Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Average link cluster analysis of 18 neighborhood communities in the Phoenix, Arizona, metropolitan area, based on similarity of residential tree taxa. Neighborhood communities are identified by community name; presence (+) or absence (-) of neighborhood covenants, codes, and restrictions (CC&Rs); and geographic location within the city [N (north), E (east), S (south), and W (west)].
- Figure 2.
Typical desert (top), oasis (middle), and mesic (bottom) landscape design motifs of residential homes studied in the Phoenix, Arizona, metropolitan area. Images captured by C.A. Martin.
Tables
- Table 1.
Effect of residential community landscape covenants, codes, and restrictions (CC&Rs) on frequency of occurrence and genera richness of landscape plants in residential landscapes in the Phoenix, Arizona, metropolitan area.
Frequency and genera richness CC&Rs No CC&Rs Total plant (no./100 m2) 15.7 a* 13.0 b Trees (no./100 m2) 1.8 b 2.3 a Shrubs (no./100 m2) 10.5 a 7.9 b Groundcovers (no./100m2) 7.2 a 3.9 b Turf (% total surface cover) 31% 44% Genera richness (no./100 m2) 5.8 a 4.9 a ↵*Mean values in rows followed by the same letter are not significantly different, Tukey-Kramer, a = 0.5.
- Table 2.
Percentage of survey respondents who lived in residential communities with or without covenants, codes, and restrictions (CC&Rs) in Phoenix, Arizona, metropolitan area, in relation to geographic place of origin in the United States.
Place of origin* CC&Rs No CC&Rs Northeast 47% 53% Southeast 56% 44% Midwest 47% 53% Great Plains 55% 45% Southwest 39% 61% Intermountain 59% 41% Pacific West 43% 57% ↵*Northeast = Delaware, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Ha mpshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont; Southeast = Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia; Midwest = Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio; Great Plains = Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska; Southwest = Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas; Intermountain = Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming; Pacific West = Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington.
- Table 3.
Influence of the presence or absence of covenants, codes, and restrictions (CC&Rs) that control landscape activity on front yard and backyard landscape design motif and home preference for a particular landscape design.
What type of landscape design motif did homeowners actually have? Front yard landscape design CC&Rs No CC&Rs Desert 66% 50% Oasis 22% 29% Mesic 12% 21% Backyard landscape design CC&Rs No CC&Rs Desert 39% 28% Oasis 43% 46% Mesic 18% 26% What type of landscape design motif would homeowners prefer to have? Landscape design CC&Rs No CC&Rs Desert 33% 27% Oasis 48% 48% Mesic 19% 24% - Table 4.
Influence of geographic place of origin in the United States on percentage of survey respondents who indicated a residential landscape preference for desert, oasis, or mesic landscape design motifs in Phoenix, Arizona, metropolitan area.
Place of originz Landscape design Desert Oasis Mesic Northeast 33%y 51% 16% Southeast 30% 54% 16% Midwest 33% 47% 20% Great Plains 43% 38% 19% Southwest 21% 54% 25% Arizona 16% 50% 33% Pacific West 33% 40% 27% Intermountain 23% 49% 28% ↵zNortheast = Delaware, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont; Southeast = Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia; Midwest = Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio; Great Plains = Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska; Southwest = New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas; Intermountain = Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming; Pacific West = Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington.
↵yRows that add up to <100 had nearly 1% “no preference” responses.
- Table 5.
Influence of the presence or absence of covenants, codes, and restrictions (CC&Rs) that control landscape activities on residential homeowner landscape perceptions, preferences, and activities in Phoenix, Arizona.
Do homeowners hire a local landscape firm to maintain their landscapes? Landscape maintenance CC&R No CC&R Maintained by landscape firm 35% 25% Self maintained 65% 75% Overall, do homeowners have a preference for landscape appearance? Landscape appearance CC&R No CC&R Neat and formal 34% 37% Natural and informal 62% 58% Don’t care 4% 5% Do homeowners perceive that their landscape was similar to their neighbors? Landscape mimicry CC&R No CC&R Very similar 37% 28% Similar 40% 43% Somewhat different 15% 13% Completely different 8% 16%
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.