V·M·I University Microfilms International a Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M148106-1346 USA 313:761-4700 800.'521-0600
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adverselyaffect reproduction. In the unlikely. event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sectionswith small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. V·M·I University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M148106-1346 USA 313:761-4700 800.'521-0600 Order Number 9429622 Residential gardens in urban Honolulu, Hawai'i: Neighborhood, ethnicity, and ornamental plants Ikagawa, Toshihiko, Ph.D. University of Hawaii, 1994 Copyright @1994 by Ikagawa, Toshihiko. All rights reserved. V·M·I 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor. MI 48106 RESIDENTIAL GARDENS IN URBAN HONOLULU, HAWAI'I: NEIGHBORHOOD, ETHNICITY AND ORNAMENTAL PLANTS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN GEOGRAPHY MAY 1994 By Toshlhlko Ikagawa Dissertation Committee: Lyndon L. Wester, Chairperson James O. Juvlk E. Alison Kay Mark D. Merlin Peter J. O'Connor Forrest R. Pitts © Copyright by Toshihiko Ikagawa 1994 All Rights Reserved 1lI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sincerely I thank R. A. Criley, B. G. Decker, J. V. Gibson, M. Hattori of the Chionin Temple, C. T. Imada of the B. P. Bishop Museum, B. H. Krauss, M. G. McDonald, J. Nomura of the Graphic-sha, M. A. Nullet, G. W. Staples of the B. P. Bishop Museum, W. H. Warren, for their vital help in accomplishing this study. I am indebted to J. Bailey, M. Bell, S. D. Chang, M. Chapman, S. Conant, P. S. Fendric, R. D. K. Herman, K. Ihara, N. L. K. Judd, C. E. Kerr, the Kings, N. Larsen, M. McGranaghan, B. J. Murton, M. O'Connor, Reiko, F. Roelofs, P. Sato, E. Shen, F. Street, S. Tao, D. Tokura, E. A. Wingert, for facilitating the field survey. The major contributors to this work, however, are my family members especially my mother, Kikuko, and my wife, Mary. This book is dedicated to my late father, Kizo. iv ABSTRACT This study examines the relationship between people and plants in urban residential front yards on the island of O'abu, Hawai'i by comparing ornamental plant communities from three neighborhoods (study areas) with similar socio economic and cultural settings, and those of major ethnic groups (Japanese, Chinese and others -- mostly Caucasians) within these neighborhoods. A history of ornamental gardens tracing the Mediterranean-European and the Chinese Japanese lineages is presented as background. Field sampling of the 150 randomly selected residential lots employed the sample stand method of vegetation ecology, and recorded the structure of the plant communities as presence/absence, height, cover, and function of each plant species in a yard. Statistical analyses (ANOVA and chi-square test) examined the relationships between vegetational characteristics and four socio-economic and cultural variables: (1) geographical location, (2) ethnic background, (3) the age of a house and (4) the size of a sample lot. Major findings include: (1) the structure of plant communities is quantitatively more similar than different both among neighborhoods and among ethnic groups; (2) the significant variations observed among neighborhoods are attributed to individual lot size, and to general landscape taste of residents of a neighborhood; (3) the similarity observed among ethnic groups suggests v acculturation of cultural traditions, and the existence of a local (Hawaiian) style front yard utilizing popular tropical garden plants; (4) the front yards of some members of an ethnic group, especially the Japanese group, are distinguishable from the rest based on a few characteristics such as the presence of particular plant species (notably Japanese garden plants). This may be the residents' display of the symbols of group identity; (5) regarding the concept of transported landscape, not whole but parts of Japanese garden traditions, such as some plant species and a few ideas, have been transported to Hawai'i; and (6) the high species diversity implies individual residents' latitude of choice, and the uniform life form spectrum suggests the existence of the universal common image, proto paysage, among humans. Habitat theory suggests that this atavistic image motivates humans to symbolically recreate the original human habitat, whereas hinkaku (dignity) leads us to portray the image in a pleasing form in a garden. VI TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . IV ABSTRACT . V LIST OF TABLES . x LIST OF FIGURES ................................ .. xii I. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1. PLANTS AND PEOPLE IN RESIDENTIAL YARDS. ...... .. 3 1.2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 5 1.2.1. Urban Ecosystem . .. 5 1.2.2. As a Cultural Landscape ....................... .. 6 1.2.3. Motivations Behind a Garden ................... .. 8 1.2.4. Transported Landscape ........................ .. 9 1.3. THE RESEARCH PROBLEM ....................... .. 11 1.3.1. Research Questions 12 1.3.2. Research Hypotheses ......... .. 12 1.4. THE USEFULNESS OF THIS STUDY 13 1.5. THE ORGANIZATION OF THE PAPER .............. .. 14 II. THE GARDENS .................................... .. 15 2.1. DEFINmON OF A "GARDEN' 15 2.2. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF GARDEN STYLES 16 2.2.1. Mediterranean-European Lineage ............... .. 16 2.2.2. Chinese-Japanese Lineage 27 2.2.2.1. Chinese gardens 27 2.2.2.2. Japanese gardens. .................... .. 30 2.3. COMPARISON OF GARDEN STYLES 38 2.3.1. Function 38 2.3.2. Garden elements 39 2.3.3. Plant materials. ............... ............ .. 41 2.4. SUMMARY , 43 III. METHODS 45 3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN ............................. .. 45 3.2. FIELD SAMPLING. .. .. ... ... .. .. ............... .. 46 3.2.1. Preliminary Survey. ......................... .. 46 3.2.2. Sampling Design 47 3.2.2.1. Selection of study areas 47 3.2.2.2. Selection of study sites . .. 58 3.2.3. Questionnaire Survey . .. 59 3.2.4. Main Survey 59 VII 3.3. DATA ANALYSES '" . .. 64 3.3.1. Manipulation of Socio-economic and Cultural Data 64 3.3.1.1. Determination of ethnic background. ...... .. 64 3.3.1.2. Classification of study sites. ............. .. 64 3.3.2. Manipulation of Vegetation Data 65 3.3.2.1. Species diversity and life form spectrum 65 3.3.2.2. Classification . .. 66 3.3.2.3. Categorization ....................... .. 66 3.3.3. Statistical Analyses . .. 67 3.4. SUMMARY ..................................... .. 68 IV. RESULTS 69 4.1. SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY SITES 69 4.2. RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY. ....... .. 75 4.3. RESULTS OF THE MAIN SURVEY. ................. .. 86 4.3.1. Species Diversity and Life Form Spectrum . .. 87 4.3.2. Classification of Vegetation Data 93 4.3.3. Categorized Summary of Vegetation Data . .. 99 4.3.3.1. Individual species 100 4.3.3.2. Height classes 106 4.3.3.3. Plant use . .. 109 4.3.3.4. Groups of specific species 114 4.3.3.5. Artificial elements .................... .. 120 4.4. SUMMARY , 120 V. DISCUSSION 123 5.1. INTERPRETATION OF OBSERVED VARIATIONS IN VEGETATION DATA 123 5.1.1. The Classification of Vegetation Data 124 5.1.2. Variations among Study Areas 125 5.1.3. Variations among Ethnic Groups 132 5.1.3.1. Interpretation of the observed similarity among ethnic groups 135 5.1.3.2. Interpretation of the observed significant variations among ethnic groups 137 5.1.4. Species Diversity and Life Form Spectrum 143 5.2. SUMMARY. .................................... .. 148 5.3. RECOMMENDATIONS 150 viii APPENDICES ......................................... .. 153 APPENDIX 1. HISTORY OF IMMIGRANTS IN HAWAI'I 153 APPENDIX 2. QUESTIONNAIRE ....................... .. 156 APPENDIX 3. FIELD SURVEY: SUPPLEMENTARY DATA ... 159 GLOSSARy 184 REFERENCES ..................................... .. 189 INDEX 199 ix LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Common tropical plants 44 2. Selected 1980 census characteristics of the study areas. .... .. 51 3. Physical characteristics of the study areas ... ........... .. 53 4. Characteristics of the ethnic background, the age of a house, and the size of a lot of study sites 70 5. Classification of study sites: Relationship among classifications of four variables. ..................... .. 71 6. Results of the questionnaire survey: Primary ethnic background of the household ....................... .. 76 7. Results of the questionnaire survey: Were you born in Hawai'i? ...................................... .. 77 8. Results of the questionnaire survey: Ancestry background of