Skip to main content

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

Environmental Management volume 44, pages 921–937 (2009)Cite this article

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Allon F, Sofoulis Z (2006) Everyday water: cultures in transition. Australian Geographer 37(1):45–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Askew LE, McGuirk PM (2004) Watering the suburbs: distinction, conformity and the suburban garden. Australian Geographer 35(1):17–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):15

    Google Scholar 

  • Bormann FH, Balmori D, Geballe GT (2001) Redesigning the American lawn: a search for environmental harmony. Yale University Press, New Haven, 178 pp

  • 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):22

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne L, Bruns MA, Kim KC (2008) Ecosystem properties of urban land covers at the aboveground—belowground interface. Ecosystems 11:1065–1077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter RH, Morehouse BJ (2003) Climate and urban water providers in Arizona: an analysis of vulnerability perceptions and climate information, CLIMAS report #CL1-03

  • 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 66:125–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Cope M (2006) Coding transcripts and diaries. In: Clifford NJ, Valentine G (eds) Key methods in geography. Sage, London, pp 445–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson DJ, Freudenburg WR (1996) Gender and environmental risk concerns. Environment and Behavior 28(3):302–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):425–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutcher D, Finley JC, Luloff AE, Johnson J (2004) Landowner perceptions of protecting and establishing riparian forests: a qualitative analysis. Society and Natural Resources 17:319–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs G (2002) Qualitative data analysis: explorations with NVivo. Open University Press, London, 224 pp

  • Gober P (2005) Metropolitan Phoenix: place making and community building in the desert metropolitan portraits series. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 240 pp

  • Greenstein TN (1996) Husbands’ participation in domestic work: interactive effects of wives’ and husbands’ gender ideologies. Journal of Marriage and the Family 58:585–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm NB, Redman CL (2004) Approaches to the study of urban ecosystems: the case of Central Arizona-Phoenix. Urban Ecosystems 7:199–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):578–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanak E, Davis M (2006) Lawns and water demand in California. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, 39 pp

  • 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, Tempe

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlan S, Brazel A, Prashad L, Stefanov WL, Larsen L (2006) Neighborhood microclimates and vulnerability to heat stress. Social Science and Medicine 63:2847–2863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):8788–8792

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • House MA, Sangster EK (1991) Public perception of river corridor management. Journal of the Institute for Water and Environmental Management 5(3):312–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurd BH (2006) Water conservation and residential landscapes: household preferences, household choices. Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics 31(2):173–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson KT (1985) Crabgrass frontier: the suburbanization of the United States. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 396 pp

  • 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 22:353–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins VS (1994) The lawn: a history of an American obsessions. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 246 pp

  • Kaplan R (1985) The analysis of perceptions via preference: a strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landscape Planning 12:161–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):131–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):23

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen L, Harlan SL (2006) Desert dreamscapes: residential landscape preference and behavior. Landscape and Urban Planning 78:85–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):737–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin C (2001) Landscape water use in Phoenix, Arizona. Desert Plants 17:26–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin C (2008) Landscape sustainability in a Sonoran Desert city. Cities and the Environment 1(2):16

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):9–16

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 36:426–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI (1995) Messy ecosystems, orderly frameworks. Landscape Journal 14(2):161–169

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):1439–1443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):93–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prytherch DL (2002) Selling the eco-entrepreneurial city: natural wonders and urban stratagems in Tucson, Arizona. Urban Geography 23(8):771–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raciti SM, Groffman PM, Fahey TJ (2008) Nitrogen retention in urban lawns and forests. Ecological Applications 18(7):1615–1626

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins P (2007) Lawn people: how grasses, weeds, and chemicals make us who we are. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 186 pp

  • Robbins P, Birkenholtz T (2003) Turfgrass revolution: measuring the expansion of the American lawn. Land Use Policy 20:181–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins P, Sharp JT (2003) Producing and consuming chemicals: the moral economy of the American lawn. Economic Geography 79(4):425–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins P, Polderman A, Birkenholtz T (2001) Lawns and toxins: an ecology of the city. Cities 18(6):369–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schahn J, Holzer E (1990) Studies of individual environmental concern: the role of knowledge, gender, and background variables. Environment and Behavior 22(6):767–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokol M (2005) Reclaiming water and the urban landscape in Phoenix and Las Vegas. Journal of the West 44(3):52–61

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 3:137–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stearns J (2005) Desert tourism meccas thrive: cities play up best features to woo visitors. The Arizona Republic, May 29, 2005, p 6

  • 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 14:385–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorgersen J (2004) A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies and inconsistencies in environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24:93–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yabiku S, Casagrande DG, Farley-Metzger E (2008) Preferences for landscape choice in a Southwestern desert city. Environment and Behavior 40:382–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou W, Troy A, Grove M (2008) Modeling residential lawn fertilization practices: integrating high resolution remote sensing with socioeconomic data. Environmental Management 41:742–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zinn HC, Pierce CL (2002) Values, gender, and concern about potentially dangerous wildlife. Environment and Behavior 34:239–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Schools of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning and Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287-5302, USA

    Kelli L. Larson

  2. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Western Illinois University, Morgan Hall 404, 1 University Circle, Macomb, IL, 61455, USA

    David Casagrande

  3. School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA

    Sharon L. Harlan

  4. School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA

    Scott T. Yabiku

Authors
  1. Kelli L. Larson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Casagrande
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sharon L. Harlan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Scott T. Yabiku
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelli L. Larson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Larson, K.L., Casagrande, D., Harlan, S.L. et al. Residents’ Yard Choices and Rationales in a Desert City: Social Priorities, Ecological Impacts, and Decision Tradeoffs. Environmental Management 44, 921–937 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9353-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9353-1

Keywords

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