eCite Digital Repository
An antipodean test of spatial contagion in front garden character
Citation
Kirkpatrick, J and Daniels, G and Davison, A, An antipodean test of spatial contagion in front garden character, Landscape and Urban Planning: An International Journal on Landscape Design, Conservation and Reclamation, Planning and Urban Ecology, 93, (2) pp. 103-110. ISSN 0169-2046 (2009) [Refereed Article]
 | PDF Restricted - Request a copy 773Kb |
Copyright Statement
The definitive version is available at http://www.sciencedirect.com
Official URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com
DOI: doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.06.009
Abstract
In Montreal, Canada, adjacent gardens have been demonstrated to be more similar than spatially separated
gardens, opposite gardens less similar than adjacent ones, and front garden characteristics to relate
to house and lot characteristics. The prevalence of these relationships in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia was
tested using a random sample of groups of five front gardens from 31 suburbs, and house and garden
characteristics from 13 groups of 10 adjacent front gardens. Groups of five gardens were diverse, with an
average of 3.4 garden types. Opposite houses had exactly the same likelihood of having the same garden
type as adjacent houses. In only one out of 13 streets was there a significant relationship between house
proximity and distance between front garden characteristics. In three out of the 13 streets therewas a significant
relationship between distance for garden characteristics and distance for house characteristics,
these being streets in the process of transition from old to new housing stock. The absence, or extreme
weakness, in Hobart of the relationships shown for Montreal might be explicable by differences in social
and cultural attitudes towards front gardens, differences in the prevalence of a range of garden ideologies
or variation in the type, incidence and enforcement of regulations. Our results suggest that, in Hobart and
probably elsewhere in Australia, those wishing to impose limits on front garden expression, or encourage
particular attributes of front gardens, cannot rely on a process of neighbourhood diffusion. The options
for planners appear to be regulation, financial incentives or acceptance.
Item Details
| Item Type: | Refereed Article |
|---|---|
| Keywords: | garden similarity, house similarity, garden types, lot characteristics, mimicry, suburb |
| Research Division: | Human Society |
| Research Group: | Policy and administration |
| Research Field: | Environment policy |
| Objective Division: | Environmental Management |
| Objective Group: | Terrestrial systems and management |
| Objective Field: | Evaluation, allocation, and impacts of land use |
| UTAS Author: | Kirkpatrick, J (Professor James Kirkpatrick) |
| UTAS Author: | Daniels, G (Dr Grant Daniels) |
| UTAS Author: | Davison, A (Associate Professor Aidan Davison) |
| ID Code: | 58757 |
| Year Published: | 2009 |
| Web of Science® Times Cited: | 32 |
| Deposited By: | Geography and Environmental Studies |
| Deposited On: | 2009-10-26 |
| Last Modified: | 2015-01-12 |
| Downloads: | 0 |
Repository Staff Only: item control page