Environmental Management

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 257–271

Homeowner Attitudes and Practices Towards Residential Landscape Management in Ohio, USA

  • Thomas W. Blaine
  • Susan Clayton
  • Paul Robbins
  • Parwinder S. Grewal


This study describes the results of a survey of 432 homeowners in Ohio, USA concerning their perceptions and practices regarding management of residential landscapes. The results reveal that outdoor residential environments are extremely important to homeowners, who tend to view their yards as serving multiple functions: a place to observe nature and to socialize as well as a place of beauty and recreation. Use of a lawn care company to apply chemicals is reported by 22 % of respondents, while 40 % either apply chemicals themselves or have someone other than a lawn care company do it. Logistic regressions reveal that factors influencing a homeowner’s decision to employ a lawn care company or to apply chemicals themselves include: household income (+), perceived impacts on the environment (−), whether the next door neighbor does it (+), and type of residential environment (rural −, suburban and urban +). A theme that emerges throughout the study is the perceived importance of the role of the lawn in residents’ sense of social status or acceptance in the neighborhood. This perception can be viewed as a positive in ensuring that residential environments are well maintained, but also as a negative resulting in environmental degradation or presenting a barrier to creativity in the development of alternative residential environments. Specific policy implications of these findings are that efforts aimed at educating homeowners about the environmental impacts of their lawn care choices are likely to have more success if they are directed at neighborhood groups rather than individuals, show that alternatives are easy to adopt, affordable, and can produce the characteristics of lawns that homeowners seek.


Lawn care Residential Landscape management Logistic regression 


  1. Alumai A, Salminen S, Richmond DS, Grewal PS (2009a) Comparative evaluation of aesthetic, biological, and economic effectiveness of different lawn management programs. Urban Ecosystems 12:127–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alumai A, Grunkemeyer M, Kovach J, Shetlar DJ, Cardina J, Rimelspach J, Clayton S, Grewal PS (2009b) Implementing integrated pest management in professional lawn care: a case study. Urban Ecosystems 13:37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Askew LE, McGuirk PM (2004) Watering the suburbs: distinction, conformity and the suburban garden. Australian Geographer 35:17–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atwood C, Kreutzwiser R, de Loe R (2007) Residents’ assessment of an urban outdoor water conservation program in Guelph, Ontario. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:427–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beard JB, Green RL (1994) The role of turfgrasses in environmental-protection and their benefits to humans. Journal of Environmental Quality 23:452–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bormann FH, Balmori D, Geballe GT, Vernegaard L (1993) Redesigning the American lawn: a search for environmental harmony. Yale University Press, New Haven and LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Bureau of the Census (2010) United States Census 2010. http://2010.census.gov/2010census/. Retrieved Dec 2011
  8. Butterfield B (2004) Environmental lawn and garden survey. National Gardening Association, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng Z, Richmond DS, Salminen SO, Grewal PS (2008) Ecology of urban lawns under three common management programs. Urban Ecosystems 11:177–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheng Z, Salminen S, Grewal PS (2010) Effect of organic fertilizers on the greening quality, shoot and root growth, and shoot nutrient and alkaloid contents of turf-type endophytic tall fescue, Festuca arundinacea. Annals of Applied Biology 156:25–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clayton S (2007) Domesticated nature: motivations for gardening and perceptions of environmental impact. Journal of Environmental Psychology 27:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cole DC, Vanderlinden L, Leah J, Whate R, Mee C, Bienefeld M, Wanigaratne S, Campbell M (2011) Municipal bylaw to reduce cosmetic/non-essential pesticide use on household lawns—a policy implementation evaluation. Environmental Health 10:74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cox DR, Snell EJ (1968) A general definition of residuals. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B 30:248–275Google Scholar
  14. Dillman RA (1978) Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Downing AJ (1844) A treatise on the theory and practice of landscape gardening applied to North America with a view to the improvement of country residences. Wiley and Putnam, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunlap RE, Jones RE (2002) Environmental concern: conceptual and measurement issues. In: Dunlap RE, Michelson W (eds) Handbook of environmental sociology. Greenwood, Westport, CT, pp 482–524Google Scholar
  17. Dunlap RE, Jones RE (2003) Environmental attitudes and values. In: Fernandez-Ballesteros R (ed) Encyclopedia of psychological assessment 1. Sage, London, pp 364–369Google Scholar
  18. Feagan RB, Ripmeester M (1999) Contesting naturalized lawns: a geography of private green space in the Niagra region. Urban Geography 20:617–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fein A (1972) Frederick law Olmstead and the American environmental tradition. George Brazilier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Grewal PS (2007) The value of the American lawn. Special circular. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, p 194Google Scholar
  21. Grewal PS (2012) From IPM to ecosystem management: the case of urban lawn. In: Abrol DP, Shankar U (eds) Integrated pest management: principles and practice. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 450–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guerrero PF (1990) Lawn care pesticides remain uncertain while prohibited safety claims continue. Statement of Peter F. Guerrero before the subcommittee on toxic substances, environmental oversight, research and development of the senate committee on environment and public works. US General Accounting Office, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Harris PB, Brown BB (1996) The home and identity display: interpreting resident territoriality from home exteriors. Journal of Environmental Psychology 16:187–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hostetler ME, Drake D (2009) Conservation subdivisions: a wildlife perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning 90:95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hostetler ME, Noiseux K (2010) Are green residential developments attracting environmentally savvy homeowners? Landscape and Urban Planning 94:234–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jenkins VS (1994) The lawn: history of an American obsession. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  27. King KW, Balogh JC (2001) Water quality impacts associated with converting farmland and forests to turfgrass. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 44:569–576Google Scholar
  28. Krejcie RV, Morgan DW (1970) Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement 30:607–610Google Scholar
  29. Larsen L, Harlan SL (2006) Desert dreamscapes: residential landscape preference and behavior. Landscape and Urban Planning 78:85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Larson KL, Casagrande D, Harlan SL, Yabiku ST (2009a) Residents’ yard choices and rationales in a desert city: social priorities, ecological impacts, and decision tradeoffs. Environmental Management 44:921–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Larson KL, White DD, Gober P, Harlan SL, Wutich A (2009b) Divergent perspectives on water resource sustainability in a public-policy-science context. Environmental Science & Policy 12:1012–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Larson KL, Ibes DC, White DD (2011) Gendered perspectives about water risks and policy strategies: a tripartite conceptual approach. Environment and Behavior 43:415–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lawn & Landscape Magazine (2001) Canadian municipalities allowed to restrict use of pesticides. http://www.lawnandlandscape.com/news/news.asp?ID=595&SubCatID=108&CatID=20. Retrieved Sept 2002
  34. Lewis RG, Fortmann RC, Camann DE (1994) Evaluation of methods for monitoring the potential exposure of small children to pesticides in the residential environment. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 26:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin CA, Peterson KA, Stabler LB (2003) Residential landscaping in Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.: practices and preferences relative to covenants, codes, and restrictions. Journal of Arboriculture 29:9–17Google Scholar
  36. Mechenich C, Shaw BH (1994) Chemical use practices and opinions about groundwater contamination in two unsewered subdivisions. Journal of Environmental Health 56:17–22Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Nagelkerke NJD (1991) A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78:691–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nassauer JI (1988) The aesthetics of horticulture: neatness as a form of care. HortScience 23:973–977Google Scholar
  40. Nielson L, Smith C (2005) Influences on residential yard care and water quality: Tualatin watershed, Oregon. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41:93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nishioka MG, Burkholder HM, Brinkman MC, Gordon SM, Lewis RG (1996) Measuring transport of lawn-applied herbicide acids from turf to home: Correlation of dislodgeable 2,4-d tuff residues with carpet dust and carpet surface residues. Environmental Science and Technology 30:3313–3320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Potter DA (1994) Effects of pesticides on beneficial invertebrates in turf. In: Leslie AR (ed) Handbook of integrated pest management for turf and ornamentals. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 59–70Google Scholar
  43. Rappaport B (1992) Weed laws—a historical review and recommendations. Natural Areas Journal 12:216–217Google Scholar
  44. Rappaport B (1993) As natural landscaping takes root we must weed out the bad laws: how natural landscaping and Leopold’s land ethic collide with unenlightened weed laws and what must be done about it. The John Marshall Law Review 26. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/greenacres/weedlaws/jmlrcover.html. Retrieved 14 Nov 2011
  45. Robbins P (2007) Lawn people: how grasses, weeds, and chemicals make us who we are. Temple University Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  46. Robbins P, Birkenholtz T (2003) Turfgrass revolution: measuring the expansion of the American lawn. Land Use Policy 20:181–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Robbins P, Sharp J (2003a) Producing and consuming chemicals: the moral economy of the American lawn. Economic Geography 79:425–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Robbins P, Sharp J (2003b) The lawn chemical economy and its discontents. Antipode 35:955–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Robbins P, Polderman A, Birkenholtz T (2001) Lawns and toxins: an ecology of the city. Cities 18:369–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schroeder FEH (1993) Front yard America: the evolution and meanings of a vernacular domestic landscape. Bowling Green State University Popular Press, Bowling GreenGoogle Scholar
  51. Steinberg T (2006) American green. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Templeton SR, Zilberman D, Yoo SJ (1998) An economic perspective on outdoor residential pesticide use. Policy Analysis 32:416–423AGoogle Scholar
  53. Teyssot G (1999) The American lawn. Princeton Architectural Press, New York/Canadian Center for Architecture, MontréalGoogle Scholar
  54. Thompson RH (2004) Overcoming barriers to ecologically sensitive land management: conservation subdivisions, green developments, and the development of a land ethic. Journal of Planning Education and Research 24:141–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. United States Geological Survey (1999) The quality of our Nations waters: nutrients and pesticides. United States Geological Survey, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  56. Wasowski A, Wasowski S (2000) The landscaping revolution. Contemporary Books, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  57. Watson J, Baker P (1990) Pesticide transport through soils. Arizona Cooperative Extension, College of Agriculture, University of Arizona, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  58. Yabiku ST, Casagrande DG, Farley-Metzger E (2008) Preferences for landscape choice in a southwestern desert city. Environment and Behavior 40:382–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Youngentob K, Hostetler ME (2005) Is a new urban development model building greener communities? Environment and Behavior 37:731–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zartarian VG, Özkaynak H, Burke JM, Zufall MJ, Rigas ML, Furtaw EJ Jr (2000) A modeling framework for estimating children’s residential exposure and dose to chlorpyrifos via dermal residue contact and nondietary ingestion. Environmental Health Perspectives 108:505–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas W. Blaine
    • 1
  • Susan Clayton
    • 2
  • Paul Robbins
    • 3
  • Parwinder S. Grewal
    • 1
  1. 1.Urban Landscape Ecology ProgramThe Ohio State UniversityWoosterUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyThe College of WoosterWoosterUSA
  3. 3.Department of Geography and Regional DevelopmentUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations