Advertisement

Environmental Management

, 44:921 | Cite as

Residents’ Yard Choices and Rationales in a Desert City: Social Priorities, Ecological Impacts, and Decision Tradeoffs

  • Kelli L. Larson
  • David Casagrande
  • Sharon L. Harlan
  • Scott T. Yabiku
Article

Abstract

As a dominant land use in urban ecosystems, residential yards impact water and other environmental resources. Converting thirsty lawns into alternative landscapes is one approach to water conservation, yet barriers such as cultural norms reinforce the traditional lawn. Meanwhile, the complex social and ecological implications of yard choices complicate programs aimed at changing grass and other yard features for particular purposes. In order to better understand individual landscape decisions, we qualitatively examined residents’ rationales for their preferred yard types in the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. After briefly presenting landscape choices across two survey samples, the dominant reasons for preferences are discussed: appearance, maintenance, environment, recreation, microclimate, familiarity, and health/safety. Three broader analytical themes emerged from these descriptive codes: (1) residents’ desires for attractive, comfortable landscapes of leisure encompassing pluralistic tastes, lifestyles, and perceptions; (2) the association of environmental benefits and impacts with different landscape types involving complex social and ecological tradeoffs; and (3) the cultural legacies evident in modern landscape choices, especially in terms of a dichotomous human–nature worldview among long-time residents of the Phoenix oasis. Given these findings, programs aimed at landscape change must recognize diverse preferences and rationalization processes, along with the perceived versus actual impacts and tradeoffs of varying yard alternatives.

Keywords

Urban ecosystems Residential lawns Landscape preferences Environmental perceptions Water conservation Resource geography 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DEB-0423704, Central Arizona—Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research (CAP LTER). Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendation expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation (NSF). We also thank Nancy Grimm, Marcia Nation, and Elizabeth Farley-Metzger for their support of this research, along with Larissa Larsen and Chris Martin for designing the landscape photos used in this study.

References

  1. Allon F, Sofoulis Z (2006) Everyday water: cultures in transition. Australian Geographer 37(1):45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Askew LE, McGuirk PM (2004) Watering the suburbs: distinction, conformity and the suburban garden. Australian Geographer 35(1):17–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker LA, Wilson B, Fulton D, Horgan B (2008) Disproportionality as a framework to target pollution reduction from urban landscapes. Cities and the Environment 1(2):15Google Scholar
  4. Bormann FH, Balmori D, Geballe GT (2001) Redesigning the American lawn: a search for environmental harmony. Yale University Press, New Haven, 178 ppGoogle Scholar
  5. Byrne L, Grewal P (2008) Introduction to ecological landscaping: a holistic description and framework to guide the study and management of urban landscape parcels. Cities and the Environment 1(2):22Google Scholar
  6. Byrne L, Bruns MA, Kim KC (2008) Ecosystem properties of urban land covers at the aboveground—belowground interface. Ecosystems 11:1065–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carter RH, Morehouse BJ (2003) Climate and urban water providers in Arizona: an analysis of vulnerability perceptions and climate information, CLIMAS report #CL1-03Google Scholar
  8. Casagrande DG, Hope D, Farley-Metzger E, Cook W, Yabiku S (2007) Problem and opportunity: integrating anthropology, ecology, and policy through adaptive experimentation in the urban American Southwest. Human Organization 66:125–139Google Scholar
  9. Cope M (2006) Coding transcripts and diaries. In: Clifford NJ, Valentine G (eds) Key methods in geography. Sage, London, pp 445–460Google Scholar
  10. Davidson DJ, Freudenburg WR (1996) Gender and environmental risk concerns. Environment and Behavior 28(3):302–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunlap RE, VanLiere KD, Mertig AG, Jones RE (2000) Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal Social Issues 56(3):425–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dutcher D, Finley JC, Luloff AE, Johnson J (2004) Landowner perceptions of protecting and establishing riparian forests: a qualitative analysis. Society and Natural Resources 17:319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibbs G (2002) Qualitative data analysis: explorations with NVivo. Open University Press, London, 224 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Gober P (2005) Metropolitan Phoenix: place making and community building in the desert metropolitan portraits series. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 240 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Greenstein TN (1996) Husbands’ participation in domestic work: interactive effects of wives’ and husbands’ gender ideologies. Journal of Marriage and the Family 58:585–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grimm NB, Redman CL (2004) Approaches to the study of urban ecosystems: the case of Central Arizona-Phoenix. Urban Ecosystems 7:199–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grove JM, Troy AR, O’Neil-Dunne JPM, Burch WR Jr, Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA (2006) Characterization of households and its implications for the vegetation of urban ecosystems. Ecosystems 9(4):578–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanak E, Davis M (2006) Lawns and water demand in California. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, 39 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Harlan S, Rex T, Hope D, Nelson A, Kirby A, Bolin R, Hackett E, Wolf S, Larsen L (2003) The Phoenix area social survey: community and environment in a desert metropolis. Summary results of the pilot study. Central Arizona–Phoenix long-term ecological research contribution no 2. Center for Environmental Studies and Survey Research Laboratory, Arizona State University, TempeGoogle Scholar
  21. Harlan S, Brazel A, Prashad L, Stefanov WL, Larsen L (2006) Neighborhood microclimates and vulnerability to heat stress. Social Science and Medicine 63:2847–2863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hope D, Gries C, Zhu W, Fagan W, Redman CL, Grimm NB, Nelson AL, Martin C, Kinzig A (2003) Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 100(15):8788–8792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. House MA, Sangster EK (1991) Public perception of river corridor management. Journal of the Institute for Water and Environmental Management 5(3):312–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hurd BH (2006) Water conservation and residential landscapes: household preferences, household choices. Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics 31(2):173–192Google Scholar
  25. Jackson KT (1985) Crabgrass frontier: the suburbanization of the United States. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 396 ppGoogle Scholar
  26. Jenerette GD, Harlan SL, Brazel AJ, Jones N, Larsen L, Stefanov WL (2007) Regional relationships between vegetation, surface temperature, and human settlement in a rapidly urbanizing ecosystem. Landscape Ecology 22:353–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jenkins VS (1994) The lawn: a history of an American obsessions. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 246 ppGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaplan R (1985) The analysis of perceptions via preference: a strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landscape Planning 12:161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keys E, Wentz EA, Redman CL (2007) The spatial structure of land use from 1970–2000 in the Phoenix, Arizona metropolitan area. Professional Geographer 59(1):131–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kinzig AP, Warren P, Martin C, Hope D, Madhusudan K (2005) The effects of human socioeconomic status and cultural characteristics on urban patterns of biodiversity. Ecology and Society 10(1):23Google Scholar
  31. Larsen L, Harlan SL (2006) Desert dreamscapes: residential landscape preference and behavior. Landscape and Urban Planning 78:85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Law NL, Band LE, Grove JM (2004) Nitrogen input from residential lawn care practices in suburban watersheds in Baltimore County, MD. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 47(5):737–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin C (2001) Landscape water use in Phoenix, Arizona. Desert Plants 17:26–31Google Scholar
  34. Martin C (2008) Landscape sustainability in a Sonoran Desert city. Cities and the Environment 1(2):16Google Scholar
  35. Martin CA, Peterson KA, Stabler LB (2003) Residential landscaping in Phoenix AZ, US: practices and preferences relative to covenants, codes and restrictions. Journal of Arboriculture 29(1):9–16Google Scholar
  36. Milesi C, Running SW, Elvidge CD, Dietz JB, Tuttle BT, Nemani RR (2005) Mapping and modeling the biogeochemical cycling of turf grasses in the United States. Environmental Management 36:426–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nassauer JI (1995) Messy ecosystems, orderly frameworks. Landscape Journal 14(2):161–169Google Scholar
  38. Nassauer JI, Kosek SE, Corry RC (2001) Meeting public expectations with ecological innovation in riparian landscapes. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37(6):1439–1443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nielson L, Smith CL (2005) Influences on residential yard care and water quality: Tualatin watershed, Oregon. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 3741(1):93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Prytherch DL (2002) Selling the eco-entrepreneurial city: natural wonders and urban stratagems in Tucson, Arizona. Urban Geography 23(8):771–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Raciti SM, Groffman PM, Fahey TJ (2008) Nitrogen retention in urban lawns and forests. Ecological Applications 18(7):1615–1626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Robbins P (2007) Lawn people: how grasses, weeds, and chemicals make us who we are. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 186 ppGoogle Scholar
  43. Robbins P, Birkenholtz T (2003) Turfgrass revolution: measuring the expansion of the American lawn. Land Use Policy 20:181–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Robbins P, Sharp JT (2003) Producing and consuming chemicals: the moral economy of the American lawn. Economic Geography 79(4):425–439Google Scholar
  45. Robbins P, Polderman A, Birkenholtz T (2001) Lawns and toxins: an ecology of the city. Cities 18(6):369–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schahn J, Holzer E (1990) Studies of individual environmental concern: the role of knowledge, gender, and background variables. Environment and Behavior 22(6):767–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sokol M (2005) Reclaiming water and the urban landscape in Phoenix and Las Vegas. Journal of the West 44(3):52–61Google Scholar
  48. Stabler LB, Martin CA, Brazel AJ (2005) Microclimates in a desert city were related to land use and vegetation index. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 3:137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stearns J (2005) Desert tourism meccas thrive: cities play up best features to woo visitors. The Arizona Republic, May 29, 2005, p 6Google Scholar
  50. Templeton SR, Yoo SJ, Zilberman D (1999) An economic analysis of yard care and synthetic chemical use: the case of San Francisco. Environmental & Resource Economics 14:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thorgersen J (2004) A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies and inconsistencies in environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24:93–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yabiku S, Casagrande DG, Farley-Metzger E (2008) Preferences for landscape choice in a Southwestern desert city. Environment and Behavior 40:382–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhou W, Troy A, Grove M (2008) Modeling residential lawn fertilization practices: integrating high resolution remote sensing with socioeconomic data. Environmental Management 41:742–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zinn HC, Pierce CL (2002) Values, gender, and concern about potentially dangerous wildlife. Environment and Behavior 34:239–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kelli L. Larson
    • 1
  • David Casagrande
    • 2
  • Sharon L. Harlan
    • 3
  • Scott T. Yabiku
    • 4
  1. 1.Schools of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning and SustainabilityArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Sociology and AnthropologyWestern Illinois UniversityMacombUSA
  3. 3.School of Human Evolution and Social ChangeArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  4. 4.School of Social and Family DynamicsArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations