WATGreen Committee

University of Waterloo

Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1

April 3, 2000

Dear Patti Cook:

We are pleased to present you with our report Creating Community Habitat through Landscape Design. The University of Waterloo has been an innovator in the history of WATgreen projects with a broad focus in comparison to other university campuses. Projects extend the range outside conventional topics of study, such as waste management and resource conservation, to campus landscaping and landscape audits. We would like to open a new path to study the connection between community habitat and a campus landscape plan with our report.

We feel that the prospective students of the new residence, William Lyon Mackenzie King Village, will benefit from a landscape plan. The elements we have chosen to include are following:

  1. Outdoor landscaping Shrubbery and trees will be used to draw attention to areas of importance.
  2. Patio space and raised beds, shaded areas for seating and congregation.

    Open space for outdoor recreation.

  3. Rooftop gardens To add to the aesthetic value of UW buildings.
  4. To add natural insulation to the building.

    Provide vegetables to offset food services expenses or for the consumption of participating students.

  5. Indoor landscaping To improve indoor air quality and student health.

To improve the indoor ambiance and to create a sense of home.

We feel that these are important contributing factors to creating a sense of community in the student residence setting in combination with the natural ecosystem and green technology along with the efforts of the students themselves.

Respectfully submitted,

 

Devon Hutchinson Katie Loney Billy Neilson

Neil Tsuji-Magee Letitia Wan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Creating Community Habitat through Landscape Design

Page

INTRODUCTION 4

Background Information 5

Statement of Sustainability 6

Methodology 7

Scope 9

NATIVE SPECIES 9

Site Description 10

Creating Community Habitat 11

Plant List 11

Recommendations 11

ROOFTOP GARDENS 12

Variable Analysis 12

Internal Validity 13

Creating Community Habitat 14

Advantages of the Rooftop Garden 15

Site Description 17

Participation 19

Recommendations 19

OUTDOOR GROUNDS LANDSCAPE 20

Site Description 20

Creating community Habitat 21

Plant List 24

Advantages and Disadvantages 25

Recommendations 26

INDOOR LANDSCAPE 26

Site Description 26

Creating Community Habitat 27

Health Benefits 28

Recommendations 29

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 30

BIBLIOGRAPHY 31

 

 

Page

LIST OF ILLISTRATIONS 33

Illustration i. (Systems Diagram) 34

Illustration ii. (Onsite Roof Top Garden) 35

Illustration iii. (Rooftop Garden Layout) 36

Illustration iv. (Outdoor Grounds Landscape Plan) 37

Illustration v. (Indoor Landscape Plan) 38

 

 

TABLES 39

Table I Native Species Plant List for UW 40

Table II Summary Results 46

Table III Post-Test Summary Results 49

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Creating Community Habitat through Landscape Design

 

INTRODUCTION

A new residence building is planned to begin construction this upcoming spring. The main floor plans for the new building have already been completed. However, plans for the landscaping around the new building have not yet been completed. The focus of the following report will be to provide a landscaping plan that will incorporate communal living with the natural ecosystem.

The purpose of approaching landscape design from a community habitat perspective is to assist in making residence life more enjoyable for the inhabitants. Community habitat can be defined as an environment that integrates communal living, the natural ecosystem, and green technology to promote a healthier future that is ecologically and environmentally feasible, while effectively reducing detrimental human impacts, through the use of science, ecology, energy efficiency and eco-design.

Community habitat is a significant issue to be dealt with in landscaping design since it will allow the residence inhabitants to have a more communal feeling. If residents feel more comfortable in their surroundings, promotion of a healthier happier environment for students to excel in their studies will be created.

 

 

 

Background

The new residence being built on the University of Waterloo campus will house 320 first-year students on 4 floors, in 144,000 square feet. To design, build and equip this residence for living, $15,600,000 will be needed. Unfortunately there will be no budget provided for the landscape of this building. We would like to design a landscape for this residence that will not only be aesthetically pleasing but also create a community habitat for the students living there while keeping sustainability in mind.

There has been one previous study done through WATgreen relating to landscape design for interior spaces in buildings. Campus Naturalization, done in 1995 was a project that focused on the Davis Centre and increasing the green spaces within it. The rational for their project was closely tied to promoting sustainability on campus by using rooftop and indoor gardens. The indoor gardens would assist the cycling of water and atmospheric gases, improve energy efficiency; by fostering a more relaxed environment on campus and create an arena for student and community involvement. University students as well as other members of the public could be involved with maintaining the gardens while learning about them.

Our group is also interested in other elements of design that will promote community and enhance socio-economic aspects through landscape design such as the use of focal points. Focal points added to the landscape will encourage interaction between people in these areas. Benches, Barbecues, birdfeeders, recreation areas and patio space are all examples of focal points that can be used to create community-gathering areas.

We would like to use Ontario native vegetation species when creating the gardens for the new residence (Refer to Table I for Species list). By using native species less work will be required in the care for the plants, the plants will also be adapted to the Canadian climate and will provide habitat for native wildlife while complimenting and enhancing the natural environment.

WATgreen studies done in 1996 and 1998 on campus landscaping will allow us to determine the most appropriate vegetation species for the land on campus.

Statement of Sustainability

Our vision of sustainability within the scope of king village includes the application of landscaping techniques that will not put the environment at risk. By designing our outdoor areas with native species we will create gardens that provide habitats for native wildlife while complimenting and enhancing the natural environment. The dependency on fertilizers, pesticides and special methods of investigation will be lessened with the use of native species and therefore increase the sustainability of natural areas on campus. We will strive to design the gardens so as to provoke a sense of community by looking at the buildings, landscape and students as an interacting ecosystem.

 

Methodology

The methodology that was used to attain the information that was relevant to this research plan was a combination of literary research, surveys, and field research.

Research Goals Recommendations Triangulation Method Used

1)Determine Previous Problems Critique of previous residence -literary research

-field observations

-independent questioning

2)Understanding of Operation Research -literary research

(Refer to Illustration i. for systems diagram) -systems diagram

-field observations

3)Landscape Change a)Rooftop Garden -literary research

-survey

-economic viability (space vs. $)

b)Indoor Garden -literary research

-survey

-design evaluation

c)Increased Tree Area -economic viability

-survey

-land congestion analysis

d)Open Green Spaces -needs vs. wants

-survey

-independent questioning

e)Patio Space -economic analysis

-survey

-field observation

To ensure that our recommendations are met, an evaluation of the design layout will be required to determine if factors such as space and distribution will allow for any changes that may be required. Each of our recommendations have been examined through the triangulation method (Palys, 1997).

Within this section, the methodology for conducting our survey will be discussed (Refer to Table II to See Survey). To begin, a questionnaire was designed and administered to each of the residences that surround the university’s campus. Due to the time constraints that were apparent in this project, we felt that thirty surveys for each residence was a sufficient number. However, due a few limitations that arose, a few of the residences were unable to accommodate our number of thirty. The reason that a survey was conducted was due to the attitude bias that was incorporated in each of our group members. A survey allowed us to receive the attitudes of fellow students who were already living in residence and understood what was needed as well as what was working well already. The sample that we chose to take was a representative sample. We maintained a defined population, one in which were all students of the university and were living in a residence.

The attributes of our sampling method were heterogeneity, probabilistic, universality, and group administered questionnaire. With regards to heterogeneity, a diverse sample was maintained in the fact that each of the students were from different backgrounds, took different classes, and had different attitudes towards the issue at hand. A probabilistic sampling was used in order to maintain a representative sample with our unit of analysis being that of the students attitudes and feelings. With regards to the aspect of universality, our focus group was the students of the University of Waterloo. However, it was understood and taken into consideration that these students would spread there values and ideas into the rest of the university’s population. Due to the trickle down effect, the surrounding community would also be affected as well as the world as a whole in the long run. The questionnaire that was undertaken was a group administered questionnaire. Although this was not perfect, we conducted our research in a confined area, which was each of the residence’s cafeterias. This type of method was used in order to receive a high response rate (Palys, 1997).

Once our surveys were completed, the process of compiling our data began. By comparing what landscapes the residences are living in part with, we can determine what parts of a landscape plan are important to focus our research on.

 

Scope

 

Within this research project, the scope and magnitude of the possibilities is limitless. Therefore, due a few limitations our boundary has been incorporated to fit the landscape design of the residence. Our focus will be to change the interior and exterior landscape plans to promote a better community habitat for the occupants.

Native Plant Species

Native plant species are vegetative species that have physiological characteristics that allow them to thrive in certain climatic and geological conditions. Native plant species are site specific, meaning that each region has a different variety of plants and trees that are akin to that area’s growing conditions.

Native plant species are important to incorporate into a sustainable landscape design plan. The use of native plant species in landscape design will reduce the amount of maintenance work that has to be done to maintain a healthy landscape environment.

It is now more important than ever to have a sustainable landscape design since concerns about horticultural practices (ie; fertilizer and pesticide use) have come to the forefront as major environmental concerns. By using native plant species the amount of fertilizers and pesticides that need to be used will be reduced quite substantially. It is important to have a low maintenance landscape plan around the new residence since it borders Laurel creek. With nitrate levels in most local rivers and lakes already nearing unsafe levels, it is important not to add any more to the local water supply. Higher nitrate levels in water supplies is most closely linked to both agricultural and commercial and residential horticultural practices (ie; nitrogen from fertilizer applications)

 

 

Site Description

The site where the new residence building is to be built is located between Village 1 and the Ron Eydt Village. Soil located on this site is consistent with soils around the rest of the campus in that it is a glacial deposit of sandy silt material suitable for most types of native plant species. The location of the new residence is one that will provide a constant view of sunshine from morning until evening, therefore plant species that thrive in the sun are recommended to be used.

 

Creating Community Habitat

Native plant species contribute to community habitat by providing a natural vegetative background where residents can interact with each other in a peaceful and tranquil environment. By using native plant species, the landscape architect can ensure that the vegetation in the residence environment will always be lush and rarely succumbed to disease. With a lush and disease free vegetative environment, inhabitants of the new building will be able to enjoy the natural setting that has been created through the use of native plant species.

Plant List

The University of Waterloo has created a list of native plant species compiled by WATgreen. The use of native plant species adds an element of ecological integrity to the University of Waterloo campus. (Refer to Table I for a complete list of native plant species as recommended by WATgreen)

Recommendations

Our group recommends that the landscapers in charge of completing the new residence landscape plan incorporate native plant species from the WATgreen native plant species list. These plant species are recommended for use in the landscape of the new William Lyon Mackenzie residence.

Rooftop Gardens

The main goal of this project is to incorporate an environmentally friendly landscape into the William Lyon Mackenzie residence to promote sustainable and enjoyable living for the occupants. To create a sustainable and enjoyable community habitat through the use of landscape design, the rooftop garden can fit the criteria to attain this goal. With regards to sustainability, the rooftop garden has a variety of environmental benefits that can promote a sustainable way of living as well as a sustainable future. With regards to community, the rooftop garden brings a sense of happiness and companionship to the residents of the area as well as a general appeal of beauty to the area.

 

Variables Analysis

Before our group could assess the internal validity of the idea of rooftop gardens, it had to determine if the variables were going to be comparable. The independent variable was the notion of the rooftop garden and if it would be maintained and enjoyed by the students. The outcome variable was then going to be determined through the results of our survey (Refer to Table II ) (Palys, 1997). In this case, the question was set out to discover if the students felt that a rooftop garden would in fact help to create a better community and if they would take part in the garden’s maintenance. What was discovered is that the variables do coincide with each other and that they lead towards a positive internal validity measurement.

Internal Validity

To measure the internal validity of an idea such as the rooftop garden, the threats of history, maturation, testing, and statistical regression towards the mean were studied. Prior to determine the effects of each of these threats, a post test specifically concerning the rooftop garden was employed to the students (Refer to Table III) With regards to history, the pre-test and post-test time interval was not a significant duration. Although the time duration was short, our group felt that this post test was intended to further correspond to the results that were derived from the initial survey (Refer to Table II). The results that were found when conducting the post test were similar to the initial testing that was done which allows us to conclude that the results were the same throughout the time period and that the students attitudes remained the same. With regards to maturation, the studies internal validity can not be assessed. This is due to the fact that the allotted time frame in which we were given to study this topic is essentially too short. However, if further experiments are conducted in the future, the aspect of maturation can be assessed in comparison to our results. With regards to testing, this threat was overcome due to the high number of students that occupy the residence buildings. Although a few students may have become sensitized to the issue from the initial test, it can be assumed that the vast majority of participants in the post test were first time participants. With regards to statistical regression towards the mean, it is fully understood that there is a good chance of a positive or negative result direction. However, the opinions that were generated in the post test results were conducive with the original results, which allowed for valid conclusions concerning the rooftop garden (Palys, 1997).

A further reason that the rooftop garden was chosen to become a focal point in the creation of community was due to the fact that we were able to take advantage of an area on the building structure that served no other general purpose besides providing shelter. The area was also compatible with the idea of a rooftop garden and there have been a number of successful gardens throughout the world that are already in place.

 

Creating Community Habitat

With the increasing population pressures that the world is experiencing, urban sprawl has been the measure taken to accommodate this phenomena. However, the immediate effect of urban sprawl has been the decrease in urban green spaces. The loss of green spaces in the city has deteriorated the sense of community that once existed through the fact that urban green spaces promote a sense of city happiness and pride of place (Rooftop Greening, Online). Although it may be too late to prevent this problem from occurring, there are changes that can be taken to adapt to the situation because the need for open space is a required element when creating a positive community habitat (Warner, 1987). With the idea of rooftop gardens taken into consideration, acres and acres of empty space can be established that are just waiting to be used. These gardens can create community as well as self reliance by opening doors for residents who never have the chance to meet each other to work together through a collaborative effort on sustaining their rooftop garden (Rooftop Greening, Online). This allows the residence a sense of control and redesign of their cities, which creates a stronger more resilient community (Hough, 1995). Due to these communal benefits, rooftop gardens are beginning to take place all across the world. For example, in North America underground parking garages and shopping malls are often covered with lawns or landscaped over with trees and gardens without the citizens of the community ever being aware of this. In Northern Germany, by-laws are intact that ensure all new industrial buildings are designed and built with green roofs (Rooftop Greening, Online). Practices and policies such as these are the first step to the green rooftop revolution that may be witnessed in the near future.

Advantages of the Rooftop Garden

There are two main types of green roofs that can be incorporated into an architectural design. These are vegetation covered (inaccessible) and roof gardens (accessible). For the project of community habitat in the new residence design at the University of Waterloo, roof gardens (accessible) will be the type of green roof that will be further explored. There are a variety of benefits that accompany the rooftop garden that encompass social, environmental, and economic advantages.

  1. Social Advantages:
  2. The social advantages have already been discussed in the previous page (Rooftop Greening, Online).

  3. Environmental Advantages:

These rooftop gardens can offer more than aesthetic value by curbing air pollution. Atmospheric pollutants are swept into the ground by rainfall and circulating air and are then trapped by porous particles in the topsoil portion of the rooftop garden and are then broken down (Rooftop Relief, 1991). For example, the advantage of this pollution prevention can be visualized by thinking of 10,000 square feet of land. This land has the capability of removing 220 pounds of carbon monoxide annually (Rooftop Relief, 1991). At the same time as this photosynthetic reaction is taking place, air-born particulate, hydrocarbons, and sulfur are being removed through evapo-transpiration (Rooftop Greening, Online). Another advantage of the rooftop garden is that it is beneficial to our storm water runoff system. Today, the system is overloaded and too expensive to maintain or upgrade and the net effect is usually the flooding of this material into our lakes and rivers. Rooftop gardens can prevent this problem because the plants and substrate that are being grown can retain the rainwater long enough to decrease the load on the system and allow it to run off gradually (Rooftop Greening, Online). The rooftop gardens can also provide a natural habitat for birds, butterflies, and insects, while increasing the diversity of these species (Rooftop Greening, Online).

C) Economic Advantages:

Economically, rooftop gardens are extremely beneficial to the city as well as the individuals who incorporate them into their structural design. The rooftop gardens can provide an excellent source of insulation that can keep building structures warmer in the winter by preventing heat from escaping and cooler in the summer by preventing the sunlight from penetrating. Through this achievement, heating and cooling costs can be drastically reduced (Rooftop Greening, Online). Along with providing an insulating barrier, the rooftop gardens have been shown to increase the life-span of the roofing membrane itself. This is due to the fact that the gardens protect the building’s roof from ultra violet rays, puncture and damage, and extreme temperature fluctuations that cause stress and fracture to the building structure (Cox, 1991). Another economic benefit of the rooftop garden is that it can be turned into a cash crop by growing vegetables that can be sold or used for individual use. Although there is no budget remaining for further modifications to the William Lyon Mackenzie residence, through the cooperation of the cafeterias in the other residences and the administration at the University of Waterloo, revenue can be created. This can be achieved by selling the vegetables that are grown in the garden through these cafeteria. If the initial seeds are provided through a local organization, any revenue that is created can be considered profit. For example, if three vegetable trays are sold each day at a price of two dollars, an annual profit of two thousand and one hundred dollars will be created. There are also a variety of other fruits and vegetables that can be marketed in the cafeteria.

Site Description

The proposed area for the rooftop garden to be incorporated into is the new residence, William Lyon McKenzie, on the University of Waterloo campus. On the actual building itself, we are proposing that the rooftop garden be located on top of the connecting corridor section as well as the back section of the residence building (Refer to Illustration ii.). The front entrance portion of the rooftop garden will provide an easily accessible area that students of the residence as well as non-residence students can get to. The rooftop garden in this area will also provide a beautiful scenic view that people passing by, entering, or gathering in the court yard will be able to admire. It is proposed that the connecting corridor garden be divided into three rows (Refer to Illustration iii). The inner and outer rows will be designated to provide the social and visual benefits through the planting of native species of bushes and shrubs (Refer to Table I). The inner section of the garden should be designated to accommodate the requirements for economic returns. To accomplish this goal, a variety of vegetables can be planted in this section. The types of vegetables that are to be grown should correspond to the types of meals that the cafeteria will be serving and determined at a later date. It is proposed that the back section rooftop garden be split into two sections. The first of these sections should be designed in the same manner as the corridor garden and the second section should be set up as an area for the students to enjoy. This can be accomplished through the incorporation of a patio set up with picnic tables and lawn chairs spread throughout the area. It is felt that this patio section should be incorporated into the design due to the high demand for patio space that was observed while completing our surveys (Refer to Table II).

 

 

Participation

If the rooftop gardens are to be maintained in a sustainable and successful manner, the participation of the students is essential. What our group is proposing for the students who take part in this project are as follows:

Recommendations

 

 

 

 

Outdoor Grounds Landscape

Site description

 

(Please refer to illustration iv. for a rough drawing of the suggested landscape plan and building design and grounds layout). Currently, the building location, structure shape and the patio are included in the plans. Also on the illustration, the space we have to work with is indicated by the green area surrounding the new residence building and bordered by Ring Road, Village Two area and Village Ones West Cul-de-sac.

Creating Community Habitat

Within the results of our survey, it was established that many students wanted more open spaces and patio spaces. We are lucky that a patio space has been included in the plans for the new residence building. Our supplied problem (Palys, 1997) now needs to be solved by deciding how to maximize the feeling of community in the new patio/courtyard area as well as the surrounding grounds through the use of landscaping; which, through our research we have found is possible. The research is mainly relational research (Palys, 1997), showing a relationship between community habitat and landscape. This job will be looked at through a deductive method because we began with the theory that an outdoor landscape plan would enhance community habitat and then researched a way in which this could physically be accomplished. Our statement of observation is that we feel there is a need for an outdoor landscape plan. This statement needs to be taken into the perspective of reflexivity. We have theorized that people can create community outside, but this is reflexive because this reflects our own feelings and activities because we are also people that interact on this campus (Palys, 1997).

The various suggested ideas for the landscape plan are numbered on illustration iii. The following is an explanation and clarification of the underlying processes behind each suggestion and how they will create more community habitat. We tried to keep the six priciples, which are described below, into account that create unity in a landscape. Unity describes "...the harmonious combination of various parts to create a feeling of oneness." (Hannebaum, 1990) We feel that if there is unity in a landscape it can create unity between the people that interact, therefore equaling a community and a feeling of "oneness".

The six principals include simplicity which can be achieved through repetition; variety in form, colour or texture; emphasis to important features; balance symmetrically or asymmetrically; sequence which leads the eye through form, texture or colour; and finally scale which is in terms of proportion of plant size and area. (Hannebaum, 1990) These definitions could be considered to be a few of our operational definitions, because they are defined concepts of what we plan to do in the landscape plan, and; therefore, what will come about from those defined techniques (Palys, 1997). We took a qualitative approach to designing this plan thinking of the perception of what people desire and what we desire.

1. Creates shade on the south-facing side of the building but is placed far enough away as to not block sunlight into the lobby. This takes into consideration the needs of the students by providing an area for people who would like to stay out of the sun (Hannebaum, 1990). Trees can be put into groups of three or more as massing plants, which are plants that look pleasing when grouped (Hannebaum, 1990).

2. These trees serve the same purpose as the above plants but so they do not overtake the small courtyard they should be smaller growing tree species. This is scale. When these trees grow up they will also become part of the front landscape and create balance around the main entrance (Hannebaum, 1990).

3. The tree and shrub combination creates a balance around the main front entrance as well as bringing more attention to it.

4. These shrubs will be used to create balance on either side of the patio. They will need to be low, sun-loving shrubs so as not to block the light into the common area because of the south-facing wall.

5. This technique is called funneling. It consists of a gradual decline in size and a change in texture and colour so as to bring attention to the two main entrances (Hannebaum, 1990). Tall trees are used when placed close to the road, then we move to smaller growing trees, shrubs and then bright coloured perhaps flowering shrubs to create a focal point by the doors. This includes variety in colour, texture and size diminishing towards the door. There is also emphasis to the entrance and sequence through colour, size and texture change.

6. Four potted plants with vibrant colour create focal points to entice people onto the front and back patios. On the South side of the building these pots will help to clearly show the boundary of the patio from the open space beyond.

7. Lights should be included so the patio can be used at night for evening entertainment. This is included after assessing the needs of the students.

8. A raised perennial garden can be included as a focal point, while the raised ledge can also serve as a seating area (Pierceall, 1990). There are colourful plants and flowers as well as shrubbery included to create a focal point through accent plants that create visual interest and texture changes.

9. This is an apple tree, which would create a focal point and some interest in the development of the fruit. We included this because in a past WATgreen project students did a similar survey to ours and the desire for fruit trees received several votes.

This landscape plan is a rough draft and we expect there to be some changes after receiving more input.

Plant list

The following is the list of native species that should be used for our suggested outdoor landscape plan.

Taller growing trees: Red Maple in full sun (first trees in the funnel around the main entrances and in the grouped trees in the open area).

Smaller growing trees: White Ash is not much smaller than Red Maple, but should be used to add variety on the landscape (grouped trees in the courtyard and second trees in the funnel around the main entrance).

Fruit trees: Wild Crab Apple trees should be used in place of regular apple trees because they are more sustainable for this environment. This species will flower in the spring.

Shrubs: Alternate-leafed Dogwoods can be used along the side of the Central Complex, in the funnel around the main entrances, and around the back of the raised flowerbed in the courtyard.

Flowering Shrubs: Witch Hazel shrub will flower in late autumn and should be used in the main entrance funnels by the doors and in pots around the patio boundaries.

Raised FlowerBed: Any sun-loving perennials can be used in this garden; however, they should be planned to flower at the same approximate time so the bed is not patchy.

Advantages and Disadvantages

The advantages to incorporating an outdoor landscape plan into the designs of the new residence are as follows:

The disadvantages to the outdoor plan are as follows:

 

Recommendations

Installing a landscape plan that enhances community habitat will increase the living standards and conditions for students in the new residence, which will filter better attitudes throughout the campus. An outdoor landscape will improve student life, relationships and therefore, school marks. If students have a happy living environment, more time can be spent on studies with fewer distractions and more concentration. This plan will create happy, healthy student attitudes in a sustainable manner through the creation and enhancement it brings to community habitat.

 

 

INDOOR LANDSCAPE

Site Description

The objective of providing an indoor landscape plan is to create a sense of community in the student residences. In an atmosphere where students come from a wide variety of backgrounds, it is important to create a setting where everyone will be comfortable; we feel that the addition of green plants in such an area will make these required contribution.

In the new residence, the front section of the building is available for student use as a common area. The space contains the availability for uses such as prayer rooms as well as a lounge. On each floor common area exists around the Don’s residence. As there is not a cafeteria available in this residence, the main lounge will be the focus for a sample indoor landscape plan.

Creating Community Habitat

In an age of computers and high-tech driven lifestyles, designer John Naisbitt comments in his book Megatrends that we should attempt to "rehumanize our personal worlds" by balancing the hard edges of technology with the soft edged, "high-touch environments" (Snyder, 1995). By high-touch the designer means that we should perhaps be more in tune with our social and natural environment through activities such as hiking, biking, handwriting notes, socializing, and gardening. The rapid pace of our lifestyle is accented by architecture that has bypassed many basic human needs by overlooking design elements that make buildings comfortable and functional. While approximately 90% of our lifetime is spent indoors (Snyder, 1995.), it is important that interior designs reflect our need to be attuned with exterior spaces.

For a number of years NASA has used live plants in space stations to alleviate emotional stress on astronauts — it has been proven that the presence of green foliage and vegetation improves emotional and psychological health of a building’s occupants (Snyder, 1995). In addition to the spiritual benefits, live plants help maintain a healthier indoor environment because of their powerful air purification properties. Thus, the presence of indoor plants in the setting of a student residence is important to the health of students both in the physical and social context. The selection and placement of particular species can affect the sense of community, the shape, height and position in relation to the room influences the movement of people and the ambience of the space.

The primary functions of plants in interior spaces include the moderation of physical movement within an area. This may be through controlling movement in one direction, or by using plants to define "rooms" within a large space. These concepts are called direction and pooling, and are physical units which are incorporated into the design (Austin, 1985).

Plants can also be used to draw attention to focal points of an area, to visually join two spaces, to alter the size of an area or composition, to invite viewers through or into a space by stimulating curiosity, or to divide a large space into smaller components. These secondary design components are visual aspects of design that are used to support the composition (Austin, 1985).

Health Benefits

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has stated that indoor air pollution is one of the most serious health risks facing Americans. The sources of these pollutants are often remnants of the manufacturing processes of common household items: carpeting, high-pressure laminates (such as Formica), paint, wallpaper, furniture finishes, certain types of insulation, caulking, pesticides and air fresheners are just a few. In this and other newly constructed or remodeled buildings, there have been studies that show approximately 30 percent of them have varying degrees of indoor air pollution (Austin, 1985). An example of a chemical present includes formaldehyde compounds, which may cause nausea, respiratory problems, short-term memory loss and cancer. Other chemicals are benzene, which may cause drowsiness, loss of appetite, headaches, and trichloroethylene, a known carcinogen (Hammer, 1992). Although present in extremely small concentrations, the presence of these pollutants contribute to "sick building syndrome". This occurrence is becoming more prevalent with the construction of airtight, energy-efficient designs that incorporate "superinsulation reduced fresh air exchange", and inoperable windows. Occupants of buildings constructed in this manner often express complaints of "health problems such as itchy eyes, skin rashes, drowsiness, respiratory and sinus congestion, headaches, and other allergy related symptoms" (Hammer, 1992).

Recommendations

Common areas in a student residence are likely to be high-traffic areas, and therefore plants may be prone to wear and tear, or even vandalism. Plants will be chosen specific to the available light, humidity and ventilation in each area and will be conditioned to allow it to adjust to the indoor environment initially. Conditioning involves allowing the plants to be exposed to the maximum amount of available light when it is first installed, such as a south window. Over a four-week period the amount of light should be reduced gradually. The soil should be leached in several treatments to remove salts and fertilizers that may be excessive at low light environments. This conditioning is necessary as indoor environments are generally dimmer than greenhouses, and the sudden change will result in the plants dropping their leaves.

The common lounge as an example for the placement of indoor plants (Refer to Illustration v). Plants are placed around the couch area to create the feeling of a room and to prevent noise travel as the common area is essentially a long hall sectioned of for different uses. As well as these functions, the plants serve as a focal point for places of gathering.

 

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Using a landscape plan that strengthens community habitat will not only increase living standards for the students of the residence, but also improve student life. The students of this residence will be healthier and happier because their living conditions magnify community and allow them to concentrate on their studies.

The landscape plan outlined in this report provides the necessary information for a community habitat oriented design that is easy to follow and implement.

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

Aborn, H.W. "My Roof Vegetable Garden." Good housekeeping 56 (1913): 500-503.

Arcology. (1998). "Architecture and ecology", [Online]. Available: http://www.arcosanti.org [2000, January 30]

Austin, R. Designing the interior landscape. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. 1985.

Bell, S. (1999). Landscape: pattern, perception and process. London: E&FN Spon.

"Conflict." The sociological quarterly 26.4 (1985): 473-490

Cooper, Wendy. ‘Information for the University of Waterloo Board of Governors New First Year Residence Building Project’. October 1999

Cox, J. Landscaping with nature. Pennsylvania: Rodale Press, 1991.

Eagles, Lamb et al. Native Plant Species. Canada, July 1997.

EcoDesign Matters. (1999). "Living Lightly on the Earth", [Online]. Available:

http://www.isdesignet.com/Magazine/Sept’99/eco.html [2000, January 25]

Foegen, H. J. "Backyard Gardens, Homegrown Hope for the Hungry." The Futurist, June. 1983

Gardening on Quality-of-life Issues." Journal of Environmental Horticulture 14.4, 1996

Hammer, N. Interior landscape design. New York: McGraw Hill. 1992

Hannebaum, L. Landscape design: a practical approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall1. 1990.

Hassan, S. (1996). Campus landscaping, [Online]. Available: www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast/watgreen [2000, March 14]

Hart, John. (No Date). The New England Ecological Garden, [Online]. Available: www.unh.edu/neeg/neecolgdn.html [2000, January 19]

Haughton, Graham and Colin Hunter. Sustainable Cities. Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd: London, 1988

Hough, M. Cities and natural process. New York: Routledge. 1995

"Landscaping & Grounds Maintenance." Public Works 129.4, 1998

"Native Invaders." Ontario Nature. [Online], Available:

http://www.ontarionature.org/enviroandcons/main.html. [2000, January 20]

"Naturalization on Campus." WATGreen Project. 1995

Palys, Ted. Research Decisions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives. Harcourt Canada Ltd.: Toronto, 1997

Pierceall, G.M. Sitescapes: outdoor rooms for outdoor living. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 1990

"Reasons To Rooftop Garden", [Online]. Available: www.cityfarmer.org/rooftop59.html#rooftop [2000, February 29]

"Rooftop Greening", [Online]. Available: www.interlog.com/~rooftop/ [2000, February 29]

"Rooftop Relief." Discover 12, 1991

Rose, J. Gardens make me laugh. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 1990.

Roseland, Mark. Eco-city Dimensions. New Society Publishers: BC, 1997

Snyder, S.D. Environmental interiorscapes: a designer’s guide to interior plantscaping and automated irrigation systems. New York: Whitney Library of Design. 1995.

Suffling, R., Eagles, P.J.F, & Lamb, L. (1997). "Native Plant Species", [Online]. Available: www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast/watgreen [2000, March 01]

Thompson, G.F. & Steiner, F.R. Ecological design and planning. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1997.

"Urban Agricultural Notes", [Online]. Available: www.cityfarmer.org/GreenRoof.html#greenroof [2000, February 29]

Warner Jr., S. To dwell is to garden; a history of Bosons community gardens. Boston: Northeastern University Press. 1987

Wolgensinger, B., and Daidone, J. The personal garden: its architecture and design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. 1975.

 

ILLISTRATIONS

Illustration i. - -Systems Diagram

 

 

 

 

Illustration ii. — Onsite Rooftop Garden

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Illustration iii.- Rooftop Garden Layout

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Illustration iv.- Outdoor Grounds Landscape Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Illustration v.- Indoor Landscape Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLES

Table I — Native Plant Species for UW

Recommended List of Trees and Shrubs for University of Waterloo Plantings 

The purpose of this list is to ensure the use of native Ontario trees and shrubs in planting at the University. Native plants are the ones best suited for the Ontario climate. They are the ones that now grace the forests, shores and wetlands of this province. Their use adds an important element of ecological integrity to the University of Waterloo campus. Over time, the plantings of many non-native trees and shrubs should be replaced by native species whenever possible.

 

This is a list of all the trees and shrubs native to Ontario and listed in "Trees in Canada". Where marked "for demo only" etc., they might be grown for teaching purposes rather than as standard ornamentals, and then as single specimens or in a small group only. The trees are rated 1, 2, 3 (3 is best) or 0 for each one to be avoided. 
 

 

 

 

Eastern Red Cedar 

Juniperus virginiana 

3. Good upland tree. Plant on dry site. 

Eastern White Cedar 

Thuja occidentalis 

3. Use for hedges and informal areas mainly. 

Eastern White Pine 

Pinus strobus 

3. Good upland, dry site tree. Ontarioís provincial tree. Many more needed on campus. 

Pitch Pine 

Pinus rigida 

1. Maybe grow a couple on campus to exhibit the species, but not highly recommended because form is not attractive. 

Red Pine 

Pinus resinosa 

3. A wonderful tree! Use it to replace dying Pinus nigra. Handles drier soils. 

Jack Pine 

Pinus banksiana 

1. Does not generally have an attractive form as a specimen tree. Grow a couple because it's a major component of the Ontario environment and a major economic resource. 

Tamarack 

Larix laricina 

2. Use in wet soils only. 

Balsam Fir 

Abies balsamea 

1. Not a long-lived tree, and looks ratty when it gets diseased. Grow a couple for demonstration purposes in an out of the way area. 

White Spruce 

Picea glauca 

3. Good upland tree. Use extensively rather than Asian or European species. 

Red Spruce 

Picea rubens 

3. Good upland tree. 

Black Spruce 

 

1. Not a good tree for gardens, but we could put a couple in the extension of the Dorney garden just for demonstration purposes. It's very important ecologically and economically. 

Eastern Hemlock 

Tsuga canadensis 

3. This will be grown in the Dorney garden extension. A nice specimen tree, but best in the woods. Good mesic to moist site tree. Handles sun or shade. 

 
 

Sugar Maple 

Acer saccharum 

3. Good upland tree for campus. Use rather than Norway Maple. Don't grow near parking areas - It's a dirty tree with sap drip. This applies to all maples. 

Black Maple 

Acer nigrum 

3. Grow on moist soil only. Excellent form. 

Red Maple 

Acer rubrum 

3. Good upland tree. Full sun needed. 

Silver Maple 

Acer saccharinum 

3. A stately tree but needs pruning to avoid ice damage. 

Manitoba Maple 

Acer negundo 

0. Not an attractive tree. It will spring up in weedy areas around campus anyway. Don't bother to plant. 

Mountain Maple 

Acer spicatum 

1. Small, short lived, and attractive small tree. Will be put into the Dorney Garden extension. 

Striped Maple 

Acer pennsylvanicum 

2. An attractive understorey species, but not long lived. It will be in the Dorney Garden extension. 

White Ash 

Fraxinus americana 

3. An attractive shade tree. Dirty foliage, so not to be placed near cars. Likes upland sites. 

Red Ash 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica 

2. Not as attractive as white ash, but worth planting in a few places. Likes upland sites. 

Black Ash 

Fraxinus nigra 

1. An important component of swamps, but not very attractive. Plant a couple for demo purposes in wet soils only. 

Blue Ash 

Fraxinus quadrangulata 

2. An Ontario rarity. Grows in mesic to moist soils. Plant a couple for demo purposes and see how they do. 

Pumpkin Ash 

Fraxinus profunda 

? Recently identified at a few locations around Lake Erie. Consider only if available. 

American Elder 

Sambucus canadensis 

1. A good wildlife species, but smelly. Plant a couple in an out of the way place for demo purposes. 

Eastern Red Elderberry 

Sambucus pubens 

0. See above. Probably already on campus naturally. 

Nannyberry 

Viburnum lentago 

3. An attractive shrub already in cultivation. Can make a small tree. Berries stain. Keep away from seats and cars. 

Squashberry 

Viburnum edule 

3. Already in the Dorney Garden? As above, keep staining berries away from seats. 

Highbush Cranberry 

Viburnum trilobum 

3. Probably already on campus. See remarks above. Good flowers and fruit. 

 
 

Eastern Flowering Dogwood 

Cornus florida 

2. Good flowering tree of small size. A highly prized ornamental in the US and Niagara/Windsor etc. Flowers are likely to be frosted at UW, so don't use as a showpiece. 

Alternate-Leafed Dogwood 

Cornus alternifolia 

3. A wonderful small shrub, highly prized in European gardens. In the Dorney garden. Already in hedgerows on North campus, but plant more! The berries stain, so not near seats and brick paths etc. 

Burning bush/ Spindle tree 

Euonymus atropurpureus 

3. Attractive shrub. Don't plant over seats as berries can stain. 

Button bush 

Cephalanthus occidentalis 

3. An attractive shrub. Only for streamside sites in Waterloo Region. 

Butternut 

Juglans cinerea 

3. Attractive upland tree. Plant all Juglans spp. away from roads - nut husks stain pavement. 

Black Walnut 

Juglans nigra 

3. A wonderful large tree but poisons other plants and husks stain. Plant away from heavy traffic areas and car parks. 

Shagbark Hickory 

Carya ovata 

3. Attractive bark. Good upland tree. Needs warm site. 

Shellbark Hickory 

Carya laciniosa 

3. Good upland tree. 

Red Hickory 

Carya glabra 

2. Upland tree. 

Bitternut Hickory 

Carya cordiformis 

3. Good upland tree. Needs dry soil. 

Kentucky Coffee Tree 

Gymnocladus dioicus 

3. Attractive flowers and fruits. Already in the Dorney Garden. Needs warm site. 

Honey Locust 

Gleditzia triacanthos 

1. Subject to borer damage. Needs pruning frequently to maintain a good shape. Do not plant more than a few. Short-lived tree. 

Black Locust 

Robinia pseudoacacia 

0. Borer damage is frequent, needs frequent pruning. Already on campus as cultivars. Short-lived tree. 

Yellowood 

Cladastris lutea 

3. An attractive tree. Several are thriving in town even though this is beyond the natural northern limit of this sp. Plant a few. 

Prickly Ash 

Xanthoxylum americanum 

1. Not very attractive. Plant only a couple for demonstration purposes. Can be used to limit pedestrian traffic. Needs dry, sunny site. 

Mountain Ash 

Sorbus decora 

3. Very attractive. Good wildlife tree. Plant instead of European mountain ash. Good flowers. Attractive fruit. 

 
 

Mountain Ash 

Sorbus americana 

3. Attractive. Plant instead of European mountain ash. . Good flowers. Attractive fruit. 

Shining Sumac 

Rhus copalina 

2. Attractive. It wonít tolerate competition around the roots (e.g. periwinkle) - it rots out. Plant a few. 

Smooth Sumac 

Rhus glabra 

3. Attractive shrub. Likes dry, sunny sites. 

Staghorn Sumac 

Rhus typhina 

3. Already common on campus, and in the Dorney Garden. Excellent fall colour. 

Poison Sumac 

Toxicodendron vernix 

0. Foliage poisonous to the touch. Don't plant. 

Poison Oak 

T. diversifolia 

0. Foliage poisonous to the touch. Don't plant. 

Common Hop Tree 

Ptelea trifoliata 

3. Good shrub. There is one in the Dorney Garden. 

Sycamore 

Platanus occidentalis 

3. A good shade tree. Huge when mature. Attractive bark. Prefers full sun. 

Red Mulberry 

Morus rubra 

3. Attractive shrub. The fruit stains. Not for lawns where people sit or near cars or brick walks. 

Sweetgum 

Liquidambar styracliflua 

3. A good specimen tree but slightly beyond the northern edge of the range here. Needs warm site. 

Sassafras 

Sassafras albidum 

2. Attractive tree. Needs warm site. Won't grow to full size here. Use as a demonstration only. Already in Dorney Garden? 

Tulip Tree 

Liriodenron tulipifera 

3. A lovely tree. Does well on the campus already. Large size possible. Needs full sun. 

Red Oak 

Quercus rubra 

3. Fine shade tree. All oaks are good wildlife trees. Good on upland site. 

Black Oak 

Quercus velutina 

3. Good shade tree. Good on upland site. 

Pin Oak 

Quercus palustris 

3. Fine shade tree. Does well in KW. Likes upland site. 

Northern Pin Oak 

(Hillís Oak) 

Quercus ellipsoidalis 

3. Good upland tree. Grows in North Dumfries township. 

Shumard Oak 

Quercus shumardii 

3. Good tree. Likes uplands. 

Scarlet Oak 

Quercus coccinea 

3. Good upland tree. Fabulous fall colour. 

White Oak 

Quercus alba 

3. Good upland tree. Nice bark 

Bur Oak 

Quercus macrocarpus 

2. On North campus. Good tree in moist soils, such as floodplains. 

Swamp White Oak 

Quercus bicolor 

2. Slightly less attractive, but still good in wetter areas. 

 
 

Chinquapin Oak 

Quercus muehlenbergi 

2. A smaller oak. Grow a few for demo purposes. Likes warm, south-facing slopes. 

American Beech 

Fagus grandifolia 

2. Good upland tree, but needs partial shade. Fine bark. Grows in the woodlots on campus. 

American Chestnut 

Castanea dentata 

1. Subject to chestnut blight which will eventually kill it to the ground, but it may sprout repeatedly from roots. Plant one only, raised from clean, disease resistant stock. Don't place where its loss would be an aesthetic problem. 

Witch Hazel 

Hamamelis virginiana 

3. Attractive southern shrub. Flowers in late autumn which may be useful in landscaping. 

Common Winterberry 

Ilex verticillata 

3. Attractive shrub for moist areas. Plant by the creek only. 

Mountain Holly 

Nemopanthus mucronatus 

2. Wetland shrub. Plant in informal areas only. 

Basswood 

Tilia americana 

2. On North campus already. Softwood, therefore subject to damage. 

White Birch 

Betula papirifera 

2. Short lived tree. Should be planted in place of European white birch. 

Grey Birch 

Betula populifolia 

1. There was a stand in Kitchener at one time. Plant for demonstration purposes only. 

Yellow Birch 

Betula allaghaniensis 

2. Good upland tree. 

Cherry Birch 

Betula lenta 

1. Native to only one site in Ontario. Likes upland. 

Speckled Alder 

Alnus incana spp. rugosa 

1. Unattractive shrub. Should be planted for demo purposes in the extension to the Dorney Garden. Need moist ground. 

Blue Beech 

Carpinus caroliniana 

2. On north campus. Big shrub, attractive bark. Likes partial shade, mesic soil. 

Ironwood 

Ostrya virginiana 

3. Good small tree. On north and south campus already. Handles sun or shade. 

Beaked Hazel 

Corylus cornuta 

2. Good wildlife shrub. Plant in informal situations only. 

American Hazel 

Corylus americana 

1. As above. 

Peachleaf Willow 

Salix amygdaloides. 

1. Plant only along the creek. Dirty foliage - not near seats. 

Sandbar Willow 

Salix exigua 

1. Shrub or small tree. For demo only. 

Bebb Willow 

Salix bebbiana 

1. As above. 

Pussy Willow 

Salix discolor 

2. Plant along creek. Nice catkins. Plant where they can be seen in early spring. 

 
 

Balsam Willow 

Salix pyrifolia 

1. For demo purposes only. 

Shining Willow 

Salix lucida 

1. For demo purposes only. 

Black Willow 

Sallix nigra 

3. Fine large tree for streamsides. Don't confuse with crack willow and its hybrids from Europe. 

Meadow Willow 

Salix petiolaris 

1. For demo purposes only. 

Heartleaf Willow 

Salix eriocephala 

1. As above. 

Satiny Willow 

Salix pellita 

1. As above. 

Balsam Poplar 

Populus balsamifera 

1. Not a good ornamental: Dirty foliage and ice damage. Only for demo purposes. Suckers of all poplars will spread. Impressive balsam odour of foliage. 

Eastern Cottonwood 

Populus deltoides spp. deltoides 

1. See above. Seeds make a mess. Plant away from formal areas. Can become a very large tree. 

Trembling Aspen 

Populus tremuloides 

1. Not a long lived tree, but very important ecologically. Plant as demo only. 

Largetooth Aspen 

Populus grandidentata 

2. Good upland tree. Attractive foliage. 

White Elm 

Ulmus americana 

3. Grows on north campus. Subject to Dutch elm disease. Chose cultivar resistant to disease. Likes upland site. 

Rock Elm 

Ulmus thomasii 

1. Plant for demonstration only. Subject to Dutch elm disease, so plant where its loss will not matter. 

Slippery Elm 

Ulmus rubra 

3. Good tree. Choose cultivar resistant to Dutch Elm disease. Likes upland site. 

Hackberry 

Celtis occidentalis 

2. Attractive tree. There is one on North campus by Fischer-Hallman road. Upland sites. Handles moist to mesic soil. 

Dwarf Hackberry 

Celtis tenuifolia 

1. Small tree. Plant for demonstration only 

Downy Serviceberry 

Amelanchier arborea 

3. Wonderful large shrub. Plant frequently. 

Smooth Serviceberry 

Amelanchier laevis 

3. Very good shrub. Plant frequently. 

Saskatoon Berry 

Amelanchier alnifolia 

1. Very good shrub. In Dorney Garden? 

Roundleaf Serviceberry 

Amelanchier sanguinea 

3. Very good shrub. 

Mountain Serviceberry 

Amelanchier bartramiana 

3. Very good shrub. 

Wild Crab Apple 

Malus coronaria 

2. Good flower show in May. Upland sites. 

Pin Cherry 

Prunus pensylvanica 

3. Great small tree for wildlife. Use in informal plantings. Mesic soil, full sun needed. 

 

 

Black Cherry 

Prunus serotina 

3. Excellent large tree. On North campus and by University Ave. Likes partial sun, mesic soil. 

Choke Cherry 

Prunus virginiana 

3. Common small tree. Good wildlife species. Use in informal plantings. 

Canada Plum 

Prunus nigra 

3. Attractive small tree. Use in informal plantings. Check for blackknot sensitivity. 

American Plum 

Prunus americana 

3. Attractive small tree. 

Hawthorns 

Crataegus. spp 

3. Good wildlife spp. Attractive June flowers. Taxonomy is confused so make sure that native spp. used only. Fall haw apples. 

Pawpaw 

Asimina triloba 

1. Interesting southern tree. Won't grow to full size here. Use for demo purposes only. 

Redbud 

Cercis canadensis 

3. A wonderful shrub. In Dorney Garden. Needs site sheltered from wind. 

Black Gum 

Nyssa sylvatica 

2. Attractive tree. Use for demo purposes. Won't grow to full size here. 

Cucumber Tree 

Magnolia acuminata 

3. A fine tree. Avoid frost pockets. 

Silverberry 

Eleagnus commutata 

2. 

 

We did not include Alaska birch which barely reaches NW Ontario. 

It might fail here completely, but we could try it for demo purposes. 

 

Compiled by Roger Suffling, Paul Eagles and Larry Lamb, July 1997.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table II — Summery Results

 

 

1) Did you feel that you were part of a community while living in residence?

 

Yes

No

Somewhat

Total

Village 1

22

1

7

30

Village 2

25

0

5

30

Conrad Grabel

9

0

1

10

St. Pauls

9

0

4

13

St. Jeromes

25

0

5

30

Renesance

15

1

3

19

Total

105

2

25

132

 

2) Did any of the following aspects contribute to this feeling of community for you personally (Check all that apply)?

 

Outdoor Areas

Indoor Areas

Eating Areas

Shared Responsibilities

Room Set-up

N/A

Village 1

8

17

23

6

10

1

Village 2

8

12

21

3

18

3

Conrad Grabel

4

6

9

3

5

0

St. Pauls

0

8

10

1

7

1

St. Jeromes

19

36

40

9

27

2

Renesance

5

12

12

6

15

3

Total

44

91

115

28

82

10

 

3) Do you think that any of the following would create more of a community feeling if included in residence (Check all that apply)?

 

Outdoor Areas

Indoor Areas

Eating Areas

Shared Responsibilities

Room Set-up

N/A

Village 1

7

5

4

5

6

16

Village 2

6

4

4

3

2

21

Conrad Grabel

0

0

0

0

0

9

St. Pauls

3

1

0

0

0

9

St. Jeromes

5

2

2

3

2

35

Renesance

3

3

1

1

3

13

Total

24

15

11

12

13

103

 

 

 

4) What would you like to see improved in residence landscape design (Check all that apply)?

 

More Green Spaces

More Trees

Patio Space

Rooftop Gardens

Indoor Gardens

No Preference

Village 1

13

19

18

12

9

2

Village 2

13

15

18

15

5

1

Conrad Grabel

1

3

4

2

4

2

St. Pauls

2

3

6

4

8

2

St. Jeromes

10

17

29

17

12

5

Renesance

4

5

13

7

7

3

Total

43

62

88

57

45

15

5) If there was a community garden or rooftop garden in residence, would you be willing to contribute some time to take care of it (Check one)?

 

Yes

No

Maybe

Total

Village 1

11

9

10

30

Village 2

10

10

10

30

Conrad Grabel

3

4

3

10

St. Pauls

5

3

5

13

St. Jeromes

9

7

14

30

Renesance

6

5

8

19

Total

44

38

50

132

6) If there was more landscaping done around your residence, what would you prefer (Check one)?

Open Space (Grass)

Natural Garden

Both

None

Village 1

3

9

16

2

Village 2

5

7

18

Conrad Grabel

2

4

3

1

St. Pauls

2

6

3

2

St. Jeromes

6

3

17

4

Renesance

4

8

6

1

Total

22

37

63

10

 

Table III — PostTest

 

 

  1. What would you like to see improved in residence landscape design? (Check all that apply)
  2. More Green Spaces More Trees Patio Space Rooftop Gardens Indoor Gardens N/A

    Village 1 10 17 20 16 8 5

    Village 2 6 15 17 17 5 3

    Total 16 32 37 33 13 8

     

     

     

     

  3. Would you be willing to contribute time in taking care of the rooftop garden? (Check one)
  4. Yes No Maybe Total

    Village 1 11 6 3 20

    Village 2 10 5 5 20

    Total 21 11 8 40

     

     

     

     

  5. Would you be willing to take part with the rooftop garden for an academic credit? (Check one)

Yes No Maybe Total

Village 1 20 0 0 20

Village 2 19 1 0 20

Total 39 1 0 40