Residents and Specialists Rate Residential Streamside Landscapes Differently

Water quality specialists promote landscapes with no turf for residences along streams.  Homeowners have been reluctant to install such landscapes, even when they learn that they are beneficial for water quality.  To understand why, a survey of preferences for residential landscapes along streams was developed.  The survey consisted of 20 digitally enhanced photos of streamside residential landscapes with no turf, some turf, or nearly all turf.  A single generic home was used in each photo, so results would not be based on preferences for home styles. Surveys were completed by residents living on or near streams who were asked if they would want the landscape for their yard.  Surveys were also completed by water quality professionals who rated the landscapes for effects on water quality.  As expected, ratings by water quality specialists aligned inversely with the amount of turf in the landscape: those with no turf were rated the highest and those with all turf were lowest.  Residents rated landscapes no turf lowest, indicating a strong negative reaction to designs promoted by water quality specialists.  This likely accounts for their reluctance to install them.  Contrary to predictions by water quality specialists, residents did not rate landscapes with all turf highest.  In fact, residents preferred landscapes with intermediate levels of turf.  These were also the only landscapes they rated above neutral, indicating that these were they only ones that residential respondents were likely to consider adopting for their own homes.  To encourage the adoption of residential landscapes that will contribute to improved water quality, examples that include some turf are likely to be more successful than ones that are turf-free.