Abstract
Artful rainwater design (ARD) emerged in the United States in the 1990s as a creative way to manage rainfall typical of temperate climates. ARD is performative and revelatory: it shows viewers what the rain is doing—where it is moving from and where it is going on a site—and helps the public understand rain as a resource, not a waste product. Indeed, the defining characteristic of ARD is its revelation of rain’s beneficial impact, or its “rain message.” If ARD is to become an accepted, revelatory norm in rain management, designers, managers, and owners of ARDs must ensure that the rain message in every installation remains legible for the long term. This study addresses a simple question: Can we derive useful considerations to guide designers toward long‐term “rain message legibility” in future ARDs? To answer this question, we returned to 20 ARDs presented as noteworthy case studies in our 2015 book on ARD. All of these sites are now 10–20 years old. Are their rain messages still legible? The answer is varied, providing many useful insights. This study combined updated site observations of the projects with interviews of case study ARD designers and managers. The results are one set of observation‐derived themes and another of interview‐derived themes, with the intersection of those themes producing a body of useful considerations for future ARD design.
Background
Artful rainwater design (ARD) began to appear in the 1990s as a creative way to manage rain with multiple benefits: ARD can provide on‐site mitigation of runoff quantity and/or quality for small rains typical of temperate climates. It is also aesthetically pleasing, designed to be perceived as a landscape amenity. But ARD goes beyond the attractive rain garden or wet pond by revealing what the rain is doing. In other words, ARD is not only performative, it is informative, displaying where the rainwater is moving from (rooftop, paved surface, etc.) and where it is going (watering plants, flowing into a cistern for future use, flowing into a stream, etc.). Sometimes it goes further to tell a larger story about rain’s important impact on environmental systems (Figure 1). The key is that ARD always seeks to tell an informative story about the rain. It is a creative way to show the public that rain matters and an exciting way for the design of a landscape to strive to change public perception of rain so that they see it not as a waste product but as a resource.
At New Seasons Market, Arbor Lodge, Portland, OR, the rainwater trail tells a story of rain’s important impact on rivers and the region’s prized salmon. Design: Lango Hansen Landscape Architects PC; Ivan McLean; photograph: Stuart Echols, 2013.
ARD is linked to the emergence of “ecological design” in landscape architecture, advocated since McHarg’s Design with Nature (1969) and continuing through now‐classic works of the 1980s and 1990s (including Forman, 1990; Hough, 1995; Lyle, 1994; Spirn, 1984; G. Thompson & Steiner, 1997; Thayer, 1994). ARD’s emergence also was likely influenced by “eco‐revelatory design,” which emerged in 1998 with an exhibition, a special issue of Landscape Journal, and a lofty goal: to reveal environmental processes at work on sites in the hope of enhancing human recognition of the value of natural systems (Brown & Johnston, 1998). Other research threads relevant to ARD include work in environmental aesthetics by theorists exploring the following: how to make ecological processes appealing to the American public (esp. Nassauer, 1995, 1997); whether awareness of ecological processes impacts aesthetic appreciation (e.g., Eaton, 1997, 1998; Carlson, 1995, 2001); and whether eco‐revelatory strategies could impact environmental behavior (e.g., Gobster et al., 2007; Heeren et al., 2016).
Early examples of green stormwater infrastructure with an aesthetic and/or informative component include extensive sustainable stormwater management systems in Malmö, Sweden, largely spearheaded by Peter Stahre (2005, 2006); designs and publications of Herbert Dreiseitl in Germany (Dreiseitl et al., 2001; Dreiseitl & Grau, 2005); and groundbreaking work in Portland, OR, largely led by the Bureau of Environmental Services environmental specialist Tom Liptan and BES designer Kevin Perry. In the 1990s and early 2000s, under its editor William J. Thompson, the U.S. professional journal Landscape Architecture Magazine published numerous staff‐written articles on stormwater management that visibly celebrates rain (W. J. Thompson, 1999; Leccese, 1997; Brown, 2001, Rigsby, 2004; W. J. Thompson, 2004; Owens Viani, 2005).
Inspired by the opportunities afforded by this revelatory approach to rain management, the authors began to study ARD examples nationwide in 2005. We coined the term “artful rainwater design,” offering clarification of ARD as “design that combines the utility of stormwater management with the amenity of rich placemaking focused on the rainwater itself” (Echols & Pennypacker, 2006, 24). We have made numerous professional and academic presentations nationwide and published in both professional and scholarly venues, with our core ideas presented most robustly in Landscape Architecture Magazine (2006, 2008); Landscape Journal (2008); and finally, our book (2015). As exemplified in the following quote and image (Figure 1) from our book introduction (Echols & Pennypacker, 2015, 2–3), our position toward ARD is one of advocacy: “By creating sustainable stormwater management systems that visibly communicate their management strategies, we can make people aware of rain as a resource.”
Scholarly articles have referenced our ARD concepts, expanding upon them (Ødegård, 2016; Andersen et al., 2017; Darnthamrongkul & Mozingo, 2021) or critiquing them (see esp. Gallo et al., 2012; Sleegers & Brabec, 2014). ARD has been featured as a topic of landscape architecture student studies nationwide (e.g., Sparnicht, 2012; Cesanek, 2013; Huggler, 2019; B. J. Thompson, 2020; Taft, 2023). In other words, it is a strategy that has gained some traction in the landscape architecture community as a multi‐benefit, environmentally responsible, experientially rich approach to rain management.
But as exciting as ARD may be, it is far from easy to carry out. ARD must not only perform as a rain management system, it must also inform. The defining characteristic of ARD is its “rain message,” its visible revelation of rain’s activity and impact.
If ARD is to become an accepted, revelatory norm in rain management, designers, managers, and owners of ARDs must ensure that they deliver clear long‐term rain messages. And we have concluded, by repeat visits to ARDs around the United States, that much can be learned by studying ARDs over time. Consequently, we determined that one useful way to see how well ARD is doing as a landscape genre is to return to the 20 case studies presented as noteworthy in our 2015 book now that all of these designs are 10–20 years old. How are their rain messages holding up? The answer is varied and points to important lessons about successes and non‐successes that can help future ARD designers.
Research Question, Method, and Limitations
This study focuses on the feature of ARD that distinguishes it from other forms of rain management: its revelatory “rain message,” or the story presented within the design that shows where rain is coming from (a roof, paved surface, etc.) and where it is going (to water plants, into a cistern for future use, into a stream, etc.). Sometimes the “rain message” presents a broader story of rain’s important impact on local ecologies, but in every case, the message is what makes ARD artful rainwater design. The research question is therefore: Can we derive useful considerations to guide designers toward long‐term “rain message legibility” in future ARDs? (Note that references to rain message legibility, durability, and clarity are used interchangeably throughout this essay.)
Our method was to revisit the case studies, all now 10–20 years old, from our 2015 book. We’d chosen this set of designs as particularly noteworthy examples of ARD that varied in geographical context within the United States. The current study explores these projects in two ways. First, we updated site observations by revisiting the case study designs either personally or through updated imagery from the designers and/or Google Streetview to see what aspects of the rain message legibility had either changed or endured. This resulted in observation‐derived themes about the legibility of those rain messages in 17 of the 20 case studies. We then used the basic coding method of qualitative analysis to organize our site observations into a simple set of negatives and positives related to the updated clarity of the rain message, resulting in a set of “observation‐derived themes.” Second, we interviewed case study designers, managers, and “interested parties” to explore different perspectives. We began with the designers with whom we’d communicated for our 2015 book and asked them to suggest other potential interviewees. We obtained 34 interviews from representatives of 17 case study projects. We coded their responses to a set of semi‐structured questions, resulting in a set of “interview‐derived themes” parsed simply into positive and negative comments related to rain message legibility. Finally, we collated observation‐derived themes and interview‐derived themes to find points of intersection focused on the projects’ rainwater message legibility. Those intersectional points led to a set of considerations to help ensure the long‐term durability of rain messages in ARDs.
The most important limitations of this study are the small number of designs and the fact that updated images and site visits reveal only a moment in time that may not represent an ARD’s typical appearance. This limitation is particularly salient for sites visited during the COVID‐19 pandemic, when landscape maintenance regimes suffered in many contexts. Other limitations are those typical of qualitative analysis: interviewees’ and researchers’ inevitable biases and the inherent imperfection of analysis derived through data coding.
The Case Studies Under Review
When we began studying ARD in 2005, we found few examples nationwide; most were in the Pacific Northwest. In our early Landscape Journal article, we explained how we chose the projects:
We developed a list of ARD projects from around the nation by reviewing the past ten years of ASLA and AIA awards for designs whose clear intent included stormwater management systems devised to create site amenities, namely increased attractiveness or value focused on the experience of rainwater. We then asked the project designers, as well as experts in stormwater issues, to recommend other designs representing the best in ARD. We reviewed the most frequently recommended projects and arrived at a list that represents a diversity of setting, project type, and runoff treatment methods. (Echols & Pennypacker, 2008, 270)
To determine the case studies that appeared in our 2015 book, we mined that 2008 study set and expanded the list to increase geographic diversity. The result was a set of 13 projects from our 2008 study plus seven more, presented in Table 1.
Case Studies
The current research returned to the 20 case studies from our book for two reasons: First, they were award‐winning designs recognized in their early years as noteworthy; second, they are now all 10–20 years old, an age at which many landscape designs exhibit significant changes.
Site Observations
Method
Because this study focuses on ARD rain message legibility, revisiting the sites was a key step to learn what physical features had changed or remained within the original rain messages. Site observation included physical visits wherever possible, supplemented by updated photographs. In all we obtained new site observations for 17 projects in the following manner:
We personally revisited 15 projects.
Designers provided updated imagery for 6 projects.
We reviewed Google Streetview imagery for 9 projects.
Our analysis compared observations on first site visits (1–3 years post‐implementation) with observations on return visits (8–20+ years post‐implementation) as well as updated images from the designers and/or Google Streetview. We noted and documented characteristics that had changed or remained the same over time, then parsed our site observations into two simple categories: positives, where the rain message remained strong and clear, and negatives, where change detracted from the rain message. Those results are presented by project in Table 2.
Site Observation Matrix
Observation‐Derived Themes
Our next step was to categorize related observations into themes focused on rain message legibility. This analysis of site observations resulted in the following set of positive and negative themes related directly to rain message legibility.
Positive observation theme 1: Rain message legibility is consistently retained when the rainwater trail moves through hardscape devices. such as scuppers, aqueducts, curb cuts, level spreaders, structural runnels, and trench drains (Figures 2, 3). Sculptural elements are also durable communicators of the rain message (Figure 4).
This Swarthmore College Science Center hardscape rainwater trail retains its rain message legibility (rooftop to water wall to elevated runnel to rock‐filled basin) with signage clarifying the rain’s storage in a cistern for future use. Design: M. L. Baird and Company; photographs: Stuart Echols, 2013 and 2021.
The sculptural “Beckoning Cistern” provides a durable rain message, reaching its hand to the building downspout to receive rain. A cistern valve opens to send rain into planters downhill. Design: Buster Simpson; photograph: Stuart Echols, 2013.
Positive observation theme 2: Rain message legibility can be retained by signage. Indeed, sometimes the only form of rain message is signage (Figure 5).
At Queens Botanical Garden a pool of rainwater is cleansed by plants, with a “Cleansing Biotope” message delivered through signage. Design: Atelier Dreiseitl with Conservation Design Forum; photograph: Stuart Echols, 2021.
Positive observation theme 3: Rain message legibility can be retained through plant trimming and editing. (Figures 6, 7). This is facilitated by placing plants within containers (Figure 8).
Plant editing at the Oregon Convention Center ensures visibility of the rainwater trail. Design: Mayer/Reed Associates; photographs: Stuart Echols, 2005 and 2014.
Vegetation in planters at Washougal Town Center is easily trimmed or substituted to ensure legibility of the downspout‐to‐level spreader‐to‐plants rain message. Design: Greenworks (Mike Faha), 2020.
Negative observation theme 1: Dramatic plant change can significantly diminish rain message legibility. (Figures 9, 10).
Negative observation theme 2: Long‐term buildup of silt, sediment, or algae may diminish observer enthusiasm for the rain message. (Figures 11, 12). Ironically, while visible silt or sediment in an ARD shows that the system is preventing detritus from moving downstream, if it is allowed to remain for too long, visitors may find the ARD unattractive and the rain message less compelling.
Long‐term sediment buildup in a basin at 10th @Hoyt could result in diminished visitor appreciation for the design and its rain message. Design: Koch Landscape Architecture; photograph: Steve Koch, 2021.
A pipe outlet carrying rainwater at Historic Fourth Ward Park is blocked by debris, potentially diminishing visitor appreciation for the rain message. Design: HDR; photograph: Eliza Pennypacker, 2021.
Negative observation theme 3: Water force can move materials in the rainwater trail, significantly diminishing rain message legibility. (Figures 13, 14).
At Shoemaker Green, a lilting rainwater trail defined by river stones has been completely displaced, likely by moving water. Design: Andropogon Associates Ltd; photographs: Stuart Echols, 2013 and 2021.
Interviews
Site observations were complemented by interviews with case study designers, managers, and others to provide additional breadth and depth of perspective and context.
Method
Twenty‐seven semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 34 participants (20 designers from 17 projects; 6 managers from 4 projects; 8 “interested parties” from 8 projects) in a process approved by our university’s Institutional Review Board using the following questions:
Are you happy overall with its maturation?
What do you think has worked well in this design?
What would you do differently?
Do you know of any monitoring studies conducted on this project?
Are there others we should contact for more information?
Note that our interview questions were intentionally broad to avoid biasing interviewee responses.
Analysis of the interviews followed the same basic process as analysis of the observations: qualitative analysis through coding was used to derive themes on positive and negative comments related to rain message legibility. In this case, data were coded using three iterative steps (open, axial, selective); coding was recorded using NVivo software and resulted in a set of themes that we parsed into positives and negatives. Then, in a fourth phase of coding, we focused on those themes most pertinent to long‐term rain message legibility. The coding sequence was as follows:
Open Coding. In this first step of coding, data was simply organized by topic. We identified 19 topics addressed in the interviews, presented in Table 3 and ranked from most to least frequently mentioned.
Open Coding
Axial Coding. In the second pass of coding, topics were consolidated into related categories and subcategories, or parent/child codes. Those topics with no “children” and/or low insight potential were dropped, resulting in the 12 topics shown in Table 4.
Axial Coding
Selective Coding 1. Selective coding gathered codes into connected categories. In this study those categories were simply “positive” and “negative,” result-ing in six positives and six negatives, as shown in Table 5.
Selective Coding 1
Selective Coding Refinement. In the final step we retained only codes that related to rain message legibility, resulting in three positive and four negative comment codes, as shown in Table 6.
Selective Coding Refinement Focused on Rain Message Legibility
Interview‐Derived Themes
Within each interview‐derived theme there are subthemes and points that address the issue of rain message durability. Each theme is presented here with a very brief discussion, followed by a table that presents its subthemes supported by illustrative quotes.
Positive comment theme 1: Durability of certain physical elements can help retain ARD rain message legibility. Interviewees identified some key design characteristics in this category. Twelve interviewees shared 15 thoughts on this topic, with subthemes and illustrative quotes found in Table 7.
Durability of Physical Elements: Subthemes and Illustrative Quotes
The remaining positive comment themes address not so much physical features as the benefits derived from an ARD approach to rain management. This is not surprising, given our open‐ended interview questions; and these positive comments corroborate many of the benefits of ARD for which we have advocated in our work to date.
Positive comment theme 2: A clear rain message can enhance public awareness and understanding of rain. This was a popular topic among our interviewees, with 32 comments from 17 interviewees. Illustrative quotes are found in Table 8.
Enhanced Public Awareness and Understanding: Subthemes and Illustrative Quotes
Positive comment theme 3: An ARD approach can transform rain management into a multi‐benefit solution. Only eight comments on this topic were offered by six interviewees—but those remarks were compelling. Subthemes and illustrative quotes are found in Table 9.
ARD Approach as a Multi‐Benefit Solution: Subthemes and Illustrative Quotes
Negative comment theme 1: Deterioration of physical elements can diminish rain message legibility. Interviewees identified two categories of deterioration that can negatively impact rain message legibility: the erosive force of water movement and signage degradation. Another form of physical degradation—plant change—was such a big topic that it will be addressed below in its own theme. Nine interviewees made 13 comments on this topic. Subthemes and illustrative quotes are found in Table 10.
Rain Message Legibility Deterioration: Subthemes and Illustrative Quotes
Negative comment theme 2: Plant change can diminish rain message legibility. Everyone who works with plants over time recognizes that they are living, changing organisms: some grow, some wither; some are aggressive, some well‐behaved. And, as both our interviews and updated site images attest, unexpected plant change can hide a thoughtfully designed rainwater trail, obscuring an ARD’s revelatory power. Plant change can also change the design character dramatically (e.g., where leggy or weedy plant growth or plant loss has occurred), potentially diminishing visitor appreciation for the design. Nineteen interviewees shared 34 thoughts on these issues. Subthemes and illustrative quotes are found in Table 11.
Plant Change: Subthemes and Illustrative Quotes
. . .
Maintenance is a huge issue, key to the long‐term success of any landscape design; but ARDs are particularly unforgiving of poor maintenance. In addition to the challenge of maintaining the functionality of the rain management system, maintenance of ARDs must retain legibility of the rain message. This was such a popular and multifaceted topic among our interviewees that we broke maintenance issues down into two topics in this study.
Negative comment theme 3: Lack of maintenance capacity, consistency, and clear responsibility can devastate an ARD (and its rain message legibility). Eighteen comments by 12 interviewees focused on the importance of conducting maintenance in ARDs. Subthemes on the importance of maintenance and illustrative quotes are found in Table 12.
Management Capacity, Consistency, and Clear Responsibility: Subthemes and Illustrative Quotes
Negative comment theme 4: Lack of maintenance staff understanding can undermine long‐term ran message legibility (and ARD functionality). While the last theme focused on the importance of “doing” maintenance, this theme focuses of the importance of staff understanding of what needs to be done. ARDs differ from traditional landscapes where staff mow, mulch, edge, and weed. Maintenance staff may be unfamiliar with the rain management system and/or the plants and their requirements. ARD designers hope that staff will understand or learn about the plants and systems, but this is a true challenge that can lead to diminished rain message legibility and ARD aesthetic quality. The problem is exacerbated by staff turnover and lack of knowledge transfer. Nine interviewees offered 23 comments on this topic. Subcategories and illustrative quotes are found in Table 13.
Maintenance Staff Understanding: Subthemes and Illustrative Quotes
Conclusion: A Set of Useful Considerations for Future ARDs
The answer to our research question is yes: by returning to the case study sites using a combination of observation‐based and interview‐based analysis, we have been able to derive a set of useful thoughts for maintaining an ARD’s rain message legibility. We gleaned the following important considerations from the intersection of site observation‐derived themes and interview‐derived themes found through this study.
Consideration 1: A “Lively” Design. (from Positive Observation Theme 1 and Positive Comment Theme 1)
According to some of our interviewees and observations, a design that is lively and engaging, presenting a variety of water movement and even water sounds, may enhance the durability of the rain message. Such a design captures people’s attention—and that attention may make owners/managers loathe to risk losing that benefit through poor maintenance.
Consideration 2: Hardscape and Sculptural Elements. (from Positive Observation Theme 1 and Positive Comment Theme 1)
We observed that hardscape conveyance devices (scuppers, runnels, level spreaders, etc.) retain rain message legibility better than rainwater trails created by plants and/or river stone. Some of our interviewees additionally declared that visible hardscape elements in ARDs can require very little maintenance. Sculptural elements addressing rain message legibility also can have great durability in terms of both material and rain message.
Consideration 3: Signage. (from Positive Observation Theme 2 and Positive Comment Theme 2)
Long‐term rain message legibility can be significantly enhanced by signage that communicates facets of the ARD not immediately apparent to visitors. A caveat voiced by some interviewees is that signage must be well‐maintained for long‐term clarity of the rain message.
Consideration 4: Water Movement Force. (from Negative Observation Theme 3 and Negative Comment Theme 1)
In an ARD rainwater trail, water can move with considerable volume and force—in turn moving or eroding materials in its path. In the case studies we observed this impact on plants, clay check‐dams, and river stone—even river stone embedded in concrete. This challenge relates to Consideration 2 (see above): rainwater trail conveyance that is a simple hardscape runnel may have longer‐term rain message legibility.
Consideration 5: Plant Change. (from Negative Observation Theme 1 and Negative Comment Theme 2)
Changes in plants are a challenge in any landscape design; but here we focus on those changes that impact the ARD rain message legibility. Plant growth can hide elements of the rain message; “leggy” growth, “weeds,” plant loss or withering may diminish visitor enthusiasm for the design and/or the rain message. But plant change does not inevitably diminish ARD impacts if plants are chosen and spaced with careful consideration of their mature size. Plants should be trimmed regularly and edited periodically.
Consideration 6: Maintenance. (from Positive Observation Theme 3, Negative Observation Theme 1, Negative Comment Themes 3, 4)
This consideration may be the single most important one for ARDs as it is key to the durability or deterioration of rain message legibility (as well as to every other ARD facet).
Multiple interviewees spoke of the importance of design that acknowledges maintenance capacity—in terms of manpower, clear designation of maintenance responsibilities, and the maintenance staff’s understanding of how the ARD works and is expected to look. We also heard repeatedly about the importance of ensuring staff understanding of necessary maintenance activities and their frequency. Additionally, we heard about the challenge of maintenance knowledge transfer in the context of frequent turnover of site stewards, whether volunteer or paid. All of this suggests that long‐term success of the rain message legibility (as well as rain management function) might be dramatically enhanced by a user‐friendly Maintenance and Operations Plan (MOP). To truly be useful, a MOP should fit into the pockets of maintenance staff onsite, whether as a smartphone App or as a laminated document, so that helpful information is always at hand. Such a MOP may also ameliorate the knowledge transfer challenge, making essential information as accessible to new stewards as it was to those who preceded them.
These interview comments were corroborated by our site visits. Lack of maintenance in ARDs—as in all landscapes—instantly communicates lack of care; and deterioration of rain message legibility due to poor maintenance may suggest a loss of owner/manager interest in this defining ARD feature. It should be noted, though, that we saw in our site visits and heard from multiple interviewees that strong maintenance can have a major positive impact: an ARD that presents a well‐maintained landscape can become a local asset, beloved by its constituency. This kind of positive user relationship with an ARD site can in turn enhance its long‐term care and durability.
Final Thoughts
ARD is an approach to rain management with considerable appeal for landscape architects for an array of reasons: it expands opportunities for landscape architects to address a site challenge historically controlled by engineers; it provides a rationale to keep a landscape from being “value engineered” out of a development plan; it demonstrates a viable means to let soil and plants manage rain onsite; it provides function, beauty, and information all in one design; and it has the potential to change people’s perceptions of rain so that they begin to view it as a resource rather than a waste product. What’s not to love, as the authors’ decades of presentations and publications to date have declared?
But study of ARDs over time reveals that the challenges of long‐term success for ARDs are many. Do the challenges outweigh the potential benefits? The answer depends on realistic considerations—including those presented here—that must be weighed in the context of each design project.
In sum: It is important that designers and owners be clear‐eyed when considering implementation of an Artful Rainwater Design. The potential benefits are considerable, but recognition of the challenges is essential. Ideally, studies like this one provide the kind of useful information needed for future ARD success.
As stated at the outset, this study focuses on the defining feature of ARD: the rain message and its long‐term legibility. The study is limited in scope by the number of data sets (17 revisited projects and 34 interview respondents) and by the need to focus on a single topic within ARD for the purpose of addressing an important research question. Method limitations were articulated earlier. Useful topics for future research include:
How effectively do ARDs actually impact people’s perceptions of rain as a resource?
Can “best practices” be developed for ARD signage placement and/or design?
What effective strategies can be developed for plant choice, editing, and replacement in ARDs?
How effective are ARDs in managing rain?
Does the rain management function of ARDs change over time?
What strategies/characteristics make an ARD successful according to cost‐benefit analysis?
What policies can be developed to promote implementation of rain management through ARD?
The current study addresses only the importance of long‐term maintenance of the rain message legibility in ARDs, leaving the study of many other facets of ARD to future research. But the site observations and interviews presented here reveal an important set of considerations that the authors hope may prove useful to future designers of ARDs.
Peer Review Statement
Landscape Journal uses a double‐blind peer review process for research manuscripts, systematic literature reviews, and other article types.
Acknowledgments
This study was independently undertaken by the authors. It was made possible by the 34 interviewees who generously shared their time and ideas with us and also by those who graciously allowed us to use their design photographs. Ultimately the entire study is indebted to the creative pioneers, both designers and academics, who have undertaken Artful Rainwater Design as an alternative to traditional rain management strategies. Finally, we especially acknowledge Kevin Robert Perry, one of the United States’ premier early Artful Rainwater Designers, who left this earth while this article was in process in the spring of 2023.
This open‐access article is distributed under the terms of the CC‐BY‐NC‐ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0) and is freely available online at https://lj.uwpress.org.
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.