Perception and Aesthetics of the Urban Environment: Review of the Role of Vegetation. RICHARD C. SMARDON. Institutefor Environmental Policy and Planning ...
Landscape and Urban Planning, 15 ( 1988 ) 85 106 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands
Perception
and Aesthetics of the Urban Environment: of the Role of Vegetation
RICHARD
85
Review
C. SMARDON
Institutefor Environmental Policy and Planning, Faculties ofEnvironmental Studies and Landscapeiirchitecture, ofEnvironmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY 13210 (U.S.A.) (Accepted for publication
SUNY College
17 July 1987)
ABSTRACT
Smardon, R.C., 1988. Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: review of the role of vegetation. Landscape Urban Plann., 15: 85-106.
This paper is a review of the role that urban vegetation plays in regard to human behavior and the perception of urban environments. This includes a review of the functions or benefits of urban vegetation to human use-economic ben-
efits, instrumental or physiological functions and perceptual functions including visual, sensory benefits and symbolic aspects. The second part of the paper reviews the roles of urban vegetation in performing these various functions at different environmental scales and in different contexts. Finally, there is a review of means to assess change in the quality of urban vegetation in the environment as well as using vegetation to improve urban environmental perceptual quality.
INTRODUCTION This paper is a review of the role that urban vegetation plays in regard to human behavior and perception of urban environments. Although urban vegetation traditionally has been defined as urban trees, I have broadened this review to include all urban vegetation including shrubs and ground vegetation which might be called “urban greenspace”. The paper begins with a review of the functions or benefits of urban vegetation to human use - including economic benefits, instru-
0169-2046/88/$03.50
0 1988 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
mental or physiological functions, perceptual functions including visual and sensory benefits and symbolic functions. The second section of the paper will review these various functions as they have been documented at different urban scales ranging from whole cities or urbanizing regions, to transportation corridors, to districts of neighborhoods to street-scape or specific places such as parks or residential structures. The second section of the paper will also address means of assessing change in the quality of urban vegetation in the environment as well
86
as ways of utilizing vegetation ban environmental quality. URBAN VEGETATION VALUES Economic
to improve
FUNCTIONS
ur-
AND
benejits
Economic benefits of urban vegetation have been quantified for some direct and indirect benelits. The true nature of these benefits, however, are not known other than the fact that appraisers and property owners pay more for certain property with trees and adjacent to urban parks and open space areas. Studies have documented (Payne, 1973; Payne and Strom, 1975: Morales et al., 1976) that the presence of trees on developed residential lots contributed up to 12%, and on undeveloped land up to 27%, of the estimated market values. A recent study found a positive relationship between price and proximity to green belt areas (Correll and Knetson, 1978 ), and the positive effect of parks and open space on values of adjacent properties has been well documented (Kitchen and Hendon, 1967: Gold, 1972b; Weicher and Zerbst, 1973: Hammer et al., 1974). Instrumental/physiological.functions vegetation
of urban
Ulrich’s ( 1979) research has addressed the “nature restoration hypothesis”the notion that natural views tend to be therapeutic compared with urban scenes in terms of reducing stress and anxiety. Consistent with the restoration hypothesis, exposure to the vegetation views significantly reduced feelings of fear, and positive effects such as affection and elation were increased. By contrast, the urban presentations actually aggravated anxiety, particularly in terms of increased feelings of sadness. These findings applied to both sexes, and to subjects with either rural or urban backgrounds (Ulrich, 1979). Based on this and
subsequent research (Ulrich. 1983, 198 1 ), it is suggested that people may benefit most from visual encounters with nature when they are uncomfortably stressed or anxious. A recent study examined post-surgical recovery data for patients in a suburban Pennsylvania hospital to determine whether assignment to a room with a window view of a natural setting might have therapeutic influences (Ulrich, 1984). Recovery data were compared for pairs of patients with the same operation who were closely matched for variables such as age, sex, weight, tobacco use and previous hospitalization. The patients were assigned to rooms that were identical except for window view; one member of each pair overlooked a small stand of deciduous trees (mixed hardwoods) while the other had a view of a brown brick building wall. Individuals with tree views had significantly shorter post-operative hospital stays, had far fewer negative evaluative comments in nurses’ notes, and tended to have lower scores for minor post-surgical complications. These findings strongly suggest that the view of trees has a comparative therapeutic influence on the patients. A whole field of horticultural therapy has recently received renewed interest and which includes providing access and activities oriented toward raising plants (Watson and Burlingame. 1960: Kaplan, 1973; Lewis. 1973 ). It has been alleged that urban trees have positively altered microclimate through production of shade, wind reduction and glare reduction. Whyte’s ( 1980) study of small urban spaces in New York especially noted the importance of shade for inducing use and satisfaction. A recent study of residential greenspace in Syracuse, New York (Palmer, 1986), noted that cool shade in the summer was especially valued, but also noted that vegetation did not do as much as residents expected in blocking cold winter winds, reducing noise, screening bright lights, blocking views of their property, and reducing harsh glare. It is now
87
generally accepted that urban vegetation is usually not very effective in blocking unwanted noise (Smith, 1970; Herrington, 1974; Reethof and Heisler, 1976)) but could play a role when used with landforms and structures in suburban and rural areas (Fig. 1). It is generally asserted in the technical literature that vegetation does serve physiologically to mitigate noise effects by screening off visually the adjacent noise source (Herrington, 1974; Reethof and Heisler, 1976) although there is no emperical evidence. In fact, there is some evidence (Southworth, 1969) that when the sense of sight is removed (through a blindfold) that other senses such as hearing are heightened. Physical effects of vegetation on amelioration of urban noise, influence on air quality and effects on urban winds is summarized by Rowntree ( 1986); and methodological considerations in human evaluation of environmental noise are presented by Weinstein ( 1976). With respect to air temperatures, forests are generally considered capable of making the temperature range more narrow than that of a nearby open area through reduction in summer maxima and increase in winter minima. Atmospheric humidity has a tendency to be higher than in adjacent open areas. Trees transpire water and act as sources of water vapor. Forests do exert a very significant influence on wind velocities. The establishment of stands and rows of trees for purposes of wind reduction is perhaps the most prevalent form of microclimate alteration accomplished by employing vegetation. This may be difficult in urban areas because of lack of space. The key to microclimate benefits is the increase in human comfort zone which is attributable to the ability of vegetation to ameliorate high and low temperatures, to provide shade and to filter or block glare and to moderate wind velocities. For many people, planting, cultivating and managing vegetation is a form of recreation (Appleyard, 1980). Also the fruits, nuts, leaves, wood and wood chips harvested from
trees and other urban vegetation adds to the recreation activity and positive process (Appleyard, 1980; More, 1985). In fact, there is a wide field of recent renewed interest, known as horticultural therapy, whose purpose is to allow eldery or handicapped persons to have a therapeutic experience in growing, cultivating and managing vegetation whether it be flowers, vegetables or trees. Horticulture, as therapy, is actually very old. It is based on the notion that urban ills can be mitigated by returning people to the soil. School, prison and mental health institution gardens were very popular in the early 1900’s. School gardens came back in the 1950’s, but they were discontinued in prisons because prisoners had to be paid wages. Horticultural therapy involves the use of plants (and plant-related activities) as a medium through which positive behavioral, psychological and physical benefits can be maintained or improved. Gardening activities can be tailored to the individual’s abilities and interests, and provide meaningful activity that serves as a “work substitute” for instutionalized geriatrics (Train, 1974). Some of the other known benefits of horticultural programs and activities include: (a) increase in active participation (Relf, 198 1); (b) an increase in receptiveness (Stramm and Barber, 1978); (c) integration and subsequent improvement of biological and psychological factors (Train, 1974; Relf, 1981): (d) increased concentration, attention span and alertness (Kaplan, 1973; Relf, 1981); (e) an increase in self esteem (McAndrew, 1980). Used as part of the solution to creative design, horticultural therapy has been used in developing design programs for activities and structure for an institution’s population (Lilien-McDonough, 1986). Trees are used by children for climbing and hiding, testing physical skills, and building tree houses (Brush and More, 1976; Appleyard, 1980). It should be noted though that urban children may have different perceptions of
(a)
(b)
(cl Fig.
I Physical
functions
of urban
Headlight
and overhead
Vegetation intercepts lot to the immediate vegetation.
light glare.
the movement surroundings.
(a) production
of dust particles
of shade:
from the parking
(b) glare reduction:
(c) mtcrception
of dust.
89
trees and may think of them as more utilitarian than as a play device. Urban vegetation can be a setting for recreation both at home and in an urban park situation. In a recent survey of urban residential use of greenspace in Syracuse, New York (Palmer, 1986), residents were asked about the frequency and location of common activities in their front and backyards. The most common activity is parking the automobile during the summer. Two other utilitarian activities occur primarily in the backyard: drying clothes and excercising the dog. Passive activities such as playing music, or just sitting and relaxing are next in frequency. Other activities include watching wildlife or birds, reading, feeding birds or wildlife, and sunbathing. Maintenance activities concerned with greenspace included the following: watering plants by hand, mowing the lawn, flower gardening, weeding the lawn or garden and vegetable gardening. Activities involving social play and entertainment include the following: playing with friends or children, entertaining friends or family, and picnicking or eating outside (Palmer, 1986 ). Physical park attributes may also influence people’s activity; that is, particular behaviors may be associated with certain dimensions of park landscape. In a recent study by More ( 1985 ) of two large urban parks in Boston and Hartford, Connecticut, the following findings relate to recreational activities and urban vegetation. Grass correlates positively with sleeping, indulging and eating. In Boston, it is also correlated with eating and play, while in Hartford, it is positively associated with reading. Shrubs are negatively associated with most activities; their very presence reduces the space available for activity, but the effect is not strong as the correlations are neither large nor significant. Trees have interesting effects in two dimensions - number and size. The number of trees is positively correlated with many activities but especially with sleeping and reading - two ac-
tivities that occur in the shade. In Boston, the number of trees in a sector was also correlated with conversing, eating, play, music/dance, feeding and indulging. Large trees fostered conversing, play, reading and sleeping in both cities. In Boston only, they positively were associated with feeding, indulging, eating and music/dance. Again, shade may be of primary importance ( More, 198 5 ) . Perceptualfunctions and values of urban vegetation The following functions and values are more psychological than behavioral or physical however, there is some overlap between physiological functions and perceptual functions as Ulrich’s ( 1985) work with hospital patients and views of vegetation affecting recovery rates indicates. Perceptual functions and values are subdivided as those that are primarily visual and sensory vs. symbolic. Here, again, the overlap is obvious. This includes the aesthetic appreciation of natural vegetation structure, form, foliage pattern; the changing nature of fruit, flowers and leaves and the massing in stands and forests (Appleyard, 1980). Nelson ( 1976 ) talks at length about the aesthetic elements of line, form, color and texture as they relate to trees in the urban environment; emotional qualities affecting aesthetics and additional characteristics such as silhouettes, sculptural quality, reflections and intricacy and geometry. Urban vegetation, especially trees and shrubs, is used extensively through ornamental horticulture as ornament or decoration for individual tastes or for public image. This is true at an individual specimen level where trees are carved, trimmed, sculptured into cones, cubes, pyramids, walls, spheres and any other desirable shape (Appleyard, 1980). The Japanese shape their miniature trees as banzai imitating nature on a smaller scale. Trees have also been used in groups to achieve certain shapes and masses such as walls or bosques and lined up in axial symmetry in
90
baroque gardens in France which later carried over to certain cities in the U.S. such as Washington. DC, and Philadelphia (Zube, 1973). Good historical overviews of the use of trees in civic design are provided by Zube ( 1970, 1973 ). As Schmid appropriately states “extensive observation leads to the inescapable conclusion that the plants which occupy AngloAmerican front yards are present... because they are traditional ornaments necessary to maintain a public image of the appropriate setting for single family houses” (Schmid, 1975, p. 106). More on the symbolic value of ornament is reviewed later. An often forgotten sensory function stimulated by urban vegetation is smell (Gibbon, 1986 ). Trees and vegetation exude scents and odors that, on the whole. are appealing and stimulating. As Appleyard ( 1980) so aptly illustrates, the scent of pine trees, especially after rain, conjures up quite vivid memories of certain experiences or associations. There can be positive urban sounds (Southworth, 1969) and among them are the sounds of rustling leaves, creaking branches, and the whistling of wind. Sometimes birds nesting in trees supply music (Appleyard, 1980). Urban vegetation provides different kinds of screening that is quite useful in urban environments. One type of screening is to block views to objectionable objects or scenes (Reethof and Heisler, 1976; Brush et al., 1979; Appleyard, 1980). Brush et al. (1979) have done specific studies on various types of forest to provide a screen, or buffer between usually incompatible land uses ( Fig. 2 ). Measurements taken in deciduous and coniferous stands in summer and winter show that screening is lowest with continuous stands of sparse understory and highest at the edge of the forest where understory vegetation is thick. Other architectural-like uses of vegetation are space definition, privacy control and progressive realization or gradual opening up a view of a special scene (Reethof and Heisler, 1976). Still another form of screening is the ef-
feet of vegetation on blocking or filtering light - especially direct and indirect glare (Freeman, 1973; Appleyard, 1980; Erickson, 1980). Trees are easier on the eyes! As pointed out by Appleyard, the gentle greens, yellows and blues of trees with their softer-textured leaves that filter and reflect the light, making ever-changing patterns, provide a much needed contrast to the reds, whites, and grays, the often coarse and barren textures, the hard reflections and glare of the static, constructed environment (Appleyard, 1980 ) . Trees absorb structures and in a larger scale have a visual absorptive capacity or vegetative opacity for absorbing or dampening the impacts of urban development (Jacobs and Way, 1969a,b). At the same time, trees add visual diversity or complexity to urban environment (Rapoport and Hawks. 1970). The extent of landscaping or greenery immediately surrounding the structure is found to enhance the ability to recall a building via cognitive mapping (Evans et al.. 1982). Authors speculated that the buildings surrounded by trees and other vegetation are more remembered partly because the greenery increases attractiveness and makes the structures more noticeable. I have recently experimented with improving the appearance of highway commercial strips and found that vegetation as a single design element is more effective than facade improvement or street furniture (Smardon and Goukas. 1984; Lambe and Smardon, 1986). Building facade treatments and signs tend to compete visually with each other when seen from a moving automobile. The detail is not perceived or too much detail is perceived as stimulus overload. Vegetation in the form of trees breaks up otherwise continuous building facades and signage while providing delineation of space, shrubs anchor structures to the ground, and grass or ground cover creates edge with the pavement (see Fig. 3). All forms of vegetation have a more substantial visual improvement to the urban strip environment
91
Landscaping separates pedestriansand parkinglotvehicles
Natural bufferingfor user enjoyment
Fig. 2. Screening and psychological environment.
functions.
(a) screening parking lots; (b) screening traffic; (c) aesthetic
and sensory
91
Second
section NW,
star-New6
30
I981 /1
How does Main Street look to you?
See pages
two and three
/’i i
I
I j
lage of Nort :h Syrac use Visual char ac 4er ar meas I Photograph points *
93
Main Street... Frompage Taft Rd. intersection Area 1 Proposed Alternative One l No change Proposed Alternative Two I. Small, cluttered. signs would be removed, consolidated or put on building fronts. Large. easy to read signs would remain. 2. Gravel parking area in front of buildings would be paved. 3. Roadside edge would be added. 4. Shrubs would be planted around buildings.
Proposed Alternative Three 1.Small. cluttered, signs would
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
be removed, consolidated or put on building fronts. Large, easy to read signs would remain. Gravel parking area in front of buildings would be paved. Curbs would be added. Shrubs would be planted around buildings. Entrances to buildings would be better defined. Trees and planters would be planted along roadside edge.
Parochial Area 2 Proposed Alternative One *No change Proposed Alternative Two I. SIgnage would be simplified and put on the building fronts. 2. The road’s edge would be grass~seeded and a curb added. 3. Some vegetation would be planted. 4. Business entrances better defined.
Proposed Alternative Three I. Signage would be simplified and put on the building fronts. 2. Sidewalks would be added throughout area. 3. Roadside edge cleaned up. 4. Area treed heavily. poles and lines 5. Utility eliminated.
Fig. 3. Sample visual districts and photomontaged Syracuse, NY.
simulations showing vegetative planting alternatives
for Main Streeet, North
Fig. 4. Sycamores along Memorial Drive along the Charles River in Cambridge,
perceived in motion from building facade sign improvement at a fraction of the cost. SJ,mbolic
or
Ilakes and functions
The second part of perceptual functions/ benefits addresses urban vegetation and especially trees as symbolic. Appleyard ( 1980) lists many symbolic functions of urban vegetation and trees, but I will only present three that are reinforced by existing literature. They are a visible symbol of the natural world. Trees are the primary and sometimes the last representatives of nature in the city and thus individuals or groups may see trees as anchors of stability in the urban scene. Appleyard ( 1980) points out that the Elm Tree Riots in Stockholm focused on a cluster of elms around a teahouse in one of Stockholm’s parks, which the transit authority wanted to uproot. Similarly. several people chained themselves to
MA. Photograph
used with permission
of A.E.
the sycamores along Memorial Drive when the highway department in Cambridge, Massachusetts, proposed to fell them (see Fig. 4). Schmid ( 1975 ) points out that individual trees seem less appreciated as public relics in the midwest than in the east but notes that individual Chicagoans treasure their venerable bur oaks. As Schmid also notes, there is a close connection between trees valued as historic individual organisms and trees valued as social symbols which evoke complex and as yet poorly defined cultural values. Some of these trees are institutionally recognized for their composite values in the National Register of Trees. Many states and cities are doing “Heritage Trees” or “Great Trees” programs. A recent paper by Sanford and Neumann ( 1987 ) describes how urban trees are artifacts reflecting both synchronic and drachronic cultural features and, as artifacts, may be used to understand cultural change.
95
Perhaps the aggregate of the first instance is the second instance -that a group of trees become symbolically associated with a particular place, street or community. The author found that residents had fond memories of stately elms bordering a major street in Fredonia, New York (Lambe and Smardon, 1986). We may think of the chestnuts of Paris, the cypresses of Rome, the plane trees of London, or palms in Hawaii. Certainly the sycamores along Memorial Drive in Cambridge (Fig. 4) are an existing manifestation of such an image. Groups of trees may also illustrate classic civic and park design as described by Zube ( 1970, 1973) and Arnold ( 1980). Also remnants of undisturbed open space and the resultant preservation battles create such symbolic images such as the political battle to save Lynn Woods in Massachusetts (Gordon and Lambrix, 1973) or the controversy over historic reconstruction of parts of Central Park in New York City. According to Schmid ( 1975) and others, American ideas of residential landscape as ornament and symbol derive from the European vision of nature translated into a “new” continent. The beliefs which gave rise to the green symbols that constitute American frontyards share a close kinship to the non-material worship of nature via post-Renaissance landscape painting artists and the Romantic movement of the nineteenth century. To the extent that gardens do not provide a chance for communion with nature and to the extent that they cease to embody a manageable microcosm of the world of nature, they function merely as conventional forms of display. Yard maintenance is also a major social activity of suburban living in terms of expected levels of yard maintenance. Reynolds ( 1972 ) found a sharp difference among homeowners in the amount of tolerance they expressed for untidy lawn maintenance by neighbors according to the homeowner’s motivation for maintaining his own yard. Respondents in the Ann Arbor sample who saw their own lawn maintenances as a civic contribution were espe-
cially concerned that their neighbors keep the grass cut. Similar expectations were found in a sampling of residential greenspace owners in Syracuse, New York (Palmer, 1986).
ROLE OF URBAN VEGETATION DIFFERENT
IN
SCALES AND CONTEXTS
General preference-for
urban vegetation
Now that we have examined some of the functions of urban vegetation, the next step is to ascertain what research can tell us about how people value urban vegetation in different urban living contexts (Table 1). A small but growing experimental literature has examined aesthetic preferences for urban scenes with and without vegetation (Ulrich, 1973). At a general level, a consistent finding has been that the presence of vegetation, especially trees, has positive effects on preference (Ulrich, 1985). An early investigation by Lynch and Rivkin (1959) found that a sample of pedestrians in downtown Boston universally responded in a very positive, pleasurable manner to vegetation, particularly to views of the public gardens. Thayer and Atwood ( 1978) compared pleasantness ratings for slide pairs of urban scenes that were similar except for the presence or absence of vegetation, and reported that the presence of plants usually increased ratings significantly. The sole exception was a strip development where plants presumably occupied only a small portion of view compared with broad expanses of highway and clutter associated with signs, facades, and utility wires. I have found that major planting proposals, presented using visual simulation, yield positive responses from subjects as the amount of vegetation increases (Smardon and Goukas. 1984: Lambe and Smardon, 1986) (see also Fig. 3). Another investigation revealed that residents of a high-density housing complex rated
96
T.ABLE I .Array of urban landscape assessment
Landscape assessment paradigm
Whole reg.
studies
city or town urbanizing
Trans.
corridor
roadside
view
District
neighborhood
Streetscape place/path
Expert
Yuill and Joyner (1979) Pogacnik ( 1979a)
Appleyard et al. ( 1964) Jacobs and Way ( 1969a ) Lambe and Smardon ( 1986)
Lynch and Rivkin Lambe and Phillips Lynch (1960) Smardon ( I983a)
Psychological
Brush and Palmer ( 1979) Carp et al. (1976) Crystal and Brush ( 1978 ) Garling (1976) Palmer ( 1983) Pogacnik (1979b) Thayer and Atwood ( 1978 Wright ( 1974)
Ulrich ( 1973) Evans and Wood ( 1980) Craik (1975) Smardon and Goukas ( 1984)
Frey (1981) Palmer ( 1984) Peterson ( I967 ) Robinson ( 1080) Huspeth ( I981 ) Zoelling (1981)
C‘raik and Appleyard ( 1980)
Davis ( 1970 ) Lynch (1960) Zoclling ( 198 I
Groat
Cognrtive
Experiential
Evans ct al. (1982) Harrisson and Howard Herzog et al. ( 1976) Palmer ( 1984 )
( 1959) ( I98 I )
Cullcn (1971) Willmott et al. (1983)
Willmott (1983)
et al.
)
Winkel
et al.
( I969 )
( 1971)
Carr and Schissler ( I969 ) Craik (1975) Feimer (1984) Smardon and Goukas ( 1984)
urban settings far higher in preference when they contained prominent amounts of foreground and middleground vegetation, and when buildings were at middleground or greater distances (Ulrich and Addams, 198 1 ). Similarly, a study of high-rise dwellers found that residents valued the amount of greenspace (lawn, shrubs and trees) in their highrise views (Zoelling, 198 1 ). The same residents in the Ulrich and Addams ( 198 1) study accorded lowest preference to commercial areas that lacked vegetation and were visually complex because of signs, wires and mixed facades. Likewise, a factor analysis study of preferences for a diverse sample of urban photographs identified an “Urban Nature” factor in views, characterized by large amounts of trees and other vegetation, that scored much higher than other types of built scenes (Herzog et al., 1976 ).
Hack et al.
(1981)
)
( I974 )
Hack et al. (1974) Whytc (1980)
Importantly, this pattern of findings favoring vegetation appears to hold across widely different groups in America. A study of an exceptionally diverse sample of 250 residents of inner city areas of Detroit (70% black subjects; 30% white ) concluded there was a broad agreement in terms of strongly positive feelings for trees in cities (Getz et al., 1982 ). This investigation also found that low income inner city residents judged a woodland scene to be much higher in beauty than a downtown commercial view lacking trees. The importance of views containing vegetation has further emerged in studies of neighborhood preferences and satisfactions. On the basis of several studies of moderate and high density housing complexes in Britain and America, Cooper-Marcus ( 1982 ) concluded that residents tended to judge attractiveness of their neighborhoods largely by what they saw
97
from their windows - which agrees with studies of high-rise residents (Zoelling, 198 1) and that the vast majority of residents preferred views that included vegetation, as opposed to, buildings or parking lots devoid of vegetation. However, not all views of vegetation in residential areas are necessarily preferred. Other research suggests that residents respond with moderately low preference to neighborhood scenes consisting of empty grass-covered expanses lacking trees and shrubs (Kaplan, 1983). As with commercial and other built landscapes, residential scenes tend to be especially favored, when they contain prominent
trees (e.g. Brush and Palmer, 1979; Nasar, 1983). Similarly, in a study of simulated frontyard landscaping alternatives (Fig. 5 ), Palmer ( 1986) found that any condition with only an open lawn at ground level or with a very dense two-tree canopy is disliked. A hedge along the front walk was most preferred, followed closely by the ornamental tree with foundation shrubs. Continued investigation makes it clear that there is a desired balance between ground and Also, overgrown shrubs canopy enclosure. along the front walk were the most disliked, as well as herbaceous ground cover, vegetable garden and bare dirt under two shade trees. Vegetative reaction to unmown lawn was mod-
J-2
Fig. 5.
--J
Fig. 5
-
I
99
.‘,
Fig. 5.
I.
Fig. 5
-
1251
Fig. 5. Sample photomontaged (1986).
-
126))
frontyard landscaping alternatives from Residential Greenspace Visual Quality Study by Palmer
T
4
Z a
