Sustainable Landscapes
Additional University of Delaware Resources
Sustainable Landscapes on UD campus – Take this virtual tour to see examples of sustainable landscapes on the University of Delaware campus.
While "sustainability" may be the buzz word of the new century, managing the landscape as a stable and productive ecosystem that conserves the physical and biological processes occurring on that landscape is the best way to ensure future generations will have the ecosystem services (clean air, water and biodiversity) they need to survive. The links below provide information about how to practice sustainable landscaping and where to see examples of sustainable landscapes.
Landscape Publications
Plants for a Livable Delaware Series
This series of brochures were developed to educate Delawareans about the problem of invasive plants in the landscape. Plants on the Delaware Invasive Species List that are still bought and sold in the nursery and landscape industry are highlighted in “Plants for a Livable Delaware” and at least 10 alternative plants are suggested to replace the popular invasive plant found in many home landscapes. Control recommendations for removing troublesome invasive plants are covered in “Controlling Backyard Invaders.” In “Livable Plants for the Home Landscape,” plant combinations are suggested that fill specific landscape niches, such as forest edges, sunny slopes and small garden spaces. Finally, “Livable Ecosystems: A Model for Suburbia” shows how to plant and manage rain gardens, meadows, forests and other landscape plantings that provide valuable ecosystem services.
Public Perception
Anne Lucey Plant and Soil Sciences University of Delaware Newark DE 19716 Telephone: 302-740-1979 aklucey@udel.edu (Corresponding Author)
Susan Barton, Ph.D. Plant and Soil Sciences University of Delaware Newark, DE 19716 Telephone: 302-831-1375 sbarton@udel.edu
October 29, 2010
6,184 words
(Abstract: 248, Manuscript: 4904, References: 1032) + 4 figures (4 x 250words) = 7,184 words
ABSTRACT
Sustainable roadside vegetation management strategies limit the amount of non-native turf grass and include meadows of native warm season grasses and/or flowering perennials, and masses of native shrubs and trees. Sustainably managed roadsides can contribute to a matrix of economically conservative, environmentally responsible and aesthetically pleasing landscapes. Implementation of sustainable strategies may result in cost savings, better water quality and hydraulic conductivity, improved safety measures, increased biodiversity, benefits to the socioeconomic health of the state and conformity to state and federal legislation. Sustainable strategies only provide optimal cost savings and enhancement of environmental stewardship when implemented consistently. Aesthetically, sustainable landscapes often represent a departure from the traditional expectation of how a roadside landscape should appear. Lacking an awareness of the inherent values present in sustainably managed roadsides, the public is often hesitant to accept this atypical, and oftentimes less manicured aesthetic, causing many Department’s of Transportation (DOTs) to revert to traditional management regimes. Many state DOTs maintain active ties to the public and political communities of their state and acquiesce to the wishes of these communities when appropriate. Because they are often called upon to defend their design, management and operating procedures, DOTs have a new role in raising awareness, assessing perception and informing the public about the benefits associated with sustainable roadside vegetation management strategies. This article examines the evolution of the roadside landscape and various approaches towards vegetation management from the birth of the road network to today’s strategies, which include benchmarks set for sustainability.
INTRODUCTION
This literature review seeks to present a comprehensive exploration of the surface transportation system in the United States including: roads and their rights-of-way, the history of roadside vegetation management strategies, policy and roadside vegetation, benefits associated with sustainable vegetation management strategies, public perception of roadside landscapes, the impact of information relevant to the roadside landscape on public perception and, the Delaware Department of Transportation’s (DelDOT) experimentation with sustainable strategies. This research was conducted prior to an experimental survey, which was designed to measure the success of interpretive techniques in influencing public perception of sustainable roadside vegetation management strategies; strategies that have been explored by the Delaware Department of Transportation over the past 10 years. Methodology and data derived from this study will be considered for future publication.
ROADS AND THEIR RIGHTS-OF-WAY
Roads consume many miles of land and leave in their path vast tracts of rights-of way that must be safely and efficiently managed and maintained in a manner that complies with state and federal regulations. With over 8 million acres of land in the United States devoted to roadways and an additional 12 million more devoted to their rights-of-way (1), U.S. Departments of Transportation (DOTs) are positioned as leaders in stewardship of public land. In their most utilitarian form, roads facilitate the transport of people, goods and services. However, they also play a pivotal role in community and economic development by connecting people and places. The 20th Century triumph of the automobile eased movement along greater distances while providing a convenience not previously afforded. The birth of suburbanization, an influential byproduct of the automobile’s success, resulted in a need for more roads producing factors which contributed to the creation of the complex web of primary, secondary and tertiary roads that comprise the surface transportation system in the U.S. today
(2). FIGURE 1 Seasonal vegetation along a heavily traveled interstate corridor provides a scenic background for travelers while serving as an important reserve of regional biological diversity. When managed for sustainability, roadside vegetation can contribute to better water quality and conductivity (3) (4), increased diversity of insect life (5) (6) and cost savings (7) (4), while also benefiting the socioeconomic health of the state (8). Sustainably managed roadsides reduce the amount of non-native mown turf and include meadows of native warm season grasses and/or flowering perennials, and masses of native shrubs and trees. However, sustainable strategies only provide optimal cost savings and enhance environmental stewardship when implemented consistently. Many state DOTs maintain active ties to the public and political communities of their state and acquiesce to the wishes of these communities when appropriate. Lacking an awareness of the intrinsic values present in sustainably managed roadsides, the public is often quick to criticize, which frequently prompts DOTs to revert to more traditional mowing regimes.
HISTORY OF ROADSIDE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Efficient roadside vegetation management strategies have been desired since roads assumed their place as a dominant feature on the modern landscape. In the 1930’s, Jesse Bennett’s book Roadsides, The Front Yard of the Nation, proposed “attractive and useful roadsides which can be obtained by preserving or creating a natural or an approach to a natural condition in keeping with the adjacent or surrounding country” (9). Unfortunately, it was the title of his book, not his words that became the unofficial policy as roads began to carve their paths across America, yielding an expensive, resource and labor-intensive, unsustainable cycle of turf management that persists eighty years later. In the 1960’s highway beautification and conservation of natural resources joined the list of objectives required of roadside vegetation managers as President Lyndon Johnson announced his beautification initiative by stating, “I want to make sure that the America we see from these major highways is a beautiful America.” Alongside his wife, Ladybird Johnson, the President and First Lady crusaded for roadside enhancement. Mrs. Johnson’s voice became a preeminent force stressing the fundamental importance of regionally appropriate materials, including native plants and wildflowers. Mrs. Johnson’s cause was more than just a movement to promote aesthetic beauty for highway travelers (10). Her ideas sparked a transcendent movement emphasizing the ecological necessity of roadside conservation. She played an integral role in the successful passage of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965, which emphasized natural beauty and ecological stewardship in federally funded projects (11). The Highway Beautification Act was the inaugural event that placed significance on the vitality of the natural world as it relates to the vein of transportation, the multifaceted system that carries us in our daily activities. During the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, researchers began to investigate the strengths and challenge the weaknesses of the wildflower movement in North America. They found many unsustainable attributes to this approach including: seed mixes were often short lived, DOTs were frequently using annuals which require yearly re-planting, the need for herbicidal control was high, and often native species, high in potential but perceived as weeds, were being overlooked for their exotic and non-native cousins (12). Currently, national trends of sustainable roadside vegetation management strategies encourage an integrated design approach addressing: reduction of expenditures, minimization of maintenance, incorporation of regionally appropriate vegetation and utilization of Context Sensitive Solutions. Context Sensitive Solutions promote the preservation of scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental resources while maintaining safety and mobility along transportation corridors (13). The desired result of these objectives is the protection and enhancement of the overall corridor, which includes roadside rights-ofway. In 1996, Delaware launched Enhancing Delaware Highways (EDH) to examine the benefits and liabilities of an alternate roadside vegetation management strategy. Since the EDH project began, Delaware has successfully replaced large swaths of turf along roadside rights of way with a variety of sustainable vegetation strategies including: meadow, meadow with a mown margin, meadow supplemented with native flowering perennials, and native shrub and tree masses. While some Delaware residents have embraced the sustainably managed roadsides, there remains evidence of a lack of acceptance for this new roadside aesthetic based on recent articles in the popular press, letters to the editor, personal communication with DelDOT officials and the results of a 2005 University of Delaware Comprehensive Mail Survey (8). A New York Times journalist interviewed several people who did not support Delaware’s forward thinking roadside vegetation efforts. One reader commented, (the native grasses) “just look awful” (14). Several of The News Journal’s letters to the editor, blasted DelDOT for their reductions in mowing along the roadside (15). The next step in widespread implementation of more sustainable roadside vegetation management, which will save money and enhance the environment, is to determine and secure public acceptance.
FIGURE 2 Signage used by DelDOT to inform the public of efforts to enhance Delaware’s roadways. A related strategy that has garnered significant attention among roadside managers is Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management (IRVM). IRVM incorporates the use of native plants and contextually appropriate management strategies including controlled burns, competitive plantings and selective use of herbicides to manage invasive weeds (16). IRVM has produced successful results in many states including, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin and Texas (17). In Iowa for example, IRVM has led to a 70-90% reduction in herbicide use, a substantial reduction in costs for ditch clean-outs, and cost savings resulting from a reduction in mowing and brush control (16).
SUSTAINABLE ROADSIDE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT AND ASSOCIATED BENEFITS
Adherence to economic, environmental and contextual goals set forth in state and federal policy insures that roadsides, managed for sustainability, contribute to a matrix of shared benefits for present and future generations including: cost savings, better water quality and hydraulic conductivity, increased bio-diversity and an improved socioeconomic health of the state. Economic benefits In 2009, Delaware was one, among many states, required to trim their mowing budget as a result of reduced income generated from fuel taxes amid an economic recession and, a shift towards more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Since DelDOT relies heavily upon the revenue generated from fuel taxes for their operating budget (25), this strain contributed to a 25% reduction of mowing along roadside rights-of-way (Roumillat, unpublished data). By diversifying their strategy, including the release of turf from routine mowing, establishment of meadows- either of warm season grasses or native flowering perennials, or stands of native shrubs and trees, DelDOT can decrease or redirect their mowing expenditure while increasing the aesthetic value of areas released. One acre of turf grass mown eight times per year costs approximately $3480 to maintain; while one acre of meadow, mown annually costs $435 to maintain and $870 if mown biannually as some meadows require (7). By altering their vegetation management strategy along rights-of way, DelDOT could save $2610 to $3045 per acre in maintenance costs for every acre currently vegetated with turfgrass.
If DelDOT took between 500 and 1000 acres of roadside out of routine mowing, the state could save between $1,305,000 and $3,045,000 per year, which would allow DelDOT to substantially reduce or redirect their operating budget. The financial advantages gained with sustainably managed roadsides warrant judicious widespread consideration given the contemporary economic climate. In 2008, DelDOT spent over $3.4 million dollars mowing roadside rights-of-way in Delaware, the nations second smallest state (26). There exists sufficient evidence to support the economic practicality of varying mowing practices, however, a paradigm shift among roadside engineers and managers must first occur (27). Maintenance staff, trained to mow turf, must be retrained to develop the skills necessary to manage un-mown rights-of-way, such as species identification and selective herbicide application (8). Improved hydrology and erosion control
Recent ecological goals of roadside vegetation management strategies have called for reducing erosion and sediment flow and improving hydrology (4). Vegetation serves as a cost effective yet, aesthetically pleasing way to achieve these two objectives. Appropriately chosen vegetation, such as native warm season grasses, help stabilize the soil surface to reduce stormwater erosion and sedimentation activity from occurring. These two phenomenon continue to present a serious problem, resulting in water quality problems, which damage not only fish and wildlife, but also threaten public health, welfare and safety (28).
Because of the deep and/or fibrous root systems present in many native grasses and forbs, they act as an efficient soil stabilizer and increase infiltration by providing deeper channels for water penetration more efficiently than shallow-rooted turf grass (29). Vegetation not only serves as a barrier, but, provides phytoremediation of organic pollutants and increases the amount of organic carbon in the soil which, in turn, stimulates beneficial microbial activity (30).
Although the Chinese have been using soil bioengineering since 28 B.C., modern solutions have relied on concrete and steel to control erosion (31). Soil bioengineering relies on the use of plant materials to provide erosion control, slope and stream bank stabilization, landscape restoration and wildlife habitat (32). Each of these contributes to the safety and efficiency of a balanced transportation corridor. Unlike plants, steel and concrete corrode and break down over time with exposure to weather. Plants however grow stronger as vegetation becomes established. Even after their life cycle is complete, plant’s roots and surface organic matter play an important function as new plants begin to re-establish (31).
In 2008, the United States National Research Council identified urban stormwater as a leading source of water quality problems in the US (33). When stormwater and snowmelt cannot percolate into the earth, it runs off onto roads where it absorbs petroleum and other harmful toxins before making their way into the water supply. Native grasses have been shown to capture precipitation better than mown turf and their deep roots provide deeper channels to help runoff infiltrate more efficiently into the soil (10).
By increasing infiltration and decreasing surface runoff, fewer toxins are deposited into local water supplies. Vegetation is the most critical factor influencing erosion and provides the following six major benefits: (4).
• Reduces raindrop impact
• Reduces runoff velocity
• Provides, via the fibrous root system, structural integrity to the soil
• Filters chemical pollutants and sediments from runoff
• Increases water infiltration into the soil
• Increases evapo-transpiration, the vertical movement of water to air Increased biodiversity Marginal habitats, such as roadsides are particularly important for the conservation of biodiversity.
These landscapes serve as an important ecological reserve for wildlife habitat. Animals can be attracted to transportation corridors for any number of reasons, but most are related to habitat, ease of movement and food availability (4) (10).
A 2008 study found roadsides, when restored to native prairie vegetation, provided valuable habitat for bees, our most important group of pollinators. Significantly greater bee abundances and increased species diversity were found in prairie roadsides when compared to weedy roadsides due to floral abundance and floral richness. Hopwood suggests that native plant restoration will positively affect bee communities and roadside restoration may add valuable bee habitat (5).
A similar study conducted in 2001, found the Conservation Value of Roadside Prairie Restoration to Butterfly Communities. This study showed a two-fold increase in species richness of habitat sensitive butterflies in prairie compared with grassy or weedy roadsides (p <0.0001) and a five-time increase in abundance in prairie, compared with grassy roadsides (p <0.02).
This study further concludes that roadside restoration benefits butterfly populations despite instances of road-killed butterflies. Relative numbers indicated that mortality risk was more than double along grassy corridors (mown-turf) (p<0.0001) than along weedy or prairie roadsides. Tracking studies showed that butterflies were less likely to exit prairie roadsides than they were weedy or grassy roadsides (6).
By efficiently utilizing land already precluded from development, DOTs could significantly help restore ecological balance to disturbed areas, a fundamental element of a diverse and functional ecosystem (5). Socio-economic health Aesthetically pleasing, native roadside environments can help identify a states individual sense of place. While many different definitions about sense of place abound, most agree it is primarily reflective of the landscape experience and the human influenced impact upon the land.
The roadside environment is one of the most frequently experienced landscapes in this country (34). Roadside rights of-way are often the first and last views a traveler sees of a state. So, in order to promote the visual appeal of a state, and to attract and encourage visitors to the state, attractively managed roadsides are imperative. Research has shown that if the roadside environment does not provide an aesthetically pleasant travel experience, tourists would not stay and spend their money in the communities along the way (35).
A significant portion of many state’s economies are dependent upon tourism and hospitality. In 2008, Delaware experienced more than 8.1 million visitors who contributed about $1.5 billion dollars to the state’s economy (36). Attracting and maintaining this vital source of revenue ensures the livelihoods of many individuals and contributes to the overall socioeconomic health of the state. Generating state revenue from tourist dollars is not exclusive to specific states and can be applied broadly. Safety and roadside vegetation DelDOT’s mission is to provide a safe, efficient, and environmentally sensitive transportation system (37).
Roadside landscapes are designed with safety as the top priority, while roadside aesthetics and environmental stewardship play an important role within safety parameters. Within the rights-of-way of transportation corridors, vegetation can provide a wealth of safety functions, in addition to creating an attractive and functional groundcover (7).
The following list outlines safety functions that can be provided by appropriately placed roadside vegetation:
• Properly sited, shrubs or tall grasses can shield headlight glare from oncoming vehicles while larger plants such as trees, can help block sun glare during certain times of the day.
• Recent studies have actually shown shrubs can absorb some of the kinetic energy of errant cars and reduce the chance of human injury or fatality (37).
• Diverse types of woody vegetation reduces the monotony of mown turf roadsides (38) • Plantings that reduce monotony can provide a visually varied experience and help drivers remain alert and aware (7) (38) (39)
• Vegetation that does not require routine mowing eliminates the need to operate heavy machinery on steep or difficult to mow sites.
• Vegetation can provide a physical and visual buffer between pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
• Properly sited plants can indicate a change in direction along roads before a turn is visibly evident giving drivers time to anticipate the turn and slow to a safe speed. A body of research exists to support the restorative effects roadside vegetation can have on stress and fatigue. Fatigue related crashes are responsible for the deaths of about 1,500 people per year and are the cause more than 56,000 accidents annually (40).
A 1979 study found vegetation has been shown to improve mood, reduce stress, and facilitate recovery from attention fatigue (41). Anger and frustration can trigger road-rage and lead to aggressive and inattentive driving. AAA reports between January 1990 and September 1996 cite 10,037 known incidents of aggressive driving related accidents that claimed the lives of 218 people and injured an additional 12,610 (42).
A 2003 study tested the frustration levels of subjects after experiencing video stimuli of a built-up highway, a garden highway and a scenic parkway. Results indicated that participants had greater frustration tolerance after viewing roadways with more vegetation relative to built structures along the edges.
The effect was most pronounced for the scenic parkway condition and emerged despite higher traffic density. The scenic parkway respondents showed a four times greater frustration tolerance than for the garden highway respondents and a six times greater tolerance than for those experiencing the built-up highway condition (43).
This research points to an important role roadside vegetation plays for the safety and well being of drivers, their passengers and others occupying the road.
PUBLIC PERCEPTION, EDUCATION AND ROADSIDE LANDSCAPES
Public acceptance of the roadside landscape is crucial to the success or failure of a roadside enhancement project. Lacking an awareness of the benefits associated with sustainable, but less manicured roadsides, the public is often quick to issue criticism with letters to the editor (15), popular press articles (14), or complaint phone calls (Roumillat, unpublished data). Most state DOTs have close ties to the public and political communities of their state and have responded to the wishes of the public whenever appropriate (44).
In the past, DelDOT has tried to reduce maintenance expenditures by mowing roadside vegetation less frequently. However, they often receive complaint phone calls from the public and from legislators when they try this alternative method of management (Roumillat, unpublished data). In response to negative publicity and feedback, DOTs frequently revert to more traditional regimes of management (Rosan, unpublished data). In June 2009, DelDOT spokesman Darrel Cole was quoted in The News Journal as saying, “A couple of weeks ago, we had a call from someone who complained about tall grass, so we went ahead and cut the grass. People are noticing and they’re calling” (25).
This is not surprising based on the results of the 2005 Comprehensive Mail Survey (8). The least preferred scene was an un-mown roadside edge. While a green, mown turf infield received a moderately desirable rating; respondents rated an un-mown roadside with a mown edge, as equal in desirability. This strategy allows many acres of land to be released form the constant pressure and expense of routine mowing, so long as the public sees some evidence of maintenance and order; an important component that allows many people to appreciate this strategy of highway vegetation management.
Although outspoken complaints represent a small percentage of the driving population, DOTs frequently respond to community complaints by reverting to traditional mowing regimes. Since it is important for DOTs to be able to respond to criticism and provide explanations of the environmental and economic benefits associated with sustainable management strategies, an understanding of which factors influence public perception is valuable.
Many factors contribute to influence the public’s reluctance to embrace sustainable landscape strategies. Native plantings may take two or more years to reach an attractive state, looking like a failure at first while plants are allocating energy towards establishment of healthy root systems. The ecological disturbance caused by development renders roadsides rights-of-way harsh and inhospitable environments in which to grow, resulting in failed plantings unless care is taken to select adapted species. And finally, many people are simply not used to the style of less manicured landscapes.
Public awareness of the establishment process of sustainable plantings, and the benefits provided by a natural landscape, are crucial for public support (44). Without public support, DOTs are challenged in their move towards alternative, yet sustainable management strategies. Aesthetically, sustainable landscapes often represent a divergence from the traditional expectation of how a landscape should appear. Without knowledge of the intrinsic values associated with this atypical, and oftentimes, less manicured aesthetic, public response is frequently critical.
In 1988, Koh espoused the virtues of an ‘ecological aesthetic’ in sustainable landscapes where aesthetics incorporate ecological quality as well as visual beauty (45). In support of this ecological aesthetic, research suggests intellectual engagement of the public is necessary to assist in their understanding and appreciation of the environment and an awareness of the ecological functions performed with sustainable landscapes; all of which can ultimately contribute to wider acceptance of sustainable landscape practices (46) (47).
FIGURE 3 Successful example of previously mown I-95 interchange released from routine mowing that balances regional character, ecological goals & cost savings. The impact information imparts on perception should not be undervalued. Public engagement and information about traditional and sustainable roadside vegetation management strategies may lead to a shift in the paradigm of perceived aesthetic expectation of landscape management strategies. Interpretation, a method of communicating information to an audience, has garnered attention in recent years. The National Association for Interpretation (NAI) defines it as “a mission-based communication process that forges emotional and intellectual connections between the interests of the audience and the meanings inherent in the resource” (48). Brochu and Merriman suggest that interpretive strategies can vary. Strategies can involve personal interpretation in which the interpreter communicates directly to the audience, or non-personal interpretation, which includes media such as signage, brochures, exhibits, websites, social media and audiovisual materials (49).
Recent research has confirmed that people notice the roadside landscape. In 1999, Delaware Speaks Out, a statewide Cooperative Extension survey, revealed that Delawareans notice the impact of roadside plantings. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents surveyed agreed plantings along the roadside have a moderate, significant or major impact on short trips while seventy-eight percent believed this to be true for long trips (8).
A 2003 assessment of the scenic beauty of roadside vegetation in Great Britain, found that eighty-three percent of respondents surveyed described the scenic quality of roadside vegetation as an important feature of the roadside environment indicating awareness among the public about the roadside landscape (50).
A 1999 study on consumer viewpoints of native grasses and wildflower plantings in Nebraska found that consumers had a high level of interest in reducing landscape inputs and a keen interest in native warm season grasses and forbs along with a desire for more information (51).
A considerable body of research on visual perception of landscapes exists to support people’s preferences for natural versus man-made scenes (52) (53) (54). While it is not practical to expect development of roads and man-made structures to halt, the question becomes how to remediate existing development and plan for new development in a way that minimizes the negative aesthetic quality of the landscape (50). It is therefore essential that DOTs establish guidelines that balance the aesthetic desires of the public with the ecological and economic goals of their state.
SUMMARY
Roadsides are unarguably challenging environments; however, they provide an opportunity to allow DOTs to serve as leaders of environmental and economic sustainability, and to serve as respectful stewards of public land utilized by all roadway travelers. Recent budget cuts, climbing oil prices and an increased demand for sustainability have caused many DOTs to re-evaluate their management and operation procedures. Efficient management and responsible stewardship of the United States 12 million acres of roadside right-of-way challenges Department’s of Transportation to continue their shift from conventional practices to a more sustainable strategy. Altering these practices may require a paradigm shift for those involved with planning and maintaining the roadsides as well as the stakeholders who utilize the roadways.
Inherent values present in sustainable landscapes are often not visible to the naked eye, and communication of such values may be necessary to secure public acceptance of this modern approach towards land management (55).
Public acceptance of alternate strategies can be challenging, but is a critical component to the continued success of environmentally responsible, economically conservative and aesthetically pleasing rights-of-way management decisions. In the wake of public criticism, DOTs frequently comply with the public’s expectation of more manicured traditional regimes in order to placate public concerns. One reason sustainable landscapes have been slow to gain public support may be a deficiency of public knowledge about the issue. Lacking an awareness of the expense and perils that result from an unsustainable management strategy, many stakeholders unwittingly allow and expect DOTs to continue on an expensive and unsustainable path of management. Attitudes are more susceptible to being changed if the original attitude is not central to the core belief system of the individual (56).
Since the roadside environment may not be central to the core beliefs of an individual, perceptions may be readily changed upon receipt of a brief educational intervention such as, but not exclusive to, signage, brochures, exhibits, websites, social media, audiovisual materials and public service announcements. Since roadsides offer harsh and difficult conditions in which to grow, and regionally appropriate plants often take longer to establish than turf, education is essential to inform the public of the intrinsic values present in sustainable landscapes and to keep the public abreast of the process as plants evolve into their attractive and mature state (44).
As roadside vegetation management objectives have evolved from simple highway beautification initiatives to fiscally conservative, environmentally sustainable and contextually sensitive management strategies, dictated by legislation and economic necessity, DOTs have a new role in raising awareness, assessing perception and educating the public about the benefits of sustainable roadside vegetation management strategies; the benefits of which have been well documented. The next step forward in this process to convince the traveling public of these benefits and engage them with educational opportunities that heightens awareness of why roadsides, managed for sustainability are an essential link to the environmental and economic health of each state.
FIGURE 4 Highly visible area along I-95 welcoming travelers to the state with a attractive mix of regionally appropriate vegetation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is partially supported by the University of Delaware University Transportation Center.
REFERENCES
(1) Delucchi, M. and Murphy, J. 1998. “Motor Vehicle Goods and Services Bundled in the Private Sector,” Annualized Social Cost of Motor-Vehicle Use in the U.S., 1990-1991, Vol. 6, ITS (www.uctc.net ).
(2) Webber, M. The joys of automobility. The Car and the City: The Automobile, the Built Environment and Daily Life. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992.
(3) KCI Technologies, 2007. Route 896 Median Mowing Study. Project Report. Delaware Department of Transportation.
(4) Forman, R.T., Sperling, Bissonette, Clevenger, Cutshall, Dale, Fahrig, France, Goldman, Heanue, Jones, Swanson, Turrentine, & Winter. 2003. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press, Washington, DC.
(5) Hopwood, J.L. 2008. “The contribution of roadside grassland restorations to native bee conservation.” Biological Conservation 141: 2632-2640.
(6) Ries, L., Debinski, R.M. and Wieland, M. 2001. “Conservation values of roadside prairie restoration to native butterfly communities.” Conservation Biology. 15: 401-411.
(7) Barton, S.S., R. Darke and G. Schwetz. 2005. Enhancing Delaware Highways: Roadside Vegetation Concept and Planning Manual.
(8) Barton, S.S. 2005. Enhancing Delaware Highways: A Natural Vegetation Project. PhD dissertation. University of Delaware.
(9) Bennett, J. Roadsides, The Front Yard of the Nation. The Stratford Co., US, 1936.
(10) Harper-Lore, B. 1999. Roadside Use of Native Plants. Washington, DC: US Federal Highway Administration and Island Press.
(11) Federal Highway Administration. Highway Beautification Act, 1965. Date retrieved 13 May 2010. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/zoningop.htm
(12) Burley, C., and Burley, J.B. 1991. “Weedpatch Syndrome II: An examination of the wildflower movement in North America.” Landscape Research 16: 41-45.
(13) Federal Highway Administration. Context Sensitive Solution. 2003. Date Retrieved 13 May 2010. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/context/what.cfm
(14) Barringer, F. 2007. “Wildflowers find favor with highway gardeners.” New York Times 28 August 2007.
(15) Goverts, D. 2009. The News Journal 30 May 2009.
(16) Quarles, William. 2003. Native Plants and Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management. Bio-Integral Resource Center, Vol. XXV, No. 3-4, March/April, 2003. Date retrieved 16 June 2010. http://www.birc.org/MarApril2003.pdf
(17) National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 2005. Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management. TRB, Washington, DC.
(18) Gobster, P.H. and R.E. Chenoweth. 1989. “The Dimensions of Aesthetic Preference: A Quantitative Analysis.” J. of Environ. Mngment 29:47-72.
(19) National Environmental Policy Act. 1969. Date Retrieved 13 May 2010. http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm
(20) Federal Highway Administration. Roadside Use of Native Plants. 1999. Date retrieved 13 May 2010. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rdsduse/rdus3_8.htm
(21) Federal Highway Administration. STURAA, 1987. Date retrieved 13 May 2010. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/rw01e.cfm
(22) Federal Highway Administration. Environmentally and Economically Beneficial Landscaping Guidance. 1994. Date Retrieved 13 May 2010. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rdsduse/rdus3_6.htm
(23) United States Department of Agriculture. 1999. Date retrieved 13 May 2010. http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/laws/execorder.shtml
(24) State of Delaware: The Official Website of the First State. 2009. Date retrieved- 12 February 2009. http://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga141/chp351.shtml
(25) Cole, D. 2009. The News Journal 30 May 2009.
(26) DelDOT: Statewide Mowing Report-January 2008-December 2008.
(27) Sauer, L.J. 1998. The Once and Future Forest. Island Press, Washington, DC.
(28) Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC): The Official Website of the First State. 2000. Date retrieved: 28 April, 2010. http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/Divisions/Soil/Stormwater/PDF/SedStromLa w.pdf (29) Harper-Lore, B. 1998b. “A Sneak Preview of Roadside Use of Native Plants.” Greener Roadsides, Vol. 5, No. 4, Winter, 1998, p.1.
(30) Schnoor,J.L., Licht, L.A., McCutcheon, S.C., Wolfe, N.L., and Carreira, L.H. 1995. “Phytoremediation of Organic and Nutrient Contaminants.” Environmental Science & Technology 29(7) 318A-323A.
(31) Lewisky, Lisa. 2002. “Curbing Roadside Erosion: Tools & Techniques” Conservation, Vol. 3 No. 2, Spring, 2002.
(32) Washington State Department of Transportation. Last updated 2010. Date retrieved- 11 May 2010. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Roadside/SoilBioengineering.htm
(33) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Last updated 13 January 2010. Date retrieved: 11 May 2010. http://www.epa.gov/nps/facts/point1.htm
(34) Morrison, Darrel. 1999. Roadside Use of Native Plants. Washington, DC: US Federal Highway Administration and Island Press.
(35) Fischer, E.E. 1999. “Vegetation Management Enhancing Scenic Byways” Greener Roadsides, Vol.6, No.2, Summer 1999, p.1-2.
(36) Delaware Economic Development Office: The Official Website of the First State. Last updated 15 April 2010. Date retrieved: 27 April 2010. http://dedo.delaware.gov/pdfs/main_root/annual_report/08DEDOannual-vs9.pdf
(37) DelDOT: The Official Website of the First State. 2010. Date retrieved: 7 May 2010. http://delcode.delaware.gov/title30/c051/sc01/index.shtml
(38) Forman, R.T., and McDonald, R.I. 2007. “A Massive Increase in Roadside Woody Vegetation: Goals, Pros, and Cons” International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Date retrieved 11 May 2010. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/22h2s7jt
(39) Thiffault, P., and J. Bergeron. 2003. “Fatigue and individual differences in monotonous simulated driving.” Personality and Individual Differences 34: 159-176.
(40) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 1996. Date retrieved 12 May 2010. http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/drowsy_driving1/drowsy.html
(41) Ulrich, R.S. 1979. “Visual Landscapes and Psychological Well Being.” Landscape Research 4:17-23.
(42) AAA. 1996. Date retrieved 12 May 2010. http://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=agdrtext#1B
(43) Cackowski, J. and Nasar, J.L. 2003. “The Restorative Effects of Roadside Vegetation Implications for Automobile Driver Anger and Frustration.” Environment and Behavior 35(6): 736-751.
(44) Harper-Lore, B. 1998a. Native Grasses and Wildflower workshop, at: New approaches for utilizing native plants on roadsides. 21 September 1998. Baltimore, MD.
(45) Koh, J. 1988. “An ecological aesthetic.” Landscape Journal 7(2):177-191.
(46) Gobster, P.H. 1999. “An Ecological Aesthetic for Forest Landscape Management.” Landscape Journal 18(1):54-64.
(47) White, Peter S. 1999. “Exploring the Wilderness in Our Backyards.” Public Garden, April 1999, pgs. 35-36.
(48) National Association for Interpretation (NAI). 2009. Date retrieved 19 May 2010. http://www.interpnet.com/about_nai/mission.shtml
(49) Brochu, L. and Merriman, T. 2002. Personal Interpretation: Connecting Your Audience to Heritage Resources. InterpPress, Ft. Collins, CO.
(51) AAA. 1996. Date retrieved 12 May 2010. http://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=agdrtext#1B
(50) Akbar, K.F., Hale, W.H.G., and Headly, A.D. 2002. “Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in Northern England.” Landscape and Urban Planning 63:139144.
(51) Davis, G.L. and J. Schimelfenig. 1999. “Consumer viewpoints on prairie grass and wildflower plantings.” Hort Science 34(3): 531, June 1999.
(52) Ulrich, R.S. 1986. “Human responses to vegetation and landscape.” Landscape and Urban Planning 13:29-44.
(53) Kaplan R. and S. Kaplan. 1989. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.
(54) Kearney, A.R., Bradley, G., Petrich, C., Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & D. Colebank 2008. “Public perception as support for scenic quality regulation in a nationally treasured landscape.” Landscape and Urban Planning 87:117-128.
(55) Thayer, R. 1989. “The experience of sustainable landscapes.” Landscape Journal. 8:101-110.
(56) Fishbein, M. 1967. A behavior theory approach to the relations between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward the object. M. Fishbein (ed.) Attitude Theory and Measurement. Wiley, New York.
Influencing Public Perception of Sustainable Roadside Vegetation Management Strategies
1 Anne Lucey
2 and Susan Barton
3 Department of Plant and Soil Sciences University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716
Abstract
Sustainably managed roadsides limit non-native turf grass and include meadows of native warm season grasses and fl owering perennials, native shrubs, and trees. Implementation of sustainable strategies result in cost savings, better water quality and infi ltration, increased diversity of insect life and benefi ts to the socioeconomic health of the state. Lacking an awareness of associated benefi ts, the public is often hesitant to accept sustainable, but less manicured roadsides, causing many Departments of Transportation to revert to traditional management regimes. This research assessed perception and determined that acceptance could be increased with an awareness of associated benefi ts. An Internet survey was administered to three groups of participants. A control group rated eleven roadside images from least to most desirable and completed a brief survey. An experimental group read a list of information about traditional and sustainable strategies of roadside vegetation management before rating the images and completing the survey. Another experimental group viewed a 6½ minute video that delivered the same information as the list, but engaged the respondent differently. This group then rated the images and completed the survey, as did the previous two groups. Among those who read the list, a signifi cant change in perception occurred for three of the images when compared to those in the control group. Among those who viewed the video, a signifi cant change in perception occurred for four of the images when compared to those in the control group. When all images were compared to the baseline image (mown turf), Delaware’s current default vegetation management strategy, each response distribution was signifi cantly different than that of mown turf. Respondents rated images of fl owering meadows, meadow with a mown turf margin, turf with a wooded edge, shrubs and trees more desirable than mown turf and images with grassy meadows less desirable. When strategies were grouped according to similar attributes and compared to mown turf, respondents rated images with fl owers (fl owering meadows, shrubs and trees), and images with a mown turf margin more desirable than turf and grass meadows less desirable. Index words: sustainability, sustainable landscapes, roadsides, rights-of-way, vegetation management, perception.
Significance to the Nursery Industry
Sustainable roadside landscapes include meadows of native warm-season grasses and/or flowering perennials, and masses of native shrubs and trees, and provide an opportunity for the nursery and landscape industry to explore a new aesthetic in highly visible landscapes. These types of landscapes offer environmentally sound alternatives to mown turf for corporate and large residential sites as well. Public resistance to naturalistic landscapes is possibly due to familiarity associated with traditional landscaping. If people were more familiar with sustainable landscape styles on the roadsides, they might be more likely to accept this aesthetic in other public and private landscapes. Interpretive information in the form of a bulleted list (Fig. 1) and an engaging video (http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1Qqx96poxs) were shown to reduce the desirability of mown-turf and increase the desirability of some types of sustainable landscapes. Therefore, if the nursery and landscape industry is willing to provide interpretive information to their customers, they may be able to promote a more environmentally sound aesthetic in managed landscapes. Introduction Roads consume many miles of land and leave in their path vast tracts of rights-of-way that must be safely and efficiently managed and maintained in a manner that complies with state and federal regulations. With over 8 million acres of land in the United States devoted to roadways and an additional 12 million more devoted to their rights-of-way (5), U.S. Departments of Transportation (DOTs) are positioned as leaders in stewardship of public land. When managed sustainably, roadside vegetation can improve water quality and infi ltration (7, 12), increase diversity of insect life (11, 15), contribute to cost savings (3, 7) and provide numerous safety benefi ts (3, 4, 6, 17, 18), while also benefi ting the socioeconomic health of the state (2). (To insure safety measures and proper visibility, careful attention must be paid to the placement and height of roadside vegetation during the design and implementation phases.) Sustainably managed roadsides reduce the amount of non-native mown turf and include meadows of native warm season grasses and/or flowering perennials, and masses of native shrubs and trees. However, sustainable strategies only provide optimal cost savings and enhance environmental stewardship when implemented consistently. Many state DOTs maintain active ties to the public and political communities of their state and acquiesce to the wishes of these communities when appropriate. Lacking an awareness of the intrinsic values present in sustainable, but oftentimes less manicured roadsides, the public is often quick to criticize, with letters to the editor (9), popular press articles (1), or complaint phone calls (16), often prompting DOTs to revert to more traditional mowing regimes. Many factors infl uence the public’s reluctance to embrace sustainable landscape strategies. Native plantings may take two or more years to reach an attractive state, looking like a failure at first while plants are allocating energy towards establishment of healthy root systems. The ecological disturbance caused by development renders roadside rights-of-way harsh and inhospitable environments in which to grow, resulting in failed plantings unless care is taken to select adapted.
FACTS ABOUT ROADSIDE VEGETATION & MANAGEMENT
• Delaware has over 10,000 acres of roadside rights-of-way to maintain.
• In 2008 the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) spent over 3.4 million dollars mowing roadside rights-of-way.
• A change in roadside vegetation & management can reduce DelDOT’s mowing budget by 50%.
• The clear zone within the rights-of-way must be kept free of trash, obstacles and tall vegetation.
• Mowers release hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide into the air we breathe.
• Changing the way we vegetate & manage the roadsides can make them beautiful and reflective of our local and native vegetation.
• Roadside mowing reduces plant species richness.
• Roadsides that aren’t subject to the constant pressure of mowing are important for the conservation of biodiversity.
• Roadsides, allowed to grow as meadows, provide food for bees, our most important group of pollinators.
• In 2008, the US National Research Council identified urban stormwater as a leading source of water quality problems in the US.
• Water that runs off onto the roads picks up petroleum and roadway toxins before making its way into streams and ultimately our drinking water supply.
• Mixed roadside vegetation (a combination of indigenous herbaceous & woody plant materials) increases the infi ltration of water and snowmelt into the
• Vegetation is the most cost effective and visually pleasing way to improve hydrology and control erosion.
• Plants can shield headlight glare from oncoming traffic
• Vegetation that does not require mowing eliminates the need to operate machinery on difficult and dangerous sites. Reduced mowing reduces the chance
• Interesting roadside vegetation has been shown to reduce highway hypnosis and helps drivers stay awake and alert.
• Shrubs have been shown to absorb some of the kinetic energy from cars that run off the road.
Fig. 1. Facts about roadside vegetation management practices presented to Group 2 prior to survey.
species. And finally, many people are simply not used to the style of less manicured landscapes. Aesthetically, sustainable landscapes often represent a divergence from the traditional landscape expectation. Without knowledge of the intrinsic values associated with this atypical and oftentimes less manicured aesthetic, public response is frequently critical. In 1988, Koh espoused the virtues of an ‘ecological aesthetic’ in sustainable landscapes where aesthetics incorporate ecological quality as well as visual beauty (13). To achieve wider acceptance of this ‘ecological aesthetic’ in sustainable landscapes, research suggests intellectual engagement of the public is necessary to assist in their understanding and appreciation of the environment and an awareness of the ecological functions performed with sustainable landscapes (8, 19). Public awareness of the establishment process of sustainable plantings, and the benefi ts provided by a natural landscape, are crucial for public support (10). Without public support, DOTs are challenged in their move towards alternative, yet sustainable management strategies. Since it is important for DOTs to be able to respond to criticism and provide explanations of the environmental and economic benefits associated with sustainable management strategies, an understanding of which factors influence public perception is valuable. The purpose of this study was to determine if an awareness of associated benefits could positively influence public perception of sustainable roadside vegetation management strategies when compared to mown turf. Additionally, this research sought to determine the efficacy of two different styles of educational intervention: a static written list and a brief, yet engaging video.
Materials and Methods
In January 2010, an Internet survey was conducted on a population of adults (18+ yrs) from Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Survey Sampling International (SSI) (Shelton, CT) hosted the survey and provided the random sample population according to quotas set forth by the U.S. Census breaks. Eight thousand and seven invitations were emailed to a pool of SSI panelists requesting participation in the survey. Panelists who chose to participate clicked on a link provided and were randomly assigned to one of three groups (one control group and two experimental groups). The f i rst 419 responses, representative of the population, according to U.S. Census breaks for age, race, gender and income, were selected for the sample set. Participants in Group 1 (n = 147), the control, viewed an introductory screen that thanked them for taking the time to participate in the survey and provided general information about the project. After viewing the introductory page, participants in Group 1 were led directly to the survey, which contained 11 photographic images depicting various models of roadside vegetation in Delaware. Images were chosen based on their ability to depict the desired roadside vegetation management strategies: mown turf, grassy meadow, meadow with a mown turf margin, meadow with native flowering perennials and stands of native shrubs and trees. Multiple images were chosen to represent the range of the outlined strategies. Careful attention was paid to minimize external factors that could influence respondents’ ratings, such as overcast skies, water views, trash, rainbows, and so on. Respondents were asked to rate each image on a 7-point Likert scale for desirability, where 1 corresponded with least desirable, 4 with neutral and 7 with most desirable. Participants were also given the option of qualifying ‘Why’ they rated each image as they did by adding text in a blank box. Questions were posed to gather additional information regarding environmental and roadside concerns. Basic demographic information about age, gender, income, and level of education completed was also requested. After reading the introductory page, participants in Group 2 (n = 139) were asked to read a one-page bulleted list of facts about current roadside vegetation management practices, in addition to information about cost effective, environmentally responsible, safe and sustainable regimes (Fig. 1). After reading the brief list, participants were asked to rate the same images, answer the additional environmental and roadside questions and answer the demographic questions (in the same manner as participants in Group 1) After reading the introductory page, participants in Group 3 (n = 133) were asked to watch a short, fast paced, documentary-style video, that presented the same facts regarding current and potential roadside vegetation management practices as were presented in the written list; however, the information was presented in a much more entertaining and vibrant manner. After viewing the video, participants were asked to rate the images, answer the additional environmental
and roadside questions and answer the demographic questions (in the same manner as Groups 1 and 2). Data analysis. Ratings for all images were summarized in frequency tables using Microsoft Excel (2007). A chi-square test for independence was used to evaluate the existence of a significant relationship between treatment (control, list, video) and the participant responses. The data was condensed to a 3-point Likert scale to de-emphasize degrees of desirability/undesirability and clarify whether respondents found the images desirable, neutral or undesirable. Respondents rating images as 1, 2 or 3 valued those images as undesirable. Respondents rating images as 4 indicated neutrality, and respondents rating images as 5, 6 or 7 valued those images as desirable. Values were considered significant at a 0.05 or a 0.1 significance level. Computations were performed using JMP Software (JMP, 2008). Two-group pair-wise comparisons (Minitab) were used to evaluate whether treatments (control, list or video) showed significant differences. In the two-group pair-wise comparisons, the list was compared to the video, the control was compared to the list and the control was compared to the video to determine the existence of significant differences. Chi-square (JMP) was used to analyze the extent and direction of those differences. In the chi-square test, the three groups were all contrasted against one another. Additional chi-square tests were run contrasting images 2-11 with image 1 (mown-turf) the baseline, representing the current default roadside vegetation strategy in Delaware. These computations were performed using JMP software. The fi nal method of evaluation for the data was a set of chi-square tests contrasting mown-turf (image 1) with various categories of vegetation types, grouped according to their most similar attributes, and represented by the following images:
Flowering meadows (images 2, 3 and 4)
• Warm season grass meadows (images 6 and 8)
• Shrubs and trees (images 5 and 10)
• Warm season grass with a mown margin (images 8 and
• 11) Various vegetation types with a mown margin (images
• 5, 8, 10 and 11) Various vegetation types containing flowers (images 2,
• 3, 4, 5 and 10) These computations used JMP software.
Results and Discussion
With this research, we sought to determine if an awareness of benefits could improve public perception of sustainable roadside vegetation management strategies when compared to mown turf, Delaware’s current default strategy. We also sought to determine the efficacy of two different styles of interpretive intervention: a static written list and a brief, yet engaging video. This research revealed that the majority of respondents, with or without treatment, found strategies including shrubs and trees with a mown turf margin, and flowering perennial meadows to be their most preferred vegetation management strategy along roadsides. Additionally, when compared to mown turf, each of the other strategies was rated significantly different. Overall ratings for roadside images. Over eighty percent of respondents surveyed found images with shrubs, trees and turf (image 10: 85%; image 5: 80.5%), and an image of a native flowering perennial meadow (image 2: 80.1%) as highly desirable (Table 1). These results were not surprising based on the results of Delaware Speaks Out, a 1999 statewide cooperative extension survey that revealed color and order as attributes necessary to gain public acceptance of sustainable roadside vegetation strategies (2). Most respondents found images of mown turf with a tree edge (image 9: 65.2%) and a flowering meadow with a mown turf edge (image 3: 60.4%) as desirable. More respondents found a flowering perennial meadow of Goldenrod (Solidago sp.) and Thoroughwort (Eupatorium hyssopifolium) (image 4: 43.7%) desirable than found it neutral (28.6%) or undesirable (21.0%). This result was somewhat surprising based on the high desirability of the flowering perennial meadow represented in image 2 (80.1%). Qualitative data revealed many respondents found the meadow composition in image 4 ‘weedy’ or ‘messy’, possibly due to the looser growth habit of the two species than that of the Black Eyed Susans (Rudbeckia sp.) (image 2). Additionally, nineteen respondents (across all groups) indicated they found this scene undesirable because of concern for allergies. Interestingly, goldenrod does not cause allergies. This is a common misconception because goldenrod blooms at the same time as the wind-pollinated ragweed (Ambrosia artemisifolia), which does cause allergies (14). This response represents an opportunity for interpretation that might help people accept flowering goldenrod meadows more readily. The mown turf infi eld (image 1) was rated as desirable (37.9%) or neutral (36.5%) by an almost equal number of respondents. Respondents found a cool season grass meadow with a mown turf edge (image 11: 34.1%) neutral. These results were surprising based on the results of a 2005 University of Delaware Comprehensive Mail Survey, which found turf,
released from routine mowing while maintaining a crisp mown edge to be equal in desirability to a fully mown turf infi eld (2). One possible explanation for this discrepancy may be that the image used in the 2010 survey featured a grass margin that had not been freshly mown, portraying a somewhat shaggy appearance, while the image used in the 2005 survey featured a released turf meadow with a freshly mown edge, clearly portraying an appearance of maintenance and order. This explanation is supported by 24 comments referring to this image as ‘messy/un-kept’ and by 22 comments referring to this image as ‘unfi nished’. In contrast, in the 2005 survey 16 respondents referred to turf with a mown turf edge as ‘well-kept’ while 3 respondents commented that the image was ‘unfi nished’ or less than desirable in some way, and no respondents referred to the image as ‘messy/ un-kept’ (2). Strategies that many found undesirable include those with un-mown turf (image 7: 65.6%), warm season grass meadow (image 6: 41.8%) and a warm season grass meadow with a mown turf edge (image: 8: 38.9%). Qualitative data revealed many respondents found the scenes boring, messy or had a negative response to the tan warm season grasses shown in the fall. When ranked in order of response mean for desirability, the image of freshly mown turf ranked seventh out of eleven images, trailed by un-mown turf, or grass meadows: with or without a mown turf edge (Table 2). The largest standard deviation, indicating a wide variety of responses occurred for image 6, a warm-season grass meadow. Interestingly, more respondents in the control group than in either educational group, commented that they found this scene pretty/natural, had good fall color or was low maintenance and good for the environment. Although the highest frequency of respondents rated this image undesirable (41.8%), a higher number of respondents rated it desirable (34.6%) than neutral (23.6%). So, although this strategy ranked below mown-turf as a desirable vegetation strategy, these results indicate the public’s potential willingness to accept this as a form of vegetation along roadside rights-of-way. Similar frequency responses for image 11, a tall turf meadow with a mown margin, reported 33.4% of respondents rated this strategy undesirable, 34.1% rated it neutral and 32.4% rated it desirable. So, if overwhelming majorities are either neutral or agreeable to this strategy (66.5%) than are disagreeable (33.4%), DOTs could use this strategy to save money and benefi t the environment without the risk of intense scrutiny and criticism. Comparison of interpretive intervention strategies. Since a chi-square test of responses (based on a 3-point Likert-scale)
reported signifi cantly different response distributions based on whether respondents received an interpretive intervention (list or video) compared to the control for (images of) fi ve of the eleven strategies, the possible source of these signifi cant differences can be explored. This test confi rms different response distributions for fi ve of the eleven strategies viewed at a 0.1 signifi cance level: neatly mown turf (image 1: p-value 0.079), a meadow mix of warm season grass and native fl owering perennials with a mown turf edge (image 3: p-value 0.006), a native fl owering perennial meadow (image 4: p-value 0.065), a stand of native shrubs & trees with a mown turf edge (image 5: p-value 0.044) and un-kept unmown turf (image 7: p-value 0.005) (Table 3). To understand which treatment method caused the most changes in perception, a two-group pair-wise comparison was used. This test contrasted the control group (no interpretation) against each of the two experimental groups (list and video). The results showed that when compared to the control group, the group who fi rst read the written list of benefi ts associated with sustainable roadside vegetation management strategies, found three of the eleven strategies (images) different in terms of desirability. Signifi cant changes in perception occurred for strategies (images) that showed a meadow mix of native warm season grass and native fl owering perennials (image 3: p-value 0.015), a stand of native shrubs and trees with a mown turf edge (image 5: p-value 0.096), and a un-kept un-mown turf edge (image 7: p-value 0.001) (Table 4). The results of this test confirmed the hypothesis that interpretation, in the form of a written list, caused a change in perception, three out of eleven times. When compared to the control group, the group who first viewed the video, showed the most changes in perception. Signifi cant shifts occurred for strategies (images) of: a neatly mown turf infi eld (image 1: p-value 0.059); a meadow mix of warm season grass and native fl owering perennials (image 3: p-value 0.002); a native flowering perennial meadow (image 4: p-value 0.014); and, a stand of native shrubs and trees with a mown turf edge (image 5: p-value 0.013) (Table 4). By comparing expected and observed counts, we can see that respondents without interpretation were less likely to rate mown-turf as undesirable and respondents who watched the video were less likely to rate mown-turf as desirable (image 1) (Table 5). Respondents without interpretation were more
likely to find the flowering meadow with mown-turf margin undesirable and less likely to find it desirable. Respondents who watched the video were less likely to find the flowering meadow with mown-turf margin undesirable and more likely to find it desirable (image 3) (Table 6). Respondents without interpretation were less likely to find the more naturalistic flowing meadow desirable, and respondents who watched the video were more likely to find it desirable (image 4) (Table 7). This test confirmed the hypothesis that interpretation, in the form of a video, caused a change in perception for some of the images. The two- group pair-wise comparison also confirmed the hypothesis that an engaging interpretative video is slightly more effective than a static written list as a method of information delivery (Table 4). This research revealed that the majority of respondents, with or without treatment, found strategies including shrubs and trees with a mown turf margin, and flowering perennial meadows to be their most preferred vegetation management strategy along roadsides. In response to the second objective, an investigation of whether an engaging video is a more effective tool for altering perception than a static written list, the results suggest that an engaging interpretative video is somewhat more effective
than a static written list. Additionally, informational interventions, in either form (list or video) may be an effective tool for changing public opinion about sustainable roadside vegetation management strategies. After viewing a 6½ minute video informing participants of the risks and expenses associated with traditional vegetation management strategies and the benefits associated with sustainable strategies, respondents were significantly more accepting of sustainable strategies including: a mixed meadow, a flowering perennial meadow and a stand of native shrubs and trees, and significantly less accepting of neatly mown turf. After reading a one-page list detailing similar information, respondents were significantly more accepting of sustainable strategies illustrated by a flowering perennial meadow and stands of native shrubs and trees, and significantly less accepting of unmown turf. Qualitative data indicated that respondents who did not receive either educational intervention were more likely to view mown turf as ‘pretty’ and were less aware of the maintenance costs and environmental concerns associated with turf than those who received an informational intervention. Respondents without an intervention were also less likely to identify flowering meadows as low maintenance. Respondents who viewed the video, however, were more likely to identify the environmental benefits of native shrubs and trees. These results could attest to the efficacy of the video, and the images it contained to convey the message that sustainable landscapes need not appear wild or unkept. Interestingly, requests for a copy of the video for use as a teaching tool came from pre-survey pilot viewings, a participant in the survey and during a post survey research presentation. It is also important to note, however, that respondents who received some form of information in general (list or video) rated four images depicting sustainable practices significantly more desirable and one image depicting an unsustainable strategy significantly less desirable.
Additional survey results. Additional qualitative data revealed important information regarding respondents’ attitudes about the environment and their opinions on roadside enhancement. Ninety six percent of those surveyed reported having concerns about the current state of the environment. Many respondents expressed concern for the negative environmental ramifi cations brought about by the mowing regime required of turfgrass, Delaware’s current default vegetation management strategy. When asked to rank which attribute respondents considered most important in roadside vegetation management decisions: cost effectiveness, environmental stewardship or beauty, the majority of respondents (46.3%) placed environmental stewardship at the top of the list, and the least number of respondents (13.4%) put it at the bottom. This result was quite surprising given the current economic climate. Another surprising result amid an economic recession revealed that 85% of those surveyed agreed that DOTs should spend money on roadside enhancement. This percentage shows a drastic increase since the 1999 Cooperative Extension survey, Delaware Speaks Out, in which only 62% expressed support for spending tax dollars to beautify Delaware’s roadways (2). When compared to mown-turf, sustainable strategies including flowering perennial meadows, a mixed meadow of native fl owering perennials and warm-season grasses, stands of native shrubs and trees and a mown-turf edge were found to be more desirable. Solid stands of warm season grasses with or without a mown margin, tall cool season turf with a mown margin and unmown turf, in other words tan grass and/or untidy grass, were found to be less desirable than fully mown turf. Subjective comments indicated that the undesirability was attributable to brown or dead-looking grass (a misunderstanding of the growth cycle of warm season grasses), a feeling that DelDOT was not maintaining the roadside sufficiently, or a lack of neatness or order. Mown turf was most frequently described as ‘boring’ by survey respondents. When compared to mown turf, sustainable strategies with flowers, native shrubs, trees and a mown turf edge were found to be more desirable. After reading a one page list of information associated with sustainable and traditional roadside vegetation management strategies:
• Respondents were more accepting of the sustainable road
• side management strategies illustrated with a flowering meadow and stands of native shrubs and treesRespondents were less accepting of unmown turf After viewing a 6½ minute video of information associated with sustainable and traditional roadside vegetation management strategies:
• Respondents were more accepting of the sustainable roadside management strategies illustrated with two flowering meadows and a stand of native shrubs and trees. Respondents were less accepting of neatly mown turf. Respondents with some form of interpretation (list or video) in general rated images depicting sustainable practices as more desirable. Limitations in this study included the use of photographs as representation for sustainable landscape strategies. Despite a reminder at the beginning of the survey that participants’ opinions of the roadsides, not the roads themselves were desired, negative comments about guardrails, houses, utility wires and the like were reflected in their ratings. Future studies could be improved by editing images to remove extraneous influences.
Literature Cited
1. Barringer, F. 2007. Wildfl owers fi nd favor with highway gardeners. New York Times, August 28, 2007.
2. 3. Barton, S.S. 2005. Enhancing Delaware highways : A natural vegetation project. PhD dissertation. University of Delaware, Newark. Barton, S.S., R. Darke, and G. Schwetz. 2005. Enhancing Delaware Highways: Roadside Vegetation Concept and Planning Manual. Delaware Department of Transportation.
4. Cackowski, J. and J.L. Nasar. 2003. The restorative effects of roadside vegetation implications for automobile driver anger and frustration. Environment and Behavior 35:736–751.
5. Delucchi, M. and J. Murphy. 1998. Motor Vehicle Goods and Services Bundled in the Private Sector. Annualized Social Cost of MotorVehicle Use in the U.S., 1990–1991, Vol. 6, ITS http://www.its.ucdavis. edu/publications/2004/UCD-ITS-RR-96-03(01)_rev1.pdf.
6. Forman, R.T. and R.I. McDonald. 2007. A massive increase in roadside woody vegetation: Goals, pros and cons. International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Accessed May 11, 2010. http://escholarship. org/uc/item/22h2s7jt.
7. Forman, R.T.T., D. Sperling, J.A. Bissonette, A.P. Clevenger, C.D. Cutshall, V.H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C.R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J.A. Jones, F.J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T.C. Winter. 2003 Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press, Washington, DC.
8. Gobster, P.H. 1999. An ecological esthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape J. 18:54–64.
9. 2009. 10. Goverts. 2009. Letter to the editor. The News Journal, May 30, Harper-Lore, B. 1998. New approaches for utilizing native plants on roadsides. Presented at Native Grasses and Wildflower Workshop, Baltimore, MD, September 28, 1998.
11. 12. Hopwood, J.L. 2008. The contribution of roadside grassland restorations to native bee conservation. Biol. Conserv. 141:2632–2640. KCI Technologies. 2007. Route 896 Median Mowing Study. Project Report. Delaware Department of Transportation.
13. 14. 15. Koh, J. 1988. An ecological aesthetic. Landscape J. 7:177–191. Missouri Botanical Garden (MOBOT). Accessed June 9, 2010. http:// www.mobot.org/gardeninghelp/plantfi nder/plant.asp?code=M400. Reis, L., R.M. Debinski, and M. Wieland. 2001.Conservation values of roadside prairie restoration to native butterfly communities. Conservation Biology 15:401–411.
16. 17. Roumillat, unpublished data. Tiffault, P. and J. Bergeron. 2003. Fatigue and individual differences in monotonous simulated driving. Personality and Individual Differences 34:159–176. 18. Ulrich, R.S. 1979. Visual landscapes and psychological well being. Landscape Research 4:17–23. 19. White, P. 1999. Exploring the wilderness in our backyards. Public Garden, April 1999, pp. 35–36.
Related Fact Sheets
Filter by Agriculture
Filter by Horticulture
All Results
-
SOYBEAN VEIN NECROSIS VIRUS
Soybean Vein Necrosis Virus is an Orthotospovirus. This virus can be seed borne or vectored by multiple thrips species.
-
TAR SPOT OF CORN
Tar spot is caused by the fungal pathogen Phyllachoramaydis. Under favorable conditions for disease, yield loss on susceptible hybrids can be severe.
-
A Comparison of Methods to Determine Lime Requirement
Maintaining an optimal soil pH is crucial for maximizing crop yields and promoting overall soil health. The optimal soil pH is typically between 5.5 and 7.0 for most crops growing in Delaware. Maintaining an optimal soil pH ensures that essential nutrients are readily available for plant uptake and minimizes the potential for toxicity from elements like aluminum (Al) and manganese (Mn), which can become harmful in overly acidic conditions.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- >>