. 4 A y 4 Lo, . a M. . . ‘ . . . .. .. ‘ . . .2.” n ,. V . .. . . ‘ . . . 3.x... . ., ‘ . . , , .. . . . A A ‘ u .. . .. . ‘ . ‘ z , ‘ . V . . , _. . . ... H ., . . V r a . . . \. . ‘ . . A . ‘ . . . . , .. .. , . ‘ . . x . . .m .J _. . . . . r . ‘ , . . ‘ . . . . _ — . . h A V n W i w . w .. , , , a ‘ _ . . ‘ c“ . z .. . .., .. . .H,_V:.3..‘ , Swagmgzmiuibwinné... . . ~ . 1, Z. .. . . . , ,... . . , .. u . . 1., I I '. ' "| |¢ ' 'II ' c f T 1.; 4 MUN}: k/r. #5 ../. PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 5108 KzlPrqlecaPresIClRCIDateDuo. indd SUBURBAN LAWNS: DIMENSIONS OF MEANING, ACTIVITIES, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS REPORTED BY HOMEOWNING COUPLES IN GEORGIA AND MICHIGAN By Lois Carol Shem AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family and Child Ecology 1994 Dr. Ann C. Slocum ABSTRACT SUBURBAN LAWNS: DIMENSIONS OF MEANING, ACTIVITIES, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS REPORTED BY HOMEOWNING COUPLES IN GEORGIA AND MICHIGAN By Lois Carol Shern Mounting evidence points to detrimental effects to the environment and human health from the overuse and misuse of fertilizers and pesticides. Of increasing concern in the United States is the use of these chemicals on the lawn. A biohistorical, ecological conceptual approach provided the framework for pursuing the objectives of the study. Differences and commonalities of meaning, use, and care of the suburban lawn were explored through in-depth interviews with husbands and wives who currently used or did not use a chemical lawn care service. Responses revealed many commonalities and few differences between spouses, geographic location, and chemical lawn service use-nonuse. They support the view that contemporary American values, attitudes, and practices regarding the lawn are deeply rooted in historical antecedents and unquestioned by homeowners. Very few family activities were reported occurring on the lawn. The primary activity related to the lawn was maintenance. Respondents value their lawns for aesthetic, psychological, normative, and economic reasons. A lawn is considered a source of beauty, pleasure, and economic value; an integral part of one’s home, sending a clear message to others about the kind of people who live Lois Carol Shern in the house. Respondents consider the use of lawn chemicals to be necessary to maintain an ideal lawn. The use of lawn chemicals is not perceived as a threat to the environment because one’s lawn is so small and minimal amounts of chemicals are used. None of the respondents had ever considered their lawn as a potential source of environmental pollution. A second objective of this study was to determine homeowners’ reactions to protective clothing and equipment that could be worn when applying pesticides. Respondents did not perceive a need to wear protective clothing themselves. However, while respondents viewed the respirator and the total protective clothing outfits as "scary,“ when asked what a lawn service technician should wear, the majority of them chose outfits affording maximum protection. Respondents reasoned that these employees worked with chemicals for extended periods of time and should be protected. Recommendations and implications for further research and educational efforts are addressed. TO My Mother, Carolyn Rem Jacobson forinstillinginallofusalove oflearning, love for one another, and love for the Lord. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMst To the Georgia and Michigan couples for their assistance and genuine interest in the study. Thank you for taking time from your busy schedules to talk about your lawns. To Mark Bitman for his photographic expertise and Devan Haan for volunteering to model for the clothing pictures. To Maria and Andrea Slocum for their patience and competence in transcribing interviews from audio tapes to computer printouts. To Judy Pfaff for her support, statistical advice, friendship, and early morning walks. To Marty McNeal, good friend and fellow interviewer, for taking time from her busy life to recruit and interview the homeowners. Her diligence in coding and analyzing transcripts was much appreciated. To members of my doctoral committee: Dr. Linda Nelson and Dr. Esther Onaga, Department of Family and Child Ecology faculty, and Dr. flank Fear, Chairperson of Resource Development, for their interest, expertise, and continued support. To the chairperson of my doctoral committee and director of the dissertation, Dr. Ann Slocum. Without her continued encouragement, commitment, interest and enthusiasm, and friendship the completion of this degree would have been an unfulfilled dream. To Deborah Johmon, for sharing her home and providing an outstanding role model for positive thinking and perseverance against overwhelming odds. Thanks for a wonda'ful six months. To my husband, Ron, for his unstinting love, encouragement, and support throughout the years and his willingness to participate in a commuter marriage for six months. And to our children, Robin and Rande, and our many friends in Georgia and Michigan who helped both of us in so many ways during this endeavor. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LISTOFTABLES.... ............ . ............... x I‘ISTOFFIGM OOOOO... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O... Xi CHAPTERIHNTRODUCTION....................... 1 BackgroundoftheProblem . .................... . 4 RatiomOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0000...I. ....... 7 BiohistoryzAConceptualFramework................ 8 Interrelationships between the Biosphere and Society . . . 10 Interrelationships between Humans and Society . . . . . . 12 Interrelationships between Nature, Culture, and theAmericanLawn ........... 14 ResearchObjectives ....... . ................... 16 Research Questions. . . . . ...................... . . 16 TheoreticalDefinition . ......................... 17 Operational Definitions . ...................... . . 17 Assumptions............. ................... 18 CHAPTERII: REVIEWOFLITERATURE ...... l9 TheTotalEnvironment ................... 20 The Biosphere and the Lawn .................. 20 Human Society and the Lawn ................ . . 20 EconomicImpact..... ........... 21 Advantages/Disadvantages ..... . . . . . . . . . . . 22 LawnEquipment....... ........... 23 Fertilizers...... ................ 23 YardWaste... ....................... 24 Water.. ..... . .............. 24 Groundwaterconcerns............... 25 Homeowner’suse ................... 29 Healthrisks...... ............. 29 Lawncareexposure .. ........... 31 Protectiveclothing...... ....... 33 Summary............... ...... 38 HumanExperienceandtheTotalEnvironment EnvironmentalAesthetics ....... . ......... Meaning.......... .. ............ MeaningoftheLawn ................ Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes . . . ........... EnvironmentalAttitudes .............. InwnCareAttitudes TheDowElancostudy. ............. ThePLCAAstudy ................ 1994 Gallup Poll. . . . . ........ Summary... . ......... . ...... .. The Evolution of the Ideal American Lawn ........ . American Attitudes Toward Nature .......... ABrieinstoryoftheLawn ............ Summary ........................... ChapterIII: METHODOLOGY ....................... SamplingDesign........ .................... . DataCollectionProcedures ....................... ImtrumentDevelopment . ....................... InterviewGuide... .. ..................... Existinglnstruments . . ........... Healthscale ....................... NEPscale...“ .......... .. Clothing/Protective Equipment Pictures ........... PTetesting” . ....... . .......... DataAnalysis...W...... ....................... DataProcessingProcedureso. ............... QualitativeAnalysis. ......... . ......... QuantitativeAnalysis. ................... CHAPTERIV:FINDINGS .. ........................ ResearchQuestionsforObjectivel.................. DemographicCharacterktics .................. Education. ...... . ................... Age ............................ Children............. ............... Income ........................... Occupation and Retirement . ..... . . . . Environmental Organizations . . . ....... . . . . 74 LawnMaintenanceActivities...” ....... 75 StateDiffercncas 75 Equipment.......................... 76 ChemicalLawnCareServices ........ 76 FamilyUsageActivities......... ......... 77 PerceivedMeaningoftheLawn................ 78 AMPemepfiom... ................ . 79 Beauty........ ..... 79 Neatness .................... 80 Utilitarian..... ............. 80 Psychological Motives . . . . ........ . ...... 81 Self... ................. 81 Others.. ........................ 82 Nature.. ..................... . 82 Reservatiom..... ....... 83 NeighborhoodNorIm.................... 84 Economic 85 Physical Activity . ...... . .............. . 86 Research Question for Objective 2 .................. 86 Lawn Maintenance Activities . . ................ 86 MowingtheGrass.... ......... 87 Using a Lawn Service . . ........... . ..... 87 Perceived Meaning of the Lawn ................ 88 ResearchQuestionforObjective3 ...... 88 Environmental Concerm Related to Lawn Chemicals . . . 89 EnvironmentalScaleReactions 89 meEnVironmentalwle OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ” General Environmental Threat . . .......... . 93 Local Environmental Difference . . . . . . . . ..... 94 Global Environmental Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Health Concerm Related to Lawn Chemicals . . ...... 97 ResearchQuestiomforObjective4........ .......... 98 Clothing/EquipmentasaDangerSignal 99 Choosing Clothing for Pesticide Application . . . ..... . 101 Tyvek‘Outfits.............. .......... 102 viii Blue One-Piece Coverall ......... . ....... . 102 Jacket and Blue Jeans . . . . . . ..... . ...... . 102 Shorts and Short Sleeved Shirt ............ . 102 OtherOutfits......... .............. 104 Respondent’s Protective Clothing. .......... 104 PerceptionoftheLawnCareCompany 104 Reaction to Fully Protected Technician ..... . . . 104 Clothing’sInfluenceonHiring.............. 106 RespondentReactiontotheStudy 107 CHANT]! V: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FORFUTURERESEARCH ...... ...... 109 Summary............ ..................... . 109 Limitations of the Study ....................... . . 109 Discusion ofthe finding . .................... . . . 110 Objectivel........... .................. . 110 Demographics .................. .. 111 Maintenance .................... 111 Activities.......... ...... .. ......... . 112 Perceived Meaning of the Lawn ............ . 112 Objectivez................... .......... . 114 Objective3.............. ......... 115 Objective4...... .................... 116 Implications and Recommendations For Future Research . . . 117 Appendices A Interview Materials Used in the Study ............ 122 B Review of Literature Related to Homeowner’s PesticideUse........ ........ . 136 C Review of Literature Related to Pesticides and Health . . 141 D Review of Literature Related to Environmental Aesthetics 145 E Review of Literature Related to Environmental Attitudes andBehavior 156 F Review of Literature Related to Origin oftheAmericanLawn ..... . ............. 162 G ReviewofLiteratureRelatedtoNEPScale 171 H USRIHSApprovalIetter............ ........ . 180 ReferencesCited ............. .. 181 ix 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. LIST OF TABLES Highest Educational Level Attained ........ . . 72 Average Age ofRespondents in Years . . . . . . . . . 73 Comparison of States by Family Income Categories 73 Dktribution of Employment and Retirement . . . . 74 Lawn Equipment . . . . .......... . . ...... 76 Family Activities on the Lawn .............. 77 Domaim of Meaning Related to the Lawn ...... 78 Responsibility for Lawn Mowing ......... . . . 87 Factor Loadings for Combined Georgia and Michigan Sample ............. 92 Lawn Chemicals Perceived as a Threat to the Environment ................ 94 Difference to Local Environment If StopUSi-n‘uwnchemicabOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 95 Difference to Global Environment If Stop Using Lawn Chemicals ............... 96 lawnChemicalsaThreattoPersonalHealth.... 97 Frequency with which Outfits With or Without Respirator Were Chosen . . .......... . . . . . 101 hillProtectiveGarbCauseforConcern....... 105 OutfitsInfluenceonHiringDecision ...... 107 X LIST OF FIGURES Page Boyden’s Conceptual Model of Culture - Nature Interplay . ............ 11 Boyden’s Presentation of Interrelations between Total Environment and Human Experience . . . . . 13 Outfit Offering Minimum Protection ......... 100 TypicalIawnCareTechnicianOutfit......... 100 Outfit Chosen Most Often As Most Preferred . . . . 103 Dark Tyvek" Outfit Chosen Most Often ....... 103 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Public concern about the environment has evolved sporadically and slowly over the past quarter century. Growing world population, finite natural resources, and technological advances that offer both benefits and risks are creating an increasing awareness that environmental deterioration k accelerating and portends serious problems for future human life (Brown, 1981; Milbrath, 1989). Recent environmental accidents, such as oil spills, water contamination from toxic chemicals, and nuclear accidents are directly impacting the lives of individuals. There is a growing realization that everyday human activities, when multiplied by millions, have a profound, irreversible effect on the natural environment. Iozzi (1989) states that environmental problems are largely social problem. Advances in science and technology cannot solve the environmental crkis without taking in consideration the mediating effects of existing societal attitudes, values, and lifestyles. Devall and Sessions (1985), two leaders in the deep ecology movement, describe the continuing environmental crisis as a crisis of character and of culture. 2 Environmental issues and problems demand that society choose from among various alternatives what "should“ be done, not just what can be done. A critical ingredient of the cultural orientation of people toward their environment 3 the values that form part of their world view (Hutterer 8: Rambo, 1985). Americans share a strong anthropocentric tradition in western culture that views humans as being apart from nature and somehow immune from ecological conaraints. This set of values and beliefs has been called the Dominant Social Paradigm (Pirages & Ehrlich, 1974). This paradigm entails the belief that resources are limitless, continuous growth and progress are necessary and good, science and technology will solve all problems, and private property and a laissez- faire economy are inalienable rights. There is increasing evidence to suggest that there is a paradigmatic shift occurring in the orientatiom of Americans toward the natural environment. Dunlap and Scarce (1991), in a detailed review of all known longitudinal data, reported that public concern for the environment has “reached an all-time high...a growing majority of Americans see environmental problems as serious, worsening, and increasingly threatening to human well-being" (p. 657). While the strength of this environmental concern remains unclear, this trend offers additional support for the idea that a new environmental paradigm '3 steadily srowins. Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) were among the first to identify the New Environmental Paradigm. This alternative set of beliefs and values asserts that 3 restricting growth k desirable and the integrity of ecosystems must be protected. It rejects the anthropocentric notion that nature exists solely for human use. However, a 1990 Roper survey (Miller & Keller, 1991) reported that 6 in 10 Americans said that protecting human health from pollution is one of the most importam reasons for protecting the environment. About 4 in 10 believed that protecting natural resources for future generations is one of the best reasom. When asked which one, human health or ecology, is the major reason for protecting the environment, nearly three-quarters said it was to protect people’s health. An important environmental health issue k that of the safety of chemicab. In the past 25 years, concern has arisen around the world over the extent to which chemicals in the environment are affecting human health. Humans are exposed to thousands of environmental chemicals and their short-term and long- term impact on health, reproduction, and development are poorly understood (Bhir, 1989; Dunnette, 1989; Huff, 1993). The publication of W by Rachel Carson (1962) alerted the public to the fact that pesticides were affecting nontarget organisms and damaging the natural environment. Dunnette (1989) states that “community public health rkks from exposure to environmental chemicals appear to be small relative to other public health risks...” (p. 169). Yet a growing number of human exposure studies document acute and chronic health problem resulting from pesticide exposure and the need to explore the consequences of their continued use (Dam, Brownson, Garcia, Bentz, & Tamer, 1993; Fenske et al., 1990; Geiger, 1993; 4 Jeyaratnam, 1990; Okon, Sax, Gunderson, 8: Sioris, 1991; Savage et al., 1988). American farmers have long believed that chemicals, e.g. fertilizers and pesticides, are beneficial to agricultural production. However, the nonfarm public appears to be more likely to focus on the perceived risks of chemicals rather than the benefits. An area of growing concern is the use of chemicals for hwn care. Strong voices are heard addressing both sides of the chemical lawn care use issue. In many bsues dealing with opposing viewpoints, a resolution evolves from the analysis of facts. However, as with so many environmental issues, here the facts only seem to confuse. Environmental activists and pesticide advocates interpret scientific data (often the same data) to support their particular viewpoint. Currently the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been charged with the task of weighing data from both sides and trying to effect some resolution that protects public health while allowing chemicals to be used on lawns. The main purpose of this study is to explore and further the understanding of the meanings and values American homeowners hold regarding the lawn and what actions they take with regard to the use of lawn care products and services. A second goal is to investigate the perceptions of homeowners with regard to protective clothing which can be worn when applying lawn pesticides. Background of the Problem The single-family detached home is still the residence of choice for most Americans (McAndrew, 1993). Cultural and aesthetic perceptions of the 5 hndscape place real and perceived benefits on a green, weed free residential lawn. Thk grassy expanse surrounding the house is viewed as providing a setting for the home, linking together the trees, shrubs, and flower beds, as well as the surrounding neighborhood yards, into a harmonious whole. It also provides an open expanse on which family outdoor activities can take place. The yard, with its grass, trees, shrubs and flowers, 3 a homeowner’s personal piece of nature. For some, this setting may fulfill an emotional need for peace and tranquility. It can provide a refuge from the congestion and crowding of the city. For others, the manicured, green grass is viewed as symbol of status and class. Whichever the case may be, Americans lavish time, attention and money on keeping their lawns green, thick, and weed free. If a homeowner does not have the time to care personally for the lawn, a lawn care company can be hired to do the job. The use of chemicals to produce healthy (disease free) and attractive lawns, trees, and shrubs is commonplace. It is estimated that the average American homeowner uses ten times more chemicals per acre than do farmers (U .8. Senate, 1990). The studies that have looked at residential homeowners’ use of lawn chanicals report that individuals seldom use any kind of safety precautions (Grieshop & Stiles, 1989). Rarely do homeowners report using any kind of protective clothing or equipment. The use of protective clothing and equipment has been recognized as a major strategy for protecting workers from chemical exposure since the 1970’s. 6 AnewEPAregulationissuedin1992tolimitexposureofagriculturalworkersto pesticides mandates that employers must train workers to use protective equipment, like gloves or goggles. Recommendations listed on the product label in regard to personal protective equipment (PPE) are to be used to guide the choice of what is to be worn. Currently the new rules do not apply to govermnent-sponsored pest control, home gardens or lawns, or the lawn care industry. Many lawn care companies use various kinds of personal protective equipnent but there are no industry wide standards. A Canadian study of homeowners reported that there was signifith reduction in exposure to the herbicide 2,4-D by wearing protective clothing but few wear it (Harris, Solomon, & Stephenson, 1992). Today’s residential lawn may well be a suburban family’s most direct interaction with nature. In an age of increasing concern related to the natural environment, residential homeowners holding the traditional American values related to lawn and landscape may find themselves in an uncomfortable situation. The need to use a wide array of chemicals and precious water to maintain the idealized American lawn is at odds with the growing environmental and health related concerns about pollution and the use of limited natural resources. In a recent W survey, 62% of more than 10,000 respondents reported that they were cutting back on lawn chemicals in order to help the environment (Cooper, 1994). It is recognized today that human actions are causing many global environmental changes (Turner, Clark, Kates, Richards, & Mathews, 1991). 7 Stern, Young, & Druckman (1991) write that global environmental change matters to people because it has the potential to harm what they value. Stern and his colleagues identify two main classes of responses that people make in anticipation of environmental change Mitigation which includes all actions that prevent, limit, delay or slow the rate of undesired impacts by acting directly or indirectly on environmental systems. For example, they can intervene directly in the proximate causes of global warming by limiting the use of certain nitrogen fertilizers to reduce nitrous oxide emksions. And adaptations which are responses that do not alter the rate of environmental change but limit the effect on what people value. For example, the use of a drought resistant crops so that if climate change produces drought, crop failure and famine do not result (p. 105). Stern (1992) argues that the consequences of global change depend upon how society changes while its environment is changing. How society changes depends on individual responses. Rationale In order to understand how to encourage environmentally responsible behavior, it b necessary to identify factors that influence the behavior. Identifying attitudes, perceptions, and actions of homeowners with regard to the residential lawn and exploring beliefs that underlie lawn-environment- chemical attitudes can provide valuable insight into the perceived meanings and values that individuals associate with their lawns. An awareness of these perceived meanings may lead to an understanding of why individuak and society find the ideal lawn so important and highlight the impact that individual actions can have on both local and global environmental problems. 91 In, Mr 8 Meanings, beliefs, and values are incredibly difficult to define and quantify but they are at the heart of this investigation. Friedel (1993) suggests that there are some fairly clear sources for many values. These include scarcity, functionality, aesthetic appreciation, and association. In this study aesthetic appreciation and associative qualities have been identified as being of primary importance to understanding the value placed on the lawn. For a variety of reasons people make associations between an object, in this study the lawn, and various feelings, beliefs, concerns, and attitudes. Coming to understand these associations, which are rarely stated, includes a historical approach as well a systerm perspective. Biohistory: A Conceptual Framework Understanding the human causes and consequences of environmental change requires a systems perspective which allows a researcher to consider the full physical, social, and psychological environmental context of a situation while trying to understand the specifics of a unique experience. This approach offers a meam by which the researcher can attempt to clarify the reciprocal interactions between smaller and larger systems so that influences from both directions can be comidered. Ecosystem models propose that larger systems provide a context, meaning, and significant influence for the subsystems which are part of the larger system. Interactions of the systems and subsystems illustrate the interdependence of parts and wholes and the influence that system components have on the greater whole. 9 Human ecology is concerned with interaction and interdependence of humans with the environment (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). Boyden (1979) states that the aim of human ecology is to improve understanding of the patterns of interaction between different aspects, or components, of human situations, and thus to contribute to the ability of societies to formulate prudent and effective policies for the future (PD. 11). Thu study will utilize the biohistorical approach to studying the inten'elatiomhips between human beings and the other components and processes of the ecosystem. This approach has been used by Boyden and his colleagues in UNECO’S Programme on Man and the Biosphere (Boyden 1970, 1979, 1986, 1987, 1992; Boyden, Dovers, & Shirlow, 1990; Boyden, Millar, Newcombe, & O’Neill, 1981). Biohistory provides a rational framework for integrative research on human situations, all of which involve continual interplay, over time, between cultural and biophysical processes, and all of which are the product of such Merplay in the past. Boyden emphasizes the importance of historical data in order to achieve a sense of perspective and an understanding of how events in the pest influence the realities of today. This framework, while being concerned with the properties of the whole System, also focuses attention of the life conditions and well-being of the individual human being. The two main orientations of this approach include (a) interrelationships between the biosphere and society and (b) interrelationships between humans and society. Humans live in a biosphere (nature) made up of the atmosphere, soil, energy from the sun, plants, animals, water. Human culture has grown out of, interacted with, and is totally dependent upon the biosphere. Boyden presents a subset of variables (Figure 1, center) that can be combined in two ways. Boyden uses the terms Human Society and Nature (Figure 1, top) to describe the sub-sets of variables from his first perspective. In this perspective, Human Society includes all institutions and organizations, artifacts or products of labor, societal arrangements, societal activities as well as the products of culture such as knowledge, technology, belief and value systems, and societal aspirations. Human Society, in turn, impacts on the various kinds of biological or natural systems, the Biosphere. The interrelationships between the Biosphere and Human Society include flows of energy, renewable and non-renewable resources, organic and inorganic wastes, and the impacts of societal activities on soil, the atmosphere, the oceans, and on populations of plants and animals. These are identified as biometabolisrn (organic material and energy that flow through humans themselves), technometabolism (inputs and outputs of materials and energy that result from technological process), and other (energy from things like volcanoes). Boyden than takes the same sub-sets of variables that comprise Nature and Human Society and changes their orientation by combining them in a different manner (Figure 1, bottom labels). Abstract Culture is defined as the intangible aspects of human situations comprising culture and cultural arrangements. l a: e 5 <2 11 Biohistory #55:“. CIn_o_m _- .2. .22.». .33: -32....023982 .2... £933.33 .521. 3553. mhszmuz_:< 242:: K m55.qu zzU .‘(Iah 13 The biosphere and human society ...... .... ......20 832...... g ...z is... ...... ...... 8.85 "8:96 at... . ._ 6.... .. .83... 328...... 55...: 33855.5. .59... .832. 293.15.... .. 8:388... 95......— .« 8...... . cc...aa .5222... .cu.u.a e.g.. 25.2.25 .cm.o.a LI I... 543”” ( “are 'laamdaaboel wear-ewe | _ 22:33 . . a.... 25.32.. .323... ccm..an S223... 2.2.6.... 2.5.3.2.... 223...... .cu.u.n v I .22.... r 25...... _ 225323.. ‘1 un>.ocum r .33.... F 23...... _ 2.2.6.3. - .32.... 1+ + r .323... 203:3...5 223...... 2.2.3.... fl _ 225.33.; .u.:.uc r 322.... 2.2.6:... 3: 3225.33 25...... hzmzzo¢.>2w .33» —-—_-_Ib-—-—_-—IL__*_-‘__--_‘_——~-db-—__-- 14 levels) and psychosocial and intangible variables (e.g., family support, memges from society). The behavior pattern is what people do and how they spend their time (e.g., physical work, social interaction, creative behavior). Both real life conditions and perceptions of the components of life conditions have important influences on the biopsychic state. The properties of the total environment also have great influence on human experience. The biopsychic state, short for biological and psychological, is the actual state of body and mind of individuals at any given time. It incorporates all aspects of the human organism that comprise health and well-being; and it includes both tangible or measurable variables (e.g., blood pressure, body weight) and intangible variables (e.g., sense of personal involvement, pride, feelings of fulfillment). It also includes knowledge and understanding, aspirations, and values. The biopsychic state of an individual is a function of genetic constitution and previous and present life conditions. Intermiatiomhips between Nature, Culture, and the American Lawn The interrelationships between nature, culture, and the ideal American lawn will be explored in this study. Grass is a living, growing natural organism that requires nutrients from the soil, atmosphere, energy from the sun, and water. The ideal American lawn, which is comprised of an emerald green, thick, weed free, monoculture grass is an artifact of Human Society. It one of a special class of resources designed and constructed by humans and invested with meaning and symbolic and aesthetic value. In order to maintain the culturally desirable American lawn, substantial amounts of chemicals, water, energy, time, and 15 money must be expended. Many human activities are necessary to maintain the lawn. Cultural beliefs and values, as well as economic, legal, and social arrangements support its continuing existence. Cultural and economic filters play an hnportant role in determining interactions with the lawn. People who live in apartments generally do not worry about mowing a lawn. In some cultures, walls rather than grass, separate houses from the street. In American culture the lawn is part of the immediate natural environment which impinges directly on individuals and is experienced directly by them. Human activities related to the lawn influence, for better or worse, the biosphere. Life conditions related to the lawn include variables such as climate, topography, and water, air, and noise quality. Psychosocial intangible variables include societal and neighborhood norms and cultural messages about the importance of the lawn. Behavior patterns encompass activities related to lawn care and family activities that take place on the lawn. Both real life conditions and perceptions are important influences on the biopsychic state of an individual. The biopsychic state is influenced by the lawn in both physical and mental ways. Physical variables can include an and relaxation as well as illness from strained muscles or pesticide exposure. Mental variables can include pride in the lawn, fear of ridicule, a need to belong, appreciation of nature, perceptions of costs and benefits, and preferences related protective clothing. Knowledge and values are important components of the biopsychic state. 16 Rueerch Objectives Thk research is qualitative in nature and as such the objective is not to tea hypotheses. The objectives of the research are to: 1. Identify Georgia and Michigan suburban homeowners’ activities related to lawn maintenance and family use and perceived meaning of the lawn. 2. Compare spousal lawn activities and perceived meaning of the lawn. 3. Explore homeowners’ beliefs about environmental and health concerns related to the use of lawn chemicals. 4. Investigate the role of clothing as a nonverbal clue in the perception of danger related to the use of lawn chemicals. Research Qumtiom The research questions for each objective are stated below: 8 lQliEQl'l'h Are there differences and commonalities between Georgia and Michigan homeowners with regard to (a) demographic characteristics, (1)) lawn maintenance activities, (c) family usage activities, and (d) perceived meaning of the lawn. MW: Are there differences and commonalities between spouses with respect to (a) lawn maintenance activities and (b) perceived meaning of the lawn. W: What kinds of environmental and health concerns do homeowners have regarding the use of chemicals on their lawns? W: 1. Do homeowners view any particular type of clothing or personal protective equipment as a nonverbal clue signaling danger about the products and services being used? l7 2. What kind of clothing would a homeowner choose for a lawn care technician to wear when applying pesticides? 3. Does clothing worn by lawn care applicators influence the overall perception of the lawn care company? Theoretical Definitions W. An area of ground surrounding a house on which is grown a weedfree, thick, green, monoculture grass that is kept mowed to a prescribed height. m. Chemicals that can kill organisms that humans consider to be undesirable. Pesticides include herbicides that are used to kill undesirable plants (weeds), insecticides that are used to kill undesirable insects, fungicides that are used to kill unwanted fungi, and rodenticide which are used to kill undesirable rodents. Operational Def'mitio- Operational definitions were developed at several stages in the research process, some at the inception of the study and others as categories emerged. The interview guide questions were considered just that, a guide. They provided a departure point for discussion. In analysis, all responses that fit a particular category were included even if they did not occur at the point in the interview where the question was asked. W. A person’s responses to the Environmental Scale (Appendix A-III, Q. 8) and questions related to environmental concerns (Appendix A-III, Q. 9, Part B, C, D). W. A person’s responses to the question, "What kind of activities take place on your lawn?" (Appendix A-III, Q. 2). 18 W. A person’s responses to the Health Scale (Appendix A-III, Q. 9) and questions related to concerns about pesticides and health (Appendix A- 111, Q. 9, Part A). “Maintenance. A person’s responses to the question "What do you, yourself, do to take care of the lawn?” (Appendix A-III, Q. 3). WWW. Perceived meaning of the lawn includes six domains that reflect a person’s beliefs, values, attitudes and actions with regard to the lawn that emerged primarily from responses to questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 (Appendix A-III). Amption The assumptions underlying this research are: l. Qualitative research is an adequate and appropriate method for gaining insights into people’s actions and subjective perceptions, preferences, and feelings. 2. Individuals will truthfully report their preferences, actions, and perceptions with regard to the lawn. 3. It k likely that there are differences between attitudes, perceptions, and activities of husbands and wives which preclude considering the couple as a single unit for analysis. 4. There is variation among individuals and groups as to the perceptions of advantages and disadvantages associated with the use or nonuse of products and services necessary for maintenance of the lawn. Wm Win“ Muck. Mt Mm CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The review of literature is organized in three major sections. The first section dkcusses the Biosphere and Human Society. The importance of the lawn is illustrated by the economic and technological activities that are generated through products and services that are deemed necessary to maintain the lawn. Descriptiom of current practices highlight the effects of lawn practices on the natural environment and the literature relevant to the concerns arising from these practices is reviewed. The use of clothing as a means of protection when applying pesticides is addressed. The second section discusses Human Experience which includes life conditions and the biopsychic state. Life conditions include the personal (immediate) environment and behavior patterns. The review of literature includes discussion and review of research about meanings, values, and attitudes associated with the lawn and the natural environment. The third section traces the evolution of the American lawn. It explores the hktorical roots of the lawn, the beliefs and meanings that have evolved related to the lawn, and the contemporary forces which continue to shape the lawn. 19 20 The Total Environment W Grass is part of a natural ecosystem composed of plants growing in soil which require sunlight, water, and nutrients. Lawn grass is one of many wild gram that have been domesticated for human use and can be thought of as a very special type of garden (Sombke, 1994). But lawn grass is not used for food. The lawn is an artifact of society. Created from a natural occurring plant, it has been modified by humans and invested with meaning and aesthetic value. For many Americans a uniform, weed free, green lawn is essential to being considered a respectable, responsible homeowner. {BMW Turf management, growing grass as an ornamental crop, has undergone conflant experimentation and change since the earliest sheep-grazed village commons. Many varieties of grass have been developed to accommodate climatic differences. There are two main types of grasses grown in the United States: cool-won grasses which grow well across the northern and midwestern states, and warm-season grasses, which grow better in the hot, humid southern states. Common Southern grasses that grow in Atlanta, Georgia include bermuda, zoysia, centipede, fescue, and St. Augustine. Midwestern grasses include Kentucky bluegrass, fescue, and perennial ryegrass. Trying to grow an imppropriate grass in an unfriendly geographic, climatic location can cause great frustration, environmental damage, and is ultimately doomed to failure. 21 ItiseflimatedthatintheUnitedStatesthetotalareainturfgrasskabout 25millionacres or40thousandsquare miles, anareaslightly lessthanthatof Pennsylvania (Roberts & Roberts, 1988). Five million of these acres are golf courses, cemeteries, athletic fields, and other open spaces. W The 1990 EPA National Home and Garden Pesticide Use Survey reported that 66.8 million households have a private lawn (Whitmore, Kelly, & Reading, 1992). These lawns cover an estimated 20 million acres with an average size of about one-third acre. They also estimated the annual retail sales of residential lawn care products and equipment to be $6.9 billion. Hoses, nozzles, and sprinklers to water lawns and gardens accounted for $51.2 million and $19.6 million was spent on grass seed. The average homeowner spent $445 in 1993 on hwnllandscape maintenance (Homeowners spend...l994). And Americans 50 years of age and older accounted for nearly half of all these expenditures on maintenance services. Goldin (1977) calculated that the average residential lawn may cost more per acre to maintain than it does to raise a crop of corn, rice, or alumna. Lawns are generally viewed as only one part of the total landscape design. No studies were found that directly addressed the monetary value of a lawn. A 1986 study, commissioned by the Nursery Products Division of Weyerhaeuser looked at the value of landscaping (W eyerhaeuser Company, 1986). It included original research by the Gallup Organization, Trendnomics, and the National Gardening Association. Eli "i 22 Among its findings were: 1. New home buyers and buyers of previously owned homes efihnated that hndscaping adds 14.9% to the value or selling price of their home on the average. 2. Sixty-two percent of all U.S. homeowners consider landscaping a good or better investment than an investment in other types of home improvements, including kitchen and bathroom remodeling. 3. Ninety-five percent of real estate appraisers agreed that landscaping adds to the dollar value of residential real estate. If a landscape is well designed, it will mature and become more valuable. Landscape industry members have suggested that at least five percent of a home’s value should be spent on landscaping. The Associated Landscape Contractors of America estimate that landscaping adds 15% to the value of a home (Evans, 1992). W The advantages of well planned landscaping include reduced air pollution and nobe levels, temperature and wind control through proper placement of trees, creation of ”green feelings”, and human health improvement by using features that ionize the air (Pierce, 1989). But the ideal American suburban lawn that requires minimal grass diversity, control of insects, weeds, and fungus by use of pesticides, additions of fertilization, and irrigation is expensive, labor intensive, and as more and more people are beginning to believe, environmentally unsound. A frequently repeated claim in the lawn care literature is that through photosynthesk a 50-by-50 foot lawn generates enough oxygen to meet the needs of 23 a family of four. This statement does not take into account the various kinds of pollution that accompany the maintenance of the ideal American lawn. Annual pollution emRions from lawn utith machines in California are equivalent to the emissions produced by 3.5 million 1991 model automobiles driven 16,000 miles each (Bormann, Balmori, & Geballe, 1993). The EPA estimates that one hour of operating a walk-behind mower puts as many pollutants into the air as driving an automobile for 11-12 hours (Maimgren, 1994). Other potential environmental problems such as chemical run-off and water pollution, grass clippings in landfilk, safe disposal of empty pesticide containers and used oil, and unknown health effects of chemical use are of increasing concern. Mama! A variety of lawn equipment is needed to maintain the average lawn. Lawn mowers, edgers, clippers, leaf blowers, string trimmers, seeders, fertilizer spreaders, and aerators are considered staples for lawn care. In 1991, the U.S. lawn equipment industry estimated $4.6 billion in sales to both the domestic and international markets. The international markets are primarily Canada and the European Community (U .S. Department of Commerce, 1992). Emilims Fertilizers for lawns are generally a mix of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potashim just as agricultural fertilizers are. By weight only 5 to 10% of the fertilizer sold in the United States is purchased to fertilize lawns, but this market accounts for 25% of the industry’s profits. Ind non Me by tl bi] Mr 24 W The shear volume of yard waste in municipal landfills began to be a serious problem in the 19805. Yard waste, primarily grass clippings, is estimated to make up about 20% of all the garbage generated in the United States (Yard waste...l994). It is the second largest component (by weight) of the municipal solid waste stream. During the summer and fall months, yard waste can constitute 25 to 50% of all municipal solid waste. As of July 1993, 20 states had enacted or had pending legislation to ban all yard waste from landfills. Individual homeowners and municipalities have been encouraged to compost and use clippings for mulch. Recycling yard waste not only saves time but also money in dbposal costs. But yard waste composting is also being scrutinized for potential harmful effects due to pesticide residue. A recent study commissioned by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection reported that while pesticide residue was present in the clippings, they are typically found in low levels (they registered in parts per billion). Workers at composting sites have not reported any skin rashes or other extraordinary events (Code, 1991). Eater Lawm need water to grow. An average acre of lawn needs more than 27,000 gallons of water each week. It has been suggested that Americans routinely overwater by 20 to 30%. While the amount of water needed varies greatly by region of the United States, lawn care increases water use by as much as 30% in the summer (The Earthworks Group, 1989). As water becomes increasingly valuable, many communities are taking a hard look at the water 25 und on lawns. Lawn watering restrictiom are frequently a priority when a region is enduring a drought. Wm. Groundwater contamination by chemicals is also of major concern. Groundwater comprises 96% of the world’s total water resources. Ninety percent of rural residents and 50% of people in the United States rely on groundwater as their drinking water source. The far reaching effects of chemicals are illustrated by findings from a study done by Nations and Hallberg (1992) who sampled rainfall for pesticides in three areas in Iowa: two rural localities and an urban area. Fourteen pesticides, ten herbicides and four insecticides, were detected from October 1987 through September 1990. Samples from the urban site had detections of the same agricultural chemicals found at the rural sites, but in lesser quantities. In addition to the herbicides, three of the four insecticides detected in rainfall were found only in urban samples. Concentrations were greater at sampling sites near fields where pesticides are applied. The EPA has found that pesticides and nutrients are present in urban runoff, but are not as prominent as metals such as lead (U.S. EPA, 1983). Lunsford (1994) reports that phosphorous from the run-off of fertilizers continues to a problem in the midwest. It is believed that the impact of phosphorous b greater in surface water than ground water. Creating a buffer zone of 50-100 feet near lakes and ponds where fertilizers could not be used is recommended. Studies looking at the movement of chemicals in turfgrass are ongoing. Watschke and Mumma (1989) report that studies examining the movement of 26 pesticides and nutrients on runoff areas and sloped turf have not detected any pesticides in as low as a part per billion. Watschke concludes that well-managed turfgrass has a positive impact on water quality. Dense, quality turfgraa stands affect the overland flow process to such a degree that runoff is imignificant and inhibits percolation of fertilizers and pesticides into the groundwater. Morton, Gold and Sullivan (1988) reported that total inorganic-N losses in percolate average from 3.1 to 13.1% of the amounts applied to sloped experimental lawns maintained under high and low input irrigation and chemical management. Gold, Morton, Sullivan & McClory (1988) found no significant leaching of two herbicides, 2,4-D and dicamba, from simulated home lawns with a sandy loam soil. Petrovic (1993), in a review of studies looking at leaching, reported that pesticide leaching is highly dependent on soil texture and the time from application to the first significant precipitation event. Lawn fertilization was found to have only a minor impact on nitrate levels in groundwater where other land uses like corn production and septic tanks have resulted in high nitrate levels. Niernczyk and Filary (1988) have studied vertical mobility of pesticides in soil. The study included nine insecticides and evaluated their vertical mobility to the first, second, fourth and in some cases tenth inch below the thatch. They reported that insecticides applied to turf with thatch pose little or no potential for downward mobility. Harrison, Watschke, Mumma, Jarrett, & Hamilton (1993) measured very low levels of runoff from sloped turfgrass plots. 'Iheir data suggests that under normal rainfall conditions the quantities of dissolved 27 penicides and fertilizer nutrients in runoff and percolate transported from turfed sites are low. Mechenich and Shaw (1994) surveyed residents of two subdivisions with private wells and septic systems in central Wisconsin about their use of various hormehold and lawn chemicals. Of the 139 respondents, 109 reported fertilizing their lawm an average of 1.8 times per year. Nine participants reported never fertilizing their lawns and ten reported using a commercial lawn service. When asked about the amount of fertilizer they used, 74% said they used the amount specified on the bag, 18% said they used more, and two users said they did not read the instructions on the bag. Approximately half (n = 68) of the residents reported applying a mixture of broadleaf weed killer and fertilizer on their lawn. An average use rate of 1.2 times per year was reported. Thirty one participants reported never using this type of product. Crabgrass killer was applied once a year, on average, by 31 users. The most commonly used lawn and garden insecticides were diazinon (51 users), malathion (16 users), and carbaryl (17 users). The majority reported using less than one cup of undiluted product per year, but some used more than 10 cups per year. When asked about the severity of groundwater contamination in their subdivisions and in the county, 63% stated it was “serious" and 13% ranked it as "very serious." When asked about water contamination sources the study found there was, in general, no relatiomhip between opinion about contamination sources and one’s own chemical use practices. The majority of the respondents (67%) identified agriculture as the cause of the problems. 28 W The use of pesticides on lawn grass began after World War II as chemical compania turned their research efforts toward peacetime uses of chemicals. By 1991 the world market for pesticides reached nearly $35 billion (U .8. Dept. of Commerce, 1992). The professional and consumer markets for pesaicides in the United States were each estimated to represent about $1.1 billion in sales at the manufacturers’ level in 1991 (Hodge, 1993). Insecticides accounted for approximately 75% of the total consumer market; the remaining 25% included herbicides, fungicides, and rodenticides. Herbicides accounted for a little less than half of the professional market; insecticides for approximately 30%, and fungicides, rodenticides and other the remaining 20%. The agricultural market was estimated to be about $4.9 billion in sales. Currently there are about 45,000 pesticide products marketed in the United States. Public Citizen’s Congress Watch (Weiss, 1989) reported that of the 40 pesticides that the EPA estimates comprise over 95% of chemicals used by lawn care firms: 1. Twelve are suspected human carcinogens. 2. Twenty one have been shown to cause long-term health effects in lab animals or humans. 3. Twenty have been shown to cause short-term damage to the central nervous systems of humans. 4. Thirty six cause eye, skin or throat irritation in humans or animak. 5. One has been completely tested and reviewed by the EPA for its full range of long-term health effects. In 1988, more than 700 million dollars worth of pesticides, about 67 million pounds, were sold for use on American lawns (U .8. General Accounting Oflice, 29 1990). Chemical lawn care sales were estimated at $1.7 billion in 1993 (Roche, 1993). The average American lawn k treated with five to ten pounds of pesticide per acre (Schultz, 1993). W. Numerous pesticides are commonly used both imide and ouwde American homes. The EPA estimates that 69 million American households, or more than 85% of the nation’s total families, store and use pesticides (Lang, 1993). Research exploring the use of pesticides in the home environment began in the late 19605 and early 705. The majority of studies that have looked at homeowner’s pesticide use have combined inside and outside usage. For a review of this research see Appendix B. These studies show that homeowners, in general, do not read labels, do not follow commonsense safety precautions, do not know what products commercial applicators have applied, and believe pesticides do good and rarely think that they do harm. W. Many questions remain unanswered about short-term and long-term health risks associated with pesticide use. The focus of current research about pesticides has changed from how much and what is used to the environmental and health effects associated with the use of these products. The lack of a national database in the United States impedes an accurate counting of the incidence of death and injury from acute pesticide poisoning. Chronic health effects such as cancer, deterioration in neurologic functions, immune effects, and reproductive and birth defects are sources of concern and controversy. An area of great uncertainty is the effect of pesticides on infants and children. (See Appendix C for a review of literature related to pesticides and health.) 30 The degree of rkk resulting from human exposure to pesticides and other chemicals is a hotly debated issue and is likely to continue for some time. Interpretation of the same data by scientists produces divergent viewpoints about the significance and implications of the information. Whitford (1993) writes, “Since there are no scientific absolutes people are left to drawn their own conclusion about the risks and benefits, based on their perceptiom and knowledge of the facts” (p. 9). One reason the task of determining benefits and risks is so difficult is that research shows that individual often demonstrate unrealistic views and behaviors toward hazardous activities. Most of the current literature dealing with risk perception has focused on people’s abilities to estimate the likelihood of technological, health, and environmental hazards. This research indicates that people are reasonably accurate in estimating the risk of fatal injury, but they tend to overestimate the likelihood of infrequent causes and to underestimate the likelihood of frequent causes (Fischhoff 1985; Fischhoff, Slovic, Lichtenstein, Read, & Combs 1978; Lichtenstein, Slovic, Fischhoff, Layman, & Combs 1978). Lawn care technicians appear to be a group who may be especially at risk from the use of lawn chemicals. Lawn care workers engage in tasks that result in exposure to pesticides and many other potential carcinogens such as diesel fuel, organic solvents, gasoline, metal fumes, paints, zoonotic viruses, microbes, and fungi. Children and other bystanders may also be at risk from expowre to lawn chemicals. 31 W. A ChemLawn company study reported that an evaluation of the health of 100 applicators who applied pesticides for at least nine years showed no long-term adverse health effects attributable to the applicators’ work with chemicals. It was estimated that these applicators were exposed more than 10,000 times what a homeowner can expect, and 100,000 times what a next door neighbor can expect (Nightline debate...1991). Leonard & Yeary (1990) measured occupational exposure to four insecticides and two fungicides by 151 tree and shrub applicators who used hand-held equipment when spraying pesticides. The study was conducted for three comecutive years: 1985, 1986, 1987. Inhalation exposures were reported not to exceed any govemmental recommendations or manufacturer defined acceptable levek for the products studied. Based on these results and the study conditiom, they supported the recommendation that respirators need not be worn during the mixing, loading, and application process for the pesticides that were studied. Yeary and Leonard (1993) continued to address inhalation exposure in application of pesticides to urban lawns, trees, and shrubs. Air sampling was conducted of the breathing zone air of applicators (n = 200), indoor air of pesticide warehouse facilities and offices (11 = 82), indoor air of residential properties (n = 82), and ambient air of residential properties (n = 55). Results indicated that pesticides were not detected in 80% of the 500 samples collected. When detected, the time weighed average (TWA) values were generally less than 10% of any established or suggested standard. 32 Hurto and Yeary (1993) reviewed current research dealing with exposure to pesticides for both the applicator and the bystander. Applicator research shows that skin exposure is the most significant route of absorption on reentry to treated areas and for pesticide applicators. The highest exposure levels are to the lower portion of the body, including legs and groin area. Since hands only represent five percent of the body area, wearing gloves may not make that much difference ifsignificant exposure has occurred to the feet and legs. This review reported that indirect bystander exposure to turfgrass pesticides may occur in several ways. Indirect bystander exposure usually occurs through contact with dblodgeable foliar residues. This is generally defined as the pesticide fraction remaining on foliage that has the potential to be transferred to skin of animals or humans who come into contact with the pesticide-treated foliage. Total residue of pesticides found on turfgrass foliage was reported to range from 25 to 65% of the applied rate. This range was affected by pesticide formulation, turfgrass cultural practices, and environmental conditions. Within a day of application dklodgeable residues were usually less than 10% of the applied rate. One to 3 days after application three percent of the applied rate was detectable and less than one percent after seven days. Liquid spray results in more potential exposure than granular applications. They also reported that the few studies that have looked at spray drift and volatilization show exposure to be minimal. A unique study by Leonas and Yu (1992) identified the deposition patterns that spraying a liquid would produce on clothing worn by homeowners using 33 typical lawn and garden equipment. Results from this audy showed that the deposition pattern and level of exposure were dependent on the type of equipment used for application. A low volume backpack sprayer and Dial-A-Gardeno sprayer produced significantly higher levels of deposition than a Sprayette", ordinary backpack sprayer, rotary/broadcaa spreader, and drop spreader. The twodryspreadersresrhedintheleastexposumwithfluleexposunabovethe knee. For all types of equipment, the areas of greatest deposition were the feet, lower and upper legs, and the hands. Deposition was greatest on the front vs the back of the garment. Waning. For both homeowners and professional applicators a major source of protection from pesticide exposure has been identified as protective clothing. Studies indicate clothing provides a physical barrier that reduces pesticide penetration (Branson, Ayres, & Henry, 1986; Laughlin, Easley, Gold, & Hill, 1986; Raheel, 1987, 1988; Staiff, Davis, & Stevens, 1982) and can reduce dermal absorption (Davies et al., 1982; Nigg, Stamper, 8: Queen, 1986). Slocum, Nolan, Shern, Gay, and T‘urgeon (1988) developed and tested protective clothing for lawn care technicians. Three volunteer company employees worn the experimental clothing while performing their regular duties. Three employees worn the regular company uniform. Results of biomonitoring showed that the protective clothing significantly reduced the amount of pesticide absorbed relative to the regular uniform. Concern for workers’ health and research on the effectiveness of protective clothing lead the EPA to promulgate the 1992 Worker Protection Standard. 34 Under this standard agricultural workers and pesticide handlers must wear personal protective equipment (PPE) as specified on the pesticide label. PPE is defined as coveralk, respirators, protective eyewear, and chemical-reshant suits, gloves, footwear, aprons and headgear. Long and short-sleeved shirts, long and short pants, shoes and socks and other items of regular work clothing are not defined as PPE but could be worn in the absence of specific label directions. Thus depending on the product used and method of application, a variety of protective clothing and equipment may be required. Heightened public concern about chemicals in the environment, reports of illness from long-term, low-level exposure to pesticides, Federal regulatory trends, and the litigious nature of society encourage companies to make the work environment as safe as possible, and to establish a record of concern for worker health. Yet while several types and styles of protective garments are now avaihble commercially, the use of protective clothing and equipment for applicators has not been widespread in the lawn care industry. Company attitudes toward use of protective clothing and equipment may be rooted in concerns about the image and nonverbal messages protective clothing communicates. Trade literature shows an awareness of the role of work clothing in nonverbal communication, particularly with respect to promotional and public relation messages. Applicators’ uniforms are discussed as a "billboard" that “shows who you are and tells customers about your services" and "reinforces your company’s - and your - professional identity" (Uniforms can showcase..., 35 1990). It may be that company officials believe protective clothing presents a negative image. If this is the case, lawn care companies face a difficult dilemma, eg. how to provide employees with clothing and equipment that offer more protection without increasing public perception of health and environmental risk associated whh their products or services. The company is challenged to choose uniforms that will provide improved protection without generating concern for product safety among those who see employees at work. While there h an extensive body of nonverbal communication research, there is no published research that will assist companies in evaluating nonverbal mesages of safety or danger associated with work uniforms. Uniforms of a munber of groups have been studied to determine the meaning they have to the public or to clients. These groups include police (Gundersen, 1987; Joseph, 1986; Singer & Alan, 1985), nurses (Brown & Goldsten, 1968; Hawkins, Claghorn, & Zentay, 1966), and religious orders (Reidy, 1967). Professional clothing of counselors (Amira & Abramowitz, 1979; Roll & Roll, 1984), teachers (Chowdhary, 1988), and business women (Dillon, 1980; Forsythe, Drake, 8: Cox, 1984; Scherbaum & Shepherd, 1987) have also been studied. Thk body of literature provides information about the visual cues that suggest authority and power, approachability and interaction, credibility and competence, and other personal qualities. Studies indicate that there may be one salient piece of a uniform that viewers use as a cue, for example the policeman’s hat (V olpp & Lennon, 1988) or a nurses’ cap (Lafferty & Dickey, 1980). 36 There is also some basis for reasoning that perceptions of an individual’s clothing may be the basis for an extended inference to the group or city. Workman and J ohmon (1989) found that the manner in which cabdrivers dressed influenced visitors perceptions of the city. Nicely dressed drivers elicited a more favorable impression. No studies of perceptions of lawn care uniforms were located in the published literature. One trade article suggests that negative perceptions of protective clothing exist. During the presentation of findings from a series of consumer focus groups dealing with lawn care, Culpepper said, "Unfortunately, people see protective clothing and equate that with danger" (Study determines..., 1994). It may be that conventional wkdom in the industry promotes avoidance of anything that looks protective. Two studies were located that specifically addressed the homeowner’s use of protective clothing. Rucker, Grieshop, Peters, Hansen, & Frankie (1988) collected data from 415 California residents via a mail questionnaire. Close to one half of the respondents said they wore some type of protective equipment and/or clothing when applying pesticides. The most frequently listed item was gloves, mentioned by about 24% of the group. Very few other items of protective clothing were mentioned as being worn. When asked what they did with the clothing after wearing it to apply pesticides, 22.7% said "nothing” and 74% said they ”washed it". Reasons given for not wearing protective gear included the expense and possible social ridicule involved in use of these kinds of items, 37 perceived protection by the government, and belief that there was little danger associated with using such low dosages of the products. Harris, Solomon, & Stephenson (1992) studied the effect of protective clothing with regard to exposure to the herbicide 2,4-D with a group of home gardeners (n = 22) and bystanders (n = 22). Bystanders were individuals living within the household who did not apply the herbicide. Half the applicators wore protective garb which included clean coveralls, gloves, and rubber boots. The non-protective group worn clothing of their own choice (typically long pants, running shoes, and short sleeved shirts). Analysis of urine collected from homeowners for 96 hours following applications found the highest exposures occurred in the nonprotected group and were consistently associated with spills. No residues of 2,4-D were detected in bystanders’ urine samples. Residues of 2,4-D were detected in five of the 76 air samples taken during the home applicatiom. Recommendations were that homeowners can reduce exposure by using rubber gloves, overalls, and rubber boots in all phases of the application process. A second study looking at 2,4-D exposure was conducted with 10 volunteers who were immediately exposed after turf spraying and a second group of 10 vohrnteers who were exposed 24 hours after application (Harris & Solomon, 1992). Each group of 10 volunteers were divided into two groups: one wore long pants, t-shirts, socks and shoes and the second wore shorts, t-shirts and went barefooted. Immediately after exposure plots were sprayed the first group of vohrnteers undertook a 60 minute exposure session, walking and sitting on the 38 gras for timed intervals. At the end of the session volunteers washed their hands and ate a picnic lunch but did not shower or otherwise decontaminate their skin for 6 hours. Twenty four hours later a the second group of volunteers began their 60 minute exposure session on the same plot. Volunteers alternated walking and sitting or lying for 5 minute periods throughout the 60 minutes. Air samples and urine collectiom were used to measure the exposure to the herbicide 2,4-D. Three people who wore shorts and were barefooted and contacted the turf immediately after the 2,4—D application had detectable residues in their 4-day urine samples. Dislodgeable residues of 2,4-D taken during the exposure sessions showed a rapid decline from 1 hour following application (8%) to 24 hours following application (1 %). The authors recommended that people can reduce exposure to non-detectable chemical levels by staying off treated turf for 24 hours or until after rainfall or irrigation. Semen Grass is a natural occurring organism that grows in the soil and requires sunlight, water, and nutrients. Grass has been modified and changed to create an artifact: the ideal American lawn which is a uniform, weed free, green, thick, stand of grass cut to a prescribed height. These lawns require inputs of water, chemicals, special kinds of equipment, and human energy and time to maintain them. The existence of the ideal American lawn is supported by multibillion dollar industries that supply products necessary to the care of the lawn: seeds, equipment, fertilizers, pesticides, and protective clothing/equipment. A service industry has evolved that is dedicated to caring for the lawn. Positive outputs {mm the The hwlfiiil “he, in Molog norm” 39 from the hwn gras include oxygen from photosynthesis, erosion control, and cooling. Negative outputs include grass clippings in land fills, pollution from gasoline engines, empty pesticide containers, used oil, real and potential groundwater contamination, and unknown health and environmental effects from thechemicalsusedonthelawn. Human Experience and the Total Environment The study of relationships between the natural environment (nature) and people’s psychological and biological behaviors is truly multidisciplinary. Investigators in agriculture, anthropology, biology, forestry, geography, health, history, interior design, landscape architecture, natural-resource management, psychology, recreation, sociology, and urban planning have all contributed to the growing body of literature. EnxirnnmentaLAestheties Sadler and Carlson (1982) call the field of study which explores humans’ relationships with nature, ”environmental aesthetics". They write We all interpret, in one way or another, the positive and negative features of the physical settings we occupy, pass through and visit. The aesthetic effect of places and landscapes is an important dimension of this pervasive sensory ecology. A sense of beauty or even harmony enhances our lives: a seme of blight or discordance correspondingly diminishes them. It is almost imposible to prove scientifically these kinds of effects on wellcbeing, but the general principle is widely accepted (p. 1). They point out that all environments, natural or man-made, evoke feelings and have aesthetic dimensions. They view aesthetic quality as an amalgam of physical properties and social values. Therefore, environmental aestheties includes 4o “storied meaning as well as the structured appearance of place and landscape" (P. 5). Inchrded in the field of environmental aesthetics k environmental psychology which focuses on aesthetic response and covers the scenic preferences and vkual assessments of the lay public (Sadler and Carlson, 1982). Since the environment is experienced through all human senses, research should examine environmental affect in relation to all the senses. But the visual experience is typically the most important to humans so many studies have relied upon visual perceptions and used slides or photographs as the basis for the outcome ratings. Kaplan (1978) described the drive to seek out nature as the "green experience”. This is not necessarily dependent upon the color green. She wrote The green experience then, refers to the encounter with natural environment, and especially the unspectacular, everyday natural environment that comes in a variety of colors and guises...The natural environment matters to people...not only in the infrequent escape to far- f'lung poster places, but in its potential availability and accessibility as a renewable and renewing resource (p. 186). Miller (1988) suggests that families move to the suburbs in search of nature. Appendix D reviews literature related to environmental aesthetics. Findings from these studies suggest the " green experience" is strongly preferred among humans. Nature may be an intrinsic need, which is sought out for itself and not acquired to be exchanged for something else. Human preference for nature may be innate. But preferences appear to change with age and experience and there are differences between males and females. 41 Among urban settings those containing nature are most preferred. Unmanaged nature is relatively less preferred than landscaped areas. Trees are a highly-valued component of urban nature. Satisfaction with one’s immediate environment is increased when trees, grass, shrubs, and flowers are present. The expression of preferences appear to differ with social class. Natural environments, as well as sustaining life, appear to provide inner peace and facilitate improved mental health and recovery from physical illness. Meaning Nature is invested with rich and powerful meanings, symbols, values, and beliefs. The meaning of nature is shaped and formed by the ecological conditions under which people live (i.e., rain forests, mountains, plains, or deserts), the historical context of the particular culture, the cultural and social structures, and the values and beliefs systems of the culture. Brown (1972) argues that to know the world in any significant sense is first and foremost to understand it in terms of what it means. Rapoport (1982) focuses on meaning as central to the various levels of nonverbal communicatiom from the environment to people. Environmental elements organized in space ranging from walls to people, become "indicators of social position, ways of establishing group or social identity, and ways of defining situations within a specific culture which in turn lead to expected behaviors in the settings (p. 181- 182). Blumer (1969) suggests that meanings are built up by people ”through an interpretation of objects, situations, or the actions of others" in a social context (p. 84). 42 When Meinig (1979) writes, “Every mature nation has its symbolic landscapes. They are part of the iconography of nationhood, part of the shared set of ideas and memories and feelings which bind a people together” (p. 164). Houses and their surrounding yards are important elements in these landscapes. Houses and the grounds that surround them are "warehouses of personal experience“ (Lawrence, 1985, p. 118). Houses are part of the language of gestures that individuals use to communicate with each other and to control the amount and type of information that others receive (Sadalla, Vershure, & Burroughs, 1987). Altman and Gauvain (1981) found that in many cultures, houses are situated in accordance with environmental, climatic, ce-ological, and religious influences. The siting of American houses does not appear to be influenced by any of these factors. They state: American middle-class suburban tract homes are usually located in the middle or rear part of a lot, with some separation, in the form of a lawn, between the home and a public street.... Landscaping the front yard is a traditional American vehicle for achieving individuality and uniqueness; enormous amounts of time, energy, and money are invested in the wltivation of grass and shrubbery in a never-ending cycle of fertilizing, watering, and cutting...The fronts of American homes and yards not only express identity, but they also depict the bonds of a family with the community (p. 293). The American residential lawn is much more than grass. It is viewed by society as a reflection of the attitudes and values of individuals and families making a home together. Cooper (1974) describes one’s home as a symbol of self and self-identity. The exterior of the home is seen as a symbol of self which is presented to the outside world. fianck (1974) describes how new homeowners 43 begin to consider their new residence their home only after they have personalized it with their own belongings. The lawn and yard reflect the personal tastes of the homeowner. A recent survey found that 33.5% of new homeowners enlist the service of landscape or lawn care companies within the first six months of moving into their new home (New homeowners...1991). Gauvain, Altman, and Fahim (1983) found that expressiom of individuality were tempered with the awareness that the front yard also needed to conform to the neighborhood standards of taste and sociability. Ramsey (1938) wrote in her book. Lmdscaninuheflemefimnds Naturally, we want our home grounds to appear to the best advantage, for the passer-by judges our homes by the way the grounds are planted and cared for. Few see the interior of our homes but every passer-by sees the exterior" (p. 17). She echoes others in her directive, A man’s home may be bk castle, but his front yard belongs to the public...The universal practice of establishing building lines and setting the house back from the street has created the typical American front yard. Custom has prescribed the leaving of the front yard open, providing a view of the house and grounrk...The homeowner should always keep in mind that it is his duty to do everything in his power to make his street more attractive (p. 54-55). The front yard is viewed as the more formal ”parlor”, while the backyard is the place for family activities, the "living room”. The use of the house and its surrounding grounds as a means of self- expression is probably most characteristic of middle- and upper-middle-income families. Becker (1977) writes It 3 primarily for the middle class, where it is accepted as a given that the house is a safe place, that more attention is paid to the house as a means of self-expression and self-realization. People concerned about the cold, plumbing, and rats do not have the luxury of worrying about the image of their home (p. 18). 44 The meaning and symbolism evoked by laws is very powerful. Individual homeowners who have attempted to plant wildflowers or encourage a "natural" lawn have meet resistance and in some cases lawsuits (Lowen, 1991; Unmowed lawn...1991). Exceptions do exist. The city of Madison, WI has incorporated ”natural" laws into its’ city regulations. Subject to review and approval, a homeowner can cultivate natural growth beyond the 8 inch maximum height normally enforced by the city (Russell, 1979). But as Michael Pollan (1991) writes To stand in the way of such a powerful current is not easily done. Since we have traditionally eschewed fences and hedges in America, the suburban vista can be marred by the negligence - or dissent - of a single property owner. This is why lawn care is regarded as such an important civic responsibility in the suburbs, and why, as I learned as a child, the majority will not tolerate the laggard...That subtle yet unmistakable frontier, where the crew-cut lawn rubs up against a shaggy one, is a scar on the face of suburbia,..an intolerable hint of trouble in paradise (p. 55-56). I' f n i According to Karl Mannheim (1936) the ideas, values, and attitudes of a given group are embedded in the social conditions under which the group lives. Persons, bound together into groups strive in accordance with groups to which they belong to change the surrounding world of nature and society or attempt to maintain it in a given condition. It is the direction of this will to change or maintain, of this collective activity, which produces the guiding thread for the emergence of their problems, their concepts, and their forms of thought (p. 78). This suggests that pe0ple are socialized and, to some degree, pressured to act or behave in accordance with the attitudes and values agreed upon by the social groups to which they belong. The expression of these values, beliefs, and 45 attitudes through action, or behavior, is an expression of the ideology of the ND- The relationship of humans to nature is complex and paradoxical. In the case of something so broad and omnipresent as “nature" or "natural environment" the values, beliefs, and attitudes associated with it are often taken for granted. Few people are aware of how they are influenced by cultural and physical conditions from the far past that are very different from today. Values refer to preferred end states (i.e., freedom) and preferred ways of doing thing (i.e., being honest) (Rokeach, 1985). Values represent a link among a person’s emotions, motivations, and behavior. Attitudes and behavior are sometimes thought to be caused by values. Beliefs are the information that a person has about a person, object, or issue. They may be factual or based on personal opinion. Olsen, Lodwick, and Dunlap (1992) argue that when beliefs change, values change; beliefs precede values within mental constructs. People may adopt new values that contradict their current beliefs and go to great efforts to justify their new values in terms of old beliefs. They write Because beliefs logically precede values and are taken for granted as expressions of reality that are beyond debate, they would appear to be the most fundamental components of cultures...They constitute the foundation that supports all other shared cultural ideas, including values, goals, norm, custom, and rules (p. 180). They emphasize the need to study belief systems in order to understand public policiw and governmental programs. 46 Prown (1993) proposes that there are two levels of beliefs. The first is comprised of surface beliefs, beliefs of which people are aware and which they express in what they say, do, and make. The second level of belief 3 hidden. He states that a culture’s most fundamental beliefs are often so widely understood, so generally shared and accepted, that they never need to be stated...Indeed, there may be beliefs of which the culture itself is not aware, and some of them may be so hard to face that they are repressed (p. 3). Attitudes and beliefs are closely intertwined and often very difficult to separate. Attitudes are lasting, general evaluations of people, objects, or ksues (Petty & Cacioppo, 1985). They have traditionally been defined in terms of cognitive, affective and conative facets (McGuire 1969, 1985, 1989). However, researchers have rarely operationalized attitudes in terms of this definition. As a result there has been an attempt to define attitudes formally to conform to typical research usage. The field of social psychology currently defines attitudes as ”an evaluative response toward an object" (Tesser & Shaffer, 1990, p. 512). The conative domain refers to the actions or behavioral tendencies of an individual regarding a person, object, or issue (Borden & Schettino, 1979). Whales A basic question in attitudinal studies is the extent to which attitudes are rehted to actual behavior. Chaiken & Stangor, in their 1987 review of attitudinal research, suggest there are two general conclusions relative to the extent to which attitudes are related to actual behavior. The fast is that the specificity of attitudes and behavior must be equated before the relation between 47 the two will be manifest (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Thk means general attitudes (in terms of the action, target, context, and time) correlate with general behavioral tendencies, whereas specific attitudes correlate with specific behaviors. The second conclusion of attitude research is that attitudes influence behavior to the extent to which they are activated or made accessible (Fazio, 1986). When an individual’s attitudes are primed and thus processed in a more controlled and intentional fashion, the relation between attitudes and behavior is enhanced. According to Shetzer and his colleagues (1991) the implicatiom of these finding for environmental attitude research are that (a) attitudes will predict environmental behaviors when both are measured at similar levels of specificity and (b) attitudes that are made salient to individuals are more closely related to behavior. For a review of literature related to environmental attitudes see Appendix E. Given the nature of most environmental threats, individuals are responding within a social context. Therefore, environmental concerns are socially embedded. Connerly (1986) and de Haven-Smith (1988) found that personal determinants of attitudes seem to be related via belief systems to the social categories the individual occupies and the effects of the resource or hazard in question on group and individual interests. Normative influences can exert a strong force over behavior. Social norms may prevent people from acting the way they would like to based upon their attitude or encourage them to act in a way that contradicts an attitude. For example, it is socially unacceptable to 4s litter. People may respond positively to a question about littering because littering k viewed as socially irresponsible. In actual practice they may well be I'litterbugs". hum Two studies are reviewed that have looked at attitudes related to the lawn. Other research was located but were in-house studies done by private companies and were not available for public review. A recent Gallup poll added some additional information about lawn attitudes. W. In 1993, DowElanco Specialty Products, Indianapolis, IN commissioned a qualitative study to explore benefits and perceptions of homeowner lawn care (DowElanco, 1993). A total of six in-depth focus group interviews were conducted around the United States. The two sessions in both Columbus, OH and Atlanta, GA were made up of (a) homeowners using a lawn service (lst group) and (b) do-it-yourself homeowners (2nd group). The session in Philadelphia, PA included a mix of renters and owners of units without a lawn. The Salt Lake City, UT group was made up of homeowners who only mowed and/or added fertilizer. The study participants included 29 males and 29 females ranging in age from 30-60 years with incomes over $35,000 who were the primary lawn care decision maker. DowElanco was not identified as the sponsor of the study. The focus group participant had been identified as the primary lawn care decbion maker but when asked who did the actual yard work, it was reported that it was the household member that had the most time available. The gender 49 of that person was not identified. Two broad categories of lawn use were identified. The first was labeled the aesthetic/value category. Lawns were viewed as a meam of increasing the value of the home, contributing to the enhancement of the neighborhood, providing the owner visual pleasure from the surroundings, and a place to watch nature - the change of seasons, things growing. Philadelphia respondents without lawns believed that people with lawns invested time and money in them because a lawn reflected on the homeowner. The second use category was for physical activities within a private setting. The lawn provided a safe place for children to play, a productive way to keep children less involved with TV and Nintendo, a place for socializing with and entertaining of neighbors and friends, a playing field for sports, an exercise area, and a place for pets to run around. Homeowners were reported as being very verbal about expressing strong positive feelings regarding their lawns. Emotional benefits derived from lawm included: having one’s own space in which to do what one wanted, a sense of control over the immediate surroundings, a place where one could spend quality time with family, a place where one could work outside, a means to "get away" from daily demands and pressures, and a place that provided self-satisfaction, a seme of accomplishment and relaxation. Some respondents expressed the belief that a lawn reflected on them personally. Environmental benefits of lawns included erosion prevention, oxygen generation, and cooling. When probed on this area, participants acknowledged 50 that environmental benefits were not "top-of-mind" responses. They were secondary to use and emotional benefits. Respondents did express some negatives about their lawns. Lawm were characterized as expensive to maintain, time consuming, and a lot of work. However the majority of the respondents felt lawns were worth it. The focus groups expressed the opinion that the standard for an acceptable lawn was high, it should be a “clean, well-manicured, pest-free, lush lawn." They believed that this desirable condition was most likely to be achieved with the use of chemicals. Respondents expressed uncertainty and unease about the use of chemicals but generally speaking, for this group of homeowners, moderation and proper usage were viewed as the key to safety. The opinion was also expressed that if these products were approved and available for general use they must be safe. At the same time, participants acknowledged that if alternatives to chemicals were available and as effective, they would use them. County extension agents and universities were believed to be the most credible sources for information about lawn chemicals. The focus group moderator emphasized in the report that the entire issue of lawns was one of high emotion. The written report could not capture the intensity of the comments. Lawns are very important to homeowners. W. The Professional Lawn Care Association of America (PLCAA) in Marietta, GA commissioned a focus group study during the summer of 1993 to explore homeowner attitudes and practices regarding lawn care and the impact of signs used to notify homeowners of service applications. Three 51 focus groups were conducted with homeowners in Baltimore, MD and three focus groups with homeowners in Boston, MA. In each city one focus group was made up of homeowners who used a professional lawn care service and two groups with do-it-yourself lawn care homeowners. Twenty seven individuals participated in the Boston groups and twenty six in the Baltimore groups. Each group was made up of a mix of men and women, parents of children under the age of ten, pet owners, and owners of homes with different sized lawns. Finding from the six focus groups include: 1. The majority of homeowners were interested in the appearance of their lawn. Homeowner interest ranged from moderate to self-described "fanatical”. Very few participants were content with just a mowed lawn. There were substantial variations in what people where willing to do and spend in order to achieve the desired appearance. Health concerns were mentioned along with discussion about the cost of lawn care service. 2. Word of mouth appeared to be the single most influential factor in people’s selection of a lawn care service. 3. Participants expressed little interest or desire for information about the products used in lawn care. 4. General concern about the safety of lawn care chemicals was greater among homeowners who did not use professional services. Chemicals were often cited a reason for not using a service or for discontinuing a service previously used. Most concerns focused on liquid chemicals and sprays. The general view was that granular products may be safer. 5. Health rkks to children and pets and the goal of achieving an attractive lawn were mentioned more often as concerns than concern about risk to the environment. 6. Awareness and understanding about various terms such as integrated pest management, organic pesticides, and other words were very limited. Many mph mm professi NDODC beets (PLEA. Mponc' Elude 52 people said organic pesticides are better but few thought they were worth payment of a higher price. 7. Nearly half of the lawn care customer respondents believed that professional application of pesticides is safer (n = 9 of 19 respondents). Almost no noncustomer believed this (n = 2 of 37 respondents). 9. Demographic variables such as age and gender did not seem to affect response very much. 1W. Respondents to a recent Gallup Poll (n = 1665) rated the benefits of a property which had a well-maintained lawn and landscaping (PLCAA, 1994). Results showed that the benefit chosen by 45% of the respondents was that of helping to beautify the neighborhood. Other benefits included providing a place of beauty and relaxation for the family and friends (chosen by 38.6%), enhancing property values (chosen by 38.6%), reflecting positively on it’s owners (38.4%), providing safe, high quality play area for children (chosen by 26.7%), and an exercise area for pets (chosen by 12.7%). Environmental benefits such as purifying and cooling the air and filtering water were near the end of the list of benefits. The poll also indicated that people living in rural areas tended to rate the environmental benefits of a lawn higher than their suburban or urban neighbors. Sun—Imam All cultures have invested nature with rich and powerful meanings, symbok, vahres, and beliefs. It appears that humans have a deep, perhaps innate, intrinsic need for nature. In American culture, the lawn appears to play a role in meeting this need. Houses and their surrounding landscapes are important 53 symbols with meaning and value a part of them. Americans’ front yards provide a vkible picture that represents the family’s life and values and make a statement about one’s place in the community. Neighborhood norms and society’s messages about the lawn are two psychosocial/intangible variables that are part of the immediate environment. Norms and messages are aspects of the human situation that are influenced by beliefs, attitudes, and values. Studies that have looked at lawn care attitudes and activities report that American homeowners perceive the lawn as a source of pleasure, beauty, and economic benefit. Homeowners experience both mental and physical reactions to the lawn (biopsychic state). Both real life conditions and perceptions are important influences on the biopsychic state. A growing body of research suggests that American beliefs and attitudes about human interaction with the environment are changing to a ”new environmental paradigm" (Appendix E). This paradigm suggests that humans were not created to rule over nature but must live in harmony with the natural world and act with prudence and care in an attempt to prevent permanent damage to the natural ecosystem. Yet for American homeowners, the use of lawn chemicals 8 deemed necessary and appropriate. The Evolution of the Ideal American Lawn ! . ! Il'l ! I I H | White (1967) argues that North American attitudes toward nature have been dominated by a Christian, white, Western European perspective. Both technology and modern science are distinctly Western in origin and can be traced 54 to the Judeo-Chrktian traditiom that have shaped the growth of Western civilization. In the Judeo-Christian view humans are special, made in God’s image, and set apart from the rest of creation. And God blessed them and God said to them I'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and the birth of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the Earth.” Genesis 1:28. The ancient Hebrew social organization was tribal, seminomadic, and patriarchical. Their primary allegiance was to the group rather than to the land or any particular place (Crownfield, 1973). They moved from place to place, raising their sheep, with minimal regard for the long term effects that their passage had made upon the environment. Crownfield argues that this migratory approach to life has permeated thinking about the relationship between nature and humans and it has had a profound impact on Western attitudes toward both nature and our concept of time. He writes, ”The present is to be negated, left behind, abandoned with all its problems and defects...the problems of the present are going to be resolved in a dramatic, interventionist future" (p. 59). Many people today believe that technology or new energy resources will ultimately solve our ecological problems (Ashmore & Tumia, 1975; Borden, 1984I85). Burke (1985) has observed that thk view of life inevitably leads to a technology that has as its goal, not stability, but constant change. This view of humanity’s relatiomhip with nature (embodied in the Dominant Social Paradigm) makes it incredibly difficult to get people to change environmentally destructive 55 behavior. They strongly believe that a miraculous divine force will intervene on their behalf and set things right (McAndrew, 1993). As a result of this orientation, early American settlers worked to bend nature to human will rather than to adapt their lifestyles to the natural surroundings. Than (1974) writes that to American settlers, the wilderness was threatening - a place to be ”reclaimed and redeemed“ (p. 63). The majestic eastern forests were quickly felled to make way for pastures, cattle, fields, and crops. Anglo-American settlers attempted to replicate the more humid eastern environment in the Arizona desert (Saarinen, 1988). In the early 20th century, those who moved to the dry climate in order to alleviate their allergies defeated this purpose by planting and growing the same plants and shrubs to which they were allergic. This linear, noncyclical view of existence contrasts with many nonWestern traditions, such as those developed in India (Zimmer, 1951) and by North American Indians (Waters, 1963). For North American Indians harmony exkts in the world only when the sources of power - humans, animals, places, and spirits - work together (Than, 1974). But even American Indians actively altered the environment to suit their needs (Williams, 1993). Smith (1993) disputes these viewpoints. He argues that while humankind has made mistakes, "attacking our biblical world view to solve environmental problems may well be like the hermit who bumed his house down to kill a rat" (p. 15). Smith credits Ralph Waldo Emerson, John Muir, Henry David Thoreau, Lynn White, J r., and other transcendentalists with founding a "nature religion.” 56 Nature theology sees nature as God, the earth as sacred and endowed with feeling, rejects progress and science, and views human management of nature as a desecration of the sacred. Smith believes that it is very easy to confuse an appreciation of nature with a worship of nature. He emphasizes that while the J 11de ethic gives humam the right to use the earth and its creatures for food, clothing, and shelter it also gives humans the responsibility of caring for the earth. He believes that humans can learn from their mistakes and that making use of new knowledge is better than abandoning all attempts to manage nature. 3 B i [11' l The emergence of the ideal American lawn can be traced to the pleasure gardem of medieval Europe. The climatic conditions of England made the growing of grass very easy and English settlers brought both the seed and the ideal of grass which has grown into today’s contemporary lawn. Thomas Jefferson’s belief that every man should own property has found ultimate expression in America suburbia. The growth of the suburbs gained momentum after the Civil War. Americans left the dirty, crowded, disease ridden cities created by the Industrial Revolution in order to live closer to nature in rural surroundings. The real and perceived benefits of living in the country were readily embraced by the populace. With the advent of the automobile, American suburbia became the dominant landscape form and the single family home the dwelling of choice. 57 Zoning laws and 25 foot setbacks from the street became standard in large cities in the late 18005. These setbacks provided areas that could be landscaped with grass, flowers, trees, and shrubs. By the turn of the century restrictions and covenants were being written into deeds, mandating architectural and landscaping controls. The lawn became both a barrier and unifier. "A verdant moat separating the household from the threats and temptations of the city. It serves as a tramition from the public street to the very private house” (Jackson, 1985). And according to Olmsted also ”unified the whole neighborhood, giving a sense of completeness, greenness, and community" (Kelly, 1981). As the 20th century advanced other societal changes strengthened the importance of the ideal American lawn. The game of golf and the development of grasses for the golf course set a standard for the homeowner to emulate. A population that was living longer with better health and greater dkcretionary income allowed people more time to work in their yards. Americans began traveling more and visited areas where grass looked better than their own at home. The invention of color television brought pictures of hrsh, green lawns from other places into the living room. Men have generally been the person in charge of the lawn and women have taken care of the garden and flowers. The changing role of women decreased the time spent in the family garden and often these unused plots were planted in grass. The increasing pace of modern life resulted in less time to be devoted to the maintenance and care of the lawn. The emergence of the lawn care service 58 industry paralleled these developments. (See Appendix F for a more complete review of the history of the lawn.) Summer! A critical component of the biohistorical approach is understanding the historical context of a phenomena. J udeo-Christian teachings have stressed the idea that humans are created in God’s image and placed on Earth to rule over mture. This ethic has resulted in a great deal of unintentional destruction of the natural ecosystem. The evolution of the ideal American lawn has been strongly influenced by the British. The pollution that accompanied the Industrial Revolution hastened the flight of families from the cities. Technological developments that resulted in the automobile, lawn mower, and synthetic chemicals have made is easier to maintain a lawn. Societal changes in terms of better health and greater longevity and changes in family roles and recreation activities have contributed to the growth of the lawn. The emergence of the lawn care service industry provided Americans with an easier way of developing and maintaining a high quality lawn. The use of chemicals, fertilizers and pesticides, on residential lawns continues. Develc than tithe CHAPTERIII METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods used to explore the research questions. The sampling design, data collection procedures, instrument development, and pretesting are discussed. Development of qualitative coding, analysis procedures, and coding schemes used to handle the data are discussed. Sampling Man Twenty suburban couples who owned homes participated in the study. Ten of the couples were from Michigan and ten were from Georgia. Within each group, half the couples currently used a chemical lawn care service and half did not use a service. Homeowners were recruited from established, middle and upper-middle class, residential subdiv'sions. "Established” was defined as a subdivision where the majority of homes range in age from 15-25 years. Subdivisions were also matched, as closely as possible, by the value .of the homes. Valuations were based on the current average value of homes as estimated by local real estate salespeople. Fstimated home values ranged from $100,000 to $380,000. 59 60 Subdivkion directories were used as a source of names for recruiting participants by telephone. Names were chosen in a systematic random pattern. Homeowners were called in the late afternoon and evening. A brief message was left on any answering machines that were encountered. If no contact had been made after two calls no further attempts were made to contact that particular homeowner. A telephone screener was used. (Appendix A-I) Reminder calls were made to respondents the day before the scheduled interview. Data Collection Procedures Husbands and wives were personally interviewed in their homes. After giving informed consent (Appendix A-H) and being assured of the confidentiality of the interview, husbands and wives were interviewed separately by professional, experienced interviewers. An attempt was made to interview the couple during the same time frame but this was not possible for six of the twenty couples. If individuals were interviewed at separate times, the first respondent was asked to refrain from talking about the interview to the other spouse. Interview lengths ranged from one hour to three and a half hours. Interviews in Georgia were completed in June, 1994 and Michigan interviews were completed in July, 1994. Interviews were taped recorded. The tape was turned off for interruptions such as the phone ringing. The interviewer took notes during the interview. The sequence of the questions was the same for each interview. The first third of the interview consisted of the respondents describing their lawns, activities and experiences with the lawn, and memories of the lawn. The picture sort was presented next, generally about twenty minutes after the interview had 61 begun. The length of time that respondents took to complete the sort varied widely from person to person. The shortest sort took approximately 20 minutes; the longest sort took over an hour. After the picture sort the Environmental scale and Health scale were presented and the respondent was encouraged to talk about their environmental and health concerm. This researcher was involved in all aspects of this study: developing and pretesting the questionnaire, analyzing field procedures used during pretesting, conducting interviews, transcribing tapes, entering data into the computer program, and actively participating in all discussion related to the research project. The second interviewer was briefed on the project before beginning the recruiting and interviewing. Instrument Development W A key strength of qualitative research is it’s ability to develop a deep, full understanding of a phenomenon. Through in-depth one-on-one interviews the investigator hoped to discover what the lawn meant to the respondents, what activities took place on the lawn, what kinds of maintenance practices were involved with the lawn, and the environmental and health concerns related to lawn care chemical use. An interview guide was developed. (Appendix A-IH) Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 were based upon the review of literature and were designed to act as departure points for discussion. 62 As a stirnuhrs to discussion participants were asked to respond to short Iikert scales: the Health Scale, Q. 9, and the Environmental scale, Q. 7. (Appendix A-Ill) W W- The Health scale is comprised of four questions pertaining to the likelihood and seriousness of exposure to pesticides. Thk has been used in previous research as part of a North Central Regional Project in which the researcher participated (Rucker et al, 1988). The items were found to have good reliability and to correlate well with other variables. The goal of using these four items was to promote discussion about health issues related to using lawn care chemicals. m. As environmental awareness began to emerge in the 605 and 705, researchers in the field began looking at ways to measure overall public concern for environmental quality rather than focusing on specific environmental attitudes toward individual problems. The New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale was originated in 1978 by Dunlap and Van Liere who believed that a ”new environmental paradigm" was emerging in society. The NEP beliefs are modated with anti-anthropocentric views which were challenging the older view of anthropocentric, antiecological order. Subsequent studies have used the NEP scale and are reviewed for information regarding the validity and reliability of the scale in Appendix G. ThedecisiontousetheNEPscaleaspart ofthisstudy wasbasedupontwo factors: (a) it has been used extensively and appears to be a parsimonious 63 lurument for measuring shifts in environmental concern and (b) there have been several variations of the scale used. The purpose for using the scale was to provide a change of pace in the interview and a departure point for discussion about environmental ksues. Encouraging individuals to talk about the statements would provide an opportunity to gain an indepth understanding of how the concepts were defined and interpreted by the respondents. The original NEP (12 questions) was modified for use in this study by the addition of three questions related to lawn care chemicals. The primary use of the modified scale was to stimulate discussion about environmental issues related to law. Wm Vhral stimuli are often used to enhance clothing research projects. Photographs, slides, video tapes, pen and ink sketches, and drawings (colored or black and white) have all been used. Few comparative studies have evaluated the effectiveness of different types of visual stimuli. When clothing is the element of interest in a study the stimulus (clothing), model, and setting are all important. Combinations of clothing and equipment used as stimuli in this study were based upon the EPA’s Worker Protection Standards, a brief survey of lawn care industry advertisements, and observations of people mowing their lawns. EPA recommended Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for handling pesticides may include gloves, boots, coveralls, hoods, respirators, and protective eyewear, depending on the product. New rules allow safety glasses with sideshields and 64 browguards to be used as a substitute for safety glasses or faceshlelds (U .8. EPA, 1993). The outfits represented an array of 'protectiveness" ranging from minimal (tennis shoes, shorts, short sleeved shirt) to total (body covered from head to toe with various kinds of protective gear added). Twelve basic clothing combinations were designed. Within each combination various items of protective gear were added. (Appendix A—IV) The intent of this exercise was to explore respondents’ reactions to various kinds of outfits and pieces of equipment that might be perceived of as “protective". The more extreme outfits would not be appropriate in most cases for either homeowners or lawn technicians to wear because of potential heat stress. The choice of clothing and protective equipment should be directed by the product label, the toxicity of the product, the method of application, and whether application is taking place outdoors or inside. Sixty two clothing/equipment combinations were photographed. Color photographs were chosen as the stimuli in order to present a realistic representation of the clothing. Color was the only difference between some of the outfits. A young, Caucasian male was chosen to pose for the pictures because the overwhelming majority of lawn care technicians are white males in their 205 and 30s. The best stimulus for this specific project was determined to be a full, head to toe frontal pose. While some studies have eliminated the head in their pictures in order to control for facial expressions, this was not possible in thk study. Protective face and head gear are an important part of the total outfit. 65 The model posed with a hand push spreader, similar to what might be used in lawn chemical applications at home. A concentrated attempt was made to standardize the pose, body position, and facial expressions for each picture in order to keep the focus on the clothing and equipment, not on the attractiveness of the model. The model’s training as a military cadet was a great help. The outfits were professionally photographed in a studio against a neutral background using 35mm film. The changability of natural sunlight, wind, and other outdoor conditions were judged to be too difficult to control. The researcher was concerned that an outdoor background might influence perceptions of the outfits. During the pretesting, one respondent commented that she liked the neutral background because she could visualize the "technician" working on her own lawn. Each 4" x 6" photograph was laminated in order to protect the surface from fingerprints during the sorting task. During pretesting, all 62 pictures were handed to the respondents in one deck. Respondents reported the size of the deck and the similarity of the outfits made sorting difficult and confusing. Further testing showed that dividing the single, large deck into three smaller decks made the task much more manageable. The 62 pictures were randomly assigned to one of three color coded decks (red, yellow, blue). Within each deck, the pictures were ordered, based on random assignment. The ordering within the decks was the same for each interview. The decks were rotated for each respondent based on a predetermined scheme. Each respondent was given the decks, one at a time, and asked to sort them into piles. No further instructions were given. Respondents were 66 encouraged to talk about the pictures as they sorted them. At the end of each sort, respondents were asked "Why did you sort them in this way?" After answering, the respondents were asked to pick the outfit they would prefer a hwn care technician to wear. After the three decks had been sorted the respondents were asked which one outfit they would most prefer the lawn care technician wear on their lawn. A record was kept of the groups that were sorted for each deck. The intent of this exercise was to determine what outfit they would prefer a lawn care technician to wear on their lawn, what criteria they used as a basis for the sorting, and what meanings respondents attached to the various types of clothing and protective equipment. The pile sorting task has been used extensively in field research (Weller & Romney, 1988). The outstanding strength of the pile sort task is that it can accommodate a large number of items. It is easy to administer and respondents do not mind sorting things into piles and talking about them. According to Romney and colleagues (1979) the results of pile sort data collection methods, using medium-size samples between 30 and 40, generally reach reliabilities of about .90. m The entire interview was pretested with three females and one male. Their respomes were used in setting up the interviewer’s checklist that accompanied each question. The only major change was the one previously noted regarding management of the picture sort. 67 Data Analysk WW Data processing began with verbatim transcription of the audio tapes, using both a computer word processing program and a computer database program. Three transcribers were involved in interviewer transcription. The use of the computer facilitated the handling of the large amount of interview material and made the retrieval and organizing of the data easier and [as time corsuming. QuflitatileAaalxsis The first task of qualitative analysis is descriptive (Patton, 1990). Qualitative analysis depends on presenting solid descriptive data in such a way that others reading the results can understand and draw their own interpretations. Analysis began with each individual case. Each interview was read and responses were treated as independent for that particular interview. The author and a second coder independently read transcriptions, case by case, identifying the respondents’ descriptions of their lawns, activities, and the environment. They were guided by the research questions. The author and two other independent coders read the transcripts searching to identify and classify common themes of meaning and environment. The next step was cross-case analysis of the interview questions. The basic design of the study produced eight groups of respondents. Data were examined within and across the basic eight groups: state to state, service to nonservice group, and husband to wife. Georgia Michigan No Lawn Use Lawn No Lawn Use Lawn Seals: Scales 8min Seals: Husband Wife Husband Wife Husband Wife Husband Wife The interview guide provided a descriptive analytical framework for analyzing responses. Responses were grouped by topics from the guide. The decision to report finding for all eight groups was made on a question by question basis. If analysis failed to reveal any meaningful commonalities or differences between any of the particular groups, that comparison was not reported. W. Check coding aids definitional clarity and is also a good reliability check (Miles & Huberman, 1994). It brought to the analysis a clearer vkion of what the codes meant and which blocks of data best fit which code. Reliability can be measured with the following formula: _ number of agreements Reliability -total number of agreements + Elisa—greements Based on thk measure, coder reliability for this study was .95. Coding was done on the transcript printouts. The codes were kept as simple as possible in order to facilitate thk time consuming process. Coders worked independently of each other. Half the interviews was coded twice. chrepancies in coding were discussed among the coders. Three coders searched for patterns of lawn meaning that began to emerge from the date in two ways. First this was done by looking for indigenous concepts such as nature, beauty, property value, and green that the respondents expressed when they described their lawns. Second, this was done though 69 sensitizing concepts which the researchers brought to the data. These concepts umally have their origins in the research literature or particular isues that were identified at the beginning of the study. Sensitizing concepts relevant to this study were derived from the literature about environmental aesthetics, psychology, and the historical development of the lawn. Based upon both indigenous and sensitizing concepts, domains of meaning were derived from the responses of the participants. A domain may be defined as an organized set of words, concepts, or sentences, all on the same level of contrast, that jointly refer to a single conceptual sphere (Weller & Romney, 1988). The cultural domain k simply the subject matter of interest, a set of related items. QumtitatiMaalxsis The small sample size precluded the full scale use of any sophisticated quantitative analysis techniques. Descriptive statistics such as means and relative and cumulative frequencies were used to inspect appropriate data. Inspection of the frequency tables for the Health scale revealed how scores clustered for many of the variables. The income data was judged to meet the minimum criteria for running an ANOVA. Factor analysis was used for the NEP scale. Based upon the qualitative inspection of the data, all the interviews were treated as being equal and separate. The 40 interviews were considered an adequate number necessary to meet the minimum requirements for running a factor analysis. Previous research has shown that two to three factors have frequently been identified in the scale. 70 The most dktinctive feature of factor analysis is its data reduction capability. A mailer number of clusters of variables can be obtained from a larger set of independent items. The eigenvalue is a measure of the relative importance of the function. The sum of the eigenvalues is a measure of the total variance existing in the discriminating variables. Total variance accounted for by the combination of all common factors is usually referred to as the communality of the variable. The loading represent regression coefficients of factors to describe a given variable. Three factors were generated in this analysis. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS m chapter reports the finding related to the investigation. The research questions for each of the four objectives are stated at the beginning of each section. The final section of the chapter reports the overall reaction of the respondents to the study. The summary and discussion of the finding are Muted in Chapter V. The data for thk study are based upon responses from 20 suburban couples who owned homes in established, middle and upper-middle subdivisions. Ten of the couples were from Georgia and ten were from Michigan. Within each group, half the couples currently used a chemical lawn care service (svc) and half did “m use a service (no svc). While the sample size was small, the responses from the indepth interviews provided rich, meaningful information. Research Qustion for Objective 1 Are there differences and commonalities between Georgia and Michigan homeowners with regard to (a) demographic characteristics, (1)) lawn maintenance activities, (c) family usage activities, and (d) Perceived “Qt-lug ofthe lawn? 71 72 WW Wan Educational attainment was similar between husbands and wives, service and nonservice users, and the two states (Table 1). Overall the group of 40 respondents was highly educated. Thirty five percent had an advanced degree beyond four years of college. Thirty three percent had a four year college degree. Twenty percent had completed some college. Only 12% had ended their formal education upon completion of high school. Table 1. Highest Educational Level Attained. Georgia . Michigan No Use N 0 Use Educational Smite Semis; Seals: Same: Level H W H W H W H W Total High school only 0 1 0 1 2 i 0 0 5 Some college 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 1 8 Completed college 0 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 13 Advanced degree 4 1 2 0 2 1 2 2 14 Total 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 40 As: The average age for the Georgia and Michigan service and nonservice groups are listed, by gender, in Table 2. Georgia respondents ranged in age from 45 years old to 66 years old. Michigan respondents ranged in age from 41 years old to 69 years old. Typically wives were, on the average, 2 to 4 years younger than their husbands. 73 Table 2. Average Age of Respondents in Years. Georgia Michigan No Use N 0 Use Respondents Service Service Service Service Husbands 54 60 57 55 Wives 52 56 55 52 Children Two families in Georgia had children under 18 years of age living at home. Four Michigan families had children under eighteen still living at home. Insane Respondents were asked what their total family gross income was for 1993 (Table 3). One Georgia couple and two Michigan couples refused to answer. Table 3. Comparison of States by Family Income Categories. Georgia Michigan Income Categories (11 = 9) (n = 8) $25,001 to $50,000 12.0% 12.5% $50,001 to $75,000 44.0% 12.5% $75,001 to $100,000 22.0% 0 $100,001 to $125,000 22.0% 0 $125,001 to $150,000 0 12.5% $150,001 to $175,000 0 37.5% $175,001 to $200,000 0 25.0% Total 100% 100% ANOVA testing showed a significant difference in income between Georgia and Michigan families (F = 6.79; P < .02). In reality, the actual amount of dkposable income is probably very similar between the two states. Costs of 74 living (arch as property taxes) and salaries are generally lower in the South. W Table 4 shows the distribution of employment and retirement between the groups. Twenty five percent of the Georgia sample were retired. Forty percent of the Michigan sample were retired. Of the entire sample, 60% were employed outside the home and 32.5% were retired. All of the employed respondents were in managerial and professional positions. Several men owned their own businesses. Only one woman, from Georgia, was employed parttime. She had children at home. Three Michigan women were currently caring for their children full time. Of these three, one was planning to go back to work within the next year or two. Table 4. Distribution of Employment and Retirement. Georgia Michigan N 0 Use No Use Employment Semis: Seals: Service Scales Status H W H W H W H W Total Employed 4 4 3 4 4 2 3 0 24 Retired 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 13 Home With 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 Children Total 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 40 E I | ID . l' Respondents were asked if they belonged to any environmental organizatiom. Six people indicated they belonged to a group that they considered an 75 environmental organization. These included mm, the National Rifle Association, Michigan United Conservation Club, Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, and the garden club. Several people indicated they had contributed to Greenpeace but were not sure if that meant they were a manber. MW Stateniffersaces Five Georgia homeowners describe their back yards as ”natural“. This was defimd as being an area with no cultivated grass. Pinestraw and ivy are used as ground cover under the pine trees. All the Michigan homeowners had grass in their front and back yards. Two Michigan homeowners talked about the many trees in their backyards but they still maintained lawns in those areas. While no measurements were made of the actual square footage of the amount of grass that made up the lawns, it was evident by observations that there was less grass surrounding the Georgia homes. The species of grasses that grow in the two regions of the country are different. Homeowners in Georgia were more likely to name the kinds of grass growing in the area: Bermuda, centipede, fescue, and St. Augustine. Two of the Michigan respondents did not know what species of grass they had growing in their lawn. These differences in grasses, as well as the clay soil, resulted in Georgia respondents talking about the necessity to aerate and reseed on a regular basis. No Michigan respondent considered reseeding a regular, yearly activity. Georgia’s growing season is longer than Michigan’s season and as a result more time must be spent in lawn maintenance in the South. But only one 76 Georgia homeowner mentioned that his lawn was “an eleven month" job. Three Georgia homeowners had installed in-ground sprinkling systerm. The in-ground systems operated on a timer. No Michigan respondent had an in-ground system. All the homeowners reported that they watered on an 'as needed“ basis. Eaaiamaat Respondents were asked what kind of lawn equipment they owned (Table 5). The types of lawn equipment were very similar for homeowners in both states. Everyone owned a power operated lawn mower. Table 5. Lawn Equipment. Georgia Michigan Equipment (n = 10) (n = 10) Power Operated Mowers 10 Blowers Edgers String Trimmers Fertilizer Spreaders names NO‘UIUS Other kinds of equipment that were mentioned included pesticide Sprayers, a chipper, manual weed digger, spade, trimming shears, and clippers. Even the homeowners who no longer mowed and maintained their own lawns had a full complement of yard equipment. Wars Every family had used a chemical lawn service at some time. Two main reasons were given for currently using a service: (a) it’s easier to hire a service than do-it-yourself and (b) the lawn is in poor condition and the homeowner 77 believes the service will help improve it. Several respondents in the no service groupstatedthatthey plannedtousea lawnservice inthefuture. Theylooked upon the lawn care company as a back-up to their own efforts. If the homeowner was unable to maintain the lawn at an acceptable level, the lawn service would be called and used until the lawn was back to the acceptable level. 13 'l 11 i l' ill Both husbands and wives were asked what kind of family activities take place on the lawn (Table 6). They were in total agreement in their answers. The majority of respondents said ”None" and then elaborated on their response. Table 6. Family Activities on the Lawn. Georgia Michigan Activities (n = 10) (n = 10) Front lawn None 9 10 Children play 1 0 Back lawn None 9 5 Children play 0 5 Dogs live there 1 0 Several mentioned that occasionally a neighborhood child would run across the grass. One Georgia family had a fenced backyard where their two dogs lived. Others with dogs mentioned that the lawn was used as a bathroom. Mowing and maintenance were reported by all respondents as the activity most frequently occurring on the front lawn. Two backyards, one in Georgia and one in Michigan had pools. The owners indicated that very little activity took place outside the immediate pool area. 78 Esmeixeihieaniaaauhmna Respondents were asked to describe their lawns, how they felt about having a lawn, what it meant to them, why they did the things they do with their lawn, and if they enjoyed doing what they did. Six domains that were judged to encompass meaning emerged through reading and interpretation of the interview tramripts. Responses were very similar across gender, states, and service- nonservice groups. Table 7 reports the distribution of responses which emerged in relation to all of the domains. The domains include aesthetic perceptions, psychological motives, neighborhood nouns, reservations, economic concerns, and exercbe. Table 7. Domains of Meaning Related to the Lawn. Georgia Michigan No Use No Use Domaim H W H W H W H W Total Aeahaic: Beauty 3 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 35 Neatness 1 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 34 Utilitarian 3 1 4 3 2 4 1 3 21 Psychological: Self 5 5 4 4 3 5 4 3 33 Others 2 2 0 2 1 2 0 3 12 Nature 2 2 0 2 l 1 2 1 11 Neighborhood Norms 4 5 3 4 4 4 3 4 31 Reservations 4 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 21 Economic 2 1 1 3 2 2 3 2 16 Physical Activity 1 0 3 l 4 0 l 0 10 79 Individuals often described their lawns in several different ways. If thk was the case, their comments were counted only once within the appropriate domain, regardless of how many times they made similar statements. Each domain is defined and illustrated with quotations from individual interviews. Winn: Aesthetic perceptions are classified into three categories: beauty, neatness, and utilitarian. MIL A personal, emotional reaction to the perceived beauty of the lawn was the most frequent aesthetic perception. This is reflected in statements that describe the appearance of the lawn in terms such as pretty, pleasant, lush, cool, or clean. The greenness of the grass was mentioned many times. GA husband, svc: I like a rich, green lawn...lush lawn. Not high but grass is rather thick, a lot of blades to the square foot. GA husband, no svc: Looking out on a nice looking yard...we like it, we love it...we get a tremendous amount of enjoyment out of seeing things look green, good. GA wife, svc: It’s a lush, rich green, a carpet under your bare feet...It’s so pleasant to look out your window early in the morning and see such a beautiful color green greeting you. It’s an attractive, peaceful color. GA wife, no svc: I think it brings beauty and pleasantness to the site. MI husband, svc: It’s green, it’s nice. When there’s enough moisture, it’s very pleasant. MI husband, no svc: I like the color green...There’s something about green that’s just a nice calming effect. MI wife, svc: We want to have a green, a nice green looking yard...we always make sure that our lawn is green. MI wife, no svc: We have lush grass and it does very well, and I think it’s beautiful. 80 mm, In the second aesthetic perception which emerged, emphasis is placed on neatness rather than beauty when evaluating the lawn. The lawn is described as being neat, manicured, tidy, trimmed, or edged. GA husband, svc: There’s something about a well cared for lawn; neat, trim...l just love it. GA husband, no svc: I don’t want it to look seedy...Grass high, uncut, thin, weedy. GA wife, svc: like it nice and clean, a newly vacuumed carpet. Don’t want to see any footprints out there...neat, managed. GA wife, no svc: We try to keep it tidy. Try to keep it neat. MI husband, svc: Like it trimmed and cut. Free of weeds. MI husband, no svc: Like to see it wonderfully maintained...trimmed up real nice and edged by the sidewalk. MI wife, svc: Notice whether lawn is maintained, trimmed and neat. Don’t like sloppy grass. Ml wife, no svc: like it trimmed a certain height, no grass laying around, weed free, edged. The importance of neatness was evident in the responses to the question about wildflowers. Respondents were asked what their reaction would be if their neighbor planted a front yard of wildflowers. Fifteen of the 40 individuals responded negatively; wildflowers would be unacceptable in the front yard. Three people said they would like something like that. The remaining 22 respondents qualified their answers. If the wildflowers were taken care of, kept up, maintained, organized, not messy, not weedy, not shaggy or hodge podge they might be acceptable. Utilitarian. The third aesthetic category which emerged from the data describes how the lawn contributes to the appearance of the house. The 81 utilitariankm of the lawn is discussed in terms of what it does for the property. GA husband, svc: Lawn is an extension of the house. Having an attractive home includes having an attractive lawn. GA husband, no svc: Lawn gives a sense of presence to the house. GA wife, svc: Backdrop. It’s a frame for my flower gardens. It enhances my flowers and makes the appearance of my home look better against the lawn. GA wife, no svc: (What if you didn’t keep your lawn up?) Ugly. Makes your home look awful. MI husband, svc: Aesthetically is makes the residence look better. Compliments house and makes it look better. MI husband, no svc: I want our house to look nice, so keep lawn nice. MI wife, svc: Enhances the appearance of your property. MI wife, no svc: Makes the house look nice. Wm P5ychological motives are classified into three major categories; those directed toward the self, those directed toward others, and those related to nature. Self. The largest number of responses reflected motives that are directed toward the self. The lawn is a source of personal pride, provides individuak with a seme of accomplishment, and is a reflection of one’s self. GA husband, svc: There’s pride in what you see and how it’s developed over the years. GA husband, no svc: Personal pride...hate to be a sore thumb in neighborhood. It would embarrass me to have an ugly lawn. GA wife, svc: Makes me feel good, gives me a good feeling because of the well kept beautiful look it provides. GA wife, no svc: It gives a sense of accomplishment...when we drive up and we like what we see. 82 MI huusband, svc: It’s more a pride sort of thing...it’s some reflection on your standards of appearance. Sort of an internal pressure. MI husband, no svc: Sense of pride in it’s appearance. Ml wife, svc: A personal pride in the things that you have or being responsible for the things that are in your care for one reason or another. By virtue of having puurcluased the house and the lawn you make a commitment to take care of it. Personal satisfaction, when it’s all done and you step out from the house and it looks nice, you feel good just as if you dress the cluildreru up for church and you take a picture. MI wife, no svc: Love it, taking this raggedy yard and you just mow it and it just looks so beautiful...creating. If I didn’t care for it would bother my ego and image...letting your pride go down. Others. In the second psychological category the meaning of the lawn is influenced by what one believes other people might think or do. Homeowners believe the lawn is one of the first thing others notice about one’s home and it is important that these are positive perceptions. GA huusband, no svc: It is the first thing people would see of our home. So I think it is especially important. GA wife, svc: Somewhere it is written you have to have a front lawn...Your neighbors don’t like you if your yard doesn’t look decent. GA wife, no svc: [ends to the style of the neighborhood. We want our neighborhood, I want it, to look nice when people drive through it. MI husband, no svc: People who care for lawn, take care of their house...take care of what you’ve got. All my friends take care of their things. MI wife, svc: I like having a lawn. I think it can be something that invites people to want to come up to our home. If your lawn or area outside the home is untidy, it say that your home inside is untidy. I just think it can set the quality. MI wife, no svc: We get a lot of compliments, people stop and say, "Oh, your yard is so pretty.“ mm The third psychological category reflects the feelings that the lawn provides a means for keeping in touch with nature. Part of nature is being outdoors in the sunshine and being around growing things. 83 GA husband, no svc: I enjoy and respect growing things. I would certainly feel that way about the lawn. Ga wife, svc: I feel more in tune with nature; like a part of it. You’re helping to add to the beautification of nature. You’re helping to contribute. GA wife, no svc: Lawn very important...gives me the feeling that I’m in my own private park. MI husband, svc: If I didn’t have a lawn, I would want access to somewhere green, like a park...couldn’t live in a concrete jungle...would get tired of a desert. MI husband, no svc: I’m an old farmer, like to see things green and growing. An outdoors person. MI wife, svc: Having a family and children, I think it’s important for them to get out and look for bugs, look at the birds, and see the rabbits go through the yard...think it’s important for them to have the space. MI wife, no svc: Enjoy caring for the lawn because I enjoy being outside. Being in fresh air. Great outdoors. Ramadan: The reservations domain reflects the ambiguity people feel about their lawn and the reasons they give for having a lawn. It also encompasses the negative IISpects of having a lawn such as the time, work, and cost of maintenance. GA husband, svc: Lawn means a lot of work and cost but I get visual pleasure from it and enjoy hearing the odd comment about how nice it looks. GA huusband, no svc: I’d probably just as soon not have one. I would like it to be maintenance free. And a better use for the land rather than growing grass. We spend a lot of money on chemicals to try to keep that looking just green and without any weeds in it. You could have plants growing that would be far more lovely than the grass. I guess I think about European lawns where they use every piece of soil to grow something, either for beauty or food....Ultimately the lawn is probably the easiest way because you go over it with the mower. Other than the chemicals that you put on. GA wife, no svc: I enjoyed cutting it when I did it. Can’t deal with it now. GA wife, svc: I want it small and pretty. Since I have to mow it I don’t want it to be very big. the 84 MI huusband, svc: It’s stupid to have a back lawn, never use it...why have it when you don’t use it...I’m getting to the point where I don’t want to be a slave to my lawn. MI huusband, no svc: I do 95% of the lawn work. I’d rather be playing golf. Somebody else’s turf. Admire a lot of these homes sitting back with the beautiful font yard but if I had to keep it all up, No. MI wife, svc: I like having flowers, I like having a garden...in my mind grass is kind of like laundry during the summer, it’s kind of like a necessary evil. MI wife, no svc: In some respects it has been a real pain...It’s a joy because it’s not a lot to upkeep and it’s a pain because we have a real hard time growing grass in the back. W Neighborhood norms are the written and unwritten rules and expectations about the maintenance and appearance of one’s lawn. They may include real or perceived sanctions which would be enforced if one’s lawn is not maintained to the community standards. GA husband, svc: Social pressure...continues us in good stead with our neighbors. Other lawns in our neighborhood tend to look very, very good...If didn’t care for lawn, neighbors (would) probably complain. If the yard is junky, unkept, uncut...(you would) prejudge people if their lawn looks like that. GA husband, no svc: I think that everyone who lives here and everywhere else should take care of their lawn and try to make it an asset. I feel very strongly that you have a responsibility, not only to your neighborhood, but to the area in general. GA wife, svc: If we didn’t care for our lawn it would be over run with weeds, hugs, the grass would die. Probably be an ugly eyesore...Probably get nasty little letters from our neighbors or phone calls. GA wife, no svc: I don’t want it to be an eyesore. Since it is a visible lawn in terms of the neighborhood, I want it to be appropriate in the neighborhood. Feel an obligation, because we live in a nice neighborhood, and everyone keeps up their lawns. m husband, svc: In this neighborhood, everyone takes care of their property. That’s one of the reason why we moved here. 85 Ml husband, no svc: I think it’s important in a neighborhood like tlds to keep up with the Jones. I think people try to keep their property in pretty good stead...sometimes they might look around at their neighbors and see a guy really putting in some effort and they might do likewise and keep their lawn half way decent...sort of a domino effect there. MI wife, svc: I think in a suburban setting where you’ve chosen to purchase a home in this kind of subdivision, that I think implicitly makes a commitment to keep it under control. I guess the lawn ought to fit the area in which you’ve chosen to live. MI wife, no svc: I think people in this neighborhood expect people to keep up their property....I know people complain about those who do not kept their yards up and they send a little reminder in the spring clean-up time. Economic The economic domain has two components. Of primary importance to the homeowner is the real or perceived dollar value that the lawn adds to one’s property. A secondary consideration is the monetary cost of caring for the lawn. GA husband, svc: If I didn’t care for it (my lawn), my property value would decline. GA husband, no svc: From the appearance point of view...obviously it influences property values. If you were to be selling your home, that’s something that would be necessary. GA wife, svc: Makes the value of your home higher if your lawn looks good. GA wife, no svc: I think he (husband) would like to do a lot of things differently (with lawn), but that’s money, so if you can’t do it, I think he sort of has a giving up attitude. He can see what it should be, not interesting to him as it is. MI husband, svc: From a pure economic or financial point of view, I’d say that a good looking lawn, because it compliments the house, is just going to enhance the vahue if you’re going to consider resale...I think the lawn helps curb appeal, if it’s a good looking lawn. And that curb appeal sells houses. MI husband, no svc: I’m a firm believer the lawn...adds to the property value of the house. MI wife, svc: I’m sure that the value of the property would decline in terms of male (If one didn’t maintain lawn). MI wife, no svc: I don’t think anybody would put up with that (not maintaining one’s lawn), because you have too much money invested in your property. And that’s why you buy in a subdivision that has association ruin. W This domain reflects the belief that caring for the lawn provides a means for physical exercise. GA husband, svc: It’s good for me. After my heart attack, I need the exercise. GA husband, no svc: I enjoy working on it...Gives me physiaul activity taking care on it. GA wife, svc: (Why mow lawn?) Because it’s good exercise and I need the exercise. MI husband, svc: Good exercise. Enjoy being outside. Have a desk job. Need exercise and fresh air. MI husband, no svc: Look upon the lawn as a source of recreation and exercise. Research Question for Objective 2 Are there differences and commonalities between spouses with respect to (a) lawn maintenance activities and (b) Deweived meaning of the lawn? Responses to the demographic and perceived meaning questions illustrated that there were many more commonalities among the husbands and wives, service and nonservice groups, and states than differences. The decbion was made to combine state and service groups for this research question. I M i l ! Ii 'Ii Husbands are primarily responsible for the care and maintenance related to the lawn. Basic activities include mowing, trimming, edging, raking, and fertilizing on a regular basis. 87 W Mowing is the most labor intensive job related to the lawn. Husbands have primry responsibility for mowing the lawn (Table 8). Depending upon the mokture situation and time of year, most lawns are mowed once a week. In families with older children, the children were supposed to mow but if the children’s activitia prevented them from doing this chore a parent would do it. Table 8. Responsibility for Lawn Mowing. Georgia Michigan Primary mower (n = 10) (n = 10) Total Husband 8 5 13 Wife 1 0 1 Children 1 3 4 Hire Mowing Service 0 2 2 Total 10 10 20 Several wives indicated they would mow the lawn if their husband was out of town or busy with work, but they did not consider it "their job.” The respondents who hired a mowing service did it for (a) health reasons and (b) time considerations. W There was no definitive answer to "Who hires the service?" It appears that it is a joint family decision based upon either (a) the husband does not have time to care for the lawn or (b) the appearance of the lawn was judged to be inadequate. Those who use a chemical lawn service were usually aware when the service had treated the lawn. Several mentioned the posting sign as a signal that the service had been there. When asked what the service did the two most common answers were ”Spray” and "Put down fertilizer.“ Respondents seldom knew what chemicals were being used. They viewed the lawn service as the expert and their primary concern was that the lawn look like a service was being used. The homeowner expects to see a green, thick, weedfree lawn. The absence of dandeliom in Michigan lawns was very important. WW Husbands and wives differed in only one respect when they talked about their lawns. When describing the size of their lawns, women were more likely to say "It’s small" or "It’s big." Men usually described the size of the lawn in terms of square feet or lot size. While the husband is the person primarily responsible for caring for the lawn, women had no problem in responding to the questions and talking about the lawn. Women take an active part in the care of the 1am, they are primarily in charge of the flowers. While they seldom physically mow the lawn, they offer advice regarding the way it looks and how it should be cared for. Husbands and wives were very similar in their responses to the questions about the meaning of their lawn, why they felt the way they did about the lawn, and why they took care of the lawn in the ways that they did. Wives had no difficulty in talking about the meaning of the lawn and the activities associated with maintenance of the lawn. Research Question for Objective 3 What kinds of environmental and health concerns do homeowners have regarding the use of chemicals on their lawns? The Environmental Scale (Appendix A-III) was used to stimulate dbcussion about environmental issues related to the lawn. Respondents were asked to rate a series of environmental statements. After they had completed the exercise they were asked, “What b your reaction to a series of statements like this?" WW Reactions to the environmental scale ranged from the Georgia wife (svc) who said, "Just looked at these and said I have to answer the questions" to the Michigan husband (no svc) who said I don’t know if I want to get involved here. Question the purpose of this. Everyone looking for politically correct answers. Not willing to get caught in that trap! Uttle upset to see this. Thought we were going to talk about the lawn. Other Michigan husbands expressed similar sentiments. MI husband, svc: This isn’t exactly related to lawn. Not easy. Can I circle in the middle? Someone is trying to get me to think about environment! MI husband, svc: Don’t know what this has to do with lawns. MI husband, svc: Who’s this being done for? Environmentalists? Chemical company?...Do gooders...always around trying to get you to sign petitions. One GA husband (no svc) echoed these sentiments: Get irritated with Greenpeace. This sounds like a green piece (referring to Greenpeace). They are so sure of themselves...they treat others like none of them are intelligent, all dishonest and we (Greenpeace) are all pure and perfect. Get tired of that. Only one wife and two husbands responded in a positive manner to the scale. MI wife, no svc: I think the whole notion of environmental stewardship is, you know, got to be very important. GA husband, svc: These are questions that need to be brought to our attention. Need to be addressed. Probably wouldn’t be in our generation but in future generations. Think this is going to be a problem in the future. 90 GA huusband, no svc: This probably caused me to think about integrating my practice with my lawn. In certain settings it would be easy to live 'au Naturale' but when you choose to live in a subdivision you conform. But when you’re confronted, you realize everybody’s little part is an infringement on nature. It’s important to be growing in semitivity. The overwhelming majority of the respondents reacted to the scale in terms of the lawn chemical statements which were added to the scale for purposes of this study. Some expressed the belief that chemicals are necessary yet dangerous. Others were more uncertain about their dangers. GA wife, svc: I think you’re probably going to have to use chemicals or you’re going to have a big problem. But yes, I think they are dangerous and should be handled less if that is at all possible. GA wife, svc: Agree we need to protect and not abuse the environment but the problem is that in order to have beautiful yards and lawns we have to use some kind of chemical...lf lawn chemicals are dangerous, I don’t know anything else to use instead of them. MI wife, svc: Do I think we should go out and spray everything with DDT? No. Do I tluink that all lawn chemicals are necessarily abusive to the environment? I don’t think so. GA husband, svc: I don’t know if all lawn chemicals are dangerous. If they are used properly, they are not dangerous. MI husband, no svc: I’m not convinced that lawn chemicals are a hugh, terrible problem...dangers of lawn chemicals are not that great. Technology will bring us We along. Ml wife, svc: I don’t know about this chemical on the lawn, I, I want lawn care company to do a good job on our lawn, but I’m wondering whether that’s what is the best thing to membut I’m not too happy about having them (weeds) and digging than out. WM As a result of the participants’ responses, several things were learned about the scale itself. Respondents were unsure about the meaning of some of the team. "Steady-state" and "spaceship earth“ were the two terms most frequently questioned. Steady-state was a particular problem. Definitions included such 91 things as government control of growth, balanced growth, and no growth. Because of the wide discrepancy among respondents the statement containing this term was deleted from scale analysis. Examination of the frequency distribution pattern of the responses showed that answers clustered around the midpoint of the scale. Based upon thk finding and comments that respondents made as they did the exercise it was evident that had they been given a choice of "don’t know", many would have chosen it. Responses made to previous questions in the interview had confirmed that thk was a very homogenous group. Therefore responses from the various groups were combined and analysis run with the total sample. Although the sample size (n = 40) was small, it met the minimum criteria for factor analysis. An exploratory factor analysis was done with the remaining fourteen item of the environmental scale. Two of the three statements dealing with lawn chemicak, added to the original NEP Scale for this study, did not load on any factor. The third statesnent, lawn chemicals are dangerous and other things should be used in place of them, loaded on Factor 1. When the three lawn chemical statements were deleted from the data set and factor analysis was run again, Factor 1 emerged stronger, explaining more of the variance. The decision was made to use the eleven items from the original NEP scale. The eleven item correlation matrix was factored by means of the principal components analysis method of factor extraction (Table 9). Factor loadings of .500 or greater were used to identify the items that were assigned to each factor in the final three-factor rotated matrix. Eigenvalues are all greater than one. 92 Table 9. Factor Loadings for Combined Georgia and Michigan Sample. Factor Factor Factor Variables 1 2 3 Factor 1 The balance of nature is very delicate .81188 .18157 .01010 and easily upset. When humans interfere with nature it .77817 -.10689 -.26567 often produces disastrous consequences. There are limits to growth beyond which .76615 -.l9236 -.02560 our industrialized society cannot expand. We are approaching the limits of the .72380 .05816 .00173 number of people the earth can support. Mankind k severely abusing the .60410 -.40917 -.44951 environment. Factor 2 Pbmts and animals exist primarily .10642 .85610 .08349 to be used by humans. Mankind was created to rule over the .04530 .78524 .27380 red of nature. The earth E like a space ship with .36922 -.65458 .07615 only limited room and resources. Factor 3 Humans need not adapt to the natural -.08613 .07119 .81053 environment because they can remake it to suit their needs. Humam must live in harmony with .36558 ..06649 -.70816 nature in order to survive. Humans have the right to modify the .18044 .29668 .65192 mtural environment to suit their needs. Eigenvalue % Variation Cumulative % Factor 1 3.60483 32.8 32.8 Factor 2 2.21379 20.1 52.9 Factor 3 1.31749 12.0 64.9 Cronback’s alpha .82 93 Factor analysis suggests that there are three dimensiom in the NEP scale to be found among individuals in this group of respondents. The major dimension suggests that there is delicate balance in nature, which humans can dkturb. Factors 2 and 3 suggest a "man over nature" dimension. Humam were created to rule, there are no limits placed on man’s use of the earth’s resources, and human’s can do as they please on the earth. Comparison of the factors that emerged in this study with those that emerged in the Albrecht study (Appendix G) reveal that Factor 1 in this analyst is reflected in both Albrecht’s Factor 1 and 2: balance of nature and limits to growth. Factor 2 and 3 reflect the same theme as Albrecht’s Factor 3: man over nature. It k interesting to note that while the majority of the respondents had many comments to make regarding the lawn chemical statements during the interview, the rating of the statements themselves did not have much effect in the factor analysis. Wm; Respondents were asked if they considered the use of' lawn chemicals to be a threat to the environment (Table 10). Respondents who said "Yes, there is a threat" perceived it in terms of being likely to affect water quality, air quality, food, or wildlife. Those who answered "Maybe" expressed uncertainty about the origin of the threat: maybe from the pesticides, but not the fertilizer. Those who said "No' perceived that proper application of the product prevented any harm or that it might take a long time for harm to occur ”maybe in 10,000 years." 94 Table 10. Lawn Chemicals Perceived as a Threat to the Environment. Georgia Michigan N 0 Use N 0 Use Semis: Service Service Semis: Respomes H W H W H W H W Total Yes 1 2 4 3 l 3 l 3 18 No l 0 0 1 1 l 1 1 6 Maybe! 3 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 16 Don’t Know Total 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 40 Eleven wives and seven husbands expressed the belief that lawn chemicals pose a threat to the environment. Ten husbands and six wives were ambivalent about an overall threat. The trend for more wives to be concerned about a threat is similar to findings from other studies which report that women, especially those with children, are more likely to be concerned about the environment than men. Only six individuals, three wives and three husbands, thought there was no threat. WWW Respondents were asked if it would make any difference to their local natural environment if they stopped using lawn chemicals (Table 11). Twenty seven individuals responded that if they stopped using lawn chemicals the appearance and quality of their lawn would deteriorate. Eleven individuals said it would make no difference to the local environment. Three of these eleven stated that it would make no difference as long as they were the only ones who stopped using the lawn chemicals in their neighborhood. 95 Table 11. Difference to Local Environment If Stop Using Lawn Chemicals. Georgia Michigan No Use No Use Semiee Semiee Semiee Semis: Responses H W H W H W H W Total Appearance 3 5 4 3 5 0 4 3 27 deteriorate No difference 2 0 0 2 0 4 l 2 11 Bmeficial 0 0 l 0 0 1 0 0 2 Total 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 40 Two respondents indicated that it might be beneficial to stop using lawn chemicals. One Michigan wife thought it would be beneficial to all the wildlife, especially the worm and crickets. One Georgia husband thought it would improve the air and every little bit that one could do to help the environment helps. But he also expressed reservations about what would happen to the greem of his lawn. One respondent, a Michigan husband, talked about run- offproblems. He stated that he assumed that iflawn chemicals were used in moderation they would not be detrimental. More husbands (n = 16) than wives (n = 11) indicated that the appearance of the lawn would deteriorate if they were to stop using lawn chemicals. More wives (n = 8) than husbands (n = 3) stated that it would make no difference to their local environment if no lawn chemicals were used. Wrens: Rspondents were asked if they thought that it would make a difference to the global environment if they, themselves, stopped using lawn chemicals (Table 12). Thirteen respondents thought it would make no difference. Seven said that as one person, 'No difference“, but together with others it might make an impact. Nineteen individuals were uncertain. They thought it might help to stop using lawn chemicals but they weren’t sure how. They just didn’t have enough information upon which to make a judgment. Table 12. Difference to Global Environment If Stop Using Lawn Chemicals. Georgia Michigan N 0 Use No Use Respomes H W H W H W H W Total Maybe/Don’t know 1 3 2 2 3 l 4 3 19 No 4 2 2 1 0 2 l 1 13 No, not as one person 0 0 l 2 2 1 0 l 7 Yes, make difference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 1 Total 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 40 Approximately an equal number of wives and husbands were unsure about the difference it would make to the global environment if they stopped using lawn chemicak. 'No" and ”No, not as one person" responses reflected the same pattern. Only one wife thought that it would make a difference to the global environment if she stopped using lawn chemicals. A second pencil and paper exercise was used to stimulate discussion about health concerns and lawn chemicals. After rating four Likert type questions regarding the suusceptibility and seriousness of health risk associated with penicides respondents were asked if they thought the use of lawn chemicals posed a threat to their health (Table 13). Comments were diverse. They ranged from husbands who said “I always wash after I apply chemicals", '1 only apply pesticides once or twice a year”, and “highly unlikely, but serious if it does" to the Michigan wife who said "any kindofpesticidecanharmyou,breathingitcanmakeyousick, onyouskin,it can hurt.” Table 13. Lawn Chemicals a Threat to Personal Health. Georgia Michigan No Use N 0 Use Semiee Semiee Semiee Semiee Rapomes H W H W H W H W Total No 2 3 4 3 4 2 2 1 21 Maybe/Don’t know 3 2 1 0 l 2 2 2 13 Yes, a threat 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 1 6 Total 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 S 40 Respondents who asserted that there was no threat emphasized that they applied pesticides properly and used them sparingly so there was no danger. Others said that other pollutants such as second hand smoke were a greater threat. Several of those who were uncertain about any threat stated that they relied on 98 govermnent agencies and the product manufacturer to make sure the lawn chemicak were safe. Those respondents who indicated they felt there was a threat to their health generally comidered it to be something that would be immediate and serious. For example, spilling something on the skin which would need to be washed off immediately was described as a serious, immediate risk but not as a long term health threat. Several respondents voiced comments similar to those from the Michigan husband who was very adamant that he was sick of hearing about things like this If we listen to everything - food, water, air giving us cancer - we’ll all die of malnutrition. Guess the less pollutants we put in the air and ground, overall is going to be better, but I don't worry about those other thing too long. While husbands or a service applied the lawn chemicals that were used, wives were more likely to say they thought there was a threat to their health. Five wives but only one husband stated "Yes, there is a threat". Two of the wives expressed concern that the lawn chemicals might affect one’s breathing. This concern voiced by the wives is consistent with other research from the health literature that reports wives and mothers to be the person who is responsible for overseeing the health of others in the family. Research Questiom for Objective 4 1. Do homeowners view any particular type of clothing or personal protective equipment as a nonverbal clue signaling danger about the products and services being used? 2. What kind of clothing would a homeowner choose for a lawn care technician to wear when applying pesticides? 100 .525 55389 85 5.3 .83? ... Baa £28395 55552 ”5.8qu EEO .m unswE 99 3. Does clothing worn by lawn care applicators influence the overall perception of the lawn care company? Respondents were asked to sort pictures that represented a variety of outfits that a person could wear when applying pesticides. These outfits were designed to show how clothing and equipment could offer minimum to maximum coverage of the body. Those illustrating the least or the most protection were not necessarily the combinations that either homeowners or lawn technicians would need or want to wear. Twelve basic outfits, with 62 different combinations of clothing and protective equipment, were presented. (Appendix A-IV) Each picture was unique. At the end of the sorting exercise respondents were asked why they sorted the pictures as they did, which outfit they would choose for a lawn care technician to wear when applying pesticides on the lawn, if they would wear that outfit, and would the outfit influence the hiring decision and their perception of the company. The outfit that was designed to be the least protective consisted of tennk shoes, shorts, and a short sleeved shirt (Figure 3). The outfit that looked most similar to an ordinary lawn care technician is shown in Figure 4. in i i Based upon the reactions to the outfits, the respirator and the Tyvek’ fabrics, were the two major indicators of danger. Responses to the initial glimpse of one of these outfits included comments like “You must be kidding," "Looks like a nuclear cleanup crew,” and "My dog would run and hide if that guy came on my yard." Despite this initial reaction, 15 respondents included a 101 respirator as part of the outfit that they would most prefer to see a lawn care technician wear (Table 14). Protection of the hmgs was comidered very important when applying pesticides. The most frequently chosen outfit with a respirator was the white Tyvek'. The dark Tyvek" elicited a negative reaction: "Looks scary” and "Don’t like that metallic look”. The fabric is not shiny under normal wearing circumstances. In photographing the lighting evidently was such that the outfits appeared “shiny, metallic like" to some respondents. Table 14. Frequency with which Outfits With or Without Respirator Were Chosen. Outfit Respirator N o Respirator Total % White Tyvek" 13 5 18 45.0 Blue coverall 3 8 11 27.5 Dark T‘yvekO 2 2 4 10.0 J acketlblue jeans 2 1 3 7.5 Long work pants 1 1 2 5.0 Shorts 1 1 2 5.0 Total 22 18 40 100 Twenty eight respondents reported that the amount of skin showing in the pictures was the criteria they used to sort the outfits; they considered those outfits that covered more of the body to be more protective. Other sorting schmes were based on the amount of precaution that the respondent perceived 103 .550 “me—z 58:0 EEO 9x33. fan .e «Sufi fiancee»; «we: 3.. 5:0 .82 58:0 EEO .m 33wE 102 the wearer to be taking as indicated by the clothing and equipment, the wearing of pants in or over the boots. and combinations of the different types of equipment (the boots, gloves, mask) with no consideration of the clothing. W White Tyvek' with the hood up, boots, goggles, sunglasses and respirator, was chosen by 8 of the 40 respondents as the most preferred. (Figure 5) Various cmbinations of the white Tyvek" with protective gear were chosen by 10 other individuals. In total, some variation of the white Tyvek° was chosen by 18 individuals as the outfit they would most prefer to see a lawn care technician wear when applying pesticides on the lawn. Four people chose some variation of the dark Tyvek’ outfit as their first choice. Two of these four outfits included the respirator (Figure 6). Bhleflnezfieeefielcmll Eleven respondents chose some variation of the blue, one-piece coverall at their number one choice. Three of the eleven chose the full protective outfit which included the respirator as their first choice. Wartime: Three people chose the jacket and blue jean combination outfit. Two respondents chose pictures with the respirator as part of the outfit. W11 Two people chose the short sleeved shirt, shorts, boots, gloves basic outfit. One of these outfits included the respirator. 104 mm One person chose the work pants, short sleeved shirt, boots, gloves, respirator, no glasses outfit. One person choose the work pants, long sleeved shirt, boots, no gloves, no respirator, no glasses outfit. WW Respondents were asked if they would wear an outfit like the one they chose for the lawn technician. Only three indicated that they would do so. Both men and women were unlikely to wear any special protective clothing. Gloves and boots were the most frequently mentioned kinds of protective gear. Women were more likely to say that they would never apply pesticides as compared to men. Men felt they did not need any special protection, i.e., the respirator, because they seldom applied any pesticides. The application of fertilizers was not viewed as being hazardous so special clothing and equipment need not be worn. W W Respondents were asked if they would be concerned if they saw a lawn care technician wearing full protective garb, like the pictures, working on their lawn (Table 15). Nineteen respondents reported that they would be concerned if they saw a lawn care technician wearing full protective garb, like the pictures, working on their lawn. GA female, svc: Yes, anytime I saw one of those guys in the space suit with a mask on I would be very concerned about what he was doing. GA male, no svc: Yes,...would raise a question in (my) mind, wonder what they are putting on there. 105 Table 15. M Protective Garb Cause for Concern. Georgia Michigan No Use No Use Set-Lice m Semice Sem'ee Responses H W H W H W H W Total Yes 2 0 l 3 1 3 5 4 19 Yes, but.. . 4 3 l 1 2 2 0 1 14 No 0 l 3 1 2 0 0 0 7 Total 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 40 GA male, svc: Sends message that this stuff is dangerous and you maybe shouldn’t be spraying it in your yard. Does send the image that this stuff is dangerouus. MI female, no svc: Yea, 11 would think that if they have to wear that get up and they are telling me it’s safe, there’s something wrong. They put the sign up that say keep children and petsoffthe lawn foc24hrs. It kind ofmakes mewonder. MI female, svc: Not the one I selected (outfit), but the ones with the face mask would cause me concern. MI male, svc: Yea, when the guy’s wearing all covered up with the gas mask on, I wonder what in the Sam Hill is going on. MI male, no svc: Yes, that they’re going to kill something other than the grass...given the relative value of my lawn, anyone wearing one of those breathing apparatus, I’d have them stop. I can deal with dirt. Fourteen respondents said they would be concerned but they qualified their answers. Nine respondents said ”No, they would not be concerned.“ The reoccurring theme for both these groups was that lawn care technicians apply these chemicals for a living, 8 hours a day, 5 to 6 days a week so they should be wearing protective clothing. Respondents stated that the lawn chemicals may not be especially dangerous in a one time application (as when a homeowner uses it) but constant exposure could be harmful. 106 GA husband, svc: General public is educated enough to know ifsomeone is working with chemicals..need protection. GA husband, no svc: It scares me when I look at him, with all the things, (but) guess I wouldn’t want myself to feel that he could be harmed because I don’t want toseehimwearingtherightstuff. GA wife, no svc: I think anyone who reads anything at all knows there are possibilities of problems...We’d like to have a lovely lawn and we’re going to uuse chemicak...we certainly wouldn’t want anyone to be damaged with it if we could avoid it. GA wife, no svc: Looks like serious stuff but I understand the constant exposure. GA wife, svc: With all the TV documentaries on lawn care I think most people are aware of the dangers. GAwife,svc: IfIseealawntruckIassumetherearechemicalsonitandldon’t thinkoftheconsequences. Heneedstobeprotected. MI husband, no svc: Employer is responsible. If a guy needs it he should wear it. MI husband, no svc: It’s one thing for someone to do that once a year, it’s another to do it day after day. MI wife, no svc: Lawn care wouldn’t bother me wearing that stuff, but if tree service would wear that stuff. That would bother me...blowlng around in the wind. MI wife, svc: Yes, (cauuse me concern) but it’s like an x-ray teclunician. They need protection...do day in and day out. MI wife, svc: Yes, looks like nuclear power garb, but we’re bombarded with that stuff about dangers to the environment. Don’t know if it’s all bad or not. Clothiers mum“: on Hid!!! Respondents were than asked what effect a lawn technician’s clothing would have on the decision to hire the company (Table 16). Twenty four people said “None." They reported that they seldom saw a company representative before hiring the service. Those who said "Maybe", “Professional", and ”Yes" were more concerned with the general appearance of the company representative, i.e., wearing a uniform that was clean and professional looking and looking clean 107 Table 16. Outfits Infhrence on Hiring Decision. G . n n I i No Use N 0 Use Semise kmiee Semis: Semiee Respomes W H W H W H W Total None 2 3 2 5 4 4 2 2 24 Maybe 2 r 2 o o o 2 1 8 Professional 0 1 0 0 l 0 l 1 4 Yes 1 0 l 0 0 0 0 l 3 N 0 Answer 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Total 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 40 and neat. All respondents believed it was unlikely that a company would send a sales representative to their home dressed in any kind of protective gear. Several stated that they would also be surprised if a technician came to their door in full protective gear. They would expect him to take off a respirator, hood, and gloves if he came to speak to them. Respondents were than asked if the clothing would influence their decision to rehire the company. The answer was ”No." The decision to rehire would be based on the quality of the service and the condition of the lawn. While the wearing of protective gear might cause questions to be raised about the product, the clothing alone would not warrant the canceling of the service. RespondesnReactiontotheStudy A significant finding that emerged from this research was the number of homeowners who had never thought about the lawn in relation to the 108 "environment”. There was a complete disassociation of the lawn from the natural environment and the related environmental issues. GA wife, no svc: Thought provoking..a lot of things you don’t think about...lawn is just there. Easy thing to put a little squirt of poison on that weed. We’re working people, don’t have time to catch lady bugs. Chemicals are the solution. GA wife, svc: I’ve never thought about how the scale of what I did would impad the environment. I’ve read a lot about the environment but I’ve never thought about my lawn. GA wife, svc: There are more significant and long range things to worry about environmentally than the chemicals we use on our lawns. If we can find a nonharmful way to kill weeds, fertilize let’s do it...otherwise use common sense. GA husband, no svc: I think there are people who are looking after me out there so I don’t have to worry about it that much. The news media, environmentalists. Keep you aware. I don’t think that companies are making products are trying to hurt the environment. I don’t worry about it too much. GA husband, no svc: I don’t want to give the appearance that I’m not concerned...but other things (environmentally) are more important the lawn. MI wife, no svc: Going to have a whole new perspective of my lawn...really gives me a lot of food for thought. MI wife, svc: If I were to do this interview with you in two weeks would probably be different. After thinking about some of these questions...Makss you think about your home and family. MI husband, no svc: How is this going to do any good? Why are you doing something like this? What I’ve gotten from this is that you want me to be more aware of the chemicals we use on our lawn. MI husband, svc: This has been, unquestionably, the most in depth consideration I’ve given to a lawn, mine or anyone else’s. It was interesting. MI husband, svc: Fascinating project. Not thought much about lawns and environment before this interview. Only one respondent, a Georgia wife, said that she had thought about the effect of lawn chemicals on the environment. She stated that she would be willing to use alternatives to lawn chemicals but they would have to work. She echoed others when she said that she didn’t believe that people would be willing to give up their green lawns. CHAPTERV SUWARY AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Th's chapter includes the purpose of the study, the limitations of the study, and a dkcussion of the findings of the study and their implications for further research and practice. Small-arr The primary purpose of this study was to learn about the contemporary lawn and its care from a group of suburban homeowning couples through use of both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Twenty suburban couples who owned homes in established, middle and upper-middle class subdiv'sions in Georgia and Michigan participated in the study. Half the couples currently used a chemical lawn care service and half did not use a service. Personal interviews were conducted, separately, with husbands and wives during June and July in 1994. Limitations of the Study Generalizations of the findings are limited to the population represented by the respondents: white, middle and upper-middle class, older suburban 109 110 homeowners in Georgia and Michigan. However, it is reasonable to expect some commonality among residential homeowners living in similar subdivisions across the United States. Recruitment criteria were (a) being a suburban homeowning couple and (b) use or nonuse of a chemical lawn care service. No effort was made to achieve a balance among families based on presence or absence of children, age, or income. Personal interview data can be greatly affected by the anotional state of the interviewee at the time of the interview, reactivity of the interviewee to the interviewer and to the content of the interview, and to the length of the interview. Respondents had been told the interview would take approximately an hour, all took longer. Most respondents spent an average of half an hour in the picture sort section of the interview. As a result, for most participants, responses to questions near the end of the interview tended to be very brief. Respondents participated in the study as unpaid volunteers. Interviews took place in respondent homes. Interruptions by the phone and children occurred during some of the interviews. Discussion of the Finding Q] . l' I The f’u'st objective of this study was to identify Georgia and Michigan suburban homeowners’ activities related to lawn maintenance and family use and perceived meaning of the lawn. There were very few differences between families in this particular group of suburban homeowners living in Georgia and 111 Michigan. They shared similar demographic characteristics, activities, and perceived meanings of the lawn. W This was a highly educated, middle-aged, affluent, homogenous group of homeowners. Approximately a third of the respondents were retired. A large retired population provides a pool of individuals who have the time and financial resources to spend on the lawn. For most people, owning their own home is the biggest financial investment that they ever make. One does not own a home, with its surrounding grounds, with the expectation that it will be a depreciating investment. The lawn and its care were very important to all the homeowners. Maintenance The growing season for grass is longer in Georgia but only one Georgia husband mentioned that fact. There are differences in the kinds of grasses that grow in Georgia and Michigan but that did not appear to be a factor in lawn maintenance. Pinestraw, a groundcover, was used in Georgia. No one in Michigan used it. Michigan homeowners talked about dandelions. Georgia homeowners did not. All the homeowners owned a wide assortment of lawn equipment. Everyone owned a lawn mower, even the families who were using a mowing service. There were few differences between families who used a chemical lawn service and those who did not use one. All the homeowners had used a chemical service at some time in the past. Several of the no service husbands mentioned that they planned 112 to use one again when they judged the condition of the lawn to be in need of professional help. Aciizitlfi Activities on the lawn were minimal. Those activities that took place were usually in the back yard. Children and dogs played primarily on the back lawn. Only one family with children extensively used the back yard. Many children spend their days with a child care provider before they begin school and after starting school they are involved in many extracurricular activities. The children in this study did not spend a great amount of time playing on their lawns. W311! The lawn provides aesthetic and psychological satisfaction. People find pleasure in it both for its beauty and for its place in "manicured“ nature. It is abo viewed as a part of the self, it tells the world who one 8. As Rapaport (1982) has written, environmental elements become indicators of social position, ways of establishing group or social identity, and ways of defining situations within a specific culture which in turn lead to expected behaviors in the settings. The lawn reflects looks, identity, and values of a person, the family, and the neighborhood. The aesthetic domain tallied the most responses. Within this domain, while beauty ranked the highest, the perception of "neatness" appears to be very strong. This may be very similar to what is seen in the clothing literature; if a garment is soiled, the viewer is unable to see its beauty. The research related to preference has also shown that people prefer a more managed look in nature. 113 The number of statements made by respondents that were classified under the self component in the psychological domain illustrate how clearly perceptions of the lawn are associated with the sense of self. Individuals easily verbalized multiple meanings of their lawn. The manicured lawn makes one feel good and gives a sense of accomplishment and pride. Although much of the activity fulfills personal goals and needs, the awareness of others’ expectations is nearly as strong. Responses to the third component, nature, support the idea that homeowners view their lawns as part of an idealized form of nature. It should be green, hush, weed free and neat. Respondents were very aware of the neighborhood norms and sanctions. The norm and standards of the neighborhood strongly influence the care and maintenance of the lawn. The reservation responses reflect uncertainty and some frustration about the necessity of having a lawn. But as several people asked, ”What else do you do with the yard? I don’t want dirt.” In America lawn grass is considered the ideal groundcover for open areas in both the front and back yard. Even though there may be other plants available that would serve the same environmental purposes (control erosion and provide cooling) and would require less maintenance no one in this study questioned the use of grass. It is the plant of choice for lawns. Responses related to the economic domain illustrate the belief of homeowners that the ideal American lawn adds real dollar value to their property. If a beautiful, manicured lawn adds profit or salability to a home, it is hard to 114 imagine the homeowner will just ”let it go natural”. For many, natural means weeds and, for both health and aesthetic reasons, Americans do not like weeds. As the next generation moves up the housing chain, it is difficult to envision a major change in the ideal lawn unless some significant health or environmental event happens to change this perception. Lawns, and related industries, are a multi-billion dollar business in the United States. Respondents enjoyed working on their lawns for the physical exercke. Those who spoke about exercise often talked about being outdoors, with ”nature”, at the same time. But responses from these suburban homeowners suggest that the lawn is not viewed as “natural" environment. Only two individuals talked about the importance of grass in controlling erosion and generating oxygen. This is combtent with the findings from the two focus groups and Gallup poll that were reported in the review of literature. Environmental considerations are not top-of- mind responses for individuals when asked about the suburban lawn. This might be different if one were talking to a homeowner of a newly built home. But even at this point, where controlling the soil from erosion is important, homeowners do not just plant anything that will grow. Landscapers are hired and grass, shrubs, and trees are artistically arranged and planted. 52mm: The second objective was to compare spousal lawn activities and perceived meaning of the lawn. Husbands were responsible for caring for the lawn. Wives tended the flowers. The question of who hires a chemical lawn service was not 115 readily answered. It appears it is a joint decision based upon time considerations and the appearance of the lawn. Generally, neither spouse had a great deal of knowledge about what chemicals were used on the lawn. This was true for both service and nonservice users. Perceived meanings were very similar for husbands and wives. The idea that the lawn provides as means of physical exercise was mentioned by more husbands than wives. This may be a reflection of the way the study was constructed. The focus of this study was lawn grass. Women are primarily responsible for the flowers and few actively participated in mowing and maintaining the lawn. There may have been more mention of exercke if they had been asked about their gardening activities. Questing} The third objective was to explore homeowners’ beliefs about environmental and health concerns related to the use of lawn chemicals. The reaction to the environmental scale was surprising. Respondents did not understand what this environmental scale had to do with their lawn. Several husbands became very upset. Respondents reacted to the lawn chemical statements in the scale, stating that some use of lawn chemicals was necessary. When asked if these chemicals posed a threat to the environment 18 said "Yes”, while the remaining 22 generally felt that they did not. The trend for more wives to believe there was a threat is consistent with other environmental literature dealing with gender. 116 When asked what difference it would make to the local environment if they stopped using lawn chemicals, the majority of respondents said that the appearance and attractiveness of their lawn would diminish. Approximately a fourth of the sample said it would make no difference. Only two individuals thought it might be beneficial if they stopped using lawn chemicals. When asked if it would make a difference to the global environment if they stopped using lawn chemicals, only one Michigan wife indicated it would. Others thought it might but not as just one person. They did not think that if they stopped using lawn chemicals their neighbors would too. And they did not see a need to stop using lawn chemicals because they did not think that their use was affecting the environment. The possibility of an immediate health threat was more real. Spills and fumes were viewed as having potential for immediate and serious harm. Again the trend was for more women to be concerned about health than men. W The fourth objective was to investigate the role of clothing as a nonverbal chre in the perception of danger related to the use of lawn chemicals. The use of special clothing and equipment for lawn care technicians received overwhehning acceptance. Although respirators and special protective garments were viewed with initial alarm, when asked which outfit they would prefer to see a lawn technician wear, the majority of the participants chose outfits that provided complete protection for the wearer. A common response was that the lawn technicians worked full time applying chemicals and they should be protected. 117 Thirty six of the forty respondents chose an outfit that offered full body protection from the neck down. Twenty two respondents included a respirator as part of their preferred outfit. All the outfits included rubber boots. Only two outfits were chosen that did not include gloves. The outfit that had been designed to be the most protective was chosen by the greatest number of respondents (8 of 40). Variations of that outfit category were chosen by 45% of the respondents. Respondents reported that the wearing of protective clothing would have no influence in their decision to hire or rehire a lawn care company. Individual homeowners judged themselves to be at much less risk than a technician. They did not usually wear protective clothing and did not perceive it necessary to do so in the future. They felt that because of the infrequency of their chemical applications they received little exposure. The use of fertilizer was not viewed as being dangerous. Implications and Recommendations for Ifirture Research The negative response to the environmental scale poses questions for conducting research projects and developing educational materials. Respondents questioned what these kinds of statements had to do with their lawn and who was funding the study. No one terminated their interview but, for those who were most upset, the responses from this point onward tended to be very brief. What triggered this reaction? Several respondents mentioned the number of environmental organizations that solicited funds in their neighborhood. Did they think the interview would conclude with a plea for donations? Did respondents unconsciously feel that they could be banning the environment by using lawn 118 chemicals and so became defensive? Would another topic arch as recycling have elicited a similar response? Are there so many conflicting messages about the environment that people feel overwhelmed and just do not want to dbcuss environmental issues? Or was thk response unique to this group of homeowners? This situation ako raises the question of what kind of reactiom do people have to materials labeled "environmental”? The researcher believes that the respondents who reacted so strongly would have refused to be interviewed if they had associated ”environmental" with the study during the recruitment call. Would this be true for other populations? If it E true for other homeowners who are similar to those in this study, do inferences made in other environmental studies need to be weighted for this kind of negativism? Has the term ”environmental” developed a negative connotation? Are there other terns that could be used that would evoke positive reactions? Homeowners talk about their lawns and nature yet they do not associate their lawns with the larger natural environment. Is this true for other homeowning groups in American society? Would other groups feel as strongly about their lawns as th's group? If lawn chemicals prove to be detrimental to the environment and health, will Americans be willing to accept a less than perfect lawn? Can alternate products and plants be developed that would reduce the need for extensive use of chemicals? Research that includes urban, rural, and city homeowners as well as greater ethnic diversity, different family styles, and wider price ranges of homes would provide more depth and clarity to the meaning of the lawn and answers to these questions. Results of this study, along 119 with other studies, indicate that the aesthetic and psychological meanings of the lawn are of the greatest importance. Definitive scientific studies that provide satisfactory answers to the questiom regarding the environmental and health effects of lawn chemicals are lacking. A great deal of research is ongoing in many different fields. The questions about the health effect of pesticides on children are especially troubling. How much exposure is there for children from pesticides on the home lawn? How does this compare to other chemically treated grassy areas where children play such as day care centers, school grounds, and parks? How does lawn exposure compare to the exposure from chemicals used inside the home? How does the presence of children influence beliefs and attitudes about the use of lawn chemicals? The willingness by this group of homeowners to accept a maximum level of protective clothing for a lawn technician needs to be explored with other groups. The outfits that represented the most protective end of the continuum would probably be unnecessary for either homeowners or lawn technicians in the usual lawn chemical application situations. However, these findings, if validated by other studies, could provide assurance to the lawn care industry that, in situations where is was warranted, protective clothing would not drive away customers. The purpose of this study was to explore the meaning, activities, and concerm related to the American lawn. Boyden’s biohistorical approach provided an ecological-historical framework in which to explore the phenomenon of the ideal American lawn. When this study was initially being planned the 120 researcher and her advisor had difficulty in organizing the research objectives and questions. Understanding and tracing the development of the lawn through hktory and examining the social, legal, and technological influences were very important in designing a coherent study. The hktorical development of the lawn provided important imights into understanding why current attitudes, beliefs, values, and practices associated with the American lawn exist. The English ideal of grass, Thomas Jefferson and hk belief in the small landowner, and the advent of the Industrial Revolution with the resulting migration to the city all were powerful influences on the evolution of the ideal lawn. Technological inventions such as the lawn mower, improved grass varieties, and synthetic chemicals have made lawn maintenance much easier. Societal changes including dual income families, the increasing popularity of the game of golf, and a growing retired population are continuing to shape and strengthen the ideal of the lawn. Many legal and social systems continue to support the ideal lawn. Deed restrictions and neighborhood covenants that mandate a certain standard of appearance, set backs from the street, advertising, and peer pressure from neighbors demand that the homeowners maintain a lawn. This lawn is, at the minimum, to be kept mowed and relatively neat and in its most ideal form - be green, thick, lush, weed free, and manicured. The attitudes and beliefs that were reflected in responses in this study have major implications for education efforts involving the suburban lawn and lawn chemicak. Respondents disassociate their own lawns from the general 121 environment. Given the historical importance of the lawn, the current strength of the support systems for the lawn, and the uncertainty about environmental and health effects it appears unlikely that current lawn maintenance practices will change very much in the near future. The biohktorical approach demands access to and assimilation of an enormous amount of material from many disciplines. Many hours of reading and thinking result in the generation of many pages of writing. Yet if one is to understand the context within which beliefs and values develop and evolve this kind of approach is essential. More studies using this kind of framework and qualitative methodology would add to the depth, richness, and understanding of many research problems. APPENDICES APPENDIX A INTERVIEW MATERIALS USED IN THE STUDY APPENDIX A-I TELEPHONE SCREENER I.D. NAME: PHONE: SPOUSE’S NAME: ADDRFSS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: Hello, I’m calling in regard to a study that is being done at Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI. We are talking to homeowners in Michigan and Georgia about their lawns. We want to find out why lawns are important to people, how individuals care for their lawns, and how they feel about lawn care services. Q-l. Do you currently use a lawn care service to care for your lawn? 1. YES (Put in lawn service quota. N=5) 2. NO (Put in do-it-yourself quota. N=5) INVITATION: We would like to talk with you and your spouse, personally, about your lawn and its care. You and your spouse would be interviewed during the same time period but separately. This interview will take approximately an hour. As part of the study we want to take pictures of respondent’s front lawns. Would this be okay with you? (Respondent does not have to agree to pictures to be part of study.) Agreed to pictures No to pictures When can we schedule an appointment with you? DAY TIME DIRECTIONS to interview location: Thank you for your willingness to participate in the study. We will call you the day before your interview to make sure that the time is still alright. 122 123 APPENDIX A-H Informed Consent I, the undersigned (respondent), freely consent to participate in a study about my household’s use of lawn care products and services. I do so with the understanding that our respomes will contribute to the goals of the research project. The purposes of the study have been explained to me. The following understandings are held in common and agreedtobybothparties: l) The interview, which will take approximately two hours, will be audio taped by the interviewer. 2) The confidentiality of the interview is guaranteed and absolute. No tramcription or analysis or representation of the information collected will ever contain the personal identification of the respondent, or the specific location of the residence where pictures were taken. Audio tapes will be destroyed after transcription is complete. 3) The respondent is assured that no follow-up contact will be made for the purpose of sales, solicitation or other commercial purpose. No record of name, address or other identifying data about the respondent will ever be given, sold or transferred to any other party. 4) I understand that I can terminate the interview at any time. If there are any questions, the respondent is invited to call Dr. Ann Slocum, Michigan State University, 1-517-355-3779 or Lois Shem, 1404-5784334. INFORMED CONSENT FOR THE INTDWIEW: for Michigan State University: Respondent: (Interviewer) comer FOR PICTURES: Iagreetoallowtwopictures oftheexterior ofmy horrseandfront lawntobetaken. I rmderstand that the photographs may be used in educational and research presentations or publications. I understand that ny name, street address or city will not be identified in any use of the photosraphso for Michigan State University: prondent: (Intaviewer) 124 APPENDIX A-III INTERVIEW GUIDE INTRODUCTION I’m . I’ll be talking with you for the next couple hours about your lawn. The purpose of the study is to find out why lawns are important to people, how individuab care for their lawns, and how they feel about lawn care services. I’d like to tape the interview. I don’t take shorthand and the tape will help me remember exactly what you said. Your responses will be grouped with those of others taking part in the study. Your name will never be associated with any statements. The tape will be destroyed after the study is over. Is the taping okay with you? ASK THE FOLLOWING IF THEY AGREED TO TAKING PICTURES IN SCREENER: During the initial phone call we asked if pictures could be taken of your front lawn. Is this still alright? You do not have to be home when we come. These pictures would be used for illustration purposes. The only identification would be "A lawn in (state name)". Your address and name would never be associated with the picture. We have the consent form that needs to be signed. Please read it and see if you have any questions. CHECKLIST: Informed Consent Signed OK to take picture of lawn 125 0-1. WE’RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT YOUR LAWN DURING THIS INTERVIEW. I REALIZE THAT YOU ALSO HAVE TREES, SHRUBS, AND FLOWERSINYOURYARDBUTIWOULDLIKEYOUT‘OTRYTOTHINK PRIMARILY ABOUT YOUR LAWN. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR LAWN. CHECKLIST FOR INTERVIEW: Size General Appearance Am’t Work 02. WHAT KIND or ACTIVITIES TAKE PLACE ON YOUR LAWN? WHAT no YOU no ON THE FRONT LAWN? BACKYARD LAWN? CHECKLIST FOR INTERVIEWER: Play/Socialize Area Hang Out Clothes Q-2a. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT HAVING A LAWN? WHAT DOE YOUR LAWN MEAN TO YOU? CHECKLIST FOR INTERVIEW ER: Meaning Beauty Nature Q—3. WHAT DO YOU, WE, DO TO TAKE CARE OF YOUR LAWN? (If respondent says, "NOTHING”, ASK: WHO DOE THE LAWN WORK? WHAT DO THEY D0? D0 (DID) YOUR CHILDREN HELP? ARE THERE SOME THINGS THAT NO ONE DOE? CHECKLIST FOR "SELF": Aerate lawn. Reseed. Clippings? Compost? Edging/special trimming. Equipment - what used? Clippers Blower Edger Mower Spreader Sprinkler ! i Grass/leaf raking. Leaf/pine needle blowing. Mow - how often? Time? Pest Control - what used? How often? Questions. Who/Where go for answers. Shrubs. Thatch. Tree. Water - how often? Weed Control - what used? How often? 126 Q-3a. If use a service, ASK: HOW MANY TIME/YR IS SERVICE DONE? HOW MUCH DOE THE SERVICE COST? CHECKLIST FOR SERVICE: Aerate lawn. Reseed. Clippings? Compost? Edging/special trimming. Equipment - what used? Clippers Blower Edger Mower Spreader Sprinkler Flowers Grass/leaf raking. Leaf/ pine needle blowing. Mow - how often? How much Time? Pest Control - what used? How often? Questions. Who/Where go for answers. Shrubs. Thatch. l l 3 Water - how often? Weed Control - what used? How often? Q4. DOING THESE KINDS OF THINGS TAKE TIME AND MONEY. WHY DO YOU DO ALL THIS? DO YOU ENJOY DOING IT, OR IS IT A BURDEN? ARE THERE NEIGHBORHOOD COVENANTS OR RULE SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO DO THESE THINGS? If YE, ASK: WHAT ARE THESE RULE? CHECKLIST FOR INTERVIEWER: Neighbors’ Expectations Adds value to house. Have to! Why? Hire service so don’t have to handle chemicals Exercise Like being out of doors Q-S. WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU DIDN’T CARE FOR YOUR LAWN LIKE YOU DO? CHECKLIST FOR INTERVIEWER: Association rules Neighbors sue Association fine me Weeds would grow 127 Q-Sa. WHEN YOU LOOK AROUND YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHAT DO YOU NOTICE ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE’S LAWNS? CHECKLIST FOR INTERVIEWER: Weeds Q-Sb. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF YOUR NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR PLANTED AFIELDOFWILDFLOWERSINTHEIRFRONTYARD? Q-G. NOW I’D LIKE YOU TO TAKE A LITTLE TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE. WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER ABOUT LAWNS WHEN YOU WERE GROWING UP? CHECKLIST FOR INTERVIEWER: Did you have to mow? lst time mowed Age 1st mowed How much mowed? Parents do same as you do now? If no lawn, what about any trees, parks, etc. Q-7. Clothing Pictures. A. NOW I’D LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT THIS SET OF PICTURE. THEE ARE PICTURE OF OUTFITS THAT A PERSON COULD WEAR WHEN APPLYING PESTICIDE. WHAT I’D LIKE YOU TO DO IS SORT THEM INTO GROUPS. YOU CAN SORT THEM IN ANY WAY THAT YOU WANT. THE FOOTWEAR INTHEPICTURE AREEITHERTENNIS SHOE OR BOOTS. Group Color: TELL ME ABOUT YOUR GROUP(S). WHY DID YOU SORT THEM IN THIS WAY? WHICH OUTFIT WOULD YOU PREFER TO SEE A LAWN CARE TECHNICIAN WEAR? B. HERE’S ANOTHER SET OF PICTURE. HOW WOULD YOU GROUP THEE? Group Color: WHY DID YOU GROUP THEM LIKE THIS? WHICH OUTFIT WOULD YOU PREFER TO SEE A LAWN CARE TECHNICIAN WEAR? C. HERE’S A THIRD SET OF PICTURE. HOW ABOUT THEE? Group Color: WHY DID YOU GROUP THEM LIKE THIS? WHICH OUTFIT WOULD YOU PREFER TO SEE A LAWN CARE TECHNICIAN WEAR? 128 OF THE OUTFITS THAT YOU CHOSE, WHICH ONE IS THE BET? WOULD YOU WEAR AN OUTFIT LIKE THIS? WHAT WOULD YOU WEAR? WOULD ANY OF THESE OUTFITS CAUSE YOU TO BE CONCERNE ABOUT THE PRODUCT BEING APPLIED? DOYOU'THINKTHATWHATALAWNCAREEMPLOYEEWEARSWOULD INFLUENCE YOUR DECISION TO HIRE THAT PARTICULAR COMPANY? REHIRE THE COMPANY? DO THINK THAT THE CHEMICALS A LAWN CARE COMPANY USE ARE THE SAME KIND THAT A HOMEOWNER BUYS AND USE? WHY? 0-8. WScale. WE’RE GOING TO HAVE A CHANGE OF PACE NOW. I’D LIKE YOU TO READ THE STATEMENTS ON THIS SHEET AND RATE EACH ONE BY CIRCLING THE NUMBER WHICH CORRESPONDS WITH YOUR AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT FOR EACH STATEMENT. WHAT’S YOUR REACTION TO A SERIE OF STATEMENTS LIKE THIS? WERE THERE ANY STATEMENTS THAT WERE HARD TO UNDERSTAND? ARE THERE ANY TERMS THAT YOU’RE UNFAMILIAR WITH? WERE THERE ANY STATEMENTS THAT SEEMED TO MEAN THE SAME TO YOU? (Be sure to ASK:) WHAT DOE THE TERM "STEADY-STATE" MEAN TO YOU? 0-9. I HAVE A SECOND SET OF STATEMENTS THAT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO RATE. THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE LAST RATING. THIS IS A 1 TO 7 SCALE. PLEASE CIRCLE THE NUMBER THAT BET DECRIBE YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT EACH QUETION. (After completed ratings take back the completed sheet) Ask the following Questions: DO YOU THINK THAT USING LAWN CHEMICALS (FERTILIZERS, PESTICIDE, HERBICIDES) POSES ANY KIND OF THREAT? PERSONALLY FOR HEALTH? TO THE ENVIRONMENT IN GENERAL? WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE TO YOUR LOCAL, NEIGHBORHOOD NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IF YOU STOPPED USING CHEMICALS ON YOUR LAWN? WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE TO THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT IF YOU STOPPED USING CHEMICALS ON YOUR LAWN? WHAT’S YOUR REACTION TO THE STATEMENT: WHEN YOU COMPARE ACRE TO ACRE, HOMEOWNERS USE TEN TIMES MORE CHEMICALS THAN AGRICULTURE DOE? 129 ENVIRONMENTAL SCALE Please circle ONE answer for each of the following items: Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Agree Agree Ame Acres 1. Weareapproachingthelimitofthe 1 2 3 4 manha'ofpeopletheearthcansupport. 2. The balance of nature is very delicate l 2 3 4 and eaa'ly upset. 3. Hunans have the right to modify the 1 2 3 4 natural environment to suit their needs. 4. Chemicalsmustbemed in order tohave l 2 3 4 a rice lawn. 5. Mankindwascreatedtorule over the 1 2 3 4 rest of mankind. 6. When hunans interfere with nature it 1 2 3 4 otter produces disastrous consequences. 7. Plants and animals exist primarily 1 2 3 4 to be med by humans. 8. To maintain a healthy economy we will 1 2 3 4 have to develop a ”steady-state" economy where industrial growth is controlled. 9. Hranans must live in harmony with nature 1 2 3 4 in order to survive. 10. Lawnchemicalswillnotharmthe 1 2 3 4 environment if they are properly used. 11. Theearthislikeaspaceship with only 1 2 3 4 limited room and space. 12. Hunansmdnot adapttothenatural 1 2 3 4 environment becarrse they can remake it to suit their needs. 13. There are limits to growth beyond which 1 2 3 4 industrialized society cannot expand. l4. Mankind k severely abusing the l 2 3 4 enviromnent. 15. Lawn chemicals are dangerous and other 1 2 3 4 things should be used in place of them. 130 HEALTH SCALE Please circle ONE number for each statement. 1. How likely b it that getting pesticide on your skin will cause an immediate health risk? Very Very Likely Unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 How sedans do you think that immediate health risk k apt to be? Very Very Serious Mild 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 How likely is it that getting pesticide on your skin will cause lengztenn harm? Very Very Likely Unlikely l 2 3 4 5 6 7 How sedans do you think that lengfiegn harm is apt to be? Very Very Serious Mild 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 131 0-10. WE’VE COVERED A LOT OF TOPICS IN THE LAST HOUR OR SO - HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR LAWN, ACTIVITIES, MEMORIE, LOO- AT THE CLOTHING PICTURE, TALKED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT - ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ABOUT YOUR LAWN, THE CLOTHING OUTFITS, OR ANYTHING ELSE? Q-ll. Background Information. ALL WE HAVE LEFT ARE A FEW DEMOGRAPHIC QUETIONS. A. Do you have any children living at home? 1. NO 2. YE -> 2a. How many? Ages? B. Do you have any pets? 1. NO 2. YE -> 2a. What? C. Are you presently employed outside the home? 1. NO 2. YE —> 2a. What do you do? D. What is your age? (years) E. Do you belong to any environmental organizations? 1. NO 2. YE —> 2a. Which ones? F. How many years of schooling have you completed? (Highest degree completed) G. Which of the following categories best describes your total family income for 1993? (Hand income sheet to respondent. Let them till it out themselves) (If Refuse to Answer code as 10) H. (Observe RACE/ETHNICITY ) 132 Which of the following categories best describes your total family income for 1993? 1.__Less than $25,000 2.__$25,001 to $50,000 3._$50,001 to $75,000 4._$75,001 to $100,000 5.__$100,001 to $125,000 6._$125,001 to $150,000 7.__$151,001 to $175,000 8._$175,001 to $200,000 9. Greater than $201,000 133 APPENDIX A-IV CLOTHING COMBINATION S FOR PICTURE Description of the garments and equipment: Short sleeved, white shirt of polyester/cotton knit with a placket and pocket. Long sleeved, white sweatshirt of 100% cotton. Navy colored shorts of polyester and cotton. Navy work pants of polyester and cotton. Navy coveralls of work weight, cotton and polyester. White and dark Tyveko are disposable coveralls. Tyvek‘ is a spunbonded olefin fabric manufactured by Du Pont. Different types are recommended for different kinds of pesticide applications. The jacket of polyester and cotton. The jeam of blue denim. Cotton, rubber soled tennk shoes. Gloves and boots of rubber. Sunglasses had the side and top shield. Respirator. ALL outfits were photographed with a baseball style cap. OUTFIT A: A1. TENNIS SHOE, SHORTS, socks, SHORT sleeved shirt, NO gloves ADD: A2. Gloves A3. Safety Glasses and Gloves A4. Respirator and Glovu - No Safety glasses A5. Respirator and Gloves - With Safety glasses OUTFTT B: B1. BOOTS, SHORTS, socks, SHORT sleeved shirt, NO gloves ADD: B2. Gloves B3. Safety glasses and Gloves B4. Respirator and Gloves - No Safety glasses B5. Respirator and Gloves - With Safety glasses 134 OUTFTT C: C1. TENNIS SHOE, SHORTS, socks, LONG sleeved shirt, NO gloves ADD: C2. Gloves C3. Safety glasses and Gloves C4. Respirator and Gloves - No Safety glasses C5. Respirator and Gloves - With Safety glasses OUTFTT D: D1. TENNIS SHOE, BLUE JEANS, socks, SHORT sleeved shirt, NO gloves ADD: D2. Gloves D3. Safety glasses and Gloves D4. Respirator and Gloves - No Safety glasses D5. Respirator and Gloves - With Safety glasses OUTFTT E: El. BOOTS, BLUE JEANS, socks, SHORT sleeved shirt, NO gloves ADD: E2. Glovs E3. Safety glasses and Gloves E4. Respirator and Gloves - No Safety glasses E5. Respirator and Gloves - With Safety glasses OUTFIT F: F1. BOOTS, BLUE JEANS, socks, LONG sleeved shirt, NO glova ADD: F2. Gloves F3. Safety glasses and gloves - alone F4. Respirator and Gloves - No Safety glasses F5. Respirator and Gloves - With Safety glasses OUTFIT G: G1. JACKET (Hood DOWN), GLOVE, BOOTS, socks, BLUE JEANS ADD: G2. Safety Glasses G3. Respirator - No safety glasses G4. Respirator - With safety glasses OUTFIT H: H1. JACKET (Hood UP), GLOVE, BOOTS, socks, BLUE JEANS ADD: HZ. Safety Glasses H3. Respirator - No safety glasses H4. Respirator - With safety glasses 135 OUTFTT I: I1. BOOTS, WORK PANTS, socks, SHORT sleeved shirt, NO gloves ADD: 12. Gloves I3. Safety glasses and Gloves 14. Respirator and Gloves - No Safety glasses 15. Respirator and Gloves - With Safety glasses OUTFIT J: Jl. BOOTS, WORK PANTS, socks, LONG sleeved shirt, NO gloves ADD: J2. Gloves J3. Safety glasses and Gloves J4. Respirator and Gloves - No Safety glasses J5. Respirator and Gloves - With Safety glasses OUTFIT K: K1. BOOTS, WORK COVERALLS, NO gloves ADD: K2. Gloves K3. Safety glasses and gloves K4. Respirator and Gloves - No Safety glasses K5. Respirator and Gloves - With Safety glasses OUTFIT L: LI. DARK TYVEK° BOOTS, WITH gloves ADD: L2. Safety glasses and Gloves L3. Respirator and Gloves - No Safety glasses L4. Respirator and Gloves - With Safety glasses OUTFIT M: M1.WHITE TYVEK' (Hood DOWN), BOOTS, WITH Gloves ADD: M2.Safety glasses and gloves M3.Respirator and Gloves - No Safety glasses M4.Respirator and Gloves - With Safety glasses OUTFIT N: N1. WHITE TYVEKO (Hood UP), BOOTS, GLOVES, RESPIRATOR, SAFETY GLASSES APPENDIX B REVIEW OF LITERATURE RELATED TO HOMEOWNER’S PESTICIDE USE APPENDIX B Homeowner’s Pesticide Use A South Carolina study (Finklea, Keil, Sandifer, & Gadsden, 1969) was among the first to report on pesticide use in the home. They found that 89% of the 121 wlnte families and 75 African American families surveyed used pesticides. Approximately one third of the users applied these chemicals during each week of the year. Most of the users ignored common sense safety precautions, e.g. 88% did not keep paticides in a locked area, 66% stored them within reach of small children, and 54% placed them near food or medicine. In a study of three urban areas - Philadelphia, PA; Dallas, TX; and Lansing, MI 92.5% of the 525 respondents reported using pesticides (von Rumker et al., 1974). Home and garden applications accounted for 12% of the total use of the 25 compounds that were considered. Only 8.5% of these respondents indicated that they were concerned with possible side effects from pesticide use. Other studies have consistently shown that a high proportion of homeowners use pesticides. In 1974, 230 families in 18 Colorado communities were interviewed to determine their pesticide practices. Of these families, 72% used pesticides (Colorado ..., 1974). Lande (1975) in a study of 39 Pennsylvania families reported 85% used pesticides. In 1976 a study of national scope was undertaken to determine the quantities of pesticides applied in the home environment (Savage, Keefe, & Wheeler, 1979). A total of 8,254 U.S. households in 25 SMSAs participated in the study. Nine out of every ten 136 137 homeholrk (90.7%) reported using some type of pesticide in their house, garden, or yard. This is consistent with findings from the previous small studies. It was estimated that three times as many householders used pesticide inside their house as in thdr yards (83.7% use pesticides in the house, 21.4% in the garden, and 28.7% in the yard). Based upon comparisons among the geographic regions represented in the study, the southeastern region of the United States had the highest use of pesticide in the house (94%), while the California, Arizona, New Mexico region had the highest garden (27.7%) and yard usage (62.2% yard). Over 500 different pesticide formulations were found to be used. Fifteen pesticide formulations accounted for 65.5% of all observed pesticide containers. Many of the householders did not know what they used and less than 50% reported reading labels. In 1990, a second national study was done for the EPA by Reearclr Triangle Institute in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (Whitrnore et al., 1992). The study was based on a sample from 60 counties located throughout the continental United States. It was designed to provide defensible national inferences, not regional inference. A response rate of 84.9% resulted in 2,078 households participating in the survey. Based on data from this study it is estimated that 90% of single-family residence have at least one peticide product in storage, significantly greater than the estimated 70% for multifamily dwellings. About 85% of all households had at least one pesticide product in storage, 63% had one to five products in storage, and 22% had more than five products in storage. Products defined as pesticides included disinfectants, fungicides, insecticides, molluscicides, rodenticides, herbicides, and repellents. During the year prior to the study, approximately 65% of the households had used an insecticide and 59% had used herbicides. 138 Other important findings included: 1. Households with young children (47%) are less likely to have peticide products stored within their reach then those without children (75%). 2. About one million households have products containing chlordane, 150,000 have products containing DDT, and 70,000 have heptachlor or silvex which they do not know how to dispose of. 3. The two most common household nuisance pests are ants and cockroache, with mosquitoes and fleas the next more frequent. 4. Approximately 10 million households (15%) had peticide applied by a professional lawn care company in the previous year. FTankie and Levenson’s (1978) study reported on attitudes, as well as practice, towards insects and insecticides. Data were collected in two Texas cities from 1974-1976. Interviews were conducted in Bryan-College Station over a period of three years and in the Dallas area over two years. A total of 551 white, middle-aged, married homeowners took part in the study. Findings from the Bryan-College Station sample showed that 55 - 76% of the participants had indoor/outdoor insect problems. Sixty three to 78% used chemicak indoors and 43 - 50% of the same people outdoors. In Dallas 68% had indoor insect problems and 75% outdoor problems. In 1976, a significant decline in indoor (50%) and outdoor (35%) problems was reported. Depending on the year, 47 to 68% and 33 to 58% of the Dallas people used chemicals indoors and outdoors, respectively. In both cities, most respondents felt that chemicals did some good; relatively few could describe negative aspects. In both groups, the majority of calls to professional pet control service were for indoor problems. People did not know what chemicals the professionak used. Finally, the study reported that the attitude towards the use of chemicals changed in both citie. Respondents reported their attitude changing toward the use of chemicals due to personal experience with negative reults, reading, TV, and 139 the ecology/environment movement. Most stated they used no chemicals or they used thm cautiously. This study was expanded to include Berkeley, CA (n=200), Dallas, TX (n=201) and New Brunswick, NJ (n=200); two socioeconomic groups (upper- and lower-middle class); specific pets (mostly insects), pesticide used, and a professional pet control operator (PCO) sample (Levenson and Frankie, 1983). The average repondent in the study was 44 years old, white, married, and a homeowner living in either an upper- middle class or lower-middle class neighborhood for 17 years. Of the 601 repondents, 539 said they had pest problems. Their most frequent source of pet information was from a PCO. Most people personally used chemicals indoors and out and many had used a PCO. Respondents rarely knew the type of chemical used by the PCOs. People expressed the belief that peticide do good and rarely thought that they did any harm. Most respondents said that they had changed their attitude toward being more cautious regarding peticide use. Women indicated they disliked insects more than men and were more aware of potential harm from chemicals. Few differences were noted between house dwellers and apartment dwellers. Kamble, Gold, & Vitzthum (1982) found that 73% of the homeowners in Nebraska with pest problems use peticide. They etimated that 148,551 lbs of peticide (AI) were used in 1980, with carbaryl, diazinon, and 2,4-D being used in greatet quantitie. Methods of application, storage, and disposal were considered to be les than adequate in many cases. Bennett et al. (1983) in a study of 958 households in North Central Indiana echoed thee findings. The majority of the households surveyed (78%) used peticide. Aerosol-spray formulations were used most often (58.1%). Peticide were applied most frequently by adult female (55.4%) In this study only 5% of those using peticide 140 storedtheminalockedarea. Thekitchenwasboththeareaofmostfrequent application (27%) and storage (38%). Griehop and Stile (1989) found that 25% of the 415 California residents who responded to their quetionnaire reported suffering illnes from peticide exposure. Almost 40% of pesticide users reported they did not always read and/or understand labels, 21% admitted applying stronger-than-recommended mixture, 53% did not wear any protective clothing or equipment, and of those who did, 12% did not follow any clean-up procedure with exposed attire. Empty containers were most frequently thrown into trash can (88%) and 22% reported placing leftover chemicals in the trash (which is recommended on the label but illegal in California). The authors found an association between howsafeordangerous homeusersbelieved peticide tobeandthedegreeof risk-taking behavior; however there was considerable risk-taking among those who perceived great risk. It appears that little has changed in homeowner attitude or actiom since researchers began looking at them. American homeowners use a great many peticide both inside anrl outside their home, generally do not follow commonsense safety precautions, and do not wear protective clothing. APPENDIX C REVIEW OF LITERATURE RELATED TO PESTICIDES AND HEALTH APPENDIX C Peticide and Health The World Health Organization (WHO) considers acute peticide poisoning a major global health problem (Lang, 1993). WHO etimate that between one and five million cases of acute peticide poisoning occur, largely in underdeveloped natiorns. There is no national database in the United States that compiles complete statistics regarding incidence of death and injury from acute peticide poisoning. The state of California require that acute peticide poisoning be reported to state health authorities. In 1987 about 17,000 exposure incidents were reported, of which 30 - 60% were symptomatic (Lang, 1993). Researchers from the Minnesota Regional Poison Centers reported that, since 1986, peticide have accounted for approximately 4.3% (2,209) of human exposure calls (Obon et al., 1991). The authors state that this is consistent with the percent of calls associated with peticide poisonings nationally. Calls originating from a residence accounted for 85% of the calls. Eleven percent were from health care facilities and work place calb accounted for 3%. Twenty two percent of the calls were related to organophosphate insecticide exposure. Herbicide type exposure are very different from other peticide poison calls. They are typically associated with an adult male experiencing dermal exposure. When comparing the growing use of herbicide in both rural and urban settings with the number of calls, it was judged that potential exposure appeared low. 141 142 Redetzke and Applegate (1993) found organochlorine peticide reidue in adipose tissnresampletakernfronnZSpersons in ElPaso,TXduringthefallof1983andspring of 1984. None of the persons involved were known to have experienced oecnrpational exposure to peticide or peticide intoxication. Thee findings sugget that either there k continued use of banned organoclnlorine peticide in the United States or thee is ineeasing use in Mexico. A study in Australia found increased levels of organochlorine peticide in human milk after home treatrnernt for termite (Stacey & Tatum, 1985). Savage et al.(1988) found a relationship between acute organophosphate poisonings ocunrring at one point in time and subsequent chronic neurological problems. Bueching and Wollstadt (1984), Burmeister, Everett, Van Lier, & Isaeon (1983), Burmeister (1990), Cantor (1982), Hoar et al. (1986), and Weisenburger (1990) have all reported indications of long-term cause-and-effect relationships between agricultural peticide use and cancer. Fifty percent of all calls to the Minneota Regional Poison Centers (Olson et al., 1991) reported pesticide exposure to children under the age of three years. This is an area of great concern because of the lack of knowledge about long term effects. Studie which have explored the long-term effects of such exposure on children include Gold, Gordis, Tonascia, & Szklo (1979), Moses (1989), Davis, Brownson, and Garcia (1992) and Davis et al. (1993). Gold and his colleague reported that when comparing brain canoe case to normal controls, an odds ratio (OR) of 2.3 (p = 0.10) was found for children exposed to household pet exterminations. A comparison to children with other canoes showed no such relationship. Mose reported that chronic exposure to fungicide pose the greatet risk of cancer as compared to other peticide type. Davis and his group reported that childhood brain cancer odds ratios varied substantially by peticide use situation and time period of use. When comparing childhood brain canoe cases N0“ 000th bomb: they: findim r- mate-I birth 1 [mid follow; “Post Study j “PM Mid: “inside NHM' 143 (n = 45) to friend controls (n = 85), significant positive associations were observed for use of peticide to control nuisance pets in the home, no-pest-strips in the borne, peticide to control termite, Kwell shampoo, flea collars on pets, diazinon in the garden or orchard, and herbicide to control weeds in the yard. In comparison to canoe controls (n=108), sigrnificant positive associations were obseved for use of peticide bombs in the home, peticide to control termite, flea collars on pets, irnsecticide in the garden or orchard, carbaryl in the garden or orchard, and hebicide to control weeds in the yard. The authors cautioned that further reearch is needed to confirm thee finding. Sinks (1985) found significant relationships between childhood brain canoe and nnatenal use of aerosol pesticide during pregnancy (OR = 1.56, p = 0.04) and after birth (OR = 1.66, p = 0.04). No significant risk was observed in this study for other peticide exposure. Fenske et al. (1990) studied the potential for exposure and health risks of infants following indoor reidential peticide applications. Depite the lack of information about exposure/absorption and toxicological interpretations, the dose value measured in this study raised concerns about the possibility of infant health problems resulting from exposure to thee peticide. Camann (1991) reported that carpet dust in the average American home contaim peticide reidues at about one part per million. Toddlers and infants, because of their low body weight, frequent contact with the floor, and hand-to-mouth activitie are comidered to be most susceptible to adverse effects from this source of peticide contamination. The debate continue concerning the exact risks of peticide for health. A 1990 poll indicated that 75% of the American public share the peceptiorns that peticide pose 144 a serious hanrd to man and the environment (Trends...1992). It is generally agreed among scientists that the public perceive a greater risk from peticide than the scientific community. However if reearch identifies dangers from thee substance the public will have to weigh the very real benefits against human health costs. APPENDIX D REVIEW OF LITERATURE RELATED TO ENVIRONIVIENTAL AESTHETICS Appendix D Environmental Aesthetics Wm Stephen Kaplan (1988a) define preference ”as the outcome of a complex process that includes perceiving thing and space and reacting to them in terms of their potential usefulnes and supportiveness" (p. 46). Preference may be an indicator of aethetic judgment or involve decision making and choice (Kaplan, 1988b, p. 56). When viewed in an evolutionary perspective, preference guides behavior and learning and fosters the building and use of cognitive maps. Environmental preference is ”the outcome of what mnrst be an incredibly rapid set of cognitive procese that integrate such considerationrs as safety, access, and the opportunity to learn into a single affective judgment" (p. 63). Kaplan (1979, 1987, 1988a, 1988b) suggests that aethetic judgment is the product of two procese related to survival; one involve capturing the viewe’s attention (involvement) and the other enhancing comprehension (making sernse). Making seme is seen in term of coherence (perceptual organization of patterns) and legibility (the ability to create a cognitive map and know an environment well enough to act in it). Involvement is related to complexity (the amount of information thee is to perceive and to mystery (the promise of, or inducement to obtain new information by acting in the environment). In Kaplan’s approach landscape preference is an expresion of adaptational suitability and stresses the role of information gathering and organizing. 145 146 Appleton (1975, 1988) believe that the human experience of landscape is most closely connected to human’s evolutionary heritage. His habitat theory suggests that both animals and premoden man appreciate landscape largely in terms of survival functiorns. He reasons that prospect (open views) and refuge (protection or opportunity for protection) have aethetic value because such prefeence would have enhanced human survival. His esential argument is that aethetic reactions to landscape are in part inborn, and "if he is to experience landscape aethetically, an obsever must seek to recreate something of that primitive relationship which links a creature to its habitat“ (1975, p. viii). Bailing and Falk (1982) reported that savanna and open foret scene were highly preferred ove thick foret, jungle or deert slide by pe0ple, regardless of age and nationality. Subjects for this study included 105 third-grade children, 77 sixth-grade children, 96 ninth-grade children, 100 college students from two Maryland college, 30 undergraduate from the University of Arizona, 14 retired senior citizen, 50 professional foretes, 34 people attending a meeting of biology teachers, and 42 adults from Maryland. Twenty slide, repreenting five different biome - tropical rain foret, deet, savanna, tenpeate deciduous foret, and conifeous foret wee viewed twice by the participants. Repondents were asked to rate each slide on whee they would prefer to live pemanently and where they would like to visit. The stronget prefeence for the savanna biome was found among the two younget age groups in their study. By mid- adolescence and continuing throughout adulthood, the mean preference for savanna, deciduous foret, and coniferous foret wee statistically indistinguishable. Thee findings wee intepreted to provide limited support for the hypotheis that people have some innate preference for savanna-like environments. Since humans evolved in the grassy, tree-sprinkled savannas of Africa, our modern prefeence for lawrns and trees 147 may be an innate expresion of our origins. But this undelying prefeence can be modified through expeience across the life span. Wm Kaplan’s decription of ”green expeience" is based on a seies of studies done with the sanne group of slide (Kaplan, 1975). The first study was done with a group of fenale college frebmen. A set of fifty-six slide were preented to the women. The one that wee categorized as “nature" wee vastly prefered by the 88 participants. The subset of slide depicting urban settings wee rated sigrnificantly lowe. The various residential scene wee liked least of all. Three years late 35 women from the original group wee shown the same slide and asked to rate their prefeence for each. The reults indicated that the mean-rated prefeence for nature scene showed a significant increase; for the urban scene, the ratings declined; for the reidential setting, they remained low. The same slide wee used in a study in which repondents viewed scene as one would glimpse then when driving in a car. The diffeence in rated prefeence between viewing duratiorns of 10, 40, and 200 nnilliseconds wee minor, but the relative prefeence for the nature picture as compared to the urban scene was even greate than in the othe studie. Wohlwill (1976) replicated thee studie and found sinnilar prefeence for nature ove urban scene. Kaplan, Kaplan, and Wendt (1972) in a study using color slide to repreent a continuum ranging from nature to a predominance of man-made aspects to urban scene, found a clear prefeence for nature scene ove urban scene. The participants were undergraduate students who wee not familiar with the specific scene that they wee asked to rate on a five-point prefeence scale. Analysis of the ratings yielded two cler groupings: one of urban scene and one of ”nature" scene. The nature cluste included 148 all tine scene selected to repreent the nature end of the continuum including in which nature predominated but whee hunnan influence was visible. The least prefered nature scene consisted of a flat, open, relatively parched field with a forest in the very distant badrground and a scene dominated by coarse-textured, disordered foliage with a telephone pole surrounded by high weeds at one edge. The urban grouping included all but two of the scene selected to repreent that end of the continuum. The scene that reflected various reidential settings did not form a unique grouping, suggeting that the participants did not peceive thee as a distinct content domain. The nature grouping included a far broade' range of nature content than Ind been expected. The preence of human influence did not detract from the perceptual categorization, and the prefeence for the nature scene was not a function of the preence or absence of human influence. The preence of vegetation eneged as the stronget predictor of prefeence in the 1982 study done by Hezog, Kaplan, and Kaplan. One hundred forty colored slide of a wide variety of urban setting wee rated by students unfanniliar with the particular scene. The overwhelming prefeence for any urban scene with vegetation suggets that nature in the city is highly valued. Ulrich (1977) developed a model of visual landscape prefeence based upon an analysis of the informational qualitie of various settings. Five variable thought to affect the informational propetie of an environment wee identified: complexity, focality, ground surface texture, depth, and mystery. This study showed that people prefer natural landscape scene with a relatively high degree of complexity, a clear focal point, even ground texture, a good depth of field, and a sense that new predictable information will become available by moving through the landscape. jud f0r 149 Specific landscape feature have been identified that regularly increase the attractivenes of landscape. Thee is a prefeence for smooth, even surface texture in tlne landscape. Several studie of foret landscape have found positive relationships between aethetic prefeence and comparatively even-length grass ground covers and negative prefeence effects of rough ground coves (Daniel & Boste, 1976; Rabinowitz and Coughlin, 1970; Ulrich, 1983). A variety of othe factors have been studied that can influence one’s prefeence for nature. Zube (1973b) suggeted that landscape deignes and manages in the environmental field valued natural landscape more highly than did nonprofesslonab in environmental fields and lay control groups. Lay groups and nonprofessionals tend to be les negatively disposed to man-made forms (towns) in relation to regional scenic beauty. Gallaghe’s (1977) dissertation on "visual prefeence for altenative natural hndscape" was concened with identifying the procese that opeate in prefeence for natural settings. Scene for his photoquetionnaire included both natural areas (prairie/woodland site characteized by low levels of managenent) and ornamental areas. Respondents rated each of the scene. Two unexpected findings eneged from this study. First, ”naturalnes" when depicted as prairie grasse (rough, scruffy, unmanaged looking) was the least prefered. Second, the lack of trees had a bearing on judgments. The numbe and size of tree and their dominance in the scene accounted for 45% of the prefeence variance. Repondents preferred scene that contained tree. The importance of tree should come as no surprise. Gold (1977) had asseted that ”the tree is the most dominant natural elenert in the urban landscape“ Alexande, lshikawa, and Silvestein (1977) declared that "tree have a vey deep and crucial meaning to human beings" (p. 798). Zube (1973a) suggets that tree in the city reduce its peceptual scale. This may make the city seen smile and more comprehensible to 150 people. Tree, epecially deciduous forets, combined with open meadows, abundant grass cove, and nninimal undebrush are geneally prefered (Daniel & Bolster, 1976; Patey I: Evans, 1979; Schroede, 1991; Zube, 1976; Zube, Pitt, & Anderson, 1975). Smply hbeling a slide as a "wildernes area” elevated an area’s scenic-quality rating, while labels such as 'commecial timbe stand" reduced it (Andeson, 1981). W Sebba (1991) found that Israeli children’s environmental prefeence wee connected with the gende of the child. Boys showed a prefeence for outer site and girb for indoor locations. Children’s prefeence (both gende) wee found to be connected with the type of settlenent in which they grew up. "Indoors only" was prefered by more urban than rural children. This study also compared children’s actual experience with adults’ recollections. Thee was no connection between the children’s actual prefeence and those remenbeed by adults. In total, 46% of the children prefered the outdoors as compared with 96.5% of the adults. The discrepancy between recall of adults and actual activitie of the children may be due to the ernotional qualitie of menorie from childhood or diffeence in the culture of yeteday and today. Adults of today did not have the technological game and activitie that children now play with indoors. Sinnilar findings wee reported by Marcus (1978) who found that 86% of the environments recalled by American college students wee outdoors. Zube, Pitt, and Evans (1983) found that age influenced an individual’s repornse to the landscape. Young children rated landscape differently from adults, and olde adults diffe slightly from young and nniddle-aged adults. Young children’s prefeence wee les affected by the preence of human influence in landscape than wee young and middleaged adults, who greatly disliked them. Eldely adults wee not as disturbed by human intrusions as younge adults wee, but they disliked then more than children did. 151 Young and middle-aged adults wee most sensitive to complexity in landscape, while children exhibited a strong attraction to wate in landscape. Lyons (1983) also reported that prefeence changed through the life cycle. WW Duncan (1973) and Hecht (1975) found that patterns of landscape taste correlated with social class. Duncan discoveed that two distinct social groups in Bedford, New York lived in totally different natural environments. The landscape he classified as alpha was the oldet reidential landscape in the area; home wee versiorns of traditional colonial reidence, roads wee crooked, ovehung with tree and unpaved, gardens and landscaping reflected the prefeence for “natural" and studied “English seediness," and wealthy owners valued their privacy. Beta landscape included homes built within the previous 20 years, paved streets, gardens with open expanse of grass and symnnetrically arranged shrubs and tree, few fence or tree obscured the views of the house, children played in the streets, and ownes wee of a slightly lowe socioecononnic class than alphas. Alphas and betas rarely mingled in church or social and civic organizatiorns. Hecht reported streets with a high pecentage of grass lawns wee in nniddle- and lowe- middle-income Mexican reidential areas of Tucson, Arizona. Non-grass lawns wee more numeous in uppe- and middle-income Anglo subdivisions. W A study of clnildles, relatively nonaffluent adults (n = 268) living in urban housing developments found that not only do people prefer to see the natural world, but having such views and facilitie nearby strongly affects their satisfaction with their physical and social environment (Kaplan, 1981). People decribed their large, multiple-family housing to be friendlie, more supportive, and much more attractive when thee wee trees and 152 woods to be seen. Acre of large mowed areas did not contribute to this oveall satisfaction. Findings from this study also suggeted that the natural environment is not a simple unidirnensional construct. People diffeentiated their immediate residential environment intermofvarious feature ofthenaturalsetting. Theeseentobebasedonavariety of factors, botln visual and functional. Viewing parked cars and othe apartments unscreened by tree was rated unfavorably. Sheets and Manze (1991) explored cognitive and affective reaction to vegetation in an urban setting that was familiar to the repondents. Using line drawings in one study and slide in a second study, they found that the addition of vegetation (tree and shrubs) geneated positive affect and positive evaluations of the quality of life in the area. Subjects reported more positive feelings when viewing tree-lined streets; they felt friendlie, more cooperative, les sad, and les depresed. Scene with vegetation wee rated as bette, safe, and cleane place in which to live and as easie place in wlnicln to make a living. W111!!! The notion that expeience with the natural eivironment can be physically and psyclnologically healthful has been widely held since the 1800’s. Since 1815, the Friends Hospital, Philadelphia, PA has used horticultural theapy to treat the mentally ill. Plant the'apy, unde profesionai supervision, is currently used in nearly 300 hospitals across the courntry, according to the Ameican Horticultural Theapy Association in Gaitlnesburg, MD (Boal, 1994). In a recent survey, conducted by the Arthritis Foundation, 62% of the people with the disease enjoyed gardening more than any othe activity (Baal, 1994). 153 IIartig, Mang, and Evans (1991) used a quasi-expeimental field study and a true apeiment to assess the retorative expeience of wildenes backpacking, nonwildeness vacatiom, and a control condition of daily routine. They reported that greate retorative effects arise from experience in nature. A prolonged wildenes experience has retorative effects although immediate enotional reponse to returning to one’s usual setting may be negative. Long-tem follow-up suggeted that some of the initially depressed reactions at the end of the trip not only dissipated but reversed ove tinne. Participants who spent time in a park reported greate retoration than those who went for a walk through a lovely urban area or relaxed in a comfortably furnished room. Ulrich (1979) addresed the idea that stresed or anxious individuals tend to feel bette afte exposure to natural rather than urban views. Univesity students, experiencing anxiety because of a course examination, viewed color-slide presentations of eitlne (a) eveyday natural scene dominated by green vegetation or (b) unblighted urban views lacking vegetation or wate. Individuals’ feelings wee measured both immediately before and afte the slide exposure using the Zuckeman Inventory of Pesornal Reactions. Reults showed a clear patten of retoration for natural scene. Urban views actually tended to be detrimental to enotional well-being on some dimensiom. The two categorie of environment produced quite different change in enotional state despite the fact that the complexity levels of the slide sample wee equivalent. The reults suggeted that the importance of visual contacts with nature extends beyond aethetic benefits, and include a range of benefits in terns of psychological well-being. In a subsequent study Ulrich (1981) enployed physiological measure of alpha wave amplitude and heart rate afte exposure to different type of landscape scene as well as pape and pencil ratings. Alpha is a valid indicator of cortical arousal and is associated with feelings of wakeful relaxation. This study teted whether visual exposure to nature 154 environments, i.e., nature with wate and nature dominated by green vegetation, was rrrore beneficial in a psychophysiological sense than exposure to environments lacking natnn‘e, i.e., urban without wate and vegetation. Exposure to the two nature categorie, eperially wate, had more beneficial influence on psyclnological state that the urban slide. The alpha amplitude and heart rate findings wee consistent with the self-ratings. The most positive influence on well-being wee produced by the nature scene. Gende diffeence wee noted. Fenale exhibited stronge feelings of attentivenes and positive effect for vegetation scene than the male. The accord between the findings of thee two studie is noteworthy because the invetigatiorns wee peformed in diffeent countrie, Ameica (1979) and Sweden (1981). Based on findings from the two studie Ulrich proposed that pe0ple benefit most from visual contact with nature, as opposed to urban environments lacking nature (no vegetation), when they are in state of high arousal and anxiety. The benefits of visual exposure to nature, compared to urban content, may be les for unstresed people in norrrnal arousal state. Howeve, as the second study suggeted, effects of nature exposure even on unstresed individuals can be significantly more positive than the influence of urban views. Further work continue to support the idea that natural environments facilitate recovey from stres (Ulrich, Simons, Losito, & Fiorito 1991). Studie of hospital patients indicate that views of natural environments facilitate physical recovey and satisfy psychological needs (Heerwagen & Orians, 1986; Parsons, 1991; Talbott, and others, 1978; Ulrich 1984; Ulrich & Simons 1986; Ulrich & Vedebe 1986; Vederbe & Reuman 1987). A wide range of value concening nature exist throughout the population. Thee value range from little inteet in nature to great interet. Many people are only a geneation or two renoved from familie who depended on their own gardens to provide 155 rrnost of the food they ate. Thee appears to exist in most people a basic need for nature in some form. One of the reasons for the exodus to the suburbs is the deire to be close to nature in some form. At a time when thee are great technological advance thee is also a growing realization that humans are not apart from nature and thee may be many benefits from nature that individuals are unaware of and only now beginrning to undestood. APPENDIX E REVIEW OF LITERATURE RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR APPENDIX E Environmental Attitude and Behavior The meta-analytic review of 187 studie looking at environmental behavior by Hine, Hungeford, & Tomea (1986187) indicated a positive correlation between environmental attitude and behavior. This meta-review included 51 studie of the environmental attitude-behavior relationship. Analysis of this relationship found a corrected correlation coefficient of .374, indicating that individuals expresing more proenvironmental attitude wee more likely to have reported engaging in reponsible environmental behaviors, such as recycling, petitioning, and conserving enegy. Highe attitude-behavior correlations were obtained in situations in which actual behaviors wee assessed (r = .427) than whee behaviors wee detemined by self-report (r = .334). Comistent with the notion of attitude accesibility, studie that sample populations comprised of individuals with tie to environmental organizations reulted in a highe aveage correlation (r = .593) than did studie that sampled the general population. This review suggets that the prediction of environmental behavior is based upon a multitude of actions, including locus of control, knowledge, ability, and sucln situational factors as economic constraints, social presure, and opportunitie. Many studies have looked at sociodemographic variable in relation to environmental behavior. Findings from thee studie are inconsistent. A numbe of studie sugget that individuals who expres the most concern for the environment tend to be young and well educated (Althoff & Greig, 1977; Buttel, 1987; Buttel & Flinn, 156 157 1974, 1978; Dillrnan & Christensen, 1972; Hamilton, 1985; Honnold, 1984; McEvoy III, 1972; Mohai & Twight, 1987; Tognacci, Weigel, Wideen, & Venon, 1972) and reide in urban areas (Altlnoff & Greg, 1977; Buttel, 1987; Buttel & Finn, 1978; Dunlap & Catton, 1979; Lowe & Pinhey, 1982; Mohai & Twight, 1986; Samdahl & Bobetson, 1989; Trenblay & Dunlap, 1978; Van Liee & Dunlap, 1980). Income, education, gender (being male), and environmental attitude have been found to have positive associatiorns with environmental knowledge (Arcury, 1990; Arcury & Christianson, 1993; Arcury & Johnson, 1987: Arcury, Johnson, & Scollay, 1986; Arcury, Scollay, & Johnson, 1987; Lovrich, Piece, Tsurutani, & Abe, 1986; Maloney & Ward, 1973). Other studie have reported conflicting findings. Honnold (1981) suggets that sociobiological cohorts may be more effective than age in predicting environmental concen. Nenman (1986) found that demographic attribute (gende, age, educational level, income, political stance) wee unrelated to behavioral comnnitment to consevation practice. Early studie on the effects of gende wee inconclusive (Van Liee & Dunlap, 1980), but a recent review of studie on gende and environmental concen suggets that women expres more concen than men in local environmental issue (Mohai, 1992). The diffeence is smalle for national issue, and women are les likely than men to take political action to protect the environment. Van Liee and Dunlap (1980) reviewed a wide range of studie reporting the sociodenographic correlate of environmental concen and concluded that this line of reearcin has had limited succes in explaining environmental attitude. The relatiornship between sociodenographic characteistie and environmental concen is still poorly nude-stood. 158 Arcury and Christianson (1993) found no consistent diffeence by reidence in regard to an individual’s environmental world view, concen, knowledge, and action. They did find diffeence by education and income. Samdahl and Robetson (1989) reexamined, through LISREL teclnrnique, many of the sociodenographie and political ideologie that have been previously reported as determinants of environmental concen. The study teted the causal model that was developed using data from a general population survey in the state of Illinois (N = 2,131). Their analysis indicated that sociodenographic characteistics, reidence, and political ideology wee ineffective in explaining any of the three type of environmental concen (peceptiorns of problens, support for regulations and ecological behavior) identified. Pro-libeal ideology was a strong predictor of support for environmental regulation. The authors sugget that "furthe reearch might benefit most by exploring undelying belief structure rathe than denographic characteistics of the population” (P. 57). Baldassare & Katz (1992) found that pesonal environmental threat is a bette predictor of oveall environmental practice than are demographic variable and political factors. Peceived environmental threat was found to be highet among younger reidents, women, libeals, and Denocrats. Current environmental liteature suggets that thee is a growing awarenes of two major problenns in reearch dealing with environmental attitude. The first is the way in which attitude are measured and conceptualized. Single-iten scale, poor in validity and reliability, have frequently been used (McStay & Dunlap, 1983). A review of existing liteature and reults of a Washington State study (N = 806) by Van Liere and Dunlap (1981) found that thee is little support for the assumption that all environmental concern measure are equivalent. 159 The second problem is the lack of theory. Environmental studie are often issue- oriented, which is important, but thee is no undelying theoretical framework to tie all the findings togethe (Arcury & Christianson, 1993; Buttel, 1987; Stem Dietz, & Kalof, 1993; Steu & Oskamp, 1987). The New Environmental paradigm (NEP) developed by Cotton and Dunlap (1978, 1980) and Dunlap (1980) is a major development in constructing a social theory of environmentalism. The basic proposition of the NEP is that evey society has a dominant social paradigm based on expeience, enbedded in value, and related to actual behavior. Dunlap and Van Liee (1978) furtheed the proces of opeationalizing the NEP by developing an NEP scale to measure the environmental world view. Studie using the NEP have looked at the enegence of a new worldview, or paradigm, associated with environmentalism. (See Appendix G for a review of NEP scale studie.) Anothe approacln to theory building has been to adapt Schwartz’s (1977) norm- activation model of altruism to explain actions intended to ameliorate environmental problems. Schwartz’s theory of altruism undelie the idea that proenviromnental behavior become more probably when an individual is aware of harmful consequence (AC) to othes from a state of the environment and when that peson ascribe responsibility (AR) to herself or himself for changing the offending environmental condition. Unde conditions of AC and AR, individuals expeience a sense of nnoral obligation to prevent or mitigate the harmful consequence. This so-called pesonal norm motivate action is being studied by a growing numbe of reearche's (Black, Sten, It Elworth, 1985; Hebelein & Black, 1976; Hoope & Nielsen, 1991; Sten, Dietz, & Black, 1986; Sten, Dietz, & Kalop, 1993; Van Liee & Dunlap, 1978). Stem and his colleague (1993) expanded the Schwartz model by identifying three value orientations that may undelie environmental attitude and behavior. Thee 160 include a social or altruistic orientation (concen for othes), an egoistic value orientation (concen for me), and a biospheic value orientation (concen for Nature). Thee may be othe value orientatiom that are culturally specific but the reearclne’s review of liteature suggeted that thee three wee the most frequently noted in Western environmental liteature. Findings from an initial study of college students (n = 349) sugget that becannse the three value orientation coedst in people and may all influence behavior, individual action may depend on the belief or value set that receives attention in a given context. This repornse has been identified as a "focus effect". Diffeent sets of environmental attitude or prefeence quetions draw attention to diffeent value frame and reult in diffe-lug degree of measured environmental concen. It may be that the orientations repreent points on a dimension of moral scope or breadth of moral concen or that the orientations compete within a person (p. 340). This model also provide a vehicle for understanding gende diffeence that have been reported in othe reearch. Findings from tlnis study are consistent with feninist theory tlnat argue that women tend to see a world of inherent inteconnectiorns, whereas men tend to see a world of clearly separate subjects and objects, with events abstracted from their contexts (p. 340). Women appear to be more accepting of mesages that link environmental conditions to potential harm to thennselve, othes, and othe specie or the biosphee. The mothe/fathe effect, reported in previous reearch, may be explained by l'diffe'ential awarenes". Becoming a parent increase attention to information about things that may affect one’s children’s well-being; gende socialization may lead women to focus on children’s health, and men on children’s economic well-being, with opposite effects on environmental concen (p. 341). 161 The model also provide a basis for nude-standing age, peiod, and cohort diffeence reported in environmental reearch. The authors hypotheize that diffeence in beliefs about the consequence of environmental conditions may be largely based on media reports while diffeence in value orientations are more likely to reflect cohort effects. Beliefs about the effects of environmental impacting oneself, othes and the biosphee, based on secondhand information, are more amendable to clnange while the value that can turn the beliefs into action are much les mutable. This study did not addres how individual concens about the environment are shaped by social movenents and political-economic force. The authors sugget that thee are procese which both influence environmental beliefs and focus attention on cetain value would be amendable to study using this model. The environmental attitudinal reearch field continue to produce studie like this one that are broadening the understandings of the relationship between attitude and belnavior. The reearch related to environment and attitude, value, and beliefs is ongoing. Improved measurenent tools and study deigns, and integration of findings into broade theory are needed. APPENDIX F REVIEW OF LITERATURE RELATED TO ORIGIN OF THE AMERICAN LAWN APPENDIX F Origins of the Ideal American Lawn Historiam have written about the lawns which appeared in Pesian, Greek and Roman gardens before the birtln of Christ but the evidence for their existence is extrenely scanty. The first detailed information about lawns was recorded between 1300 and 1500 (Hesayon, 1982). The story of contenporary lawns probably began in medieval castle and monastery cloisters which provided safety for growing food, herbs, frnnits and flowes. The small, enclosed, protected areas whee fruit and flowes grew became known as pleasure gardens. The pleasure garden provided both food and a psychological sanctuary for human activity. People meditated, reted, danced, and courted in thee orclnardlike settings. The ground was coveed with meadow grasse, which wee kept short by beating and trampling then underfoot. Wild flowes crept in among the meadow grasse and gave rise to the name 'flowey meads" (Harvey, 1981). The moden lawn evolved from the pleasure gardens of the French and English. Pleasure gardens are not to be mistaken for the practical garden whee one grew food and hebs. "Because it is the product of a leisure class and a mature culture, the pleasure garden...is neve found among primitive people or upon the frontie" (Tatum, 1978, p. 65). The formal Renaissance style pleasure garden dominated Europe for nearly three centurie. This hndscape style continued the geometric line of the building, epecially its 162 163 centralaxis,intothesurroundingsite. Theeffectofthee'architecturalgardem' depended uporn the viewe being able to expeience the symmetry of the design. Elevated points, such aswindowsand terace, provided spectators withaplatform fromwhich toviewtbegarden to its’ bet advantage. Thee formal gardens reflected the belief that nature worked with clocklike precision and could be controlled by human hands and intelligence (Adams, 1979). Inflnenud1700sEngfishmenreurningfromtheGmndToursoughttorenaketber own parks and gardens into something reenbling the landscape picture of Claude Lorrain (1600-1682) and Gaspar Poussin (1615-1675). This practice of deigrning gardens to reenble paintings explains sucln familiar tems as ”landscape gardene" and 'pictureque". The English garden was a romantidzed vesion of nature, full of copse and winding stream, wandeing paths, thickets, and often a carefully manufactured ruin. Sweeping vistas of turf wee an eseutial component of thee creations (Crockett, 1971). These landscape represented the philosophical belief that thee was once a simple, pastoral way of life whee humans and nature lived in harmony (Watkin, 1982). Landscape artists such as William Kent (1685-1748) contributed to the etablishment ofthelawnasanesentialcomponentofEnglishlandscape. SirFrancisBaconwrote, ”...nothing h more pleasing to the eye than green grass kept finely shorn...’ It was the English landscape gardene, Lancelot "Capability“ Brown (1715-1783), who truly brought the grass lawn into prominence. Brown detroyed existing gardens, cut down mature tree, and moved entire village and people in his efforts to shape the ground into a concave or convex surface in order to focnns an obseve’s view in a particular direction. Brown’s landscape, dominated by the lawn, became the icon of late eighteenth-century English society (Turne, 1985). It is vey important to note that the British climate, mild wintes, nnodeate tenpeatnrres, and high humidity played a major role in the succes of Brown’s use of grass. Thee high maintenance lawns appeared during the Victorian period in Europe 164 and only the wealthy could afford the gardenes and workmen needed to establish and maintain then. British colonists brought their cattle, sheep, and seeds along with their cultnnral ideals to Ameica. The forets of the New World wee quickly cleared to create pasture for the cattle and sheep which played a central role in English agriculture. Seed brought frorrn the Old World, such as bluegrass and white clove, wee adapted to flourish in their new environment. The village commons, coveed with a mixture of grasse, legume, and othe plants became a common landscape feature in the village and towns of nineteenth century Ameica (Cronon, 1983). For the aveage nineteenth century Ameican grass growing near the honnse was usually sparse and scraggly. Growing grass was difficult and required special care and equipment. Lawns wee geneally kept to a minimum and cut by hand scythe or kept short by grazing animals until the mid-1800s. Many people did not allow grae to grow around their buildings. It was not unusual to see the "swept yard", bare soil, in the Soutlnen United State. George Washington "mowed“ his expanse of grass with dee. Tlnomas Jeffeson was one of the most influential of Ameican traveles who brought the English landscape ideal back to the United State. He incorporated the pastoral image of a classical building set in a field of green into the deigrn of his Monticello estate. Jeffeson was also influential in crystallizing the philos0phy of individual land ownership. He believed that an agrarian society made up of small landownes would furnish the most stable foundation for building the nation (Thistlewaite, 1955). Today thee are millions of landownes of impeiled natural reource that do not believe “my yard is part of the problem" (Moncrief, 1970). The ideal of rural nature had been articulated by Rousseau (1712-1778). His call to l‘return to nature” had earlie motivated Marie Antoinette’s fondnes for he make-believe 165 hamlet at Vesaille. But this eighteenth century aristocratic pastime became the se'lonn pursuit of middle class Ameicans in the nineteenth century. The Industrial Revolution center! a new middle class striving to leave the dirty, crowded cities seeking beauty and cleanliness in the rural countryside. Ameicans of the nnid-nineteenth century wee geneally committed to the view that enviromnent to a large extent determine human behavior and personality: to improve the clnaracte of a man, it was only necesary to improve his surroundings. This concept of the beneficial effects of environment was applicable to both the well and the ill. Andrew Jackson Downing, consideed the first Ameican nurseyman and horticulture write to sigrniflcantly influence Anneican life wrote that rural nature was the rrnost beneficial and beautiful of environments, epecially when it had been improved by a competent landscape gardene. Downing created acre of lawrns for wealthy clients and suggeted that those of more modet means could grow grass and tree on even a half an acre of ground. Downing’s protege Frank Scott compared a lawn "where shrubs and flowes mingle in confusion with tall grass with the home of a slatten" (Lowen, 1991, p. 50). Contact with nature was consideed beneficial for eveyone and working in one’s garden was a socially valuable act if not actually a public duty and moral obligation (Griswold & Welle, 1991). To be able to live with nature, the refuge from the rigors of the city, was the purpose for working in the city in orde to accumulate sufficient wealth to retire someday to the country (Huth, 1957; Nash, 1973; Tatum, 1978). Anothe poweful impetus for ecaping the crowded city was epidenic disease. During the warm, summe months city reidents fled outbreaks of smallpox, yellow feve, and cholea. Flight from the corruption associated with city-dwelling migrant populations provided additional motivation to ecape to the country (Wright, 1981). 166 Sues most people could not afford a home in the country and a home in town, a solution was sought in the ”romantic suburb” (Jackson, 1985) which attenpted to combine the nearnes to an industrial city with the rural surroundings of the country. The first suburb is usually consideed to be Llewellyn Park at Wet Orange, NJ, created during the mid 1850s for the drug importe Llewellyn S. Harkell (Jaclxson, 1985; Kastner, 1981). In the years following the Civil War, horse-drawn trolleys, electric street cars and the railroad allowed people to work in the city and live in the country. By tlne 1870s single fannily horrne, landscaped with grass, shrubs, and flowes, had eneged as the housing of choice (Jackson, 1985). The invention of the lawn mowe in 1830 by an Englishman, Edward Budding, and the creation of the Ameican suburb made the lawn available to eveyone (Jackson, 1985). According to Meinig (1979) the moden Ameican suburb became a donninant landscape form with the advent of the automobile. Southern California Suburbia spawned the low, wide-spreading, single-story house standing on broad lots fronted by open, pefect green lawns; the most prominent feature of the house is the two-car garage opening onto a broad driveway, connecting the broad curving street (with no sidewalks, for pedetrians are unknown and unwanted) which leads to the great freeways on which thee affluent nuclear familie can be carried swiftly and effortlesly in air-conditioned comfort to surfing or skiing, golfing, boating, or country-clubbing, as well as to the mt shopping plazas and to drive-in facilitie cateing to evey need and whim (p. Frederick Law Olmsted’s (1822-1903) influence upon the Ameican reidential landscape cannot be undeetimated. He was a famous American landscape architect and deigrned public parks in Boston and New York. Olmsted laid out a genuine Ameican suburban landscape in his 1868 plan for the community of Riverside, Illinois (Tatum, 1973). His deigrn included a minimum 30 foot setback from the sidewalk and numeous tree along the street to create a parklike setting. He believed that the immediate house surroundings were to be deigned to allow people "to carry on daily life in the outdoors." 167 He created "outdoor apartments" by means of terrace, lawm, hedged enclosure, and walled gardens (Griswold & Welle, 1991). Come-Irma Developments The game of golf and the popularity of lawns appear to have spread togethe throughout Ameican society. Golf began as a game of the wealthy but by the 1920s had spread to middle class Ameica (Jenkins, 1994). The suburban golf course provided an example of landscape deign to the middle-class that had been previously available only to the rich or to city reidents with acces to Olrrnstead’s urban parks (Fishman, 1987). Many sevice men, wounded in World War 11, came to appreciate "good turf” as they played golf as part ther relnabilitation at military hospitals (Jenkins, 1994). The United State Department of Agriculture, agricultural expeiment statiorns, and the Urnited State Golf Association have worked closely ove the years to meet the denands of golf course and homeowners for bette grasse to grow throughout the United State. In 1901 the U.S. Congres allotted $17,000 to study the ”bet native and foreignn grass species..for turfing lawns and pleasure grounds" (Goldin, 1977, p. 143). In 1920, the Greens Section of the United State Golf Association received support from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for a program reearching grass specie suitable for greens and fairways. Today grass reearcln centers are found throughout the United State and turf managenent is offeed as a course of study in many universitie. Howeve, golf playing bomeownes have found the manicured golf course green is often vey difficult to enulate in their front yard. Women have traditionally taken care of both the practical and pleasure gardens of the family. The necesity of the practical garden declined as the Industrial Revolution produced a growing middle-class and a new wealthy class. Production of food and goods 168 moved from the home to the factory, leaving the middle and uppe class women with more leisure time. The pleasure garden offeed a socially acceptable pursuit for women. The first American women’s garden club may have been the club founded in Athen, GA in 1890 (Ballard, 1978; Spelle, 1931). While many clubs are still active today, the numbe of menbers has decreased. They helped spread the ideal of the Ameican lawn through home and school programs. As women have enteed the paid workplace, they no longe have the leisure to work in the garden. A minimum amount of time is required to tend the lawn "if kept unclutteed with flowe beds and shrubs and planted to a grass or a mixture that doe not require special care...," (Rockwell & Grayson, 1956, p. 28). It is reasonable to assume that grass has replaced some or all of the previous garden areas. "Mowing the lawn" has historically been a male reponsibility. In the eighteenth century, a good man could manage about a quarte of an acre before 10 a.m. when the grass got too dry for the scythe to bite. For a really good job you would also have to figure on two or three hours for a team of women to sweep up the cuttings (Elliott, 1993, p. 31). The flrst lawn mowing machine were heavy and clumsy. Many wee drawn by horse or mule. Brute strength was required to use a mowe. Women, in their corsets and long skirts, would have had a difficult time handling thee machine even if it would have been socially acceptable for them to work in their yard. In 1902 the first gasoline poweed mowe was introduced. The riding lawn mowe appeared in the 50s, the electric mowe in the 1960s and a robotic, self directed, solar mowe in the 1990s. Lowen (1991) state that from the beginning of the suburbs, lawn care has primarily been a male preeve, while gardening was a fenale pastime. 169 Contemporary studie in family role and divisions of family labor often have a geneal category of gardening, yard work, or exteior home maintenance. Typical of tlnese studie is a study reported by Shaw (1988). In this study, dealing with the definitiorns and peception of household labor, repondents wee asked to define speclflc household tasks as work, mixed work and leisure, or leisure. For the task of gardening, no fenale (n = 17) defined gardening as I'work", 29.4% defined it as mixed work/leisure and 70.6% defined it as leisure. Of the male (n = 56) reponding, 32.1% defined gardening as work, 19.6% defined it as mixed leisure/work and 48.2% deflned it as leisure. Thee was no information regarding what tasks were included in "gardening“ or whethe the couple lived in house or apartments. No Ameican studie wee located that specifically reported who "mm the lawn'' and who applie the chemicals. Advetising about lawn care sevice is geneally directed at the male of the household. Jenkins (1994), in be comprehensive content analysis of popular literature related to the lawn, clearly found that advetising related to the lawn is always, either directly or indirectly, targeted to the man of the house. Hesayon (1982) reported that in Great Britain one in evey three lawns is cut by the woman of the house. No comparable statistic was found for Ameican honnselnolds. In the 1950s and 1960s more and more working class men wee retiring in good health and, thanks to Social Security, financial security. The trend continue today with cnnrrent census figure showing that 77.4% of Americans age 65 and ove own their own home (Bureau of Census, 1994). Many of thee retiree have the money, time, and health to work on their lawns and in their gardens. Lawn care is a pefect hobby for olde men who are used to being physically active and now are faced with long peiods of freetime. 170 Afte World War II the American dream of a house in the suburbs, a strong cultural ideal of lawn, the example of the golf course, the increasing cost of labor, and an emerging chenical industry contributed to the birth of a new sevice industry, professional lawn care. The increasing numbe of two income fannilies resulting from women enteing the workforce and a new marketing tool, the telephone, healded the advent of the moden lawn care industry. In 1969 an Ohio-based company called ChemLawn began providing professional applications of fetilizes and peticide for home lawns. The lawn care industry has grown at a steady rate of 25 to 30% per year from the mid 1960s to the mid 19803 (Schultz, 1989). In 1993 total lawn care industry sales wee estimated at $2.5 billion, seving more than 10 million customers (Rocke, 1993). Of this total, chenical lawn care sales totaled about $1.7 billion and mowing and allied services (primarily mowing) $800 million. It was estimated that in 1992 lawn and landscape contractors maintained nearly 4.3 million acres of lawn of which 1.4 million acres were single-fannily properties (Code, 1993). Mowing sevice are currently the fastest growing portion of the lawn are industry (Roche, 1993). The deep rooted ideal of the lawn and the strength of the economic, legal, and social system supporting it make it unlikely that at this time in Ameican history homeownes will accept anothe kind of groundcover to plant around their homes. Unless thee is overwhelming evidence of serious environment and health risks associated with the chenicals needed to maintain the grass lawn in its present form, it is unlikely thee will be a major reduction in the use of lawn chemicals. AHHflHHX(} REVHflN(HWUHERATUREIUHAHINHH) NEPSCALE APPENDIX G Review oftheStudiasRelatedtotheNEPScale W Dunlap and Van Liee’s 1978 Washington state study introduced and teted the 12- iten NEP scale as part of a wide range of items related to the environment. Two groups of Washington state adults, the general public sample (GPS) consisting of 806 individuals and 407 menbes of a state-wide environmental organization (FSO) comprised the sample. Seveal methods were used to determine if the scale was intenally consistent and unidimensional. A basic assumption made was that the 12 itens reflected aspects of the energing environmental paradigm and could be combined into the NEP scale. The first step in testing the scale was to form a summated rating scale, with the resultant scores ranging from a low of 12 to a high of 48. Next the item analysis approach suggested by Nunnally (1967) was applied. All correlations wee reported as positive and of substantial magnitude. The corrected item-total correlations for the GPS ranged from .394 to .567 with an average of.459, and .328 to .479 with an aveage .388 for the EOS. The authors accepted these results as reflecting a ”consideable amount of intenal consistency, and that it is not necessary to delete any of the individual itens“ (p. 14). The intenal consistency of the scale was further confirmed by two additional measures. Cronbach’s alpha was .813 for the GPS and .758 for the EOS. Omega is 171 172 .849 for the GPS and .802 for the EOS. Results from both tests wee accepted as confirmatory of the scale. The unidimensionality of the scale was tested with factor analysis. The first unu'otated principal factor accounted for 69.2% of the variance in the GPS and 63.3% for the E08. After determining that it appeared legitimate to treat the NEP as a single scale, they assessed its predictive, content, and construct validity. Predictive validity was confirmed by comparing the acceptance of the NEP between the geneal public and the environmentalist group. As predicted, the environmentalists wee stronger proponents than the geneal public. In addition, the relationship between the scores of the NEP for the geneal public and other measures of environmentalism wee abo examined. They found that menbes of the general public who endorsed the NEP wee more likely to favor other environmental programs, regulations, and actions. Content validity depends primarily upon intesubjective agreement that the scale itens adequately represent the ”content" of the concept being measured. The authors attenpted to develop what they consideed a representative set of itens based on an extensive liteature search and personal expeience. They left it to the reades to detemine the content validity of the NEP scale. Construct validity was detemined by looking at three of the most consistent predictors of environmentalism: age, education, and political ideology. Based on previous research it was expected that younge individuals, bette educated individuals, and individuals with a libeal ideological orientation would be more favorable toward the NEP. Although coefficients wee modest, .22 (P< .001) for ideology, .11 (P< .001) for education, and .09 (P< .001) for age they were accepted as confirming connstruct validity. 173 mama: A second replicative study of the NEP scale was peformed by Albrecht, Bultena, Hoiberg, and Nowak in 1982. Statewide sample of two Iowa populations, farm opeators and city reidents, wee sent quetionnaire and 441 fan-mes and 468 city reidents reponded. The authors reported that previous reearch has shown that farmes are les environmentally aware and concerned than are nonfarm populationns. Based on this, the claimed validity of the NEP scale would be reinforced if farmes scored appreciably lowe than did the urban sample. Acceptance of the NEP was surprisingly high for both the farm and urban repondents but the anticipated reidential diffeence was confirmed in that the aveage iten score for urbanite (3.2) was significantly large than that for farm opeators (2.9). The NEP scale validity was accepted. The original Washington state study had concluded that the NH’ scale was unidimensional. In this study when the 12 items wee submitted to factor analysis, three sets of item eneged for both farm and urban populations. Examination of the itens suggeted that the NEP scale was measuring three orientations toward: a) the balance of nature, b) limited to growth, and c) man over nature. Each of the three subscale (although only consisting of 4 itens) had acceptable levels of reliability. The Cronbach alpha’s ranged from a low of .54 for farmers on ”limits of growth" to a high of .71 for urbanite on ”balance of nature”. Furthe teting of the interrelationships between the three delved subscale found only modet relationships between the subscale scores. It seems that the NEP scale may tap seveal discrete, and not necesarily orthogonal, attitudinal domains. This finding suggets that collapsing the three subscale into the one 12-item scale may mask important environmental diffeence between repondents. 174 Wilma: Geller and Lesley (1985) specifically addresed the quetion of the dimensionality of the NEP scale. The data utilized in the study wee from two separate surveys. The first data set was that reported in the Albrecht et al. Iowa study and the second a 1980 survey of Missouri farme's (Iasley & Nolan, 1981). The data wee analyzed by using confirmatory factor analysis technique developed by Joreskog (1969) rathe than the principal factor analysis used in the Washington and Iowa studie. The reults did NOT confirm either the unidimensionality or the three factor scale. Ennrthe teting reulted in confirmation of the dimensionality of a tlnree- factor model using nine of the items from the original scale. The extracted factor patten of this model closely reenbled the findings reported by Albrecht et al. Gelle and Lesley ”cautiously” accepted the Albrecht et al. interpretation of three factors as comisting of a) balance of nature, b) limits to growth, and c) man ove nature. Wind! Arcury, Johnson, and Scollary (1986) used the NEP scale to tet the relationship of the NEP to knowledge of environmentally relevant issue. The data for this study (n=441) was gatheed as part of a statewide telephone survey of Kentucky reidents in Septembe, 1984. A short, six-iten vesion of the NEP scale was used. It had a range of 6 to 24 and achieved an alpha of .69. The NEP score was found to have a significant relationship with knowledge of environmentally related issue. Using path analysis, the NEP score was found to have an independent relationship to the knowledge score with the effects of the othe independent variable controlled. The factors of age and education had the stronget independent effects on NEP. The authors sugget that this study ”shows that a basic worldview or value about how humanity fits within the physical world has a direct relationship to the level of environmental knowledge" (p. 39). 175 MW Piece, Lovricln, Tsurutain, and Abe (1987) examined the link between postmaterial value and the NEP among Japanee and Ameican populace. The Sinizuoka, Japan citizen sample (n=524) and the Spokane, Washington citizen sample (n=524) repreented a cross section of the local suburban populations. Environmental activist sample (n=588 Shizuoka and n=235 Spokane) included menbes of environmental, good govennnent, and social organizations. The political elite (n=436 in Sinizuoka and n=139 in Spokane) included public officials and corporate and public-sector expets in environmental policy. A subset of six of the original twelve NEP items wee used in the study. The authors stated that thee six itens wee substantively repreentative of the original twelve-iten scale. Reponse to the six itens combined to form scale of acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .62 to .71). The Liket-type format used a five-point reponse continuum. Piece and his fellow reearches report that findings from this study indicate that the meaning of support for the NEP is culturally based and differs from country to country, even if those countrie appear to share the postindustrial developmental status thought to have produced the NEP. The cultural diffeence is a function of the extent to which the "New“ paradigm really constitute a departure from the traditional paradigm...ln Japan, the New Environmental Paradigm, is not all that new (p. 77). Undestanding the cultural foundations of a nation is esential to undestanding its environmental attitude. CanadimSmd! Data for this study wee collected in two studie, two years apart, in the citie of Edmonton and Calgary, Albeta (Kuhn and Jackson, 1989). The first mail survey was conducted in July 1984 reulting in a total of 662 usable quetionnaire from both citie. aF 176 The second study was sent to a diffeent group of honnselnolds. Four hundred and three repondents completed the quetionnaire. The attitude scale used in both studie consisted of 21 itenns. It was developed by combining and modifying the “new environmental paradigm" and "dominant social paradigm" scale. Four factors eneged from factor analysis which collectively accounted for 44.4% of the total variance in the data matrix. Cronback’s alpha coefficient was 0.82 for the entire scale and score for Factors 1 through 4 wee 0.78, 0.68, 0.62, and 0.58, repectively. Factor analysis of the data from the second study reulted in similar findings. The same four factors accounted for 49.6 pecent of the total variance. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the entire scale wee 0.84 and for each of the four factors closely approximated finding from the 1984 study. The four factors which eneged from the data focused on the consequence of growth and technology, the quality of life, relationships between mankind and the natural environment, and limits to the biosphee. 1W Arcury and Christianson collected data for this study as part of statewide telephone surveys of Kentucky reidents in 1984 and 1988. Using random-digit dialing, 441 adults wee inteviewed in 1984 and 653 adults in the 1988 study. This study used a scale composed of five of the twelve itens which composed the original NEP scale. The reliability for the five item NEP scale, based on the 1988 survey was .62. The scale scoring ranged from 0 to 20 based on the five itens. Those scoring 0 had the most Human Exenptionalism paradigm worldview, or the weaket environmentalism attitude. Those scoring 20 had the most New Environmental paradigm world view, or have the stronget environmentalism attitude. 177 W Noe and Snow (1990a) applied the NEP scale to detemine whether diffeence in ethnic backgron influenced prefeence toward the environment. A field intercept stnndy (n=906) and mail survey (n=431) of greate Mianni boates and a geneal population telephone survey (n = 805) comprised two distinct, independent studie done in southen Florida in 1986. The original 12-iten NEP scale was used with the boates. Only ten itenns wee used in the geneal population study. Based upon findings from a pretet, the statenents dealing with humans intefeing with nature and steady-state economy wee eliminated. A five point Likert scale, +2 to -2, was used. Factor analysis and Cronbacin alpha scalability tets wee run to detemine possible patten of environnnental beliefs. Factor analysis of the field survey that sampled boates and park uses showed that the Hispanic repondents had a two-dimensional ecological orientation to nature. The Hispanic repondents in the geneal survey diSplayed a three-dimensional ecological orientation to nature. This factor analysis sugget that thee is more than one dimension to the ND scale. At a minimum, thee are two dimensions and probably three for some repondents. Thee findings are also in accord with Piece et al. (1987) who found that support for the New Environmental Paradigm is culturally based and diffes from country to country. Noe and Snow raise the quetion of whethe the influence for the Hispanic repondents may be more social than cultural, reulting from inteactions with non-Hispanie. W In this study Noe and Snow (1990b) reported findings from the National Park Service use of the NEP scale to measure environmental concen among park visitors. The NEP was added to five visitor surveys in southeasten parks to detemine how 178 national park visitors would repond to the scale itens. Of particular interet to the investigators was the quetion about the NEP scale’s unidimensionality. The study based findings on reults from surveys in five parks: Cape Hatteas National Seashore in North Carolina (N=598), Chattahoochee Rive National Recreation Area in Georgia (N =872), Blue Ridge Parkway extending through Virginia and North Carolina (N =600), Biscayne National Park in Florida (N =880), and Cascade Heights in Atlanta (N =600). The last park added an important ethnic dimension. It was a study of middle-class blacks. Kendall coefficient of concordance was applied to tet the level of agreenent between the reponse of all five sample to the 12 itenns constituting the NEP scale. fight of the twelve itens wee found to elicit high levels of agreement across the five sample populations. Howeve, the four itens that focus on the anthropocentric viewpoint of subjugating nature to man’s deigns wee poorly interelated across the sample. This lack of agreenent indicated to the reearches that thee is an attitudinally ambivalent state among the repondents. They reported that ”although repondents geneally agree that nature is easily upset by mankind, some repondents wee not yet ready to yield control to nature and suppres their self-peceived supeior role in the sclnene of life" (p. 24). Factor analysis and Cronbacln alpha scalability tets wee run. The analysis was connpared with Gelle et al.’s 1985 study and while thee wee diffeence, the reponse wee sinnilar. The factor missing among the park populations was the one dealing with more abstract ideas about economic and ecological concepts. Repondents may define "steady state" or "spacehip earth" in the diffeent ways. The most important finding was that the NEP scale was once again found to be multidimensional. The article briefly refered to a recent 1990 telephone survey whee the NEP was modified by deleting the 179 steady-state and humans intefeing with environment items. Howeve, the final recommendation was for continued use and teting of the original 12-iten scale. mam: The NEP scale was used as part of a study by Shetze, Stackman, and Moore (1991) to examine attitude of 237 busines students about busines and the environment. The relationship between busines-environment attitude and NEP orientations provide fnnrthe support for the predictive validity of the NEP Scale. A strong proenvironmental position regarding busines was related to a NEP orientation (r = .48). Analysis in this study supports the existence of the three subscale: Balance of Nature, Limits to Growth, and Man ove Nature. W Published in 1993, Arcury and Christianson conducted this study in 1989. Data wee collected via telephone survey from 624 Kentucky reidents. In this study the full 12-iten NEP scale was used, which has a range of 0 to 48. Three othe measure of environmental world view wee deived from the full NEP scale based upon their previous work and that of Albrecht et al. (1982). Each included four diffeent item. The three subscale measure repondent views toward (a) human influence on the balance of nature; (b) linnits to growth; and (c) reign of humans ove nature. Each subscale has a range of 0 to 16. Reults showed that education, income, age, and gende accounted for much of the variation in environmental world view and global environmental knowledge irrepective of reidence. Howeve, environmental knowledge is quite limited for the entire sample. Fewe than 25% of the repondents correctly answeed any of the quetiom on global environmental issue. APPENDIX H UCRIHS APPROVAL LETTER UCRIHS APPROVAL LETTER MICHIGAN STATE 94-208 LIEV l \/ E ii S l 1' Y May 19, 1994 TO: LOIS c SHERN 204 HUMAN ECOLOGY BLDG. RE: IRB#: TITLE: REVISION REQUESTED: CATEGORY: APPROVAL DATE: arrnruoss, pasrsasscss AND paacrncss or RESIDENTIAL aousowssns WITH REGARD TO LAWNS AND LAWN cans CHEMICALS N/A n-c 05/1s*94 The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'(UCRIHS) review of this project is complete. I am pleased to advnse that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. herefore, listed above. RENEWAL: the UCRIHS approved this project including any revision UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to continue a project beyond one year must use the green renewal form (enclosed with t project is renewed) to seek u date maxnmum of four such expedite wishing to continue a project beyond tha or complete revnew. again .REVISIONS: . subjects, the time o UCRIHS must review any rior to initiation of t renewal, please use the green renewal form. To e original approval letter or when a. certification. There is a ossnble. Investigators renewals . . time need to submit it changes in grocedures involving human e change. If this is done at revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, C send your written request to the approval and referencing the project's IRB I and title. in our request a description of the change and any revised ins ruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable. PROBLEMS/ cannons: subjects or Should either of the followin work, investigators must noti (unexpected snde effects, 2) changes in the research environment or new existed when the protocol was previously reviewed an RIHS Chair, requesting revised Include arise during the course of the UCRIHS promptly: (1) problems e comp aints, c.) involvnng uman information indicating greater risk to the human sub ects than approved. lease do not hesitate to contact us omce or RESEARCH AND f b f f h 1 I t , G'Efigfi‘g at 73173555233833 rXxuf§17?3§6-i171 . sily Committee on leeanch lnvolvi Human Subjects ‘ (ucems) umnSmemwemw TnlflISifJilon Bunlding s! Lansing, Michigan 48824-1046 5177355-2180 FAX‘ 517/336-1171 Sincerely, avid E. Wright, UCRIHS Chair DEW:pjm CC: ANN C SLOCUM 180 LIST OF REFERENCES LISTOF REFERENCES Adam, W.H. (1979). W. New York: Brazille. Aizen, 1., & Fishbein, M. (1980). -. 1:. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall. Albrecht, D., Bultena, G., Hoibeg, E., 8: Nowak, P. (1982). The New Environmental Paradigm scale. W 13(3). 39-43 Alexande, C., Ishikawa, S. & Silvestein, M. (1977). W. New York: Oxford Pres. Althoff, P., & Greig, W.H. (1977). Environmental pollution control. W m 2(3): 441-456- Altman, 1., & Gauvain, M. (1981). A cross sectional and dialectic analysis of home. In L- Eben. A. Patterson. & N. Newcombe (Eds). WW span (pp. 283-320). New York: Academic Pres. Annira, S. & Abramowitz, S. I. (1979). Theapeutic attraction as a function of therapist attire and office filmnshings WWW 91(1). 198-200. Andeson, L.M. (1981). Land use deignations affect peception of scenic beauty in foret landscape. Wm, 27, 392-400. Appleton. J. (1975). Wessex. London: Wiley- Appleton,J .(1988). Prospects and refuge revisited. In J. L. Nasar (Ed .), Enximnmmm ~ - ' . (pp 2744) New York: Cambridge University Press. Arcnnry, T.A. (1990). Environmental attitude and environmental knowledge. Human Qtsanizailan, 49: 300-304- Arcnnry, T.A., & Christianson, EH. (1990). Environmental worldview in reponse to environmental problens - Kentucky 1984 and 1988 compared. W seams 21(3). 387-407- 181 An 182 Arcury, T.A., & Christianson, EH. (1993). Rural-urban diffeence in environmental knowiedse and actions. MW. 25(1). 19-25- Arcury, T.A., & Johnson, T.P. (1987). Public environmental knowledge: A statewide survey- .lnnnnrnauLEnximnmentaljdnnetioa. 18. 31-37- Arcnnry, T.A., Johmon, T.P, & Scollay, SJ. (1986). Ecological worldview and environmental knowledge: The “New Environmental Paradigm." M We. 17. 35-40. Arenry, T.A., Scollay, S.J., & Johnson, T.P. (1987). Sex diffeence in environmental concen and knowledge: The case of acid rain. We, 16, 463-472. Baldassare, M., & Katz, C. (1992). The pesonal threat of environmental problem as Predictor of environmental practices- EnyimnmmLmifidnamr. 21(5). 602-615- Ballard, E. D. (1978). The organizations of horticulture. In G. H. M. hwrene, (Ed. ), - - , _ ' (pp. 53-64). Philadelphia, PA: The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. Bailing. I.D., & Falk, J.H. (1982). Development of visual prefeence for natural environments. Enflmnmentanfliebasior. 11(1). 548- Becker, ED. (1977). W. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutclninson, and Ross. Bennett, G.W., Runstrom, E.S., Wieland, J.A. (1983). Peticide use in home. mm W. 29(1). 31-38- Black, J.S., Sten, P.C., & Elworth, J.T. (1985). Pesonal and contextual influence on hotnehoid were adaptations. WW. 70. 3-21- Blair,D (.1.989) Uncetaintie in peticide risk etimation and consume concen. W. Nov/Dec 1989 Blumer. H. (1969). WWW Ensiewood ClifiS. NJ: Prentice-Hall. J. (1994). The greening of your health. W: 21(2), 16-20. Borden, R.J. (1984/85). Psychology and ecology: Beliefs in technology and the diffusion of ecological responsibility. Wiles. 16(2). 14-19. Bornnann, F.H., Balnnori, D., 8: Geballe, G.T. (1993). W. New Haven, CT: Yale Univesity Pres. Br Br Br Br Bu Bu 183 Boyden. S- (1970)- WWW Canberra. Annstralia: Australian Acadeny of Science. Boyden,S. (1979). . ' ' " WWUNESCO. Boyden, S. (1986). An integrative approach to the study of human ecology. In R.J. Borden, J. Jacobs, &G..L Young(Eds). W W (pp. 3-26). College Park, MD: The Society for Human Ecology. Boyden, S. (1987). ' '. ' ' Oxford, England: Clarendon Pres. Boyden, S. (1992). t ' ‘ A - Paris, France: UNESCO and Park Ridge, NJ: Parthenon Publishing Group. Boyden. S-s Dover‘s. 5.. & ShirIOW. M. (1990). W. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford Univesity Pres. Boyden, S., Millar, S., Newcombe, K., 8: O’Neill, B. (1981). W W. Canbera, Australia: Australian National Univesity Pres. Branson, D.H., Ayre, G.S., & Henry, MS. (1986). Effectivenes of selected work fabrics as berries to peticide penetration. In R.L. Barke & G.C. Coletta (Eds.), iv l hin A M (pp. 114-120). Philadelphia, PA: Ameican Society for Teting and Mateials. Brown, H. (1972). Peception and meaning. In N. Reche (Ed.), W W. Special issue of American Philosophical Quartely Monograph Seie, No. 6. Brown, L. (1981). W. New York: W.W. Norton Co. Brown, J.S., & Goldsten, LS. (1968). Nurse-patient inteaction before and afte the substitution of street clothe for uniforms. WW man. 11. 32-43- Bubolz, M ..M & Sontag, M. S. (1993). Human ecology theory. In P. G. Boss, W.J. Dohety, R. LaRossa, W .R. Schumnn, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds .), w Bueclning, D.P., 8: Wollstadt, L. (1984). Cancer mortality among farmes. W NationaLCananInstitnntc. 13(3). 503-503. Bureau of Census. (1990). - ' ' - . : Deparment of Commece. Economics and Statistie Administration. 1990CH-1-1. 184 Burke, J. (1985). W. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. Burmeister, L.F. (1990). Cancer in Iowa farme-s: Recent reults. W W. 18. 295-301. Burmeiste, L.F., Eveett, G.D., Van Lie, S.F., & Isaeon, P. (1983). Selected cancer mortality and farm Practices in Iowa. Mammalian 118(1). 72-77. Buttel, EH. (1987). New directions in environmental sociology. mm mm. 13. 465-488- Buttel, F.H., & minn, W.L. (1974). The structure of support for the environmental movenent, 1968-1970. BMW, 39, 56-69. Buttel, F.H., & Flinn, W.L. (1978). Social class and mass environmental beliefs: A reconsideration. We. 10. 433-450- Cannann, D.E. (1991). Peticide found in carpet dust. W 15(2), 13. Cantor, K.P. (1982). Farming and mortality from non-Hodgkin’s lymphonna: A case- control study. i l rn l f n , 22, 239—247. Carson, R. (1962). mm. Cambridge, MA: Riveside Pres. Catton, W.R., Jr., & Dunlap, R.E. (1978). Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. Wests. 13. 14-49. Catton, W.R., Jr., & Dunlap, R.E. (1980). A new ecological paradigm for post- mbcrsnt socioiosy- WW 24. 15-47- Chaiken. S., & Stangor, C. (1987). Attitude and attitude change. MW Budnnlosx. 38. 575-630- Chowdhary, U. (1988). Instructor’s attire as a biasing factor in students’ ratings of an instructor Winston. 6(2). 17-21. Code, C. (1991). Are peticide reidue lingeing in compost? W W 89 30'319 34: 36° Code, C. (1993). Survey: Contractors optimistic about busines future. m Waterline. 1. 52-53. Colorado Epidenniologic Peticide Studie Cente, Colorado State Univesity, Fort Collin-t. C0. (1974). MW Quarterly Report No. 2. EPA Contact No. 68-02-1271, 14-23. Connely, C.E. (1986). Growth management concern: the impact of its definition on support for local growth controls. WM, 18, 707-32. 185 Coope, C. (1974). The house as symbol of self. In J. Lang,‘1 C. Burnette, W. Moleki, & mm, (pp. 130-146). Strfnudsburg, rA: Dowden,11utclniinson & not. Coope, S. (1994). The voice of more than 10,000 reades. MW Marcln, pp. 20. Crockett, J.U. (1971). W. New York: TimeLife Books. Cronon,W (.1983) = ~ - =. W. New York: Hill and Wang. Crownfield, D. (1973). The curse of Abel: An easy in biblical ecology. mm Amalgam Summer. 58-63. Daniel, T.C., & Boste, R.S. (1976). Measuring landscape aethetics: The Scenic Beauty Estimation method. (Reearch pape RM-167). Fort Collinns, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Foret and Range Expeiment Station. Davie, J.C., Freed, V.H., Enos, H.F., Duncan, R.C., Barquet, A., Morgade, C., Pete's, L.J., & Danauskas, J.X. (1982). Reduction of peticide exposure with protective clothing for applicators and mixes. WM, 25 (6), 464-468. Davis, J.R., Browmon, R.C., & Garcia, R. (1992). Family peticide use in the home, ssrdcn. orchard. and yard. WW Melon. 22. 260-266. Davis, J.R., Browmon, R.C., Garcia, R., Bentz, B.J., & Turne, A. (1993). Fannily Pesticide use and childhood brain cancer. WWW andleximlou. 24:87-93. de Haven-Smith, L. (1988). Environmental belief systens: Public opinion on land use regulation in Florida. W. 20:176-99- Dcvsll. B. & Session-o. G. (1985). W Layton. UT: Gibbs M. Smith. Dillon, LS. (1980). Busines dres for women corporate profesionals. W Melanoma]. 2(2). 124-129- Dilhnan, D.A. , & Christensen, J.A. (1972). The public value for pollution and control. In W. Burch, Jr., N.H. Creek, Jr., 8: L. Taylor (Eds.), WW Wilmet- New York: Harper & ROW- DowElanco. (1993). I: ’ =_ ' ' _ -. ' mum Unpublished report. Indianapolis, IN: DowElanco. 186 Duncan, J.S., Jr. (1973). Landscape taste as a symbol of group identity. Ill: WW. 63(3). 334-355. Dunlap, R. E. (1980). Paradignnatic change nn social science: Iii-om human exceptionalism to an ecological paradigm. WW 24. 5-14 Dunlap, R.E., & Catton, W.T., Jr. (1979). Environmental sociology. W Militia: 5. 243-273- Dnnnlap, R.E. & Scarce, R. (1991). The polls-poll trends- environmental problenns and protection- W. 5.5. 651-672. Dunlap, R.E. & Van Liee, K.D. (1978). The "new environmental paradigm". The W. 2(4). 10-19. Dunnette, D.A. (1989). Assesing risks and preventing disease from environmental chemicals. Win. 14(3). 169-185. Elliott, C. (1993). The rise and fall of grass. Medium, January, 30-33. Evam, J. A. (1992). Landscaping: An invetment that take root and grows. “1 Watt. 2. 34-37 Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitude guide behavior? In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds J. . z, . Maxim, (pp. 204-243). New York: Guilford Pres. Fenske, R.A., Black. K.G., Elkner, K.P., Lee, C., Methne, M.M., Soto, R. (1990). Potential exposure and health risks of infants following indoor reidential peticide applications. With. 80(6). 689-693. Finklea, J. F., Keil, J. E., Sandifer, S. H., & Gadsden, R. H. (1969). Peticide and pesticide hazards in urban households W Minimal. 31-33. Fischhoff. B. (1985). Managing risk perceptions. WWW 2(1). 83-96. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, 8., Read, 8., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitude toward technological risks and benefits. W, 2, 127-152. fishman. R. (1987). W. New York: Basic Books. Forsythe, S.M., Drake, M.F., 8: Cox, C.A. Jr., (1984). Dres as an influence on the peceptiom of managenent characteristie in women. W .lmnmsl. 13(2). 112-121. 187 Iii-anck, K., Umeld, C.T., & Wentworth, W.R. (1974). Adaptation of tlne newcomer: A proces of construction. City Univesity of New York, Environmental Psychology Program. We, G.W., & Levenson, H. (1978). Insect problem and insecticide use: Public opinion information and behavior. In G.W. Frankie & C.S. Koehler (Eds.), We: (pp. 359-399). New York: Academic Press. Friedel, RM. (1993). Some matte-s of substance. In S. Lubar & W. David Kluge-y (Eds.). WW (pp-41-50). Washington and London: Smitlnsonian Institution Pres. Gallagher. TJ. (1977). = - =. ‘ z . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Gauvain, M., Altman, L., 8: Fahim, H. (1983). Home and social change: A cross- cnnltural analysis. In N.R. Feimer & E.S. Gelle (Eds.), W W. New York: Presser. Geiger, C.R. (1993) The health and safety concerns of common insecticides. W With. 556). 11-15. Gelle, J.M. & Lasley, P. (1985). The new environmental paradigm scale: A reexamination. MW 11(1). 942. Gold, S.M. (1977). Social benefits of tree in urban environments. W W. 19. 85-90. Gold, E., Gordis. L. Tonascia, J., & Szklo, M. (1979) Risk factors for brain tumors in children. WW. 109. 309-319 Gold, A.J., Morton, T.G., Sullivan, W.M., 8: McClorY. J. (1988). Leaching of 2,4-D and dicamba from home lawns. W, 3, 121-129. Goldin. A.R. (1977). W. New York: Thomas Nelson. Griehop, J.I., & Stile, M.C. (1989). Risk and home-peticide W. Wang! nebular. 21(6). 699-716. Griswold. M.. & Weller. E. (1991). W. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Gundesen, D.E. (1987). Credibility and the police uniform. W mudministmtinn. 15(3). 192-195. Hamilton, L.C. (1985). Who care about wate pollution? Opinions in a small—town crisis. SEW. 55. 170-181. 188 Harris, S. A., & Solomon, K. R. (1992). Human exposure to 2, 4-D following controlled activities on recently sprayed turf. . n . , . '. 27(1), 9-22. Harris, S.A., Solomon, K.R., & Stephenson, G.R. (1992). Exposure of homeowne's and bystandes to 2,4—Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D). W W. 27(1). 23-38. Harrison, S. A., Watschke, T. L., Mumma, R. 0., Jarrett, A R.., & Hannilton, G. W. Jr. (1993). Nutrient and peticide concentrations in water from chemically treated airfare-es. an.D. RackedzAHR Leslie(Eds.).P_etiade_unflLhan_Enximnmta. W (pp. 191-207). Washington, DC: Ameican Chemical Society. Hartig, T., Mang, M., 8: , Evans, G.W. (1991). Retorative effects of natural environment “patience. We. 23(1). 3-26. Harv”. J. (1981). mm. Portland: Timber Pres. Hawkins, E., Claghorn, J.L. 8: Zentay, W. (1966). Nursing dress: An experlmental evaluation of its effect on psychiatric patients. We. 1(2). 148-157. Heberlein, T. A. & Black, J. S. (1976). Attitudinal specificity and the prediction of behavior in a field setting WWW. 13(4). 474-479. Hecht, M.E. (1975). The decline of the grass lawn tradition in Tueon. 1mm 19(3), 310. Heerwagen, J.J., 8: Orians, G.H. (1986). Adaptations to windowlesnes: a study of the use of visual decor in windowed and windowles office. W 13, 623-639. He'zog, T.R., Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). The prediction of prefeence for unfamiliar urban places. WW. 5. 43-59. Hessayon, D.G. (1982). W. Herts, England: pbi Publications. Hines, J.M., Hungeford, H.R., & Tomera, A.N. 0986/”). Analysis and syntheis of research on reponsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. W Ween. 13(2). 1-8. Hoar, S.K., Blair, A., Holme, F.F., Boysen, C.D., Robel, R.J., Hoover, R., and Fraumeni, F.F. (1986). Agricultural herbicide use and risk of lymphoma and soft- tissue sarcoma. WWW. 256(9). 1141-1147. Hodge, J.E. (1993). Peticide trends in the profesional and consumer markets. In K.D. Racke & A.R. Leslie (Eds). WW (pp.10-l7). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. 189 Homeowne‘s spend billions, but don’t know real benefits. (1994). mm Mammal. August. 51 & 54. Honnold, J.A. (1981). Predictors of public environmental concern in the 19708. In M.E. Dean (Ed.). EnzimnmflniaLmlisuomaiian. (pp. 453-76). Lainaton. MA: Lexington Books. Honnold, J.A. (1984). Age and environmental concern: Some specification of effects. MW. 16. 4-9. Hoope, J.R. & Nielsen, J.M. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior: Normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Wynne. 23. 195-220. Huff, J. (1993). Chenicals and cancer in humans: First evidence in expe'imental animals. WW. 100. 201-210. Hurto, K. A. & Yeary, R. A. (1993). Exposure to peticide following application to turfgrass site. In R. N. Carrow, N. E. Christians, R. C. Shearman (Eds). = ' - = =. (pp. 127-133). Overland park, KS: Intertec publishing Corp. Huth, H. (1957). W. Berkeley, CA: University of Californnia Press. Hutterer, 1K. & Rambo, A.T. (Eds) (1985). mm Ann Arbor, MI: Univesity of Michigan Center for South and Southeast Asian Studie. Iozzi, LA. (1989). What reearch says to the educator. Part Two: Environmental education and the affective domain. Win. 20(4). 6- 13. Jackson, K. (1985). I - = New York: Oxford University Pres. Jenkins. v.s. (1994). W. Washington and London: Smitlnsonian Institution Pres. Jeyaratnnam, J. (1990). Acute peticide poisoning: A major global health problen. WW 43. 139-144. Joseph. N. (1986). Wu; New York: Glenwood Pres. Kamble, S.T., Gold, R.E., & Vitzthum, ER. (1978). ' ' am. Environmental Programs Report No. 3, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 190 Kaplan, R. (1975). Some methods and strategie in the prediction of preference. In E.H. Zube, R.G. Brush, & J.G. Fabos (Eds.), W. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross. Kaplan, R. (1978). The green expeience. In A. Kaplan & R. Kaplan (Eds. ), WWI: (pp. 186-193) North Scituate. MA: Duxhur! Kaplan,R.(1981).i-.' ' i =. ' " Report to the Planning DepaMent, City of Ann Arbor, MI. Kaplan, R. (1983). The role of nature in the urban context. In I. Altman and LE. r Wohlwill (Eds). W (pp-127462). New York: Plenum. Kaplan, S. (1979). Peceptions and landscape: Conceptions and misconceptions. In G.H. Eisner & R.C. Smardon (Eds.), W3 (pp. 241-248). Berkeley: USDA Foret Service, General Technical Report PSW-35. Kaplan, S. (1987). Aethetie, affect, and cognition. Environmental prefeence from an evolutionary perspective. W. 19(1). 3-32. Kaplan, S. (1988a). Perception and landscape: Conceptions and misconceptions. InJ.L. Nasar(Ed.), I '-. . ,= (pp. 45-55). New York: Cambridge University Pres. Kaplan, S. (1988b). Where cognition and affect met: A theoretical analysis of prefeence. In J. L. Nasar (Ed. ), - .. . applications (pp. 56-63). New York: Cambridge University Pres. Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., 8: Wendt, J.S. (1972). Rated prefeence and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Wylie, 12, 354-356. Kastnner, J. (1981). Alexander Jackson Davis. In J J. Thorndike, Jr. (Ed .), 111m mmmmmmmmm (pp. 130-147). New York: New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission and the Arts Publishe. Kelly, in. (1981). Art of the Olmsted landscape. In B. Kelly, G.T. Guillet, & M.E.W. Hernn (Eds.), f h l Ian 5 . New York: New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission and the Arts Publisher. Kuhn, R.G. 8: Jackson, E.L. (1989). Stability of factor structure in the measurenent of public environmental attitudes. Jpn—niaLoLEanmMaLEdnmtian. 29(3). 27-32. Kronne, M. (1990). York: Viking Pres. Laffe'ty, H. K., 8: Dickey, L. E. (1980). Clothing symbolism and the changing role of nurses. WM. 8(4). 294-301 191 Lande, 8.8. (1975). Public attitude toward peticide. mm 29,2548. 13118. L. (1993). Are Maddie 8 Pl‘Oblem? W 1:10). 578-583. Lasley, P., & Nolan, M. (1981). ' . . WWW FinalReporttotheSoilComeflatiou Laughlin, J. M., Easley, C. B. Gold, R. E. & Hill,R R..M (1986). Fabric parameters and peticide characteristie that impact on dermal exposure of applicators. lnR..L Barker&G.C. Coletta(Eds.).£:Lfoman::.aLEmteztl1:_Clatlnina.. W (pp. 136-150). Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Teting and Materials. Lawrence, RJ. (1985). A more humane history of home. In I. Altman & C.M. We'ner (Eds). W. New York: Plenum. Leonard, J.A., & Yeary, R.A. (1990). Exposure of worke-s using hand-held equipment during urban application of peticide to tree and ornamental shrubs. mm WW. 5101). 605-609. Leonas, K. K., 8: Yu, X. K. (1992). Deposition patterns on garments during application of lawn and garden chemicals: A comparison of six equipment type. WM Levenson, H., & Frankie, G. W. (1983). A study of homeownes attitude and practices toward arthr0pod pets and peticide ln three U. S. metropolitan areas. In G.W. Ih‘ankie&C.S. Koelnler(Eds.), =_ . - . (pp. 67-106). New York: Praeger Pres. lichtenstein, S. Slovic, P, Fischhoff, B., Layman, M. & Combs, B. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. a .2. ._ _ - _ _, .r - anlLMMslrx. 4. 551-578 Lovricln, N.P., Jr., Piece, J.C., Tsurutani, T., & Abe, T. (1986). Policy relevant information and public attitude: Is public ignorance a barrier to nonpoint pollution managenent? Weill. 22. 229-236. Lowe, G.D., & Pinhey, T.K. (1982). Rural-urban difference in support for environmental protection. BMW. 47, 114—128. Lowen, S. (1991). The tyranny of the lawn. AW Septenber, pp. 44-55. Lunsford, L. (1994). Phosphorous run-off is a continuing concern. W Connect. 35(3). 20-22. Lyom, E. (1983). Denographic correlate of landscape preference. mm mm, 15, 487-511. 192 Maibacln, nn. 1., Fleldman, 3.1., Milby, 'r. w., & Serat, w. F. (1971). Regional variation in percutaneous penetration in man. MW. 23. 208. Maimgren, J. (1994, May 27). EPA give more reasons to mow lawn les. W W. Maloney, M.P., & Ward, M.P. (1973). Ecology: let’s hear from the people: An objective scale for measurenent of ecological attitude and knowledge. MW 28, 583-586. Mannheim,K .(.1936) -. . . _ . Midge. (L. Wirth & E. Shells, Trans., pp. 75-78). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. (Original work published 1929) Marcus, C.C. (1978). Renenbrance of landscape past. m 22, 34-43. McAnndrew, F.T. (1993). W. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc. McEvoy II], J. (1972). The Ameican concern with environment. In W. Burch, N.H. Creek. Jr.. & L.Taylor (Eds.). W: W (pp. 214-236). New York: Harper & Row. McQuire, WJ. (1969). The nature of attitude and attitude change. In G. Lindsey & E. Aronnson (Eds.), k f i l l , (pp. 136-314). Reading, MA: Addison-Weley. McQuire, WJ. (1985). Attitude and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronnson (Eds.). WWW. (pp. 233-346). New York: Random House. McQuire, WJ. (1989). The structure of individual attitude and attitude system. In A.R. Pratkanis, S.J. Breckler, 8: A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), W function. (pp. 37-69). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. McStay, J.R., & Dunlap, R.E. (1983). Male-fenale diffeence in concern for environmental quality. MW. 6(4). 291-301. Mechenich, C., & Shaw, B.H. (1994). Chemical use practice and opinions about groundwater contamination in two unsewered subdivisions. mm W. 5:05). 17-22. Meinig, D. W. (1979). Symbolic landscape; some idealizations of American communities. In D. W. Meinig (Ed. ), - = _ - - _ ' . Essays.(pp.164-192). New York: Oxford Pres. Milbrath. L.W. (1989). WWW: Albany: State Univesity of New York Pres. 193 Miles, M.B. & Hube-man, A.M. (1994) W (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Miller, R. W. (1988). : =_ Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Miller, T.A.W. & Keller, E.B. (1991). What the public thinks. W1, 17(2), 40- “a Mohai, P. (1992). Men, women, and the environment: An exannination of the gentle gap in environmental concern and activism. WW, 5, 1-19. Mohai, P. (1985). Public concern and elite involvenent in environmental-consecration issues. WW1. 66(4). 820-838. Mohai, P., & Twight, B.W. (1986). Rural-urban difference in environmentalism revisited. Paper preented at the annual meeting of the Rural Sociology Society, Salt lake City, Utah. Mohai, P., & Twight, B.W. (1987). Age and environmentalism: An elaboration of the Buttel model using national survey evidence. mm 68(4), 798-815. Moncrief, L.W. (1970). The cultural basis for our environmental crisis. m 110, 508-512. Morton, T.G., Gold, A.J., 8: Sullivan, W.M. (1988). Influence of ove'wate'ing and fertilization on nitrogen losse from home lawns. WM 11(1), 124-130. Mose, M. (1989). Peticide-related health problems and farmworke's. AAQHHJ, 31(3), 115-130. Nash. R. (1973). W. New Haven. CT: Yale University Pres. Nations, B.K., 8: Hallbeg, G.R. (1992). Peticide in Iowa precipitation. mm W: 21s 486492- Neuman, K. (1986). Pesonal value and commitment to energy consecration. WW. 18(1). 53-74. Nienczyk, H.D., and Filary, Z. (1988). Vertical movement and accelerated degradation of insecticide applied to turfgrass. MW March 1- 6, Columbus, OH. Nigg, H. N., Stamper, J. H., 8: Queen R. M. (1986). Dicofol exposure to Florida citrus applicators: Effects of protective clothing. MW We. 15. 121- 134 194 nghtline debate: Is the public at risk? (1991). 20-21. New homeowne-s love lawn care and landscaping. (1991). W 15(10). 40 Noe, F.P. & Snow, R. (1990a). Hispanic cultural influence on environmental concern. We. 21(2). 27-34. Noe, F.P. & Snow, R. (1990b). The new environmental paradigm and further scale analysis. Winn. 21(4). 20-26. Olsen, M.E., Lodwick, D.G., & Dunlap, R.E. (1992). WWW- Boulder, CO: Wetview Pres. Olson, D.K., Sax, L., Gunderson, P., & Sioris, L. (1991). Peticide Poisonning Surveillance through Regional Poison Control Centes. W Health. 81(6). 750-753. Parsons, R. (1991). The potential influence of environmental perception on human health. We. 11. 1-23 Patton,M...Q(1990) " ': Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Petty. R.E. & Caciopp0. J.T. (1981). AttitudeandmnlssinnLClsssicsnd Wee. Dubuque. IA: Brown. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J .T. (1985). The elaboration likelihood model of pe'suasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). W. New York: Academic Pres. Petrovic, A. M. (1993). Leaching: Current status of reearch. In R. N. Carrow, N. E. Christians,&R.C. Shearman(Eds.),- ' = ' * ‘ M1 (pp. 139-147). Overland Park, KS: Intertec Publishing Corp. Pierce, J.H. (1989). Environmental landscaping. Wile, January, p. 4-7. Pierce, J.C., Lovrich, N.P. Jr., Tsurutani, T., Abe, T. (1987). Culture, politics and mass publics: Traditional and modern supporters of the New Environmental Paradigm in Japan and the United State. W, 49, 54-79. Pirase8. D.C.. & Ehrlich. PR. (1974). MW We San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman. PLCAA. (1993). inn-..t l '- =. i ' - ’ =-. ~ Unpublished study. Marietta, GA: Profesional Lawn Care Association of Anne-lea. 195 PLCAA. (1994). Gallup poll shows environmental benefits of lawn not well-recognized. (News release). June 20, 1994. Pollan, M. (1991). "Why Mow?” In M. Pollan, Win11, (pp. 55-56). New York: Atlantic Monthly Pres. Prown, Jule D. (1993). The truth of material culture: History or fiction? In S. Lubar & W. David Kingery (Eds). (pp. 1-19). WW mum, Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Pres. Rabinnowitz, C. B., & Coughlin, R. E. (1970). Analysis of landscape characteristics relevant to prefeence. ‘ - -- _. .. Philadelphia, PA. Ramy, L. (1938). W. New York: Macmillan Company. Raheel, M. (1987). Resistance of selected textile to peticide penetration and degradation. f n H l h, 42(4), 214-219. Raheel, M. (1988). Dermal exposure to peticide, the barrier effectivenes of protective clothing. WW. 51(2). 82-84. Rapoport, A. (1932). In; aiming gr 1h; buili ghvirgnmgni. Beverly Hilb, CA: Sage. Redetzke, K. A., 8: Applegate, H. G. (1993). Organoclnlorine peticide in adipose tissue of person lronn El PaSO. Texas. humaLQLEnLimmnentaLflelth. 56(3). 25-27. Reidy, Siste J. (1967). Nuns in ordinary clothe in Borronne. Sister Charles (Ed.). III: W, New York: Signet. Robe'ts, E.C., & Roberts, B.C. (1988). W. Pleasant Hill, TN: Lawn Institute. Roche, Jery. (1993). Chemical lawn care sale flat, but mowing, add-ons boom. Wm 11. 27-30. Rockwell, F.F., & Grayson, EC. (1956). MW. Garden City, NY: The Ameican Garden Guild and Doubleday & Company. Rokeacln, M. (1985). Inducing change and stability ln belief systens and pesonality structures. inumaLaLSasiaussues. 11(1). 153-171. Roll, S.A. & Roll, B.M. (1984). Neophyte counselor attire and college student perceptions of expertnes, trustworthines, and attractivenes. We} new 23(4). 321-327. Romney, A. K. Smith, T., Pheeman, H. E., Kagan, J., & Klein, R. E. (1979). Concepts of success and failure. W, 8, 302-326. I96 Rucker, M., Branson, D., Nelson, C., Olson, W., Slocum, A. & Stone, J. (1988). Farm families’ attitude and practice regarding peticide application and protective clotlning: A five-state comparison. Part I: Applicator data. W W. 6(4). 37-46. Rucker, M., GrieshOp, J., Pete's, A., Hansen, H., & Frankie, G. (1988). Pesticide information and attitude toward chennical protective clotlning annong urban pesticide users. In 8.2. Mansdorf, R. Sage, 8: A.P. Nielsen (Eds.), W W. Philadelphia. PA: ASTM- Rnnssell, J. (1979). How to quit mowing you lawn without going to jail. Eamiiy Handyman. March. pp. 86-87. Saarinen, R. F. (1988). Public peception of the dee't in Tucson, Arizona. W W 5. 197-20’7. Sadalla, E.K., Veshure, B., & Burroughs, J. (1987). Identity symbolism in housing. W. 19. 569-587. Sadler, B., & Carlson, A. (1982). =_ ' ' h ' , ' . Western Geographical Se‘ie, vol. 20. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: Univesity of Victoria. Samdalnl, D.M., & Robertson, R. (1989). Social determinants of environmental concen: Specification and tet of the model. Envirgnmem and Maxim, 21(1), 57-81. Savage, E.P., Keefe, T.J., Mounce, L.M., Heaton, R.K., Lewis, J.A. & Burcar, PJ. (1988). Chronic nenrological sequelae of acute organophosphate peticide poisoning. Wilma. 13(1). 3845. Savage. E.P.. Keefe. TJ. & Wheeler. B.W. (1979). WWW W. Epidemiologic Peticide Studie Cente, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins. Schebaum, C.J., 8: Shepherd, D.H. (1987). Dresing for succes: Effects of color and laye'ing on perceptions of women in busines. We, 16(7/8), 391-399. Schultz. W. (1993). mm. Brooklyn. NY: Brooklyn Botanic Garden, Inc. Schwartz, S.H. (1977). Normative influence on altruism. W W. 10. 221-279. Sebba, R. (1991). The landscape of childhood. The reflection of childhood’s environment in adult menorie and in children’s attitude. W Malian. 23(4). 395-422. Slnaw, S.M. (1988). Gender difference in the definition and perception of houselnold labor. Eamiluiclations. fl. 333-337. 197 Slneets, V.L., & Manze, C.D. (1991). Affect, cognition, and urban vegetation - Some effects of adding trees along city streets. W 23(3), 285-304. Shetzer, L., Stacknnan, R.W., & Moore, L.F. (1991). Busines-environment attitude and the New Environmental Paradigm. WW. 2(4). 1441. Singer, M.S., & Alan E. (1985). Effect of police uniform on intepersonal perception. Wm. 112(2). 157-161. Sinks, T.H., Jr. (1985). N-nitroso compounds, peticide, and parental exposure in the workplace as risk factors for childhood brain cancer: A case-control study. Wheel. 46(6).1888-B. Slocnnm, A.C., Nolan, R.J., She'll, L.C., Gay, S.L., & T‘urgeon, AJ. (1988). Development and teting of protective clothing for lawn-care specialists. 1n 8. Z- Mansdorf. R. Sager. & A. P. Nielsen (Eds J. W W282 (pp 557-564). Philadelphia. PA: American Society for Teting and Mate'iaIs, Philadelphia. Smith, DJ. (1993). Foret managenent and the theology of nature. mm 22(11&12), 13-16. Somlnke. L. (1994). Wine. Old Sayhrook. CT: The Globe Pequot Pres. speller. F.C. (1931). W. New York: Mohawk Pres. Stacey, C.I., & Tatum, T. (1985). House treatment with organochlorine peticide and their levels in human milk-Perth, Wetern Australia. Wm] WM. 35, 202-208. Staiff, D. C., Davis, J. E., 8: Stevens, E. R. (1982). Evaluation of various clothing mate‘ials for protection and worker acceptability during application of peticide. . . .. , _ .-. - - =. . txin . a , 11, 391-398. Stern, P.C. (1992). Psychological dimensions of global environmental clnange. Arman W.Hz 269-302. Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., & Black, J.S. (1986). Support for environmental protection the role of moral nornns. mpuiaiign Envirgnmeni, 8, 204-222. Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., 8: Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gentle, and environmental concern. Eflvirgnmgni and ghayigr, 25(3), 322-348. Stern, P.C., & Oskamp, S. (1987). Managing scarce environmental reource. In D. Stokols 8: l. Altman (Eds.). 113W (Vol. 2). New York: John Wiley and Sons. 198 Stern. P.C.. Young. G.R.. Druckman. D. (Ed-9.) (1991). mm W Washington DC: National Academic Pres. Study detemine value homeowners place on lawns, industry. (1994). mm Talbott, J.A., and othes. (1978). Flowering plants as theapenticlenvironmcntal agents in a psyclniatric hospital. Ham 11(4), 365-366. Tatum, G.R. (1973). The enegence of an american school of landscape deign. WW April-Julia”- Tatum, G.R. (1978). The gardens they made. In G.H.M. Lawrence (Ed.), mm W (pp. 65-87). Philadelphia. PA: The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. Teser, A., & Shaffer, D.R. (1990). Attitude and attitude change. mum muggy 41, 479-523. The Earthworks Grailp. (1989).10_simnl_e_t_h_ingsWtheEarth. Berkeley, CA: Earthworks Pres. Thistlewaite, F. (1955). W. London: Cambridge Univesity Press. Tognacci, L.N., Weigel, R.K., Wilden, M.F., & Vernon, D.T.A. (1972). Environmental quality: How universal is public concern? Environment and Behavior, 4(1), 73-87. Trenblay, K.R., Jr., & Dunlap, R.E. (1978). Rural-urban reidence and concern with environmental quality: A replication and extension. Wm, 43, 474-491. Trends: Consumer attitude and the supermarket - 1992. (1992). Washington, DC: Food Marketing Institute. Tuan, Y. (1974). a _ Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Turner, E.L. II, Clark. W.C., Kate, R.W., Richards, J.F., Mathews, J.T. (1991). Ill: W. New York: Cambridge University Press. Turner, R. (1985). York: Riuoli. .I‘.‘ '.‘A'.: ‘A'. N" Ulrich, R.S. (1977). Visual landscape preference: a model and application. Man: W. 7. 279-293. Ulrich, R.S. (1979). Visual landscape and psychological well-being. W 4, 17.230 199 Uch, R.S. (1981). Natural ve‘sus urban scene: Some psychophysiological effects. WM. 12. 523-556. Ulricln, R.S. (1983). Aethetic and affective reponse to natural environment. In I. Altman & J.F. Wohlwill (Eds.). WNW Wm (p. 85-125). New York: Plenum. Ulrich, R.S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovey from surgey. sum 224. 420-421. Ulricln, R. S., & Simons, R. F. (1986). Recovey from stres during expose-e to everyday outdoor environments. In W. Washington,DC Environmental Deign Reearch Associationn. Ulricin, R.S., Simons, R.E., Losito, B.D., & Fiorito, E. (1991). Stres recovey during exposure to natural and urban environments. WWW, 11(3), 201-230. Unmowed lawn sparks $2.5 million lawsuit. (1991, June 15). WW. Uniforms can showcase sevice company image. (1990). W 15(2), 16. U.S. Department of Commerce. (1992). W. Washing. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. US Environmental Protection Agency. (1983). WWW mailman!- U S Environmental Protection Agency. (1990). W .. a ..r . U.S. Geneal Accounting Office. (1990). 1:. A -=. ‘ ; ° W. A Report to the Chairman. Snbcornmittee on Toxic Substance, Environmental Ovesight, Reearch and Development, Committee on Environmental and Public Works, U.S. Senate, 101st Congres, 2nd session. lRCED-90-l34. U. S. Senate. (1990). 11 - 1. i 1 _ ‘31. n xi b t n nvironment l v r r f h mmi n nvir nm n li r March 28, 1990, 1, Senate Hearing 101-685. Washington DC: U. S. Gove'nment Printing Office. Van lie'e, K.D., & Dunlap, R.E. (1978). Moral norms and environmental behavior: An application of Schwartz’s norm-activation model to yard burning. mm AW. 8. 174-188. 200 Van Here, K.D., & Dunlap, R.E. (1980). The social basis of environmental concern: A review of hypothee, explanations and enpirical evidence. W mu. 44. 131-197. Van Liee, K.E., & Dunlap, R.E. (1981). Environmental concern: doe it make a diffeence how it’s measured? WW 13(6), 651-676. Vengris, J. & Torello, W. A. (1982). c. i W. Freno, CA: Thomson Publications. Verde'ber, S. (1986). Dimensions of person-window transactions in the hospital environment. Wm. 18. 450-466. Ve'derbe', S., & Renman, D. (1987). Windows, views, and health status in hospital therapeutic environments. = ' . . . . ‘ p: . 120-33. Volpp, J.M., & Lemon, SJ. (1988). Perceived police authority as a function of uniform hat and sea. Mumma. 61. 815-824. von Rumke, R. E., Lawles, R. W. iMeiners, A. F., Lawrence K. A., Kelsoln, G. L., & Horay,R .(1974). in . ' z ' W- Office of Peticidle Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. von Rumker, R., Mattcr, R. M., Clement, D. P. If: Erickson, F. K. (1972). w ' i ’ - .Office of Water Programs, Applied Technical Division, Rural Waste Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,DC Watkin,D .(1982). I. - i. ' ’ _ ' . '. Mm. New York: Harper and Row. Wate's, F. (1963). W. New York: Viking Pres. WillSChke. T-L-. & Mumma, RD. (1939). W W. Final report to the US Department of Inte'ior. Welle, S.C. & Romney, A.K. (1988). Wu. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Welsenburger, D.D. (1990). Environmental epidemiology of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in easten Nebraska. ' l f In ri M ’ , 18, 303-305. Weiss, L. (1989). W. Washington, DC: Public Citizen’s Congres Watcln. Weyehaeuscr Company. (1986). [he yalue of lanfigping. WM. Tacoma, WA: Weyerhaeuser Nursery Products Division. 201 White, L. (1967). The historical roots of our ecological crisis. m 155, 12%-1207. Whitford, F. (1993). Peticide facts and perceptions. WW XXXI, Spring, 9-11. Whitnnore, R.W., Kelly, J.E., & Reading, P.L. (1992). W W. Reearch Triangle Park, NC: Reearch Triangle Institute. Williams, D. (1993). Stoking a fierce green fire: A review of Philip Shabecoff’s history of the environment movement. W 12,3, 40-41. - Wohlwill, J. F. (1976). Environmental aethetie: the environment as a source of affect. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds. ). flumanhehaxiomdmflmmmt (Vol.1). New York: Plenum. Worker Protection Standard. (1992). WM. E Washington, DC: Office of Peticide Programs. Workman, J.E., & Johnson, K.K.P. (1989). The role of clothing in extended inference. BMW. 13(2). 164-167. Wright, G. (1981). : ° Cambridge, MA: MIT Pres. Yard waste legislation. (1994). W 29(5), 12. Yeary, R.A., & Leonard, J.A. (1993). Measurement of peticide in air during applications to lawns, tree, and shrubs in urban environments. In K.D. Racke & A.R. Leslie (Eds). WWW (pp-273- 281). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Zimme, H.R. (1951). W. New York: Pantheon Books. Zube, EJI. (1973a). The natural history of urban tree. Wu: 82, 48-51. Zube, E..H (1973b). ; ' - an . ; W. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation. Clark Univesity. lube. B.H. [Ed.] (1976) W. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G., & Andeson, T. W. (1975). Peception and prediction of scenic reource value in the Northeast. In E. Zube, R. Brush, & J. Fabos (Eds .), - = ...: .rr... Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Iluclninson, & Ross. 202 Zube, E.K., Pitt, D.G., & Evans, G.W. (1983). A lifepan developmental study of ltitlitltietipc assessment. MW. 3. 115-128. umaningggmmflngmmugunwm