a scholarship from the University of Florida in 2 007. He will receive his PhD and Master of Landscape Architecture (MLA) degrees at the end of this study. He is active in practice as well as academic conferences. His research interests include design theories, environmental planning, low Impact design, and urban design.