|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 PLANTING DESIGN IN U RBAN RESIDENTIAL STO RMWATER SYSTEMS: ALI GNING VISUAL QUALITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL F UNCTION THROUGH CODES By SHANGCHUN HU A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PAR TIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013
2 2013 Shangchun Hu
3 To my parents and al l other people who supported me
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am gratef ul to those geniuses who invented the computer and internet, which made my coming to America for PhD study possible. I also thank the people who created and maintained an open policy for foreign students to study here. I appreciate the Florida tax payers w ho supported my fellowship at the University of Florida. I am grateful to Dr. Gail M. Hansen ( my advisor and committee chair ) who made great efforts in tutoring me in my four year study I appreciate her patience and dedication to teaching students. Also man y thanks to my committee member Dr. Paul Monaghan for his essential support on the focus group study. This research could not be completed without his assistance. Thanks to my committee member Dr. Mary Padua for her advises on methodology of this study. Thanks to my committee member Dr. Carrie Adams for her assistance on wetland ecology aspect. I also thank my committee member Dr. Esen Momol who reminded me the significant role of Florida Friendly Landscaping program for protecting the spectacular envi ronment of the Sunshine State T he combination of my five committee members greatly contributes to the progress of my study with their fields ranging from landscape architecture, wetland restoration, agricultural communication, to landscape social marketin g program I am lucky to have them in my committee. Thanks to interviewees of the focus group study and case study. I would thank Professor Kay Williams for her guidance on the use of Form based Codes in a stormwater system setting. Thanks to Eric H. Livi ngston for his comments on stormwater pond management. Thanks to Dr. Kenneth A. Langeland for his advises on pond plantings. Thanks to Dr. Pierce Jones for broadening my understanding of
5 neighborhood developments. Also, t hanks to Herb Schuchman for providi ng a great DVD on pond management produced by neighborhood landscape committee. I think I should thank Dr. Terril Nell the former chair of the Environmental Horticulture, for his support on landscape horticulture work in this department. Thanks to Dr. Hec tor E. Perez who candidly g ave me advise on research and dissertation writing I also thank Dr. Charles L. Guy and Dr. Michael E. Kane for their gu idance on my graduate study. I should thank Dr. Kimberly Moore Dr. Zhanao Deng and Dr. Geoffrey Denny who w elcomed me to study here. Thanks to Bart Schutzman with his technical assistance on my defense seminar. Thanks to all people who helped me in my class and research work. Thanks to my parents, who supported me and endured loneliness all these years.
6 TAB LE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 10 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11 LIST OF TERMS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 12 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 16 Background Information ................................ ................................ .......................... 21 Scope ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 23 Research Question ................................ ................................ ................................ 24 Rationale ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 24 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 26 Introduction o f L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w ................................ ................................ ............ 26 Landscape Aesthetics ................................ ................................ ............................. 27 Social N orms in A esthetic P references of R esidential L andscapes ................. 27 Preference for Water ................................ ................................ ........................ 28 Preferences for Lawn ................................ ................................ ....................... 29 House Yard Design ................................ ................................ .......................... 31 Landscape Visual C oncepts ................................ ................................ ............. 32 Human Preference for Nature and Wildlife ................................ ............................. 35 Economic Concern ................................ ................................ ................................ 36 Property Value ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 37 Maintenance Costs ................................ ................................ ........................... 38 Drive from Industry ................................ ................................ ........................... 39 Design of S tormwater P ond L andscapes ................................ ................................ 39 Stormwater Regulation ................................ ................................ ..................... 40 Pond F unction ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 41 Pond Engineering Design ................................ ................................ ................. 41 Pond Planting Design ................................ ................................ ....................... 42 Management of Stormwater Pond Landscape ................................ ........................ 44 Lake Eutrophic State ................................ ................................ ........................ 44 Water Quality Issues in Stormwater Systems ................................ ................... 47 Algae Control ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 50 A quatic Plants for Pond Nutrient and Erosion Control ................................ ...... 51
7 Aquatic Plant Management ................................ ................................ .............. 53 Landscape P ractices around S horeline ................................ ............................ 54 Policies on Stormwater Systems ................................ ................................ ............ 54 Landscape Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions ................................ .............. 54 Neighborhood Codes ................................ ................................ ....................... 55 Landscape Codes for Native Plants ................................ ................................ 56 Fertilizer Codes ................................ ................................ ................................ 57 Landscape Codes on Shoreline Buffer ................................ ............................. 57 Florida ................................ ............................. 58 Form Based Codes ................................ ................................ .......................... 59 Social Marketing of Environmentally Friendly L andscaping ................................ .... 60 Social Marketing ................................ ................................ ............................... 61 Social Marketing T echniques ................................ ................................ ........... 62 Social Marketing and L andscape C odes ................................ .......................... 63 Social Marketing of Florida Friendly Land ................................ ........ 64 Align Visual Quality and Environmental Function in Landscapes ........................... 6 4 Linkage between Visual Quality and Environmental Fu nction .......................... 64 Ecological Aesthetics ................................ ................................ ....................... 65 Obstacles for Improvement of Pond Landscape Designs ................................ ....... 66 Knowledge of Acceptable Visual Quality of Shoreline Plant ings ...................... 66 Effectiveness of Using Shoreline Plantings for Water Quality Control .............. 67 Comprehensive Requirements for Well Functioning Stormwater Systems ...... 69 Barriers for Adoption of Improved Pond Designs ................................ .................... 70 Homeowners Lack of Knowledge ................................ ................................ ..... 70 Public Education ................................ ................................ ............................... 71 Current Covenants and Restrictions ................................ ................................ 71 Economic Concern ................................ ................................ ........................... 72 Industry Standards ................................ ................................ ........................... 72 Summary of Literature Review ................................ ................................ ................ 73 3 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 74 Part I: Focus Group Study ................................ ................................ ...................... 75 Part II: Case Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 79 Part III: Code Study ................................ ................................ ................................ 79 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 84 Part I: Focus Group Study ................................ ................................ ...................... 84 Theme Aesthetics ................................ ................................ .......................... 84 Theme Management ................................ ................................ ...................... 92 Theme Knowledge ................................ ................................ ......................... 95 Theme Economics ................................ ................................ ......................... 98 Theme Nature ................................ ................................ .............................. 100 Theme Design ................................ ................................ ............................. 102 Theme Policy ................................ ................................ ............................... 104 Summary of the Focus Group Study ................................ .............................. 107
8 Part II: Case Study ................................ ................................ ................................ 107 Theme Aesthetics ................................ ................................ ........................ 107 Theme Management ................................ ................................ .................... 109 Theme Knowledge ................................ ................................ ....................... 113 Theme Economics ................................ ................................ ....................... 116 Theme Nature ................................ ................................ .............................. 117 Theme Design ................................ ................................ ............................. 118 Theme Policy and Neighborhood Politics ................................ .................... 119 Summary of the Case Studies ................................ ................................ ........ 120 P art III: Code Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 122 Aesthetics ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 122 Management ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 123 Knowledge (Public E ducation) ................................ ................................ ........ 124 Economics ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 125 Nature ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 126 Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 126 Policy ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 131 Code Writing ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 131 Summary of the Code Study ................................ ................................ .......... 132 Summary of Focus Group, Case Studies, and Code Study ................................ .. 133 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 143 A ligning Visual Quality and Environmental Function in Pond Design ................... 143 Visual Concepts Explaining Homeowner Aesthetic Preferences .................... 143 Link between Visual Quality and Environmental Function .............................. 146 Shoreline Planting Design according to Shoreline Context ............................ 152 Impr ove Pond Engineering Design ................................ ................................ 154 Model of Neighborhood S tormwater P ond L andscape D esign ....................... 155 Beyond Design: Social Marketing and P ublic Education ................................ ....... 156 The Need for Neighborhood Social Marketing ................................ ................ 157 Neighborhood Social Marketing on Pond Landscapes ................................ ... 161 Summary of Discussion ................................ ................................ ........................ 167 6 STORMWATER PLANTING GUIDELINES ................................ .......................... 171 Principle s of Neighborhood Pond Shoreline Planting Design ............................... 173 Guidelines for Neighborhood Pond Planting Design ................................ ............. 178 Recommended Plant List ................................ ................................ ............... 181 Recommended Plant Zone Width, Height, and Plant Composition ................ 181 Code Format and Content ................................ ................................ .............. 182 Stakeholders and Code Content ................................ ................................ .... 185 Stakeholder h omeowner a ssociations ................................ ................... 185 Stakeholder d esigners ................................ ................................ ........... 186 Stakeholder m anagers ................................ ................................ .......... 186 Stakeholder t urf industry ................................ ................................ ........ 187 Stake holder d evelopers ................................ ................................ ......... 187
9 Stakeholder p olicymakers ................................ ................................ ..... 187 Using Codes to Enhance Public Education and Social Marketing .................. 188 Neighborhood education on effects of maintenance practices ................. 188 Neighborhood communication on pond visual quality .............................. 190 Neighborhood communication on nature and wildlife ............................... 191 Neighborhood communication on economic issues ................................ 192 Examples of social marketing messages ................................ ................. 194 7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK ................................ ............................... 212 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 212 Aligning Visual Quality and Environmental Function in Pond Planting Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 213 Current Problems in Residential Stormwater Ponds ................................ ...... 213 The Need to Sustain Benefits of Neighborhood Stormwater Pond s ............... 214 The Need to Balance Objectives in Neighborhood Ponds .............................. 215 Comprehensive Approach on Neighborhood Pond Management .................. 216 Summary of Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................ 216 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 218 Future Work ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 219 APPENDIX: MANUALS REVIEWED IN THE CODE STUDY ................................ ...... 220 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 222 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 237
10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 List of regions that addressed landscaping or engineering standards for ponds in municipal codes ................................ ................................ ................... 82 4 1 Summary of main topics in the focus group study ................................ ............ 135 4 2 Summary of aesthetic preferences in the focus group study ............................ 136 4 3 Summary of topics from the case studies ................................ ......................... 137 4 4 Summary of topics from the code study ................................ ........................... 138 4 5 Comparison of all three studies ................................ ................................ ........ 139 5 1 Visual conc epts in the three studies ................................ ................................ 168 5 2 Link between visual qua lity and environmental function ................................ ... 169 7 1 Typical lot (L1) shoreline desi gn ................................ ................................ ....... 195 7 2 Large backyard (L2) shoreline design ................................ .............................. 195 7 3 Small backyard (L3) shoreline design ................................ ............................... 196 7 4 Golf course (L4) shoreline design ................................ ................................ ..... 196 7 5 Road (H1) shoreline design ................................ ................................ .............. 196 7 6 Parking lot an d community center (H2) shoreline design ................................ 197 7 7 Natural land (N) shoreline design ................................ ................................ ..... 197 7 8 Pond berm (P) shoreline design ................................ ................................ ....... 197 7 9 Pond inlet and outlet (I) shoreline design ................................ ......................... 198 7 10 Plant species list for pond shoreline landscapes ................................ .............. 199 7 11 Width and height requirements of shoreline plantings ................................ ...... 201
11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Municipal ities evaluated in the code study ................................ ......................... 83 4 1 Shoreline landscape photos used in the focus group study .............................. 141 4 2 Individual plant photo s used in the focus group study ................................ ...... 142 5 1 Pond shoreline planting design according to shoreline context ........................ 170 7 1 Typical lot (L1) s horeline design ................................ ................................ ....... 202 7 2 Large back yard (L2) shoreline design ................................ ............................. 203 7 3 Small backyard (L3) shoreline design ................................ ............................... 204 7 4 Golf course (L4) shoreline design ................................ ................................ ..... 205 7 5 Road (H1) shoreline design ................................ ................................ .............. 206 7 6 Parking lot and community center (H2) shoreline design ................................ 207 7 7 Natural land (N) shoreline design ................................ ................................ ..... 208 7 8 Pond berm (P) shoreline design ................................ ................................ ....... 209 7 9 I nlet and outlet (I) shoreline design ................................ ................................ ... 210 7 10 Backyard shoreline planting design with primarily flowering speci es and clear water edge view. ................................ ................................ ............................... 211 7 11 Backyard shoreline planting design with primarily flowering species and sections of clear water edge view. ................................ ................................ .... 211
12 LIST OF TERMS Aesthetics Human visual perceptions and preferences on landscapes as used in this study. Best management practice (BMP) Structural or nonstructural practices that reduce the impact of stormwater runoff on water quality of receiving waters. Synonymou s with stormwater control measure (SCM). Structural practices are facilities constructed to control stormwater quantity and water quality such as stormwater detention/retention ponds. Nonstructural practices use natural measures to reduce pollution and do not require extensive construction work (National Research Council, 2008). Biodiversity A bundance of plant and wildlife species and their functional traits. F unctional traits of plants can be plant height, water needs, evergreen/deciduous, and time of fl owering (Beck, 2013). Constructed environment Built or designed landscape guided by knowledge of ecosystem functions rather than replicating an ecosystem. Ecological aesthetics asserts that it is desirable for humans to take aesthetic pleasure this way, aesthetic experiences can promote and sustain healthi er ecosystems, and thus indirectly promote human health and welfare (Gobster, Nassauer, Daniel, & Fry, 2007). Ecological design Designs that seek to create high performance landscapes that integrated both design goals and natural processes; ecological de sign does not aim to replicate natural ecosystems (Beck, 2013). Ecological enhancement Improving a structural or functional attribute of a natural ecosystem or constructed environment Ecological function Services provided by natural or constructed ec osystem Ecological quality This study uses the term (from a landscape design perspective) to denote the characteristics of a natural ecosystem or constructed environment indicating the condition of the system itself as well as the influences on humans Ecology The interrelationship of organisms and their environments.
13 Ecosystem A dyna mic complex system consisting of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and the nonliving environment interacting as a functional unit (Millennium Ecosystem Assess ment, 2005). Environmental function This study uses the term for a range of pond services associated with the environment : such as stormwater quantity control, water quality control, and provision of biodiversity/ habitat. Green infrastructure Stormwater systems that mimic nature by collecting and storing water when using the term at neighborhood scale. It is an approach to protect water resources, provide various environmental benefits, and support sustainable communities (U.S. Environmental Protection A gency, 2013). Littoral zone Shoreline areas of stormwater ponds that are designed to install rooted aquatic plants, including upland area (above water most of the time), fluctuation area, and inundation area (below water most of the time). Design paramet er Characteristics (qualitative and quantitative) of a designed landscape Pond function Stormwater regulation services provided by stormwater pond including stormwater quantity and water quality control. Shoreline plants Plants (either upland or in wate r) that grow at the edge of water bodies such as stormwater ponds. The term is synonymous with littoral plants. Stormwater pond Constructed stormwater wet detention/retention pond as a structural stormwater best management (BMP) practice, designed to stor e and treat stormwater runoff. This study primarily use the term in the neighborhood context. Visual quality aesthetic preferences as used in this study Wildlife habitat A natural or desi gned environment serves the needs of a wildlife species.
14 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy PLANTING DESIGN IN URBAN RESIDENTIAL STORMWATER SYSTEMS: ALIGNING VISUAL QUALITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL FUNCTION THROUGH CODES By Shangchun Hu May 2013 Chair: Gail M. Hansen Major: Horticultural Sciences Stormwater systems are widely used in housing developments to collect and control stormwater and add aesthetic appeal to the landscape The dual objectives of residential stormwater systems ( flood control and treatment features and aesthetic features ) can create situations at odds for the optimal condition for either objective The loss of aesthetic appeal of the ponds, primarily from the presence of algae, has been the catalyst for resolving visual quality problem s and possibly improving the health of the ponds. Aligning environmental function with visual quality req uires understanding the link between visual quality and the functions and environmental services of the stormwater system. T hree investigations ( including focus groups, case studies, and review of development codes ) were conducted to establish the link bet ween visual quality and environmental function and to develop strategies for stormwater planting design to improve visual appeal The alignment of visual quality and environmental function proved to be a tenuous link using plant material to improve the vis ual appeal of the water will improve environmental functions in terms of biodiversity and wildlife habitat while improving water quality cannot be linked to treatment of visual quality with plants. Design techniques include evaluating the site context and selecting appropriate
15 plant material. Results showed that a llowing an open water view is a critical feature for D esign techniques that improve complexity, such as the use of color and texture, and a well kept appearance with clumping plants can increase the visual appeal of plantings. Current neighborhood pond landscape design and management tend to emphasize aesthetics and associated economics but there is an emerging need to focus on environmental function a nd a strategy that balances the two. T he use of s horeline planting s should be promoted as part of an integrated approach consisting of design, management, social marketing, and policy aspects for water quality and protection in residential stormwater syste ms and receiving waters
16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Urbanization is changing land use in the United States at an unprecedented pace. The impervious areas brought by urban ization significantly influence the movement of water during and after storm events, the quality of the stormwater, and the ultimate condition of water bodies (National Research Council, 2008). Control measures have been developed and used to mitigate stormwater impacts. Stormwater ponds have become common urban landscape features in the Unit ed States Canada, Australia, Denmark, France, Sweden, and UK (Tixier, et al., 2011). In Florida, stormwater ponds are required features in built communities and are subject to regulations concerning building and development. Stormwater ponds are small co nstructed ponds with permanent standing water and often with emergent wetland vegetation around the shoreline (Marsalek, Urbonas, and Lawrence, 2005). The primary function of stormwater ponds is stormwater quantity control ( Sharma, 2006 ) There are also o ther benefits provided by residential stormwater ponds, such as increased property value, opportunities for outdoor activities, and habitat for people and wildlife ( ULI, ASCE, and NAHB 1975). Water quality control is a recently added secondary function fo r stormwater ponds ( Sharma, 2006 ; Walker, Tindale, Roiko, Wiegand, & Duncan 2010). C urrent stormwater systems tend to be problematic and sometimes do not meet design standards for stormwater treatment. Harper and Baker ( 2007 ) noted that c urrent stormwater design criteria within the State of Florida fail to consistently meet the 80 or 95% pollutant load reduction goals set in the Water R esource I mplementation Rule ( FAC Chapter 62 40). Current design methods for stormwater ponds are insufficient to
17 determine their long term performance (Bean, 2010). Although stormwater ponds are often sold as amenities in community developments (Goodman, 2007), issues of algae bloom are often reported (Goodman, 2007; Lewitus, Brock, Burke, DeMattio & Wilde, 2008; Serrano & D eLorenzo, 2008). N utrient input in stormwater ponds increases continuously and it leads to eutrophication and algae blooms (Heisler et al., 2008 ; Paerl & Huisman, 2008 ; Sloan, 2010). Visual appearance management should be integrated into residential pond d esign ( ULI et al. 1975). My study investigate d the perception of visual quality in stormwater systems and the link between visual quality and environmental function. Aligning visual quality with environmental function shows the possibility for improving b oth by using plant material. Planting design techniques were developed based on results from focus groups and case studies to provide aesthetic appeal and improve biodiversity and wildlife habitat A built neighborhood pond, a designed and constructed en vironment is different from a natural ecosystem. An ecosystem is "a dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and the nonliving environment interacting as a functional unit" (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Although a built l andscape could not exactly replicate an ecosystem considering the dynamic complex relationships within the ecosystem, ecosystem functions can provide guidance for creating complex, functional, and adaptive systems of landscapes that are sustainable (Calki ns, 2012). Landscapes should support healthy interrelated systems of water, plants, animals, soil, materials, and culture that are woven together to support each other. Sustainable landscapes should be designed in ways to simultaneously provide environment al, economic, social, and aesthetic benefits (Calkins, 2012) Neighborhood pond s are also
18 a component of green infrastructure. At the neighborhood scale, green infrastructure denotes stormwater systems that mimic nature by collecting and storing water (U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 2013). My study considered neighborhoo d ponds as one type of constructed environment : 1) they are a manmade environment whose primary function is stormwater collection and storage ; 2) they are designed to mimic nature bu t they do not replicate natural system s Urban stormwater ponds are essential infrastructure features in many housing developments in urban areas. Stormwater systems are man made structures designed and built as a substitute for the natural hydrological s ystem that was degraded or destroyed when the area was developed. The ponds are also built to control floodwater s The basins and connecting pipes or swales collect and control stormwater as it flows to the natural waterbodies in the watershed, controlling flooding and providing a water based amenity in the development (Stefanik & Mitsch, 2012 ; Zedler, 1996 ). Although they are man made systems many homeowners view residential stormwater ponds as natural systems because they are referred to as such by devel opers in an attempt to enhance the property value of pond side homes in the development (Goodman, 2007). The dual function of the stormwater systems ( flood control and aesthetic features ) can create situations that put these objectives at odds. Pond funct ion is most often compromised for aesthetic appeal but sometimes aesthetic appeal is compromised for greater p ond function in terms of flood attenuation. Although they are often at odds there is potential to align both visual quality and pond functions Aligning visual quality
19 and pond function requires a careful analysis of the link between them and examining where visual quality and pond functions might be balanced. Shoreline p lanting for s tormwater p onds P lantings around pond shorelines may have the following advantages to address the visual quality of ponds : 1) plantings in upland areas can be low maintenance and use less fertilizers compared to turf, 2) plantings can uptake nutrients from fertilized homeyard ( Northeastern Illinois Planning C ommission, 1996 ; Keddy, 2000 ) S horeline buffer s are important for natural wetland protection As Castelle et al. (1992) noted a 50 foot wide buffer is the minimum requirement to protect natural wetlands from nutrient input and direct human disturbance U sing shoreline plants in stormwater ponds might be one way to improve the visual quality of the water by control l ing algae bloom (Castelle et al., 1992 ; Sloan, 2010). However, there are no data on how wide a planted buffer should be to protect a construc ted pond Also, currently there is no consensus on the effectiveness of using shoreline plants to improve visual quality or for water quality protection. Since a quatic plants can uptake nutrients and protect water quality in wetlands and ponds (National Re sear ch Council, 2008; Keddy, 2000), my study speculated that by installing shoreline plantings in constructed ponds, the nutrient loading in ponds could be reduced and water q uality could be better protected. Understanding the link between aesthetics and f unction is important because homeowner preferences for plant material could affect plant selection which can influence environmental function. Serving multiple objectives with plant material such as aesthetics and pond function, has created a water qual ity problem in many ponds that has affected both the visual appeal of the pond and the environmental condition of
20 the entire stormwater system. Ironically, the loss of aesthetic appeal ( ma inly from the presence of algae) has been the catalyst for resolving the pond condition (which may also improve overall environmental health ) Stormwater pond aesthetics Walker et al. ( 2010 ) noted that some urban ponds currently show a number of design flaws that decrease environmental health ( lack of pretreatment short circuiting, and inappropriate pond depth ) Many urban ponds have significant water quality and aesthetic issues that result from inappropriate design and maintenance treatments M anagement is becoming increasingly costly : algae from pond eutrophication af fecting the neighborhoods desire for water aesthetics. To address the management of the urban ponds with visual water quality issues, Walker et al. (2010) noted the need to balance amenity and biodiversity in urban ponds by providing functional landscapin g and using adaptive management to maintain urban pond health on a long term basis. N assauer's (1997) noted in the chapter titled: Cultural sustainability: Aligning aesthetics and ecology Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology landsca pe aesthetics could be used as a tool to promote long term ecological health of landscapes. An awareness of people's aesthetic preferences is needed in l andscape designs and regulations to sustain landscape ecological functions. Nassauer (1997) mentioned we should learn people's aesthetic experience to understand why people maintain particular landscape patterns. Landscapes strategies, and policies should be designed to align landscape aesthetic quality with ecological health of landscapes Based on work by Nassauer (1997) and Walker et al. (2010), my study used focus group interviews of residents in waterfront neighborhoods to learn homeowner
21 aesthetic preferences on pond landscapes and the reasons behind their preferences Walker et al. (2010) said we need to incorporate social aspect s in neighborhood pond management and residents are an information source we often overlook P ersonal interviews of pond landscape designers and managers were conducted to learn how we can improve pond design and managem ent techniques to improve visual quality C urrent stormwater codes were reviewed to learn how codes currently regulate stormwater ponds and how we might advance codes on stormwater ponds. D esign, management, policy, and social marketing strategies form an integrated approach to management and visual appeal of current residential ponds. Using Nassauer arguments on the need to align landscape aesthetic quality and ecological health as a basis my study explore d ways to align visual quality and envi ronmental function in landscape design of stormwater ponds so that residents are more willing to support and adopt environmentally friendly pond landscape practices My study also explore d opportunities to use aesthetics to promote plant functions that ma y affect water quality One objective of my study was to use the link between landscape visual quality and environmental function as a basis for develop ing code writing guidelines for urban stormwater systems to address both aesthetic and environmental des ign parameters (characteristics of a designed landscape) Appropriate l andscape design management and social marketing strategies are promoted in codes as an integrated approach for managing stormwater ponds Background Information Commonly used design s tandards for residential community stormwater systems often fail to meet environmental needs and the aesthetic preferences and desires of homeowners. Studies show that homeowners desire water in landscapes ( Kaplan &
22 Kaplan 1989; Purdum, 1992) and they pre fer an open water view with turf to the water edge ( Bormann, Balmori, & Geballe, 2001 ; Thomas, 2012). The preference for large amounts of turf in neighborhoods has created the need for a maintenance routine of constant watering, fertilizing, and mowing (B ormann et al. 2001) to maintain visual appeal and property values (Carpenter & Meyer, 1999c) which has contributed to the water quality problems. Fertilizers and organic litter have increased nutrient loading in ponds and ponds have become increasingly e utrophic (Serrano & DeLorenzo, 2008 ; Sloan, 2010 ). Pond eutrophication has led to decreased water clarity, decreased fish population and algae blooms with increased frequency and extent in aged ponds (Islandwalk Homeowners Association, 2012; Hurley & Form an, 2011; Serrano & DeLorenzo, 2008; Newman, 1976). Plant overgrowth has also become an issue in nutrient rich shallow ponds ( Ramey, Joyce, & Canfield, 2005 ), contributing to degradation of visual appeal. Different algae control methods have been tested i n neighborhood ponds with varying success. Manual algae removal has minimum environmental impact but is costly. Aeration devices do not work well in certain pond types, and chemical usage in pond s causes problems such as damage to desirable plantings, fis h kills, and decreased biodiversity (Bean, 2010). Constant algae problems have left residents dissatisfied with pond appearance and algae smell (Goodman, 2007), as well as the algae chemical treatment that resulted in fish kills. Homeowners are also concer ned with decreased property value caused by algae blooms and other aquatic plant problems (Thomas, 2012). V isual quality problems have become environmental problems that threaten the health of the entire stormwater system.
23 Community developers, landscape m anagers, and homeowners are searching for solutions to these problems through several different means, including preventive measures with environmentally sound design strategies, and development and design codes for stormwater systems. The challenge for co de development is the quantification and description of design parameters that include both visual quality and environmental function Scope My study include d three phases to investigate the following design related issues: aesthetic preferences of homeow ners for shoreline plantings, codification and description of design features, and management by design C ode guidelines are suggested based on the findings of my study Phase I i nvestigated pond views and shoreline plant s. Although numerous studies have preferences toward landscape plants and landscape views, little is known about the type of shoreline plants and views homeowners find appropriate for community ponds. Phase I include d the use of focus groups in several large residential developments in central Florida to develop a profile of plant characteristic s for aesthetically accepted plants and plant communities Phase II investigated design parameters for environmentally functionin g urban residential stormwater systems that promote floodwater attenuation, aesthetics, and increased biodiversity This phase include d case studies of urban stormwater system s designed to clean stormwater runoff and meet the aesthetic desires of neighborh ood residents. C ase studies illustrate the design parameters used to satisfy aesthetic and functional needs and how these parameters were integrated into the design approach.
24 Phase II I investigated design codes and covenants for urban stormwater systems. A review of existing landscape and development codes for stormwater systems in communities was used to construct a matrix of terms used in codes for stormwater systems. The purpose of the matrix was to compare and contrast the descriptions offered by homeo wners and managers with descriptions in codes to identify relationships (similarities and differences) and how codes can be improved to guide improved resid ential stormwater pond design. The study also includes development of guidelines to be used in code development for urban residential stormwater systems. I nformation on plant preferences, design terminology, and lesson s learned in Phase I, II, and III were used to develop landscape guidelines for stormwater systems that can be used for code development for large communities and design recommendations in the Florida Friendly program. Research Question The goal of my study was to determine the link between visual quality and environmental function in planting designs for stormwater ponds and t o determine how aesthetics and function can be aligned in code development. Rationale Effectively functioning and aesthetically appealing urban residential stormwater systems are essential to the sustainability and environmental health of urban housing dev elopments. The design of urban residential stormwater systems should fit the needs of the people and should protect the environment. T he design of current urban residential stormwater systems is typically focused on construction and engineering standards, land development standards, property values (waterfront property),
25 maintenance issues, and code compliance. The question is how to align aesthetics and pond function using plant materials to create urban residential stormwater systems that promote visuall y pleasing and effectively functioning stormwater features that also fit homeowner desire s to protect property values A common problem for stormwater ponds in communities is water quality : algae bloom s are unsightly and sometimes create unpleasant odors Public acceptance of design practices to improve these conditions such as using more plants on the water edge, may depend on the aesthetic preferences of homeowners and the value they place on a visually pleasing landscape as means to maintain property va lue. Barriers to adoption of environmentally friendly landscapes are largely unknown P erceived or anticipated aesthetic appeal may be a factor in willingness to adopt those landscapes. Efforts to encourage homeowners to adopt environmentally friendly land scapes may be more successful if we understand barriers to adoption, and if we focus on landscape aesthetics and the appropriate social marketing message
26 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction of Litera t u r e R e v i e w As an interdisciplinary research project my study inves tigated several aspects of t he design of neighborhood stormwater pond landscape s. Stormwater ponds are a relatively new landscape feature that came into existence when urban development began to cover large tracts of land and there was a need to control la rge amounts of surface water. D esign and use of the ponds created several environmental problems that increased as the age of the ponds increased Although aesthetic preference for water and turf are well documented by researchers little is known about th e preference for water edge plantings, particularly in the urban setting of stormwater ponds The primary purpose of stormwater ponds is to collect stormwater from impervious surfaces ( Sharma, 2006 ) However, they have also been used as an aesthetic amenit y to increase property values. Economics is also associated with the landscape form of residential stormwater pond s such as convoluted pond shape and pond shoreline with turf down to the water The design of pond landscapes reflect s the need to meet the demands mentioned above. Another aspect of pond design is landscape management, which is influenced by plant material and pond form A n important factor in the success of ponds is the policy that regulates the design and management of landscapes Neighbor hood a ssociation codes can greatly influence landscape form and maintenance of stormwater pond landscapes in residential neighborhoods. Programs like the Florida Friendly program promote water conservation, protection, and environmentally frie ndly landscap ing practices and can also influence pond design and management.
27 The Florida program promotes the adoption Florida Friendly, low maintenance plantings i n neighborhood shoreline areas ( University of Florida/IFAS Extension, & FDEP 2009) There are obstacles for designers to improve planting designs of pond shorelines as well as barriers for homeowners to adopt environmentally friendly landscape styles ( including lack of knowledge, neighborhood policy restriction, economic c oncern s and industry standards ) Landscape Aesthetics A esthetics is one of main reason for for landscapes. Social norm s ( cultural rules that affect social behavior) are associated with aesthetic preferences. Aesthetic preferences for water and lawn often shape the landscape form of neighborhood stormwater pond planting Social norms could be perceived as an obstacle and/or an opportunity for promoti ng of environmentally friendly landscape style s An u nderstanding of neighborhood pond l andscape a esthetic preferences, such as plant characteristics and arrangement can be helpful for landscape code writing Social N orms in A esthetic P references of R esidential L andscapes Social norms are rules known by a group of people, influencing social behavior without legal regulation. Social norms may include overall social expectations for people's behavior, people's expectations of others behavior, people's expectations for their own behavior, and standards that create people's observations of othe r's behavior. An important characteristic of norms is that they only exist when shared with others. Norms are shared belief systems and should be assessed from the perspective of the individual's psychological system and the social cultural s ystem (Cialdin i & Trost, 1998). Social norms influence o ur lifestyles which contribute to the formation of our views of nature (Lowenthal, 1968). Well developed landscape taste result s in the
28 sameness of t he ordinary American landscape (Lewis, 1993). Our tastes in land scape reflect a deeply rooted system of shared beliefs or social norms (Lowenthal, 1968). In residential landscapes, h omeowners' yard preferences tend to conform to broad cultural norms and neighborhood norms. Individual preferences are influenced more by n eighborhood norms than by broad cultural norms ( Nassauer, Wang, & Dayrell, 2009 ). The appearance of the landscape is judged based on a standard model of well kept landscapes and this judgment likely date s back to ancient Rome ( Nassauer et al. 2009 ) Per ceived care related to the neatness of a landscape (Nassauer, 1988) is associated with landscape preference in residential landscapes. Landscape that does not show signs of care could be perceived as unattractive. Signs of care give people a feeling of o rder in the environment. Keeping the landscape in order indicates people's virtues of labor and their respect for neighbors (Nassauer et al. 2009). Social norms in aesthetic preferences i nfluence the form s of neighborhood stormwater pond landscapes. Aesth etic norms might not promote environmental function in neighborhood ponds and might lead the landscape form s toward degraded pond health L andscape preference for turf leads to wide use of turf in residential pond landscapes. Since h ousing development s are often built in the most favorable and affordable places (Simonds & Starke, 2006) houses are located at pond water edge in Preference for Water Water can positively influence landscape pref erence ( Fenton, 1985; Han, 2007; Kaplan & Kaplan 1989; Purdum, 1992). Herzog (1985) found that clarity and freshness (flowing/ stagnant water) of
29 waterscapes : m ountain lakes and rushing wate r were prefer red, while swampy areas were not liked. People typically pay a premium for a lakefront house (Goodman, 2007). E. H. Livingston (personal conversation, October 28, 2010 ; a dministrator for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) p rogram Stor mwater Section Florida Department of Environmental Protection ) mentioned that the desire for a better view and a was one reason homeowners are not willing to adopt shoreline plantings in residential ponds Preferences for Lawn In landscape s people tend to have a preference for grassland or lawn ( Bormann et al. 2001 ; Falk & Balling, 2010 ; Fenton, 1985 ). For most Americans, the lawn is a part of their life (Bormann et al. 2001). Turfgrass yard is an increasingly important component of land c over in America (Robbins & Birkenholtz, 2003). Aesthetic s and economics were among the reasons residents valued the lawns (Shern, 1994). There are different explanations for people s preference of turf landscapes. From an evolution ary perspective, t he p reference for turf is believed to be innate : humans evolved in the savannas of Africa, where grassy, tree dotted prairie s are the dominant landscape s ( Bormann et al. 2001 ). Another explanation, d ifferent from evolutionary theory, is that human landscape p erceptions are a progression of aesthetic ideals influenced by social custom. Therefore landscape preference could be in fluenced by a range of factors with innate pref erences providing a foundation overlain by sociocultural and personal experience factors (Falk & Balling, 2010). The social norms of landscape are associated with a preference for lawn s American concepts of residential landscape derive from European ideas of nature (Smardon, 1998). The lawn became popular in eighteenth century Europe where
30 William Kent, a landscape designer, was inspired by the way landscape painters pai nted nature. His designs made the lawn an essential element in the English landscape He tried to invoke images of Arcadia (part of ancient Greece), where humans lived a pas toral life in harmony with nature. Lancelot Brown, a landscape architect, prefer red open spaces and simple lines in his designs, which brought the lawn to full prominence. Brown's landscapes made the lawn the symbol of British society in the late eighteent h century. The success of his type of landscape was partially due to the English climate : the mild winters, moderate temperatures and high humidity are suitable for grasses ( Bormann et al. 2001 ). It closely resembles savanna grasslands with scattered tre es (Falk & Balling, 2010). After the lawn became an icon there it spread to other regions that have less hospitable growing conditions T he British brought with them their ideas of nature when they colonized the New World ( Bormann et al. 2001 ). In the mid nineteenth century the industrial revolution had transformed American cities and many people relocated to homes in suburban areas. The lawn, representing the English version of nature, became a symbol of prestige at that time ( Bormann et al. 2001 ). The evolution of North American residential landscape s has been influenced by professionals, municipal ordinances, gardening trends and decisions of residents. Some professionals were instrumental to the creation process of the standard suburban turf land scape: Andrew Jackson Downing, Frank J. Scott, Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. and Frank A. Waugh. One of the earliest influences in this process was Andrew Jackson Downing, whose work relates the American residential landscape to the manicured lawn of the mid nineteenth century. Frank J. Scott expanded this ideal by
31 promoting lawns that provided open views along a street. Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux set a model for contemporary suburban landscape with the design of Riverside, Illinois in 1869. The i nfluence of Downing, Scott, and Olmsted is still evident in the suburban areas where houses are set back from the street creating lawns with a few trees and shrubs (Henderson, Perkins & Nelischer, 1998). Olmsted made the lawn the symbol of suburbia throu gh his designs of many suburbs and Central Park in New York City ( Bormann et al. 2001 ). House Yard Design The American house yard has gone through three phases: from agricultural yard to urban utility yard, and then to outdoor family room. A new fourth p hase just beginning could be the yard with smaller lawn, more regional plants, and closer relationships with nature (Grampp, 2008). Residents relied on front porches for outdoor activities until 1920, when street design began reducing their friendliness. Improved facilities ( including the washer and dryer, trash collection and storage, waterworks, and electric refrigeration ) made the backyard available for new use. Various factors led to the transition from front to back yard as primary outdoor living spac e : automobile noise and traffic lights, unfamiliarity with neighbors ( due to rapid suburban population growth ) and zoning ordinances that limited social interaction. When people shifted activities to the back yards it reflected a growing privatization of American residents in the twentieth century (Grampp, 2008). This residential landscape standard with the house a minimum distance from the street, was established and remains the standard today The lawn became the critical feature in North Amer ican sub urbs (Henderson et al. 1998)
32 As the lawn became the necessary element in modern landscape, the influence of the lawn went beyond the residential area and became popular in all modern landscapes. To some extent residential yards do not provide opportunit ies for communication with nature ; they act as conventional forms of display (Smardo n, 1998). L andscape Visual C oncepts Environmental aesthetics is how we understand or comprehend an entire scene as a coherent unit Human perception of the environm ent is p urposeful and selective In the process, h umans try to understand how a landscape is assembled; we notice change and movement and then apply meaning (Bell, 1999). Landscape visual concepts are a series of conceptual elements that account for people s vis ual preferences in landscapes These concepts might illustrate the effectiveness of the design in meeting the needs of the user population. Several visual concepts are introduced here including upkeep, openness, enclosure, smoothness, wilderness, complexi ty, coherence, and legibility. Upkeep refers to the sense of human control of a landscape. U pkeep is instead of letting landscapes return to a wild state not corrupted by humans (Weinstoerffer & Girardin, 200 0) Nassauer (1995, 1997) suggested the sense of care was an indicator of landscape preferences. Designs that indicate landscape maintenance make natural landscapes appear neater and thus more acceptable (Nassauer, 1997) Upkeep is associated with neatness of a landscape and people tend to prefer neat landscapes ( Nassauer, 1988; Ozguner & Kendle, 2006). Although good maintenance is always valued positively, t he optimal maintenance level depends on the context Too much or too little maintenance would negati vely affect preferences: a high level of maintenance could lead to an artificial and sterile
33 landscape while landscapes with a low level of maintenance appear uncared for (Coeterier, 1996) Openness refers to the amount of space perceivable to the viewer ( Kaplan Kaplan & Brown, 1989) Weinstoerffer and Girardin ( 2000 ) used openness as an indicator of landscape preference and assumed that the potential angle of vision of an observer would be greater when vegetation is scarce in the landscape. The opposite of openness is e nclosure : landscapes visually defined by a set of elements to create a room like atmosphere ( Ewing, Handy, Brownson, Clemente, & Winston, 2006 ). The sense of enclosure often created by vegetation is essential for applying turf alternative landscape styles. Large trees in the yards could give people a sense of enclosure (Henderson et al. 1998). Smoothness refers to the uniformity and short height texture of a landscape Smoothness positively influences human aesthetic preferences for lands capes (Kaplan et al., 1989) Kaplan et al. ( 1989) also suggested an association between openness and smoothness : openness could positively influence preference because smooth texture suggests locomotion could be accomplished relatively easily. Wil derness refers to the degree a landscape is not perceived by the viewer as being modified by human activity. A synonym of wilderness is naturalness, which is used to describe how close a landscape is to a preconceived natural state ( Tveit, Ode, and Fry 2006 ). Na turalness is important to explain visual preferences in landscapes (Gobster, 1999). The opposite of natural is artificial (Coeterier, 1996) S cenes labeled as natural tend to be appreciated more than the same scenes labeled as artificial (Hodgson & Thayer, 1980) Water was found to be an important indic ator of landscape
34 preferences because the preference for water is associated with perceived naturalness (Tveit et al. 2006) Complexity refers to the visual richness of a landscape It depends on the varie ty of the physical space including the amount and types of elements in the landscape (Ewing et al. 2006). Complexity and biodiversity are positively related to perceived landscape beauty ( V an den Berg, Vlek, & Coeterier, 1998) Complexity creates uncerta inty, which in turn evoke s involvem ent to reduce uncertainty. Too little complexity is boring to people while too much is chaotic (Nasar, 1988 b ). Natural settings with a high level of complexity are att ractive to people (Han, 2007). Nature scenes may posi tively influence emotional and physiological states compar ed with most urban scenes lacking natural elements (Ulrich, 1986). Coherence refers to a sense of visual order (Ewing et al., 2006) and it reflects the unity of a landscape scene (Tveit et al. 200 6). C oherence is positively related to perceived landscape beauty ( V an den Berg et al., 1998). Coherence reduces uncertain ty by increasing comprehension. Moderate complexity and high level coherence provide s the greatest pleasantness (Nasar, 1988 b ). In res idential areas, complexity, coherence, openness and naturalness increase the visual quality of the landscape (Nasar, 1988 a ). Purdum (1992) research about p references for natural scenes showed that salt marsh scenes have the highest rating of coherence b ecause of their simplicity of visual elements and the water leading the eye to the horizon. Legibility refers to the ease with which the spatial structure of a place can be understood and navigated as a whole (Ewing et al., 2006). From a psychological per spective, humans may prefer open spaces because those places are clear and
35 easily understood ( Bormann et al. 2001 ). Purdum (1992) found the salt marsh had the highest rating of legibility because the structure of the scenes and the distinctiveness of the trees reflected in the water. Smoothness increases both coherence and legibility ( Kaplan, 1988 ) Human Preference for Nature and Wildlife Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) developed stating that nature is important to people and they appreciate daily contact with it. It was found out that residents enjoy ed the natural areas or they appreciate d and their perceptions of the adequacy of nearby natural settings had great influence on satisfaction. People's emphasis on th e availability of natural area s could be shown in their willingness to purchase it. Rental rates are higher for houses facing a river or woods. Property values increase by adjacency to golf courses. The names of communities can also reflect natural element s even when th ese amenities are not present. The n atural environment positively affect s neighborhood satisfaction H igher neighborhood satisfaction was found in residents living in areas with more natural features and in residents whose neighborhoods incl uded the natural features they prefer ( Kaplan & Kaplan 1989). There is also growing evidence that people who live in most metropolitan places are interested in wildlife (Campbell & Ogden, 1999). Wildlife can also influence people's preference for water la ndscapes (Didona, 2007). because of their support for the aquatic and terrestrial food chains (Mitsch, Gosselink, Anderson, & Zhang, 2009) Stormwater ponds contribute to biological diversity by providing wildlife habita t in the form of littoral planting s in ponds (Moore & Hunt, 2012 ).
36 People are more likely to enjoy a healthy landscape when they learn to recognize ecological health ; and are more likely to sustain healthy landscapes when they understand their ecological f unction (Nassauer, 1997). Researchers emphasize the need to educate residents about thei r influence on water conditions and the potential risks to wildlife caused by decreased wat er quality (Serrano & DeLorenzo 2008). Constructed wetlands can be integrate d into the open space of new residential community developments providing wildlife habitats and valuable open spaces. Shallower ponds with gently slope d bank s less open water, and more aquatic plants could provide more food and cover for wildlife. Constr ucted wetlands with any size or location could provide attractive habitats for wildlife With consideration for selecting and arranging plants, the attractiveness of the wetlands for wildlife can be increased (Campbell & Ogden, 1999). The Florida Friendly neighborhood landscaping practices that attract wildlife : one of its main principles ( University of Florida/IFAS Extension, & FDEP 2009). However, not all wildlife is appreciated. Some animals that inhabit wetlands are percei ved as dangerous. E. H. Livingston (personal conversation, October 28, 2010) said residents are not willing to adopt stormwater pond shoreline plantings for fear of snakes and other animals that live in the plants. Economic Concern Besides the aspects of aesthetics and nature, neighborhood landscapes also have an economic aspect The water and turf are associated with property values. A w ater view and well kept lawn could increase the value of housing lots Also, the expense of landscape maintenance influe acceptance of new landscape styles
37 Property V alue Economic impacts of algae include property value ; and also the non market value of recreation, health and ecological impacts (Lovell, Stone, & Fernandez, 2006). Sander and Polasky (2009) noted landscape features of water and grassy land are positively associated with house sale prices and stormwater ponds can increase property values (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). Lutti k (2000) found a considerable increase in property valu e when the house overlooks water (8 10% increase) or open space (6 12% increase) Goodman (2007) mentioned t he average lake premium in a residential neighborhood is $40,000. Loomis (2003) found that each foot of exposed shoreline during water fluctuations could reduce pro perty value by more than $100 DeLorenzo, Thompson, Cooper, Moore, and Fulton (201 2 ) found that the appearance of the pond water could affect property value ; and poor pond health might reduce quality of life and property val ue for residents People tend to agree that a well maintained lawn increases home values (Carpenter & Meyer, 1999c). A home is a large part of many people's net worth and the yard could be as much as 15 % of a home's worth. In this way, lawns are closely related to the re sale value of the house ( Bormann et al. 2001 ). Many people landscape to increase the aesthetic and economic value of their home s ( Helfand, Park, Nassauer, & Kosek, 2006 ). People are willing to pay a substantial amount of money for their preferred landsca pe type (Heiss, 2007) such as higher rents for a water view ( Kaplan & Kaplan 1989) The density of residential developmen t along many water bodies shows people's willingness to be near the water even if they have to share the view and the facilities ( Ka plan & Kaplan 1989). Helfand et al. (2006) found that people are willing to pay more
38 for well designed gardens with native plant s instead of lawn yards. However, Behe et al. (2005) found that the landscape design and installation market is substantially s maller scale than the plants and garden center products market. In 2003 fewer than 2.5% of home owners purchased yard design services and only 3.3% used landscape installation services. T wo important factors associated with home value are design sophisti cation ( of the landscape ) and plant size. Considering the similar house styles in a community, increased property "curb appeal" would distinguish one home from another, attracting potential buyers to visit. This is important for people to gain advantage in a competitive real estate market (Niemiera, 2007). Maintenance Costs Bormann et al. ( 2001 ) mentioned the frequent maintenance needs of a typical American turf yard. L awn care practices are associated with maintenance costs A lawn needs constant irrigatio n, fertilizer application, pest control, and mowing to maintain an aesthetically pleasing look Neighborhood landscapes should use low maintenance landscaping to keep maintenance expense low while maintaining neighborhood aesthetic standards. Simplicity i s essential to the landscape design. Easy maintenance can be achieved creating a maintenance free zone (no mowing, fertilizing, or pesticid e application) on the shoreline ( University of Florida/IFAS Extension, & FDEP 2009). M aintenance cost is associated with people s willingness to adopt plantings in residential landscapes. W illingness to opt for a yard decreases when the monthly yard maintenance cost increases (Helfand et al., 2006).
3 9 Drive from Industry Industry can influence nces. In 2005, t urf grass was a $147 billion industry : three times larger than all other home gardening expenses, making t urf grass the dominant plant in residential landscapes (Grampp, 2008) Research shows it may cost more to maintain a lawn than to cult ivate corn, rice, or sugarcane (Goldin, 1977). From the invention of lawn mowers, to the breeding of turf varieties, fertilization and irrigation techniques, and instant lawns making lawns shippable, t echnology contributed to the expansion of the lawn yard through entrepreneurialism. The lawn industry represents less than 1 % of the national gross domestic product, but this percentage does not adequately represent the industry's power to define our landscapes and to influence our attitudes toward our environ ment ( Bormann et al. 2001 ). T he industry is improving their products to make them more environmental ly friendly. Bormann et al. ( 2001 ) noted environmentally sound ideas in lawn marketing bring benefits to the lawn industry since more products could be sol d. Grampp (2008) stated in the past decade in western states grower s have developed products that need less mowing, fewer fertilizers, and a lower level of irrigation. Seed growers now sell grass together with other species such as wild flowers to make me adow mixes. Design of S tormwater P ond L andscape s Stormwater systems are required by regulations to maintain site pre development stormwater characteristics. T he stormwater ponds are created primarily to control stormwater quantity and they could also achi eve water quality control The design of stormwater pond includes pond engineering design and planting design.
40 Stormwater Regulation At the national level there is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program under the Clean Water Act (CWA). It is the primary federal regulation addressing water quality protection for waterbodies in the United States. In 1987 stormwater control was brought into the NPDES program I n 1990 the Phase I Stormwater Rules were established by the U.S. Env ironmental Protection Agency (EPA) requiring NPDES permits for operators of municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) providing services to communities with populations of more than 100,00 0 and for industry related runoff including 5 acre lots or lar ge construction sites In 1999 the Phase II Stormwater Rule was established to address small MS4s and small construction sites (National Research Council, 2008) Stormwater pollution prevention plan s and stormwater management are needed to comply with CWA regulations. The plans document the best management practices (BMPs) or stormwater control measures (SCMs) to prevent degrading nearby waterbodies. Creating s tormwater pond is one type of structural methods (National Research Council, 2008) Florida adopt ed its stormwater management rule on the permitting of modified stormwater discharges in 1982. In 1987, the EPA provided guidance on technology based stormwater programs. The guidance considers BMPs the primary approach to control water quality. In Florida stormwater systems serving new development are required to remove 80% of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and 95% if the receiving water is sensitive waters such as potable supply waters. In 1990, t he State Water Resource Implementation rule established one main goal of the stormwater management program : to maintain pre developed stormwater characteristic s during and after development. In 1993, Environmental Resource Permitting required most
41 development projects to receive an Environmental Resource Permit (ER P) to reduce stormwater impacts. Wet detention ponds and vegetated buffers along streams are among the most widely used structural methods ( Bean, 2010; Livingston, 2001). Pond F unction S tormwater ponds are created for flood control as their primary functio n : other benefits were secondary considerations such as water quality control ( K. A. La ngeland, Personal conversation, January 13, 2011 ; Sharma, 2006 ). Water treatment is a recently added objective for stormwater ponds (Anders on, Watt, and Marsalek, 2002 ; Walker et al., 2010 ). Stormwater ponds slow the movement of stormwater runoff and treat runoff during the process. Because they are designed to hold a volume of runoff for an extended time period, they can reduce peak flows and also clean the water Gener ally the ponds are to hold the stormwater runoff for a minimum of 24 hours to maximize the opportunity of pollutant settling, adsorption, and transformation. Most stormwater ponds hold a certain level of runoff volume that allows stormwater runoff to be held and treated for multiple days (Nat ional Research Council, 2008). Pond Engineering Design The design of stormwater pond s includes issues such as water depth shoreline slope and shape of pond. Mays ( 2001) noted t he pond should be cuneiform ( w edge sha ped ) with its inlet at the narrowest area and outlet at the widest area. The length to width ratio should be above 3:1 F or example a pond that is 30 feet long should be less than 10 feet wide Bank slopes should be in the area of 3:1 ( the slope r a ises 1 foot for every 3 feet of distance ) to 20:1 According to the Florida Stormwater Quality with 6: 1 slope or flatter ( FDEP & Water Management Districts 2010).
42 Florida St. Johns River Water Manag ement District (1995) created the following criteria for wet detention ponds: the mean depth of the permanent pool should be 2 8 feet and the maximum depth should be less than 12 feet; the flow path through the pond has an average length to width r atio of at least 2:1; the average pond side slope measured between the control elevation and 2 feet below the control elevatio n should be no steeper than 3:1 and the slope of the littoral zone shall be no steeper than 6:1; at least 30 % of the wet detention system surface area should be buffer zone. Harper and Baker (2007) recommended a minimum of 20% of the wet detention pond surface should be planted as littoral zone with submergent and emergent aquatic vegetation. The buffer zone could provide a diverse e nvironment and may enhance the nutrient removal efficiency of the stormwater system. Pond Planting Design Vegetation is an essential component in stormwater ponds and could reduce nutrient input if arranged around pond edges ( National Research Council, 20 08 ). The l ittoral zone is a portion of a wet detention pond designed to contain rooted aquatic plants ( FEDP & Water Management Districts 2010). Mays ( 2001) recommended a 25 feet vegetation perimeter planting strip around a stormwater pond. Castelle et al. ( 1992) noted to protect natural wetlands, b uffer zones less than 50 feet wide are generally not effective. Fifty feet should be the minimum requirement to protect natural wetlands from nutrient input and direct human disturbance Florida Friendly Lan foot maintenance free buffer zone between homeowner landscape and riparian zone ( Unive rsity of Florida/IFAS Extension & FDEP 2009). The purpose of the planted buffer is to absorb f ertilizers and chemicals
43 from res idential turf areas. U se of these products contributed to nutrient and chemical contamination of stormwater pond s (DeLorenzo et al., 201 2 ). Because of the influence of water fluctuations to plants and preference for water view and fear of unde sirable wildlife, t he littoral zone plants behind backyards tend to disappear over time (E. H. Livingston, personal co nversation, October 28, 2010). Littoral zones can be kept longer when they are not located adjacent to housing lots. Littoral zon es are typically located near the outfall of a wet detention pond or along areas with common ow nership. Littoral zones should be located in areas of the pond that have depths suitable for successful plant growth such as a shallow shelf area if appropriat e maintenance can be undertaken ( FEDP & Water Management Districts 2010). Walker et al. (2010) noted conflicts between the objectives of water treatment and ecological enhancement in stormwater ponds. Plants species with traits of high growth rates and r oot length and root mass tend to achieve high nutrient removal performance (Read, Fletcher, Wevill, & Deletic, 2010). The best plant species to achieve nutrient removal in ponds could be the species typically perceived as invasive plants, such as Cattails ( Typha spp.) in Florida. However, p lant species such as Cattails form a dense, monospecific setting that may decrease the wildlife habitat value of the wetlands (Bonilla Warford & Zedler, 2002). A pplying a stormwater treatment objective to the pond inheren tly decreases its ecological qualities such as biodiversity since sensitive species might not tolerate stormwater quantity and nutrient loads (Walker et al. 2010).
44 Walker et al. (2010) said urban stormwater ponds should be designed to promote wildlife ha bitat and diversity rather than merely being considered a stormwater facility Bonilla Warford and Zedler (2002) noted using a variety of native species could improve aesthetic appeal and enhance wildlife habitat in stormwater ponds Florida Friendly Lands tolerant plant species known to help reduce pollutants in water of stormwater ponds ( University of Florida/IFAS Extension, & FDEP 2009). Using appropriate native vegetation in pond landscapes could contribu te to water conservation, habitat preservation, landscape maintenance expense reduction, and property value protection (Flori da Native Plant Society, 2007 ). Management of S tormwater P ond L andscape Nutrient loading, fluctuating water levels, and landscape p ractices impact pond health and influence maintenance practices I ncoming nutrient s influence the eutrophic state of water bodies, which is associated with the abundance of plant, fish, and algae growth. The eutrophication of ponds caused by elevated nutri ent loading contributes to algae bloom and aquatic plant overgrowth. Aquatic plants are an important component of stormwater pond s and could help with nutrient removal and bank erosion control Fluctuating water level s also create challenges for shoreline plantings ( to survive long wet or dry periods ) Landscape practices, such as the use of fertilizer and pesticides in yards with shorelines can affect plant and algae growth. Lake Eutrophic State The eutrophic state of stormwater ponds is associated with challenges in pond management such as algae and plant growth control. Lake trophic status is an indication of biological productivity of water bod i es. The biological productivity of lakes is
45 not static ( Ramey et al. 2005 ) Lakes can be oligotrophic, mes otrophic, or eutrophic. In oligotrophic lakes, vegetation growth is re stricted by limited nutrients; in mesotrophic lakes, plant communities are species rich and well developed; for highly eutrophic lakes, there is increase d likelihood of the absence of so me plant species ( De Meester et al., 2006). The pristine state of many lakes is a clear water state with submerged vegetation. The clear water state occurs in oligotrophic lakes ( 2003 ) which are nutrient poor and support very li mited wildlife (Ramey et al. 2005) The oligotrophic lake provide s opportunities for human activities including recreation, fishing, and water sports (Batabyal et al. 2003). Although phosphorus occurs naturally in lakes, human actions often result in th e deposition of a significant amount of additional phosphorus into water bodies ( Batabyal et al. 2003 ). When a lake receives phosphorus input, green algae begin s to grow. When the lake enters a eutrophic state, water becomes turbid (Batabyal et al. 2003) Eutrophication has been defined as nutrient enrichment of a water body. Eutrophication can contribute to algae and aquatic weed growth, decrease water quality, and impact fisheries (Ramey et al. 2005). Generally, a s the nutrient level increases in lakes t he growth of aquatic plants, fish, and algae increase s (Ramey et al. 2005). The association between Total Phosphorus (TP) and plant species diversity suggest s that TP could affect aquatic plant diversity ( De Meester et al., 2006). However, increased nu trient s can promote the invasive spread of some aquatic species (Graves, Strom, & Robson, 1998). Some species grow in profusion because of increased nutrient input from stormwater. Lower
46 dissolved oxygen can limit growth of some aquatic species and promote growth of tolerant plant species (Graves et al. 1998). Eutrophication impacts the fish population in a similar way : as the lake becomes more eutrophic there is a change in the composition of fish species in lakes (Ramey et al. 2005). Also, d ecreased wa ter clarity due to eutrophication could have a negative impact on property values (Dodds et al., 2009). The public has different ideas of what constitutes a quality lake: some like lakes that look like aquatic garden s because they prefer the natural enviro nment But there are different versions of natural environments: some people foc us on wildlife watching, some are interested in fishing, some enjoy the recreational aspect of lakes of lakes (Ramey e t al. 2005). Although h yper that support large amounts of aquatic plants, fish and other wildlife, they might not be aesthetically appealing (Ramey et al. 2005). Lake manager s prefer to keep a lake in the oligotrophic state since it is more productive than the eutrophic state in terms of ecosystem services such as recreational services (Batabyal et al. 2003). Deeper lakes have greater water volume to dilute the incoming nutrient s and thus have lower nutrient concentration compar ed to shallower lakes. The hydrologic flushing rate ( how fast water moves through the water body system ) is also an important factor in the eutrophic state of a lake. The slower water moves through, the more nutrients can be used by plants. Sedimentation rate is also associated with the trophic state of a lake. Over time nutrients become lake sediments ; but they go back to
47 the water column when water is disturbed by wind if the ponds are shallow (Ramey et al. 2005). Another important factor determining the trop h ic state of a lake is the soil of the lake bottom A primary reason for plant growth in lakes is phosphorus. Florida has soil that is rich in phosphorus and some places have sufficient phosphorus to create highly prod uctive eutrophic water bodies (Ramey et al. 2005). Agricultural lands are commonly chosen for new developments where nutrients in the soil have the potential to be transported by runoff into surface waters. The excess of nutrients is a primary reason for surface water impairment in Florida (Bean, 2010). One role of s tormwater ponds is to filter stormwater on site so that downstream water bodies can be protected from contamination (Bean, 2010). Infiltration could be improved by increased vegetation growth in ponds. F requent maintenance and chemical application in residential ponds could suppress vegetation diversity and limit root development (Bean, 2010). Water Quality Issues in Stormwater System s The growth of Florida developments caused the conditions o f many water bodies to change M ost of t hem are undesirable conditions (Ramey et al. 2005). T he phosphorus level in Everglades soil was increased by nutrient loading primarily from fertilizer applications exceeding the assimilative capacity of the ecosys tem ( Qian & Richardson, 2008) Natural water bodies that received untreated stormwater showed higher levels of phosphorus and lower levels of dissolved oxygen than water bodies that received treated stormwater (Graves et al. 1998). Stormwater ponds act a s pollutant traps and the average stormwat er detention pond can remove 25 to 75% of pollutants depending on the pollutant (Sloan, 2010).
48 The ponds also cause other potential environmental problems since they become natural "incubators" for estuarine micr oorganisms that thriv e under nutrient rich conditions (Lewitus et al 2003). A problem with using a stormwater pond for water quality control is that the pond itself gets polluted leading to eutrophication and algae growth due to excessive nutrients (Wil ey, 2001) S everal factors could account for pollution loads in stormwater pond s : 1) soil erosion from natural ground cover ; 2) overland stormwater flow with fertilizer ; 3) organic substances such as pet waste ; and 4) stormwater carrying waste gas, trash, dust and debris from vehicles (Simonds & Starke, 2006). In waterfront neighborhoods, fertilizer use on the landscape might be an important source of nutrient loading in ponds. The fertilizers may affect the survivability of fish and cause algae blooms (Uni versity of Michigan, 2009). Besi des fertilizers, organic litter can also contribute to nutrient loading in pond s S ome wildlife species damage shoreline plantings by grazing, lead ing to nutrient loading in pond s by their droppings ( Islandwalk Homeowners As sociation, 2012 ; Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, 1998 ) As Sloan (2010) indicated, residential stormwater ponds accumulate nutrients and are more eutrophic than agricultural and highway stormwater ponds. In addition, K. A. Langeland (Personal co nversation, January 13, 2011) mentioned the trend of applying used water for landscape irrigation, which may increase nutrient input to the pon ds and decrease water quality. R emoval of pollutants is achieved several ways: 1 ) settlement of sediments by filt ration and slow water flow 2 ) adsorption of metal into sediment and plants 3 ) consumption by plant roots and leaves and 4 ) mineralization and assimilation of
49 pollutants by bacteria (Sloan, 2010). Three methods could be used to treat stormw ater runoff pollution: control pollution loads at the source, treat stormwater runoff at the source, and treat storm water runoff by vegetation downstream ( ULI et al. 1975). Sloan (2010) noted the pol lutant load in stormwater ponds increase s continuously and ponds become more eutrophic over time. Older ponds normally have higher concentrations of pollutants and a greater accumulation of organic matte r compared with younger ponds. F actors associated with water quality in stormwater ponds are pond size, pon d age, aquatic and shoreline vegetation aeration and fish population. Installing a vegetation bu ffer may increase the pollutant remov al efficiency of the ponds by treating sto rmwater before it enters ponds. Plant harvesting that encourages continued vege tation growth and uptake of nutrients may slow the eutrophication process of the ponds. Fish and invertebrates could also be used for nutrient removal to prolong the life of the ponds (Sloan, 2010). Nutrient input reduction is critical for maintaining heal thy aquatic ecosystems. The challenge is that nutrient concentrations in sediments remain elevated because of previous inputs no matter how much re duction is achieved in nutrient input. Nutrient in sediment is released to the water column in hypoxic condi tions. Also s torms may result in resuspension of sediments, which may cause new algae bloom problems (Hudnell, 2010). Increasing flow rates and reducing water residence time may help reduce algae blooms. Besides nutrient loading, rising temperatures and i ncreased residence time also promote algae b looms (Paerl & Huisman, 2008). Herbicides and pesticides commonly applied to lawn yards can negatively affect biodiversity in ponds (Bean, 2010).
50 Algae C ontrol M anagement of community stormwater pond s is associat ed with control of algae growth Algae are a loose group of organisms that are aquatic, photosynthetic, simple vegetative bodies without a vascular system, and reproductive bodies with no sterile layer of protecting cells (Sheath & Wehr, 2003). Algae are o ne type of producers in the ecosystem. Even though algae may decrease the aesthetic value of the pond and are undesirable for people, they are indispensable member s of the pond ecosystem and do not cause problem s when the pond is being maintained properly (Campbell & Ogden, 1999). Algae bloom occurs when algae become abundant enough to turn the water green or form paint like scum Dense algae can block sunlight and lead to decreased oxygen level s in water, affecting aquatic life ( Northeastern Ill inois Plan ning Commission, 1998 ) Algae blooms tend to occur in summer (Serrano & DeLorenzo 2008) and people complain about the smell of the stormwater pond (Goodman, 2007). The incidence of harmful algal blooms is becoming more frequent in America and worldwide (H udnell, 2010). Algae growth is associated with the nutrient level in the pond. The report by Newman ( 1976 ) show s the earliest recognition of the relationship between nutrient and algae in water front neighborhood s decades ago. N utrients, especially p hosphor us, accelerate algal growth rate ( Lembi, 2003; Wagner, 2012 ). The n itrogen to p hosphorus ratio determines the types of algae ( Smith, 1982, 1983 ; Wagner, 2012) Algae bloom might be highly associated with development of residential projects or golf courses since these developments often create high nutrient and low flow conditions (Lewitus & Holland, 2003). A survey of residents indicated the contamination could be caused by
51 application of fertilizers and pesticides and by poor pet waste management (Serrano & D eLorenzo 2008). Serrano and DeLorenzo (2008) summarized five stormwater pond management techniques to improve water quality and control algae growth in residential neighborhoods : 1 ) install a vegetative buffer ; 2 ) apply low chemical and nutrient conte nt products, or biodegradable ones ; 3 ) reduce chemical usage ; 4 ) dispose of pet waste and lawn clippings ; and 5 ) apply planktivorous fish or other algae and macrophyte control methods. In addition, the use of aerators could enhance pond ecological health because air promotes biological activity and reduce s nutrient s available for algae growth ( U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009 ) Artificial circulation, such as solar powered aerators, can control algae blooms if deployed continuously in high temper ature periods (Hudnell, 2010). Aquatic Plant s for Pond Nutrient and Erosion Control environment at least periodically deficient in oxygen because of excessive water content T his definition includes both herbaceous and woody plants. The broad submerged in wat er or floated during the plant life cycle (Cronk & Fennessy, 2001). A quatic plants are essential for nutrient control and water quality protection in wetlands and stormwater ponds ( Boyt, Bayley, & Zoltek, 1977 ; Kadlec & Knight, 2008; Keddy, 2000; National Research Council, 2008 ; Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, 1996)
52 The performance of stormwater ponds could be improved by increasing pond vegetation ( Bean, 2010). Wetland plants provide shade, making the water temperature cooler in the summer, co ntrolling algae growth, and reducing the release of nutrient s from the sed iment (Castelle et al., 1992). Boyt et al ( 1977 ) investigated the effects of wetland plants on water quality and found that the concentration of nutrients for water downstream of ex perimental wetlands was equal or less than those found in the control water body. Wetland plants are essential for high level water treatment systems (Kadlec & Knight, 2008). Removal of biomass has been investigated as a means of enhancing the removal of p hosphorus and nitrogen (Kadlec & Knight, 2008). Keddy (2000) stated that i f wetland plants fall back to water and decay, they only act as pumps that take nutrients from wetland sediments and ret urn them to open water. N utrients can be removed from ponds b y plant harvesting or being eaten by herbivor ous wildlife that leave the site. Mays (2001) noted p lants need to be harvested for th e best nutrient removal effect: harvesting should be taken into consideration in a long term maintenance plan. However, Kadle c & Knight (2008) said in large systems, phosphorus and nitrogen removal by harvesting was not effective, although theoretically possible. Harvesting in large treatment wetlands may require expensive equipment, and is labor intensive. The problem of biomas s disposal is often not easily resolved. Plant harvesting is not favored for phosphorus and nitrogen removal ; it has seldom been used except for floating plants, which are easier to harvest. Bergue and Ruperd (2000) said vegetation is not permanent and a s uccession of plant communities would appear over time in stormwater basins.
53 Another use of plants is to reduce pond bank erosion by holding the soil and absorbing the energy of w ave action ( Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, 1998 ; Young, 1973 ). Pow ell ( 2012a ) noted that turf gras s which has short roots, could not efficiently withstand the impact of wave action since the high erosion energy area is below the water table Vegetation could help with erosion control in stormwater system ( Bentrup, 2008 ; National Research Council, 2008; Powell, 2012a ) Aquatic Plant Management Vegetation management might be the most frequent maintenance activity that occurs in association with stormwater pond management (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). One di fficulty of successful littoral zone plant establishment and maintenance is the frequent changes in water level elevations in a stormwater pond ( FEDP & Water Management Districts 2010). Bonilla Warford and Zedler (2002) said we have limited knowledge of a ppropriate plant species that can tolerate water level fluctuations. W ater levels in detention systems vary a lot during the year and over the years : littoral zone plants have a hard time surviving and thriving. In detention systems, n ative plants give way to weedy, invasive species when wetland vegetation is destroyed by periods of drought or flooding ( E. H. Livingston, personal conversation, October 28, 2010) L arge, sudden water lever fluctuations can damage shoreline plantings (Castelle et al., 1992) a nd negatively affect a pond aesthetic quality especially in dry period s (ULI et al. 1975). Also, a drop in the stormwater pond water table can negatively affect a pond aesthetic appeal. T he minimum water level of ponds should be ensured by water inpu t from the watershed or other sources. In order to control weeds, extensive areas of shallow water should be avoided in pond design ( ULI et al. 1975).
54 Landscape P ractices around S horeline S uccessful establishment of shoreline plantings is a challenge and the key factor is hydro period Poor plant establishment would lead to a continuous decrease in buffer zone size. Careful consideration must be given to water depth as well as the duration of inundation (Greenway, 2010). The management of yards adjacent t o stormwater ponds includes using suitable aquatic plants keep ing a maintenance free zone at the water edge prevent ing grass clippings from entering the water body, and keep ing pest waste away from the water bodies ( Unive rsity of Florida/IFAS Extension & FDEP 2009). Policies on Stormwater System s Design and management of stormwater systems are often regulated by landscape and development codes. Landscape codes should address several factors in stormwater design requirements. The minimum requirement is th at they should include statutory authority and be applicable to zoning and land use planning procedures that meet the needs of a community on stormwater issues (Abbey, 2007). Landscape codes nationwide have been supported by local governments to apply rest rictions to private areas for the purpose of promoting public health, safety and welfare. The preservation and use of native plants have been addressed by many Florida city and county governments in their communities (Florida Native Plant Society, 2007 ). L andscape Codes, Covenants and Restrictions Pond management in residential developments is sometimes included in the landscape ordinances or the grounds landscape management policies. Landscape ordinances are public law that regulates landscape design, ins tallation and maintenance
55 to guide site development and landscape appearance (Abbey, 1998, Reid, 2000). There are two types of codes: government agency codes ( such as state, county, and city landscape codes ) and private association codes. Landscape codes can typically be divided into three categories: 1 ) design based prescriptive codes that set performance goals and provide specific technical standards that designers, landscape contractors and developers must follow ; 2 ) performance based codes that use a p oint system to meet design requirements p oints are awarded for meeting certain standards for plantings ; and 3 ) F orm B ased C odes which visualize a specific collection of plants often referred to as a unit o f plantings (Abbey, 2010 ). Community landscape ordi nances are typically established to supplement zoning laws. Post construction landscape ordinance s or landscape ordinance s are created to preserve open spaces and usually require planting of these spaces with different types of ornamental plants. They ar e increasingly common in U.S. cities and towns and are quickly becoming the most common of all green laws (Abbey, 1998). T he first American landscape ordinance was the Pennsylvania Shade Tree Law created in the eighteenth century. T his community ordinance mandated that landscaping in the village is for public good and health benefits. It cites specific design standards, plant species and benefits to be attained by appropriate installation and maintenance (Abbey, 1998). Neighborhood C odes Large scale plann ed communities, referred to as M aster P lanned C ommunities (MPCs) or Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) have been developed since the 1970s. The MPCs incorporate design guidelines, shared amenit ies, and outdoor public spaces (Ellin, 1999).
56 A h omeowner assoc iation (HOA) is an organization with home owners in a residential development as its members The HOA agreements are ownership deeds that require membership in the association assess mandatory financial dues to support community servic es, and establish a series of covenants regulating the behavior of members (Kennedy, 1995). For developers HOAs are initially created to maintain property values (Personal conversation with P. Jones Energy Program, University of Florida, February 9, 2011 ; Smucker, n.d. ). S chein (1997) noted that a n HOA can be democratically created and organized with a constitution and bylaws to regulate and monitor comm unity landscapes and to establish aesthetic guidelines. Besides home values, Smucker ( n.d.) noted another reason for the i nitial creation of HOAs was to meet the need for stormwater retention. A developer would transfer control of the HOA to a board elected and made up of residents after a predetermined number of a subdivision's properties were sold and closed (Smucker, n.d.) The estimated number of HOAs in the U.S. has increased from 10,000 in 1970 to more than 300,000 in 20 08 (Community Associations Institute, 2012). These HOAs are normally single family developments where the homeowner owns the lot. The HOA owns and mainta ins neighborhood public area s (Hyatt, 1997). Landscape Codes for Native Plants In Florida and nationwide there is a wide range of landscape ordinances. However, the Florida Native Plant Society said there are still ordinances that do not mention native p lants or that promote the application of non native plants. Some codes required a certain percentage of the landscaped area for native plants. Most of the codes do not fully protect and promote native vegetation, especially the native plants
57 appropriate to specific soil, topography and hydrology of a site (Florid a Native Plant Society, 2007 ). Florida (FFL) program promotes native and non native plant species appropriate for a particular site condition ( University of Florida/IFAS Extens ion & FDEP, 2010 ). Fertilizer Codes Local governments around the country are banning or restricting phosphorus containing fertilizer use to keep lakes and streams clean. The fertilizers may affect survivability of fish and may cause algae blooms (Universi ty of Michigan, 2009). In Florida, municipal fertilizer codes often include regulations on application timing, fertilizer nutrient composition, restricted areas for application and clean up on impervious surfaces (Carey et al., 2012). In Forest County Wi sconsin codes prohibit the application of fertilizers containing nitrates, phosphates and lake damaging chemicals on shore yards (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau o f Watershed Management, 2000). One study in Ann Arbor Michigan showed th at phosphorus levels in the Huron R iver dropped 28 % after use of phosphorus on lawns was banned for nearly 3 years. It is unnecessary to use fertilizers in southeast Michigan because the soil there contains phosphorus ( University of Michigan, 2009). Lands cape Codes on Shoreline Buffer Applying on site stormwater management standards in community landscape codes is becoming a trend in landscape code development. The standards should apply specific stormwater design principles and use stormwater Best Managem ent Practices (BMP s ) (Abbey, 2007). Abbey (2007) noted all BM P s should include the installation of native plants.
58 Abbey (2007) also suggested on site water management principles for the state of Louisiana To make the code easier to apply, the criteria wer e quantified : 1 ) a street yard buffer of a minimum of 78 % of the re quired front yard setback width 2 ) rear and side vegetation buffers comprisin g 30 % of total site area and 3 ) stream bank buffers with a minimum depth of 50 % of the stream width. Wisconsin has minimum statewide standards requiring a 35 foot wide shoreline buffer running parallel to the ordinary high water mark of natural lakes and streams (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Watershed Management, 2000). Florida F riendly L and scaping P olicy S ome policies address the nutrient loading issue for the protection of water bodies. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) supports the Florida (FFL) program and requires that homeowner associations allow its applications in neighborhood. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection promotes Florida Friendly In F.S. § 373.185 Florida Friendly Landscaping was defined and its nine landscaping principles were given : water, protect the environment, and are adaptable to local conditions, and which are drought tolerant. The principles of such lan dscaping include planting the right plant in the right place, efficient watering, appropriate fertilization, mulching, attraction of wildlife, responsible management of yard pests, recycling yard waste, reduction of stormwater runoff, and waterfront protec tion. Additional components include practices such as landscape planning and design, soil analysis, the appropriate use of solid waste compost, minimizing the use of irrigation and proper maintenance. Florida needed to protect Flor environment and lead a sustainable way for development. In stormwater pond settings,
59 this policy can reduce nutrient loading to pond water and protect pond water quality In addition a certification system was created to award newly built la ndscapes that adopt FFL practices. Florida Senate Bill 2080 (passed in 2009) supports the application of Florida t e §720.3075(4) (b) to help prevent homeowner associations from restricting the application of Florida Friendly : articles of incorporation, or bylaws, may not prohibit or be enforced so as to prohibit any property owner from implementing Florida friendly landscaping as defined in S 373.185, on his or her land or create any requirement or limitation in conflict with any provision of P art II of C hapter 373 or a water shortage order, other order, consumptive use permit, or rule adopted or issued pursuant to P art II of C hapter 373. Also, Florida statute §720.3075(4) (a) 84 states: The Legislature finds that the use of Florida friendly landscaping serves associations and local governments is ess water conservation and water quality protection and restoration. This showed Florida Statute s' legislative finding that HOAs should participate in water conservation (Greene, 2010) and water quality protection measures. F orm B ased Codes L andscape codes need to better meet the demand for aesthetic quality and environmental function of pond shoreline landscapes Form B ased Code s are a method of regulating urban development for the purpose of achieving an expected particular urban form. It creates a predictable public realm mainly by physical form control (Parolek Parolek & Crawford, 2008). Instead of form following function, it is function following form (Hansen, 2008). Form Based Codes are land development regulation s
60 foc us ed on the desired future physical form of the built environment. Form B ased C odes are becoming more and more popular in communities searching for ways to grow smarter (Madden & Spikowski, 2006). The important aspect of enforcement of traditional codes is that it is difficult to apply consistently; the descriptions in design guidelines are subjective interpretation (Katz, 2004). For example, the municipal code of Alachua County, Florida required that basins to optimize treatment, aesthetics, and groupings of trees It was up to readers of the code to determine the optimum ways to improve treatment and aesthetics. T raditional codes sometimes incorporate visioning processes, but the visioning work is of ten at a larger scale so details for creating a great place are lacking (Parolek et al. 2008). Form Based Code s are more concise and organized ( for visual access and readability ) than conventional zoning ordinances. Form Based Code s avoided the drawback of design guidelines ( difficult to apply consistently, causing subjective interpretation, and are often difficult to enforce ) (Katz, 2004). When using Form Based Code s to address the design of stormwater pond landscapes, drawings can be applied to specify the physical form of pond plantings, which is associated with pond aesthetic quality and environmental function Form Based Code s can make pond designs better react to various pond shoreline context, such as housing lots and natural wooded area, to meet d ifferent aesthetic and environmental needs. Social Marketing of Environmental ly Friendly L andscaping The revision of landscape codes is one way to improve stormwater systems. But the adoption of new behavior required by newly written codes is not always pr edictive
61 Education and social marketing is one way to make the revision and adoption of landscape codes possible. Social Marketing Social marketing is the design, implementation and administration of media campaigns to affect th e acceptability of social i deas. It is often used for product planning, distribution, pricing, and communication (Kotler & Zaltman, 1971). Andreasen (1994) said that social marketing is an adapted application of commercial marketing methods that is designed to promote voluntary beha vior. M ost educational campaigns to promote sustainable behavior have been information intensive. Media a dvertising and printed material distribution is used to promote behavior change in these programs. Information intensive programs are based on one of two viewpoints about behavior change. One is that enhancing knowledge and encouraging the development of attitudes supportin g specific activity are the way to achieve the goal of behavior change. However, enhancing knowledge and creating supportive attitud es does not always lead to behavior change. The other perspective suggests that economic motives can sig nificantly influence behavior. Program p lanners deliver programs that emphasize the economic benefit of joining an activity, speculating that the public will act in their economic self interest. P rograms of this type have likewise, shown little expected result (McKenzie Mohr, 2000). Community based social marketing merges psychology with social marketing expertise. Social marketing emphasizes that the c ampaign design should start with the barriers people perceive for activity partic ipation (McKenzie Mohr, 2000).
62 Social Marketing T echniques A series of techniques have been used for social marketing For example, some water conservation programs used four educational techniques including bill inserts, brochures, newspapers and workshops (Reid, 2000). Demonstration landscapes are useful techniques to change perceptions and promote new behaviors in social marketing programs. D esigned to be visually attractiv e, inspiring, and educational demonstration gardens can be used to teach environmental concepts and transform people's perspectives about the environment (Hansen & Niemann, 2012) In some studies residents were strongly in favor of the demonstration lan dscape. A jointly planned landscape would be more effective (it would reach more residents and be more convincing ) A landscape that attracts involvement of residents would be more likely to be maintained and have a lasting influence (Reid, 2000). I ncreasi ng the publicity of the educational program is also important for implementation of a program Carpenter and Meyer (1999c) conducted a community education program in Edina, Minnesota to promot e low input lawn care practices They found that the demonstrat ion landscape technique was not very effective because the primary learners were the participating homeowners themselves, not the res idents in the whole community. Workshops are an appropriate technique for residents motivated to improve their landscapes but lack ing skills. This requires the information given to be accurate and suitable to make participants feel more secure about the information and reduce worry about the economic expense of new landscape measures (Reid, 2000). The community educational program conducted by Carpenter and Meyer (1999a) showed some important factors associated with the effectiveness of the program :
63 1 ) securing funding and other resources 2 ) seeking support from the community 3 ) defining appropriate goals and 4 ) d etermining a suitable plan based on goals and resources. Resources such as local publications, community action groups, community clubs, and city organizations are useful Funding sources from neighborhood organizations can offset the cost. The amount of f unding available has a direct effect on the types of educational programs that can be used. O ffering residents opportunities to help carry out the programs can increase the support rate and expand the future influence of the program O bjectives should be d etermined and periodic feedback from participants should be attained to make sure the program is on the right track A djust ments to the program should be made when necessary and integrated methods should be implemented to better the effectiveness of the program (Carpenter & Meyer, 1999a). Carpenter and Meyer (1999c) surveyed residents at the beginning and end of the neighborhood education project They found no significant change in lawn care knowledge, practices, or environmental attitudes in Edina resid ents after th e one year educational program R espondents of the survey favor posting signs on priva te property to reduce pesticide application, and a few prefer signs to reduce fertilizer usage (Carpenter & Meyer, 1999c). Social Marketing and L andscape C o des Recent studies show increasing emphasis on incorporating the use of landscape codes for promoting energy saving and environmental ly friendly landscapes (Sakrison, 1997; Reid, 2000; Abbey, 2007; Greene, 2010). Although municipalities had started to incl ude rules on fertilizer application to address water quality issue s regulations need to be accompanied by educational interventions. Comprehensive and thorough
64 educational programs are needed to change fertilization habits to improve the effectiveness of landscape codes (Carey et al., 2012). Landscape ordinances were being studied by researchers evaluating water conservation programs as one of the general tech niques (Reid, 2000). Collaboration was found to be one of the highly rated techniques : it create s innovative, cost effective initiatives that can quickly gain acceptance by the public (Reid, 2000). Social M arketing of Florida Florida a website that includes photos, documents, and a tutorial for custom landscape design A plant database is included to help residents to develop environmental friendly landscapes. The program has a certification program for new communities and workshops and classes that provide people with knowledge that promotes the protec diverse wildlife habitat ( University of Florida/IFAS Extension, & FDEP 2009). Align Visual Quality and Environmental Function in Landscapes Visually pleasing landscapes are preferred and more likely to be adopted and promoted by people. Methods used for achieving the environmental function of stormwater systems should be aligned with their visual quality Linkage between Visual Quality and Environmental Function Recent studies have addressed the link betwe en visual quality and environmental function in landscapes Nohl (2001) said s ustainability is an overarching principle for social development. It would also affect the aesthetic perception of landscape aesthetics. L andscapes should be more attractive und er sustainable conditions to meet the needs of sustainable development. Guevara (2008) investigated the association between aesthetic qualities and functions of stormwater systems, finding
65 that there are conflicts between these two aspects and the current stormwater system desig ns might not be liked by people Bentrup (2008) noted the vegetative buffer should incorporate aesthetic considerations into the design so the desired ecological functions can be maintained on a long term basis. Dunnett (2010) studi ed the integration of aesthetic quality and ecological enhancement in roof s noting that many green roof s were based on ecological idea s and little aesthetic consideration was given to those landscapes Dunnett (2010) noted using indications of human care and maximizing flower color effects can increase green roofs for biodiversity Fry et al. (2009) explored the conceptual common ground for visual and ecological qualities in landscape s : active and careful management, upkeep intactne ss of vegetation, openness, complexity of shapes, pattern natur al appearance and seasonality Ecological Aesthetics Lintott ( 2006) said a esthetics affects how people judge and also how people treat nature and the world. Since aesthetics may have consid erable power to motivate people to act in certain ways, we need to create an ecologically oriented aesthetics. Landscape aesthetics could be guided to direct people toward landscapes with high ecological quality since landscape aesthetics act as a linkage to drive landscape change (Gobster et al. 2007). The visual appeal of manicured landscapes with few ecological qualities is often perceived as demonstrating stewardship while naturalistic landscapes with valuable ecological functions are often perceived as undesirable (Bentrup, 2008). Sustainability and aesthetics were generally rated opposite by residents in a study conducted by Travis, Joe, and Ma rtin (2002). Nassauer et al. (2009) suggested emphasizing the
66 neighborhood scale to promote ecologically be neficial residential landscape designs for initial success and long term effects Nassauer et al. (2009) also noted people who adopted innovative designs might want to enlist neighbors on innovative landscapes, providing opportunities to promote ecological ly creative landscape designs Obstacles for Improvement of Pond Landscape Designs Although landscape codes can be written to guide design of stormwater systems, there are still challenges for designers : knowledge of appropriate shoreline plant species, k nowledge of the effectiveness of using plantings for water quality control, and comprehensive requirements for well functioning stormwater systems. The challenge is how to make a design that is easy to maintain and aesthetically appealing, that promotes ho me value and that is environmentally friendly Knowledge of Acceptable Visual Quality of Shoreline Plant ings Although there are numerous research publications about acceptable visual quality of typical residential landscapes, there are few studies on the aesthetic quality of shorelines of man made stormwater ponds. Didona (2007) and Heiss (2007) both used stormwater pond. Didona (2007) said pond landscapes incorporated aesthetic considerations could be attractive to people. Heiss (2007) found that people like irregular pond shapes and moderate shoreline treatments ( between of naturalized and manicured style with moderate slope giving emergent plants a short, shallow ledge in whi ch to anchor their roots) in pond s were preferred. However, preferences of residents on plant species as well as plant arrangement methods are not well studied The indication of human control over the landscape might be one design techniques that enhances the aesthetic quality of shoreline plantings Nassauer et al.
67 (2009) found out that perceived care is associated with landscape preference. Signs of care give people the feeling of order and increase the perceived attractiveness of the landscape. However we are still unclear how to use design sophistication to improve aesthetics to the degree that people adopt the design and make it practical. Effectiveness of Using Shoreline P lantings for Water Quality Control Currently t here is no consensus about the effectiveness of using shoreline plants to clean the water in stormwater ponds. Some suggested the use of shoreline plantings is not effective in pond water quality control (DB Environmental, Inc. & Community Watershed Fund, 2005 ; Ramey et al. 2005 ) Few studies support the efficacy of littoral plantings in stormwater pond s (DB Environmental, Inc. & Community Watershed Fund, 2005). For most lakes, perimeter planting is insufficient to make a lake clear and a quatic plants need to cover at least 50 % of lake area to maintain clear water (Ramey et al. 2005). As K. Wagner (personal conversation, January 24, 2012) mentioned, upland shoreline plantings might not effectively clean water because they cannot absorb nutrients in the water B ut applying aquatic plan ts that grow in the water could be effective and using aquatic plants for pond management is an interesting topic for future study K. A. Langeland (Personal conversation, January 13, 2011) indicated that plants should not be considered as the onl y solutio n for water cleaning. One study reported that emergent macrophyte vegetation had little long term effect on pollutant removal efficiency of wet detention pond s (DB Environmental, Inc. & Community Watershed Fund, 2005). The littoral zone and floating island s could remove 10% of the Total Nitrogen (TN) and 20 to 40% of the Total Phosphorus (TP) ( FEDP & Water Management Districts 2010). T he recommendations of Florida Department of Environmental Protection have been changed from plants all around the perimeter of
68 the pond to focusing them at key points such as inflows and outflows. F loating wetland islands (wetland plantings installed on manmade floating materials ) might be an alternative (E. H. Livingston, personal conversation, October 28, 2010) E. H. Living ston also said that shoreline plants may not be the solution to water quality improvement in community stormwater ponds and floating islands may be an alternative. However, arguments still suggest the importance of shoreline plantings in stormwater ponds for water quality protection ( National Research Council, 2008; Serrano & DeLorenzo 2008 ; Wiley, 2001 ; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Watershed Management, 2000) The installation of a vegetation buffer is an important method for stor mwater pond management (Serrano & DeLorenzo 2008). S horeline buffer plantings are important for erosion control as well as reduction of runoff and the flow of effluents, sediments and nutrients into waters bodies. The effectiveness of the vegetative buffe r for water cleaning is affected by the nature of the pollution, runoff volume, degree and uniformity of slope, surface roughness, soil permeability, vegetation stem and root density and stem erectness, and width of buffer (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Watershed Management, 2000). Vegetation is crucial for pollutant removal in stormwater ponds and the ponds are designed with an aquatic bench zone around the shoreline to promote contact with plants (National Research Council, 2008). T he presence of appropriate and abundant vegetation is essential for stormwater ponds to protect pond water quality Shoreline plantings could improve the quality of stormwater entering the pond (Wiley, 2001). P lantings could filter nutrients from stormwate r runoff and there is a consensus among e cologists, water quality professionals, landscape planners, and lake managers
69 that shoreline planting is essential to the health of a water body (Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, 1996 ) W hat remains unclea r is what quantity, composition and distribution of plants are needed to clean storm water runoff in a specific stormwater system Also unknown is what integrated design and maintenance methods should be use d for maximum treatment effect. Mature and dense vegetation can enhance plant uptake of n itrogen from stormwater (Collins et al., 2010). Vegetation type and coverage are associated with pollutant removal efficiency of stormwater ponds (Mallin, Ensign, Wheeler, and Mayes, 2002). The structure of the plant community is more important in pollutant removal performance than the species : selecting good plant species is not as important as providing a functional plant canopy (Kadlec & K night, 2008). Opinions also differ on plant harvesting in stormwater ponds fo r nutrient removal P lant harvesting should be in the long term maintenance plan for stormwater pond s (Mays, 2001) because p lants can only temporarily preserve nutrients (Keddy, 2000) However, Kadlec & Knight (2008) said that harvesting may not be favored for nutrient removal because of the money and labor cost involved Wiley (2001) recommended using woody shrubs and trees in ponds since their life cycles are longer than those of herbaceous plants, which return pollutants to water annually and need to be harvested. Comprehensive Requirements for Well F unction ing Stormwater S ystems Although studies address different elements of a stormwater system, there is little information on integrating all of the design and functional issues. What is known is that an integrated method is needed to improve the ecological quality of a stormwater pond and aquatic plants alone cannot guarantee successful water quality treatment (Keddy, 2000). A well designed pond system should : 1 ) increase the connections among the
70 ponds 2 ) use the best pond shape to reduce algae problems 3 ) use a vegetation buffer 4 ) reduce nutrient input from fertilizer usage 5 ) control waste disposal and 6 ) shor e line plant overgrowth (Serrano & DeLorenzo 2008). What is unclear is how these methods could improve water quality in stormwater ponds and how to make these techniques feasible for developers, residents and homeowner associations. Barriers for Adoption o f Improved Pond Designs There are some b arriers for a doption of improved pond designs, including homeowner lack of knowledge, public education, current covenants and restrictions, economic concern, and industry standards. Understanding these barriers would help increase the effectiveness of social marketing programs on stormwater pond landscapes. Homeowners Lack of Knowledge Although many homeowners may know what they prefer aesthetically they may not know how their preferences ( and actions to maintain t heir preferences ) affect the function and look of the pond. Residents prefer green lawn ( Bormann et al. 2001 ) but might not understand the connection between fertilizer use and the quality and health of the water. H omeowners typically do not connect their landscaping practices to neighborhood pond problems ( USDA et al. 2000) Many homeowners do not like unwanted wildlife ( E. H. Livingston, personal conversation, October 28, 2010) and do not like plants they considered to be weeds Native plants can be a v aluable addition for biodiversity but many homeowners feel that some native plants look unkempt and neglected.
71 Public Education More public education campaigns and social marketing efforts are needed to educate residents about the importance of shoreline plants for nutrient remov al and control of algae bloom s in stormwater ponds. Community education and involvement are needed to educate residents about how their behaviors and actions influence water conditions and about the potential risks to humans and w ildlife caus ed by biological and chemical contamination (Serrano & DeLorenzo 2008). Education is essential to encourage the use of landscape design principles that incorporate appropriate native species. Home yard landscaping is a large portion of a local community's landscaped areas and well designed single family landscapes are important for protecting native habitat (Florida Native Plant Society, 2007 ). One way to promote vegetation buffer s is to develop educational programs on how buffers benefit lake s and streams (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Watershed Management, 2000). Current Covenants and Restrictions Many current landscape codes do not promote better design of stormwater systems. Some landscape codes prevent the adoption o f environmentally friendly landscape design and management. For example, in some Florida communities, residents are fined if lawns do not meet the aesthetic standards establish ed by the homeowner association (Meacham, 2008). These aesthetic standards often lead to overuse of fertilizers. Social marketing is needed to educate homeowners so that neighborhood codes are written in ways to promote environmentally friendly landscape designs. Guidelines on landscape code writing are needed so aesthetic and envir onmental needs are both met in neighborhood pond landscapes.
72 Economic Concern Previous studies indicate economic concern s associated with residential landscape styles M oney and t ime might be barriers to residents adopting ecologically beneficial landscap es (Hurd & Smith, 2005 ). The yard could account for about 15 % of a home's worth, and well kept lawns could promote home values ( Bormann et al. 2001 ; Carpenter & Meyer, 1999c ). The association between manicured landscape style and home value prevented the adoption of environmentally friendly landscape styles in neighborhoods. However, there are ways to use improved design techniques to create landscapes that promote home values. Improvement in landscape expenditures could increase property value. Plant siz e and design sophistication are al so associated with home value (Behe et al. 2005; Niemiera, 2007) In addition, homeowners were willing to invest substantial amounts of money for their preferred landscape type (Heiss, 2007) and homeowners are willing to choose higher cost, well designed native plant gardens other than lawn yards (Helfand et al., 2006). Industry Standards Uniformity of lawn maintenance exists in residential landscape s in many communities. Lawn s are preferred because they are relatively eas y to maintain F ertilizer use on the lawn s has potential to be reduced to protect the watershed. As Bo rman n et al. (2001) noted the marketing strategy of the fertilizer industry includes convincing people of the need for repeated fertilizer applications t o the turf yard. The concept of the green lawn and the removal of grass clippings create the need for constant fertilizer application : fertilizers are necessary to make up for the nutrients lost
73 in removal so that the grass can be green. In addition, c olle cting grass clippings is an important way to reduce organic waste input to the stormwater systems. Summary of Literature Review R esidential stormwater ponds were created to control and store stormwater runoff, and to support stormwater on site treatment. B ased on preferred aesthetic norm s for water and turf, the ponds were marketed as lakes to residents and designed with turf down to the water edge. Neighborhood regulations typically maintain the visual quality of neighborhood landscapes However, t he mai ntenance required for this particular landscape style contribute s to n utrient accumulation in stormwater ponds due to fertilizer applications N utrient loading affected the functional performance of stormwater ponds, and also affected their aesthetic and e conomic benefits. A lgae bloom and plant overgrowth facilitated by nutrient loading create s challenges for pond management. Policy makers have already started to regulate landscape practices (such as fertilizer use restriction) in watershed areas and launch ed social marketing campaigns to promote environmentally based landscape practices for environmental protection.
74 CHAPTER 3 METHODS My study was an action research that aims to improve future actions by evaluating earlier, similar changes in physical env ironments, policies and the way of decision making. T he goal of action research is to solve real problems ( Groat & Wang 2001; Zeisel, 2006). My study explored design improvements in neighborhood pond designs to solve problem s seeking intersections betwe en visual quality and stormwater ponds. My study explore d opportunities to address current neighborhood pond problems using design techniques. A comprehensive understanding of the issue is needed and homeowners are an important information source (Walker et al., 2010) Therefore, my study use d q ualitative research meth od s to get a more holistic understanding of the situation rather than getting generalized data. A q ualitative research method is needed to learn the perceptions and preferences of homeowners on ponds and especially how these perceptions and preferences form ed Q ualitative method s are also needed to explore how visual quality and environmental function could be aligned in pond designs from the perspectives of designers and managers By gett ing a more comprehensive understanding of the issue, we can better explore design strategies that might be visually pleasing while improving environmental functions The philosophical approach of my study was naturalism which has the basic ontological pre mise that there are multiple realities and the realities are socially constructed The corresponding epistemological position is that establishing a value free objectivity is neither possible nor necessarily desirable Naturalism researchers identify the v alue and reality of the
75 interactions among participants or between researcher and participants ( Groat & Wang 2001). The primary data collection method of my study was interviewing, including focus group interview s and in depth personal interview s in the c ase study Focus group interviews were conducted to explore preference for neighborhood pond landscapes and plant species. Personal interviews were conducted in the case study to learn design and management techniques that could improve the de sign of residential stormwater ponds from the perspectives of landscape designers and pond managers The secondary data collection method of this research was literature review and a reportorial study on municipal codes. I used reportorial study to learn h ow current codes address stormwater pond landscapes and how we can improve stormwater landscape codes based on results from the focus group and case studies Part I: Focus G roup S tudy Focus group interview studies are a planned discussion that aims at gett ing perceptions on a certain interest area in a permissive and comfortable environment. It is useful for getting specific types of information difficult to obtain by other techniques (Krueger, 1988). In a focus group interview, we can explore the perceptio ns and experiences of a group of people who have common experience toward a situation (Kumar, 2011). The disadvantage of mail and telephone surveys and even face to face interviews is that they all assume that individuals know how they feel. A further assu mption is that people create opinions in isolation. Evidence from focus group study indicates that people influence each other with their opinions and in the process of discussions. Also, the opinions of an individual may shift. The focus group analyst can learn more about how shift s happened and the nature of the factors associated with the
76 change (Krueger, 1988). Authenticity rather than reliability is an important issue in qualitative study. Qualitative resea rch is supposed to get an authentic understand ing of people's experiences and open ended que stions are effective toward this end. Qualitative interview research often involves a small sample size and the relationships between interview er and interviewee are defined in political terms rather than sci entific ones (Silverman, 1993). My study included five focus group interviews in two master planned communities in Southwest Florida from July 2010 to May 2011. Each focus group interview lasted about 2 hours. Four of the focus group interviews were condu cted in a community building conference room and a fifth group met at a residence. We selected participants primarily through snowball sampling, meaning that residents recommended other residents they thought would be interested in the issue of the ponds a nd landscaping. A total of 38 residents ( including 23 male and 15 female participants ) joined the interview discussions. Among them 29 participants lived in houses with a pond view, 27 participants lived in pond waterfront houses, and 21 participants were on neighborhood committees. The first focus group had a main guided session; for each of the other four focus group interviews there was a main guided session and an individual plant photo survey session. Each focus group discussion was guided by one mod erator with one to three additional research team members participating in the interview discussion. During the main session the moderator used an interview guide to lead the discussion by asking the residen ts the following questions: 1) likes/dislikes ab out their neighborhood; 2) perceptions and preference towa rd neighborhood landscapes; 3) their experiences with landscaping practices including fertilizer
77 application; 4) their knowledge of the nutrient connection to pond problems; 5) what they liked about the pond; 6) their observations of the characteristics of the pond; 7) their understanding of stormwater pond function; and 8) their communication among/with other residents, within their neighborhood association, and with their landscapers. Shor eline photos. Shoreline photo sessions were integrated into the main group discussion. R esidents were shown five shoreline photos and asked to comment on each shoreline photos. Figure 4 1 A shows a manicured landscape clean water edge, and no shoreline pla ntings; Figure 4 1 B shows well maintained plantings and trees; Figure 4 1 C shows sparse plantings in water; Figure 4 1 D shows well maintained d iverse plantings and trees; and Figure 4 1 E shows overgrown plants and weeds. Individual plant photos. During the individual plant photo sessions, participants were divided into two to three groups E ach research team member was assigned to a group to guide the photo sorting process and discussion. During the individual plant photo session participants were shown e ight individual wetland plant photos ( Figure 4 2 ) They were also asked to sort individual plant photos based on their aesthetic preferences. After sorting photos, residents were asked to provide reasons for their choices. Focus group interviews. The focu s group interviews were audio recorded during the main group discussions and during the plant preference photo survey. An open coding method using Nvivo 9 software was used to analyze 412 pages of transcripts.
78 Open coding was used to explore the data fo r all potentials and possibilities. Concepts were developed using i nterpretive conceptual labels that were attached to sections of data after investigating the meanings and contexts. As more concepts are created, some concepts might share common properties Then higher level concepts can be made to represent certain concepts. The highest level of concepts is themes, which include s lower level concepts Lower level concepts provide higher level concepts with detail and power of description (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). My study used an inductive approach to make transcript data reveal underlying concepts and themes. The techniques of qualitative research are looping rather than linear. Researchers should first learn from the data and then revisit steps taken befo re that generated understanding (Richards, 2009) My study also developed a memo writing routine to encourage quick and easy records of ideas. A m analysis, such as thoughts on themes that ap pear to be dominating the transcript statements (Richards, 2009) The codes and themes emerged from the data, and the data itself were reviewed repeatedly since q ualitative data analysis is a cyclical coding process. A code book was developed to establish the definition of each code and the associated transcript contents. For example, the theme "aesthetics" was defined as people's perceptions and preferences on the appearance of objects. Among the topics u "water aesthetics" was defined as people's perceptions and preferences on the appearance of pond water. Among the topics under aesthetics "open water view" was defined as people's preference for an unobstructed open view across water and a a lot of people like
79 they like the view and the y want to look across the water The use of a code book with code definitions and examples is to maintain the consistency of the coding process Part II : Case Study I used case study to explore the design parameters used to satisfy aesthetic and functional needs and how these parameters could be integrated in the pond designs. As Yin (2008) said replication is important for mu ltiple case studies. Each individual case study consists of a whole study and convergent information is evaluated from the results of the case. The case studies consisted of four personal interviews that each lasted around 1 hour. Two landscape designers and two landscape/pond managers were interviewed from Feb 2011 to April 2012. A n interview guide was used to lead the participants discussion asking the following questions : 1 ) what problems are encountered with the shoreline plantings 2 ) what solutions are there to the problems 3 ) what efforts are used to balan ce between visual quality and environmental function in the design of the plantings 4 ) plant material selection considerations and process 5 ) plant arrangement considerations 6 ) economi c considerations such as plant maintenance expense 7 ) c onsiderations on plant survivability 8 ) feedback from residents and 9 ) suggestions for future stormwater system design. The case study interviews were audio recorded. Interview comments from profess ionals were divided into categories established in the focus group interview study to facilitate comparison in analysis. Part III : Code Study The code study was a review of codes to compare results from the focus group and case studies to explore ways to improve the codes for residential stormwater pond
80 design. L ocal codes from municipalities including counties and cities were selected from a website that contains a database of municipal codes ( www.municode.com ) S election was conducted based on the availability of municipal codes from the website. M unicipalities in Florida and surrounding states in Southeast were selected first, and then municipalities in other states. The municipalities were in 12 states: Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington (Figure 3 1) During the selection process, priorities were given to mun icipalities with populations more than 300, 000 ba sed on the 2010 U.S. census A total of 104 municipalities were reviewed Among them, 74% of the municipalities were in four southeastern states: Florida, A labama, Tennessee, and Georgia. The codes were reviewed for further analysis; those that mentioned e ither landscaping or engineering criteria for stormwater ponds were retained for further review and the rest of the codes were excluded. Stormwater design manuals mentioned reference was used in this study to denote those manuals. Municipal codes from 46 municipalities were selected for analysis ( Table 3 1 ) Among them, 80% of the municipalities were in four southeastern states: Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia. The content of each municip al code that addressed stormwater pond landscapes was input into a spreadsheet database using Microsoft Excel 2010 software The information was categorized using themes found i n the focus group interview study. The code review helps understand how curre nt codes addressed stormwater pond
81 landscapes By comparison with the focus group and case studies we can find how the municipal codes should be improved to meet current needs for those landscapes
82 Table 3 1 List of regions t hat addressed landscaping or engineering standards for stormwater ponds in municipal codes Number Region State Number Region State 1 Alachua C ounty FL 24 Paducah KY 2 Gainesville FL 25 Athens Clarke County GA 3 Sarasota C ounty FL 26 Atlanta GA 4 Maitla nd FL 27 Savannah GA 5 Miami Dade C ounty FL 28 Byron GA 6 Miami FL 29 Carroll County GA 7 Orange County FL 30 Gainesville GA 8 Jacksonville FL 31 Kingsland GA 9 Pensacola FL 32 Charleston County SC 10 Tampa FL 33 Foley AL 11 Hillsborough County FL 34 Gadsden AL 12 Panama City FL 35 Irondale AL 13 Palm Beach FL 36 Mountain Brook AL 14 Manatee County FL 37 Orange Beach AL 15 Pinecrest FL 38 Trussville AL 16 Collier C ounty FL 39 Brandon MI 17 Gulfport FL 40 Pittsburg PA 18 Sunny Isles Beach FL 4 1 Long Beach NY 19 Farragut TN 42 Westfield MA 20 Franklin TN 43 Fall River MA 21 Gallatin TN 44 Seattle WA 22 Knoxville TN 45 Coupeville WA 23 Mt. Juliet TN 46 Los Angeles County CA
83 Figure 3 1 Municipalities evaluated in the code study ( P hot o source: maps.google.com)
84 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The results of the focus group study, case studies and code study were organized using theme s generated by the focus group stud y. The organization is to facilitate a comparison between the focus group and c ase studies and the code requirements. Part I: Focus G roup S tudy The coding process of the focus group transcrip ts generated seven topic themes: 1) aesthetics, 2) management, 3) knowledge, 4) economics, 5) nature, 6) design, and 7) policy. T he themes of a esthetics, economics, nature, design, and policy are primarily aesthetic considerations while the themes of management and knowledge are under the environmental function category (Table 4 1). Issues unde r each theme are also provided. A more detailed descr iption of the main issues that collectively created the themes is useful to gain some insight into the level of concern participants expressed for each theme and the connection s they observed among the themes. Studying individual comments is also helpful to understand how individuals per ceive their actions and beliefs to contribute to the problem and how they could also be a solution to the problem. Theme Aesthetics A esthetic issues in guided discussion sessions and photo surveys are summarized in Table 4 2. The importance of aesthetics is illustrated by one participant who, at the e nd of one focus group interview said : from what these, it appears to me that everything is visual c olor . R esidents
85 high ly valued the aesthetics of water in neighborhood landscape s The aesthetics of vegetation was also mentioned in terms of height, color, and maintained appearance The preference for well kept landscape was addressed by participants. The main issues for ae sthetics are presented below. Open water view with no algae in water Residents said they selected their lot because they wanted to overlook a lake : We picked our lot because it was on the lake. We wanted to overlook a lake. So that was a driving force fo r us. We just liked that peaceful feeling, sitting out there watching the lake b asically watching Mother Nature Participants liked a clear view across the lake : I enjoy the aspect of the lake, looking out across the lake Residents also preferred an op en water view with turf down to water edge : aesthetic thing for them they like the view and the y want to look across the water Residents favored c lean pond water with no alg ae : except for the algae it looks terrible and it leaves a very unfavorable impression ; when relatives come do L ow vegetation on the shoreline ( to allow water view ) was preferred by participants who said up being a barrier to my view of the lake w hich was what the reason I moved here for w high ; the short ones Participants were concerned the plant growth might obstruct water view or cover the pond area : ruin the view of the lake if you put that kind of
86 going to be an t cover a large percentage of the water. She is glad that her littoral plants paid for the water view ; One of the major complaints I get is with the ponds and the water across the street from me just undergro wth and Participants also mentioned the different perspectives toward water view: Participant 21 : we have a neighbor who planted a row of Wax Myrtles in front you know So, why did you buy on a lake? Participant 16 : That makes no sense to me. Participant 21 : It makes no sense to me. Participant 16 Plant aesthetics T he aesthetic preference for shoreline vegetation also includes plant characteristics such as non weedy looking, colorful, and evergreen plants The aesthetics of turf was valued by participants ; one resident said beautiful lawns, beautiful landscaping, and beautiful lakes Participants disliked turf to be brown ( due to water irrigation restriction policy ) saying e having trouble with their turf grass keep i t looking nice it tends to go into a dormant brown stage Participants said that trees make a landscape attractive here, I like some of the trees here B ut some participants disliked deciduous trees in pond landscape : Participant 25 : I the year. You know, in Florida you want Participant 28 : Yeah.
87 Participant 25 : A deciduous tree Participant 28 : It looks like all out of place for lake decoration. Participants liked a ttractive plants with flowers saying ; love flowering things ; the littoral pl antings in behind my house blooming all the time, but they were very pretty Residents also preferred diverse plantings that allow water view s : obviously there are spots for it just the color, the texture, the height. There interesting but n ot great enough to block a view T hey liked self contained plants and were concerned about th e spreading of shoreline plants : Because I like things natural, but they look like Well kept landscape Participants liked a maintain ed landscape in the this place is just beautifully m aint ained and struck me initially m aintained in terms of landscaping, well kept here, was the planned community c ommon areas are well maintained perceptions toward shoreline settings were diverse, m os t people said they disliked landscapes to be unkept : be taken care of Research results from this study agreed with Nassauer et al. (2009) that perceived care is associated with residential la ndscape preference ; landscapes showing no indication of upkeep would be perceived as unattractive. Shoreline p hoto survey C omments from residents on shoreline p hotos ( Figure 4 1 ) showed that participants generally prefe rre d a well maintained but natural looking pond landscape with a variety of plant species and characteristics ( such as colors and textures )
88 Residents emphasized that the plants were under control (meaning well maintained) in the high pre ference photos ( Figure 4 1 B, D ). In F igure 4 1 D, r esidents also liked the park like environment (well organized) diverse plantings, mature trees, and man made material at the shoreline saying looks like, it reminds me of very well cared for and controlled and has plan tings that are very appropriate it looks like somebody really planned it beautifully. It like is the variety of plants his looks like it h as different types of textures the original the growth looks healthy I very pretty scene. And I do like that seawall I think that would it might help with some of the erosion problems S ome residents were concern ed with plant growth and maintenance expense : looks like very appealing but is it overdone with the right kind of plants or not? t of money to take care of it Residents also mentioned wildlife habitat provided in this setting : some of the water b irds would like this one In Figure 4 1 B, residents mentioned t he water is clean with no algae the trees, and the well controlled natural feeling of the landscape : water looks clean It looks controlled. It looks like they put some work into controlling the gro wth not letting it go too far I like some of the trees here I think the trees, the slope, it looks like a natural slope, it looks like the pond was actually there, instead of man made, and again the grass and everyt
89 real Some residents liked trees while some were concerned trees might block water view. The middle ranked photos ( Figure 4 1 A, C ) have the lowest level of vegetation on site and r esidents described the pond water as clean In Figur e 4 1 A, residents mentioned clean Also they noted the green turf : S ome residents preferred the manicured look : Lakewood Ranch, they are S ome thought the landscape was too manicured and more plantings were needed : "this looks like a very sterile environm ent ured, too artificial I prefer an environment that looks a little more natural Comments on Figure 4 1 C included clean pond water and the turf need ing irrigation : no water ; there is the weeds all through it They were also concern ed about the plantings in the water spread ing : It looks w it looks like i t looks like the plants are kind of taking it over, turning it into swamp. It It looks shallow a nd it ms of more plants I think worse Participants g enerally disliked Figure 4 1E and described it as an unkept and swampy look that made them concerned about property value : looks like it needs work n eeds to be taken care of I t looks messy
90 swampland umber five would detract from the home value. All of us paid a premium if you live on a pond Also, in one interview when the moderator asked if participants would accept landscapes like Figure 4 1E if the water quality of the receiving water and pond could be improved, residents were not willing to adopt this style : Moderator: So the last question on these: if you felt like one of these, say, number five, would benefit t he most to the [receiving water name] and your water quality, would that make enough of a difference to accept that as your backyard? Participant 22 (FG3): No. Participant 21 : Probably not. Participant 20 Participant 16 : No. In another interview group residents had a mixed response: Moderator: And what if you knew that number five would make the water the cleanest and the clearest both at the surface level and at the aquifer level? Participant 35 : i [what] the bottom line would be Participant 36 fine. [laughing] Participant 37 : I would go for it and then I would make my landscaping hide it. Individual plant survey C omments on individual plant photos ( Figure 4 2 ) were that r esidents generally preferred colorful green foliage, low height and non weedy looking pl ant species in pond landscapes : "I like flowers, although you d all year long we sort of like color preferences seem to be low growing plants that grow in shallow water or on the banks eople seemed to like
91 things that view he lower profile plant la nts on the bank side of the pond away from the house formal than wild One participant also co nsidered wildlife during the session : trees Participants also started to think about plant arrangement during the discussion: Participant D (FG4): It c can see the breeze going through it. The high ranking individual plant photos ( Figure 4 2 C, D, G) were preferred for their large colorful flowers while concern was also shown for plant invasiveness. P articipants said "the white flowers are nice Figure 4 2G pond personally, I just think water lilies are the most gorgeous plan ts in the world if you put them in, in a container . supposedly One participant mentioned her pollen allergy but also said some flowering plants would not cause allergy : never been al lergic to an iris On the middle ranked photos ( Figure 4 2 E, F) residents felt the plants were less likely to spread because of the clumping look and some plants were weedy look ing C omments on low ranking ph otos ( Figure 4 2 B, A, H) were that the plants were too high and had a swampy look. Residents liked plants to be on the pond bank : e like plants on the bank rather than in the water be a balance. So that seems to be our consensus Residents disliked trees in the water ( Figure 4 2 B ) However, in one focus group interview residents
92 originally put the plant photo with trees in the water as less preferred but change d their idea when a r esearch team member asked if the trees were on the pond bank: Participant 36 in the middle of the lake. Participant 38 : Research team member T: If we had the photo showing this tree growing on an upland area ? Participan t 36 : Oh, if that were Do you want to move this one if that on a bank? Participant 38 : On a bank? Yeah. If it were on a bank it would be a different Theme Management Management issues include d maintained natural land scape, algae control, nutrient control, weed and plant growth control, and the neighborhood landscape management program. Maintained natural landscape Participants were partial to natural landscape settings, describing neighborhood landscapes as a contro lled natural setting that include lakes, golf courses and preserves One resident said : T preserves that are completely natural and you know you have all this wildlife the bird s, the deer running arou nd even though, you know, you really nice. S ome residents said they did not desire authentic natural settings, describing them as scrubby and not ve ry appealing : Participant 13: We also talked with homebuilders and developers who would send us pictures of the various places we were considering and I can
93 some of those pict ures, were just so god awful ugly. Scrub, bushes and they were not set up like the d live man where lakes are lakes. Moderator: So you are saying you kind of prefer the true scrub? All: No! Participant 13: No! No, I did not. We would never have bought down here if I mean, bought here was the way that this lake looked for example. Algae control Participants mentioned their observation of algae blooms and treatments : long term ed the algae and just sprayed the devil out of it I would much rather them remove it manually than spray. much nitrogen into the lakes Concern was raised on the envir onmental impact of algae control chemicals : this constant treatment with copper sulfate is eventually going to precipitate out; eventually copper, which can now become detrimental to living organisms Parti cipants also linked pond management to aesth etic value: beauty Knowledge of maintenance practices was also mentioned by one participant who served on the neighborhood landscape committee: Maintenance in these ponds is tough. You want the environment to do as much as it can do. Talk to most of the neighbors on the street and they have no idea that all this work has been going on behind the scenes to try to get the maintenance of the ponds back and the preserves back up to a self sustaining level.
94 Nutrient control Participants mentioned the need to control nutrient loading in ponds : nonsense of people ourselves can do it to develop areas like this [planted area] with the main intent of getting nitrogen out of the lakes Weed and plant growth control Also, weed control and plant overgrowth were neighborhood common ar One participant mentioned a successful case of residents working together to maintain pond shoreline plantin gs and all the plants and wildlife that constitute a healthy pond to them: We have wonderful underwater plants on the back of our house; everybody else goes down and cuts the water plants that come to the edge. The invasive ones I get rid of too, but the know what plants are underwater b very happy underwater pl s o I think ulfate in there in probably four years. Communication between homeowners and landscapers Participants mentioned their communication with landscapers varied some followed the fertilizer rules ; others lacked enough English language skills to communicate a nd they felt some did not have the knowledge to do appropriate landscape maintenance. Participants said dangerous ind that the landscapers I mean all I feel like they really know how to do is s were mentioned to be a problem in easy to go in the opposite direction and
95 Theme Knowledge Main issues in the knowledge theme included 1) lack of knowledge, 2) no interest in topic and 3) perceived lack of information. Lack of knowledge A few participants noticed the connection between landscape activities (fertilizer application) and algae growth : into the lakes is a tremendou s g rowth affect for the algae Some make the connection A few participants understood the impact of fertilizers and algae control chemicals on water quality : everybody: that eventuall y it (pollutants) gets to the gulf if you go far enough I n one interview discussion some participants started to speculate on the environmental function s provided by shoreline plantings such as nutrient uptake and provision of wildlife habitat, since p lants in natural system s occur for a reason : Participant 9 water in some way? Moderator: What made you think that that was a possibility? Participant 9 a natural thing then you know, evolve for a reason they must have a purpose to grow in the water. Moderator: Let me just ask the question, what would be the benefit then to having a landscape with more plants on it in your mind, what would it ? Participant 9 it makes the water cleaner, better in some way cleaner? You said you hoped it would be. Participant 8 : Are those like natural occurring plants then that would grow? Moderator: I know that we picked them because they are native species.
96 Participant 8 : And they go in there themselves, or someone planted them in there? Moderator: In all of these cases, I think they are pl anted. Participant 8 made lakes? Moderator: Yeah. Participant 8 : So it would be a long time then for it to have to happen naturally? Moderator: But you mentioned one benefit of these plants is you would hope it makes the water cleaner. Anybody else? Participant 14 : Well, I understood that it make that particular body of water cleaner, but [and] how that body of water flows into the bigger body, and in the river and into the Gulf, the whole business ,so that just a few well chosen plants Participant 11 wildlife were to come. Starting with with bees and birds and all those other things. Some residents understood th lot of thes e lakes are all man made he bonus been telling people more 'holding ponds' as opposed to 'aesthetic ponds' T with the flooding One parti cipant who served on the landscape committee explained the association between pond location and algae bloom: t pretty good situation. Participants also mentioned they were experiencing a learning process living in wa terfront neighborhoods: Participant 18 : The real main reason for having these plantings around the lake for the water quality control. For the environment of fish and animals in there. I mean, who use these reed areas as breeding areas and things. I
97 here. I think that if they want to maintain the control of the water quality, they should all have this type of planting or some type of planting around the lake. Or at lea st where the water flows into the lake Participant 18 : I think we all learn from experience what we like. When we first moved here, that would have sold me Participant 16 : Right. Participant 18 : I mean, you live here 5 year s you see things mature; trees grasses, and lakes mature you learn. No interest in topic One participant said he had no interest in pond plantings : I icularly care for these plants P articipants said some of their neighbors were not interested in pond landscaping: Participant 16 : S They want everything done for them, they live in a maintenance [Participant K], might do it. We get sever al other neighbors who do our own stuff, but I would say the multitude of our people just Participant 18 Participant 16 Participant 18 : T Perceived l ack of information L ack of scientific information on whether littoral plantings could help with the nutrient reduction and algae control was also mentioned by some residents : posed to cut down on the algae One participan t doubted the effectiveness of using plants for nutrient filtering : because it would certainly help runoff, so the lakes really are wa ter from everywhere. All the common areas think it would stop much.
98 Also, one participant wondered about the effectiveness and the cost of using plantings for nutrient remov al : R esidents did a complete landscape makeover using a Florida Friendly landscape plan and one of the things that they did was to put in a border and edging around their lake that would help filter the fertilizers and what have you that go, to preve nt them from going into the pond as quickly. how effective it has been or how costly it is Participants mentioned they could not find appropriate documentation showing the water quality of their ponds, saying they were making assumption s about th e use of chemicals in the water: Participant 22 : I s there a lot of pesticides going into the lakes and the ponds. You know, those kinds of things. We make these assumptions but Participant 21 : Right. Pa rticipant 19 : Right Participant 22 : but what could happen, is if we knew the quality of the water, if we had some way to take a some information w e should sure as hell can say, chemical because every lake now has that chemical in it. that now without some kind of documentation. Participant 16 : we do have covena nts for almost everything. The Theme Economics The e conomic theme addressed in the focus group interviews included property values and maintenance funding Property value Both pond and grass were mentioned to be associated with property value : And yes it is very important to our property va lue. Both the grass and the pond, righ I think the priority is, when you think of the value of the house is, so you want to keep your yard looking nice. And if there was a
99 balance between the fertilizer and the pond proble ms, I think everyone would go for it, but I think you have to look out for the value of your house Participants related property value to visual water quality, mentioning the premium they had paid to purchase on a pond and the devaluation of homes with a lgae blooms They emphasized the importance of property value wh en talking about yard and pond problems : One resident also said they were not getting value for the expense they pa id for the property because of the pond problem : many of us did pay a premium to get the exposure, the beautiful ting what we paid for basically Maintenance funding One participant mentioned maintenance funding when expressing his feeling about neighborhood pond maintenance : we all contribute to that budget [neighborhood maintenance budget] in terms of the way of our property taxes. One p articipant mentioned the limited maintenance funding for algae control : it [algae manual removal] and then decided it was too expensive and so they stopped Some residents said the neighborhoods are short of landsc ape funding to maintain the pond : When asked if neighbors would support shoreli ne plantings, one resident said m anything I think they would The imbalan ce of neighborhood maintenance funding between land areas and pond areas was mentioned by a participant who also serve d as neighborhood landscape committee member: Participant 35 : I remember one of the early landscape meetings I went to they compare d the amount of money spent in landscaping versus the
100 amount of money to take care of the ponds and it was absolutely landscape dollars up here, pond dollars down here and, I mean, yeah, people really notice the ponds Participant 38 : Mm hmm. [sound of agr eement] Participant 35 : And water is beautiful and supposedly the more expensive views are the water views, so that was interesting. We were Theme Nature Participants like d desirable wildlife in neighborhoods but disliked wildlife they characterized as undesirable. However, there was not complete agreement on which types of wildlife were desirable and which were un desirable. Landscape maturity was also mentioned in discuss ions that described changes over time. Desirable wildlife Participants liked to see wildlife in pond areas, mentioning the cran es, birds, turtles, and deer : it does have a nice population of birds I am thoroughly enjoying all the wildlife, the cranes, the different kinds of birds, the turtle s that show up in our backyard why you have a pond Mainly the wildlife it brings in. I just love living on the pond because you see all different k ind of birds and occasionally we have deer One resident associated wildlife and nature watching with aesthetics saying the herons and egrets created a wonderful, aesthetic ally pleasing atmosphere : the birds t he herons and egrets kind of pleasing atmosphere Undesirable wildlife Undesirab le wildlife was also mentioned by residents : I thought my main problem if I was living on the lake would be just watchin g for an all igator or something Not so thrilled about the alligator that we saw this morning O ne participant disliked a wildlife species that was preferred by other participants :
101 need to get the pelicans out and some participants liked wildlife that were dis liked by others : cross the roads at night it's very interesting and Landscape maturity Landscape maturity was also mentioned by participants : ng downhill hings are getting old where the place is starting to mature now During one focus group discussion resident s mentioned maturity to describe their impres sion of the current neighborhood landscape: Moderator: W hen you think about [neighborhood name] and the typical landscape what first comes to mind? Participant 34 Moderator: O K Participant 34 ticularly the lakes but the whole area. Plants are mat uring, trees are getting bigger The lakes are 10 years ago. A lot more fertilizers going in to the lakes. So I think just the age, the tenure, the age of the community is starting to show. Moderator: Does anybody have something to add? Participant 27 : T which d thing. Our trees are getting to be more beautiful maturation process that is going to be important to the future. Participant 29 12 years as I sai d before, and the landscape thought process that went in in the beginning was not thought out we ll or researched in my opinion. Participant 25 : I think the maturation is kind of a mixed thing. as I look nicely. When I first moved in there were just a few things there and you
102 w hen we look out the back yard which is very attractive. But then there are neighborhood is going to spend over seven thousand dollars to get rid of to put in something rational. I think some places it looks kind of nice and Theme Design Planting design and pond design issues were mentioned by participants Most were concerned with the quality of plantings and the engineered characteristics of the pond. Plan ting design P lant height was a concern for many residents and participants preferred low shoreline plantings ( as mentioned previously under the theme of aesthetics ) One participant noticed that by not having plantings in the pond they could enjo y the w ater but have birds coming and : We deliberately bought a lot on a lake that has no plants because of my allergies. And the pond next to us is loaded and their stuff is encroaching ir water plants are taking over but birds th at they get with the grasses so off. The quantity of plantings was mentioned by one participant : water lilies there, a few of which are really pretty and a few reeds which softens the edges, makes it look nice One resident said plant arrangement techniques used appropriately, could maintain the look of turf and the plantings and open water view : If you totally stop fertilizing the banks and leave the grass, then eventually the grass is going to die. So what you do is create these beds around them. series of beds. But that cou ld make the lakes look very, very attractive. However, one resident opposed the idea of plantings because of the issues of undesirable wildlife and aesthetics:
103 lead [to] snake s and all that getting in there and just lying there and it becomes dangerous. And I think this is probably the worst solution you could ever come up with. Health issues were also a concern; one participant mentioned they lived on a lake with no plants be cause of allergies. Pond engineering design Engineering design was also mentioned R esidents associated pond depth with algae bloom occurrences : lakes are just too shallow and the sun heats that shallow water up very quic ost of the lak es are deeper than what we have he The Participants also mentioned the potential need to use engineering method s to modify the current pond: Participant 1 : The problem is, to me, the lakes were erroneously dubbed to show. And if they were 10 to 20 the place until the cows because the lakes are deep then, the original solution is to bring the Participant 3 : Dr e dgers. Participant 1 : Yeah, bring the dr e dgers back and re dig the lakes and start all over again. P articipan ts associated their pond locations ( downstream of the neighborhood pond system ) with algae growth : We do have some problems with that one from time to time particularly in the lower, shallower ends and will get algae blooms in there ithin the commun ity of [neighborhood name] we so we get algae treatment every couple of months if not more often Participants also associated pond depth, slope, size, and location wit h algae growth:
104 Participant 21 : I have not noticed any specific events like that but typically as we move through the late spring and the summer, as the temperatures in the winte get bad the W e try to get the landscapers to not mow into the lake, you know, take two passes, throw it up hill. Sometimes you have good luck with that, somet Participant 18 Participant 21 : But certainly the slope of the lake bank, the depth of the pond, the composition of the soil, the size of the lake, all those things; s going to have a lot of effect One partic ipant said his pond had little algae growth : unlike most of other neighborhood ponds, the pond had vegetation around the shorelines. He thought the pond engineering characteristics ( such as pond depth and size ) might b e the reason other ponds had algae problems : W which is fairly unusual. So we have relatively few algae blooms, but we really like the lot, the view, the exposure, the lake free there have been fish kills and other things due more to mother nature there are a lot of other lakes that are at a different part of the sequencing scheme that are, you know, smaller, shallower, so the water temperature varies more and it really is very problematic to keep those lakes fairly clean looking and aesthetically pleasin g. Theme Policy Landscape regulations and neighborhood politics were mentioned by participants in the focus group discussion. Florida Friendly landscapes, fertilizer policies, and neighborhood landscape codes were discussed. Landscape regulation Some part icipants were aware of the state wide landscape policy regardin g Florida W e have a split ; Florida friendly in the fron t and we have grass in the back
105 look at the new pallet that they put out with mor e fr iendly, Florida Friendly things W e have a pretty good description of Florida Friendly landscape in our HOA. the plant list that we have now is very Florida Friendly or iented W e also were aware that the state legislature mandated all the HOA Friendly my wife decided so now we have a Florida Friendly yard Municipal fertilizer restriction policy were also mentioned by residents, one participant did not understand the reason for for that? Some participants understood the policy as mentioned in the discussion : Participant 4 n certain months. Participant 4 : Certain months, is that what it is? Participant 3 : Yes . between When asked if residents support t he neighborhood fertilizer restriction, one resident said people could not make a decision since the impact to other elements were unknown, including the aesthetics : mean the grass is all going to brown, turn yellow? Without any more information, how Neighborhood landscape codes were mentioned to maintain current looks of neighborhood landscapes while others did not appreciate the policies : r regulated but if you go down to some older neighborhoods Neighborhood politics Inequity was an issue S ome participants mentioned their ponds h ad been neglected in their neighborhood, saying:
106 that the lakes which the public sees, are always kept very clean One participant thought the neighborhood overspent funding on entrance areas: W e had a lot of development w ork done at the entrance to the [sub neighborhood name] and they overspent their budget by $89,000 dollars Sunshine Law, and these guys have to tell you if you ask the questions, they have to share with you the information I want to know if they are not budgeting more money for our lakes and I want to know why because they need to take care of it. The neighborhood golf course was mentioned in the inequity issue : keep the golf course looking so green for these places making profit P articipants also mentioned the pon whether the attention is given to those or whether because of their situation or because of their location, they are less prone to the development of these algae overtaking of the lakes themselves One participant considered problem solving as a process of finding experts and pushing through political progress: And if there are people who are qualified to and there must be peo ple out there who are qualified to deal with it and to figure out what the reasons for the problem are. Then, once those people are brought into the situation . ve the resources, our money of course. Residents said the ownership and maintenance of the pond and shoreline area were the responsibility of neighborhood Community Development Districts (CDDs) and they had limited control : Participant 1 : ow if they would allow us [as] a neighborhood property. How can we do anything to district property? Participant 2 : This is what I was telling you about politics.
107 Summary of t he F ocus G roup Study In summary, when participants talked about aesthetics, they mentioned plant characteristics including plant color, height, location, and type (c lumping). Residents wanted to integrate visual quality into neighborhood ponds O ne partici pant commented on Figure 4 1E ( described t hat is a pure storm retention pond Management concerns included algae control, weed or plant control, and a non weedy look Knowledge was an issue since residents either la ck ed it or showed no interest in plantings. There was concern for property value and wildlife. Some participants felt design could improve the algae problem and some thought policy was not helping, but it could be a way to solve problems. Part II : Case S t udy R esults from case studies are summarized in Table 4 3. T hemes from the focus group study: 1) aesthetics, 2) management, 3) knowledge, 4) economics, 5) nature, 6) design, and 7) policy and neighborhood politics were used to organize the comments of the interview participants. The purpose of using the themes established by the focus group study was to compare issues that concern residents with issues that concern designers and managers responsible for creating and managing the stormwater facilities. Them e Aesthetics Designers and managers mentioned aesthetic considerations in stormwater system design and management, including the main issues of open water view, well kept landscape and guiding new aesthetics. Open water view Pond managers and landscape d esigners said residents liked an open water view which concurred with participants in the focus group study, who
108 said S ome of these people have been here for 10 years or more like the plants in the lake, anything around the lake t anything with any height that would block t hey wanted to be able to see through the park Algae bloom in residential stormwater system s was also mentioned by a designer : T he algae bloomed and the water was horrible One manager sa id residents disliked the water level view when the water was too We get actually more complaints especially this time of the year because of water levels being too low and some people expect us to change that. Other people rea Managers also said residents liked pond shorelines with grass to the water and disliked plants spreading in the pond : a small group of people who are very vocal abo ut how much they hate lilies [water lilies] and how lilies are tak ing over the whole neighborhood Well kept landscape One pond manager said it was difficult to use hardy species in neighborhood ponds because some hardy species were weedy looking and un attractive to residents : I think Cordgrass is a good choice. I use Cordgrass and Fakahatchee grass an erosion problem at the top of the bank, or the water is channelizing between two houses, the velocity is coming up we put 3 to 5 Cord g rass in and it usually blocked it spreads the water out stops like Cordgrass because they do Guiding new aesthetics O ne pond manage r had already thought about guiding aesthetic preferences of homeowners saying there is a need to reframe or relabel what looks attractive The manager said there might be opportunities to r edefine aesthetics financially because p eople might change their perceptions if they understood the new landscape style cou ld bring them financial benefit:
109 Manager T: I f we can slowly prevent erosion with plant ings, people who perceive that if erosion gets worse, the asso ciation $ 50, 000 to re grade and re enforce that bank. All of a sudden those plants that used to look Manager T: And even some and I am here for a second hand for the association president, the pe ople who really ey were confronted with we need to keep the plants here to reduce the erosion, or we can put the geo tube in and i gonna cost you $ 2000 and s till probably need some plants they decided tha t the plants looked pretty good I nterviewer : So anyone mentioned about like the maintenance over 20 years, 30 years Manager T : Problem with the geo tube was that the geo tube had a 20 year guarantee on it . But that only guarantee s t he integrity of the material If something else happened, if there is a wash out or any other problems, that t all. They were realizing that the sterile look had some expensive negative consequences in the form of erosion. s o that was an interesting thing to me because I thought people would object arranging their view of ey are acceptable saving that money. Theme Management Pond managers menti oned the role of maintenance in supporting the visual quality of a landscape. W eed control was seen as a challenging maintenance issue. They also mentioned alg ae and fertilizer control the need for low maintenance, and a neighborhood communication mechanism in landscaping. Maintained aesthetics One designer indicated the importance of maintenance there is a little bit of aesthe tic maintenance that needs to occur said I always tell peo ple any time you are putting in dealing with plants you have to weed the plant sometime if y ou are looking for a certain look The manager had to use a mix of non weedy lookin g flowering species, which need
110 more maintenance, and hardy species Mu hly Grass is much prettier than Cordgrass, but Cordgrass is so much thicker and stronger Weed control Weed control was seen as a challenge by designers and managers : Co ntinuous incoming species a relatively large drainage basin. The weed seeds would come through it constantly. It was a huge issue, the maintenance. Water fluctuation ( ) Weed suppression w ith mulch that was another part of the weed problem, was mulch is your one of t Limitation on spraying herbicides e stormwater basins you can spray but you need to be much more careful about what you are using Difficulty of weed control with low growing ou tried to grow a pla nt which was going to be four inches high and surrounded b y weeds that are a foot high e ven if you grouped it, the weeds woul Difficulty of weed control with widely spaced plants ypically when plant stuff with two or three f couple of years . if you plant on one foot centers, you would gre atly reduce the weeds Weed control was mentioned in association with the maintenance of plantings. Professional s said we eds were growing among the plantings or weeds that were higher than low height plantings : reed control amongst the native plant material there, it was difficult to treat the reeds while not affecting some of the more sen sitive plants out there One manager mentioned that defining planting bed boundaries was important to make plants recognizable to maintenance staff when using
111 borders as fencing or something. If you have Cordgrass or shrubs that something was significant on your perimeter that should be an advice Plant control As for plant control, one manager talked about shifting plant selections after a pest problem occurred on a certain pla nt species with mites we are switching species One manager noted the challenge of low water level : we have had problems w ith planting in the water level the water level dropped fast er than we expec ted and the plants are stressed the o the water table quick enough Considering water fluctuations in planting selection another manager said some ponds have water level control structures each lake has the control structure that would always bring it back to a cer tain level after rainfall. So we took that into consideration, how long will some of these plants be inundated. Usually 1 or 2 days One manager also recommended using plant species that could endure fluctuations and install ing plantings before the r ainy season so plants have time to establish : with water level we are always trying to plant just before the rainy season or during the rainy season. So the plants ha ve a time to establish before it goes dry again But the issue of limited time p eriod s for a project was also mentioned as a challenge : m ore and more projects are compressed into a shorter time period Algae and fertilizer control Managers mentioned algae control in pond s and its conflicts with aesthetic preferences for a clean wa ter edge style : plants in the lake anything around the lake. T hey want the grass to the water and preference for clean water with no algae : where the algae builds up T he issue of fertilize r control to improve water quality and reduc e algae growth was mentioned One manager said the problem is there is no
112 mechanism for removing the nutrient s from the po nd system in residential areas and human efforts are needed for nutrient removal : I think the biggest error is that we have littoral zones to sequester nutrients sediments to keep it in t he stormwater ponds rather than go around the creek and coastal the a lot of the lakes I managed because we harvest Tilapia Because Pickerelweed you have to cut it, collect it, harvest it k we have a very good equipment to harvest plants. Now we have very good equipment to harvest fish. One manager also told a story about fertilizer application on pond shoreline, indicating the need for future research on appropriate shoreline fertilizer ap plication: Manager S: I was watching a professional fertilizer applicator spraying liquid fertilizer all over the yard he was spraying all over, and I was taking care of the lake. And he purposefully stayed about 20 or 25 feet away from the lake. An d just spray the area close to the house because this was 10 years ago, and that was not a common practice . So I asked him his answer was . that if I only spray the top part of the backyard, the bo ttom part of the backyard stays green and I can charge for the whole yard. he recognized that if you fertilize the whole yard, the lower part close to the lake was getting over fertilized Manager S: stay s under certain circumstances the runoff factor is very high. Low maintenance Low maintenance was mentioned as a need for stormwater systems One manager empha sized the need for low maintenance design : Ease of maintenance is probably my biggest recomme ndation. Ease of maintenance plant selections that . blooming without a lot of maintenance involved However, one designer emp hasized the importance of maintenance to achieve the designed functions, such as the recreational benefit
113 Communication mechanism One landscape manager talked about difficulties of communication due to the number of landscape contractors and maintenance staff : we had 8 contractors on the property all with slightly different scope of work. I a huge management nightmare . I had to communicate something to be multiplied by eight then imagine any follow up I think o ur landscape contractor employs between 32 and 36, including some of their consultants C ommunication between residents and landscapers was also mentioned S ome have a m aintenance free n eighborhood with a designated contractor maintaining all neighborhood yards while in other neighborhoods residents hire and communicate with their own contractors One here is [are] maintenance free neighborhoods and then the remainder I would sa y probably 80% of the residents in [neighborhood name] are responsible for hiring their own contractors to maintain their lawn unles s they are doing it themselves The manager also mentioned the need to guide residents to make connections so residents kno w more about the function of neighborhood ponds and maintenance service expense s : So what I was attempting to do through those presentations was, one e ducate them on stormwater ponds educated yet. And then two show th em the cost for the services that they were requesting, so I was putting them on the spot a little bit, by saying OK, do you want hand removal algae, wee kly, really do you want that as a service? OK, I can get that cost and I will bring that co st back t o you $20,000 or $30,000 increase they interested. (laughing) So I was able to make that level of service connection. That was one of the main goals. Theme Knowledge Designers and managers mentioned 1) misunderstanding of the neighborhood pond in residents, 2) no interest, 3 ) lack of knowledge in maintenance staff, 4 ) lack of
114 information on plant benefits, 5 ) homeowner/landscaper education, and 6 ) value demonstration to promote designs. Misunderstanding of pond Landscape desig ners and pond managers talked about lack of knowledge in residents and landscape staff O ne manager noted the reason for the misunderstand ing when homeowners kept referring to ponds as lakes : kept referring to, how [it] was sold to them, present ed to them what they bought No interest One manager concurred with comments from the focus group study : they just lite Lack of knowledge Pond managers felt the reason for lack of knowledge in maintenance staff was that the contractors ( who are overseeing the work ) are more knowledgeable but the maintenance work One m anager described the landscapers saying : they are used to mo wing, they are used to trimming But, when they came to this [plantings] there was a lack of know how Lack of information Also, there is a lack of information on appropriate fertilizer usage in shoreline area s and ideal low maint enance shoreline plant species One manager said One manager noted the lack of information on plant nutrient uptake: We were planting in upland area, we were planting wildflowers know they prevent nutrient movement into the water. I mean yes an unmowed section of some grass like Bahia grass, may in fact be a bet ter nutrient buffer to the lake than wildf lowers. E ducation and guidance Managers commented on their communication with residents to increase their knowledge and with landscapers to clarify expectations and
115 provide guidance : one manager said just require clarifying our expe ctations with the contractor : this is what we expect we want this to be treated as a formally maintained area these are some things you guys can do to do a better job Also neighborhood social marketing was mentioned as a tool for ch anging landscaping practices to protect pond water quality The manager also mentioned his guidance to landscapers: been a sit down lesson I been more . you would have to do this please and make And they follow through. And we have a separate lake maintenance contractor And we are about to go back out to bid both of those components both landscape maintenance and lake maintenance. And ther e i s more to be said about that as far as implementing some been adopted in Manatee County that have been adopted in Sarasota County. We are going to implement it with a new landscape contractor and talk about that we are responsible for both lake maintenance and landscape maintenance, we can very quickly draw the connection. Value demonstration to promote designs Landscape designers suggested one technique to promote stormwater designs : us ing comparison to demonstrate potential value so people could have an understanding of future benefits : Designer S: So now you live next to a park, not a retention pond, because th en yield back to higher property taxes and the city can then bring in its revenue over time as these values go up we actually some significant study to show within existing redevelopment option, what would happen there under a redevelopment opt ion that had no stormwater plan how much of the site would have to come in and be put for to stormwater r etention Interviewer: By making this comp arison you can persuade people. Designer S:
116 Theme E conomics Designers and managers mentioned economic issues: 1) property value 2) maintenance funding 3) plant maintenance pricing, and 4) maintenance volunteer Property value Pond managers said residents are concerned about property value and stormwater ponds one manager said : is property value One manager said the value of plantings has no basis in the property value calculation in the real estate indust ry : O ne person even came up with a figure, like 0,000 decrease in my property value [if plantings were installed] We are like, well this is a information that led you to believe that was a $20,000 decrease well you know, my cousin is a real estate agent . talking [saying] . basis t he facts th just like a big picture out here in [neighborhood name] iving out of the anger that w e have to deal with this property value an d investment on the property and any item that the [neighborhood name] districts responsible for maintaining affecting your property value Maintenance funding Both landscape designers and pond manager s mentioned the lack of maintenance funding as a challenge in maintaining stormwater pond landscapes. I nfrequent maintenance caused by insufficient f unding would greatly increase difficulties in weed control. One designer mentioned the need for sufficient maintenance funding: As a designer I think you need to work closely with your client and get them to a part of the budget I think this would be a more successful project if you reduce the scope of the design, so what you did in design was appropriately maintai ned than have a large scope plan but not gonna to be maintained. Plant maintenance pricing One c hallenge in promoting plantings in the pond was that maintenance of planting s was higher priced than turf : they price out their jobs
117 it is for maintenance of that land scape Maintenance volunteer To reduc e maintenance expense, one designer there is no budget for maintenance. Could they kind of come up with a volun teer system or they maintain it . it would be difficul t Theme Nature Designers and managers mentioned the need to incorporate natural aesthetics into residential stormwater system design. They also mentioned biodiversity, landscape maturity, and undesirable wildlife. Natural aesthetics Designers emphasized said landscape design is a representation of a natural system : it is representing the natural system more than it is actually a natural system look at it as a true restoration a little bit more of an aesthetic planting that still functions One designer also mentioned the human need for a garden look rather than It [plant grouping] give s us more of a garden look as opposed to what you find in n human aesthetics One manager confirmed the focus group study results that residents disliked a swamp looking pond with plant overgrowth in the pond : Biodiversity One p ond manager felt that residents preferred a homogeneous look in neighborhood landscapes : they like single species of plant s that are really homogeneous they like everything the same The manager said his educational training contributed to his practices for using plantings as wildlife hab itat:
118 I have ones or balance. Like islands, typical example, butterfly islands, is a planting or plant grouping that 3 to 6 feet in diameter approximately spotted throughout the yard every 10 to 25 island to the next find it just depends on the person Landscape maturity T he dynamic wetland environment was also seen as a challenge in design ing and maintaining pond landscapes L ong term change s of vegetation or maturity of landscapes would need to be considered in the desi gn process One designer said and decide which one is happier at where a lot of ground covers and grasses so that you can secure the topography but over time they will very much become part of this landsca pe and create a different dynamic Undesirable wildlife Managers also confirmed that some residents disliked undesirable wildlife : a few people were afraid of snakes, so they had a snake phobia complaint Theme D esign D esigners and managers menti oned using local, native species in pond landscapes ( including t he potential use of wildflo wer s in pond s): I just pick the plants that are common to this area, and so I liked to pick plants that are most likely to survive One designer also mentioned usi ng a mix of native and non native species to achieve different functional purposes : the y are not necessarily native but they function in that environment Another designer said the nutrient uptake was considered during the plant selection process The designer selected the plants that would be good for nutrient uptake, and work those systems
119 When asked for suggestions for pond design, the importance of installing shoreline plantings around the pond was addressed while there were also recommendati on s to place s One manager mentioned install ing plantings in pond inlet/out areas: Anywhere there is an inlet, we tend to put plants in. Just to hide the cement nd to slow some of the sediment. So I plant inle ts heavier and I plant inlets typically with taller plants. And the outlets usually have a littoral plant all around the water Pond manager s also said the slope s of most stormwater pond s are much steeper than natural ponds and the soil erosion problem is more obvious in manmade ponds. They also said pond depth is important because it is associated with algae growth and with plant growth in water : becau se the stormwater ponds tend to be 8 feet deep here, a water volume itself is able to assimilate a lot of nutrients without causing a large impact [algae bloom] Theme Policy and Neighborhood Politics T he issue of neighborhood policy and politics were seen as challenges to the adoption of shoreline plantings in neighborhood ponds One manager said shoreline landscaping was a complicated issue because neighborhood shorel ines were owned by the homeowner associations while maintained by residents under many current polic ies There was a hesitation in the neighborhood association to adopt shoreline plantings The manager said : T he districts there was a hesitation because the districts owned easements that the residents would be planti ng on that surround all of the stormwater ponds that a llow us to get back and do what ever maintenance we need to do. So they are really s cared about liability concerns . The at
120 needed to enter a hold harmless agreement with each resident, then we will have a mechanism in place that very easy to avoid complicating a n already complicated subject. One pond manager said the negative and emotional comments from a minority of residents tend to dominate neighborhood board meeting s : T he boards are very poor decision makers they will allow their decision to be swayed completely out of proportion by one to five people. And the vocal people tend to get their way, and the vocal people tend to be the obstructionist, anti environmental, ant i change, anti they do not be o they are very single minded in their goal and their inf luence on the board of directors, and I found most board directors gave in to them emotional, most vocal people. The manager said reasons for this phenomenon in neighborhood board meeting s are that some re sidents did not care about the planting issue and there are unequal power s on the two sides: S cientific people tend to be more open minded, they tend to be more methodical, and they tend to be less emotional . Whereas these emotional people you know, you guys are all wrong emotional energy questioning themselves, whereas scientists question themselves constantly so we have two unequal people fighting. And you probably need ten environmentalists to stand up to one loud anti environmentalist to get the same impact. Summary of the Case Studies T he case studies provided information on the design and management issues in neighborhood stormwater ponds Most o f the co mments from designers and managers were primarily associated with pond environmental function These comments confirmed result s from the focus group study on a range of topics, such as open water view, clean water, plant flower, plant control, property val ue, and wildlife habitat.
121 Suggestions for future neighborhood stormwater pond landscape design were provided by designers and managers Most recommendations focused on management issues which reflect current challenges in pond shoreline management : Low m blooming without a lot of maintenance involved Plant densely and shade the plant the plants more densely keep light off the ground : ce the germinati Professional tools for plant harvesting having littora l zones designed so that then design a harvesting machine to come in and remove the tops of plant material a good boat launch [in] e very stormwater pond, [fish] harvesting would be way more efficient Also, o ne design er suggested the need for an integral approach in stormwater design consider ing economics, environmental functions, and aesthetics as a whole : The engineer on the proje ct was a whiz at numbers, was able to show how much re cleaning the water once we can do that, then it started to yield a ways to get funding to make this stuff happen, to get grant money from the state, from the county This could t have just been . it had to have all those other stuff behind it Once all those things tied together, it became something we had to do as opposed to being something that was just nice to do, which is w hat happens to aesthetics a lot of times. so it became something very integral. One manager provided comments associated with align ing visual quality and environmental functions in ponds using shoreline plantings: Manager K: I found that the longer the plants were in, the less complaints there were. And people just Interviewer: Get used to it. a re better for sustainability, better for the ecosystem, better for wildlife, better for water quality, now they are taking that same image and labeling it as something they are proud of the vast majority of people the best
122 majority is 95% love the plantings and I even get compliments on projects for a year or two after the project, if we were still Erosion stopped. I see more birds. You know, I hear more frogs And they made the association between we changed the habitat by planting plants Part III : Code S tudy Information from th e code study was organized using themes from the focus group study: 1) aesthetics, 2) management, 3) knowledge (public education), 4) economics, 5) nature, 6) design and 7) policy. In general, t he codes frequently addressed engineering desi g n requirements while aesthetic s was rarely mentioned. The most frequently mentioned aspects of codes were sediment and erosion control (87%), stormwater quantity control (76%), bank slope (72%), stormwater funding and stormwater fee s (67 %), and maintenanc e plan s (61%). The r elationship of the themes to codes is shown in Table 4 4. Aesthetic s Some municipal codes generally introduced aesthetic benefits of stormwater ponds while specific aesthetic requirements were not mentioned. Municipalities addressed ae sthetic requirements by including three aspects: landscape, engineering, and management of stormwater ponds in their codes or reference manuals A esthetic requirements for pond design include 1) using appropriate plant species, 2) using flowering species, 3) clumping plants to promote visual appearance, 4 ) putting the littoral shelf away from lots to prevent maintenance and aesthetic conflicts, and 5 ) applying a naturalistic landscape theme. A esthetic requirements for engineering mainly addressed pond shape and pond depth. Pond shape was required to create direct aesthetic appeal while pond depth was required to maintain the visual quality of
123 plantings. The pond management is also regulated to promote visual quality of the site. There was require ment that both the functional and the visual quality of the pond should be maintained. Also there was a technical requirement to trim shoreline plantings to maintain the visual quality of the pond. In one manual used by several municipalities, the aestheti c consideration in stormwater facility design and landscaping section was left blank with the words "to be provided indicating the current need to incorporate aesthetic considerations into design standards for stormwater ponds. Management Municipalities mentioned weed control issues in their codes or reference manuals The challenges of weed control were shown in one referred manual : it noted nuisance species control was one of the limitations for using stormwater pond as one type of stormwater facilitie s. Some requirements were general while some regulated the maximum percentage of nuisance species in the littoral area. Municipalities addressed algae control issues in pond landscaping and engineering design requirements including using vegetation to su rround the pond, using pretreatment s tructure (for example, forebay) and regulating pond depth. More than half of the municipalities addressed stormwater maintenance plan s in their municipal codes or reference manuals Most of the requirements were genera l for all stormwater systems Some codes had specific requirements on landscaping issues Some mentioned that the maintenance agreement should include maintenance of designated plant material. The maintenance plan is associated with pond engineering and l andscaping considerations. For example, the manual referred to in the codes of Hillsborough County Florida, required ponds with littoral shelves to have a maintenance
124 plan with the purpose of prevent ing siltation and keeping the pond from becoming a nuisa nce. Knowledge (Public E ducation) Municipalities emphasized public education in their codes or reference manuals. The f ollowing issues were mentioned to increase the knowledge of stormwater design and management: T he reasons for creating stormwat er systems ; current local water quali ty status and its local impact T he reasons for establishing policies on landscaping practices such as fertilizer restrictions T he function of stormwater ponds and aquatic plants in ponds T he reasons for setting certai n design standards (such as pond shape, depth, and slope) G uidance on ways to consider public education in stormwater design s (such as providing signage for stormwater facilities and planting areas). For example some municipalities referred to the storm water manual of Tennessee, Guide to the Selection & Design of Stormwater Best Management Practices ( Tschantz, Gang aware, & Morton, 2003), which introduced the function of shoreline plants: Wetland vegetation (in the littoral zone) will improve removal of dissolved contaminants, reduce the formation of algae, stabilize the shoreline and reduce waves, provide dissolved oxygen and habitats for aquatic organisms, and create attractive landscaping. The municipal code of Foley, Alabama, mentioned the reason for pond shape requirements: Proper geometric design is essential to prevent hydraulic short circuiting which results in failure of the pond to achieve adequate levels of pollutant removal ponds should be wedge shaped when possible so that flow enters the pond and gradually spreads out, improving the sedimentation
125 process. Baffles, pond shaping or islands can be added within the permanent pool to increase the flow path. The Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook ( Massachusetts Department of Environmental Pro tection, 2008) referred to by the municipal code of Westfield Massachusetts, mentioned the reason for setting pond depth criteria: Pool depth is an important design factor, espe cially for sediment deposition shallow basins remove more solids than d eeper ones. However, resuspension of settled materials by wind action might be a problem in shallow basins that are less than 2 feet deep. Depths greater than 8 feet may cause thermal stratification. Stratified pools tend to become anoxic (low or no oxygen ) more often than shallower ponds. If possible, vary depths throughout the basin. Economics The economic value of stormwater pond includes property value and maintenance funding. Property value was mostly addressed by codes saying stormwater ponds were a p ositive value ; few codes said property value could also be negatively affected. Codes also noted that stormwater ponds demand maintenance funding to support the management of stormwater pond landscapes Municipal codes or manuals emphasized the economics o f pond landscapes. Some municipalities said real estate properties use or benefit from the maintenance of stormwater systems. It was also mentioned that the impact of stormwater runoff water quality could negatively affect property values. Los Angeles Coun ty, California, addressed the use of Low Impact Development (LID) in stormwater runoff control. The code also said using designs that could increase a property's aesthetic value could result in faster sale because of the perceived increased value of improv ed landscaping. S tormwater maintenance funding is another economic issue. More than half of the municipalities addressed stormwater fees. Also, some municipalities addressed the
126 economic issue of stormwater pond maintenance funding. For example, Orange Co unty, Florida, required the neighborhood to have a n account for annual routine maintenance of neighborhood landscapes including stormwater ponds and a storm debris removal account for storm debris clean up. It required the developer to turn over c ontrol of neighborhood infrastructure no sooner than 70 % occupancy and no later than 90 % occupancy of the neighborhood. Before the transfer, the developer would be responsible for neighborhood maintenance, including stormwater ponds. Insufficient funds in routine maintenance account s would not relieve the developer of the responsibility to maintain neighborhood infrastructure including stormwater ponds. Nature Some municipalities addressed biodiversity in stormwater pond landscapes. The municipal code of M aitland, Florida, encouraged property owners to use a variety of plant species in shoreline areas to promote biodiversity. Some municipalities restricted the use of chemicals in the shoreline considering the potential impact to fish, wildlife, and desira ble plant species. Some municipal codes tell how to use design techniques to promote the wildlife value of the site. W ildlife value was introduced as one of the benefits of using stormwater ponds and the use of pond vegetation was mentioned to promote wi ldlife value. It was suggested that wildlife viewing areas could be integrated into pond design. The m unicipal code of Gainesville, Florida, said that the contour of stormwater ponds should promote increased wildlife habitat. Design D esign requirements ar e grouped into several categories including plant material, plant arrangement, littoral zone, pond slope, depth, shape, and aeration. Stormwater
127 quantity and q uality control are the design functions of stormwater ponds. The issue most frequently addressed is s ediment and erosion control with 87% of municipalities addressing it Of the municipalities 76% mentioned stormwater quantity control and 52% addressed water quality criteria in design standards. In general, municipalities addressed engineering design standards more often than landscaping design requirements in their codes. Plant material O f the municipalities 33% provided plant species information for stormwater ponds or stormwater systems They provided emergent wetland species lists or plant list s including different types of plants (tree, shrub, and herbaceous), and referr ed to external information sources. Among these municipalities, 13% provided plant list s specifically for stormwater ponds in reference manuals. Four percent provided plant list s for stormwater system s and 13% addressed wetland species in the general landscape requirement section of codes. One municipal code referred readers to an external website to select wetland species for stormwater pond design. Half of the municipalities addressed using native species. Thirteen percent of municipalities required use of a variety of plant species in pond landscapes. One municipality required the littoral zone to be initially planted with nursery grown or otherwise legally obtained plants. Plant size, spacing, and arrangement Four percent mentioned plant size requirements for stormwater pond landscapes while 22% of municipalities mentioned plant spacing requirement s Municipalities have various spacing requirements including 20 to 100 foo t spacing for trees, 3 to 20 foot spacing for shrubs, and 35 inches to
128 5 foot spacing for herbaceous species. M unicipalities that addressed plant size and spacing requirements were mainly located in Florida. Thirty three percent of municipalities ad dressed plant arrangement issues. Municipalities mentioned following requirements in their codes or reference manuals : trees should be set back to avoid extending branches over the water ( so that leaves would not drop into the pond ) ; aquatic landscape plan ts should be planted at elevations appropriate for their type (hydro design); and design drawings show the arrangement of plants based on hydrological conditions on the bank slope. Thirty percent of m unicipalities had various requirements for littoral zone size and depth. The littoral zone width requirements ranged from 5 to 15 feet. S ize requirements ranged from 10 to 50% of pond area. D epth requirements ranged from 18 inches to 3 feet. For example, the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washing ton ( Washington State Department o f Ecology Water Quality Program, 2005 ) referred to by the municipal code of Coupeville, Washington, required using emergent wetland planting in areas of pond no more than 3 feet deep Because of the lack of well defined di stinction between littoral zone and buffer zone, we put buffer zone requirements in an independent category. B uffer zone width requirements ranged from 10 to 33 feet wide Municipalities also stated the purpose of setting the littoral zone in stormwater po nds: Enhance the appearance of the pond Improve removal of dissolved pollutants Facilitate sediment trapping, prevent sediment resuspension Provide dissolved oxygen Reduce the formation of floating algae Temporarily conceal unsightly trash and debris Stab ilize the shoreline and reduce waves Serve as wildlife habitat
129 Fifteen percent of municipalities required installation of shoreline plantings around the pond perimeter and considered the v egetation as biological filters Four percent of municipalities (Sa rasota County and Collier County, Florida ) required locating the littoral zone away from residential lots ( if possible ) or disco uraged perimeter plantings. Pond slope and depth Seventy two percent of m unicipalities have requirements on pond slopes and hal f of them addressed pond depth Pond minimum side slope requirements varie d from 2:1 to 4:1. One municipality (Orange County, Florida ) required a minimum side slope of 5:1 for open space category ponds. Municipalities provided reasons of using minimum pond depth: Prevent sediment resuspension Maintain aerobic conditions Reduce algae blooms Limits aquatic plant growth in water Discourage mosquito growth Municipalities also provided the following reasons for using maximum pond: Avoid thermal stratification Avoid short circuiting Avoid anoxic conditions; maintain aerobic conditions Maximize sediment uptake and minimize sediment release of pollutants Pond minimum depth requirements ranged from 4 to 8 feet while maximum pond depth requirements were 8 to 12 fe et. There is over lap in minimum and maximum depth since a pond depth of 8 feet appeared in both categories. Also there is another way to define pond depth: requiring depth by pond percentage area. Pond shape water circulation, and aeration Forty six pe rcent of municipalities required pond shape to prevent dead zones caused by corners.
130 Recirculation practices were required to prevent stagnation and low dissolved oxygen conditions. Requirements for pond minimum length to width ratio ranged from 1.5:1 to 4 :1. Twenty eight percent of municipalities addressed water circulation and aeration issues. Municipalities described ways to improve water circulation, including using a tear drop pond shape with the inlet at the narrow end, maximizing flow path between in let and outlet (including a vertical path), providing a large length to width ratio of the pond, and keeping a base flow to the pond to keep circulation. For methods of water recirculation, 33% of the municipalities mentioned using aerators and fountains o r using dissipating energy at the pond inlet in their municipal codes or reference manuals. Forebay and pretreatment Thirty three percent of municipalities addressed the use of forebay or pretreatment in stormwater pond design. F unctions of the forebay we re provided in codes: Collect trash, debris, and leaves Minimize erosion by inflow Control algae growth Slow eutrophication process Settle sediments T he design required that the forebay to have filtration measures at the inlet and required the stormwater runoff to enter the forebay before it enters the pond. Two types of forebay were mentioned: planted swales for conveyance and planted perimeter swales. The Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual (Department of Environmental Protection Bu reau of Watershed Management, 2006) referred by the municipal code of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, illustrated the reason for using plants in forebay area : plants in the forebay promote sedimentation and reduce resuspension and erosion.
131 Policy Most municipal c odes addressed code compatibility issues not under stormwater issues but under topics such as planning and zoning. Twenty four percent of municipal codes mentioned a state supported landscape social marketing program to illustrate landscape plant selecti on, irrigation, and fertilizer usage. For example, Maitland, Florida, required plants for landscaping and buffering to be chosen from the Florida F riendly Plant Database and the website was provided The municipal code of Miami, Florida, promoted Florida F riendly L andscaping principles to conserve water (by measures such as plant selection and restrictions on the amount of turf areas) and to guide appropriate fertilizer application practices. Code Writing A mbiguous illustration s often make municipal code re quirement s difficult to apply. The municipal code of Gainesville, Florida, required the pond shape to be designed in a way to increase aesthetic and wildlife values. However, there was no further information on what contour t ypes could enhance those values there were no quantifications, and no drawing was provided. The different terms used for stormwater pond s are another problem creating difficulties for readers M any terms are used for stormwater pond s including wet detention basin wet retention bas in wet detention pond retention pond and artificial lake Also, some municipalities referred to stormwater manuals in their codes ; but did not give the names of the manuals or tell how the manuals should be used In comparison, some municipaliti es provided the stormwater manual full name publisher and web address so people could find the document.
132 stormwater pond standards in their codes. Of the municipalities that used drawings in t heir codes, Collier County, Florida, provided drawings for amendment pond shape (changes of pond shape). Hillsborough County provided slope profile drawings to illustrate the slope requirements for different sections along the slope. Some s tormwater manual s referred to by municipal codes used drawing s to give details about the design requirements of ponds. The manual referred to by Coupeville, Washington, used drawings to illustrate pond layout, different cells in the pond, locations of inlet and outlet, em ergency spillway, depth, plant arrangement, and a profile view of pond slope. In Tennessee, the manual referred to by municipalities of Farragut, Tennessee, and Mt. Juliet, Tennessee, addressed pond layout, sediment forebay, inlet and outlet, emergency spi llway and profile of pond slope showing the littoral zone location in drawings. Besides the requirements mentioned previously, some manuals used drawings to illustrate landscaping requirements such as native landscaping around stormwater pond as well as engineering requirements such as pond shape and components. Some municipal codes used references to provide more information to the public. For example, the municipal code of Orange Beach, Alabama, included a reference list of stormwater Best Management Practices ranging from the municipal level to state and national level publications. Summary of the Code Study R esults from the code study showed that few codes addressed aesthetic concerns. Management was well mentioned in codes and maintenance plans ar e required by most codes. Knowledge (public education) was also addressed in some codes or reference manuals. A few municipalities addressed property values and more
133 than half of the municipalities mentioned maintenance funding or stormwater fee. Biodivers ity and wildlife were mentioned as related to the design aspect of stormwater pond s Pond design standards were primarily engineering requirements with sediment and erosion control mentioned most. A few codes addressed planting design requirements, such a s p lant species, spacing, arrangement, variety, and size (height) From a policy aspect, a few codes mentioned the compatibility of different codes and policy supported social marketing programs. C ode writing problems included ambiguous illustration s or a lack of drawings. Summary of Focus Group, Case Studies, and Code Study A summary of results from the focus group study, case studies and code study is provided to show relationships among the three from the different perspectives of the homeowner, the de signer and manager, and the policy writer. The primary purpose of the code review was to learn how stormwater planting is currently addressed in codes and to lay the ground work for guidelines for improved stormwater planting designs. The three investigat ions focused on themes of aesthetics, management, knowledge, economics, nature, design, and policy (Table 4 5) Issues within the themes included flowering plants well kept landscape s fertilizer control, pond and plant function, property value, wildlife and habitat (desirable wildlife), plant variety pond depth, and landscape social marketing program s D ata from the foc us gr oup study and case study reveal close associations among the themes of aesthetics economics and management and design D ata f rom these two studies also show relationships among the themes of nature, knowledge, and management and design. The first relationship could be interpreted as an
134 oriented design and management strategy and the second as a a nd management strategy, reflect ing the ne ed to balance the two. Although aesthetics was a theme mentioned in all three studies, none of the codes addressed some of the main issues that participants in the focus group study mentioned such as open water vie w and clean water appearance Other issues the codes did not address include d undesirable wildl ife and plants that attract desirable wildlife. Policies (codes) tend to have different attitudes toward the two relationships based on scale Neighborhood leve l policies tend to adopt an strategy while some municipal and state level policies promote a strategy.
135 Table 4 1. V visual quality en vironmental function ) Theme Issues Aesthetics Open water view (V) Clean water/no algae (V) Well kept landscape (V) Management Maintained natural landscape (V) Algae control (V) Nutrient control (E) Plant growth control (E) Communication (E) Knowledge Lack of knowledge (E) No interest in topic (E) Perceived l ack of information (E) Economics Property value (V) Maintenance funding (V) Nature Desirable wildlife (V) Undesirable wildlife (V) Landscape maturity (V) Design Plant height and invasiveness (V) Pond depth and size (V) Policy Landscape regulations (V) Neighborhood politics (V)
136 Table 4 2. Summary of aesthetic preferences in the focus group study Like Dislike Shoreline photo Figure 4 1D, B ( h igh preference) Figure 4 1A, C, E (middle low preference) Individual plant photo Figure 4 2C, D, G (High ranking) Figure 4 2E, F, B, A, H (middle low ranking) Aesthetic comments in the focus group study Open water view Clean water Low shoreline plants Green turf Evergreen plants Well kept landsca pe Regulated appearance Park like Natural Diverse plants Variety in color/texture Sea wall Mature trees Neatly plants no algae Controlled plants Clumping plants Colorful, large flowers Blocked water view Shallow/low water Tall shoreline plants Algae bloom s Tall plants Brown turf Deciduous plants Trees in water Plants covering water Overgrown plants Overly manicured Not natural/ lacks life Sparse plants Soil erosion Uncontrolled/unkept Abandoned look Invasive plants Swampy/weedy
137 Table 4 3. Summary of to pics from the case studies ( V visual quality and environmental function ) Themes Issues Aesthetics Open water view (V) Well kept landscape (V) Guiding new aesthetics (V) Management Maintained aesthetics (V) Weed control (E) Pla nt control (E) Algae control (E) Fertilizer & water quality (E) Need low maintenance (E) Maintenance supports function (E) Communication mechanism (E) Need professional tools (E) Knowledge Misunderstanding of pond (E) No interest (E) Lack of knowledge (E) Lack of information (E) Homeowner/Landscaper education (E) Value demonstration to promote designs (E) Social marketing (E) Economics Property value (V) Maintenance funding (E) Plant maintenance pricing (E) Maintenance volunteer (E) Nature Natural aesthe tics (V) Biodiversity (E) Undesirable wildlife (V) Landscape maturity (E) Design Low height plants (V) Plant invasiveness (V) Arrange plants by location (V) Plant grouping (V) Bank slope (V) Pond depth (V) Designed function (V) Policy Maintenance respons ibility (E) Decision making (E) Neighborhood code (E)
138 Table 4 4. Summary of topics from the code study V visual quality represents environmental function V visual quality and environmental function ) Themes T opics Aesthetics Clean water (control of algae growth) (V) Plant diversity (number of different plant types) (VE) Plant appearance (color/flowers) (V) Management Low maintenance (keep well maintained look under low funding) (V) Plant growth control (keep well kept look, prevent overgrown) (VE) Weed control (keep well maintained look) (VE) Algae control techniques and methods (clean water look) (VE) Nutrient control, address fertilizer and organic litter (algae control) (E) Landscape maintenance certification (f or nutrient and algae control) (E) Erosion control (maintain bank aesthetic look) (VE) Knowledge Reasons for stormwater system (E) Pond and plant function (E) Nutrient connection to algae growth (E) Reasons for design standards (E) Purpose for maintenance activities (VE) Economics Require sufficient maintenance funding (E) Describe influence on property value (V) Nature Describe benefit of pond/plantings as wildlife habitat (E) Design Plant species (hardiness, color, height/size) (VE) Plant spacing (wee d control and appearance) (V) Plant type (appearance) (V) Littoral zone size/location (avoid aesthetic/maintenance conflict) (VE) Bank slope (erosion control) (VE) Pond depth/layout (water quality/algae control) (E) Aeration (algae control) (VE) Forebay & pretreatment (water quality/algae control) (E) Policy Landscape social marketing program by policy (VE) Code conflict code superseding other established codes (VE) Code conflict jurisdiction of codes (VE)
139 Table 4 5. Comparison of all three studies ( the focus group study or case studies. Numbers under the code study represent the percentage of the 46 municipalities addressed the aspects ) Categories Aspects Focus group Case study Code study Aesthetics Plant flower 2% Shoreline aesthetic conflict 2% Well kept landscape 2% Open water view Maintained natural landscape Clean water appearance Plant leaf color Diversity of color and texture Management Maintenance plans 61% Pl ant control (invasive plants & weeds) 33% Nutrient organic pollutants 24% Nutrient fertilizer control 22% Algae control 20% Shoreline low maintenance 15% Fertilizer application certification 9% Plant harvesting 7% Wate r fluctuation 7% Neighborhood maintenance mechanism Resident maintenance volunteer Knowledge Pond and plant function 26% Nutrient connection to algae growth 20% Economics Maintenance funding and stormwater fees 67% Prope rty value 17% Premium (pond and property value) 2% Consistency of maintenance funds 2% Distribution of maintenance funds Nature wildlife & habitat (desirable wildlife) 39% Open space 11% Natural setting (landscape style) 7% Undesirable wildlife Landscape maturity Design (landscape) Native plant 50% Plant species 33% Littoral zone size and depth 30% Plant spacing 22% Plant arrangement 22%
140 Table 4 5. Continued Categories Aspe cts Focus group Case study Code study Design (landscape) Plant variety 13% Plant installation 7% Plant size (with height) 4% Plant source 2% Littoral zone location 2% Plants that attract desirable wildlife Design (engineer ing) Sediment and erosion control 87% Stormwater quantity control 76% Bank slope 72% Water quality control 52% Pond depth 50% Pond layout 46% Forebay & pretreatment 33% Aeration 28% Policy Landscape social marketin g program 24% Code conflicts (compatibility) n/a Landscape regulations n/a Maintenance responsibility n/a Neighborhood politics n/a
141 A B C D E Figure 4 1 Shoreline landscape photos used in the focus group study. A) manicured landscape with clean water edge; B) well maintained plantings and trees; C) sparse plantings in water; D) well maintained diverse plantings and trees; E) overgrown plants and weeds. ( P hoto source: A, C: Shangchun Hu; B, D, E: Hillsborough County Adopt A Pond Program )
142 A B C D E F G H Figure 4 2 Individual plant photos used in the focus group study. A) Thalia geniculata Alligator Flag ; B) Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress ; C) Iris virginica Blue Flag Iris ; D) Ponteder ia cordata Pickerelweed ; E) Crinum americanum Swamp Lily ; F) Spartina bakeri Sand Cord Grass ; G) Nymphaea odorata Fragrant Water Lily ; H) Scirpus californicus Bulrush. ( P hoto source: Rodgers, J. ( 2002 ). Plants for lakefront revegetation Tampa: Bureau of Invasive Plant Management Florida Department of Environmental Protection )
143 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Opportunities to align visual quality and environmental function in pond design are evaluated based on results from the focus group interviews, case stud ies, and code study Social marketing is needed to encourage the adoption of improved pond designs in neighborhoods and to promote appropriate and sufficient maintenance (to sustain visual quality and environmental function on a long term basis ) Align ing Visual Quality and Environmental Function in Pond Design The visual quality and environmental function in neighborhood pond design were investigated and possible ways to align the two are presented. Improvements in pond engineering design are also sugges ted. Visual Concepts Explaining Homeowner Aesthetic Preferences Visual concepts, introduced in the literature review, are used here to explain homeowner aesthetic preferences. T he visual concepts are ( Table 5 1 ) show how homeowners, designers/managers, an d codes addressed aesthetic considerations Four visual concepts were used including openness, smoothness, upkeep, and complexity. The focus group study showed that open water view is one of the most important reasons homeowners purchased the lot. This s tudy agrees with Heiss (2007) that openness and enclosure are both important aesthetic preferences in the residential setting. The highest ranking shoreline setting (Figure 4 1D) provides both open water view and mature trees in the background ( representin g enclosure ) T he association between openness and enclosure is that plants on the far side of the water represent enclosure while plants on the near side might block the water view. In a setting where
144 the pond is surrounded by housing lots, there are conf licts between openness and enclosure. Therefore, enclosure would only be welcomed if openness would not be negatively affected. Smoothness is associated with algae bloom in the water, which is the main reason residents complained about neighborhood pond la ndscapes. Another issue under smoothness is clean water edge which is associated with the aesthetic norm s of turf and water Clean water edge could be shown in various ways. For example the most preferred photo setting (Figure 4 1D) used a section of sea wall to create a clean water edge while plantings were still used. Upkeep is a visual concept frequently discussed by homeowners in the focus group study. The spread of plant s in pond s might affect sense of upkeep and smoothness In the focus group study residents disliked plants taking over the pond and in the shoreline photo survey one resident was concern ed with the potential spread of plants in the pond (Figure 4 1C). The complexity categor y address es only plantings. Complexity could be used to promo te plantings R esidents liked large flowers and diverse colors and textures of plantings according to the focus group study. Colors enhance complexity, and also increase the sense of upkeep (Nassauer, 1997). In the neighborhood stormwater pond study condu cted by Heiss (2007), people like d irregular pond shapes rather than simple ovals, circles or rectangles. Increased complexity of a scene might positively affect preference because the water edge treatments tended more toward natural shapes. F ocus group participants were interested in the sea wall in the shoreline photo ( Figure 4 1D ) This finding concurs with Gobster (2004) that waterscape settings with a
145 combination of natural vegetation and human created objects tend to be highly valued by people. The reasons might be several: seawall s represent human control which indicates upkeep; it provides openness as well as smoothness; the particular material and color adds complexity to the landscape; it also increases legibility since it clearly defines the bo undary of water edge. Also, residents praised the slope in the shoreline photo ( Figure 4 1B ) made The organically curved form of the bank slope increases coherence of the landscape setting. It also increased the naturalness o f the setting Naturalness is associated with th e presence of vegetation, and also the organic form of a landscape as a living organism (Coeterier, 1996). The visual concept of wilderness or naturalness is not used to explain homeowner aesthetic preference s, a lthough residents in the focus group study frequently mentioned their preference for natural settings N aturalness is an ambiguous and contested term (Gobster et al. 2007) and p eople tend to comment on scenes they like as being more natural N aturalne ss has become a synonym rather than a predictor for landscape preference (Brown, Keane, & Kaplan, 1986). Also, c oherence and legibility are not used in this study because other visual concepts are more representative in a pond shoreline setting. Openness a nd s moothness are associated with legibility because they increase t he readability of a landscape. Upkeep increases order, which represents coherence ( Ewing et al., 2006 ) Smoothness increases both coherence and legibility (Kaplan, 1988). The shoreline l andscape photo survey in the focus group study shows that homeowners preferred dynamic pond edge plant treatment using different plant types
146 and arrangement techniques to have a balance o f openness, smoothness, upkeep, and complexity ( as shown in the most preferred settings of Figure 4 1 B, D ) Figure 4 1 D showed large vegetation but also allowed a water view. It had shoreline plantings but also seawall and turf at the water edge to create openness and smoothness. It had mature trees at shoreline areas w hile views are allowed under the canopies. The variety of plantings around the pond increases complexity. The sea wall as a man made landscape element brings people the sense of upkeep. In Figure 4 1 B, openness was provided using low shoreline plantings. U pkeep was shown by well maintained turf and shoreline plants. C omplexity was satisfied by using differe nt plant types including trees. In summary, the visual concepts of openness smoothness, and upkeep make a pond landscape acceptable to residents T he visual concept of complexity is potentially a n important visual concept for designers to enhance the visual quality of a pond landscape. Openness, upkeep, and complexity of shapes are common grounds between aesthetics and ecology according to Fry et al. ( 2009) Link between Visual Quality and Environmental Function Table 5 2 shows the l ink between visual quality and environmental function based on results from the focus group study and the case studies (Table 4 1, Table 4 2, and Table 4 3) From an aesth etic perspective the focus group and case studies addressed open water view, clean water with no algae, well maintained or neat plantings, colors/flowers, green color/evergreen plants, diverse plants with a variety of colors and textures, mature trees, de sirable wildlife/undesirable wildlife, arrange d plants by location, manmade shoreline structure s and erosion.
147 From an environmental perspective the focus group study and case studies addressed the following cons iderations: nutrient/fertilizer control, a lgae control, weed control, plant growth control, low maintenance design and maintenance funding, biodiversity and wildlife, and erosion control. The link bet ween visual quality and environmental function in pond shoreline planting design is described next Use appropriate shoreline plantings that allow open water view s My study agrees with Heiss ( 2007) that low height plant species should be used in pond shorelines to allow open views. Besides plant selection, design techniques are also needed to arrang e plants appropriately to allow water view. By providing open water view, shoreline plantings could be better promoted in neighborhoods. Shoreline plantings will improve environmental function if place d around the pond perimeter. However allowing open wat er views can reduce the opportunity for mass plantings and can decrease biodiversity. Design shoreline plantings that are neat looking Plant species that are neat looking should be used in pond planting design. Residents in the focus group study preferre d neat looking plant species in terms of broad and lush foliage and clumping plant form. Residents described grassy looking plant species as weedy and were concerned they might be a type of plant that spreads or is invasive. However, using only neat lookin g plants may decrease biodiversity and offer less variety in wildlife habitat. Use shoreline plantings with flowers. My study agrees with Heiss (2007) and Didona (2007) that flowering plants are appreciated in stormwater ponds and they should be recommende d for pond landscape design Nassauer (1997) noted flower colors could provide a sense of care and said the design technique of using colorful
148 flowering meadow plants to filter stormwater before entering the wetland could align aesthetic and environmental benefits in landscapes. Landscapes that are appealing are more likely to be cared for which could improve environmental function if they are protected by homeowners with better maintenance practices. Use shoreline plantings with a variety of colors and t extures. Apply various plant species to show different colors and textures in pond sho relines. Residents in the focus group study showed their preference for stormwater pond shoreline settings with various colors and textures. As Powell ( 2012 b ) mentioned, using a mix of flowering shoreline plants increases the visual appeal of stormwater ponds A mix of flowering plants can also increase biodiversity and wildlife habitat to increase environmental function. Use evergreen plant species. Residents in the focu s group study liked green turf as well as evergreen plants for their winter appearance. Evergreen plant species could be used to replace turf at pond shorelines considering the year round green the color green. Using evergreen plants could reduce the amount of nutrient s released to water during cold seasons since they would not contribute as much leaf litter to the pond. Use hardy plant species that do not spread. Apply h ardy but non spreading plan t species to improve survivability of shoreline plantings : the plantings thrive but overgrow. The designed visual effects and environmental functi ons could be better maintained by not having to use potentially damaging maintenance techniques to remov e overgrown plants.
149 Apply design techniques to reduce weed growth. Design techniques that reduce weeds or invasive plant growth maintain the visual quality of the pond, and maintain pond environmental functions such as biodiversity One technique mentioned by one designer in the case studies is to i nstall dense plants to restrict weed growth. This agrees with Powell (2012 b ) idea spacing plants closely could reduce weed growth in shoreline areas. Reducing weed growth through dense planting also reduces the need for herbicides that could negatively affect environmental function. Use man made shoreline structure. Residents in the focus group study liked the presence of the seawall at the pond shoreline. My study agrees with Didona (2007) that shoreline manmad e structures increase people's preference for the pond landscape. Built elements like seawalls increase openness (allow water view), upkeep (indicate sense of care), smoothness (create clean water edge), and complexity (add texture and color). Gobster (200 4) said the combination of vegetation and manmade structure s increases the aesthetics of shoreline landscapes. Shoreline manmade structures could also provide the environmental function of control ling bank erosion. Use m ature trees in upland areas. R esults of the focus group study agree with Heiss (2007) that m ature trees could increase the visual quality of pond landscapes. Because of their particular plant forms, m ature trees maintain the openness of the setting by allow ing views under their canopies and they increase complexity of the setting If planted appropriately, they can also shade the w ater to reduce thermal warming. They also take up a large amount of irrigation water and could help red uce nutrient flow into the pond, thus increasing the enviro nmental function of the pond.
150 Consider the maintenance funding. Maintenance funding should be considered in the design process and low maintenance design should be used. Limited maintenance funding was a concern for both designers and managers in the case studies. Homeowners in the focus group study were concerned with high landscape maintenance expense. Sufficient pond maintenance is essential to maintain the visual quality and functions of stormwater systems; the level of maintenance influences aesthetics and function (Seattle Public Utilities, 2011). Low maintenance was a need for pond landscapes emphasized by managers in the case studies considering the budget issue. Appropriate plant species and arrangement techniques are needed to reduce the maintenanc e need of shoreline plantings. Project landscape change and maturity. Designers said landscape maturity could change the aesthetic qualities and long term aesthetic performance of the plantings. Homeowners in the focus group study said they liked the neig hborhood landscape appearance to be consistent over time. If not maintained appropriately, the aging of ponds through eutrophication can negatively influence pond functions There is a need to incorporate long term maintenance in the design process. Change will also affect function over time : as plant type s adapt and thrive or disappear biodiversity may decrease. Provide a clear view of undesirable wildlife The shoreline plantings should be designed to allow a clear view of undesirable wildlife when plan tings are used to attract wildlife. My study agrees with E. H. Livingston (personal conversation, October 28, 2010) : homeowners are concerned with undesirable wildlife in pond shoreline plantings. Low height plant species should be used and plantings shoul d be arranged with gaps
151 for visibility. Environmental function may be decreased by discouraging certain types of wildlife. Use shoreline plantings to control bank erosion. Residents in the focus group study disliked pond shorelines with erosion problems. S horeline plantings could be used to control erosion by blocking the wave action of moving water and creating a deep er root mass to stabilize soil. Other considerations The code study results provide d additional information for discussion of design recomme ndations. Two issues were addressed by the code study that the focus group and case studies did not mention: pretreatment or use of forebay (33% of municipalities) and maintenance plans (61% of municipalities). Few ponds in the neighborhoods where my stud y was conducted had pretreatment or forebay designs. It is more challenging to protect pond health using plantings when pretreatment techniques are not used in pond designs. Moreover, some of the engineering characteristics in the neighborhood ponds where I conducted the study ( such as length to width ratio and pond depth ) might not satisfy the design standards required by municipalities. E ngineering characteristics of the ponds ( such as forebay, pond depth, and pond shape ) should be considered in the shor eline planting design. Neighborhoods may need assistance from designers to develop a plan to maintain shoreline plantings so the visual quality and functions of ponds are better sustained over time. The need for a maintenance plan also meets the demand to project long term landscape change and maturity. USDA et al. (2000 ) noted a maintenance plan is needed for the drainage basin s of stormwater pond s and u sing the best strategy to improve pond visual quality without negatively influencing the functions of t he
152 stormwater system Therefore, i t may be necessary to incorporate two additional design considerations: 1) consider pond engineering characteristics, and 2) develop a maintenance plan. Shoreline Planting Design according to Shoreline Context S horeline pl antings should be designed in the context of the site because a different shoreline context might have different needs for visual quality and environmental function s. Shorelines of ponds surrounded by houses, neighborhood roads, and natural wooded areas s hould be designed differently than ponds surrounded by residential lots. D esign requirements need to interact with site context to improve pond landscape designs. Different shoreline types may represent different needs for aesthetic s and environmental fun ction Pond shoreline planting designs should evaluate different shoreline types and provide the benefits needed for each shoreline section. N eighborhood pond shorelines fit into the following five categories: 1) landscaped area, 2) hardscape area, 3) natu ral land area, 4) stormwater pond berm (border) area, and 5) stormwater inlet and outlet area. Pond s horelines adjacent to landscaped area s Shorelines adjacent to landscaped areas, such as residential yards, are the most challenging shoreline type to desi gn since the needs for visual quality and environmental function s are both high. Homeowners are highly concern ed with the visual quality of shorelines in their backyards, such as open water view and well kept aesthetics. From an environmental perspective, shorelines adjacent to residential lots may receive the highest fertilizer input from turf yards. S horeline plantings are needed to reduce fertilizer runoff by absorbing nutrients filter ing stormwater runoff, and prevent ing bank erosion. Shoreline
153 plantin gs should be designed to reduce or provide a clear view of undesirable wildlife in those areas. Pond shorelines adjacent to hardscape area s Shorelines adjacent to hardscape areas, such as roads and community center parking lots, have a high level of aest hetic and environmental concerns. Developers are concerned with the aesthetics of those shorelines as amenities to attract potential buyers. Ponds adjacent to hardscape area s might receive less pollutant in terms of fertilizer but shoreline plantings woul d still be needed to filter pollutants from the hardscape area. Pond shorelines adjacent to natural land area s Shorelines adjacent to natural land areas, such as wooded areas, have a low level of aesthetic and environmental concerns. The aesthetic look o f those shorelines could be less maintained landscapes to match the landscape style of the wooded area. There is less concern for water protection on those shorelines : there is less nutrient loading since no fertilizers are used in natural lands. Pond sh orelines adjacent to stormwater facility area s In some cases stormwater ponds are located adjacent to each other or are connected with dry detention ponds. Shorelines adjacent to other stormwater ponds also have a low level of aesthetic and environmental concerns. There is still aesthetic demand in those areas, such as the need for open water view. There is no need to use plantings on berms to filter nutrients if no fertilizers are used on the berms between the ponds. Pond shorelines adjacent to stormwa ter inlet and outlet area s Shorelines near stormwater inlet and outlets have a moderate level of aesthetic concerns. Plantings might be needed to hide these stormwater control features and to uptake
154 pollutants from stormwater flow The plantings should be designed in ways to not block water flow. Of all the shoreline types, shorelines adjacent to landscaped area s and shorelines adjacent to stormwater inlet and outlet area s might be the most important given the need to filter pollutants for pond water qua lity protection. Improve Pond Engineering Design Most codes addressed bank slope a nd sediment and erosion control requirements. Heiss (2007) recommended using 4:1 as the minimum pond slope for erosion control. Failing to address sediment and erosion contr ol could reduce the volume of the pond and therefore affect the primary function of the stormwater pond as water hydrology control. However, most codes did not require shoreline plantings around the pond for erosion control. In one neighborhood of the focu s group study, some ponds with turf down to the water had erosion problems where the shorelines receded to the original backyard areas ( the size of the backyard area reduced over time) Residents questioned whether the current shoreline is community or pri vate property. It should be emphasized that erosion control should be achieved by integrating landsc aping and engineering methods. Pond depth and shape standards were mentioned in nearly half of the codes evaluated. P ond depth is associated with aquatic p lant growth and algae growth The minimum depth requirement is important for plant growth and algae control while the depth of ponds should not be too shallow or deep. Ponds at least 6 feet deep can better prevent aquatic plants from spreading into the ce nter of pond water. Ponds with varying depth s might better stimulate water circulation and provide o pportunities to use plantings.
155 Some codes required certain pond shapes, such as a water drop shape, to increase water circulation. However many current nei ghborhood ponds are designed in irregular shapes to maximize the number of housing lots (Thomas, 2012) There is a need for codes to address the pond shape requirement in neighborhood ponds. Besides minimum length to width ratio, the maximum length to widt h ratio should also be regulated in codes. Also, we should discourage convoluted pond shapes and straight angles that inhibit water circulation and increase algae growth control. The codes should promote simple and naturalistic pond shapes. Few codes addr essed pretreatment in a forebay in pond design. Codes should require using a forebay to pretreat stormwater runoff and to control algae growth. Vegetated swales should be required in pond design to filter nutrients from runoff with high fertilizer use la nd types, such as golf courses. As for aerators, d iffusers might be effective to reduce algae growth in deep ponds ( Islandwalk Homeowners Association, 2012) but are not recommended for ponds with less than 8 feet deep ( U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2009 ). Although some codes mentioned using fountains as aerators in ponds, surface aerators like fountains are typically not appropriate for algae control since they draw water only from the pond surface ( U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009 ) C od es should provide guidance on the type of aerators needed for algae control in stormwater ponds. Model of N eighborhood S tormwater P ond L andscape D esign By using policy, the design and maintenance of stormwater pond landscapes create the output of services from environmental aesthetic, and economic perspectives However, t he output services in turn, influence the input aspects. In current residential
156 pond landscapes, the quality of the output services is degrading and there is an increasing need for impro vement of the input aspects. P olicies for stormwater landscape regulate the design and management of ponds, affect s water quality. To improve water quality, one strategy could be to focus on the environmental function of stormwater pond health through aes thetics, knowledge and economics Launch social marketing campaigns to educate people on healthy neighborhood landscape practices that influence pond health. Explore ways to promote environmentally friendly neighborhood pond landscapes using current aesthe tic preferences. Guide aesthetic preference for neighborhood pond landscape toward environmentally friendly preferences. Explore ways to use economics to promote healthy neighborhood pond landscapes. Among those solutions, the second was investigated by my study, which explored ways to align visual quality and environmental function Recommendations also include strategies to guide aesthetics, educate people on environmental health, and use economics as leverage to promote neighborhood pond health In add ition, policy interventions are needed to reflect the current need for environmental protection. Policy should be set to facilitate social marketing campaigns while balancing the environmental aesthetic, and economic aspects. Beyond Design: Social Market ing and Public Education Improving landscaping design is one step of the pond problem solving process. An improved design will not be used if residents are not willing to support it. An improved design needs collaboration from landscape management to achie ve its design purposes. This can be achieved by public education and social marketing.
157 The Need for Neighborhood Social Marketing N eighborhood social marketing is needed for four reasons : 1) private property rights create challenges for environmental pro tection 2) t he adoption of improved landscape design needs support from homeowners 3) change of landscaping behavior is needed to improve pond health and 4) homeowner education is needed to increase the effectiveness of landscape management policy on en vironmental protection. Neighborhood social marketing and p rivate p roperty r ights Improved design of neighborhood stormwater pond landscape will not be used without the acceptance of homeowners. One of the difficulties of managing stormwater pond shoreli nes comes from private property rights. I ndividual property rights can outweigh the interest of the public in terms of ecosystem services. Private property often leads to individual land management that neither promotes nor foster s ecosystem function (Fels on, 2010). Because Homeowner Associations are created to maintain the long term value of neighborhood properties ( U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1989; P. Jones, Personal conversation February 9, 2011), residents are less concerne d with the environmental function s of neighborhood ponds than with aesthetics and economics. The environmental function s that concerned residents were associated with aesthetics. Erosion control is related to pond visual quality and desirable wildlife and fish populations are associated with fishing and wildlife watching. S tormwater quantity and water quality issues are primarily concerns of policy makers rather than residents or designers/managers (Table 4 5) Because neighborhood association codes typica lly protect aesthetics and property value, neighborhood codes might not be written in ways that promote environmental benefits or might negatively affect environmental health at neighborhood or larger scales.
158 Therefore, homeowners need to be educated ( Is landwalk Homeowners Association, 2012 ) so that environmentally friendly landscape design and management measures are supported in neighborhoods. Social marketing campaigns are needed to increase homeowner environmental awareness and knowledge. The Georgia S tormwater M anagement M anual (Haubner, Reese, Brown C laytor, and Debo, 2001) also addressed the need for public education to promote appropriate operation and maintenance of the stormwater systems: In addition to public education for publicly owned or o perated systems, education can be very important for privately owned systems. Once stormwater structural controls are installed, the end user or owner may not be aware of the necessity of the facilities or the consequences of a failed system. As part of th e public education, it is vital that private owners be educated to understand and become proactive in the operation and maintenance of their system. Neighborhood social marketing and a doption of i mproved d esigns The improved design of stormwater pond lan dscape s will not be adopted if residents do not support it. Neighborhood education is needed to explain the benefits of new designs to residents. Public education was found to greatly contribute to the less turfgrass intensive landscapes (Hurd, 2006). As o ne designer mentioned in the case study interview, there is a need to compare the proposed new design with current landscape s in terms of benefits Managers suggested using economic benefits such as savings on erosion control, to motivate residents to ado pt shoreline plantings. Because residents typically must maintain any plants in the 10 to 15 foot neighborhood owned easement on neighborhood pond bank s the associations were hesitant to install shoreline plantings around the pond. It is important to ed ucate residents on shoreline planting s and reli e ve the concern s of Homeowner Associations about installing plantings in pond shoreline areas
159 Neighborhood education is also needed to change the dynamics of neighborhood board meeting s As one manager menti oned some residents did not care about plants and a fraction of the resident population might dominate the decision making process M ore residents need to be motivated to support improved designs for neighborhood stormwater pond s Education is needed to i ncrease understanding of the benefits of installing shoreline plantings and to relieve concerns about the disadvantages of using shoreline plantings from aesthetic, environmental and economic perspectives ( Table 5 3) Neighborhood social marke ting and l andscaping b ehavior The need for neighborhood social marketing also comes from the limitations of relying on design techniques to solve water quality problems in a neighborhood pond setting. Some n eighborhoods may have ponds that are inappropri ately designed from engineering standards and thus landscape planting design techniques may have limited effects on problem solving of pond issues such as algae overgrowth. Neighborhoods with inappropriately designed ponds might have greater demand for pub lic education to change neighborhood landscaping behaviors For example, in a stormwater pond with no forebay, a short distance to the houses, and located downstream of the neighborhood pond system it would be difficult to use perimeter planting technique s to address water quality. Not to mention the ponds in neighborhood golf courses since the landscape form cannot be changed in this particular setting. Social marketing is needed to gain homeowner support for healthy landscapes, to raise sufficient maint enance funds, and to change landscape maintenance style.
160 Even some appropriately designed ponds that use current standards might have limitations. Take forebay or multi basins in pond design as an example. S ome municipal codes and reference manuals includ e forebay and multi basin design criteria for stormwater ponds S tudies show that m ulti pond sys tems, used as ear ly as 20 centuries ago in agriculture, have a large nutrient retention capacity and nutrient level could be reduced significantly at the outlet (Verhoeven, Arheimer, Yin, & Hefting, 2006). However, this multi pond or forebay technique might not be effective in a neighborhood context because of the source of nutrient input The nutrient input is not necessarily from stormwater inlets in neighborho od ponds : it could come from any direction where fertilizers were used around the pond. Thus the forebay or multi basin design technique might not work in this situation. Moreover, if all neighborhood ponds have fertilizer usage around the shorelines, ther e would be nutrient input in all ponds rather than the ideal situation that all stormwater runoff enters the first pond it runs through a pond system and the nutrient level decreases at the end of the pond chain. Neighborhood social marketing and m anage ment p olicy Most of the municipalities in the code study did not address fertilizer in stormwater pond system s Twenty two percent of municipalities addressed fertilizer restriction and 24% mentioned organic litter control (such as grass clippings) in sho reline areas. Also, 15% of municipalities addressed setting a shoreline low maintenance zone. Some residents in the focus group study were not aware of the local fertilizer policy. This might indicate the need for public education to collaborate with regul atory intervention on appropriate landscaping practices.
161 P ond management is a watershed management issue. Participants in the focus group study noted the importance of fertilizer control at the neighborhood scale and felt fe rtiliz Also, collaboration may be needed for neighborhoods at the watershed sc ale. In some cases the nutrient comes from the neighborhood itself, and also from the neighborhood nearby. The nutrient level of stormwater input from other neighborhoods to the ponds of a neighborhood can be higher than the runoff from the pond. M anageme nt of the pond landscape is also a public issue since the quality of the receiving waters is affected by pond water quality. Policy makers should use public education to make residents aware of their influence on public benefits. Wetlands cannot be manage d in isolation ( Houlahan, Keddy, Makkay, & Findlay, 2006 ). T o achieve long term control of water quality and to reduce algae growth, efforts should be applied at the watershed scale rather than the shoreline area only ( Livingston & McCarron, 1991 ; Lembi, 2 003; Ramey et al. 2005; Heisler et al., 2008; Serrano & DeLorenzo 2008; Hurley & Forman, 2011 ). Neighborhood Social Marketing on Pond Landscapes Based on the results from my study and literature search s uggestions on neighborhood pond social marketing are discussed next A n eighborhood landscape committee could play an important role in neighborhood social marketing encouraging neighbo rhood communication and increas ing awareness and knowledge of homeowners There is also a need to use social marketing to promote environmentally friendly landscape aesthetics so residents become willing to adopt environmentally
162 friendly landscape practices E ducation is needed to let homeowners know the maintenance level associated with the landscape management budget an d to raise neighborhood landscape funding to support pond management. Social marketing could be used to promote the application of rainwater harvesting practices in neighborhoods. R esource sharing can enhance collaboration among neighborhoods, government a gencies, and researchers to improve neighborhood social marketing on stormwater pond issues. Neighborhood l andscape c ommittee Comprehensive and thorough educational programs are needed to change fertilization habits (Carey et al., 2012). Effective commun ication is essential to the success of social marketing in the neighborhood. Neighborhood associations have used a series of communication methods including signs, flyers, newsletter s, and televising neighborhood board meetings to stimulate discussion and educate residents The Islandwalk Homeowners Association (2012) found that s ufficient and appropriate communicatio n can lead to full support from residents and f ertilizer restriction policies are more likely to be implemented Based on the observation of one neighborhood where focus group interviews were conducted, my study also agrees with the Islandwalk Homeowners Association ( 2012 ) : using the expertise of a current board member might be helpful to launch neighborhood social marketing campaigns, such as workshops and pond monitoring activities. In the focus group study a resident who also served on the neighborhood landscape committee noted the importance of the landscape board for educating
163 residents on pond management and environmental issues. After t he board member noticed the association between algae spray and fish kill, algae spray was prohibited in the neighborhood and residents volunteered to maintain shoreline plantings. In this case the community landscape committee promote d environmentally fr iendly landscaping practices and educat e d local residents T he role of the neighborhood landscape committee should be emphasized in future neighborhood social marketing campaigns. Communication with landscapers and certification Besides educating homeown ers, landscapers also need to be educated ( as mentioned in the focus group study ) In m aster p lanned c ommunities landscapers (instead of homeowners) often maintain the yards. C ertification of landscapers is important to guide neighborhood landscaping prac tices such as appropriate fertilizer application and mowing, to reduce nutrient loading in pond water. Only 9% of municipalities in the code study addressed fertilizer application certification in codes. Education goals could be better achieved in mainten ance free neighborhoods where a smaller audience could be targeted. In non maintenance free neighborhoods there is need to educate all residents and the landscapers hired by each resident Promote ecological aesthetics According to results from the f ocus group study and case studies, current aesthetic norms on water and turf do not necessarily promote pond health The maintenance practices required by pond landscapes with turf down to water may cause decreased water quality and pond health Some resid ents in the focus group study did not appreciate plants and disliked authentic natural landscapes such as
164 wetlands. Neighborhood social marketing is needed to promote visual quality aligned with environmental function to protect pond health. Landscape lan guage communicating human intention provides a vocabulary for enhancing the ecological quality of landscape designs and e cological quality is recognizable when people are educated to perceive it (Nassauer, 1995). Viewing home property as an investment may landscapes. Residents may not be willing to accept innovation, which might contradict community norms and reduce the value of the home, since the financial stake in their homes is too high. Conservative constr aints on innovation in the yards increase when the financial uncertainty for the home increases. Real estate developers, landlords and lending agencies are often conservative in deciding the most rewardable landscape appearance. Decision makers are more in clined to take broader norms of residential landscapes as their preferences (Nassauer et al. 2009). Design or knowledge interventions could be used to align aesthetic and environmental benefits in landscapes. Design techniques that change perceptible land scape patterns could be used to create attractive landscapes with high environmental benefits Knowledge interventions to educate people may help them learn to appreciate ecologically beneficial landscapes (Gobster et al. 2007). Swanwick (2009) stated tha t knowledge intervention, such as education and social marketing campaigns, should be used to change long term behavior and perception since society may continue to be detached from nature and less caring about the future. Ecological aesthetics should be promoted as a normative aesthetic so that ecologically beneficial
165 landscapes are seen as attractive, resolving conflicts between aesthetic and sustainability values (Gobster, 1999 ; Gobster et al. 2007 ). However, Parsons and Daniel (2002) criticized the calls for ecological aesthetics and defended scenic aesthetics. They argued that ecological aesthetics are based on a cognitive understanding of environmental sustainability and are based on the presumed easy malleability of landscape preferences. When pro posing a new ecological aesthetic, people tend to assume a consensus about specific management practices leads to bio logical sustainability (Parsons & Daniel 2002). However, Nassauer (1997) noted a scenic landscape aesthetic does not necessarily protect l andscape ecological quality and can be used to distract people from actions that impair ecosystem health Neighborhood education might promote the appreciation of nature in ne ighborhoods. In the focus group interviews, women were more willing to discuss pl antings and were more interested in wildlife than men were This agreed with findings by V an d en Berg and van Winsum Westra (2010) that gender is an important factor affecting landscape preferences and men were less appreciative of gardens compar ed to wome n. Therefore neighborhood education campaigns could focus on women to achieve the expected results. Education for maintenance fund raising Routine maintenance of shoreline plants is a challenge in neighborhoods since residents, designers, and managers all noted the lack of sufficient maintenance funding. The stormwater pond needs regular maintenance to preserve its intended functions of stormwater con trol and treatment (Powell, n.d ). Maintenance is essential for stormwater ponds to achieve their designe d function on a long term basis (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). However,
166 as Powell (2011) indicated, knowledge and funding resources are insufficient to maintain the stormwater ponds. Furthermore, Powell (2011) said that residents have a comm on misconception that stormwater ponds were created as primarily recreational and aesthetic amenities, not stormwater management devices. P roblems were caused by the misunderstanding that a stormwater pond is a natural feature tha t maintains itself (Powell n.d ). Education and social marketing are essential to promote environmentally oriented aesthetics. Henderson et al. (1998) indicated that public perceptions evolve with increased ecological knowledge : what is considered weedy today may look beautiful in the future. Encourage rain water harvesting measures Changing the stormwater runoff hydrology could also be a part of an integrated method to improve stormwater pond health. Stormwater collection and treatment measures should be used near runoff sources according to Heiss (2007). Using more pervious landscape materials and promoting rainwater harvesting could reduc e erosion and water fluctuation in pond s and could reduce the amount of pollutants and organic litter being washed into the pond. Resource sha ring There are emerging resources available for social marketing campaigns on stormwater pond management. For example, one neighborhood in Naples, Florida, shared their experience using websites and a DVD in cooperation with the South Florida Water Manag ement District on algae control in their neighborhood. The neighborhood encouraged exchange of information with other neighborhood s and researchers on how to better manage neighborhood stormwater ponds and prolong the life of neighborhood ponds. Resource sharing with other neighborhoods, government
167 agencies, and researchers might increase the problem solving capability of an HOA, especially when solutions to the problems are not well identified. Every neighborhood might have their own particular pond condi tions in terms of pond and neighborhood design. It is important for HOAs to learn from the literature and experience of outside sources and figure out solutions for their ponds. Summary of Discussion T he interactions among aesthetic environmental, and e conomic aspects show the reasons for the current problems in neighborhood stormwater pond landscapes and the future challenges, including education of residents, design and management issues for designers and managers, and code development for policy maker s. Social marketing is needed to help align design and policy to improve the quality of neighborhood stormwater pond landscapes. In the neighborhood setting, social marketing is necessary to get funding support for maintenance and it is particularly import ant in neighborhoods where landscaping improvement is not feasible due to engineeri ng specifications of the ponds.
168 Table 5 1. Visual concepts in the three studies group study or case studies. Numbers under code study represent the percentage of the 46 municipalities addressed the aspects ) Visual concepts Issues under visual concepts Focus group Case study Code study Openness Open wa ter view Not mentioned Smoothness Water no algae bloom 20% (algae control) Clean water edge Not mentioned Upkeep Non weedy looking plant s Not mentioned Plant upkeep 33% Weed control 33% Complexity Diverse plants 13% Flowering plants 2%
169 Table 5 2. Link between visual quality and environmental function ( Environmental function s are provided according to each visual quality listed on the left) Visual quality Environmental function Use appropriate shoreline plan tings that allow water view Improve environmental function if use plantings around pond while allowing water view can r educe opportunity for mass plantings which reduces biodiversity Design shoreline plantings that are neat looking Using only neat looking plants may decrease biodiversity Use shoreline plantings with flowers Attract wildlife ; attractive landscapes are more likely to be cared for which could improve environmental function Use shoreline plantings with a variety of colors and textures Increa se biodiversity and wildlife habitat Use evergreen plant species Release less nutrient to water in cold seasons Use hardy plant species that do not spread Not have to use potentially damaging practices to control plant growth Apply design techniques to reduce invasive plant or weed growth Reduce the need for herbicides that could negatively affect environmental function Use man made shoreline structures Provide erosion control Mature trees in upland areas Absorb runoff and shade pond Design according to maintenance funding level Maintain environmental function with low maintenance funding Provide a maintenance plan Maintain plant growth and create nutrient removal mechanism Project landscape change and maturity Maintain environmental function over t ime Provide a clear view of undesirable wildlife Sparse low plantings not environmentally helpful Use shoreline plantings to reduce signs of erosion Provide erosion control Use engineering techniques to improve aesthetics Maintain pond water quality
170 Figure 5 1 Pond shoreline planting design according to shoreline context ( P hoto source: Shangchun Hu )
171 CHAPTER 7 STORMWATER PLANTING GUIDELINES Here I present the results as code writing guidelines for shoreline planting design in residential stormw ater systems. Readers from different backgrounds ( such as homeowners, designers, managers, and policy makers ) will find information useful for developing designs, installing plantings, and developing policy Researchers can also use the information to cond uct research to build on recommendations. Code writing strategies Code writing s trategies include using design guidelines, policy regulations and public education. Guidelines for pond shoreline planting give designers and manage r s a tool to meet homeowner needs, environmental functions, and budget issues. Regulatory interventions, such as HOA landscape codes, can be effective for design and management practices if they are based on science and social norms. P ublic education strategies can also be helpful to promote t he adoption of more environmentally friendly design and environmental policy if they target the right issues and audiences Project s ummary There is a need to learn about the social aspect s of neighborhood pond design and management and home owners are an information source (Walker et al., 2010). Previous studies used surveys to explore pond design issues. preference for stormwater pond landscapes. Walker ( 2012 ) used surve ys to explore values and attitudes of homeowners on residential ponds (constructed urban lakes). Few studies used focus group interview s to explore homeowner perceptions and the reasons behind their perceptions. My study used qualitative research method s a iming at a more holistic understanding of the situation rather than using generalized data. Focus
172 group interviews were conducted to learn about the perceptions and preferences of homeowners on ponds as well as the reasons for their perceptions and prefe rences. My study shows that landscape aesthetics can be used as a leverage to promote the long term health of landscapes as Nassauer (1997) suggested By taking an interdisciplinary approach, improved pond design techniques could be a way to promote lands caping behavior change in residents to improve current pond problems. By reviewing design, management, social marketing, and policy aspects together, my study puts landscape design as one step in the larger context of social marketing of environmentally f riendly landscaping practices. Results indicate that pond shoreline planting design should address open water view s as a key feature when installing littoral plantings especially in neighborhoods where residents paid premiums for a water view with landsc apes of turf down to the water edge Undesirable wildlife is also a concern with shoreline plantings. Design techniques such as plant selection (low height plant species) and arrangement (leave gaps around pond edges) could be used to address these issues. After addressing the key feature of an open water view, using design techniques that help increase complexity ( variety of colors and textures, and well kept appearance such as flow ers and clumping form of plants ) can increase visual quality of the plantin gs. T o maintain pond visual quality and also environmental functions such as biodiversity and wildlife habitat, maintenance need s to be considered during the design process M aintenance funding may be limited in some communities. A maintenance plan is need ed to support visual quality and environmental function on a long term basis. Planting design should also consider pond characteristics such as pond depth and the context of neighborhood
173 pond shorelines ( such as private yard shorelines, golf course shoreli nes, and natural land shorelines ) My study discovered two design/management strategies for neighborhood ponds. The current neighborhood pond design/management strategy is typically oriented to aesthetics and associated economics. Current neighborhood land scape practices are aimed at maintain ing landscape and turf aesthetics. These practices may contribute to nutrient loading in pond s and decrease pond visual quality (because of algae growth ) A revision of the pond landscape s might be needed to sustain pon d benefits on a long term basis. My study also found a second pond design/management strategy oriented toward nature, wildlife, or environmental protection associated with knowledge and education. Because neighborhood policies typically emphasize aesthet ics ( closely associated with property value ) there is a need to promote code writing that balance s those two strategies so that pond visual quality and environmental functions can both be supported Aesthetics of a neighborhood pond landscape is needed to promote environmentally friendly la ndscape design among homeowners. More important aesthetics can create and keep a sense of custodianship to care for the pond landscapes through time to maintain pond environmental functions (Walker et al., 2010) Futur e social marketing programs should emphasize aesthetics while promoting environmentally friendly landscaping practices. Principles of Neighborhood P ond Shoreline Planting Design Currently there is no consensus on the effectiveness of shoreline plants on po nd water quality control However, shoreline plantings are essential to protect pond health (Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, 1996 ). S horeline plantings in stormwater ponds could reduce nutrient input, prevent algae bloom control bank erosion, i ncrease
174 biodiversity, and serve as wildlife habitat ( Boyt et al 1977 ; Castelle et al., 1992 ; Livingston & McCarron, 1991 ; National Research Council, 2008 ; Moore & Hunt, 2012 ; Northeastern Illinois Plannin g Commission, 1998; Kadlec & Knight, 2008; Keddy, 2000 ) My study suggests that shoreline plants could be incorporated into pond designs together with other techniques to promote environmental function. The principles of neighborhood pond shoreline planting design recommended here are not intended to sol ve water quality problem s However, s horeline plantings may address algae blooms in ponds and improve the visual quality of ponds T hey can be a part of an integrated approach consisting of pond design, maintenance, policy, and social marketing strategies P lants might help slow down the eutrophication of ponds considering their ability to remove nutrient s if plant harvesting is provided. T en principles are suggested to promote pond environmental functions such as flood attenuation, possible nutrient contr ol, and provision of biodiversity and wildlife habitat. As Walker et al. (2010) noted a need to balance the benefits ponds provide t hese principles are recommended as a way to reconcile the visual quality and functions of neighborhood ponds. The visual qu ality of the shoreline plantings is emphasized in the design principles so residents might be more willing to support plantings in neighborhood ponds The principles for planting design of stormwater pond landscapes are as follows : Principle 1 : Allow open water view s Allow open water view s and a clear view of undesirable wildlife in the pond shoreline (especially for private yard shoreline) The w ater view could be improved by using low height plant species or by arranging plants to allow water views. Wa ter view is one of the primary reasons residents chose to live in a waterfront neighborhood. So a llowing water view is essential to gain the acceptance
175 of residents in establish ing shoreline plantings. When the visual quality of plantings and water are not in conflict, residents may be more willing to support plant maintenance. A llowing water view s might also encourage residents to be more concern ed about pond health and pond wildlife. Also, r outinely removing debris and harvest ing plantings could reduce ha bitat for undesirable wildlife species, such a s snakes (Blaser & Eades, 2006) Principle 2 : Create a well maintained look Provide a sense of care in pond plantings by using appropriate species and arrangement techniques to create a well kept appearance o f plantings. U se hardy species with clumping forms so they are less likely to spread. I nstall dense plantings to leave less space for weed s to grow Plantings should be maintained to keep views that provide a sense of upkeep. Design appropriately accor ding to plant growth characteristics so that trimming and thinning is not needed. A sense of upkeep should be incorporated into environmentally friendly pond landscapes so these landscapes can be appreciated and adopted. Unlike typical yard landscaping t hat uses mulching and mowing to control weed growth, shoreline landscaping requires a design that prevents weed growth with limited maintenance. Principle 3: Provide color. Use colorful flowering plants and evergreen plants for a lush look Flowering plan ts could increase the visual appeal of a landscape C olors and flowers acceptance of innovative landscape styles that provide ecological benefits (Dunnett, 2010). Colors also attract more polli nators and desirable wildlife such as butterflies and birds. Plants with green and broad foliage could also make a landscape more attractive Green color of vegetation in winter will help increase the visual quality of the landscape. Evergreen plants also drop fewer leaves and may release fewer nutrients into the water.
176 Principle 4 : Create diversity Create diversity in terms of both plants and wildlife. Use p lant ings with diverse flowerings and textures to create interest for viewers and increase econo mic value of properties (Powell, 2012 b ). Provide an appropriate level of complexity by using different plant types and species to enhance the visual appeal of a landscape A variety of plants also promote s fish growth and serve s as wildlife habitat for a variety of aquatic and terrestrial species. Principle 5 : Consider the maintenance funding Consider the landscap e maintenance budget during planting design and us e low maintenance design techniques Stormwater designs should consider maintenance issues and maintenance cost Often the l ack of a legal mechanism to ensure maintenance and insufficient maintenance funding are the main challenges to managing stormwater systems (Didona, 2007). Sufficient maintenance funding is needed to 1) provide suitable growin g condition s for the planting s especially during installation ; 2) support plant harvesting to remove nutrient s from ponds ; 3) remove plant litter to reduce nutrient loading in water ; 4) control weeds to satisfy the aesthetic needs of residents ; and 5) red uce algae growth to maintain a healthy pond that also meet s the aesthetic and recreational demands from residents. Designers should use low maintenance plant material and arrangement techniques to reduce maintenance need because increased landscape mainte nance cost leads to decreased willingness to adopt the plantings (Helfand et al., 2006). Contractors should also clearly communicate maintenance funding needs since people tend to underestimate the maintenance need of pond plantings. Principle 6: Develop a maintenance plan Establish a plan for future maintenance work especially weed control and a plant harvesting schedule Designers
177 in the case studies noted the dynamic change in designed plantings over time and the change in visual quality over the long term. The intent of a maintenance plan is to better sustain visual quality pond functions and wildlife/biodiversity The maintenance plan should consider the level of maintenance funding available and environmental factors ( such as the eutrophication/ ag ing of ponds and the maturity / succession of plantings ) N ewly built ponds might have low maintenance need s initially while older ponds may need more maintenance work over time. Also, t he succession of shoreline plantings may lead to changes in pond visual quality pond functions, and wildlife/biodiversity Principle 7: Use built landscape features Integrate the use of built shoreline structure s such as a sea wall or boardwalk into pond shoreline landscape design s to improve pond visual quality Built f eatures can help reduce the sometimes unorganized look that homeowners find unappealing T he combination of vegetation and built structure s increases the aesthetic appeal of a waterscape (Gobster, 2004) Built elements can also provide services such as ban k erosion control. Principle 8: C ontrol erosion Use shoreline plantings to protect the pond bank from erosion. The use of aquatic plants in the water can reduce the impact of wave action. Use plants with a large root mass at the pond water edge or fluctua tion areas to stabilize bank soil and prevent bank erosion. Principle 9 : Plant inlet and outlet structures I nstall dense plantings in inlet and outlet area s to hide the man made structure, reduce erosion, and uptake nutrients A ppropriately install plants so the function s of pond inlet and outlet structures are not affected I f the inlet and outlet structures are located near residential lots, plantings
178 around those structures should consider water views and clear view s of undesirable wildlife Management should prevent plant overgrowth at inlets and outlets. Principle 10 : Consider pond characteristics and shoreline context Design shoreline plantings according to pond characteristics and site context. One challenge in managing stormwater systems is the s ometimes inappropriate design of the facility N eighborhood landscape codes can also limit planting design around ponds Therefore, pond condition and site context must be evaluated, to design pond planting s T he planting design should consider pond engin eering characteristics such as inlet, outlet, pond shape, depth, bank slope, forebay, and aeration devices Appropriate selection and arrangement of plants should also consider site context ( such as adjacent land type, the distance from house to shoreline area, and water view s ) Use a vegetated perimeter buffer in various forms according to pond engineering characteristics and site context. M ature and dense plantings in the buffer can enhance nutrient removal efficiency in stormwater systems ( Collins et al ., 2010 ) but it is important to consider the aesthetic needs of water view and a clear view of undesirable wildlife. S horeline buffer s could includ e dense plantings spaced plantings, and low mow turf zone s The buffer size should also match p ond engineeri ng characteristics and site context. Guidelines for Neighborhood Pond Planting D esign Guidelines for pond planting design are provided using the format of Form Based Code s to describe shoreline types based on context. Landscape codes that are applied to pa rticular situations are more effective than g eneral landscape ordinances (Reid, 2000). T o meet various demands from aesthetic, environmental and economic aspects,
179 there is a need to regulate shoreline design according to different context scenarios A For m based Code format would achieve this goal better than traditional codes. Form B ased Codes format. Form B ased Codes make the future physical form of the built environment predictable ; and also the function which follows the form ( Hansen, 2008; Madden & Spikowski, 2006; Parolek et al. 2008). Form Based Code s are more succinct and organized for visual access and readability than tra ditional codes T hey avoid the disadvantages of conventional design guidelines that are sometimes not easy to apply consisten tly, causing subjective interpretation ; and are often chal lenging to enforce (Katz, 2004). Codes using the format of Form Based Code s can better react to pond shoreline context. There are several advantages for using Form Based Code s to address shoreline p lanting design : 1) they can regulate the q uantity of shoreline vegetation since a certain quantity of vegetation is needed on the shoreline to support environmental functions such as provision of biodiversity and wildlife habitat ; 2) they regulate the q ual ity of the shoreline vegetation because d ifferent plant types or species may have different aesthetic and environmental benefits ; 3) they address the a rrangement of the shoreline plantings to match the pond context and maximize the aesthetic and environmen tal needs of that context. Visual diagrams, photos, and examples are used to specify the physical form of pond landscapes so future aesthetic and environmental benefits of shoreline plantings may be more predictable. Shoreline types. Pond shorelines fit i nto 5 major types : Landscape (L) Hardscape (H) Natural land (N) Pond berm (P) I nlet and outlet ( I )
180 The setting of these 5 major shoreline types is primarily based on water view, fertilizer use (amount of lawn area) pollutant removal type of vegetation and space available for plant installation. The 5 major types are further categorized into 9 sub types: The landscaped area (L) refers to shorelines adjacent to areas landscaped with a high amount of turf or other plants that require fertilizer applicatio n. It is divided into 4 subcategories : Typical lot (L1) : shorelines on lots with houses a moderate distance ( 20 to 60 feet from house to water) ( Figure 7 1 Table 7 1 ) Large backyard (L2) : shorelines on lots with houses relatively far from water edge ( mor e than 60 feet from house to water) ( Figure 7 2 Table 7 2 ) Small backyard (L3) : shorelines on lots with houses close to the water edge ( less than 20 feet from house to water) ( Figure 7 3 Table 7 3 ) G olf course (L4) : shorelines adjacent to neighborhood golf courses ( Figure 7 4 Table 7 4 ) The hardscape area (H) refers to shorelines adjacent to paved land areas. The hardscape area is divided into 2 subcategories : R oad (H1) : shorelines adjacent to neighborhood roads ( Figure 7 5 Table 7 5 ) P arking lot an d community center (H2) : shorelines adjacent to neighborhood center and parking lot area ( Figure 7 6 Table 7 6 ) The other three major shoreline types include the following : N atural land (N): shorelines adjacent to natural land areas ( Figure 7 7 Table 7 7 ) Pond berm ( P ): shorelines bordered by other ponds ( Figure 7 8 Table 7 8 ) I nlet and outlet ( I ) : shorelines at pond inlets and outlets ( Figure 7 9 Table 7 9 ) The levels of aesthetic, environmental and economic considerations ( low, moderate, and high levels ) are provided for each shoreline type. Aesthetic considerations include open water view, colors, well kept look, and natural look.
181 Environmental considerati ons include pollutant filtering, erosion control and wildlife habitat Economic considerati on is on property value. Each shoreline type also includes key design considerations and tips important to that particular context and lot layout. Recommended P lant L ist Table 7 10 shows the recommended plant list for pond shorelines in Florida The recomm ended plant species are from municipal codes/manuals in the code study, designers/managers in the case studies, and the literature review ( Gilman & Black, 1999 ; Nelson, 2003; Osorio, 2001; Rodgers, 2002 ) Recommended plants for shoreline landscapes are div ided into three groups: G roup A for upland zone, G roup B for fluctuation zone, and G roup C for aquatic zone. The u pland zone has generally moist soil condition at water edge The fluctuation zone has frequent water fluctuations The aquatic zone has consta nt water condition. Because residents preferred low height, large flower, and non weedy looking plant species, group B plants are categorized into three subgroups: 1) maximum 6 feet high 2) maximum 4 feet high and 3) maximum 3 feet high The species are also listed as flowering species or non weedy looking species. Recommended P lant Z one W idth, H eight, and P lant C omposition Table 7 11 shows the recommended plant zone width. The s horeline section is divided into upland zone, fluctuation zone, and aquatic zone. The plant zone width and plant height requirements are illustrated as follows: Typical lot (L1) has no upland zone plantings. It has a 6 foot fluctuation zone width and 3 foot aquatic zone width. The maximum plant height for the fluctuation zone is 3 feet. Use about 40% flowering species and 60% non weedy appeal species. Use herbaceous plants to stay low. Large backyard (L2) has a 3 foot upland zone width, 6 foot fluctuation zone width, and 3 foot aquatic zone width. The maximum plant height for the fluctuation zone
182 is 3 feet. Use about 30% flowering species and 70% non weedy appeal species. Use trees and herbaceous plants. Small backyard (L3) has no upland zone plantings. It has a 3 foot fluctuation zone width, and 3 foot aquatic zone width. The maxi mum plant height for the fluctuation zone is 3 feet. Use 40% or more flowering species and 60% or more non weedy appeal species. Use herbaceous plants to stay low. Golf course (L4) has the smallest plant zone width of all shoreline types. It has a 3 foot f luctuation zone width but no upland zone or aquatic zone plantings. The maximum plant height for the fluctuation zone is 3 feet. Use herbaceous plants to stay low. Road (H1) has a 6 foot upland zone width, 6 foot fluctuation zone width, and 3 foot aqu atic zone width. The maximum plant height for the fluctuation zone is 4 feet. Use 30% or more flowering species and 40% or more non weedy looking species. Use herbaceous plants to stay low. Parking lot and community center (H2) has a 6 foot upland zone wid th, 6 foot fluctuation zone width, and 3 foot aquatic zone width. The maximum plant height for the fluctuation zone is 4 feet. Use 20% or more flowering species and 30% or more non weedy looking species. Use trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. Natural la nd area (N) has an 8 foot upland zone width, 6 foot fluctuation zone width, and 6 foot aquatic zone width. The maximum plant height for the fluctuation zone is 6 feet. Use trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. Pond berm area ( P ) has no upland zone planting s since it borders another pond. Berm stability and maintenance access should be considered. It has a 3 foot fluctuation zone, and 6 foot aquatic zone. The maximum plant height for the fluctuation zone is 6 feet. Use herbaceous plants. I nlet and outlet ar ea (I) has no requirement for the upland zone since it often overlaps with other shoreline types. It has a 6 foot fluctuation zone width and 6 foot aquatic zone width. The maximum plant height for the fluctuation zone is 6 feet. Planting width for the fluctuation zone and aquatic zone should follow the widest requirement when there are conflicts with width requirements of other shoreline types. The plant height requirement should follow the lowest height requirement when in conflict with requirements of other shoreline types. Use herbaceous plants. Code F ormat and C ontent For the purpose of making codes more readable and applicable more prescriptive and science based ; and for the purpose of increasing public awareness of
183 environmental protection, and enhancing public understanding of stormwater management, t he format of stormwater code s should address the following issues : Problem statement Introduce local current environmental problems and issues in terms of water quality. D escribe the influence of s tormwater on the local community in terms of aesthetics environmental function and economic s For example, describe the current water quality status of waters, the occurrence of algae blooms, and the impact on local ec onomy and resident well being Discu ss current environmental laws and ordinances that apply to stormwater systems. P urpose Explain the need for stormwater systems Illustrate their services from aesthetic environmental function and economic perspectives. For example, explain the reasons f or decreased water quality and algae blooms. Address the intent of using stormwater features to protect environmental health, local economy, and resident well beings. Definitions Define key terms such as forebay and littoral zone in code content. Besid es clearly defin ing terms, use more common terms for easier reading. The codes should be written to increase public understanding of stormwater system s and reduce the misleading effect caused by marketing terms For example, the codes should avoid using l ake and use pond when referring to stormwater ponds. Compatibility with other ordinance requirements The code s need to illustrate compatibility with requirements of other codes and should say whether code requirement s override home owner association c ode s when they are in conflict.
184 Stormwater system d esign standards Several key pond design criteria need to be addressed Pond design recommendations should be provided for the following specifications: P ond depth : Require both minimum and maximum pond depth. The minimum pond depth might be more important considering plant and algae growth control. P ond shape : Recommend pond shapes that encourage better water circulation and algae growth control. Besides minimum pond length to width ratio, maximum pond length to width ratio should be used to avoid over elongated pond shapes An alternative method might be to require maximum pond perimeter to area ratio. B ank slope : require minimum and maximum pond bank slope s to ensure proper drainage, improve growing c ondition of plantings and reduce erosion. F orebay : use vegetated forebay to filter pollutants before stormwater runoff enters pond. All inlets should enter forebay. Promote the use of perimeter vegetated swales as forebay s to filter stormwater runoff fro m backyards. The depressed perimeter swales might provide better a growing environment for plantings compar ed to bank slope planting areas. Erosion control : recommend use of established and science based techniques to limit erosion caused by water movemen t. Aeration : Recommend aeration techniques in neighborhood pond s especially for ponds surrounded by turf that contributes to constant nutrient loading and the need for algae growth control. Vegetated buffer/shoreline : recommend planted shorelines using sci ence based guidelines for environmental and aesthetic benefits, include planting guidelines and requirement s for plant material and plant arrangement. Provide a plant species list for stormwater systems and use drawings to show plant arrangement requiremen t s Require percentage of flowing plant species in pond shoreline areas. P romote perimeter littoral plantings but leave gaps for open water view. In addition to requiring littoral zone depth, requir e littoral zone width for better control of pond landscap e visual quality. Maintenance access road : recommend boat access to the pond ( based on pond size and site context ) to promote efficient pond maintenance such as plant and algae overgrowth control. Maintenance schedule : follow established science based gui delines for annual maintenance for optimal pond health.
185 Stormwater system maintenance standards : recommend a m aintenance plan with a detailed inspection and maintenance schedule for neighborhood ponds to keep the aesthetic s environmental function, and e conomic benefits of pond landscapes. Plant harvesting and sediment removal should be required to clean pond nutrient s and improve pond water quality. Shoreline and neighborhood scale landscaping practices, such as fertilizer application and mowing need to be addressed for water quality protection. Sufficient funding should be required to support the maintenance plan. S cientific references : u se scientific references to back up the design standards. Consider aesthetic s environmental function, and e conomics when setting the requirements. U se drawings and quantifications to illustrate design requirements for better communication of code requirements. Use drawings from stormwater manuals to illustrate design requirements. P rovide full names and source s of the stormwater manuals. Neighborhood design standards : f or the design of neighborhoods with stormwater ponds, set a limit on housing lot density around ponds. Require neighborhood golf courses to be located away from housing lots if possible and us e treatment wetlands to pretreat golf course stormwater runoff. Stakeholders and C ode C ontent Recommendations to address various stakeholder needs in code content are provided. Stakeholders include Homeowner Associations (HOA) designers, pond managers, th e turf industry, developers, and policy makers. Code content for each group includes the following : Stakeholder h omeowner a ssociations Codes should include provisions for HOA responsibilities including the following : M onitor pond water quality Include ann ual maintenance expense and sufficient funding for pond maintenance when the pond ages E ducate both waterfront and non waterfront residents to change current landscape practices
186 Stakeholder d esigners Codes should include provisions for other design concer ns besides planting including the following : R educe the number of waterfront houses because of high aesthetic demand and fertilizer use in home yard lawn areas A rrange housing units near each other and leave more space for natural land in the neighborhood (Heiss, 2007) Include sufficient space to use a forebay to pretreat stormwater runoff E ach pond has various adjacent land use types to reduce the amount of turf M ore hardy and naturalistic plantings could be used in shoreline areas not adjacent to house s to protect pond water quality Golf course stormwater treatment methods are needed to treat its water because of its fertilizer use. T reatment wetlands or vegetated stormwater detention ponds should be created to pretreat its water before it enters neigh borhood pond system. P reserve natural vegetation cover on site for residential development. By keeping natural lands in neighborhood, the impervious area could be reduced. F luctuations in stormwater pond s can be reduced to improve the survivability of shor eline plantings and therefore reduce weed growth H igh contact with natural environment may result in higher preference for wilderness landscapes (Dearden, 1984). By having natural lan d on site, residents might appreciate wilderness more. Thus aesthetics a ligned with environmental function could be better promoted. Although s atisfying people s aesthetic demand is an important task for designers, they should also realize their roles for guiding social change D esigners have the social responsibility to lead aesthetic norms in healthy directions rather than create landscapes that have high resource demands to sustain or that lead to environmental degradation Stakeholder m anagers Codes can encourage managers to enhance communication with residents and educat e residents on pond knowledge and maintenances expenses
187 Pond managers should inform residents that pond maintenance is not isolated work. It is associated with fertilizer application and grass clipping management at the neighborhood scale. Cod es can enco urage managers to be certified or in some way stay current with the latest science on pond management. Because of the various pond engineering characteristics of different neighborhoods there is no universal management method for every pond, especiall y in the case of algae control. Codes can also encourage m anagers to explore effective methods for particular neighborhood pond types. For example, neighborhood s with deep ponds found using diffusers to be an effective way to control algae bloom ( Islandwalk Ho meowners Association, 2012 ). Pond managers should explain the benefits of using pond plantings to residents through different communication events such as neighborhood meetings Codes could also recommend neighborhood pond s be used as local nurseries to pr oduce self use plantings to reduce the expense of plant materials. Stakeholder t urf industry Codes might encourage opportunities for the turf production and research sector, especially the breeding of less resource dependent turf species. U nder current pr essure on irrigation and fertilizer issues, c ompanies with more energy efficient turf species (maintain ing visual quality under low ma intenance) could get preference from customers. Codes should encourage designers, developers, and managers to work with in dustry professionals when making plant selections. Stakeholder d evelopers Codes can show how the regulations fit with other regulations so the developers see the cumulative effect Stakeholder p olicymakers Codes could include case studies or examples. At the local level, policymakers are expected to guide local neighborhood landscape practices in environmentally healthy ways. Economic incentives could be provided in residential stormwater pond
188 settings to encourage the use of shoreline plantings. For ex ample, Seattle municipal code allowed the properties with rainwater harvesting systems meeting performance requirements to have a 10 % reduction in drainage service charge. Another example: New York City provides tax abatement from city property tax to enco urage the application of a green roof (City of New York, 2012). The current stormwater fee rate is not based on fertilizer contribution to receiving waters and s ome municipalities (such as the City of Miami) required residential properties to have a flat f ee. The future stormwater fee collection could be based on types of landscape with different fertilizer use In addition, native plants may be considered weedy vegetation under current neighborhood policy The Model Native Plant Landscape Ordinance propos ed by the Florida Native Plant Association recommended that no regulation should be made to remove native vegetation, except when deemed necessary for public safety N atural landscaping applying native species should not be considered the same as a neglect ed property for not using traditional lawn landscaping (Florid a Native Plant Society, 2007 ). Using C odes to E nhance P ublic E ducation and S ocial M arketing Environmental problem s could be perceived as a cooperation problem where individual choices are being made based on individual interest s only rather than benefits to all (Krantz, 2008). M oral persuasion could lead to ecologically beneficial landscapes (Hurd, 2006). P ublic education and social marketing are need ed to increase public awareness and knowledg e of environmental prot ection and related policies Neighborhood education on effects of maintenance practices Comprehensive and thorough educational programs are needed to change fertilization habits (Carey et al., 2012). The role of community landscape committees for
189 educating local residents should be emphasized in the codes The codes can be the starting point for an education program. All the requirements in the codes provide the topics for the education curriculum. The goal for this category is for h omeowners to be knowledgeable about the effects of maintenance practices on pond health A ctions include the followings Use social media and other technology to keep residents informed. Televise neighborhood landscape board meetings to better disseminate knowledge and stimulate discussion Use the expertise of neighborhood residents, especially board members, to educate residents. Develop and deliver presentations at HOA board meetings that show the cause and effect of landscape practices ( such as fertili zer and grass clippings in the water ) Create a neighborhood pond advisory board dedicated to finding solution s to pond problem s Hire a social marketing expert and develop a social marketing program. Conduct surveys to learn about the educational resourc es homeowners use and what type of information they typically seek. Develop social marketing campaigns and give specific do able actions. Involve homeowners in water quality testing activities to encourage direct involvement in problem solving. Engage res earchers to conduct focus group meetings as a way to educate residents. Develop educational workshops for residents to explain the purpose of management activities. Collaborate with Master Gardeners to educate neighborhood residents on effects of landscap ing practices. Objectives include the following for their yard lawns.
190 Educate homeowners on the function of neighborhood stormwater ponds. Explain the need for fertilizer cont rol and the function of littoral plantings on nutrient control. One on one part n ership with m aster g ardener s was found to be effective to improve homeowner landscaping knowledge and practices in neighborhood education program s (Carpenter & Meyer, 1999b). M ake residents aware that the management of a single pond is a neighborhood problem and all residents in the neighborhood are involved. Researchers suggest that reduction of nutrient inputs to the entire watershed rather than a subset of areas is an effecti ve way to reduce harmful algae blooms and the best method for long term control of algae problems (Heisler et al., 2008, Hurley & Forman, 2011, Lembi, 2003). Educate residents about proper fertilizer application and disposal. Residents should be aware of the purpose of fertilizer blackout periods and help enforce fertilizer regulations throughout the neighborhood. The problem statement and stormwater system design standards sections of codes can be used to produce educational materials on m aintenance practices. Neighborhood communication on pond visual quality The goal for this category is to relate aesthetics to management as a way to help homeowners understand the effect of poor management practices on visual quality. A ctions include the following E xplain the aesthetic conflicts between fertilized landscape with turf down to water and the expectation of a water view with no algae. Identify other communities with successful stormwater systems as examples that could gradually reshape peopl Explore opportunities to use s horeline sections as demonstration gardens in neighborhood to make residents appreciate the visual quality of pond plantings The location of demonstration gardens could be published in neighborhood media such as newsletter s Develop a best practices manual with a list of recommended plants. Develop long term community wide partnerships with landscape managers. Survey homeowners about acceptable management practices and techniques.
191 Engage researchers from local institutions to study the environmental and social issues. Objectives include the following Gain a greater understanding of aesthetic preferences. Awareness of the proble m with disposing grass clippings and pet waste in ponds may decrease water quality in stormwater ponds Pet waste management is also a problem in water edge areas (Simonds & Star ke, 2006; Serrano & DeLorenzo, 2008). sections of codes can be used to produce educational materials on pond visual quality Neighborhood communication on nature and wildlife My study concurred with Didona ( 2007): wildlife, especially birds, is an important birds Carles, Barrio, & De Lucio 1999 ). My study also found that wildlife tends to act as an indicator of environment health status to residents. Some participants said they questioned landscape practices and started to be aware of the environmental impact caused by landscaping activities when they saw fish kills in ponds. Future educational interventions could use wildlife as a topic to get more attentio n and interest from residents. The goal for this category is to show how wildlife can improve visual appeal as a way to help homeowners u nderstand the effect of management practices on attracting wildlife. A ctions include the following Conduct surveys to learn about the wildlife preferences of homeowners. Engage homeowners in wildlife sighting surveys to learn about the prevalence of exist ing wildlife.
192 Develop educational materials about wildlife habitat (need for cover, food, and nesting) and the need to correct misunderstandings about wildlife. Develop landscape plans for demonstration plantings that are visually pleasing, attract desira ble wildlife, and make it safer to be around undesirable wildlife. Develop educational material about landscape practices and fish kills. Objectives include the following Encourage concern for wildlife and a desire to attract more wildlife with an environ mentally healthy landscape. Educate residents about how landscape practices influence wildlife and pond health. Ease fears of wildlife and show homeowners how to co exist with unwanted wildlife. ns of codes can be used to produce educational materials on nature/wildlife. Neighborhood communication on e conomic issues Participants in the focus group study said property value is important to them T hey were concerned that change in the landscape appe arance with shoreline plantings and algae bloom might decrease the value, saying they paid a premium for the waterfront lots. The impact from new landscape styles on home values and the need for maintenance could affect the landscape choice of residents (H urd & Smith, 2005). Participants in the focus group study worried about the possible high maintenance expense for the most preferred shoreline setting ( Figure 4 1 D). Data are needed on the potential financial gain ( property value or s avings on landscape ma intenance) of changing landscape practices. Using financial leverage to reinforce landscape practices and improve effectiveness of educational and regulatory interventions should also be investigated.
193 The goal for this category is to help homeowners unders tand how visual quality and property value can be improved through landscape practices. A ctions include the following. Conduct surveys to learn about what homeowners feel contributes to, or negates, property value regarding aesthetics and ponds. Survey pr home appraisals. Illustrate the association between maintenance level and visual quality of neighborhood pond landscapes. Conduct aesthetic preference/cost surveys that show a serie s of photos to illustrate vegetation possibilities from turf to fully planted settings along with common maintenance costs. Indicate the economic benefits of pond plantings for savings on erosion control and algae treatment. Compare plant expense with sa vings on erosion and algae control. Compare cost estimates for different methods of algae removal with impact on nature/wildlife such as wildlife watching and fishing. Develop and install demonstration landscapes with cost estimates for installation and plant material, and annual maintenance. Develop estimates for long term maintenance costs for erosion control, bank replenishment, and sediment removal and compare to the cost for preventive measures such as shoreline plantings. Objectives include the fol lowing. For residents to be aware of the costs of current landscape practices. about the cost s and benefits of environmentally friendly landscape practices on a long term basis. Relate economics to an environmentally frie ndly yet aesthetic shoreline. be used to produce educational materials on economic issues.
194 Example s of social marketing message s An example of a social marketing message is to us e the analogy of a decorated of stormwater ponds : S tormwater ponds act as pollutant traps (Sloan, 2010) and they deteriorate over time. A n eighborhood stormwater pond as a well will not hi de its designed function. The trash can keeps getting full and there is no mechanism to dump the litter while everyone is still contributing to the increased load of litter. It is time to tell people about their responsibility to clean the trash can litter remind people how they dumped litter into the beautiful tra sh can, and let people decide the solution: create a litter dumping mechanism or reduce litter input. Installing and harvesting pond plantings might be one way to create a dumping mechanism; educ ation and social marketing might be needed to reduce litter input. The dumping routine could be considered in the short term while education on litter reduction would be a long term goal.
195 Table 7 1 Typical lot (L1) shoreline design Level of concern Key design considerations Design tips Aesthetic: h igh Environmental : h igh Economic: h igh O pen water view D esirable wildlife views U ndesirable wildlife exposed E rosion control N utrient filtering Maintain property value Create a legible planting boundary Use attractive colors and good design composition Alternate sections of clean water edge or low mow open area with planted areas around shoreline ( Figure 7 10 11 ) Use plant types that will not naturally spread aggressively U se about 40% flowering species and 60% non weedy appeal species ( Table 7 10 ) Types of plants: herbaceous plants to stay low Table 7 2 Large backyard (L2) shoreline design Level of concern Key design considerations Design tips Aesthetic: h igh Environmental : h igh Economic: h igh O pen water view D esirable wildlife views U ndesirable wildlife exposed N utrient filtering Maintain property value Wide vegetated buffer Maintenance of vegetation Create a legible planting boundary Use attractive colors and good design composition Opportunities to use more vegetation considering large space; large trees in backyard could shade pond water Alternate sections of clean water edge or low mow open area with planted areas around shoreline ( Figure 7 10 11 ) Restrict the spread of aquatic plants U se abou t 30 % flowering species and 70 % non weedy appeal species ( Table 7 10 ) Types of plants: trees and herbaceous plants
196 Table 7 3 Small backyard (L3) shoreline design Level of concern Key design considerations Design tips Aesthetic: High Environmental : Hig h Economic: High O pen water view D esirable wildlife views U ndesirable wildlife exposed E rosion control N utrient filtering Maintain property value Create a legible planting boundary Reduce planting zone width and use sparse plants to allow a clear view o f undesirable wildlife Use attractive colors and good design composition Alternate sections of clean water edge or low mow open area with planted areas around shoreline ( Figure 7 10 11 ) Restrict the spread of aquatic plants U se no less than 40% flowering species and no less than 60% non weedy appeal species ( Table 7 10 ) Types of plants: herbaceous plants to stay low Table 7 4 Golf course (L4) shoreline design Level of concern Key design considerations Design tips Aesthetic: h igh Environmental : h igh Eco nomic: m oderate Open water view Undesirable wildlife exposed Erosion control Nutrient filtering Create a legible planting boundary Use more low height and soft texture plants U se no less than 50% non weedy looking species ( Table 7 10 ) Types of plants: h erbaceous plants to stay low Table 7 5 Road (H1) shoreline design Level of concern Key design considerations Design tips Aesthetic: h igh Environmental : h igh Economic: m oderate W ater view from street E rosion control R emoval of pollutants from road Use low maintenance plants Use sparse or low plants in upland area to give water view from the roads U se no less than 30% flowering species and no less than 40% non weedy looking species ( Table 7 10 ) Types of plants: use herbaceous plants to stay low
197 Ta ble 7 6 Parking lot and community center (H2) shoreline design Level of concern Key design considerations Design tips Aesthetic: h igh Environmental : h igh Economic: m oderate W ater view from parking lots and community center E rosion control R emoval of pol lutants from parking lots Use low maintenance plants Could use relatively large and dense plant community to treat stormwater runoff Opportunities to use tall and dense vegetation Allow natural plant community succession U se no less than 20% flowering spec ies and no less than 30% non weedy looking species ( Table 7 10 ) Types of plants: trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Table 7 7 Natural land (N) shoreline design Level of concern Key design considerations Design tips Aesthetic: h igh Environmental : h igh Economic: h igh Maintain natural look Low demand on pollutant filtering E rosion control High concern on property value Allow natural plant community succession More trees could be used in upland area to integrate the plantings into natural settings Oppo rtunities to use tall and dense vegetation Restrict the spread of aquatic plants Types of plants: trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Table 7 8 Pond berm (P) shoreline design Level of concern Key design considerations Design tips Aesthetic: h igh Envir onmental : m oderate Economic: h igh Low demand on pollutant filtering Need to maintain stability of pond bank Use low maintenance plants Use self contained species Opportunities to use tall and dense vegetation Arrange the plants in a way that leave space fo r maintenance work on the berm Types of plants: herbaceous plants
198 Table 7 9 I nlet and outlet (I) shoreline design Level of concern Key design considerations Design tips Aesthetic: m oderate Environmental : h igh Economic: l ow Need plants to hide struct ure High demand on pollutant filtering Use low maintenance plants Dense vegetation at certain distance around inlet & outlet so that water flow would not be affected Arrange the plants in a way that leave space for maintenance work Keep plant harvesting a s routine maintenance work to promote nutrient removal Types of plants: herbaceous plants
199 Table 7 10 Plant species list for pond shoreline landscapes Group name Subgroup Latin name Common name Showy f lowering Non weedy looking Group A (for upland zo ne ) Acer barbatum Florida Maple Acer rubrum Red Maple Betula nigra River Birch Fraxinus caroliniana Water Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Gordonia lasianthus Loblolly Bay Magnolia virginiana Sweet Bay Magnolia Nyssa sylvatica Tupelo Pinus elliotti var. elliottii Northern Slash Pine Pinus glabra Spruce Pine Taxodium spp. Bald Cypress Ulmus alata Winged Elm Ilex cassine Dahoon Holly Ilex opaca American Holly Ilex vomitoria Y aupon Holly Persea borbonia Bay Oak Persea palustris Swamp Bay Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Cyrilla racemiflora Swamp Cyrilla Myrcianthes fragrans Myrica cerifera Wax Myrtle Osmanthus americanus Wild Olive Clethra alnifolia Sweet Pepperbush Itea virginica Virginia Willow Calliandra emargin ata Pink Powderpuff Aristida stricta var. beyrichiana Wiregrass Asclepias spp. Milkweed Dietes iridoides African Iris Distichlis spicata Salt Grass
200 Table 7 10 Continued Group name Subgroup Latin name Common name Showy F lowerin g Non weedy looking Group A (for upland zone ) Iris hexagona Blue Flag Iris Justicia brandegeana Shrimp Plant Muhlenvergia capillaris Muhly Grass Soidago spp. Goldenrod Spartina spp. Cordgrass Tripsacum floridana Florida G ama Grass Group B (f or fluctuation zone ) M aximum 6 feet in height Crinum americanum String Lily Cyperus articulatus Jointed Flat Sedge Helianthus angustifolius Swampe Sunflower Scirpus validus Bulrush Sorghastrum secundum Lopsid ed Indian Grass Tripsacum dactyloides Fakahatchee Grass M aximum 4 feet in height Canna flaccida Yellow Canna Juncus effusus Soft Rush Maximum 3 feet in height Saururus cernuus Lizard's Tail Paspalidium geminatum Paspalidium Grass Panicum hemitomon Maindencane Peltandra virginica Arrow Arum Pontederia cordata Pickerelweed Iris virginica Southern Blue flag Eleocharis cellulosa Spikerush Crinum americanum Swamp Lily Sagittaria lancifolia Ar rowhead Sagittaria latifolia Duck Potato Hymenocallis latifolia Spider Lily Group C (f or aquatic zone ) Nelumbo lutea American lotus Nuphar luteua/ advena Spatterdock Nymphaea mexicana Yellow Water Lily Nymphaea odor ata Fragrant Water Lily
201 Table 7 11 Width and height requirements of shoreline plantings Shoreline type Upland zone width (feet) Fluctuation zone width (feet) Aquatic zone width (feet) Maximum plant height (feet ) L1 Typical lot 0 6 3 3 L2 Large bac kyard 3 6 3 3 L3 Small backyard 0 3 3 3 L4 Golf course 0 3 0 3 H1 Road 6 6 3 4 H2 Parking lot and community center 6 6 3 4 N Natural land 8 6 6 6 P pond berm n/a 3 6 6 I I nlet and outlet n/a 6 6 6
202 A C B Figure 7 1 Typical lot (L1 ) shoreline design A) Context: high density neighborhood B) Example: planted shoreline variable C) Shoreline section planting zones ( P hoto source: Brian Niemann, Shangchun Hu, and maps.google.com)
203 A C B Figure 7 2 Large back ya rd (L2) shoreline design A) Context : large backyards B) Example: planted shoreline wide C) Shoreline section planting zones ( P hoto source: Russ Hoffman, Shangchun Hu, and maps.google.com)
204 A C B Figure 7 3 Small backyard (L3) s horeline design A) Context : small backyards, B) Example: narrow planted shoreline, C) Shoreline section planting zones. ( P hoto source: Brian Niemann, Shangchun Hu, and maps.google.com)
205 A C B Figure 7 4 Golf course (L4) shoreline design A) Context : golf course, B) Example: golf course planted shoreline, C) Shoreline section planting zones. ( P hoto source: Shangchun Hu, Hillsborough County Adopt A Pond Program, and maps.google.com)
206 A C B Figure 7 5 Road ( H1) shoreline design A) Context : adjacent road, B) Example: row between road and pond, C) Shoreline section planting zones. ( P hoto source: Shangchun Hu and maps.google.com)
207 A C B Figure 7 6 Parking lot and community center (H2) shor eline design A) Context : parking lot B) Example: large pond planted area C) Shoreline section planting zones ( P hoto source: Shangchun Hu and maps.google.com)
208 A C B Figure 7 7 Natural land (N) shoreline design A) Context : natural land, B) Example: wooded edge, C) Shoreline section planting zones. ( P hoto source: Russ Hoffman, Shangchun Hu, and maps.google.com)
209 A C B Figure 7 8 Pond berm (P) shoreline design A) Context : pond berm, B) Example: plants at berm, C) Shoreline section planting zones. ( P hoto source: Shangchun Hu and maps.google.com)
210 A C B Figure 7 9 I nlet and outlet (I) shoreline design A) Context : pond inlet and outlet, B) Example: planted outlet, C) Shoreline section pl anting zones. ( P hoto source: Shangchun Hu and maps.google.com)
211 Figure 7 10 Backyard shoreline planting design with primarily flowering species and clear water edge view ( P hoto source: Shangchun Hu ) Figure 7 11 Backyard shoreline planting design wi th primarily flowering species and sections of clear water edge view ( P hoto source: Shangchun Hu )
212 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK Although current codes addressed various issues related to ponds, they continue to emphasize pond functions in terms of stormwater quantity and quality control in the design. However, in residential stormwater pond landscapes, the design requirements might not appropriately reflect social, environmental and economic benefits on a long term basis. My study agrees with D idona (2007) that c urrent stormwater pond design guidelines do not provide criteria on how to create aesthetically pleasing pond landscapes Visual quality needs to be incorporated into stormwater pond code writing and be aligned with environmental functio n for the long term function and health of the pond. Design strategies aligning visual quality and environmental function are provided and guidelines for pond design are suggested for code writing to promote the aesthetic and environmental benefits of po nds. Pond design, maintenance, and social marketing strategies should be addressed in codes as an integrated approach to promote pond health. Conclusions There is a need for improved design of residential stormwater ponds that are aesthetically, environme ntally, and economically constructed Visual qualities aligned with environmental function ( Table 5 2 ) can be incorporated in planting designs. T here is no consensus on the effectiveness of using plants to control pond water quality and solely using plant s might not be the solution without appropriate pond engineering designs However, planting design techniques that incorporate aesthetic concerns with the pond functions of floodwater control are recommended to be used with engineering
213 techniques for new p ond designs for enhanced visual quality of the water and possible nutrient removal. A ligning Visual Quality and Environmental Function in P ond P lanting D esign My study found the strongest alignment between visual quality and environmental functions of bio diversity and wildlife habitat. Since there is a need for using shoreline plantings to reduce nutrient loading in the pond and improve the visual quality of the water, the shoreline plantings should be visually appealing to residents so they are more like ly to support the use of plantings. My study delineates strategies to align visual quality and environmental function in neighborhood pond shoreline planting design. By using selected plantings, some visual characteristics of the plantings can be aligned with the pond functions of biodiversity and wildlife habitat. Appropriate plant selection and design techniques will allow homeowners to enjoy open water views, colorful plants, and a well kept look while maintaining a healthy pond. Sufficient maintenance funding can help maintain both the aesthetics and functions of ponds. Planting design should consider the maintenance funding level and should provide a maintenance plan for long term aesthetics and functions of ponds. Evaluation of pond engineering and s ite context for each shoreline section is needed to balance the aesthetic and environmental needs of stormwater ponds. Current Problems in Residential Stormwater Ponds C urrent neighborhood stormwater ponds built to collect stormwater on site, were accep table to residents at the time they were built. Driven by aesthetic norms for water and turf, the stormwater ponds were designed with turf down to the water around the shorelines. Residents paid premiums for the waterfront properties and homeowners
214 enjoy t he open water views However many were not aware of the functional purpose of these ponds. With the initial purpose of maintaining neighborhood aesthetic standards, neighborhood codes restricted changes to the initial neighborhood landscapes. The particu lar landscape form of "clean water edge" around neighborhood stormwater ponds contributes to nutrient accumulation in ponds ( through fertilizer application ) The eutrophication process in stormwater ponds resulted in decreased water quality and affected th eir functional performance. The occurrence of algae blooms has affected aesthetic s associated with property values. Managers had a hard time maintaining the consistent look of pond landscapes, especially when maintenance funding was limited. In some older neighborhoods residents are on their own after the maintenance responsibility is transferred to homeowner associations from developers. Residents tend to consider the neighborhood stormwater ponds as natural lakes that need little maintenance. With insu fficient funding, maintaining the original look of the pond landscape is becoming increasingly challenging. A revision of current neighborhood pond landscape s may be a solution to address the decreased aesthetic, environmental, and economic benefits of the pond The Need to Sustain Benefits of Neighborhood Stormwater Pond s Neighborhood stormwater ponds should be created with aesthetic, environmental, and economic services integrated for long term performance. A w ell designed pond may reduce maintenan ce costs over time. My study suggests it will be a challenging task to maintain the benefits on a long term basis. One participant of the focus group interviews who had algae bloom issues in his pond commented:
215 [stormwater ponds] were you put your money up on the development you say well how can I make this a benefit, say you throw some plants around it and call it a pond, and add price to figure out what to do with it. With degraded visual quality of the pond and environmental function, the benefits of the ponds decrease over time. The Need to Balance Objectives in Neighborhood Ponds Neighborhood stormwater ponds have both aesthetic and environmental functions as flood control and community amenities. The multiple objectives of stormwater ponds can resu lt in social, environmental, and economic problems ( Walker et al., 2010 ). There is a need to balance the objectives of a neighborhood pond. Conflicts in objectives V isual quality and pond function have several conflict s in a residential pond setting: 1) r opportunity for mass planting around or in ponds which reduces biodiversity ; 2) neat looking plants can also decrease biodiversity by decreasing plant types ; 3) providing a clear vi ew of wildlife may also limit plant selection and biodiversity. Opportunities to balance the two objectives My study showed that environmental functions ( such as provision of biodiversity and wildlife habitat ) might be a link to balance the two aspects of aesthetics and pond functions. Aesthetically pleasing shoreline plantings increase biodiversity and provide wildlife habitat while contributing to pond function if they include the following characteristics : 1) flowers, 2) a variety of colors and tex tures, 3) evergreen species, 4) hardy plants, and 5) mature trees.
216 Comprehensive Approach on Neighborhood Pond Management The use of shoreline plantings is part of a comprehensive pond management strategy. An integrated pond management strategy should incl ude design, management, social marketing, and policy aspects: appropriate designs provides pond functions and services; appropriate and sufficient maintenance sustains the functions and benefits on a long term basis; social marketing promotes the adoption of appropriate design and maintenance; and policy requires or promotes appropriate design, maintenance, and social marketing. A sense of custodianship ( Walker et al. 2010 ) needs to be promoted in waterfront neighborhoods for water quality protection in po nds and receiving waters. Summary of Conclusions My study shows some design strategies could be used by codes to align visual quality and environmental function in ponds. Water view is a primary concern in pond shoreline planting designs. Plantings should be designed and maintained appropriately to avoid blocking water views. Colorful flowering plant species and plants with a diversity of colors and textures can be used to create aesthetically pleasing plantings. The installed plantings provide environmen tal functions such as pollutant filtering, erosion control, biodiversity, and wildlife habitat. The plantings need to be maintained both for their visual quality and environmental functions. Planting design should consider maintenance funding and should us e low maintenance design techniques and a maintenance plan should be provided for long term aesthetic and environmental benefits of ponds. Planting design should also consider pond characteristics and the context of neighborhood pond shorelines to better promote the aesthetic and environmental benefits of ponds.
217 C urrent municipal codes mainly focused on the engineering aspect of stormwater ponds while aesthetic considerations were rarely mentioned. The format of Form Based Codes may better illustrate desi gn requirements for aesthetics ( compared to conventional codes ) Using the format of Form Based Codes for planting design standards may have the advantages of addressing different aesthetic, environmental, and economic considerations of various shoreline t ypes. V isual diagrams and photos can make the codes more readable. Form Based Codes for stormwater ponds could make the future physical form of the landscape more predictable and thus sustain long term aesthetic s and environmental benefits of ponds. The re is a need to make stormwater co des more readable, prescriptive, and science based and to increas e public awareness and knowledge of environmental protection and stormwater management. The format of codes should include a problem statement, purpose, defi nitions, compatibility with other ordinance requirements, and stormwater system design standards. Scientific references can be used to back up design standards. Use drawings and quantifications for better communication of code requirements. Stormwater manu als could be a good reference for code writing. S ocial marketing should be addressed by codes to promote environmentally policies established on appropriate maintenance practic es. Planting designs need the acceptance of homeowners N eighborhood landscape maintenance practices should be guided to protect pond health. Social marketing promotes the use of visually pleasing shoreline plantings to promote environmental functions in p onds, and the plantings in
218 turn might act as living social marketing tools that increase people's awareness and appreciation of nature. My study showed the need to develop an integrated pond management strategy that includes design, management, social mar keting, and policy aspects. Appropriate designs are needed to support landscape functions and services A ppropriate and sufficient maintenance is needed to sustain the functions and benefits on a long term basis Recommended designs and maintenance practic es need social marketing to be promoted. Considering the ir importance p olicy could be improved to promote design, maintenance, and social marketing Limitations My study did not a im for generalized result s. It was an exploration of shoreline planting prob lem s and issues in residential stormwater ponds. The focus group interviews used snowball sampling and recruited residents interested in pond topics opposed to residents who were characterized by one participant : some of them just t hey want everything done for them The perspectives of residents less interested in neighborhood ponds or plantings were not explored in the focus group interviews. Many of the residents served as neighborhood association committee members and were knowl edgeable on the topic investigated. Those factors may affect the homeowner aesthetic preference evaluations. Also, a portion of the resident population were months), which might explain some aesthetic preferences such as the preference for green color and evergreen plants. Only four case study interviews were conducted, which might limit the study result to cover comprehensive concerns and provide guidance on future improvements of pond desig n and management.
219 Future W ork Future research could test design strategies for different pond shoreline types. The studies might investigate shoreline planting design quantitatively such as size of open water gap on the shoreline and buffer width for each shoreline type. Future research could also qualitatively explore perspectives of other stakeholders such as developers and policymakers. Focus group interviews could be conducted in neighborhoods with homeowners who are not so interested in pond issues. If sufficient maintenance funding could be provided by neighborhoods, demonstration shoreline landscapes could be established to test the design techniques suggested in this study. Interviews could be conducted to obtain feedback from residents on the demo nstration projects. Also, the relationship between maintenance practices and aesthetic, environmental and economic benefits in shoreline plantings might need to be examined for the promotion of plantings in neighborhood pond landscapes.
220 APPENDIX MANUAL S REVIEWED IN THE CODE STUDY Alabama h andbook for e rosion c ontrol, s ediment c ontrol, and s tormwater m anagement on c onstruction s ites and u rban a reas. Retrieved from http://swcc.alabama .gov/pages/erosion_control.aspx?sm=b_b Stormwater p rogram p ermitting s tandards and p rocedures m anual. Retrieved from http://www.charlestoncounty.org/departments/publicw orks/tech_manual.pdf Best m anagement practices: stormwater management manual. Retrieved from http://www.franklin gov.com/index.aspx?page=772 Knoxville Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual. Retrieved from http://www.cityofknoxville.org/engineering/bmp_manual/ Stormwater m anual v olume 3: s tormwater f low c ontrol and w ater q uality t reatment t echnical r equirements m anual. Retr ieved from http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/cms/groups/pan/@pan/@plan/@stormwatergrading/ documents/web_informational/dpdp018253.pdf Stormwater t echnical s tandards for p rivate d evelopment. Retrieved from http://www.tampagov.net/dept_stormwater/files/SW_Private_Dev_Tech_Manual. pdf County of Los Angeles Low Impact Development s tandards m anual. Retrieved from http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wmd/LA_County_LID_Manual.pdf Pennsylvania s tormwater b est m anagement p ractices m anual. Retrieved Fe bruary 10, 2012, from http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/View/Collection 8305 Environmental resource permit applicant's handbook volume II (design requirements for stormw ater treatment and management systems water quality and water quantity). Retrieved from http://www.nwfwmd.state.fl.us/permits/erp/erp_downloads/AH_Engineering.pdf St orm w ater o rdinance. Retrieved from http://www.gallatin tn.gov Stormwater management technical manual. Retrieved from http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org Manual for e rosion and s ediment c ontrol in Georgia. Retrieved from http://www.ga epd.org/Documents/esc_manual.html Georgia s tormwater m anagement m anual: Volume 1 s tormwater p olicy g uidebook. Retrieved from http://www.georgiastormwater.com
221 Georgia s tormwater m anagement m anual: Volume 2 t echnical h andbook. Retrieved from http://www.georgiastormwater.com Stormwater management design manual. Retrieved from http://www.mymanatee.org Volume 2 c hapter 2: Structural BMP s pecifications for the Massachusetts s tormwater h andbook. Retrieved from http ://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/policies.htm#storm New York State s tormwater m anagement d esign m anual. Retrieved from http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/29072.html The design manual for subdivisions and site plans. Retrieved from http://www.cityofgainesville.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=cU_wcLLwqbc%3D&tabi d=517 Applicant's handbook: regulation of stormwat er management systems. Retrieved from http://floridaswater.com/handbooks/stormwaterhandbook.html Guide to the s election & d esign of s tormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs). Retr ieved October 6, 2012, from http://eerc.ra.utk.edu/divisions/wrrc/BMP/bmp.htm Stormwater m anagement m anual for Western Washington: Volume III h ydrologic a nalysis and f low c ontrol d esign/BMPs Retrieved from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/manual.html Stormwater m anagement m anual for Western Washington: Runoff t reatment BMPs. Retrieved from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/manual.html
222 LIST OF REFERENCES Abbey, B. (2007). Green laws & blue water, landscape ordinances and storm water Proceedings from the Louisiana Water Qual ity Conference October 29 31 2007, Lafayette, Louisiana Retrieved March 11, 2011, from http://www.greenlaws.lsu.edu/GreenLaws Blue%20WatersV3Final.htm Abbey, B. ( 2010 ). Land d evelopment r egulations. Landscape Online February 5, 2010, Retrieved March 11, 2011, from http://www.landscapeonline.com/research/article/13026 Abbey, D. G. (1998). U.S. landscape ordi nances: A n annotated reference handbook New York: J. Wiley. Anderson, B. C., Watt, W. E., & Marsalek, J. (2002). Critical issues for stormwater ponds: Learning from a decade of research. Water Science and Technology 45:277 283. Andreasen, A. R. (1994). S ocial m arketing: Its d efinition and d omain. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 13(1), 108 114. Batabyal, A. A., Kahn, J. R., & O'Neill, R. V. (2003). On the scarcity value of ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 46(2), 334 352. Bean, E. Z. (2010). Evaluation of retention basins and soil amendments to improve stormwater management in Florida (Doctoral dissertation) Gainesville, Florida : University of Florida Beck, T. (2013). Principles of ecological landscape design W ashington, DC: Island Press. Behe, B., Hardy, J., Barton, S., Brooker, J., Fernandez, T., Hall, C., et al. (2005). Landscape plant material, size, and design sophistication increase perceived home value. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 23(3), 127 13 3. Bell, S. (1999). Landscape : P attern, perception, and process New York: E & FN Spon. Bentrup, G. (2008). Conservation buffers: design guidelines for buffers, corridors, and greenways Asheville, NC: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Re search Station. Bergue, J. M. & Ruperd, Y. (2000). Stormwater r etention b asins London: Taylor & Francis. Blaser, J. & Eades, R. (2006). Nebraska pond management Retrieved November 27, 2012, from http://outdoornebraska.ne.gov/Fishing/guides/pondguide/pdf/pondmanage.pdf
223 Bonilla Warford, C. M., & Zedler, J. B. (2002). Potential for u sing n ative p lant s pecies in s tormwater w etlands. Environmental Management 29(3), 385 394. Bormann, F. H., Balmori, D., & Geballe, G. T. (2001). Redesigning the A merican lawn: A search for environmental harmony New Haven: Yale University Press. Boyt, F., Bayley, S., & Zoltek, J. (1977). Removal of nutrients from treated municipal wastewat er by wetland vegetation. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 49(5), 789 799. Brown, T., Keane, T., & Kaplan, S. (1986). Aesthetics and management: B ridging the gap. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13 1 10. Calkins, M. (2012). The sustainable sites handbook: A complete guide to the principles, strategies, and practices for sustainable landscapes Hoboken, N.J: Wiley. Campbell, C. S., & Ogden, M. (1999). Constructed wetlands in the sustainable landscape New York: Wiley. Carey, R. O., G.J., H., Martin ez, C. J., Boyer, T. H., Nair, V. D., Dukes, M. D., et al. (2012). A review of turfgrass fertilizer management practices: I mplications for urban water quality. HortTechnology 22(3), 280 291. Carles, J. L., Barrio, I. L., & de Lucio, J. V. (1999). Sound in fluence on landscape values. Landscape and Urban Planning 43(4), 191 200. Carpenter, P., & Meyer, M. (1999a). Edina Goes Green p art I: A m odel for l ow input l awn c are c ommunity e ducation. HortTechnology, 9 (3), 486 489. Carpenter, P., & Meyer, M. (1999b). Edina Goes Green p art II: U sing h ome l awns as d emonstration s ites to t each l ow input l awn c are. HortTechnology, 9 (3), 489 491. Carpenter, P., & Meyer, M. (1999c). Edina Goes Green p art III: A s urvey of c onsumer l awn c are k nowledge and p ractices. HortTechno logy 9(3), 491 494. Castelle, A. J., Conolly, C., Emers, M., Metz, E. D., Meyer, S., Witter, M., et al. (1992). Wetland b uffers: Use and e ffectiveness Retrieved February 10, 2012, from http://www.ecy.wa .gov/pubs/92010.pdf Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.) Boston, New York: McGraw Hill. City of New York ( 2012 ) Blue roof and green roof retrieved November 3, 2012, from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/stormwater/green_pilot_project_ps118.shtml Coeterier, J. F. (1996) Domi nant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape, Landscape and Urban Planning 34 (1), 27 44.
224 Collins, K. A., Lawrence, T. J., Stander, E. K., Jontos, R. J., Kaushal, S. S., Newcomer, T. A., et al. (2010). Opportunities and challenge s for managing nitrogen in urban stormwater: A review and synthesis. Ecological Engineering 36(11), 1507 1519. Community Associations Institute ( 2012 ) Industry d ata Retrieved February 10, 2012 from http://www.caionline.org/info/research/Pages/default.aspx Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: T echniques and procedures for developing grounded theory Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Cronk, J. K., & Fennessy, M. S. (2001). Wetland plants : B iology and ecology Boca Raton Florida : Lewis Publishers. DB Environmental, Inc. & Community Watershed Fund, (2005). Quantifying the e ffect of a v egetated l ittoral z one on w et d etention p ond p ollutant l oad r eduction Retri e ved J anuary 12, 2013 from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/pubs.htm Dearden, P. (1984). Factors influencing landscape preferences: An empirical investigation. Landscape Planning, 11 (4), 293 306. DeLorenzo, M., Thompson, B., Cooper, E., Moore, J., & Fulton, M. ( 2012 ). A long term monitoring study of chlorophyll, microbial contaminants, and pesticides in a coastal residential stormwater pond and its adjacent tidal creek. Environmental Moni toring and Assessment 184(1), 343 59 De Meester, L., Declerck, S., Janse, J. H., Dagevos, J. J., Portielje, R., Lammens, E., et al. (2006). Biodiversity in European shallow lakes: A multilevel multifactorial field study. Ecological Studies 191, 150 167. Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Watershed Management, ( 2006 ) Pennsylvania s tormwater b est m anagement p ractices m anual Retrieved February 10, 2012 from http:/ /www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/View/Collection 8305 Didona, J. L. (2007). Beauty and a wet pond stormwater management practice (Master's thesis) Syracuse, New York : State University of New York. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Dod ds, W. K., Bouska, W. W., Eitzmann, J. L., Pilger, T. J., Pitts, K. L., Riley, A. J., et al. (2009). Eutrophication of US f reshwaters: Analysis of p otential e conomic d amages. Environmental Science & Technology 43(1), 12 19. Dunnett, N. (2010). People and nature: I ntegrating aesthetics and ecology on accessible green roofs. Acta Horticulturae 881 641 652, from http://www.actahort.org/books/881/881_107.htm Ellin, N. (1999). Postmodern urbanism New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
225 Ewing, R., Handy, S., Brownson, R. C., Clemente, O., & Winston, E. (2006). Identifying and m easuring u rban d esign q ualities r elated to w alkability. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 3(Suppl 1), S223 240. Falk J. H., & Balling, J. D. (2010). Evolutionary i nfluence on h uman l andscape p reference. Environment and Behavior, 42 (4), 479 493. Felson, A. J. (2010). Suburbanization and amphibians: Designed ecological solutions (Doctoral dissertation) New Brunswick, N ew Jersey : Rutgers The State University of New Jersey. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Fenton, D. M. (1985). Dimensions of meaning in the perception of natural settings and their relationship to aesthetic response. Australian Journal of P sychology 37(3), 325 339. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), & Water Management Districts. ( 2010 ) Environmental resource permit stormwater quality applicant's handbook: D esign requirements for stormwater treatment systems in Florida ( March 2010 draft) Retrieved February 10, 2012, from http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/dwrm/stormwater/stormwater_rule_development/ d ocs/ah_rule_draft_031710.pdf Florida Native Plant Society ( 2007 ). Model n ative p lant l andscape o rdinance h andbook Retrieved February 9, 2011, from http://fnps.org/resources/pubs Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Ode, ., & Velarde, M. D. (2009). The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecological Indicators 9(5), 933 947. Gilman, E. F., & Black, R. J. (1999). Your Florida guide to shrubs : S election, establishment, and maintenance Gainesville, Florida : University Press of Florida. Gobster, P. H. (1999). An e cological a esthetic for f orest l andscape m anagement. Landscape Journal 18(1), 54 64. Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., & Fry, G. (2007). The shared landscape: W hat does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology 22(7), 959 972. Gobster, P. H., & Westphal, L. M. (2004). The human dimensions of urban greenways: P lanning for recreation and related experiences. Land scape and Urban Planning 68(2 3), 147 165. Goldin, A. R. (1977). Grass: The everything, everywhere plant Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
226 Goodman, C. (2007, September 30). Manassas to t ackl e Sumner Lake algae, Trash Woes The Washington Post p. PWE.5. Retrieve d February 28, 2011, from Washington Post Grampp, C. (2008). From yard to garden : T he domestication of America's home grounds Chicago, Ill.: Center for American Places at Columbia College Chicago Graves, G., Strom, D., & Robson, B. (1998). Stormwater im pact to the freshwater Savannas Preserve marsh, Florida, USA. Hydrobiologia 379(1), 111 122. Greene, K. (2010). Tapping the l ast o asis: Florida friendly l andscaping and h omeowners' a ssociations. Florida Bar Journal 84(5), 39 43. Greenway, M. (2010), Wetl ands and p onds for s tormwater t reatment in s ubtropical Australia: Their e ffectiveness in e nhancing b iodiversi ty and improving water quality? Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education 146: 22 38. Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2002). Architectural researc h methods New York: J. Wiley. Guevara, Y. (2008). Beyond stormwater design considerations: When beauty and duty collide (Master's thesis) State University of New York New York. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Han, K. T. (2007). Respon ses to six major terrestrial biomes in terms of scenic beauty, preference, and restorativeness. Environment and Behavior, 39 (4), 529 556. Hansen, G. (2008). Design codes for healthy communities: The potential of Form Based codes to create walkable urban st reets (Doctoral Dissertation). Gainesville, Florida : University of Florida. Hansen, G, & Niemann, B, (2012). Design considerations for a Florida friendly demonstration landscape: A case study for student and extension volunteer involvement. University of Florida Environmental Horticulture Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences ( IFAS ), Gainesville, Florida; Publication ENH1199; 6pp Retrieved January 12, 2013, from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ep460 Harper, H. H., & Baker, D. M. (2007). Evaluation of Current Stormwater Design Criteria within the State of Florida (final report) Tallahassee: Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Haubner, S., Reese, A. Brown, T., Claytor, R., and Debo, T. ( 2001 ) Georgia s tormwater m anagement m anual: V olume 1 stormwater policy guidebook Retrieved from http://www.georgiastormwater.com Heisler, J., Glibert, P. M., Burkho lder, J. M., Anderson, D. M., Cochlan, W., Dennison, W. C., et al. (2008). Eutrophication and harmful algal blooms: A scientific consensus. Harmful Algae 8(1), 3 13.
227 Heiss, K. S. (2007). Visual preference for stormwater pond edge treatments : D esign guidel ines for enhanced stormwater ponds in open space subdivisions (Master's thesis) Gainesville, Florida : University of Florida Helfand, G. E., Park, J. S. Nassauer, J. I., & Kosek, S. (2006). The economics of native plants in residential landscape designs. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78 (3), 229 240. Henderson, S. P. B., Perkins, N. H., & Nelischer, M. (1998). Residential lawn alternatives: A study of their distribution, form and structure. Landscape and Urban Planning 42(2 4), 135 145. Herzog, T. R. (198 5). A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 5(3), 225 241. Hodgson, R. W., & Thayer, R. L. (1980). Implied human influence reduces landscape be auty. Landscape Planning 7(2 ) 171 179. Houlahan, J. E., Keddy, P. A., Makkay, K., & Findlay, C. S. (2006). The effects of adjacent land use on wetland species richness and community composition. Wetlands 26(1), 79 96. Hudnell, H. K. (2010). The state of U.S. freshwater harmful algal blooms assessments, policy and l egislation. Toxicon 55(5), 1024 1034. Hurd, B. H. (2006). Water c onservation and r esidential l andscapes: Household p references, h ousehold c hoices. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 31 (02), 173 192. Hurd, B. H. & Smith, J. (2005). Landscape attitudes and choices: A survey of New Mexico homeowners w ater t ask f orce r eport. Las Cruces, New Mexico: New Mexico State University. Hurley, S. E., & Forman, R. T. T. (2011). Stormwater ponds and biofilters for large urban sites: Modeled arrangements tha t achieve the phosphorus reduction target for Boston's Charles River, USA. Ecological Engineering 37(6), 850 863. Hyatt, W. S. (1997). Common interest communities: E volution and reinvention. John Marshall Law Review, 31 (2), 303 395. Islandwalk Homeowners Association, (2012). Stormwater retention ponds [DVD] Naples, FL: Islandwalk Homeowners Association. Kadlec, R. H., & Knight, R. L. (2008). Treatment w etlands Boca Raton, Florida : CRC Press
228 Kaplan, S. (1988). Perception and landscape: C onceptions and mi sconceptions. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: T heory, research, and applications Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The e xperience of n ature: A p sychological p erspective Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. & Brown, T. (1989) Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors, Environment and Behavior 21 (5), 509 530 Katz, P. (2004). Form first. Planning 70(10), p16 21. Keddy, P. (2000). Wetland e cology: P rin ciples and c onservation Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kennedy, D. J. (1995). Residential a ssociations as s tate a ctors: Regulating the i mpact of g ated c ommunities on n onmembers. The Yale Law Journal 105(3), 761 793. Kotler, P., & Zaltman, G. (197 1). Social m arketing: An a pproach to p lanned s ocial c hange. Journal of Marketing 35(3), 3 12. Krantz, D. H., Peterson, N., Arora, P., Milch, K., Orlove, B., Kugler, T., et al. (2008). Individual v alues and s ocial g oals in e nvironmental d ecision m aking. In T. Kugler, J. C. Smith, T. Connolly & Y. Son (Eds.), Decision m odeling and b ehavior in c omplex and u ncertain e nvironments 21, 165 198. New York : Springer Krueger, R. A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied resear ch. Newbury Park, CA : Sag e Publications. Kumar, R. (2011). Research methodology: A step by step guide for beginners Los Angeles: SAGE. Lembi, C. A. (2003). Control of nuisance algae. In J. D. Wehr & R. G. Sheath (Eds.), Freshwater algae of North America: Ecology and classificatio n (pp. 805 834). San Diego: Academic Press. Lewis, P.F., ( 1993 ). American landscape tastes. In M. Trieb (Ed.), Modern l andscape a rchitecture: A c ritical r eview (pp. 2 17.). Cambridge, MA: MIT P ress. Lewitus, A. J., Brock, L. M., Burke, M. K., DeMattio, K. A., & Wilde, S. B. (2008). Lagoonal stormwater detention ponds as promoters of harmful algal blooms and eutrophication along the South Carolina coast. Harmful Algae 8(1), 60 65. Lewitus, A. J., & Holland, A. F. (2003).Initial r esults from a m ulti i nstitu tional c ollaboration to m onitor h armful a lgal b looms in South Carolina. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 81 (1), 361 371.
229 Lewitus, A. J., Schmidt, L. B., Mason, L. J., Kempton, J. W., Wilde, S. B., Wolny, J. L., Ringwood, A. H. (2003). Harmful a lgal b looms in South Carolina r esidential and g olf c ourse p onds. Population & Environment 24(5), 387 413. Lintott, S. (2006). Toward eco friendly aesthetics. Environmental ethics 28(1), 57 76. Livingston, E. H. (2001). Stormwater management in Florida: The past, the present, and the future Bureau of Watershed Management. Tallahassee, Florida : Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Livingston, E. H., & McCarron, E. ( 1991 ). Stormwater management: A guide for Floridians Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Retrieved from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/pubs.htm Loomis, J., & Feldman, M. (2003). Estimating the benefits of maintaining adequate l ake levels to homeowners using the hedonic property method. Water Resources Research 39(9), 1259. Lovell, S. J., Stone, S. F., & Fernandez, L. (2006). The economic impacts of aquatic invasive species: A review of the literature. In L. Lynch & E. Lichtenbe rg (Eds.), Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 35, 195 208 Lowenthal, D. (1968). The American s cene. Geographical Review 58(1), 61 88. Luttik, J. (2000). The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands. La ndscape and Urban Planning 48(3 4), 161 167. Madden, M. E., & Spikowski, B. (2006). Place m aking with Form B ased Codes. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute Retrieved from http://www. spikowski.com/Madden Spikowski Article.pdf Mallin, M. A., Ensign, S. H., Wheeler, T. L., & Mayes, D. B. (2002). Pollutant r emoval e fficacy of t hree w et d etention Ponds. Journal of Environmental Quality 31(2), 654 660. Marsalek, J., Urbonas, B., & Lawrenc e I. (2005). Stormwater management ponds. In A. N. Shilton. (Ed.), Pond Treatment Technology London: IWA Publishing Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, ( 2008 ) Volume 2 c hapter 2: s tructural BMP s pecifications for the Massachusetts s tor mwater h andbook Retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/policies.htm#storm Mays, L. W. (2001). Stormwater c ollection s ystems d esign h andbook New York : McGraw Hill. McKen zie Mohr, D. (2000). Promoting sustainable behavior: An introduction to community based social marketing. Journal of Social Issues 56(3), 543 554.
2 30 Meacham, A (2008 March 23 ). Homeowners c aught in t urf w ar o ver l awn c are St. Petersburg Times Retrieved Feb 25, 2012 from http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/water/article428230.ece Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human well being: Synthesis Washingt on, DC: Island Press. Mitsch, W. J., Gosselink, J. G., Anderson, C. J., & Zhang, L. (2009). Wetland ecosystems Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley. Moore, T. L. C., & Hunt. W. F. ( 2012 ) Ecosystem service provision b y stormwater wetlands and ponds A means for evaluatio n? Water Research 46 ( 20 ) 6811 23 Nasar, J. L. (1988 a ). The effect of sign complexity and coherence on the perceived quality of retail scenes. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: T heory, research, and applications (pp. 300 3 20). Cambridge : Ca mbridge University Press. Nasar, J. L. (1988 b ). Perception and evaluation of residential street scenes. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics : T heory, research, and applications (pp. 275 2 89). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Nassauer, J. I. (1988). The a esthetics of h orticulture: N eatness as a f orm of c are. HortScience, 23 (6), 973 977. Nassauer, J. I. (1995). Messy e cosystems, o rderly f rames. Landscape Journal, 14 (2), 161 170. Nassauer, J. I. (1997). Cultural sustainability: Aligning aesthet ics and ecology. In J. I. Nassauer. (Ed.), Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology ( pp. 67 83 ). Washington, D. C.: Island Press. Retrieved from http://www person al.umich.edu/~nassauer/Publications/Placing%20Nature.pdf Nassauer, J. I., Wang, Z., & Dayrell, E. (2009). What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92 (3 4), 282 292. National Research Council, ( 2008 ). Urban s tormwater m anagement in the United States Washington, D.C: National Academies Press. R etrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12465.html Nelson, G. (2003). Florida's best native landscape pl ants: 200 readily available species for homeowners and professionals Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Newman, G. (1976). Private m an made: Lake i s a p ublic p roblem, New York Times pp. NJ4 NJ4. Retrieved Jun 20th, 2012, from http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/122878142 ?accountid=10920
231 Niemiera, A. X. (2007). The effect of landscape plants on perceiv ed home value Virginia Cooperative Extension. Retrieved f rom http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/426/426 087/426 087.pdf Nohl, W. (2001). Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception preliminary refl ections on future landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning 54(1 4), 223 237. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. (1996). Shoreline buffer strips Retrieved November 25, 2012, from http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/conservation/lake notes/shoreline buffer strips/shoreline buffer strips.pdf Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. (1998). Stormwater detention ponds R etrieved November 25, 2012, from http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/conservation/lake notes/storm water detention ponds/storm water detention ponds.pdf Osorio, R. (2001). A gardener's guide to Florida's native plants Gainesville Florida : University Press of Florida. Ozguner, H., & Kendle, A. D. (2006). Public attitudes towards naturalistic versus designed landscapes in the cit y of Sheffield (UK). Landscape and Urban Planning 74(2), 139 157. Paerl, H. W., & Huisman, J. (2008). Blooms like it hot. Science 320(5872), 57 58. Parolek, D. G., Parolek, K., & Crawford, P. C. (2008). Form based codes: A guide for planners, urban desig ners, municipalities, and developers Hoboken, N.J.: J. Wiley & Sons. Parsons, R., & Daniel, T. C. (2002). Good looking: I n defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning 60(1), 43 56. Powell, B. (2011). Home owners associations lear n how to manage residential stormwater ponds and drainage systems Clemson University Extension. Retrieved Feb 25, 2012, from http://cufan.clemson.edu/extension/Aspx/ListImpac t.Aspx?p_Id=1185 Powell, B. ( 2012a ). Managing Shorelines: Control Erosion and Protect Water Quality Presentation from the Charleston Area Stormwater Pond Conference March 22, 2012. R etrieved November 3, 2012, from http://www.dnr.sc.gov/marine/NERR/present/stormwater/PowellManagingShoreli nes.pdf Powell, B. (2012 b ). Shorescaping freshwater shorelines Clemson University Extension. Retrieved December 3, 2012, f rom http://www.clemson.edu/extension/hgic/water/pdf/015_shorescapes.pdf
232 Powell, B. (n.d ). Stormwater ponds purposes and services of stormwater ponds Clemson University. Re trieved Feb 25, 2012, from http://www.clemson.edu/public/carolinaclear/cc_toolbox/tools_pubs.html#pubs_st rmpond Purdum, G. E. (1992). Visual perception and preference for scenes of selected Florida ecosystems (Master Thesis) University of Florida. Qian, S. S., & Richardson, C. J. (2008). Spatial distributions of total phosphorus and phosphorus accretion rates in Everglades soils. Ecological Studies 201: 5 79 593. Ramey, V., Joyce, J., & Canfield, D. E. (2005). What makes a quality lake? Gainesville: IFAS, University of Florida, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Re id, J. (2000). Educational and policy approaches to water conservation for the city of Le thbridge (Master's thesis) Calgary, Alberta Canada : University of Calgary. Retrieved February 16, 2011, from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Read, J., Fletcher, T. D., Wevill, T., & Deletic, A. (2010). Plant t raits that e nhance p ollutant r emoval from s tormwater in b iofiltration s ystems. International Journal o f Phytoremediation 12(1), 34 53. Richards, L. (2009). Handling qualitative data London: Sage Robbins, P., & Birkenholtz, T. (2003). Turfgrass revolution: M easuring the expansion of the America n lawn. Land Use Policy, 20 (2), 181 194. Rodgers, J. ( 2002 ). Plants for lakefront revegetation Tampa: Bureau of Invasive Plant Management Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Retrieved January 30, 2013 from http://www.hillsborough.wateratlas.usf.edu/upload/documents/651_Lakefront%20 Revegetation.pdf Sakrison, R G (1997). Summer water use in compact communities: The effect of small lots a nd growth management plans on single family water use in King County, Washington (Doctoral dissertation) Seattle: University of Washington Retrieved February 16, 2011, from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. St. Johns River Water Management District, ( 199 5 ) Environmental r esource p ermits: R egulation of s tormwater m anagement s ystems Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/ordinance/documents/StJohnsWMDFL.pdf Sander, H. A., & Polasky, S. (2009). The value of views and open space: Estimates from a hedonic pricing model for Ramsey County, Minnesota, USA. Land Use Policy 26(3), 837 845.
233 Schein, R. H. (1997). The p lace of l andscape: A c onceptual f ramework for i nterpreting an Am erican s cene. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87(4), 660 680. Seattle Public Utilities. (2011). Green stormwater operations and maintenance manual Retrieved October 17, 2012, from http://www.seattle.gov/util/groups/public/@spu/@usm/documents/webcontent/sp u02_020023.pdf Serrano, L., & DeLorenzo, M. E. (2008). Water quality and restoration in a coastal subdivision stormwater pond. Jour nal of Environmental Management, 88 (1), 43 52. Sharma, R. (2006). Economic analysis of stormwater management practices (Doctoral dissertation). Clemson, South Carolina: Clemson University. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. Sheath, R G., & Wehr, J. D. (2003).Introduction to freshwater algae. In J. D. Wehr & R. G. Sheath (Eds.), Freshwater algae of North America: Ecology and classification (pp. 1 9). San Diego: Academic Press. Shern, L. C. (1994). Suburban lawns: Dimensions of meaning activities, and environmental concerns reported by homeowning couples in Georgia and Michigan ( Ph.D. dissertation ) Michigan State University Retrieved February 15, 2011, from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreti ng qualitative data : M ethods for analyzing talk, text and interaction London: Sage. Simonds, J. O., & Starke, B. W. (2006). Landscape architecture : A manual of environmental planning and design New York: McGraw Hill. Sloan, N. (2010). The ecology of stor mwater ponds in Brevard County, Florida: A comparison among land usages (Doctoral dissertation) Melbourne, Florida : Florida Institute of Technology. Retrieved February 15, 2011, from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Smardon, R. C. (1988). Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: Review of the role of vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15 (1 2), 85 106. Smith, V. H. (1982). The n itrogen and p hosphorus d ependence of a lgal b iomass in l akes: An e mpirical and t heoretical a nalysis. Limnology an d Oceanography, 27 (6), 1101 1112. Smith, V. H. (1983). Low n itrogen to p hosphorus r atios f avor d ominance by b lue g reen a lgae in l ake p hytoplankton. Science, 221 (4611), 669 671.
234 Smucker, C. (n.d.). Home o wners a ssociations m aintain p roperty v alues and q uali ty l ifestyles. Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors Weekly Retrieved Feb 25, 2012 from http://www.caar.com/rew/article/769 Stefanik, K. C., & Mitsch, W. J. (2012). Structural and functional vege tation development in created and restored wetland mitigation banks of different ages. Ecological Engineering 39 104 112. Swanwick, C. (2009). Society's attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. Land Use Policy, 26 (Supplement 1), S62 S75. Thom as, S. (2012, August 10). The waterfront war: R etention ponds have morphed from stormwater filters to landscape features. Naples Daily News Retrieved November 26, 2012, from http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2012/aug/10/the waterfront war retention ponds have morphed/ Tixier, G., Lafont, M., Grapentine, L., Rochfort, Q., & Marsalek, J. (2011). Ecological risk assessment of urban stormwater ponds: Litera ture review and proposal of a new conceptual approach providing ecological quality goals and the associated bioassessment tools. Ecological Indicators 11(6), 1497 1506. Travis, B., Joe, H., & Martin, Q. (2002). Gardeners p erceptions of the a esthetics, m an ageability, and s ustainability of r esidential l andscapes. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 1 (3) 163 172. Tschantz, B. A., Gangaware, T. R., & Morton, R. G., (2003). Guide to the s election & d esign of s tormwater b est m anagement p ractices (BMPs) Retrieved October 6, 2012, from http://eerc.ra.utk.edu/divisions/wrrc/BMP/bmp.htm Tveit, M., Ode, A., & Fry, G. (2006) Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research 31, 229 256. Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13 29 44. University of Florida / IFAS Extension & Fl orida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). (2009). The Florida y ards & n eighborhoods h andbook. Florida Friendly Landscaping TM Publication. Retrieved from http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/index.html Univer sity of Florida/IFAS Extension, & Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). (2010). The Florida Firendly Landscaping TM guide to plant selection & landscape design Florida Friendly Landscaping TM Publication. Retrieved from http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/index.html University of Michigan (2009, August 27). Water quality improves after lawn fertilizer ban, study shows. ScienceDaily Retrieved February 14, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/08/090817190741.htm
235 Urban Land Institute (ULI) American Society of Civil Engineers (ASC) & National Association of Home Builders of the United States (NAHB) (1975). Res idential storm water management : O bjectives, principles & design considerations Published jointly by Urban Land Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers, and Nation al Association of Home Builders U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relati ons. (1989). Res idential community associations : P rivate governments in the intergovernmental system? Washington, DC: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Florida Department of Environmental Protection ( FDEP ), University of Florida/Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, (UF/IFAS), Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program (SBEP), et al. ( 2000 ). Sto rmwater ponds: A citizen's guide to their purpose and management Retrieved March 06, 2013, from http://www.colliergov.net/modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=17874 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Stormwater w et p ond and w etland m anagement g uidebook Retrieved October 6, 2012, from http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/pondmgmtguide.pdf U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency. (201 3 ). Green infrastructure Retrieved January 26 2013, from http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/ V an den Berg, A. E., & van Winsum Westra, M. (2010). Manicured, romantic, or wild? The relation between need for structure and preferences for garden styles. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9(3), 179 186. V an den Berg, A. E., Vlek, C. A. J., & Coeterier, J. F. (1998). Group differences in the aes thetic evaluation of nature development plans: A multilevel approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18(2), 141 157. Verhoeven, J. T. A., Arheimer, B., Yin, C. Q., & Hefting, M. M. (2006). Regional and global concerns over wetlands and water quality. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21(2) 96 103 Wagner, K. (January 24, 2012). Algae control and pond management [ Webinar ] Water Education Alliance for Horticulture Retrieved from http://www.watereduca tionalliance.org/ Walker, C., Lampard, J., Roiko, A., Tindale, N., Wiegand, A., & Duncan, P. (2012). Community well being as a critical component of urban lake ecosystem health. Urban Ecosystems online publication Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11252 012 0256 1
236 Walker C, Tindale N, Roiko A, Wiegand A, & Duncan P (2010) An ecosystem health approach to assessing stormwater impacts on constructed urban lakes. Proceedings from the National Conference of the Stormwater Industry Association November 8 12 2010, Sydney, NSW Washington State Department o f Ecology Water Quality Program. ( 2005 ). Stormwater m anagement m anual fo r Western Washington: Runof f t reatment BMPs Retrieved from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/manual.html Weinstoerffer, J. & Girardin, P. (2000) Assessment of the contribution of land use pattern a nd intensity to landscape quality: U se of a landscape indicator Ecological Modelling 130, 95 109. Wiley, P. (2001). A design for a suburban retention pond (Master's thesis) Winnipeg Canada: University of Manitoba. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Watershed Management. (2000). Creating an effective shoreland zoning ordinance: A summary of Wisconsins shoreland zoning ordinances Madison: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Yin, R. (2008) Case study research: Design and methods Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications. Young, W. C. (1973). Plants for shoreline erosion control in southern areas of th e United States. In W. C. Ackermann et al. (Ed.), Man made l akes: T heir p roblems and e nvironmental e ffects 17, 798 803 Washington, DC: AGU. Zedler, J. B. (1996). Ecological i ssues in w etland m itigation: An i ntroduction to the f orum. Ecological Applications 6(1), 33 37. Zeisel, J. (2006). Inquiry by design: Environment/behavior/neuroscie nce in architecture, interiors, landscape, and planning New York: W.W. Norton & Company
237 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Shangchun Hu was born and raised in China. In 2006, He was awarded with a Bachelor of Engineering degree in landscape architecture from Central South University of Forestry and Technology in Changsha Hunan In 2009, he was awarded with a Master of Agriculture degree in landscape plants and ornamental horticulture from Beijing Forestry University. He chose to study environmental horticulture at t he University of Florida because of his previous education in b oth landscape and horticulture.