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
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 the household ...... 78
9. Results of the questionnaire survey: Years the family lived at the current address " 80
10. Results of the questionnaire survey: Age of the house 81
11. Results of the questionnaire survey: Who takes care of plants in the front yard? 83
12. Results of the questionnaire survey: How often takes care of the front yard? 84
13. Results of the questionnaire survey: Does your front yard represent a particular cultural group? " 85
14. List of occurrence with>10% frequency plant species...... 88
15. Life form spectrum of selected vegetation types 91
16. Summary of TWINSPAN differentiated table 94
x 17. Relationship between TWINSPAN groups and characteristics of study sites ...... 97
18. Summary of descriptive data: Individual species ...... 102
19. Results of statistical analyses: Individual species 103
20. ANDVA grouping of categories of variables significantly varied in the analyses 104
21. Summary of descriptive data: Height classes 107
22. Results of statistical analyses: Height classes 108
23. Summary of descriptive data: Plant use ...... 110
24. Results of statistical analyses: Plant use ...... 112
25. Group of specific species...... 115
26. Summary of descriptive data: Groups of specific species . . .. 118
27. Results of statistical analyses: Group of specific species .... 119
28. Summary of descriptive data: Artificial elements 121
29. Results of statistical analyses: Artificial elements 122
30. Socio-economic and cultural characteristics of study sites . . .. 159
31. List of plant species observed in the study 165
32. Frequency of all plant species observed in the study 176
xi LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. Stone lanterns. neatly trimmed shrubs and interesting rocks are carefully arranged in the style of Japanese gardens (Mott- Smith Drive, Honolulu. 1993) .
2. Islamic gardens usually have small interconnecting enclosures, symmetrical plantings of trees. waterworks and fountains. The garden of Alcaza, Granada (L. L. Wester 1979) . 19
Renaissance villas in Italy followed the Roman prototype. They are characterized by terraces. steps and ramps. which were necessary to accommodate the hilly topography. The Vatican garden seen from 51. Peter's (L. L. Wester 1979) .... 21
-1-. French gardens boast a path lined with trees. a fountain and a parterre in profound space and vistas. The garden of Chateau Lafite (L. L. Wester 1984) . ")'1
S. British gardens are informal "natural" landscape gardens. The Royal Observatory. Greenwich (L. L. Wester 1979) 24
6. An open lawn and foundation planting are peculiarly American (Kamehameha Avenue. Honolulu. 1993) . 26
7. Scholar gardens of China are small private gardens in which scholar-officials strolled and contemplated. A garden in Suzhou (E. A. Kay 1986) . 29
8. Aristocratic gardens of Japan represented a paradise in the west (courtesy of the Chionin Temple. Kyoto: reproduced from Mori 1986) ...... 33
9. Dry gardens of Japan were designed to induce meditation removed from the concerns of everyday life (L. L. Wester 1980) . 3S
XII 10. Tea gardens of Japan comprise the path leading to a tea room recreating the atmosphere of a deep mountain path within the confines of an urban dwelling (courtesy of the Graphic-sha; reproduced from Ohashi 1986) ...... 36
11. Spacious strolling gardens of Japan have provided a major image of Japanese gardens (courtesy of the Graphic-sha; reproduced from Ohashi 1986) ...... 37
12. Garden rocks: (a) in Chinese tradition, garden rocks are usually curiously shaped limestone placed in isolation (courtesy of the Graphic-sha; reproduced from Yoshikawa 1990); (b) in Japanese tradition, garden rocks are usually grouped granite or andesite (courtesy of the Graphic-sha; reproduced from Ohashi 1986) , 40
13. Three study areas (census tracts) in Palolo, Pearl City and Aina Haina on the island of O'ahu, Hawai'i (1980 Census Tracts). Dotted area of Aina Haina Tract (Tract 3) is part of the Honolulu Watershed Reserve (uninhabited) 48
14. View of Palolo Valley (1993) ...... 49
15. Median rainfall (Source: Giambelluca, Nullet and Schroeder 1986:73). Dotted area of Aina Haina Tract (Tract 3) is part of the Honolulu Watershed Reserve (uninhabited) 54
16. Vegetation zones: (1) coastal zone, (2) dryland forest and shrub zone, (3) mixed mesic forest zone, and (4) rainforest zone (Source: Ripperton and Hosaka ::'942: 20, 23-4). Dotted area of Aina Haina Tract (Tract 3) is part of the Honolulu Watershed Reserve (uninhabited) 55
17. Study sites in Palolo Tract (Site No.1 - 50) 60
18. Study sites in Pearl City Tract (Site No. 51 - 100) ...... 61
19. Study sites in Aina Haina Tract (Site No. 101 - 150) ...... 62
20. Basal planting with gingers (Alpinia spp.), ti (Cordyline fruticosa) and maile-scented fern (Phymatosorus scolopendria) (Ke'eaumoku Street, Honolulu, 1993) 63
xiii 21. Mango (Mangifera indica) 105
22. Street in Pal010 (1993) 127
23. Street in Pearl City (1993) ...... 128
24. Street in Aina Haina (1993) ...... 129
25. Single-family houses: (a) in Honolulu (Nehoa Street, 1993), and (b) in Nagoya, Japan (Minamiwake-cho, 1991) ...... 134
26. Most of the common tropical garden plants are not indigenous to Hawai'i: (a) commonly planted red hibiscus (Hibiscus rosa-sinensis) is not indigenous to Hawai'i; (b) endemic koki'o (Hibiscus amottianus) is rarely planted in gardens 136
27. Common plants in Japanese gardens: (a) sacred bamboo (Nandina domestica), and (b) cycad (Cycas revoluta) and Oriental hawthorn (Rhaphiolepis umbellata) 138
28. Transported Japanese garden tradition, such as grouped rocks, a stone lantern and neatly trimmed shrubs, lends a distinctive Japanese flavor to the front yard of this house (Mott-Smith Drive, Honolulu, 1993) ...... 140
29. Neatly maintained lawns of velvet grass (Zoysia matrella var. matrella) (Pawaina Place, Honolulu, 1990) 144
30. The substitution: (a) a pine tree is an indispensable component of a traditional Japanese garden (Higashiyama Botanical Garden, Nagoya, Japan, 1991); (b) common ironwood (Casuarina equisetifolia) (on the right) is often trimmed to look like a pine tree in a traditional Japanese garden (on the left) (Nehoa Street, Honolulu, 1993) ...... 152
xiv I. INTRODUCTION
This study describes ornamental plants in urban residential yards on the island of O'ahu, Hawai'i, and examines their relationship with people. The idea for the study originated from a puzzle which arose when I first arrived Hawai'i in
1981. I saw many homes with stone lanterns, neatly trimmed shrubs and interesting rocks carefully arranged in the style of Japanese gardens (Figure 1).
At first I thought, "These must be the homes of Japanese Americans, descendants of immigrants of many years ago. These people are still maintaining their home culture in a foreign country." I soon realized, however, that although these gardens appear Japanese, I had never seen any like them in Japan. The style appeared Japanese, but was not Japanese. What was going on? I began to look at plants in front yards and think about the people who put them there.
In residential neighborhoods, most yards boast trees, shrubs and herbs.
Some include hedges while others display flower beds. An extensive lawn is not uncommon. Tropical vines are tucked into corners next to temperate shrubs. An apparent oriental flavor exists in some yards. As I observed more and more gardens, I began to ask myself: "What is the plant community of residential yards? How has it come to be? What role do people play?"
In this study I will systematically describe the structure of plant communities in urban residential yards on the island of O'ahu. The structural description is based on (1) the presence/absence of plant species, (2) vertical
1 Figure 1. Stone lanterns, neatly trimmed shrubs and interesting rocks are carefully arranged in the style of Japanese gardens (Mott-Smith Drive, Honolulu, 1993).
2 structure (height composition) and (3) horizontal structure (cover abundance). I will also depict how plants are used (function) in yards. Then I will compare plant communities from several neighborhoods with similar socio-economic settings as well as those of major ethnic groups within the neighborhoods to examine what human factors playa role in the development of plant communities in residential yards.
1.1. PLANTS AND PEOPLE IN RESIDENTIAL YARDS
The analysis of the role of people in residential gardens is not new: (1)
Schmid (1975) thoroughly reviewed studies of urban vegetation and investigated residential front yard plantings as visible elements of a cultural landscape; (2)
Kimber (1966, 1973, 1988) examined the dooryard garden in the Caribbean both as a vegetation type and an indicator of a diverse value system of people; (3)
Derrenbacher (1969) reported that species diversity in residential gardens increased with socio-economic status in an area of Berkeley, California; (4)
Thomas (1970) noted the increase of kitchen gardens in the poorer districts of
Baton Rouge, Louisiana; (5) Fredrich (1978) examined dooryard medicinal plants which reflected the culture and history of S1. Lucia in the Caribbean; (6) Whitney and Adams (1980) applied conventional ecological methods to systematically quantify urban arboreal vegetation in residential lots for Akron, Ohio, reporting the close association of landscape taste and the status of residents; and (7)
3 Richards, Mallette, Simpson and Macie (1984) studied greenspace and vegetation in residential lots in Syracuse, New York, documenting the highly heterogeneous nature of residential greenspace and vegetation.
Among the more important findings of these studies are as follows. (1)
Plant communities in residential yards reflect the socio-economic and cultural characteristics of the area. The quantity (biomass), species composition, and arrangement of plants differ from one area to another in a regular manner reflecting differences in the age and social characteristics of the area (Schmid
1975: 219). Although the underlying cultural and social setting is important
(Whitney and Adams 1980: 443), there is no greater difference in the characteristics of residential greenspace within areas than among areas (Richards et al. 1984: 123). (2) An individual resident has great latitude in gardening practice (Schmid 1975: 219).
The ethnic (cultural) background of residents has rarely been studied in relation to plant communities in residential yards. Because people belonging to specific cultural groups prefer specific garden styles (Moss 1965; Exline, Peters and Larkin 1982: 53), plant communities can be studied in the light of group identity.
4 1.2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The framework sets the subject of the study, "plant communities in residential yards," as an important element of what is increasingly a primary human habitat, the urban ecosystem. It thus establishes the subject as a part of the cultural landscape, which in turn allows cultural interpretation of the subject.
Linking key concepts which elucidate human motives behind the subject, the framework relates the subject to the variations in landscapes among cultures and their transfer among areas and groups of people.
1.2.1. Urban Ecosystem
The study of plant communities is, broadly speaking, "vegetation ecology"
(Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974: 3); and is therefore primarily organized around the concept of "ecosystem" (Tansley 1935: 299-303). "Ecosystem" is broadly defined as the community of organisms of a given area together with their related non-living environment, functioning as a unit (Odum 1963: 4; Marcus and
Detwyler 1972: 7). Urban vegetation is a major component of the urban ecosystem. In this study, the members of the plant communities examined in residential yards are limited to those of vascular plants, mostly gymnosperms and angiosperms.
The fundamental assumption of this study is that human factors are an integral part of an urban ecosystem (d. Whitney and Adams 1980; Richards et al.
5 1984). Because an ecosystem is an integrated entity, changes in plant communities are related to changes in the environment. The present study aims to decipher the changes of the plant communities in residential yards as they relate to changes in human factors such as socio-economic and cultural elements.
1.2.2. As a Cultural Landscape
To validate the assumption, the plant communities in residential yards must be established as part of the cultural landscape, and viewed as part of a
"garden." A garden will be defined more carefully and delineated in detail in the next chapter, but for now it is considered a form of the "cultural landscape fashioned from a natural landscape by a culture group" (Sauer 1925: 343). Also, in this study, the term means an "ornamental" garden unless otherwise noted (cf.
Section 2.1.).
Plant communities in residential yards rarely represent the natural landscape (natural vegetation) of an area. They are mostly comprised of artificially arranged garden (horticultural) plants. The effects of environmental
(natural) constraints on these plants are obscured because: (1) popular garden plants have been cultivated in gardens through many generations, and thus they are suited to garden conditions; and (2) great inputs of energy, nutrients and time allow people to overcome many environmental drawbacks. Artificial modifications such as irrigation, screens, windbreaks, pots, pesticides, and compost piles ease constraints.
6 Also, plants in each residential yard mirror the resident's individual choices among the possible alternatives, as in other cultural artifacts such as fences and house styles (cf. Arreola 1981; Manzo 1982; Murton 1983; Salamon 1985; Goss
1988). This point is also evident in the findings of the previous studies of plants and people in residential yards (d. Section 1.1.). Thus, the plant communities in residential yards are part of the cultural landscape, a garden (cf. diagrams of
Sauer 1925: 337, 343).
Plant communities in residential yards, or "gardens," can be interpreted as the "unwitting autograph" (Lewis 1979: 12) of taste, ideals, and a symbol of an ethnic or socioeconomic group (Firey 1945; Duncan 1973; Cosgrove 1984).
Specific cultural groups do have specific garden styles (Moss 1965; Exline, Peters and Larkin 1982: 53). A garden can be interpreted as a microcosm which mirrors certain cosmic values and environmental attitudes, and its specific designs and contents have culturally-given meanings (Tuan 1974: 138-46). But are the variations in the form of the cultural landscape (1) digital (the difference between the variations is qualitative) or (2) analogue (quantitative)? For example, are the differences in a garden style among people and among cultures fundamental? Or are they merely varieties of expression of something common among humans? In this study I view that the differences are not fundamental, but assume some common denominator among humans. The theoretical base of this view relating to landscape, especially to garden style, is given below.
7 1.2.3. Motivations Behind a Garden
The concept of "proto-paysage" (Berque 1990: 16), or original landscape,
proposes that humans have some universal common denominator, regardless of
ethnicity or cultural background, in regards to landscape. There is a common
reason why one likes or dislikes a particular landscape (Higuchi 1981: 104-6, 264).
Thus, some common features may underlie intra- and inter-cultural varieties of
garden styles (Orians 1986: 10; Shinada 1987: 108).
The "habitat theory" (Appleton 1975: 69) provides the atavistic motivation
that aesthetic satisfaction with a given landscape stems from the spontaneous
perception of sign-stimuli indicative of environmental conditions favorable to
survival. The image of the original human habitat, a safe environment "to see without being seen" (Lorenz 1952: 193), is still with the contemporary human.
Elementary concepts which functionally categorize landscapes are "prospect,"
"refuge" and "hazard" (Appleton 1990: 25). Prospect here refers to an
"unimpeded opportunity to see"; refuge indicates an "opportunity to hide"; and
hazard refers to "all those sources of danger which it might be necessary to avoid
by whatever means" (Appleton 1975: 73, 1990: 25).
Based on the habitat theory, a garden symbolically represents a safe
environment for humans. Regardless of culture, therefore, the garden is an
expression of the ideal environment. It has symbols of those characteristics of
"prospect" and "refuge" to protect humans from "hazard." The varieties in garden
styles reflect differences in emphases of these two characteristics. For example,
8 an open French garden of Versailles emphasizes prospect, while a neatly secluded
Japanese garden of Katsura emphasizes refuge (cf. Chapter 2). Note that because prospect and refuge are not a dichotomy (Appleton 1975: 74), neither are these differences in emphases. Why, then, are there cultural variations?
The concept of "hinkaku (dignity)" (Nakamura 1982: 143-72) links the ethological motivation to human aesthetics. It is the quality that leads a human to arrange selected landscape elements into what he/she perceives as a pleasing form. The reason each culture has a particular style may lie in this concept because there are different arrangements which may achieve aesthetic balance even using the same elements. It may also explain why gardens are not exact replicas of the "original human habitat." Although this image of the habitat, which may be that of the African savanna (Kaplan and Kaplan 1982: 7; Orians
1986: 10), still exists in the modern human, a garden is the cultural representation of that image in pleasing form.
1.2.4. Transported Landscape
The last part of the framework conceptualizes how cultural landscapes may be transferred among people and areas. It also indicates what would happen if many transported landscapes are gathered in a multicultural society like that of
Hawai'i. As the background for the study, the history of immigrants in Hawai'i is briefly summarized in Appendix 1.
9 The "transported landscape" (Anderson 1952: 3-15) suggests that when a group of people immigrates to a new place, it tends to carry familiar plants with it. The group may also transport a cultural concept of landscape and shape a new environment in that mold (Kirch 1982: 2-3). For example, in the central and eastern United States, green in the autumnal landscape is a measure of European influence (that is, the transported landscape from Europe) because: (1) most native American plants in the area produce brilliant fall colors before dropping their leaves in autumn; and (2) virtually all the plants remaining green throughout the year have come with people from Europe (Anderson 1952: 9-10).
In Hawai'i, the early Polynesians brought the cultural concept of landscape from the southern Pacific archipelagoes -- such notions as the suitability of valley bottoms for irrigated terracing and the efficiency of fire in converting forest to agricultural land (Kirch 1982: 3). Notable plants introduced by early Polynesian settlers include sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum L.), coconut (Cocos nucifera
L.), kukui (Aleurites moluccana (L.) Willd.), ti (Cordyline fruticosa (L.) A. Chev.), paper mulberry (Broussonetia papyrifera (L.) Venten.), breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis
(Parkins.) Fosb.), sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.) and taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott) (Wester 1983: 109-14). Many of these are still important in the contemporary Hawaiian landscape.
If the group maintains its "group identity" (Isaacs 1968: 77) in a multicultural society, the transported landscape should distinguish cultural landscapes of different ethnic groups. The plant communities in residential yards
10 should be a part of such cultural landscapes. In The Melting Pot Zangwill (1909)
advocates cultural amalgamation in the society, while Kallen's (1924) "cultural pluralism" suggests that people live in both primary (ancestral) and secondary cultures (Sandberg 1974: 3). Thus a partial assimilation and acculturation may
result.
"Group identity" may arise from a neighborhood and/or a particular socio
economic group. The group may have a particular landscape taste such as a certain house style as a symbol of the group's identity (Duncan 1973: 334). Plant
communities in residential yards will reflect their taste as part of the landscape.
1.3. THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
A critical research problem in biogeography is the need to elucidate
interactions between humans and biota (Veblen 1989: 32). Specifically, this study
examines the relationship between human and plant communities in residential yards in urbanized neighborhoods on the island of O'ahu, Hawai'i. This is
important because (1) plants in residential yards are the organisms most
intimately associated with the urban residents, and therefore, (2) the
characteristics of plant communities reflect and possibly affect people's ideas
toward them. In this study I describe the structure of urban vegetation and its
relationship with urban residents both as individuals and groups. Also I will
provide insights into ethnic and neighborhood identities in a multicultural society.
11 1.3.1. Research Questions
The major research questions of the study are: What is the structure of plant communities in urban residential yards? How does the structure vary among neighborhoods and ethnic groups within socio-economically similar areas?
What differences exist? What similarities are there? How can the differences and similarities be explained?
A review of previous studies shows that plant communities in residential yards have been compared among socio-economically different areas, but rarely with consideration for ethnic/cultural factors. At the same time, studies of cultural landscapes seldom provide quantitative analyses. Because the structure of plant communities is mathematically measurable by existing methods in vegetation ecology, I will apply statistical methods in so far as possible in this study. When quantitative methods fail to reveal usable information, I will not hesitate to utilize qualitative methods. In this way a holistic study of the subject is possible.
1.3.2. Research Hypotheses
Within the conceptual framework and research questions, the study aims to measure characteristics of plant communities in residential yards empirically, and observe possible variations among various groupings of people. To explore the people-plant relationship in residential yards, I have two hypotheses to test:
12 Neighborhood Hypothesis: There is significant variation in the structure
(presence/absence of plant species, height composition, cover abundance,
and function of each species) of plant communities in residential yards
among different neighborhoods on the island of O'ahu;
Ethnic Hypothesis: There is significant variation in the structure of plant
communities in residential yards among different ethnic groups.
To test these hypotheses, sample areas must be similar in their socio economic characteristics, ethnic composition and physical environment. In this study, socio-economic characteristics are represented by (1) income, (2) years of school completed, and (3) year structure (house) was built. The physical environment is represented by (1) topography, (2) rainfall and (3) potential vegetation type.
1.4. THE USEFULNESS OF THIS STUDY
The study will enhance our understanding of human/plant interactions in the following ways:
(1) Presenting empirical, quantitative data of the structure of an important
component of the urban ecosystem, a garden;
(2) Examining the data in relation to human factors at both individual and
neighborhood levels, and;
13 (3) Focusing closely on ethnic/cultural aspects of human/plant interactions,
an aspect which has received scant attention in the past
1.5. THE ORGANIZATION OF THE PAPER
The orientation of the study was described in Chapter 1, which consisted of a review of previous studies, the conceptual framework and the research problem.
A definition, a brief history of gardens as the background for the study, and key characteristics of important garden styles are provided in Chapter 2.
Research design, procedure and statistical techniques are outlined in
Chapter 3.
Data analyses and an examination of the hypotheses are presented in
Chapter 4.
Findings, evaluations, interpretations and recommendations are offered in
Chapter 5.
14 II. THE GARDENS
This chapter defines a "garden" and delineates three garden styles important for the study: (1) American, (2) Chinese and (3) Japanese.
Information on the gardens of Hawai'i will also be included as necessary. An overview of the history and comparisons of ideas and elements of these garden styles will provide a broad background for the study.
In this paper, "American" style means that of North America after
European colonization. "European" style includes those of southern and western
European countries such as Italy, France, the Netherlands and England.
2.1. DEFINITION OF A "GARDEN"
The definition of the term "garden" is necessary because it does not carry the same meaning among different cultures. In English, the term may signify an ornamental area, a kitchen garden, and/or an outdoor living space. It can be decorative and/or productive. The term is broad and may be used at any scale for any social class: for example, aristocratic Versailles and my flower bed of a few square feet are both "gardens."
On the other hand, the Japanese garden (teien) and Chinese garden
(yuanlin) are primarily ornamental, designed by and for upper class people based on traditional codes for a particular purpose. They are neither productive nor,
15 until recently, for common people. There are different terms to denote other
kinds of gardens. For example, the outdoor living space of a traditional Chinese house is a courtyard called tianjing (skywell).
In this study, the term "garden" means an ornamental garden. I will
indicate exceptions.
2.2. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF GARDEN STYLES
In the history of gardens, there are two primary lineages: (1) the
Mediterranean-European lineage, and (2) the Chinese-Japanese lineage (Nakao
1986: 35-9). Despite a possible cultural exchange between the two since early times (i.e. via the Silk Road), they remain distinctive in many ways. Among the
three styles important for this study, the American style belongs to the former
lineage, while the Chinese and Japanese styles belong to the latter.
There are two major points to note: (1) each garden style carries a long history, and it is not a one-time invention of a single person or of a particular period, and (2) although they appear endemic, many ideas and elements in garden style were introduced to the culture.
2.2.1. Mediterranean-European Lineage
The Mediterranean-European lineage most likely originated with the
appearance of the early urban civilizations in the Mediterranean, Egypt and
16 Mesopotamia, around the twentieth century B.C. The gardens of these civilizations were large and formal (rectilinear design) with architectural structures, plants and water pools (Hyams, 1971: 11-18). They were both utilitarian and decorative (Lowell 1901: [2]), and in a sense "outdoor living rooms," a tradition followed by later European culture (Hyams 1971: 15).
The gardens of Greek civilization were mostly utilitarian. They were symmetrically designed courtyards and served as "outdoor public assembly rooms"
(Hyams 1971: 45). An exception to the utilitarian tradition was the "Adonis garden" which was an ornamental altar (Nakao 1986: 53). European garden style adopted the ideas of the orchard, the sacred grove, the Academy (academe) and the Nymphaeum (pleasure pavilion embellished with water) from Greek traditions
(Hyams 1971: 42).
The Roman garden style is an important predecessor of later European gardens, although its garden craft was largely borrowed from the Greek (Triggs
1913: 4). Distinctive from those of Greek and other early civilizations, Roman gardens were mostly decorative with sculpture, clipped hedges and trees, and a greater variety of design (Lowell 1901: [3]).
The Roman villa-style garden was a large formal park with a grass enclosure, a portico, statues, groves of trees in geometrical blocks and elaborate water works (Triggs 1913: 7-8; Hyams, 1971: 48-50). Because of hilly topography, terraces were frequently used (Lowell 1901: [3]).
17 Smaller town gardens of Roman civilians were courtyards. In the center was a shallow pool with a fountain. Plants grew in terracotta or stone pots, while herbs and flowering plants graced rectangular beds or parterres. Typically a perspective scene was painted on the wall at the far end (Hyams 1971: 50; Tuan
1974: 139; Wakayama 1990: 127-30).
The gardens of Persia and other early Islamic states also influenced
European gardens, primarily because they flourished in Spain during periods of
Moorish conquest (Figure 2). In the earlier Persian gardens, a tank or small lake of water amidst fruit trees such as apple (Malus pumila Mill.), pear (Pyrus communis L.), plum (Prunus salicina Lindl.), apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) and peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch) was a key feature in garden design (Hyams
1971: 81). The early Islamic gardens were typically divided into four equal quarters by running water to represent the garden of Eden (Thacker 1979: 28).
Islamic gardens in Spain usually had small interconnecting enclosures (patios),
symmetrical plantings of trees, waterworks and fountains (Hyams 1971: 85-6;
Thacker 1979: 36).
During the Middle Ages in Europe, gardens were mostly associated with
monasteries. A cloister garden was an enclosed place the inhabitant
contemplated, and called "paradise" (Tuan 1974: 138). The fountain at the center
of a monastic garden and the streams of water rising out of it symbolized the
"geography of Eden" (Tuan 1974: 138) and eternal life (Likhachev 1982: 61).
18 Figure 2. Islamic gardens usually have small interconnecting enclosures, symmetrical plantings of trees, waterworks and fountains. The garden of A1ca~: Granada (L. L. Wester 1979).
19 Monasteries also maintained utilitarian gardens for cultivating herbs and medicinal plants (Hyams 1971: 14).
Other examples of medieval gardens include an "enclosed garden (hortus cone/usus)" and a "garden of love." The former was a square or rectangular shaped garden enclosed by walls, hedges, or wattle or paling fences (Thacker
1979: 84). It symbolized both the Virgin Mary and Paradise (Likhachev 1982:
62). The latter was a garden in a castle created for pleasure, boasting a cistern at the center for bathing (Likhachev 1982: 78).
The Renaissance, which began in Italy in the fourteenth century, was a period of rediscovery of the classical garden styles. It was also a turning point for the ideas underlying gardens. The conception of the world slowly changed from a vertical cosmos (sacred) in the Middle Ages to a horizontal (profane) landscape
(Tuan 1974: 129). In this view, humanity dominated nature and thus in gardens, nature could be idealized into a geometrical form.
The Renaissance villas in Italy followed the Roman prototype (Lowell
1901: [4]; Triggs 1913: 6; Hyams 1971: 130; Tuan 1974: 139) (Figure 3). They were characterized by terraces, steps and ramps, which were necessary to accommodate the hilly topography (Lowell 1901: [4]). In the levelland of France, space and vistas became more profound in gardens, following the Italian style
(Tuan 1974: 139) (Figure 4). French gardens boasted a path lined with trees, a fountain and a parterre (Scott-James and Lancaster 1977: 39). The French style spread to England, Germany and the Netherlands, modified to suit local
20 Figure 3. Renaissance villas in Italy followed the Roman prototype. They are characterized by terraces, steps and ramps, which were necessary to accommodate the hilly topography. The Vatican garden seen from St. Peter's (L. L. Wester 1979).
21 Figure 4. French gardens boast a path lined with trees, a fountain and a parterre in profound space and vistas. The garden of Chateau Lafite (L. L. Wester 1984).
22 conditions (Lowell 1901: [5]). Dutch gardens, for example, were more concentrated than French gardens due to the limited space available (Scott-James
1977: 47).
In the eighteenth century, as landscape paintings became an important source of ideas for gardens, informal "natural" landscape gardens gained popularity in England (Figure 5). Seventeenth century landscape paintings, which often borrowed a motif from Arcadia and the landscapes of suburban Italy, were the major models of the ideal landscape represented in gardens (Scott-James and
Lancaster 1977: 55; Thacker 1979: 185; Berque 1990: 114-5). This represented a shift from formal gardens designed by an architect to "natural" gardens landscaped by a painter (Likhachev 1982: 230). The major characteristics of
European gardens, (1) imposing perspective and (2) pleasing outdoor living space, were however still there. Only the means of achieving perspective became more subtle (Tuan 1974: 140).
These "natural" gardens usually incorporated hills, open fields, a winding stream, a lake and clusters of trees (Scott-James and Lancaster 1977: 58). The use of the ha-ha (a sunken fence, shaped like a ditch or a dry moat) allowed the visual continuation of a garden and the surrounding land without losing clear boundary markers and barriers to livestock. It was an important difference between the enclosed formal gardens of French or Dutch origin and these
"natural" landscape gardens (Thacker 1979: 181-3). (The visual disappearance of
23 Figure 5. British gardens are informal "natural" landscape gardens. The Royal Observatory, Greenwich (L. L. Wester 1979).
24 the enclosure from gardens may have provided the idea for the open front lawn,
which later flourished in the United States!)
The early American gardens were primarily fenced kitchen aud medicinal
gardens following the European cottage gardens (Favretti 1962: 5; Tanner 1990:
14). Puritanical austerity was an important characteristic (Favretti 1962: 6, 9).
During the eighteenth century, however, puritanical austerity gradually began to
give way (Favretti 1962: 9), and wealthy people became able to afford ornamental
gardens (Tanner 1990: 16). Many gardeners began growing flowers in enclosed
parlor gardens at the front of the house (Favretti 1962: 9). These gardens
followed the models of Europe, but they were smaller and simpler (Lowell 1901:
[5]). English and Dutch styles were popular on the Eastern Seaboard, while
Spanish courtyard gardens prevailed in California and, to a lesser extent, in
Florida (Smith 1991: 24). They were mostly formal gardens.
The Victorian "natural" landscape garden became favored during the
nineteenth century in the United States (Tanner 1990: 18). These Gardenesque
style gardens were popularized by Andrew Jackson Downing in his book, "Treatise on the theory and practice oflandscape gardening' [1841] (Smith 1991: 25).
An open lawn front yard without fence and/or hedge, along with
foundation planting, is peculiarly American (Smith 1991: 16,29; cf. Detwyler 1972:
235-38) (Figure 6). It became dominant after the invention of a lawn mower in
1830's and the civic movement of a "democratic" front yard (Thacker 1979: 230-1;
Tanner 1990: 20; Smith 1991: 32). The lawn may have attained the function of
25 Figure 6. An open lawn and foundation planting are peculiarly American (Kamehameha Avenue, Honolulu, 1993).
26 the display of wealth (Lowen 1991: 46), hence reduced the function of a garden
(front yard) as an outdoor living-room (Blanch an 1909: 334; Smith 1991: 32).
2.2.2. Chinese-Japanese Lineage
The Chinese-Japanese garden lineage originated in China, probably during
the Zhou dynasty (1045-256 B.c.) (Nakao 1986: 37-40). The Chinese garden style
is an important progenitor in this lineage, occupying the same status as the
Roman style in the Mediterranean-European lineage.
2.2.2.1. Chinese gardens
Chinese gardens are distinguished by three dominant styles: (1) the
imperial gardens (huanjia yuanlin), (2) scholar (private) gardens (sijia yuanlin), and (3) gardens found in temples, ancestral halls and natural scenic parks
(Johnston 1991: 1). They are all "natural" landscape gardens.
The imperial gardens were large, extravagant and exotic gardens of the emperor and imperial households. They were landscaped hunting parks as well
(Hyams 1971: 19; Thacker 1979: 47). The earliest described imperial garden was built around the second century B.C. during the Han dynasty (Hyams 1971: 19;
Tuan 1974: 145). Imperial parks were considered as an idealized Daoist and shamanistic microcosms. Each park encompassed mountains, forests and marshes, with palaces and artificial landscapes built to reflect Daoist magical beliefs. Pyramidal islands, for example, were typically constructed in the middle
27 of man-made lakes to imitate the three legendary Isles of the Blest (Tuan 1974:
145).
Scholar gardens were smaller private gardens in which scholar-officials could stroll and contemplate (Figure 7). Each element of the garden, from a pond to a gate to the stones, carried a special name. Confucian thought, which was the fundamental philosophy of Chinese social life, provided the basis for determining these names. The philosophy assumed that humanity was an intimate part of nature (Mori 1969: 75-6; Morris 1983: 91). Thus, numerous architectural elements in Chinese gardens were a part of the "natural" landscape. It is important to note that scholar-officials were elite intellectuals selected by the stern state examination system (Kato 1978: 188-94). They were all versed in historical, poetic and artistic traditions (Morris 1983: 28), and could thus share and understand the allusions of the names and arrangement of elements.
Daoism, on the other hand, provided the base for the function of scholar gardens. These gardens evolved as an antithesis to the city which was built in rectilinear, geometrical design (Tuan 1974: 138). The philosophy favored an escape in secluded life by merging with nature (Hyams 1971: 20; Inaji 1991: 114), and, thus, guided private life of scholar-officials and their garden design. The idealized view of nature was represented in Chinese landscape paintings of mountains and water (shanshui [sansui in Japanese as in kare-sansui]). The elusive landscape paintings by artists of the Tang period (A.D. 618-907) served as conceptual models for garden design (Johnston 1991: 2). The peculiarly shaped
28 Figure 7. Scholar gardens of China are small private gardens in which scholar officials strolled and contemplated. A garden in Suzhou (E. A. Kay 1986).
29 rocks in Chinese gardens represented rough, towering and picturesque mountains in landscape paintings (Hyams 1971: 26).
The growing popularity of Buddhism after the Han period lead to increased awareness of nature and garden design, enriching the symbolic content
(Tuan 1974: 146; Morris 1983: 36). Buddhist monks also played an important role in early horticulture, as many garden plants for example, magnolia (Magnolia liliflora Desr.), ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba L.), some cultivars of peonies (Paeonia spp.) and camellias (Camellia japonica L), were first cultivated by them (Morris 1983:
41).
The development of Chan Buddhism was important in the development of garden style, but more for Japanese gardens than for Chinese. This sect of
Buddhism later flourished in Japan as Zen Buddhism and became the major source of ideas for Japanese gardens.
Scholar gardens were fully developed during the Song dynasty (A.D. 960
1279) (Johnston 1991: 2). Most of those seen today were built in the Ming (A.D.
1368-1644) and Qing (A.D. 1644-1911) dynasties (Yoshikawa 1990: 4). In the pages that follow, "Chinese garden" refers to the scholar garden unless otherwise noted.
2.2.2.2. Japanese gardens
The Chinese garden style, probably that of the imperial gardens
(Yoshikawa 1990: 4), was introduced to Japan around the sixth century A.D.
30 Prior to that, the Shinto view that "gods are the spirits of nature" (Eliovson 1970:
84) had provided the prototype for Japanese gardens (Mori 1984: 10; Inaji 1990:
3). The establishment of a peculiar Japanese style, however, evolved much later, roughly coinciding with the Renaissance period in Europe.
The Shinto ideas of iwakura (a place where a god [kami] dwells) and himorogi (the place where a god descends, an altar) are important to the development of Japanese gardens. Iwakura is usually a large rock or a group of rocks on a mountain. In accordance with this belief, rocks in Japanese gardens are considered sacred. Himorogi is a square or rectangular space marked by four poles at the corners, with a column (often sakaki [Cleyera ochnacea DC.], a sacred evergreen tree) where a god descends at the center, a rope tied around the poles, and white sand and natural stones sometimes laid on the ground. It is the prototype of dry gardens described below (Isozaki 1990: 11-13).
There are three distinct types of Japanese gardens: (1) water gardens
(chisen-shiki teien), (2) dry gardens (Kare-sansui) and (3) tea gardens (roji)
(Eliovson 1970: 58). They are all "natural" landscape gardens. Water gardens include graceful aristocratic gardens from the Heian period (A.D. 794-1192), subtle and profound gardens from the medieval period, and spacious, strolling gardens from the Edo period (A.D. 1603-1868). Water gardens were usually composed of a pond with islands, a waterfall, a hill, stone groupings, and plants.
Unlike European and Chinese gardens, Japanese gardens, except for tea gardens and strolling gardens, are primarily "viewing" gardens.
31 During the Heian Period, the philosophy of Jodo Buddhism, mujo-kan (a transient view of life), and resulting aesthetics of mono no aware (the pathos of life), combined with the aesthetics of miyabi (refinement and sophistication) of the nobles, provided ideas for aristocratic gardens (Inaji 1990: 72) (Figure 8).
These gardens represented saiho jodo (a paradise to the west). In each garden was a pond, and in the pond, an island representing shumi-sen (Mt. Sumeru, the central mountain of the universe in the Buddhist cosmos). The island also represented horai (the legendary Isles of the Blest in Daoist magical belief [Tuan
1974: 145]). This Daoist belief may have come to Japan with the introduction of the imperial garden style of China. Later, probably in the fifteenth century, islands were constructed to represent cranes and tortoises, the symbols of eternal life (Morl 1986: 127-9).
Under the influence of Zen Buddhism, which became popular in the medieval period, gardens were designed to be contemplative and plain. The concepts of wabi (rustic simplicity and an appreciation of simple frugality) and sabi (an appreciation of surfaces and texture that reflect age and usage) became essential ideas behind Japanese gardens (Eliovson 1970: 28). Combining these concepts with the aesthetics of yugen (subtle and profound), medieval gardeners, who were mostly Zen monks, created the subtle and profound gardens of warriors' residences, the dry gardens of Zen temples and tea gardens (Inaji 1990:
72).
32 Figure 8. Aristocratic gardens of Japan represented a paradise in the west (courtesy of the Chionin Temple, Kyoto; reproduced from Mori 1986).
33 Dry gardens became popular in the Muromachi period (A.D. 1338-1573)
(Figure 9). In dry gardens, although the symbolism became less clear, rock combinations still represented shumi-sen and horai (Hyams 1971: 57; Thacker
1979: 67-71). Their abstract form, however, was designed to induce meditation of them, removed from the concerns of everyday life (Eliovson 1970: 61).
Tea gardens were established during the Momoyama period (A.D.1573
1603) (Figure 10). In essence, these gardens comprised the path leading to a tea room (chase/d). Tea gardens are among the most popular forms of Japanese gardens (Eliovson 1970: 63). They are meant to recreate the atmosphere of a
deep mountain path within the confines of an urban dwelling (Inaji 1990: 58). To
achieve this, a special design technique, miekakure (in and out of sight), was used
(Inaji 1990: 59). This technique involved revealing only parts of the garden's
elements from anyone angle, creating an illusion of depth and diversity. While
ambling through the garden towards the tea house, a visitor should experience a
gradual shedding of the world's concerns (Thacker 1979: 75). The essential
elements of tea gardens were (1) the stone lantern, (2) a water-basin, (3) a path
of raised stepping stones and (4) an enclosing bamboo fence and gate, or a hedge
(Eliovson 1970: 65).
During the Edo period, all Japanese styles mentioned above culminated in
spacious strolling gardens, or parks (Mori 1984: 23-4) (Figure 11). Although the
construction of this kind of garden in contemporary residential lots is impossible,
they have provided a major image of Japanese gardens because they are well
34 Figure 9. Dry gardens of Japan were designed to induce meditation removed from the concerns of everyday life (L. L. Wester 1980).
35 Figure 10. Tea gardens of Japan comprise the path leading to a tea room recreating the atmosphere of a deep mountain path within the confines of an urban dwelling (courtesy of the Graphic-sha; reproduced from Ohashi 1986).
36 Figure 11. Spacious strolling gardens of Japan have provided a major image of Japanese gardens (courtesy of the Graphic-sha; reproduced from Ohashi 1986).
37 preserved and spectacular, and are often featured in books about Japanese gardens.
2.3. COMPARISON OF GARDEN STYLES
Three garden styles are distinguishable based on several characteristics.
They are notably different in their (1) function, (2) garden elements and (3) plant materials.
2.3.1. Function
American gardens are primarily an outdoor living-room (Lowell 1901: [9]).
Following European tradition, American gardens also provide pleasing views.
They are, however, more a place to live in than a romantic picture to stroll through or admire from a window (Tanner 1990: 24).
In contrast, Chinese gardens provide a place to stroll for rustic retreat and self-cultivation separated from one's living space (Morris 1983: 46,68; Johnston
1991: 4). They are designed to involve the stroller both aesthetically and intellectually (Yuan 1974: 138).
Japanese gardens provide residents with a contemplative and relaxing view.
Viewing gardens are designed to be seen from the main room of the house or from the veranda (engawa), while strolling gardens (kaiyu-shiki teien) are large enough to stroll through, providing several different views (EIiovson 1970: 59).
38 These differences in function are important for garden design. Gardens to live in or to stroll through require human-sized elements, while gardens designed for viewing do not. Consequently, in the Japanese garden tradition, the miniaturization of some garden elements often occurs. Combined with the philosophy of Zen Buddhism that space and time are relative, even the smallest
Japanese garden may represent the universe.
2.3.2. Garden elements
Peculiarly American garden elements are an open lawn and foundation planting (Tanner 1990: 19-20; Smith 1991: 28-9). Other American elements which are not seen in Chinese and Japanese traditions include flower beds with paths, pergolas, vases, trellises, water fountains and statues.
In Chinese tradition, the principal elements are architectural structures such as corridors with windows, open gateways, pavilions and bridges (Hyams
1971: 35; Yoshikawa 1990: 117-25). Each of these structures are named, are therefore intellectually symbolic. Other Chinese elements are curiously shaped rocks and cobbled pavements (Yoshikawa 1990: 114,127). Unlike Japanese garden rocks, these peculiarly shaped garden rocks are not religious symbols
(Hyams 1971: 25-6); they are placed in isolation rather than being grouped
(Figure 12); and they are usually water-eroded limestone rather than granite or andesite. The Chinese garden tradition lacks open lawns and water fountains
(Hyams 1971: 30; Thacker 1979: 43-4).
39 (a)
(b)
Figure 12. Garden rocks: (a) in Chinese tradition, garden rocks are usually curiously shaped limestone placed in isolation (courtesy of the Graphic-sha; reproduced from Yoshikawa 1990); (b) in Japanese tradition, garden rocks are usually grouped granite or andesite (courtesy of the Graphic-sha; reproduced from Ohashi 1986).
40 Typical Japanese garden elements include stone lanterns, gravel (sands) and rocks. Note, however, that "...one cannot create a Japanese garden merely by placing a stone lantern in the garden" (Eliovson 1970: 25). Architectural structures must be inconspicuous to viewers. A lawn is now a part of this tradition, but was probably introduced to Japan only around the Meiji Restoration
(A.D. 1868) (Hyams 1971: 78; Eliovson 1970: 71).
2.3.3. Plant materials
Herbaceous flowers are characteristic of the European-American tradition
(Nakao 1986: 44). Common garden flowers such as tulips (Tulipa spp.), hyacinth
(Hyacinthus sp.), anemone (Anemone sp.), primroses (Primula spp.), amaryllis
(Hippeastrum spp.) and marigolds (Tagetes spp.) are in this group. Important woody exceptions are roses (Rosa spp.) and lilac (Syringa vulgaris Lam.). Many of these plants do not thrive in Hawai'i because they require a temperate climate.
Flowering trees, many of which are fruit trees, are typical of the Chinese tradition (Nakao 1986: 128). Examples include tree peony (Paeonia suffruticosa
Andr.), magnolia (Magnolia liliflora Desr.), crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica L.), crab apple (Malus halliana Koehne), pomegranate (Punica granatum L.), Japanese daphne (Daphne odora Thunb.) and many citrus trees (Citrus spp., Fortunel/a spp.). Herbaceous exceptions are chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum sp.) and herbaceous peony (Paeonia lactiflora Pall.). All of the plants listed above except
41 pomegranate are native to China. Many, especially those from northern and western China, do not thrive in Hawai'i.
The Japanese tradition shares many of the typical Chinese garden plants.
Important examples are pines (Pinus spp.), bamboo (Phyllostachys spp.,
Arundinaria spp.), Japanese apricot (Prunus mume Sieb.), which is often called
"plum," and peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch). Distinctly Japanese plants are flowering cherries (Prunus spp.), Japanese iris (Iris sp.), Japanese maple (Acer palmatum Thunb.), camellia (Camellia japonica L.), and azalea (Rhododendron sp.).
Plants unique to the Japanese tradition belong to a group called "classical plants (koten-engei shokubutsu)" (Nakao 1986: 162-9). Common species are yabukoji (Ardisia japonica BI.), manryo or Hilo holly (Ardisia crenata Sims), saishin (Asarum siebodi Miq.), shunran (Cymbidium virescens Lindl.), sekkoku
(Dendrobium moniliforme (Linn.) Sw.), nanten or sacred bamboo (Nandina domestica Thunb.), furan (Neofinetia [alcata (Thunb.) Hu), psilotum (Psilotum nudum (L.) Griseb.), bamboo palm (Rhapis exelsa (Thunb.) Henry), omoto
(Rohdea japonica Roth and Kunth), and small club moss (Selaginella tamariscina
Spring). These plants are all Japanese natives, small, not showy, and cultivated in pots and often in tea gardens (Yinger 1990: 13-18).
Another distinctive feature of the Japanese tradition is the preference for variegated varieties (Nakao 1986: 129). Potted morning glory (Ipomoea nil (L.)
42 Roth), especially those with unusually shaped flowers, is also conspicuous in the
Japanese tradition (Nakao 1986: 156-61).
In Hawai'i, many common "tropical garden plants" (Nakao 1986: 96-8) are prominent because most garden plants from cool temperate areas do not thrive in our warm climate (although at higher elevations, with adequate water, many temperate plants do thrive). Common tropical garden plants are summarized in
Table 1.
2.4. SUMMARY
This chapter has provided an overview of garden styles as a broad background for the study. In the history of ornamental gardens, there are two primary lineages in garden styles. Among the three styles important for this study, the American style belongs to the Mediterranean-European lineage, while the Chinese and Japanese styles belong to the Chinese-Japanese lineage. These garden styles are distinguishable based on their function, garden elements and plant materials.
43 TABLE 1.
COMMON TROPICAL GARDEN PLANTS.
Common name / (Scientific name) African tulip tree (Spathodea campanulata Beauv.) Allamanda (Allamanda spp.) Bauhinia (Bauhinia spp.) Be-still tree (Thevetia peruviana (Pers.) K. Schum.) Bougainvillea (Bougainvillea spp.) Coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) Cook pine (Araucaria columnaris (G. Forst.) J. D. Hooker) Croton (Codiaeum variegatum (L.) Bl. var. pictum (Lodd.) Muell.-Arg.) Date palm (Phoenix spp.) Dracaena (Dracaena spp.) Fishtail palm (Caryota spp.) Glory bower (Clerodendrum spp.) Hibiscus (Hibiscus spp.) Indian almond (Terminalia sp.) Ixora (Ixora spp.) Jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia D. Don) Kentia (Howeia sp.) Lantana (Lantana camara L. and L. montevidensis (Spreng.) Briq.) Mussaenda (Mussaenda spp.) Plumbago (Plumbago auricuiata Lam.) Plumeria (Plumeria spp.) Poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima Wild. ex Klotzsch) Royal palms (Roystonea spp.) Royal poinciana (Delonix regia (Bojer) Raf.) Spider flower (Grevillea spp.) Thorn apple (Datura sp.) Ti (Cordyline fruticosa (L.) A. Chev.) Trumpet tree (Tabebuia spp.)
Source: Nakao (1986)
44 III. METHODS
This chapter describes the methodology used in the study, including research design, field sampling and data analyses. The field sampling section addresses (1) the preliminary survey, (2) the sampling design, (3) the questionnaire survey and (4) the main survey. The data analyses employ (1) the data manipulation, (2) classification and (3) statistical analyses.
3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN
The research design followed that of "vegetation ecology" (Mueller
Dombois and Ellenberg 1974) with some modifications. As noted in the
Introduction, in the present study I view plant communities in residential yards as an important element of the urban ecosystem (cf. Section 1.2.). Based on this perspective, the study of such plant communities is a part of vegetation ecology.
The research design of vegetation ecology was, therefore, employed in this study.
The application of conventional ecological methods to study urban plant communities followed Whitney and Adams (1980).
The "sample stand (releve) method" (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg
1974: 45-66) was used for field sampling. Each residential lot was used as a study site because it constituted a clearly marked vegetational entity.
45 Vegetation data were classified to determine groupings among the
observed plant species. Each grouping was analyzed to ascertain its correlation with the characteristics of the study sites. Then, to specifically analyze the effect
of each socio-economic and cultural variable, selected floristic characteristics were
statistically tested for variation among groupings of study sites.
Based on the results of the vegetational and statistical analyses,
explanations for significant variations and non-variations were sought. The nature
of the study required additional cultural interpretations.
3.2. FIELD SAMPLING
3.2.1. Preliminary Survey
The purpose of the first survey was to gain an insight based on empirical
observations into how to sample plants in residential yards, and to establish an
efficient sampling method for the main survey. I obtained permission from 25
Honolulu residents to survey and map the plants in their yards (14 April - 25
August 1990).
Major findings of the survey are: (1) The most practical method of
sampling plants in residential yards is to record front yard plants visible from a
public area such as the street. Those plants provide sufficient information for this
study. But they do not represent the entire plant community in the yard. Thus,
this method limits the study's scope to what the front yard reveals; (2) Study sites
46 should have similar topography. Because this factor provides a major and often restrictive framework for the arrangement of elements in a lot, front yards of sites on different topography are not comparable.
3.2.2. Sampling Design
3.2.2.1. Selection of study areas
The study compare plant communities in residential front yards of three study areas (census tracts) in Palolo, Pearl City and Aina Raina on the island of
O'ahu, Hawai'i (Figure 13). These areas have similar socio-economic and physical characteristics. The socio-economic characteristics include four 1980 census variables: ethnic composition, age of houses, income level, and educational background. The physical characteristics include topography, annual rainfall, and potential vegetation type. This section explains how these areas are selected.
Based on a reconnaissance (November 1990), among 179 census tracts in
Honolulu (SMSA: Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area), Tract 12.01 (below, the "Palolo Tract") was selected as the control for the study (Figure 14). The use of census tracts as a frame (study area) was advantageous because the tracts were small, relatively homogeneous socio-economic areas (U.S. Bureau of the Census
1983: AI), and standard census data were readily available for analysis. However,
47 N ~
o 5 miles I '. I o 4 km Diamond Head
Figure 13. Three study areas (census tracts) in Palolo, Pearl City and Aina Raina on the island of O'ahu, Hawai'i (1980 Census Tracts). Dotted area of Aina Haina Tract (Tract 3) is part of the Honolulu Watershed Reserve (uninhabited).
48 Figure 14. View of Palolo Valley (1993).
49 the census data were used only to select the study areas. They were too general for use in subsequent analyses.
The principal socio-economic characteristics of the Palolo Tract are: (1) the ethnic composition dominated by Japanese and Caucasians, with some
Chinese, Korean and Hawaiian, but no large Filipino or Samoan concentrations,
(2) relatively old single-family dwellings, (3) upper middle income, and (4) lower middle education levels (Table 2).
The primary physical characteristics of the Palolo Tract are: (1) a mostly level topography below 50 m (160 feet) in elevation (USGS 1954), (2) median annual rainfall between 800 and 1,000 mm (Giambelluca, Nullet and Schroeder
1986: 73), and (3) lowland shrub-type potential vegetation consisting of dryland
(xerophytic) shrubs with some trees (Ripperton and Hosaka 1942: 20, 23-4)
(Table 3, Figures 15 and 16).
To select tracts which were similar in socio-economic characteristics, all
179 tracts were classified by the four 1980 census variables. For each variable, the tracts were classified into four groups. In the end, 18 tracts emerged as similar to the Palolo Tract in all four variables.
A computerized technique, two-way indicator species analysis (TWINSPAN
[Hill, 1979]) was used to classify tracts. This classification technique divides samples into a hierarchy of clusters using information on all the "species"
(polythetic), rather than progressively dividing samples on the basis of presence or absence of a single species (monothetic) (Gauch 1982: 195-203). Clusters formed
50 TABLE 2.
SELECTED 1980 CENSUS CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREAS.
Honolulu Palolo Pearl City Aina Haina (Tract) (SMSA) (12.01) (80.02) (3) Race (%) (%) (%) (%) Total persons 762,565 100 3,227 100 2,987 100 5,518 100 White 252,455 33 541 ····17 293 10 1,489 27 Black 16,843 ·.·.·2 4 .•.•• a 16 1 4 0 Japanese 189,828 25. 1,647 . 51 1,633 55 2,255 41 Chinese 52,814 7 398 .: 12 200 7 998 18 Filipino 97,565 ..•. 13 104 I· . 3 433 14 91 2 Korean 16,880 2 66 2 26 1 123 2 Hawaiian 80,172 11 267 8 236 8 385 7 Samoan 13,811 2 9 0 40 1 5 0 Other 42,277 6 191 6 110 4 168 3 Year structure built Total units 250,864 100 1,074 100 839 100 1.722 100 1938 or earlier 21,168 8 419 39 15 2 37 2 1940 to 1949 21,312 8 178 17 46 5 349 20 1950 to 1959 45,246 18 129 12 643 76 1,097 63 1960 to 1969 74,750 31 227 21 84 10 202 12 1970 to 1974 50,527 20 56 5 38 5 10 1 1975 to 1978 29,399 12 47 4 13 2 27 2 1979 to 1980.3. 8,462 3 18 2 0 0 0 0
Continued on next page Source: U.S. Bureau of Census (1983).
51 TABLE 2. (Continued)
Honolulu Palolo Pearl City Aina Haina (Tract) (SMSA) (12.01) (80.02) (3) Income in 1979 (%) (%) (%) (%) Total households 230,931 100 1,013 ·>100 801 100 1,692 100
Less than $5,000 17,631 & 97 ... 10 23 3 67 4 $ 5,000 - 7,499 13,771 6 61 6 19 2 39 2
$ 7,500 - 9,999 16,663 1 ••.•.. 7 87 I· 9 38 5 32 ? I· $10,000 - 14,999 32,320 14 125 12 93 12 114 7 $15,000 - 19,999 28,833 12 112 1 11 49 6 72 4 $20,000 - 24,999 26,768 12 179 17 71 9 205 12 $25,000 - 34,999 41,728 1& 110 11 165 21 332 19 $35,000 - 49,999 33,443 14 151 15 246 30 436 27 $50,000 or more 19,774 9 91 9 97 12 395 23 Median $21,077 $20,475 $31,309 $34,506 Mean $25,180 $24,325 $31,617 $37,986 Types of school completed Persons 25 yr. up 428,566 100 2,132 100 1,874 100 3,753 100 Elem. 0 to 4 yr. 20,140 5 136 6 110 6 54 1 5 to 7 yr. 23,083 5 154 7 128 7 185 5 8 yr. 18,682 4 215 10 120 6 185 5 High. 1 to 3 yr. 42,728 10 196 9 242 13 375 10 4 yr. 152,346 36 822 40 827 45 1,197 32 ColI. 1 to 3 yr. 78,386 1& 261 12 232 12 675 18 4 or more 93,201 22 348 16 215 11 1,082 29 ~7.1% ~8.0% High school grad. I ;5.6% I I I ;8.7% 11 Source: u.s. Bureau of Census (1983).
52 TABLE 3.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREAS.
Palolo Pearl City ! Aina Haina (12.01) (80.02) (3) Topography" 25 - 50 m 10 - 40 m 5 - 60 m Rainfallb 800 - 1,000 mm 800 - 1,000 mm 800 - 1,500 mm Vegetation type Dryland forest Dryland forest Coastal; and shrub and shrub Dryland forest and shrub; Mixed mesic forest Soil type Clay; Silty clay Silty clay loam; Clay loam, Silty loam; Stony clay Silty clay clay; Stony clay loam loam Slope 0-7 % 7 - 15 % 0- 15 %
Sources: Topography: USGS 1954; Rainfall: Giambelluca, Nullet and Schroeder 1986; Vegetation type: Ripperton and Hosaka 1942; Soil type and slope: Foote, Hill, Nakamura and Stephens 1972. 3Extraporation from a topographic map. "Extraporation from a median annual rainfall map.
53 N ~
o 5 miles I" I o 4 km
Figure 15. Median rainfall (Source: Giambelluca, Nullet and Schroeder 1986:73). Dotted area of Aina Haina Tract (Tract 3) is part of the Honolulu Watershed Reserve (uninhabited).
54 21030'N N ~
o 5 miles I 'i I i I o 4 km
Figure 16. Vegetation zones: (1) coastal zone, (2) dryland forest and shrub zone, (3) mixed mesic forest zone, and (4) rainforest zone (Source: Ripperton and Hosaka 1942: 20, 23-4). Dotted area of Aina Haina Tract (Tract 3) is part of the Honolulu Watershed Reserve (uninhabited).
55 by the first and second level divisions determined the "four groups" of tracts noted above.
TWINSPAN was originally developed in a phytosociological context, but is applicable to a wide range of data matrices which express attributes of individuals
(Gauch 1979: i). In this study, "species" are classes of each census variable such as the classes "Less than $5,000" and "$15,000 to $19,999" in the variable
"INCOME IN 1979."
Map interpretation (cf. Figures 13, 15 and 16) demonstrated that among the 18 tracts selected above, two tracts, Tract 80.02 (the "Pearl City Tract") and
Tract 3 (the "Aina Haina Tract") were similar in topography, rainfall and potential vegetation type to the Palolo Tract (cf. Table 3). The physical characteristics of the northern half of the Aina Haina tract do not match with those of the Palolo Tract. This is not a problem for the study because this northern area is part of the Honolulu Watershed Reserve, and not inhabited.
The urbanized area of the Aina Haina Tract has topography and rainfall similar to those of the Palolo Tract. In addition, the southern part of the Aina Haina
Tract is classified as a dryer vegetation zone than Palolo, although there is no significant difference in the annual rainfall. There may be some differences in the vegetation present.
Historical land use prior to residential use of the three areas was different.
Palolo was a valley with extensive wet-taro lands with terraces along Palolo
Stream and its tributaries (Handy and Handy 1972: 483). "Palolo" literally means
56 "clay" in Hawaiian (Pukui, Elbert and Mookini 1974: 178). The primary soil type of the area is Lualualei clay, well-drained soil on alluvial fans (Foote, Hill,
Nakamura and Stephens 1972: 84). Residential development of the valley began in the 1930s (Sichter [1976]: 2).
Pearl City is on a coastal plain surrounding the deep bays of Pearl Harbor.
The area was used for cultivation of irrigated taro (Handy and Handy 1972: 469).
The primary soil type is Molokai silty clay loam which is well-drained soil on knolls and sharp slope breaks (Foote et al. 1972: 97). The new town site in this area was named "Pearl City" in 1890; but it was slow to grow. The area was leased for sugar cane plantation until the 1950s when residential development begun (Van Gieson 1992: 9).
Aina Haina (Wailupe) is situated on porous ground and sweet potatoes were grown there (Handy and Handy 1972: 485). Primary soil types are
Kawaihapai clay loam and stony clay loam which are well-drained soils on smooth slopes, and Waialua silty clay which is moderately well drained soil on smooth coastal plains (Foote et al. 1972: 64,128). "'Aina Haina" literally means "Hind's land," named for Robert Hind who started the Hind-Clarke Daily there in 1924
(Pukui et al. 1974: 7). Residential development of the area started in the 1940s
(Rickard 1952: 13).
Instead of choosing one of two tracts to compare with the Palolo Tract, I included both the Pearl City and Aina Haina Tracts in the study because: (1)
With only two areas to compare, the effect of a factor which differs between the
57 two becomes difficult to assess, and the use of data from a third area becomes necessary to determine whether the factor, or merely the locality, is responsible for an observed variation; and (2) The number of opportunities for comparison triples by adding another area (Between two samples, there is only one combination of comparison; among three samples, three combinations are possible.) Thus, this study compared plant communities in residential front yards of these three tracts.
3.2.2.2. Selection of study sites
In each study area, 50 lots were randomly selected as study sites from the list of parcels in the Realty Directory (REDI, 1989). The directory also provided: name(s) of owner/lessee, address, lot size, and year the house was built. Selected lots which did not meet the following criteria were dropped from the study sites:
(1) a single-family dwelling-house, and (2) visible from a public area. For all study areas, 50 lots exceeded a 5% sampling level (total parcels in Palolo, Pearl
City and Aina Haina were 626, 783 and 861, respectively; in Aina Haina, Tax Key
Zone 3, Section 6, Plates 1-4, 7, 9, 11 and 16-25 were excluded because of inappropriate location and/or topography; cf. REDI 1989).
To avoid a recurring sampling pattern by the use of a single set of random numbers, a different set of three-digit random numbers was used for each study area. I used a FORTRAN program to generate a set of pseudo-random numbers using the multiplicable congruential method (Ura 1982: 151-52).
58 3.2.3. Questionnaire Survey
The main purpose of the questionnaire survey was to verify the information obtained from the Realty Directory (REDI, 1989), and to acquire some information on residents' gardening habits directly (Appendix 2). A questionnaire was mailed to all the study sites, followed several weeks later by a reminder letter. Out of 150 letters addressed, 100 replies were received.
3.2.4. Main Survey
At each study site, the name, cover, height, and use were recorded for each plant species (excluding apparently spontaneous species) present in the front yard
(Figures 17, 18 and 19). The classifications of use are: (1) individual, (2) hedge,
(3) basal (foundation) planting, (4) lawn, (5) bed/mass planting, (6) planting along path/as a row, and (7) in pots. In this study, a hedge is defined as: shrubby plants planted along the property line of a front yard more or less continuously.
Basal planting is defined as: more or less linear and/or mass planting along the base of a house (Figure 20). This is sometimes called foundation planting. The lawn is defined as: a mowed grassy area larger than one square meter. Artificial elements, fences and pavements, and a Japanese-style corner (typically with a stone lantern, rock groupings and gravel) in the front yard were also noted. If the front yard was continuous to the side of the house, plants up to one third of the depth of the structure were included unless fenced against the street. Gathered data were stored using a computerized spread sheet program.
59 o I m
Waialae Avenue
Figure 17. Study sites in Palolo Tract (Site No. 1 - 50).
60 o 200 III ill
Pearl Harbor
Figure 18. Study sites in Pearl City Tract (Site No. 51 - 100).
61 AINA HAINA
o 200 I I m
Figure 19. Study sites in Aina Haina Tract (Site No. 101 - 150).
62 Figure 20. Basal planting with gingers (Alpinia spp.), ti (Cordyline fruticosa) and maile-scented fern (Phymatosorus scolopendria) (Ke'eaumoku Street, Honolulu, 1993).
63 3.3. DATA ANALYSES
3.3.1. Manipulation of Socio-economic and Cultural Data
3.3.1.1. Determination of ethnic background
The primary ethnic background of the residents at each study site was identified by questionnaire results as available. If results were not available, the last name of the possible resident or registered owner of the site was used for identification (cf. Greenbaum and Greenbaum 1981: 579 for the reliability of the method). The preferential order of the sources of last names were: (1) the current telephone directory (GTE Hawaiian Tel, 1991) and (2) the Realty
Directory (REDI, 1989).
3.3.1.2. Classification of study sites
To study variation in vegetation data among socio-economic and cultural variables, study sites were classified in three categories for each variable. These independent variables of the study are (1) geographical location of a study site,
(2) ethnic background of the resident, (3) age of the house and (4) size of the lot.
The third and fourth variables became necessary because they significantly varied
(ANOVA at p=.Ol) among study areas despite the careful selection of tracts which had similar socio-economic characteristics (cf. Section 3.1.2.1.).
64 The categories for the geographical location are the three study areas:
Palolo, Pearl City, and Aina Haina. The ethnic categories are: Japanese,
Chinese, and Others. The "Others" are mostly Caucasians, but includes a few
Hawaiian, Filipino and other families. For the two remaining factors, the study sites were divided into three approximately equal numbered groups. The age categories are: old (built before 1949), middle (1950-54), and new (after 1955).
Lot size categories are: small (222-588 m-), medium (589-696 m-), and large
(697-1,277 m-).
3.3.2. Manipulation of Vegetation Data
3.3.2.1. Species diversity and life form spectrum
Species diversity of the obtained vegetation data was numerically characterized by an index (A.) suggested by Simpson (1949) (see Greig-Smith 1983:
161-3). The index represents the chance of two successive randomly chosen individuals belonging to the same species (for the present study, an "individual" is
"presence" of the species in a study site). The computation of 1!A. is useful because this reciprocal number represents how many random tries are necessary to pick an individual (presence) of the same species again. The index (A) is given:
A Linj(n/-i) N(N-l)
65 where N is the total number of discrete individuals, and n, is the number of individuals of the ith species.
In the present study, "N" is the total of the frequency (the total count of presence) of all species, and "n" is the frequency of each species.
The life form spectra of the obtained vegetation data were approximated by the species composition of three height classes explained below (Section
3.3.2.3.). I used height classes instead of Raunkiaer's (1934) life forms because, in the case of gardens, how plants were grown (that is, height classes) by a resident was more important than which plants (that is, life forms) were grown.
3.3.2.2. Classification
In the classification of the vegetation data (presence/absence of all plant species), the two-way indicator species analysis (TWINSPAN [Hill 1979]) was
employed (cf. Section 3.2.2.1.).
3.3.2.3. Categorization
To analyze the details of the vegetation data, all data were organized into
four categories and their subcategories. These categories consist of (1) individual
species, (2) height classes (Tree: >2m, Shrub: I-2m, Herb: < 1m), (3) plant use,
and (4) groups of specific species (Japanese garden plants, Chinese flowering/fruit
trees, Euro-American herbaceous flowers, and tropical garden trees). For the
individual species, and the subcategories of the height classes and the groups of
66 specific species, presence/absence and species numbers were analyzed. For the
subcategories of plant use, as well as for some of artificial elements, their
presence/absence, species number, cover, and height (except for the lawn) were
analyzed.
Plant species belonging to each group of specific species were determined
based on literature on gardens and gardening (cf. Table 22 in the Results):
Beckett (1987), Courtright (1988), Engel (1959), Graf (1978), Hyams (1971), Indo
and Shina (1985), Macoboy (1986, 1989), Mori (1984), Morris (1983), Nakao
(1986), Neal (1965), Wakisaka (1983), and Yang (1982).
Artifacts such as fence, pavement and Japanese-style corner were also
included in the analyses. The fence was analyzed for presence/absence and
height, the pavement for presence/absence and cover, and the Japanese style corner for presence/absence.
3.3.3. Statistical Analyses
The statistical analyses employed the chi-square test and the analysis of
variance (ANOVA) as appropriate. To identify the grouping of categories in
ANOVA results, the minimum significant difference (MSD) was calculated using
the Tukey-Kramer method (Sakal and Rohlf 1981: 244). If the difference
between the means of two categories is greater than the MSD, then the two
belong to different groups.
67 3.4. SUMMARY
This chapter has presented the methodology employed in the study, including the research design. field sampling and data analyses. In the field sampling section, the preliminary sUlvey, the sampling design, the questionnaire survey, and the main sUIVey were described. In the data analyses section, the methods of data manipulation, the classification of vegetation data, and the statistical analyses were delineated. The following chapter will present the results of the field sampling and the data analyses.
68 IV. RESULTS
This chapter presents the descriptive data obtained during field sampling and the results of the inferential analyses of that data. First, as background information, I describe the socio-economic and cultural characteristics of the study sites and the results of the questionnaire survey. Then, with the background information incorporated with the results of main survey, I will explore the relationship between people and their plants in residential yards, thereby determining the tenability of the hypotheses that there is significant variation in the structure of plant communities in residential yards among (1) different neighborhoods and (2) different ethnic groups.
4.1. SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
STUDY SITES
The relationship among four socio-economic and cultural variables: (1) geographical location of the study site, (2) ethnic background of the resident, (3) age of the house and (4) size of the lot are described. Descriptive data for these variables are summarized in Table 4, the results of inferential analyses of matrixes of the variables in Table 5, and descriptive data for the individual study sites are included in Appendix 3.
69 TABLE 4.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ETHNIC BACKGROUND, THE AGE OF A HOUSE, AND THE SIZE OF A LOT OF STUDY SITES.
Ethnic Background (# of sites) Age of Size of House Lot Total Japanese Chinese Others (Yr.)" (rn")" All areas 150 71 27 52 36.8 666.0 (100.0) (47.3) (18.0) (34.7) (11.8) (176.4) Palolo 50 23 12 15 36.7 594.3 (100.0) (46.0) (24.0) (30.0) (18.5) (172.0) Pearl City 50 29 1 20 33.0 579.1 (100.0) (58.0) (2.0) (40.0) (7.3) (71.0) Aina Haina 50 19 14 17 40.6 824.6 (100.0) (38.0) (28.0) (34.0) (5.9) (146.4)
Note: Numbers in ( ) are percentages for the ethnic background, and standard deviations for the rest. "Arithmetic means.
70 TABLE 5.
CLASSIFICATION OF STUDY SITES: RELATIONSHIP AMONG CLASSIFICATIONS OF FOUR VARIABLES.
, '. ., Geographical Location X'1. (row) ii Total Palolo Pearl City Aina ...,. " ...... Haina Ethnic Background Total 150 50 50 50 Japanese 71 23 29 19 2.1 Chinese 27 12 1 14 10.9** Others 52 15 20 17 0.7 X'1. (column) 1.3 8.7** 3.7 Age of the House Total 150 50 50 50 Old 43 26 1 16 22.1 ** Middle 56 3 20 33 24.3** New 51 21 29 1 24.5** X'1. (column) 23.6** 21.0** 26.3** Size of the Lot Total 150 50 50 50 Small 51 24 27 0 25.8** Medium 51 20 21 10 4.4 Large 48 6 2 40 54.5** X'1. (column) 9.7** 19.1 ** 55.9** Continued on next pga e Note: For the explanations of variables and their categories, see text. *'" Indicates significantly varied at p=.01.
71 TABLE 3. (Continued)
, "
I " ::,:: .. Ethnic Background Total Japanese Chinese Others Age of the House Total 150 71 27 52 Old 43 13 12 18 5.6 Middle 56 26 8 22 0.8 New 51 32 7 12 1.0 'l (column) 5.2 3.3 2.8 Size of the Lot Total 150 71 27 52 1--,--,,----1------1-----1------1-----+-----11 Small 51 24 9 18 0.0 Medium 51 27 7 17 0.9 Large 48 20 11 17 1.0 'l (column) 0.7 1.2 0.0 Age of the House Total Old Middle New Size of the Lot Total 150 43 56 51 Small 51 14 7 30 16.9** Medium 51 14 23 14 1.5 Large 48 15 26 7 9.1** 'l (column) 0.2 12.1** 15.2**
Note: For the explanations of variables and their categories, see text. ** Indicates significantly varied at p=.01.
72 To examine the hypotheses later, it is important to note that, among the categories of geographical location, that is, Palolo, Pearl City and Aina Haina
Tracts, all other variables are significantly varied. Thus, if some vegetational variables significantly vary with the geographical location in later analyses, it is also necessary to examine other socio-economic and cultural variables to determine which variable is most likely the primary cause of the variation.
On the other hand, the categories of ethnic background, that is, Japanese,
Chinese and Others, did not significantly vary with other variables except with the geographical location noted above. Thus, the analyses for ethnic background will be more straightforward than those for geographical location. The rest of this section relates notable details of the relationship among the socio-economic and cultural variables.
In Table 5, chi-square values were calculated for both columns and rows.
For example, in the first matrix between the columns of "Geographical Location" and the rows of "Ethnic Background," the chi-square value for the row "Chinese"
(x2 [row]) was "10.9" with two asterisks. This means that the observations in the
"Chinese" row significantly (at p =.01) varied among the three categories of
"Geographical Location," that is, "Palolo", "Pearl City" and "Aina Haina." In the same manner, the chi-square value for the column "Pearl City" (x2 [column]) in the same matrix was "8.7**" which means that the observations in that column significantly varied among three categories of "Ethnic Background." If these two
73 findings are combined, it is apparent that the significant variations were caused by
"1" at the intersection of the "Chinese" row and the "Pearl City" column.
The important points revealed in Table 5 are as follows:
(1) Geographical Location vs. Ethnic Background: Pearl City had only one
Chinese resident, and that variable was, therefore significantly low among
the three neighborhoods. This was an unexpected outcome as the expected
number of Chinese in Palolo, Pearl City and Aina Haina Tracts was 6, 3.5
and 9, respectively (cf. Table 2).
(2) Geographical Location vs. Age of the House: Palolo had three Middle
age houses; Pearl City had one Old house; and Aina Haina had one New
house. All of these numbers were significantly low.
(3) Geographical Location vs. Size of the Lot: Most of the lots in Aina
Haina were Large, none was Small. Both observations were significant.
(4) Ethnic Background did not vary significantly with Age of the House or
Size of the Lot.
(5) Age of the House vs. Size of the Lot: Houses in the Middle age
category appeared infrequently on Small lots, as did New houses on Large
lots; both were significant.
74 4.2. RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY
Besides verifying the socio-economic and cultural data obtained through the literature, the results of the questionnaire provided more detailed information. Note, however, that not all the residents of 150 study sites responded, but 100 did respond. Thus, the results of the questionnaire survey do not represent all the residents. The results are summarized in Tables 6-13.
The results showed that most of respondents were long-time residents at their current address, with rare intermarriage. Because one of the major questions of the present study was "how does the structure of plant communities in residential yards vary among neighborhoods and ethnic groups?" (d. Section
1.3.1.) the above findings of stable residency and simple ethnic background, enhanced the tenability of the study. The results also revealed that respondents had a variety of gardening habits. The rest of this section describes notable points in each table.
The results of the primary ethnic background of the households (Table 6) mostly corresponded to those in Table 4. Slightly higher percentages of ethnic
Japanese may have resulted from inadvertent human bias, as I am Japanese.
Among the 100 respondents, 85 were born in Hawai'i (Table 7). The ratio of "not born in Hawai'i" was high among Caucasians in Aina Haina (5 out of 7).
There were some numerical discrepancies between the primary ethnic background (Table 6) and the ancestral background of the household (Table 8).
75 TABLE 6.
RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY: PRIMARY ETHNIC BACKGROUND OF THE HOUSEHOLD.
Total Japan Chine Filipi Portu Cauca Hawai Other ese se no guese" sian ian Sb Total 100 54 16 4 4 14 6 2 (100) (54) (16) (4) (4) (14) (6) (2) Palolo 32 16 7 0 0 5 4 0 (100) (50) (22) (0) (0) (16) (13) (0) Pearl 34 23 1 3 2 2 2 1 City (100) (66) (3) (9) (6) (6) (6) (3) Aina 34 15 8 1 2 7 0 1 Haina (100) (44) (24) (3) (6) (21) (0) (3)
Note: Numbers in ( ) are percentages in the row. "Portuguese is a historicaIIy significant ethnic group in Hawai'i, and is thus shown separately from Caucasian. "Others include two unknowns. Based on other available data (d. Section 3.3.1.1.), it appears that one in Pearl City is Filipino, and the other in Aina Haina is Caucasian.
76 TABLE 7.
RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY: WERE YOU BORN IN HAWAI'I?
Total Yes No Total 100 85 15 (100) (85) (15) Study Area Palolo 32 30 2 (100) (94) (6) Pearl City 34 29 5 (100) (85) (15) Aina Haina 34 26 8 (100) (76) (24) Ethnic Group Japanese 54 51 3 (100) (94) (6) Chinese 16 13 3 (100) (81) (19) Fillpino" 5 3 2 (100) (60) (40) Portuguese 4 4 0 (100) (100) (0) Caucasian" 15 8 7 (100) (53) (47) Hawaiian 6 6 0 (100) (100) (0)
Note: Numbers in ( ) are percentages in the row. "Includes a household which did not identify its primary ethnicity. See Table 6 for more details.
77 TABLE 8.
RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY: ANCESTRY BACKGROUND OF THE HOUSEHOLD.
Total Japan China Philip Portu Europe Hawai'i Othet pines gala s Total 100 51 16 3 3 13 4 10 (100) (51) (16) (3) (3) (13) (4) (10) Palolo 32 15 7 0 1 4 2 3 (100) (47) (22) (0) (3) (13) (6) (9) Pearl 34 23 1 2 1 2 2 3 City (100) (66) (3) (6) (3) (6) (6) (9) Aina 34 13 8 1 1 7 0 4 Haina (100) (38) (24) (3) (3) (21) (0) (12)
Note: Numbers in ( ) are percentages in the row. "Portuguese is a historically significant ethnic group in Hawai'i, thus Portugal is shown separately from other European countries. "Others include: one each from Colombia, Puerto Rico and Tahiti, and seven unknowns.
78 For example, there were 54 ethnic Japanese in Table 6, while there were only 51
of Japanese ancestry in Table 8. Such discrepancies were primarily because of
seven unknowns and people of mixed ancestries. Two rented houses, in which
several renters of different ancestries shared the house also contributed to the
discrepancies.
Intermarriage was rare at the study sites, at least from the interpretation of
the survey results. Among those households which identified their primary ethnic
background as Japanese, there was one intermarriage in Aina Haina (a Japanese
husband and a Chinese wife; their yard was taken care by his Japanese mother).
Among Chinese, there was no intermarriage. Among the rest, there were four
possible instances, two in Palolo and two in Pearl City, including three between
Portuguese and others of European ancestry.
More than eighty percent of the respondents' families had lived at their
current address longer than 11 years (Table 9). This stability is important in the
analyses below because this study assumes that the plant communities in
residential yards are unwitting autographs of residents (d. Section 1.2.2.). No family surveyed had lived in Pearl City or Aina Raina longer than 51 years (as of
1991) because the development of these neighborhoods were more recent (Aina
Haina, for example, was mostly developed after the World War II; cf. Section
3.2.2.1.).
As shown in Table 10, the results for the age of the house mostly verified
the data presented in Table 4. One notable discrepancy was that, in Table 10, in
79 TABLE 9.
RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY: YEARS THE FAMILY LIVED AT THE CURRENT ADDRESS.
Total >51 yr. 31-50 yr. 11-30 yr. <11 yr. Total 100 5 56 21 18 (100) (5) (56) (21) (18) Palolo 32 5 12 5 10 (100) (16) (38) (16) (31) Pearl 34 0 23 8 3 City (100) (0) (68) (24) (9) Aina 34 0 21 8 5 Haina (100) (0) (62) (24) (15)
Notes: Years are as of 1991. Numbers in ( ) are percentages in the row.
80 TABLE 10.
RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY: AGE OF THE HOUSE.
Total >51 yr. 31-50 yr. 11-30 yr. <11 yr. Total 100 6 67 20 7 (100) (6) (67) (20) (7) Palolo 32 6 11 11 4 (100) (19) (34) (34) (13) Pearl 34 0 24 7 3 City (100) (0) (71) (21) (9) Aina 34 0 32 2 0 Haina (100) (0) (94) (6) (0)
Notes: Years are as of 1991. Numbers in ( ) are percentages in the row.
81 Aina Haina there were two houses between 11 and 30 years old, which would be categorized as New house in Table 4. In Table 4, however, there was only one
New house in Aina Haina. The analyses below are based on the data presented in Table 4.
Tables 11, 12 and 13 summarize information on residents' gardening habits.
Interesting points are as follows:
(1) The majority of the front yards were taken care of by family members
(Table 11); Caucasians in Aina Haina (5 out of 7) tended to employ
gardeners more than others; none of these five Caucasians was born in
Hawai'i.
(2) Respondents in Aina Haina tended to take care of their front yards
less often (probably reflecting the high occurrence of gardeners, who
usually come once or twice a month, in Table 11) than the other groups;
Japanese tended to care for their yards more frequently (Table 12).
(3) Most residents did not think their front yards represent any particular
cultural group (Table 13). Among those who identified their front yard as
"Hawaiian," two Japanese residents did so because there were some
tropical ornamental plants, such as bougainvillea, in their yards, while one
Hawaiian resident did so because of the presence of a Hawaiian heritage
plant, taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott).
82 TABLE 11.
RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY: WHO TAKES CARE OF PLANTS IN THE FRONT YARD?
Total Family Gardener Others Total 100 80 18 2 (100) (80) (18) (2) Study Area Palolo 32 27 4 1 (100) (84) (13) (3) Pearl City 34 32 1 1 (100) (94) (3) (3) Aina Haina 34 21 13 0 (100) (62) (38) (0) Ethnic Group Japanese 54 50 3 1 (100) (93) (6) (2) Chinese 16 13 3 0 (100) (81) (19) (0) Filipino" 5 5 0 0 (100) (100) (0) (0) Portuguese 4 3 1 0 (100) (75) (25) (0) Caucasian" 15 8 7 0 (100) (53) (47) (0) Hawaiian 6 4 1 1 (100) (67) (17) (17)
Note: Numbers in ( ) are percentages in the row. "Includes a household which did not identify its primary ethnicity. See Table 6 for more details.
83 TABLE 12.
RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY: HOW OFTEN TAKES CARE OF THE FRONT YARD?
Total Daily Weekly" Monthly" Vary Total 100 21 42 31 6 (100) (21) (42) (31) (6) Study Area Palolo 32 6 16 8 2 (100) (19) (50) (25) (6) Pearl City 34 12 15 6 1 (100) (35) (44) (18) (3) Aina Haina 34 3 11 17 3 (100) (9) (33) (50) (9) Ethnic Group Japanese 54 16 23 11 4 (100) (30) (43) (20) (7) Chinese 16 2 7 6 1 (100) (13) (44) (38) (6) Ftllpino" 5 0 3 2 0 (100) (0) (60) (40) (0) Portuguese 4 1 1 2 0 (100) (25) (25) (50) (0) Caucasian" 15 1 6 7 1 (100) (7) (40) (47) (7) Hawaiian 6 1 2 3 0 (100) (17) (33) (50) (0)
Note: Numbers in ( ) are percentages in the row. "Includes households which answered "twice per week." "Includes households which answered "twice per month." "Includes a household which did not identify its primary ethnicity. See Table 6 for more details.
84 TABLE 13.
RESULTS OF mE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY: DOES YOUR FRONT YARD REPRESENT A PARTICULAR CULTURAL GROUP?
Total No Japanese Chinese Hawaiian Others' Total 100 75 7 3 7 8 (100) (75) (7) (3) (7) (8) Study Area Palolo 32 26 2 1 1 2 (100) (81) (6) (3) (3) (6) Pearl City 34 25 2 0 4 3 (100) (74) (6) (0) (12) (9) Aina Haina 34 24 3 2 2 3 (100) (71) (9) (6) (6) (9) Ethnic Group Japanese 54 41 5 0 3 5 (100) (76) (9) (0) (6) (9) Chinese 16 11 1 3 0 1 (100) (69) (6) (19) (0) (6) Filipino 5 3 0 0 1 1 (100) (60) (0) (0) (20) (20) Portuguese 4 4 0 0 0 0 (100) (100) (0) (0) (0) (0) Caucasian 15 13 1 0 0 1 (100) (87) (7) (0) (0) (7) Hawaiian 6 3 0 0 3 0 (100) (50) (0) (0) (50) (0)
Note: Numbers in ( ) are percentages in the row. 'Others include one each of "Korean" (in Palolo by Caucasian resident), "Natural" (in Palolo by Japanese resident), "Mixture" (in Pearl City by Japanese resident), "Filipino" (in Pearl City by Filipino resident), "Mediterranean" (in Aina Haina by Chinese resident) and "Those who do not care" (in Aina Haina by Japanese), and two unknowns (in Pearl City and in Aina Haina, both by Japanese).
85 4.3. RESULTS OF THE MAIN SURVEY
Both descriptive and inferential data of the main survey are presented in this section, and I will address the study questions and hypotheses (cf. Section
1.3.). My primary purpose is to clarify the relationship between the structure of
plant communities in urban residential front yards and four socio-economic and cultural variables.
The major findings of the survey are: (1) the plant community in urban
residential front yards in study areas is composed of diverse species and structure with a life form spectrum like that of savanna (tropical monsoon forest), the likely
original habitat of humans (Kaplan and Kaplan 1982: 7; Orians 1986: 10); and (2)
both Neighborhood and Ethnic hypotheses are found to be vaiid for some parts of
the structure of the plant community. That is, there were some significant variations in the structure of the plant community in residential front yards among
both different neighborhoods and different ethnic groups (cf. Section 1.3.2.). The
overall quantitative characteristics of the plant community were, however, more
similar than different among both neighborhoods and ethnic groups. Also, the
pattern of variations appeared different between neighborhoods and ethnic
groups.
Among the study areas, 4 (4 at p=.05, 0 at p=.Ol) out of 42 species which
occurred with more than 10% frequency (that is, to which the chi-square test is
applicable) and 9 (4 at p= .05, 5 at p=.01) out of 40 subcategories of vegetation
86 data varied significantly. The most significant variations were observed in species numbers and cover of certain subcategories.
On the other hand, among ethnic groups, 7 (3 atp=.05, 4 atp=.Ol) species and 7 (5 atp=.05, 2 atp=.Ol) subcategories varied significantly. The primary variation was observed in the frequency of certain species, namely
Japanese garden plants. The rest of this section presents the details of the findings.
4.3.1. Species Diversity and Life Form Spectrum
In the main survey, 289 plant species were observed. The frequency of each species was relatively low (the highest was 73/150 sites, or 48.6%) and many species occurred in only few sites. Frequently occurring plant species (>10%) are presented in Table 14, and a list of all the species observed is included in
Appendix 3.
The term "species" above includes four different levels of identification:
(1) a species (ex. species with binomial names in Table 14); (2) several species in the same genus which are, for the purpose of the study, included as a single entry
(ex. Aloe sp., lxora sp., Musa sp. and Rosa sp.); (3) a group of species among which positive identification at the species or genus level is difficult (ex. Citrus spp., Fern spp., Grass spp., Orchid spp. and Palm spp.); and (4) horticultural varieties of a species which are, for the purpose of the study, put under separate entries (ex. Cordyline fruticosa: ti/red ti, and Hibiscus rosa-sinensis: red
87 TABLE 14.
LIST OF OCCURRENCE WITH>10% FREQUENCY PLANT SPECIES.
Scientific name / FAMILY NAME / Common name / (Origin) Aloe L. sp. * LILIACEAE Aloe (Africa) Alpinia purpurata (Vieill.) K. Schum. ZINGmERACEAE Red ginger (Pacific Islands) Asparagus setaceus WiIIdenow subsp. orientalis * LILIACEAE Asparagus fern, plumosa (S. Africa) Bougainvillea glabra Choisy * NYCfAGINACEAE Bougainvillea (rose-red to white flowered) (Brazil) Carica papaya L. CARICACEAE Papaya (Neotropics) Catharanthus roseus (L.) G.Don APoCYNACEAE Madagascar periwinkle (Madagascar) Chrysalidocarpus lutescens (Bory) H. A. Wendland * ARECACEAE Areca palm (Golden-fruited palm) (Madagascar) Citrus spp. RUTACEAE Citruses, except positively identified Citrus aurantiifolia, C. grandis, C. limon, C. nobilis, C. paradisi and Fortunella japonica (S.E. Asia) Codiaeum variegatum (L.) Blume * EUPHORBIACEAE Croton (Fiji to Australia) Cordyline fruticosa (L.) A. Chev. AGAVACEAE Ti ("Cord frut": ordinary variety, "Cord fr(r)": red variety in Table 14) (Unknown; poss. the Himalayas, S. Asia, Malesia and N. Australia) Crassula argentea L. * CRASSULACEAE Large jade tree (S. Africa) Cycas revoluta Thunberg * CYCADACEAE Cycad (E. and S.E. Asia) Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. POACEAE Bermuda grass (poss. Tropical Africa) Dieffenbachia Schott. sp. * ARACEAE Dieffenbachia (Warm America) Dracaena marginata Lamarck * AGAVACEAE Money tree (Madagascar) Fern spp. POLYPODIACEAE Ferns except Adiantum sp., Asplenium nidus, Cibotium chamissori', Phymatosorus scolopendria, Nephrolepis biserrata, Nephrolepis sp. and Platycerium sp. Ficus benjamina L. *'" MORACEAE Benjamina (India) Gardenia augusta (L.) Merrill * RUBIACEAE Gardenia (China) Grass spp. POACEAE Lawn grasses except Cymbopogon citratus, Cynodon dactylon, Stenotaphrum secundatum, Paspalum sp. and Zoysia matrella var. matrella
Continued on next page Nomenclature: *: Staples and Herbst (In prep.); **: Neal (1965); all the rest: Wagner, Herbst and Sohmer (1990). apossibly includes Cyathea australis (R. Br.) Cope!. (Australian tree fern).
88 TABLE 14. (Continued)
Scientific name / FAMILY NAME / Common name / (Origin)
Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L. MALVACEAE Red hibiscus, except large flowered variety (Asia) Ixora L. sp. • RUBIACEAE Ixora (East Indies) Jasminum sambac (L.) Aiton OLEACEAE Arabian jasmine, or Pikake (Tropical Asia) Mangifera indica L. ANACARDIACEAE Mango (Asia) Marsdenia floribunda (Brongniart) Schelechter • AsCLEPlADACEAE Stephanotis (Madagascar) Murraya paniculata (L.) Jack • RUTACEAE Mock orange (S.E. Asia) Musa L. sp. MUSACEAE Banana (Tropical Old World) Nandina domestica Thunb.•• BERBERIDACEAE Sacred bamboo (China and Japan) Ochna kirkii Oliver OCHNACEAE Mickey Mouse plant (S.E. Africa) Ophiopogonjaponicus (L. filius) Ker-Gawler * LILIACEAE Mondo grass (E. Asia) Orchid spp. ORClllDACEAE Orchids Palm spp. ARECACEAE Palms except Chrysalidocarpus lutescens, Cocos nucifera, Hyophorbe vaughanii, Rhapis excelsa and Roystonea elata Phymatosorus scolopendria (N. L. Burman) Pichi Sermolli • POLYPODIACEAE Maile-scented fern (Polynesia and tropical regions of the old world) Plumeria acuminata Ait. ** APoCYNACEAE White plumeria (Tropical America) Polyscias ftuticosa (L.) Harms * ARALIACEAE Parsley panax (India to Polynesia) Polyscias guilfoylei (Bull) L. H. Bailey ARAuACEAE Panax (S. Polynesia) Portulacaria afra (L.) Jacquin * PORTUlACACEAE Jade tree (S. Africa) Rhaphiolepis umbellata (Thunb.) Mak. *. ROSACEAE Oriental hawthorn (E. Asia) Rosa L. sp.•* ROSACEAE Rose (Temperate Northern Hemisphere) Scheff/era actinophylla (Endl.) Harms ARALIACEAE Octopus tree (Australia and New Guinea) Strelitzia reginae Banks ex Dryandar • SlRELITZIACEAE Bird-of-paradise (S. Africa) Syngonium Schott. sp... ARACEAE Syngonium (Tropical America) Zoysia matrella (L.) Merrill var. matrella • POACEAE Velvet grass (Mascarene Island)
Nomenclature: *: Staples and Herbst (In prep.): **: Neal (1965); all the rest: Wagner, Herbst and Sohmer (1990).
89 hibiscusllarge-flowered variety). Henceforth, for convenience, "species" refers to all three definitions unless otherwise noted.
Simpson's index of species diversity (l) for the present study was .01, and its reciprocal (lIA) was 100. Thus, the probability that two individuals
(occurrences of a species, for the present study) chosen at random and
independently from the population (total occurrences of all the species in 150
sites) will be found to belong to the same species is .01. That is, such an event
occurs only once in one hundred tries. The index values for other plant
communities are as follows: tall-grass prairie (Glenn-Lewin 1980: 142): .32;
coastal dune grass land (Maarel 1981: 263): mesosere: .13, xerosere: .34;
secondary forest (Aweto 1981: 605): .29; secondary forest (Toky and
Ramakrishnan 1983: 736): .25; xeric shrubland (Westman 1983: 107): .18; and
sagebrush steppe (Akinsoji 1988: 153): .23 (some of the above numbers are
arithmetic means of the original data). Apparently, the present study showed a
higher diversity than these examples. Note, however that the measurement of
vegetation and the sample size vary among these examples. Thus, strict
comparison with the present study is not appropriate.
The life form spectrum of the present study was closest to that of
"monsoon forest" among the natural vegetation types compiled by Daubenmire
(1968: 65) (Table 15). The spectrum of residential yards in Chicago (extrapolated
from figures in Schmid 1975: 163, 171, 181, 188) was also included in the table,
and was the closest to that of the present study. Note that, among the compiled
90 TABLE 15.
LIFE FORM SPECTRUM OF SELECTED VEGETATION TYPES.
I I Phanerophytes" I Chamaephytes" I Others" I Natural Vegetation (Daubenmire 1968) World Normal 46 9 45 Tundra 1 19 80 Temperate Forest 13 4 83 Tropical Rain forest 70 7 23 Monsoon forest 35 24 41 Chaparral 12 9 79 Steppe 3 16 81 Desert 12 10 78 Schmid (1975) Chicago 26 45 29 Present study (1991) Honolulu 35 35 30
Continued on nextpage Sources: Modified from Table 6 of Daubenmire (1968: 65), and extrapolated from figures of Schmid (1975: 163, 171, 181, 188). Note: Numbers are percentages. For the explanations of socio-economic and cultural variables and their categories, see text. "Trees for Schmid (1975), and Tree-sized plants for the present study. "Shrubs for Schmid (1975), and Shrub-sized plants for the present study. "Includes Hemicryptophytes, Geophytes, Therophytes, Succulents and Epiphytes for Daubenmire (1968), Herbs for Schmid (1975), and Herb-sized plants for the present study.
91 Table 15. (Continued)
I I Phanerophytes" I Chamaephytes" I Others" I Present Study (Continued) Geographical Location Palolo 28 34 38 Pearl City 34 39 27 Aina Haina 45 32 23 Ethnic Background Japanese 33 38 29 Chinese 36 29 35 Others 38 33 29 Age of the House Old 40 34 26 Middle 36 37 27 New 30 35 35 Size of the Lot Small 32 36 32 Medium 34 36 30 Large 40 33 27
Sources: Modified from Table 6 of Daubenmire (1968: 65), and extrapolated from figures of Schmid (1975: 163, 171, 181, 188). Notes: Numbers are percentages. For the explanations of socio-economic and cultural variables and their categories, see text. "Trees for Schmid (1975), and Tree-sized plants for the present study. "Shrubs for Schmid (1975), and Shrub-sized plants for the present study. "lncludes Hemicryptophytes, Geophytes, Therophytes, Succulents and Epiphytes for Daubenmire (1968), Herbs for Schmid (1975), and Herb-sized plants for the present study.
92 vegetation types, the "monsoon forest" is nearest to "savanna" (cf. Walter and
Breckle 1983: 25) which may have been the original habitat of humans (cf. Kaplan and Kaplan 1982: 7; Orians 1986: 10).
4.3.2. Classification of Vegetation Data
The 150 sites were divided into two groups, Site Group A (100 sites) and
Site Group B (50 sites) after TWINSPAN analysis (Table 16). In the table, each column shows site number, socio-economic and cultural characteristics of the site, and the presence/absence (presence: "1"; absence: ".") of each plant species in the site. Plant species names are abbreviated to the first four letters of the generic and specific names. For example, "Polyscias guilfoyley" is abbreviated to
"Poly guil". For full names and other information on plant species, refer to Table
14.
Among four groups of differential species, which were identified by the
TWINSPAN program, Species Group 4 and, to a lesser extent, Species Group 3, were conspicuously abundant in Site Group B. Note that Species Group 4 included common plants in Japanese gardens: Rhaphiolepis umbellata,
Ophiopogon japonicus, Zoysia matrella var. matrella, Nandina domestica, and Cycas revoluta.
The analyses of the relationship between the TWINSPAN site grouping and the four socio-economic and cultural variables indicated that only ethnic background significantly varied with the grouping (Table 17). Significantly more
93 TABLE 16.
SUMMARY OF 1WINSPAN DIFFERENTIATED TABLE
111 11111 1 11111 11 111111 11 11 Site No. 4356001133 0 00112222 80122445 2446699902 3311223334 1900825932 1745044206 9978373761 5055847892 4646163586 Location AAACAAAAAP APAAAAAPAA PCAAAAAACP PPPCCCCCAA AAPPPPPPPP Ethnic Backgr. 3133321131 2323231233 133333~333 2231131121 1212123321 Age of House 2222122221 2312121121 1311112221 3313322311 1311322111 SHe of Lot 2222333332 3133333233 1133333313 1122111133 2322222111 Species Freaencv TWINSPAN SITE GROUP A (first half) DIFFERENTIAL SPECIES GROUP 1 Poly gUi! 16 .• 1 .1 •••• 1 111. •• 1. .. • .1111...... 1 ....•1. Grass sPI? 33 ..1. ..111. 1111. •• 11. •1.1..111. 11 ..1 ..••. .. 11.11. .. Codi varl 59 .111 ...... 1.1..11 1111111111 1.11..11.1 1.1 .. 1 .... Cord frut 52 ...1..11.1 .. 1 .....1 • ...... 11.1 •• 1.1.1.1. .111. .. 1 .. Cyno dact 73 .. 1 ...... 111.111111 11.1..11.1 .111111111 111..1.1.1 Stre regi 24 ...... 1 ...... 1 • .1 ...... 1 1. .111 .... Cord fr(r) 36 1. .11 ••••...... 1 ...1. ....1 1.1 .....1. 1.1 .. 1 .... Aspa seta 17 1. ..11 •••...... 1 . . . 1 ...1 ...... Port afra 17 ...... 1 ...... • ....1 ...... 1 ...... 1 ..1 ...... Mars flor 18 ...... 1 ..... DIFFERENTIAL SPECIES GROUP 2 Aloe sp 26 ...... 1 ...... 1 ...... 1 . 11 ...... 1 .. 1 ....1. . Jasm samb 37 ....1.1 ..1 ...... 11. ... 11 Cari papa 18 ••• 1 ••.••• ...... 1 ...... 1 ...... Plum acum 33 ...... 11 1. ....1 ..1 ...... 11 •..1. Chry lute 18 ...... 1.1111. ... •• 1 ...... Hibi rosa 27 1...... • 1...... 1.1 . ..1.1.1 •• ...... 11. Murr ~ani 34 ....111.1- ...... 1.1 .. 111...... 11. .... 1 Ochn irk 19 .. •1 ...... 1 ...... 11...... 1 ... .111...... Phylll scol 18 •• 1111. ••• ...... 1. 1. ....11.1 .•1 ...... 1 ...... 1. Drac lIar~ 63 .. 1 .•..•.• .. 1 ...... 11.1. ....1 .. 1 ... 1.11 ..11111111 Mang ind 34 ...... 1 .•. .1.1 ... , ...... 1..1.1. ..1.1..1. . Citr s~p 38 ...... 1. ...1 .... 1 ...... 1. 11.1. ... 11 11 ...... 1. Boug 9 ab 56 ....11.1 .. ..11111.1. 11. .. 111...... 1 ...... Musa sp 16 ...1 ...... 1 ...... 11 ...... 1 ...... Alpi purp 34 ...... 1 ...... 1. · .1. ... 1 .. . 11.1111.1 ., ...... 1. Cath rose 21 ...... 1 ...... 11 . DIFFERENTIAL SPECIES GROUP 3 Dief sp 19 ... 11 ...... 1 .. 1...... eras arge 19 ...... 1. .. 1 Sche acti 25 ...... 1 ...... 1 1 ...... 1 .• ...... or-en spp 52 ...... 11..1.1..1 ..1.11. .. 1 Syng sp 18 .. 1 ...... 1...... Fern spp 20 ...... 1 ...... 1.1 ...... 1 Rosa sp 24 ...... ·...... DIFFERENTIAL SPECIES GROUP 4 Rhap umbe 16 ....1.1 ...... 1 ...... 1 Ficu benj 19 ...... 1 ...... Ixor sp 48 .. 111 ...... 1. .. 1 .. 11 ..... 1.1 ...... 1 1 ...1. ... 1 Ophi japo 17 ...... 111 ..11...... Zoys satr 28 ...... 1...... •• t .. 1 ..1...... 1...... Arec sp 28 ...... 1 11.11...... 1. .... Poly frut 15 ... " ..... 1 ...... 1 .... 1 ...... Gard augu 15 ...... 1 ...... 1...... Nand dome 33 ...... 1 ...... 1. .. 1 .. ..1 ...... eyca revo 22 ...... 1 ..1...... 1 ......
Continued on next page Note: Species which have frequency less than 15 (10%) are not included in this table. Variables: Location: P: Palolo, C: Pearl City, A: Aina Haina;Ethnic Background: 1: Japanese, 2: Chinese, 3: Others; Age of House: 1: Old, 2: Middle, 3: New; Size of Lot: 1: Small, 2: Medium, 3: Large.
94 TABLE 16. (Continued)
11 111111 1 1 Site No. 4556667800 1122441113 44467 2461 1789 123 2567277933 9134790636 2358451579 3486523717 5820330874 4821737510 Location PCCCCCCCAA AAAAAAPPPP PPPCCPPPCA PPCCCPPPPP PCCCPCCCPA Ethnic Backgr. 3133111323 1132333313 3113122332 1111331112 3331213312 AQe of House 1233233312 2212221131 1312231121 3332221333 3333132312 Sue of Lot 1212211133 3235332112 2312211213 3312111131 2121112113 Soecies Freaencv TWINSPAN SITE GROUP A (second halfl DIFFERENTIAL SPECIES GROUP 1 Poly guil 16 ...... • •.... 1 ...... 1. Grass spp 33 1. .•• 1 ••• 1 .. 11 •••1 •• • ••. 1 •. 1 •. .1 ...... Codi vari 59 1 ..11.1. .• 1..1. .1.1. 1.11. .1. •• .111..111. . .1 .11 ••.. Cord frut 52 1.1 .....11 ...1111111 1 .1 .1 ••••• .11..1.111 .. •.111..1 Cyno dact 73 11111. .111 111111.1.1 1111111.1. • .1.1.1 •• 1 1 •. 1 ••• 1 .. Stre reg! 24 .. 1 ..••••1 1 .. 1 ..•.•1 • .1 •••...• 11..1..1...... Cord fr(r) 36 1. .1 .....1 1.11.1. .1. ...1 ••..•• • •• 1 •• 1 •• 1 1111. ••.. 1 Aspa seta 17 1 .....1 ..• ...1 •••••. .. . 1 ....1...... 1.1 • 1 ...... Port afra 17 • •••...1 .1 • • • • • •1 •.• ...... •.•11.11. .11...... Mars flor 18 .1.1 •.1 .• , 1.1 ••••.•• ...... • .111. .11. ..1.111. •• DIFFERENTIAL SPECIES GROUP 2 Aloe sp 26 • .1 •••.••1 .. 11 •••••• • .1 ..1 •••• .... . 1 ..1. .11. ....1 . Jasll salRb 37 1.111.11.1 111 •••••.• 1 ....1 .... 1..111...... 111.11 Cari papa 18 .. 1 ...... 1 ...... 1111.11 ...1 ...... 1. Plull aCURl 33 ..... ••••1 111.1. .•• 1 1.111. ..11 · ..1 ••• 11 . 1...... Chry lute 18 · .. 1 .....1 ...... •• 1. ....1. •••• •1 ..1 ...... 1. ... Hibi rosa 27 1.1 ...... 1..1 ..... 1 11. .• 1 .••• ..1. ....1...... Murr ~ani 34 111.11.11. 11 ..1 ..... 11. ...1 ...... Ochn irk 19 .... •11 ..1 ...... 1 •• ...... 1 ... PhyRl scol 18 ...... 1 •...... Drac lIarQ 63 ..11. •. 111 1111.1. •• 1 • 111.1..1. .11.1. .•1...... 1. ... Mang ind~ 34 ...... 1 1. ....11.1 ..1.1111.. .1..1.1..1 ...... Citr s~p 38 ..1 •• 1 •• 1. 1...... 1 ...... •1 .. 1 • ••.• 1 .11 . 1 ..1.1 •... Boug g ab 56 ...... 1 .1. .... 111 .1. .... 111 11. ..1.11. .1. ...1111 Musa sp 16 ...... 1 .. 1 ....1. 1...... 1 ...... Alp! purp 34 ...... 11. .. 1111. .11111 ..1. Cath rose 21 ...... 1...... 1 ...1 . · .... 1 .••. ..1..11111 DIFFERENTIAL SPECIES GROUP 3 Dief sp 19 ...... 1 ....1 ... 1 .... 1 .... · .... 11 .1 • ...... Cras arge 19 . 1. •.••••• .•..•. ..1 . • 1 .. 11 ...... 1 ...... 111 .. Sche act! 25 ...... 1 ...... 11.. .111.1.1...... 1 ...... Orch spp 52 ..1 ..1.1 .. ..1...... • 11..11..1 .1111. •.11 1111. •... 1 Syng sp 18 ...... 1 .•• · .. 1 ....1 . . 1 .....1.1 .1 ...... Fern spp 20 ...... 1...... 1.11. ...1. ...1 ...... Rosa sp 24 1...... 1.11 ...... 1.1 . 11. ...1..1 1 ...... DIFFERENTIAL SPECIES GROUP 4 Rhap umbe 16 ...... 11...... Ficu benj 19 .. 1 ...... 1.1. ..1...... Ixor sp 48 ...... 1. .. 11 ...... Ophi japo 17 ...... 1 ...... Zoys lRatr 28 ...... ••• 1 •. ·...... 1 ...... 1. ....1. Arec sp 28 ...... 1 ...... 1 ...... 1. ..1..1 . Poly frut 15 ...... 1 ...... ·...... 1 ....1 .•• ...... Gard augu 15 ...... 1...... 1. ....1...... Nand dome 33 ...... 1 ...... 1.1 ...... Cyca revo 22 ...... 1 ......
Continued on next page Note: Species which have frequency less than 1S (10%) are not included in this table. Variables: Location: P: Palolo, C: Pearl City, A: Aina Haina;Ethnic Background: 1: Japanese, 2: Chinese. 3: Others; Age of House: 1: Old, 2: Middle, 3: New; Size of Lot: 1: Small, 2: Medium, 3: Large.
95 TABLE 16. (Continued)
11 111 111111 11 11 Site No. 4645792478 8234333557 7899133403 58125834 1 28141 9985 1322819044 8159046596 9302678202 7199051882 0216366974 Location PCPCCCAACC CAAAPPPCCC CCCCAAAACA CCPPPCAAPP PCAAPPCCCC Ethnic Backgr. 3111112133 3121111113 1111111232 1311111121 2111311121 A~e of House 1333222232 3212333232 3323222222 3311332233 1222131333 S ze of Lot 1122213212 1323232212 2221333222 1322222311 2333111211 Species Freaency TWINSPAN SITE GROUP B DIFFERENTIAL SPECIES GROUP 1 Poly guil 16 ...... · ...1 ...•. Grass spp 33 ...... 1 ....1 .... Codi vari 59 .1. .•1..11 .1.1.1 ...... 1 •.• 11 ... . 1 •. 1 ..... Cord frut 52 ....111.11 .. 1 ••..11. 1 ...... 1 ...... 1 ...... Cyno dact 73 ••.. 1 ..... • ..•11 ...1 ..11. ••11...... 1.11 ...... Stre regi 24 11 ...... 1...... 11 ...... • 1 ..... Cord fr(r) 36 .1 ..1 ..•.1 ..1 ...... 11 .• 1 ...... Aspa seta 17 .....1 ...... 1...... 1 ... Port afra 17 ...... 1 ...... • .. 1 ...1 .• Mars flor 18 ...... 11.1 ...... DIFFERENTIAL SPECIES GROUP 2 Aloe sp 26 .1.1 ...... 11 .'... 1 ...... 1 ...... 1 .. Jasm samb 37 ...... 1 .....1.11 ...... 11.1 . ...1 ...... 1 Cari papa 18 ... . 11 ...... 11 . 1 ...... Plum acum 33 . .. ..1.11...... 1. . 1 ...11 ..•...... 11...... Chry lute 18 ...... 11 ...... 1 •.• 11 ...... Hibi rosa 27 . 1 ...... 1 ....1 . 1.1 ....1 .. ..11 ...... Murr ~ani 34 ...... 1 .1.1.1 ...... 1 ...... 111..1 ...... Ochn irk 19 ...... 1. ...1 ...... 1.1 ...... 1 ...... 1 ...... Phylll scol 18 ...... 11 .1. .1 ...... 1 ..... Drac marg 63 1..1111..1 .1.1111.11 1.11.1..1. .11111...... 1 ..... Mang ind~ 34 1 ...1 ...... 1 ..1. •111. ..1.. ..111 ...... Citr s~p 38 •1 ...... 1. .1...... 1 . ..11.1.111 ...... • ...... 111 Boug g ab 56 ... 11.1111 .1.1 ...1.. 1t1.11 .... . 111.111.1 . ....1 .... Musa sp 16 11 ...... 1 .... • ...1 ...... · .1 .....1 . Alpi purp 34 ...... 1...... 1.1.. 1111 ...1. • ...... 11 ..... Cath rose 21 . 11..11..1 ...... 1 .• ..1 ...... 1 ...... DIFFERENTIAL SPECIES GROUP 3 Dief sp 19 ....1. ..11 1 .. 1 .....1 ...... 1 .... 1 ...... Cras arge 19 ...... 1...... 11.1. . 1 ...11 ... . 1...... Sche acti 25 1 ...1.11.1 .....1.111 ..1...... 11 ...... Orch spp 52 .1.11111.1 1 ..1.1111. .1.1 ...... 1.11. .... 1 . ..11..1.1 Syng sp 18 1 ....1 ...1 11.1 ...... 111 Fern spp 20 ...... 111 ...... 1. .1 ...... 1.1 .... • ...... 111 Rosa sp 24 .1 ...... 1..1..11. 11111..1.. 1.1 ...... DIFFERENTIAL SPECIES GROUP 4 Rhap umbe 16 ...... 1 ...... 1..1 .. 1 .111111. .. Ficu benj 19 ... 11 ..... 11.1 ...... 1.11.11. 11.1..1. .. Ixor ~p 48 ..11..1111 .1.11..111 11..11.111 . 11111.1.. 11111.11.. Ophi ] apo 17 ...... 1.1. .. . 1.1..1...... 1.1.111 1 ...... Zoys matr 28 ..1. .. 1111 ..11 ...1. . 1. ...11..1 11. ..1.1...... 1..1.1 Arec sp 28 1.1111.111 11 ...1.1.1 ...... 11.1 ..1...... Poly frut 15 11.11. ..1...... 1 .... 1 ...... 1 .. 1 ...... Gard augu 15 ...... 1 •1. ...1.11 11.1..11...... Nand dome 33 . 1 ...1 ...1 ..1..1 .. 1 . 111..1. ... 111.1111.1 111111.1.1 Cyca revo 22 .. 1111...... 1.1 ... ..1111...... 11.11. .. .1 .. 111. ..
Note: Species which have frequency less than 15 (10%) are not included in this table. Variables: Location: P: Palolo, C: Pearl City, A: Aina Haina;Ethnic Background: 1: Japanese, 2: Chinese, 3: Others; Age of House: 1: Old, 2: Middle, 3: New; Size of Lot: 1: Small, 2: Medium, 3: Large.
96 TABLE 17.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN lWINSPAN GROUPS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDY SITES.
i> iii .: 1WINSPAN GROUP >i ...... Total Group A Group B r (row) ••••••• Geographical Location Total 150 100 50 Palolo 50 37 13 1.2 Pearl City 50 27 23 3.6 Aina Haina 50 36 14 0.6 r (column) 1.8 3.6 Ethnic Background Total 150 100 50 Japanese 71 36 35 8.1* Chinese 27 20 7 0.7 Others 52 44 8 7.5* r (column) 5.4 10.9** Age of the House Total 150 100 50 Old 43 36 7 5.6 Middle 56 35 21 0.4 New 51 29 22 2.2 r (column) 2.8 5.5
Continued on next page * Indicates significantly varied at p=.05. ** Indicates significantly varied at p=.01.
97 TABLE 17. (Continued)
// 1WINSPAN GROUP I < .. i ...... Total Group A Group B r: (row) Size of the Lot Total 150 100 50 Small 51 36 15 0.4 Medium 51 28 23 3.2 Large 48 36 12 1.5 r: (column) 1.7 3.4
* Indicates significantly varied at p= .05. ** Indicates significantly varied at p=.Ol.
98 Japanese and significantly fewer Others were observed in Group B. Chinese did not significantly vary between the two Groups. Thus, for the TWINSPAN grouping, there was no significant variation among neighborhoods, while there was significant variation among ethnic groups (Acceptance of hypotheses:
Neighborhood: 0/2 tests, Ethnic: 1/2; cf. Table 17).
4.3.3. Categorized Summary of Vegetation Data
The vegetation data were summarized for four categories: (1) individual species, (2) height classes, (3) plant use and (4) groups of specific species (cf.
Section 3.3.1.3.). The descriptive data for these categories are shown in Tables
18, 21, 23 and 26. The descriptive data for artificial elements are shown in Table
28. For convenience, parts of descriptive matrixes which significantly varied in the statistical analyses are shaded.
The results of statistical analyses for the vegetational categories are presented in Tables 19, 22, 24 and 27. The results of statistical analyses for artificial elements are presented in Table 29. The numbers in each table are chi square values or F values calculated in the analysis of variance (ANOVA) depend on the statistical test applied. These values were calculated for each socio economic and cultural variables. If these values were statistically significant, they were accompanied by "*" or "**" according to their significance level (*: p=.05,
**: p=.OI). "Statistically significant" translates that a vegetation variable, such as
99 the frequency of a species, significantly varied among three categories of, for
example, Ethnic Background.
The groupings of the categories of socio-economic and cultural variables
produced by ANOVA statistics are summarized in Table 20. Only vegetational
subcategories which significantly varied in the statistical analyses are included in
the table. The grouping is based on the minimum significant difference (MSD)
(cf. Section 3.3.3.). If the difference between the means of two categories is greater than the MSD atp=.OI, then the two belong to different groups, designated by the capital letters "A" and "B." If the difference is significant at p=.05 but not at p=.01, then the two groups are represented by the letters "A"
and "a," or "B" and "b." In other words, two groups represented by "A" and "a"
have a 95% probability of being significantly different. Two groups represented
by "A" and "B" have a 99% probability of being significantly different. For
example, in Table 20, mean species numbers in Palolo and Aina Haina (cf. the
bottom row of Table 18) are significantly different at p=.OI, thus belong to
groups "A" and "B" respectively. Pearl City's mean species number is, on the
other hand, not significantly different from either of the other two, thus belongs
to both groups "A" and "B."
4.3.3.1. Individual species
This section analyzes (1) the frequency of individual species and (2) the
number of species observed in study sites. The descriptive data for individual
100 species are shown in Table 18, with the results of statistical analyses presented in
Table 19. Only species which significantly varied in the statistical analyses are included in the tables. Descriptive data on all 284 individual species are included in Appendix 3.
Of 42 species which had greater than 10% frequency (that is, to which the chi-square test is applicable), the frequency of 13 species significantly varied in at least one of the four variables (Geographical Location: 4 spp., Ethnic
Background: 7, Age of House: 4, and Size of Lot: 1). Thus, for some individual species, their frequency significantly varied among neighborhoods and/or ethnic groups (Acceptance of hypotheses: Neighborhood: 4/42 tests, Ethnic: 7/42; cf.
Table 19). Note that three of four species significantlymore frequent at p=.OI in
Japanese in Ethnic Background (Nandina domestica, Cycas revoluta and
Rhaphiolepis umbel/ata) were common plants in Japanese gardens.
The frequency of Mangifera indica needs further explanation (Figure 21).
This tall tree species occurred with conspicuous frequency in the back yard of sites in Aina Haina (19 sites), and in 9 and 7 sites in Palolo and Pearl City, respectively. If these observations in back yards were added to the data presented in Table 18, the result of the statistical test would not be significant at p=.05
(x2=3.4).
The average species number in each study site (the bottom row of Tables
18 and 19) varied most significantly with Geographical Location, and, to a lesser extent, in Ethnic Background. The average number of species was lower in the
101 TABLE 18.
SUMMARY OF DESCRIPTIVE DATA: INDMDUAL SPECIES.
To Geog. Ethnic Age of Size of tal Location Backgr. House Lot
Pa Pc A J C 0 0 M NS ML
Number of sites 150 50 50 50 71 27 52 43 56 51 51 51 48
Presence/Absence" (Frequency)
Orchid spp. 52 20 24- 8 33· •• 9 10 10 13 29 25 16 11
Ixora sp. 48 10 15 23 26 6 16 13 22 13 6 22 20
Citrus spp. 38 10 15 13 119· .12 7 8 11 19 19 8 11 . Mangifera indica 34 19 9 19 5 10 13 10 11 13 14 7 .·········6· Nandina domestica 33 11 15 7 28 Iz 3 6 10 17 10 13 10
Cycas revuJuta 22 9 8 5 20 0 2 8 7 7 7 11 4
Fern spp. 20 4 11 5 115 1 4 3 8 9 7 7 6
Crassula argentea 19 8 9 2 13 2 4 1 6 12 8 6 5
Carica papaya 18 5 11 2 9 3 6 6 8 4 7 9 2 Chrysalidocarpus lutescens 18 5 7 6 6 0 12 7 6 5 7 4 7 Rhaphiolepis umbellata 16 8 2 6 14 0 2 7 6 3 8 2 6 Po/yscias guifoylei 16 7 0 9 5 3 8 13 2 1 5 3 8
Polyscias fruticosa 15 7 7 1 11 0 4 6 1 8 6 6 3
Species Number in each Study Site (Average per site)
Species Number 15 17 15 12 16 12 14 16 14 15 15 15 14
Notes: Explanation of categories in each variable: Geographical Location: Pa: Palolo, Pc: Pearl City, A: Aina Haina; Ethnic Background: J: Japanese, C: Chinese, 0: Others; Age of House: 0: Old, M: Middle, N: New; Size of Lot: S: Small, M: Medium, L: Large. "Only species (or a group of species) which varied significantly at least in one variable are shown. Shading: Significantly varied (see Table 19).
102 TABLE 19.
RESULTS OF STATISTICAL ANALYSES: INDIVIDUAL SPECIES.
Freq, Geog. Ethnic Age of Size of (/150) Location Backgr, House Lot Presence/Absence' (Chi-square test) Orchid spp. 52 8.0* 6.4* 11.0** 5.1 Ixora sp. 48 5.4 1.3 1.6 9.9** Citrus spp. 38 1.0 6.8* 4.3 4.8 Mangifera indica 34 8.2* 1.0 1.7 2.1 Nandina domestica 33 2.9 18.7** 4.7 0.4 Cycas sp. 22 1.2 16.9** 0.7 3.0 Fern spp. 20 4.3 6.4* 2.1 0.0 Crassula argentea 19 4.5 3.4 8.6* 0.6 Carica papaya 18 7.0* 0.1 1.1 3.9 Chrysalidocarpus lutescens 18 0.3 9.3** 0.9 1.1 Rhaphiolepis umbellata 16 3.5 10.6** 2.4 3.5 Polyscias guifoylei 16 8.4* 2.0 21.7** 2.8 Polyscias fruticosa 15 4.8 5.1 6.1* 1.0 Species Number in each Study Site (ANaVA) Species Number 5.2** 4.0* 1.0 0.7
Note: Numbers in a matrix are X2 values for chi-square test and F values for ANOVA. "Only species (or a group of species) which varied significantly at least in one variable are shown. * Indicates significantly varied at p=.05. ** Indicates significantly varied at p=.01.
103 TABLE 20.
ANOVA GROUPINGS OF CATEGORIES OF VARIABLES SIGNIFICANTLY VARIED IN THE ANALYSES.
Geographic Ethnic Age of Size of Location Background House Lot Pa Pc AJ C a 0 MN SM L Individual species
Sp. # A A A a A per site B B Height layers
Tree: Sp. # A A a B B Shrub: A A a AA Sp. # B B Herb: Sp. # A B b AAA B b Plant use
Hedge: Cover A A B AAB Lawn: A a A Sp # BB
Lawn: A A A A Cover b B b B
Mass/Bed: A a a A A Cover BB
Pots: A A Height BB Groups of specific species
Tropical: A A A Sp # B b Notes: (;eogra pimca location: Pa: Pa 010, Pc: Pearl Ll~,A: \.lna aina; Ethnic background: J: Japanese, C: Chinese, 0: Others; Age of house: 0: Old, M: Middle, N: New; Size of lot: S: Small, M: Medium, L: Large. Different cases/letters indicate ANOVA groupings: The upper/lower case letters of the same character (Na) indicate statistically significat segregation into separate groups at p=.05; the different characters (AlB) indicate significant segregation at p=.01.
104 Figure 21. Mango iMangifera indica).
105 Aina Haina Tract than in those of the other two neighborhoods. It was also lower in the Chinese group than in those of the other two ethnic groups (cf.
ANDVA groupings in Table 20). Thus, the average species number in each study site varied significantly among both neighborhoods and ethnic groups (Acceptance of hypotheses: Neighborhood: 1/1 test, Ethnic: 1/1; cf. Table 19).
4.3.3.2. Height classes
In this section, the vertical structure of the plant community is analyzed by examining (1) the frequency and (2) the species number of Tree (>2m), Shrub (1
2m) and Herb « Im) sized plants in study sites. The descriptive data for height classes are shown in Table 21, with the results of statistical analyses presented in
Table 22.
In summary, (1) frequency of three height classes did not vary significantly with the four variables (both Neighborhood and Ethnic hypotheses were rejected); and (2) The average number of species in the Shrub and Herb-sized plants varied significantly with Geographical Location -- species number for the Shrub-sized plants was lower in Aina Haina, and species number of the Herb-sized plants was high in Palolo, intermediate in Pearl City and low in Aina Haina, perhaps reflecting the significant variation in Age of H ouse. The number of species in the
Shrub-sized plants also varied significantly with Ethnic Background -- it was significantly low for Chinese in Ethnic Background, reflected in the overall low species number for Chinese noted above (see Section 4.3.3.1.). Thus, species
106 TABLE 21.
SUMMARY OF DESCRIPTIVE DATA: HEIGHT CL<\SSES.
To Geographical Ethnic Age of Size of tal Location Background House Lot
Pa Pc AJ C 0 0 MN S M L
Number of Site 150 50 50 50 11 27 52 43 56 51 51 51 48
Presenc~Absence(F~uency)
Tree (>2m) 146 49 47 50 69 26 51 43 54 49 49 49 48
Shrub (I-2m) 146 50 50 46 70 25 51 40 55 51 51 50 45
Herb «1m) 146 50 49 47 69 26 51 41 55 50 50 51 45
Species Number (Average per site)
Tree (>2m) 5.2 4.7 5.2 5.6 5.4 4.3 5.4 6.2 4.9 4.7 4.8 5.2 5.6 .. Shrub (I-2m) 5.2 5~7 ·6.0 4.0 6.1 ·3.5 4.8 5.3 5.1 5A 5.6 5.5 4.6
Herb «1m) 4.4 6.2 4.2 28··· 4.7 4.2 4.1 4.1 3.8 5.4 4.8 4.6 3.8
Notes: Explanation of categories in each variable: Geographical Location: Pa: Palolo, Pc: Pearl City, A: Aina Haina; Ethnic Background: J: Japanese, C: Chinese, 0: Others; Age of House: 0: Old, M: Middle, N: New; Size of Lot: S: Small, M: Medium, L: Large. Shading: Significantly varied (see Table 22).
107 TABLE 22.
RESULTS OF STATISTICAL ANALYSES: HEIGHT CLASSES.
Geographical Ethnic Age of Size of Location Background House Lot Presence/Absence (Chi-square test) Tree (>2m) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Shrub (I-2m) 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Herb (xlrn) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Species Number (ANOVA) Tree (>2m) 1.0 1.2 3.3* 0.7 Shrub (I-2m) 4.4* 6.2* 0.1 1.2 Herb (xlrn) 15.5** 0.4 3.3* 1.3
Note: Numbers in a matrix are X2 values for chi-square test, and F values for ANOVA. * Indicates significantly varied at p=.OS. ** Indicates significantly varied at p=.Ol.
108 number of some height classes varied significantly among both neighborhoods and ethnic groups (Acceptance of hypotheses: Neighborhood: 2/6 tests, Ethnic: 1/6; cf.
Table 22).
The significant variation in species number of the Tree-sized plants in Age of House may reflect the high number in Large lot, which also contributed to the high number in Aina Haina, and may result because plants grows taller with increasing age.
4.3.3.3. Plant use
Horizontal structure of the plant community is analyzed by examining (1) frequency, (2) species number, (3) cover and (4) height of hedges, lawns, basal plantings, bed/mass plantings, plantings along path/as row, and plants in pots.
The descriptive data for plant use are shown in Table 23, with the results of statistical analyses presented in Table 24.
The frequency of the Basal planting and Plants in pots varied significantly with Geographical Location. In contrasts, no frequency of plant use categories varied significantly with Ethnic Background. The significant variation of the Basal planting with Age of House may reflect Geographical Location. In summary, the frequency of some plant use categories varied significantly among neighborhoods, but not among ethnic groups (Acceptance of hypotheses: Neighborhood: 2/6 tests,
Ethnic: 0/6; cf. Table 24).
109 TABLE 23.
SUMMARY OF DESCRIPTIVE DATA: PLANT USE.
To Geographical Ethnic Age of Size of tal Location Background House Lot
Pa Pc A J C 0 0 M N SM L
Number of Site 150 50 50 50 71 27 52 43 56 51 51 51 48
Presence/Absence (Frequency)
Hedge 72 23 21 28 31 13 28 24 27 21 18 26 28
Lawn 109 37 32 40 46 20 43 33 43 33 34 36 39
Basal 66 20 14 32 26 12 28 27 27 12 16 21 29
BedlMass 53 22 16 15 31 9 13 14 21 18 19 16 18
Pass/Row 36 11 15 10 15 6 15 10 16 10 15 12 9
Pots 95 40 35 20 51 15 29 25 28 42 40 32 23
Species Number (Average per site)"
Hedge 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.6
Lawn 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3
Basal 3.1 3.9 24 29 3.1 28 3.2 3.5 27 3.0 3.9 2.8 2.9
BedlMass 20 23 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.6 26 2.1 1.8 2.0 2.1 1.7 2.1
Pass/Row 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.7 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.2 1.4
Pots 3.6 4.1 3.5 2.8 4.0 3.3 3.0 2.9 3.6 4.0 2.8 4.2 4.2
Continued on next page Notes: Explanation of categories in each variable: Geographical Location: Pa: Palolo, Pc: Pearl City, A: Aina Haina; Ethnic Background: J: Japanese. C: Chinese, 0: Others; Age of House: 0: Old, M: Middle, N: New; Size of Lot: S: Small, M: Medium, L: Large. "Average of only non-zero entries. Shading: Significantly varied (see Table 24).
110 TABLE 23. (Continued)
To Geographical Ethnic Age of Size of tal Location Background House Lot
Pa Pc A J C 0 0 M N SM L
No. of Site 150 50 50 50 71 27 52 43 56 51 51 51 48
Cover (Average [m~)"
Hedge 20 12 ··15 '···30 19 20 21 20 23 15 13 15 29
Lawn 77 '50 .. 69 .•.··107·· 79 69 78 89 82 56 54 69 104
Basal 16 15 16 17 16 14 18 19 14 18 18 14 17 ······8 ... BedlMass 10 5 9 i J8 6 21 12 13 5 5 11 14
Pass/Row 9 9 11 5 11 5 8 10 8 8 10 8 8
Pots 5 6 6 4 6 5 4 3 6 6 5 6 6
Height (Average [m])"
Hedge 20 20 1.8 22 1.9 20 22 22 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.1 2.1
Basal 1.9 1.6 1.8 21 1.9 1.7 2.0 20 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 2.0
BedlMass 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6
Pass/Row 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.7 1.9 21 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.8
Pots 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1
Notes: Explanation of categories in each variable: Geographical Location: Pa: Palolo, Pc: Pearl City, A: Aina Haina; Ethnic Background: J: Japanese, C: Chinese, 0: Others; Age of House: 0: Old, M: Middle, N: New; Size of Lot: S: Small, M: Medium, L: Large. "Average of only non-zero entries. Shading: Significantly varied (see Table 21).
111 TABLE 24.
RESULTS OF STATISTICAL ANALYSES: PLANT USE.
Geographical Ethnic Age of Size of Location Background House Lot Presence/Absence (Chi-square test) Hedge 1.1 0.6 1.0 2.9 Lawn 0.9 1.3 0.7 0.8 Basal 7.6* 2.2 8.5* 4.9 Bed/Mass 1.6 3.0 0.2 0.3 Pass/Raw 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.2 Pots 6.8* 1.5 4.7 3.6 Species Number (ANaVA)· Hedge 0.6 2.3 0.2 0.4 Lawn 1.8 4.1* 1.3 0.0 Basal 2.0 0.2 0.8 1.6 Bed/Mass 1.2 1.9 0.2 0.4 Pass/Raw 2.1 1.3 1.0 1.6 Pots 1.0 0.9 0.8 2.2
Continued on next page Note: Numbers in a matrix are X2 values for chi-square test, and F values for ANOVA. 'Only non-zero entries were analyzed in ANOVA. * Indicates significantly varied at p=.05. ** Indicates significantly varied at p=.Ol.
112 TABLE 24. (Continued)
Geographical Ethnic Age of Size of Location Background House Lot Cover (ANOVA)" Hedge l1.S** 0.1 1.S 8.6** Lawn 9.2** 0.2 2.5 6.S** Basal 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 Bed/Mass 3.S* 4.9* 1.4 1.6 Pass!Raw 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.1 Pots O.S 1.3 1.9 0.5 Height (ANOVA)" Hedge 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.2 Basal 1.4 0.3 O.S 0.8 Bed/Mass 2.6 1.6 1.0 0.7 Pass!Raw 0.1 1.1 2.1 0.1 Pots 6.4** 0.3 3.1 2.0
Note: Numbers in a matrix are X2 values for chi-square test, and F values for ANOVA. "Only non-zero entries were analyzed in ANOVA. * Indicates significantly varied at p=.OS. ** Indicates significantly varied at p=.01.
113 The number of species found on front Lawns was significantly lower in the
Japanese group. The species number of plant use categories, therefore, did not vary significantly among neighborhoods, while one category varied significantly among ethnic groups (Acceptance of hypotheses: Neighborhood: 0/6 tests, Ethnic:
1/6; cf. Table 24).
Average cover of Hedge and Lawn was significantly larger in Aina Haina.
Average cover of Bed/Mass planting varied significantly both with Geographical
Location and Ethnic Background. Thus, average cover of one plant use category significantly varied among both neighborhoods and ethnic groups (Acceptance of hypotheses: Neighborhood: 3/6 tests, Ethnic: 1/6; cf. Table 24).
The average height of Plants in Pots was significantly less in Palolo, intermediate in Pearl City and more in Aina Haina. Thus, average height of one plant use category significantly varied among neighborhoods, while none did among ethnic groups (Acceptance of hypotheses: Neighborhood: 1/5 tests, Ethnic:
0/6; cf. Table 24).
4.3.3.4. Groups of specific species
In this section (1) the frequency and (2) the species number of Japanese garden plants, Chinese flowering/fruiting trees, Euro-American herbaceous flowers and Tropical garden trees are analyzed. Plant species included in each group are summarized in Table 25. The descriptive data for four groups of
114 TABLE 25.
GROUP OF SPECIFIC SPECIES.
Group of Specific Species Japanese Chinese Euro-American Garden FloweringIFruiting Herbaceous Plants Trees Flowers Bambusa sp. Citrus aurantiifolia Begonia sp. Camellia japonica Citrus limon Callistephus chinensis Cupressus sp. Citrus maxima Celosia argentea Cycas revoluta Citrus reticulata Chrysanthemum sp. Iris sp. Citrus xparadisi Cosmos bipinnatus Juniperus sp. Citrus spp. Crinum asiaticum Lonicera japonica Dimocarpus longan Dahlia sp. Nandina domestica Fortunella japonica Dianthus barbatus Ophiopogon japonicus Gardenia augusta Dianthus caryophyllus Pinus sp. Jasminum multiflorum Erigeron sp. Pittosporum tobira Jasminum sambac Gazania rigens Pleioblastus sp. Lagerstroemia indica Gerbera jamesonii Podocarpus sp. Litchi chinensis Hippeastrum sp. Rhaphiolepis umbellata Magnolia grandiflora Impatiens wallerana Rhapis excelsa Michelia champaca Lilium longiflorum Rhododendron sp. Osmanthus fragrans Lobularia maritima Thuja occidentalis Prunus persica Petunia x hybrida Punica granatum Platycodon grandiflorum Pyrus communis Portulaca grandifolia Primula sp. Sedum morganianum Senecio cineraria
Continued on next page Source: Beckett (1987), Courtright (1988), Engel (1959), Graf (1978), Hyams (1971), Indo and Shina (1985), Macoboy (1986, 1989), Morl (1984), Morris (1983), Nakao (1986), Neal (1965), Wakisaka (1983), and Yang (1982).
115 Table 25. (Continued)
Group of Specific Species Tropical Garden Plants Allamanda cathartica Hibiscus cameronii Araucaria sp, Hibiscus rosa-sinensis Bauhinia variegata Hibiscus rosa-sinensis Bougainvillea glabra (Large flowered variety) Bougainvillea spectabilis Hibiscus schizopetalus Clerodendrum buchanani var. fallax Ixora sp. Clerodendrum thomsonae Lantana camara Clerodendrum umbellatum var. Lantana monteviensis speciosum Mussaenda erythrophylla Cocos nucifera Mussaenda philippica Codiaeum variegatum Palm spp. Cordyline fruticosa Plumbago auriculata Cordyline fruticosa (Red variety) Plumeria acuminata Delonix regia Plumeria obtusa Dracaena deremensis Plumeria rubra Dracaena fragrans Roystonea elata Dracaena marginata Spathodea campanulata Dracaena marginata (White lined) Tabebuia rosea Euphorbia pulcherrima
Source: Beckett (1987), Courtright (1988), Engel (1959), Graf (1978), Hyams (1971), Indo and Shina (1985), Macoboy (1986, 1989), Mori (1984), Morris (1983), Nakao (1986), Neal (1965), Wakisaka (1983), and Yang (1982).
116 specific species are shown in Table 26, with the results of statistical analyses presented in Table 27. Frequency of vegetables and edible herbs is noted below.
In summary, (1) frequency of the four groups of species did not vary significantly in Geographical Location; in Ethnic Background, by contrast, the frequency of Japanese garden plants was significantly high in the Japanese group; and (2) none of the number of species of the four groups significantly varied in
Geographical Location; in Ethnic Background, the species number of Tropical garden trees was significantly low for Chinese, which may be response to the overall low species number for Chinese (cf. Table 18). Thus, both the frequency and the number of species of the groups of specific species did not vary significantly among neighborhoods, while both did among ethnic groups
(Acceptance of hypotheses: Neighborhood: 0/8 tests, Ethnic: 2/8; cf. Table 27).
Frequency of vegetables and edible herbs was 37/150 sites -- at Palolo:
17/50, at Pearl City: 14/50, at Aina Haina: 6/50. Plants observed were basil, bean, carrot, cassava, chive, eggplant, green onion, lemon grass, mint, mustard, parsley, pepper, pumpkin/squash, red pepper, sage, sugar cane, sweet potato, taro, tomato, and wild oregano.
In New houses in the Age of House category, the frequency of American herbaceous flowers was significantly higher. This variation corresponded with the high frequency of the Herb-sized plants in New house (cf. Table 21). Although it was not found statistically significant, the primary variation was most likely that with Geographical Location: Aina Haina, where only one house was new (cf.
117 TABLE 26.
SUMMARY OF DESCRIPTIVE DATA: GROUPS OF SPECIFIC SPECIES.
To Geographical Ethnic Age of Size of tal Location Background House Lot
Pa Pc AJC 0 0 MNSM L
Number of Site 150 50 50 50 71 27 52 43 56 51 51 51 48
Presence/Absence (Frequency)
Japanese 74 24 26 24 1.4!t (10 . 15 21 24 29 24 25 25
Chinese 85 29 29 27 42 19 24 25 30 30 30 31 24
American 40 16 17 7 21 7 12 8 10 22 16 15 9
Tropical 145 50 46 49 68 26 51 43 53 49 48 50 47
Species Number (Average per site)"
Japanese 2.4 2.7 2.3 2.1 2.6 2.1 1.8 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.1 - Chinese 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.8
American 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.4 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.5 1.9
Tropical 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.7 3.9 3.7 3.9 3.2 3.2 3.7 4.0
Notes: Explanation of categories in each variable: Geographical Location: Pa: Palolo, Pc: Pearl City, A: Aina Haina; Ethnic Background: J: Japanese, C: Chinese, 0: Others; Age of House: 0: Old, M: Middle, N: New; Size of Lot: S: Small, M: Medium, L: Large. ·Average of only non-zero entries. Shading: Significantly varied (see Table 27).
118 TABLE 27.
RESULTS OF STATISTICAL ANALYSES: GROUPS OF SPECIFIC SPECIES.
Geographical Ethnic Age of Size of Location Background House Lot Presence/Absence (Chi-square test) Japanese 0.1 10.8** 1.1 0.1 Chinese 0.1 2.0 0.2 0.6 American 4.6 0.5 7.9* 1.7 Tropical 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 Species Number (ANOVA)" Japanese 0.9 1.5 0.2 0.6 Chinese 0.1 1.3 0.2 0.4 American 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.7 Tropical 0.5 3.7* 1.4 1.8
Note: Numbers in a matrix are X2 values for chi-square test, and F values for ANOVA. "Onlynon-zero entries were analyzed in ANOVA. '" Indicates significantly varied at p=.05. ** Indicates significantly varied at p=.Ol.
119 Table 5), had a very low frequency of American herbaceous flowers. At the same time, however, it may indicate a recent fad for flowers.
4.3.3.5. Artificial elements
The descriptive data for artificial elements are shown in Table 28, with the results of statistical analyses presented in Table 29. Fences were significantly less frequent in Aina Haina. Also, there were more linked-wire fences in Palolo and
Pearl City than in Aina Haina (51/150 sites -- at Palolo: 23/50, at Pearl City:
25/50, at Aina Haina: 3/50). The variation probably responded to higher income in Aina Haina (cf. Table 2). Note that, however, the frequency of Hedge and/or
Fence did not vary significantly. The low frequency of Pavement in Size of Lot may reflect their low frequency in Aina Haina.
4.4. SUMMARY
In this chapter data obtained through field sampling are described and the results of the inferential analyses are presented. In the examination of the tenability of Neighborhood and Ethnic hypotheses, some categories and subcategories of the vegetation data appear to vary significantly with certain socio-economic and cultural variables. These results will be interpreted in the next chapter.
120 TABLE 28.
SUMMARY OF DESCRIPTIVE DATA: ARTIFICIAL ELEMENTS.
To Geographical Ethnic Age of Size of tal Location Background House Lot
Pa Pc A J C 0 0 MN S M L
Number of Site 150 50 50 50 71 27 52 43 56 51 51 51 48
Presence/Absence (Frequency)
... Fence 74 29 .32 ·13> 33 14 27 21 24 29 28 17 29
Hedge and/or Fence 115 38 40 37 52 24 39 33 45 37 39 39 37
Pavement 52 19 21 12 23 13 16 12 17 23 21 23 8
Japanese-style corner 11 4 3 4 7 2 2 4 3 4 3 5 3
Cover (Average [m2J)"
Pavement 56 54 53 65 57 54 57 50 65 53 46 62 66
Height (Average [mJ)"
Fence 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.6
Notes: Explanation of categories in each variable: Geographical Location: Pa: Palolo, Pc: Pearl City, A: Aina Haina; Ethnic Background: J: Japanese, C: Chinese, 0: Others; Age of House: 0: Old, M: Middle, N: New; Size of Lot: S: Small, M: Medium, L: Large. "Average of only non-zero entries. Shading: Significantly varied (see Table 29).
121 TABLE 29.
RESULTS OF STATISTICAL ANALYSES: ARTIFICIAL ELEMENTS.
Geographical Ethnic Age of Size of Location Background House Lot Presence/Absence (Chi-square test) Fence 8.5* 0.2 1.1 4.2 Hedge and/or Fence 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.0 Pavement 2.6 1.7 2.5 6.7* Japanese-style il corner" Cover (ANOVA)a Pavement 0.4 0.0 0.7 1.3 Height (ANDVA)a Fence 3.1 1.4 0.2 3.0
Note: Numbers in a matrix are X2 values for chi-square test, and F values for ANOVA. "Only non-zero entries were analyzed in ANOVA. 'Frequency was too low to apply chi-square test (cf. Table 28). * Indicates significantly varied at p=.OS. ** Indicates significantly varied atp=.01.
122 v. DISCUSSION
In this chapter the data presented in the previous chapter are interpreted and related to the research question. Theoretical implications of the study are also presented and related to the conceptual framework of the study. Finally, recommendations address future studies in people-plant relationships and cultural landscapes.
5.1. INTERPRETATION OF OBSERVED VARIATIONS IN VEGETATION DATA
The major purpose of this study is to describe and analyze the similarities and differences of the structure of plant communities in residential front yards among neighborhoods (study areas) and ethnic groups within socio-economically similar neighborhoods. The study is based on previous findings that: (1) plant communities in residential yards reflect the socio-economic and cultural characteristics of the neighborhood (Schmid 1975: 219; Whitney and Adams 1980:
443); and that (2) different ethnic groups, neighborhoods and/or particular socio economic groups may have a particular landscape taste which will be reflected in these plant communities (Firey 1945; Duncan 1973; Cosgrove 1984).
Three census tracts with similar socio-economic, cultural and physical characteristics on the island of O'ahu were selected as the study areas. No two
123 places are ever identical and these three differ to some extent. Thus, the interpretation of the results requires some consideration of these differences.
As presented in the Results, the vegetational characteristics among study areas and among ethnic groups were (quantitatively) more similar than different
(cf. Section 4.3.). However, the pattern of variation in the structure of the plant community appeared to differ among study areas and ethnic groups. These similarities and differences are interpreted with reference to "group identity" among study areas and ethnic groups.
5.1.1. The Classification of Vegetation Data
Three major findings in the analysis of the classification of the vegetation data (TWINSPAN; cf. Table 16) were: (1) study sites were grouped into two types, with the only major socio-economic and cultural variable significantly differing between the two types being the ethnic background of the residents; (2) none of the three ethnic groups studied was found exclusively in one site type; and (3) the group of plant species the presence/absence of which strongly differentiated the above site types included common plants of Japanese gardens, probably the transported landscape and/or the symbols of "group identity" among the ethnically Japanese residents.
These findings indicate that the ethnic background of the residents of a study site is a strong but not absolute determining factor for species composition at each site. They also imply that the symbols of the "group identity" of ethnic
124 groups may not be homogeneously expressed by members of each ethnic group.
But, why do some members "show" their identity, while the others do not? This
point will be elaborated in the following section on variations among ethnic
groups (cf. Section 5.1.4.4.).
5.1.2. Variations among Study Areas
Previous studies (Schmid 1975: 219; Whitney and Adams 1980: 443) have
shown that the structural components of residential plant communities such as
quantity, species composition, and arrangement of plants differ from one
neighborhood to another in a regular manner, reflecting differences in the socio
economical and cultural characteristics of the neighborhood. Conversely, the
assumption behind the neighborhood hypothesis of the present study is that if the
socio-economical and cultural characteristics of neighborhoods are similar, then
the structure of the residential plant communities should be similar, too. To test
this hypothesis, three socio-economically, culturally and physically similar census tracts as study areas. However, as noted above, these three differed to some
extent, and the interpretation of the results requires some consideration of these differences.
The vegetational characteristics among study areas were (quantitatively) more similar than different (cf. Section 4.3.). There were, however, two types of significant variation observed among study areas. One was apparently related to lot size. The average cover of hedge, lawn and, to a lesser extent, bed/mass
125 planting was significantly greater in Aina Haina, where the average lot size was larger, than in the other two neighborhoods (cf. Tables 4, 5 and 23). Obviously the larger the lot, the more cover of certain plant uses, and therefore the most variation in cover is attributable to individual lot size (cf. Richards et al. 1984:
109). In other words, the resident living on the larger lot is more likely to have larger planting space than resident on a smaller.
The second type of variation appeared as a difference in general landscape taste, or a reflection of "group identity" in a neighborhood. Duncan's (1973) study of Bedford Village, New York, showed that the residents of a certain neighborhood share a particular landscape taste as part of their group identity which was, in his case, closely associated with the largely exclusive social networks among those residents. In this study, this type of variation appeared in Aina
Haina where, compared with the other two neighborhoods, the average species number in terms of overall species, herb-sized plants and (to a lesser extent) shrub-sized plants was lower, the frequency of orchids, as well as that of plants in pots, was lower, and the average height of plants in pots was greater.
During the field survey, I noticed that the general atmosphere of the three study areas differed to some extent, but Aina Haina was particularly distinct. I concluded that a different atmosphere must reflect the difference in the general landscape taste of the residents of each neighborhood (Figures 22, 23, 24). The general impression of front yards in Palolo was that they were "crowded" and
"casually maintained." The impression in Pearl City was similar to that of Palolo
126 Figure 22. Street in Palala (1993).
127 Figure 23. Street in Pearl City (1993).
128 ~.~.'. "".' ...•.~"'"':.t.;., :' . ••T" • . • ~~.;......
Figure 24. Street in Aina Haina (1993).
129 although the size of a front yard appeared to be slightly larger. The occasional
occurrence of vegetable and other small food plants in a front yard might have
enhanced the casual impression (cf. Sections 4.3.3.4.). There were more linked wire fences in Palolo and Pearl City than in Aina Haina (cf. 4.3.3.5.), as linked wire fences tend to be cheaper to purchase and install. In Aina Haina, the
impression was "simple" and "neatly maintained." Hedges were more common as fences, and when other materials were used they tended to be made of stone or
some comparatively expensive material, rather than linked-wire (cf. Tables 23,
28). The landscape thus may reflect the more prosperous status of Aina Haina residents compared to those in the other two study areas (cf. Table 2).
The second type of variation interpreted as difference in general landscape taste may be attributed to difference in the time devoted to the care of front yards. The findings of the questionnaire suggest that Aina Haina residents spend less of their own time on their front yard plants than do the residents of Palolo or
Pearl City (d. Table 12), and the respondents in Aina Haina resorted to hired help more frequently than did those in the other two neighborhoods (d. Table
11). Hired gardeners usually undertake only certain aspects of gardening such as mowing lawns and trimming hedges, and are less likely to contribute to small aesthetic details such as potted plants or maintaining vegetable and herb gardens.
The above findings contradict Derrenbacher's (1969: 83; cf. Section 1.1.) report that species number in residential gardens increased with socio-economic status in an area of Berkeley, California. The contradiction may be explained by
130 that the present study deals with a narrower socio-economic range than did
Derrenbacher. The Derrenbacher's study of four areas (San Pablo, Sacramento,
Spruce and Grizzly Peak) varied greatly in socio-economic characteristics, and included blue collar, lower middle class and affluent neighborhoods. Lower income families have less money to spend on non-necessities such as ornamental plants, so it is possible that the higher number of species in affluent residents' yards is attributable to their greater disposable income (cf. Kimber 1973: 7-13;
Schmid 1975: 60). By contrast, my three study areas were similar in socio economic characteristics: upper middle class neighborhoods where the observed variation in species number is more attributable to the landscape tastes than to the amount of disposable income.
The differences in the historical land use, as well as in hydrology, among the three neighborhoods provides insight into another possible explanation for the second type of variation (cf. Section 3.2.2.1.). In Palolo, Palolo Stream is perennial, and wet-taro was cultivated on terraced clay soils. In Pearl City, the flow in Waiau Gulch is intermittent, and irrigated taro, and later sugar cane, were grown on well-drained silty clay loam. In Aina Raina, Wailupe Stream is also intermittent, and sweet potatoes were cultivated on the porous ground and later lands were used for dairy farming (cf. Section 3.2.2.1). Thus, drier conditions for plants exist in Aina Raina compared with Pearl City, and wetter conditions exist in Palolo than in wither Aina Haina or Pearl City. In drier conditions, the residents of Aina Haina may have fewer plants requiring intensive attention
131 (watering), such as many herbaceous plants (especially those planted in pots) than
do the residents of the other neighborhoods.
At the same time, however, individual residents have great latitude in the selection of their garden plants because of the large number of garden plants available, and gardening practices of individuals are widely different (cf. Section
5.1.1.; Schmid 1975: 219; Richards et al. 1984). Nor are front yards in any neighborhood uniform. Thus, although the general landscape taste in the three neighborhoods was apparently different, the second type of variation does not suggest the existence of a concrete and coherent "group identity" of a neighborhood.
The effect of the ethnic factor should also be taken in to account because the ethnic composition of the three study areas also varied significantly (cf. Table
5). For example, species number for the shrub-sized plants was lower in Aina
Haina. This variation may reflect the high species number in the lots of Japanese residents and low species number in those of Chinese residents because there are fewer Japanese residents and more Chinese residents in Aina Haina than in the other two neighborhoods.
5.1.3. Variations among Ethnic Groups
As noted above, the vegetational characteristics of front yards of the three ethnic groups were (quantitatively) more similar than different (cf. Section 4.3.).
The assumption behind the ethnic hypothesis was that each ethnic group has a
132 specific garden style. It was anticipated, therefore, in contrast to the results, that ethnic groups are clearly distinguishable from each other based on the structure of the plant communities in their members' front yards. Why are they more similar than different? Why should the front yards of some members of a particular ethnic group be so clearly distinguishable from the rest of the same ethnic group because of the presence of merely a few specific plant species and/or garden elements in their front yards?
Before going further, an overview of the framework and species composition of the plant community in residential front yards in Hawai'i is necessary. The plant communities studied are a part of the urban ecosystem of
O'ahu, Hawai'i and the framework of that plant communities is the contemporary
Hawaiian residential landscape, which is very different from that of indigenous
Hawaiians. Despite small lot size and diverse architectural styles, the framework is largely a transported landscape from the mainland United States, or at least, it resembles the western landscape more than it does that of China or Japan
(Figure 25).
On the other hand, species composition of this plant community is different from those of temperate climate areas including most parts of the
United States, China and Japan. Many common tropical garden plants are prominent in Hawai'i (as shown in Tables 14 and 16; cf. Tables 1 and 25 for the list of species), while most common temperate climate garden plants do not thrive in the warm climate of Hawai'i. But, most of the common tropical garden plants
133 (a)
(b)
Figure 25. Single-family houses: (a) in Honolulu (Nehoa Street, 1993), and (b) in Nagoya, Japan (Minamiwake-cho, 1991).
134 are not indigenous to Hawai'i (Figure 26), and the plant communities are composed primarily of imported plant species.
5.1.3.1. Interpretation of the observed similarity among ethnic groups
To interpret the similarity observed in the structure of plant communities in residential front yards, there are two considerations: (1) to landscape a front yard, predominately common tropical plant materials available in Hawai'i are arranged into the American residential framework; and (2) assimilation
(Americanization) of many ethnic groups has progressed in Hawaiian society, especially since World War II (cf. Appendix 1). To speculate, the resulting acculturation, or the at least partial melting together, of cultural traditions of many ethnic groups may have formed the "local (Hawaiian) style front yard" using popular tropical garden plants such as Pleomele marginata (money tree),
Codiaeum variegatum (croton), Bougainvillea spp. (bougainvillea) and Cordyline fruticosa (ti) (cf. Tables 14, 16, 25 and 32). This style is shared as a basic framework of the front yard planting across the boundaries of many ethnic groups. Thus, the vegetational characteristics of front yards of the three ethnic groups are more similar than different.
The finding that the structure of plant communities in front yards is more similar than different among ethnic groups may imply some common denominator for preferred landscapes among different cultures (cf. Section 1.2.3.). Thus, the shared image of the original human habitat among contemporary humans, which
135 (a)
(b)
Figure 26. Most of the common tropical garden plants are not indigenous to Hawai'i: (a) commonly planted red hibiscus (Hibiscus rosa-sinensis) is not indigenous to Hawai'i; (b) endemic koki'o (Hibiscus arnottianus) is rarely planted in gardens.
136 is suggested by the "habitat theory" (Appleton 1975: 69), may be a possible explanation of the observed similarity. This theory is further discussed below (cf.
Section 5.1.4.).
5.1.3.2. Interpretation of the observed significant variations among ethnic groups
The observed significant variations among ethnic groups can be classified into two types: (1) those likely related to the difference in residents' choice of individual species, and (2) those likely related to the difference in residents' preference of a certain garden style. The first type varied significantly more among the three ethnic groups than did the second.
The first type of variation, the variation of preferred species among residents of different ethnic backgrounds, was marked. For example: (1) in the classification analysis (TWINSPAN) of vegetation data, more sites with residents of Japanese ethnic background were classified into the site group in which more
Japanese garden plants were observed (cf. Section 5.1.1.2.); (2) the frequency of
Nandina domestica (sacred bamboo), Cycas revoluta (cycad), Rhaphiolepis umbel/ata (Oriental hawthorn), and, to a lesser extent, Orchid spp. and Fern spp. were higher in sites where residents were of Japanese ethnic background (Figure
27); the frequency of Chrysalidocarpus lutescens (Areca palm) was higher in sites where residents were of an ethnic background other than Japanese or Chinese;
(3) the frequency of Citrus spp. was higher in sites where residents were of
Chinese ethnic background; and (4) the frequency of Japanese garden plants (cf.
137 (a)
(b)
Figure 27. Common plants in Japanese gardens: (a) sacred bamboo (Nandina domestica), and (b) cycad (Cycas revoluta) and Oriental hawthorn (Rhaphiolepis umbellata).
138 Table 25 for the list of species) was higher in sites where residents were of
Japanese ethnic background.
This variation was particularly visible among ethnically Japanese residents.
It most likely reflected "group identity" among them as Americans of Japanese
Ancestry (AJA) in Hawai'i, rather than merely ethnically Japanese (cf. Ogawa
1973: 21, cited above).
Regarding the "transported landscape" (cf. Section 1.2.4.), the Japanese garden tradition was not transported as a whole. The part of the Japanese garden tradition which has been transported to Hawai'i comprises some specific plant species and a few ideas such as grouped rocks, a stone lantern and neatly trimmed shrubbery (cf. DeFrancis 1973: 104). Although these things make up a rather small portion of the entire plant community and other garden elements, they do lend a distinctive Japanese flavor to front yards (Figure 28). These plant species and gardening ideas appear, therefore, to be the symbols of the group identity of the AJA in Hawai'i.
This partial transportation may be because the framework of the plant community is mostly American (or contemporary Hawaiian) and the community's components are essentially of tropical origin. Because the Japanese residential garden is primarily a "viewing" garden or a path (cf. Section 2.2.2.2.), an American front yard does not provide the necessary framework for the wholesale transportation of the Japanese garden tradition.
139 Figure 28. Transported Japanese garden tradition, such as grouped rocks, a stone lantern and neatly trimmed shrubs, lends a distinctive Japanese flavor to the front yard of this house (Mort-Smith Drive, Honolulu, 1993).
140 The first type of variation, namely species selection, was less apparent among ethnically Chinese residents, partly because other ethnic groups also planted culturally Chinese plants such as Citrus spp., Jasminum sambac (Arabian jasmine, or pikake) and Gardeniajasminoides (gardenia) in their yards. These plants may reflect the Chinese immigrants were the first to come and then assimilated faster than other Asian immigrants (cf. Appendix 1). Chinese garden plants may have been more widely accepted in Hawai'i than, for example,
Japanese garden plants by other ethnic groups, as the Hawaiian name for lasminum sambac implies. The word ''pikake'' is a Hawaiian rendition of peacock applied to the flower because popular Hawaiian Princess Kaiulani was very fond both of this flower and of peacocks (Neal 1965: 680).
In contrast to the Japanese and Chinese groups, the group mostly comprised of Caucasians do not show any particular pattern in species selection.
This may be a reflection that Caucasian immigrants came to Hawai'i as families and integrated rapidly. Also, their early privileged status in Hawaiian society resulted in their garden traditions becoming the base of Hawai'i's front yard planting style. Their style is shared with many members of other ethnic groups, and, thus, Caucasian front yards are not conspicuously distinct from those of other groups.
To interpret this first type of variation, in view of the "ethnic plants" and
"group identity," it should be noted that only 70% of the front yards of ethnically
Japanese residents included any of the 17 typical Japanese garden plants, and only
141 70% of the front yards of ethnically Chinese residents included any of the 19 typical Chinese flowering/fruiting trees. Thus, the residents' preference towards their ethnic plants and/or group identity is not universal nor simple. That is, the ethnic plants maybe used as symbols of group identity by some members of an ethnic group, while other members may use other kinds of symbols such as the wall color of a house, or may not display such group identity around their residences at all.
The showing of the symbols of "group identity" in front yards may be interpreted in the light of a Goffmanesque game of impression management
(Goffman 1959), in which the style and quality of the exterior and interior of a person's home are viewed as pawns; and this "process has been chronicled in most extreme fOnTIS among those newly arrived in, or still striving for, more prestigious social positions, e.g., the new 'suburbanites' or the rising young 'Organization man'" (Laumann and House 1970: 189). As noted above, prior to World War II,
Japanese Americans were, in many respects, second-class citizens, but this rapidly changed after the war and resulted in the success of Hawai'i's Japanese in politics and the professions (Rogers and lzutsu 1980: 78-81). To publicly validate this success and acquired social status, for some ethnically Japanese residents, the display of the group's symbols is necessary.
The second type of variation which suggests that differences were related to residents' differing preferences for garden style was also apparent: (1) the average species number of overall species, shrub-sized plants and tropical garden
142 plants was lower at sites where residents were of Chinese ethnic background; (2)
the average species number on lawns was lower at sites where residents were of
Japanese ethnic background; and (3) the cover of bed/mass planting was higher in sites where residents were of an ethnic background other than Japanese or
Chinese. I interpret this variation as: An ethnic group prefers a certain garden style. This interpretation is too vague to provide any insight. Thus, my further speculations are as follows: the low average species number of shrub-sized plants
(I-2m tall) among ethnically Chinese residents probably reflects the Chinese garden tradition that typical plants are mostly flowering trees, and that there are no open lawns or flower beds; this low species number of shrub-sized plants was reflected in the low species number of overall species and of tropical garden plants; the low average species number on lawns among ethnically Japanese residents probably reflects their preference for neatly maintained lawns of Zoysia matre/La var. matre/La (velvet grass) (cf. Table 32 in Appendix 3) (Figure 29); the larger cover of bed/mass planting among residents with ethnic backgrounds other than Japanese or Chinese may reflect the lack of extensive flower beds in both the Chinese and Japanese garden traditions and the concentrated, cozy nature of the Japanese tradition.
5.1.4. Species Diversity and Life Form Spectrum
In this section I examine species diversity and life form spectrum, and relate them to habitat theory and the concepts of proto-paysage (original
143 Figure 29. Neatly maintained lawns of velvet grass (Zoysia matrella var. matrellay (Pawaina Place, Honolulu, 1990).
144 landscape) and hinkaku (dignity) (cf. Section 1.2.3.; Appleton 1975: 69; Berque
1990: 16; Nakamura 1982: 143-72).
The high species diversity observed in the study indicates that both species
richness (number) and species evenness (equitability) are high in the studied plant communities (cf. Barbour, Burk and Pitts 1980: 136). That is, the number of
available garden plant species is large (289 species observed in the study), though
the average number of species per yard is small (15 species). Individual residents, therefore, have great latitude in the selection of their garden plants (cf. Schmid
1975: 219). In interpreting the garden form and content data as an "unwitting
autograph" (Lewis 1979: 12) of a resident, this high species diversity is advantageous because it allows individuals to choose among a wide range of alternatives to accommodate their socio-economic, cultural, physical and/or individual preferences (cf. Sections 5.1.1. and 5.1.2.).
On the other hand, the life form spectrum did not vary significantly among neighborhoods or among ethnic groups. Also, the spectrum is similar to a survey of residential plant communities in Chicago (Schmid 1975; cf. Table 15).
Although there may be a variety of ways to select garden plants (high species diversity), the pattern of selection by size of plants is rather uniform among individuals. Possibly, (1) the spectrum represents the most aesthetically balanced, pleasing proportion of front yard planting; and/or (2) it reflects convenience for the management of a front yard. The average front yard, with several species each of tree, shrub and herb sized plants, appears neither too complicated nor too
145 simple. It also appears easy to maintain. If a front yard were to be landscaped entirely with tree sized plants, for example, the yard would appear boring and not aesthetically attractive. Or if it were crowded by hundreds of herb-sized species, it would be difficult to maintain. But the question remains: why is such a spectrum pleasing and/or convenient? The answer may relate to the evolutionary history of humans.
Uniformity in life form spectrum both among neighborhoods and among ethnic groups indicates the existence of the image of proto-paysage, the universal common denominator, among humans regardless of socio-economic or ethnic background (cf. Berque 1990: 16). Appleton's (1975: 69) habitat theory notes that the common denominator is the image of the original human habitat, probably that of the African savanna, which is still held by contemporary humans (d.
Section 1.2.3.). From the viewpoint of habitat theory, therefore, the average front yard noted above is reminiscent of the savanna (cf. Section 1.2.3.), a grassland with scattered trees and shrubs; apparently it does not resemble, for example, the tropical rain forest or the desert (d. Balling and Falk 1982). In other words, the atavistic image motivates contemporary humans to recreate the original human habitat, and the plant community in front yards may thus symbolically represent the original safe environment for humans. Such an environment feels "pleasing" and "convenient": it is aesthetically appealing to human eyes because it allows the spontaneous perception of sign-stimuli indicative of environmental conditions
146 favorable to survival; and it is convenient for humans because they evolved in a similar environment
In the context of proto-paysage and habitat theory, the high species diversity supports the existence of hinkaku (dignity), the quality that leads us to portray the image of the original human habitat in pleasing form in a garden (cf. Nakamura
1982: 143-72). As a result, a garden is not an exact replica of the habitat, but its cultural representation created with great liberty in the choice of garden plants.
However, the apparently plausible nature of the habitat theory at the same time is evidence of a weak point in the theory. The hypothetical existence of a latent image of the original human habitat can neither be refuted nor verified.
Balling and Falk (1982: 10) note: "Landscape preference is undoubtedly not simply a function of some innate preference. Experience clearly has a profound influence on human perception and preference...A1though there may be an innate bias to prefer savanna-like settings, most Americans do not live in natural savanna environments...the phenotype (observed landscape preference) will be a function of both the genotype (innate landscape preference) and environmental [and cultural] experience." Because neither the inherited preference nor the learned preference is explicitly quantifiable, any observation can be calibrated into the model. For example, even the observation that no trace of the preference for
"savanna-like" landscape remains can be interpreted as the wholesale modification of this inherited preference by the environmental or cultural experience. That is,
147 it cannot be demonstrated that an inherited preference or image never existed. If the theory is to be more persuasive and practical, it must be refined.
5.2. SUMMARY
The study investigated the structure of the plant communities in urban residential front yards of three socio-economically, culturally and physically similar neighborhoods (study areas) on the island of O'ahu, Hawai'i. The overall quantitative characteristics of the plant communities were more similar than different both among neighborhoods and among ethnic groups: Among the neighborhoods, 4 out of 42 plant species which occurred with more than 10% frequency, and 9 out of 40 subcategories of vegetation data varied significantly;
Among the ethnic groups, 7 species and 7 subcategories varied significantly.
However, the patterns of variation in the structure appeared to differ among neighborhoods and ethnic groups.
The significant variations observed among neighborhoods were attributed to two factors: (1) the size of a lot, and (2) the general landscape taste of residents of a neighborhood. Regarding the former, the larger the size of a lot, the larger the cover of some features of front yards such as hedges and lawns, of which size is adjustable to available space. In the latter case, the difference in the general atmosphere of a neighborhood reflected the differences in the landscape taste of residents.
148 The finding that the structure of plant communities was more similar than different among ethnic groups suggested acculturation, or the at least partial melting together of cultural traditions of many ethnic groups in Hawai'i, and the possible existence of an inter-culturally shared "local (Hawaiian) style front yard" using popular tropical garden plants. The similarity also implied some common denominator for preferred landscapes among different cultures.
Despite the above, the front yards of some members of an ethnic group were clearly distinguishable from the rest based on merely a few characteristics such as the presence of particular plant species. This variation was particularly visible among ethnically Japanese residents, with the presence of Japanese garden plants such as Nandina damestica, Cycas revoluta and Rhaphialepis umbellata.
Such "showing" could be seen as the residents' display of the symbols of group identity using the plant species and garden traditions transported from their home culture. Regarding the "transported landscape," however, Japanese garden tradition was not transported as a whole to Hawai'i. The part transported comprised some specific plant species and a few ideas.
The high species diversity observed in the study suggested that individual residents had great latitude in the selection of their garden plants. On the other hand, the life form spectrum was uniform among neighborhoods and ethnic groups. This uniformity suggested the existence of the universal common image, or proto-paysage, among humans. According to habitat theory, this atavistic image, probably that of African savanna, motivates contemporary humans to
149 symbolically recreate the original human habitat. Further, the high species diversity suggested the existence of hinkaku (dignity), the quality that leads us to portray the image in pleasing form in a garden.
To conclude, as one of the most intimate plant communities for urban residents, the plant communities in residential front yards exhibited both individual residents' latitude and their socio-economically and/or culturally based preferences. The present study examined, and gave insights to understand, the people-plant relationship in the multicultural society on the island of O'ahu,
Hawai'i.
5.3. RECOMMENDATIONS
The present study analyzed one important segment of human/biota interactions, the people-plant relationship in the urban ecosystem on O'ahu,
Hawai'i. This subject should be further explored to enhance our knowledge about this increasingly primary human habitat. Based on the findings of the study, I have three major recommendations for future research:
1. In the survey, many of the commonest Japanese garden plants were
rare or not observed in the study: pine, azalea and camellia were rare;
Japanese maple, cherry blossom and plum (Japanese apricot) were not
recorded. This observation that not all but some common Japanese garden
plant species have been transported from Japan to Hawai'i raises the
150 question of the "transportability" of the components of a garden tradition.
Apparently only plants which can thrive in the warm climate of Hawai'i were successfully introduced. This question requires further investigation not only of a garden tradition but also of other elements of cultural landscapes. I also recommend further study of plant communities between similar climates.
2. The second recommendation for future study relates to the finding that when the original Japanese plant species are impossible or difficult to grow in Hawai'i, locally available plants are sometimes used in their place.
For example, Casuarina equisetifolia (common ironwood) is often trimmed to look like a pine tree in a traditional Japanese garden (cf. Neal 1965:
290) (Figure 30). This substitution of some components of a tradition which cannot be transported to a new place, with available local materials, must be examined in many other instances in transported landscapes.
3. The present study was focused primarily on the non-practical/non- productive part of the cultural landscape, ornamental gardens. To explore the people-plant relationship in the urban ecosystem, especially regarding the transported landscape, I recommend the study of more practical/productive landscapes such as "community gardens" in the city.
Such a study may provide more acute examples of transported landscapes
(cf. Thomas 1970; Salamon 1985; Crouch 1992).
151 (a)
(b)
Figure 30. The substitution: (a) a pine tree is an indispensable component of a traditional Japanese garden (Higashiyama Botanical Garden, Nagoya, Japan, 1991); (b) common ironwood (Casuarina equisetifoliay (on the right) is often trimmed to look like a pine tree in a traditional Japanese garden (on the left) (Nehoa Street, Honolulu, 1993).
152 APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1.
HISTORY OF IMMIGRANTS IN HAWAI'I
Among the many ethnic groups which have immigrated to Hawai'i, three,
Caucasians, Chinese and Japanese, are important for the present study. The term
"Caucasian," like "Oriental" or "Asian," is not a specific ethnic term. However, because the separate Caucasian ethnic identities, with the exception of the
Portuguese, do not playa significant role in the society of Hawai'i (Maretzki and
McDermott 1980:25), the term is used as an ethnic group.
The early Caucasians who came to Hawai'i had a complementary relationship with Hawaiian chiefs and leaders, and Caucasian influence and enterprise emerged with the establishment of business ventures, sugar plantations, and trading companies by the second part of the nineteenth century. In the search for laborers for the plantations, Caucasians acquired a supervisory and controlling role over the imported labor from the Orient, as well as economic and political advantages (Maretzki and McDermott 1980:27-9).
Most of Hawai'i's Chinese today are second, third and fourth generation descendants of immigrants from the south China province of Kwantung who came in the late nineteenth century. Few Chinese women arrived, and the Chinese bachelors either married Hawaiian women or sought brides from their home
153 village. Many of the bachelors never established families in Hawai'i and returned to China (Char, Tseng, Lum and Hsu 1980:53-4). Among the imported plantation workers, Chinese workers were the first to leave the plantations to set up their own enterprises in Hawai'i, or to return home (Rogers and Izutsu 1980:71). The most common Asiatic ancestry found in the Asiatic-Hawaiian mixed-blooded population is Chinese, whereas some Japanese, Koreans and Filipinos also enter into this mixture (Adams 1933:7).
The immigration of Portuguese from Madeira was begun in 1878. In contrast to the Chinese immigrants, the Portuguese immigrants brought entire families with them, which made their immigration expensive and thus ended in a few years. Afterward, the Portuguese immigrants made every effort to completely assimilate into Hawai'i's society, although they were often discriminated against by other Caucasians (Kuykendall 1933:257; Carvalho 1980:100-6).
The Japanese immigration to Hawai'i began in 1868, with the recruitment of a large number of plantation workers in 1885. There were three major waves of immigration up to 1924; and the last group included many women and children. Most of the Japanese men who remained in Hawai'i secured Japanese wives from Japan as "picture brides" (Adams 1933:6; Rogers and Izutsu 1980:71).
Prior to World War II, Hawai'i's Japanese people were second-class citizens, but this social environment rapidly changed after the war and resulted in their success in politics and the professions (Rogers and Izutsu 1980:78-81). Ogawa
(1973:13,21) noted: "...many Japanese Americans identify primarily with living in
154 Hawaii and only secondarily with being Japanese or American... Instead of having an identity crisis which most ethnic groups are alleged to suffer as a result of
American ac.culturatioD, they recognize their self-satisfaction that they are neither
Americans of America nor Japanese of Japan--they are simply Japanese
Americans of Hawaii,"
Adams (1933:6) noted that the situation of immigrants from Asia has differed from that of those who came from Europe in two respects:
(1) Those from Asia were denied the privilege of naturalization, while
Europeans could become citizens. Associated with ineligibility for
naturalization, there were economic discriminations.
(2) Immigrants from Europe commonly came as complete families, men,
women, and children, those from Asia were mainly men without wives.
For the second point, Adams (1933:6) notes that assimilation takes place most easily and rapidly among children, thus, the immigrants with families are more advantageously positioned in terms of general social acceptance.
155 APPENDIX 2.
QUESTIONNAIRE
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Department of Geography Porteus Hall 445 • 2424 Maile Way' Honolulu. Hawaii 9(;822 Telephone: 1808) 956·8465' Facsimile: 1808)956·3512 [email protected] sept. 20, 1991
Dear Resident:
My name is Toshi Ikagawa. I was born and raised in Japan, and have spent the last In years in Hawai'i as a student at UH Manoa. Now I am a doctorate candidate doing research toward a degree in Geography. Enclosed is a letter from my principal adviser, Dr. Lyndon L. Wester.
My research involves discovering out how and why front yard plants vary from place to place and among different socio cultural groups. Between February and July this year, I randomly sampled 150 front yards, 50 each in Palolo, Pearl City and Aina Haina. Your front yard was one of them. Perhaps you remember me Looki nq into your front yard from the street.
To analyze my field data, it is vital that I know such background information as your ethnic ancestry, the age of your house and your gardening habits. The information obtained will be used for mv research only. The confidentiality of your identity and answers will be respected. Please help my research by answering the enclosed questionnaire and sending it back to me. I will appreciate your time and effort on this matter very much.
If you are interested in the results of my research, please let me know. I will send you a summary as soon as possible. Also, if you have questiuns about plants and gardening, I will be happy to assist you to the best of my ability. Thank you very much for your kokua.
Mahalo,
Toshi Ikagawa Ph.D. Student
An Equal Opportunitv/Affirmattve Action lnsrituuon 156 APPENDIX 2. (Continued)
University of Hawaii at Manoa Deperlmenl 01 Geogrephy Porleus Hall 445 • 2424 Maile Woy • Honolulu. Hawaii 96822 Telephone: IS08) 956·8485 • [email protected] [email protected]
~Q Fel'ruary 19~1
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
~~. Toshihiko !kagawa is a graduate student in the Geography Depar~ent at tbe University of Hawaii. As a part of his research for a doctoral degree he will be conducting a survey of cultivated plants in garde~s in parts of Honolulu. As his academic advisor. I would be grateful for any assistance you could extend to him in his research. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to me at my ofiice (956 7156) 01' in the Geography Department Office. the Administrative .!isdstant (!o'.:-. Gene Shen) , or the secretary (Ms. Dorothy Tokura l at 956 BH.5. Jt;d~ Lyndon Wester Associate Professor
An Equal Opportunity Employer
157 APPENDIX 2. (Continued)
PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS
1. What is your family's primary ethnic background?
2. Were you born in Hawai'i? If NOT, where are you from?
3. Do you know where your ancestors came from? If YES, where? (If possible, please specify province/prefecture/state etc.)
4. How long has your family lived at the current address?
(1) If you know exact years: years: Otherwise please choose one from below:
(2) Longer than 50 years (3) 31-50 years (4) 11-30 years (5) 10 years or less
5. Approximately, how old is your house?
(1) If you know its exact age: years old:
Otherwise please choose one from below: (2) Older than 50 years (3) 31-50 years (4) 11-30 years (5) 10 years or younger
6. Who takes care of the plants in your front yard?
7. How often do you or they garden?
(1) Daily (2) More than twice per week (3) Weekly (4) Monthly (5) Other: 8. Do you think your front yard represents any particular cultural group? If so, which group?
9. Would you like to learn of the results of this study?
Yes ) No
MAHALO!
158 APPENDIX 3.
FIELD SURVEY: SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
TABLE 30.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDY SITES
Site Tax Key Address Variables Year Size or No. No. House Lot E I A I S Built (nr') Palolo Sites No. 1 - 25
1 3-3-5-20 lOth,1225 3 1 3 1925 915.1 2 3-3-5-122 lOth,1228 2 3 1 1963 447.0 3 3-3-5-101 lOth,1255 6 2 1 1950 444.5 4 3-3-5-55 10th,1308 2 3 1 1974 421.4 5 3-3-5-80 10th, 1341 1 3 3 1974 868.6 6 3-3-43-4 lOth,154O 1 3 1 NA 414.5 7 3-3-43-1 10th, 1558 5 3 1 1976 532.7 8 3-3-4-55 8th,124O 2 3 1 1985 464.5 9 3-3-4-118 8th,132O 1 1 1 NA 585.3 10 3-3-4-9 8th,1343 1 1 1 1949 464.5 11 3-3-43-96 8th,1413 4 1 2 1941 630.7 12 3-3-3-53 7th,1350 1 3 1 1973 464.5 13 3-3-5-38 9th,1239 6 ] 1 NA 423.3 14 3-3-4-29 9th,1258 1 1 2 1930 655.3 15 3-3-4-15 9th,1324 7 1 1 1926 572.7 16 3-3-5-70 9th,1347 2 1 2 NA 696.8 17 3-3-43-12 9th,1535 1 3 1 1982 427.4 18 3-3-44-7 Hardesty,3352 1 3 3 1960 811.0 19 3-3-43-97 Hardesty, 3405 1 1 2 1947 638.7 20 3-3-43-136 Hardesty,3426 2 1 2 1949 638.7 21 . 3-3-43-101 Hardesty, 3433 1 3 2 1966 638.7 22 3-3-43-125 Hinahina, 3425 2 1 2 1944 638.7 23 3-3-5-5 Kaau,3501 2 1 1 1917 442.6 24 3-3-4-103 Kaau, 3365 7 3 2 1960 696.8 25 3-3-4-69 Keanu, 3353 2 3 1 1974 223.0
Continued on next page Source: Real Estate Data, Inc. (1989). Variables: E (Ethnic Background): 1: Japanese,2: Chinese,3: Filipino,4: Portuguese, 5: Korean, 6: Caucasian, 7: Hawaiian, 8: Other; A (Age of House): 1: Old, 2: Middle, 3: New; S (Size of Lot): 1: Small, 2: Medium, 3: Large.
159 TABLE 30. (Continued)
Site Tax Key Address Variables Year Size of No. No. House Lot E I A I S Built (m') Palolo Sites No. 26 - 50
26 3-3-4-86 Keanu,3358 2 2 2 NA 696.8 27 3-3-4-74 Keanu,3365 2 1 1 NA 313.5 28 3-3-5-11 Keanu,3539 1 3 1 1965 548.1 29 3-3-43-119 Maluhia, 3402 1 1 2 1948 630.7 30 3-3-43-58 Maluhia, 3427 1 3 2 1982 636.4 31 3-3-33-69 Maluhia, 3523 1 1 1 1940 464.5 32 3-3-33-19 Maluhia, 3528 1 1 2 1929 638.7 33 3-3-33-80 Maluhia, 3534 6 2 2 1952 638.7 34 3-3-43-17 Pakui,3465 1 3 3 1963 1277.4 35 3-3-3-12 Palo1o, 1325 6 1 1 1943 401.4 36 3-3-3-16 Palolo, 1351 1 3 2 1978 655.1 37 3-3-44-40 Palolo, 1411 1 3 3 1959 768.0 38 3-3-44-30 Palolo, 1441 2 1 1 1940 475.8 39 3-3-4-7 Pehu,3414 6 1 2 NA 638.7 40 3-3-4-27 Pehu,3423 2 3 1 1966 580.6 41 3-3-4-28 Pehu,3427 7 1 1 NA 580.6 42 3-3-4-5 Pehu,3430 1 3 2 1961 638.7 43 3-3-44-28 Pukele, 1416 6 1 2 1946 673.6 44 3-3-44-34 Pukele, 1430 1 3 3 1972 879.9 45 3-3-5-24 10th, 1249 6 1 2 1923 675.9 46 3-3-43-62 9th, 1540 1 1 1 1934 427.4 47 3-3-43-113 Maluhia, 3434 6 1 2 1941 638.7 48 3-3-3-13 Palolo, 1335 1 1 1 NA 483.4 49 3-3-44-32 Palolo, 1453 7 1 1 1941 558.1 50 3-3-43-55 Maluhia, 3409 1 3 2 1978 638.7
Continued on next page Source: Real Estate Data, Inc. (1989). Variables: E (Ethnic Background): 1: Japanese, 2: Chinese,3: Filipino,4: Portuguese, 5: Korean, 6: Caucasian, 7: Hawaiian, 8: Other; A (Age of House): 1: Old, 2: Middle, 3: New; S (Size of Lot): 1: Small, 2: Medium, 3: Large.
160 TABLE 30. (Continued)
Site Tax Key Address Variables Year Size or No. No. House Lot E I A I S Built (nr') Pearl City Sites No. 51 - 75
51 9-7-32-18 Hookahi, 1105 1 2 2 1954 630.4 52 9-7-32-22 Hookahi, 1141 1 3 2 1976 638.2 53 9-7-32-24 Hookahi, 1159 4 3 1 1974 554.1 54 9-7-32-35 Hookahi, 1166 1 3 1 1960 562.8 55 9-7-33-71 Hookano, 1308 1 2 2 NA 633.1 56 9-7-33-53 Hookano, 1321 6 2 1 NA 580.6 57 9-7-33-44 Hoolaulea, 1338 1 3 1 1959 588.3 58 9-7-30-112 Hoomalu, 653 7 3 1 1957 501.7 59 9-7-37-8 Hoomalu, 666 1 3 1 1957 501.6 60 9-7-32-67 Hoomalu, 849 6 2 2 1954 607.6 61 9-7-33-133 Waimano Hm., 1285 3 2 1 1954 588.2 62 9-7-33-97 Hoowali, 1325 4 3 2 1955 589.9 1 63 9-7-33-98 Hoowali, 1331 J. 3 1 1974 580.6 64 9-7-29-11 Puu Alani, 1043 8 3 2 1955 682.3 65 9-7-29-12 Puu Alani, 1050 1 3 2 1974 625.8 66 9-7-29-8 Puu Alani, 1057 6 2 2 1953 611.1 67 9-7-29-3 Puu Alani, 1087 1 2 2 1954 598.2 68 9-7-37-51 Nanakai, 1237 1 3 1 1956 502.4 69 9-7-37-84 Nanakai, 1252 1 3 1 1956 517.1 70 9-7-37-62 Nanakai, 1313 1 3 1 1957 476.6 71 9-7-37-74 Nanakai,1318 1 3 1 1963 519.5 72 9-7-37-68 Nanakai, 1347 1 3 1 1956 476.6 73 9-7-37-114 Puu Kipa, 1244 1 3 1 1956 497.0 74 9-7-37-97 Puu Kipa, 1245 7 3 1 19'6 501.7 75 9-7-30-37 Puu Hina, 750 1 2 2 1954 613.2
Continued on next page Source: Real Estate Data, Inc. (1989). Variables: E (Ethnic Background): 1: Japanese, 2: Chinese,3: Filipino, 4: Portuguese, 5: Korean, 6: Caucasian,7: Hawaiian, 8: Other; A (Age of House): 1: Old, 2: Middle, 3: New; S (Size of Lot): 1: Small, 2: Medium. 3: Large.
161 TABLE 30. (Continued)
Site Tax Key Address Variables Year Size of No. No. Bouse Lot E I A I S Built (m') Pearl City Sites No. 76 - 100
76 9-7-30-28 Puu Ulaula, 1137 6 2 2 1954 668.9 77 9-7-30-56 Puu Kula, 965 6 2 2 1953 613.2 78 9-7-31-2 Puu Kula, 831 1 2 2 1954 664.9 79 9-7-29-65 Puu Kula, 769 1 3 2 1959 621.5 80 9-7-29-58 Puu Kula, 727 1 2 2 1954 613.2 81 9-7-29-22 Puu Kala, 739 3 3 3 1967 720.6 82 9-7-29-27 Puu Kala, 769 1 2 3 1954 737.1 83 9-7-29-53 Puu Poni, 1050 1 3 2 1955 609.8 84 9-7-30-20 Puu Poni, 1116 3 2 2 1954 663.4 85 9-7-30-8 Puu Poni, 1149 1 3 2 1967 668.9 86 9-7-30-117 Puu Poni, 1172 6 3 1 1957 571.9 87 9-7-37-35 Puu Poni, 1214 2 3 1 1957 533.0 88 9-8-5-4 Kuleana, 98016 6 3 1 1957 537.4 89 9-8-5-5 Kuleana, 98022 3 3 1 1958 577.4 90 9-8-5-9 Kuleana, 98046 1 2 2 1953 605.0 91 9-8-5-16 Kuleana, 98049 1 2 1 1953 572.3 92 9-8-20-54 Kaulike, 98120 1 3 1 1958 510.0 93 9-8-20-68 Kaulike, 98145 6 2 1 1950 472.4 94 9-8-6-31 Kaulike, 98155 3 2 1 1952 526.8 95 9-8-20-39 Kaulike, 98202 6 3 1 1983 481.9 96 9-8-6-46 Kaulike, 98219 1 1 1 1949 464.8 97 9-8-20-11 Kaulike, 98249 1 2 1 1950 490.4 98 9-8-20-28 Kaulike, 98256 1 3 1 1961 494.0 99 9-7-30-81 Puu Ulaula, 1112 1 3 2 1957 680.0 100 9-7-33-10 Hoomalu, 858 6 2 2 1953 678.2
Continued on next page Source: Real Estate Data, Inc. (1989). Variables: E (Ethnic Background): 1: Japanese,2: Chinese,3: Filipino, 4: Portuguese, 5: Korean, 6: Caucasian,7: Hawaiian, 8: Other; A (Age of House): 1: Old, 2: Middle, 3: New; S (Size of Lot): 1: Small, 2: Medium, 3: Large.
162 TABLE 30. (Continued)
Site Tax Key Address Variables Year Size or No. No. House Lot E I A I S Built (m') AiDa HaiDa Sites No. 101 - 125 101 3-6-12-95 Hao,344 2 2 3 1950 929.1 102 3-6-12-106 Hema PI, 370 2 2 3 1954 929.0 103 3-6-8-41 Cio, 5229 2 1 3 1948 947.6 104 3-6-5-85 Oio, 5279 2 1 3 1948 947.6 105 3-6-10-78 Oio, 5331 4 2 3 1950 947.6 106 3-6-10-105 Nohu, 5175 6 2 3 1950 933.2 107 3-6-8-30 Nenue, 333 6 1 3 1948 947.6 108 3-6-8-24 Nenue, 246 6 1 3 1948 935.4 109 3-6-5-65 Nenue,235 2 1 3 1948 947.6 110 3-6-5-58 Nenue, 187 2 1 3 1948 1111.6 111 3-6-13-66 Hind, 527 1 2 3 1950 703.9 112 3-6-13-70 Hind, 393 1 2 3 1950 795.6 113 3-6-13-97 Hind, 349 1 2 2 1950 696.9 114 3-6-13-104 Manauwea, 5340 8 2 3 1950 697.6 115 3-6-13-3 Manauwea, 5365 1 2 3 1950 947.6 116 3-6-5-105 Hind PI, 5317 1 2 3 1952 983.8 117 3-6-5-3 Kalanianaole, 5318 2 1 3 1947 1114.8 118 3-6-6-71 Opihi,5404 6 1 3 1947 929.0 119 3-6-6-90 Opihi,5419 1 2 3 1950 1168.4 i20 3-6-13-19 Opihi,5556 6 2 3 1950 732.4 121 3-6-13-49 Opihi,5619 1 2 3 1950 697.4 122 3-6-13-23 Opihi,5624 1 1 3 1949 732.1 123 3-6-5-12 Papai,5259 6 1 3 1947 939.1 124 3-6-5-11 Papai,5267 1 1 3 1947 941.1 125 3-6-5-28 Papai,5304 4 1 3 1947 929.0
Continued on next page Source: Real Estate Data, Inc. (1989). Variables: E (Ethnic Background): 1: Japanese, 2: Chinese, 3: Filipino, 4: Portuguese, 5: Korean, 6: Caucasian,7: Hawaiian, 8: Other; A (Age of House): 1: Old, 2: Middle, 3: New; S (Size of Lot): 1: Small, 2: Medium, 3: Large.
163 TABLE 30. (Continued)
Site Tax Key Address Variables Year Size of No. No. House Lot E I A -I S Built (m') Aina Raina Sites No. 126 - 150
126 3-6-5-8 Papai,5307 6 1 3 1947 1015.9 127 3-6-5-30 Papai,5315 6 1 3 1948 929.0 128 3-6-6-21 Papai,5382 2 2 3 1950 1158.8 129 3-6-14-21 Keakealani,524O 2 2 3 1950 697.1 130 3-6-12-79 Liwai,5322 2 2 3 1950 702.3 131 3-6-12-52 Waihou,5244 1 2 2 1950 696.9 132 3-6-12-43 Waihou, 5330 2 2 2 1950 696.9 133 3-6-12-38 Waihou, 5341 6 2 3 1950 700.9 134 3-6-12-3 Kiholo, 455 1 1 2 1949 693.5 135 3-6-12-2 Kiholo, 461 2 1 2 1949 696.9 136 3·6-14-1 Kiholo,48O 2 3 3 1989 697.5 137 3-6-14-27 Kiholo, 506 1 2 3 1953 697.3 138 3-6-14-43 Kiholo,544 1 2 3 1950 735.0 139 3-6-13-110 Lawelawe, 457 1 2 2 1950 696.8 140 3-6-13-111 Lawelawe, 451 1 2 2 1950 696.8 141 3-6-13-115 Lawelawe, 427 6 2 2 1950 696.8 142 3-6-15-66 Lawelawe, 719 2 2 2 1950 696.8 143 3-6-15-20 Lawelawe, 724 1 2 3 1950 752.5 144 3-6-15-6 Lawelawe, 810 3 2 3 1951 752.5 145 3-6-15-100 Halapepe, 5274 6 2 3 1950 697.4 146 3-6-15-102 Halapepe, 5280 1 2 3 1950 697.4 147 3-6-15-109 Ailua, 709 6 2 3 1952 713.9 148 3-6-15-89 Hind Iuka, 752 1 2 3 1952 729.9 149 3-6-15-64 Alahee,5250 1 2 3 1950 697.2 150 3-6-15-59 Hind Iuka, 646 6 2 2 1950 696.8
Source: Real Estate Data, Inc. (1989). Variables: E (Ethnic Background): 1: Japanese, 2: Chinese,3: Filipino, 4: Portuguese, 5: Korean, 6: Caucasian,7: Hawaiian, 8: Other; A (Age of House): 1: Old, 2: Middle, 3: New; S (Size of Lot): 1: Small, 2: Medium, 3: Large.
164 TABLE 31.
LIST OF PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE STUDY.
Scientific name I FAMILY I Common name I (Origin) Abutilon pictum (Gillies ex Hooker) Walpers • MALVACEAE Bell hibiscus (S. America) Acalypha amentacea var. wilkesiana (Mueller-Argovienis) Fosberg • EUPHORBIACEAE Copper leaf (Fiji) Adenium obesum (Forsskal) Roemer & Schultes • APoCYNACEAE Desert rose (E. Africa) Adiantum L. sp. U POLYPODIACEAE Maidenhair fern Agapanthuspraecox Willdenow subsp. orientalis (Leighton) Leighton • LILIACEAE African lily (S. Africa) Agave attenuata Salm-Dyck * AGAVACEAE Swan's neck agave (Mexico) Aglaonema Schott sp." ARACEAE Aglaonema (Indo-Malesia) Allamanda cathartica L. • APoCYNACEAE Allamanda (Brazil) Allium fistulosum L. • LILIACEAE Green onion (Northern Hemisphere) Allium schoenoprasum L. • LILIACEAE French or European chive (Northern Hemisphere) Alocasia macrorrhiza (L.) Schott ARACEAE 'Ape (Tropics) Aloe L. sp. • ALOAcEAE Aloe (Africa) Alpinia nutans Roscoe ZINGmERACEAE Shell ginger (S.E. Asia) Alpinia purpurata (Vieill.) K. Schum. ZINGIBERACEAE Red ginger (Pacific Islands [ex. New Caledonia]) Altemanthera tenelLa Colla ACANlliACEAE Joyweed (Tropical Western Hemisphere) Annona muricata L. • ANNONACEAE Soursop (Tropical America) Anthurium Schott sp. • ARACEAE Anthurium (Tropical America) Antigonon leptopus Hook.& Arnot POLYGONACEAE Mexican creeper (Mexico) Aptenia cordifolia (L.) N. E. Brown • AIzOACEAE Hearts and flowers (S. Africa) Araucaria Juss. sp. U ARAUCARIACEAE Araucaria (Southern Hemisphere) Ardisia crenata Sims MYRSINACEAE Hilo holly, or Manryo (S. Asia) Asparagus africanus Lamarck • LILIACEAE Regal fern (S. Africa) Asparagus setaceus (Kunth) Jessop • LILIACEAE Asparagus fern, plumosa (S. Africa) Asparagus densiflorus (Kunth) Jessop • LILIACEAE Asparagus fern, serengeri (S. Africa) Conunued on next page Nomenclature: *: Staples and Herbst (In prep.); U: Neal (1965); All the rest: Wagner, Herbst and Sohmer (1990).
165 TABLE 31. (Continued)
Scientific name I FAMILY I Common name I (Origin) Asplenium nidus L. • POLYPODIACEAE Bird's-nest fern (Polynesia to Africa) Asystasiagangetica (L.) T.Anderson ACANTIIACEAE Asystasia, or Chinese violet (India, Malay and Africa) Averrhoa carambola L. • OXALIDACEAE Star fruit (Malaysia) Bambusa Schreb. sp. • POACEAE Bamboo Bauhinia variegata L. • FABACEAE Orchid tree (India and China) Begonia L. sp. BEGONlACEAE Begonia (Tropical America and S. Asia) Bixa orellana L. BIXACEAE Lipstick tree (Neotropics) Bougainvillea glabra Choisy • NYCfAGINACEAE Bougainvillea (rose-red to white flowered) (Brazil) Bougainvillea spectabilis Willdenow '" NYCfAGINACEAE Bougainvillea (purplish-red, brick-red to pink flowered) (Brazil) Brassica L. sp. BRASSlCACEAE Mustard (Europe and Asia) Breynia disticha J. R. Forster & G. Forster EUPHORBIACEAE Snow bush (S. Pacific) Bromeliaceae Juss. sp.•• BROMEUACEAE Bromelia (C. America to other tropical areas) Buddleia davidii Franch. BUDDLEIACEAE Butterfly bush (China) Cactus spp. CACfACEAE Cactuses, except Hylocereus undatus and Schlumbergera truncata (Tropical America) Caladium Ventenat sp. • ARACEAE Caladium (Tropical America) Calathea G. Mey. sp. MARANrACEAE Calathea (New World) Callistemon cunnus (Curtis) Skeels • MYRTACEAE Red bottle brush (Australia) Callistephus chinensis (L.) Nees .. As1ERACEAE China aster (China and Japan) Calotropis gigantea (L.) W. T. Aiton • AsCLEPIADACEAE Crown flower or giant milkweed (India to E. Indies) Camelliajaponica L. • THEACEAE Camellia (China and Japan) Canna indica L. CANNACEAE Canna (Neotropics) Capsicum annuum L. SOLANACEAE Red pepper (Tropical America) Carica papaya L. CARICACEAE Papaya (Neotropics) Carissa macrocarpa (Ecklon) A. de Candole • APoCYNACEAE Natal plum (S. Africa) Carmona retusa (Vahl) Masamune • BORAGINACEAE Fukumangi, or in the local market of O'ahu, Mako Cassia L. sp. FABACEAE Shower (Pantropical) Casuarina equisetifolia L. CASUARINACEAE Casuarina, or Common ironwood (Australia) Conttnuea on next page Nomenclature: .: Staples and Herbst (In prep.); ••: Neal (1965); All the rest: Wagner, Herbst and Sohmer (1990).
166 TABLE 31. (Continued)
Scientific name / FAMILY / Common name / (Origin) Catharanthus roseus (L.) G.Don APoCYNACEAE Madagascar periwinkle (Madagascar) Celosia argentea var. cristata (L.) Kuntze AMARANTHAcEAE Cockscomb (Tropics) Chrysalidocarpus lutescens (Bory) H. A. Wendland • ARECACEAE Areca palm (golden fruited palm) (Madagascar) Chrysanthemum L. sp. AslERACEAE Chrysanthemum Cibotium chamissoi Kaulfuss • DICKSONIACEAE Hawaiian tree fern, or hapu'u (poss.includes Cyathea australis [Australian tree fern] under this name) (Hawai'i) Citrusaurantiifolia (Christmann) Swingle • RUTACEAE Lime (Asia) Citruslimon (L.) N. L. Burman • RurACEAE Lemon (Asia) Citrusmaxima (Burman) Merrill • RUTACEAE Shaddock, or pummelo (S.E. Asia) Citrusreticulata Blanco • RurACEAE Tangerine (S.E. Asia) Citrusxparadisi Macfadyen • RUTACEAE Grapefruit (Asia) Citrus spp. RUTACEAE Citruses, may include Citrus spp. above and Fortunella japonica which were not positively identified (S.E. Asia) Clerodendrum buchanani (Roxburgh) Walpers var. fallax (Lindley) Backhuizen • VERBENACEAE Pagoda flower (Java) Clerodendrum thomsonae I. B. Balfour • VERBENACEAE Bleeding heart (W. Africa) Clerodendrum umbellatum Poiret var. speciosum (D'Ombrain) Mold •• VERBENACEAE Cierodendrum (Tropical Africa) Clusia rosea Jacq. CLUSIACEAE Autograph tree (West Indies and Florida) Coccinia grandis (L.) Voigt CUCURBITACEAE Scarlet-fruited gourd (Africa, Asia and Australia) Coccoloba uvifera (L.) L. POLYGONACEAE Sea grape (S. Florida, West Indies and N. and S. America) Cocos nucifera L. ARECACEAE Coconut palm (poss. Malesia) Codiaeum variegatum (L.) Blume • EUPHORBIACEAE Croton (Fiji to Australia) Coffea arabica L. RUBIACEAE Arabian coffee (Ethiopia) Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott ARACEAE Taro (India) Cordylinefruticosa (L.) A. Chev. AGAVACEAE Ti (Unknown: poss. the Himalayas, S. Asia, Malesia and N. Australia) Conttnuea on next page Nomenclature: .: Staples and Herbst (In prep.); U: Neal (1965); All the rest:
Wagner, Herbst and Sohmer (1990). I
167 TABLE 31. (Continued)
Scientific name I FAMILY I Common name I (Origin) Cordyline fruticosa (L.) A Chev. AGAVACEAE Red ti (Unknown; poss. the Himalayas, S. Asia, Malesia and N. Australia) Cosmos bipinnatus Cavanilles • AslERACEAE Cosmos (Tropical America) Costus L. sp, COSTACEAE Costus (Pantropical [America]) Cotyledon L. sp.•• CRASSULACEAE Cotyledon (S. Africa) Crassula argentea L. • CRASSULACEAE Large jade tree (S. Africa) Crinum asiaticum L. • LIUACEAE Giant lily (Tropical Asia) Cucurbita pepo L. • CUCURBITACEAE Field pumpkin (America) Cuphea hyssopifolia Kunth LYlHRACEAE False heather (Mexico to Guatemala) Cuphea ignea A DC LYlHRACEAE Cigar flower (Mexico) Cupressus sempervirens L. var. stricta Ait, CUPRESSACEAE Italian cypress (Mediterranean) Cupressus L. sp. ** CUPRESSACEAE Cypress (Northern Hemisphere) Cycas revoluta Thunberg * CYCADACEAE Cycad (E. and S.E. Asia) Cymbopogon citratus (Nees) Stapf * POACEAE Lemon grass Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. POACEAE Bermuda grass (poss. Tropical Africa) Cyperus altemifolius L. CYPERACEAE Umbrella plant (Tropical Africa) Cyperus gracilis R. Br. CYPERACEAE McCoy grass (Australia and New Caledonia) Dahlia sp. Cay. ** AsTERACEAE Dahlia (Mexico) Daucus L. spp. APIACEAE Carrot (Mediterranean) Delonix regia (Bojer ex Hook.) Raf. FABACEAE Royal poinciana (Madagascar) Dianthus barbatus L. * CARYOPHYllACEAE Sweet william (C. Europe) Dianthus caryophyllus L. ** CARYOPHYLLACEAE Carnation (Mediterranean) Dichorisandra thyrsiflora Mikan * COMMELINACEAE Blue ginger (Brazil) Dieffenbachia Schott sp. * ARACEAE Dieffenbachia (Warm America) Dimocarpus longan Loureiro * SAPINDACEAE Dragon's eye, or Longan (China) Dracaena deremensis (Baker) N. E. Br. ** AGAVACEAE Dwarf bouquet (Tropical Africa) Dracaena fragrans (L.) Ker-Gawler * AGAVACEAE Fragrant dracaena (Tropical Africa) Dracaena marginata Lamarck * AGAVACEAE Money tree (Madagascar) Dracaena marginate Lamarck • AGAVACEAE Money tree (variegated variety) (Madagascar) Epipremnum pinnatum (L.) Engl. ARACEAE Pothos (Solomon Islands) Erigeron L. sp. AsTERACEAE Erigeron (N. America) Erythrina crista-galli L. FABACEAE Coral tree (Brazil) Continued on next page Nomenclature: *: Staples and Herbst (In prep.): **: Neal (1965); All the rest: Wagner, Herbst and Sohmer (1990).
168 TABLE 31. (Continued)
Scientific name I FAMILY I Common name I (Origin) Eugenia uniflora L. MYRTACEAE Surinam cherry (Brazil) Euphorbia cotinifolia L. • EUPHORBIACEAE Hierba mala (Venezuela and Mexico) Euphorbia leucocephala Lotsy • EUPHORBIACEAE Puno-puno (S. Mexico to EI Salvador) Euphorbia milii Desmoulin • EUPHORBIACEAE Crown-of-thoms (Madagascar) Euphorbia pulcherrima Willdenow ex Klotzsch • EUPHORBIACEAE Poinsettia (Mexico and Guatemala) Evolvulusglomertus Nees & Maaritius subsp. grandiflorus (Parodi) van Ooststroom • CONVOLVULACEAE Blue daze (Tropics and subtropics) Fagraea berteroana A. Gray ex Bentham • LoGANIACEAE Pua kenikeni (S. Pacific) Fern spp. POLYPODIACEAE Ferns, exceptAdiatum sp.,Asplenium nidus, Cibotium chamissoi, Phymatosorus scolopendria, Nephrolepis biserrata var. furcans, Nephrolepis sp. and Platycerium sp. Ficus benjamina L. U MORACEAE Benjamina (India) Ficus carica L. • MORACEAE Common fig (Asia Minor) Ficus elastica Roxburgh ex Hornem * MORACEAE Rubber plant (India) Ficuspumila L. • MORACEAE Creeping fig (S. China to Malaysia) Ficus L. sp. MORACEAE Figs, except Ficus spp. above Filicium decipiens (Wight & Amott) Thwaites ex J. D. Hook. SAPlNDACEAE Fern tree (India) Fonunella japonica (Thumb.) Swingle RUTACEAE Kumquat (S. China) Gardenia augusta (L.) Merrill • RUBIACEAE Gardenia (China) Gardenia taitensis DC. RUBIACEAE Tiare gardenia (Society Islands) Gazania rigens R. Br. U AsTERACEAE Gazania (S. Africa) Gerbera jamesonii Bolus.•• AsTERACEAE Gerbera, or Transvaal daisy (S. Africa) Ginger spp. ZINGIBERACEAE Gingers, except Alpinia nutans.As purpurata and Hedychium coronarium (Indo-Malesia) Gomphrena globosa L. AMARANrnAcEAE Globe amaranth (pass. Neotropics) Graptopetalum paraguayensis (N. E. Br.) Walther.•• CRASSULACEAE Sedum, or Bymesia (Mexico) Graptophyllum pictum (L.) Griff. ACANTIIACEAE Caricature plant (New Guinea) Grass spp. POACEAE Lawn grasses, except Cynodon dactylon, Cymbopogon citratus, Paspalum sp., Stenotaphrum secundatum and Zoysia matrella Conttnuea on next page Nomenclature: .: Staples and Herbst (In prep.); ••: Neal (1965); All the rest: Wagner, Herbst and Sohmer (1990).
169 TABLE 31. (Continued)
Scientific name / FAMILY / Common name / (Origin) Hedera helix L. ARA.LIACEAE English ivy (Europe to Caucasus Mt.) Hedychium coronarium J.Konig ZINGmERACEAE White ginger (Himalayas) Heliconia psittacorum L. filius • HEUCONIACEAE Common orange heliconia (Tropical America) Heliconia L. sp. • HEUCONIACEAE Heliconias, except Heliconiapsittacorum (S. America) Helxine soleirolii Req. URTICACEAE Babys-tears (Corsica and Sardinia) Hibiscus cameronii G. Knowles & F. Westcott • MALVACEAE Pink hibiscus (Madagascar) Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L. MALVACEAE Hibiscus (large variety) Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L. MALVACEAE Red Hibiscus (Asia) Hibiscus schizopetalus (Mast.) J. D. Hook MALVACEAE Coral hibiscus (E. Africa) Hibiscus tiliaceus L. MALvACEAE Hau (Indigenous to Hawai'i) Hippeastrum Herb., nom.cons. sp. AMARYLLIDACEAE Amaryllis (Tropical America) Holmskioldia sanguinea Retzius • VERBENACEAE Cup and ~aucer plant (Himalayan) Hylocereus undatus (Haw.) Britton & Rose CACfACEAE Night-blooming cereus (C. America) Hymenocallis littoralis (Jacquin) Salisbury • LIUACEAE Spider lily (Tropical America) Hyophorbe vaughanii L. H. Bailey • ARECACEAE Bottle palm (Mascarene lsI.) Impatiens wallerana J. D. Hook. BALSAMINACEAE Impatiens, or Busy lizzy (Tanzania to Mozambique) Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. CONVOLVUl.ACEAE Sweet potato (America) Ipomoea obscura (L.) Ker-Gawl. CONVOLVUl.ACEAE Small white morning glory (S. Asia and Mascarene lsI.) Iris L. spp. IRIDACEAE Iris (N. Temperate) 'j Ixora L. sp. ** RUBIACEAE Ixora (East Indies) I Jasminum multiflorum (N. L. Burman) Andre • OLEACEAE Star jasmine (India) Jasminum sambac (L.) Aiton OLEACEAE Pikake, or Arabian jasmine (Tropical Asia) Jatropha integerrima Jacquin • EUPHORBIACEAE Rose-flowered jatropha (Cuba) Jatropha podagrica Hooker • EUPHORBIACEAE Gout stalk (C. America) Juniperus L. sp.•• CUPRESSACEAE Juniper (N. Hemisphere) Kalanchoe pinnata (Lam.) Pers. CRASSULACEAE Air plant (Unknown) Continued on next page Nomenclature: *: Staples and Herbst (In prep.); **: Neal (1965); All the rest: Wagner, Herbst and Sohmer (1990).
170 TABLE 31. (Continued)
Scientific name / FAMILY / Common name / (Origin) Kalanchoe sp. CRASSULACEAE Kalanchoe (Africa and Madagascar) Lagerstroemia indica L. • LYIHRACEAE Crape myrtle (China) Lantana camara L. VERBENACEAE Lantana (West Indies) Lantana monteviensis (Spreng.) Briq. VERBENACEAE Weeping lantana (S. Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina) Laurus nobilis L. • LAURACEAE Laurel, or sweetbay (Mediterranean) Leea guineensis G. Don • LEEACEAE Leea (Philippines) Leea indica (N. L. Burman) Merrill • LEEACEAE Kalet (India to Malaysia) Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit FABACEAE Koa haole (Neotropics) Ligustrum L. sp... OLEACEAE Privet (E. Asia) Lilium longiflorum Thunberg • LIl.IACEAE Easter lily (Temperate Asia) Litchi chinensis Sonnerat • SAPINDACEAE Litchi (S. China) Lobularia maritima (L.) Desv. BRASSlCACEAE Sweet alyssum (Eurasia) Lonicera japonica Thunb. CAPRIFOUACEAE Japanese honeysuckle (Asia) Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. SOLANACEAE Tomato (S. America [N. Andes]) Macadamia integrifolia Maiden & Betche PROlEACEAE Macadamia nut (E. Australia) Magnolia grandiflora L. * MAGNOUACEAE Magnolia Malpighia coccigera L. ... MALPIGHIACEAE Singapore holly (W. Indies) Mangifera indica L. ANACARDIACEAE Mango (Asia) Manihot esculenta Crantz EUPHORBIACEAE Cassava (Brazil) Marsdenia floribunda (Brongniart) Schlechter • AsCLEPIADACEAE Stephanotis (Madagascar) Melaleuca quinquenervia (Cav.) S. T. Blake MYRTACEAE Paperbark (E. Australia) Mentha L. sp. LAMlACEAE Mint (Eurasia and Australia) Metrosideros polymorpha Gaud. MYRTACEAE 'Ohi'a lehua (Hawai'i) Michelia champaca L. • MAGNOUACEAE Wong-Lan (Himalayas) Momordica charantia L. CUCURBITACEAE Momordica, or Balsam pear (Tropical Africa to Australia) Monstera Schott. sp... ARACEAE Monstera (Tropical America) Moringa oleifera Lamarck'" MORINGACEAE Horse-radish tree (E. India) Morus alba L. MORAr::EAE White, mulberry (China) Murraya paniculata (L.) Jack •• RUTACEAE Mock orange (S.E. Asia) Musa L. sp. MUSACEAE Banana (Tropical Old World) Mussaenda erythrophylla Schum. & Thonn." RUBIACEAE Mussaenda (Africa) Mussaenda philippica RUBIACEAE Mussaenda Dona Aurora (Philippines) Continued on next page Nomenclature: *: Staples and Herbst (In prep.); ••: Neal (1965); All the rest: Wagner, Herbst and Sohmer (1990).
171 TABLE 31. (Continued)
Scientific name / FAMILY / Common name / (Origin) Nandina domestica Thunb.•• BERBERIDACEAE Sacred bamboo (China and Japan) Nephrolepis biserrata (Sw.) Schott. vet.furcans Hort. POLYPODIACEAE Fishtail fern Nephrolepis Schott. sp.•• POLYPODIACEAE Sword fern Nerium oleander L. • APoCYNACEAE Oleander (S. Europe to Iran) Nolina recurvata (Lemaire) Hemsley • AGAVACEAE Ponytail (Mexico) Ochna kirldi Oliver OCHNACEAE Mickey Mouse plant (S.E. Africa) Ocimum basilicum L. • LAMIACEAE Common basil (E. Africa to Pacific) Odontonema strictum Ktze. ACANIHACEAE Odontonema (C. America) Ophiopogon japonicus (L. filius) Ker-Gawler • LILlACEAE Mondo grass (E. Asia) Orchid Spp.'ORCHIDACEAE Orchids Origanum L. sp. LAMIACEAE Wild oregano (Mediterranean) Osmanthus fragrans Loureiro • OLEACEAE Kwai-fah (China, Himalayas and Japan) Otacanthus caeruleus Lindley • SCROPHULARIACEAE Otacanthus (Brazil) Pachystachys lutea Nees • ACANIHACEAE Yellow lollipop plant (Peru) Palm spp. ARECACEAE Palms, except Chrysalidocarpus lutescens, Cocos nucifera, Hyophorbe vaughanii, Rhapis excelsa and Roystonea elata Paspalum L. sp. POACEAE Paspalum (Neotropics) Pedilanthus tithymaloides (L.) Poit. EUPHORBIACEAE Slipper flower (Tropical America) Pelargonium x honorum Bailey •• GERANIACEAE Fish geranium (S. Africa) Pentus lanceolata (Forsskal) Deflers • RUBIACEAE Pentus (Tropical Africa and Arabia) Peperomia Ruiz & Pav. sp. PrPERACEAE Peperomia Persea americana Mill. LAURACEAE Avocado (C. America) Petrea volubilis L. • VERBENACEAE Petrea, or Sandpaper vine (Tropical America) Petroselinum crispum (Mill.) A.W.Hill APIACEAE Parsley (S. Europe) Petunia x hybrida (J. D. Hooker) Vilmorin • SOLANACEAE Petunia (Argentina) Phaseolus L. sp.•• FABACEAE Bean (America) Philodendron Schott. sp.•• AMCEAE Philodendron (Warm America) Phymatosorus scolopendria (N. L. Burman) Pichi Sermolli • POLYPODIACEAE Maile-scented fern (Polynesia and tropi.cal regions of the old world) Continued on next page Nomenclature: .: Staples and Herbst (In prep.); ....: Neal (1965); All the rest: Wagner, Herbst and Sohmer (1990).
172 TABLE 31. (Continued)
Scientific name I FAMILY I Common name I (Origin) Pilea microphylla (L.) Liebm. URTICACEAE Artillery plant (elect form) (Tropical America) Pimenta dioica (L.) Merr. & L. M. Perry MYRTACEAE Allspice (West Indies and C. America) Pinus L. sp. ** PlNAcEAE Pine (Temperate Northern Hemisphere) Piper nigrum L. P1PERACEAE Pepper (Tropics of Orient) Piuosporum tobira (Thunb.) Ait. PITroSPORACEAE Tobera (China and Japan) Platycerium Desv. sp. *. POLYPODIACEAE Staghorn fern Platycodon grandiflorum (Jacq.) A. DC CAMPANULACEAE Balloon flower (E. Asia) Plectranthus scutellarioides (L.) R. Br. LAMIAcEAE Coleus (E. Asia and Malesia) Pleioblastus Nakai sp. ** POACEAE Bamboo, or Sasa (E. Asia) Plumbago auriculata Lam. PLUMBAGINACEAE Plumbago (S. Africa) Plumeria acuminata Ait... APoCYNACEAE White plumeria (Tropical America) Plumeria obtusa L. * APoCYNACEAE Singapore plumeria (West Indies) Plumeria rubra L. * APoCYNACEAE Pink plumeria (Tropical America) Podocarpus L'Herit ex Pers. sp. ** PODOCARPACEAE Podocarpus Polyscias fruticosa (L.) Harms * ARAuACEAE Parsley panax (India to Polynesia) Polyscias guilfoylei (Bull) L. H. Bailey ARAL1ACEAE Pan ax (S. Polynesia) Portulaca grandifolia Hooker * PORTULACACEAE Portulaca (Brazil) Portulacaria afra (L.) Jacquin * PORTULACACEAE Jade tree (S. Africa) Primula L. sp. P1uMuLAcEAE Primrose (Northern Hemisphere) Prunus persica (L.) Batsch ROSACEAE Peach (China) Pseuderanthemum carruthersii(Seeman) Guillaumin var. atropurpureum (Bull) Fosberg * ACANTIIACEAE Purple false eranthemum (S. Polynesia) Pseuderanthemum reticulatum (Hort.) Radlk. ACANTIIACEAE Pseuderanthemum (S. Polynesia) Psidium cattleianum Sabine MYRTACEAE Strawberry guava (Neotropics) Psidium guajava L. MYRTACEAE Common guava (Neotropics) Psilotum nudum (L.) P. Beauvois * PSILOTACEAE Moa, or whisk fern (Pantropical) Punica granatum L. PuN!CACEAE Pomegranate (Persia) Pyrus communis L. * ROSACEAE Common pear (Eurasia) Rhaphiolepis umbel/ata (Thunb.) Mak. ** ROSACEAE Oriental hawthorn (E. Asia) Rhapis exce/sa (Thumberg) A. Henry ex Rehder * ARECACEAE Bamboo palm (China and Japan) Continued on next page Nomenclature: *: Staples and Herbst (In prep.); **: Neal (1965); All the rest: Wagner, Herbst and Sohmer (1990).
173 TABLE 31. (Continued)
Scientific name / FAMILY / Common name / (Origin) Rhododendron L. sp. ERICACEAE Azalea (Northern Hemisphere) Rosa L. sp... ROSACEAE Rose (Temperate Northern Hemisphere) Roystonea elata (Bartr.) Harper ARECACEAE Royal palm (S. Florida and Cuba) Russelia equisetiformis Schlechtendal & Chamisso • SCROPHULARIACEA Coral plant (Mexico) Saccharum officinarum L. POACEAE Sugar cane (New Guinea) Salvia officinalis L.l.AMIACEAE Sage (Mediterranean) Samanea saman (Jacq.) Merr. FABACEAE Monkeypod (Neotropics) Sansevieria trifasciata Prain AGAVACEAE Sansevieria (Africa and India) Scaevola sericea Vahl GOODENIACEAE Naupaka kahakai (Indigenous to Hawai'i) Schefflera actinophylla (Endl.) Harms ARAL1ACEAE Octopus tree (Australia and New Guinea) Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi ANACARDIACEAE Christmas berry (Brazil) Schlumbergera truncata (Haw.) Moran • CAcrACEAE Crab cactus (Brazil) Sedum morganianum Walth. • CRASSULACEAE Burro's tail (Mexico) Senesio cineraria de Candolle • AslERACEAE Dusty Miller (Mediterranean) Sida fallax Walp. MALVACEAE 'Ilima (indigenous to Hawai'i) Solanum melongena L. • SOLANACEAE Eggplant (S.E. Asia) Solanum seaforthianum Andr. SOlANACEAE Potato vine (West Indies) Spathiphyllum Schott sp.•• ARACEAE Spathiphyllum Spathodea campanulata P. Beauv. BIGNONIACEAE Mrican tulip tree (Tropical Africa) Stachytarpheta jamaicensis (L.) Vahl VERBENACEAE Jamaica vervain (Neotropics and Neosubtropics) Stenotaphrum secundatum (Walter) Kuntze POACEAE St. Augustine grass (Atlantic Ocean [both shores]) Strelitzia alba (L. filius) H. G. Skeels • SlREUTZlACEAE White bird-of-paradise (S. Africa) Strelitzia reginae Banks ex Dryandar • SlREUTZlACEAE Bird-of-paradise (S. Africa) Synadenium grantii J. D. Hooker • EUPHORBIACEAE African milkbush (Tropical Africa) Syngonium Schott. sp.•• ARACEAE Syngonium (Tropical America) Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels MYRTACEAE Java plum (India, Ceylon and Malesia) Continued on next page Nomenclature: .: Staples and Herbst (In prep.); ••: Neal (1965); All the rest: Wagner, Herbst and Sohmer (1990).
174 TABLE 31. (Continued)
Scientific name I FAMILY I Common name I (Origin) Syzygium malaccense (L.) Merr. & Perry MYRTACEAE Mountain apple (Malesia to S.E. Asia) Tabebuia rosea (Bertoloni) de Candolle • BIGNONIACEAE Pink tecoma (Mexico and C. America) Tabemaemontana divaricata (L.) R. Brown ex Roemer & Schultes • APoCYNACEAE Crape gardenia (N. India) Thuja occidentalis L. .. CUPRESSACEAE American arborvitae (N. America) Tradescantia pal/ida (Rose) D. Hunt • COMMELINACEAE Purple tradescantia (Mexico) Tradescantia spathacea SW. COMMELINACEAE Oyster plant (Tropical America) Trimeza maninicensis (Jacq.) Herb. IRIDACEAE Trimeza (West Indies and Caribbean coast of S. America) Tristellateia australasiae A Richard • MALPIGlllACEAE Bagnit (Malaya to Australia) Vaex trifolia L. VERBENACEAE Blue vitex (Asia to Australia) Wedelia trilobata (L.) Hitchc. AslERACEAE Wedelia (Tropical New World) Zoysia matrella (L.) Merrill var. matrella • POACEAE Velvet grass (Mascarene Island) Unidentified spp. (10 spp.): Palolo 1 (Sample site 1), Palolo 2 (Sample site 24), Palolo 3 (Sample site 18), Palolo 4 (Sample site 37), Pearl City 5 (Sample site 55), Pearl City 6 (Sample site 58), Pearl City 7 (Sample sites 64 & 83), Pearl City 8 (Sample site 76), Pearl City 9 (Sample site 89), Aina Haina 10 (Sample site 141) vomenctature: ": Staples and Herbst (In prep.); ...... : Neal (l~b5); All the rest: Wagner, Herbst and Sohmer (1990).
175 TABLE 32.
FREQUENCY OF ALL PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE STUDY.
Geographi Ethnic Age of Size of FQ cal Back House Lot Location around pic IA J Ic 10 o I MIN S I MIL Total 150 50 50 50 71 27 52 43 56 51 51 51 48 Cyno dact 73 24 23 26 28 15 30 25 28 20 25 23 25 Drac marg 63 25 22 16 31 9 23 20 22 21 19 24 20 Cadi varl. 59 19 21 19 29 5 25 19 22 18 20 18 21 Boug gl'3b 56 17 15 24 31 6 19 14 25 17 13 17 26 Cord frut 52 19 15 18 21 12 19 17 22 13 17 16 19 Orch spp. 52 20 24 8 33 9 10 10 13 29 25 16 11 Ixor sp. 48 10 15 23 26 6 16 13 22 13 6 22 20 Citr spp. 38 10 15 13 19 12 7 8 11 19 19 8 11 Jasm samb 37 14 14 9 19 5 13 12 15 10 14 13 10 Cord f (I") 36 12 10 14 12 7 17 14 13 9 8 17 11 Alpi purp 34 14 14 6 20 4 10 9 9 16 17 8 9 Mang indi 34 19 9 6 19 5 10 13 10 11 13 14 7 Murr pani 34 11 8 15 18 4 12 13 15 6 7 11 16 Gras spp. 33 14 5 14 9 9 15 10 15 8 10 9 14 Nand dome 33 11 15 7 28 2 3 6 10 17 10 13 10 Plum acum 33 10 9 14 18 4 11 10 16 7 6 15 12 Palm spp. 28 9 13 6 15 1 12 8 8 12 11 10 7 zo~s matI" 28 6 11 11 14 4 10 7 11 10 7 11 10 Hi i rosa 27 11 6 10 11 6 10 11 8 8 8 9 10 Aloe sp. 26 12 8 6 12 3 11 10 6 10 11 7 8 Sche acti 25 9 10 6 11 3 11 8 11 6 8 11 6 Rosa sp. 24 12 9 3 16 3 5 6 6 12 10 10 4 Stre regi 24 13 4 7 13 3 8 12 5 7 8 8 8 Cyca revo 22 9 8 5 20 0 2 8 7 7 7 11 4 Cath rose 21 5 12 4 10 3 8 4 12 5 9 8 4 Fern spp. 20 4 11 5 15 1 4 3 8 9 7 7 6 Cras arge 19 8 9 2 13 2 4 1 6 12 8 6 5 Dief sp. 19 7 7 5 6 2 11 5 9 5 5 9 5 Ficu benj 19 6 8 5 12 2 5 4 8 7 4 8 7 Ochn kirk 19 4 10 5 9 3 7 4 10 5 6 7 6 Cari papa 18 5 11 2 9 3 6 6 8 4 7 9 2 Chry lute 18 5 7 6 6 o 12 7 6 5 7 4 7 Mars flor 18 6 10 2 11 1 6 3 5 10 6 8 4 Phym seal 18 7 3 8 5 2 11 7 9 2 5 6 7 Syng sp. 18 6 9 3 7 3 8 3 7 8 9 6 3 Continued on next puge Notes: FQ: Frequency in 150 sample sites; Geographical Location: P: Palolo, C: Pearl City, A:. Aina Haina; Ethnic Background: J: Japanese, C: Chinese, 0: Others; Age of House: 0: Old, M: Middle, N: New; Size of Lot: S: Small, M: Medium, L: Large; Cordyline: total FQ of "cord frut/cord f(r)" is 73.
176 TABLE 32. (Continued)
Geographi Ethnic Age of Size of FQ cal Back House Lot Location ground pic IA J I c 10 o I MIN S 1M I L Total 150 50 50 50 71 27 52 43 56 51 51 51 48 Aspa seta 17 5 8 4 7 2 8 5 8 4 9 4 4 Ophi japo 17 7 4 6 9 3 5 6 4 7 4 7 6 Port afra 17 7 5 5 6 1 10 6 5 6 5 7 5 Musa sp. 16 4 7 5 6 2 8 4 6 6 6 3 7 Poly guil 16 7 0 9 5 3 8 13 2 1 5 3 8 Rhap umbe 16 8 2 6 14 0 2 7 6 3 8 2 6 Gard augu 15 3 7 5 8 3 4 4 6 5 4 7 4 POl~ frut 15 7 7 1 11 0 4 6 1 8 6 6 3 Eup pule 14 8 6 0 5 2 7 1 3 10 6 4 4 Pela x ho 14 7 7 0 8 1 5 3 4 7 7 6 1 Pers amer 14 4 4 6 8 4 2 6 3 5 4 6 4 Abut piet 13 5 6 2 6 4 3 3 3 7 4 5 4 Cupr sp. 13 6 3 4 8 3 2 5 4 4 3 7 3 Euge unif 13 5 4 4 8 2 3 4 5 4 1 8 4 Asys gang 12 4 2 6 4 1 7 3 7 2 3 4 5 Drae m(w) 12 5 6 1 9 0 3 2 4 6 4 5 3 Juni sp. 12 5 6 1 8 3 1 3 4 5 3 6 3 Psid eatt 12 1 6 5 9 1 2 2 6 4 3 4 5 Noli reeu 11 4 3 4 6 2 3 3 6 2 2 6 3 Pinu sp. 11 4 2 5 8 1 2 6 3 2 2 4 5 Rhod sp. 11 3 5 3 7 2 2 2 6 3 3 7 1 AlIi fist 10 5 4 1 6 3 1 0 2 8 5 2 3 Brom sp. 10 6 3 1 5 2 3 3 4 3 3 6 1 Cler bueh 10 2 4 4 6 1 3 4 3 3 4 2 4 Epip pinn 10 2 2 6 5 1 4 4 5 1 3 1 6 Heli sp. 10 6 3 1 5 1 4 6 1 3 7 2 1 Hyrne litt 10 4 5 1 4 2 4 1 4 5 6 2 2 Neph sp. 10 4 4 2 6 0 4 2 5 3 2 5 3 Plum rubr 10 4 2 4 4 1 5 5 3 2 3 2 5 Port gran 10 4 5 1 5 2 3 3 3 4 4 6 0 Wede tril 10 1 5 4 0 1 9 2 6 2 3 4 3 Cupr sem~ 9 3 6 0 7 0 2 1 5 3 4 4 1 Gomp glo 9 7 2 0 5 2 2 4 1 4 4 4 1 Kala sp. 9 4 3 2 6 1 2 0 3 6 4 2 3 Mons sp. 9 3 0 6 3 0 6 6 3 0 2 0 7 Plum obtu 9 2 1 6 3 1 5 3 5 1 3 1 5 Trim mart 9 3 2 4 6 1 2 3 4 2 1 6 2 Conunued on next page Notes: FQ: Frequency in 150 sample sites; Geographical Location: P: Palolo, C: Pearl City, A: Aina Haina; Ethnic Background: J: Japanese, C: Chinese, 0: Others; Age or House: 0: Old, M: Middle, N: New; Size of Lot: S: Small, M: Medium, L: Large.
177 TABLE 32. (Continued)
Geographi Ethnic Age of Size of FQ cal Back House Lot Location around pic IA Jl C 10 o IMIN S I MIL Total 150 50 50 50 71 27 52 43 56 51 51 51 4a Bego Spa a 5 0 3 3 2 3 1 4 3 2 3 3 Caps annu a 4 4 0 2 2 4 2 2 4 5 3 0 Cibo cham a 4 3 1 4 0 4 3 2 3 4 3 1 Cype alte a 4 0 4 4 2 2 6 2 0 2 2 4 Lite chin a 4 1 3 4 2 2 3 4 1 1 5 2 Podo Spa a 3 3 2 3 2 3 1 2 5 5 0 3 Pseu reti a 2 3 3 2 1 5 3 2 3 3 1 4 Sans trif a 5 2 1 7 0 1 4 1 3 4 4 0 Sola melo a 4 3 1 6 1 1 0 2 6 3 2 3 Thuj occi a 2 1 5 4 3 1 1 4 3 2 2 4 Aspa dens 7 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 2 4 1 3 3 Cann indi 7 5 1 1 4 1 2 4 0 3 3 2 2 Evol glom 7 2 3 2 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 3 Ging spp. 7 5 2 0 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 Heli psit 7 3 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 1 Impa wall 7 7 0 0 4 1 2 3 1 3 4 1 2 Pent lane 7 2 4 1 4 0 3 2 0 5 5 1 1 Plei Spa 7 1 5 1 5 0 2 1 1 5 4 1 2 Psid guaj 7 4 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 4 1 2 Agla Spa 6 2 3 1 3 2 1 2 2 2 5 1 0 Brey dist 6 0 2 4 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 1 4 Clus rose 6 5 0 1 5 0 1 4 1 1 1 3 2 Coco nuci 6 0 1 5 2 1 3 1 5 0 0 1 5 Drac dere 6 :3 3 0 3 1 2 4 1 1 4 2 0 Euph leuc 6 1 4 1 4 0 2 1 2 3 1 4 1 Fagr bert 6 0 3 3 3 1 2 0 4 2 1 4 1 Jasm mult 6 0 3 3 4 0 2 0 3 3 1 3 2 Jatr inte 6 2 3 1 3 0 3 1 3 2 1 4 1 Leea guin 6 3 0 3 4 2 0 3 2 1 3 0 3 Phas Spa 6 3 2 1 4 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 Plat Spa 6 3 2 1 5 0 1 2 0 4 0 4 2 Rhap exce 6 1 2 3 5 1 0 2 3 1 1 2 3 Tabe rose 6 2 1 3 4 1 1 2 3 1 1 4 1 Agav atte 5 1 4 0 2 0 3 1 2 2 2 3 0 AlIa cath 5 0 3 2 4 0 1 0 2 3 2 3 0 Alte tene 5 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 3 2 0 Apte cord 5 0 3 2 2 0 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 (;onltnuea on next page Notes: FQ: Frequency in 150 sample sites; Geographical Locatiou; P: Palolo, C: Pearl City, A: Aina Haina; Ethnic Background: J: Japanese, C: Chinese, 0: Others; Age of House: 0: Old, M: Middle, N: New; Size of Lot: S: Small, M: Medium, L: Large.
178 TABLE 32. (Continued)
Geographi Ethnic Age of S':.ze of FQ cal Back House Lot Location around pic I A J I C 10 o I MIN S I MIL Total 150 50 50 50 71 27 52 43 56 51 51 51 48 Ardi eren 5 1 0 4 4 1 0 2 3 0 0 3 2 Caet spp. 5 4 0 1 4 0 1 0 1 4 0 2 3 Citr reti 5 4 0 1 2 2 1 5 0 0 2 2 1 Cler umbe 5 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 Colo eseu 5 2 3 0 4 1 0 0 0 5 3 0 2 Cype grae 5 4 0 1 2 0 3 4 1 0 2 3 0 Dieh thyr 5 2 1 2 2 0 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 Dimo long 5 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 0 2 2 2 1 Gard tait 5 0 3 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 Gaza rige 5 0 4 1 3 1 1 0 1 4 3 0 2 Gerb jame 5 0 5 0 4 0 1 1 1 3 3 2 0 Hibi came 5 1 0 4 2 1 2 1 4 0 1 2 2 Hibi r(l) 5 0 5 0 2 0 3 0 2 3 3 2 0 Ipom obse 5 3 2 0 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 4 0 Lage indi 5 1 2 2 3 0 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 Leue leue 5 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 3 0 1 2 2 Lyeo eseu 5 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 Orig sp. 5 4 1 0 2 2 1 3 0 2 4 1 0 Pepe sp. 5 3 2 0 4 0 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 Sehl trun 5 2 2 1 4 0 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 Sedu morg 5 1 4 0 2 0 3 0 0 5 2 2 1 Anth sp. 4 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 2 Arau sp. 4 1 3 0 2 1 1 0 1 3 4 0 0 Call eitr 4 1 2 1 2 0 2 0 2 2 1 3 0 Casu equi 4 3 1 0 4 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 Cueu pepo 4 2 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 Dian barb 4 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 2 2 3 0 1 Euph eoti 4 3 1 0 2 0 2 3 1 0 2 2 0 Fieu pumi 4 2 0 2 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 1 2 Grap piet 4 1 0 3 2 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 3 Momo char 4 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 0 1 Neph bise 4 3 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 3 3 1 0 Paeh lute 4 1 2 1 3 1 0 1 1 2 1 3 0 Drae frag 4 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 0 3 4 0 0 pyru eomm 4 2 1 1 4 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 RO~S elat 4 0 1 3 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 1 3 Se i tere 4 1 0 3 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 Conunued 011 next page Noles: FQ: Frequency in ISO sample sites; Geographical Location: P: PaIolo, C: Pearl City. A:. Aina Haina; Ethnic Background: J: Japanese. C: Chinese, 0: Others; Age of House: 0: Old. M: Middle, N: New; Size of Lot: S: Small, M: Medium. L: Large.
179 TABLE 32. (Continued)
Geographi Ethnic Age of Size of FQ cal Back House Lot Location around pic IA J Ic 10 o1M1N sl M 1L Total 150 50 50 50 71 27 52 43 56 51 51 51 48 Acal amen 3 2 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 0 Agap prae 3 2 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 2 1 0 8amb sp. 3 2 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 1 2 1 0 Cari macr 3 0 0 3 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 3 Citr maxi 3 1 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 Cocc gran 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 Coty sp. 3 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 Crin asia 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cuph hyss 3 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 Cymb citr 3 2 0 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 Eryt cris 3 2 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ficu cari 3 1 0 2 2 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 Ficu elas 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 Fili deci 3 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 Lant mont 3 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 Malp cocc 3 2 0 1 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 Metr poly 3 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 Neri olea 3 0 0 3 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 3 Odon stri 3 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 Otac caer 3 2 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 Petu x hy 3 0 2 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 Phil sp. 3 1 2 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 1 2 0 Pile micr 3 2 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 2 1 0 Pitt tobi 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 Plum auri 3 1 0 2 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 1 2 Puni gran 3 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 Sida fall 3 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 Sola seaf 3 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 Stac jama 3 2 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 Stre alba 3 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 1 Syzy mala 3 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 2 1 0 Aden obes 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 AlIi scho 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 Anti lept 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 8auh vari 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 Conunued on next page Notes: FQ: Frequency in 150 sample sites; Geographical Location: P: Palolo, C: Pearl City, A:. Aina Haina; Ethnic Background: J: Japanese, C: Chinese, 0: Others; Age of House: 0: Old, M: Middle, N: New; Size of Lot: S: Small, M: Medium, L: Large.
180 TABLE 32. (Continued)
Geographi Ethnic Age of Size of FQ cal Back House lot location ground pic I A J I C 10 o I MIN S TM TL Total 150 50 50 50 71 27 52 43 56 51 51 51 48 Bixa orel 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Cala dium 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 Cala thea 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 Call chin 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 Came j apo 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Cass spp. 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 Celo arge 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 Cler thorn 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Cuph igne 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 Ficu sp. 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 Holm sang 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 Ipom bata 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 Jatr poda 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Kala pinn 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 Laur nobi 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lobu mari 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 loni japo 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Maca inte 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 Ma~n gran 2 2 0 0 2.. 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Me a quin 2 1 0 1 I 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 Mich cham 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 Mori olei 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 Moru alba 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 Ocim basi 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 Pipe nigr 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 Psil nudu 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 Russ equi 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 Salv offi 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Sene cine 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 Trad purp 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 Spat sp. 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 Spat camp 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Trad spat 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 UnID PC64 2" 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 Coruinued on next page Notes: FQ: Frequency in 150 sample sites; Geographical Location: P: Palolo, C: Pear) City, A: Aina Haina; Ethnic Background: J: Japanese, C: Chinese, 0: Others; Age of House: 0: Old, M: Middle, N: New; Size of Lot: S: Small, M: Medium, L: Large.
181 TABLE o. (Continued)
Geographi Ethnic Age of Size of FQ cal Back House Lot Location around p Ie IA J IC 10 o I MIN S I MIL Total 150 50 50 50 71 27 52 43 56 51 51 51 48 Adia sp. 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Aloe macr 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 Alpi nuta 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Anno muri 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Aspa afri 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Aspl nidu 1 1 0 O· 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 Aver cara 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Boug spec 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Bras spp. 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Budd davi 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Calo giga 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Carm retu 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Chry sp. 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Citr aura 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Citr limo 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Citr x pa 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Cocc uvif 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 Coff arab 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Cosm bipi 1 1 C 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Cost sp. 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 Dahl sp. 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Dauc spp. 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Delo regi 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 Dian cary 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Erig spp. 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Euph mili 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Fort japo 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Grap ~ara 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Hede eli 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Hedy coro 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Helx sole 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Hibi schi 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 ~ Hibi tili 1 0 0 1 I 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Hipp spp. 1 I 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Hylo unda 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Hyop vaug 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Iris spp. 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Coromuea on next page Notes: FQ: Frequency in ISO sample sites; Geographical Location: P: Palolo, C: Pearl City, A: Aina Haina; Ethnic Background: J: Japanese, C: Chinese, 0: Others; Age of House: 0: Old, M: Middle, N: New; Size of Lot: S: Small, M: Medium, L: Large.
182 TABLE 32. (Continued)
Geographi Ethnic Age of Size of FQ cal Back House Lot Location around pi C IA J Ic 10 o I MIN S 1M l L Total 150 50 50 50 71 27 52 43 56 51 51 51 48 Lant cama 1 1 00 001 100 100 Leea indi 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 Li~U sp. 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 Li i long 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Mani escu 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Ment spp. 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 Muss eryt 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Muss phil 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Osma frag 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Pasp sp. 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Pedi tith 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Petr volu 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Petr cris 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Pime dioi 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Plat gran 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Plec scut 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Prim spp. 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Prun pers 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Pseu carr 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 Saee offi 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Sarna sarna 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Seae seri 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Sten seeu 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Syna gra~ 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 Syzy cuml 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Tabe diva 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Tris aust 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Vite trif 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 UnID PA1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 UnID PA24 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 UnID PA18 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 UnID PA37 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 UnID PC55 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 UnID PC58 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 UnID PC76 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 UnID PC89 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 UnID A141 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
Noles: FQ: Frequency in 150 sample sites; Geographical Location: P: Palolo, C: Pearl City, A: Aina Haina; Ethnic Background: J: Japanese, C: Chinese, 0: Others; Age of House: 0: Old, M: Middle, N: New; Size of Lot: S: Small, M: Medium, L: Large.
183 GLOSSARY
ADONIS GARDEN. An ornamental altar dedicated to Adonis (Greek mythology). Adonis was a youth loved by Aphrodite, killed while hunting by a wild boar, and restored to Aphrodite from Hades.
AlA. Americans of Japanese ancestry.
BASAL PLANTING (Foundation planting). More or less linear and/or mass planting along the base of a house (Definition for this study).
CHASEKI. See TEA ROOM.
CmSEN-SmKI TEIEN. See WATER GARDENS.
COITAGE GARDENS. Probably came into being after the Black Death (in the 14th century) in England, stuffed with vegetables and decorative herbs for cooking, medicine, strewing and bunching to take away smells and to discourage fleas. In the last quarter of the 19th century, it took on a new role, more varied and more sophisticated than the genuine article (Scott-James and Lancaster 1977: 80-86).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE. Landscape fashioned from a natural landscape by a culture group (Sauer 1925: 343).
CULTURAL PLURALISM. A process of living in two cultural worlds at the same time in a multicultural society, in order to take advantage of primary group associations for personal, familial, and cultural needs, while utilizing secondary group contacts in the civic, economic, and political environments (Sandberg 1974: 3).
DRY GARDENS (kart·sansui). Gardens without waterworks such as a pond and narrow streams. They became popular among Zen temples and warrior's residences in Japan in the Muromachi period: A.D. 1338-1573 (Mori 1984: 80 82).
ECOSYSTEM. The community of organisms of a given area together with their related non-living environment, functioning as a unit (Odum 1963: 4; Marcus and Detwyler 1972: 7).
FORMAL LANDSCAPE GARDENS. Gardens of the lawns and paths, the ornamental trees and water, all conforming to the geometrical perfection of the rectangle or the circle. They are symmetrical about a central axis (Appleton 1990; 72).
FOUNDATION PLANTING. See BASAL PlANTING.
184 GARDEN. See also TEIEN (Japanese) and YUANLIN (Chinese). In English, it may signify an ornamental area, a kitchen garden, and/or outdoor living space. It can be decorative and/or productive. On the other hand, in Japanese (teien) and Chinese (yuan/in), it is primarily ornamental, designed by and for upper class people based on traditional codes for a particular purpose.
GARDENESQUE SlYLE. Originally implied a useful, instructive, simple garden with winding paths and pretty decorations. Later the romanticism of this style faded and the term was associated with the brilliant (garish) flower bedding of the Victorian garden which became popular in the middle of the 19th century (Scott James and Lancaster 1977: 62-74).
HA-HA. Ditch, usually walled, to prevent animals from intruding on turfed or garden areas (Berrall 1966: 383).
IlABITAT THEORY. States that aesthetic satisfaction with a given landscape stems from the spontaneous perception of sign-stimuli indicative of environmental conditions favorable to survival because the image of the original human habitat, a safe environment lito see without being seen" (Lorenz 1952: 193), is still with the contemporary human (Appleton 1975: 69).
HEDGE. Shrubby plants planted along the property line of a front yard more or less continuously (Definition for this study).
HIMOROGI. In Shinto (a Japanese religion of ceremony), it means lithe place where a god descends.II It is an altar, a square or rectangular space marked by poles with a column (where a god descends) at the center, a rope tied around the poles, and white sand and natural stones laid on the ground. Likely, the prototype of the Japanese dry gardens.
BORAl. The legendary isle of the Blest in Daoist magical belief. It is often represented as an island in a pond in traditional Japanese gardens.
HUANJIA YUANLIN. See IMPERIAL GARDENS.
IMPERIAL GARDENS (luumjio yuanlin). Large extravagant and exotic gardens of the emperor and imperial households in China. Probably their style was introduced to Japan around the 6th century and became a part of the prototype of Japanese garden styles.
IWAKURA. In Shinto (a Japanese religion of ceremony), it is a place where a god dwells. It is usually a large rock or a group of rocks on a mountain. Perhaps the prototype of the rock combinations seen in Japanese gardens.
185 KAIYu.smKI TEIEN. See STROLLING GARDENS.
KAMI. The term used to refer to the divine in Shinto religion, traditionally interpreted as a superior and mysterious force of either creative or destructive character, which resides in natural elements, animals, and certain human beings (Kodansha 1993: 727).
KARE·SANSUI. See DRY GARDENS.
LAWN. A mowed grassy area larger than one square meter (Definition for this study).
LIFE FORM SPECTRUM. The series of the percentages of plant species representing each of Raunkiaer's life form categories in a given flora. The categories include: therophytes (annuals), geophytes (renewal buds well covered by soil), hemicryptophytes (renewal buds barely embedded in the surface of the soil), chamaephytes (prostrate plants or low shrubs with buds a little above the soil), phanerophytes (taller shrubs and trees) and epiphytes (including vascular types only) (Daubenmire 1968: 64).
MELTING POT. A theory which suggests the desirability and inevitability of biological and cultural amalgamation in a multicultural society (Sandberg 1974: 3). The term came from the play "The meltingpot" by Zangwill (1909).
MIEKAKURE. A special design technique used in Japanese tea gardens. It involved revealing only parts of the garden's elements from anyone angle, creating an illusion of depth and diversity. Literally, "in and out of sight."
MIYABI. The refined and sophisticated aesthetics of the nobles in early Japan (Heian period: A.D. 794-1192).
MONO NO AWARE. A literary and aesthetic ideal cultivated during the Heian period (A.D. 794·1192) in Japan. At its core is a deep, empathetic appreciation of the ephemeral beauty manifest in nature and human life, and it is therefore usually tinged with a hint of sadness (Kodansha 1993: 1002).
MOUNTAINS AND WATER (shanshui [Chinese], sansui [Japanese[), Landscape painting, one of three broad categories of East Asian art, the other two being figure painting and bird-and-flower painting. By the 5th century scholar-painters in China had laid the foundations for landscape as a subject for expressing philosophical principles as well as for interpreting natural beauty, but realization of this idea in painting was a phenomenon of the Song (Sung) dynasty (A.D. 960-1279) (Kodansha 1993: 1313).
186 MUJo.KAN. Originally a Buddhist term expressing the doctrine that everything that is born must die and that nothing remains unchanged. Literally, "the feeling of impermanence, transience, mutability" (Kodansha 1993: 1012).
NATURAL LANDSCAPE GARDENS. Gardens conforming to the style pioneered in England in the eighteenth century. They are irregular and asymmetrical and give the impression (quite erroneously, of course) of being unplanned, of occurring accidentally under the guidance of nature rather than humans (Appleton 1990: 73).
NYMPHAEUM. Pleasure pavilion embellished with water (BerrallI966: 383).
PARTERRE. Patterned garden, its design usually worked in low-growing evergreens, its compartments filled with flowers, turf, and/or colored earths (Berrall 1966: 383).
PERGOLA. An open-work, pillared archway, usually covering a walk or passageway, over which plants such as vines are trained to climb (Berrall 1966: 383).
PROTD-PAYSAGE (original landscape). The concept that humans have some universal common denominator, regardless of ethnicity or cultural background, with regard to landscape taste (Berque 1990: 6).
ROJI. See TEA GARDENS.
SADI. An aesthetic principle of medieval Japan, combining elements of old age, loneliness, resignation, and tranquility (Kodansha 1993: 1289).
SAIHO JODO. A paradise to the west (Pure Land). The Pure Land faith is based on the early Mahayana corpus of Pure Land sutras. The Pure Lands are realms of purity, the residences of Buddhas and bodhisattvas, in contradiction to the impure and polluted human realm (Kodansha 1993: 689).
SANSUI. See MOUNTAINS AND WATER.
SCHOLAR (PRIVATE) GARDENS (sijiayuanlin). Chinese private gardens in which scholar-officials could stroll and contemplate. Confucianism provided the basis for determining the names of the elements of a garden, while Daoism provided the basis for their function.
SHANSHUI. See MOUNTAINS AND WATER.
187 SIIUMI-SEN. Mt. Sumeru, the central mountain of the universe in the Buddhist cosmos.
SUIA YUANUN. See SCHOlAR GARDENS.
STROLUNGGA..1IDENS. (luUyu-shiki ~ien). Spacious Japanese gardens in which preceding Japanese garden styles were synthesized to form a large park (Edo period: A.D. 1603-1867).
TEA GARDENS (raji). In essence, these small Japanese gardens comprise the path leading to a tea room (chaseJd). They were meant to recreate the atmosphere of a deep mountain path within the confines of an urban dwelling (Muromachi period: A.D. 1573-1603).
TEA ROOM (chaseki). A place for the tea ceremony.
TEIEN. Japanese term for a landscaped (ornamental) garden.
TRANSPORTED LANDSCAPE. This concept suggests that when a group of people immigrate to a new place, they tend to carry their accustomed landscape with them (Anderson 1952: 3-15).
TRELLIS. A frame of latticework used as a screen or as a support for climbing plants.
WAHl. A Japanese aesthetic and moral principle advocating the enjoyment of a quiet, leisurely life free from worldly concerns. Originating in the medieval eremitic tradition, it emphasizes a simple, austere type of beauty and a serene, transcendental frame of mind (Kodansha 1993: 1677).
WATER GARDENS (chwn-shiki ~ien). Traditional Japanese gardens with waterworks such as a pond and narrow streams (yarimizu). They include graceful aristocratic gardens, subtle and profound (yugen) gardens, and spacious, strolling gardens.
YUANUN. Chinese term for an ornamental garden.
YUGEN. Aesthetic ideal cultivated by poets and dramatists from the 12th century through the 15th century. The term broadly designated an ambiance of mystery, darkness, depth, elegance, ambiguity, calm, transience, and sadness (Kodansha 1993: 1764).
188 REFERENCES
Adams, R. 1933. The people ofHawaii. Honolulu: American Council, Institute of Pacific Relations. 58p.
Anderson, E. 1952. Plants, man and life. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 251p.
------. 1956. Man as a maker of new plants and new plant communities. In Man's role in changing the face ofthe earth, edited by W. L. Thomas jr., 763-77. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Akinsoji, A. 1988. Postfire vegetation dynamics in a sagebrush steppe in southeastern Idaho, USA. Vegetatio 78: 151-55.
Appleton, J. 1975. The experience oflandscape. London: John Wiley and Sons. 293p.
------. 1990. The symbolism ofhabitat: An interpretation oflandscape in the arts. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 113p.
Arreola, D. D. 1981. Fences as landscape taste: Tucson's barrios. Journal of Cultural Geography 2 (1): 96-105.
Aweto, A. O. 1981. Secondary succession and soil fertility restoration in south western Nigeria: I. Succession. Journal ofEcology 69: 601-07.
Balling, J. D. and J. H. Falk. 1982. Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior 14: 5-28.
Barbour, M. G., J. H. Burk and W. D. Pitts. 1980. Terrestrial plant ecology. Menlo Park, Calif.: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co. 604p.
Beckett, K. A. 1987. The RHS encyclopedia ofhouse plants: Includinggreenhouse plants. Topsfield, Mass. 492p.
Berque, A. 1990. Nippon no fukei; Seio no keikan: Soshite zokei no jidai (Landscapes of Japan and Western Europe: Now, the age of creation of landscape). Translated by K. Shinoda. Kodansha Gendaishinsho, no. 1007. Tokyo: Kodansha. 19Op.
Berrall, J. S. 1966. The garden: An illustrated history. New York: A Studio Book, The Viking Press. 388p.
189 Blanchan, N. 1909. Rudely exposed to public gaze. In The American gardener: a sampler, edited by Allen Lacy, 1988: 334. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux.
Carvalho, E. W. 1980. The Portuguese. In People and culture ofHawaii: A psychocultural profile, edited by J. F. McDermott, Jr., W. Tseng and T. W. Maretzki, 100-110. Honolulu: John A. Bums School of Medicine and University of Hawaii Press.
Char, W. F., W. Tseng, K Lum and J. Hsu. 1980. The Chinese. In People and culture ofHawaii: A psychocultural profile, edited by J. F. McDermott, Jr., W. Tseng and T. W. Maretzki, 53-72. Honolulu: John A. Bums School of Medicine and University of Hawaii Press.
Cosgrove, D. E. 1984. Social formation and symbolic landscape. London: Croom Helm. 293p.
Courtright, G. 1988. Tropicals. Portland, Oreg.: Timber Press. 155p.
Crouch, D. 1992. British allotments: Landscape of ordinary people. Landscape 31 (3): 1-7.
Daubenmire, R. 1968. Plant communities: A textbook ofplant synecology. New York: Harper and Row. 3OOp.
DeFrancis, J. 1973. Things Japanese in Hawaii. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. 21Op.
Derrenbacher, W. E. 1969. Plants and landscape: An analysis of ornamental plantings in four Berkeley neighborhoods. Master's thesis. University of California, Berkeley. 231p.
Detwyler, T. R. 1972. Vegetation of the city. In Detwyler, T. R., M. G. Marcus and Contributors, Urbanization and environment: The physical geography of the city, 229-259. Belmont, Calif.: Duxbury Press.
Duncan, J. S. Jr. 1973. Landscape taste as a symbol of group identity. Geographical Review 63: 334-55.
Eliovson, S. 1970. Gardening the Japanese way. Wellington: A.H. & A.W. Reed. 215p.
Engel, D. H. 1959. Japanese gardens for today. Rutland, Vt.: Charles E. Tuttle Co. 27Op.
190 Exline, C. H., G. L. Peters, and R. P. Larkin. 1982. The city: Patterns and processes in the urban ecosystem. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. 34Op.
Favretti, R. F. 1962. Early New England gardens 1620-1840: Old Sturbridge Village, Sturbridge, Massachusetts. 2d ed. 1966. Sturbridge, Mass.: Old Sturbridge. 29p.
Firey, W. 1945. Sentimentalism and symbolism as ecological variables. American Sociological Review 10: 140-48.
Foote, D. E., E. L. Hill, S. Nakamura and F. Stephens. 1972. Soil survey ofthe Islands ofKauai; Oahu, Maui; Molokai; and Lanai; State ofHawaii. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 232p.
Fredrich, B. E. 1978. Dooryard medicinal plants of St. Lucia. Yearbook, Association ofPacific Coast Geographers 40: 65-78.
Gauch, H. G. Jr. 1979. Preface. In TWINSPAN: a FORTRAN program for arranging multivariate data in an ordered two-way table by classification of the individuals and attributes, by M. O. Hill, i-ii. Ithaca, N.Y.: Ecology and Systematics, Cornell University.
------. 1982. Multivariate analysis in community ecology. Cambridge University Press. 298p.
Giambelluca, T., M. A. Nullet and T. A. Schroeder. 1986. Rainfall atlas of Hawai'i. Report R76. Honolulu: Division of Water and Land Development, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii 267p.
Glenn-Lewin, D. C. 1980. The individualistic nature of plant community development. Vegetatio 43: 141-46.
Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation ofselfin everydaylife. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. 255p.
Goss, J. 1988. The built environment and social theory: Towards an architectural geography. Professional Geographer 40 (4): 392-403.
Graf, A. B. 1978. Tropica: Color cyclopedia ofexoticplants and trees. 3d ed. East Rutherford, N.J.: Roehrs Co. 1152p.
Greenbaum, P. E. and S. D. Greenbaum. 1981. Territorial personalization: Group identity and social interaction in a Slavic-American neighborhood. Environment and Behavior 13 (5): 574-89.
191 Greig-Smith, P. 1983. Quantitative plant ecology. Studies in ecology, vol. 1. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 359p.
GTE Hawaiian Tel. 1991. Cross reference street address directory, Oahu, no. 1381.
Handy, E. S. C. and E. G. Handy. 1972. Native planters in old Hawaii: Their life, lore, and environment. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. 641p.
Higuchi, T. 1981. Nihon no keikan: Furusato no genkei (Landscape of Japan: Prototype of one's old home). Tokyo: Shunjusha. 269p.
Hill, M. O. 1979. TWINSPAN: a FORTRAN program for arranging multivariate data in an ordered two-way table by classification ofthe individuals and attributes. Ithaca, NY: Ecology and Systematics, Cornell University. 6Op.
Hyams, E. 1971. A history ofgardens and gardening. New York: Praeger Publishers. 345p.
Inaji, T. 1990. Teien to jukyo no "ariyo" to "misekata, miekata": Nippon, Chugoku, Kankoku (Concepts, presentation and perception of gardens and houses: Japan, China and Korea). Tokyo: Sankaido. 174p.
Indo, T. and T. Shina. 1985. Zoen ryokkazai no chishiki (Information on landscape planting materials) Rev. ed. Tokyo: Keizai Chosakai. 812p.
Isaacs, H. R. 1968. Group identity and political change. Survey 69: 76-98.
Isozaki, A. 1990. Mitate no shuho: Nihon-teki kukan no dokkai (Method of analogy: Interpretation of Japanese space). Tokyo: Kashima Shuppankai. 33Op.
Johnston, R. S. 1991. Scholar gardens of China: A study and analysis ofthe spatial design ofthe Chinese private garden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 331p.
Kallen, H. M. 1924. Culture and democracy in the United States. New York: Boni and Liveright. 347p.
Kaplan, S., and R. Kaplan. 1982. Humanscape: Environments for people. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Ulrich's Books. 480p.
Kato, H. 1978. Shuzoku no shakaigaku (Sociology of customs). Pocketbook ed. 1991. Tokyo: PHP Kenkyusho. 241p.
192 Kato, S. 1974. Zasshu bunka (Hybrid culture). Tokyo: Kodansha. 250p.
Kimber, C. T. 1966. Dooryard gardens of Martinique. Yearbook, Association of Pacific Coast Geographers 28: 97-118.
------. 1973. Spatial patterning in the dooryard gardens of Puerto Rico. Geographical Review 63:6-26.
------. 1988. Martinique revisited: The changing plant geographies ofa West Indian Island. College Station: Texas A & M University Press. 458p.
Kirch, P.V. 1982. The impact of the prehistoric Polynesians on the Hawaiian ecosystem. Pacific Science 36 (1): 1-14.
Kodansha. 1993.Japan: an illustrated encyclopedia. Tokyo: Kodansha. 1924p.
Kuykendall, R. S. 1933.A history ofHawaii. New York: Macmillan. 375p.
Laumann, E. O. and J. S. House. 1970. Living room styles and social attributes: the patterning of material artifacts in a modem urban community. In The logic ofsocial hierarchies, edited by E. O. Laumann, P.M. Siegel and R. W. Hodge, 189-203. Chicago: Markham Publishing Co.
Lewis, P. F. 1979. Axioms for reading the landscape: Some guides to the American scene. In The interpretation ofordinary landscapes: Geographical essays, edited by D. W. Meinig, 11-32. New York: Oxford University Press.
Likhachev, D. S. 1982. Poeziya sadov: K semantike sadovo-parkovykh stiley (Poetry of gardens: To the semantics of garden-park styles). Leningrad: Izadatel'stvo "Nauka"). Translated by T. Ban'nai, under the title Teien no shigaku: Yoroppa, Roshia-bunka no imiron-tekibunseki. 1987. Tokyo: Heibonsha. 433p.
Lorenz, K. 1952. The King Solomon's ring: New light on animal ways. Translated by M. K. Wilson. New York: Mentor. 215p.
Lowell, G., ed. 1901.American gardens. Boston: Bates and Guild Co.
Lowen, S. 1991. The tyranny of the lawn. American Heritage 42 (5): 44-55.
Maarel, E. van der. 1981. Fluctuations in a coastal dune grassland due to fluctuations in rainfall: Experimental evidence. Vegetatio 47: 259-65.
Macoboy, S. 1986. What flower is that? New York: Portland House. 455p.
193 ------. 1989. What shrub is that? New York: Portland House. 368p.
Manzo, J. T. 1982. Italian-American yard shrines. Journal of Cultural Geography 4 (1): 119-25.
Marcus, M. G. and T. R. Detwyler. 1972. Urbanization and environment in perspective. In Detwyler, T. R., M. G. Marcus and Contributors, Urbanization and environment: The physical geography ofthe city, 3-25. Belmont, Calif.: Duxbury Press.
Maretzki, T. W. and J. F. McDermott, Jr. 1980. The Caucasians. In People and culture ofHawaii: A psychocultural profile, edited by J. F. McDermott, Jr., W. Tseng and T. W. Maretzki, 25-52. Honolulu: John A. Bums School of Medicine and University of Hawaii Press.
Mori, M. 1969. "Mu" no shiso: Ro-so shiso no keifu (Ideology of nothing: Genealogy of Confucianism and Daoism). Kodansha Gendaishinsho, no. 207. Tokyo: Kodansha. 216p.
Mori, O. 1984. Teien (Gardens). Nihonshi Shohyakka, no. 19. Tokyo: Kondo Shuppansha.431p.
------. 1986. "Sakuteiki" no sekai: Heian-cho no teien-bi (The world of Sakuteiki [a gardening book from the Heian period (A.D. 794-1192)]: The beauty of gardens from the Heian period). NHK Books, no. C27. Tokyo: Nipponhoso Shuppankyokai. 222p.
Morris, E. T. 1983. The gardens of China: History, art, and meanings. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 273p.
Moss, L. 1965. Space and direction in the Chinese garden. Landscape 14: 29-33.
Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 547p.
Murton, B. J. 1983. Colonial cottage to state house: one century of housing styles in Gisbome, New Zealand. Journal of Cultural Geography 5 (1): 103-21.
Nakamura, Y. 1982. Fukeigaku nyumon (An introduction to landscape studies). Chuko Shinsho, no. 650. Tokyo: Chuo Koronsha. 244p.
Nakao, S. 1986. Hana to ki no bunkashi (Cultural history of flowers and trees). Iwanami Shinsho, no. 357. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. 216p.
194 Neal, M. C. 1965. In gardens ofHawaii. New and Rev. ed. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 50. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. 924p.
Odum, E. P. 1963. Ecology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 152p.
Ogawa, D. M. 1973. Jan ken po: The world ofHawaii's Japanese Americans. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 183p.
Ohashi, H. 1986. The Japanese garden: Island ofserenity. Tokyo: Graphic-sha Publishing Co. 103p.
Orians, G. H. 1986. An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In Landscape meanings and values, edited by E. C. Penning Rowell and D. Lowenthal, 3-25. London: Allen and Unwin.
Fukui, M. K., S. H. Elbert and E. T. Mookini. 1974. Place names ofHawaii. Rev. and Expanded ed. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 289p.
Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms ofplants and statistical plant geography; being the collected paper of C Raunkiaer. Translated by H. G. Carter, A. G. Tansley and Miss Fausboll. Oxford, England: Clarendon. 632p.
Real Estate Data, Inc. (RED!). 1989. Real estate handbook.
Richards, N. A., J. R. Mallette, R. J. Simpson, and E. A. Macie. 1984. Residential greenspace and vegetation in a mature city: Syracuse, New York. Urban Ecology 8: 99-125.
Rickard, R. 1952. Aina Haina: City within a city. Paradise ofthe Pacific 64 (4): 13 7.
Ripperton, J. C. and E. Y. Hosaka. 1942. Vegetation zones of Hawaii. Bulletin, Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station 89: 1-60.
Rogers, T. A. and S. Izutsu. 1980. The Japanese. In People and culture ofHawaii: A psychocultural profile, edited by J. F. McDermott, Jr., ·W. Tseng and T. \V. Maretzki, 73-99. Honolulu: John A. Bums School of Medicine and University of Hawaii Press.
Salamon, S. 1985. Ethnic communities and the structure of agriculture. Rural Sociology 50 (3): 323-40.
195 Sandberg, N. C. 1974. Ethnic identity and assimilation: The Polish-American community case study ofMetropoLitan Los Angeles. New York: Praeger Publishers. 88p.
Sauer, C. O. 1925. The morphology of landscape. In Land and life, 1963, edited by J. Leighly, 315-50. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Schmid, J. A. 1975. Urban vegetation: A review and Chicago case study. Research Paper, no. 161. Chicago: Department of Geography, University of Chicago. 266p.
Scott-James, A. and O. Lancaster. 1977. The pleasure garden: An illustrated history ofBritish gardening. London: John Murray Publishers. 128p.
Shin ada, Y. 1987. Hitobito wa kankyo wo tou tsukuttekitaka, 1: Shizen wo motomeru kodo ni yoru kankyo keisei sayo (How people have formed their environment, Part 1: Environment-forming processes by people's actions to seek nature). In Toshi no ningen kankyo (Human environment of cities), Toshi kankyo sirizu; no. 3, edited by Y. Shinada, N. Tachibana, and K. Sugiyama, 101-12. Tokyo: Kyoritsu Shuppan.
Sichter, L. [1976]. Palolo, before my time. Honolulu: Hawaii Multicultural Awareness Pilot Project 6p.
Smith, M. R. 1991. The front garden: New approaches to landscape design. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. 192p.
Sokal R. R. and F. J. Rohlf. 1969. Biometry: The principles and practice ofstatistics in bioLogicaL research. 2d ed. New York: W. H. Freeman and Co. 859p.
Staples, G. W. and D. R. Herbst In prep. In gardens ofHawai'i II. Honolulu: Bishop Museum.
Tanner, O. 1990. Gardening America: RegionaL and historicaLinfluences in the contemporary garden. New York: Penguin Group, Viking Penguin. 255p.
Tansley, A. G. 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. EcoLogy 16: 284-307.
Thacker, C. 1979. The history ofgardens. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 288p.
196 Thomas, L. L. 1970. Kitchen gardening in Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Plant cultivation in an urban context. Master's thesis, Louisiana State University. 93p.
Toky, O. P. and P. S. Ramakrishnan. 1983. Secondary succession following slash and bum agriculture in north-eastern India. Journal ofEcology 71: 735-45.
Triggs, H. I. 1913. Garden craft in Europe. London: B. T. Batsford. 332p.
Tuan, Y. 1974. Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. Englewood Cliff, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 26Op.
Ura, S. ed. 1982. FORTRAN 77 Nyumon (An introduction to FORTRAN 77). Tokyo: Baihukan. 416p.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1983. 1980 Census ofpopulation and housing, Census tracts: Honolulu, Hawaii; Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area.
U.S. Geologica! Survey. 1954. Topographic map ofthe Island of Oahu, Honolulu County, Hawaii (1:62,500). Limited revision in 1970.
Van Gieson, M. 1992. History of Pearl City. In Pearl City: A look at the past, by Pearl City Public Library, 9-12. Wahiawa, Hawaii: Wonder View Press.
Veblen, T. T. 1989. Biogeography. In Geography in America, edited by G. L. Gaile and C. J. Willmott, 28-46. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing Co.
Wagner, W. L., D. R. Herbst and S. H. Sohmer. 1990. Manual ofthe flowering plants ofHa wai'i. 2 vols. Bishop Museum Special Publication 83. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press and Bishop Museum Press. l853p.
Wakayama, S. 1990. Roma to Choan: Kodai sekai-teikoku no miyako (Rome and Changan [Sian]: Capitals of ancient civilizations). Kodansha Gendaishinsho, no. 992. Tokyo: Kodansha. 209p.
Wakisaka, M. 1983. Niwakizukuri to haishoku (Growing garden plants and their arrangement). 2 vols, Tokyo: Nipponhoso Shuppankyokai, SlOp.
Walter, H. and S-W. Breckle. 1983. Ecological systems ofthe geobiosphere. Vol 1, Ecological principles in global perspective. Translated by S. Gruber. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 242p.
Wester, L. L. 1983. Vegetation. In Hawaii: A geography, by J. R. Morgan, 99-114. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
197 Westman, W. E. 1983. Island biogeography: Study on the xeric shrublands of the inner Channel Islands, California. Journal ofBiogeography 10: 97-118.
Whitney, G. G. and S. D. Adams. 1980. Man as a maker of new plants communities. Journal ofApplied Ecology 17: 431-48.
Yang, H. 1982. The classical gardens of China: History and design techniques. Translated by W. H. Min. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. 128p.
Yinger, B. 1983. Classical plants in Japanese horticulture. In Plants and gardens, Brooklyn Botanic Garden Record, Handbook, no. 108, Rev. ed. 1990, edited by C. E. Sawyers and B. B. Pesch, 13-18. Brooklyn: Brooklyn Botanic Garden.
Yoshikawa, I. 1990. Chugoku Kanan no meien (Chinese gardens [in Jiangnan]). Tokyo: Graphic-sha Publishing Co. 15Op.
Zangwill, I. 1909. The meltingpot. New and Rev. ed. 1914. New York: Macmillan Co. 214p.
198 INDEX
Acculturation 11, 135, 148, 154 Adonis garden 17, 184 Age of the house 64, 69, 7'+, 79 Aina Haina 47, 56-58, 65, 73-75, 79, 82, 100, 104, 106, 109, 114, 119, 120, 126, 130-132 AlA (Americans of Japanese Ancestry) 139, 184 Amalgamation 11, 186 American 10, 15, 16, 25, 38, 39, 41, 43, 66, 114, 119, 135, 139, 154 Americans Japanese 1, 142, 154, 154 Analyses data 14, 45, 64, 68 inferential 69, 120 statistical 45, 46, 67, 68, 99, 100, 106, 109, 114, 120 Andesite 39 ANOVA 64. 67, 99, 100, 106 Applcton.T, ~. 9, 137. 145. 146. 1~4. 1~5, 187 Arcadia 23 Architectural clements 28 Architectural structures 17. 3<,), 41 Aristocratic gardens 3 L 32. 188 Artifacts 7,67. 198 Assimilation II, 135, 155 Atavistic image 146, 149 Atavistic motivation 8 Atmosphere 34, 126. 148. 188 Back yardts) 104 Background ethnic 64,69,73-75,79,93,99, 104, 106, 109, 114, 119, 124, 137, 139. 143, 146 Basal planting(s) 59, 109, 18.+ 13ed(s) flower I, IS, 39, 143 Bed/mass planting 59. lOY. 114. 125, 143 Biomass 4 Bougainvillea 82, 135 Buddhism 30, 32, 3<,) Chan 30 Jodo 32 Zen 30, 32, 39 California 3, 25, 130 Caucasians 50, 65, "i5, 82, 141, 153, 154 Census 47,50,56, 123, 125 Census tracts 47, 123, 125 Chan Buddhism 30 Chaseki 34, 184, 188 Chi-square 67,73,86, 99, 104 Chicago YO, 145 Children 154, 155 China 27, 32, 42, 133, 153, 184, 186
199 Chinese 15, 16,27,28,30,31,38,39, '+1--103, 50, 65, 66, 73, 74.79,93, 104, 106, 11'+, 119, 132, 137, 141-143, 153, 154, 185, 187, 188 Chinese flowering/fruit trees 66 Chinese garden.s) 15,27,28,30,31,38,39,42, 141, 143 Chisen-shiki teien 31, 184, 188 Citrus 41, 87, 137, 141 Classification 45, .:'0, 64, 66, 68, 93, 124, 137 Codiaeum 135 Common denominator 7,8, 135, 146, 149, 187 Community (communities) plant 1,3-7, 10-13,45- 47, 58,69,75,79,86,90,106, 109, 123-12.:',133. 135,1'+5, 148, 150, 133, 139, 146, 151 Community gardens 151 ( 'ornposition height 3. 13 species 4, 66, 124, 125, 133 Conceptual framework 5, 12, 1.+. 123 ('unfucianism 1'<'7 ('unvenience l)(), 99, 1.+5 Cottage gardens 25, IS4 Courtyardrs) 16-18.25 Cover 3, 13,59,67,87. 109, 114. 125, 126. 143, 148 Cover abundance 3, 13 Cultural 3-12, 1'+, 16,46,64,69,73,75,82,86,93,99, 100, 120, 123-125, 135, 1'+5, 147, 148, 151, 184, 186, 187 Cultural group(s) .+, 7, 82 Culturallandscape(s) 3,5-7,9-12. 123, 151, 184 Cultural pluralism II. 184 Culturcts) 1,3,5-9, 15-17, 135, 1'+9, 18.+ Cvcas 93, 104, 137, 1.+9 Dairy farming 131 Daoist 27, 32, 185 Data descriptive 69, 99, ron 104. 106. 1lI9, 11'+, 120 Data analyses 1'+. 45, 64, 68 Data manipulation '+5, 68 Dcrrenbachcr, W. E. 3, 130, 131 Descriptive data 69, 99, 100, 10'+, 106, 109, 114, 120 Desert 146 Development 3, 30, 31, 57, 79 Dignity 9, 145, 147, 149 Diversity species 3, 65, 87, 90, 143, 145, 1'+7, 149 Downing, Andrew Jackson 25 Dry garden(s) 31,32,34, 184-186 Drvland 50 Dutch 23, 25 Ecology 5, 12, 45 vegetation 5, 12, 45 Ecosystem 5, 6, 13, 45, 133, 150, 151, 184 urban 5, 13, 45, 133, 150, IS I
200 Eden 18 Edo period 31,34, 188 Egypt 16 Elements garden 38,39, 41, 43, 133, 139 Engawa 38 England IS, 20, 23, 184, 187 Environrnenus) 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 146, 147, 154, 184, 185 Equitability 145 Ethnic background 64,69,73-75,79,93,99, 104, 106, 109, 114, 119, 124, 137, 139, 143, 146 Ethnic group(s) 3, 10, 12, 13, 69, 75, 86, 87, 99, 104, 106, 109, 114, 119, 123, 124, 125, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141-143, 145, 146, 148,149, 153, 154 Ethnic hypothesis 13,99,109,114,119.132 Ethnic plants 141, 142 Ethological motivation 9 Euro-Amcrican herbaceous flowers 66, 114 Europe 10. 18,25,31, 1:':' European io, 1:'-18,23,2:',27,31,38,41. 4.;,79 l.voiutionarv 146 Factors human 3. 5, 6, 13 Family (families) :'0, 58, 65. 79, 82, 131, 141. 1:'3-1:':' Fencers) 7. 20, 23, 25, 34, 59, 67, 120. 130 linked-wire 120, 130 Field sampling 45, 46, 68, 69, 120 Filipinots) :'0, 65, 156 Flower I, 15,25,39,41,43,66, 114, 119, 141, 143, 185, 186, 187 Flower bedis) 1, IS, 39, 143 Flowering trees 41, 143 Food plants 130 Formal gardens 23, 25 FORTRAN 58 Foundation planting 25, 39, 59, 184 Fountainrs) 18,20,39 Framework conceptual 5, 12, 14, 123 France 15, 20 Fredrich, B. E. 3 French 9. 20, 23 Frequency 66, 86, 87, 99, too, 104, 106, 109, 114, 119, 120, 126, 137 Function 3, 13, 25, 27. 28, 38, 39,43. 147, 187 Garderus) 1,3,4,6-9, 13-18,20,23,25,27,28,30-32,34,38,39,41-43,66,67,87,93, 104, 114, 119, 124, 130, 132, 133, 135, 137, 139, 141-143, 145, 147, 149-151, 184-188 Adonis 17, 184 aristocratic 31, 32, 193 Chinese 15,27,28,30,31,38,39,42, 141, 143 community 151 collage 25, 184 dry 31,32,34, 184-186
201 formal 23, 25 imperial 27,30, 32, 185 Japanese 1,9, 15,27,30-32,38,39,41,66,87,93, 104, 114, 119, 124, 137, 139, 141,143,149,150,151,185,188 kitchen 3, 15, 185 natural (landscape) 23, 25, 27, 31 ornamental 16, 25, 43, 151, 188 scholar 28, 30, 188 strolling 31, 34, 38, 186. 188 subtle and profound 3 I. 32 tea 31, 32, 34, 42, 186-188 viewing 31, 139 Garden clements 38,39,41,43, 133, 139 Garden planus) 6,30,42.43,66. 87, 114, 119, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141. I·B. 145. I·P. 149. 150 Garden style(s) 4,7,8, 14-17.20.27,30,32,38,43, 132. 137. 1·+2. 143. 185. 188 CiarJen traditiorus) 39. 139, 141. 143, 149-151 Gardcncrts) 25.32.82. 130 Gurdcnesque 25. 185 Gardenia I-ll Gardening 4,25.59.67.75.82, 130, 132. 139 Gardening hahits 59. 75. 82 Genus 87 Geographical location 64. 65, 69. 73. 74. 104, 106, 109, 114, Ill) Gcrrnanv 20 Granite 39 Grassland 146 Greek 17, 184 Grccnspacc 4 Group ethnic 3, 10. 12. 13.69,75,86.87,99, 104. 106. 109, 114. 119, 123, 124. 125, 132. 133. 135, 137. 141-143, 145, 146, 148. 149, 153, 154 Group identity 4, 10, 1I. 124, 126, 132, 139, 141, 142, 149 Groups of specific species 66. 99. 114. 119 lIu-lza 23. 185 Habitat 5.8, Y. 86. 93, 135. 137, 143. 146. 147, 149, ISO, 185 human 5.8.9. 135. 146. 147, 149, ISO, 185 Habitat theory 8. 137. 143. 146. 147, 149. 185 IIan dynasty 27 IIawai'i I. 9-11, 15,41-43.47,75,82, 133,135, 139, 141, 142. 148-/51, 153. 154 IIawaiian 10,50,57,64.65. 82. 133, 135, 139, 14/, 149, 153, 154 Hazard 8 Hedgers) I. 7, 17, 20, 25. 34.59, 109, 114, 120, 125, 130, 148, 185 Heian period 31.32. 186 Height classes 66, 99. 106 Height composition 3, 13 lIerb(s) I, 18, 20, 66, 106. 114, 119, 126, 130, 145, 146 Herb-sized plants 106, 119. 126 Hibiscus 87, 90 lJimorogi 31, 185 Historical land use 56, 131
202 Honolulu 46, 47, 56 Horai 32, 34, 185 Horizontal structure 3, 109 Horticulture 30 Ilousets) 7, II, 13,16,25,34,38,47,58,59,64,69,74,79,82, 104, 106, 109, 119, 142, 184 Huanjia yuanlin 27, 185 Human(s) 3,5-9, 11, 13, 14,39,75,86,93, 135, 146, 147, 149, 1:'0, 185-187 Human factors 3, 5, 6, 13 Human habitat 5, 8, 9, 135, 146, 147, 149, ISO, 185 Human/biota interactions 150 Hydrology 131 Hypothesis (hypotheses) 12-14, 69, 73, 86, 99, 104, 106, 109, II·l 119, 120. 125. 132 ethnic 1.\ 99, 109, 114, 119, 132 neighborhood 13, 99, 109, 114, 119, 125 neighborhood and ethnic 86, 104, 106, 114, 120 research 12 Idcnufication 64. 87 Image ~,lJ,34, 135.146-149,185 latent 147 Immigrants I. lJ, 141. 153-155 Imperial gardcrus) 27,30.32. 185 Income 13.47.50.56, 120, 131 Individual species 66, 99, 100. 104. 137 Inf'crcntial analyses 69, 120 Intermarriage 75, 79 1rrigation 6 Islamic 1~ Isles of the 13lest 28, 32 Italian 20 Italy 15, 20, 23 Iwakura 31, 185 Japanese I, 9, 15, 16, 27,28, ;\0-32, 34, 38,39,41-43,50,59, 65-67, 73. 75, 79, 82, '1'.7, 93, 104, 109, 114, 119, 124, 132, 137. 139, 141-143, 149-151. 153-155. 184-186, 1'1'.'1'. Japanese Americans I. 142, 154. 155 Japanese garden(s) I. 9, 15,27.30-32,34,38,39.41. 66, 87, 93, 104, 114, 119, 124, 137, 139,141. 143, 149,1:'0, lSI, 185. 188 Japanese garden plants 66,87, 114, 119, 137, 141, 149, 150 Japanese plant(s) 42, 151 Japanese-style corner 59, 67 .fasmilllim 141 Jodo Buddhism 32 Kuiyu-shiki teien 38, 186, 188 Kare-sansui 3 I. 184, 186 Kimber, C. T. 3, 131 Kitchen garden(s) 3, 15, IRS Korean(s) 50, 154 Kwantung 153 Landscapers) 3,5-12,20,23,25,27. 28, 30, 31, 123, 124, 126,130-133, 135, 139, 145, 147-149, 151, 184-188
203 cultural 3,5-7,9-12, 123, 151, 184 natural 6, 184, 187 original 8, 144, 187 preferred 135, 149 residential 133 transported 9, 10, 124, 133, 139, 149, 151, 188 Landscape paintings 23, 28, 30 Landscape taste 3, 11, 123, 126, 130, 132, 148, 187 Lantern(s) stone 1, 34, 41, 59, 139 Latent image l·n Latitude 4, 132. 145, 149, 150 Lawn(s) 1, 25, 39, 41, 59, 67, 109, 114. 125, 130, 143. 148, 184, 186 open 25. 39. I·B I.awn mower 25 Life form spectrum 65, ~6. ~7. 90. I·n. 145, 146. 149. 191 Limestone 39 l.incugcts) 16.27.·+3 Linked-wire fences 120. UO Lot size 58,65. 125, 126. 133 Main survey 45. 40, 59, 68, 69, R6. ~7 Management 142. 145 .Han~fera 104 Mediterranean 111, 27..f3 \1elting pot 11, I ~6 Mesopotamia 17 Methodology 45. 68 Microcosmrs) 7. 27 Miekakure 34. [86 \1ing dynasty 30 Mivabi 32, IS6 \Iodcl(s) 23, 25. 28. 147 Mornoyama period 34 Mono no aware 32. 186 Moorish 18 Motivationts) l". 9 atavistic 8 ethological 9 \ISD (minimum significant difference) 67, 100 Mujo-kan 32, 192 Multicultural society 9-11, 150, 184, 186 Muromachi period 34, 184, 188 Nandina 42, 93, 104, 137, 149 Nnatural gardens 23 Nnutural landscape gardcnts) 23, 25, 27, 31 Natural landscape 6, 184, 187 Natural vegetation 6, 90 Nature 4,20,28,30,31,46, 143, 147, 186, 187 Neighborhood and ethnic hypotheses 86, 104, J06. 114, 120 Neighborhood hypothesis 13, 99, 109, 114, 119, 125 Netherlands 15, 20
204 New York .+, 126 Open lawn(s) 25, 39, 143 Oriental 1, 137, 153 Origin 23, 139 Original landscape 8, 144, 187 Ornamental garden(s) 25, 16, '+3, 151, 188 Outdoor living space 15, 16, 23, 185 Outdoor living- room 27,38 Palolo 47.50,56-58,65,73,7'+,79,100,104,106,114,119, 120, 126,130,131,201 Paradise 18, 20, 32, 187 Pavernenus) 39, 59, 67, 120 Pearl City 47. 56-58, 65, 73, 74, 79, 100, 104, wrl, 114, 119, 120, 126. 130, 131 Pearl Harbor 57 People-plant relationship 12, ISO, 151 Persia 18 Physical environment 13 Picture brides 154 Planus) ethnic 1'+1, 1.+2 food 130 garden tJ, 30, '+2, 43. 66, ~7, 114, 119. 132, 13:1. 135, U7. 14!. [43,1'+5. In. 149. ISO Japanese 42, lSI Japanese garden 66.87, 114, 119, 137. 141. 1'+9, ISO tropical garden 4.1, 133, 135, 142, 143. 149 vascular 5 Plant community (communities) 1,3-7, 10-13,45-47.58.69,75, 7l), 86, 90, 106. 109. 123- 125, U3, 135, 139, 145, 146, 148, 150. lSI Plant materials 38,41,43, 135 Plant species 1, 13, 46, 59, 66, 67, 87, 93, 114, 124, 133, 135, 139, ['+5, 149, ISO, 151. 186 Plant use 66, 67. 99, 109, 114 Plantatiorus) 57, 153, 154 Planting foundation 25, :19, 5l), 18.+ Plants in pots 109. 114, 126 Pleomele 135 Portico 17 Portuguese 79. 153, 154 Pot(s) 6. II. 18. 42, 59, 109, 114, 126, 132, 186 Prcferencets) 42, 137, 142, 143, 145, 147, 148. 150 Preferred landscapes 135, 1.+9 Preliminary survey 45. 46, 68 Presence/absence I, 13, 66, 67, 9:1, 12..J Prospect 8, 9 Proto-paysage 8. 143, 146. 147. 149, 187 Public area '+6, 58 Questionnaire .+5, 59, 64, 68, 69, 75, 130, 156 Rainfall 13, 47, 50, 56 Random numbers 58 Reconnaissance 47 Refuge 8,9
205 Renaissance 20, 31 Research design 14, 45, 68 Research hypotheses 12 Research problem II, 14 Research question(s) 12, 123 Residenus) 3,4,7,11,38,46,59,64,66,69,74,75,79,82, 124, 126, 130-132, 137, 139, 141, 142, 143, 145, 148-150 Residential landscape 133 Rcsidentialyard(s) 1,3-7,10-13,45,46,69,75,79,90, 123 Rhaphiolepis 93, 104, 137, 149 Richards, N, A., J. R. Mallette, R. J. Simpson and E. A. Macie 4,5, 126, 132 Richness species 145 Rockts) 1,30,31,34,39,41,59, 139, 185 Roji 31, 187, 188 Roman 17, 18,20,27 Sabi 32, 192 Saiho jodo 32, 1;)7 Samoan :'0 Sampling 45-47, 58, 68, 69, 120 field 45, 46, 68, 69, 120 Sansui 31, 184, 186, 187 Savanna 9, 86, 93, 146, 147, 149 Schmid, J. A. 3,4,90, 123, 125, 131, 132, 145 Scholar garderus) 28, 30, 188 Sculpture 17 Slianshui 28, 1;)6, 187 Shinto 31,185, 186 Shrub(s) 1,50,66, 106, 126, 132, 142, I·B, 145, 14(), 186 Shrub-sized plants 106, 126, 132, 142, 143 Shumi-sen 32, 34, 188 Sijia vuanlin 27, 187, 188 Silk Road j 6 Size lot 58, 65, 125, 126, 133 Size of the lot 64, 69, 74 Society 9-11, 135, 141, 150, 153, 154, 184, 186 multicultural 9-11. 150, IS4, IS() Snil(s) 57, 13L 186 Song dynasty 30 Spain 18 Spanish 25 Species individual 66, 99, 100, 104, 137 plant I, 13,46,59,66,67,87,93, 114,124,133,135,139,145, I-+9, 150, 151, 169, 186 Species composition 4, 66, 124, 125, 133 Species diversity 3, 65, 87, 90, 143, 145, 147, 149 Species evenness 145 Species numbers 67, 87, 100 Species richness 145
206 Spectrum 65, 86, 87, 90. I-B, 145, 146, 149, 186 Spread sheet 59 Statistical analyses 45, 46, 67, 68, 99, 100, 106, 1()9, 114, 120 Statues 17, 39 Stone lantern(s) 1,34,41. 59, 139 Street 46, 59 Strolling gardens 31, 34, 38, 186, 188 Structure 1,3, 11-13,59,69,75,86, 106, 109, 123-125, 133, 135. 148 Studyarea(s) 47,50.58.64,65,86, 123-126, 130-132, 148 Study site(s) 45, 46, 58, 59, 64, 65, 69, 75, 79, 100, 104, 106, 124 Style(s) garden 4,7,8, 14-16, 17,20,27,30,32,38,43, 132, 137. 142, 143, 185, 188 Subtle and profound gardens 31, 32 Sugar cane 10, 57, 119. 131 Survey main 45. 46, 59. 68. 69. 86, 87 preliminary 45. 46. 68 Survival 8. 147. 185 Symhol(s) 7. S. 11, 32. .w 124. 139. 142. I-tt) Symbolic 3D, 39 Tare 10, 56, 57. 82. II Y. 131 Tastc 3,7, II, 123, 126. 130, 132. 148, 187 landscape 3. 11. 123. 126, 130, 132, 148, 187 Tca gardens 31, 32, 34. 42. 186-188 Teien 15,31,38, 184-186. 188 chisen-shiki 31. 184. 188 kaiyu-shiki 38. 186. 188 Telephone directory 64 Thomas. L. L. 3. 151 Topography 13. 17. 20. 47. :'0. :'6. 58 Tracus) 47.50.56-58.64.73.74. 104. 123, 125 census 47. 123. 125 Tradition(s) 17,28.38.39,41-43.135, 13Y. 141, 143, 148-151. 188 garden 39.139.141, 143. 149-151 Transported landscape(s) Y. 10. 124, 133. 139. 149. 1:'I, 188 Tree(s) 1,17.18.20,23.31.41.50.66,104,106,109,114,119.135, 142. I-B, 145,146, 151. 184. 186 flowering 4 I. 143 tropical garden Go. 114, 119 Tree-sized plants 109 Tropical 1,43,66,82,86. 114, 119. 133, 135. 139. 142, 143. 146, 149 Tropical garden plants 43. 133. 135, 142, 143, 149 Tropical garden trees 66. 114, 119 Tropical rain forest 146 'IWINSPAN 50,56,66.93.99. 124, 137 United States 10, 25, 133 Unwitting autograph(s) 7. 79. 145 Urban ecosystem 5. 13,45. 133. 150, 151 Urban vegetation 3. 5, II Use plant 66. 67. 99, 109. 114
207 Variegated .+2 Vascular plants 5 Vegctablc(s) 114, 119, 130, 184 Vegetation 3-6, 11-13,45-47,50,56,1.1-1)6,68,86,90,93,99, 120, 123, 124, 137 natural 6, 90 urban 3, 5, 11 Vegetation ecology 5, 12, 45 Viewing garden(s) 31, 139 Yard(s) hack 104 residential 1,3-7, 10-13,45,46,69,75,79,90, 123 Yuanlin huanjia 27, 185 sijia 27, 187, 188 Zen buddhism 30, 32, 39
208