Abstract
Although ecosystem services have been intensively examined in certain domains (e.g., forests and wetlands), little research has assessed ecosystem services for the most dominant landscape type in urban ecosystems—namely, residential yards. In this paper, we report findings of a cross-site survey of homeowners in six U.S. cities to 1) examine how residents subjectively value various ecosystem services, 2) explore distinctive dimensions of those values, and 3) test the urban homogenization hypothesis. This hypothesis posits that urbanization leads to similarities in the social-ecological dynamics across cities in diverse biomes. By extension, the thesis suggests that residents’ ecosystem service priorities for residential landscapes will be similar regardless of whether residents live in the humid East or the arid West, or the warm South or the cold North. Results underscored that cultural services were of utmost importance, particularly anthropocentric values including aesthetics, low-maintenance, and personal enjoyment. Using factor analyses, distinctive dimensions of residents’ values were found to partially align with the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’s categories (provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural). Finally, residents’ ecosystem service priorities exhibited significant homogenization across regions. In particular, the traditional lawn aesthetic (neat, green, weed-free yards) was similarly important across residents of diverse U.S. cities. Only a few exceptions were found across different environmental and social contexts; for example, cooling effects were more important in the warm South, where residents also valued aesthetics more than those in the North, where low-maintenance yards were a greater priority.
Notes
See also the Claritas web site at http://www.claritas.com/.
All cities had at least 20 research participants, yet some data from Los Angeles was eliminated from the analysis due to errors. This explains the relatively low sample size for LA.
References
Bormann FH, Balmori D, Geballe GT (2001) Redesigning the American lawn: a search for environmental harmony. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT
Cadenasso ML, Pickett ST, Schwarz K (2007) Spatial heterogeneity in urban ecosystems: reconceptualizing land cover and a framework for classification. Front Ecol Environ 5:80–88
Carpenter SR et al (2009) Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:1305–1312
Chan K, Satterfield T, Goldstein J (2012) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 74:8–18
Chazdon RL (2008) Beyond deforestation: restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. Science 320:1458–1460
Cook EM, Hall SJ, Larson KL (2012) Residential landscapes as social-ecological systems: a synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between people and their home environment. Urban Ecosyst 15:19–52
Costanza R, Wilson MA, Troy A, Voinov A, Liu S, D’Agostino J (2006) The value of New Jersey’s ecosystem services and natural capital. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Dahmus ME, Nelson KC (2014a) Nature discourses in the residential yard in Minnesota. Landsc Urban Plan 125:183–187
Dahmus ME, Nelson KC (2014b) Yard stories: examining residents’ conceptions of their yards as part of the urban ecosystem in Minnesota. Urban Ecosyst 17:173–194
Davenport MA, Anderson DH (2005) Getting from sense of place to place-based management: an interpretive investigation of place meanings and perceptions of landscape change. Soc Nat Resour 18:625–641
De Groot R, Stuip M, Finlayson M, Davidson N (2006) Valuing wetlands: guidance for valuing the benefits derived from wetland ecosystem services. Ramsar Technical Report No. 3, Convention on Biological Diversity Technical Series No. 27, Gland, Switzerland. http://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/lib/lib_rtr03.pdf
De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272
Farber SC, Costanza R, Wilson MA (2002) Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 41:375–392
Frisk E, Larson KL (2011) Educating for sustainability: competencies & practices for transformative action. J Sustain Educ 2:1–20
Grimm NB, Grove JM, Pickett STA, Redman CL (2000) Integrated approaches to long-term studies of urban ecological systems. Bioscience 50:571–584
Groffman PM et al (2014) Ecological homogenization of urban USA. Front Ecol Environ 12:74–81
Grove JM, Locke DH, O’Neil-Dunne JP (2014) An ecology of prestige in New York city: examining the relationships among population density, socio-economic status, group identity, and residential canopy cover. Environ Manag 54:402–419
Heberlein TA (2012) Navigating environmental attitudes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
Jackson KT (1985) Crabgrass frontier: the suburbanization of the United States. Oxford University Press, New York, NY
Kellner D (2002) Theorizing globalization. Sociol Theory 20:285–305
Kim JO, Mueller CW (1978) Introduction to factor analysis: what it is and how to do it. SAGE Publications Inc., Thousands Oak, California
Kumar M, Kumar P (2008) Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol Econ 64:808–819
Larsen L, Harlan SL (2006) Desert dreamscapes: residential landscape preference and behavior. Landsc Urban Plan 78:85–100
Larson KL (2010) An integrated theoretical approach to understanding the sociocultural basis of multidimensional environmental attitudes. Soc Nat Resour 23:898–907
Larson KL, Brumand J (2014) Paradoxes in landscape management and water conservation: examining neighborhood norms and institutional forces. Cities Environ (CATE) 7:6
Larson KL, Casagrande D, Harlan SL, Yabiku ST (2009) Residents’ yard choices and rationales in a desert city: social priorities, ecological impacts, and decision tradeoffs. Environ Manag 44:921–937
Mahan B, Polasky S, Adams R (2000) Valuing urban wetlands: a property price approach land economics. Land Econ 76:100–113
Martin CA, Peterson KA, Stabler LB (2003) Residential landscaping in phoenix, Arizona, US: practices and preferences relative to covenants, codes, and restrictions. J Arboric 9:9–17
Martini NF, Nelson KC, Hobbie SE, Baker LA (2015) Why “feed the lawn”? Exploring the influences on residential turf grass fertilization in the Minneapolis − Saint Paul metropolitan area. Environ Behav 47(2):158–183
Martín-López B et al (2012) Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 7, e38970
McKenzie-Mohr D, Smith W (1999) Fostering sustainable behavior: an introduction to community-based social marketing. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island B.C., Canada
Milesi C, Running SW, Elvidge CD, Dietz JB, Tuttle BT, Nemani RR (2005) Mapping and modeling the biochemical cycling of turf grasses in the United States. Environ Manag 36:426–438
Millennium Assessment Board (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment. New Island Press, Washington DC
Nassauer JI (1988) The aesthetics of horticulture: neatness as a form of care. HortSci 23(6):973–977
Nassauer JI (1995) Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landsc J 14(2):161–170
Nassauer JI, Wang Z, Dayrell E (2009) What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landsc Urban Plan 92:282–292
Nelson E et al (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7:4–11
Nielson L, Smith CL (2005) Influences on residential yard care and water quality: Tualatin watershed, Oregon. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41:93–106
Pataki DE et al (2011) Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Front Ecol Environ 9:27–36
Polsky C et al (2014) Assessing the homogenization of urban land management with an application to US residential lawn care. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:4432–4437
Robbins P (2007) Lawn people: how grasses, weeds and chemicals make us who we are. Tempe University Press, Philadelphia, PA
Robbins P, Sharp JT (2003) Producing and consuming chemicals: the moral economy of the American lawn. Econ Geogr 79:425 (414)
Robins K, Webster F (1999) Times of the technoculture. Routledge, London
Schultz PW, Zelezny L (1999) Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: evidence for consistency across 14 countries. J Environ Psychol 19:255–265
Schultz PW, Nolan JM, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V (2007) The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol Sci 18(5):429–434
Smith WR (1956) Product differentation and market segmentaton as alternative marketing strateiges. J Mark 21(1):3–8
Steele M et al (2014) Convergent surface water distributions in US cities. Ecosystems 17:685–697
Steinberg T (2006) American green: the obsessive quest for the perfect lawn. W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., New York, NY
Stern PC, Dietz T (1994) The value basis of environmental concern. J Soc Issues 50:65–84
Troy AR (2008) Geodemographic segmentation. In: Shenkar S, Xiong H (eds) Encyclopedia of geographical information science. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, pp 347–355
Vihervaara P, Rönkä M, Walls M (2010) Trends in ecosystem service research: early steps and current drivers. Ambio 39:314–324
Wallace KJ (2007) Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol Conserv 139:235–246
Wedel M, Kamakura W (2000) Market segmentation: conceptual and methodological foundations. International series in quantitative marketing, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Newell, Massachusetts
Williams DR, Stewart SI (1998) Sense of place: an elusive concept that is finding a home in ecosystem management. J For 96:18–23
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the MacroSystems Biology Program in the Emerging Frontiers Division of the Biological Sciences Directorate at the National Science Foundation (NSF) under grants EF-1065548, 1065737, 1065740, 1065741, 1065772, 1065785, 1065831, 121238320. The work arose from research funded by grants from the NSF Long-Term Ecological Research Program supporting work in Baltimore (DEB-0423476), Phoenix (BCS-1026865), Plum Island (Boston) (OCE-1058747), Cedar Creek (Minneapolis–St Paul) (DEB-0620652), and Florida Coastal Everglades (Miami) (DBI-0620409). This research was also supported by the NSF-funded Decision Center for a Desert City II: Urban Climate Adaptation (SES-0951366). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Larson, K.L., Nelson, K.C., Samples, S.R. et al. Ecosystem services in managing residential landscapes: priorities, value dimensions, and cross-regional patterns. Urban Ecosyst 19, 95–113 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-015-0477-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-015-0477-1