Citation
Creating Appearance Guidelines for Bioswale Design in North Central Florida Using a Visual Preference Study and Community Feedback

Material Information

Title:
Creating Appearance Guidelines for Bioswale Design in North Central Florida Using a Visual Preference Study and Community Feedback
Creator:
Mayer, Erika
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Publisher:
Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Design, Construction and Planning, University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
Project in lieu of thesis

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of Landscape Architecture)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Committee Chair:
Acomb,Glenn A.
Committee Members:
Holmes, Robert Bain

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Aesthetics ( jstor )
Dams ( jstor )
Ecology ( jstor )
Gravel ( jstor )
Images ( jstor )
Landscapes ( jstor )
Planting ( jstor )
Stormwater ( jstor )
Stormwater management ( jstor )
Vegetation ( jstor )
City of Gainesville ( local )

Notes

Abstract:
The purpose of this research is to identify aesthetic preferences for bioswale design using a visual preference survey and community feedback in Gainesville, Florida. Bioswales are a departure from the ubiquitous “curb- and- gutter” approach of traditional stormwater management. This may cause concern to residents who do not understand the importance of moving away from conventional systems and who are unsure why bioswales might look the way they do. Designing in a way that is sensitive to the visual preferences of a community can serve to align the cultural aesthetic values of a place to the ecological function of bioswales. This research attempts to answer the following question: “What aesthetic variables are preferred in bioswale design by residents in the Gainesville, Florida, area?” Based on these aesthetic preferences, guidelines are proposed to assist designers in understanding the aesthetics valued in bioswale design in the Gainesville and North Florida area. ( ,,, )
Abstract:
A visual preference study tested nine variables of visual preference: • Plant arrangement and characteristics of color, texture/diversity, and height • Amount (%) of weed cover that is aesthetically acceptable • Amount (%) of browning vegetation that is aesthetically acceptable • Configuration of the bioswale testing curvilinear orientation versus straight • Use of elements such as gravel, stones, and check dams
Abstract:
In order to test these aesthetic variables, a bioswale archetype image of a grassed swale was used as a base, onto which various design variables were overlaid. Respondents ranked 25 images in terms of visual preference and rated eight images in terms of maintenance concerns relating to overgrowth and browning of vegetation. In addition to the ranking and rating of images, the survey includes questions about demographics, questions relating to the respondents’ landscape practices, and questions about the participant’s perception of bioswales. The survey, administered throughout Gainesville, Florida, was completed by 51 residents.
Abstract:
The survey findings indicate that respondents favor (1) a naturalistic design, (2) the use of stone and gravel, (3) creating a wildlife habitat, (4) and no more than 50% browning of plant material. Additionally, participants prefer the aesthetics of bioswales to traditional stormwater management techniques and would like to see more bioswales implemented in the Gainesville, Florida, area. This information will be valuable to designers seeking to implement low-impact bioswale technologies that respond more favorably to public acceptance.
General Note:
Landscape Architecture terminal project

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Erika Mayer. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
1022120843 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

U niversity of Florida By Erika Mayer Faculty Advisors: Glenn Ac omb, Chair Robert Holmes, Member A THESIS PROJECT PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Spring 201 5 CREATING APPEARANCE GUIDELINES FOR BIOSWALE DESIGN IN NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA USING A VISUAL PREFERENCE STUDY AND COMMUNITY FEEDBACK

PAGE 2

© 2015 Erika Mayer

PAGE 3

Para Veronica, Al do, y Mari a

PAGE 4

4 Acknowledgements Foremost, I would like to express sincere gratitude to all my family for their unwavering love and encouragement throughout my graduate studies. A special thanks to my mother for nurturing my aspirations, my father for keeping my feet firmly planted on the ground, and Charms and Jim for keeping them both in line. I surely could not have achieved this without them. I would li ke to thank my committee, Glenn Acomb and Robert Holmes, for their support and guidance throughout this process. Their input bolstered my research and helped me to produce a much stronger document than I alone could have written; I am grateful to them. T hank you to those who have helped me along the way with this research, especially Sylvia and Larry Crook, Elizabeth and Dan Manley, David Barth, Brett Ader, and the Gainesville community who participated in this research. Thanks to my friends both near a nd far for their encouragement along the way; Peter Funke for your role in this journey, your thoughtfulness , and friendship; a special thank you to my editor and dear friend Stacy Gammill, for her help with this endeavor and for moving to Florida to be cl oser to me during this time. Finally, I would like to thank Nicholas Scott Oshlick, for keeping my heart full and eyes fixed straight ahead.

PAGE 5

5 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4 List of Figures ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 8 List of Tables ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 11 Abstract ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 12 Chapter 1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ............................... 14 Background: The Hydrologic Cycle ................................ ................................ ................. 16 The Hydrologic Cycle as Effected by Urbanization ................................ ......................... 18 Regulation / BMPs and LID ................................ ................................ ............................. 21 Aesthetics of Stormwater Management ................................ ................................ .......... 28 Chapter 2 Literature Review ................................ ................................ ...................... 35 Aesthetics and Beauty ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 35 Aesthetics in the Landscape ................................ ................................ ........................... 36 Aesthetics in Ecological Design and Landscape Architecture ................................ ........ 37 Ecological Aesthetics ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 41 (1) Ecology as Driver of Form ................................ ................................ ..................... 41 (2) Ecology Within a Recognizable Framework of Cultural Aesthetics ....................... 43 Aesthetics and the Role of Culture ................................ ................................ ................. 43 The Issue of Public Acceptance ................................ ................................ ...................... 45 A Call for Research and Testing ................................ ................................ ..................... 47 Chapter 3 Ð Methodology ................................ ................................ ............................. 49 Scope of Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 49 Survey Methodology Overview ................................ ................................ ....................... 50 Cover Page ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 51 Demographic Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ . 51 Twenty five Images for Visual Preference Ranking ................................ ........................ 51 Category Images ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 53 Height ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 53 Texture ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 54 Arrangement ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 55

PAGE 6

6 Use of gravel and stone ................................ ................................ .............................. 56 Use of check dams ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 57 Config uration ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 58 Color of Vegetation ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 59 Additional Questions Relating to Participant Landscape Practices ................................ 60 Eight Images for Rating ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 60 Brownin g ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 61 Overgrowth ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 62 Questions Relating to Participant Perception of Bioswales ................................ ............ 63 Quantitative Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 65 Sample Characteristics ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 65 Number of Respondents ................................ ................................ ................................ . 67 Chapter 4 Ð Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 68 Demographic Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 68 Image Ranking Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 72 Vegetation Hei ght Results ................................ ................................ .......................... 73 Vegetation Texture Results ................................ ................................ ......................... 75 Vegetation Arrangement Results ................................ ................................ ................ 76 Use of Gravel and Stone Results ................................ ................................ ................ 78 Use of Check Dams Resu lts ................................ ................................ ....................... 79 Configuration Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 81 Color of Vegetation Results ................................ ................................ ........................ 82 Results of Questions Relating to Participant Landscape Practices ............................ 84 Image Rating Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 84 Plant Browning Results ................................ ................................ ............................... 85 Plant Overgrowth Results ................................ ................................ ........................... 86 Results of Questions Relating to Participant Perception of Bioswales ....................... 88 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 93 Chapter 5 Ð Analysis + Guidelines ................................ ................................ ............ 103 Images for Ranking: ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 103 Vegetation Height ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 103 Vegetation Texture ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 108 Vegetation Arrangement ................................ ................................ ........................... 111

PAGE 7

7 Use of Gravel and Stone ................................ ................................ ........................... 113 Use of Check Dams ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 115 Configuration ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 117 Color of Vegetation ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 120 Plant Browning ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 123 Plant Overgrowth ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 125 Guidelines ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 127 Bioswale Design Principles and Standard Dimensions ................................ ............ 127 Guideline #1: Naturalistic Design ................................ ................................ .............. 131 Guideline #2: Provide Habitat ................................ ................................ ................... 135 Guideline #3: Use Variety to add Contrast and Texture ................................ ........... 140 Guideline #4: Use Stone and Gravel ................................ ................................ ........ 143 Guideline #5: Maintenance ................................ ................................ ....................... 144 Guideline Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 146 Chapter 6 Ð Conclusion ................................ ................................ .............................. 147 Future Directions for Research ................................ ................................ ..................... 148 Considerations for Future Surveys ................................ ................................ ............... 148 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 151 Works Cited ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 152 Appendix A: Stormwater Visual Preference Study ................................ .................. 161 Appendix B: Institutional Review Board Exemption ................................ ............... 176 Appendix C: Informed Consent Documentation ................................ ...................... 178

PAGE 8

8 List of Figures Fig 1.1 The hydrologic cycle ................................ ................................ ........................... 17 Fig 1.2 Changes in water balance from land development ................................ ............. 18 Fig 1.3 Traditional "curb and gutter" stormwater management technique. ..................... 19 Fig 1.4 Illustrating typi cal combined sewer system flow and combined sewer outfall (CSO) of untreated water into waterways during high flow periods. ............................... 20 Fig 1.5 LID site plan ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 23 Fig 1.6 Development projections for 2060 by 1000 Friends of Florida ........................... 24 Fig 1.9 Retention pond with surrounding chain link fence has been given no aesthetic consideration. ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 29 Fig 1.10 Detention basin with unsightly cement flow channels. ................................ ...... 29 F ig 1.11 Example of a parking lot bioswale ................................ ................................ .... 31 Fig 1.12 Road median bioswale ................................ ................................ ...................... 32 Fig. 1.13 Roadside bioswale planted naturalistically ................................ ...................... 32 Fig 1.14 Bioswale in a residential application ................................ ................................ . 33 Fig 1.15 Parking lot bioswale ................................ ................................ .......................... 33 Fig 2.1 R ainbow geyser, Yellowstone National Park ................................ ...................... 38 Fig 3.1 De saturated base image of grassed swale at Gainesville Regional Airport. ..... 52 Fig 3.2 Images testing preference for height ................................ ................................ .. 53 Fig 3.3 Images testing preference for texture ................................ ................................ . 54 Fig 3.4 Images testing preference for arrangement ................................ ........................ 55 Fig 3.5 Images testing preference for use of gravel and stone ................................ ....... 56 Fig 3.6 Images testing preference for check dams ................................ ......................... 57 Fig 3.7 Images testing preference for configuration ................................ ........................ 58 Fig 3.8 Images testing preference for color ................................ ................................ .... 59 Fig 3.9 Base bioswale image used to test tolerance for seaso nal browning and overgrowth. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 61 Fig 3.10 Images testing tolerance for seasonal browning ................................ .............. 62 Fig 3.11 Images testing tolerance for overgrowth ................................ ........................... 63 Fig 3.12 Traditional " curb and gutter" ................................ ................................ .............. 64 Stormwater management ................................ ................................ ................................ 64 Fig 3.13 Map of Gainesville, FL showing 4 city quadrants and locations where surveys were administered ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 66

PAGE 9

9 Fig 4.9 Most pr eferred= image 4 / Least preferred= image 1 ................................ ......... 74 Fig 4.11 Most preferred= image 8 / Least preferred= image 5 ................................ ....... 75 Fig 4.13 Most preferred= image 10 / Least preferred= image 11 ................................ ... 77 Fig 4.15 Most preferred= image 14 / Least preferred= image 12 ................................ ... 78 Fig 4.17 Most preferred = image 17 / Least preferred = image 18 ................................ . 80 Fig 4.19 Most preferred= image 21/22, Least preferred= image 19/20 .......................... 81 Fig 4.21 Most preferred= image 25 / Least preferred= image 23 ................................ ... 83 Fig 4.23 Images used to test tolerance for Browning ................................ ...................... 85 Fig 4.25 Images used to test to lerance for Overgrowth ................................ .................. 87 Fig 4.27 Images 25 and 22, the most preferred from the survey ................................ .... 89 Fig 5.1 Most preferred= image 4 / Least preferred= image 1 ................................ ....... 104 Fig 5.2 The relationship between each indicator (shape of vegetation patches, level of succession, fragmented patches of woodland) and the concepts of naturalness, stewardship, coherence and disturbance. ................................ ................................ .... 106 Fig 5.3 Most preferred= image 8 / Least preferred= image 1 ................................ ....... 108 Fig 5.4 Most preferred= image 10 / Least preferred= image 11 ................................ ... 111 Fig 5.5 Most preferred= image 14 / Least preferred= image 12 ................................ ... 113 Fig 5.6 Most preferred= image 17 / Least preferred= image 18 ................................ ... 115 Fig 5.7 Most preferred= image 21/22. Least preferred= image 19/20 .......................... 117 Fig 5.8 Most preferred= image 25 / Least preferred= image 23 ................................ ... 120 Fig 5.9 Image 29 was unacceptable in terms of maintenance ................................ ...... 123 Fig 5.10 All images were acceptable in terms of maintenance ................................ ..... 125 Fig 5.11 Components of bioswale dimensi ons ................................ ............................. 128 Fig 5.12 Four common cross sections for bioswale design: (from left to right) rectangular, triangular, trapezoidal, and parabolic ................................ ................................ ............ 129 Fig 5.13 Typical bioswale section and soil profile ................................ ......................... 130 Fig. 5.14 Curvilinear bioswale with gravel and landscape stone at Missouri Botanical Gardens ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 132 Fig 5.15 Degree of curvature for low flow rates/ available surface area (top image) and curvature for high flow rates/ limited available surface area (bottom image) ................ 133 Fig 5.16 Stone check dams ................................ ................................ .......................... 134 Fig 5.17 Naturalistic planting design (left) versus uniform planting design (right) ......... 135 Fig. 5.21 Use a palette of diverse plants to provide texture, cohesion, and repetition in the design ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 141

PAGE 10

10 Fig. 5.22 Use repetition of a planting pattern to add cohesion and intention to the planting desig n ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 142 Fig. 5.23 Illustrates bioswale planting zones ................................ ................................ 143 Fig. 5.24 Bioswale sections ................................ ................................ .......................... 144 Fig. 5.18 Create habitat for wildlife ................................ ................................ ................. 66

PAGE 11

11 List of Tables Table 1.7 Summary of cost comparisons between conventional and LID approaches .. 26 Table 1.8 Number and percentage of comments listed per category of LID challenge .. 27 Table 4. 1: Survey Participant Gender ................................ ................................ ............. 68 Table 4.2 Age of Respondents ................................ ................................ ....................... 69 Fig 4.3 Gainesville Census Data: Age ................................ ................................ ............ 69 Table 4.4 Survey Participant Ethnicity ................................ ................................ ............ 70 Fig 4.5 Gainesville Census Data Ethnicity ................................ ................................ ...... 70 Table 4.6 Survey Participant Education ................................ ................................ .......... 71 Table 4.7 Survey Participant Housing Type ................................ ................................ .... 72 Table 4.8 Survey Partici pant Rent/Own ................................ ................................ .......... 72 Table 4.10 Results for Images Testing: Height ................................ ............................... 74 Table 4.12 Results for Images Testing: Texture ................................ ............................. 76 Table 4.14 Results for Images Testing: Arrangement ................................ .................... 77 Table 4.16 Results for Images Testing: Use of Gravel + Stone ................................ ...... 79 Table 4.18 Results for Images Testing: Use of Check Dams ................................ ......... 80 Table 4.20 Results for Images Testing: Configuration. ................................ ................... 82 Table 4.22 Results for Images Testing: Color ................................ ................................ . 83 Table 4.24 Results for Images Testing Tolerance for: Seasonal Browning .................... 86 Table 4.26 Results for Im ages Testing Tolerance for: Plant Overgrowth ....................... 87 Table 4.28 Results for Most Preferred Image from Survey ................................ ............. 90 Table 4.29 Results for preference of bioswales over traditional stormwater management tec hniques ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 91 Table 4.30 Results for whether respondents would like to see more bioswales in their community ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 92 Table 4.31 Results for whether respondents would implement bioswales on their own prope rty ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 93 Table. 5.19 Florida Wildlife attracting Annuals and Perennials ................................ ... 137 Table 5.20 Florida Wildlife attracting Annuals and Perennials ................................ .... 138

PAGE 12

12 Abstract The purpose of this research is to identify aesthetic preferences for bioswale design using a visual preference survey and community feedback in Gainesville, Florida. Bioswales are a departure from the ubiquitous "curb and gutter" approach of traditional stormwater management. This may cause concern to residents who do not understand the importance of moving away from conventional systems and who are unsure why bioswales might look the way they do. D esigning in a way that is sensitive to the visual preferences of a community can serve to align the cultural aesthetic values of a place t o the ecological function of bioswales. This research attempt s to answer the following question: "What aesthetic variables are preferred in bioswale design by residents in the Gainesvil le, Florida , area?" Based on these aesthetic preferences , guidelines are proposed to assist designers in understanding the aesthetics valued in bioswale design in the Gainesville and North Florida area. A visual preference study test ed nine variables of v isual preference: • Plant arrangement and characteristics of color, texture/diversity, and height • Amount (%) of weed cover that is aesthetically acceptable • Amount (%) of browning vegetation that is aesthetically acceptable • Co nfiguration of the bioswale testi ng curvilinear orientation versus straight • Use of elements such as gravel, stones, and check dams In order to test these aesthetic variables, a bioswale archetype image of a grassed swale was used as a base, onto which various design variables were overlai d . Respondents rank ed 25 images in terms of visual preferenc e and rate d eight images in terms of maintenance concerns relating to overgrowth and browning of vegetation . In

PAGE 13

13 addition to the ranking and rating of images, the survey includes questions about de mographics, questions relating to the respondents' landscape practices, and questions about the participant 's perception of bioswales. The survey , adminis tered throughout Gainesville , Florida, was completed by 51 residents. The survey findings indicate tha t respondents favor (1) a naturalistic design, (2) the use of stone and gravel, (3) creating a wildlife habitat, (4) and no more than 50% browning of plant material. Additionally , participants prefer the aesthetics of bioswales to traditional stormwater ma nagement techniques and would like to see more bioswales implemented in the Gainesville , Florida, area . This information will be valu able to designers seeking to implement low impact bioswale technologies that respond more favorably to public acceptance.

PAGE 14

14 Chapter 1 Introduction The purpose of this research is to identify aesthetic preferences for bioswale design using a visual preference survey and community feedback. Bioswales are planted depressions used to convey, infi ltrate, and treat stormwater to effectively remove and break down several contaminants found in urban stormwater runoff, including oil, grease, sediments, pesticides, nutrients, and metals (Richman, 1998) . Bioswales are a type of Low Impact Design (LID) an d represent a departure from traditional stormwater management practices . This may cause concern to residents who do not understand the importance of moving away from conventional systems and who are unsure why bioswales might look the way they do. It is i mpo rtant to design with the public in mind to address any concerns and to introduce these new ecological technologies within a recogn izable framework. D esigning in a way that is sensitive to the visual preferences of a community can serve to align the aest hetic values of a place t o the ecological function of bioswales (Nassauer,1995a, 1995b). This research will attempt to answer the question: "What aesthetic variables are preferred in bioswale design by residents in the Gainesville, Florida, area?" Based on these aesthetic preferences, guidelines are proposed to assist designers in understanding the aesthetics valued in bioswale design in the Gainesville and North Florida area. T o test these aesthetic variables, a bioswale archetype image of a grassed swale was used as a base, onto which various design variables were overlaid , to test preference for the following : • Plant arrangement and characteristics of color, texture/diversity, and height

PAGE 15

15 • Amount (%) of weed cover that is aesthetically acceptable • Amount (%) of browning vegetation that is aesthetically acceptable • Co nfiguration of the bioswale testing curvilinear orientation versus straight • Use of elements such as gravel, stones, and check dams These images were incorpor ated into a visual preference survey and administered to participants in the community to determine what Gainesville area residents prefer in the aesthetic design of bioswales. Based on th e results of this study, recommended guidelines have been created for the appearance of bioswale design in G ainesv ille, Florida. This information will be valu able to designers seeking to implement low impact bioswale technologies that respond more favorably to public acceptance. An MLA thesis conducted at the University of Florida in 2013 by Mia Requesens deve loped a methodology for community engagement with an emphasis on stormwater management preferences. T his research is a n answer to Requesens' research thesis call for further and more detailed visual preference studies conducted for each stormwater manageme nt tool, in this case, bioswales . Chapter 1 provides context for the research, including a background summary of the hydrological cycle as impacted by urbanization, the resulting regulatory measures from said impacts, current stormwater management techniqu es, and a brief overview of aesthetic critique of stormwater management. Chapter 2 establishes a theoretical framework for the research, providing an analysis of the relevant research literature concerned with aesthetics as applied to ecologically functio nal landscapes. Chapter 3 explains the methodology of the creation, administration, and evaluation of the visual preference study, breaking it down into parts. Chapter 4 outlines the findings of each section of the survey.

PAGE 16

16 Chapter 5 discusses and interpret s the findings of the survey, comparing findings to other research. It also provides guidelines for designers to use in order to design bioswales that respond more favorably to public acceptance. Chapter 6 provides concluding discussions and recommendation s for future research. Background: The Hydrologic Cycle The hydrologic cycle can be simplified into three main phases: rainfall, runoff, and evaporation. In undisturbed conditions, rainfall hits a surface and makes its way to the permeable ground. At that point, some or all of that water infiltrates into the soil; what does not, flows across the surface as runoff. When runoff moves slowly over terrain, it is filtered of sediments and debris. Water continues to travel across the land both superficially, as surface flow, and underground, as groundwater or subsurface flow, joining larger bodies of water downhill. This surface water then evaporates into the atmosphere to start the process again (see fig 1.1) (Horton, 1931)

PAGE 17

17 Fig 1.1 The hydrologic cycle ( Source:http://www.cleanair.pima.gov/more/WaterCycle.html) In general, the hydrologic process can be summarized as having three primary functions: (1) the hydrologic cycle recharges the groundwater supply as it infiltrates, (2) self cleanses as it percolat es through the soil and moves across land, and (3) moves slowly across organic terrain (Richman,1998) (Horton, 2014). The human population has grown rapidly and, as it has grown, it has blanketed the once permeable Earth with miles of impermeable roads, dr iveways, sidewalks, buildings , and parking lots. This urbanization disrupt s the key functions of the natural hydr ological cycle by channeliz ing and sp e ed ing up water flows across impervious surfaces and prevent ing groundwater recharge . I t also increase s f lood potential , increase s the concentration of contaminants collected by water from impervious surfaces , and cause s channel destabilization (see fig 1.2) (Richman, 1998).

PAGE 18

18 Fig 1.2 Changes in water balance from land development (Source: "Smart Growth / Smart Energy Toolkit Low Impact Development.") The Hydrologic Cycle as Effected by Urbanization As rainfall hits impermeable surfaces in urban areas, it cannot percolate down, and instead moves quickly across the relatively smooth surface. Along the way it collects debris, chemicals and oil from cars, fertilizers, pesticides, heavy metals, and other toxins from urban life. Conventional stormwater management techniques are concerned with moving this contaminated water away from critical infrastructures as quickly as possible (Richman, 1998) (Acomb et al, 2008).

PAGE 19

19 Fig 1.3 Traditional "curb and gutter" stormwater management technique. (Source: The Village of Ossining, NY) T wo main systems are used for stormwater collection in the Unites States: (1) com bined systems and (2) separate systems (Mays, 2001). In a combined sewer system, stormwater is typically channeled along a network of curbs to gutters where it is piped underground and combined with raw sewage ( s ee fig 1.3). From there it flows to a treatm ent center, or it flows untreated directly into the waterways if the water volume is too high to be received at the treatment center (See fig 1.4). This untreated stormwater runoff enters waterways via a combined sewer outfall (CSO). This contaminated wate r entering the waterway is also known as non point source pollution, as it has collected pollutants from various dispersed sources in the watershed. Non point source pollution makes up 80% of the pollution found in U . S . waterways (Richman, 1998) (Davis, 20 05). Even in a separate system, the network of curb, gutters, and pipes carries with it grease, chemicals, oils, fertilizers, pesticides, heavy metals, and suspended solids. During heavy storm events and peak flow times, excess contaminated stormwater is discharged into waterways (Mays, 2001) (Richman,1998).

PAGE 20

20 Fig 1.4 Illustrating typical combined sewer system flow and combined sewer outfall (CSO) of untreated water into waterways during high flow periods. (Source: Eco Brooklyn Inc.) Traditional stormwat er management techniques are effective at moving water away from critical infrastru cture quickly and effectively. H owever , the impacts of these techniques are wide ranging. This technique release s pollutants into waterways at a single concentrated point an d devastate s ecolog ical system s. It prevent s groundwater recharge throughout the landscape, which makes less water available for drinking. It also ha s the potential to fail or backup and result in damaging and costly flooding as well as exposure to pathoge ns and bacteria. Additionally, traditional techniques hide infrastructure, denying the public an opportunity to understand stormwater treatment methods and the impact it ha s on hydrological cycles. One might not realize the impacts of disposing chemicals d own their drain, for example, but they most likely would not dump those same chemicals directly into a water body. This lack of understanding of our

PAGE 21

21 drainage systems res ults in continued impacts to our waterways by an unknowing public. (Richman, 1998) (McC arthy, 2008). Regulation / BMPs and LID The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 became the first major law to address water pollution in the United States. In 1972, Congress amended this law to regulate discharges of pollutants into U.S. waterwa ys, requiring permitting and compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) . This law later became known as the Clean Water Act (EPA). Additionally, Best Management Practices (BMPs) were developed to mitigat e the quantity and quality of runoff. While t his did not stop discharges, it reduced discharges slightly by requiring municipalities to reduce the amount of pollutants carried by runoff. The most typical approach employs storage of stormwater runoff in detention or retention basins. Detention basins are mo re commonly used than retention basins (Richman, 1998) (Mays, 2001). The Florida Department of Environmental Protection define detention basins and retention basins as follows: (a) Stormwater Detention Basin Onsite stormwater detention refers to the temporary storage of excess runoff on a site before its gradual release after the peak of the storm inflow has passed. Runoff is held for a short period and is slowly released to a natural or constructed water course, usually at a r ate no greater than the predevelopment peak discharge rate. (b) Stormwater Retention Basin Ð A surface area used to store runoff for a selected design storm or specified treatment volume. Stormwater is retained onsite, with the storage volume recovered when th e runoff percolates i nto the

PAGE 22

22 soil or evapotranspires. ( Florida Stormwater Erosion and Sedimentation Control Inspector's Manual , 2008). While these basins are useful in slowing flow rates and partially settling out suspended solids, the drawbacks includ e co nstruction costs, pollutants can sometimes be re suspend, and because they often are engineered to meet the minimum requirement these basins can be aesthetically unappealing. Research also shows that these basins, along with minimizing impermeab le surfaces , can reduce but do not eliminate impacts downstream. The most successful approach includes their use in conjunction with other low impact design (LID) techniques in a "treatment train," a multi faceted approach utilizing various modes of conveyance and ca tchment to treat and slow water locally, along its way downstream. (Kemp, 2009) (Urbonas, 2002) (Requesens, 2013). Low Impact Design (LID) stormwater management techniques fall under the umbrella of BMPs and are concerned with reducing impacts downstream a s well. They are also known by the terms Environmentally Sensitive Design or Sustainable Development (Davis, 2005). According to the New Jersey Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual (2004) LID seeks: "Éto reduce and/or prevent adverse runoff impacts through sound site planning and both nonstructural and structural techniques that preserve or closely mimic the site's natural or pre developed hydrologic response to precipitation. Rather than responding to the rainfall runoff process like centralized st ructural facilities, low impact development techniques interact with the process, controlling stormwater runoff and pollutants closer to the source and providing site design measures that can significantly reduce the overall impact of land development on s tormwater runoff. As such, low impact development promotes the concept of designing with nature." Non structural techniques include minimizing site impacts, disconnecting and minimizing use of impervious surfaces, maintaining natural drainage features , an d minimizing the use of lawns and non native plants. To further manage runoff, structural

PAGE 23

23 features may be employed that store, filter, and/or treat stormwater runoff on site. Unlike the large detention and retention basins typical of BMPs, LID features are smaller and constructed at the site scale. They tend to be distributed throughout the site for smaller quantities of runoff, which more closely mimics predevelopment hydrology. These techniques provide a variety of functions that includ e reducing flow spe eds, which allow s for percolation and recharge of the groundwater supply, filtering out pollutants as water passes through multiple substrates of vegetation, soil, and gravel, and enhancing biodiversity. Examples of these features include depressions that collect water known as rain gardens, rain barrels to capture roof runoff, small scale infiltration basins, and bioswales, which are vegetated linear drainage ways that convey water ( s ee fig 1.5) (Richman, 1998) (Acomb et al, 2008) (New Jersey Stormwater B est Management Practices Manual). Fig 1.5 LID site plan (Source: http://aquafluxus.com.br/?p=2032)

PAGE 24

24 Stormwater management will become a more critical issue as populations continue to grow and urbanization continues to develop into the natural landsc ape, negatively impacting our water resources (Requesens, 2013). Florida's population is expected to double by the year 2060, up to 38 million. It is projected that 7 million acres of land will be converted to urban uses to accommodate this growth in popul ation (see fig 1.6) ("Florida 2060"). Florida deals with a large volume of runoff due to its high amount of yearly rainfall (54" annually versus the national average of 30") (Florida Drought Conditions, 2009). A dditional urbanization will further constrai n Florida's current stormwater management strategy. The conventional models of end of pipe management are not sustainable. Of the 1.4 million water and sewage pipes cross the country, 1 in 5 is reaching their structural expiration date (Kemp,2009). Every day, an average of 700 water main breaks occur across the country. The cost of patching up these failing systems is $50.7 billion Fig 1.6 Development projections for 2060 by 1000 Friends of Florida ("Florida 2060")

PAGE 25

25 each year and it is estimated that it would cost up to $1.1 trillion to build and replace water and sewage lines in the next 20 years (Hollands, 2010). With nationwide budget cuts, local municipalities are burdened with maintaining this infrastructure with limited funds (Kemp,2009). Florida is sixth in the country for groundwater use. Florida's projected population growth will tax this resource further, leading to critical water supply problems for several areas within the state in the next 15 years (Koch Rose, 2011). Further development to accommodate this growing population increases the impermeable land surface, which prevent s groundwater recharge and exacerbates these concerns. It is time to re imagine water management . BMP/LID practices are the first attempt at envisioning a holistic, sustainable, and more affordable approach to water resource management . In fact, there is a small, but growing body of research that indicates LID techniques can be quite cost effective, with an estimate of 15 % to 80% in cost savings (Penniman, Hostetler, and Acomb, 2012). In 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted nationwid e case studies as part of a report comparing the cost of LID with traditional development approaches. The EPA reported a cost savings of at least 15% for all LID projects when compared to conventional development approaches, with the exception of one (see table 1.7) ( Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices, 2007) .

PAGE 26

26 Table 1.7 Summary of cost comparisons between conventional and LID approaches (Source: Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development ( LID) Strategies and Practices, 2007) Imp lementing LID technologies can reduce the volume of water moving through pipes, address stormwater on site and allow some of it to percolate and recharge groundwater supplies , as well as filtering toxins that would normally need to be treated in a water treatment ce nter or dumped directly into waterways (Davis, 2005) (Harris, 2013). Although many benefits exist in implementing BMP/LID techniques, several barriers stand in the way of more ubiquitous implementation. Th ese barriers include perceived costs, perceived maintenance concerns, lengthy permitting processes, and public acceptance issues, particularly aesthetics (Davis, 2005) (Harris, 2013). In 2009 , t he University of Florida (UF) Program for Resource Efficient Communities (PREC) conducted four regional workshops in Florida (Jacksonville, Orlando, Palm Coast, and Ocala) to obtain feedback from practitioners about LID implementation issues. The goal of these workshops was to provide practical LID implementation in formation and to facilitate discussion about strategies for advancing

PAGE 27

27 LID projects in Florida. The workshop presented an LID development plan for a 170 acre residential community and asked practitioners to identify and rank the challenges of implementing L ID if this project were proposed in their region. Table 1.8 lists the number of comments and the percentage of comments that fall under each category. This table indicates that lack of public awareness, issues with acceptance of LID, and uncertainties abou t LID preferences were perceived to be the most critical issues with implementing the LID project (Jennison et al., 2011). Table 1.8 Number and percentage of comments listed per category of LID challenge (Source: Jennison et al., 2011).

PAGE 28

28 Aesthetics o f Stormwater Management In creating landscapes for ecol ogical function, aesthetics often takes a back seat as driver of form. The potential for conflict between ecological goals and aesthetic preferences can be significant (Parsons , 1995 ). Ecological func tion is not always perceived to be aesthetically pleasing, just as aesthetically pleasing landscapes are not necessarily ecologically functional (Zhang, 2013). Several studies have found a discordance between ecological quality and aesthetic preference (Ju nker and Buchecker, 2008)(Parsons, 1995; Williams and Cary, 2002; van den Berg and Vlek,1998). This also is exemplified in some of the BMP retention techniques that often times are characterized by a basin surrounded by a chain link fence : i t was designed to comply with liability concerns and perform a function, but no consideration was given to its aesthetics (see fig 1.9 ). Another example can be found in the dry detention basins outfitted with concrete flow channels that civil engineers have been designin g for decades. While they can handle small amounts of water, they are inadequate to channel large flow events and have been engineered without consider ation of aesthetics (see fig 1.10 ) (Brandes).

PAGE 29

29 Fig 1.9 Retention pond with surrounding chain link fenc e has been given no aesthetic consideration. (Source:http://www.usouthal.edu/geography/fearn/480page/02Jordan/Fig4.jpg) Fig 1.10 Detention basin with unsightly cement flow channels. (Source: Brandes)

PAGE 30

30 Paul Gobster, a social scientist with the United St ates Department of Ag riculture (USDA) Forest Service, who focuses on the perception and experience of landscapes ( "Scientists & Staff." 2015) , states that in order for LID to achieve full public support over traditional stormwater management techniques, ae sthetics must be addressed (Gobster, 2000). Human dominated places are made up of landscapes reflecting cultural norms and aesthetics that are resistant to change . At times, these anthropocentric landscapes a re not ecologically sustainable, and new approac hes to preserve ecosystem vitality must be introduced (Nassauer , 1995a) (Gobster, 2000). One approach proposed in LID is the bioswale. Bioswales are planted depressions used to convey, infiltrate, and treat stormwater to effectively remove and break down several contaminants found in urban stormwater runoff, including oil, grease, sediments, pesticides, nutrients, and metals. As stormwater enters the bioswale, vegetation and rough surface textures slow down the water and maximize the time spent in the swal e before being conveyed. This allows for infiltration and treatment of the runoff. As water percolates through root systems and several layers of soil and gravel, contaminants are immobilized or taken up by plant material before recharging the groundwater supply (s ee fig 1.11 ) (Richman).

PAGE 31

31 Fig 1.11 Example of a parking lot bioswale (Source: Erika Mayer) 1. When it rains, stormwater runs off hard surfaces such as parking lots, streets, roofs, and sidewalks . When the water washes over these surfaces, it collec ts con taminants and debris such as motor oil, fertilizers, pesticides , sediment, and trash. 2. Traditionally, this polluted water is collected in a gutter and piped to a treatment center or untreated into water bodies. 3. Bioswales provide an alternative to trad itional methods. Water is first channeled to the bioswales. Then the plants and rough surface in the bioswale help to slow the water down and maximize the time spent in the bioswale before moving down stream. This gives the water a chance to absorb into th e ground and trap sediment and pollutants. 4. As the water begins to soak into the ground, plants roots, and several layers of gravel and soil help to cleanse the water before it enters the local aquifer. This process also allows storm water to replenish the groundwater supply. The following are examples of bioswales used in various applications: roadway median, roadside, residential, and parking lot. They represent some of the common applications, varying aesthetics, and diversity of this tool. (See fig 1.1 2 1.15 )

PAGE 32

32 Fig. 1.13 Roadside bioswale planted naturalistically (Source: http://www.semcog .org/data/lid.report. cfm?lid=174) Fig 1.12 Road median bioswale (Source: Aaron Volkening /f lickr)

PAGE 33

33 Bioswales are a departure from the ubiquitous "curb and gutter" approach of traditional stormwater management. Bioswales daylight stormwater management processes that are traditionally managed below surface. This may cause concern to residents who do not understand the importance of moving away from conventional systems and who are unsure why bioswales might look the way they do. It is impo rtant Fig 1.14 Bioswale in a residential application (Source: http://ww w.bioswal e.com/bioswale project gallery/bios wale pleasant hill ca/ds c00119/) Fig 1.15 Parking lot bioswale (Source:http://www .werf.org/liveablec ommunities/studie s_truckee_nv.htm)

PAGE 34

34 to design with the public in mind to address any concerns and to introduce these new ec ological technologies within a recogn izable framework. D esigning in a way that is sensitive to the visual preferences of a community can serve to align the aesthetic values of a place to the ecological function of LID (Nassauer,1995a, 1995b). As a result, it will facilitate the progress of LID as a viable stormwater management alternative. This research will be conducting a detailed visual preference study of bioswales in the Gainesville, Florida area to answer the following question: "What aesthetic varia bles are preferred in bioswale design by survey participants in the Gainesville, Florida area?" Based on these preferred aesthetics, g uidelines have been formed to assist designers and engineers in aligning the aesthetics valued in the Gainesville area wit h the ecological function of bioswales .

PAGE 35

35 Chapter 2 Literature Review Ecological goals and cultural aesthetic preference for landscapes have the potenti al for conflict (Parsons,1995). Introducing ecologically functional design to urbanized areas may cause issues with visual preference because ecological aesthetics and cultural landscape aesthetics may not align. This chapter introduce s landscape aesthetics and the two schools of thought within ecological aesthetics: (1) those who believe eco logical function should drive forms in landscape architecture, and (2) those who believe ecological design should be placed within the recognizable framework of conventional aesthetics to be accepted by a wide public ; and the role of cultural landscape aes thetics as applied to ecological design . Aesthetics and Beauty In his text, Living in the Landscape, philosopher Arnold Berleant, succinctly characterizes the natural progression of aesthetic theory in history as follows: "Just as art emerges in the impu lse to make things, human curiosity demands explanations. Myths and tales begin to offer them. These flower in to the literary arts, but they also lead to more direct and deliberate attempts to understand and explain the forces that affect human life. Reli gion and philosophy appear. In the effort to grasp the significance of the artistic impulse and the unusual pleasures that art and the appreciation of nature evoke, people have devised explanations of the character of such satisfactions. These are formaliz ed in the area of philosophy known as aesthetics, which concerns itself with special values found in making and appreciating art and in the enjoyment of natural beauty" (Berleant, 1997). The Oxford English Dictionary defines aesthetics as "knowledge deri ved from the senses , " w hile Merriam Webster more narrowly and directly ties aesthetics to beauty when defining it as "of or relating to art or beauty." The perception of the aesthetics of a place or thing can be said to be stimuli of the senses and the ple asurable reaction they

PAGE 36

36 incite. "Indeed, the notion of beauty seems deeply imbedded in our conception of aesthetic" (Porteous, 1996). Neal Benezra, director of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art , asks in his book Regarding Beauty, "Is beauty in the eye of the beholder, or does it reside instead within the limits of the object beheld?" This question has colored beauty and aesthetic theory for quite some time. Ancien t Greek philosophers believed beauty lay in the object itself in the way of proportion, sy mmetry, and order. The Golden Mean became a celebration of beauty (Zhang, 2013) (Benezra et al.,1999). During the seventeenth century, beauty came to be seen outside the object or place, as a subjective experience. This led to aesthetics in the eighteenth century as beauty Ôfelt,' and determined by the viewer. Today, measures of both subjective and objective beauty have persisted. In an interesting experiment, Vitaly Komar and Alexander Melamid sought to find the universality of beauty in art by conducting international polling of artistic elements. Their results revealed the following conclusion : "Ébeauty as a social construction [is] motivated by subjective factors (taste, geography, economics, and cultural tradition) rather than an overarching set of a bsolutes" (Benezra et al.,1999). Aesthetics in the Landscape Historically, these concepts can be seen reflected on nature in the Dutch landschap paintings of the seventeenth century, the picturesque landscape gardens of the eighteenth century, and the lan dscape paintings of the Romantic Era in the early nineteenth century as a response to the Industrial Revolution (Berleant, 1997) (Corner, 1999). The paintings from the Pastoral movement of the Romantic Era depict expansive views, wide lawns, gardens, and a subdued nature tamed by man (Rabb, 2009). The

PAGE 37

37 pain tings of these eras became so popular during their time that they began to shape the way landscape and estate designers devised the landscape , o ften creating opportunities and vistas for future paintings ( Corner, 1999) (Barnett). C ultural views of nature came to be shaped by pictorial landscapes and have become so imbedded in p erception that their cultural origins are no longer recognize d. T his contrived version of nature is now equated with a measure of e cological quality and harmony (Nassauer,1995a). There is a difference between ecological landscapes and those perceived to be ecological landscapes ; in the latter , the ecological function may or may not be there. Joan I. Nassauer , who works in the field of ecological design and is Professor of Landscape Architecture at the University of Michigan , suggests that the solution to bridg e this gap is to design in a way that manages cultural expectations of the landscape while addressing ecological function. It re quires translating the language of ecology into cultural vernacular (Nassauer,1995a) (Eaton, 1989). Aesthetics in Ecological Design and Landscape Architecture In terms of ecological design, aesthetic consid erations can sometimes seem to be superficial l uxuries in the face of pressing ecolog ical priorities (Meyer, 2008). "[A]esthetics is often considered a kind of froth, difficult to analyze, easy to blow away." (Lynch, 1976). This is curious considering landscape aesthetics can evoke such powerful emoti ons; consider some of our natural treasures like the rainbow geysers of Yellowstone National Park (see fig. 2.1).

PAGE 38

38 Fig 2.1 Rainbow geyser, Yellowstone National Park (Source: http://mostbeautifulplacesintheworld.org/?p=2814) The public may not fully und erstand the natural processes, or their function and importance, but there would certainly be an outcry if there were a proposal to alter it in any way. Additionally, "amenity migration," which is the phenomenon of people moving to areas of scenic beauty, has been identified as one of the most important drivers of landscape change in the U . S . (Gobster et al, 2007). "Éaesthetic experiences evoked through perception of the landscape powerfully and regularly engage people with ecosystems. This implies that la ndscapes that are perceived as aesthetically pleasing are more likely to be appreciated and protected than are landscapes perceived as undistinguished or ugly, regardless of their less directly perceivable ecological importance." (Gobster et al., 2007) In terms of landscape architecture, a shift toward ecological integrity can be traced back to 1969 and Ian McHarg's seminal work Design with Nature. Before this

PAGE 39

39 work, landscape architecture had primarily been concerned with aesthetics, typified by the writ ings and work of Theodora Kimball, Henry Hubbard, John Simmonds, Garret Eckbo and James Rose, among others (Mozingo, 1997). In Design with Nature, McHarg introduce s a model for determining ecologically sound landscape suitability based on biophysical analy sis and logic. He believe s this model for suitability supersede s all other considerations and free s ecological function from the "shackles" of aesthetic convention (Mozingo, 1997) (McHarg, 1969) (Zhang, 2013). This marked a shift in landscape architecture discourse that split the discipline into two camps on the issue of aesthetics. For some, design based purely on aesthetics carried a superficial stigma. This came to be known as "ecological determinism" and was criticized for being anti humanistic and cul turally na•ve (Mozingo, 1997). Not long after, this shift to ecology as determinant of design was met with proposals to incorporat e aesthetics into the discourse, most notably in the 1976 article Visual Ecology , by Robert L. Thayer , founder of the Landscap e Architecture Program at the University of California, Davis (Zhang, 2013). The consideration of aesthetics in ecology came to be known as "ecological aesthetics," and marked an area ripe for conflict. In The S hared L andscape : W hat does A esthetics have to do with E cology ? the authors point out the following : "The ecological value of a landscape might, in and of itself, give pleasure to a person who knows how to recognize relevant ecological phenomena. This recognition may occur separately from or along with the feeling of pleasure that is understood as aesthetic experience. Whether the pleasure that derives from recognizing ecological value ÔÔcounts'' as an aesthetic experience is at the heart of the aesthetics Ð ecology controversy" (Gobster et al, 2007). There are times where ecological quality and aesthetics will align, but this is not always the case. What is aesthetically pleasing may not be ecologically responsible, as exemplified by the lawns common to the cultural landscapes of the U . S . (Gobs t er et al, 2007). This idea is echoed in Thayer 's 1989 article, The Experience of Sustainable Landscapes , where he writes that ecologically valuable landscapes are not necessarily

PAGE 40

40 beautiful (Thayer, 1989). An example of this can be found in the case of a prairie and savannah restoration in the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County west of Chicago. Ecologists held that in order to restore the landscape's ecological function, exotic trees needed to be removed from the site and periodic controlled burns were nee ded. This was met with community resistance; they preferred the trees for aesthetic, recreational, and privacy reasons. Additionally, they maintained that the dense canopy cover helped to counter urban heat island effect and improved air quality more effec tively than the prairie/savannah landscape being proposed. During this study, social science researcher Paul H. Gobster concluded that instead of arguing which values were more important, it was best to respect the legitimacy of all views and find a way to best integrate them to achieve the combined goals of ecological function and aesthetics . He conced ed that this would not be an easy task, but is increasingly nece ssary (Gobster, 2000). During his doctoral research on the aesthetic attributes of green inf rastructure at the University of Florida, Bo Zhang identified four possibilities for aesthetic and ecological combinations: "a landscape can be (1) beautiful and ecologically functional, (2) ecologically functional but not beautiful, (3) beautiful but not ecologically functional, (4) not beautiful and not ecologically functional" (Zhang, 2013). The first possibility seems the most appropriate in terms of accomplishing both ecological and aesthetic goals, but how do we get there? Zhang goes on to ask, "Shoul d one be innovative or conventional?" (Zhang, 2013). In other words, should designers be innovative in their design of ecological landscapes, introducing new fo rms and aesthetics, or should they create ecological landscapes within a conventional, recogniza ble aesthetic?

PAGE 41

41 Ecological Aesthetics There are largely t wo schools of thought in ecological aesthetics and design: (1) those who believe ecological function should drive forms in landscape architecture, and (2) those who believe ecological design shou ld be placed within the recognizable framework of conventional aesthetics in order to be accepted by a wide public. Theorists such as Catherine Howett, James Corner, and Michael Hough, believe designers must move away from conventional aesthetics, where ne w forms and innovation will come forward in ecological aesthetics. Others such as Joan Nassauer and Louise A. Mozingo, believe designing ecologically healthy landscapes can be achieved and accepted by a wider audience using vernacular landscape cues (Nassa uer, 1997). (1 ) Ecology as Driver of Form Starting with McHarg's writings, this idea of ecological deter minism is echoed in the writing of landscape architect Anne W. Sprin , who wrote the following in 1988 : "Patterns formed by nature's processes and the ir symmetry across scales have long been appreciated by close observers of the natural world. Recent developments in mathematics and science afford new insights into this geometry and aesthetics of form generated by dynamic processes, be they natural or cu ltural, and point to new directions for design" (Spirn, 1988). Landscape architect Michael Hough advocates for finding new alternatives to form from natural processes and bridging the gap between urbanism and nature. He points out that the "pedigree" lan dscapes typified by expansive lawns have low biodiversity and use up resources such as water and fertilizers to keep it looking healthy , which he describes as follows: "Éaesthetic and cultural baggage of a past era, transported to hostile climatic environ ments and wholly inappropriate to them" (Hough, 1984) (Mozingo, 1997).

PAGE 42

42 Additionally, like McHarg, he states that landscape aesthetics should be shaped by ecological goals; design objectives can be integrated afterward (Mozingo, 1997). The idea is that by b ringing to light and reintroducing natural processes that are largely hidden from urban living, new forms will result, connecting the user with nature and fostering an understanding of natural processes. These new forms will serve as the new ecological aes thetic (Howett, 1987). The assumption is that these new forms will be meaningful and accepted because the user will recognize the ecological function and therefore it's value and beauty (Lyle, 1994). In his essay Ecology and Landscape as Agents of Creativ ity, l andscape architect ure theorist James Corner calls for invention of new forms that move away from the "calcified conventions" of how people relate to landscapes characterized by singular uses, pictorial qualities, and hierarchy. These new forms would enable dynamic landscapes that allow for improvisation and change, taking on a "self organizing life of their own" (Corner, 1997). "Éa truly ecological landscape architecture might be less about the construction of finished and complete works, and more abo ut the design of Ôprocesses,' Ôstrategies,' Ôagencies,' and Ôscaffoldings' Ð catalytic frameworks that might enable a diversity of relationships to create, emerge, network, interconnect, and differentiate" (Corner, 1997) . He goes on to point to architect Rem Koolhaas' proposal for the Parc de la Villette in Paris as one that exemplifies this approach : "The resultant Ôimage' of such designs may not be one that is currently thought to be ecological in appearance (which, as I have argued, remains fallaciously bound up with ideas of untouched and native Ônature'), but its strategic organicism -its deployment as an active agent, a metabolic urbanism -aspires to nothing less than the injection of indetermination, diversification, and freedom into both the social and Natural worlds Ð values that are surely central to any ecological, moral, and poetic notions about evolutionary and creative life' (Corner, 1997).

PAGE 43

43 (2) Ecology Within a Recognizable Framework of Cultural Aesthetics The other school of thought on the topic of ecological aesthetics is primarily concerned with public acc eptance. It is suggested that in introducing ecological design society wide in the form of public infrastructural improvements, construction codes, as well as voluntary adoption of new s ustainable techniques, it is important to strategize and present these designs within the existing aesthetic framework. Using familiar aesthetic language that will communicate to the public the ecological benefit of the design while making it clear that th e design is intention al, managed, and cared for. Nassauer points out that the public responds to signs of human intention in the landscape and that this intention is communicated through the way a landscape looks. Where this intention seems absent, sites m ay be mistaken for neglected lands or lands awaiting development , which can mean the difference between "a nature preserve and a dumping groun d" (Nassauer, 1995a). She suggests that including cues of human intention is the way to design ecosystems recogniz ed for their function and beauty. These cues can be determined through research on aesthetic preference (Nassauer, 1995a) (Zhang, 2013). Aesthetics and the Role of Culture Zhang contends that most anthropocentric environments are shaped by the forms of t he last three thousand years. Changes in aesthetics are a response to geography, climate, societal , and cultu ral needs (Zhang, 2013) Nassauer states that human dominated landscapes are a reflection of cultural norms that are resistant to change. This resis tance is because landscape appearance is perceived to be an indication of those who care for it (Nassauer, 1995a,1995b). In a study conducted in the Minnesota suburb s , participants were asked to describe the owners of homes based on their landscape. The o wners were described as hard workers, lazy, bad neighbors or good

PAGE 44

44 neighbors, and stewards, all based on the appearance of their land (Nassauer, 1995b). In order to make changes accepted by the public, Nassauer believes they need to be placed within a recog nizable framework. The average citizen may say and feel that they care about the environment, but if one were to propose to that same citizen to convert their lawn to a native or xeric landscape that would save them money and conserve water resources, you may find there is a hesitation to adopt what could seem like a "radical" or "fringe" landscape. This is because for many, the landscape is a reflection of themselves: their class, their neighborliness, how hard working they believe themselves to be. In the U . S . , a neat, clean, weed free lawn tends to be the status quo landscape; a sign of pride and esteem (Nassauer, 1995a). It is the power of these implications that drives people to design landscapes of convention, "People make landscapes according to what they believe their neighbors will think or cautious assessment of market expectations" (Naussauer, 1995b). This sentiment of resistance to change can be summarized by the acronym "NIMBY" which stands for "Not in my back yard." It means resistance to chang e of one's landscape for fear of what it may reflect upon them. This can occur even when they believe the change would be beneficial and should be made, they just do not want it happening near them (Nassauer, 1995a). The NIMBY phenomenon is precisely why t his school of thought , which is concerned with public acceptance, believes visual preference must be considered when introducing ubiquitous infrast ructural changes. R esistance from the public could set back sustaina ble, LID development advances so desperat ely need ed , all over the issue of aesthetics. Additionally, Zhang warns that placing too much emphasis on the role of ecological knowledge leads to the "'if ecological, then beautiful' illusion" (Zhang, 2013). I n her 1997 paper The Aesthetics of Ecological Design , landscape architect Louise A. Mozingo states the following :

PAGE 45

45 "Ecological spaces, especially those in close proximity to urbanized areas where most people live, should be appealing aesthetic experiences. If we expect the public to enthusiastically r eorganize its environmental preferences, the ecological landscapes themselves should engage public interest and motivate support for their expansion and replication. This is central to the acceptance and promotion of ecological design" (Mozingo, 1997). Sh e goes on to say that positive public reception to Ôin the ground' projects exemplifying the marriage of ecology and aesthetics are what will facilitate the radical shift of environmental priorities need ed (Mozingo, 1997). I n 1997, McHarg himself conceded that aesthetics had a place in ecological design when he stated it would "require a fusion of science and art" (McHarg, 1997) . The Issue of Public Acceptance One cannot have the discussion of ecological design and aesthetics without addressing the i ssue of public acceptance. Nassauer points out that cultural landscapes are resistant to change. There are many examples where this is the case. In 2014, the Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency held a meeting with community leaders, stakeholders, enginee rs, landscape architects, students, and representatives from Public Works to discuss the redevelopment of a previously demolished public housing site. The idea was to create a mixed use, mixed income site in a largely resid ential sector of East Gainesville , Florida . Designers put forth ideas for sustainable, low impact designs for stormwater management, similar to those employed by a n LID community on the other side of town. The response from members of this community was that they did not like the aestheti cs of LID and did not want LID implemented at the proposed site in East Gainesville. There are many variables that could be examined for why this was the sentiment among this group; however, this demonstrates t hat aesthetics matter, even over issues of eco logical health. Psychologist Terry C. Daniel asks in Aesthetic Preference and Ecological Sustainability in the anthology Forests and Landscapes ,

PAGE 46

46 whether people prefer sustainable landscapes. He concludes that while the public may support the idea of ecolog ical health, they may not like some of the techniques and resultant landscapes of getting there. Natural agents found in forest ecosystems such as insects, disease, fire, etc . , are not typically favored by the public "either as process or for their most ob vious and visible effects on the forest" (Daniel, 2001). Daniel goes on to say that ecological systems are in constant flux, even those stages favored by th e public are temporal (Daniel, 2001). The question is how to acc ommodate aesthetic preference in a d ynamic system in flux? Another issue that often comes up in ecological design is public aversion to native plants, some of which are not propagated to have massive flowers and extended bloom times like some ornamentals. Instead, their value lies in their f unction within the ecosystem as a food source and habitat. It should be noted that there is a growing sector of the population who appreciates native plants for their beauty, the wildlife they attr act, and the lack of resources they require if planted with in their native range. Still, for the vast majority of the public , native plants have a perceived impression of "messy" or un maintained plants. M unicipalities often plant native landscapes in groupings that are laid out in a way that demonstrates intenti on and care to avoid this misconception by the public (Harris). Both Mozingo and Zhang point to numerous experiments and research that demonstrate public aversion to certain landscapes and the importance of visual preference t esting: (Kaplan and Kaplan, 19 89) ( Littlewood , 1996) (Ulrich, 1981) ( Vining, Danial, & Schroeder , 1984) ( Ribe , 1990) ( Schroeder , 1991) ( Purcell and Lamb , 1998) ( Hull et al. , 2001) ( Nassauer , 1992, 2004 ) ( Gobster and Westphal , 2004) (Mozingo, 1997) (Zhang, 2013). There is a perceived issue with public acceptance of ecological aesthetics. W hile the public may support the concept of ecological health, they may not like some of the

PAGE 47

47 techniques and landscapes that result . Further research of public visual preference of ecological design mus t be conducted to better understand aesthetic concerns. A Call for Research and Testing It no longer seems feasible to have mass expanses of natural, unpopulated areas, where nature exists "over there" and development and urbanization exists "over here" (Amidon et al, 2009). In order to accommodate the needs of a growing po pulation as well as those of the planet and its continue d function, adapt ation of our conventional management strategies must occur (Reques ens, 2013). As Spirn suggests in her article T he Poetics of City and Nature, when natural processes are neglected in city design, the risk of natural hazards and the degradation of nat ural resources increases; a sense of connection to a larger whole beyond ourselves is forfeited (Spirn, 1988). N ature must be reintroduced to our daily environments . A better interface must be designed where the public can begin to understand an d protect ecological function . Marica Muelder Eaton , Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, points to theorist J.O. Urmson who suggests, "Éthat we empirically discover what criteria people apply when they respond in ways that they identify as aesthetic." These criteria can be determined through research (Eaton , 1989). E cological design must be researched and teste d in terms of aesthetic preference and ecological function, which can then be distilled into applicable guidelines (Zhang, 2013). Bioswales are one example from the ecological design toolkit and begin to address some of the impacts of urbanization on the h ydrological cycle by mimicking natural processes. As ecologically functional designs, their aesthetics may not be embraced by a wide audience.

PAGE 48

48 Ecological goals and cultural aesthetic preference for landscapes have the potential for conflict (Parsons,1995). Research will reveal whether allowing ecological function to drive design or placing ecological design within a recognizable framework is the most conducive approach to begin weaving ecological design within our urbanized areas. This research will be con ducting a detailed visual preference study of bioswales in the Gainesville, F lorida, area in an attempt to answer the following question: "What aesthetic variables are preferred in bioswale design by participants in the Gainesville, FL area?" Based on thes e preferred ae sthetics, guidelines have been formed to assist designers in aligning aesthetics valued in the Gainesville area with the ecological function of bioswales .

PAGE 49

49 Chapter 3 Ð Methodology The purpose of this research is to identify aesthetic preferences for bioswale design using a visual preference survey and community feedback. A visual preference survey was developed in order to test Gainesville, Florida , residents ' aesthetic preference of bioswale design. The survey method was selected for convenience of showing variable bioswale design scenarios with the intent of eliciting feedback from respondents . The objective of the survey was to reach a representative demographic of Gainesville residents, determine their aesthetic preference of bioswa le design, and use their feedback in the creation of guidelines to assist designers in understanding the aesthetics valued in the Gainesville area. Scope of Research The visual preference survey tested a variety of aesthetic variables in bioswale design: • Plant arrangement and characteristics of color, texture/diversity, and height • Amount (%) of weed cover that is aesthetically acceptable • Amount (%) of browning vegetation that is aesthetically acceptable • Configuration of the bioswale testing curvilinear or ientation versus straight • Use of elements such as gravel, stones, and check dams Patterns of aesthetic preference were identified, as well as those relating to demographics, and later used to formulate guidelines for bioswale design in the Gainesville area .

PAGE 50

50 The visual preference study along with methods and locations for engaging with respondents was submitted to the University of Florida's Institutional Review Boards. The study was approved and included a consent form informing respondents of their righ ts and allowing their answers to be used in this research (See Appendix A). Survey Methodology Overview The visual preference survey addresses the question, "What aesthetic variables are preferred in bioswale design by respondents in the Gainesville, Flo rida, area?" The survey is organized as follows: Cover page with the definition of a bioswale and an example image of a grassed bioswale (which later serves as the base image for all subsequent bioswale images). One page of demographic questions relating t o gender, age, ethnicity, occupation, education, housing type, and ownership. 25 images that rank* preference with two follow up questions that probe respondents about what they like about their most favorite and what they most dislike about their least f avorite. These images test preference for plant arrangement, color, texture/diversity, use of weirs, and configuration. Three questions relating to how much time and resources the participant spends in their own landscape. Eight images to rate * the toleran ce for seasonal browning and overgrowth of plant material. Five questions relating to how respondents feel about bioswales and whether they would like to see them implemented in their own landscapes and communities.

PAGE 51

51 *Please note the distinction between "r anking" and "rating." In ranking people must chose and order images from the given options, while in rating, respondents may ch o ose to opt out of rating any scene, or give multiple scenes the same rating (Heiss, 2007). The following is a break down of each section of the study and its intention. Cover Page The cover page of the study introduces respondents to bioswales. It includes the definition for a bioswale as follows: "A bioswale is a linear vegetated depression used to move stormwater. In addition to serving as a flood control, it also treats stormwater as it filters through the vegetation and soil, improving water quality. Bioswales are used as a sustainable alternative to traditional stormwater management techniques, which pipe contaminated stormwat er to a treatment center or directly into waterbodies." Along with the definition, the cover page shows an image of the grassed bioswale used as a base image for the ranking portion of the survey (See fig 3.1). Demographic Questions The first page of de mographic questions identifies the respondents ' backgrounds and gauges the diversity of respondents . The questions ask respondents their gender, age, ethnicity, occupation, education, housing type, and ownership. Twenty five Images for Visual Preference Ra nking The following images test ed preferences for individual variables (in order): V egetation height V egetation texture V egetation arrangement U se of gravel and stone U se of check dams (weirs) C onfiguration

PAGE 52

52 U se of color (vegetation) The images were unifor m in view and used the same de saturated base image to isolate the variables and make them stand out in the scene. (See fig 3.1) The images were presented in axonometric view, seen from average standing height ( six feet ), approximately eight feet from the start of the bioswale. The base image depicts a roadside, grassed bioswale located at Gainesville Regional Airport. A roadside bioswale was chosen as the archetype , the assumption being that it is the most commonly used, municipally implemented type of bioswale. Onto this base image, scenes were created to test each variable by arranging elements onto the image using Adobe Photoshop. Fig 3.1 De saturated base image of grassed swale at Gainesville Regional Airport.

PAGE 53

53 Category Images The following images were created for each of the categories (listed above) to be rated by respondents . The number of images per category range from two to four, depending on the complexity of the variable being tested. They are arranged in order from minimal to extreme for each variable. Height This category determin es preference for vegetation height a nd whether a clear line of sight is preferred over a more full, vegetated planting. One type of grass was used throughout to keep the focus on height as the variable (see fig 3.2). Fig 3.2 Images testing preference for height

PAGE 54

54 Texture This set of images test s uniform texture versus varying grades of texture at 20%, 50% and 80%. These percentages illustrate a realistic range of diversity, with visible differentiation between one image to the next. Texture was subsequently added to the same image as percentage increased. To the extent possible, othe r variables such as color were omitted from the images to isolate the variable of texture (see fig 3.3). Fig 3.3 Images testing preference for texture

PAGE 55

55 Arrangement The arrangement category is concerned with placement of vegetation, testing three type s: Uniform with no breaks, uniform with breaks, and random naturalistic. This represents the three most common landscape arrangements. A monoculture of grass was chosen to keep the focus of evaluation on arrangement and not plant material, color, height or any other variable (see fig 3.4). Fig 3.4 Images testing preference for arrangement

PAGE 56

56 Use of gravel and stone This category concerns itself with the use of landscape stones and gravel with three images that depict no gravel, moderate use of gravel, an d use of gravel with larger landscape stones. In bioswale design, gravel is used as an added layer of filtration as stormwater percolates through. In some cases it can be incorporated below the topsoil. To isolate this variable, the same planting design wa s maintained throughout all three images to keep the focus of evaluation on the use and amount of gravel and away from other variables such as plant material choice (see fig 3.5). Fig 3.5 Images testin g preference for use of gravel and stone

PAGE 57

57 Use of che ck dams These images address the use of check dams, also known as weirs. The term check dam was used in the study because it is a more familiar term to the public. In bioswale design, Check dams are used to alter the water flow characteristics by collecti ng and holding water behind the dam structure until it reaches a certain height and spills over into the next pool. This slows water moving downstream and maximizes time spent in each section, giving the water a chance to percolate. These images test prefe rence of structure type: No check dam, rectangular check dam, stone check dam, and v notch check dam. To isolate this variable, the same planting design was maintained throughout all four images to keep the focus of evaluation on the use and appearance of check dams (see fig 3.6). Fig 3.6 Images testing preference for check dams

PAGE 58

58 Configuration These two sets of images test the preference for a linear approach versus a curvilinear one , shown with and without vegetation to demonstrate what it would look li ke grassed or planted, as well as to clarify what was being tested in the scene (see fig 3.7). Fig 3.7 Images testing preference for configuration

PAGE 59

59 Color of Vegetation These images test the use of color in plant material. The first image pres ents only shades of green in plant foliage, the next introduces 20% color through blooms, and the last image shows color through blooms and differing foliage color at 50%. These percentages were chosen because they illustrate a typical range of color, with visible differentiation between one image to the next. The images are intended to depict blooms in the spring season, primarily utilizing Florida native plants (see fig 3.8). Fig 3.8 Images testing preference for color

PAGE 60

60 Additional Questions Relating to Participant Landscape Practices This section asks three questions about how much time and resources the respondent spends in their own personal landscape. The questions ask how much time they dedicate in their landscape each month, whether they hire a service to provide landscape maintenance, and if they have a lawn and how often it is mowed. The intent of these questions is to determine the landscape awareness of the participant and how dedicated they are to it appearing manicured. The questions as th ey appear in the survey include: How many hours do you work on your landscape each month? Do you hire someone to maintain your yard? If so, how often do they come by every month? If you have a lawn, how often do you mow it? Eight Images for Rating This section presents additional images for rating. As mentioned earlier, respondents are not required to choose any of the images. Alternatively, they can choose more than one. This differs from the ranking section in which each image needs to be arranged in t erms of preference and all images must be addressed. The directions for this section ask respondents to identify those images that apply to the given statement, or to check another circle if they believe no images apply to the statement. The images used fo r this rating section look to test seasonal browning tolerance and overgrowth tolerance in terms of maintenance. A base image with de saturated color was chosen. It depicts the bioswale perpendicularly and close up, to allow for detailed evaluation of each of the scenarios (See fig 3.9). A variety of plants

PAGE 61

61 were chosen to depict unique seasonal characteristics, including evergreen perennials and native Florida annuals that die back seasonally. A gravel bottom was used to contrast and best illustrate overgro wth of plants and weeds. Fig 3.9 Base bioswale image used to test tolerance for seasonal browning and overgrowth. Browning These images test tolerance for seasonal appearance referred to as "browning." Respondents were given the following directions: "Please check all the images below that you believe look unacceptable in terms of maintenance. You may select more than one image. If you believe none of these scenarios needs maintenance, please check here: ! "

PAGE 62

62 The intent is to determine the extent of seasonal browning that respondents can tolerate before they believe it looks unacceptable and maintenance should occur, and therefore identify how much maintenance would be required to please the majority of res idents. The images are shown with 20%, 50%, and 80% browning, as it highlights the contrast from one image to the next and illustrates typical, seasonal browning habits of the plants shown (see fig 3.10). Fig 3.10 Images testing tolerance for seasonal br owning Overgrowth These images test tolerance for overgrowth. The directions are the same as those for the browning section. The intent is to determine how much maintenance would be required to please the majority of residents along a spectrum of "very m anicured" to

PAGE 63

63 "naturalistic." The images are shown with 20%, 50%, and 80% overgrowth as it highlights the contrast from one image to the next and illustrates realistic overgrowth in Gainesville, Florida (see fig 3.11). Fig 3.11 Images testing tolerance fo r overgrowth Questions Relating to Participant Perception of Bioswales The last five questions seek to determine how respondents feel about bioswales overall , asking respondents to answer the following : I dentify a favorite image of those presented throu ghout the survey (using the small, white number at the bottom left of each image for identification) W hether they prefer the aesthetics of bioswales to that of traditional curb and gutter techniques

PAGE 64

64 W hether they would implement bioswales on their own pro perty W hether they would like to see more bioswales in their community W hether they have any concerns about bioswales in general These questions are meant to gauge how respondents feel about bioswales and identify their and concerns and misconceptions. Ad ditionally, it provides insight into potential future areas of research. Below are the questions as they appear in the survey: Of all the sets of images, which one did you prefer the most? Why? Please use the number on the bottom left of the images to iden tify your preference. Do you prefer the aesthetics of a bioswale to traditional stormwater management techniques? Why or why not? (This question is accompanied by an image of a curb and gutter, see fig 3.12 below) Fig 3.12 Traditional "curb and gutter" Stormwater management Would you like to see more bioswale projects in your community? Why or why not? If you were/are a homeowner, would you implement bioswales on your own property? Why or why not? Are there any concerns you have with bioswales?

PAGE 65

65 Quantit ative Analysis This research project is an answer to Mia Requesens' research thesis call for further and more detailed visual preference studies conducted for each stormwater management tool; in this case bioswales. Similar to her analysis, the 51 surveys turned in by respondents for this study were analyzed using Qualtrics online survey software. A sample survey along with answers from each of the surveys was uploaded onto the software system. A series of Qualtrics Survey Statistics was used to analyze th e data (See Ch. 4 for results) (Requesens, 2013). Sample Characteristics The target population for this study was the city of Gainesville residents. Respondents were from various locations across the city to ensure representation of diverse populations w ithin the community. The following are locations where respondents were sourced (See fig 3.13): 1. The Greenhouse Church 2. Life South Blood Center NW 13 TH street location 3. The Gainesville Gourmet Club 4. UF students (I asked classmates to distribute surveys to th eir roommates in other disciplines) 5. Earth Pets 6. S & S Dry Cleaners 7. The Co Op Wild Iris Bookstore Sequential Artists Workshop 8. The Church of Holy Colors artist's studios 9. Downtown farmer's market at Bo Diddley Plaza 10. Recreation, Cult ural Affairs and Public Works Committee meeting Audubon Society 11. Art in Public Places Trust meeting

PAGE 66

66 12. Alachua County Public Library 13. Siembra Farms Fig 3.13 Map of Gainesville, FL showing 4 city quadrants and locations where surveys w ere administered Surveys were distributed in all four quadrants of the city (NW, SW, SE, NE) delineated by Main Street running north to south, and University Avenue running east to west , intersect ing in the downtown area. Surveys were administered at grou p meetings, markets, bible study groups, etc. Th is sample of respondents who reside throughout the city is actually more diverse than what the numbered locations on the map represent. Gainesville census data was also referenced to determine representation within survey results, specifically looking at age and ethnicity.

PAGE 67

67 Number of Respondents Recommendations for sample size in conjoint analysis differ. According to Akaah and Korgaonkar, a smaller sample size of fewer than 100 is typical (Akaah, 1988) (Zhang , 2013). For this study, the target number of respondents was 50 and the actual number of respondents totaled 51.

PAGE 68

68 Chapter 4 Ð Findings Demographic Results The survey begins with demographic questions, although all parts of the survey were optional. Because not all respondents answer ed t he demographic questions , variance exists in the number of responses. As table 4.1 illustrates, women make up the majority of respondents at 60% . W omen make up 52% of the population in Gainesville, indicat ing an overrepresentation of women in the survey (American Fact Finder Results). Table 4.1: Survey Participant Gender Table 4.2 identifies the ages of respondents . The major ity of respondents fall into the age range 22 to 25 years old . The census data age categories are divided slightly differently (see Table 4.3) (American Fact Finder Results). However, it is evident that 18 to 21 year olds were underrepresented in the study . A participant age range that more closely mimics census data is desirable whenever possible. It is important to note that 82% of 18 to 24 year olds in Gainesville are students at one of the three area colleges and tend to be highly transient (American Fa ct Finder Results). # Answer Response % 1 Male 16 40% 2 Female 24 60% Total 40 100%

PAGE 69

69 Age of Respondents Table 4.2 Age of Respondents Fig 4.3 Gainesville Census Data: Age (Data source: American Fact Finder Results) Table 4.4 Illustrates that White, non Hispanics comprise the majority of respondents in the survey. When compared with 2010 census data, a significant underrepresentation in the African American population is apparent , as well as a slight 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 15 -19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70+ Gaineville, FL Census Data: Population Age % of the population # Answer Response % 1 18 to 21 years 1 3% 2 22 Ð 25 years 8 20% 3 26 to 30 years 5 13% 4 31 Ð 40 years 6 15% 5 41 Ð 50 years 7 18% 6 51 to 60 years 6 15% 7 61 to 70 years 5 13% 8 71 years and over 2 5% Total 40 100%

PAGE 70

70 underrepresentation in the Asian population, and overrepresentation in the White, non Hispanic populatio n. This is likely due to lack of adequate diversity in locations selected for survey administration in Gainesville (see fig. 4.5) (American Fact Finder Results). Ethnicity Table 4.4 Survey Participant Ethnicity Fig 4.5 Gainesville Census Data Ethnicity (Data s ource: American Fact Finder Results) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 White, non-hispanic African American Hispanic AsianPacific Islander Native American Other Gainesville, FL Census Data: Ethnicity % of Gainesville population Answer Response % 1 White, non Hispanic 31 78% 2 African American 4 10% 3 Hispanic 4 10% 4 Asian Ð Pacific Islander 1 3% 5 Native American 0 0% 6 Other 0 0% 7 Prefer Not to Answer 0 0% Total 40 100%

PAGE 71

71 Table 4.6 shows the highest level of education achieved by respondents, with the majority holding a Masters degree , and 92% with some college or higher. Gainesville census data indicate that for residents 18 years and o lder, 78% had some college or higher (American Fact Finder Results). Education # Answer Response % 1 Less than High School 0 0% 2 High School / GED 3 8% 3 Some College 3 8% 4 2 year College Degree 3 8% 5 4 year College Degree 11 30% 6 Masters Degree 15 41% 7 Doctoral Degree 2 5% 8 Professional Degree (JD, MD) 0 0% Total 37 100% Table 4.6 Survey Participant Education The results in Table 4.7 indicate that the majority of respondents live in single family ho mes. The average number of Gainesville residents who live in single family homes is 34%. Census data on other types of housing were difficult to compare as housing was characterized differently that it was in this survey (American Fact Finder Results).

PAGE 72

72 Type of Residence # Answer Response % 1 Single family home 31 78% 2 Townhouse 3 8% 3 Mobile home 2 5% 4 Apartment 4 10% Total 40 100% Table 4.7 Survey Participant Housing Type Table 4.8 illustrates that both renters and owners were almost equally represented in the survey . According to Gaines ville census data, 64% of the population rents while 36% are homeowners (American Fact Finder Results). 6666 This indicates that renters were underrepresented in the study. Home O wnership # Answer Response % 1 Rent 18 45% 2 Own 22 55% Total 40 100% Table 4.8 Survey Participant Rent/Own Image Ranking Results This section used images to test visual preference. Following are the variables being tested (in order): V egetation height V egetation texture V egetation arrangement

PAGE 73

73 U se of gravel and stone U se of check dams (weirs) C onfiguration U se of color (vegetation) Each variable included a set of images to be ranked by preference. It is important to note that all par ts of the survey were optional. Some respondents did not rank all the sections. Some chose to only rank their favorite, least favorite, or only one or the other. This accounts for the variance in total number of responses. The following results are shown in bar charts. Images that were given a vote of "1," as most preferred, are represented by the blue bar. Images ranked "2," as a little less preferred, are shown in red. Images given a ranking of "3," as even less preferred are shown in green, and all imag es that were given a "4" as least preferred, are shown in purple. Please note that in some cases there are only 3 images, in which case, a 1 to 3 ranking was used. Similarly, there is one set of images testing configuration where there are only 2 images an d a 1 to 2 ranking was used. Vegetation Height Results Fig 4.10 shows how the four images testing preference for height were ranked. While it was very clear that respondents disliked Image 1 the most , i mages 3 and 4 had the greatest preference (see fig 4 .9).

PAGE 74

74 Fig 4.9 Most preferred= image 4 / Least preferred= image 1 Height Responses Key: 1= like most (blue) 2= liked very much (red) 3=liked (green) 4= liked the least or not at all (purple) Table 4.10 Results for Images Testing: Height

PAGE 75

75 Vegetation Text ure Results Fig 4.11 below shows the images that were ranked. Image 5 has the least amount of texture of all four of the images, while Image 8 has the most diversity of texture. Fig 4.12 shows some clear results in terms of preference across the board. Im age 8 was highly preferred over all the others, followed by Image 7, Image 6, and Image 5, which was the least preferred by a large margin. Fig 4.11 Most preferred= image 8 / Least preferred= image 5

PAGE 76

76 Texture Responses Key: 1= like most (blue) 2= li ked very much (red) 3=liked (green) 4= liked the least or not at all (purple) Table 4.12 Results for Images Testing: Texture Vegetation Arrangement Results The results from this category are evenly divided across all images with a slight preference f or Image 10, which depicts even spacing between plantings and is the least natural looking (See fig 4.13 4.14)

PAGE 77

77 Fig 4.13 Most preferred= image 10 / Least preferred= image 11 Arrangement Responses Key: 1= like most (blue) 2= liked (red) 3=liked the least or not at all (green) Table 4.14 Results for Images Testing: Arrangement

PAGE 78

78 Use of Gravel and Stone Results The result of preferences for gravel and stone indicates a clear preference for Image 14, which has the greatest coverage of gravel and stones of the three images. Image 12 was ranked as the least preferred and has no gravel or stones (See fig 4.16). Fig 4.15 Most preferred= image 14 / Least preferred= image 12

PAGE 79

79 Use of Gravel + Stone Responses Key: 1= like most (blue) 2= liked (red) 3=liked the least or not at all (green) Table 4.16 Results for Images Testing: Use of Gravel + Stone Use of Check Dams Results Fig 4.18 illustrates that the majority of respondents prefer Image 17 , which features stone check dams. Image 18 depict s v notch ch eck dams, which was the least preferred, followed closely by I mage 15, which had no check dam (See fig 4.17).

PAGE 80

80 Fig 4.17 Most preferred = image 17 / Least preferred = image 18 Use of Check Dams Responses Key: 1= like most (blue) 2= liked very much (red) 3 =liked (green) 4= liked the least or not at all (purple) Table 4.18 Results for Im ages Testing: Use of Check Dams

PAGE 81

81 Configuration Results Fig 4.20 illustrates a clear preference for Image 21/22, which showcases a curvilinear orientation. There are two n umbers for each of these images because two images were shown for each orientation, one without plants and one with plants so that respondents were able to see the swale base image clearly as well as what it would look like planted (See fig. 4.19). Fig 4.19 Most preferred= image 21/22, Least preferred= image 19/20

PAGE 82

82 Configuration Responses Key: 1= like most (blue) 2= liked the least or not at all (red) Table 4.20 Results for Images Testing: Configuration. Color of Vegetation Results The r esults from this section indicate that respondents have a strong preference for Image 25, which is the image with the most color. Image 23 ha s the least color and was the least preferred (See fig 4.21 and 4.22).

PAGE 83

83 Fig 4.21 Most preferred= image 25 / Least preferred= image 23 Color of Vegetation Responses Key: 1= like most (blue) 2= liked (red) 3=liked the least or not at all (green) Table 4.22 Results for Images Testing: Color

PAGE 84

84 Results of Questions Relating to Participant Landscape Practices To determin e the awareness and dedication of respondents to their own landscapes , t he first question in this section asked, "How many hours do you work on your landscape each month?" 28 total responses were given 54% work on their landscape five hours or less each m onth, with the majority working zero hours per month on their landscape 93% work on their landscape 10 hours or less each month The next survey question asked, "Do you hire someone to maintain your yard? If so, how often do they come by every month?" 29 t otal responses were given 72% of respondents do not hire someone to maintain their yard The final question from this section asks, "If you have a lawn, how often do you mow it?" 26 total responses were given 42% mow their lawn every 1 to 2 weeks in the s ummer 23% go longer than 2 weeks between mows in the summer 35% do not have lawns The results characterize the respondents of this survey as not dedicating a significant amount of time to their landscapes outside of mowing their lawns. Image Rating Result s This section is split into two categories ("Browning" and "Overgrowth") and test s tolerance for seasonal browning and overgrowth of plants to determine at what point the majority of respondents believe maintenance should occur.

PAGE 85

85 Plant Browning Results F ig 4.24 reflects that 64% of respondents believe Image 29, which represents 80% browning, is unacceptable in terms of maintenance. Thirty eight percent ( 38% ) believe Image 28, which depicts 50% browning, is also unacceptable. Respondents have a high er tol erance for the amount of browning in Image 27, which represents 20% browning. Thirty six percent ( 36% ) of respondents found all the images to be acceptable and no maintenance to be necessary (see fig 4.23). Fig 4.23 Images used to test tolerance for Bro wning

PAGE 86

86 Plant Browning Responses Table 4.24 Results for Images Testing Tolerance for: Seasonal Browning Plant Overgrowth Results Fig 4.26 illustrates that slightly more than half of respondents do not believe any of the images need maintenance. For t y nine percent (49%) believe Image 33, which represents 80% overgrowth, needs maintenance , while 24% of respondents believe Image 32, which depicts 50% overgrowth, needs maintenance. No respondents believe Images 30 or 31 need maintenance (See fig 4.25).

PAGE 87

87 Fig 4.25 Images used to test tolerance for Overgrowth Plant Overgrowth Responses Table 4.26 Results for Images Testing Tolerance for: Plant Overgrowth

PAGE 88

88 Results of Questions Relating to Participant Perception of Bioswales The last portion of the surv ey asks five demographic questions to determine how respondents feel about bioswales. The first question asks, "Of all the sets of images, which one did you prefer the most?" 43 total responses were given 21% prefer Image 25 12% prefer Image 22 Both imag es were the most preferred in their respective categories (see fig 4.27) Image 25 has the most color, in terms of blooms, of all the images Image 22 is the only curvilinear example in the survey and overwhelmingly preferred over the straight configuration

PAGE 89

89 Fig 4.27 Images 25 and 22, the most preferred from the survey

PAGE 90

90 Responses for Most Preferred Image in the Survey Table 4.28 Results for Most Preferred Image from Survey 0 2 4 6 8 10 Image 1 Image 3 Image 8 Image 14 Image 17 Image 21 Image 22 Image 23 Image 24 Image 25 Image 26 Image 27 Image 30 Image 31 Image 32 Image 33 # of Votes

PAGE 91

91 The second question in this portion asked, "Do you prefer the aesthetics of a bioswale to traditional stormwater management techniques?" T he majority (89%) of respondents prefer the aesthetics of bioswales to traditional stormwater management techniques (See fig 4.29). Responses for Preference to Bioswales Table 4.29 Resu lts for preference of bioswales over traditional stormwater management techniques Total Responses: 46 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Yes No Both # of Votes

PAGE 92

92 The next question in this section asked, "Would you like to see more bioswale projects in your community?" Eighty eight percent ( 88% ) would like to s ee more bioswales in their community (See fig. 4.30) Responses to Seeing more Bioswales in the Community Table 4.30 Results for whether respondents would like to see more bioswales in their community Total responses: 41 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Yes No Maybe # of Votes

PAGE 93

93 Question four asked res pondents , "If you were/are a homeowner, would you implement bioswales on your own property?" The results in fig 4.31 show that of the 31 responses, 81% of respondents would implement bioswales on their property. Responses to Implementing Bioswales at Home Table 4.31 Results for whether respondents would implement bioswales on their own property Total Responses: 31 The final question in the survey asks respondents , "Are there any concerns you have with bioswales?" O f the 27 total responses, 67% have no concerns. The most common concern is maintenance. Other concerns include costs associated with building and maintenance, flooding, overgrowth reduced visibility, potentially providing habitat for poisonous snakes, and sustainability. Summary In reviewing the results, the following images make up the most preferred and least preferred from the survey. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Yes No Maybe # of Votes

PAGE 94

94 Height Most preferred: Least preferred:

PAGE 95

95 Texture Most preferred: Least preferred:

PAGE 96

96 Arrangement Most preferred: Least preferred:

PAGE 97

97 Gravel and St one Most preferred: Least preferred:

PAGE 98

98 Check Dams Most preferred: Least preferred:

PAGE 99

99 Configuration Most preferred: Least preferred:

PAGE 100

100 Color Most preferred: Least preferred:

PAGE 101

101 Browning The majority of respondents believe I mage (29) ne ed s maintenance.

PAGE 102

102 Overgrowth The majority of respondents believ e none of the images needs maintenance. The following chapters discuss these results in further detail and provide guidelines based on the information obtained from the survey.

PAGE 103

103 Chapter 5 Ð Analysis + Guidelines This chapter further analyzes the survey results from Chapter 4. Each section under "Images for Ranking" and "Images for Rating" are interpreted to better understand respondent preference. Respondent preference is clear and distinct, with over 50% preference identified in seven of the nine variables tested. Results testing the variable of "Height" indicate a preference of 43% for Image 4 depicting vegetation approximately three feet tall and a preference of 38% for Imag e 3 depicting vegetation approximately two feet tall. The four images used to test this variable illustrate a progression of vegetation height, therefore it can be concluded that respondents prefer vegetation over two feet in height. Results testing the va riable of "Arrangement" are inconclusive in terms of preference as there was no majority over 50% for any one image. The three images used to test this variable are dissimilar, making a distinction of preference difficult. Images for Ranking: Vegetation Height Height was tested using four images of progressively taller plantings, beginning with no vegetation and progressing to a height of approximately three feet. As discussed in Chapter 4, Image 4 is preferred by 43% of respondents and shows approximate ly three feet of vegetation. Image 3 is the second most preferred at 38% and shows approximately two feet of vegetation. Image 1 shows no vegetation and is the least preferred by 78% of respondents (see fig 5.1).

PAGE 104

104 Fig 5.1 Most preferred= image 4 / Least preferred= image 1 The following are common sentiments among respondents who prefer Image 4: They like the increased vegetation They like that it looks more natural They like that it creates more habitat for wildlife They like that it screens the parkin g lot in the background Seventy eight percent (78%) of respondents rate Image 1 as their least favorite and state that they dislike it for the following reasons: It looks like a barren ditch Bleak Boring Sad

PAGE 105

105 Sparse Looks like it has no life Image 4 genera ted the most preference , with the highest vegetation of all four images, however, this does not represent the majority of respondents. The combined preference for Image 3 and Image 4 is 81%. This indicates that the majority of respondents prefer a vegetati on height of two to three feet in bioswale design. Eight respondents explicitly express prefere nce for the three feet tall vegetation for its ability to screen a visually unappealing feature such as the parking lot. Three respondents commented they prefer vegetation 2 feet tall for its proportionality to the surrounding landscape. Five respondent s also support the assertion that bioswales provide habitat for wildlife. The type of wildlife mentioned was insects and birds. It is important to note that one of the concerns for bioswales, expressed in the survey by two respondents , is providing habitat for snakes. While respondents may like the idea of providing habitat for some wildlife , it seems there are certain species that would be of concern to Gainesville residents. This is also a concern Requesens found in her research when she tested visual preference of stormwater management systems in Alachua, Florida (Requesens, 2013). There are design measures that can be taken to discourage snakes , which include keep ing vegetation trimmed, preventing unruly brush and grasses from growing into large mass plantings, and allowing breaks in plantings so that cover is not so dense (Johnson and Main)(Johnson and McGarrity). Eight respondents comment that they prefer a "nat ural look" when commenting on their preferences within this set of images. This common sentiment was repeated throughout various parts of feedback from this survey. In his research testing the aesthetic attributes of green infrastructure with visual prefer ence surveys, Bo Zhang found that "naturalness is firmly associated with the perception of beauty" (Zhang, 2013).

PAGE 106

106 Berit Junker and Matthias Buchecher conducted aesthetic preference testing for river restorations, comparing aesthetic preference with ecologi cal objectives. They also found a strong correlation between perceived naturalness and aesthetic preference. The preferred scenes were not always the most natural even though they were perceived to be more natural (Junker and Buchecker, 2008). There have b een several attempts to quantify perceived naturalness (Ode et al, 2009) (Palmer, 2004) (Purcell and Lamb, 1998). A study researching indicators of perceived naturalness used the following figure to define the inverse relationships between naturalness and stewardship, and coherence and distu rbance (see fig. 5.2) (Ode et a l, 2009). Fig 5.2 The relationship between each indicator (shape of vegetation patches, level of succession, fragmented patches of woodland) and the concepts of naturalness, stewardship, coherence and disturbance. (Source: Ode et al, 2009)

PAGE 107

107 Naturalness, disturbance, stewardship, and coherence are defined as: "Énaturalness is described as relating to how close a landscape is to a perceived natural state, where perceived naturalness can b e different from ecological naturalnessÉa natural landscape provides a landscape with restorative properties and a higher quality of habitat for humans. Disturbance a lack of contextual fit and coherence, where elements deviate from the context. Stewards hip reflects human care for the landscape through active and careful management. Coherence reflects the unity of a scene, where coherence may be enhanced through repeating patterns of colour and texture. Coherence is also a reflection of the correspon dence between land use and natural conditions in an area" (Ode et al, 2009). The study found that the most preferred landscape scenes were located in the top left quadrant of the graph (see fig 5.2) where naturalness and coherence are high. The least pref erred landscape scenes were located in the bottom right quadrant of the graph where stewardship and disturbance are the highest (Ode et al, 2004). Conclusion: Isolating the variable of height, these results indicate that designers should include vegetatio n approximately two to three feet tall in their design to achieve an aesthetic that is preferred, as it is perceived to be "natural" by residents in the Gainesville area.

PAGE 108

108 Vegetation Texture Texture was tested using four images of progressively mo re diverse plantings. The first image shows a monoculture planting and progresses to 80% diversity, utilizing six different plant species. Image 8 is preferred by 80% of respondents and shows the most diversity. Image 5 shows no diversity of vegetation and is the least preferred by 72% of respondents (see fig 5.3). Fig 5.3 Most preferred= image 8 / Least preferred= image 1 Common trends are identified in the feedback from respondents for why they prefer Image 8: H igher diversity of vegetation M ore nat ural looking

PAGE 109

109 M ore biodiversity L ooks lush M ore vibrant M ost beautiful Of the feedback respondents gave for why they liked Image 5 the least, the following represent common sentiments: B oring compared to others Looks monotonous Has the least sense of design Looks too plain Looks weedy Seems unnatural One respondent commented on Image 5 saying, "I like them all preferred the ones with more variety." Another stated, "It looks ok, but not as natural as the others." T here is a recurring reference that percei ved naturalness is associated with beauty. Naturalness here is defined by the respondent /viewer as what they perceive to be a natural scene, though in actuality, these scenes may not be the most natural (Junker and Buchecker, 2008). This corroborates resu lts found in other visual preference testing as mentioned in the "Height" section above (Junker and Buchecker, 2008) (Zhang, 2013) as well as testing and research done by Paul Gobster, Joan I. Nassauer, Terry Daniel, Gary Fry, Rachael Kaplan, Steven Kaplan , and James Palmer who also found that perceived naturalness was associated with beauty (Gobster et al, 2007) (Palmer, 2004) (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989) (Home et al, 2010). Theorists contend that course texture vegetation, when compared to finer textures, c an suggest a well functioning ecological process (Zhang, 2013) (Howett,

PAGE 110

110 1987) (Meyer 2001, 2008) . If respondents associate a well functioning ecosystem with naturalness, then it can be argued that a coarse textured vegetation is perceived to be natural. Zh ang states that, "Coarse vegetation texture provides a scene better configuring the abstract concept of biodiversity" (Zhang, 2013). The texture in Image 8 is defined by the fine leaves of the grass and holly juxtaposed with the broad leaves of the iris, c rinum, and canna lilies. This texture is coarse, as it is not comprised primarily of fine textures, and adds to the definition of individual plant specimen. This allows viewers to distinguish a diversity of individual plant specimen; for the viewer this em bodies the concept of biodiversity (Zhang, 2013). Feedback from respondents echoes these findings with statements such as, "I like the diversity of vegetation, looks most natural" and "most biodiverse = good for animals/insects and plants." Robert Home, Ni cole Bauer, and Marcel Hunzinker conducted visual preference research to determine whether appreciation for urban green spaces is cultural or biological. In their work, they similarly found that landscapes with little vegetative complexity were less prefer red, which is supported by these results as well (Home et al, 2010) (Zhang, 2013). However, there is a threshold for amount of complexity. Five respondents comment that Image 8 is too busy and complex , noting that it is " too busy, too much variety" and "t oo ornamental and busy . " This indicates that limiting the number of unique species and creating a plant palette will allow for texture, diversity, and cohesion. Conclusion: Based on the results of this section, when testing the variable of texture desig ners should employ a plant palette to create a coarse plant texture. This can be achieved by juxtaposing plants of contrasting leaf size, color, height, and shape. To address respondent concerns of over complexity of design, repeating patterns of texture w ith a limited plant palette will add cohesion to the design.

PAGE 111

111 Vegetation Arrangement This portion of the survey assessed preference for arrangement and was tested using three images with differing compositions. Image 9 present s a uniform, solid planting; Image 10 comprise s uniform plantings with breaks; and Image 11 depicts intermittent plantings with breaks (see fig 5.4). For this set of images, preference is higher for Image 10 , with 40% of respondent preference; followed by 33% for Image 9; and 29% for image 11. Because no clear majority exists for any one image, it is difficult to conclude a distinct respondent preference in terms of arrangement. Fig 5.4 Most preferred= image 10 / Least preferred= image 11 Respondent feedback for preference of thes e images ranges from, "it looks the most natural" for Image 9 and Image 11 to "it looks the most well kept" and "I like the

PAGE 112

112 pattern of the clusters Ð looks manicured" for Image 10 , which i s slightly more preferred. These statements exemplify the extremes of the wide range of aesthetic preference. Conclusion: There is no clear indication of whether the majority of Gainesville residents prefer a more natural looking plant arrangement or a landscape with cultural cues, such as clustering, that signal care, design, and intention in the landscape. While there is a slight preference for the latter, it can be argued that Gainesville residents are nearly evenly divided on this issue.

PAGE 113

113 Use of Gravel and Stone This s ection assesses respondent pref erence for the use of gravel and stone in bioswale design. This was tested using three images that range from no gravel or stone in Image 12 and progress to Image 14, which depicts generous use of visible gravel and large landscape stones of approximately three feet by one foot dimensions. A distinct preference for Image 14 emerged, with 69% of respondents preferring it . Image 12, which has no gravel and stone, is the least favored by 81% of respondents (see fig 5.5). Fig 5.5 Most preferred= image 14 / L east preferred= image 12 Reasons cited by respondents as to why they prefer Image 14 include the following : T he rocks add contrast and visual interest It looks m ore adequately maintained

PAGE 114

114 It is reminiscent of a creek bed It is more natural looking The roc ks may help filter water and reduce mosquitoes Reasons respondents offer for liking Image 12 the least include the following : It looks boring and unnoticeable It looks unintentional It looks too plain It looks haphazard and inconsistent, with many ditch ar eas unfinished It looks least designed It looks spotty and unconnected Based on this feedback , respondents prefer the contrast and interest of stone in the design of the bio swale . The stone appears natural to some, while to others it gives a more designed appearance. Stone seems to bridge the gap between natural and intentional design and so is a preference among both groups. The use of natural materials such as wood and stone can be restorative to the viewer in that they do not detract from the natural set ting (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1998). This may account for why both camps , i.e. those who prefer natural scenes and those who prefer designed scenes , found Image 14 to be preferred. Conclusion: The results of this section indicate that designers should employ gravel and landscape stone in bioswale design and it is favored by the Gainesville area residents.

PAGE 115

115 Use of Check Dams This section assesses preference for the use of check dams, also known as weirs. Four images were used to test this variable: Image 15 has no check dam; image 16 depicts a geometric, square cut check dam; Image 17 features a stone check dam; and Image 18 depicts a v notch check dam (see fig 5.6). Results indicate a preference for Image 17 by 59% of respondents. Image 18 is least preferred by 47% of respondents. Fig 5.6 Most preferred= image 17 / Least preferred= image 18 Reasons for this preference include the following : It looks tended to and natural It looks most natural T he rock adds in more interest and the natural style blends in more effectively

PAGE 116

116 The stone adds character Image 18, which featured V notch check dams , is least preferred : It looks like an engineer solution It looks least natural It is visually distracting It has odd angles It looks too industrial and manufactured The n atural design is interrupted by industrial units Similar to the results mentioned above in the "Use of Gravel and Stone , " the stone check dam seem to bridge the gap between seeming natural and looking intentional and designed. T he presence of human element s in a natural scene can be comforting and reassuring to the viewer because it serves as a marker that people have been present in the area (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1998). However, there is a balance between natural appearance and having human designed elements . Image 18 contain s elements of both but is described negatively by two respondents as looking like an "engineer solution." Another respondent commen ts on Image 18 being, "too industrial and manufactured." As mentioned in the previous section, using natura l elements such as wood and stone can have a restorative effect on the viewer and may account for the preference of the natural looking stone check dam over the other concrete, geometric options (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1998). Conclusion: Based on the feedbac k from this section, designers should use natural materials in the design of check dams, as residents in the Gainesville area prefer this.

PAGE 117

117 Configuration This section addresses preference for configuration in bioswale design. Two sets of two images are pr esented to test this variable; one with vegetation and one without. This serves to clarify to the viewer the configuration of the design underneath the vegetation. Images 19/20 depict a linear bioswale orientation Images 21/22 illustrate a curvilinear ap proach with a curving radius of approximately three feet (see fig 5.7). 82% of respondents prefer Images 21/22 Fig 5.7 Most preferred= image 21/22. Least preferred= image 19/20 Reasons given for the preference of Image 21/22 include the following : M ea ndering makes it more interesting

PAGE 118

118 Reminiscent of a river or creek N atural river like look B etter filtration from a functional standpoint V isually stimulating Images 19/20 were the least preferred . The following reasons were offered : I t's ok, but not as vis ually pleasing as curved T he straight lines look more engineered and less interesting S traight and boring, seems fake L ess natural L ooks more man made O k , but I like the other better S ynthetic or unnatural For the majority of respondents , the curvilinear o rientation provide s a more natural and interesting appearance . This preference for a curv ilinear bioswale may be explained by a well studied concept of "mystery" in the landscape. Kaplan and Kaplan conducted visual preference studies testing three variable s: mystery, coherence, and complexity. They found that mystery was the most powerful variable of the three in determining preference for a scene (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). A scene can be considered mysterious if it provides an opportunity to learn somethin g more that is not readily apparent or that the scene tempts one to learn partially hidden information. Ways to achieve this include a curvilinear orientation with partially hidden portions. Kaplan and Kaplan state that, "Partial obstruction, often from fo liage, and even modest land form changes can enhance this sense of Mystery" (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). Similarly, the Japanese aesthetic idea of "yugen" deals with the concept of mystery and is often applied to Japanese garden design. Most commonly this is expressed using a curvilinear

PAGE 119

119 path with partially hidden views around bends. While the curvilinear bioswale is clearly visible in the forefront, as it fades into the background, this idea of mystery and partially obscured areas adds to the sense of myster y around its bends. Conclusion: Based on the results of this section, designers should accommodate a curvilinear orientation in bioswale design whenever possible, as it is preferred by Gainesville area residents.

PAGE 120

120 Color of Vegetation This portion of the survey assesses preference for the use of color in plant material expressed through foliage and blooms. Three images were used to show a progression of color, beginning with shades of green in Image 23, 10% color in Image 24, and 50% color in Image 25 (see fig 5.8). Image 25 is prefer red by 76% of respondents. It also is the most preferred image from the survey, indicating a strong respondent preference for color through foliage and blooms. Image 23 is the least preferred by 74% of respondents. Fig 5.8 Most preferred= image 25 / Least preferred= image 23 Respondents offer the following as reasons for this preference: M ore color adds energy

PAGE 121

121 M ore flowers/biodiversity is better More color is always better F lowers make every thing better F lowering plants are attractive and soothing C olor and diversity promot e pollinators V ariety , flowers, height H ides the bioswale with colorful plants Image 23 is the least favored for the following reasons : N o flowers N o color, still looks goo d but I still prefer color L ess interesting L ess biodiverse N ot enough beauty in colors L ess variety, but still acceptable In Messy Ecosystems, Orderly Frames , the author contends that cues indicating human intention can be used to frame novel ecosystems i n order to assimilate them into our cultural landscapes. One of the cues she discusses is using bright, flowering plants with large blooms. Not only do most people find them attractive, but they seem more ornamental and intentional than plants that have s mall, less profuse blooms. Some native plants have small flowers that may be mistaken for weeds (Nassauer, 1995a). It could be the reading of this cue that respondents overwhelmingly favor Image 25 by 76%. Five respondents rated Image 25 as their least fav orite and offered the following reasons: "too ornamental, showy, and busy," "too many flowers," and "draws too much attention to itself. Like it's meant to be a garden rather than a (semi) natural water

PAGE 122

122 treatment." This indicates there is a threshold, amon g some respondents , for preference of amount of color in the design. Conclusion: Based on the results from this portion, it is clear Gainesville area residents prefer bioswale design that incorporates color, in this case approximately 50% color.

PAGE 123

123 Plant Browning T hese images test the tolerance for browning (dormant or dead p lants) in the landscape . Four images show the progression from no browning in Image 26, 20% browning in Image 27, 50% browning in Image 28, and up to 80% browning i n Image 29 (see fig 5.9). Sixty four percent ( 64% ) of respondents found Image 29 to be unacceptable in terms of maintenance. This is followed by 38% of respondents who believe Image 28 need s maintenance. One can conclude that the majority of Gainesville re sidents tolerate 50% seasonal browning before they believe maintenance needs to occur , which is illustrated in Image 28. This means all the scenarios illustrated in Images 26, 27, and 28 are acceptable by the majority of respondents . Fig 5.9 Image 29 was unacceptable in terms of maintenance

PAGE 124

124 Respondents offer the following reasons as to why they believed Image 29 need s maintenance: I f in a maintained environment, should be manicured Leaves are clearly dead V ery noticeable wilting and dried up foliage tha t should be removed so it looks neater, cleaner P lants are dead D ead foliage seems to indicate lack of upkeep P lants need water, dead plants look unattractive I f natural growth can replace dead vegetation , let it be. May just need minimum cut and removal o f dead vegetation In this case, respondents have a certain level of expectation of maintenance. The browning of plants depicted in the image include grasses that become dormant in the winter months, but become green in the spring with new growth , wildflowe rs that as annuals die back in the winter but reseed in the spring and summer, and perennials that shed basal leaves for the winter . While t hese are natural processes, respondents prefer a more manicured appearance. This could be explained in our cultural landscape preferences that ha ve led us to believe browning equals a plant that is dying or in need of water. While this may be the case, there is also the process of browning which is natural and part of the plant's life cycle. Conclusion: Based on these results, designers should employ a maintenance schedule that addresses browning before it reaches an excess of 50% browning.

PAGE 125

125 Plant Overgrowth The following four images test respondent tolerance of overgrowth. Overgrowth is represented by the growth and r eseeding of existing plants, as well as seeding of unintended plants ("weeds"). The images progress from no overgrowth in Image 30, to 20% overgrowth in Image 31, 50% overgrowth in Image 32, and 80% overgrowth in Image 33 (see fig 5.10). The results from t his section indicate that 51% of respondents do not believe any of the images needs maintenance. Forty nine percent ( 49% ) believe Image 33 looks unacceptable in terms of maintenance. While not the majority, it is very close to being half of the respondents . Fig 5.10 All images were acceptable in terms of maintenance

PAGE 126

126 Respondents offer the following comments as to why they believe Image 33 need s maintenance: G one a bit too far with overgrowth and invasion of unintended plants P urposeful design gets com pletely lost T he grass is covering the flowers, looks overgrown N o edge, messy Although the majority of respondents do not think any of the images needs maintenance, it seems that there is still a large number of respondents who expect some amount of main tenance. Throughout the survey, many respondents claim to prefer the "natural look," however, it seems non applicable when it comes to maintenance. This is likely the result of our cultural landscape preferences that are dictated by social norms as express ed in the writings of Joan Nassauer (Nassauer, 1995a). It is possible that the majority do not believe any images need maintenance because there was no browning in the images, just more plants. Under realistic conditions, the overgrowth process would inclu de some browning. For the purposes of isolating the variable of overgrowth, browning was not shown. What results is a very lush looking scene and could account for the results indicating no maintenance was needed. Conclusion: Based on these results, the majority of Gainesville respondents do not believe any of the images depicting overgrowth need s maintenance. However, 49% believe Image 33 showing 80% overgrowth need s maintenance. Designers should employ a maintenance schedule that addresses overgrowth be fore it reaches an excess of 50%.

PAGE 127

127 Guidelines Several studies have found that there is a discordance between ecological quality and aesthetic preference (Junker and Buchecker, 2008)(Parsons, 1995) (Williams and Cary, 2002) (van den Berg and Vlek,1998). T he intended result of this research is to form guidelines that assist designers in aligning the aesthetics valued in the Gainesville/North Florida area with the ecological function of bioswales. Of the 9 variables assessed, all produce conclusions of dist inct preference, with the exception of the variable of arrangement. These conclusions have been synthesized into the guidelines that follow . These guidelines can assist designers in approach ing bioswale design that considers public visual preference in the Gainesville, Florida area. Further, these guidelines serve as a launching point for future research. Bioswale Design Principles and Standard Dimensions Bioswales must be designed to effectively slow down and treat small volumes of water as well as accom modate peak flows during large storm events with limited erosion. LATIS (Landscape Architecture Technical Information Series) suggests successful bioswale design is comprised of 3 components: • Conceptual, engineering, and planting design • Construction of the swale at the project site, including swale grading, construction of check dams, if any, and establishment of vegetation • Periodic inspection and maintenance of the built swale (Richman, 1998)

PAGE 128

128 In Florida, bioswales are required to capture the first 2 .5" of a three year, one hour storm event. Areas larger than 10 acres should utilize multiple swales for treatment of runoff (Clark and Acomb, 2008). LATIS cites the following as typical dimensions for bioswale design regarding longitudinal slope, swale cr oss section (shape), and length (see fig 5.11) (Richman, 1998). Fig 5.11 Components of bioswale dimensions (Richman, 1998). Longitudinal Slope: The appropriate range for longitudinal slope of the bioswale is 0% to 6% while optimum slope to prevent ero sion is 0% to 2%. If the slope is 1% or less, using a perforated pipe as an underdrain may be used to move excess water once the soil is saturated to prevent standing water (Richman, 1998). The granular backfill around the underdrain pipe is typically surr ounded by a geotextile fabric to keep sediments from entering and blocking water from exfiltrating to surrounding soils (see fig 5.13) (Lucas, 2005). Swales with a slope between 2% and 6% will need to slow water velocity to prevent erosion within the swale ; this is achieved using check dams every 50 feet to 100

PAGE 129

129 feet along the length of the swale. Check dams allow for ponding of water, dissipating the energy from its velocity (Richman, 1998) (Clark and Acomb, 2008). Swale Cross Section (shape): The four sta ndard cross section shapes for a bioswale are rectangular, triangular, trapezoidal, and parabolic (see fig 5.12). Rectangular is the least common of the four as the vertical slopes are difficult to maintain. Regarding side slope, a 3:1 (horizontal:vertical ) is the steepest recommended slope to limit erosion . The recommended bottom width of a bioswale is between two feet and eight feet , which allows for more treatment area and pollutant removal. In terms of bioswale depth, six inches should be added to maxim um design flow depths. This is known as "freeboard" and is a preventative dimension to address possible overflow concerns (see fig 5.13) (Richman,1998). Fig 5.12 Four common cross sections for bioswale design: (from left to right) rectangular, triangula r, trapezoidal, and parabolic (Richman, 1998).

PAGE 130

130 Typical Bioswale Section: Fig 5.13 Typical bioswale section and soil profile (United States. Oregon Department of Transportation, 2014) (Enhanced by Erika Mayer) Length: "Residence time" is the amount o f time it takes water to enter the bioswale and travel the length to the outlet. Bioswale length should be calculated to accommodate at least five minutes of residence time. A longer residence time allows for greater pollutant removal (Richman, 1998). Soi ls: Bioswales are most effective in well draining soils, otherwise an underdrain system will be required. Sites where treatment of excess phosphorus is a priority should utilize soils containing low phosphorus rates and high sorption capacity of phosphorus . S ites in which excess nitrogen is a concern should utilize organic matter and mulch to establish high carbon levels for nitrogen capture (Clark and Acomb, 2008). There are conditions where it would be inappropriate to implement a bioswale: • Flat grades or steep slopes • Fill areas

PAGE 131

131 • Sites where concentrated flows would erode a swale's vegetation • Sites with very sandy soils where the swale channel would be subject to erosion o r bank sloughing even when water flows at low velocities • Sites with high water tab les where groundwater reaches the bottom of the swale. Bioswales should be designed at least two feet above the water table (Clark and Acomb, 2008) (Richman, 1998) ("Grassed Swales") Guideline #1: Naturalistic Design Bioswales can provide opportunities f or visual respite from the urban environment. For Gainesville area respondents , a naturalistic design is preferred. When designing a bioswale , opt for a curvilinear path as opposed to a linear orientation whenever possible. A bioswale with curves more clos ely mimics how water moves through natural systems, reminiscent of a creek. By mimicking these natural systems, designers can enhance the sensation of being in a natural environment (see fig 5.14).

PAGE 132

132 Fig. 5.14 Curvilinear bioswale with gravel and landsca pe stone at Missouri Botanical Gardens (Source:http://www.davisenterprise.com/local news/hg heres what smart gardeners know/) When designing the degree of curvature of the bioswale path, it is important to consider flow rates and volume of water moving t hrough the swale. Curves should be mild for bioswales accommodating high flow rates and volumes in order to prevent erosion of bottom and sides of the bioswale (United States. Oregon Department of Transportation, 2014). Erosion can be problematic if discha rge velocities exceed three feet per second (Richman, 1998). If space is an issue, a subtle curve can be implemented to add interest as opposed to a linear orientation (see fig 5.15). Additionally, be sure to provide additional freeboard allowance at bends using the super elevation equation:

PAGE 133

133 Additional freeboard (feet)= 100 Ð yr velocity (ft/s 2 )* 100 Ð yr Width (ft) Gravity (32.2 ft/s 2 ) *Centerline radius of curvature (ft) (Boscacci, 2004) Bioswale Curvature for Low Flow Rates and Ample Construction Area: Bioswale Curvature for High Flow Rates or Limited Construction Area: Fig 5.15 Degree of curvature for low flow rates/ available surface area (top image) and curvature for high flow rates/ limited availab le surface area (bottom image) (Source: Erika Mayer) Using check dams will slow the velocity of water and dissipate energy (Richman, 1998). They can be placed at intervals between curves to prevent erosion of bank walls. If using check dams, opt for a n atural material such as stone (see fig 5.16). Avoid geometric style check dams that look engineered, such as v notch check dams.

PAGE 134

134 Gainesville respondents prefer stone check dams that look naturalistic as they enhance that narrative. To prevent standing wate r that breeds mosquitoes, check dams should be designed to pond water that can infiltrate within 24 hours. This can be adjusted through frequency and placement of check dams (Richman, 1998). Fig 5.16 Stone check dams (Source: Erika Mayer) z Finally , use vegetation to create a natural appearance by opting for irregular plant clusters and avoiding linear, uniform planting designs (see fig 5.17). Use vegetation to obscure man made elements and unsightly features whenever possible, such as parking lots and overflow structures. It is important to be sure plantings near

PAGE 135

135 overflow structures do not disrupt its function with overgrowth blocking the structure. By obscuring these man made elements, designers can enhance the sense of respite cultivated by mimic king nature. DO: Naturalistic, irregular planting design DO NOT: Linear, uniform planting design Fig 5.17 Naturalistic planting design (left) versus uniform planting design (right) (Source: Erika Mayer) Overview: Use curvilinear alignment as it more closely reflects how water moves through natural systems, reminiscent of a creek. If check dams are necessary, opt for a more natural look with stone check dams as opposed to a geometric style check dams. Use vegetation to obscure unsightly, man made elements whenever possible. Guideline #2: Provide Habitat " Providing habitat" is very important to Gainesville area respondents. U se plantings that attract wildlife and provide them with cover, food, and forage opportunities. Florida native plants prov ide high habitat for local wildlife; exotic species also serve this purpose,

PAGE 136

136 however some species can be invasive and require more resources in terms of water and fertilizer (Ober and Knox) (Richman, 1998). To attract butterflies it is important to alloca te larval host plants near nectar plants in order to feed adult butterflies and provide the correct plant species for them to lay their eggs. There are several butterfly host and nectar plants, such as Butterfly Milkweed, that function in a bioswale settin g and are critical for monarch butterfly populations. Birds require food, water and cover for survival. Bird diets vary by species and can include berries, insects, nectar, nuts, or seeds (Cowley). American Beautyberry and Viburnum ÔMrs.Schiller's Delight are two native plant species that provide berries that attract birds (see fig 5.18). Additionally, after large storm events, ponding bioswales provide an attractive water source for birds and other wildlife. Below is a list created by the University of Flo rida's IFAS Extension that lists Florida native plants that benefit native wildlife. This list is not exhaustive and represents plants that tend to be readily available at local nurseries (see figs 5.19 and 5.20) (Ober and Knox).

PAGE 137

137 Florida Wildlife a ttracting Annuals and Perennials Table . 5.19 Florida Wildlife attracting Annuals and Perennials (Ober and Knox) Fig. 5 .18 Create habitat for wildlife (Source: Erika Mayer)

PAGE 138

138 Florida Wildlife attracting Shrubs and Small Trees Table 5.20 Florida Wildlife attracting Annuals and Perennials (Ober and Knox).

PAGE 139

139 The Florida Native Plant Society (http://www.fnps.org) and The Florida Association of Native Nurseries (http://www.afnn.org) have excellent online resources for selecting appropriate native plants that are tailored to your site and attract wildlife. Additiona lly, NSIS.org serves as an online resource that assists in customizing plant lists to attract specific bird and butterfly species. It is important to recognize that annual plants, which typically have a short life spanning one to three seasons, will die a nd become brown at the end of their life. Maintenance is required to remove spent plants from the landscape and should be addressed promptly. Perennials, which live for several years depending on the species, can become woody and sparse in terms of foliage . It may be required to cut them back hard in the winter to produce new growth. This is an additional maintenance concern that should be recognized and addressed accordingly. Additionally, it should be understood that butterfly larval host plant foliage w ill be eaten by caterpillars. This will negatively affect the appearance of the plant as caterpillars defoliate the plant. It is recommended that butterfly larval host plants be planted close to evergreen perennials that can disguise these plants as they u ndergo these natural processes. While respondents prefer bioswales that attract wildlife such as insects and birds, there is an expressed concern about bioswales providing habitat for snakes. There are design measures that can be taken to discourage snake s from taking cover in bioswales. First, avoid large fruiting plants, such as citrus. Fallen fruit can create an issue with rodents and attract snakes. Secondly, avoid very dense plantings. Snakes seek cover in dense brush to avoid predation from birds of prey. Keep vegetation trimmed and prevent brush and grasses from growing together into large mass plantings. Allow for breaks in plantings so that available cover is limited and intermittent (see fig 5.18) (Johnson and Main) (Johnson and McGarrity).

PAGE 140

140 Overv iew: Use vegetation that provides habitat for wildlife such as birds, butterflies, and other insects. This can usually be achieved using native plants, particularly those that serve as larval host and nectar plants for insects, as well as fruiting species that attract birds. Avoid large fruiting trees as fallen fruit can create an issue with rodents and snakes. Avoid very dense plantings as they may provide habitat for snakes and rodents. Guideline #3: Use Variety to add Contrast and Texture Use a palett e of diverse plants to provide texture, cohesion, and repetition in the design. Texture can be achieved by juxtaposing plants with different sized leaves, colors, shapes, and heights. For example, plant a shrub type specimen, such as Viburnum ÔMrs. Schille r's Delight' next to a large leaved, vase shaped plant like a ÔGiant Apostles' Iris for contrast and interest. This creates a visual distinction between plants so that the boundaries of each specimen are apparent (see fig 5.21). Using a variety of plant h eights can further delineate these boundaries and emphasize contrast and texture. Planting a smaller plant next to a taller one adds interest and breaks up a planting of similar height. Continue to use contrast through the use of color in foliage and bloom s (see fig 5.21). Respondents responded favorably to bioswale design that employed a variety of plant heights up to three feet tall with 50% color.

PAGE 141

141 Fig. 5.21 Use a palette of diverse plants to provide texture, cohesion, and repetition in the design (So urce: Erika Mayer) Cohesion and repetition through the use of a plant palette add a sense of intention and keep the design from getting too busy. Repeating an irregular pattern (as opposed to a liner and uniform pattern) will keep the planting design natu ralistic and cohesive (see fig 5.22). Complete fidelity to the repeating pattern is not necessary; slight variances will add interest.

PAGE 142

142 Fig. 5.22 Use repetition of a planting pattern to add cohesion and intention to the planting design (Source: Erika Ma yer) When plants have similar leaf sizes, heights, and color, it can be difficult to distinguish between specimen and species. This results in a design that looks homogenous. Avoid grassed swales and monoculture plantings as respondents least preferred t his look . Create a planting design with the functionality of the swale in mind. Woody plants are usually not planted in the lowest zone of a bioswale as branches can trap debris and block water from flowing. Additionally, it is important to consider plant s' water requirements when designing the planting plan. The lowest zone should be planted with hydric plants that tolerate high, fluctuating moisture levels; the middle zone (side slope) should be planted with species that prefer slightly drier conditions and if possible, provide erosion control with fibrous roots or rhizome structure; and the highest zone should be planted with trees and shrubs that can tolerate dry conditions (see fig 5.23). Tree canopy can obscure visibility across the swale and should b e limited if visibility is required in areas for safety concerns (Richman, 1998).

PAGE 143

143 Fig. 5.23 Illustrates bioswale planting zones (Richman, 1998). Overview: Layer various plant textures for added contrast and definition. Use color in foliage and blooms to add contrast and interest in design Vary height of plantings Avoid grassed swales and monoculture plantings Guideline #4: Use Stone and Gravel Gainesville respondents favor a bioswale design that employs stone and gravel over those that do not. Usin g stone in the design of a bioswale add s interest and contrast. Additionally, it serves as an added layer of filtration and can be reminiscent of a creek, which is viewed as an amenity. Use gravel along the bottom of the bioswale and landscape stone of var ying sizes along the edge of the bioswale basin whenever possible. If the bioswale needs to be more than three feet deep to accommodate flow volume, stone at the base of the swale may be obscured by its depth and surrounding

PAGE 144

144 planted material. If space per mits, consider wide and shallow bioswale geometry to accommodate a similar volume, maximize treatment surface, and allow visibility of stone. Alternatively, side slopes may be terraced and stone may be used on upper levels to maximize visibility of the sto ne (see fig 5.24) (Richman, 1998). Fig. 5.24 Bioswale sections (Source: Erika Mayer) Guideline #5: Maintenance With any design, maintenance should be considered throughout the design process. Designs should reflect maintenance capabilities and budge ts. If maintenance will be limited, conside r planting evergreen perennials that are slow growing and do not reseed or spread quickly. Giant Apostle's Iris and viburnum species are both examples that would fit these criteria. These require less maintenance than annuals, as they have less browning, do not reseed readily, and do not require constant trimming.

PAGE 145

145 While a natural appearance of a design is preferred, this is not the case when it comes to maintenance and seasonal browning. A maintenance regimen sh ould be incorporated that addresses browning and overgrowth of plant material before it gets in excess of 50%. When using wildflowers and annuals, such as Coreopsis and Gallardia , spent plants should be trimmed before they reach 50% browning. Some grasses and deciduous plants, such as Muhly grass and American Beautyberry, will need to be cut back in the winter to clear brown leaves, stems, and to promote new growth. Weeding to control spreading of unwanted and invasive plants is critical to maintain the app earance and functionality of the bioswale. Invasive species can quickly populate the base of the bioswale and begin to trap debris and inhibit the flow of water. The spread of unwanted plants can distract from the original planting design, resulting in an overgrown appearance that can lead to poor public perception (Richman, 1998). Maintenance inspections should be conducted before seasonal rains, and during and after major storm events. These inspections should ensure clear flowlines of surface drainage systems and overflow structures , repair damage caused by erosion , and remove any sediment buildup and debris that can inhibit flow and result in poor public perception (Richman,1998). Capacity for soil infiltration should be tested annually to identify any clogging in the system (Clark and Acomb, 2008). For those swales not utilizing a gravel bottom and experiencing drainage issues, a rototill may be used to break through compacted soils to restore drainage properties ("Grassed Swales") . Additionally, geote xtiles may be used as a preventative measure against erosion on the banks of swales and save on maintenance costs down the line (Richman,1998). It is important to understand the maintenance needs of a bioswale and of all plants in the plant palette. Maint enance is required more often for bioswales, however are less costly than costs for maintaining traditional curb and gutter systems (Clark and

PAGE 146

146 Acomb, 2008). A maintenance plan should ensure functionality of the bioswale and that browning and overgrowth wil l be addressed before it reaches an excess of 50%. Guideline Conclusions The guidelines formed here have been synthesized using the results and comments from respondents in the Gainesville area. Respondents had clear preferences on all variables tested, with the exception of "Arrangement." Strong preferences were captured by this research, particularly for the variables of "Configuration," "Use of Gravel and Stone," "Color," and "Texture , " which all resulted in preferences of over 69% for one image in eac h category. Eighty eight percent ( 88% ) indicate that they would like to see more bioswales implemented in the community. This suggests that the Gainesville community is accepting of the implementation of bioswales and have distinct preferences for how they would like the bioswales to look . While this research provide s valuable data on nine variables of aesthetics, further research is needed to better understand the range within each variable. The variables of "Height" and "Color," for example , only tested height up to three feet and 50% color in the design. Beyond those measures is unknown in terms of preference and should be explored. This is the case with every variable in this set; more data must be sourced to better understand Gainesville area resident s' preference for bioswale designs.

PAGE 147

147 Chapter 6 Ð Conclusion Due to Florida's increasing population, which is expected to double by 2060 , e xisting stormwater management practices in Florida must be re imagined to accommodate harmful urban runoff. Current en d of pipe systems can not handle the additional seven million acres of urban landscape that is needed to accommodate this population growth ("Florida 2060"). In fact, aging stormwater infrastructure is already showing signs of collapse. The Sun Sentinel rep orted that in August 2014 that 800 municipal officials from around the state gathered to discuss aging infrastructure. They cited several recent examples of infrastructure failure , including a water main break in Sarasota that shutdown Tamiami Trail for a day; the collapse of a canal in Brevard county when heavy rains caused underground pipes to collapse; and a water main break in Miami that caused a dangerous sinkhole. With Florida becoming the third most populous state in the country this year, it is clea r that reliable systems are needed (Ferreira, 2014). In addition to infrastructure concerns, Florida us es its groundwater supply at an alarming rate, ranking sixth in the nation for groundwater use. Many areas within the state are expected to have critica l water supply problems within the next 15 years (Koch Rose, 2011). Expanding urbanization prevents groundwater recharge and only exacerbates these concerns. In order to address these issues head on, Florida must move in a sustainable direction by weaving low impact stormwater management techniques into urban areas to address runoff locally. Bioswales are one tool in the low impact stormwater toolkit that can begin to address runoff on site, recharge groundwater, and lessen the volume and environmental imp acts downstream. Their implementation and acceptance is critical in moving toward a more sustainable approach to stormwater management. This research

PAGE 148

148 provides information to guide designers in designing bioswales that will be accepted by a wide audience in Gainesville, Florida. Further research of this tool, and others within the toolkit, is needed in order to advance their implementation and quell concerns that designers and the public may have of their use. Future Directions for Research Additional visu al preference studies should be conducted for all types of low impact stormwater management techniques. Results will likely vary from city to city and further testing of visual preference should be conducted in other locations as well. The concern of main tenance and implementation cost came up during this study. Further research into maintenance costs for bioswales and possible options for more affordable maintenance of public bioswale projects, such as work release crews, is recommended. According to this research, Gainesville respondents would like to see more bioswales in their community. It would be valuable to consider whether residents would be willing to pay higher taxes to support LID projects. Additionally, post occupancy evaluations of existing pr ojects would be useful to provide hard data on performance over the years and during large storm events. Considerations for Future Surveys There were some factors and limitations of the study that should be considered in future research:

PAGE 149

149 Survey Format The 11 x 17 format of the survey was quite awkward for respondents to work with, particularly when they were distributed at the farmer's market and there was a lack of hard surfaces. Thick poster board "clipboards" were provided, but did little to facilita te the process. In the future, an 8.5 x 11 format may be easier to handle. There were several pages that had only a few sentences of text. On such large format paper, it was easy to pass them over when flipping to the following page. There were instances t hat these questions went unanswered, possibly because they were not seen. In the design of future surveys, there should be thoughtful consideration of page layout in order to ensure every page is seen. Survey Length The length of the sur vey was an issue for some respondents . Some did not complete the entire survey, or commented on how long it was. The survey takes approximately 15 minutes to complete, longer for some. This seems to be just over the amount of time respondents were willing to spend on the s urvey. The recommendation for reformatting this survey to make it more palatable would be to eliminate the "Additional Demographic Questions" as they did not provide information that was particularly useful in creating the guidelines. It may also be useful to exclude the "Overgrowth" and "Browning" sections and include them in a separate study that focuses on maintenance concerns specifically. Survey Directions Three respondents misunderstood the following directions: "Please check all the images below th at you believe look unacceptable in terms of maintenance. You may select more than one image. If you believe none of these scenarios needs maintenance, please check here: ! "

PAGE 150

150 A few respondents selected their favorite image as opposed to selecting the image they believed needed maintenance. It may be useful to test clarity of directions using pilot surveys to ensure the intention is clear. Clarity of Images Used in the Surve y Testing of images using pilot surveys may also be beneficial. In the section testing preference for check dams, one participant commented that they did not like the orange color of the v notch check dam. The v notch check dam does have a slightly orange hue, although this was not intentional and not a variable that was being tested. Similarly, in the section testing preference for gravel and stone, two respondents mentioned they did not think the gravel in Image 12 looked intentional. In fact, this image has no gravel, what they are referring to is actually a reflection in a small puddle of water at the bottom of the bioswale. It is clear from this feedback that pilot tests would be useful to clarify any misunderstandings respondents may have during the su rvey. Limitations of Using Two to Four Images to Test Each Variable Supplementary research should be conducted to further explore the individual aesthetic variables introduced in this study. Two to four images were used to test each of the nine variables in this study. As such, a progression range of extremes was established for each variable. This left possibilities outside of this range untested. For example, preference for vegetation height was tested with a progression of images that depicted a range s howing no height in vegetation, to the final image, which showed vegetation approximately three feet tall. The image showing three feet of vegetation height was preferred, however it is unknown whether respondents would prefer vegetation higher than three feet, as that was not tested. A more detailed exploration of each of the nine

PAGE 151

151 variables tested in this research would be beneficial to garner a clearer understanding of preference. Survey Incentives and Sample Size It was difficult to garner survey partic ipation without an incentive. It is likely more surveys would have been administered had there been some kind of reward for doing so. Future researchers should look at possible ways to incentivize survey participation. Recommendations for sample size in co njoint analysis differ. According to Akaah and Korgaonkar, a smaller sample size of fewer than 100 is typical. (Akaah, 1988) (Zhang, 2013). For this study, the target number of respondents was 50 and the total number of surveys attained was 58, however sev en of those surveys were filled out incorrectly, leaving 51 for use in this study. Future research should aim for a larger sample size in order to offset loss of surveys. Demographics Survey participant demographics that closely reflect those of the commu nity being studied are preferred. This ensures appropriate representation of all populations within the community. In this study, African American and Asian populations were underrepresented while White, non Hispanic populations were overrepresented. Futur e research should consider diverse participant sourcing to closely reflect participant demographics with those of the community being studied. Conclusion The resulting guidelines from this research are by no means comprehensive, but instead can begin to assist designers on how to approach bioswale design that considers public

PAGE 152

152 visual preference in the Gainesville, F lorida, area. Additionally, it provides a methodology for future aesthetic preference testing of bioswales in other locations. Results from th is study of 51 Gainesville area residents indicate that 91% would prefer bioswales to traditional stormwater techniques and that 93 % of residents would like to see more bioswale projects in their community. The responses to these questions indicate that Ga inesville area survey respondents are accepting of the aesthetics of bioswale technologies, although they do have visual preferences for what they look like. This differs from the sentiments expressed by the East Gainesvi lle community at a public meeting i n 2014, where participants expressed aversion to the aesthetics of LID (referenced in chapter 2) . It would be useful to investigate this disparity of sentiments . By continuing research on low impact stormwater management techniques, Florida can begin to a dapt its management strategies for future water needs and concerns. It is only through the testing and research of new and alternative technologies that Florida can prepare for these changes. Works Cited Acomb, Glenn and Clark, Mark. 2008. The Florida Field Guide to Low Impact Development: Stormwater Management Practices for Application in Master Planned Community Development. Program for Resource Efficient Communities, University of Florida.

PAGE 153

153 Akaah, I. P., and P. K. Korgaonkar. "A Conjoint Investiga tion of the Relative Importance of Risk Relievers in Direct Marketing." Journal of Advertising Research 28.4 (1988): 38 44. "American FactFinder Results." American FactFinder Results . United States Census Bureau, n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. Amidon, Jane, Beth Blostein, and Lisa Tilder. "Big Nature." Design Ecologies Essays on the Nature of Design . New York, NY: Princeton Architectural, 2009. N. pag. Print. Anne Whiston Spirn . N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2015. . Asleson, B. C., Nestingen, R. S., Gulliver, J. S., Hozalski, R. M. and Nieber, J. L. (2009), Performance Assessment of Rain Gardens. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 45: 1019 Ð 1031. doi: 10.1111/j.1752 1688.2009.00344.x Balling, John D., and John H. Falk. Development of Visual Preference for Natural Environments . Publication. N.p.: n.p., 1982. Web. 05 Oct. 2014. Barnett, Peter. "Art Blog Art In History." Pastoral and Sublime: The Two Faces of Romantic Landscape . Art ID, n.d. Web. 06 Jan. 20 15. Benezra, Neal David, et al. Regarding Beauty: A View of the Late Twentieth Century. Washington, D.C; Ostfildern, Germany: Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institution, 1999. Berleant, Arnold. "Arnold Berleant: Philosophy/Music." Arn old Berleant: Philosophy/Music . N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2015. Berleant, Arnold. Living in the Landscape: Toward an Aesthetics of Environment. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1996. Boscacci, Edward. Bioswale Design Standards . Issue brief. BKF Engine ers, 29 Jan. 2004. Web. Brandes, David. "Stormwater BMPs." David Brandes . N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Jan. 2015. Callicott, J. Baird. "The Land Aesthetic." Environmental Review: ER 7.Special Issue (1983): 345 58. JSTOR . Web. 26 Oct. 2014. . Clark, Mark, and Glenn Acomb. "Bioswales/Vegetated Swales." Florida Field Guide To Low Impact Development (2008): n. pag. Buildgreen.ufl.edu . The University of Florida Program for Resource Efficient Communities, 2008. Web Corner, James. "E cology and Landscape as Agents of Creativity." Ecological Design and Planning . New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997. 80 108. Print. Corner, James. Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1 999.

PAGE 154

154 Cowley, Marianne. "Native Florida: Your Florida Backyard." Native Florida: Your Florida Backyard . N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2015. . Daniel, Terry C. "Aesthetic Preference and Ecological Ssustainability." Forests and Landscapes: L inking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics . New York: CABI, 2001. 15 29. Print. IUFRO Research Ser. 6. Davis, Allen P., and Richard H. McCuen. Stormwater Management for Smart Growth. New York: Springer Science, 2005. "Design and Construction of Urban Stormwater Management Systems." Design and Construction of Urban Stormwater Management Systems . American Society of Civil Engineers, n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2014. . Didona, Jane L. "Beauty and a Wet Pond Stormwater Management Practice." Thesis. State University of New York, 2007. < http://www.esf.edu/la/capstones/2007/Didona/Didona_report_07.pdf>. Dunnett, N. "641 People and Nature: Integrating Ae Sthetics and Ecology on Accessible Green Roofs." Acta Horticulturae . Acta Horticulturae, n.d. Web. Eaton, Marcia Muelder. Aesthetics and the Good Life. Rutherford [N.J.]; London; Cranbury, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1989. "EPA." History of the Clean Water Act . N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2015. Ferreira, Rick. "Key to Addressing Aging Infrastructure." Sun Sentinel . N.p., 21 Aug. 2014. Web. "Florida 2060." Florida 2060 . 1,000 Friends of Florida, n.d. Web. 04 Feb. 2015. . "Florida Drought Condi tions." Florida Department of Environmental Protection . Florida Department of Environmental Protection, May 2009. Web. Florida Stormwater Erosion and Sedimentation Control Inspector's Manual . Tech. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Environmental Protecti on, 2008. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Web. 24 Mar. 2015. Gobster, Paul H. "Restoring Nature: Human Actions, Interactions, and Reactions." Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the Social Sciences and Humanities . Washington DC: Island, 20 00. 1 18. Print. Gobster, Paul H., and Lynne M. Westpahl. 2004. "The Human Dimensions of Urban Greenways: Planning For Recreation and Related Experiences." Landscape and Urban Planning 68 :147 165 Gobster, Paul H., et al. "The Shared Landscape: What does Aesthetics have to do with Ecology?" Landscape Ecology 22.7 (2007): 959 72. ProQuest. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.

PAGE 155

155 "Grassed Swales." Grassed Swales . Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2015. Guevara, Y. (2008). Beyond stormwater design consideratio ns: When beauty and duty collide. (Master's thesis), State University of New York, New York. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Harris, Lisa. Alternatives to Curb and Gutter on Streets: Benefits and Challenges . Issue brief. N.p.: U of Kans as Transportation Center for Road & Bridge Agencies, 2013. Print. Heiss, Kimberly S. Visual Preference for Stormwater Pond Edge Treatments: Design Guidelines for Enhanced Stormwater Ponds in Open Space Subdivisions ., 2007. Print. Hollands, Bruce. "The Un derground Infrastructure Crisis: Rebuilding Water and Sewer Systems without a Flood of Red Ink." The Underground Infrastructure Crisis: Rebuilding Water and Sewer Systems without a Flood of Red Ink (2010): n. pag. Web. Horton, Robert E. "The Field, Scope, and Status of the Science of Hydrology." Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 12.1 (2014): n. pag. Wiley Online Library . Eos. Web. 15 Dec. 2014. Hough, Michael. City Form and Natural Process: Towards a New Urban Vernacular. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1984. Howett, Catherine. "Systems, Signs, Sensibilities: Sources for a New Landscape Aesthetic." Landscape journal 6.1 (1987): 1 12. Hull, R. Bruce, Robertson, David P., and Angelina Kendra. 2001. "Public Understandings of Nature: A Case Study of Local Knowledge About ÔÔNatural'' Forest Conditions." Society and Natural Resources 14 : 325 Ð 340. Jennison Kipp, M., Christina E. Lathrop, Mark E. Hostetler, Mark W. Clark, and Pierce H. Jones. "Implementing Low Impact Development in Florida: Practiti oners' Perspectives." Florida Watershed Journal Low Impact Development. Florida Water Environment Association and the Florida Section AWRA, 2011. Web. 19 Mar. 2015. Johnson, Steve A., and Martin B. Main. "Preventing Encounters between Children and Snakes. " EDIS New Publications RSS . University of Florida IFAS Extension, n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2015. Johnson, Steve A., and Monica E. McGarrity. "Dealing with Snakes in Florida's Residential Areas Preventing Encounters 1." EDIS New Publications RSS . University of Florida IFAS Extension, n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2015. Junker, Berit, and Matthias Buchecker. "Aesthetic Preferences Versus Ecological Objectives in River Restorations." Landscape and Urban Planning 85.3 (2008): 141 54. Kaplan, Rachel, Stephen Kaplan, and Robe rt L. Ryan. With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature . Washington, D.C: Island Press, 1998. Print.

PAGE 156

156 Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Pre ss, 1989. Kemp, L. Roger. "Cities and Water: A Handbook for Planning." McFarland & Company, Inc. NC. 2009. Koch Rose, Marguerite, Diana Mitsova Boneva, and Tara Root. Florida Water Management and Adaptation in the Face of Climate Change . Rep. State University System of Florida, Nov. 2011. Web. Laboratory Study of Biological Retention for Urban Stormwater Management Allen P. Davis, Mohammad Shokouhian, Himanshu Sharma and Christie Minami Water Environment Research , Vol. 73, No. 1 (Jan. Feb., 2001 ) , pp. 5 14 LaGro, James A.. Site Analysis : Informing Context Sensitive and Sustainable Site Planning and Design. Hoboken: Wiley, 2013. Ebook Library. Web. 06 Oct. 2014. Lintott, S. "Toward Eco Friendly Aesthetics." Environmental Ethics 28.1 (2006): 5 7 76. ProQuest. Web. 20 Oct. 2014. Littlewood, Michael. "Sustain in Vain?" Landscape Design 255.November (1996): n. pag. Web. Livingston, E. H., McCarron, E., n.d. Stormwater Management: A Guide for Floridians. Florida Department of Environmental Regulat ion. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/docs/nonpoint/Stormwater_Guide.pdf. Lucas, William C. "Standards, Specifications and Details for Green Technology BMPs to Minimize Stormwater Impacts From Land Development." GREEN TECHNOLOGY: THE DELAWARE UR BAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT APPROACH (2005): n. pag. Delaware Department of Natural Resources And Environmental Control Division of Soil And Water Conservation, June 2005. Web. Lyle, John Tillman. Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. New York: Wiley , 1994. Lynch, Kevin. Managing the Sense of a Region. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1976. Maser, C. "On the "Naturalness" of Natural Areas: A Perspective for the Future." Natural Areas Journal 10.3 (1990): 129 33. Mays, Larry W. Stormwater Collection Systems De sign Handbook. New York: McGraw Hill, 2001. McCarthy, Jillian. New Hampshire Stormwater Manual: Stormwater and Antidegradation . Tech. Vol. 1. New Hampshire: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, 2008. Print. McHarg, Ian L., and American Mus eum of Natural History. Design with Nature. Garden City, N.Y: Published for the American Museum of Natural History [by] the Natural History Press, 1969.

PAGE 157

157 McHarg, Ian L., and Frederick Steiner. "Ecology and Design." Ecological Design and Planning . Ed. Georg e F. Thompson. New York: John WIley, 1997. 321 32. Print. Menerey, Bruce E. Stormwater Management Guidebook . Rep. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Land and Water Management Division, Aug. 1999. Web. Meyer, EK. Sustaining Beau ty: The Performance of Appearance (Reprinted from 'Journal of Landscape Architecture', Spring 2008). 98 Vol. WASHINGTON: AMER SOC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, 2008. Mozingo, Louise A. "The Aesthetics Of Ecological Design: Seeing Science As Culture." Landscape Jo urnal 16.1 (1997): 46. Business Source Premier . Web. 21 Dec. 2014. Nassauer, Joan Iverson. 1992. "The Appearance of Ecological Systems as a Matter of Policy." Landscape Ecology 6(4): 239 250. Nassauer, Joan. "Landscape Journal." Messy Ecosystems, Orderly Frames 14.2 (1995a): 161 70. Messy Ecosystems, Orderly Frames . University of Wisconsin Press. Web. 17 Feb. 2014. Nassauer, Joan. "Culture and Changing Landscape Structure." Landscape Ecology 10.4 (1995b): 229 37. Nassauer, Joan Iverson. Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology. Washington, D.C: Island Press, 1997. Nassauer, Joan Iverson. 2004. Monitoring the Success of Metropolitan Wetland Restorations: Cultural Sustainability and Ecological Function. Wetlands 24(4): 756 765. N.d. Eco Brooklyn I nc. Web. 16 Dec. 2014. . N.d. The Village of Ossining, NY . Web. 16 Dec. 2014. . New Jersey Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual . Re p. N.p., Feb. 2004. Web. 18 Dec. 2014. . Ober, Holly K., and Gary W. Knox. "Native Plants That Benefit Native Wildlife in the Florida Panhandle1." EDIS New Publications RSS . The University of Florida IFAS Extension, n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2015. . Ode, sa, Mari S. Tveit, and Gary Fry. "Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators: Touching Base with Landscape Aesthetic Theory." Landscape Research 33.1 (2008) : 89 117. Web. Ode, sa, et al. "Indicators of Perceived Naturalness as Drivers of Landscape Preference." Journal of environmental management 90.1 (2009): 375 83.

PAGE 158

158 Palmer, James F. "Using Spatial Metrics to Predict Scenic Perception in a Changing Landscap e: Dennis, Massachusetts." Landscape and Urban Planning 69.2 (2004): 201 18. Parsons, Russ. "Conflict between Ecological Sustainability and Environmental Aesthetics: Conundrum, CanŠrd Or Curiosity." Landscape and Urban Planning 32.3 (1995): 227 44. Penn iman, Daniel C. Reported Costs and Experienced Design Practitioner's Opinions About Low Impact Development Stormwater Treatment Methods in Florida . Gainesville, Fla.: University of Florida, 2012. Internet resource. Penniman, Daniel, Mark Hostetler, and Gl enn Acomb. "Conservation Subdivision: Construction Phase Ñ Low Impact Development (LID) and Stormwater Treatment." EDIS New Publications RSS . N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2014. Peron, Erminelda, Rita Berto, and Terry Purcell. "Restorativeness, Preference and the Perceived Naturalness of Places." Medio Ambiente Y Comportamiento Humano 3.1 (2002): 19 34. CiteULike: . Web. 25 Feb. 2015. Placer County Low Impact Development (LID) Guidebook . Guidebook. Sierra Business Council, Mar. 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2014. . Porteous, J. Douglas. Environmental Aesthetics: Ideas, Politics and Planning . London: Routledge, 1996. Print. Purcell, A.Terrence, and Richard J Lamb.1998. "Preference a nd Naturalness: An Ecological Approach." Landscape and Urban Planning, 42 : 57 66. Rabb, Lauren. "19th Century Landscape The Pastoral, the Picturesque and the Sublime The University of Arizona Museum of Art and Archive of Visual Arts." The University of Arizona Museum of Art and Archive of Visual Arts . N.p., Oct. 2009. Web. 2 Jan. 2015. Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Web. 19 Mar. 2015 . Requesens, Mia D. "Developing a Methodology for Community Engagement with an Emphasis on Stormwater Management Preferences." Developing a Methodology for Community Engagement with an Emphasis on Stormwater Management Preferences . University of Florida, 2013. Web. 02 Oct. 2014. Richman, Tom, Keith H. Lichten, Jennifer Worth, and Bruce K. Ferguson. "Vegetated Swales." LATIS (1998): n. pag. ASLA. Web. Richman, Tom, Keith H. Lichten, Jennifer Worth, and Bruce K. Ferguson. "Vegetated Swales." LATIS (1998): n . pag. ASLA. Web. Schroeder, Herbert W., 1991. The Spiritual Aspect of Nature: A Perspective from Depth Psychology. In Proceedings of Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, 25 30. Saratoga Springs, NY.

PAGE 159

159 "Scientists & Staff." Paul H. Gobster . USDA Fo rest Service, 2 Mar. 2015. Web. 01 Apr. 2015. Sheppard, S R. J, and H W. Harshaw. Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability, and Aesthetics . Wallingford, Oxon: CABI Pub, 2001. Print. Smardon, R.C. "Perceptions and Aesthetics of the Urban Env ironment: Review of the Role of Vegetation." "Smart Growth / Smart Energy Toolkit Low Impact Development." Smart Growth / Smart Energy Toolkit Low Impact Development . N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Dec. 2014. . Spirn, AW. "The Poetics of City and Nature Toward a New Aesthetic for Urban Design." PLACES A Quarterly Journal of Environmental Design 6.1 (1989): 82 93. Thayer, Robert. 1976. "Visual Ecology: Revitalizing the Aesthetic of Landscape Arc hitecture." Landscape 20(2): 37 43. Ulrich, Roger S. "Natural Versus Urban Scenes: Some Psychophysiological Effects." Environment and Behavior 13.5 (1981): 523 56. Ulrich, Roger S. "Human Responses to Vegetation and Landscapes." Landscape and Urban Plan ning 13.1 (1986): 29 44. "United States Census Bureau." Gainesville (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau . United States Census Bureau, n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2015 Unites States. Oregon Department of Transportation. ODOT Hydraulics Manual . ODOT, Apr. 20 14. Web. 27 Mar. 2015. . Urbonas, B. R. Linking Stormwater BMP Designs and Performance to Receiving Water Impact Mitigation., 2002. Valentine, Lise. "Managing Urban Stormwater with Green Infrastructure: Case Studies of Five U.S. Local Governments." (n.d.): n. pag. The Center for Neig Hborhood Technology, 30 July 2007. Web. van den Berg, Agnes E., and Charles A. J. Vlek. "The Influence of Planned Change Context on the Evaluation of Natural Landscapes." Landscape and Urban Planning 43.1 (1998): 1 10. Vesbach, Jeremy. "Building Bioswales Presents Challenges." Daily Journal of Commerce . The Dolan Company, 29 Apr. 2002. Web. 01 Feb. 2014. Vining, J , T C Daniel, and H W Schroeder. 1984. "Predicting scenic values in forested residential landscapes." Journal of Leisure Research 16(2): 124 135.

PAGE 160

160 Williams, Kathryn J. H., and John Cary. "Landscape Preferences, Ecological Quality, and Biodiversity Protect ion." Environment and Behavior 34.2 (2002): 257 74. Zhang, Bo. "The Aesthetic Attributes of Green Infrastructure Ð A Study of the Perceptions of Beauty, Ecological Significance, and Naturalness For a Stormwater Treatment Area by Three College Populations With Different Educational Backgrounds." Thesis. University of Florida, 2013. University of Florida. Web.

PAGE 161

161 Appendix A : Stormwater Visual Preference Study ( Survey format is 11" x 17", resized to fit 8.5" x 11" )

PAGE 162

162

PAGE 163

163

PAGE 164

164

PAGE 165

165

PAGE 166

166

PAGE 167

167

PAGE 168

168

PAGE 169

169

PAGE 170

170

PAGE 171

171

PAGE 172

172

PAGE 173

173

PAGE 174

174

PAGE 175

175

PAGE 176

176 Appendix B : Institutional Review Board Exemption

PAGE 177

177

PAGE 178

178 Appendix C: Informed Consent Documenta t ion

PAGE 179

179

PAGE 180

180

PAGE 181

181


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EWU0EDAQQ_B2UEBG INGEST_TIME 2016-04-19T23:14:49Z PACKAGE AA00032896_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EZN9KJDBE_SYW2MS INGEST_TIME 2016-04-21T21:13:22Z PACKAGE AA00032896_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES