Aunty ran with a story this week about a study which obviously hopes to find that people with higher incomes have leafy gardens:
"The University of Tasmania study aims to help urban landscapers design greener cities that satisfy their residents.
Findings from the three-year nationwide study will be used to plan leafier cities.
Professor James Kirkpatrick, who is leading the survey, says socio-economic status is the main influence on choice of garden.
"There was no relationship whatsoever between how close you were to your neighbours and what your garden was like, so quite dramatically different gardens can be right next door to each other," he said.
Professor Kirkpatrick says the tertiary-educated prefer leafy gardens, while bare turf was popular in gardens in poorer areas.
"It tends to be associated with income, the higher the income the higher the proportion of trees in front gardens, we found that for the whole of eastern Australian cities," he said."
The tertiary-educated have more aesthetically pleasing front yards? G'arn! Aside from the blindingly obvious fact that people with more money can afford to buy those leafy plants, pay increasingly hefty water bills and probably don't have physically demanding jobs and so aren't as bone-tired on their days off, all this study is telling me is that higher education gives life-long advantage.
The good professors collared $130,000 to prove that? And not for the first time either. Presumably there is more to this on-going study than Aunty has revealed so far. Otherwise taxpayers will have a right to feel browned-off.
Pic from Wall Jungle