sarah's jurnal submission.pdf

For Review Only

Preference for Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa and

Rhodomyrtus tomentosa as Native Urban Landscape Plants

Journal: Journal of Tropical Agricultural Science

Manuscript ID: JTAS-0556-2013

Manuscript Type: Regular Article

Scope of the Journal: Floriculture < Horticulture < AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES

Keywords: Landscape preferences, Native plants, Urban landscape plants

Abstract:

Factors influencing the perception of landscapes have been the subject of research in the last 40 years. Indigenous and native plants are commonly restricted to informal or naturalistic designed landscapes. This research project investigates the use of native plants as a formal landscape element. As the world is becoming more urbanized (United Nations, 2010),

gardens are becoming an increasingly important contributor to peoples health and wellbeing (Dunnett & Qasim, 2000). The research has highlighted some elements that tend to affect visual preferences This paper discusses a study conducted to determine preferences of Malaysian landscape professionals and students in landscape architecture and horticulture on two native ornamental plants, Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa (Lemba) and Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (Kemunting) grown in soilless media that have the potential for use in urban landscapes. Respondents consisted of Landscape Architects (20 respondents), Architects (20), Nursery owners (20), Bachelor of Horticulture Students (80) (Faculty of Agriculture, UPM), and Bachelor of Landscape Architecture Students (80 respondents) (Faculty of Design and Architecture, UPM)

making it a total number of 220 respondents. Data collected was analyzed through descriptive analysis, Chi square and reliability test. Results indicated 88.2% of respondents agreed that Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa (Lemba) can be a potential urban landscape plants while 92.7% of respondents agreed for Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (Kemunting) to be domesticated and become a potential urban landscape plants. Majority of the respondents (49% to 55%) preferred the plants grown individually and another 40% to 49% preferred both plants in the form of mass planting. 50% to 52% of the respondents rated 4 (Like) on the Likerts Scale for both of the plants and 10% to15% of respondents marked 5 (Extremely Like) showing the acceptance of the two new native, plants amongst the

amateurs and professionals of the landscape field. This indicates bright future for the two undomesticated wild native plants to be urban landscape plants. Thus it is concluded that Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa (Lemba) and Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (Kemunting) grown in soilless media have a high potential to become urban, native landscape plants. abstract sarah jtas.docx

Journal of Tropical Agricultural Science


For Review Only

Note: The following files were submitted by the author for peer review, but cannot be converted to PDF. You must view these files (e.g. movies) online.

JTAS-0556-2013 (Figures Ver 2) 02 October 2013.docx

Page 1 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only

Preference for Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa and Rhodomyrtus tomentosa as

landscape plants


Rhodomyrtus tomentosa as Native Urban Landscape

Plants

Subject Area: Horticulture

Figure 1 : Rhodomyrtus tomentosa Whole Plant (a)

Figure 2 : Rhodomyrtus tomentosa Whole Plant (b)

Figure 3 : Rhodomyrtus tomentosa Flower (a)

Figure 4 : Rhodomyrtus tomentosa Flower (b)

Figure 5 : Rhodomyrtus tomentosa Buds (a)

Figure 6 : Rhodomyrtus tomentosa Buds (b)

Figure 7 : Rhodomyrtus tomentosa Fruits (a)

Figure 8 : Rhodomyrtus tomentosa Fruits (b)

Figure 9 : Rhodomyrtus tomentosa Fruit (c)

Figure 10 : Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa Whole plant (a)

Figure 11 : Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa Whole Plant (b)

Figure 12 : Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa Flower (grown on basal stem) (a)

Figure 13 : Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa Flower (grown on basal stem) (b)

Figure 14 : Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa Fruit

Figure 15 : Line drawing of Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa (Lemba)

Figure 16 : Line drawing of Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (Kemunting)

Table 1 : Reliability Test for Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa (Lemba)

Table 2 : Reliability Test for Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (Kemunting)

Table 3 : Socio-demographic profile of the respondents (n=220)

Table 4 : Ranking- Which Part of the plant you found most attractive?

Table 5 : Ranking- In your opinion, this plant is most suitably planted as

Table 6 : Ranking- What do you think are the prominent values of the plants?

Table 7: Relationship between Demographic Profile and Respondents

Knowledge of (a)(b)

Table 8: Relationship between Demographic Profile and Respondents Perception

on Test Plant(a)(b)

Table 9: Relationship Between Demographic Profile And Plants Suitability As

Urban Landscape Plant (a)(b)

Page 2 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only


landscape plants


Rhodomyrtus tomentosa as Native Urban Landscape Plants

ABSTRACT

Factors influencing the perception of landscapes have been the subject of

research in the last 40 years. Indigenous and native plants are commonly

restricted to informal or naturalistic designed landscapes. This research project

investigates the use of native plants as a formal landscape element. As the

world is becoming more urbanized (United Nations, 2010), gardens are

becoming an increasingly important contributor to peoples health and

wellbeing (Dunnett & Qasim, 2000). The research has highlighted some

elements that tend to affect visual preferences This paper discusses a study

conducted to determine preferences of Malaysian landscape professionals and

students in landscape architecture and horticulture on two native ornamental

plants, Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa (Lemba) and Rhodomyrtus

tomentosa (Kemunting) grown in soilless media that have the potential for use

in urban landscapes. Respondents consisted of Landscape Architects (20

respondents), Architects (20), Nursery owners (20), Bachelor of Horticulture

Students (80) (Faculty of Agriculture, UPM), and Bachelor of Landscape

Architecture Students (80 respondents) (Faculty of Design and Architecture,

UPM) making it a total number of 220 respondents. Data collected was

analyzed through descriptive analysis, Chi square and reliability test. Results

indicated 88.2% of respondents agreed that Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa

(Lemba) can be a potential urban landscape plants while 92.7% of respondents

agreed for Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (Kemunting) to be domesticated and

become a potential urban landscape plants. Majority of the respondents (49%

to 55%) preferred the plants grown individually and another 40% to 49%

preferred both plants in the form of mass planting. 50% to 52% of the

respondents rated 4 (Like) on the Likerts Scale for both of the plants and 10%

Page 3 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only


landscape plants

to15% of respondents marked 5 (Extremely Like) showing the acceptance of

the two new native, plants amongst the amateurs and professionals of the

landscape field. This indicates bright future for the two undomesticated wild

native plants to be urban landscape plants. Thus it is concluded that Molineria

latifolia var. megacarpa (Lemba) and Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (Kemunting)

grown in soilless media have a high potential to become urban, native

landscape plants.

Keywords: Landscape preferences, Native plants, Urban landscape plants.

Page 4 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only


landscape plants

INTRODUCTION

The Council of Europe (2000) defines a landscape as an area, as perceived by

people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural

and/or human factors (Article 1); in parts of the world dominated by humans,

landscape design can have significant environmental effects. The aggregate

effects of private landscapes can influence habitat and water quality, among

other environmental attributes. Nassauer (1993) has found that yards

incorporating native plants can be as attractive, or even more attractive, to

homeowners as conventional yards that do not include native plants. Gardens

are the cumulative result of many individual decisions about plant choice over

time that combine to determine the social and biophysical benefits provided.

The factors that influence the perception of the landscape have been the subject

of a great deal of research during the past 40 years. The research has

highlighted some elements that tend to affect visual preferences. In general,

natural landscapes are preferred to urban ones (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989) In

the urban areas, natural elements improve the landscape quality (Matsuoka and

Kaplan, 2008). Lyons (1983) analyzed the landscape preferences of subjects of

different ages (children, adolescents, and adults) and concluded that culture

plays a very important role in the perception of landscape. The perception of

landscape tends to differ on the basis of social group, job type, familiarity, age,

and other factors(Herzog et al., 2000; Kaltenborn and Bjerke,2002)

OBJECTIVES

Native plants are commonly restricted to informal or naturalistic designed

landscapes. However, this study investigates the use of native plants as a

formal landscape element. The goal of this study was to determine preferences

of Malaysian landscape professionals and students in landscape architecture,

and horticulture for two native test plants, Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa

Page 5 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only


landscape plants

(Lemba) and Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (Kemunting) grown in soilless media.

Currently, these two plant species are lesser known as landscape plants in the

urban areas. The use of native plants is highly encouraged to create sustainable

urban landscapes. Positive preferences for these plants will add to the palette of

existing native plants available to landscape designers in tropical regions of the

world.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Case study area

The study was conducted through a survey majorly in Klang Valley and Muar,

Johor.Two nurseries that were chosen were Sungai Buloh, Selangor plant

nurseries as well as Parit Jawa and Parit Sulung plant nurseries in Muar, Johor.

Sungai Buloh Nurseries were chosen because it has the most number of

nurseries that are centralized in one area in Klang Valley. It is also a centre for

plant-shopping to growers, garden-lovers and many home-owners around

Klang Valley while Nurseries in Muar area are selected due to their reputation

as plant exporters to Singapore and the nurseries also majoring in mass

planting of landscape plants and are suppliers to many municipal councils and

landscape companies throughout Malaysia.

Survey were conducted in architect and landscape architect firms in Petaling

Jaya, Shah Alam, Subang Jaya,and Kuala Lumpur. The two professions are

considered as the professional of their field thus, surveys were carried out to

get the professionals opinion on the two new, native and potential test plants.

Survey was also conducted with students of Bachelor of Horticulture Science

at Faculty of Agriculture and students of Bachelor of Landscape Architecture

at Faculty of Design & Architecture, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang,

Page 6 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only


landscape plants

Selangor due to their background, exposure and knowledge on plant botanical

perspective and plant aesthetical values.

Survey design

Pictorial stimuli

The survey made use of a photo-questionnaire with photographs of Molineria

latifolia var. megacarpa (Lemba) and Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (Kemunting).

Over the last 20 years, there have been numerous developments in

visualization tools, and design processes and techniques that assess landscape

preferences (Wherrett, 2000; Yamashita, 2002). In addition to other methods

such as onsite surveys or slide projection, the use of photos in landscape

preference studies has become generalized. The use of photos is extremely

appealing, as photos show the landscape in a holistic way (Hagerhall, 2001);

photos also provide visual stimuli that can be very close to the real-life

experience of the landscape. The use of photos is generally favored because it

makes it possible to involve larger samples of observers, and it has been shown

that judgments provided by photo surveys are close (correlation 80% or more)

to those from on-site surveys (e.g., Natori & Chenoweth, 2008; Hill & Daniel,

2008). Therefore, the assumption can be made that photos are capable of

providing stimuli that enable the mind to associate sensory information with

other knowledge and thus form opinions about what is perceived through

intuitive recognition of an aesthetic quality (Bell, 2001).

Questionnaire

The questionnaire consisted of 13 items, which asked respondents

understanding of native plants, familiarity with the two plants, preferences for

different parts of the plants as well as functional and economic values of the

plants. In addition, the questionnaire also elicited the demographics of the

respondents such as age, gender, and profession. Responses were either by

Page 7 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only


landscape plants

Likert-like scale (1 = Extremely unlike to 5 = Extremely like) or by ticking the

most appropriate answers.

Target groups

The target groups in this survey are Landscape Architects (20 respondents),

Architects (20 respondents), Nursery owners (20 respondents), Horticulture

Students (80 respondents), Landscape Architecture Students (80 respondents)

making it a total of 220 respondents all together (n=220)

Survey Procedure

This survey method (pair-wise comparison) has previously been used to the

study of relationships between landscape preferences and personal factors

(Ruiz and Bernaldez,1983; Abello and Bernaldez, 1986).According to previous

literature cited, this method presents three main advantages: the possibility of

using a great number of photographs, its simple and fast application on-site,

and its methodological approach based on the exploration of the preference

differences or contrasts among parts of the studied population. Presented with

a collection of 50 mm x 60 mm photos of Test Plants in an album or power

point presentation, subjects were asked to answer the questionnaire based on

the pictorial stimuli.

The survey was conducted in the duration of 4 months. Starting from August

2012 to December 2012. There are three methods that were applied during the

survey which was to send emails of the questionnaire and pictorial stimuli in

Microsoft Presentation format. The emails were sent with intentions of making

the survey process easier, faster and paperless. It is also technology savvy and

pictorial stimuli materials can be viewed very clearly by target groups. This

method was applied to Architect and landscape architects.

Page 8 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only


landscape plants

The second method was to interview target group and let them answered the

questions based on the printed pictorial stimuli. The survey was done within

one session of interview with the nursery owners and since the nurseries are

centralized, the process was faster and maximum number of target groups is

easier to achieve. This method was mainly applied to nursery owners. One

session in Sungai Buloh, Selangor and another session in Muar, Johor. All the

nursery owners participated and responded positively to the questions

forwarded to them and were willing to spare some of their time to answer the

survey.

The last method was survey through answering session in a class where the

target groups were gathered in a class room and they were provided with the

questionnaires and pictorial stimuli were projected on white screen and they

answered based on the pictures of the two native test plants Molineria latifolia

var. megacarpa (Lemba) and Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (Kemunting). This

survey was conducted in 4 different sessions of 4 different cohorts.

Session one was with first year of Bachelor of Horticulture Science, second

session with third year of Bachelor of Horticulture Science from Faculty of

Agriculture, third session with first year of Bachelor of Landscape Architecture

and the last session was with final year students of Bachelor of Landscape

Architecture from Faculty of Design & Architecture, University Putra

Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor. This was done on different days. The students

were willingly participated to answer the questionnaire with some help to

coordinate from their lecturers and tutors. (Figure 1 14)

Page 9 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only


landscape plants

Data Analysis

Variables and statistical method

Results from the survey were analyzed for Reliability test, Descriptive analysis

and Chi Square using SPSS Version 16 Equinox. Frequency and descriptive

statistics were employed to describe the demographic characteristics of

respondents. Analysis of these data indicated that a wide cross section of

respondents responded to the questionnaire

Responses were subsequently quantified and analyzed using the SPSS software

package. Qualitative data coding was conducted in an inductive manner, i.e.

categories were not pre-determined but were defined on the basis of the survey

results, with key response themes identified from the open-ended descriptions

given by respondents. Descriptive statistics revealed different trends depending

on the parameters.

Page 10 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only


landscape plants

Reliability Test

Reliability test is an indicator of consistency which shows how stable a test

score or data is across applications or time. In this study, the Cronbachs Alpha

was used to measure how closely related a set of items are as a group. The

lower the errors caused, the higher the reliability of the instrument (Kumar,

1999). Therefore, Cronbachs Alpha value greater than 0.60 means that there is

consistency among the theory.

The Cronbachs Alpha value for the respondents opinion towards Molineria

latifolia var. megacarpa was 0.708 which means that there is consistency

among the model is fit for this study (Table 1).

Table shows the reliability test for Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (Kemunting). The

Cronbachs Alpha value for the respondents opinion towards Rhodomyrtus

tomentosa (Kemunting) was 0.714 which means that there is consistency

among the theory (Table 2).

Page 11 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only


landscape plants

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Descriptive Analysis

Yu (1995) found living environment (urban or rural) and education level can

significantly affect landscape preferences. Landscape preferences have also

been found to differ with age (Balling and Falk, 1982; Lyons, 1983; Zube et

al., 1983). In particular, it has been shown that the preferences of children can

vary significantly to that of adults. The above table shows the socio

demographic profile of respondents of the survey among the target groups.

There were 58.2% female respondents as compared to 41.8% of male for

Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa (Lemba) and 33.6% male and 66.4%

female respondents for Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (Kemunting) survey. The ratio

of female respondents is slightly more as compared to male respondents. Age-

wise, most of the respondents are between the age of 21-25 year-old with

34.5% and 40% respectively.

This category of age consists of Bachelor of Horticulture Science or Landscape

Architecture students as respondents. They were given pictorial stimuli to

evaluate according to their perception and preference of the respective native

test plants. The other age groups of 26 to 40 and above 40 years old which are

students, nursery owners, architects and landscape architects. As mentioned

before, the largest group of respondents of this survey is Bachelor of

Horticulture or Landscape Architecture or Agriculture students of Universiti

Putra Malaysia with 49.1% for Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa (Lemba)

And 45.4% for Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (Kemunting). Followed by nursery

owners in the Klang Valley area as well as Muar, Johor with 26.4% and 27.3%

respectively. (Table 3)

Page 12 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only


landscape plants

Ranking of preferences

According to the ranking made amongst the respondent, the part that they find

most attractive for Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa (Lemba) is the leaves with

80.9%, while 88.2% agreed that the flower of Rhodomyrtus tomentosa

(kemunting) is the most attractive part of the plant. This is quite obvious because

of the beauty of the flowers of Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (kemunting) as opposed to

the Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa (Lemba) flowers that grew at the basal stem

of the plant making it harder to see. (Figure 15-16)

Most of the respondents (64.5%) agreed that Molineria latifolia var.

megacarpa (Lemba) is most suitable as potted plants while the majority of

respondents (58.2%) of respondents agreed that Rhodomyrtus tomentosa

(Kemunting) is best planted as border planting plants. Meanwhile, 78-88%

of the respondents also agreed that both plants have high aesthetic value and

52-62% agreed that both plants have commercial values. This depicted that

the values of this two test plants are high and have the potential as landscape

plants.

This research is based on Nassauers past research (Nassauer, 1992, 1993,

1995a, b, 1997, 2004) on the cultural sustainability of ecological design.

According to this theory, ecologically beneficial landscape designs that also

are valued for their appearance are more likely to exist over the long term in

a human-dominated landscape. Using digital simulations depicting

residential landscapes with varying degrees of these characteristics,

Nassauer (1993) found that care, neatness, and naturalness were

significant predictors for the attractiveness of landscape designs, some of

which included native plants in residential and urban yards. (Table 4-6)

Page 13 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only


landscape plants

Chi square result

Hypothesis

Analysis of Chi Square was done using SPSS Equinox Version 16.0 and the

depicted the relationship between the demographic profile and few variables

with the hypothesis of:

Ho: There is no relationship between the publics perception on this plant and

socio demographic profiles of consumers such as gender, age and category.

H1: There is relationship between the publics perception on this plant and

socio demographic profiles of consumers such as gender, age and category.

Landscape aesthetics is a complex issue, the basis of which can be found in

human biological make-up and cultural experience (Appleton, 1975; Kaplan,

1987; Bourassa, 1990). It has been suggested that the influence of individuals

personalities is also important in understanding landscape aesthetics. The first

analysis was the relationship between demographic profile and respondents

knowledge of Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa (Lemba) and Rhodomyrtus

tomentosa (Kemunting). The only variable that failed to accept Ho was the

profession variable of the respondents. That showed that the amateurs such as

the degree students have less knowledge on the plants as compared to the

professionals in the field.

Relationship between Demographic Profile and Respondents Perception on

both test plants also showed that the variable profession failed to accept Ho

particularly due to perception of landscape architects on the test plants. The

landscape architects are skeptical on the ability of the test plants to be used as

urban landscape plants. This is due to the growth of the plants or the

probability of customers buying this new test plants or the issue of familiarity

or knowledge of the plants are also arguable still.

Page 14 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only


landscape plants

However, the Relationship between Demographic Profile and Plants

Suitability as Urban Landscape Plant is a different feedback, for Molineria

latifolia var. megacarpa (Lemba), two variables failed to accept Ho which are

gender and profession variables. Female respondents showed lower percentage

on having Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa (Lemba) as landscape plants

most likely due to the lack of aesthetic value on the flowers as compared to the

leaves and the leaves are big. For profession category, the nursery owners do

not seem to agree that this particular plant (Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa

(Lemba)) has the ability to be urban landscape plants in the near future with

more or less the same reason which is lacking in commercial values as

compared to Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (Kemunting). From this finding,

Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa (Lemba) can be concluded as unpopular

amongst landscape plant growers and nursery owners are uninterested to sell

this plant. Thus, there will be lacking of supply for this native test plants in the

landscape plants market.

Nevertheless, for Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (Kemunting), the profession that

failed to accept Ho is the landscape architects that do not agree that this plant is

suitable for urban landscape most likely due to the probability of customers

buying this new test plants or the issue of familiarity or knowledge of the new

plants itself. 3 out of 20 respondents made a remark on the plant being hard to

shape and do not look bushy enough.

Different types of respondents are grouped according to their activities,

experiences, attitudes and behavior, will have different landscape preferences.

Differences were partly explained by varying levels of knowledge regarding

the landscapes under examination. Darmstadt et al. (2006) also found that

different groups of people such as students and locals will often have very

different landscape preferences and this they argue underlines the need for care

when interpreting indicator values. (Table 7-9)

Page 15 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only


landscape plants

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the descriptive analysis and Chi square that was done and the result

that was presented, it can be concluded that the two native test plants namely

Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa (Lemba) and Rhodomyrtus tomentosa

(Kemunting) have a high possibilities to become urban landscape plants.

Amateurs and professionals in the landscape field both responded very well to

the test plants. Both plants have good visual and aesthetical values and might

also have high commercial values. The plants are also very easy to propagate

and have low maintenance, thus, making them a good and suitable candidate

for urban landscape plants. The two native plants should be domesticated and

widely propagated and popularized by nursery and growers sector

REFERENCE

Abello, R.P. and Bernaldez, F.G., 1986. Landscape preferences and

personality. Landscape Urban Plann., 13: 19-28.

Appleton, J., 1975. The Experience of Landscape. John Wiley, London.

Balling, J.D., Falk, J.H., 1982. Development of visual preference for natural

environments. Environment and Behavior 14, 528.

Bell, S. 2001, Landscape pattern, perception and visualisation in the visual

management of forests, Original Research Article Landscape and Urban

Planning, Volume 54, Issues 14, 25 May 2001, Pages 201-211

Bernaldez, F.G., Aiello, R.P., Gallardo, D., 1989. Environmental challenge and

environmental preferences: age and sex effects. J. Environ. Manage. 28,

5370.

Page 16 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only


landscape plants

Bjrn P. Kaltenborn, Bjerke T., 2002. Associations between environmental

value orientations and landscape preferences Original Research Article

Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 59, Issue 1, 1 March

2002, Pages 1-11

Bourassa, S.C., 1990. A paradigm for landscape aesthetics. Environ. Behav.

22, 787812.

Council of Europe, 2000. European landscape convention. Available from.

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm Last

Accessed 22.10.10.

Daniels G.D., Kirkpatrick J.B., 2006. Does variation in garden characteristics

influence the conservation of birds in suburbia? Original Research

Article Biological Conservation, Volume 133, Issue 3, December

2006, Pages 326-335

Darmstadt, W.E., Sundli Tveit, M., Fjellstad, W.J., Fry, G.L.A., 2006.

Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based

indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and Urban Planning 78,

465474.

Dunnett, N., & Qasim, M. (2000). Perceived benefits to human well-being of

urban gardens. HortTechnology, 10(1), 4045.

Gomez-Limon, J., Lucio Fernandez, J.V., 1999. Changes in use and landscape

preferences on agricultural-livestock landscapes of the central Iberian

Peninsula, Madrid, Spain. Landscape Urban Plan. 44, 165175.

Page 17 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only


landscape plants

Hagerhall C.M., 2001. Consensus In Landscape Preference

Judgements Original Research Article Journal of Environmental

Psychology, Volume 21, Issue 1, March 2001, Pages 83-92

Herzog, T.R., Herbert, E.J., Kaplan, R., Crooks, C.L., 2000. Cultural and

developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences.

Environ. Behav. 32,323346

Kaltenborn, B.P., Bjerke, T., 2002. Associations between environmental value

orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning

59, 111.

Kaplan, S., 1987. Aesthetics, affect and cognition; environmental preference

from an evolutionary perspective. Environ. Behav., 19: 3-32.

Kaplan, R., Talbot, J.F., 1988. Ethnicity and preference for natural settings: a

review and recent findings. Landscape Urban Plan. 15, 107117.

Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK.

Lyons, E., 1983. Socio-economic correlates of landscape preference.

Environment and Behavior 15, 487511.

Matsuoka R. H., Kaplan R., 2008. People needs in the urban landscape:

Analysis of Landscape And Urban Planning contributions Review

Article Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 84, Issue 1, 11 January

2008, Pages 7-19

Page 18 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only


landscape plants

McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R.,1997. The effects of roof albedo modification

on cooling loads of scale model residences in Tucson, Arizona Original

Research Article Energy and Buildings, Volume 25, Issue

2, 1997, Pages 127-137

Mitchell R., Popham F., 2008. Effect of exposure to natural environment on

health inequalities: an observational population study Original Research

Article The Lancet, Volume 372, Issue 9650, 814 November

2008, Pages 1655-1660

Nassauer, J.I., 1983. Framing the landscape in photographic simulation.

Journal of Environmental Management 17, 116.

Nassauer, J.I., 1988. The aesthetics of horticulture: neatness as a form of

care.HortScience 23 (6), 973977.

Nassauer, J.I., 1995. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal 14

(2),161170.

Nassauer, J.I., 1997. Cultural sustainability: aligning aesthetics and ecology.

In: Nassauer,J.I. (Ed.), Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology.

Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 6583.

Nassauer, J.I., 2006. Landscape planning and conservation biology: systems

thinking revisited. Conservation Biology 20 (3), 677678.

Nassauer, J.I., Wang, Z., Dayrell, E., 2009. What will the neighbors think?

Cultural norms and ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning

92 (3/4), 282292.

Page 19 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only


landscape plants

Natori Y., Chenoweth R., 2008. Differences in rural landscape perceptions and

preferences between farmers and naturalists Original Research Article

Journal of Environmental Psychology, Volume 28, Issue 3, September

2008, Pages 250-267

Ruiz. J.P. and BernBldez, F.G., 1983. Landscape perception by its traditional

users. The ideal Landscape of Madrid livestock raisers. Landscape

Plann., 9: 279-297.

Strumse, E., 1996. Demographic differences in the visual preferences for

agrarian landscapes in western Norway. J. Environ. Psychol. 16, 1731.

Smith R.M. , Thompson K. , Hodgson J.G., Warren P.H. , Gaston, K.J., 2006.

Urban domestic gardens (IX): Composition and richness of the vascular

plant flora, and implications for native biodiversity Original Research

Article Biological Conservation, Volume 129, Issue 3, May 2006, Pages

312-322

Tratalos J., Fuller R. A., Warren P.H., Davies R.G., Gaston K.J., 2007. Urban

form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services Original Research

Article Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 83, Issue 4, 7

December 2007, Pages 308-317

United Nations, 2010. World urbanization prospects: The 2009 Revision. New

York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs,

Population Division.

Page 20 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only


landscape plants

Sampei Yamashita, 2002. Perception and evaluation of water in landscape: use

of Photo-Projective Method to compare child and adult residents

perceptions of a Japanese river environment Original Research Article

Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 62, Issue 1, 20 December

2002, Pages 3-17

Yu, K., 1995. Cultural variations in landscape preference: comparisons among

Chinese sub-groups and Western design experts. Landscape and Urban

Planning 32, 107126

Zube, E.H., Pitt, D.G., 1981. Cross-cultural perception of scenic and heritage

landscape. Landscape Plan. 8, 6987.

Zube, E.H., Pitt, D.G., Evans, G.W., 1983. A lifespan developmental study of

landscape assessment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 3, 115

128.

Zube, E.H., Vining, J., Law, C.S., Bechtel, R.B., 1985. Perceived urban

residential quality. A cross-cultural bimodal study. Environ. Behav. 17,

327349

Page 21 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only

List of Tables

17.

Table 1 . Reliability Test for Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa (Lemba)

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

0.708 6

18.

Table 2. Reliability Test for Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (Kemunting)

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

0.714 6

19.

Table 3. Socio-demographic profile of the respondents (n=220)

Molineria latifolia

var. megacarpa

(%)

Rhodomyrtus

tomentosa (%)

Gender

Male 41.8 33.6

Female 58.2 66.4

Age

19-20 28.2 21.8

21-25 34.5 40.0

26-40 16.4 13.6

above 40 20.9 24.5

Category

Landscape architect 14.5 18.2

Architect 10.0 9.1

Nursery owners 26.4 27.3

Landscape architecture

/Horticulture student 49.1 45.4

Page 22 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only

20.

Table 4. Ranking- Which Part of the plant you found most attractive?

Molineria latifolia

var. megacarpa (%)

Rhodomyrtus

tomentosa (%)

Leaves 80.9 19.1

Flower 39.1 88.2

Stem 0.9 1.8

Fruits 6.4 14.5

21.

Table 5. Ranking- In your opinion, this plant is most suitably planted as:

Molineria latifolia

var. megacarpa

(%)

Rhodomyrtus

tomentosa (%)

Potted plant 64.5 54.5

Ground cover plant 25.5 21.8

Indoor plant 55.5 13.6

Border planting

plant

26.4 58.2

Other: The ground

itself

0.9 0

22.

Table 6. Ranking- What do you think are the prominent values of the plants?

Molineria latifolia var.

megacarpa (%)

Rhodomyrtus

tomentosa (%)

Aesthetic values 78.2 88.2

Commercial

values 61.8 52.7

Medicinal values 18.2 7.3

Edible values 20.0 24.5

Other 0 1.8

Page 23 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only

23.

Table 7: Relationship between Demographic Profile and Respondents Knowledge of

(a)(b);

(a) Molineria latifolia var. megacarpa (Lemba)

Variables Chi-

square Significant Decision

Gender 2.277 0.131 Fail to Reject H0

Age 4.005 0.261 Fail to Reject H0

Category

(Horticulture student) 9.305 0.097* Reject H0

(b) Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (Kemunting)

Variables

Chi-


Gender 0.125 0.723 Fail to Reject

H0

Age 3.748 0.290 Fail to Reject

H0

Category (Horticulture

student) 19.760 0.001*** Reject H0

***Statistically significant at the 0.01 level, **at the 0.05 level and *at the 0.10 level

Page 24 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only

24.

Table 8: Relationship between Demographic Profile and Respondents Perception on

Test Plant


Variables Chi-




Category (Landscape

architecture)

28.630 0.095* Reject H0


Variables Chi-


Gender 4.201 0.380 Fail to Reject

H0

Age 13.823 0.312 Fail to Reject

H0

Category (Landscape

architect) 29.809 0.073* Reject H0


Page 25 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only

25.

Table 4: Relationship between Demographic Profile And Plants Suitability As Urban

Landscape Plant


Variables Chi-square Significant Decision

Gender (Female) 4.234 0.040** Reject H0


Category (nursery

owners) 9.760 0.082* Reject H0


Variables Chi-




Category (Landscape

architecture) 29.762 0.000*** Reject H0


Page 26 of 25



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

Documents

sarah's jurnal submission.pdf