Citation
Landscape architecture and the environmental definition of self

Material Information

Title:
Landscape architecture and the environmental definition of self
Creator:
Holweger, Michael E.
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of landscape architecture)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
College of Architecture and Planning, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Landscape architecture
Committee Chair:
Heid, Jim
Committee Members:
Garnham, Harry
Davis, John
Morris, Glen

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright Michael E. Holweger. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display 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.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
And
The Environmental Definition Of Self


LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE And:
The Environmental Definition Of Self


The undersigned accept this thesis as fulfilling the requirements of:
The Master of Landscape Architecture
Landscape Architecture and
Urban Design Program
School of Architecture and Planning
University of Colorado at Denver
Jim Heid, Chairman
Harry Garnham, Member
John Davis, Member
Glen Morris, Member
Respectfully Submitted by:
Michael E. Holweger M.L.A. Candidate Spring, 1988
\&t


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION SECTION CONTEXT
Chapter 1 - The Cost of Control...................... 1
Chapter 2 - A Basis for Interactive Health.......... 13
SECTION TWO - PROCESS
Chapter 3 - Landscape Architecture the Expression of Control........................................... 33
Chapter 4 - Fundamental Versus Artificial
Structures ................................ 48
Chapter 5 - The Continuity of Identity.............. 58
SECTION THREE - RESEARCH
Chapter 6 - Research and Testing Methodology........ 72
Chapter 7 - Presentation of Data.................... 92
Chapter 8 - Comparative Evaluation and
Intuitive Analysis......................... 130
APPENDIX
Data Converstion Tables For:
Questionnaire Section One............................ 152
Questionnaire Section Two-A.......................... 160
Questionnaire Section Two-B.......................... 168
Questionnaire Section Three.......................... 175
Sample Survey.............................................. 186
Selected Bibliography...................................... 190


INTRODUCTION
The objective of this thesis is to improve the relationship between the American public and the dimension of experience associated with understanding and interacting with natural systems. The practice of landscape architecture has grown to fill voids in American society by providing services and assuming roles as needs developed. In this thesis the assumption of yet another role for the practice of landscape architecture is advocated, that of pro-active educator by example and implication. Landscape architecture needs to take the initiative in defining its role, in shaping the future landscape and directing the future values of this country. The first step in defining an improved future for this profession is to understand the ethical basis for interaction between human and natural systems. Ethics being essentially the science of moral values, ideals, and standards, has a limited basis for application related to human and natural systems interaction. The concepts of moral, ideal and professional related to nature are unclear in American society as they are in the practice of landscape architecture. Without the benefit of pre-defined morals and actions related to nature, one is forced to look inward for the formulation of these concepts. Using as reference one's personal library of cumulative experience, one's personal dialogue with nature.


What are the origins of this dialogue, what is its current status and where is its future? What is the basis for a positive or healthy dia 1ogue/re1 ationship? What components are essential? What role has landscape architecture played in the development of this dia 1ogue/re1 ationship? What opportunities and strategies can be identified for the improvement of this dialogue? How can landscape architecture improve its relationship with nature and provide the direction necessary for the American public to do the same?


SECTION ONE: CONTEXT Chapter One - The Cost Of Control
"THE SPANIARDS," CORTEZ REPLIED, "SUFFER FROM A DISEASE OF THE HEART FOR WHICH
GOLD
IS THE ONLY REMEDY."


For a variety of reasons the majority of Twentieth Century Americans are losing the ability to interact with nature in a satisfying manner. The postindustrial life style enjoyed in this country has methodically cut Americans off from meaningful interaction with nature. The following short narrative is offered as an example.
Father grew up a dry land farmer on the eastern border of Montana. The new park construction across the street stirred in him warm and romantic memories. As he pulled himself from his car in the driveway, he would stop and gaze into the evening sun at the silhouettes of workmen almost languid from fatigue and in his gut he once again longed to be tired. Saddle tired, combine tired, thresher tired, the satisfied tired he was at days end when he moved stiffly through the twilight of Montana. After dinner he and I would walk the park construction across the street slowly and deliberately. He would stop and look often at nothing, at the memories of himself in youth in touch with the land. I could never see as far as he and in my life I never would.
2


Recent technological advancements have provided the opportunity to manifest the negative conditioning toward nature that Americans have been subjected to throughout the history of this country. The body of this negative conditioning toward nature is contained in two philosophical pos itions.
1) People have, by conditioning, been taught to fear and dislike nature. This point is put forth succinctly in Barry Holstun Lopez's book, Of Wolves and Men, where he states, "So in the wolf we have not so much an animal that we have always known, as one that we have consistently imagined. To the human imagination the wolf has proved at various times the appropriate symbol for greed or savagery, the exactly proper guise for the devil, or fitting as a patron for warrior clans." This position has historically equated nature and natural systems with the most base and depraved aspects of human character. The evil that relentlessly flawed the human spirit was projected onto nature, which then became the object of our own self hatred.
2) The second position contributing to the erosion of the relationship between American society and nature, has conditioned Americans not to respect or value natural
3


systems. The most concise iteration of this position can be found in Genesis 28, "And God blessed them and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." The implication of this conditioning, which has been more pervasive than any other in the history of this country, has seriously undermined our relationship to nature.
The indoctrination of the majority of Americans into these two philosophical positions set the stage for the erosion of the relationship between American society and nature. The remaining essential element in this erosion process was technology which provided the protection and control necessary for physical separation. Once technology provided the opportunity for physical separation from nature and natural systems, the population was pre-conditioned philosophically to exercise that opportunity.
Observers would be obligated to ask, how can our relationship with nature be characterized as deteriorating when we are experiencing a tremendous surge in the popularity of back country sports, such as camping, backpacking, rock climbing and white water rafting? At issue is the quality of experience related to natural systems interaction. These new
4


adventure sports are a symbolic reconquering of the natural world. Now that nature has been subdued we are, figuratively speaking, returning with one arm tied behind our back. This new adversarial mind set is a manifestation of the process of indoctrination discussed earlier. This dimension of erosion is galvanized by S. M. Barrett in the introduction to Geronimo His Own Story, where he states, "It was a clash between a culture that had a fear of nature until it could subdue it and a contempt for it once it had been subdued and cultures that thought of themselves as participating with the natural world in the huge cycle of life."
Figure 1.1 represents the progressive reduction in the amount of time that American consciousness is occupied with the relationship between mankind and nature. In pre-technological societies, survival was dependent on the level of understanding that people had of their natural environment. Through the advancement of technology our survival has become dependent on other skills. People no longer needed to understand their surroundings in order to insure their survival. Each generation established new rules in the development of survival skills, hence, Americans no longer needed to pass on, from one generation to the next, a collective history. Progressively Americans divorced themselves from their natural surroundings. Past the point
5


AWARENESS OF NATURAL SYSTEMS
MAN'S CONSCIOUS RELATIONSHIP
TO NATURE
FIGURE - 1.1
High
SHIFT IN
THE BASIS OF
SURVIVAL SKILLS
LOSS OF
COLLECTIVE
HISTORY
1
PRIOR CONDITIONING AND EXPOSURE TO BUILT ENVIRONMENT VALUES
Low
Pre Technological Society
TIME
Post Technological Society


of safety and control, the population continued to remove itself from nature in response to the conditioning discussed earlier.
How could the relationship to nature continue to deteriorate past the point where the population devoted no conscious energy to their natural environment? The response to this question takes two forms. Even though Twentieth Century Americans are not required to devote any conscious energy to natural systems, they are constantly bombarded by subconscious implication about nature as it is expressed in the built environment. The interaction of human and natural systems in the built environment has considerable implication for the development of values about nature within the general public. The second response to this question is based on the conditioning discussed earlier. How could someone who has never been in a natural environment hate that experience?
The conclusion is that mechanisms conditioning negative attitudes about nature are still very much in place and have absolutely no basis or foundation in the experience of nature itself. The fact that people could learn to hate something without experiencing it, is an example of this conditioning. However, one would have to conclude that conditioning could then also teach people to appreciate nature without experiencing it, or experiencing it on a very limited basis. As Americans have reduced the danger to their
7


personal safety through the progressive advancement in technology, they have lost the accompanying respect for the environment. It is important to distinguish the difference between a perceived or conditioned fear of nature and the real danger and corresponding respect that the environment demanded historically. The increase in adventure sport is an expression of this loss. As Roderick Nash points out in his essay, Wilderness To Be Or Not To Be, "The character of the American individual was shaped by their natural environment and the challenges that were incorporated in that successful interaction." Americans are looking for new and different ways to define their character through contrived interaction with their environment. This new relationship to nature is still adversarial in essence. As long as people approach their interaction with nature from this adversarial mind set, there is little opportunity for developing the potential of nature as a new and meaningful dimension of human experience.
In Figure 1.2 the erosion of the relationship to nature is interpreted through the amount of time that people spend in back country or natural environments. Throughout history, people have worked to control the natural systems that have impacted them. People have worked to develop a built environment that is safe and consistent. As cultures spent less time in natural environments they progressively lost the
8


EXPOSURE TO NATURAL SYSTEMS
MAN'S PHYSICIAL RELATIONSHIP FIGURE - 1.2
TO NATURE
High
100% BUILT
ENVIRONMENT
EXPERIENCE
RECOGNITION OF NATURE AS A PLAYGROUND
SEPARATION
THROUGH
CONTROL
PHILOSOPHICAL
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONING
MIND SET REDEFINED
Low
Pre Technological Society
TIME
Post Technological Society
9


collective understanding that pre-technological peoples depended on for their survival. Once Americans were able to spend 100% of their time in the built environment, the curve flattens out. One would assume that the relationship to nature would be stable during this period, however, in response to prior conditioning, the relationship continued to deteriorate, as it does to this day. This deterioration is now additionally based on the way people interact with nature in the built environment. This diagram recognizes the recent increase in interaction between natural and human systems as a rediscovery of nature as a playground.
Our relationship continues to deteriorate, even though aggregate exposure is increased, as a consequence of the following important fact. The natural systems that surrounded pre-technological cultures not only provided for their survival, they provided the basis for their spirituality. Their pantheisms were based on natural phenomenon. This rediscovery of natural systems, resulting from the increased popularity in back country adventure sport, is uni-dimensiona1 . There is no component of humility or respect. The experience is consumed by itself.
To borrow from Nash once again, "It's a macho thing. It's really not the wilderness but the person that is valued. The "peak bagger" is in this category, so is the miles per day freak. A related species is the equipment nut for whom the
10


quality of his backpack or sleeping bag is more important than the place in which he uses them."
The previous discussion has been offered as a brief generalization of a highly complex relationship. The purpose of this exercise is to develop a perspective, or context, from which to better understand the dynamics associated with the modern relationship between American society and the natural world.
By the way of review, the physical interaction between Americans and nature has been progressively reduced. With this reduction in interaction, the relationship between the population and nature was also progressively impaired. The relationship between the population and nature has deteriorated in both breadth (quantity) and depth (quality). The relationship to nature continues to deteriorate, past the point of zero interaction, in response to the incomplete or inaccurate interpretation of nature in the built environment and the process of conditioning a negative mind set into the population about nature and natural systems experience.
Once again the informed observer would be obliged to ask: So what, who cares, isn't this, to coin a phrase, "Like arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?"


Americans have become so removed from the natural systems component of existence they feel no real sense of loss.
People cannot be expected to miss or value something they have never known. Why, then, is this so important when so many have no sense of loss associated with the deterioration in their relationship to nature? The position of this thesis is confirmed and consistently reinforced by the degree to which life is enriched every day by the understanding of and interaction with the natural world. We must work to improve an existence devoid of this essential dimension of experience.
The practice of landscape architecture has a significant opportunity and considerable accompanying responsibility, to design environments that develop and reinforce positive attitudes about nature and natural systems and to reeducate people as to the value of this lost dimension of experience.
The next step in this thesis must be to establish the basis of a positive relationship with nature. What are the linkages between nature in wild and built environments?
12


SECTION ONE: CONTEXT
Chapter Two - A Basis For Interactive Health
"THE WOODS AND FIELDS HE RAVAGES AND THE GAME HE DEVASTATES WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCE AND SIGNATURE OF HIS CRIME AND GUILT, AND PUNISHMENT."
WILLIAM FAULKNER


The previous discussion focused its attention on the erosion of the relationship between American society and nature. It now becomes necessary to establish the basis for a positive dialogue between human and natural systems. What is the basis for an improved relationship between American society and nature? The answer is more complex than simply the adoption of an earlier set of values and lifestyles. The challenge is to develop a new criteria for establishing an improved dialogue between American society and the natural world. This relationship is dynamic in character. The circumstances surrounding prior relationships to nature have changed both from a human, as well as a natural systems standpoint. It is a disservice, by oversimplification, to advocate that Americans live like, think like or worship like their ancestors. These attempts would certainly be frustrated by the difficulties encountered in trying to maintain a previous world view in a changed culture and changed environment.
To define what the basis of this positive relationship with nature should be it is important to recognize that as the relationship to nature continues to change, the formula for its improvement will also change. This is not a static analysis. The dynamic surrounding this interaction is characterized as follows: Natural systems are changed through human impact, human attitudes toward those systems are in turn affected, which is manifested through altered
14


behaviors and actions which then further impacts natural systems. See Figure 2.1.
It is important to recognize that this dialogue is both personal, as well as collective. On a personal level, individuals maintain relationships with nature and express them in their own yards. This expression contributes feedback to the individual, which results in either modified or reinforced actions toward nature. See Figure 2.2. On a collective level, institutions both private and public make assumptions about individual or personal attitudes toward natural systems and then express them through design professionals who, in turn, impact individual or personal relationships with nature through exposure to the built environment. See Figure 2.3. Another aspect of this relationship that needs to be understood are its objective and implied influences. See Figure 2.4. At issue here is the degree to which people are impacted by the values implied in public expression of the collective relationship between human and natural systems.
To understand this relationship it becomes necessary to define what its ideal form would consist of. Is it intellectual, is it emotional, is it a matter of balance? In spite of the complexity associated with this relationship, there are fundamental building blocks that are constant and
15


HUMAN AND NATURAL SYSTEMS
INTERACTION DYNAMIC
FIGURE - 2.1
TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES RESULT IN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
WHICH RESULTS IN MODIFIED BEHAVIOR WHICH IN TURN FURTHER IMPACTS NATURAL H SYSTEMS H
WHICH CHANGES THE CHARACTER OF NATURAL SYSTEMS
ALTERED CHARACTER CHANGES ATTITUDES AND VALUES TOWARD NATURAL
16


HUMAN AND NATURAL SYSTEMS
INDIVIDUAL RELATIONSHIP
FIGURE -2.2
17


HUMAN AND NATURAL SYSTEMS COLLECTIVE RELATIONSHIP
FIGURE -2.3
INSTITUTIONS MAKE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL
VALUES EXPRESS-111 ED AS
INFLUENCES PUBLIC VALUES THROUGH REPEATED EXPOSURE
DIRECTIVES TO THE PRACTICE WHO INTERPRET NATURE WHICH IS
MANIFESTED IN DESIGNS AND
ORDINANCES
WHICH
18


RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COLLECTIVE AND INDIVIDUAL EXPRESSION
FIGURE -2.4
INDIVIDUALS ARE
INFLUENCED BY
IMPLICATION
THROUGH
EXPOSURE TO
19


upon which a strategy for its improvement can be developed.
Before defining the ideal relationship to nature it is important to understand how nature has influenced American society historically. For the development of this discussion I have borrowed liberally from Nash's essay. Initially, one needs to recognize the degree to which nature has been the basis for the development of American culture. The natural systems that define the American environment have long ignited the creative genius of American writers, painters and song writers. The list of American writers who have been inspired by nature is considerable. From James Fenimore Cooper, to Edward Abby and Barry Holstun Lopez, the American author has been deeply moved by nature. It would have been difficult to write during the development of this country without being inspired by its landscape. In this literary example it is often the relationship between Americans and nature that provided the fabric upon which so much of this great American literature was woven. Painters such as Thomas Cole, Fredrick Church, Albert Bierstadt and Thomas Moran were all moved by nature and the natural systems that make up our American landscape. Songs such as "America the Beautiful" and "Home on the Range" are further examples where nature has inspired American art, not to mention entire styles of music born from regional landscapes.
20


Nature has also functioned throughout the history of this country to forge the American character. The Frontier, the American West, the Rocky Mountains, every physiographic province in this country has developed its own archetype character, such as the Mountain Man, the Cajun, the Lumberjack, the Cowboy, the River Boat Captain. One must keep in mind that these archetypes were established during the course of a relationship with the natural world that was essentially exploitive and adversarial. It was the domination and control of that natural environment that gave these individuals their identity and self worth. What is the new archetype of our relationship to nature? Is it the backpacker, the rock climber? Contemporary society needs a new, more positive archetype, one developed out of a changed and improved relationship with the natural world.
Nature has functioned as a source of meaning and tranquility in American lives. Interaction with nature produced a sense of harmony, a level of acceptance of ones self as part of the natural systems around them. Here nature shows people their place in systems that transcend themselves and consequently develops a sense of respect for those systems. The product of this type of interaction is often a feeling of humility.
A healthy relationship between human and natural systems develops a sense of environmental responsibility. This sense
21


of responsibility is based on the rediscovery of natural processes and the appreciation of our dependency upon them. This gives Americans the opportunity to perceive their vulnerability. Erosion of the relationship between American society and nature has only been in the perceptual sense. Americans are still as dependent on nature and natural systems for their survival as they were during the Stone Age. However, they have managed to remove themselves several steps from direct interaction with nature and consequently have lost sight of their relationship to it. This is an erosion of understanding, not an erosion of dependence. This is a self-professed and fallacious emancipation. None the less, it is accepted, believed and expressed by the majority of Americans. The future of this type of false emancipation has grave implications. This underscores the importance of improving the level of understanding Americans have toward their natural support systems. Mankind is a member and not master of the biotic community.
Four different contributions that nature has made to the development of American society have been identified.
1) The basis of American culture - literature, music and painting.
2) The foundation of American Character. (Archetypes enumerated. )
3) Providing meaning and tranquility.
22


4) Developing a sense of environmental responsibility.
The first two contributions of nature to American society:
1) The basis of our culture and 2) the foundation of our character have been replaced by modern archetypes generated from other inspiration. For example, rock stars, sports figures and the automobile. It is not in the scope of this investigation to determine if these new archetypes and inspiration are as rich or viable as those provided by our natural surroundings. Let it suffice to say, that the archetypes and inspiration produced by nature have been supplanted by more anthropocentric expression.
The second two contributions of nature to American society:
1) providing a source of meaning and tranquility, and 2) the development of a sense of environmental responsibility, have been eroded but not effectively replaced, leaving a void in human experience. The manifestations of this void appear in many forms in American society. These behaviors are synthetic gratification, a response to the failure of American society to replace the meaningful dimension of experience associated with nature. If this analysis is accepted what then is its implication to the improvement of the relationship between nature and American society? First of all it reinforces the importance of this meaningful dimension of experience to the well being of the American public. It is encouraging, and in a small way reassuring, that Americans
23


have not found a viable substitute for a healthy relationship with nature. This seems to authenticate the need for an improved relationship. This need for a healthy and satisfying relationship to nature is unique enough to have resisted its usurption in the face of relentless effort on the part of the American people. Therefore, it is not necessary to displace some form of successful substitution in order to reintroduce this dimension of experience.
Figure 2.1 illustrates the dynamic character of the relationship between nature and American society. This process involves the change of natural systems through human impact, human attitudes toward those systems are in turn affected, which is manifested through altered behaviors and actions which result in additional impacts. As additional technological advances are injected into this feedback loop a progression of impacts moving in the direction of artificial expression is generated. This progression is the basis for the erosion in the relationship between American society and nature. Over time humanity is responding less to natural systems and progressively more to their impact on those system essentially responding more to themselves. To change this cycle people must respond to the original character remaining in manipulated natural systems.
24


Figure 2.2 represents the character of the relationship between individual Americans and their personal landscapes.
In this model the values of individuals related to natural systems are most clearly and accurately reflected. This is the tightest feedback loop of all the models developed in this thesis, providing either immediate reinforcement or immediate impetus for change. In this model people have the highest level of control over the natural systems involved.
What then is the basis for the development of these individual values? Do these individual values reflect the relationship between natural and human systems detailed in Figure 2.1 or are they reflecting, to some degree, the collective values produced in the model depicted in Figure 2.3, and if so, to what degree and by what mechanism?
Figure 2.3 represents graphically the collective relationship between natural and human systems in American society. This model raises a number of interesting questions. How accurate are perceptions of public needs and values by institutions? How does this model factor in the progressive and dynamic character of the relationship between natural and human systems described in Figure 2.1. If the perceptions of public values by institutions are inaccurate it would begin moving this feedback loop in a direction different from the personal landscape relationship. There would, in effect, be
25


a split between the collective and the private relationship to nature in American society. As a consequence, the practice of landscape architecture in public space would not reflect the values and attitudes of the American individual.
In Figure 2.4 the collective relationship to nature is impacting individual values toward natural systems. If the collective relationship, through inaccurate assumptions, has been moving in a direction different from individual relationships to nature, to what degree is that collective relationship pulling individual values along with it. Are individuals adopting values and expressing them in the built environment without knowing why? Once the collective relationship has established normative expression through consistency, then deviation assumes a negative identity. Americans are adopting values not because they are right or good for either human or natural systems but because of pressure to conform.
Scientific Versus Experiential Understanding As Einstein observed in Out of My Later Years," a commonly held dictum of Twentieth Century Western culture is that belief should be replaced by knowledge." Einstein further emphasized that "science being the knowledge of what is, does not show us what should be. Science without spirituality is lame, spirituality without science is blind." This
26


observation delineates the basic distinction between
descriptive and prescriptive modeling. The difference between what is and what should be. To interpret Einstein's observation would be to conclude that ideally there should be a balance between the spiritual/experiential and intellectual/scientific aspects of our relationship to nature. During the history of Western culture, nature has been enthusiastically pursued as the basis for scientific development while being discounted as the basis for spiritual experience. Michael Talbot in his book, Mysticism and the New Physics offers another perspective on the scientific and spiritual aspects of American's relationship to nature, where he writes, "Most importantly, the new physics is offering us a scientific basis for religion. This is something new in the history of Western civilization." There are essentially two approaches to an improved understanding of the natural world, direct perceptual experience and indirect scientific abstraction. Pre-technological societies, through direct perceptual experience, knew where to find the constellation Orion in the evening sky, what time it would come up, what time of the year it could be seen and what its appearance indicated in terms of the timing of other natural systems. People today, through indirect scientific abstraction, tell us how far Orion is from our solar system, what gases make up its major stars, how hot those stars are, how old they are and how large they are.
27


Is the scientific understanding of nature enough, it is fulfilling the needs of humanity? Does scientific understanding garner the respect and appreciation for natural systems necessary to developing a perspective of humility, the basis of a healthy relationship between human and natural systems? Indeed, it may have that potential. However, there are limitations in a purely scientific relationship to nature. First would be the requirement for extreme intellectual abstraction which not all people have. Through scientific understanding there is a loss of mystery which reduces respect for the organism or system being studied. To lose interest after understanding and move on to larger challenges devalues systems already investigated. The complete relationship is a balance between these two types of understanding, scientific and experiential. Does mystery loss reduce appreciation and extinguish humility? Does mystery and discovery provide enchantment, the missing element in our relationship with the natural world? Emerson, in his essay Nature, points out "we need to ascribe to a reality higher than the physical." Pure science, though inadequate in explaining the miraculous character of natural phenomenon, encourages human separation from nature by abstracting it. Science requires the observer to step outside of nature to study it without bias. Emotional involvement will devalue the scientific accuracy of the investigation. The cost of scientific understanding is a
28


reduced dimension of spiritual involvement with the natural world. A complete relationship with the constellation Orion requires experiencing its winter march across the southern sky. Experiential understanding has more .potentia 1 for improving the relationship between man and nature. However, the combination of scientific knowledge and direct perceptual experience holds the greatest opportunity for improving this relationship.
Peak Experience
The process of disidentification associated with peak experience, is the essential element in developing a richer spiritual relationship to nature. Wuthrow (1978) defined three examples of peak experience.
1) "The feeling of being in close contact with something holy or sacred."
2) "Experiencing the beauty of nature in a deeply moving way."
3) "Feeling in harmony with the universe."
Greely (1974), and others, surveyed people using this question: "With what frequency have you felt as though you
were very close to a powerful, spiritual force that seemed to live outside yourself?"
29


Davis (unpublished) describes peak experience as triggered by:
1) physical accomplishment,
2) athletic achievement,
3) deep relaxation.
Peak experience is primarily emotional, an unusually touching experience of connectedness to another person or to the world. It may be brought on by intellectual understanding and deep insight or it may be a spiritual experience of being close to something holy or sacred. A peak experience has some, but usually not all, of the following characteristics:
1) Very strong or deep emotions.
2) Feeling in tune, in harmony or at one with the universe.
3) Altered perceptions of time and/or space.
4) A feeling of deeper knowing or profound understand i ng.
5) A greater awareness of beauty.
6) "The feeling of being close to a powerful force that seemed to lift you outside of your body."
The following list of studies emphasize the importance of nature to peak experience.
1) Wuthrow (1978): Eighty-two percent of the general population have "experienced the beauty of nature in
30


a deeply moving way. Forty-nine percent felt this has a lasting influence."
2) Greely (1974): Fifty percent of a large sample said "beauties of nature" had led to an intense spiritual experience.
3) Keutzer (1978): Fifty percent of a large sample of students said "beauties of nature" and other outdoor experiences had led to "an intense spiritual experience." (Note: this was the most frequent trigger.)
4) Davis (Unpublished): When asked to describe peak experience, fifty percent of students made reference to outdoors, nature.
The research related to peak experience discussed above, points out the potential of nature to complete and fulfill human experience. What has been described above is essentially accidental. The objective should be to consciously develop that potential. Ideally people could begin to understand their relationship to nature in a progressively larger context to the point of (ultimate significance), a matter of understanding the total integral nature of the relationship between human and natural systems. Ideally defined as a continual state of peak experience, consciously developed and understood. The focus of this thesis now begins to narrow, addressing the role that
31


landscape human and
architecture has played in the relationship between natural systems.
32


SECTION TWO: PROCESS
Chapter Three - Landscape Architecture, The
Expression Of Control
"THERE IS MUCH CONFUSION BETWEEN LAND AND COUNTRY. LAND IS THE PLACE WHERE CORN, GULLIES AND MORTGAGES GROW. COUNTRY IS THE PERSONALITY OF LAND THE COLLECTIVE HARMONY OF ITS SOIL, LIFE AND WEATHER."
ALDO LEAPOLD


In the second section of this thesis the focus will narrow to the practice of landscape architecture and how that practice has impacted the relationship between American society and nature. It is important to establish a clear understanding of what landscape architecture is and how it functions in this society. To begin, several definitions of landscape architecture typical of those ascribed to in the practice are offered.
The American Society of Landscape Architects has rendered this typically institutional definition of the practice, "the art of design planning, or management of the land, arrangement of natural and man made elements thereon, through application of cultural and scientific knowledge, with concern for resource conservation and stewardship, to the end that the resultant environment serves useful and enjoyable purpose."1
Norman Booth describes landscape architecture as, "dealing with integrating people and the outdoor environment in a manner beneficial to both."2
1 Norman Booth, Basic Elements of Landscape Architectural
Design, (Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. ) 1 935 .
2 Ibid.
34


Norman Newton describes landscape architecture as, "the art, or science, if preferred, of arranging land together with the spaces and objects upon it for safe, efficient, healthful, pleasant human use."3
John Simonds contributes the concept of harmony where he writes, "It would seem to follow as a guiding principal that to preserve or create a pleasing site character, all the various elements or parts must be brought into harmony.
Harmony further being described as the best possible fit, blending with the landscape. "4
The writings described above represent not definitions but narrowly defined aspirations. These writings are not reflecting what the practice is doing and what practitioners are motivated by, they must be interpreted as aspirations, personal and institutional. As aspirations, they are incomplete in not including as an objective the improvement of the relationship between human and natural systems. All of these definitions have, in some form, iterated a concern for nature with the use of words such as harmony and stewardship. This interest in the quality of nature is essentially anthropocentric. Ecological design, the most
3 Norman Newton, Design on the Land, (Library of Congress
Catalogue Card No. 70-134955) 1971.
4 John Simonds, Landscape Architecture. (McGraw-Hill Book
Company) 1951.
35


natural systems oriented approach to landscape architecture, is based on the realization that the destruction of nature will eventually impair human progress. This concern is for human beings and human systems, not for nature. As long as professional aspirations as were discussed previously are based on an anthropocentric world view, this practice will never achieve its potential for improving the relationship between mankind and nature. If the definitions offered above are indeed aspirations, then what is landscape architecture?
Landscape architecture has many functions in American society. Historically its role has been human expression for human consumption. This type of landscape architecture was born out of mankind's ability to manipulate and control the environment. It was a conscious expression of human separation from nature. A celebration of mankind's victory over the natural world, a glorification of the victor through the manipulation of the vanquished.
The quintessential expression of this form of landscape architecture is French Renaissance gardening. While the initial motivation for this formal expression of landscape architecture was control and domination of nature, those values today are no longer consciously espoused but continue to be implied in this form of built environment expression. This formal expression devalues nature through manipulation
36


by artificia 1izing natural systems. Although this type of expression has made a considerable contribution to the richness and quality of human experience, we should not be deceived about its adverse impact on our relationship to nature.
There are different levels of harmony in the practice of landscape architecture. When John Simonds describes harmony as "the best fit," it is important to understand what the criteria are for that evaluation. Does the best fit minimize energy costs by taking advantage of micro climates? Does the best fit reduce drainage impact? The practice of landscape architecture is aspiring to an institutional harmony based on anthropocentric criteria. Landscape architecture should aspire to an organistic harmony, shifting the basis of successful design away from satisfying institutional needs toward satisfying the needs of individuals. Landscape architecture idealizes nature through the celebration of formal expression which in turn devalues natural systems through manipulation. Rarely has it functioned to improve the relationship with nature on anything but the superficial formalistic level. There are innumerable examples of successful landscape architectural expression. However, the criteria identifying successful landscape architecture were developed in response to a deteriorating relationship with nature and through interpretation and expression have
37


accelerated that deterioration.
Historically, formalism was an antithetical expression to wild and uncontrolled nature. Those objective values have been highly diluted, although the implied value system is still intact. The implied message remains, mankind is in control of and separated from nature.
In a different sense, the practice of rear guard landscape architecture implies that what is good for the institution is good for the individual. Rear guard landscape architecture is effectively the integration of people and the outdoor environment in a way which is least damaging to both. It is important to understand the cost associated with change and understand who, in the final analysis, will bear those costs. A more balanced distribution of costs would reduce individual subsidization of institutional improvement. The question becomes, the best fit for who?
Landscape ordinances are the legislation or codification of values. These ordinances essentially legislate the negative value of natural environments by requiring their replacement and rigidifying the manipulation of replacement material. Landscape ordinances are in effect, an adjudicated expression of the quantification of nature. These ordinances are based on a dollar per square foot basis, as is the majority of landscape architectural expression. They limit the type,
38


size and usually the distribution of plant material in designed environments. Landscape ordinances are of particular interest because they explicitly legislate, codify and regulate the negative value of natural environments and require human system manipulation of nature. Landscape ordinances have a reactive not pro-active basis. They are damage control or rear guard landscape architecture. These ordinances address what must be done, not what should be done. Nowhere do these ordinances say stop. What they say is, if you build then you are obligated to manipulate.
There is no ethical basis for landscape legislation which is in turn representative of the practice as a whole. As Leapold points out, the basis for ethics is a conscious self-imposed limitation on action.5 The designers of the American landscape should ask: At what cost beauty? Landscape architects need to understand what the role and accompanying responsibilities of the profession are. If creating beauty is the "hippocratic oath" of landscape architecture, the associated costs need to be addressed. One of those costs is the deterioration in the relationship between American society and the natural world.
The concept of mixed messages in landscape architecture needs further elaboration. The following narrative of an imaginary
5 Also Leapold, A Sand County Almanac, (Oxford University Press) 19FFI
39


park construction is offered to illustrate the point.
The activity of the construction crews was fully a magnet fixed in his imagination. The roar of the machinery, its mass and power had hypnotized his four year old consciousness. The workmen were so quick and determined and the machinery so large it riveted his interest. The change was startling, complete and rapid. Each morning he leapt from bed the moment the vibration invaded his dreamy world. Racing to the kitchen, he looked out the window to see how much the field across the street had changed since his last assessment. The workmen were in such control. The earth was stripped and bladed, the hard pan glistening in the sun. The trenchers and backhoes opened deep cuts in the earth where the soil had a dank and ancient odor. The trees and shrubs were delivered on huge trucks that threw oddly shaped pieces of mud into the air as they came and went. Trees were slipped into holes left by the hydraulic teeth of mechanical spades. The sod was delivered, rolled out and in an instant the field became a park. The landscape of this four year old was entirely made over.
The practice of landscape architecture has to recognize that
in the mind of this four year old, man has created nature.
40


When the trees died, new ones were brought on spades to replace them, brought by other men. This concept of mixed messages or different levels of communication, described in the preceding narrative, is often an obstacle to the development of a more positive relationship between nature and the practice of landscape architecture. The preceding narrative should be examined on the basis of its objective and implied landscape architectural messages.
Objective Landscape Architectural Message A place for people to interact with and enjoy nature. A celebration of natural and human systems interaction.
Implied Landscape Architectural Message
Mankind and his agents, Landscape Architects, are better at organizing natural systems then is normal ecological process. More specifically:
Stripping of existing vegetation and regrading site prior to construction.
Implied message: Indigenous plant material and landform
are not of value to human systems.
Importing plant material to replace native species.
Implied Message: Mankind is better at selecting plant
material than is ecological process.
Installation of an extremely limited variety of trees and shrubs.
41


Implied message: Interspecies association, as part of
natural process, is not important.
Installation of minimum 2" caliper trees.
Implied message: Process as an aspect of natural systems
interaction has no value.
Installation of irrigation system.
Implied message: Natural systems resource distribution is
not important, mankind has control of resource production and distribution.
Installation of Kentucky Bluegrass. Maintenance through
mowing and edging.
Implied message: Variety in nature is not important,
natural form has no value.
This prior discussion was based on the implied value statements about natural systems as expressed in landscape architectural environments.
The next issue of concern is a second series of implied value statements related to human and natural system interaction, as expressed in landscape architecture. Landscape architectural environments are primarily places for people to interact with other people not with nature. After a site has been totally manipulated through construction, implicitly and explicitly discouraged are any further manipulation and only the most tertiary appropriation of space is permitted. The implied message is that physical interaction with nature is not acceptable behavior. Landscape architects program activities in public space. These programs are very specific
42


and closed ended. The acceptable forms of interaction with nature have been very narrowly defined. Landscaped environments cannot be all things to all people and the activities, typically programmed, are all very healthy and productive. However, landscape architecture is missing an opportunity. Landscape architects consciously and by implication, orchestrate the interaction between human and natural systems. Landscape architecture has to assume the responsibility for the impact or product of that orchestration. By designing for a specific program they discourage, both physically and by implication an entire spectrum of interactive behaviors. Children interact with landscaped environments by imagining them to be something they are not or perhaps something they once were. The objective should be to create environments as rich and interesting as those imagined by children.
In an effort to develop this concept of prescriptive or implied interaction further another short narrative is offered as an example of the phenomenon.
The islands of Sonoran desert that were overlooked as land speculators leap-frogged their way further from the center of Tucson, provided fascinating stages upon which to live out the drama that is youth. These islands floated in the suburban fabric like emeralds on
43


a burlap sea. We built forts, we hid and sneaked and pounced, we listened and smelled and felt, we crawled and ran and fell and died a thousand glorious deaths, always with valor. We were as Frost described truly,
The Swinger of Birches. Interacting with that environment on every perceptual level including some ancient instinctual blueprint, refined a million times by a million experiences. We banded together forming raiding parties, cooperating for the collective survival as human beings have for tens of thousands of years. The soft pine survey stakes with the red tape flags looked out of place, they were so clean and foreboding. That desert is gone, covered with a pavement of bermuda grass, sparsely planted with trees and shrubs, with no variation in landform save for sheet drainage. What was once a rich and wonderful landscape is now truly a "desert," only green. We broke the newly planted trees to the ground expressing the outrage of violation. When the workmen came to replace them, they were not even angry. We stayed away for a long time, until we were old enough to have been socialized into the values of this type of landscape environment, and all bought cleats.
This is an example of landscape architectural expression as
an explicit statement of the acceptable forms of interaction
44


between human and natural systems. Landscape architects have defined a narrow window of acceptable interaction. The criteria for establishing what is and what is not acceptable interaction between human and natural systems expressed in landscape architectural environments need to be reviewed.
The costs associated with limiting this window of interaction also need more scrutiny. The implication is that intimate involvement with nature is wrong. That we should interact with nature in a closed ended, narrowly defined fashion. As Landscape architects we need to remember, as John and Ray Oldham point out in their book, Gardens in Time, "a sense of landscape is older than civilized man. Tens of thousands of years ago, when mankind had no architecture and no landscape architecture, through his sense of landscape, he claimed the architecture of nature as his own. Primitive hunters chose dramatic natural landscapes as the meeting places for religious and social ceremonies."
An interesting point related to this discussion of impact through implication, or different levels of messages, is that landscape architects consciously apply symbolism in design through metaphorical expression and allegorical statement repeatedly.
Is landscape architecture driving or responding to the deterioration in the relationship between human and natural
45


systems? Initially, landscape architecture was the expression of a conscious separation of human and natural systems. At some point mankind became satisfied with its level of disassociation from nature. As the practice continued the former artificial expression, past the point of satisfaction, it began driving the further separation of human and natural systems.
The practice of landscape architecture has been naive about its responsibility as a profession, to the combined health of human and natural systems. The practice interprets nature for the majority of Americans. Most of the people in this country understand nature through the eyes and imaginations of landscape architects. Landscape architects are the product of the same forces that have shaped the relationship between nature and mankind and consequently do not have the ability to see this relationship in its larger context. What insight the landscape architect has, what sensitivity he or she might have garnered, is not understood as expressed in design. The practice has to recognize its opportunity and accompanying responsibility for improving the ability of people to interact with nature in a satisfying manner. This practice not only shapes our physical environment through the expression of design, it also shapes attitudes and values about landscape and nature in general. Landscape architecture must ascribe to a higher level objective than simply the
46


artful expression of its own control. Landscape architects must recognize themselves as the architects of attitudes and behaviors.
47


SECTION TWO: PROCESS
Chapter Four - Fundamental Versus Artificial
Structures
"THEY HAD NO MORE STOMACH-TEARING LUST FOR A RICH ACRE AND A SHINING BLADE TO PLOW IT. AND ALL THEIR LOVE WAS THINNED WITH MONEY, AND ALL THEIR FIERCENESS DRIBBLED AWAY IN INTEREST UNTIL THEY WERE NO LONGER FARMERS AT ALL, BUT LITTLE SHOPKEEPERS OF CROPS."
JOHN STEINBECK


In Chapters One and Two the relationship between human and natural systems was discussed in the broadest terms. In Chapter Three the discussion was focused on the role that landscape architecture has played in that relationship. In the last chapter various messages that landscape architectural expression conveys were discussed. As part of that discussion implied messages inherent in landscape architecture were examined. More specifically, how landscape architecture celebrates natural and human systems interaction and simultaneously separates mankind from nature by expressing values implied in the manipulation of natural systems. The concept of fundamental versus artificial structure is central to this dual message.
Artificial structures require human activity to initiate and maintain. They are based in human systems. Fundamental structures are based in nature. For example, modern society organizes time predominantly on human constructs. When people eat, sleep and work are conscious decisions, and therefore, have an artificial human system basis. Humans have superceded the natural basis for behavior with artificially generated constructs. Individually, these artificial structures are learned behavior, conditioned as
Note: This discussion has borrowed heavily from the research
of Dr. John Davis, Ph.D., Metropolitan State College, Department of Psychology.
49


part of the socialization of the individual. The role of student, husband or American are artificial self concepts based on human structures. On the other hand, a hunter from the high mountains where the winters are long, would be using natural structures for se1f-definition . These fundamental or natural structures are not dependent on human activity or personal history. Examples of fundamental structures would be the phases of the moon, the rhythms of day and night, the patterns of the seasons and weather. It is important to remember that in modern society everything is defined, including nature, in artificial or human terms. For example, a stock broker with a M.B.A. (Denver University) and a B.S. (Colorado University) going to Rocky Mountain National Park in the Roosevelt National Forest, in Park County, in Colorado in the United States of America, is defined entirely in artificial human systems terms. Fundamental structures naturally engender more trust and confidence than do artificial structures. In the last 200 years the State of Colorado has been part of Spain, France, Mexico, Texas and the United States within which it has been part of the Utah, Missouri, New Mexico, Kansas and Nebraska territories. Artificial structures change frequently and consequently do not engender the confidence that natural or fundamental structures do.
50


In order to achieve peak experience as discussed in the previous chapter, the need to be more in touch with fundamental structures is important. The process of peak experience requires the transcendence from artificial to fundamental self-definition. This process of transcendence needs to begin with landscape architectura1 expression. This profession needs to define and express itself in more fundamental terms.
Transcendence from artificial to fundamental self-concept involves a process of disidentification . Artificial identity is dependent upon and maintained by ego structures.
Time, space, roles, behaviors and physiology serve to maintain ego structure, self-image and sense of personal identity. These structures, to be maintained, need routines of functioning and mirroring in the environment. Reduced support for these structures leads to a dissolving of personality structure, sense of identify and self-image.
This may be experienced as an expanded sense of self and less identification with previous self-images. This provides the opportunity to change or transcend the self-image. This disidentification from the personality structure self-image is "ego transcendence," the basis for peak experience.
51


Ego transcendence resulting in peak experience requires a shift in context from urban to wild. This process can also function entirely within the built environment by altering the mirroring function and reinforcement of landscape architectural expression. This disidentification process requires a change in the environment that is reinforcing artificial identity structure. Recognizing that landscape architectural expression is only a part of the environment reinforcing artificial identity structure, landscape architects cannot honestly hope to soften them to the point of peak experience as in wilderness environments. However, through modifying the landscape architectura1 component of the built environment, the degree of artificiality in the self-definition of modern Americans can be affected. Through modifying landscape architectural expression in the built environment personality structure, based on more fundamental self definition can improve the relationship between man and nature.
There are a number of different ways that landscape architecture art ificia 1izes natural systems in the built environment including stone, water and landform. Plant material was chosen as the subject of this analysis for several reasons. Plant material has the highest profile and largest potential for impacting the way people think and feel
52


about natural systems. Plant material as living organisms sets this practice apart from other applied design professions. In what way does landscape architecture promote or reinforce artificial and fundamental identity structure of plant material in design expression? What is the implied value statement about plant material and nature in general that landscape architecture is conveying.
Landscape architecture artificia 1 izes plant material functionally and ornamentally. Functionally, Landscape Architects use plant material interchangeably with other structural elements. For example, plant material is used in place of fencing and earth form, even though one element is living and the others are not. Common functional uses of plant material in design are noise barriers, visual screens, erosion control, overhead planes and vertical elements. Not only are living organisms used as functional elements, but are also thought of in that context. In the functional applications listed above, plant material is used to create positive space and by implication becomes a subservient element. As a visual screen, landscape architects use plant material to avoid viewing some objectional existing condition. The plant material itself is not valued. The fundamental structure of plant material is overlooked in this application. On the objective level landscape architecture is celebrating the beauty and miracle of nature through the
53


use of plant material in design and on the subjective or implied level that plant material is devalued by its artificial application. This artificial application of plants is not bad landscape architecture. There are many examples of this approach to design that provide beautiful and positive contributions to human experience. However, this type of expression erodes the relationship between human and natural systems through its implied values. Mistakenly designers believe there must be a functional application to legitimize the use of plant material in design. In this view, the function of plants is more important in design than is their value as living organisms. This design approach reinforces human separation from and domination over nature.
The second form of artificiality in the application of plant material in design is ornamental. French Renaissance gardening was offered earlier as the quintessential expression of this type of landscape architecture. This extreme manipulation of plant material was a conscious expression of mankind's separation from and rising above the natural world. That statement no longer reflects our relationship with nature, but its expression is still common in landscape architecture. The ornamental manipulation of plant material implies that man can create form that is superior to natures. Ornamental artificiality would require
54


plant material to have several identities in order to be included in design. The boxwoods real value lies in its ability to be shaped into other forms, not in its identity as a living organism. Its natural form is not valued.
Next the basis of fundamental identity structure for plant material must be established. It is important to understand how this fundamental structure is applied in design. The application of fundamental identity structures in designed environments begins to reinforce more fundamental selfdefinition and as a result healthier relationships between human and natural systems. Fundamental identity structure of plants is based on recognition of them as living organisms that exist as part of a system larger than ourselves, where value is defined in non-human terms.
People view plant material in both artificial and fundamental terms and further more, shift back and forth between these two perceptions instantaneously. When a leaf falls off a tree and lands on someone reading a book, the perception of that tree is instantly changed. It is no longer perceived as a windbreak or overhead plane but as a living organism that has life cycles responding to seasonal change. It would be healthier for both mankind and nature if people would spend more time defining themselves in fundamental terms,
55


developing a fundamental self-definition. Landscape architects should work to improve the opportunity for fundamental se1f-definition in the built environment.
There is some level of artificiality in all landscape architectural expression. The fact that plants have been cultivated or intentionally transplanted makes them artificial. Artificiality cannot be removed from landscape expression. The objective here is to establish an acceptable limit of manipulation and artificiality. Some limit beyond which further manipulation will serve to impair the relationship between human and natural systems. The point at which manipulation begins to define the environment in artificial or human systems terms promoting and reinforcing artificial se1f-definition, then becomes the operational definition for acceptable limit. Two people could simultaneously be perceiving the same plant material as both artificial and fundamental. If there were two people under a tree reading books and a leaf only fell on one, the other individual continues to define the tree in artificial human terms. The complexity of this issue is considerable.
The objective expression of design needs to be defined in fundamental terms. The implied value statement associated with that expression should reinforce the importance of fundamental definition and the population needs to be
56


educated as to the value of that definition as well, must be a consistency in the expression of landscape architecture in the built environment.
There
57


SECTION TWO: PROCESS
Chapter Five - The Continuity Of Identity
"ONCE IN A LIFETIME, PERHAPS, ONE ESCAPES THE ACTUAL CONFINES OF THE FLESH. ONCE IN A LIFETIME, IF ONE IS LUCKY, ONE SO MERGES WITH SUNLIGHT AND AIR AND RUNNING WATER THAT WHOLE EONS, THE EONS THAT MOUNTAINS AND DESERTS KNOW MIGHT PASS IN A SINGLE AFTERNOON. "
LOREN EISELEY


How far can the character of a design element be distorted without destroying the essence of its identity? This question could be asked of any design element manipulated in landscape architectural expression. Can plant material exist as both tree and topiary? Can water exist as both ice sculpture and natural element? Human perception is the basis for the identity of design elements. Intellectually humans have the ability to maintain separate identities for objects simultaneously. This ability provides the basis for symbolism, metaphor and allegory. This ability to distinguish simultaneously the multiple identities of design elements can be improved through exposure or familiarity.
How does multiple perception impact the quality of the expressed identity of design elements? Does a shared identity, in effect, create two lesser confused roles? A tree sculptured into the form of an animal is certainly not an animal but is it any longer a tree in the perceptual sense of identity? This is, of course, the most extreme case where the physical form of the plant is highly manipulated. A related form of manipulation which also results in the confusion of identities is when the plant material application is art ificia 1ized not its physical form. Is the identity of plant material devalued by using it for purposes and thinking of it in terms other than those fundamentally associated with that species?
59


The identity of an object is the product of perceptual consciousness related to prior conditioning. If a tree is thought of as a windbreak and used as a windbreak, is its identity devalued as a tree? If plants are thought of as topiary or noise barriers, can they continue to be treated as fundamental organisms? If plant material is used and perceived in an artificial role, can it still provide reinforcement for fundamental self-definition?
The ability of plant material to reinforce fundamental selfdefinition is severely impaired as a result of its artificial identity. People have the ability to alternate their perception of plant material between fundamental and artificial reinforcement. However, it is difficult and confusing to accept fundamental and artificial reinforcement from an element in the environment, at the same time.
The human consciousness has the ability to maintain multiple identities for objects as in metaphor, however, only one of those identities is recognized as real and that becomes the reinforcing identity. The behavior related to plant material is a consequence of what that organism is believed to be. If a tree is believed to be a windbreak or vertical element, why should it be treated as anything else? If actions are the product of attitudes, the manner in which plant material is treated is a product of what it is perceived to be. Is the
60


perceived identity of a design element, such as plant material, based more on its physical form or its intended use?
The first component of identity continuity is formal. This formal component has the most dramatic perceptual impact. Interaction with plant material is based, largely, on its application in the environment. Even though its form is fundamentally intact, it could be reinforcing artificial self definition through its application. Functional artificiality is more subtle in its impact than is ornamental artificiality. The degree to which our relationship with plant material is based on functional artificiality powerfully impacts the relationship between human and natural systems by reinforcing artificial self-definition. The relationship between mankind and nature has gradually been moving from fundamental to artificial self-definition.
Attitudes Related to Actions
Can new applications for plant material effectively erase prior identity and its corresponding reinforcement? Did the perception of water change when it was discovered to be composed of oxygen and hydrogen? Did the perception of water change from a shift in actions, or did the actions toward water shift as a consequence of changed perceptions? When primitive mankind first discovered the use and application of fire, attitudes toward plant material, understanding it to be
61


fuel, must have been profoundly impacted. The value of plant material must surely have been increased. On the other hand, when mankind discovered that plant material produced oxygen through photosynthesis, one would assume the value of plant material would once again, have greatly increased. This is not reflected in our actions. The implication is that attitudes have become the product of actions. A self contained behavior related inertia appears to be influencing this dynamic between actions and attitudes. If the logic is consistent, then the attitudes toward nature could be modified by changed actions.
The second component of identity continuity is associational . To fully understand an organism it is important to know how that organism is intra and inter species related. These inter relationships between living organisms lend definition to individual identity. A number of trees in the right quantity becomes a grove or wood or forest. These definitions are based on perceptions related to intra species association. Identities other than primary ones are based on some level of perceived interaction. Does the existence of secondary or tertiary identities in some way confuse or devalue the total identity continuity of an organism? In the built environment, multiple identities create confusion and devalue the primary identity of living organisms. Is a tree less a trees because it is part of a forest? How then can
62


the perceived identity of a tree be devalued because it is part of a windbreak or visual screen? Multiple identities, both individual and collective, can be maintained as long as primary, secondary and tertiary identities are all fundamental. Added identities or roles extend and fulfill the dimension of an organism. Plant material identity is only confused or devalued when artificial and fundamental identities are combined. The identity of a tree is only devalued when it is used and perceived as not reinforcing its fundamental role as a living organism, ie. windbreak, visual screen or noise barrier. If the multiple identities of a plant are all fundamental, its total identity would remain intact with no confusion or devaluation. As far as plant material is concerned, its primary identity is fundamental. Primary identity might be weakened considerably through different forms of manipulation, however, it remains fundamental. The addition of any artificial secondary or tertiary identities will then serve to confuse the total perceived identity of the plant material.
The third component of identity continuity is temporal. It is both interesting and sad how often people refer to dormant plant material as dead. Is this essentially ignorance or have people gotten a wrong or incomplete message from the professionals responsible for interpreting nature in the built environment? Death and dormancy do not look anything
63


alike. Landscape architects have decided to exclude a fundamental component of process, ie. death, necessary to the complete perception of plants as living organisms. How much can the process of regeneration be distorted before the identity of organisms such as plants is devalued. If a tree was raised from a seed, it must impact the perceived value of that planting. How do the processes of birth, growth and death affect the perceived value of plant identity? Value of identity is being used here to mean wholeness or completeness. Previously, the devaluation of plant material through the association of contradictory identities was discussed. The temporal component of identity continuity is based on identity devaluation not by contradiction but by exclusion. Modern landscape architectural expression has excluded these processes from its interpretation of nature in the built environment. In this case, nature is artificia-lized by reducing the window through which people interact with and understand plant material. People develop complex and powerful relationships to plant material when they are afforded the opportunity to distinguish a temporal component in their perception of that organism. The depth of this temporal relationship is a product of the degree to which human beings are exposed to change, both cyclical (seasonal) and linear (growth) in individual plant specimens.
64


As an illustration of this potential, the following short narrative is offered:
Collin and I brought back that oak tree from our trip to Kentucky to see my sister and her children in the summer of 1938. See that split in the bark on the left side of the trunk? That happened the spring my nephew was killed in the battle of Choson Reservoir. It has always been so perfectly symmetrical. On blustery days past the neutral shades of Fall, I can still hear Collin cussing that leaf rake.
Could there be a point of neutral reinforcement? A point at which the identity of plant material is evenly confused between artificial and fundamental reinforcement of selfdefinition? This might be a hypothetical possibility. However, if the objective is to improve the fundamental reinforcement potential of the built environment, neutral reinforcement becomes negative.
Continuity in any relationship is positive. In many ways continuity is the foundation upon which relationships are established. At what point does disruption of continuity begin to have a negative impact and at what point does disruption of continuity destroy a relationship? What are the limits of continuity in the relationship between natural and human systems?
65


By way of a review, three components of identity continuity in plant material have been presented.
1) The formal dimension of identity continuity involves the physical form of plant material. Natural form is fundamentally reinforcing. Highly manipulated form is artificially reinforcing. The formal dimension has the most direct impact on perception of identity.
This is the mechanism for the expression of ornamental artificiality in the built environment.
2) The associationa 1 component of identity continuity, involves the inter and intra species association of plant material. This interaction between plant material can be fundamentally reinforcing when it is represented and is artificially reinforcing when it is not. (This is often the product of functional artificiality but can be related to ornamental artificiality in the landscape.)
3) The temporal component of identity continuity, involves the process associated with plants as living organisms, birth, growth and death. Also, seasonal changes (cyclical in nature) and linear growth patterns. This component is fundamentally reinforcing when it is complete and is artificially reinforcing when it is not.
66


Figure 5.1 diagrammatica1ly represents the components of identity continuity that were developed in this chapter. Modern landscape architecture focuses most heavily on the formal aspect of plant identity. The associational and temporal components need to be represented in order to develop a complete understanding and respect for plant material as living organisms. This is the first step in shifting plant material in the built environment from artificial to fundamental reinforcement of self-definition.
Figure 5.2 represents the objective situation where all three components of identity continuity are represented in landscape architectural expression in the built environment. The representation of temporal and associational identity contributes a fundamental structure to the environment which reinforces fundamental se1f-definition. Without identity continuity, any application of plant material will be less fundamentally reinforcing.
In Figure 5.3 the current relationship between landscape architecture and plant material is described. Landscape architectural expression is primarily interested in the formal component of plant material. This narrow understanding of plant material reflects itself artificially in the built environment. Essentially the complete identity of plant material is not represented.
67


IDENTITY CONTINUITY CONCEPT
FIGURE - 5.1
Formal - Physical Appearance
Temporal - Life Processes
Associational - Inter Organism Relationships
68


IDEAL RELATIONSHIP:
FIGURE-5.2
Identity continuity embodied in landscape architectural expression.
69


CURRENT RELATIONSHIP^
FIGURE -5.3
The formal component of identity continuity is valued and understood considerably more than are the temporal or associational components.


Form becomes the controlling factor in applying plant material functionally and ornamentally. No death, no litter, no volunteers, sterilize the landscape. No "messy vitality."
71


SECTION THREE: RESEARCH Chapter Six - Research And Testing
Methodology
"FEW ADULTS CAN SEE NATURE. AT LEAST THEY HAVE A VERY SUPERFICIAL SEEING. THE SUN ILLUMINATES THE EYE OF THE MAN, BUT SHINES INTO THE EYE AND THE HEART OF THE CHILD."
RALPH WALDO EMERSON


By way of review, in Chapters 1 and 2, the relationship between mankind and nature was examined in the larger context. In Chapter 1 selected problems associated with this relationship throughout its historical development were identified. In Chapter 2 the predication of a healthy relationship between mankind and nature was established. Several models were developed describing the dynamic associated with our relationship to nature. The first model, Figure 2.2, described the personal or individual relationship with natural systems as expressed in private yards. The second model, Figure 2.3, described the collective relationship between human and natural systems or, as described earlier, market driven landscape architecture. The premise of these models was that private landscape architectural expression is more sensitive to natural systems than is collective or market driven landscape architecture. That is to say, private landscape architectural expression recognizes the fundamental structures of plant material more than does the public or collective form. In so doing, private landscape architectural expression is more fundamentally reinforcing than is its collective counterpart. In Chapter 3 we examined the role that landscape architecture has played in the deterioration of the relationship between human and natural systems. Introduced in Chapter 3 and developed further in Chapter 4 was the concept of fundamental versus artificial identity structures as the foundation of personal self-concept. During the course of that discussion, we
73


identified both a functional as well as an ornamental artificiality related to the application of plant material in landscape architectural expression. In Chapters 4 and 5, the mechanisms by which landscape architecture has impacted our relationship with the natural world were examined. The concept of mixed messages was reviewed. The difference between objective and implied levels of communication in landscape architectural expression were identified. In Chapter 5 the discussion was narrowed in an effort to isolate the role that plant material has played in this relationship. At this point identity continuity, the basis of a healthy perceptual relationship with plant material, was introduced. This concept of identity continuity recognizes three dimensions in the relationship between human and natural systems, all of which need to be represented for people to understand, appreciate and respect plant material. These elements need to be in place for plant material to be effective in the fundamental reinforcement of selfdefinition. The first dimension of plant material identity is formal. It constitutes the physical appearance of the organism. The second dimension of plant material identity is temporal. It consists of the life processes normally associated with the organism. The third dimension of plant material identity is associationa1. Its basis is the interaction of the organism with other species in the env i ronment.
74


The research portion of this thesis will be directed toward testing these concepts in an effort to understand how they influence the relationship between human and natural systems.
The first position we will be testing is: Have people been influenced to the point of adopting different values for private, as opposed to public, landscape architectural expression? More specifically, do people value fundamental structure for plant material more in private landscape architectural expression than they do in public or market driven landscape architectural expression? In public or market driven landscape architectural expression, is artificial identity structure for plant material valued more than is fundamental structure and, as a consequence, reinforcing artificial self-definition which then becomes a barrier to an improved and more satisfying relationship between human and natural systems?
A second related objective will be to test the basis of artificial identity structure for plant material in landscape architectural expression in both public and private space situations. Is artificial identity structure for plant material functional or ornamental in nature? Is there a distinction between the composition of artificial identity structure in private versus public or market driven landscape architectural expression?
75


A third objective of this research will be to ascertain to what degree identity continuity is a factor in the relationship between mankind and nature. What is the composition of fundamental identity structure? Which do people value most, the formal, temporal or associational component of fundamental identity structure for plant material? Have people been conditioned to appreciate one of the dimensions of identity continuity in plant material more than the others?
The following diagrammatic model represents graphically the relationship between the three value positions we are attempting to test in the research portion of this thesis.
The decision tree in Figure 6.1 identifies a value structure for decision making from which we can analyze the potential outcomes of the different test questions.
There are four potential outcomes for question one.
1) Public and private values for plant material are both fundamental. (Market driven landscape architecture is moving away from the public and nature.)
2) Public and private values for plant material are both artificial. (Market driven landscape architecture is moving the population away from nature.)
76


LANDSCAPE VALUES - DECISION MODEL
FIGURE -6.1
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LANDSCAPE VALUES


3) Public values for plant material are artificial, while private values for plant material are fundamental. (Market driven landscape architecture is moving away from the population and nature.)
4) Public values for plant material are fundamental, while private values for plant material are artificial.
Second question - Four potential outcomes.
1) Public values for plant material are functionally artificial.
2) Public values for plant material are ornamentally artificial.
3) Private values for plant material are functionally artificial.
4) Private values for plant material are ornamentally artificial.
Third question - Three potential outcomes.
1) Fundamental identity structure for plant material is based primarily on the formal component of identity continuity.
2) Fundamental identity structure for plant material is based primarily on the temporal component of identity cont i nu ity .
78


3) Fundamental identity structure for plant material is based primarily on the associational component of identity continuity.
The testing procedure for these questions consisted of mailing a questionnaire to residential homeowners in the metropolitan Denver area. This recipient list was generated from the customer data base of the B. D. Wilhelm Co., a full service green industry contractor in the Colorado Front Range area. Five hundred customers were selected from a data base of approximately 10,000 individuals. These people were selected based on response potential as identified by the existing service filing system in the Wilhelm company computer data base. Five hundred homeowners were selected to receive this questionnaire and, to date, approximately 150 responses have been returned representing a response rate of 29%. This high response rate can be attributed to the name recognition of the Wilhelm company letterhead and the degree of customer loyalty on the part of the Wilhelm company customer base. I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to Mr. Bob Conner, Vice President of Operations, and to Mr. Bruce Wilhelm, owner of the B. D. Wilhelm Co., for their respective contributions which have proved instrumental in the execution of this testing effort.
The questionnaires were organized as follows. The first page consisted of a cover letter introducing and explaining the
79


purpose and objective of this thesis effort. The remaining two pages of the questionnaire were divided into three sections. The first section consisted of a respondent profile. There were seven questions in this section.
Question number one was the age of the respondent. Information on the sex and addresses of the respondents was generated from the hard copy customer files printed, in addition to the mailing labels, prior to distribution of the survey. There were four items of information we wanted to glean from this respondent profile section. First: How developed was the respondents relationship with their own personal landscape? Questions number two and three were directed toward this end. Question number two asked: How many hours do you spend working in your yard per week during the summer months (excluding mowing)? Question number three asked: What percentage of the trees and shrubs in your yard
did you personally plant? The second characteristic of our respondent group that needed to be understood was the extent of their relationship with public or market driven landscape architectural expression. Questions four and five were directed at this issue. Question number four asked: How many hours per week during the summer months do you spend in a city park? Question number five asked: What percentage of the time you spend in city parks is devoted to active recreation? The previous two questions were directed at understanding the extent of the respondents exposure to the implied values of market driven landscape architectural
80


expression. The third characteristic of the respondent group that needed to be understood was the respondent's historical exposure to different types of landscape architectural expression. Question number six identified the level of conditioning the respondents had received from the values implied in different types of landscape architectural environments. Question number six asked: How many years have you lived on a farm, town under 10,000, suburban metropolitan area or urban center? The fourth characteristic of the respondent group that needed to be understood was the extent to which they had developed a relationship with natural or wild landscapes. Questions number seven was directed at ascertaining this respondent characteristic. Question number seven asked: How many days per year do you spend in natural or wild landscapes hiking, camping or fishing? With this information, an average profile of the respondents was compiled. This will provide a sense of how important these different types of experience and different forms of exposure are to the development of values related to the expression of nature in the built environment. For example, is the amount of time the respondents have lived on a farm more instrumental in developing fundamental identity structure for plant material than is the twenty-five days they spend per year in natural or wild landscapes. The primary objective of Section One is to determine what people's current values are in relation to the use of plant material in the built environment and what those values are based on.
81


In the second section of this Questionnaire, the respondent's current values relative to plant material in the built environment were scrutinized. The questions one through twelve in this section of the questionnaire were designed to evaluate the values of respondents related to all three of the testing objectives set forth in the earlier pages of this chapter. Those testing objectives being: Do people have different values for plant material in public as opposed to private landscape architectural expression and is one more artificial than the other? Is the basis of artificial identity structure of plant material in landscape architectural expression functionally or ornamentally reinforced? How much is the identity continuity of plant material a factor in the relationship between human and natural systems? What component of identity continuity related to plant material do the respondents value most? Is the basis of their fundamental relationship to plant material formal, temporal or associational in character?
Before beginning the evaluation of the individual questions in this second section of the questionnaire, the concept of operational definition or trigger needs to be developed.
This second section of the questionnaire has been divided into two parts, A and B. Part A consists of the questions one through twelve. Part B is composed of the remaining questions, thirteen, fourteen and fifteen. In Part A the operational triggers for each question will be indentified.
82


The questions in Part B are much more open-ended and, consequently, will require a more detailed operational definition in order to interpret. The respondents answers will be classified as either ornamentally or functionally artificial, or formally, temporally or associationa 1 ly fundamental.
Operational Triggers
In Part A there were four operational triggers for each statement, one through twelve. The first trigger identifies whether the statement is related to public or private landscape architectural expression. The second operational trigger identifies whether the statement is advocating a fundamental or artificial application for plant material.
The third operational trigger identifies whether the advocated plant material application is functionally or ornamentally artificial. The fourth operational trigger identifies whether the advocated plant material application is formally, temporally or associationally fundamental.
These statements and their individual value decision path are listed below. See Figure 6.1.
1) Plants in city parks should have good fall color.
(This statement is public/fundamenta1/tempora1.)
2) Plants in private yards should have colorful spring flowers .
(This statement is private/fundamenta1/tempora1 . )
83


3) Plants in city parks should provide areas of natural or wild landscape.
(This statement is public/fundamental/formal.)
4) Plants in private yards should provide good windbreaks.
(This statement is private/artificia 1/ functional.)
5) Plants in private yards should attract wildlife.
(This statement is private/fundamenta1/associationa1.)
6) Newly installed trees in city parts should be at least fifteen feet tall.
(This statement is pub 1ic/artificia 1/functiona1.)
7) Plants in city parks should provide visual screening. (This statement is public/artificial/functional .)
8) Plants in private yards should be tightly pruned.
(This statement is private/fundamental/formal.)
9) Plants in city parks should have interesting winter form.
(This statement is public/fundamental/formal.)
10) Plants in private yards should be native to this area. (This statement is private/fundamenta1/associationa1.)
11) City parks should include areas of formal gardens. (This statement is pub 1 ic/artificia 1/ornamenta1.)
12) Plants in private yards should provide erosion contro1.
(This statement is private/artificial/functional.)
84


In reviewing these statements you will notice that the distribution of triggers is such that six are public and six are private, six are artificial and six are fundamental. Of the six artificial, three are functionally and three are ornamentally oriented and of the six fundamental, two are formal, two are temporal and two are associational . This uniformity in the distributions of triggers was necessary in order to achieve equal weighing in the respondents' reactions. This is critical in evaluating one choice over another as implying a statement of value relative to plant material. Another dimension of value was incorporated in Part A of Section Two, that being the opportunity to designate a level or degree in the responses to individual questions. The respondents had the option of designating each statement as always, often, seldom, rarely and never important in landscaped environments. The dimension of degree in questions one through twelve provides the opportunity to score these responses individually, where always is scored as four points, often is scored as three points, seldom is scored as two points, rarely is scored as one point and never is scored as zero points. In the interpretation of this data, the overall response to each of the questions will be evaluated.
In the evaluation of questions thirteen, fourteen and fifteen in Part B of Section Two, the operational definitions had to
85


be much more highly developed in order to deal with the variation in responses typical of open-ended questions. Of primary interest was whether the responses were identifying an artificial or fundamental identity structure for plant material as being more important.
Operational Definitions
Earlier the operational definition of artificial identity structure was described as, depending on human activity to initiate and maintain which, in turn, reinforces anthropocentric humanism as a basis for artificial selfdefinition. The operational definition for fundamental identity structure which was offered earlier, consisted of first recognizing plant material as living organisms that exist as part of a system larger than ourselves where their value is defined in non-human terms, all of which provide the opportunity to reinforce a fundamental se 1 f-definition.
Next, operational definitions for functional and ornamental artificiality had to be developed. The operational definition for functional artificiality is when the function of the plant material is viewed as more important than the plant itself. The operational definition of ornamental artificiality is when the man-made form of the planting is viewed as more valuable than the natural form. The operational definitions for formally, temporally or associationally fundamental follow. Formally fundamental is
86


when the value of the physical appearance of the plant material is the basis for its fundamental identity structure. Temporally fundamental is when the value of the life processes associated with the plant material are the basis for its fundamental identity structure. Associationa 1 ly fundamental is when the value of the relationship between species is the basis for a fundamental identity structure. Armed with these operational definitions, the operational trigger in the individual responses that denotes a specific implied value about plant material can be identified. For example, question thirteen asks: What is the most important piece of plant material in your yard and why? If the respondent answered, the dogwood shrubs along the back fence because of the privacy they offer, this statement could be identified as describing a functionally artificial identity structure for plant material. If question fourteen which asks: What is your favorite season in the landscape, winter,
spring, summer or fall and why?, was responded to by saying spring because of the new flowers which attract birds, this statement could then be interpreted as representing a value statement associated with a temporally and associationa1ly fundamental identity structure of plant material. If a respondent answered question number fifteen which asks: What planting in your yard are you most fond of and why?, by saying the weeping birch because of its down-facing branches, this could then be interpreted as a value statement
87


related to a formally fundamental identity structure for plant material. In scoring Part B of Section Two, each question will be evaluated on an overall response basis. The lack of degree in the questions comprising Part B of Section Two resulted in each question being allotted one point apiece.
Section Three presents a very different challenge. The operational definitions developed to this point deal with values expressed about plant material offered in word form.
In Section Three the respondents have been asked to express those same values about the use of plant material in landscape architectural expression in a diagrammatic format. Consequently, another set of operational definitions had to be developed which will allow this diagrammatic format to be interpreted. In Section Three the respondents were asked to complete two exercises requiring the arrangement of plant material, both trees and shrubs, in two hypothetical settings, one representing public and the other private space situations. The challenge was to interpret the placement of this plant material as expressing either artificial or fundamental identity structure. This arrangement of plant material had to be interpreted as being artificial or fundamental based on the relationship of the plant material placement to the elements existing in each hypothetical site, as well as the relationship of one placement to another. The
88


operational definition for artificiality then becomes plant material placed in response to architecture, pavement or property lines or according to some human system based rationale such as symmetry or grids is expressing an artificial identity structure. Plant material placed in response to natural features, such as ponds or open turf areas, is expressing a fundamental identity structure. The next step in this research effort will be to catalogue and interpret this data.
Before beginning the analysis and manipulation of this reformatted data, the composition of the sample needs to be reviewed so as not to mislead the reader by implication. It is first of all important to understand that this sample is not random in the statistical sense of the word which is to say, this sample is not representative of the population at large. There are several characteristics of this sample that need to be understood in order to interpret this data. These respondents were first of all customers of a green industry contractor specializing in plant care services for single family homeowners. The high response rate to the questionnaire indicated a sensitivity and awareness of landscape and plant material that is certainly not shared by the population at large. The respondents are all homeowners in the middle to upper middle income bracket. These people have the time and money to engage in landscape and
89


residential plant material expression that the population for the most part does not. The average age of the sample is slightly higher than the general population. In general, this sample is segregated from the population as a whole by virtue of being older, predominately male, upper middle income property owners who purchase plant care services from a green industry contractor. The non-representative character of this sample will indeed bias the results. However, it should not invalidate them. The three original testing objectives need to be reviewed in relation to the non-representative character of this sample to determine how the conclusions should be modified to maintain their integrity. The first testing objective was to determine if people have been influenced to the point of adopting different values for private, as opposed to public, landscape architectural expression. A second objective was to determine what the character of identity structure was for plant material in landscape architectura1 expression. Is it fundamental or artificial? The third testing objective was to determine what part identity continuity played in the relationship between human and natural systems. This data can be used to develop conclusions about all three of these testing objectives. It is important to be careful drawing absolute conclusions about the population as a whole from this sample. What can be done is to postulate how other segments of the population might value plant material
90


expression based on their potential differences from this samp 1e.
Landscape architecture is not a pure science. Great landscape architectural expression requires the perfect admixture of artistic and scientific creativity. Any design that is skewed too heavily in the direction of either artistic or scientific endeavor, at the expense of the other, is the product of a professional imbalance. In physical design, art and science are not mutually exclusive. The absolute quantities of either do not guarantee great design. The relationship between artistic and scientific creativity in landscape architecture is complimentary. When these two elements are in proper proportion to one another, landscape architectural expression has the best opportunity to be truly outstanding.
In light of this, the following research will be presented and interpreted on both a scientific and intuitive level.
The objective is to achieve a balance through the compliment of research and intuition.
91


SECTION THREE: RESEARCH Chapter Seven - Presentation Of Data
"HE HAD GONE HIS OWN WAY, FOLLOWING HIS OWN DREAM; AND NOW THAT DREAM HAD TURNED TO THE LAND TO LAND OF HIS OWN IN A NEW COUNTRY. HE WANTED TO OWN HIMSELF, BE HIS OWN BOSS, WORK OUT HIS OWN DESTINY."
HAL BORLAND


Questionnaire Section #1
Respondent Profile, Data Presentation Question #1 - Age of respondent
The distribution of the respondent's ages falls generally into what would represent a normal bell-shaped distribution for ages of the adult population. The mean average age of the respondents was 53 years. The model average age of the respondents at 45 years was considerably less than was the mean average response age. This variation in averages was a result of the skewed nature of this distribution. See Figure
7.1.
Question #2 - How many days do you spend working in your yard per week during the summer months (excluding mowing)?
The mean average respondent spent 4.95 hours per week working in the yard during the summer months. This distribution is skewed toward the lower end of the scale with the most frequent response representing 43% of our sample occurring in the 0-3 hour per week category. The modal average response for question number two was 1.5 hours per week. See Figure
7.2.
Question #3 - What percentage of the trees and shrubs in your yard did you personally plant?
The mean average percent of plant material personally installed by the respondents in their respective yards was
93


QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION
1
FIGURE-7.1
Question -1
Sample Size-144
Mean Average-53 Years Modal Average-45 Years
Distribution Of Responses:
94


Full Text

PAGE 1

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE And The Environmental Definition Of Self

PAGE 2

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE And: The Environmental Definition Of Self

PAGE 3

The undersigned accept this thesis as fulfilling the requirements of: The Master of Landscape Architecture Landscape Architecture and Urban Design Program School of Architecture and Planning University of Colorado at Denver Jim Heid, Chairman Harry Garnham, Member John Dav1s, Member Glen Morris, Member Respectfully Submitted by: Michael E. Holweger M.L.A. Candidate Spring, 1988 ,.,... , I

PAGE 4

INTRODUCTION SECTION CONTEXT Chapter 1 Chapter 2 -TABLE OF CONTENTS The Cost of Cant ro 1 .................... . A Basis for Interactive Health ......... . Page 1 3 SECTION TWO PROCESS Chapter 3 Landscape Architecture the Expres-sion of Cant ro 1 ........................ . Chapter 4 Fundamental Versus Artificial Structures ........................... . Chapter 5 -The Continuity of Identity ............. . 33 48 58 SECTION THREE RESEARCH Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 APPENDIX Research and Testing Methodology........ 72 Presentation of Oat a.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Comparative Evaluation and Intuitive Analysis...................... 130 Data Converstion Tables For: Quest i ann a ire Section One..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Questionnaire Section Two-A............................ 160 Quest i ann a ire Section Two-B...................... . . . . . . 168 Quest i ann a ire Section Three................... . . . . . . . . . 1 7 5 Sample Survey.......................................... 186 Se 1 ected Bib 1 i og ra phy.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

PAGE 5

INTRODUCTION The objective of this thesis is to improve the relationship between the American public and the dimension of experience associated with understanding and interacting with natural systems. The practice of landscape architecture has grown to fill voids in American society by providing services and assuming roles as needs developed. In this thesis the assumption of yet another role for the practice of landscape architecture is advocated, that of pro-active educator by example and implication. Landscape architecture needs to take the initiative in defining its role, in shaping the future landscape and directing the future values of this country. The first step in defining an improved future for this profession is to understand the ethical basis for interaction between human and natural systems. Ethics being essentially the science of moral values, ideals, and standards, has a limited basis for application related to human and natural systems interaction. The concepts of moral, ideal and professional related to nature are unclear in American society as they are in the practice of landscape architecture. Without the benefit of pre-defined morals and actions related to nature, one is forced to look inward for the formulation of these concepts. Using as reference one's personal library of cumulative experience, one's personal dialogue with nature.

PAGE 6

What are the origins of this dialogue, what is its current status and where is its future? What is the basis for a positive or healthy dialogue/relationship? What components are essential? What role has landscape architecture played in the development of this dialogue/relationship? What opportunities and strategies can be identified for the improvement of this dialogue? How can landscape architecture improve its relationship with nature and provide the direction necessary for the American public to do the same?

PAGE 7

SECTION ONE: CONTEXT Chapter One The Cost Of Control "THE SPANIARDS, 11 CORTEZ REPLIED, "SUFFER FROM A DISEASE OF THE HEART FOR WHICH GOLD IS THE ONLY REMEDY.11

PAGE 8

For a variety of reasons the majority of Twentieth Century Americans are losing the ability to interact with nature in a satisfying manner. The postindustrial life style enjoyed in this country has methodically cut Americans off from meaningful interaction with nature. The following short narrative is offered as an example. Father grew up a dry land farmer on the eastern border of Montana. The new park construction across the street stirred in him warm and romantic memories. As he pulled himself from his car in the driveway, he would stop and gaze into the evening sun at the silhouettes of workmen almost languid from fatigue and in his gut he once again longed to be tired. Saddle tired, combine tired, thresher tired, the satisfied tired he was at days end when he moved stiffly through the twilight of Montana. After dinner he and I would walk the park construction across the street slowly and deliberately. He would stop and look often at nothing, at the memories of himself in youth in touch with the land. I could never see as far as he and in my life I never would. 2

PAGE 9

Recent technological advancements have provided the opportunity to manifest the negative conditioning toward nature that Americans have been subjected to throughout the history of this country. The body of this negative conditioning toward nature is contained in two philosophical positions. 1) People have, by conditioning, been taught to fear and dislike nature. This point is put forth succinctly in Barry Holstun Lopez's book, Of Wolves and Men, where he states, "So in the wolf we have not so much an animal that we have always known, as one that we have consistently imagined. To the human imagination the wolf has proved at various times the appropriate symbol for greed or savagery, the exactly proper guise for the devil, or fitting as a patron for warrior clans." This position has historically equated nature and natural systems with the most base and depraved aspects of human character. The evil that relentlessly flawed the human spirit was projected onto nature, which then became the object of our own self hatred. 2) The second position contributing to the erosion of the relationship between American society and nature, has conditioned Americans not to respect or value natural 3

PAGE 10

systems. The most concise iteration of this position can be found in Genesis 28, 11And God blessed them and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.11 The implication of this conditioning, which has been more pervasive than any other in the history of this country, has seriously undermined our relationship to nature. The indoctrination of the majority of Americans into these two philosophical positions set the stage for the erosion of the relationship between American society and nature. The remaining essential element in this erosion process was technology which provided the protection and control necessary for physical separation. Once technology provided the opportunity for physical separation from nature and natural systems, the population was pre-conditioned philosophically to exercise that opportunity. Observers would be obligated to ask, how can our relationship with nature be characterized as deteriorating when we are experiencing a tremendous surge in the popularity of back country sports, such as camping, backpacking, rock climbing and white water rafting? At issue is the quality of experience related to natural systems interaction. These new 4

PAGE 11

adventure sports are a symbolic reconquering of the natural world. Now that nature has been subdued we are, figuratively speaking, returning with one arm tied behind our back. This new adversarial mind set is a manifestation of the process of indoctrination discussed earlier. This dimension of erosion is galvanized by S. M. Barrett in the introduction to Geronimo His Own Story, where he states, "It was a clash between a culture that had a fear of nature until it could subdue it and a contempt for it once it had been subdued and cultures that thought of themselves as participating with the natural world in the huge cycle of life." Figure 1.1 represents the progressive reduction in the amount of time that American consciousness is occupied with the relationship between mankind and nature. In pretechnological societies, survival was dependent on the level of understanding that people had of their natural environment. Through the advancement of technology our survival has become dependent on other skills. People no longer needed to understand their surroundings in order to insure their survival. Each generation established new rules in the development of survival skills, hence, Americans no longer needed to pass on, from one generatiun to the next, a collective history. Progressively Americans divorced themselves from their natural surroundings. Past the point 5

PAGE 12

High Low MAN'S CONSCIOUS RELATIONSHIP TO NATURE Pre Technological Society TIME 6 FIGURE -1.1 PRIOR CONDITIONING AND EXPOSURE TO BUILT ENVIRONMENT .VALUES l ----Post Technological Society

PAGE 13

of safety and control, the population continued to remove itself from nature in response to the conditioning discussed earlier. How could the relationship to nature continue to deteriorate past the point where the population devoted no conscious energy to their natural environment? The response to this question takes two forms. Even though Twentieth Century Americans are not required to devote any conscious energy to natural systems, they are constantly bombarded by subconscious implication about nature as it is expressed in the built environment. The interaction of human and natural systems in the built environment has considerable implication for the development of values about nature within the general public. The second response to this question is based on the conditioning discussed earlier. How could someone who has never been in a natural environment hate that experience? The conclusion is that mechanisms conditioning negative attitudes about nature are still very much in place and have absolutely no basis or foundation in the experience of nature itself. The fact that people could learn to hate something without experiencing it, is an example of this conditioning. However, one would have to conclude that conditioning could then also teach people to appreciate nature without experiencing it, or experiencing it on a very limited basis. As Americans have reduced the danger to their 7

PAGE 14

personal safety through the progressive advancement in technology, they have lost the accompanying respect for the environment. It is important to distinguish the difference between a perceived or conditioned fear of nature and the real danger and corresponding respect that the environment demanded historically. The increase in adventure sport is an expression of this loss. As Roderick Nash points out in his essay, Wilderness To Be Or Not To Be, 11The character of the American individual was shaped by their natural environment and the challenges that were incorporated in that successful interaction ... Americans are looking for new and different ways to define their character through contrived interaction with their environment. This new relationship to nature is still adversarial in essence. As long as people approach their interaction with nature from this adversarial mind set, there is little opportunity for developing the potential of nature as a new and meaningful dimension of human experience. In Figure 1.2 the erosion of the relationship to nature is interpreted through the amount of time that people spend in back country or natural environments. Throughout history, people have worked to control the natural systems that have impacted them. People have worked to develop a built environment that is safe and consistent. As cultures spent less time in natural environments they progressively lost the 8

PAGE 15

High Low MAN'S PHYSICIAL RELATIONSHIP TO NATURE SEPARATION THROUGH CONTROL ' Pre Technological Society 100% BUILT ENVIRONMENT EXPERIENCE PHILOSOPHICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONING TIME 9 FIGURE1.2 RECOGNITION OF NATURE AS A PLAYGROUND ffffffflii ADVERSARIAL MIND SET REDEFINED Post Technological Society

PAGE 16

collective understanding that pre-technological peoples depended on for their survival. Once Americans were able to spend 100% of their time in the built environment, the curve flattens out. One would assume that the relationship to nature would be stable during this period, however, in response to prior conditioning, the relationship continued to deteriorate, as it does to this day. This deterioration is now additionally based on the way people interact with nature in the built environment. This diagram recognizes the recent increase in interaction between natural and human systems as a rediscovery of nature as a playground. Our relationship continues to deteriorate, even though aggregate exposure is increased, as a consequence of the following important fact. The natural systems that surrounded pre-technological cultures not only provided for their survival, they provided the basis for their spirituality. Their pantheisms were based on natural phenomenon. This rediscovery of natural systems, resulting from the increased popularity in back country adventure sport, is uni-dimensional. There is no component of humility or respect. The experience is consumed by itself. To borrow from Nash once again, "It's a macho thing. It's really _not the wilderness but the person that is valued. The "peak bagger" is in this category, so is the miles per day freak. A related species is the equipment nut for whom the 1 0

PAGE 17

quality of his backpack or sleeping bag is more important than the place in which he uses them.11 The previous discussion has been offered as a brief generalization of a highly complex relationship. The purpose of this exercise is to develop a perspective, or context, from which to better understand the dynamics associated with the modern relationship between American society and the natural world. By the way of review, the physical interaction between Americans and nature has been progressively reduced. With this reduction in interaction, the relationship between the population and nature was also progressively impaired. The relationship between the population and nature has deteriorated in both breadth (quantity) and depth (quality). The relationship to nature continues to deteriorate, past the point of zero interaction, in response to the incomplete or inaccurate interpretation of nature in the built environment and the process of conditioning a negative mind set into the population about nature and natural systems experience. Once again the informed observer would be obliged to ask: So what, who cares, isn1t this, to coin a phrase, 11Like arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?11 1 1

PAGE 18

Americans have become so removed from the natural systems component of existence they feel no real sense of loss. People cannot be expected to miss or value something they have never known. Why, then, is this so important when so many have no sense of loss associated with the deterioration in their relationship to nature? The position of this thesis is confirmed and consistently reinforced by the degree to which life is enriched every day by the understanding of and interaction with the natural world. We must work to improve an existence devoid of this essential dimension of experience. The practice of landscape architecture has a significant opportunity and considerable accompanying responsibility, to design environments that develop and reinforce positive attitudes about nature and natural systems and to reeducate people as to the value of this lost dimension of experience. The next step in this thesis must be to establish the basis of a positive relationship with nature. What are the linkages between nature in wild and built environments? 12

PAGE 19

SECTION, ONE: CONTEXT Chapter Two A Basis For Interactive Health 11THE WOODS AND FIELDS HE RAVAGES AND THE GAME HE DEVASTATES WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCE AND SIGNATURE OF HIS CRIME AND GUILT, AND PUNISHMENT.11 WILLIAM FAULKNER

PAGE 20

The previous discussion focused its attention on the erosion of the relationship between American society and nature. It now becomes necessary to establish the basis for a positive dialogue between human and natural systems. What is the basis for an improved relationship between American society and nature? The answer is more complex than simply the adoption of an earlier set of values and lifestyles. The challenge is to develop a new criteria for establishing an improved dialogue between American society and the natural world. This relationship is dynamic in character. The circumstances surrounding prior relationships to nature have changed both from a human, as well as a natural systems standpoint. It is a disservice, by oversimplification, to advocate that Americans live like, think like or worship like their ancestors. These attempts would certainly be frustrated by the difficulties encountered in trying to maintain a previous world view in a changed culture and changed environment. To define what the basis of this positive relationship with nature should be it is important to recognize that as the relationship to nature continues to change, the formula for its improvement will also change. This is not a static analysis. The dynamic surrounding this interaction is characterized as follows: Natural systems are changed through human impact, human attitudes toward those systems are in turn affected, which is manifested through altered 14

PAGE 21

behaviors and actions which then further impacts natural systems. See Figure 2.1. It is important to recognize that this dialogue is both personal, as well as collective. On a personal level, individuals maintain relationships with nature and express them in their own yards. This expression contributes feedback to the individual, which results in either modified or reinforced actions toward nature. See Figure 2.2. On a collective level, institutions both private and public make assumptions about individual or personal attitudes toward natural systems and then express them through design professionals who, in turn, impact individual or personal relationships with nature through exposure to the built environment. See Figure 2.3. Another aspect of this relationship that needs to be understood are its objective and implied influences. See Figure 2.4. At issue here is the degree to which people are impacted by the values implied in public expression of the collective relationship between human and natural systems. To understand this relationship it becomes necessary to define what its ideal form would consist of. Is it intellectual, is it emotional, is it a matter of balance? In spite of the complexity associated with this relationship, there are fundamental building blocks that are constant and 1 5

PAGE 22

HUMAN AND NATURAL SYSTEMS INTERACTION DYNAMIC WHICH RESULTS IN MODIFIED BEHAVIOR WHICH IN TURN FURTHER IMPACTS NATURAL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES RESULT IN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ALTERED CHARACTER CHANGES ATTITUDES AND VALUES TOWARD NATURAL SYSTEMS 16 FIGURE2 . 1 WHICH CHANGES THE CHARACTER OF NATURAL SYSTEMS

PAGE 23

HUMAN AND NATURAL SYSTEMS INDIVIDUAL RELATIONSHIP INDIVIDUAL YARD DESIGN PROVIDING FEEDBACK FOR THE INDIVIDUAL VALUES CLEARLY EXPRESSED ABOUT THE 17 FIGURE -2.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMAN AND NATURAL SYSTEMS FORMALIZED THROUGH

PAGE 24

HUMAN AND NATURAL SYSTEMS COLLECTIVE RELATIONSHIP INFLUENCES PUBLIC VALUES THROUGH REPEATED EXPOSURE INSTITUTIONS MAKE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL VALUES EXPRE ED AS MANIFESTED IN DESIGNS AND ORDINANCES WHICH 18 FIGURE -2.3 DIRECTIVES TO THE PRACTICE WHO INTERPRET NATURE WHICH IS

PAGE 25

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COLLECTIVE AND INDIVIDUAL EXPRESSION RESULTING IN DE FACTO ACCEPTANCE OF COLLECTIVE EXPRESSION BY INDIVIDUALS ARE INFLUENCED BY IMPLICATION THROUGH EXPOSURE TO PERCEIVED EXPERTISE AND OPTIONAL INTERACTION 19 FIGURE2.4 COLLECTIVE DESIGN IN PUBLIC SPACE BASED ON

PAGE 26

upon which a strategy for its improvement can be developed. Before defining the ideal relationship to nature it is important to understand how nature has influenced American society For the development of this discussion I have borrowed liberally from Nash1s essay. Initially, one needs to recognize the degree to which nature has been the basis for the development of American culture. The natural systems that define the American environment have long ignited the creative genius of American writers, painters and song writers. The list of American writers who have been inspired by nature is considerable. From James Fenimore Cooper, to Edward Abby and Barry Holstun Lopez, the American author has been deeply moved by nature. It would have been difficult to write during the development of this country without being inspired by its landscape. In this literary example it is often the relationship between Americans and nature that provided the fabric upon which so much of this great American literature was woven. Painters such as Thomas Cole, Fredrick Church, Albert Bierstadt and Thomas Moran were all moved by nature and the natural systems that make up our American landscape. Songs such as 11America the Beautiful11 and 11Home on the Range11 are further examples where nature has inspired American art, not to mention entire styles of music born from regional landscapes. 20

PAGE 27

Nature has also functioned throughout the history of this country to forge the American character. The Frontier, the American West, the Rocky Mountains, every physiographic province in this country has developed its own archetype character, such as the Mountain Man, the Cajun, the Lumberjack, the Cowboy, the River Boat Captain. One must keep in mind that these archetypes were established during the course of a relationship with the natural world that was essentially exploitive and adversarial. It was the domination and control of that natural environment that gave these individuals their identity and self worth. What is the new archetype of our relationship to nature? Is it the backpacker, the rock climber? Contemporary society needs a new, more positive archetype, one developed out of a changed and improved relationship with the natural world. Nature has functioned as a source of meaning and tranquility in American lives. Interaction with nature produced a sense of harmony, a level of acceptance of ones self as part of the natural systems around them. Here nature shows people their place in systems that transcend themselves and consequently develops a sense of respect for those systems. The product of this type of interaction is often a feeling of humility. A healthy relationship between human and natural systems develops a sense of environmental responsibility. This sense 2 1

PAGE 28

of responsibility is based on the rediscovery of natural. processes and the appreciation of our dependency upon them. This gives Americans the opportunity to perceive their vulnerability. Erosion of the relationship between American society and nature has only been in the perceptual sense. Americans are still as dependent on nature and natural systems for their survival as they were during the Stone Age. However, they have managed to remove themselves several steps from direct interaction with nature and consequently have lost sight of their relationship to it. This is an erosion of understanding, not an erosion of dependence. This is a self-professed and fallacious emancipation. None the less, it is accepted, believed and expressed by the majority of Americans. The future of this type of false emancipation has grave implications. This underscores the importance of improving the level of understanding Americans have toward their natural support systems. Mankind is a member and not master of the biotic community. Four different contributions that nature has made to the development of American society have been identified. 1) The basis of American culture-literature, music and painting. 2) The foundation of American Character. (Archetypes enumerated.) 3) Providing meaning and tranquility. 22

PAGE 29

4) Developing a sense of environmental responsibility. The first two contributions of nature to American society: 1) The basis of our culture and 2) the foundation of our character have been replaced by modern archetypes generated from other inspiration. For example, rock stars, sports figures and the automobile. It is not in the scope of this investigation to determine if these new archetypes and inspiration are as rich or viable as those provided by our natural surroundings. Let it suffice to say, that the archetypes and inspiration produced by nature have been supplanted by more anthropocentric expression. The second two contributions of nature to American society: 1) providing a source of meaning and tranquility, and 2) the development of a sense of environmental responsibility, have been eroded but not effectively replaced, leaving a void in human experience. The manifestations of this void appear in many forms in American society. These behaviors are synthetic gratification, a response to the failure of American society to replace the meaningful dimension of experience associated with nature. If this analysis is accepted what then is its implication to the improvement of the relationship between nature and American society? First of all it reinforces the importance of this meaningful dimension of experience to the well being of the American public. It is encouraging, and in a small way reassuring, that Americans 23

PAGE 30

have not found a viable substitute for a healthy relationship with nature. This seems to authenticate the need for an improved relationship. This need for a healthy and satisfying relationship to nature is unique enough to have resisted its usurption in the face of relentless effort on the part of the American people. Therefore, it is not necessary to displace some form of successful substitution in order to reintroduce this dimension of experience. Figure 2.1 illustrates the dynamic character of the relationship between nature and American society. This process involves the change of natural systems through human impact, human attitudes toward those systems are in turn affected, which is manifested through altered behaviors and actions which result in additional impacts. As additional technological advances are injected into this feedback loop a progression of impacts moving in the direction of artificial expression is generated. This progression is the basis for the erosion in the relationship between American society and nature. Over time humanity is responding less to natural systems and progressively more to their impact on those system essentially responding more to themselves. To change this cycle people must respond to the original character remaining in manipulated natural systems. 24

PAGE 31

Figure 2.2 represents the character of the relationship between individual Americans and their personal landscapes. In this model the values of individuals related to natural systems are most clearly and accurately reflected. This is the tightest feedback loop of all the models developed in this thesis, providing either immediate reinforcement or immediate impetus for change. In this model people have the highest level of control over the natural systems involved. What then is the basis for the development of these individual values? Do these individual values reflect the relationship between natural and human systems detailed in Figure 2.1 or are they reflecting, to some degree, the collective values produced in the model depicted in Figure 2.3, and if so, to what degree and by what mechanism? Figure 2.3 represents graphically the collective relationship between natural and human systems in American society. This model raises a number of interesting questions. How accurate are perceptions of public needs and values by institutions? How does this model factor in the progressive and dynamic character of the relationship between natural and human systems described in Figure 2.1. If the perceptions of public values by institutions are inaccurate it would begin moving this feedback loop in a direction different from the personal landscape relationship. There would, in effect, be 25

PAGE 32

a split between the collective and the private relationship to nature in American society. As a consequence, the practice of landscape architecture in public space would not reflect the values and attitudes of the American individual. In Figure 2.4 the collective relationship to nature is impacting individual values toward natural systems. If the collective relationship, through inaccurate assumptions, has been moving in a direction different from individual relationships to nature, to what degree is that collective relationship pulling individual values along with it. Are individuals adopting values and expressing them in the built environment without knowing why? Once the collective relationship has established normative expression through consistency, then deviation assumes a negative identity. Americans are adopting values not because they are right or good for either human or natural systems but because of pressure to conform. Scientific Versus Experiential Understanding As Einstein observed in Out of My Later Years,11 a commonly held dictum of Twentieth Century Western culture is that belief should be replaced by knowledge.11 Einstein further emphasized .that 11SCience being the knowledge of what is, does not show us what should be. Science without spirituality is lame, spirituality without science is blind.11 This 26

PAGE 33

observation delineates the basic distinction between descriptive and prescriptive modeling. The difference between what is and what should be. To interpret Einstein's observation would be to conclude that ideally there should be a balance between the spiritual/experiential and intellectual/scientific aspects of our relationship to nature. During the history of Western culture, nature has been enthusiastically pursued as the basis for scientific development while being discounted as the basis for spiritual experience. Michael Talbot in his book, Mysticism and the New Physics offers another perspective on the scientific and spiritual aspects of American's relationship to nature, where he writes, "Most importantly, the new physics is offering us a scientific basis for religion. This is something new in the history of Western civilization." There are essentially two approaches to an improved understanding of the natural world, direct perceptual experience and indirect scientific abstraction. Pre-technological societies, through direct perceptual experience, knew where to find the constellation Orion in the evening sky, what time it would come up, what time of the year it could be seen and what its appearance indicated in terms of the timing of other natural systems. People today, through indirect scientific abstraction, tell us how far Orion is from our solar system, what gases make up its major stars, how hot those stars are, how old they are and how large they are. 27

PAGE 34

Is the scientific understanding of nature enough, it is fulfilling the needs of humanity? Does scientific understanding garner the respect and appreciation for natural systems necessary to developing a perspective of humility, the basis of a healthy relationship between human and natural systems? Indeed, it may have that potential. However, there are limitations in a purely scientific relationship to nature. First would be the requirement for extreme intellectual abstraction which not all people have. Through scientific understanding there is a loss of mystery which reduces respect for the organism or system being studied. To lose interest after understanding and move on to larger challenges devalues systems already investigated. The complete relationship is a balance between these two types of understanding, scientific and experiential. Does mystery loss reduce appreciation and extinguish humility? Does mystery and discovery provide enchantment, the missing element in our relationship with the natural world? Emerson, in his essay Nature, points out "we need to ascribe to a reality higher than the physical." Pure science, though inadequate in explaining the miraculous character of natural phenomenon, encourages human separation from nature by abstracting it. Science requires the observer to step outside of nature to study it without bias. Emotional involvement will devalue the scientific accuracy of the investigation. The cost of scientific understanding is a 28

PAGE 35

reduced dimension of spiritual involvement with the natural world. A complete relationship with the constellation Orion requires experiencing its winter march across the southern sky. Experiential understanding has more ,potential for improving the relationship between man and nature. However, the combination of scientific knowledge and direct perceptual experience holds the greatest opportunity for improving this relationship. Peak Experience The process of disidentification associated with peak experience, is the essential element in developing a richer spiritual relationship to nature. Wuthrow (1978) defined three examples of peak experience. 1) 11The feeling of being in close contact with something holy or sacred ... 2) .. Experiencing the beauty of nature in a deeply moving way ... 3) 11Feeling in harmony with the universe ... Greely (1974), and others, surveyed people using this question: 11With what frequency have you felt as though you were very close to a powerful, spiritual force that seemed to live outside yourself?11 29

PAGE 36

Davis (unpublished) describes peak experience as triggered by: 1) physical accomplishment, 2) athletic achievement, 3) deep relaxation. Peak experience is primarily emotional, an unusually touching experience of connectedness to another person or to the world. It may be brought on by intellectual understanding and deep insight or it may be a spiritual experience of being close to something holy or sacred. A peak experience has some, but usually not all, of the following characteristics: 1) Very strong or deep emotions. 2) Feeling in tune, in harmony or at one with the universe. 3) Altered perceptions of time and/or space. 4) A feeling of deeper knowing or profound understanding. 5) A greater awareness of beauty. 6) 11The feeling of being close to a powerful force that seemed to lift you outside of your body ... The following list of studies emphasize the importance of nature to peak experience. 1) Wuthrow (1978): Eighty-two percent of the general population have .. experienced the beauty of nature in 30

PAGE 37

a deeply moving way. Forty-nine percent felt this has a lasting influence.11 2) Greely (1974): Fifty percent of a large sample said 11beauties of nature11 had led to an intense spiritual experience. 3) Keutzer (1978): Fifty percent of a large sample of students said 11beauties of nature11 and other outdoor experiences had led to 11an intense spiritual experience.11 (Note: this was the most frequent trigger.) 4) Davis (Unpublished): When asked to describe peak experience, fifty percent of students made reference to outdoors, nature. The research related to peak experience discussed above, points out the potential of nature to complete and fulfill human experience. What has been described above is essentially accidental. The objective should be to consciously develop that potential. Ideally people could begin to understand their relationship to nature in a progressively larger context to the point of (ultimate significance), a matter of understanding the total integral nature of the relationship between human and natural systems. Ideally defined as a continual state of peak experience, consciously developed and understood. The focus of this thesis now begins to narrow, addressing the role that 31

PAGE 38

landscape architecture has played in the relationship between human and natural systems. 32

PAGE 39

SECTION TWO: PROCESS Chapter Three Landscape Architecture, The Expression Of Control 11THERE IS MUCH CONFUSION BETWEEN LAND AND COUNTRY. LAND IS THE PLACE WHERE CORN, GULLIES AND MORTGAGES GROW. COUNTRY IS THE PERSONALITY OF LAND THE COLLECTIVE HARMONY OF ITS SOIL, LIFE AND WEATHER.11 ALDO LEAPOLD

PAGE 40

In the second section of this thesis the focus will narrow to the practice of landscape architecture and how that practice has impacted the relationship between American society and nature. It is important to establish a clear understanding of what landscape architecture is and how it functions in this society. To begin, several definitions of landscape architecture typical of those ascribed to in the practice are offered. The American Society of Landscape Architects has rendered this typically institutional definition of the practice, 11the art of design planning, or management of the land, arrangement of natural and man made elements thereon, through application of cultural and scientific knowledge, with concern for resource conservation and stewardship, to the end that the resultant environment serves useful and enjoyable purpose.111 Norman Booth describes landscape architecture as, 11dealing with integrating people and the outdoor environment in a manner beneficial to both.112 Norman Booth, Basic Elements of Landscape Architectural Design, (Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc.) 1935. 2 Ibid. 34

PAGE 41

Norman Newton describes landscape architecture as, 11the art, or science, if preferred, of arranging land together with the spaces and objects upon it for safe, efficient, healthful, pleasant human use.113 John Simonds contributes the concept of harmony where he writes, 11It would seem to follow as a guiding principal that to preserve or create a pleasing site character, all the various elements or parts must be brought into harmony. Harmony further being described as the best possible fit, blending with the landscape.114 The writings described above represent not definitions but narrowly defined aspirations. These writings are not reflecting what the practice is doing and what practitioners are motivated by, they must be interpreted as aspirations, personal and institutional. As aspirations, they are incomplete in not including as an objective the improvement of the relationship between human and natural systems. All of these definitions have, in some form, iterated a concern for nature with the use of words such as harmony and stewardship. This interest in the quality of nature is essentially anthropocentric. Ecological design, the most 3 Norman Newton, Design on the Land, (Library of Congress Catalogue Card No. 70-134955) 1971. 4 John Simonds, Landscape Architecture. (McGraw-Hill Book Company) 19 1. 35

PAGE 42

natural systems oriented approach to landscape architecture, is based on the realization that the destruction of nature will eventually impair human progress. This concern is for human beings and human systems, not for nature. As long as professional aspirations as were discussed previously are based on an anthropocentric world view, this practice will never achieve its potential for improving the relationship between mankind and nature. If the definitions offered above are indeed aspirations, then what is landscape architecture? Landscape architecture has many functions in American society. Historically its role has been human expression for human consumption. This type of landscape architecture was born out of mankind's ability to manipulate and control the environment. It was a conscious expression of human separation from nature. A celebration of mankind's victory over the natural world, a glorification of the victor through the manipulation of the vanquished. The quintessential expression of this form of landscape architecture is French Renaissance gardening. While the initial motivation for this formal expression of landscape architecture was control and domination of nature, those values today are no longer consciously espoused but continue to be implied in this form of built environment expression. This formal expression devalues nature through manipulation 36

PAGE 43

by artificializing natural systems. Although this type of expression has made a considerable contribution to the richness and qua lity of human experience, we should not be deceived about its adverse impact on our relationship to nature. There are different levels of harmony in the practice of landscape architecture. When John Simonds describes harmony as 11the best fit,11 it is important to understand what the criteria are for that evaluation. Does the best fit minimize energy costs by taking advantage of micro climates? Does the best fit reduce drainage impact? The practice of landscape architecture is aspiring to an institutional harmony based on anthropocentric criteria. Landscape architecture should aspire to an organistic harmony , shifting the basis of successful design away from satisfying institutional needs toward satisfying the needs of individuals. Landscape architecture idealizes nature through the celebration of formal expression which in turn devalues natural systems through manipulation. Rarely has it functioned to improve the relationship with nature on anything but the superficial formalistic level. There are innumerable examples of successful landscape architectural expression. However, the criteria identifying successful landscape architecture were developed in response to a deteriorating relationship with nature and through interpretation and expression have 37

PAGE 44

accelerated that deterioration. Historically, formalism was an antithetical expression to wild and uncontrolled nature. Those objective values have been highly diluted, although the implied value system is still intact. The implied message remains, mankind is in control of and separated from nature. In a different sense, the practice of rear guard landscape architecture implies that what is good for the institution is good for the individual. Rear guard landscape architecture is effectively the integration of people and the outdoor environment in a way which is least damaging to both. It is important to understand the cost associated with change and understand who, in the final analysis, will bear those costs. A more balanced distribution of costs would reduce individual subsidization of institutional improvement. The question becomes, the best fit for who? Landscape ordinances are the legislation or codification of values. These ordinances essentially legislate the negative value of natural environments by requiring their replacement and rigidifying the manipulation of replacement material. Landscape ordinances are in effect, an adjudicated expression of the quantification of nature. These ordinances are based on a dollar per square foot basis, as is the majority of landscape architectural expression. They limit the type, 38

PAGE 45

size and usually the distribution of plant material in designed environments. Landscape ordinances are of particular interest because they explicitly legislate, codify and regulate the negative value of natural environments and require human system manipulation of nature. Landscape ordinances have a reactive not pro-active basis. They are damage control or rear guard landscape architecture. These ordinances address what must be done, not what should be done. Nowhere do these ordinances say stop. What they say is, if you build then you are obligated to manipulate. There is no ethical basis for landscape legislation which is in turn representative of the practice as a whole. As Leapold points out, the basis for ethics is a conscious selfimposed limitation on action.S The designers of the American landscape should ask: At what cost beauty? Landscape architects need to understand what the role and accompanying responsibilities of the profession are. If creating beauty is the 11hippocratic oath11 of landscape architecture, the associated costs need to be addressed. One of those costs is the deterioration in the relationship between American society and the natural world. The concept of mixed messages in landscape architecture needs further elaboration. The following narrative of an imaginary 5 Also Leapold, A Sand County Almanac, (Oxford University Press) 1966. 39

PAGE 46

park construction is offered to illustrate the point. The activity of the construction crews was fully a magnet fixed in his imagination. The roar of the machinery, its mass and power had hypnotized his four year old consciousness. The workmen were so quick and determined and the machinery so large it riveted his interest. The change was startling, complete and rapid. Each morning he leapt from bed the moment the vibration invaded his dreamy world. Racing to the kitchen, he looked out the window to see how much the field across the street had changed since his last assessment. The workmen were in such control. The earth was stripped and bladed, the hard pan glistening in the sun. The trenchers and backhoes opened deep cuts in the earth where the soil had a dank and ancient odor. The trees and shrubs were delivered on huge trucks that threw oddly shaped pieces of mud into the air as they came and went. Trees were slipped into holes left by the hydraulic teeth of mechanical spades. The sod was delivered, rolled out and in an instant the field became a park. The landscape of this four year old was entirely made over. The practice of landscape architecture has to recognize that in the mind of this four year old, man has created nature. 40

PAGE 47

When the trees died, new ones. were brought on spades to replace them , brought by other men. This concept of mixed messages or different levels of communication, described in the preceding narrative, is often an obstacle to the development of a more positive relationship between nature and the practice of landscape architecture. The preceding narrative should be examined on the basis of its objective and implied landscape architectural messages. Objective Landscape Architectural Message A place for people to interact with and enjoy nature. A celebration of natural and human systems interaction. Implied Landscape Architectural Message Mankind and his agents, Landscape Architects, are better at organizing natural systems then is normal ecological process. More specifically: Stripping of existing vegetation and regrading site prior to construction. Implied message: Indigenous plant material and landform are not of value to human systems. Importing plant material to replace native species. Implied Message: Mankind is better at selecting plant material than is ecological process. Installation of an extremely limited variety of trees and shrubs. 41

PAGE 48

Implied message: Interspecies association, as part of natural process, is not important. Installation of minimum 211 caliper trees. Implied message: Process as an aspect of natural systems interaction has no value. Installation of irrigation system. Implied message: Natural systems resource distribution is not important, mankind has control of resource production and distribution. Installation of Kentucky Bluegrass. Maintenance through mowing and edging. Implied message: Variety in nature is not important, natural form has no value. This prior discussion. was based on the implied value statements about natural systems as expressed in landscape architectural environments. The next issue of concern is a second series of implied value statements related to human and natural system interaction, as expressed in landscape architecture. Landscape architec-tural environments are primarily places for people to inter-act with other people not with nature. After a site has been totally manipulated through construction, implicitly and explicitly discouraged are any further manipulation and only the most tertiary appropriation of space is permitted. The implied message is that physical interaction with nature is not acceptable behavior. Landscape architects program activities in public space. These programs are very specific 42

PAGE 49

and closed ended. The acceptable forms of interaction with nature have been very narrowly defined. Landscaped environments cannot be all things to all people and the activities, typically programmed, are all very healthy and productive. opportunity. However, landscape architecture is missing an Landscape architects consciously and by implication, orchestrate the interaction between human and natural systems. Landscape architecture has to assume the responsibility for the impact or product of that orchestration. By designing for a specific program they discourage, both physically and by implication an entire spectrum of interactive behaviors. Children interact with landscaped environments by imagining them to be something they are not or perhaps something they once were. The objective should be to create environments as rich and interesting as those imagined by children. In an effort to develop this concept of prescriptive or implied interaction further another short narrative is offered as an example of the phenomenon. The islands of Sonoran desert that were overlooked as land speculators leap-frogged their way further from the center of Tucson, provided fascinating stages upon which to live out the drama that is youth. These islands floated in the suburban fabric like emeralds on 43

PAGE 50

a burlap sea. We built forts, we hid and sneaked and pounced, we listened and smelled and felt, we crawled and ran and fell and died a thousand glorious deaths, always with valor. We were as Frost described truly, The Swinger of Birches. Interacting with that environment on every perceptual level including some ancient instinctual blueprint, refined a million times by a million experiences. We banded together forming raiding parties, cooperating for the collective survival as human beings have for tens of thousands of years. The soft pine survey stakes with the red tape flags looked out of place, they were so clean and foreboding. That desert is gone, covered with a pavement of bermuda grass, sparsely planted with trees and shrubs, with no variation in landform save for sheet drainage. What was once a rich and wonderful landscape is now truly a 11desert,11 only green. We broke the newly planted trees to the ground expressing the outrage of violation. When the workmen came to replace them, they were not even angry. We stayed away for a long time, until we were old enough to have been socialized into the values of this type of landscape environment, and all bought cleats. This is an example of landscape architectural expression as an explicit statement of the acceptable forms of interaction 44

PAGE 51

between human and natural systems. Landscape architects have defined a narrow window of acceptable interaction. The criteria for establishing what is and what is not acceptable interaction between human and natural systems expressed in landscape architectural environments need to be reviewed. The costs associated with limiting this window of interaction also need more scrutiny. The implication is that intimate involvement with nature is wrong. That we should interact with nature in a closed ended, narrowly defined fashion. As Landscape architects we need to remember, as John and Ray Oldham point out in their book, Gardens in Time, 11a sense of landscape is older than civilized man. Tens of thousands of years ago, when mankind had no architecture and no landscape architecture, through his sense of landscape, he claimed the architecture of nature as his own. Primitive hunters chose dramatic natural landscapes as the meeting places for religious and social ceremonies.11 An interesting point related to this discussion of impact through implication, or different levels of messages, is that landscape architects consciously apply symbolism in design through metaphorical expression and allegorical statement repeatedly. Is landscape architecture driving or responding to the deterioration in the relationship between human and natural 45

PAGE 52

systems? Initially, landscape architecture was the expression of a conscious separation of human and natural systems. At some point mankind became satisfied with its level of disassociation from nature. As the practice continued the former artificial expression, past the point of satisfaction, it began driving the further separation of human and natural systems. The practice of landscape architecture has been naive about its responsibility as a profession, to the combined health of human and natural systems. for the majority of Americans. The practice interprets nature Most of the people in this country understand nature through the eyes and imaginations of landscape architects. Landscape architects are the product of the same forces that have shaped the relationship between nature and mankind and consequently do not have the ability to see this relationship in its larger context. What insight the landscape architect has, what sensitivity he or she might have garnered, is not understood as expressed in design. The practice has to recognize its opportunity and accompanying responsibility for improving the ability of people to interact with nature in a satisfying manner. This practice not only shapes our physical environment through the expression of design, it also shapes attitudes and values about landscape and nature in general. Landscape architecture must ascribe to a higher level objective than simply the 46

PAGE 53

artful expression of its own control. Landscape architects must recognize themselves as the architects of attitudes and behaviors. 47

PAGE 54

SECTION TWO: PROCESS Chapter Four Fundamental Versus Artificial Structures "THEY HAD NO MORE STOMACH-TEARING LUST FOR A RICH ACRE AND A SHINING BLADE TO PLOW IT. AND ALL THEIR LOVE WAS THINNED WITH MONEY, AND ALL THEIR FIERCENESS DRIBBLED AWAY IN INTEREST UNTIL THEY WERE NO LONGER FARMERS AT ALL, BUT LITTLE SHOPKEEPERS OF CROPS." JOHN STEINBECK

PAGE 55

In Chapters One and Two the relationship between human and natural systems was discussed in the broadest terms. In Chapter Three t h e discussion was focused on the role that landscape architecture has played in that relationship. In the last chapter various messages that landscape architectural expression conveys were discussed. As part of that discussion implied messages inherent in landscape architecture were examined. More specifically, how landscape architecture celebrates natural and human systems interaction and simultaneously separates mankind from nature by expressing values implied in the manipulation of natural systems. The concept of fundamental versus artificial structure is central to this dual message. Artificial structures require human activity to initiate and maintain. They are based in human systems. Fundamental structures are based in nature. For example, modern society organizes time predominantly on human constructs. When people eat, sleep and work are conscious decisions, and therefore, have an artificial human system basis. Humans have superceded the natural basis for behavior with artificially generated constructs. Individually, these artificial structures are learned behavior, conditioned as Note: This discussion has borrowed heavily from the research of Dr. John Davis, Ph.D. , Metropolitan State College, Department of Psychology. 49

PAGE 56

part of the socialization of the individual. The role of student, husband or American are artificial self concepts based on human structures. On the other hand, a hunter from the high mountains where the winters are long, would be using natural structures for self-definition. These fundamental or natural structures are not dependent on human activity or personal history. Examples of fundamental structures would be the phases of the moon, the rhythms of day and night, the patterns of the seasons and weather. It is important to remember that in modern society everything is defined, including nature, in artificial or human terms. For example, a stock broker with a M.B.A. (Denver University) and a B.S. (Colorado University) going to Rocky Mountain National Park in the Roosevelt National Forest, in Park County, in Colorado in the United States of America, is defined entirely in artificial human systems terms. Fundamental structures naturally engender more trust and confidence than do artificial structures. In the last 200 years the State of Colorado has been part of Spain, France, Mexico, Texas and the United States within which it has been part of the Utah, Missouri, New Mexico, Kansas and Nebraska territories. Artificial structures change frequently and consequently do not engender the confidence that natural or fundamental structurei do. 50

PAGE 57

In order to achieve peak experience as discussed in the previous chapter, the need to be more in touch with fundamental structures is important. The process of peak experience requires the transcendence from artificial to fundamental self-definition. This process of transcendence needs to begin with landscape architectural expression. This profession needs to define and express itself in more fundamental terms. Transcendence from artificial to fundamental self-concept involves a process of disidentification. Artificial identity is dependent upon and maintained by ego structures. Time, space, roles, behaviors and physiology serve to maintain ego structure, self-image and sense of personal identity. These structures, to be maintained, need routines of functioning and mirroring in the environment. Reduced support for these structures leads to a dissolving of personality structure, sense of identify and self-image. This may be experienced as an expanded sense of self and less identification with previous self-images. This provides the opportunity to change or transcend the self-image. This disidentification from the personality structure self-image is "ego transcendence," the basis for peak experience. 51

PAGE 58

Ego transcendence resulting in peak experience requires a shift in context from urban to wild. This process can also function entirely within the built environment by altering the mirroring function and reinforcement of landscape architectural expression. This disidentification process requires a change in the environment that is reinforcing artificial identity structure. Recognizing that landscape architectural expression is only a part of the environment reinforcing artificial identity structure, landscape architects cannot honestly hope to soften them to the point of peak experience as in wilderness environments. However, through modifying the landscape architectural component of the built environment, the degree of artificiality in the self-definition of modern Americans can be affected. Through modifying landscape architectural expression in the built environment personality structure, based on more fundamental self definition can improve the relationship between man and nature. There are a number of different ways that landscape architecture artificializes natural systems in the built environment including stone, water and landform. Plant material was chosen as the subject of this analysis for several reasons. Plant material has the highest profile and largest potential for impacting the way people think and feel 52

PAGE 59

about natural systems. Plant material as living organisms sets this practice apart from other applied design professions. In what way does landscape architecture promote or reinforce artificial and fundamental identity structure of plant material in design expression? What is the implied value statement about plant material and nature in general that landscape architecture is conveying. Landscape architecture artificializes plant material functionally and ornamentally. Functionally, Landscape Architects use plant material interchangeably with other structural elements. For example, plant material is used in place of fencing and earth form, even though one element is living and the others are not. Common functional uses of plant material in design are noise barriers, visual screens, erosion control, overhead planes and vertical elements. Not only are living organisms used as functional elements, but are also thought of in that context. In the functional applications listed above, plant material is used to create positive space and by implication becomes a subservient element. As a visual screen, landscape architects use plant material to avoid viewing some objectional existing condition. The plant material itself is not valued. The fundamental structure of plant material is overlooked in this application. On the objective level landscape architecture is celebrating the beauty and miracle of nature through the 53

PAGE 60

use of plant material in design and on the subjective or implied level that plant material is devalued by its artificial application. This artificial application of plants is not bad landscape architecture. There are many examples of this approach to design that provide beautiful and positive contributions to human experience. However, this type of expression erodes the relationship between human and natural systems through its implied values. Mistakenly designers believe there must be a functional application to legitimize the use of plant material in design. In this view, the function of plants is more important in design than is their value as living organisms. This design approach reinforces human separation from and domination over nature. The second form of artificiality in the application of plant material in design is ornamental. French Renaissance gardening was offered earlier as the quintessential expression of this type of landscape architecture. This extreme manipulation of plant material was a conscious expression of mankind1s separation from and rising above the natural world. That statement no longer reflects our relationship with nature, but its expression is still common in landscape architecture. The ornamental manipulation of plant material implies that man can create form that is superior to natures. Ornamental artificiality would require 54

PAGE 61

plant material to have several identities in order to be included in design. The boxwoods real value lies in its ability to be shaped into other forms, not in its identity as a living organism. Its natural form is not valued. Next the basis of fundamental identity structure for plant material must be established. It is important to understand how this fundamental structure is applied in design. The application of fundamental identity structures in designed environments begins to reinforce more fundamental selfdefinition and as a result healthier relationships between human and natural systems. Fundamental identity structure of plants is based on recognition of them as living organisms that exist as part of a system larger than ourselves, where value is defined in non-human terms. People view plant material in both artificial and fundamental terms and further more, shift back and forth between these two perceptions instantaneously. When a leaf falls off a tree and lands on someone reading a book, the perception of that tree is instantly changed. It is no longer perceived as a windbreak or overhead plane but as a living organism that has life cycles responding to seasonal It would be healthier for both mankind and nature if people would spend more time defining themselves in fundamental terms, 55

PAGE 62

developing a fundamental self-definition. Landscape architects should work to improve the opportunity for fundamental self-definition in the built environment. There is some level of artificiality in all landscape architectural expression. The fact that plants have been cultivated or intentionally transplanted makes them artificial. Artificiality cannot be removed from landscape expression. The objective here is to establish an acceptable limit of manipulation and artificiality. Some limit beyond which further manipulation will serve to impair the relationship between human and natural systems. The point at which manipulation begins to define the environment in artificial or human systems terms promoting and reinforcing artificial self-definition, then becomes the operational definition for acceptable limit. Two people could simultaneously be perceiving the same plant material as both artificial and fundamental. If there were two people under a tree reading books and a leaf only fell on one, the other individual continues to define the tree in artificial human terms. The complexity of this issue is considerable. The objective expression of design needs to be defined in fundamental terms. The implied value statement associated with that expression should reinforce the importance of fundamental definition and the population needs to be 56

PAGE 63

educated as to the value of that definition as well. There must be a consistency in the expression of landscape architecture in the built environment. 57

PAGE 64

SECTION TWO: PROCESS Chapter Five The Qontinuity Of Identity 110NCE IN A LIFETIME, PERHAPS, ONE ESCAPES THE ACTUAL CONFINES OF THE FLESH. ONCE IN A LIFETIME, IF ONE IS LUCKY, ONE SO MERGES WITH SUNLIGHT AND AIR AND RUNNING WATER THAT WHOLE EONS, THE EONS THAT MOUNTAINS AND DESERTS KNOW MIGHT PASS IN A SINGLE AFTERNOON.11 LOREN EISELEY

PAGE 65

How far can the character of a design element be distorted without destroying the essence of its identity? This question could be asked of any design element manipulated in landscape architectural expression. Can plant material exist as both tree and topiary? Can water exist as both ice sculpture and natural element? Human perception is the basis for the identity of design elements. Intellectually humans have the ability to maintain separate identities for objects simultaneously. This ability provides the basis for symbolism, metaphor and allegory. This ability to distinguish simultaneously the multiple identities of design elements can be improved through exposure or familiarity. How does multiple perception impact the quality of the expressed identity of design elements? Does a shared identity, in effect, create two lesser confused roles? A tree sculptured into the form of an animal is certainly not an animal but is it any longer a tree in the perceptual sense of identity? This is, of course, the most extreme case where the physical form of the plant is highly manipulated. A related form of manipulation which also results in the confusion of identities is when the plant material application is artificialized not its physical form. Is the identity of plant material devalued by using it for purposes and thinking of it in terms other than those fundamentally associated with that species? 59

PAGE 66

The identity of an object is the product of perceptual consciousness related to prior conditioning. If a tree is thought of as a windbreak and used as a windbreak, is its identity devalued as a tree? If plants are thought of as topiary or noise barriers, can they continue to be treated as fundamental organisms? If plant material is used and perceived in an artificial role, can it still provide reinforcement for fundamental self-definition? The ability of plant material to reinforce fundamental selfdefinition is severely impaired as a result of its artificial identity. People have the ability to alternate their perception of plant material between fundamental and artificial reinforcement. However, it is difficult and confusing to accept fundamental and artificial reinforcement from an element in the environment, at the same time. The human consciousness has the ability to maintain multiple identities for objects as in metaphor, however, only one of those identities is recognized as real and that becomes the reinforcing identity. The behavior related to plant material is a consequence of what that organism is believed to be. If a tree is believed to be a windbreak or vertical element, why should it be treated as anything else? If actions are the product of attitudes, the manner in which plant material is treated is a product of what it is perceived to be. Is the 60

PAGE 67

perceived identity of a design element, such as plant material, based more on its physical form or its intended use? The first component of identity continuity is formal. This formal component has the most dramatic perceptual impact. Interaction with plant material is based, largely, on its application in the environment. Even though its form is fundamentally intact, it could be reinforcing artificial self definition through its application. Functional artificiality is more subtle in its impact than is ornamental artificiality. The degree to which our relationship with plant material is based on functional artificiality powerfully impacts the relationship between human and natural systems by reinforcing artificial self-definition. The relationship between mankind and nature has gradually been moving from fundamental to artificial self-definition. Attitudes Related to Actions Can new applications for plant material effectively erase prior identity and its corresponding reinforcement? Did the perception of water change when it was discovered to be composed of oxygen and hydrogen? Did the perception of water change from a shift in or did the actions toward water shift as a consequence of changed perceptions? When primitive mankind first discovered the use and application of fire, attitudes toward plant material, understanding it to be 6 1

PAGE 68

fuel, must have been profoundly impacted. The value of plant material must surely have been increased. On the other hand, when mankind discovered that plant material produced oxygen through photosynthesis, one would assume the value of plant material would once again, have greatly increased. This is not reflected in our actions. The implication is that attitudes have become the product of actions. A self contained behavior related inertia appears to be influencing this dynamic between actions and attitudes. If the logic is consistent, then the attitudes toward nature could be modified by changed actions. The second component of identity continuity is associational. To fully understand an organism it is important to know how that organism is intra and inter species related. These inter relationships between living organisms lend definition to individual identity. A number of trees in the right quantity becomes a grove or wood or forest. These definitions are based on perceptions related to intra species association. Identities other than primary ones are based on some level of perceived interaction. Does the existence of secondary or tertiary identities in some way confuse or devalue the total identity continuity of an organism? In the built environment, multiple identities create confusion and devalue the primary identity of living organisms. Is a tree less a trees because it is part of a forest? How then can 62

PAGE 69

the perceived identity of a tree be devalued because it is part of a windbreak or visual screen? Multiple identities, both individual and collective, can be maintained as long as primary, secondary and tertiary identities are all fundamental. Added identities or roles extend and fulfill the dimension of an organism. Plant material identity is only confused or devalued when artificial and fundamental identities are combined. The identity of a tree is only devalued when it is used and perceived as not reinforcing its fundamental role as a living organism, ie. windbreak, visual screen or noise barrier. If the multiple identities of a plant are all fundamental, its total identity would remain intact with no confusion or devaluation. As far as plant material is concerned, its primary identity is fundamental. Primary identity might be weakened considerably through different forms of manipulation, however, it remains fundamental. The addition of any artificial secondary or tertiary identities will then serve to confuse the total perceived identity of the plant material. The third component of identity continuity is temporal. It is both interesting and sad how often people refer to dormant plant material as dead. Is this essentially ignorance or have people gotten a wrong or incomplete message from the professionals responsible for interpreting nature in the built environment? Death and dormancy do not look anything 63

PAGE 70

alike. Landscape architects have decided to exclude a fundamental component of process, ie. death, necessary to the complete perception of plants as living organisms. How much can the process of regeneration be distorted before the identity of organisms such as plants is devalued. If a tree was raised from a seed, it must impact the perceived value of that planting. How do the processes of birth, growth and death affect the perceived value of plant identity? Value of identity is being used here to mean wholeness or completeness. Previously, the devaluation of plant material through the association of contradictory identities was discussed. The temporal component of identity continuity is based on identity devaluation not by contradiction but by exclusion. Modern landscape architectural expression has excluded these processes from its interpretation of nature in the built environment. In this case, nature is artificialized by reducing the window through which people interact with and understand plant material. People develop complex and powerful relationships to plant material when they are afforded the opportunity to distinguish a temporal component in their perception of that organism. The depth of this temporal relationship is a product of the degree to which human beings are exposed to change, both cyclical (seasonal) and linear (growth) in individual plant specimens. 64

PAGE 71

As an illustration of this potential, the following short narrative is offered: Collin and I brought back that oak tree from our trip to Kentucky to see my sister and her children in the summer of 1938. See that split in the bark on the left side of the trunk? That happened the spring my nephew was killed in the battle of Chason Reservoir. It has always been so perfectly symmetrical. On blustery days past the neutral shades of Fall, I can still hear Collin cussing that leaf rake. Could there be a point of neutral reinforcement? A point at which the identity of plant material is evenly confused between artificial and fundamental reinforcement of selfdefinition? This might be a hypothetical possibility. However, if the objective is to improve the fundamental reinforcement potential of the built environment, neutral reinforcement becomes negative. Continuity in any relationship is positive. In many ways continuity is the foundation which relationships are established. At what point does disruption of continuity begin to have a negative impact and at what point does disruption of continuity destroy a relationship? What are the limits of continuity in the relationship between natural and human systems? 65

PAGE 72

By way of a review, three components of identity continuity in plant material have been presented. 1) The formal dimension of identity continuity involves the physical form of plant material. Natural form is fundamentally reinforcing. Highly manipulated form is artificially reinforcing. The formal dimension has the most direct impact on perception of identity. This is the mechanism for the expression of ornamental artificiality in the built environment. 2) The associational component of identity continuity, involves the inter and intra species association of plant material. This interaction between plant material can be fundamentally reinforcing when it is represented and is artificially reinforcing when it is not. (This is often the product of functional artificiality but can be related to ornamental artificiality in the landscape.) 3) The temporal component of identity continuity, involves the process associated with plants as living organisms, birth, growth and death. Also, seasonal changes (cyclical in nature) and linear growth patterns. This component is fundamentally reinforcing when it is complete and is artificially reinforcing when it is not. 66

PAGE 73

Figure 5.1 diagrammatically represents the components of identity continuity that were developed in this chapter. Modern landscape architecture focuses most heavily on the formal aspect of plant identity. The associational and temporal components need to be represented in order to develop a complete understanding and respect for plant material as living organisms. This is the first step in shifting plant material in the built environment from artificial to fundamental reinforcement of self-definition. Figure 5.2 represents the objective situation where all three components of identity continuity are represented in landscape architectural expression in the built environment. The representation of temporal and associational identity contributes a fundamental structure to the environment which reinforces fundamental self-definition. Without identity continuity, any application of plant material will be less fundamentally reinforcing. In Figure 5.3 the current relationship between landscape architecture and plant material is described. Landscape architectural expression is primarily interested in the formal component of plant material. This narrow understanding of plant material reflects itself artificially in the built environment. Essentially the complete identity of plant material is not represented. 67

PAGE 74

IDENTITY CONTINUITY CONCEPT Formal-Physical Appearance Temporal -Life Processes Associational Inter Organism Relationships Formal Identity Temporal Identity 68 FIGURE5.1

PAGE 75

IDEAL RELATIONSHIP: Identity continuity embodied in landscape architectural expression. Formal Associational Temporal 69 FIGURE -5.2

PAGE 76

CURRENT RELATIONSHIP: FIGURE-5.3 The formal component of identity continuity is valued and understood considerably more than are the temporal or associational. components. Landscape Architectural Expression 70 Formal

PAGE 77

Form becomes the controlling factor in applying plant material functionally and ornamentally. No death, no litter, no volunteers, sterilize the landscape. No "messy vitality." 71

PAGE 78

SECTION THREE: RESEARCH Chapter Six Research And Testing Methodology 11FEW ADULTS CAN SEE NATURE. AT LEAST THEY HAVE A VERY SUPERFICIAL SEEING. THE SUN ILLUMINATES THE EYE OF MAN, BUT SHINES INTO THE EYE AND THE HEART OF THE CHILD.11 RALPH WALDO EMERSON

PAGE 79

By way of review, in Chapters 1 and 2, the relationship between mankind and nature was examined in the larger context. In Chapter 1 selected problems associated with this relationship throughout its historical development were identified. In Chapter 2 the predication of a healthy relationship between mankind and nature was established. Several models were developed describing the dynamic associated with our relationship to nature. The first model, Figure 2.2, described the personal or individual relationship with natural systems as expressed in private yards. The second model, Figure 2.3, described the collective relation-ship between human and natural systems or, as described earlier, market driven landscape architecture. The premise of these models was that private landscape architectural expression is more sensitive to natural systems than is collective or market driven landscape architecture. That is to say, private landscape architectural expression recognizes the fundamental structures of plant material more than does the public or collective form. In so doing, private landscape architectural expression is more fundamentally reinforcing than is its collective counterpart. In Chapter 3 we examined the role that land?cape architecture has played in the deterioration of the relationship between human and natural systems. Introduced in Chapter 3 and developed I further in Chapter 4 was the concept of fundamental versus artificial identity structures as the foundation of personal self-concept. During the course of that discussion, we 73

PAGE 80

identified both a functional as well as an ornamental artificiality related to the application of plant material in landscape architectural expression. In Chapters 4 and 5, the mechanisms by which landscape architecture has impacted our relationship with the natural world were examined. The concept of mixed messages was reviewed. The difference between objective and implied levels of communication in landscape architectural expression were identified. In Chapter 5 the discussion was narrowed in an effort to isolate the role that plant material has played in this relationship. At this point identity continuity, the basis of a healthy perceptual relationship with plant material, was introduced. This concept of identity continuity recognizes three dimensions in the relationship between human and natural systems, all of which need to be represented for people to understand, appreciate and respect plant material. These elements need to be in place for plant material to be effective in the fundamental reinforcement of selfdefinition. The first dimension of plant material identity is formal. It constitutes the physical appearance of the organism. The second dimension of plant material identity is temporal. It consists of the life processes normally associated with the organism. The third dimension of plant material identity is associational. Its basis is the interaction of the organism with other species in the environment. 74

PAGE 81

The research portion of this thesis will be directed toward testing these concepts in an effort to understand how they influence the relationship between human and natural systems. The first position we will be testing is: Have people been influenced to the point of adopting different values for private, as opposed to public, landscape architectural expression? More specifically, do people value fundamental structure for plant material more in private landscape architectural expression than they do in public or market driven landscape architectural expression? In public or market driven landscape architectural expression, is artificial identity structure for plant material valued more than is fundamental structure and, as a consequence, reinforcing artificial self-definition which then becomes a barrier to an improved and more satisfying relationship between human and natural systems? A second related objective will be to test the basis of artificial identity structure for plant material in landscape architectural expression in both public and private space situations. Is artificial identity structure for plant material functional or ornamental in nature? Is there a distinction between the composition of artificial identity structure in private versus public or market driven landscape architectural expression? 75

PAGE 82

A third objective of this research will be to ascertain to what degree identity continuity is a factor in the relationship between mankind and nature. What is the composition of fundamental identity structure? Which do people value most, the formal, temporal or associational component of fundamental identity structure for plant material? Have people been conditioned to appreciate one of the dimensions of identity continuity in plant material more than the others? The following diagrammatic model represents graphically the relationship between the three value positions we are attempting to test in the research portion of this thesis. The decision tree in Figure 6.1 identifies a value structure for decision making from which we can analyze the potential outcomes of the different test questions. There are four potential outcomes for question one. 1) Public and private values for plant material are both fundamental. (Market driven landscape architecture is moving away from the public and nature.) 2) Public and private values for plant material are both artificial. (Market driven landscape architecture is moving the population away from nature.) 76

PAGE 83

LANDSCAPE VALUES DECISION MODEL FUNDAMENTAL I PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LANDSCAPE VALUES I r FIGURE6.1 ARTIFICIAL 1 ' FORMAL TEMPORAL ASSOCIATIONAL FUNCTIONAL ORNAMENTAL

PAGE 84

3) Public values for plant material are artificial, while private values for plant material are fundamental. (Market driven landscape architecture is moving away from the population and nature.) 4) Public values for plant material are fundamental, while private values for plant material are artificial. Second question Four potential outcomes. 1 ) Public values for plant material are functionally artificial. 2) Public values for plant material are ornamentally artificial. 3) Private values for plant material are functionally artificial. 4) Private values for plant material are ornamentally artificial. Third question Three potential outcomes. 1) Fundamental identity structure for plant material is based primarily on the formal component of identity continuity. 2) Fundamental identity structure for plant material is based primarily on the temporal component of identity continuity. 78

PAGE 85

3) Fundamental identity structure for plant material is based primarily on the associational component of identity continuity. The testing procedure for these questions consisted of mailing a questionnaire to residential homeowners in the metropolitan Denver area. This recipient list was generated from the customer data base of the B. D. Wilhelm Co., a full service green industry contractor in the Colorado Front Range area. Five hundred customers were selected from a data base of approximately 10,000 individuals. These people were selected based on response potential as identified by the existing service filing system in the Wilhelm company computer data base. Five hundred homeowners were selected to receive this questionnaire and, to date, approximately 150 responses have been returned representing a response rate of 29%. This high response rate can be attributed to the name recognition of the Wilhelm company letterhead and the degree of customer loyalty on the part of the Wilhelm company customer base. I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to Mr. Bob Conner, Vice President of Operations, and to Mr. Bruce Wilhelm, owner of the B. D. Wilhelm Co., for their respective contributions which have proved instrumental rn the execution of this testing effort. The questionnaires were organized as follows. The first page consisted of a cover letter introducing and explaining the 79

PAGE 86

purpose and objective of this thesis effort. The remaining two pages of the questionnaire were divided into three sections. The first section consisted of a respondent profile. There were seven questions in this section. Question number one was the age of the respondent. Information on the sex and addresses of the respondents was generated from the hard copy customer files printed, in addition to the mailing labels, prior to distribution of the survey. There were four items of information we wanted to glean from this respondent profile section. First: How developed was the respondents relationship with their own personal landscape? Questions number two and three were directed toward this end. Question number two asked: How many hours do you spend working in your yard per week during the summer months (excluding mowing)? Question number three asked: What percentage of the trees and shrubs in your yard did you personally plant? The second characteristic of our respondent group that needed to be understood was the extent of their relationship with public or market driven landscape architectural expression. directed at this issue. Questions four and five were Question number four asked: How many hours per week during the summer months do you spend in a city park? Question number five asked: What percentage of the time you spend in city parks is devoted to active recreation? The previous two questions were directed at understanding the extent of the respondents exposure to the implied values of market driven landscape architectural 80

PAGE 87

expression. The third characteristic of the respondent group that needed to be understood was the respondent's historical exposure to different types of landscape architectural expression. Question number six identified the level of conditioning the respondents had received from the values implied in different types of landscape architectural environments. Question number six asked: How many years have you lived on a farm, town under 10,000, suburban metropolitan area or urban center? The fourth characteristic of the respondent group that needed to be understood was the extent to which they had developed a relationship with natural or wild landscapes. Questions number seven was directed at ascertaining this respondent characteristic. Question number seven asked: How many days per year do you spend in natural or wild landscapes hiking, camping or fishing? With this information, an average profile of the respondents was compiled. This will provide a sense of how important these different types of experience and different forms of exposure are to the development of values related to the expression of nature in the built environment. For example, is the amount of time the respondents have lived on a farm more instrumental in developing fundamental identity structure for plant material than is the twenty-five days they spend per year in natural or wild landscapes. The primary objective of Section One is to determine what people's current values are in relation to the use of plant material in the built environment and what those values are based on. 81

PAGE 88

In the second section of this Questionnaire, the respondent's current values relative to plant material in the built environment were scrutinized. The questions one through. twelve in this section of the questionnaire were designed to evaluate the values of respondents related to all three of the testing objectives set forth in the earlier pages of this chapter. Those testing objectives being: Do people have different values for plant material in public as opposed to private landscape architectural expression and is one more artificial than the other? Is the basis of artificial identity structure of plant material in landscape architectural expression functionally or ornamentally reinforced? How much is the identity continuity of plant material a factor in the relationship between human and natural systems? What component of identity continuity related to plant material do the respondents value most? Is the basis of their fundamental relationship to plant material formal, temporal or associational in character? Before beginning the evaluation of the individual questions in this second section of the questionnaire, the concept of operational definition or trigger needs to be developed. This second section of the questionnaire has been divided into two parts, A and B. Part A consists of the questions one through twelve. Part B is composed of the remaining questions, thirteen, fourteen and fifteen. In Part A the operational triggers for each question will be indentified. 82

PAGE 89

The questions in Part B are much more open-ended and, consequently, will require a more detailed operational definition in order to interpret. The respondents answers will be classified as either ornamentally or functionally artificial, or formally, temporally or associationally fundamental. Operational Triggers In Part A there were four operational triggers for each statement, one through twelve. The first trigger identifies whether the statement is related to public or private landscape architectural expression. The second operational trigger identifies whether the statement is advocating a fundamental or artificial application for plant material. The third operational trigger identifies whether the advocated plant material application is functionally or ornamentally artificial. The fourth operational trigger identifies whether the advocated plant material application is formally, temporally or associationally fundamental. These statements and their individual value decision path are listed below. See Figure 6.1. 1) Plants in city parks should have good fall color. (This statement is public/fundamental/temporal.) 2) Plants in private yards should have colorful spring flowers. (This statement is private/fundamental/temporal.) 83

PAGE 90

3) Plants in city parks should provide areas of natural or wild landscape. (This statement is public/fundamental/formal.) 4) Plants in private yards should provide good windbreaks. (This statement is private/artificial/ functional.) 5) Plants in private yards should attract wildlife. (This statement is private/fundamental/associational.) 6) Newly installed trees in city parts should be at least fifteen feet tall. (This statement is public/artificial/functional.) 7) Plants in city parks should provide visual screening. (This statement is public/artificial/functional.) 8) Plants in private yards should be tightly pruned. (This statement is private/fundamental/formal.) 9) Plants in city parks should have interesting winter form. (This statement is public/fundamental/formal.) 10) Plants in private yards should be native to this area. (This statement is private/fundamental/associational.) 11) City parks should include areas of formal gardens. (This statement is public/artificial/ornamental.) 12) Plants in private yards should provide erosion control. (This statement is private/artificial/functional.) 84

PAGE 91

In reviewing these statements you will notice that the distribution of triggers is such that six are public and six are private, six are artificial and six are fundamental. Of the six artificial, three are functionally and three are ornamentally oriented and of the six fundamental, two are formal, two are temporal and two are associational. This uniformity in the distributions of triggers was necessary in order to achieve equal weighing in the respondents1 reactions. This is critical in evaluating one choice over another as implying a statement of value relative to plant material. Another dimension of value was incorporated in Part A of Section Two, that being the opportunity to designate a level or degree in the responses to individual questions. The respondents had the option of designating each statement as always, often, seldom, rarely and never important in landscaped environments. The dimension of degree in questions one through twelve provides the opportunity to score these responses individually, where always is scored as four points, often is scored as three points, seldom is scored as two points, rarely is scored as one point and never is scored as zero points. In the interpretation of this data, the overall response to each of the questions will be evaluated. In the evaluation of questions thirteen, fourteen and fifteen in Part B of Section Two, the operational definitions had to 85

PAGE 92

be much more highly developed in order to deal with the variation in responses typical of open-ended questions. Of primary interest was whether the responses were identifying an artificial or fundamental identity structure for plant material as being more important. Operational Definitions Earlier the operational definition of artificial identity structure was described as, depending on human activity to initiate and maintain which, in turn, reinforces anthropocentric humanism as a basis for artificial selfdefinition. The operational definition for fundamental identity structure which was offered earlier, consisted of first recognizing plant material as living organisms that exist as part of a system larger than ourselves where their value is defined in non-human terms, all of which provide the opportunity to reinforce a fundamental self-definition. Next, operational definitions for functional and ornamental artificiality had to be developed. The operational definition for functional artificiality is when the function of the plant material is viewed as more important than the plant itself. The operational definition of ornamental artificiality is when the man-made form of the planting is viewed as more valuable than the natural form. The operational definitions for formally, temporally or associationally fundamental follow. Formally fundamental is 86

PAGE 93

when the value of the physical appearance of the plant material is the basis for its fundamental identity structure. Temporally fundamental is when the value of the life processes associated with the plant material are the basis for its fundamental identity structure. Associationally fundamental is when the value of the relationship between species is the basis for a fundamental identity structure. Armed with these operational definitions, the operational trigger in the individual responses that denotes a specific implied value about plant material can be identified. For example, question thirteen asks: What is the most important piece of plant material in your yard and why? If the respondent answered, the dogwood shrubs along the back fence because of the privacy they offer, this statement could be identified as describing a functionally artificial identity structure for plant material. If question fourteen which asks: What is your favorite season in the landscape, winter, spring, summer or fall and why?, was responded to by saying spring because of the new flowers which attract birds, this statement could then be interpreted as representing a value statement associated with a temporally and associationally fundamental identity structure of plant material. If a respondent answered question number fifteen which asks: What planting in your yard are you most fond of and why?, by saying the weeping birch because of its down-facing branches, this could then be interpreted as a value statement 87

PAGE 94

related to a formally fundamental identity structure for plant material. In scoring Part 8 of Section Two, each question will be evaluated on an overall response basis. The lack of degree in the questions comprising Part 8 of Section Two resulted in each question being allotted one point apiece. Section Three presents a very different challenge. The operational definitions developed to this point deal with values expressed about plant material offered in word form. In Section Three the respondents have been asked to express those same values about the use of plant material in landscape architectural expression in a diagrammatic format. Consequently, another set of operational definitions had to be developed which will allow this diagrammatic format to be interpreted. In Section Three the respondents were asked to complete two exercises requiring the arrangement of plant material, both trees and shrubs, in two hypothetical settings, one representing public and the other private space situations. The challenge was to interpret the placement of this plant material as expressing either artificial or fundamental identity structure. This arrangement of plant material had to be interpreted as being artificial or fundamental based on the relationship of the plant material placement to the elements existing in each hypothetical site, as well as the relationship of one placement to another. The 88

PAGE 95

operational definition for artificiality then becomes plant material placed in response to architecture, pavement or property lines or according to some human system based rationale such as symmetry or grids is expressing an artificial identity structure. Plant material placed in response to natural features, such as ponds or open turf areas, is expressing a fundamental identity structure. The next step in this research effort will be to catalogue and interpret this data. Before beginning the analysis and manipulation of this reformatted data, the composition of the sample needs to be reviewed so as not to mislead the reader by implication. It is first of all important to understand that this sample is not random in the statistical sense of the word which is to say, this sample is not representative of the population at large. There are several characteristics of this sample that need to be understood in order to interpret this data. These respondents were first of all customers of a green industry contractor specializing in plant care services for single family homeowners. The high response rate to the questionnaire indicated a sensitivity and awareness of landscape and plant material that is certainly not shared by the population at large. The respondents are all homeowners in the middle to upper middle income bracket. These people have the time and money to engage in landscape and 89

PAGE 96

residential plant material expression that the population for the most part does not. The average age of the sample is slightly higher than the general population. In general, this sample is segregated from the population as a whole by virtue of being older, predominately male, upper middle income property owners who purchase plant care services from a green industry contractor. The non-representative character of this sample will indeed bias the results. However, it should not invalidate them. The three original testing objectives need to be reviewed in relation to the non-representative character of this sample to determine how the conclusions should be modified to maintain their integrity. The first testing objective was to determine if people have been influenced to the point of adopting different values for private, as opposed to public, landscape architectural expression. A second objective was to determine what the character of identity structure was for plant material in landscape architectural expression. Is it fundamental or artificial? The third testing objective was to determine what part identity continuity played in the relationship between human and natural systems. This data can be used to develop conclusions about all three of these testing objectives. It is important to be careful drawing absolute conclusions about the population as a whole from this sample. What can be done is to postulate how other segments of the population might value plant material 90

PAGE 97

expression based on their potential differences from this sample. Landscape architecture is not a pure science. Great landscape architectural expression requires the perfect admixture of artistic and scientific creativity. Any design that is skewed too heavily in the direction of either artistic or scientific endeavor, at the expense of the other, is the product of a professional imbalance. In physical design, art and science are not mutually exclusive. The absolute quantities of either do not guarantee great design. The relationship between artistic and scientific creativity in landscape architecture is complimentary. When these two elements are in proper proportion to one another, landscape architectural expression has the best opportunity to be truly outstanding. In light of this, the following research will be presented and interpreted on both a scientific and intuitive level. The objective is to achieve a balance through the compliment of research and intuition. 91

PAGE 98

SECTION THREE: RESEARCH Chapter Seven Presentation Of Data "HE HAD GONE HIS OWN WAY, FOLLOWING HIS OWN DREAM; AND NOW THAT DREAM HAD TURNED TO THE LAND TO LAND OF HIS OWN IN A NEW COUNTRY. HE WANTED TO OWN HIMSELF, BE HIS OWN BOSS, WORK OUT HIS OWN DESTINY." HAL BORLAND

PAGE 99

Questionnaire Section #1 Respondent Profile, Data Presentation Question #1 -Age of respondent The distribution of the respondent's ages falls generally into what would represent a normal bell-shaped distribution for ages of the adult population. The mean average age of the respondents was 53 years. The model average age of the respondents at 45 years was considerably less than was the mean average response age. This variation in averages was a result of the skewed nature of this distribution. See Figure 7 • 1 • Question #2 -How many days do you spend working in your yard per week during the summer months (excluding mowing)? The mean average respondent spent 4.95 hours per week working in the yard during the summer months. This distribution is skewed toward the lower end of the scale with the most frequent response representing 43% of our sample occurring in the 0-3 hour per week category. The modal average response for question number two was 1.5 hours per week. See Figure 7 . 2 . Question #3 -What percentage of the trees and shrubs in your yard did you personally plant? The mean average percent of plant material personally installed by the respondents in their respective yards was 93

PAGE 100

Q) en r::: 0 a. en Q) a: 0 QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION Question -1 Sample Size144 Mean Modal Average-53 Years Average-45 Years 1 Distnbution Of Responses . = 0 Age 26 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I I I I I • • • • I I I I • • • • Of Respondents 94 FIGURE-7.1

PAGE 101

Q) en c 0 c. en Q) a: 0 >. (.) c Q) :::J 0' Q) u.. QUEST lONNA IRE SECTION Question-2 . Sample Size 143 Mean Modal 95 0 Average5.95 Hours Average1.50 Hours ••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I I I I I •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • ••••• • • • • ••••• • • • • ••••• • • • • ••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••• • • • • ••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Hours Per 1 FIGURE-7.2 Distribution Of Responses: Week Working In Yard 95

PAGE 102

34.84%. The modal average response to question number three at 10% represents nearly an inverse of the normal bell-shaped distribution, with the highest frequency of responses occurring at the upper and lower extremes of the scale. See Figure 7.3. Question #4 -How many hours per week during the summer months do you spend in a city park? The respondents spent a mean average of 1.95 hours per week in city parks. The largest response frequency for question four occurred in the 0 hours per week category. The number of responses falls away dramatically as the hour per week categories increase in two hour increments. This distribution is heavily skewed toward the lower end of the scale with the modal average response being 0 hours per week. See Figure 7.4. Question #5 -What percentage of the time you spend in city parks is devoted to active recreation? In question five the time people devote to active recreation in city parks assumes an inverse distribution to what would represent a normal bell-shaped curve. The highest response rates occurred at the 1-25% active recreation category which included 60.7% of the responses and at the 100% active recreation category which included 23.5% of the response sample. The modal average response for question five occurred at the 12.5% active recreation level. See Figure 7 . 5 . 96

PAGE 103

CD (/) c 0 c. (/) CD a: 0 QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION1 Question-3 Sample Mean Modal Size -144 Average 35% Average 10% Distribution Of Responses= 80 FIGURE-7.3 Percent Plant Material Personally Installed 97

PAGE 104

Q) (/) c 0 a. (/) Q) a: 0 >(.) c Q) ::J cr u.. QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION1 Question-4 Sample Size -142 Mean Modal Average 1.95 Average0 Hours Hours Distribution Of Responses: 70 0 Hours Per Week In FIGURE7.4 Public Parks

PAGE 105

Q) rJ) c 0 a. rJ) Q) a: 0 >(..) c Q) ::J cr Q) ..... u.. QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION -1 Question-5 Sample Size -140 Mean Modal AverageAverageD1stri but ion Of 0 78 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• N/A 0 % Responses: FIGURE-7.5 Percent Active Recreation In Public Parks 99

PAGE 106

Question #6A -How many years have you lived on a farm? #68 -How many years have you lived in a town under 10,000? #6C -How many years have you lived in a metropolitan area? #60 -How many years have you lived in an urban center? In question number six we are attempting to understand the background of our sample by identifying the different environments the respondents have lived in during the course of their lives. The sample size for question number six was 104 responses. This response rate was considerably smaller than were the response rates in any of the previous questions. In Part A the respondents were asked how many years they lived on a farm. The mean average response to Part A of question number six as 2.38 years. This distribution was heavily skewed toward the lower end of the scale. The vast majority, 80.7% representing the modal average of the respondents, had never lived on a farm and only one respondent had lived on a farm for more than 20 years. See Figure 7.6. 100

PAGE 107

Q) C/) c 0 c. C/) Q) a: 0 QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION -1 Question-6A Sample Size-104 Mean Modal Average-2.38 Average0 Years Years Distribution Of Responses: 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • ••• Years Lived On A 101 FIGURE-7.6 Farm

PAGE 108

In Part B of question number six, we asked the respondents how many years they had lived in a town under 10, 000 people? The mean average response was 4.97 years, however, the modal average response representing 64.4% of the sample had never lived in a town under 10,000 people. See Figure 7.7. In Part C of question number six, we asked the respondents how many years they had lived in a metropolitan area? The mean average response to Part C at 23.22 years was considerably higher than were the mean average responses for Parts A or B. The distribution of responses was much more statistically normal, more closely approaching a bell-shaped curve in Part C of question number six. The modal average response for Part C of question number six was 5 years. See Figure 7.8. In Part D of question number six, we asked the respondents how many years they had lived in an urban area? The mean average response to Part D of question number six was 19.73 years. Our modal average response in Part D, representing the middle point of the 1-11 year category, was 5 years. The distribution of responses for Part D of question number six was only slightly skewed toward the lower end of the scale. See Figure 7.9. 102

PAGE 109

Q) C/) c 0 Q. C/) Q) 0: 0 >. (.) c Q) :::J cr Q) '-LL. QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION-1 Question-68 Sample Size104 Mean Modal Average-4.97 Years Average0 Years Distribution Of Responses: 80 67 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • •••• •••• • • • • •••• ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• •••• • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I a a a • • • • I 8 a a •••• I a a a Years Lived In 103 FIGURE -7.7 Town Under

PAGE 110

Q) Cf) c 0 Cf) Q) a: 0 >u c Q) :J cr Q) u. QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION1 Question-6C Sample Size104 Mean Modal Average -23.22 Years Average-5 Years Distribution Of Responses: 85 0 • • • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• •••• • • • • • • • ••• •••• ••• •••• • • • • •••• • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • Years Lived In A Suburban Metro. Area 104 FIGURE-7.8

PAGE 111

Q) (/) c 0 c. (/) Q) c: 0 QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION -1 Question -60 Sample Mean Modal Size-104 Average 19.73 Years Average 5 Years Distribution Of Responses: 85 •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • •• e • I • • • • a ••• I • • • • •••• I ••• Years Lived In An Urban Center 105 FIGURE-7.9

PAGE 112

Question #7 -How many days per year do you spend in natural or wild landscapes, hiking, camping, fishing? The mean average respondent in question number seven spent 13.71 days per year in natural or wild landscapes. This distribution was skewed toward the lower end of the scale with a modal average response of five days per year. This represents the middle point of the 0-10 days per year category which included 62.3% of the responses. See Figure 7 • 1 0 . The sex of the respondents was determined from the mailing labels generated with the B.D. Wilhelm Co. customer file. Approximately 66% of the respondents were male and 34% of the respondents were female. See Figure 7.11. 106

PAGE 113

QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION -1 Question-7 Q) en c: 0 a. en Q) a: -0 >(.) c: Q) :::J cr Q) I-LL Mean Modal Average Average 13.71 5 Days Days Sample Size -139 Distribution Of Responses: 80 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • l •••• • • • • I a a a a • • • • • • • Days • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• • • • •••• • • • • • • • ••• • ••• • • • •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • ••• • • • • Per Year In Back 107 FIGURE -7.10 Country

PAGE 114

QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION -1 FIGURE-7.11 Tabulation from pnnted mailing labels for indiv1dual respondents. DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE BY SEX: 66 % 34% FEMALE RESPONDENTS MALE RESPONDENTS 108

PAGE 115

Questionnaire Section #2A Data Presentation The first task in Section 2A was the tabulation and calculation of the mean average response for each of the individual questions one through twelve. This was accomplished by multiplying the frequency (f) of responses by the assigned value for each response category (x). The assigned value for each response category was: always -4, often -3, seldom -2; rarely -1 and never 0. These products were added together to develop the sum (fx) and then divided by the sample for that question (N), which gave us the mean average response for each of the twelve questions in Section 2A. This data is represented numerically in Table 7.1, and graphically in Figure 7.12. The mean average responses for each of the individual questions in Section 2A were then combined into the four potential outcome categories outlined in Chapter 6. Those categories were: Private Artificial, Private Fundamental, Public Artificial and Public Fundamental. The survey was structured to insure that three questions representing each of the four potential outcome categories were included in Section 2A. The mean average response representing the three combined questions in each potential outcome category was calculated by adding the mean average response for each of the individual questions to get the sum of the means and then dividing by three. This data is represented numerically in Table 7.2 and graphically in Figure 7.13. 109

PAGE 116

QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION #2 Questions #1 #12: Tabulation and calculation of mean average response. Where: f = Frequency of responses x = Assigned value of response category Always -4 Often -3 Seldom -2 Rarely -1 Never 0 N = Sample Size #1) Plants in city parks should have good fall color. f Always 78 Often 65 Seldom 1 Rarely 0 Never 0 X 4 3 2 1 0 fx 312 195 2 Sum(fx) = 3.53 0 N 0 509 = Sum (fx) 144 = Sample Size #2) Plants in city parks should have good fall color. Always Often Seldom Rarely Never TABLE 7.1 f 67 69 6 0 1 X 4 3 2 1 0 11 0 fx 268 207 12 Sum(fx) = 3.40 0 N 0 487 = Sum (fx) 143 = Sample Size

PAGE 117

#3) City parks should provide areas of natural or wild landscapes. f X fx -Always 43 4 172 Often 62 3 186 Seldom 22 2 44 Sum(fx) = 2.93 Rarely 12 1 12 N Never 2 0 0 414 = Sum ( f X ) 14 1 = Sample Size #4) Plants in private yards should provide good windbreaks. f X fx --Always 28 4 11 2 Often 65 3 195 Seldom 40 2 80 Sum(fx) = 2.82 Rarely 5 1 5 N Never 1 0 0 392 = Sum (fx) 139 = Sample Size #5) Plants in private yards should attract wildlife. f X fx -Always 26 4 104 Often 43 3 129 Seldom 34 2 68 Sum(fx) = 2.34 Rarely 22 1 22 N Never 1 3 0 0 323 = Sum ( f X) 138 = Sample Size TABLE 7.1 1 1 1

PAGE 118

#6) Newly installed trees in city parks should be at least 1 5 I tall . f X fx -Always 31 4 124 Often 56 3 168 Seldom 25 2 50 Sum(fx) = 2.68 Rarely 1 9 1 1 9 N Never 4 0 0 362 = Sum (fx) 1 3 5 = Sample Size #7) Plants in city parks should provide visual screening. f X fx -Always 25 4 100 Often 64 3 192 Seldom 30 2 60 Sum(fx) = 2.67 Rarely 9 1 9 N Never 7 0 0 361 = Sum (fx) 135 = Sample Size #8) Plants in private yards should be tightly pruned. f X fx -Always 1 5 4 60 Often 69 3 207 Seldom 34 2 68 Sum(fx) = 2.50 Rarely 16 1 16 N Never 6 0 0 351 = Sum (fx) 140 = Sample Size TABLE 7.1 11 2

PAGE 119

#9) Plants in city parks should have interesting winter form. f X fx -Always 46 4 184 Often 66 3 198 Seldom 20 2 40 Sum(fx) = 3.05 Rarely 9 1 9 N Never 0 0 0 431 = Sum (fx) 1 41 = Sample Size #10) Plants in private yards should be native to this area. f X fx -Always 25 4 100 Often 85 3 255 Seldom 27 2 54 Sum(fx) = 2.90 Rarely 6 1 6 N Never 0 0 0 415 = Sum (fx) 143 = Sample Size # 11 ) City parks should include areas of formal gardens. f X fx -Always 37 4 148 Often 75 3 225 Seldom 23 2 46 Sum(fx) = 3.00 Rarely 5 1 5 N Never 2 0 2 426 = Sum ( f X ) 142 = Sample Size TABLE 7.1 11 3

PAGE 120

#12) Plants in private yards should provide erosion control. f X fx -Always 59 4 236 Often 65 3 195 Seldom 8 2 1 6 Sum(fx) = 3.26 Rarely 7 1 7 N Never 0 0 0 454 = Sum (fx) 139 = Sample Size This data is represented graphically on the following page. TABLE 7.1 11 4

PAGE 121

w (/) z 0 a.. (/) w a: w " a: w z LU QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION 2A FIGURE7.12 Mean Average Response For Questions -1-12 For sample size and distribution see preceding pages. 4.0 1 QUESTION '12 115

PAGE 122

These mean average responses for each of the four potential outcome categories were then added together and divided once again to ascertain the mean average response for public, private, artificial and fundamental values individually. This data is represented graphically in Figure 7.13, and numberically in Table 7.2. 1 1 6

PAGE 123

We will now develop the mean average response for the four potential outcome categories: private artificial, private fundamental, public artificial and public fundamental, by combining and averaging the mean average response for each of the individual questions representing that category in the questionnaire. Private Artificial Questions: #4 #8 #12 Mean Average Response Mean Average Response Mean Average Response 2.82 2.50 3.26 = Sum of the Means Mean Average Response for Private Artificial Questions = 2.86 Private Fundamental Questions: #2 #5 #10 Mean Average Response Mean Average Response Mean Average Response 3.40 2.34 2.90 = Sum of the Means Mean average response for private fundamental questions = 2.88 Public Artificial Questions: #6 #7 # 11 Mean Average Response Mean Average Response Mean Average Response 2.68 2.67 3.00 8.35 = Sum.of the Means Mean Average Response for Public Artificial Questions = 2.78 TABLE 7.2 11 7

PAGE 124

Public Fundamental Questions: #1 #3 #9 Mean Average Response Mean Average Response Mean Average Response 3.53 2.93 3.05 = Sum of the Means Mean Average Response for Public Fundamental Questions = 3.17 TABLE 7.2 11 8

PAGE 125

QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION -2A Distribution Of Mean Responses For Potential Outcome Categories: ARTIFICIAL Avg.-2. 82 FUNDAMENTAL Avg.3.02 PUBLIC Avg.-2.98 PUBLIC ARTIFICIAL 2.78 PUBLIC FUNDAMENTAL 3.17 119 I I FIGURE -7.13 PRIVATE Avg.-2.87 PRIVATE ARTIFICIAL 2.86 PRIVATE FUNDAMENTAL 2.88

PAGE 126

Questionnaire Section #28 Data Presentation The responses in Section 28, Questions 13, 14 and 15 proved more difficult to quantify in a consistent and meaningful manner. These questions were structured to be more open ended resulting in a wide variety of responses. In many cases the respondents were not equipped with the appropriate vocabulary to respond, in order for their response to be identified as representing a specific value related to plant material. However, the latitude inherent in these questions also provided an opportunity to look at peoples' values about plant material on more than a superficial level. Several interesting things became apparent during the evaluation of the responses to these questions. First, the definition of inter species association needed to be broadened to include interaction between human beings and plants. In this data table in the Appendix, the responses in the column marked 11associational, 11 that have the letter ( i) after the question number, represented the value of human interaction with the landscape. The responses that are followed by the letter (w), in the associational column of the data table, represented the value of wildlife interaction with the landscape. 120

PAGE 127

The responses in the data table in the column marked not clear, were those responses that could not be identified as representing a specific value related to plant material. People often combined different values for plant material in the same response. In this situation, the response was categorized according to the first value listed, assuming it to be the more dominant, except where the wording in the response provided evidence to the contrary. A few of the responses that were indicative of the values alluded to earlier have been listed on the following pages. The individual responses were categorized as representing either artificial or fundamental values for plant material. Of the 242 tot a 1 responses, 176, or 73%, represented fundamental values for plant material and 66 responses, or 27% , represented artificial values for plant material. See Figure 7.14. Selected Responses to Questionnaire Section 28 Questions 13, 14 and 1 Response 11, Question 15 Response 15, Question 15 Response 34, Question 15 Response 35, Question 13 Response 35, Question 15 11For sentimental reasons I like Birch tree.11 11Annuals, they add color and can be done in a family effort.11 11Bayberry -Colorful berry and twigs attract rabbits.11 11Grass -shade tree for pet dog.11 11Blue spruce one we planted when very sma 11.11 1 2 1

PAGE 128

Response 50, Question Response 58, Question Response 70, Question Response 72, Question Response 82, Question Response 82, Question Response 84, Question Response 102' Question Response 122, Question Response 11 8 ' Question Response 1 3 5 ' Question 1 5 1 3 1 5 1 3 1 3 1 5 1 3 1 5 -1 5 -13 -1 5 11Petunias, they bloom all summer unti 1 heavy frost.11 11Trees, shade, bird and squirrel habitat.11 11Fruit trees for the memories and 11Blue spruce, beauty, wind screen and nesting for birds.11 1150 year old American elm.11 11Across the street from me is a weeping birch which was planted with enough space around it. I watched it grow. It is a beautiful tree all seasons.11 11Trees, birds and squirrels play and sing.11 11Red oak tree in memory of a loved one.11 11My trees, because my beloved husband planted them.11 11Trees, form, shade, co 1 or, coolness, smell, fragrance.11 11Blue spruce tree -its shade and it was a gift from a dear friend.11 After reviewing this selection of responses it becomes apparent that plant material can provide considerable meaning in people1s lives. Complex human relationships develop with plant material when all three elements of identity continuity are present. 122

PAGE 129

QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION -28 Questions 13,14 and 15 Sample Size242 Distribution Of Responses: 176 FUNDAMENTAL RESPONSES 73% 123 FIGURE7.14 66 ARTIFICIAL RESPONSES 27%

PAGE 130

Of the 176 responses representing fundamental values for plant material, 57, or 33%, represented the termporal characteristic of fundamental identity continuity, 85 responses, or 48% , represented the formal characteristic of fundamental identity continuity, and 34 responses, or 19%, represented the associational characteristic of fundamental identity continuity. See Figure 7.15. Of the 66 responses that were artificial, 100% represented functionally artificial values for plant material. There were no responses that could be clearly interpreted as representing ornamental artificiality as a value for plant material. See Figure 7.16. Questionnaire Section #3 Data Presentation In Section Three of the questionnaire, the respondents were asked to arrange trees and shrubs in both a public and private space diagram. Of the 3309 tree and shrub placements, 2215, or 67% , were interpreted to be artificial in nature and 1084 placements, or 33%, were identified as fundamental. See Figure 7.19 In the public space diagram, there were 546 tree and 1100 shrub placements. Of the 546 tree placements, 248, or 45% , were artificial, and 298 placements, or 55%, were fundamental. Of the 1100 shrub placements, 754, or 68%, were artificial, and 346 placements, or 32%, were fundamental. See Figures 7.17, 7.18, and Table 7.3. 124

PAGE 131

QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION28 Distribution Of Fundamental Reponses: 57 TEMPORAL RESPONSES 33% 85 FORMAL RESONSES 48% 34 ASSOCIATIONAL RESPONSES 19% FIGURE-7.15 QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION28 FIGURE-7.16 Distribution Of Artificial Responses: 66 FUNCTIONAL RESPONSES 100% 0 ORNAMENTAL RESPONSES 125

PAGE 132

QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION -3 Public Space Diagram= ARTIFICIAL FUNDAMENTAL TREES 248 PLACEMENTS 45% 298 PLACEMENTS 55% QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION -3 Private Space Diagram: ARTIFICIAL FUNDAMENTAL TREES 317 . PLACEMENTS 56% 250 PLACEMENTS 44% 126 FIGURE7.17 SHRUBS 754 PLACEMENTS 68% 346 PLACEMENTS 32% FIGURE-7.18 SHRUBS 896 PLACEMENTS 82% 200 PLACEMENTS 18%

PAGE 133

QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION -3 FIGURE -7.19 Total Sample Size 3309 Trees And Shrubs Combination response distribution for public and private space diagrams: 2215 ARTIFICIAL PLACEMENTS 67% 127 1094 FUNDAMENTAL PLACEMENTS 33%

PAGE 134

QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION #3 Public Space Diagram Sample Size 546 Trees 1100 Shrubs Placement Analysis 248 Trees had artificial placements. 45% 298 Trees had fundamental placements. 55% 754 Shrubs had artificial placements. 68% 346 Shrubs had fundamental placements. 32% Private Space Diagram Sample Si z e TABLE 7.3 567 Trees 1096 Shrubs Placement Analysis 317 Trees had 250 Trees had 896 Shrubs had 200 Shrubs had artificial placements. fundamental placements. artificial placements. fundamental placements. 128 56% 44% 82% 18%

PAGE 135

In the private space diagram, there were 567 tree and 1096 shrub placements. Of the 567 tree placements, 317, or 56%, were artificial, and 250 placements, or 44%, were fundamental. Of the 1096 shrub placements, 896, or 82%, were artificial, and 200 placements, or 18%, were fundamental. See Figures 7.17, 7.18 and Table 7.3. The tree and shrub placements in Section 3 of the questionnaire were identified as representing fundamental or artificial values for plant material by applying the operational definitions developed in Chapter 6. 129

PAGE 136

SECTION THREE: RESEARCH Chapter Eight Comparative Evaluation And fntuitive Analysis "NATURE'S FINEST LESSONS ARE TO BE FOUND IN HER STORMS. MAN SHOULD WELCOME STORMS FOR THEIR EXHILARATING MUSIC AND MOTION, AND GO FORTH TO SEE GOD MAKING LANDSCAPES." JOHN MUIR

PAGE 137

Evaluation -Questionnaire Section One Question #1 As indicated earlier, this sample is not wholly representative of the population at large. However, in terms of age distribution, this sample is fairly representative of the adult segment of the population. Based on this uniformity in the distribution of ages, the responses of this sample can be interpreted without concern for age related bias. Question #2 The objective of questions number two and three was to establish the depth of the relationship between the respondents and their personal landscapes. The respondents averaged almost six hours per week working in their yards. However, the distribution of responses was dramatically skewed toward the lower end of the scale. Consequently, the majority of the respondents actually spent considerably less time working in their yards. On the other hand, a small minority of respondents spend an inordinate amount of time working in their individual landscapes. Given the income level and sensitivity to landscape expression on the part of the respondents, this data would imply that the majority of the respondents hire their yard work done. What this question does not consider is the amount of passive recreational interaction the respondents enjoyed in their personal landscapes. 1 3 1

PAGE 138

Question #3 Question number three asked the respondents what percentage of the plant material in their yards they had personally installed. The highest two response frequencies for question number three occurred in the 0 % and 100% categories. What this data indicates is that a number of the respondents were new home buyers regardless of how long ago they purchased those homes. The respondents in the 0 % category either contracted to have their yards landscaped or moved into previously landscaped homes. Given the number of responses i n this category, one would be inclined to assume that they represent a combination of these two previous explanations. Question #4 Questions number four and five were included to establish the dimension of the respondent's relationship with public landscape architectural expression. The average respondent spent almost two hours per week in public parks. However , this distribution is once again heavily skewed toward the lower end of the scale. In actuality, the majority of respondents spent no time in public parks. This lack of interaction with public landscapes on the part of the respondents is to a degree the product of the income level of our sample. The respondents all have access to private landscapes. If the sample was expanded to include lower income families living in apartments with no yards, this level of interaction with city parks would certainly increase. 132

PAGE 139

Question #5 In question number five the distribution of responses was heavily concentrated at the upper and lower extremes of the scale. The majority of respondents either spent 0 % or 100 % of their time in city parks involved in active recreation. The implication is that once the respondents have established a relationship with public landscape there is little variety in the respondent1s activity. If a respondent goes to a city park to run, that is essentially all they do there. If a respondent goes to a city park to fish, then fishing is the only activity they typically are involved in. Question #6 The four parts of question number six were organized to indicate the amount of exposure the respondents have had to different forms of landscape architectural expression. Very few of the respondents had spent any significant amount of time in rural environments either farms or small towns. The vast majority of the respondents have lived in a combination of both suburban and urban environments. This respondent group has had considerable exposure to landscape architectural expression in the built environment. For the most part their values have been forged in formally designed environments. Question #7 Question number seven was included to ascertain the depth of the relationship the respondents had developed with natural or 133

PAGE 140

wild landscapes. The average respondent spent 13.71 days in natural landscapes during the period of one year. Considering the average respondent to have fifty-two weekends and a twoweek vacation per year, they spent an average of 11% of their free time in natural or wild environments. In comparison, the average respondent spent 4.22 days per year in city parks. This high exposure to wild landscapes is certainly a reflection of the recreational opportunities available to the respondents in this region. Conclusion As noted earlier, this sample is not random in the statistical sense. After reviewing the profile of the respondents, the character of this sample appears to be fairly well defined and consistent. By understanding the non-representative nature of this sample, conclusions about the population at large can be modified. 134

PAGE 141

Evaluation -Questionnaire Section 2A, 28 and 3 In order to evaluate the responses in Section 2A, 28 and 3 , they will be tested against the three initial value positions outlined earlier in Chapter 6. The responses of this sample will be evaluated on the basis of whether or not they support these initial test positions. These test positions are: First, is there a different set of values present for public versus private landscape architectural expression; second, is the basis for artificial identity structure in plant material more ornamental or functional in character, third, is the basis for fundamental identity structure in plant material primarily formal, temporal or associational in essence and what is the status of continuity between these three components of fundamental identity structure. Question #1 Is there a different set of values present for public versus private landscape architectural expression? Section 2A In the analysis of the data in Section 2A, there was only a small difference, 1.6%, in responses based on whether the question was concerned with public or private space landscape architectural expression, provided that the plant material application was artificial in essence. On the other hand, if the plant material application was fundamental, its location in public or private space assumed a much larger role, 5.8%, 135

PAGE 142

as a basis for determining values related to landscape architectural expression. The trigger for decision making in Section 2A was more sensitive to public versus private space situations if the plant material application was fundamental. If the plant material application was artificial, its location in public versus private space had less impact on the value judgments of the respondents. In both artificial and fundamental applications, the respondents maintained different value systems for plant material based on whether it was in public or private space. Section 28 In Section 28 the questions were not structured to test for a variation in values based on whether the planting situation was public or private. Section 3 In Section 3 there a dramatic difference between responses based on the public versus private space distinction. The tree and shrub placements were evaluated to determine if they represented artificial or fundamental applications in public and private landscape situations. In the public space diagram, 45% of the tree placements represented artificial uses for plant material, while 55% of the tree placements represented fundamental plant material applications. In the private space diagram, 56% of the tree placements represented artificial uses for plant material, while 44% of the tree placements 136

PAGE 143

represented fundamental plant material applications. A reversal of values based on public versus private space situations. In the shrub category the percentage of artificial application was higher than fundamental in both situations, public and private. These percentages changed considerably in the direction of artificiality when we moved from public to private space. In the public space diagram, 68% of the shrub placements represented artificial uses for plant material, while 32% represented fundamental plant material applications. In the private space diagram, this imbalance was intensified where 82% of the shrub placements were artificial and only 18% were fundamental. When the tree and shrub placements are combined , it becomes very clear that the respondents values toward plant material in application are more artificial than fundamental in both public and private space situations. Conclusion The distinction between public and private space had a significant impact on the respondent•s values toward plant material. There is an obvious inconsistency in the respondents preferred value for plant material between the results of Section 2A and Section 3. In Section 2A the respondents showed a slight preference for fundamental plant material application. In Section 3 the respondents showed a considerable preference for the artificial application of plant material. 137

PAGE 144

Question #2 What is the basis for artificial identity structure in plant material, is it ornamental or function in application? Section 2A The questions in Section 2A were not designed to test artificial responses to determine whether their basis was ornamental or functional in application. Section 28 Of the 242 total responses in Section 28, 66 of them, or 27%, made reference to an artificial application for plant material. Of those 66 artificial responses, 100% of them identified a functionally artificial role for plants. There were no artificial responses in Section 28 that could be clearly interpreted as valuing an ornamentally artificial role for plant material. What this section does illustrate is that the majority of responses, 73%, valued a fundamental role for plant material in private space situations. Section 3 In Section 3, as was noted earlier, the respondents valued the artificial use of plant material over the fundamental as the preferred application. While Section 3 clearly demonstrates the respondents values about plant material as being predominantly artificial, especially in private space 138

PAGE 145

situations, it was not designed to identify either functional or ornamental artificiality as the basis for artificial identity structure. Conclusion The bias for artificial identity structure in plant material is predicated primarily on the functionally artificial application of plants. Conversely, ornamental artificiality does not appear to be an important factor in the value system of the respondents. 139

PAGE 146

Question #3 Is the basis for fundamental identity structure in plants primarily formal, temporal or associational in character? Section 2A The questions in Section 2A were not designed to test the importance of the different components of identity continuity in the value system of the respondents. Section 28 Of the 242 total responses in Section 28, 176 described a fundamental application of plant material as the basis for its importance in the value system of the respondents. Of those 176 respondents, 85, or 48% , identified a formal application for plant material as the basis for fundamental identity structure. Of the remaining 91 fundamental responses, 57, or 33% , identified the temporal component of fundamental identity structure as important, and 34, or 19%, identified the associational component as the basis for the fundamental orientation of their response. Section 3 The diagrams in Section 3 were not designed to isolate the individual components of identity continuity. The plant material placed in each diagram was interpreted only as being fundamental or artificial in application. 140

PAGE 147

Conclusion One would have to conclude from the results in Section 28 of the questionnaire that the majority of the respondent's understand and value plant material based on its physical appearance. To a lesser degree, the respondents understood and valued plant material based on the process of change essential to living organisms. The least developed component of fundamental identity structure on the part of the respondents was associational. The individuals in this sample do not possess a comprehensive understanding of plant material identity. Their relationship to plant material is narrowly defined and based primarily on the physical appearance of the organism. When the respondents valued plant material fundamentally, it was an incomplete and artificially narrow fundamental relationship. They valued the natural form of plant material without understanding its role in the larger context. The respondent's behavior reflects an artificial value system in which the natural form of plant material happens to be important. The practice of landscape architecture needs to accept the responsibility of improving and completing the process of understanding by which the respondent group relates to and appreciates plant material. 1 4 1

PAGE 148

Comparative Evaluation and Intuitive Analysis In the previous discussion, the numerical results of this research were examined in comparison to the three issues outlined in the research and testing methodology in Chapter 6. This analysis was relatively controlled and specific in nature. At this point the interpretation of the testing results needs to be expanded to understand the implications of this research to the larger issues raised in Chapters 1 through 5. For some, this shift in approach, from scientific research to intuitive analysis, may be troubling. However, outstanding landscape architecture is the product of a balance between scientific and artistic creativity. Individuals with a singularity of orientation will be asked to indulge us this duality, for it is not a rejection of responsibility but often this profession1s greatest challenge. How does this research further illuminate the issues raised in Chapters 1 through 5? What do these responses reveal about the relationship between human and natural systems? What are its implications to the condition of artificial self-definition among the respondents? What does it say about the role of landscape architecture in the development of the current relationship between American society and nature? The most 142

PAGE 149

interesting aspect of this research is the variation in the respondent's values between the individual sections. In Section 2A the number of artificial and fundamental responses were virtually equal when the plant material expression was in private space. In public landscape architectural expression, the respondents preferred application of plant material was fundamental. The data would indicate that in private space both artificial and fundamental identity structure for plant material were valued and in public space fundamental identity structure was moderately preferred. The slight preference for fundamental identity structure in Section 2A was significantly enhanced in Section 28. The responses in Section 28 consistently valued the fundamental more than the artificial identity structure of plant material. The preference for fundamental identity structure in Section 28 was dramatically reversed in Section 3. The respondents in Section 3 overwhelmingly valued the artificial application of plant material in both public and private space situations. Assuming that this data was compiled and interpreted accurately, the basis for this inconsistency in the respondent's preferred value structure for plant material requires additional scrutiny. This inconsistency represents a confusion of values toward nature on the part of the 143

PAGE 150

respondents. A confusion based on the maintenance of a dual self-definition. For example, in Section 28 when asked what was the most important piece of plant material in your yard and why and secondly, what piece of plant material in your yard are you most fond of and why, the respondents overwhelmingly described fundamental identity structures for plant material as the basis for their decision. The responses in Section 28 represent the articulation of a well defined fundamental relationship with plants. These same fundamentally defined individuals, when asked to arrange plant material in Section 3, responded overwhelmingly with artificial applications for plant material. This type of artificial expression in the built environment then reinforces artificial self-definition. The respondents are valuing plant material and nature in general on very different levels. Different value systems for plants are being expressed and maintained simultaneously. The different value systems for plants previously expressed are grounded in very different philosophical positions. When asked to arrange plant material in the built environment, the respondents expressed themselves in primarily artificial terms. When asked to apply their values related to plant material by designing both public and private space, they overwhelmingly chose the artificial identity structure for 144

PAGE 151

plant material as the basis for landscape expression. The respondents are maintaining both artificial and fundamental relationships with plants but expressing themselves artificially. As the artificial value system for plant material continues to be the predominate landscape architectural expression in the built environment, over time artificial values will be accepted and adopted as a consequence of increased exposure to them. If we view the relationship between artificial and fundamental identity structure as dynamic, the maintenance of both identity structures today becomes one point along a continuum moving from fundamental to artificial. The maintenance of dual identities today becomes a directional indicator for this process of changing values. As a primarily artificial value system for plant material continues to be the basis for landscape architectural expression, the relationship between human and natural systems will continue to deteriorate. In order to maintain two value systems for plant material that are so philosophically removed from one another, both positions must be currently reinforced. What this research represents is the adoption of an artificial value system for plant material, based on the conditioning of the respondents through exposure to artificial landscape architectural expression in the built environment, which for the most part, 145

PAGE 152

is the product of market driven landscape architecture. Artificial identity structure for plant material, articulated as part of the market driven landscape architectural model, has been accepted by the public through exposure. The respondents value plant material fundamentally based on the satisfaction of personal experience, yet express an artificial value system indicative of the collective relationship to nature when asked to design landscape environments. These two value systems are the products of the two models depicting the individual and collective relationships to nature, articulated in Chapter 2. This testing reinforces the existence of different levels of values in landscape architectural expression. The inconsistency in the respondents expressed values relating to plant material is an example of the mixed messages inherent in landscape architectural expression articulated in Chapter 3. The responses in Section Two-B provided some significant insight into the importance of identity continuity as a basis for the maintenance of a fundamental value system for plant material. The majority of the respondents exhibited a lack of identity continuity in their fundamental relationship with plants. The respondents fundamental relationship with plants has been artificially narrowed. The majority of respondent1S fundamental relationship with plants was exclusively formal. There was a significant lack of balance in the respondents 146

PAGE 153

fundamental relationship with plants between the formal 48%, temporal 33% and associational 19% components of identity continuity. The respondents are displaying an artificial set of values toward plant material in which the physical appearance of the organism is the primary basis of fundamental understanding and value. An insight related to this testing was the necessity for the expansion of associational identity to include human beings. The majority of associationally fundamental responses were based on the value of human interaction with the landscape. One of the elements in the maintenance of fundamental identity structure was the opportunity for physical interaction with landscaped environments. Actions influencing attitudes represent a reversal of the logical position where attitudes determine a related set of actions. This testing provides an example of that situation. Artificial landscape expression is not representative of the fundamental values the respondents maintain toward plant material. This artificial action is impacting and eroding the fundamental values or attitudes the respondents expressed toward plant material. 147

PAGE 154

The respondents are currently maintaining both fundamental and artificial value systems toward nature and correspondingly dual self-definitions. Over time the respondents are defining themselves in progressively artificial terms and as a consequence their ability to interact with natural systems in a satisfying manner is being eroded. As the built environment expresses and reinforces an increased artificial selfdefinition, it will become considerably more difficult to maintain the dimension of expression associated with fundamental self-definition. The respondent's fundamental relationship with nature has become artificially defined! 148

PAGE 155

CONCLUSION The profession of landscape architecture must work to insure the opportunity for fundamental self-definition as a meaningful dimension of experience for future generations of Americans. Landscape architects, as interpreters of nature for the majority of Americans, need to shape an environment and support an educational structure that insures people the opportunity to transcend the artificial reinforcement of the built environment. In order for American culture to maintain a healthy relationship with nature, the practice of landscape architecture needs to insure: 1) That the new archetype of American character reflects a healthy fundamental relationship with nature. 2) That future Americans have an opportunity to develop a sense of environmental responsibility, produced by a complete understanding of and consequent respect for natural systems. 3) That the lives of all Americans have an element of enchantment sustained by: nature1s infinite complexity and ultimate simplicity; its strength and fragility; 149

PAGE 156

its variety and consistency; its ever-changing permanence; and its ever important, ever present willingness to heal the spirit and mend the soul of our future. 150

PAGE 157

APPENDIX Data Conversion Tables For Questionnaire Section-1 Section-2A Section-28 Section3

PAGE 158

Questionnaire Section #1 Data Conversion Table The following data tables represent the conversion of the existing four hundred and fifty pages of survey response data, into a more manageable format. The individual surveys are numbered one through one hundred and forty five. We will be recording the responses in each of these individual sections on the questionnaire in a new simplified format. The data tabulation immediately following this page represents section number one, respondent profile, information from the questionnaires. The columns number one through seven correspond to the questions one through seven in section one of the questionnaire, those being: 1) What is your current age? 2) How many hours do you spend working in your yard per week during the summer months (excluding mowing)? 3) What percentage of the trees and shrubs in your yard did you personally plant? 4) How many hours per week during the summer months do you spend in a city park? 5) What percentage of the time you spend in city parks is devoted to active recreation? 152

PAGE 159

6) How many years have you lived on a farm, town under 10,000, suburban metropolitan area or urban center? 7) How many days per year do you spend in natural or wild landscapes hiking, camping, fishing? The two remaining columns are sex, which is self explanatory, and code, which represents the numbering system for the individual surveys, this completes the information tabulated in this section of the appendix. NOTE: If the question was not responded to it is designated with an asterisk. 153

PAGE 160

CODE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 12 1 3 14 1 5 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 #1 7 1 35 38 35 74 39 36 64 55 58 81 73 58 29 29 50 36 63 59 36 40 48 37 63 49 63 38 35 #2 6 7 #3 75% 75% 0 12 0 10 100% 0 5% 0 50% 3 60% 100% 2.5 25% 5 100% 4 50% 3 5% 8 25% 2 0 0 0 10 25% 5 75% 3 5% 0 0% 2 0% 0% 4 0% 15 90% 25 85% 6 5% 3 0 #4 1.5 1.5 0 1.5 8 0 4 * * * 5 4 4 4 8 3 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 #5 * 100% 0 100% 0 100% 100% * 75% 0 * * * 50% 50% 100% 50% 10% 100% 95% 100% 100% 25% 0 0 0 0 0 #6 * * * * 0 0 35 0 0 6 0 32 #7 SEX 0 F 10 M 17.5 M 0 0 32 3 5 F 20 0 54 0 40 M 0 0 0 39 7 F * * * * 10 F 5 12 13 34 * M 0 0 30 25 0 F 13 0 39 6 0 M 0 18 0 63 * F 0 0 0 73 * M 18 8 32 0 6 F 0 0 29 0 25 M 0 0 29 0 20 M 0 0 0 50 20 M 0 0 36 0 10 F 0 0 48 18 20 M * * * * 50 F 0 0 36 0 35 M 0 0 0 40 14 M 0 5 43 0 20 M * * * * 7 M 0 0 59 4 0 F * * * * 2 0 18 24 21 2 M 0 2 28 8 7.5 M 0 0 35 0 10 F

PAGE 161

CODE 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 #1 46 49 55 44 49 37 39 52 48 70 42 63 68 37 46 77 69 63 44 74 46 72 59 50 . 72 49 59 40 #2 1.5 8 2 8 2 1.5 1.5 1 4 2 12 1 0 1 0 15 2.5 3 8 30 6 6 5 5 24 0 1 0 5 3 20 5 #3 10% 10% 50% 100 % 5 % 100 % 10% 0 0 10% 80% 20% 100 % 100 % 1% 90% 0 100 % 33% 75% 25% 0 50% 5 % 0 100% 0 50% #4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 5 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 0 7.5 #5 0 50% 0 0 0 0 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75% 100% 0 0 0 100% 0 0 0 0 0 100% 0 50% #6 #7 SEX * * * * 20 16 0 0 33 5 * * * * 40 0 0 39 5 2 18 0 0 31 2 0 0 1 7 20 10 0 0 27 12 6 * * * * * 0 0 48 0 21 * * * * 0 0 0 8 34 5 * * * * 15 * * * * 5 0 37 0 0 10 0 0 0 46 4 0 4 67 6 0 * * * * 0 0 20 0 43 60 0 0 44 0 30 * * * * 0 0 24 22 0 25 0 0 72 0 0 * * * * 26 0 15 35 0 20/ * * * * * 0 0 49 0 20 39 0 2 0 150 0 0 0 40 48 F M M F M M M M F F M M F F M M F M M M M M M M M M F M

PAGE 162

CODE 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 #1 39 41 56 70 74 64 63 66 87 71 48 70 41 49 66 71 82 39 74 38 46 35 80 41 53 71 26 #2 4 2 5 #3 10% 0 10% 2 100% 0 50% 22 100% 4.5 75% 5 100% 2 0 4 0 7 60% 2 0 2 1% 8 100% 2 0 10 0 18 50% 3 10% 4 2% 0 0 2 2% 98% 5.5 99% 75% 5 0 0 0 12 30% #4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 6 0 0 5 3 0 . 0 • 5 0 156 0 4 #5 90% 25% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25% 100% 0 75% 0 0 100% 100% 0 0 0 50% 100% 0 0 0 0 75% #6 #7 SEX 0 10 21 8 6 F 0 17 20 4 5 M 0 54 4 F * * * * 10 M * * * * 30 M 0 15 49 0 20 F * * * * 1.5 M 8 10 48 0 0 M 0 0 87 0 0 M * * * * 5 M 0 0 24 24 48 M * * * * 5 M 0 0 41 0 5 F 7 0 18 20 * F 0 21 0 45 0 M * * * * 3 F * * * * 0 F 0 0 0 39 15 F 20 12 52 0 12 M 0 0 38 0 45 M 0 14 29 3 10 M 0 25 10 0 25 M 0 0 0 80 0 M 0 0 21 20 20 F * * * * 0 M 0 0 0 71 0 F 0 0 26 0 10 M

PAGE 163

CODE 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 1 0 1 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 11 0 11 1 #1 64 50 55 54 85 64 55 58 57 38 35 43 75 62 41 53 50 53 62 46 63 40 54 45 30 63 28 50 #2 0 2 3 0 4 1.5 6 4 4 20 5 2.5 10 6 4 6 3 15 6 12 2 4 6 #3 0 100% 2% 0 25% 0 0 10% 100% 0 0 0 3% 15% 10% 50% 10% 95% 80% 20% 10% 25% 20% 0 100% 0 0 100% #4 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 0 5 5 2 0 5 0 3 0 0 0 9 2 2 0 #5 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 0 10% 100% 100% 100% 0 0 98% 0 0 100% 0 66% 0 0 0 100% 0 50% 25% 0 #6 #7 SEX * * * * 0 M 0 0 35 15 10 F 20 0 35 0 25 M 10 8 33 3 80 M 0 0 0 85 0 M * * * * 0 0 11 44 0 0 0 58 0 0 2 55 0 18 19 0 0 0 35 5 20 15 0 * * * * 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 41 0 0 10 43 2 0 48 0 * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 46 0 18 45 0 0 18 4 18 * * * * 0 0 45 0 0 6 24 0 11 8 44 0 0 26 * * * * 20 M 5 M 4.5 M 4.5 M 10 M 4 F 15 M 0 M 6 M 10 F 20 M 25 M 0 F 0 M 2 M 5 M 7 F 30 M 30 F 25 F 7 M 7.5 F 0 M

PAGE 164

CODE 11 2 11 3 11 4 11 5 11 6 11 7 11 8 11 9 120 12 1 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 1 3 1 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 #1 45 45 31 35 40 60 62 73 51 32 85 56 36 44 40 66 40 71 46 50 46 * 73 65 51 37 66 #2 #3 4.5 50% 14 3 8 2 12 3 1 0 8 2.5 4 2 1 0 8 6 1 5 20 5 15 4 * 100% 0 1% 0 75% 50% 60% 0 0 100% 50% 75% 10% 4% 50% 0 50% 0 90% 50% 0 2% 50% 0 75% #4 #5 0 0 4.5 0 4 100% 10 100% 4 9 7 5 6 3 0 0 .25 3 1 0 2 2 1 0 2 0 5 2.5 100% 0 100% 90% 100% 20% 0 0 100% 100% 33% 60% 100% 100% 50% 0 100% 0 10 7 6 10 100% 0 0 50% 0 30% 0 158 #6 #7 SEX * * * * 25 F 0 0 0 45 90 M 0 0 18 13 5 M * * * * 20 M 0 0 0 40 20 F * * * * 30 F 0 0 47 15 14 M 0 0 41 32 5 M * * * * 10 M 5 5 22 0 20 F * * * * 0 F 0 0 56 0 5 M 0 0 36 0 7 M 0 0 0 44 10 F 0 0 0 40 30 M 19 0 47 0 5 F 0 0 40 0 10 M 0 0 0 71 0 M 0 0 0 46 10 M * * * * 0 M 0 0 0 46 2 F * * * * 12 M * * * * * F 0 35 30 0 S F 0 20 0 30 7 F 0 0 22 15 35 M * * * * 0 M

PAGE 165

COOt 1n 112 113 11"4 115 116 117 5tX 139 40 2 20% 3 0 27 1 3 0 0 20 M 140 49 2 10% 50% 0 0 49 0 33 M 1 41 63 20 10% 0 0 1 6 1 2 34 30 M 142 51 4 80% 0 0 18 5 28 0 0 F 143 49 1 0 50% 0 0 * * * * 3.5 M 144 54 2 10% 0 0 5 12 1 7 20 3 M 145 37 2 5% 0 0 * * * * 30 M 159

PAGE 166

Questionnaire Section #2A Data Conversion Table This data conversion involves the information in Section 2A of the survey. Columns one through twelve represent statements one through twelve in Section 2A which were: 1) Plants in city parks should have good fall color. 2) Plants in private yards should have colorful spring flowers. 3) City parks should provide areas of natural or wild landscape. 4) Plants in private yards should provide good windbreaks. 5) Plants in private yards should attract wildlife. 6) Newly installed trees in city parks should be at least 15 feet tall. 7) Plants in city parks should provide visual screening. 8) Plants in private yards should be tightly pruned. 9) Plants in city parks should have interesting winter form. 10) Plants in private yards should be native to this area. 11) City parks should provide areas of formal gardens. 12) Plants in private yards should provide erosion control. 160

PAGE 167

The letter code in each column corresponds to the optional responses for each of these statements in the questionnaire, those being: A Always important in the landscape 0 Often important in the landscape s Seldom important in the landscape R Rarely important in the landscape N Never important in the landscape The code column on the left of the page is, once again, the numbering or indexing system used to order the individual questionnaire responses. NOTE: If the question was not responded to it is designated with an asterisk. 1 6 1

PAGE 168

CODE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 #1 #2 A A A 0 0 0 A A 0 A 0 s A A 0 0 A A A A A A 0 A 0 A A 0 0 0 0 0 A A A 0 A A 0 A A A 0 A 0 0 0 0 A A #3 A s 0 R 0 0 A * 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 s 0 A 0 0 s 0 s A A #4 A s s s s s A 0 0 0 * s R A 0 0 0 A A 0 s s 0 0 A #5 A 0 s 0 s R A 0 0 s * 0 N s 0 s s A A 0 N 0 R s s #6 * A 0 N s 0 A * A 0 * 0 R s s 0 s 0 0 s s R * 0 s 162 #7 A 0 A R s s A * A 0 0 s * 0 0 s 0 0 0 0 s 0 R A * #8 A 0 0 s 0 s A * s 0 0 0 0 A 0 R R 0 0 s R 0 0 0 N #9 #10 #11 #12 A A A A 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 A S A 0 s s 0 s 0 0 A 0 A A A A 0 s 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S R R R A A 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s A 0 s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 s 0 A 0 R S R 0 0 A 0 0 s 0 0 A 0 s 0 A S S A

PAGE 169

CODE 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 #1 #2 A A A 0 A A 0 0 A 0 0 A 0 0 A A A A 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A A 0 0 0 A A 0 A 0 0 A N 0 A 0 0 A 0 0 A 0 0 A A #3 A 0 0 0 A R 0 A A R A A 0 A R A s R N 0 0 A 0 s 0 #4 0 * s R 0 0 A 0 s s s s A s R A 0 0 A s 0 s s s 0 #5 A * 0 R s N A 0 A R R 0 A R N A s N N 0 0 A N 0 A #6 A * A 0 0 R s 0 A A A 0 R A R A 0 A R R s A 0 A A 163 #7 #8 0 A A * 0 s 0 A s 0 0 0 s 0 0 N A R 0 0 N S 0 s * A 0 0 * s A S s 0 0 0 A 0 0 R N R A A N 0 0 0 A 0 #9 #10 A 0 0 * 0 A 0 0 s 0 R 0 s s 0 0 0 R s 0 A 0 A 0 0 A A 0 0 R A A 0 s 0 s A 0 R 0 0 0 s s 0 0 A 0 A 0 #11 #12 0 A 0 0 0 A A A A S 0 0 0 A A 0 R R 0 0 0 0 A A 0 * A 0 0 R N A 0 A 0 s 0 0 0 A 0 A 0 A A 0 0 0 A 0

PAGE 170

CODE 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 #1 0 0 0 A A A A A 0 A A A 0 A A A A 0 0 0 A A A 0 A #2 s 0 0 0 A 0 A 0 0 0 A 0 0 A 0 A A A s 0 A A A 0 0 #3 R R 0 0 A 0 A 0 0 * s R 0 A A A 0 0 0 s 0 0 A s R #4 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 A 0 N A 0 0 0 s A A A s 0 A A A s 0 #5 0 R s s * 0 A 0 A R * N s * A A A 0 s R 0 0 N 0 R 164 #6 0 s s s 0 * 0 s 0 N A N 0 0 * A 0 0 s R 0 0 A 0 0 #7 0 s 0 0 0 A 0 s 0 N A R s A * A 0 0 0 R 0 0 A s s #8 s s s s N * s s 0 N * R 0 A A s s A s s 0 0 A 0 R #9 * 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 0 A A A 0 0 * A 0 A s 0 A A A 0 R #10 #11 #12 0 0 0 A N R s 0 0 A 0 0 0 R A 0 0 0 0 A A 0 0 A 0 0 A 0 A A A A A 0 S A 0 s 0 0 A A A 0 A A A A 0 0 A A 0 0 s 0 s s s 0 A A A 0 S A A A A s 0 0 0 0 A

PAGE 171

CODE 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 #1 #2 #3 #4 A A S 0 A A 0 0 0 0 s 0 A A A A 0 A S S 0 0 s 0 * * * * A 0 A 0 A A A S A A 0 0 A A 0 0 0 A A 0 A 0 A A A A 0 0 A 0 0 A 0 0 R 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 s s 0 0 s 0 0 0 0 s A 0 A 0 A A 0 0 0 A 0 0 A A A A A A S 0 #5 s 0 s A R 0 * 0 R 0 s 0 A s A R N s N s 0 A s A R 165 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 0 0 s s 0 0 s 0 0 S R s 0 0 s 0 0 0 0 s 0 * * 0 A 0 * A 0 S R 0 R S 0 S 0 R S 0 s 0 * * * * * * * S 0 R 0 S 0 A R R R S S S R A S S A 0 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 0 A S 0 0 A 0 A 0 0 A N A A R A 0 S 0 A 0 A A A 0 0 A A 0 A 0 0 S R S A 0 R R A A 0 A A 0 0 s 0 0 0 0 s s 0 s s 0 0 0 0 s 0 0 0 A A 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s 0 s 0 A 0 0 S 0 A 0 0 0 s 0 0 0 A

PAGE 172

CODE 1 0 1 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 11 0 1 1 1 11 2 11 3 11 4 11 5 11 6 11 7 11 8 11 9 120 1 2 1 122 123 124 125 #1 0 A A A A A A A A A A 0 0 0 s 0 A 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 #2 0 0 A A 0 A A A 0 A 0 0 0 s 0 s A s 0 0 A A 0 0 A #3 0 0 0 0 R A A A A A 0 0 A 0 0 s 0 0 s s 0 A s s 0 #4 0 0 s 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 s * R s * R s s s 0 A 0 s s #5 A R s s R 0 N 0 0 A R R A 0 R R A s s 0 s * 0 s 0 166 #6 R 0 A 0 0 0 s 0 A 0 0 0 N s R R 0 s R A 0 R R s 0 #7 A 0 0 0 s 0 s 0 0 A s R s R 0 s 0 0 R N s A 0 0 0 #8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 s R 0 0 0 0 s R A 0 s s s s #9 #10 #11 #12 0 0 0 0 A 0 A 0 s 0 0 0 0 s s 0 S A A A 0 0 A A A 0 s 0 A A A A A 0 A A A 0 0 0 A 0 0 A 0 A 0 A * s s * R 0 s 0 0 0 0 * s s 0 0 A 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 R 0 s 0 * 0 0 A A A A A A 0 0 s 0 0 0 s 0 A 0 A A

PAGE 173

CODE 126 127 128 129 130 1 3 1 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 1 4 1 142 143 144 145 #1 #2 #3 A 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 A A A 0 0 A A * * 0 A N A A 0 0 0 A A A 0 0 0 0 0 0 R A A S 0 0 A A 0 A A A A A 0 0 0 A A 0 0 0 A A 0 #4 #5 s 0 A R s s A A 0 s A N s s A 0 0 0 0 0 0 s S R 0 0 s 0 0 s 0 0 s s 0 0 s 0 0 s #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 R * 0 0 0 S A A 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 s 0 s s 0 0 A S 0 A 0 A A A A 0 0 0 0 0 * N N A 0 0 A s * 0 A S A A 0 N 0 0 A * A 0 0 s R 0 A A R S S 0 0 0 A R 0 0 0 0 s 0 0 S R R 0 0 * A 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A 0 s 0 0 s 0 0 0 A A 0 0 0 A 0 0 S 0 A S S A S A S S A 0 0 0 s 0 0 0 S R s 0 s 0 A S 0 A 0 0 A 16 7

PAGE 174

Questionnaire Section #28 Data Conversion Table This data table is organized with the question numbers 13, 14 and 15 being listed in the category that best represents the value expressed about plant material in the response to that question. The code listed on the left side of the page is simply the numerical organization of the individual surveys. Each code number will have three responses on its line representing the three questions in that section of the survey. In a number of the surveys all three question numbers are not listed. Questions that were omitted from this data table were not answered in the survey. The responses were categorized as representing artificial or fundamental values for plant material. The artificial category was further divided into functional and ornamental artificiality. The fundamental category was further divided into the formal, temporal and associational characteristics of fundamental identity structure for plant material. Questions that were not identified as representing a specific value related to plant material were listed in the column marked 11Not Clear.11 168

PAGE 175

7\RTir!CIAL 5iRUCTURt ruNDAMENTAL 5TRUCiURt CODE NOT CLEAR ORNAMENTAL FUNCTIONAL FORMAL TEMPORAL ASSOCIATIONAL 13 1 5 14 2 15 1 3 14 3 15 13 14 4 14 13 ' 1 5 5 13,14,15 6 14 13 ' 1 5 7 13,14,15 8 14 1 3' 1 5 9 13 14 1 5 i 1 0 1 3' 14 1 5 1 1 1 3 15 14 i 12 13 1 5 14 13 1 5 1 3 14 14 1 5 14 13w 15 1 3' 14 1 5 16 13,14,15 1 7 1 5 13 14 18 14 13' 1 5 19 15 13 14 20 14 1 3 15 21 13,14,15 22 14 1 3 1 5 23 13 14' 15 24 1 3 ' 14 1 5 25 13,14,15 169

PAGE 176

5TRUCTurH: 5TRUCTURt CODE NOT CLEAR ORNAMENTAL FUNCTIONAL FORMAL TEMPORAL AS50CIATlONAL 26 14' 1 5 1 3 27 14 1 3 15 28 1 3 14' 15 29 1 3 1 5 14 30 14' 15 13 31 1 3 1 5 14 32 13 1 5 14 i 33 13,14,15 34 13 14 15w 35 15 13w,14 36 13,14,15 37 13 1 5 14 38 13,14,15 39 1 3' 1 5 1 4 i 40 13' 15 14 41 1 3 1 5 14 42 1 3 14' 1 5 43 1 3 ' 14 1 5 44 15 1 3 14 45 1 5 13 14 46 1 3 1 5 14 47 14 13 1 5 48 1 3' 1 5 14 49 15 13 14 50 13,14,15 170

PAGE 177

ARTHICIAL FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE CODE NOT CLEAR ORNAMENTAL FUNCTIONAL FORMAL TEMPORAL ASSOCIATIONAL 51 14 1 3 ' 1 5 52 14' 1 5 13 53 14 1 3' 1 5 54 14 13 1 5 i 55 1 3' 14 15 56 14 1 5 13 57 1 3 ' 1 5 14 58 1 3' 15 14 59 13,14i,15i 60 13,14,15 61 13,14,15 62 1 3 14 15 63 13 14 1 5 i 64 1 3' 14 15 65 13,14,15 66 13 ' 15 14 67 1 3 15 1 4 i 68 13,14,15 69 13 ' 1 5 14 70 13' 14 15 71 1 3 ' 1 5 14 72 1 3 1 5 14 73 1 3 14i,15i 74 13 15 1 4 i 75 14 1 5 1 3 1 7 1

PAGE 178

ARTIFICIAL STRUCTURE FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE CODE NOT CLEAR ORNAMENTAL FUNCTIONAL FORMAL TEMPORAL ASSOCIATIONAL 76 14 1 3 15 77 13 14' 1 5 78 15 13' 14 79 1 3 15 14 80 1 5 13 ' 14 81 1 3 1 5 14 82 13' 14 15 83 1 3 ' 1 4 15 84 1 5 14 1 3 85 1 3 14' 1 5 86 14 13 15 87 13 ,14,15 88 14' 1 5 13* 89 13,14,15 90 13' 14 15 91 14 1 5 1 3 92 13,14,15 93 13,14,15 94 13' 15 14 95 13 1 5 14 96 13,14,15 97 13,14,15 98 13,14,15 99 1 3 14' 1 5 100 1 3 14 1 5 i 172

PAGE 179

7\RTIFICJJ'\[ 5TRDCTORE 5TROCTORE CODE NOT CLEAR ORNAMENTAL FUNCTIONAL FORMAL TEMPORAL ASSOCIATIONAL 1 0 1 13 15 14 102 1 5 14 13 103 13 1 5 14 104 13,14,15 105 1 3 14' 1 5 106 13,14,15 107 13' 14 1 5 108 1 3' 1 5 14 109 1 3 ' 14 1 5 11 0 14 13i,15i 1 1 1 1 3' 14 1 5 11 2 14' 1 5 1 3 11 3 13,14,15 11 4 14 1 3 ' 1 5 11 5 13,14,15 11 6 14 1 3 1 5 11 7 1 3 1 5 14 11 8 13' 14 1 5 11 9 15 1 3 14 i 120 13,14,15 1 2 1 13 14 1 5 i 122 13 14 15 123 13 14 15 114' 13,14,15 125 1 3 14' 1 5 173

PAGE 180

ARTHICIAL STRUCTURE ruNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE CODE NOT CLEAR ORNAMENTAL FORMAL TEMPORAL ASSOCIATIONAL 126 13 14 1 5 i 127 13,14,15 128 13,14,15 129 14 13* 1 5 i 130 13,14,15 1 3 1 13 ' 14 15 132 15 1 3 14 133 14 1 3 15 134 13' 14 1 5 135 13 14 1 5 136 13,14,15 137 15 13 14 138 13 14' 1 5 139 14 1 3' 1 5 140 1 3 ' 14 1 5 14 1 14 13 15 142 1 3 ' 1 5 14 143 13 ' 14 15* 144 13 ' 14 1 5 145 13' 14 1 5 174

PAGE 181

Questionnaire Section #3 Data Conversion Table In our final data tabulation, we have combined the respondent information contained in Section Three of the questionnaire with the geographical location of each respondent. The column marked "Code" on the left margin is an arbitrary numerical organization of the responses. The next column, moving left to right, contains the street address of each respondent, as well as the coordinates for that address in the metropolitan area, generated from the B. D. Wilhelm Co. computer data base. The columns to the right of the address represent the public and private space exercises in Section Three of the questionnaire respectively. Each diagram has a column representing artificial and fundamental identity structure for trees (T) and shrubs (S). The respondent's placement of plant material has been evaluated based on the operational definitions developed in Chapter 6. These individual placements have been determined to represent either artificial or fundamental identity structures for plant material. The scores were then recorded in the proper column. There were four trees and eight shrubs totaling twelve pieces of plant material in each diagram in Section Three of the questionnaire. We should then be able to add the scores across each response line and have it total twenty four. 175

PAGE 182

For example, in response number two, the public diagram was determined to represent one artificial and three fundamental tree placements with all eight shrub placements representing fundamental identity structure. The private diagram in reponse number two was evaluated and determined to represent four fundamental applications for trees and eight fundamental applications for shrubs. 176

PAGE 183

CODE ADDRESS AND COORDINATES PUBLIC PRIVATE Art i-Fund a-Arti-Fund a-ficial mental ficial mental T s T s T s T s 15791 E . Greenwood Dr. 8 4 8 4 s 338, E157091 2 16092 E. Loyola Pl. 3 8 4 8 s 388, E160092 3 987 Glencoe 2 4 6 2 3 2 5 E 530, N009087 4 17 Dahlia 3 8 3 6 2 E 480, N000017 5 3435 E. Virginia 3 4 5 4 4 4 s 50, #034035 6 3013 s. Cherry Wy. 2 4 2 4 3 8 0 E 460, S030013 7 4037 S. Wisteria Wy. 8 4 3 8 E 865, S040037 8 1825 s. Gilpin 4 6 2 3 8 E 17 0, S018025 9 2500 Forest 8 3 2 8 2 E 520, N025000 1 0 3200 s. Grape 2 4 2 4 2 6 2 2 E 540, S033020 11 730 Franklin 6 4 2 3 8 E 16 0, N007030 12 3302 s. Grape 3 8 3 6 2 E 540, S033001 13 3676 s. Forest Wy. 4 8 2 8 2 E 522, S036076 14 5590 E. Vasser 4 8 4 8 s 260, E055090 15 7044 s. Spruce Dr. 8 4 3 8 E 771 , S070044 16 1 1 Ivy Ln. 5 4 3 8 3 E 570, N000011 177

PAGE 184

CODE ADDRESS AND COORDINATES PUBLIC PRIVATE Arti-Fund a-A rti-Fund a-ficial mental f i c i a 1 m e n t a 1 T s T s T s T s 1 7 4857 S. Albion St. 4 8 8 4 E 410, S048057 18 11694 w. 37 Th. 5 3 3 2 5 2 * N 370 , W116094 19 2673 s. Nome 3 8 2 8 2 E1170 , S026073 20 6242 s. Adams Dr. 6 4 2 3 5 3 E 335, S062042 21 1075 Humbolt 2 5 2 3 8 3 E 150 , N010075 22 10899 w. 30 Th. Ave. 2 6 2 2 2 6 2 2 N 300 , W108099 23 5442 s. Dayton Ct. 8 4 4 8 E 975 , S054042 24 2590 s. Birch * 8 2 2 8 2 E 440 , S025090 25 1520 s. Birch 4 4 4 3 5 3 E 440 , 5015020 26 1246 w. 98 Th. Ave. 8 4 2 8 2 N 980, W012046 27 5586 s. Lewiston 5 3 3 2 2 7 E1620 , S055086 28 7675 Vallejo 8 4 2 8 2 s 512 , E020006 29 #6 Bellview Way 8 4 3 3 3 S512 , E020006 30 860 s. Cove Wy. 2 4 2 4 3 4 4 E 301 , S008060 31 301 Scranton 3 8 2 8 2 E1270 , N003001 32 7652 Parfet Ct. 4 4 4 2 6 2 2 W1105, N076052 178

PAGE 185

CODE ADDRESS AND COORDINATES PUBLIC PRIVATE Arti-Funda-Arti-Fund a-ficial mental f i c i a 1 mental T s T s T s T s 33 14075 w. 59 Th. Pl. 4 3 4 5 3 3 N 592, W140075 34 5129 s. Dudley 4 8 4 3 4 w 870, S051029 35 4191 s. Pontiac 2 4 6 2 7 2 E 71 0, S041091 36 7812 E. Windwood 5 3 * 3 4 4 S1400, E078012 37 10834 w. 79 Th. Pl. 5 4 3 5 3 3 N 792, W108034 38 11 5 s. Canosa Ct. * * * * * * * * w 260, S001015 39 6053 s. Beeler 4 4 4 2 8 2 E 920, S060053 40 2429 s. Kearney 4 8 4 8 E 610, S024029 41 3455 w. Warren 4 8 4 8 s 220, W034035 42 8063 Iris Ct. 4 4 4 3 8 w 975, N080062 43 13 31 E. 7 Th. 4 8 4 6 * N 70, E013031 44 2665 s. Clarkson 2 8 2 3 8 E 80, S024065 45 3245 s. Steele * 8 3 8 3 E 320, S032045 46 1400 S. Wolff 4 8 3 8 w 480, S014000 47 10447 E. Dorado Pl. 2 5 3 2 8 2 s 5 71 ' E104047 48 2438 s. Franklin 4 8 2 6 2 2 E 160, S024038 179

PAGE 186

CODE ADDI
PAGE 187

CODE ADDRESS AND COORDINATES PUBLIC PRIVATE Arti-Funda-Arti-Fund a-ficial mental ficial mental T s r s r s r s 66 3134 s. Wilding Ct. 4 8 4 8 E8300 , S031034 67 9207 E. Evans Pl. 4 3 4 3 5 3 s 225, E092007 68 9300 E. Eastman Av. 4 8 3 8 s 320, E093000 69 3277 So. Geneva 2 8 2 8 3 E1030 , S032037 70 2403 s. Lima Wy. 2 3 2 5 2 3 2 5 E1130, S024003 71 2816 So. York 4 8 2 4 2 4 E 230 , S028016 72 425 Holly * * * * * * * * E 560 , N004025 73 3550 Jackson 5 4 3 2 8 3 E 380 , N035050 74 661 Franklin 5 3 3 2 4 E 160, N006061 75 3110 s. Gilpin 4 3 5 7 4 E 17 0, S031010 76 4701 E . El Camino Or. s. 2 8 2 2 8 2 s 536, E047001 77 1665 Boston 2 3 2 5 6 3 2 E 930, N016065 78 6395 E. Donner C i r. 8 4 4 8 S1440, E063095 79 2015 S. Adams 2 4 2 4 6 3 2 E 330, S020015 80 1735 Bellaire 3 4 4 3 3 5 E 430 , N017035 81 6622 Harlan 5 4 3 5 2 w 600, N066022 1 8 1

PAGE 188

CODE ADDRESS AND COORDINATES PUBLIC PRiVATE Art i-Fund a-Arti-Fund a-ficial mental ficial mental T s T s T s T s 82 3505 Vrain 4 w 460, N035005 83 265 So. Cherry 2 3 2 5 3 3 5 E 460, S002065 84 2018 Newton St. 3 8 3 7 w 380, N020018 85 5690 E. Happy Canyon 4 4 4 2 8 2 s 356, E056090 86 101057 E. Barry Dr. 8 4 2 5 2 3 s 560, E101057 87 10251 w. Exposition Dr. 8 4 8 4 s 75, W102051 88 1 0 1 0 s . Adams 4 8 6 3 2 E 330, S010010 89 6400 E. Ponderosa Wy. 4 8 4 8 S1480, E064000 90 5245 w. Brown Pl. 4 2 6 2 8 2 s 285, W052045 91 785 Cook 2 5 2 3 3 7 E 340, N007085 92 15 So. Elm 2 3 2 5 3 8 E 500, S000015 93 4651 So. Perry Wy. 2 6 2 2 2 8 2 W410, S046051 94 3157 So. Xenia 2 6 2 2 2 8 2 E 880, S031057 95 5256 E. Princeton 8 3 8 3 s 4200, E052056 96 4480 s. Utica * * * * * * * * w 450, S044080 97 901 Pennsylvania St. 2 2 8 * * * * E 50, N009001 98 3631 w. Greenwood Pl. 5 4 3 2 8 2 s 334, W036031 182

PAGE 189

CODE ADDRESS AND COORDINATES PUBLIC Arti-Fund a-ficial mental T s s 99 3445 E. Belcaro Ln. 2 2 2 6 2 4 2 4 s 74, E34045 100 4723 s. Robb St. 3 8 4 5 3 w 1140 ' S047023 1 0 1 361 s. Wheeling Wy. 3 4 4 3 8 E1345 , S003061 102 1630 s. Vra i n 3 8 3 8 w 460, S016031 103 86 1 5 E. Eastman Av. 3 7 3 5 2 3 s 320 , E086015 104 3100 w. Crabapple Rd. 4 8 4 8 N 298 , W131000 105 6973 S. Andes Cir. 2 2 2 6 2 8 2 E1851, S069073 106 3855 Brentwood 4 4 4 6 2 2 w 830, N038055 107 675 Ammons Wy. 2 8 2 8 3 w 815 , N006075 108 110 Cottonwood 3 4 5 2 3 2 5 s 885, E201010 109 3175 So. Ash 3 3 5 2 4 2 4 E 420 , S031075 11 0 70 Fairway Ln. 4 8 4 8 s 640, W040070 1 1 1 11312 w. Hampden 2 5 2 3 4 8 s 3'50' W113012 11 2 7484 Alcott 3 5 3 4 8 w 250, N074084 11 3 3201 E. Virginia 2 4 2 4 3 5 3 s 50, E032001 11 4 2988 s. Niagra Wy. 4 8 4 8 E 670, S029088 183

PAGE 190

CODE ADDRESS AND COORDINATES PUBLIC Arti-Fund a-ficial mental s T s 1 1 5 5591 E. 66 Th. 4 6 2 4 8 N 660, E055091 11 6 586 So. Gaylord 2 5 2 3 3 5 3 E 220, S005086 11 7 1548 Locust St. 4 8 4 8 E 640, N015048 11 8 6464 Iris Ct. 3 8 2 8 2 w 974, N064064 11 9 3500 Moore Ct. 4 4 4 8 2 W1050, N035000 120 395 Dexter 5 4 3 2 4 2 4 E 470, N003095 1 2 1 2020 Willow Ln. 2 4 2 4 8 3 W1275, N020020 122 1890 s. Gilpin * * * * * * * * E 1 70, S018090 123 5470 s. Newport C i r. 2 5 2 3 3 5 3 E683, S054070 124 16060 E. Milan Dr. 2 3 2 2 3 5 s 385, E160060 125 1062 So. Clayton Wy. * * * * * * * * E 31 0, S010062 126 1645 s. Wyandot 2 4 2 4 3 5 3 w 320, S016045 127 2796 So. Lamar 8 3 8 3 w 640, S027096 128 5796 So. Kittredge Ct. 2 8 2 2 8 2 E1560, S057096 129 2820 s. Ivanhoe 4 8 4 8 E 570, S028020 130 1260 So. Josephine 8 4 2 8 2 E 240, S012060 1 3 1 8 E. Brookside Dr. 2 8 2 3 8 s 51 0' E010008 184

PAGE 191

CODE ADDRESS AND COORDINATES 132 2903 So. Quitman 8 4 8 3 w 410 , S029030 133 4423 So. Zenobia 4 8 4 5 3 w 520 , S044023 134 1645 Newport St. 3 8 3 8 E 680, N016045 135 14659 E. 24 Th. Av. 2 4 6 4 8 N 240, E146059 136 9501 w. Florida Pl. 8 4 2 8 2 S 155 , W095001 137 1984 So. Emerson 6 2 2 2 4 2 4 E 90, S019084 138 3401 So. Ivy Wy. 4 8 4 5 3 E 585 , S034001 139 390 So. Race 4 8 5 3 3 E 200 , S003090 140 8022 So. Zephyr 8 4 4 8 w 790 , S080022 1 41 347 Glencoe 8 4 4 8 E 530 , N003047 142 7835 So. Elizabeth Wy. 4 8 2 8 2 E 270, S078035 143 901 Niagara St. 8 2 2 8 2 # 670, N009001 144 9243 E. Evans Wy. 7 3 2 8 2 s 210 , E092043 145 54 So. Flora 4 3 4 2 8 2 W1430, S000054 185

PAGE 192

SAMPLE SURVEY 186

PAGE 193

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SURVEY UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER MASTERS OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PROGRAM DIRECTORHARRY GARNHAM February 1, 1988 Dear Valued Wilhelm Customer: B.D. WILHELM COMPANIES 8200 E. HARVARD DENVER, COLORADO 80231 The University of Colorado at Denver, Masters of Landscape Architecture Program, in cooperation with the B. D. Wilhelm Companies, is conducting research in an effort to better understand the values of American society as they relate to the practice of Landscape Architecture. The results of this study will help the practice of Landscape Architecture clarify the direction of its future so as to more accurately reflect the needs and desires of the consumers of Landscape Architectural services. This questionnaire is one of 500 that we have circulated to individuals we feel have had the necessary experience to make a significant constribution to our research. Your answers are confidential, your name and address is not required on this survey. We would appreicate it very much if you would fill out the attached questionnaire and return it in the self-addressed stamped envelope provided, by March first. Thank you for your considerate attention. Sincerely yours, Michael E. Holweger M.S.L.A. Candidate University of Coltirado at Denver Spring 1988 If you have questions about this survey or the results of our research, feel free to call me at 733-9818. 187

PAGE 194

SECTION #1 Please answer the following questions as directed. 1. What is your current age ? 2. How many hoours do you spend working in your yard per week during the summer months (excluding mowing) ? 3. What percentage of the trees and shrubs in your yard did you personally plant ? 4. How many hour per week during the summer months do you spend in a city park ? 5. What percentage of the time you spend in c ity parks is devoted to active recreation ? 6. How many years have you lived on a farm town under 10,000 , , suburban metropolitan area or-urban center ? 7. How many days per year do you spend in natural or wild landscapes, hiking, camping, fishing etc. ? Please place a check in the box to the right that best represents your reaction to the following statements, in terms of their importance to landscaped environments. SECTION #2 ALWAYS OFTEN SELDOM RARELY NEVER 1. Plants in city parks should have good fa 11 color. 2. Plants in private yards should have colorful spring flowers. 3 . City parks should provide areas of natural or wild landscapes. 4. Plants in private yards should orovide qood windbreaks. 5 . Plants in private yards should attract wildlife. 6 • Newly installed trees in city parks should be at least 1 5 feet tall. 7 • Plants in cit{ parks should orovide visua screeninCJ. 8. Plants in private yards should be tiohtlv oruned. 9. Plants in city parks should have interestino winter form. 10.Plants in private yards should be native to this area. 11 .City parks should include areas for formal qardens. 12.Plants in private yards should orovide erosion control. 13.What Is the most Important piece of plant material In your yard, why? ____________________________________________ __ 14.What IS your favorite season in the landscape, winter ______ _ spring , summer , fall why? ____________________ _ 15.What planting in your yard are you most fond of, why? 188

PAGE 195

SECTION #3 NOTE: Please rest assured there is no right answer to this exercise. Our objective here is simply to better understand what you the consumer value in the arrangement of plant materials. 1. Assume the square diagram below is the yard of your new home. You have been given the plant materials listed on the left side of the diagram to landscape it with. Please arrange the plant materials listed by locating the symbol on the left side of each plant type in the position on the diagram that represents the location where you would plant it in your new yard. Please use all plants listed. I 0 TREE (QUANTITY 4) 0 HOUSE SHRUB (QUANTITY 8) ---. : .. :., ............... -.... . .... \ : . ' : ... : ::. ; .. ::: : :. > ::. ; :-: a: :: : '""'"""'"> ........ r. • --' ... : c .......... , .... L. ..................... ....... ••. •. .,... .. __ .,.., . Vf 2. Assume the square diagram below represents a small portion in the center of a large city park. You have been given the plant materials listed on the left side of the diagram to landscape it. Please arrange the plant materials listed by locating the symbol on the left side of each plant type in the position on the diagram that represents the location where you would plant it in this small park improvement. Please use all plants listed. G TREE (QUANTITY 4) 0 SHRUB (QUANTITY 8) 189

PAGE 196

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 190

PAGE 197

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Altman, Irwin, Wohlwill, Joachim F., Human Behavior and Environment Advances in Theory and Research, Volumes 1, 3 & 6, Plenum Press, New York and London, 1983. Bacon, Stephen, The Conscious Use of Metaphore in Outward Bound, Colorado Outward Bound School, Denver, Colorado, 1983. Barron, Robert C., Junkin, Elizabeth Darby, Of Discovery and Destiny, Fulcrum Inc., Golden, Colorado, 1986. Douglas, William 0., A Wilderness Bill of Rights, Little Brown and Company, Boston, 1965. Einstein, Albert, Out of My Later Years, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, 1950. Emerson, Ralph Waldo, Uncollected Writings, Kennikat Press, Port Washington, NY., London, 1912. Foster, Steven, Little, Meredith, The Book of the Vision Quest, Bear Tribe Publishing, Spokane, Washington, 1983. Frazer, Sir James George, The Golden Bough, A Study in Magic and Religion, The Micmillan Co., New York, 1958. Hendee, John C. Stankey, George H., Lucas, Robert C., Wilderness Management, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1365. Lachapelle, Dolores, Earth Wisdom, Finn Hill Arts, Silverton, Colorado, 1978. Lopez, Barry Holstun, Of Wolves and Men, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1978. Mitchell, Richard G., Jr., Mountain Experience, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1978. Muir, John, Mountain Essays, Peregrin Smith Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah, 1984 Reprint 1911. Nash, Roderick, Wilderness and the American Mind, Yale University Press, New Haven and London 1973. Nash, Roderick, Cheek, Neil Jr., Talbot, Lee M., Nature and Human Nature, Wilderness To Be or Not To Be, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1976. Shepard, Paul, Nature and Madness, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, California, 1982. 1 9 1

PAGE 198

Thoreau, Henery David, Natural History Essays, Peregrine Smith Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah, 1980 Reprint 1862. Van Dyke, John C., The Desert, Peregrin Smith Inc., Salt Lake City, 1980 Reprint 1901. Walsh, Richard G., Gillman, Richard A., Loomis, John B., Wilderness Resource Economics Recreation and Use Preservation Values, American Wilderness Alliance, Denver, Colorado 1982. 192