California Urban Water Conservation Council
Sustainable Landscaping
Market Transformation Framework
February 13, 2015
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 3
PART 1: INTRODUCTION & BARRIERS ........................................................................................................... 5
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 5
Overcoming Barriers to Sustainable Landscaping: A Market Transformation Approach ......................... 6
PART 2: ELEMENTS OF THE MARKET TRANSFORMATION APPROACH ......................................................... 9
ELEMENT 1: Strategy & Collaboration ...................................................................................................... 9
I.
A STRATEGIC PROCESS.................................................................................................................... 9
A. Four Broad Questions ................................................................................................................... 9
B. Ten Narrower Questions ............................................................................................................. 10
II.
EXPLOITING COLLABORATION..................................................................................................... 12
A. On-Going Collaborations That Have Embraced the Watershed Approach ................................ 12
B. Collaborations to Develop .......................................................................................................... 13
ELEMENT 2: Market Interventions .......................................................................................................... 14
I.
Building a Business Case .............................................................................................................. 14
II.
Redefining End User Value Hierarchy & Resultant End User Behaviors ..................................... 19
III. Devising Effective, Unified, and Collaborative Marketing/Branding/Outreach .......................... 21
IV. Developing Education, Training, Certifications & Licenses Programs ......................................... 23
V. Designing Pilot Programs and Performance Criteria ................................................................... 27
VI. Assisting in Development/Enforcement of Codes, Standards, Statutes and Regulations ........... 29
ELEMENT 3: Lasting Change .................................................................................................................... 33
I.
Matching Barriers with Intervention Strategies: Introduction ..................................................... 33
II. Matching Barriers with Intervention Strategies: Priorities, Time Frames, Relative Costs ............ 35
PART 3: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER............................................................................................................ 41
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 41
APPENDIX A: Research – Overcoming the 9th Barrier ................................................................................. 48
APPENDIX B: Table 7 Addendum – Resources, Roles & Responsibilities .................................................... 50
APPENDIX C: New Norm Symposia Infographics ........................................................................................ 51
APPENDIX D: Summary of Presentations to ITP - Meeting #16 November 20, 2014 ................................. 52
1
Tables
Table 1: Barriers to sustainable landscaping in California ............................................................................ 6
Table 2: Existing sustainable landscaping educational programs in California. ......................................... 23
Table 3: Status of education and licensing requirements by landscaping role in California. ..................... 25
Table 4: Barriers to sustainable landscaping and potential intervention and removal strategies. ............ 33
Table 5: Key to intervention and barrier removal implementation factors. .............................................. 35
Table 6: Barrier removal actions/strategies, timing, priorities, and costs.................................................. 36
Table 7: Barrier removal actions/strategies, timing, priorities, costs, and next steps ............................... 42
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A thirsty California uses over half of its urban water deliveries on landscape irrigation. Water shortages,
among other economic and environmental catalysts, are pushing California away from conventional
landscapes towards sustainable landscaping1. The California Urban Water Conservation Council (the
Council) seeks to accelerate this transition to sustainable landscaping through a collaborative market
transformation approach. A market transformation2 can expedite public approval and implementation
of a watershed-approach to landscaping in which each landscape is managed as a micro-watershed for
resilience and environmental health as well as for water conservation.
Willing to serve as collaborator-in-chief for this market transformation, the Council has identified nine
primary barriers to sustainable landscaping in California and has drafted the following document to
address each of these nine barriers through a series of market interventions. The strategic interventions
are intended to break-down market and behavioral barriers and build an actionable path to sustainable
outdoor urban landscapes. Each intervention summarizes the current state of the market and identifies
future steps or scenarios that will catalyze a landscaping transformation.
The nine identified barriers are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Lack of ‘Watershed Approach’ Buy-In
Lack of Unified Leadership, Collaboration and Outreach
Inadequate Economic Incentives
Fear of Breaking Social Norms and Culturally Established Aesthetics
Ineffective, Inconsistent Messaging/Branding/Marketing
Lack of High Quality, Required Workforce/Public Education and Training
Lack of Consensus on Quantification and Comparison of Different Approaches
Insufficient Codes, Standards, Regulations and Enforcement
Too Many Unknowns
The series of market interventions include:







Adopting a ‘Watershed Approach’ and Exploiting Collaboration
Building a Business Case
Redefining End User Value Hierarchy and Resultant End User Behaviors
Devising Effective, Unified, and Collaborative Marketing/Branding/Outreach
Developing Education, Training, Certifications and Licenses Programs
Designing Pilot Programs and Performance Criteria
Assisting in Development and Enforcement of Codes, Standards and Regulations
1
Sustainable landscaping intends an integrated, holistic, watershed-based approach to landscape design,
construction, and maintenance that transcends water-use efficiency to reflect a site’s climate, geography, and soils
and to address the related benefits of cost savings, run-off reduction, green waste reduction, pesticide and
fertilizer reduction, habitat improvement, and energy/Green House Gas reductions.
2
A market transformation intends a strategic process that intervenes in a market to create lasting change in
market behavior by removing identified barriers and exploiting collaboration opportunities.
3
Importantly, this market transformation requires comprehensive paradigm shifts across the board. From
end user behaviors, to government regulations, to landscape workforce education standards, to
industry product promotion, the magnitude of change requisite to this transition demands collaboration
from invested partners. Consider the proverbial ‘Silo’ as good as gone. Extensive feedback was collected
from sustainable landscape stakeholders from all sectors and integrated into this document, generating
early buy-in and capturing an array of interests and perspectives that overlap and allude to prospective
cross-sector synergies.
Ultimately, this framework pairs barriers and appropriate intervention strategies and assigns next steps
as well as draft priorities, time-frames, and relative cost. The Council plans to vet these priorities and
identify available and needed resources as well as responsibilities and roles during a Spring Sustainable
Landscaping Stakeholder Workshop. The workshop will bring together sustainable landscaping players
from all sectors–water agencies, non-profits, business/industry, and government – to find a
collaborative consensus on shared duties.
4
PART 1: INTRODUCTION & BARRIERS
Introduction
The California Urban Water Conservation Council envisions a water-efficient California, characterized by
the broad adoption and application of sustainable landscaping practices. California’s landscapes provide
essential functions throughout our urban environment. They are where we recreate; capture, clean and
recharge groundwater; shade and cool our buildings; enhance property values; provide wildlife habitat;
create space to grow food locally; provide a sense of place and much more. The optimal design,
installation, and management of these spaces is critical to enhancing California’s quality of life while
protecting our limited natural resources.
The Council has developed a new vision for transforming California’s urban landscape. The transition to
sustainable landscaping will be a system-wide upgrade to the urban environment. In addition to
reducing outdoor irrigation, the transformation promotes multiple environmental benefits for
municipalities:






Increased rainwater and graywater capture, storage, and reuse
Increased stormwater reduction, capture and infiltration
Reduced synthetic pesticide and fertilizer application and runoff
Reduced “green waste” production
Reduced energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions and improved air quality, and
Increased food production and habitat for beneficial insects and wildlife, and the restoration of
native biodiversity
The transformation also promotes benefits for individual property owners:






Increased cost savings (lower water bills and upkeep costs)
Reduced landscaping maintenance
Healthier neighborhoods and communities
Increased sense of place and appreciation for local resources
Improved stewardship ethics and associated positive feelings towards self and neighborhood,
and
Increased shared values between neighbors via increased community participation in a socialnorm-defining transformation.
The Council is committed to spearheading a state-wide transition to sustainable landscaping. As an
ongoing collaboration of public agencies, nonprofits, water industry companies and organizations, and
green industry professionals, the Council is uniquely suited to serve as a clearinghouse and hub to foster
the transition. Acknowledging the numerous and deeply-entrenched barriers that stand in the way of
sustainable landscaping progress, the Council is actively building a broad stakeholder collaboration to
develop and implement a strategy that will break down these barriers.
5
Overcoming Barriers to Sustainable Landscaping: A Market Transformation Approach
From a number of sources including the 2014 Landscape Symposia Report (Appendix C), insights from
the Legislatively-created Independent Technical Panel (ITP) meetings (Appendix D), and end-user
landscaping values, the Council has identified nine primary categories of barriers to sustainable
landscaping:
Table 1: Barriers to sustainable landscaping in California
Barriers to Sustainable Landscaping
Lack of ‘Watershed Approach’ Buy-In
1
Watershed
Approach
There is a general absence of agency/organization understanding of and/or buy-in to the
‘watershed approach’ – a term used synonymously with ‘sustainable landscaping’ in this
document. Challenges posed by this barrier, and the collaboration and adaptive management
requisite to solving these challenges, are woven into each and every market intervention
strategy throughout the document.
Lack of Unified Leadership, Collaboration and Outreach
2
Leadership,
Collaboration
& Outreach
Government entities and the private sector do not ubiquitously champion and model
sustainable landscapes. Municipalities lack sustainable landscaping priorities and collaboration
in planning and development departments. There is a missing collaborative link between public
and private stakeholders.
Inadequate Economic Incentives
3
Economic
Incentives
The market is not fully saturated with available, sustainable and affordable landscaping options.
Water pricing does not send a sufficiently strong conservation signal to incentivize wide-spread
outdoor water-use reductions. Landscape conversions require a significant investment of time
and money. Incentives (e.g., rebates, tax credits, etc.) are often insufficient, unproven,
unknown, or appear daunting to property owners.
Fear of Breaking Social Norms and Culturally Established Aesthetics
4
Social Norms
Homeowners are subject to social pressure. Diversifying a landscape to contrast a neighborhood
of homogeneous lawns defies our human nature in which we aim to comply with social norms.
Lawns are a tried and true component of American homes. Lawns are familiar. Lawn aesthetics
are desirable. Lawns can be functional play spaces. Lawns have limited market risk in terms of
maintenance service availability and property value. Where lawns are simple to install and
maintenance is well-understood, sustainable landscapes are diverse and multi-faceted and
involve a maintenance learning curve. Change is stressful.
Ineffective, Inconsistent Messaging/Branding/Marketing
5
Messaging
Multiplicity of brands and outreach programs promoting sustainable landscaping throughout
state yields disjointed and inconsistent messaging. Existing messaging contains jargon.
Behavioral change research shows that information alone is insufficient. Community Based
Social Marketing programs, while often effective, however, require labor-intensive
neighborhood based actions.
6
Barriers to Sustainable Landscaping
Lack of High Quality, Required Workforce/Public Education and Training
6
Education &
Workforce
Development
Like potable water alternatives (e.g., graywater and recycled water), turf alternatives are
misunderstood, unfamiliar, or generally unknown. Accessible and reputable education
opportunities are undiscovered, lacking, or not required for consumers, landscape professionals,
and property managers. Landscape credentialing (licensing and certifications) do not align
closely with sustainable landscaping principles for design, installation, and maintenance
professionals. Landscaping synergies are absent between landscape design, irrigation, and
installation experts. Resources on sustainable landscaping are diffuse, poorly organized, and not
always accurate or lay-person friendly. Model landscapes are lacking.
Lack of Consensus on Quantification and Comparison of Different Approaches
7
Performance
Criteria
There is limited consensus on best irrigation systems, requirements, and management regimes
for varying landscapes. There are no agreed-upon protocol and performance criteria for
comparing landscape project across regions and quantifying associated benefits.
Insufficient Codes, Standards, Regulations & Enforcement
8
Codes,
Standards,
Regulations &
Enforcement
Landscape design, installation, and maintenance codes, standards, and regulations are
inconsistent. Many state and local landscape codes, standards, and regulations are in need of
strengthening, alignment, and revision (e.g., MWELO), yet effective implementation may require
market preparedness and time. State regulations have not phased out inefficient irrigation
technologies or detrimental/non-native/high water intensity plants. Authority to enforce water
ordinances and codes is not always exercised or granted to the parties best equipped to
regulate. Expertise and resources to exercise enforcement strategies are limited. Irrigation
infractions may not be easily captured by enforcers.
Too Many Unknowns
9
Research
Data quantifying cost/water savings and positive externalities associated with sustainable
landscaping are non-existent, not in agreement, or unclear. Agencies lack data capture
capacities. Pilot projects are rarely well-documented or conveniently archived.
To remove these barriers to sustainable landscaping, the Council envisions a strategy based largely on
“market transformation” principles. From the Council’s perspective, a Sustainable Landscaping Market
Transformation Plan documents:
A strategic process that will intervene in a market to create lasting change in market
behavior by removing identified barriers and exploiting collaboration opportunities
to accelerate the adoption of sustainable landscaping as a matter of standard
practice.3
By Sustainable Landscaping, the Council intends:
An integrated, holistic, watershed-based approach to landscape design, construction,
and maintenance that transcends water-use efficiency to reflect a site’s climate,
geography, and soils and to address the related benefits of cost savings, run-off
3
Sentence adapted from Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance’s (NEEA) definition of a Market Transformation Plan.
7
reduction, green waste reduction, pesticide and fertilizer reduction, habitat
improvement, and energy/Green House Gas reductions.
“Watershed-based,” in this context, has two meanings: 1) Macro - a watershed in the
conventional sense of a watercourse and the land that it drains; and 2) Micro - each
individual’s property as a discrete functioning watershed. Turning property owners into
micro-scale watershed stewards fosters the behavioral transformation needed to create
macro-scale impact.
Ultimately, the Market Transformation Plan (MTP) seeks to:
Redefine Californians’ relationship with their urban landscapes through market and
socio-behavioral transformations and adaptive management regimes that replace
the current landscaping norms with a norm based on sustainable landscaping
principles, products, and actions.
In the following sections, we consider the key elements of the Sustainable Landscaping Market
Transformation definition above. Each section follows a similar approach:



Short introduction;
Description of “where we are now;” and an
Identification of possible next steps and/or future scenarios.
The conclusion of this document outlines strategic, programmatic, and temporal priorities assigned to
each possible next step. A spring 2015 stakeholder meeting will review the priorities, and identify the
roles, responsibilities, and resources necessary to accomplish each step.
8
PART 2: ELEMENTS OF THE MARKET TRANSFORMATION APPROACH
As noted above, in this document, a market transformation approach is:
A strategic process that will intervene in a market to create lasting change in market
behavior by removing identified barriers and exploiting collaboration opportunities to
accelerate the adoption of sustainable landscaping as a matter of standard practice.
In the remainder of this document, we consider the key, underlined segments of that definition
as they fit into the following three elements:



Strategy and Collaboration
Market Interventions, and
Lasting Change
ELEMENT 1: Strategy & Collaboration
I.
A STRATEGIC PROCESS
There are tremendous activities already underway across California to help transform the state’s urban
landscape. Many of the individual actors are thinking strategically in terms of their own perspectives and
interests. However, there is no statewide effort, by a broad group of stakeholders, to think strategically
about how best to leverage the individual efforts.
A. Four Broad Questions
The market transformation plan will need to strategically answer four broad sets of questions.
1) Actions: What sequence of actions?
a. E.g., research, investments, programs, projects, messages, social marketing, codes,
standards
2) Actors: By which actors?
a. E.g., state, federal, local governments; nonprofits; universities; and private sector
individuals and organizations
3) Areas: In which region(s)?
a. Neighborhood/Development
f.
Hydrologic Region
b. City
g.
State
c. Wholesaler’s Region
h.
West-wide?
d. Importer’s Region
i.
Nationwide?
e. Marketing Region
j.
World-wide?
4) Adopters: What will most efficiently and effectively convince enough early adopters to choose
to invest their own time, talent and resources in implementing the multiple-benefit, watershedbased “vision” of a sustainable landscape on their property, so that a critical mass is reached?
9
B. Ten Narrower Questions
In answering the four broad questions set out above, ten additional questions will need to be
strategically addressed.
1) Knowledge Base:
a. What do we already know about the:
i. Motivations and values of different groups of landowners?
ii. The obstacles and barriers to their willing transition to sustainable landscaping?
b. What additional information do we need to learn or confirm?
c. How do we integrate adaptive management, understanding that our knowledge will
continue to evolve?
2) Other Efforts:
a. What can we learn from earlier efforts to encourage a transition to sustainable
landscaping?
b. What can we learn from efforts in other sectors (e.g., energy, water-using appliances) to
use market transformation principles?
c. How are we similar to, or different from, those earlier/other efforts?
3) Appropriate Scale:
a. Which actions are best suited for particular actors or in particular geographic areas?
4) Branding and Messaging:
a. How important is it to have a uniform brand/message statewide?
b. What should our messages be per market segment (homeowner, commercial, HOA,
industrial)? Why?
c. How can we account for regional differences and market segmentation?
d. How can we address the branding and messaging that has already occurred in certain
areas?
5) Community-Based Social Marketing (CBSM):
a. What lessons have we already learned about effective CBSM programs?
b. What gaps do we have in our understanding of how best to harness the principles of
community based social marketing? For example, what additional research needs to be
conducted to identify target audiences, barriers, benefits, etc.?
6) Role of the Green Industry:
a. How can we best harness the economic interests of:
i. manufacturers, growers, distributors, retailers,
ii. architects/designers,
iii. contractors and maintenance companies, and
iv.
builders?
10
7) Segmentation:
a. To what extent should the plan focus on specific segments such as higher volume users?
Existing (retrofit) vs. new construction?
8) Codes & Standards:
a. What new standards should be developed to add efficiencies and address laggards?
9) Resources:
a. What resources (time, talent and financial) are currently being dedicated to promoting
sustainable landscaping in California?
b. How can these resources be more efficiently and effectively directed?
c. What additional resources are needed?
d. From where will they come?
10) Coordination:
a. Which entities need to be involved in coordinating the planning and implementation
efforts?
b. What should their individual roles and responsibilities be?
c. How should coordination efforts be structured and managed?
Initial efforts to raise and answer all of these questions are peppered throughout this Framework. For a
preliminary list of the prioritized actions that will result from those answers, see Tables 5 & 6.
11
II.
EXPLOITING COLLABORATION
The first two barriers to sustainable landscaping in
Table 1 address two sides of the same fundamental coin: how can the benefits from the watershed
approach be appreciated and how can they be implemented? The short answer is, to obtain multiple
benefits, multiple players must collaborate. Collaboration lies at the heart of the watershed approach.
Watershed-scale change, at least in the conventional sense of the terms, demands intentional and
committed collaboration across sectors. Without it, the multiple benefits offered by the approach will
not be realized. Moreover, given the complexity of the challenge, no one entity can create the necessary
conditions for change. Only by leveraging powerful partnerships between and among government
agencies, non-profit organizations, businesses, and water utilities, is a state-wide, sustainable
landscaping transformation achievable.
Collaborations bring together individuals, businesses, organizations and agencies, each of whom can
offer different resources and perspectives, play different roles, and undertake different responsibilities.
For those who aspire to lead the watershed approach to sustainable landscaping, first and foremost,
they must understand and embrace the concept. For public agencies, that will often require them to act
in ways that may challenge their institutional histories and cultures.
A. On-Going Collaborations That Have Embraced the Watershed Approach
1. The California Urban Water Conservation Council – The Council’s Landscaping Committee
pioneered the watershed approach. Its continuing work and the Council’s 2014 Landscape
Symposia represent on-going efforts to spearhead the state-wide transition to sustainable
landscaping.
2. Water Service Providers – Many water utilities across the state partner with their customers
and educational entities to increase landscaping awareness and incentivize sustainable
landscapes. For example Master Gardeners offer sustainable landscaping classes in partnership
with Western Municipal Water District [WMWD]. WMWD advertises and hosts the classes, and
the Master Gardeners run the classes. Similarly, in the Sacramento region the Regional Water
Authority provides financial support and advertises the River-Friendly Landscaping Green
Gardener Professional Training Program.
3. Regional – Metropolitan Water District rebate programs such as California Friendly, and Be
Water Wise), and Regional Water Authority programs like the Green Gardener effort represent
regional efforts to support sustainable landscaping.
4. Other – National, state, academic, and interest group efforts such as the American Society of
Landscape Architects (ASLA) (Sustainable SITES), CalRecycle (Sustainable Landscaping), UC
Cooperative Extension, and Bay Friendly Landscaping & Gardening Coalition, are also paving the
way for the market transformation.
12
B. Collaborations to Develop
1. Industry – Partnerships with manufacturers, growers, and retailers can benefit both the
consumer and the industry partner by achieving affordability and availability and by maximizing
demand and guaranteeing a market.
2. Government – Inter-governmental partnerships and government agency programming help set
a top-down precedent for the direction of landscaping across the board. The U.S. EPA
GreenScapes effort promoted sustainable landscaping principles, but appears to no longer exist.
State agencies in particular, can be leaders in collaboration by setting the example for
sustainable landscapes and raising the bar for the state.
3. Associations – Engaging associations that affect change on the ground level can result in fastpaced change with the right amount of buy-in. Potential groups include the Building Industry
Association, local homeowners associations and property management associations.
4. Academia – Further engagement with the University of California Cooperative Extension, and
with other schools strong in urban planning/horticulture/landscape architecture such as
Cuyamaca College, or with well-established training programs such as Phipps Conservatory in
Pennsylvania, will yield a next generation of sustainable landscaping advocates and wealth of
cutting edge research.
5. Opinion Leaders – Recruiting famous spokespeople to undertake sustainable landscaping
conservation as their pet projects will reach a broad fan-base of social-norm abiding citizens that
follow trends and imitate their idols. Getting a high profile celebrity or cultural icon to change
his or her water use ways and lead his or her flock of fans to do the same could make a huge
impact.
6. Social Justice – Easily lost in a multi-faceted effort to transform a market, building partnerships
with community leaders and social justice advocates will help ensure that sustainable
landscaping is not just for the affluent.
7. Youth & Community Groups – Partnering with youth organizations, college groups, and serviceoriented groups can rally boots-on-the-ground to physically install sustainable landscapes.
13
ELEMENT 2: Market Interventions
The next six barriers4 in
Table 1 are best addressed by a wide range of market interventions. Six primary interventions, each
responsive to one or more of the barriers, include:
1. Building a Business Case
2. Redefining End User Value Hierarchy and Resultant End User Behaviors
3. Devising Effective, Unified, and Collaborative Marketing/Branding/Outreach
4. Developing Education, Training, Certifications and Licenses Programs
5. Designing Pilot Programs and Performance Criteria
6. Assisting in Development and Enforcement of Codes, Standards and Regulations
The following section outlines each of the six interventions’ current status and possible future steps
towards a sustainable landscaping norm. Importantly, the collaborative, watershed approach, carried
out through adaptive management regimes, should guide each intervention.
I.
Building a Business Case
To overcome the third barrier, Economic Incentives, and to motivate broad adoption of sustainable
landscaping, a strong economic argument is required. Sustainable landscaping must make financial
sense to both consumers (see Redefining End User Value Hierarchy and Resultant End User Behaviors)
and businesses alike. By understanding the current state of the market and by building a business case
with strong, defensible data and targeted incentives, a market transformation can appeal to for-profit
economic interests in both the sale of and the use of sustainable landscaping materials/systems.
A.
Current State of the Market and Existing Business Cases5
1. Plant and Landscaping Materials – Where limited availability of climate-appropriate
plant materials used to challenge landowners and property managers, large-scale
contracts between well known brands are increasing the presence of water-efficient
plant and landscaping materials in the market. For example, Home Depot stocks the
California Friendly ™ line of plants in its stores. Generally speaking, at current pricing,
conventional plant and landscaping materials have a lower up-front purchase and
installation cost than do sustainable materials, and regionally appropriate materials are
not always readily available to consumers. Cost comparisons over time that include
upkeep and maintenance are rarely available; existing studies tend to focus on water
savings and yield variable results. For example, a nine-year case study on water use,
4
Conceptually, the ninth barrier, “too many unknowns,” does not lend itself as easily to a market “intervention.”
The strategy to overcome that barrier—i.e., ‘research,’ is implicit in all strategic behavior. Advancing knowledge
should occur continuously to inform adaptive management regimes; APPENDIX A elaborates.
5
This list is not intended to be exclusive or exhaustive. The Council is very much interested in expanding the list—
and partnering with—other examples of growers, manufacturers, retailers, landscaping professionals and builders.
Send any information to landscape@cuwcc.org .
14
waste production, and maintenance time in Santa Monica contrasted a conventional
garden (turf yard) with a native garden, and found that the native garden reduced water
use by 83 percent, green waste by 56 percent, and maintenance time by 68 percent.
Even though it initially cost 35 percent more to install than the conventional garden (in
part due to cement path removal and rain gutter installation), the native garden paid
back dividends in water cost savings and maintenance time. This study was a highly
controlled study. Critics suggest that when left to their own devices, property owners do
not manage watering as closely or irrigation systems as effectively, yielding water
application on native gardens similar to that of traditional lawns. When studies do find
water savings, financial incentives may be insufficient. A UC Davis study found lawn
conversions to save homeowners, on average, 60 percent of water use, or $46/year. The
study calculated average conversion costs to be $3,960, offering a 23-year Return On
Investment (ROI) (based on 2012 City of Davis water costs).
2. Water Smart Plant Retailers – Large and small plant retailers are offering a wider and
more consistent selection of drought-tolerant, non-invasive, climate appropriate, native,
and or California-Friendly™ plants in response to increased customer demand during the
drought. For example, Altman Plants, a major nursery in California and an early adopter
of sustainable landscaping in the industry, has a Smart Planet Plants line and has started
plans to propagate more native and climate-appropriate plants in anticipation of and in
support of a market shift and increase in water smart plant demand. This is an example
of a big nursery considering a big shift. Many smaller native plant suppliers already
thrive on selling climate appropriate plants to local markets.
3. Irrigation and Capture Technology, Systems Designers, and Retailers: Irrigation
technologies continue to evolve in sophistication and user-accessibility. Many irrigation
system manufacturers, are producing smart and weather-based irrigation controllers in
addition to other water-saving products, while phasing out less efficient models. While
water-efficient and smart-controller technologies are available to home-owners, for
many lower-income residents, they may be cost prohibitive. Irrigation experts have not
reached consensus concerning the most efficient brands, technologies, and application
management systems as they relate to specific regions and specific end users.
Furthermore, research indicates that water loss attributable to user error is greater than
water-conserved attributable to irrigation technology.
4. Home Depot – Home Depots in Southern California have partnered with plant growers
and water agencies to host water saving events. These outdoor events are festive and
lively, attracting customers off the street and through broad store and water utility
advertising. The events offer sales on, Water Saving Garden-Friendly™, and climate
appropriate plants. Landscaping and water conservationist experts are present to
educate consumers on their water use. The events support wise landscaping while
generating revenue for a for-profit entity. This is just one example involving a wellknown business; other business cases exist in different sizes and scopes.
5. Green Gardens Group (G3) – A network of landscaping professionals, G3 is committed to
supporting its clients with a holistic approach to sustainable landscaping, balancing soil,
carbon, and water interests. G3 is also hosting Soil Carbon Water Summit in 2015,
15
bringing together stakeholders from all sectors to increase the recognition of the
universal value of a watershed-approach to landscaping.
6. Large Landscape Installations – Many turf removal rebate programs are doling out
significant rebate checks to large landscapes that can achieve similarly large water
savings by replacing their turf with sustainable alternatives. For example, the
MillerCoors brewery removed over 2 acres of turf grass on their grounds in Irwindale,
CA and saved over half the cost of a conversion, receiving the $2 per square foot rebate
and replacing the terrain with $3-$4 per square foot landscaping. The $187,000
MillerCoors received from MWD pushed the company to convert more grass than it
otherwise would have, because the cost-benefit ratio made sense to the business. In
another example, the Harbor Bay Business Park Association in Pleasanton, CA replaced
2.5 miles of median turf using Bay-Friendly landscaping techniques such as sheet
mulching, and the group now saves $15,000 on water costs alone each year. There is
often a disconnect; however, between those paying the bills and those making the
landscape decisions which limits the buy-in for large landscape conversions.
7. Water Purveyor Pricing – For many water districts of California, water cost is a weak
motivator for conservation. Utilities are working hard to adapt their pricing structures in
the face of complicated regulation and the absence of political will. There are examples
of pricing structures such as Eastern Municipal Water District’s allocation based rates
that charge more for outdoor water consumption than indoor water consumption,
sending a stronger outdoor water conservation signal.
B. Future State of the Market and Business Cases to Develop6
1. Homeowners – Eliciting sustainable landscaping buy-in from homeowners will be that
much easier with a sound business case and persuasive economics. A credible and clear
financial justification for the transition must be developed to appeal to the moneyminded homeowner.
2. Plant Materials and Nurseries/Growers – Nurseries across the state will play an
important role in ensuring that plant supply can meet plant demand generated by the
market transformation; proving a growing demand will incentivize nurseries to move in
the sustainable landscaping direction. Their ability to affordably and sustainably
propagate non-invasive, climate-appropriate plants will impact the financial feasibility of
sustainable landscaping for customers. As much as possible, growers should aim to
make region-appropriate plants readily available and affordable and phase out high
water use, invasive and otherwise unsustainable plants.
3. Irrigation Equipment Manufacturers/Suppliers – Irrigation equipment manufacturers
across the state will play an important role in ensuring that irrigation systems supply can
meet demand generated by the market transformation; proving a growing demand will
incentivize manufacturers to move in the sustainable landscaping direction. Their ability
to affordably design, produce, and market water-smart irrigation (low maintenance,
6
This list identifies changes that will need to happen. A market transformation plan will strategically sequence
these and the other interventions laid out below.
16
long-lasting, regionally-calibrated, and efficient) while phasing out older, less efficient
models systems will impact the financial feasibility of sustainable landscaping for
property owners. Future irrigation equipment manufacturers and suppliers should make
efficient and regionally-appropriate technology readily available and affordable, and
phase out the production of older wasteful technologies.
4. Retailers/Wholesalers – As the direct link to consumers, retailers and wholesalers have
immense power when it comes to product placement and purchasing incentives. Retail
industry support for sustainable landscaping is critical to ease the cost of the transition
for customers and to popularize the right products. Once again, creating and proving a
demand for sustainable landscaping products will encourage retailer buy-in through
bottom-line incentive. Future retailers/wholesalers should make region-appropriate
plants, efficient irrigation and capture technology, and healthy landscaping materials
readily available and affordable and phase out high water use, invasive and otherwise
unsustainable plants, inefficient irrigation technologies, and harmful landscaping
materials.
5. Owners of Large Landscapes – The relative impact of a single large-landscape compared
to a small private residence is measured in orders of magnitude. Approaching large
landscape owners with business propositions that clearly demonstrate how sustainable
landscaping can improve their bottom line may incite impressive landscaping overhauls
that catalyze smaller scale neighbors to replicate the efforts. Landscape caretakers or
third party individuals can bring forward these propositions to engage the bill-payers
who are often removed from the landscaping decisions, in landscaping matters.
6. Landscaping Professionals – Professionals in the field make the concrete decisions and
perform the actual maintenance that directly impacts water use and management. To
encourage landscape contractors, architects, builders, maintenance workers, and
businesses to obtain training and implement their sustainable landscaping knowledge
and practices, there must be a value-add to their services. Increased consumer
awareness of and interest in sustainable landscapes should motivate professionals to
increase and legitimize their sustainability practices in order to attract more customers
and potentially charge a service premium. All landscaping professional roles should be
acknowledged and responsibilities clarified and adjusted to encourage a team approach
to sustainable landscaping and an escape from well-established silos. Sustainable
practices can then be communicated from the initial design through the life cycle of the
project, adding market efficiencies and producing happy clientele.
7. Water Pricing – To signal the importance of outdoor water conservation, or water
conservation in general, water pricing structures and regulations require restructuring
to allow for stronger price signals (e.g., water-budget rates, tiered rates, volumetric
rates, etc.) that catalyze behavioral change in customers and that provide for the
stability and longevity of water distribution operations.
8. Incentives – Wherever the market has not yet made sustainable landscaping materials,
technologies, and services cost-competitive, financial incentives can attract otherwise
reticent adopters of the watershed approach. Rebate or coupon programs, tax breaks,
subsidies, sponsorships, etc., can be employed to catalyze both consumer behavioral
17
change and market composition change, making sustainable products and services
normal, accessible, and competitively priced.
18
II.
Redefining End User Value Hierarchy & Resultant End User Behaviors
Critical to the adoption of sustainable landscaping are end user values, captured in the fourth barrier
‘Social Norms.’ These values drive consumer behavior. For example, the value of ‘fitting in’—complying
with a ‘social norm’—drives end users to maintain a lush, vibrant green lawn in order to keep up with
their neighbors’ thriving lawns. The desire to save money and the assumption that turf grass is cheaper
than native gardens push consumers to install inexpensive sod rather than a healthy variety of noninvasive, native or climate appropriate plants.
A market transformation can employ two tactics to achieve desired consumer behaviors: 1) appeal to
existing end user values such as promoting the affordability and convenience of sustainable
landscaping; and 2) re-define or create new end user values such as promoting a new aesthetic as more
desirable and ‘en vogue’ than turf grass.
A. Appeal to Existing End User Values
1. Money – Consumers protect their pocket book first and seek cost effective landscaping
options that do not undermine their property value.
2. Time – End users place a high value on time. Simple, familiar, or homogenous landscapes
appear to be low-maintenance and therefore a low time-investment.
3. Convenience/Simplicity – Consumers take the easiest path and typically avoid change. Wellunderstood traditional lawns have been around so long that the industry has made their
installation, growth, and maintenance commonplace, convenient, and simple. Consumers
value this convenience.
4. Functionality – In part, end users value turf for its functional and durable play space for
children, pets, lawn games, etc., as well as for its cooling effects.
5. Personal Aesthetic Preferences – Consumers value landscapes that they find visually
appealing; healthy, vibrant lawns are appreciated by many consumers for their aesthetics.
6. Public Appearance/Social Reputation – Beyond appeasing personal aesthetic preferences,
consumers wish to maintain a positive public image. They value how their landscape
appears to the passerby and to their neighbors.
7. Physical Health – Consumers, particularly parents, are concerned with the negative health
impacts associated with exposure to pesticides and fertilizers relied upon in conventional
landscaping practices. Additionally, homeowners value turf grass as a protective fire break.
8. Environmental motivations – Some end users attribute value to water, energy, and waste
conservation beyond the monthly bill. Conserving resources and creating environmental
benefit such as habitat is important to some consumers.
B. Promote New End User Values
1. Environmental Stewardship – Beyond basic conservation ethics, the sustainable landscaping
market transformation seeks to instill a watershed ethic in all end users, meaning they value
and manage their own property as a micro-watershed. This includes the intentional creation
of native habitat that will form an urban mosaic, increasingly conducive to supporting native
animals as lawn conversions multiply and appear like squares on a chess board across cities
and towns.
2. New Aesthetic – The market transformation plans to establish sustainable landscapes as the
new desirable yard aesthetic, embracing native landscapes that offer us a sense of place
19
unique to our state’s diverse climate and biodiversity. (For an example of market-created
preferences, investigate the black pearl market intervention; the sustainable landscaping
transition may not use the same tactic, but this article shows that artfully presented market
interventions can redefine end user values.)
3. Shared Investment in Community – To fulfill the consumer’s need to fit in while supporting a
shared environmental ethic, the market transformation must foster community solidarity
and social equity. Once a handful of houses convert to a native garden in the same
neighborhood, the rest are more likely to follow in suit.
4. Patience – While individual property owners can transform their landscapes in a matter of
weeks (or many months for slower DIY-ers), early adopters may feel discouraged by the
enormity of the scale of transformation needed in their communities and across the state.
The transformation, a long process that may not yield instant gratification, must cultivate
patience in these early adopters. A characteristic not fully embodied in most consumers, a
sense of patience in concert with community momentum can yield complete
transformation.7
7
The Council will look to past examples of long-term campaigns and efforts that changed consumer behavior, such
as the measures that effectively changed the U.S. from a smoking country to a non-smoking country.
20
III.
Devising Effective, Unified, and Collaborative Marketing/Branding/Outreach
Information alone does not change behavior. Innovative and unified communication of sustainable
landscaping information and brands; however, can help redefine social norms and convey benefits of
sustainable landscaping to consumers, businesses, and organizations, indirectly changing behavior and
overcoming the fifth barrier, inconsistent messaging. Knowing which customer segments are pivotal to a
market transformation and learning how to effectively communicate with, and market to, these
segments can expedite what would be a longer transition to sustainable landscaping. Working outside of
silos (e.g., government, academia, non-profit, for-profit, and industry) to align messaging and maintain
consistent expectations will also accelerate the transition to sustainable landscaping.
A. Existing Marketing/Branding/Outreach Examples:
1. Friendly Brands – A series of “Friendly” themed brands promote similar sustainable water
use and landscaping values: Bay-, California-, Creek-, Fish-, Garden-, Ocean-, River-, Russian
River-, River (Sacramento)- Friendly.
2. Turf Rebate Programs – Financial incentive programs across the state use varying titles in
outreach materials such as ‘Cash for Grass,’ ‘Lawn be Gone,’ and ‘Lawn to Garden’ to
promote turf grass replacement.
3. Save Our Water (SOW) – SOW generates outreach materials with graphics and slogans such
as ‘Brown is the new Green’ and ‘Bucket Brigade’ for use by anyone.
4. Local Brands – Individual water utilities, local governments, watershed coordinators,
watershed councils, and resource conservation districts also deploy sustainable landscape
campaigns using their own distinct brands and graphics. For example, RightScape is an Irvine
Ranch Water District (IRWD) outreach program that uses concise slogans and cartoon
characters to market sustainable landscaping to the public. This individualized branding
leads to many, confusing names, logos, and graphics spread throughout California that
intend similar messages.
5. Outreach Programs – Beyond slogans and graphics, organizations and municipalities are
hosting landscape seminar series, educational events, and certifying programs to promote
sustainable landscaping by word of mouth and repeated messaging and customer-contact
opportunities. These varied programs sometimes compete with each other or duplicate
work efforts.
B. Marketing/Branding to develop
1. Develop Unified Branding – To create well-recognized and social-norm-building brands,
unify current branding efforts across the state.8 This effort includes increasing
communication and collaboration across government, academia, non-profit, for-profit, and
industry sectors.
2. Use Community Based Social Marketing
8
“Unification” should allow a consumer or landscape professional to instantly recognize non-invasive, microclimate-appropriate plant and other landscaping materials. In addition, with the appropriate degree of training, it
can form the basis for landscaping professionals to distinguish themselves in the market.
21
i. Study past successful CBSM campaigns to learn from their strategies:
1. Social norms to reduce energy consumption
2. Personal communication and watering restrictions to maximize water efficiency
3. Commitment and incentives to increase public transit
4. Prompts to increase recycled content purchases
ii. Implement targeted new CBSM campaigns combining complementary strategies to
achieve community-level progress towards sustainable landscaping.
22
IV.
Developing Education, Training, Certifications & Licenses Programs
Those most intimately involved with the landscaping industry stand to affect the most direct behavioral
change when it comes to sustainable landscaping. Without the appropriate education, training, and inthe-field experience, knowledge and understanding, it is unfair to expect landscaping professionals to
effectively engrain and implement sustainable landscaping principles in their every day work.
Thoughtful, vocation-appropriate, and requisite sustainable landscaping training and certification
programs can catalyze major movement towards ubiquitous sustainable landscaping practices and
overcome the sixth barrier, the need for Education and Workforce Development.
A. Existing Sustainable Landscaping Programming and Education Requirements:
1. Sustainable Landscaping Educational Programs
Table 2: Existing sustainable landscaping educational programs in California.
Program/Organization
Name
Academia (e.g., UC Davis,
Cal Poly Pomona, San Luis
Obispo, Long Beach City
College, Pierce College, etc.)
Program
Genre
Educational/
Training
American Rainwater
Catchment Systems
Association (ARCSA)
Professional
Training &
Accreditation
Bay-Friendly Qualified
Professional (BFQP) and
Rater Trainings
Professional
Training &
Certification
California-Friendly™
Landscaping Classes
Educational
Open to All,
Garden Hobbyists
Landscape Professionals
California Landscape
Contractors Association
(CLCA) Water Managers
Professional
Training &
Certification
Landscape Contractors,
Irrigation Professionals
Target Audience
Students,
General Public
Variable, Landscape
Professionals, Regulators,
Decision Makers, Business and
Home Owners
Landscape Designers,
Landscape Architects,
Landscape Contractors,
Maintenance Professionals,
Public Sector Professionals,
BFL Raters (prerequisite: BFQP
training)
Notes
Hands on urban horticulture classes,
Master Gardener courses through
the UC extension, landscape
architecture courses, irrigation
engineering courses, etc.
Tiered-level programs teaching
rainwater system design,
construction, and use
Resulting Qualification: Raters
document and submit 3rd-party
rating of BFL landscapes; BFQPs
design, install and/or maintain
landscapes that conserve water,
reduce waste, build healthy soils,
protect water/air quality, protect
and provide wildlife habitat
Promote more attractive, waterefficient yards; Curricula used
throughout the state in local classes
(e.g. San Diego); offered for free
Certification for water managers
with irrigation audit and site
management experience, and a
proven track record of saving water
23
California Native Plant
Society (CNPS) California
Native Landscape
Professionals
Professional
Training &
Certification
Landscape Contractors
Landscape Company Owners
Landscape Professionals
Maintenance Workers
Decision Makers
Irrigation Professionals
Home Owners, etc.
Engineers,
Surveyors,
Geologists,
Stormwater Professionals
(e.g., site managers,
superintendents, or
inspectors)
California Stormwater
Quality Association (CSQA)
Qualified SWPPP
Practitioner (QSP) &
Qualified SWPPP Developer
(QSD)
Professional
Training &
Qualification
EcoLandscape California
River-Friendly Landscaping
‘Green Gardener
Professional’ Training
Professional
Training
EcoLandscape California
River-Friendly ‘Green
Gardener at Home’ Training
Training
EcoLandscaperTM
Professional
Training &
Qualification
River-Friendly Landscaping
Green Gardener Professionals
EPA Water Sense Irrigation
Partners; Irrigation
Association
Professional
Training &
Certification
Landscape Contractors,
Irrigation Professionals,
Landscape/Property Managers
G^3 Green Garden Group
Professional
Training &
Certification
Variable,
Landscape Educators
Green Roofs for Healthy
Cities (GRHC)
Professional
Training and
Accreditation
Landscape Architects,
Landscape Designers,
Landscape Contractors
QWEL
Professional
Training &
Certification
Landscape Professionals
Landscape Architects,
Landscape Designers,
Landscape Contractors,
Irrigation Professionals,
Landscape/Property Mangers,
Maintenance Workers
General Public
Garden Hobbyists
Actual certification is in-the-works;
Pre-Certification Class includes:
Basic Native Plant Ecology, Site
Assessment and Preparation,
Installation, Watering Principles,
Early Establishment, Maintenance,
and Troubleshooting
Construction General Permit
training for the development and
implementation of Stormwater
Pollution Preventions Plans (SWPPP)
that comply with state-mandated
BMPs and the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) requirements
Trains professionals to design,
install, and manage landscapes
holistically, conserving water
minimizing waste and pollution
outputs, and integrating soil, plant,
pest, and irrigation management
General training to teach wholesystems approach to sustainable
landscaping, from designing to
growing to maintaining healthy
landscapes
Advanced training building on the
principles introduced in the RiverFriendly Green Gardener
Professional Training
Separate certifications in irrigation
system design, installation and
maintenance, and audits that take
into account surrounding landscape
and local climate
Technical training to evaluate
landscapes and make water
efficient, carbon sequestering, and
storm water reducing landscaping
decisions
Green roof/wall/integrated
agriculture and building water
management design, installation,
and maintenance training
Professional training on principals of
proper plant selection for the local
climate, irrigation system design and
maintenance, and irrigation system
24
Sustainable Sites Initiative™
Landscape for Life: Train the
Trainer Program
Professional
Training &
Qualification
Garden/Horticulture
Educators,
Master Gardeners/Naturalists,
Landscape Architects,
Landscape Designers
programming and operation.
Teaching tips, tools, and curricula
disseminated via webinar to train
future teachers on holistic,
sustainable gardening
2. Current Landscaping Education and Licensing Requirements9
Table 3: Status of education and licensing requirements by landscaping role in California.
Status of
Education/Training
Status of Certification/ Licensing
Certified Arborist
3 years of experience
and a license exam
Landscape
Architect
6 years of experience
(4-year degree plus
two years experience)
to qualify for License
No educational
requirements
Annual license renewal through the
International Society of Arboriculture
(ISA)
Biennial state license renewal
Target Audience
Landscape
Designer
Landscape
Contractor
4 years experience in
the field and a license
state exam (pre-test
license classes
available)
Irrigation
Professionals
4 years experience in
the field and a license
state exam (pre-test
license classes
available)
No formal certifications; membership in
Association of Professional Landscape
Design (APLD) California Chapter and
APLD Certification lends credibility
C-27 state license required for any
landscaping work over $500 other than
maintenance; membership in California
Landscape Contractors Association
(supportive of the New Norm) lends
credibility; Landscape Industry Certified
Technician and Water Manager
Certification available but not required
C-27 state license required for any
landscaping irrigation work over $500
other than maintenance; membership in
the Irrigation Association (supportive of
the sustainable landscaping initiative)
lends credibility; Certified Irrigation
Expert certifications available in a
number of fields but not required
Status of Continuing
Education Requirements &
Opportunities
30 CEU’s every 2 years
3. None required,
some offered
(see
Table 2 above)
4. None required,
some offered
(see
Table 2 above)
None required; Landscape
Industry Certified Technician
must complete 24 CEU’s
every 2 years
None required; Certified
Irrigation Experts require ~20
CEU’s every 2 years
depending on the
certification type
9
Initially this table was intended to cover required sustainable landscaping educational programs; in the absence
of required sustainable landscaping programming (outside of school-specific curricula), the table covers other
educational requirements.
25
Maintenance
Workers (a.k.a.,
mow, blow, and
go)
Landscape/
Property Managers
None Required
None Required
None Required
None Required
Garden Hobbyists/
All Public
None Required
None Required
5. None Required,
some available
(see
Table 2 above)
6. None Required,
some available
(see
Table 2 above)
7. None Required,
some available
(see
Table 2 above)
B. Sustainable Landscaping Educational Programming Development:
1. Encourage the development and requirement of specific units of sustainable landscaping
training for landscape architects, designers, and contractors.
2. Encourage the inclusion of sustainable landscaping topics in licensing examinations for
landscape architects and contractors.
3. Develop and require continuing education units in sustainable landscaping for landscape architects, -designers, and –contractors.
4. Determine best strategies to reach and educate the unlicensed ‘mow-blow-and-go’ sector;
offer and widely-publicize multi-lingual sustainable landscaping courses with worthwhile
participation rewards, such as grants and scholarships, to incentivize maintenance sector
attendance. Make a business case for offering different skills and services, and targeting
new markets.
5. Work with school districts on outdoor classroom and living schoolyard projects that
demonstrate water efficiency and stormwater infiltration best practices. Identify and
improve age-appropriate education and sustainable landscape curricula in K-12 Schools with
hands-on assignments or field components.
6. Update sustainable landscaping curricula in higher education degree paths and increase the
opportunity for field experience.
7. Facilitate cross-sector communication throughout all education programming to emphasize
the importance of idea-conveyance from design, to installation, to irrigation, to
maintenance.
8. Compose and or compile easily digestible landscaping educational materials to be used
across sectors in a centralized location (e.g., plant maintenance information by region to
supplement Water Use Classification of Landscape Species [WUCOLS], plant selection
methodology for healthy hydrozones, etc.)
26
V.
Designing Pilot Programs and Performance Criteria
Without the wide-spread successful development and implementation of pilot projects and the means
with which to compare project outcomes, it is challenging to recommend with certainty region-specific
sustainable landscaping programs and interventions. To overcome the absence of coordination in
landscape and irrigation evaluation, collected under the seventh barrier’s title ‘Performance Criteria10,’ it
is critical to identify existing project and program success stories, understand their approaches and
determine their quantifiable costs and benefits. A concerted effort to understand and catalogue
existing approaches to sustainable landscaping can establish a foundation for a consensus-based
evaluation protocol that both sets watershed approach expectations and serves as a basis for comparing
landscaping programs, technologies, and management regimes.
A. Identified Successful Pilot Projects:
1. Garden - Garden lawn conversion comparison in Santa Monica
2. Cash for Grass programs throughout California
3. Elmer Ave neighborhood retrofit in Sun Valley, Los Angeles
4. Sustainable SITES pilots in Santa Barbara and Los Angeles
5. RWA Blue Thumb Neighbors in Sacramento
6. Bay-Friendly Landscaping Rated Commercial, Civic and Multi-Family projects in Alameda
County
7. Additional pilot projects state-wide that embody sustainable landscaping principles and
vary in scope and subject are available for reference and replication (e.g.,
demonstration gardens, rebate programs, pilot partnerships, etc.); these projects are
not yet centrally catalogued. The Council Landscape Committee’s ‘New Normal
Toolbox,’ designed to share sustainable landscaping resources on pilot projects,
outreach programs, technical tools, etc.; currently in second phase of development.
B. Identified Existing Performance Criteria:
1. Site-Assessment Organizations – Existing performance criteria are variable in content
and stringency, and diffuse in application (e.g., Bay Friendly Rated Landscapes, and
American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) Sustainable SITES).
2. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB 1881 - MWELO) – The state-produced
MWELO is to be adopted by local municipalities, or municipalities are to develop their
own ordinances that are as effective as MWELO; these standards are poorly
implemented and not fully consistent with the watershed approach.
C. Future Pilot Projects and Performance Criteria
1. Complete the Council Landscape Committee Toolbox Clearinghouse and gather a
continually growing, up-to-date, and centralized collection of landscaping
project/program examples and resources.
10
Performance Criteria, in another sense of the phrase, can suggest technological specifications (e.g., sprinkler
head distribution specifications); this version of performance criteria is discussed more in the following section, ‘VI.
Assisting in Development/Enforcement of Codes, Standards, Statutes and Regulations.’
27
2. Determine gaps (geographic, seasonal, scale/scope) in current array of state-wide pilot
projects; design and implement projects to fill in the gaps.
3. Recruit publically visible and influential partners to implement new, visually-appealing
pilot projects and publicize widely.
4. Develop holistic programmatic performance criteria and evaluation protocol to
standardize evaluation of sustainable landscaping programs across the state, to quantify
associated benefits, and to allow for consistent landscape benchmarks and indicators
that follow the watershed approach; borrow from existing rating systems where
relevant.
5. Make sure that highly-visible pilot projects receive proper maintenance.
28
VI.
Assisting in Development/Enforcement of Codes, Standards, Statutes and Regulations
Overcoming the eighth barrier, insufficient codes, standards, regulations and enforcement,
requires a substantial commitment and effort from industry, consumer and government
partners.
Industry codes and standards set a baseline for future progress. By legally raising the
sustainability bar for landscaping (for example, requiring climate-appropriate plant materials
and weather-based irrigation systems), the market is forced to phase out old landscaping
paradigms in favor of environmentally healthier alternatives. In turn, the public is forced to
make better landscaping decisions. This ‘command and control’ intervention is difficult to
employ without the buy-in of major private industry players as well as affected consumers.
Historically one of the last pieces to develop in a given market transformation, legislative and
regulatory changes tend to follow a shift in the private industry codes, standards, and practices
described in the immediately preceding paragraph. To help guide California’s water future, the
California Legislature directed the Department of Water Resources to create the Independent
Technical Panel (ITP), a rotating group of subject-matter experts who provide information and
recommendations to legislators, and others, on topical demand management measures. This
year, the ITP has been, and will be, meeting to discuss sustainable landscaping. This ITP is a
group of seven water efficiency, landscaping and conservation experts from retail water
suppliers, environmental organizations, the business community, wholesale water suppliers, and
academia. This cycle’s timely topic, sustainable landscaping, offers this market transition the
unique opportunity to defy conventional trends and witness the birth of new sustainable
landscaping regulation, in the form of statutes, ordinances, or regulations, closer to the front
end of a market transformation.
A. Existing Codes11
1. CalGreen 2013 Codes – New buildings, residential and non-residential, must have
weather/soil-moisture-based irrigation controllers (Chapters 4.3 and 5.3); new nonresidential buildings must develop a water budget, submeter outdoor potable water use
on certain plot sizes, and meet specified irrigation design criteria such as weather/soilmoisture-based irrigation controllers
2. California Department of Public Health – Recycled Water Use codes
i. (Chapter 3, Articles 1-4) – requires the use of labels to identify recycled water
irrigation that may be in contact with the public.
3. California Plumbing Code – includes graywater regulation
B. Existing Standards
11
The line between standards and codes can be ambiguous. Take for example Building Codes: these are statewide
standards promulgated by a statewide commission, yet they are ultimately referred to as codes.
29
1. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance12 (AB 1881 - MWELO) – sets standards for
commercial and residential irrigation efficiency and best management practices and
establishes new development requirements
2. Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) /Low Impact Development
Ordinances – vary across the state (examples include the County of Los Angeles Low
Impact Development Standards, and the San Diego County SUSMP)
3. US EPA – establishes Water Sense standards for irrigation controllers
4. Irrigation Association – provides vetted irrigation industry technologies (SWAT)
5. Municipal Standards– vary across the state; created at the discretion of cities to make
consistent public standards such as landscape design standards
C. Existing Guidelines (summarized from MaP’s ”A Comparison of Green’’)
1. Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design, LEED V4 – landscape irrigation requires a
30 percent to 50 percent reduction from baseline calculated via WaterSense water
budget tool; 80 percent of irrigated landscape must be metered excluding Xeriscaped,
water efficient, and native vegetation landscape areas
2. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, ASHRAE
SS189.1 – landscape irrigation must be ET-based using smart controllers and is subject
to restrictions on turf; landscape irrigation must be submetered when the total irrigated
area is greater than 25,000 square feet
3. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, ASHRAE
S191P – outdoor irrigation must be submetered when the total irrigated area is greater
than 5,000 square feet
4. International Code Council, ICC 700-2008 (with National Association of Home Builders
[NAHB]) – no mandatory provisions for landscape irrigation; some turf restrictions
5. International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO), Green
Plumbing & Mechanical Code Supplement – 75 percent of irrigation needs must be
satisfied with water from alternate sources; smart controllers are required when a
controller is needed; outdoor irrigation must be submetered when the total irrigated
area is greater than 2,500 square feet
6. International Green Construction Code (lgCC), ICC Green Code – smart controllers are
required when a controller is needed; alternate non-potable sources encouraged;
outdoor irrigation must be submetered when automatic
D. Existing Constitutional Provisions and State Statutes
1. Reasonable and Beneficial Use Doctrine (Article X Section 2 of CA Constitution)
2. Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881; Article 10.8, 4.5)
3. Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBX7-7)
4. Home Owners Association Legislation affecting water use (AB 2104; SB 992)
12
Though labeled an ordinance, MWELO acts more like a standard, as it sets a floor below which local ordinances
may not go.
30
E. Existing State Regulations
1. SWRCB Emergency Conservation Regulations (under authority of Water Code § 1058.5)
2. Stormwater Permitting and Regulations (e.g., stormwater resource planning,
stormwater disposal,
3. CalRecycle compost and green waste statues and regulations
4. Pesticide Application Regulations
F. Existing Local/Municipal Codes and Ordinances
1. Municipal Water Waste Ordinances (e.g., City of San Juan Capistrano)
2. Local/Municipal Codes – variable across the state and can include, watering schedules,
water-use limitations, and synthetic turf codes
G. Existing Enforcement & Implementation Efforts
1. State Law – enables local public agencies/water utilities to enforce conservation codes
(Water Code § 375); time and money resources, and political will are often lacking,
limiting enforcement
2. Public Entity Enforcement – local public agency or water utility enforcement strategies
range from administrative warnings, to monetary penalties, to infractions, to
misdemeanors; the extent to which these strategies are used is unclear without further
study, but generally any sort of enforcement is reserved for blatant water abusers
H. Future Development
1. Codes
i. Require irrigation retrofit on property re-sales
ii. Update MWELO; make enforceable as an outdoor irrigation code for all landscapes
(including residential properties) that engrains water efficiency ethics into all
landscape management actions; require compliance for any project being installed,
regardless of whether it was approved prior to January 1, 2010 (when MWELO went
into effect)
2. Standards
i. Develop third-party-vetted, enforceable market standards for irrigation technology
efficiency
3. Guidelines
i. Increase public awareness and recognition of building/landscape certifications that
have high water conservation and BMP standards, thus incentivizing certifying
bodies (e.g., SITES and LEED) to raise the bar for water conservation
4. State Statutes and Regulations
i. Increase landscaping rights of homeowners in Home Owners Associations (HOAs)
ii. Raise legal water efficiency standards for government and large commercial
properties (e.g., require dedicated landscape meters)
iii. Have MWELO applied to all buildings approved by the State Architect
iv. Increase power of local water agencies to design and enforce water conservation
policy regardless of drought status
31
v. Establish efficiency baselines for market irrigation equipment
vi. Require additional sustainable landscaping CEU’s for state-licensed landscaping
professions
vii. Revive irrigation standards work directives laid out in AB 1881
viii. Capitalize on regulatory synergies between water conservation and stormwater
measures
5. Enforcement and Implementation
i. Provide creative enforcement tools such as water-infraction education classes
ii. Ensure sufficient resources and incentives are available for implementation of old
and new codes and standards
iii. Create and distribute enforcement tools in place of prescribing enforcement
measures
32
ELEMENT 3: Lasting Change
I.
Matching Barriers with Intervention Strategies: Introduction
To establish sustainable landscaping as the standard practice among property owners, market and
behavioral barriers must be removed through a prioritized series of collaborative interventions and
research. Below, specific barriers are strategically paired with removal strategies and actions.
Implementation factors such as intervention timing, intervention priority, and human and monetary
resources are identified and attributed to each strategy. Implementation factors are assigned based on
best guesses and anticipated market transformation trends. For example, we assume for the sake of the
strategic process and based on existing market transformation curves that after early adoption, the big
jump to majority adoption will happen on an exponential growth curve. The assumption will impact how
timing and priority implementation factors are attributed to each intervention strategy.
Table 4 pairs intervention categories and strategies with each of the nine major barrier categories.
Table 4: Barriers to sustainable landscaping and potential intervention and removal strategies.
Barrier Category
Watershed Approach
Leadership,
Collaboration &
Outreach
Economic Incentives
Social Norms
Messaging
Education &
Workforce
Development
Performance Criteria
Codes, Standards,
Regulations &
Enforcement
Research
BARRIERS & REMOVAL STRATEGIES
Primary Intervention Categories
Example Barrier Removal Strategy
Identify champions to communicate the value of
All
sustainable, alternative options to turf
Devising Effective, Unified, and
Unite state and local sustainable landscaping
Targeted Marketing / Branding / stakeholders to coordinate standards and expectations
Outreach
for the landscaping industry
Implement or increase financial incentives for
Building a Business Case
consumers and businesses; Prove a market demand
Redefining End User Value
Redefine social norms; Employ social diffusion via
Hierarchy & Resultant End User
Community Based Social Marketing
Behaviors
Initiate a state-wide sustainable landscape messaging
Devising Effective, Unified, and
campaign; Devise creative, effective messaging, with
Targeted Marketing / Branding /
person-to-person delivery options, prompts, and
Outreach
commitment solicitations
Developing Education, Training,
Establish and mandate state-wide sustainable
Certifications & Licenses
landscaping certifications for landscape professionals
Programs
Researching Data Gaps, Pilot
Design and implement a standardized landscape
Programs & Designing
evaluation protocol
Performance Criteria
Redesign old codes, standards, and regulations and
Assisting in Development and
develop new ones to catalyze sustainable landscaping;
Enforcement of Codes &
Design enforcement tools and generate enforcement
Standards; Catalyzing Regulatory
resources
Action
Researching Data Gaps, Pilot
Programs & Designing
Performance Criteria
Prioritize research needs and delegate targeted
research tasks
33
Despite an understanding of general barriers to sustainable landscaping, there are no specific and
thorough data on how end user values and associated barriers vary across space and time. To accurately
target sustainable landscaping programs and efforts, it is critical to match appropriate barrier removal
strategies with the most prevalent and entrenched barriers in a specific region, town or neighborhood.
Finer data resolution is needed to effectively implement intervention strategies. Specifically, the
following questions must be answered:
How do end user values and associated barriers to sustainable landscaping vary:
-
over space?
-
over time? and
-
across demographics?
Space – Regional variability in water availability, water sources, water cost, pricing structures, water
needs, population, and population density may correlate with variability in barriers to sustainable
landscaping. For example, a small rural population relying on well water and experiencing dire water
shortage may not concern itself with landscape upkeep. Residents may not consider landscaping
transformation as their limited water resources will be saved for more basic needs such as bathing and
drinking.. A small rural community with an abundant supply of water and no imminent water threats;
however, may not consider investing in a transformation that is, in the minds of its residents ‘not
needed. Identifying, without speculation, what barriers apply to which geographic regions will guide
market transformation implementation.
Time – Seasonal, generational, cultural, and technological change over time can build up and break
down barriers to sustainable landscaping. To know these changes over time is to inform tactical market
intervention. Take, for example, the current California drought. End users have been primed, and are
more aware than any time in recent memory of water challenges in California. The market should be
ripe to tackle barriers weakened by the drought. Social norms may have morphed during this drought,
and perhaps it’s now more acceptable to consider dramatically overhauling a landscape, where it may
not have been a few short years ago, before the drought started. This temporal difference in barrier
priority can open or close windows to ripe market intervention.
Demographics – Variability in socio-economic class, education level, and cultural heritage may parallel
variability in barriers to sustainable landscaping. An impoverished urban area with high water costs may
be less concerned with social norms and more concerned with cost savings. A wealthy suburban
neighborhood may be more concerned with social norms and functional space than with water cost
savings. These hypothetical differences in end user demographics can inform barrier removal strategies.
Water utility staff members, landscaping professionals, and retailers are most likely to know their
communities best. Their knowledge is critical to informing local strategies.
Implementing intervention strategies at strategic moments in space and time for the appropriate
demographic will cause barriers to fall more readily and cost-effectively than a haphazard, shotgun
approach, where a mix of strategies are applied without deference to spatial and temporal data.
34
II.
Matching Barriers with Intervention Strategies: Priorities, Time Frames, Relative
Costs
This section, and the following section, supplement and expand Table 4 with three new tables.
Table 6 and Table 7 both pair more specific intervention with more specific barriers to sustainable
landscaping in California. For each intervention strategy, they both also add implementation factors
such as action priority, time frame and relative cost. They differ primarily in their organization. Table 6
organizes its strategies by primary barrier category. Table 7 organizes its strategies by proposed priority,
timing and relative cost. To allow easier comparison between the two different displays, each Table 6
strategy has the same number as its Table 7 counterpart. Finally, Table 5 provides a simple key for
reading Tables 6 and 7.
Table 5: Key to intervention and barrier removal implementation factors.
Priority
Timing
Cost
Key
Intervention & Barrier Removal Implementation Factors
(TP) Top Priority
(MP) Mid Priority
(LP) Low Priority
(ST) Short Term 1-2 years (MT) Medium Term 3-5 years
(LT) Long Term 5+ years
($) Low Cost
($$) Medium Cost
($$$) High Cost
35
Table 6: Barrier removal actions/strategies, timing, priorities, and costs; the row ‘#’ references the numerical order of actions found in Table 7
Primary
Barrier
Category
Watershed
Approach13
#
Specific Barrier Addressed
1
Absence of agency/organization understanding
of and/or buy-in to the watershed approach
impedes the exponential adoption of
sustainable landscaping principles and
implementation
Priority
Timing
Cost
Engage, inform, and incentivize key sustainable
landscaping stakeholder buy-in from the get-go of the
market intervention
TP
ST
$
15
Lack of integration of landscaping priorities
and collaboration in local and state
government agencies (planning, inspecting,
regulating, enforcing, etc.)
Mandate a formal degree of landscaping integration and
coordination across local and state government sectors;
start an information campaign to educate local
governments on the benefits of sustainable landscaping
and provide utilities with effective tools; establish a
permanent technical advisory committee between
stakeholders (e.g., DWR, DPR, CalRecycle, etc.) to facilitate
coordination
TP
LT
$$$
21
No Central HOA association exists to govern
HOA sustainability standards
Facilitate the birth of regional HOA associations, created
on the platform of sustainability; incite competition
between HOAs to maximize sustainability and motivate
with advertising benefits
MP
MT
$$
5
Consumers assume sustainable landscapes are
more costly to purchase and install than
traditional counterparts; ROI for some
sustainable landscape conversions can exceed
20 years; water efficient irrigation and plant
materials are often more expensive than their
traditional counterparts
Catalyze landscape conversions with financial incentives
(e.g., rebates, tax credits, etc.); grow demand for
sustainable landscape materials to increase affordability
due to market-based economies of scale
TP
ST
$$$
7
Native plants and climate-appropriate plants
are often more difficult and more costly to
propagate; nursery production and retail
presence of water-efficient and sustainable
plants is limited
Prove a consumer demand and/or guarantee a buyer for
climate-appropriate and native through partnership
creation and growth; demonstrate to nurseries and plant
retailers the long-term incentives from a for-profit
perspective such as getting ahead of the market trajectory
TP
S-MT
$$
Leadership,
Collaboration
& Outreach
Economic
Incentives
13
Intervention Strategy/Action
The ‘Watershed Approach’ barrier category applies to each and every intervention strategy/action in both Tables 6 & 7.
36
Primary
Barrier
Category
#
11
Economic
Incentives
Cont.
16
Social Norms
Specific Barrier Addressed
Competitive maintenance contracts do not
allow the time/money to include healthy
landscaping practices and Landscaping and
irrigation industry professionals and
maintenance workers are unfamiliar with
effective sustainable landscaping practices
(e.g., watering to a budget instead of a
Maximum Allowable Water Allowance
[MAWA])
Water pricing does not send a strong
conservation signal to outdoor water end
users; water agencies often have their hands
tied by political will and existing regulation,
restricting them from affecting constructive
water-pricing change
Intervention Strategy/Action
Priority
Timing
Cost
Build a business case to help property managers
understand landscaping stress and the benefits of a water
budget; pilot a landscape designer/contractor joint
challenge program to design and install landscapes based
on a designated evapotranspiration level (0.00-0.80 by
intervals of 0.10); capture visual results and post
installation consumption records in a photo gallery and
data file
TP
MT
$$
Re-evaluate water pricing regulation and creation on a
state-level; determine the economic and conservation
implications for restructured water pricing; encourage
agency adoption of water rates that incentivize outdoor
water use conservation
TP
LT
$$$
LP
LT
$
26
Property owners are concerned with the
impact of sustainable landscapes on property
value
Capture property value trends over time as they vary with
household ‘curb-appeal’ and increased utility efficiencies
attributable to landscaping; engage and educate the realestate sector to help market sustainable landscapes
positively to clients
8
Turf lawns are the preferred yard aesthetic for
old and new properties; native and climateappropriate plants, shrubs, and landscapes can
be perceived as ugly; some existing examples
of ‘sustainable’ conversions are aesthetically
unappealing
Counter negative sustainable landscaping perceptions with
well-designed, distributed, prevalent, and aestheticallypleasing demonstration gardens that include related
statistics comparing traditional landscaping to sustainable
landscaping in terms of water, resources, labor, green
waste, emissions, etc.
TP
S-MT
$$
13
Neighborhood demographics, HOA standards,
and other norm-setting communities
encourage turf-based uniformity
Employ CBSM at the neighborhood and HOA scale to
establish a new landscaping social norm using incentives,
messaging, commitment bias, and person-to-person
communication; leverage early adopters/ environmental
stewards to spread the word via inventive messaging
TP
M-LT
$$$
Turf lawns are preferred for their functionality;
the public does not universally perceive
climate appropriate alternatives as sufficiently
'functional'
Gather and disseminate imagery of functional sustainable
landscapes (e.g., urban farms, permeable pavers, etc.) ;
draft and disseminate template landscape design plans
that emphasize functional space; grow, pilot, and market
climate-appropriate, durable, and attractive lawn
alternatives
MP
ST
$$
17
37
Primary
Barrier
Category
Social Norms
Cont.
Messaging
#
Specific Barrier Addressed
Intervention Strategy/Action
Priority
Timing
Cost
18
CII, HOA, celebrity, corporate, and government
landscapes that are highly visible to the public
do not consistently lead by example
Recruit extremely public and well-known people,
government agencies, landscapes, associations, etc. to
serve as sustainable landscaping ambassadors and to host
pilot projects on their properties; require government
buildings to transition immediately
MP
ST
$$
6
Lack of state-wide integrated messaging and
branding
Construct a comprehensive state-wide advertising
campaign with unified TV, radio, billboard, internet, and
print marketing and graphics; include a parallel plant and
product labeling project
TP
ST
$$$
12
No CEUs are required for professionals in the
landscape and irrigation industry;
communication within landscape and irrigation
professionals is disjointed
Require CEUs and a degree of collaboration for all
professional sectors of the landscape industry
TP
M-LT
$$
14
Turf installation and maintenance is wellunderstood (by both consumers and landscape
professionals), quick, and simple with high
market familiarity and availability; native
gardens are multi-faceted and fewer educated
market services are available to successfully
design, install, and support their maintenance
Design and distribute/implement educational, sustainable
landscaping materials/projects/trainings to increase public
familiarity and comfort with the 'watershed approach';
bring industry leaders and professionals up-to-date on
sustainable landscaping and able to provide necessary
services
TP
LT
$$$
19
Watershed approach-based informational
materials and pilot project records are limited
and/or diffuse
Compose and/or compile easily digestible landscaping
materials and pilot project records in a centralized location
MP
MT
$
Sustainable Landscaping educating entities are
limited in number, resources, and visibility
Fund educating entities and facilitate collaboration and
cross-referencing within programs to ensure accurate
material, state-wide consistency, and wide-spread
distribution of education opportunities ranging from
school children to professionals
MP
MT
$$
Education &
Workforce
Development
22
38
Primary
Barrier
Category
#
Specific Barrier Addressed
Performance
Criteria
4
The irrigation industry lacks consensus on best
irrigation technologies, designs, and water
budgets for specific landscapes
Performance
Criteria Cont.
10
Performance criteria and evaluation protocol
for sustainable landscaping projects are non
existent or inconsistent across the state
2
The MWELO is unenforceable and insufficient
as an outdoor irrigation code for residential
homes and it does not apply to re-sale
properties
20
Water utilities and municipalities lack the
resources to effectively enforce conservation
mandates
23
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of
2006 (among other state regulations and
standards) is outdated and insufficient
24
Market standards such as irrigation technology
efficiency standards and regional plant
restrictions are lacking
Codes,
Standards,
Regulations &
Enforcement
Research
Intervention Strategy/Action
Priority
Timing
Cost
TP
ST
$$
TP
MT
$$
TP
ST
$
MP
MT
$
MP
MT
$$$
Develop and implement third-party-vetted, enforceable
market standards for irrigation technology efficiency and
plant permissibility
MP
M-LT
$$
25
Existing water conservation enforcement
measures are prescriptive and without policy
space; water utilities are reticent to use
punitive enforcement measures
Require specific water conservation outcomes and suggest
a variety of enforcement strategies, but ultimately leave
enforcement open to the agents of enforcement; design
creative alternatives to fines and water service
interruptions
LP
ST
$
9
Data-based, life-time cost-benefit analyses for
landscape conversions are not fully available
or substantiated
Calculate clear, real-world, climate-specific, numbers (e.g.,
Life Cycle Assessments) with appropriate caveats for
current potential water/cost savings, and other benefits
attributable to sustainable landscaping practices
TP
ST
$$
Plan an irrigation technology summit to share irrigation
and design details and to arrive at consensus of best
irrigation systems/management regimes for specific
landscapes/regions
Develop programmatic performance criteria and
evaluation protocol to standardize evaluation of
sustainable landscaping programs and initiatives, to
quantify associated benefits, and to allow for consistent
landscape benchmarks and indicators
Resolve the MWELO enforcement challenges faced by
water utilities and municipalities and apply standards to resale properties; update to include regular revision, lower
ET rates, stricter water budget components, etc.
Identify and distribute potential funding sources and
points of contact; encourage Proposition 1 agents to
designate funding for conservation and landscaping
enforcement measures
Re-work the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act and
other outdated regulations and standards to include
holistic, sustainable landscaping principles and to capitalize
on synergies between water conservation and stormwater
management
39
Primary
Barrier
Category
#
3
Specific Barrier Addressed
Regional variability in sustainable landscaping
barriers is unstudied/unclear
Intervention Strategy/Action
Perform necessary research to increase data
resolution/understanding of sustainable landscaping
barriers
Priority
Timing
Cost
TP
S-MT
$$$
40
PART 3: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
Conclusion
Table 7 below summarizes the next steps for the array of barrier removal strategies/action items presented in Table 6. Actions are organized by
highest priority level to lowest priority level, and subsequently by shortest term to longest term. To move forward with the actions presented below
and the market transformation plan as a whole, the following steps are critical:




Host a stakeholder meeting to solicit further feedback and generate early buy-in, and engage with all sectors identified in the above
framework;
Create a steering committee to drive the planning and implementation processes;
Identify additional barrier removal strategies and refine next steps; and
Determine for all strategies identified the following:
o responsible parties and roles,
o available resources, and
o needed resources.
A patient commitment to collaboration will transform the landscaping market and yield long-term payoffs for water conservation and environmental
benefit.
41
Table 7: Barrier removal actions/strategies, timing, priorities, costs, and next steps; actions are ordered by priority and subsequently by timing; shading indicates ‘Top Priority,’
‘Mid Priority,’ and ‘Low Priority’ groupings
#
Primary
Barrier
Category
1
Watershed
Approach14
2
Codes,
Standards,
Regulations &
Enforcement
3
Research
4
Performance
Criteria
5
Economic
Incentives
14
Secondary
Barrier
Category
Specific Barrier Addressed
Intervention Strategy/Action
Leadership,
Collaboration
& Outreach
Absence of agency/organization
understanding of and/or buy-in to
the watershed approach impedes
the exponential adoption of
sustainable landscaping principles
and implementation
Engage, inform, and incentivize key
sustainable landscaping stakeholder
buy-in from the get-go of the market
intervention
Leadership,
Collaboration
& Outreach
The MWELO is unenforceable and
insufficient as an outdoor irrigation
code for residential homes and it
does not apply to re-sale properties
Resolved the MWELO enforcement
challenges faced by water utilities and
municipalities and apply standards to
re-sale properties; update to include
regular revision, lower ET rates, stricter
water budget components, etc.
Economic
Incentives
Data-based, life-time cost-benefit
analyses for landscape conversions
are not fully available or
substantiated
Research
The irrigation industry lacks
consensus on best irrigation
technologies, designs, and water
budgets for specific landscapes
Leadership,
Collaboration
& Outreach
Consumers assume sustainable
landscapes are more costly to
purchase and install than
traditional counterparts; R.O.I. for
some sustainable landscape
conversions can exceed 20 years;
water efficient irrigation and plant
materials are often more expensive
than their traditional counterparts
Calculate clear, real-world, climatespecific, numbers (e.g., Life Cycle
Assessments) with appropriate caveats
for current potential water/cost
savings, and other benefits attributable
to sustainable landscaping practices
Plan an irrigation technology summit
to share irrigation and design details
and to arrive at consensus of best
irrigation systems/management
regimes for specific landscapes/regions
Catalyze landscape conversions with
financial incentives (e.g., rebates, tax
credits, etc.); grow demand for
sustainable landscape materials to
increase affordability due to marketbased economies of scale
Priority
TP
TP
Timing
ST
ST
Cost
Next Steps
$
Identify all potential
stakeholders; host an inclusive
stakeholder workshop to
generate early buy-in and to
determine roles and
responsibilities
$
Convene stakeholders to achieve
MWELO revision consensus;
propose revisions to state
legislative bodies
TP
ST
$$
Gather existing data; achieve
region-specific consensus
/conclusion from existing data;
plan additional studies where
data is weak
TP
ST
$$
Identify stakeholders; identify
planning agent; identify desired
outcome
$$$
Identify consumer-perceived
financial barriers and actual
market cost barriers; implement
pilot financial incentive programs
based on findings; analyze
results; scale up effective
incentive programs
TP
ST
The ‘Watershed Approach’ barrier category applies to each and every intervention strategy/action in Tables 6 & 7.
42
#
6
7
Primary
Barrier
Category
Messaging
Economic
Incentives
Secondary
Barrier
Category
Specific Barrier Addressed
Leadership,
Collaboration
& Outreach
Lack of state-wide integrated
messaging and branding
Messaging
Native plants and climateappropriate plants are often more
difficult and more costly to
propagate; nursery production and
retail presence of water-efficient
and sustainable plants is limited
Intervention Strategy/Action
Construct a comprehensive state-wide
advertising campaign with unified TV,
radio, billboard, internet, and print
marketing and graphics; include a
parallel plant and product labeling
project
Prove a consumer demand and/or
guarantee a buyer for climateappropriate and native through
partnership creation and growth;
demonstrate to nurseries and plant
retailers the long-term incentives from
a for-profit perspective such as getting
ahead of the market trajectory
Cost
ST
$$$
TP
S-MT
$$
Counter negative sustainable
landscaping perceptions with welldesigned, distributed, prevalent, and
aesthetically-pleasing demonstration
gardens that include related statistics
comparing traditional landscaping to
sustainable landscaping in terms of
water, resources, labor, green waste,
emissions, etc.
TP
S-MT
$$
TP
S-MT
$$$
8
Social Norms
Leadership,
Collaboration
& Outreach
9
Research
Social Norms
Regional variability in sustainable
landscaping barriers is
unstudied/unclear
Perform necessary research to increase
data resolution/understanding of
sustainable landscaping barriers
Leadership,
Collaboration
& Outreach
Performance criteria and evaluation
protocol for sustainable
landscaping projects are non
existent or inconsistent across the
state
Develop programmatic performance
criteria and evaluation protocol to
standardize evaluation of sustainable
landscaping programs and initiatives,
to quantify associated benefits, and to
allow for consistent landscape
benchmarks and indicators
Performance
Criteria
Timing
TP
Turf lawns are the preferred yard
aesthetic for old and new
properties; native and climateappropriate plants, shrubs, and
landscapes can be perceived as
'ugly'; some existing examples of
‘sustainable’ conversions are
aesthetically unappealing
10
Priority
TP
MT
$$
Next Steps
Meet with water utilities and
landscaping organizations to
generate buy-in; coordinate with
organization capable of handling
state-wide initiatives; hire
advertising firm to plan campaign
Gather existing data on
landscape conversions and ripple
effects on market economics (e.g.
evidence of growing demand via
lawn rebate programs); create a
simple, clean, distributable
business case document
targeting nurseries and retailers
Identify and map existing,
beautiful and sustainable
landscapes; capture imagery and
design concepts of these spaces;
identify partner sites and funding
to generate landscaping bids for
new or renovated public
landscapes built on sustainable
principles; advertise landscaping
RFPs, requiring contractors to be
trained in sustainable
landscaping practices
Determine where data-based
understanding of barriers is
sparse; plan surveys and focus
groups in conjunction with water
utilities to better understand
barriers
Identify existing performance
criteria and evaluation models;
convene stakeholders to
synthesize best hybrid of existing
evaluation models
43
#
11
12
13
14
Primary
Barrier
Category
Economic
Incentives
Education &
Workforce
Development
Social Norms
Education &
Workforce
Development
Secondary
Barrier
Category
Specific Barrier Addressed
Intervention Strategy/Action
Education &
Workforce
Development
Competitive maintenance contracts
do not allow the time/money to
include healthy landscaping
practices and Landscaping and
irrigation industry professionals and
maintenance workers are
unfamiliar with effective
sustainable landscaping practices
(e.g., watering to a budget instead
of the MAWA)
Build a business case to help property
managers understand landscaping
stress and the benefits of a water
budget; pilot a landscape
designer/contractor joint challenge
program to design and install
landscapes based on a designated
evapotranspiration levels (0.00-0.80 by
intervals of 0.10); capture visual results
and post installation consumption
records in a photo gallery and data file
No CEUs are required for
professionals in the landscape and
irrigation industry; communication
within landscape and irrigation
professionals is disjointed
Require CEUs and a degree of
collaboration for all professional
sectors of the landscape industry
Leadership,
Collaboration
& Outreach
Neighborhood demographics, HOA
standards, and other norm-setting
communities encourage turf-based
uniformity
Employ CBSM at the neighborhood and
HOA scale to establish a new
landscaping social norm using
incentives, messaging, commitment
bias, and person-to-person
communication; leverage early
adopters/ environmental stewards to
spread the word via inventive
messaging
Messaging
Turf installation and maintenance is
well-understood (by both
consumers and landscape
professionals), quick, and simple
with high market familiarity and
availability; native gardens are
multi-faceted and fewer educated
market services are available to
successfully design, install, and
support their maintenance
Design and distribute/implement
educational, sustainable landscaping
materials/projects/trainings to
increase public familiarity and comfort
with the 'watershed approach'; bring
industry leaders and professionals upto-date on sustainable landscaping and
able to provide necessary services
Leadership,
Collaboration
& Outreach
Priority
TP
TP
TP
TP
Timing
MT
M-LT
M-LT
LT
Cost
Next Steps
$$
Gather existing information on
sustainable landscape
conversions and relevant
incentives from a landscape
architect, designer, contractor,
and laborer point of view; create
a simple, clean, distributable
business case document
targeting competitive landscape
contractors and their clients
$$
Meet with educators, industry
leaders, and certifying bodies to
determine the process and
obstacles to CEU requirement;
identify important landscape
synergies and propose mandated
communication between
landscape/irrigation designers
and landscape/irrigation
installers
$$$
Design CBSM pilot projects and
identify water agency,
community, and/or HOA partners
to implement the projects
$$$
Identify education partners;
communicate simple, and
attractive sustainable landscape
concepts to homeowners and
property managers that they can
relay to contractors; propose
more stringent sustainable
landscaping CEUs to certifying
bodies
44
#
15
16
17
18
Primary
Barrier
Category
Leadership,
Collaboration
& Outreach
Economic
Incentives
Secondary
Barrier
Category
Specific Barrier Addressed
Intervention Strategy/Action
Codes,
Standards,
Regulations
&
Enforcement
Lack of integration of landscaping
priorities and collaboration in local
and state government agencies
(planning, inspecting, regulating,
enforcing, etc.)
Mandate a formal degree of
landscaping integration and
coordination across local and state
government sectors; start an
information campaign to educate local
governments on the benefits of
sustainable landscaping and provide
utilities with effective tools; establish a
permanent technical advisory
committee between stakeholders (e.g.,
DWR, DPR, CalRecycle, etc.) to
facilitate coordination
Codes,
Standards,
Regulations
&
Enforcement
Water pricing does not send a
strong conservation signal to
outdoor water end users; water
agencies often have their hands
tied by political will and existing
regulation, restricting them from
affecting constructive water-pricing
change
Re-evaluate water pricing regulation
and creation on a state-level;
determine the economic and
conservation implications for
restructured water pricing; encourage
agency adoption of water rates that
incentivize outdoor water use
conservation (e.g., water budget rates)
Social Norms
Messaging
Turf lawns are preferred for their
functionality; the public does not
universally perceive climate
appropriate alternatives as
sufficiently 'functional'
Social Norms
Codes,
Standards,
Regulations
&
Enforcement
CII, HOA, celebrity, and government
landscapes that are highly visible to
the public do not consistently lead
by example
Gather and disseminate imagery of
functional sustainable landscapes (e.g.,
urban farms, permeable pavers, etc.) ;
draft and disseminate template
landscape design plans that emphasize
functional space; grow, pilot, and
market climate-appropriate, durable,
and attractive lawn alternatives
Recruit extremely public and wellknown people, government agencies,
landscapes, associations, etc. to serve
as sustainable landscaping
ambassadors and to host pilot projects
on their properties; require
government buildings to transition
immediately
Priority
TP
TP
MP
MP
Timing
LT
LT
ST
ST
Cost
Next Steps
$$$
Identify potential partnerships;
host a stakeholder meeting to
gauge individual organizational
interests in cross-sector
collaboration and/or
participation in a technical
advisory committee; propose
legislative amendments to
require state-level coordination
that streamlines landscaping
processes
$$$
Identify creative water pricing
structures and regulatory
limitations; compose
recommendations for water
pricing regulation change
evaluate regional applicability;
compile and disseminate current
conservation-incentivizing water
pricing tactics
$$
Identify functional and
sustainable existing landscapes;
identify nursery partners who
specialize in turf alternatives;
validate products; advertise
products
$$
Recruit partners for pilot
landscapes; devise and propose
government landscaping
standards to legislative bodies
45
#
Primary
Barrier
Category
Secondary
Barrier
Category
Specific Barrier Addressed
Leadership,
Collaboration
& Outreach
Watershed approach-based
informational materials and pilot
project records are limited and/or
diffuse
19
Education &
Workforce
Development
20
Codes,
Standards,
Regulations &
Enforcement
Economic
Incentives
Water utilities and municipalities
lack the resources to effectively
enforce conservation mandates
21
Leadership,
Collaboration
& Outreach
Education &
Workforce
Development
No Central HOA association exists
to govern HOA sustainability
standards
22
Education &
Workforce
Development
Leadership,
Collaboration
& Outreach
Sustainable Landscaping educating
entities are limited in number,
resources, and visibility
23
Codes,
Standards,
Regulations &
Enforcement
Leadership,
Collaboration
& Outreach
The Water Conservation in
Landscaping Act of 2006 (among
other state regulations and
standards) is outdated and
insufficient
24
Codes,
Standards,
Regulations &
Enforcement
Performance
Criteria
Market standards such as irrigation
technology efficiency standards and
regional plant restrictions are
lacking
Intervention Strategy/Action
Compose and/or compile easily
digestible landscaping materials and
pilot project records in a centralized
location
Identify and distribute potential
funding sources and points of contact;
encourage Proposition 1 agents to
designate funding for conservation and
landscaping enforcement measures
Facilitate the birth of regional HOA
associations, created on the platform
of sustainability; incite competition
between HOAs to maximize
sustainability and motivate with
advertising benefits
Fund educating entities and facilitate
collaboration and cross-referencing
within programs to ensure accurate
material, state-wide consistency, and
wide-spread distribution of education
opportunities ranging from school
children to professionals
Re-work the Water Conservation in
Landscaping Act and other outdated
regulations and standards to include
holistic sustainable landscaping
principles and to capitalize on
synergies between water conservation
and stormwater management
Develop and implement third-partyvetted, enforceable market standards
for irrigation technology efficiency and
plant permissibility
Priority
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
Timing
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
M-LT
Cost
Next Steps
$
Identify useful, existing
sustainable landscaping
materials; archive in the Council's
Landscape Committee Toolbox;
identify material gaps; delegate
material and pilot project
creation
$
Identify and compile funding
opportunities; define agency
needs for a Proposition 1 agent
audience
$$
Use a well-established regional
entity to reach out to HOAs and
hold a pilot meeting for a
regional HOA council
$$
Identify available funding
resources for sustainable
landscaping education entities
and apply for grants; gather
educators in one room to discuss
collaboration and to leverage
growth opportunities
$$$
Identify out-of-date/insufficient
landscaping regulations and
standards; propose detailed
recommendations to the ITP;
ensure proposals are brought to
legislative bodies
$$
Engage in conversation with
market entities to determine the
steps necessary for market
standard revision;
46
#
25
26
Primary
Barrier
Category
Codes,
Standards,
Regulations &
Enforcement
Economic
Incentives
Secondary
Barrier
Category
Education &
Workforce
Development
Research
Specific Barrier Addressed
Intervention Strategy/Action
Existing water conservation
enforcement measures are
prescriptive and without policy
space; water utilities are reticent to
use punitive enforcement measures
Require specific water conservation
outcomes and suggest a variety of
enforcement strategies, but ultimately
leave enforcement open to the agents
of enforcement; design creative
alternatives to fines and water service
interruptions
Property owners are concerned
with the impact of sustainable
landscapes on property value
Capture property value trends over
time as they vary with household curbappeal and increased utility efficiencies
attributable to landscaping; engage
and educate the real-estate sector to
help market sustainable landscapes
positively to clients
Priority
LP
LP
Timing
ST
LT
Cost
Next Steps
$
Propose revised conservation
enforcement measures to
legislators; brainstorm
prescriptive and fine
enforcement alternatives; pilot
'water school' as an alternative to
fines; gather feedback from
existing 'alternative' enforcement
measures
$
Gather real estate data and
anecdotal information; find
compelling case studies that are
in favor of sustainable
landscaping; identify real estate
partners
47
APPENDIX A: Research – Overcoming the 9th Barrier
Conceptually, the ninth barrier—lack of sufficient knowledge—does not lend itself to a market intervention. Rather, developing an adequate
knowledge base is often a pre-requisite to successful interventions. Similarly, improving a knowledge base is necessary to adaptive
management. Within the sustainable landscaping community, there is an underlying hesitation to push forward on all sustainable
landscaping fronts without ascertaining further evidence of water savings and environmental health benefits attributable to specific
landscaping actions such as irrigation system selection, plant selection, landscape design choices, etc. Though this document is peppered
with research results and pilot projects that have yielded promising and repeatable results, there is still a need for a continued expansion of
collective sustainable landscaping knowledge, defensible by robust research and testing methodologies. The following outline parallels the
format of all other market interventions, detailing the current state of research and then suggesting future research steps.
A. Existing Research:
a. Existing outdoor water savings research has been compiled by the Alliance for Water Efficiency’s Outdoor Water Savings
Initiative in a newly released report that identifies research gaps.
b. Existing sustainable landscaping research (e.g., composting, native plants, alternative water supply, etc.) is available from diffuse
resources.
B. Future Research Projects:
a. Identify significant gaps in sustainable landscaping subject coverage, reference the following AWE Outdoor Water Savings
Research Initiative’s list of greatest need research areas:
 Impact of native, water-wise, and xeric landscapes vs. turf on water use and cost.
 Impact of water rates, rate structures, and billing information on demand.
 Impact of various drought restrictions on demand. The best/only research on this topic is now 10 years old.
 Water requirements and drought tolerance of landscape turfs and plants under different climate and drought conditions.
Water requirement should be based on acceptable appearance rather than maximum growth.
 Impact of landscape contractor training, education, and certification.
 The human element of landscape water management – how people manage and interact with the entire irrigation system
and the installed landscape.
 Impact of improving system efficiency through audits, tune ups, sprinkler-head retrofits, and other measures.
 Reasons and rationale for customer landscape choices.
 Cost-effectiveness and cost savings of various outdoor water saving programs.
 Impact of regional variability (climate, soils, demographics, etc.) on outdoor water demand and savings, with a standard
measure for comparison across regions.
 Standard methods for monitoring and verifying water savings.
 Long-term reliability and projected lifetime of outdoor water savings.
b. Develop a prioritized list of needed research and pilot projects and identify funding and partners to undertake the research and
project tasks. Research and evaluate past and future water conservation landscaping technologies and management regimes,
48
such as water budgets, to achieve consensus on best landscape management practices and technologies as they relate to
specific regions and end users.
49
APPENDIX B: Table 7 Addendum – Resources, Roles & Responsibilities
Coming soon…a Table 7 addendum, formatted in Excel, that will determine each of the following for all barrier removal strategies/action items as
identified at the Council’s April 15, 2015 Sustainable Landscaping Stakeholder Meeting:
a. Next step roles and responsible parties
b. Available resources
c. Needed resources
50
APPENDIX C: New Norm Symposia Infographics
51
APPENDIX D: Summary of Presentations to ITP - Meeting #16 November 20, 2014
Current and Anticipated
Challenges/Barriers Summary
Organization
American
Society of
Irrigation
Consultants











American
Society of
Landscape
Architects








Consistency in ordinances
Cost of additional paperwork in design process
Public shift to accept appearance of lower water use plant
palettes
Proper design and maintenance of drip irrigation
Education on use of weather based controls
Cost of weather based controls
Proper use of harvested water – grey or rainwater
Client preferences and lack of 100% consensus on
achieving goals
Inconsistencies among municipalities regarding water
conservation design regulations, tracking (metering), and
enforcement
No link to the water budget based calculations required
under the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
Lack of scientific data regarding plant water use
requirements
Inconsistent maintenance and care of installed landscapes
Acres of existing outdated landscapes and the long Return
on Investment to retrofit
Lack of coordination between local Regional Water
Quality Control Boards water quality and hydromodification goals, and stormwater capture for irrigation
Socioeconomic impacts of water costs
Existing wasteful landscapes and the cost of retrofitting
Aligning Regional Water Quality Control Boards with
stormwater capture and re-use
Issues regarding private reclamation plants
Climate change and severity of droughts impacting the
value of landscape, groundwater reserves, and the
economy including agriculture
Recommendations Summary













Conceptual
Representation in
Document (High,
Medium, Low)
Smart timers negate need for cycle based restrictions
Eliminate 24 inch offset requirement
Eliminate use of drip and/or turf in spaces 8 feet or
smaller
Promote use of high efficiency spray devices as alternate
technology in turf
Provide direction in the ordinance to focus more on the
goal and less with the objective.
Increased number of CIMIS (non-ideal) locations
Homeowner efficiency
Nuisance water harvesting, treatment, supplement
Medium
Discourage Synthetic Turf and gravel/heat-island
aesthetics
Value regionally appropriate landscapes
Initiate a budget based billing for landscape meters
throughout the state that uses the metrics under the
state Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
Develop standards and incentives for private reclamation
plants; streamline approval processes
Align Regional Water Quality Control Boards with
stormwater capture and re-use
High
52





Association
of
Professional
Landscape
Designers





The whole-systems approach may be at cross-purposes
with a” water conservation at all cost” message
Water conservation is often framed as a short-term issue;
Irrigation is emphasized, not always soil, rain water
harvesting, plant selection, and the use of mulch and
compost
CEUs are lacking
Resistance by experienced design professionals to learn
and practice the “New Normal” of landscape design
General industry lack of understanding about new science
in the plant-soil-water relationship
Baseline standards for sustainable landscapes using the
watershed approach have not been implemented
throughout CA; MWELO has not gone far enough
Several regional groups implementing MWELO actively
have excluded Landscape Designers from the certifying
process
Revise Landscape Architecture Practice Act does not allow
California consumers to contract Landscape Designers
Enforcement and one-on-one coaching with water
conservation objectives is insufficient











Bay-Friendly
Coalition




Prioritization and focus –not everyone needs to do it all
Avoid duplication of efforts - collaborations/partnerships
Develop/share metrics - help “sell” to the public
Shifting public acceptance - Education and demonstration







City of Santa
Monica

Landscaping and irrigation is not considered as vital to
health and safety compared to indoor plumbing
Plan checkers and inspectors lack of knowledge and
experience with sustainable landscaping


Turf removals should be rebated
Incentives should motivate returning organic material to
soils; 3” compost and organic mulch should be
encouraged
Incentives and education should be developed for
reduction of irrigated areas so long as a multi-benefit
retrofit has been installed
Artificial turf should be excluded from rebates
A program should be funded that supports municipalities
in the removal of turf in all parkways and medians
Citizen scientists help enforce fines for dry weather run
off on private and public properties
More aggressive and transparent public outreach and
education programs that encourage a watershed
approach should be funded
Create state-wide standards that are more aggressive in
landscape water budgeting and grading for rainwater
capture than MWELO
Adopt a holistic approach – it’s all related; multiobjective, multi-benefit
Link water conservation and water quality; air quality and
GHG; public health – expands fundability
Education/training of public/private professionals in
design, installation and maintenance
Address design, installation and maintenance
Rethink WELO – lower threshold?
Emphasize soil health from a soil food web perspective;
support sheet mulching
Establish IPM as required approach to maintenance
(chemicals only as last resort and appropriately utilized)
Recommend at least 50% native plants to rebuild
healthy/beneficial insect populations
Funding – for training, public outreach, demonstration
projects, etc.
Consider requiring education and continuing education
for licensure – architects and contractors (every kind)
Consider working with manufacturers to educate
professionals and property owners about their best water
Medium
High
High
53






Many hours spent reviewing and correcting plan sets
because the plans submitted do not meet the basic code
requirements
Lack of Education and Experience: design, install,
maintain (across all players in industry)
Regulation and Enforcement Coordination lacking:
permits, plan check, inspections
Bad products on market: sprinklers, high water use plants
Lacking knowledgeable staff
Lack of leadership and cooperation amongst landscapers
to inform, educate, and assist professional landscapers
regarding sustainable landscaping best management
practices and complying with state and local laws





California
Landscape
Contractors
Association
(See recommendations to infer barriers.)











Coachella
Valley Water
District
UC Davis
Cooperative
Extension






Educating all staff and staffing
Low water rates
Entitlement mentality by an affluent population
Lack of knowledge about water conservation
Organizing and implementing plans
Low water rates viewed as a conservation impediment

Number of UC CE staff is shrinking although demand for
expertise continues to rise in environmental horticulture,
landscape and turf, nursery and floriculture, & irrigation
technology
Educating the public adequately to generate impact is








saving products
Consider requiring landscape/irrigation permits, plan
check, and inspections
Consider banning water wasting products such as
sprinklers and high water use plants (why are we doing
turf removal if we allow it to be installed somewhere else)
Consider promoting the New Normal state-wide
Water meters everywhere ASAP
Dedicated landscape-only meters for large landscapes of
all kinds
Rate structures that encourage efficient use
Rebate programs
New developments plumbed for reclaimed water
Enforce Model Ordinance
Communication with CLCA
Follow directive of SWRCB and target runoff
Don’t neglect existing landscapes. That’s where most of
the water is to be saved
Measure water use, including landscape water use
Price water to reflect its true cost
Encourage and perhaps require certification of water
managers who service large landscapes.
Look to CLCA to support any measure that targets waste
or otherwise saves water without doing harm to urban
landscapes or unnecessarily restricting owners
Effective Landscape Ordinance requiring: Drip irrigation
on shrubs, Lower ET adjustment factor, Turf setbacks
Budget tiered rates that incorporate: Landscaped area,
Weather, Irrigation efficiency
Turf Conversion featuring: Flexibility, 80% water
reduction with desert-friendly designs, Changing thought
processes
Consistent enforcement of water conservation mandates
Promote obtaining water conservation expertise (e.g.,
certification programs)
Provide more outreach and education
Customize information and messaging by group
Medium
Medium
High
54


Surfrider
















Tree People








Turfgrass
Water
Conservation
Alliance




difficult with variable levels of understanding/motivation
Master Gardeners struggle to teach clients about
landscape management and irrigation controllers
Precise landscape/irrigation management is complex and
end users are diverse in their understanding and
motivations
Limited Capacity – volunteer and $ limitations
Silos & lack of collaboration
Lack of understanding about watershed approach
Turf rebates not promoting watershed approach
Lack of skilled workforce
Consumers under-valuing role of landscape & pros
Cheap “solutions” - artificial turf, no-cost retrofits
Lack of innovation – need for Civilian Conservation Corps
Piece-meal solutions – one-offs
Opposition from traditional landscape industry
Working with Latino and other communities – cultural
differences, pre-conceptions
Offering all information and website in Spanish
Not enough staff to be in every neighborhood
Low availability of native plants
People buy what they know, and that’s typically nonnative species
Working with the residents on Elmer Ave to care for their
own landscapes
Permit process for irricades
Permit process for using recycled water
Permits VERY expensive for curb cuts, & replacing turf in
parkways with native plants other than what’s on the
city’s list of only “walkable” groundcover
Funding
Association of drought-tolerant with desertification
People not looking at sites holistically
Manpower – TWCA is still fairly young and relatively small
Consistency - Maintaining a consistent message to our
members and municipalities over time
Market challenges in supplying water conserving live
goods
Outdated beliefs about turfgrasses
Cultural Practices
Market challenges in supplying water conserving
livegoods
(Professional landscape managers- public agency and
commercial; Growers; Retail nursery staff and garden
enthusiasts; General public)





Watershed Approach – adopt & promote
Integrated governance – engage fellow agencies
Education – draw from MWD’s Cal Friendly class
Training – invest in hands-on workforce development
Data from each retrofit – common metrics, make
accessible

Design tall tree planting to achieve at least 25% canopy
coverage of the site
Stormwater shall be directed to trees and landscapes with
curb cuts, swales and berms.
Adequate soil volume specified for tree planting.
Turf in public green spaces for recreation should be
maintained with recycled water or massive water
catchment systems
Healthy soils that absorb water are critical to an urban
environment; include humus in soil, 3-4 inches mulch,
permeable pavers, ANSI tree/shrub management/pruning
no concrete/metal grates/rocks in tree-wells
Do not allow IPC-listed plants to be sold











State of California join the TWCA
Implement TWCA qualification standards for all
turfgrasses in the state
Recognize TWCA qualified varieties as water saving
varieties eligible for lawn replacement rebates
Require TWCA qualification for all turfgrasses installed
in the managed landscape
High
Medium
Low
55
Western
Municipal
Water
District












Under-informed decision making processes
Educating staff that interacts with customers
Sufficient time and labor to support programs
Funding to support staff and programs
Customer Education- increasing customer knowledge
Empowerment, changing of water ethic
Loss of knowledgeable staff and institutional knowledge
Time
Setting efficiencies based on water use sector
Setting clear and reasonable long-term targets
Educating regulators and legislators
Enforcement by jurisdictional agencies (e.g., landscape
ordinances)







Support for allocation-based water rates
Consistent state-wide messaging
In a drought or not; fresh and positive messaging
Make SaveOurH2O.org a truly state-wide website
Change the water use ethic
Support development of meaningful product standards
(WBICs, soil sensors, other smart technology)
Funding of water use efficiency research projects (Tech
grants, challenge grants)
High
56