Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 173–194

Yard stories: examining residents’ conceptions of their yards as part of the urban ecosystem in Minnesota

Article

Abstract

The residential yard is an integral part of the urban ecosystem. Individual preferences and social expectations influence homeowners’ yard care choices, which in turn affect urban ecology. However, little is known about residents’ conceptions of their yards as part of the urban ecosystem. We asked how homeowners conceive of their yard as part of the urban ecosystem by examining urban ecosystem concepts embedded within homeowners’ descriptions and stories of their yards. Our study sites included an urban and suburban area in the Saint Paul-Minneapolis metropolitan area of Minnesota, USA. We found that people’s understandings of their yards as urban ecosystems are complex but have prominent gaps. Salient concepts included biotic and abiotic interactions within the yard, linkages of human inputs and weeds across yards and watersheds, and yards as social space. Stories described managing dynamic ecological processes within yards to maintain a steady state and limiting linkages of human inputs beyond the yard. Prominent gaps included ecological cycles, biodiversity, and ecosystem services within yards and ecological linkages across yards. In general, people conceived of their yards in terms of inputs rather than cycles and in terms of creating barriers between their yards and surrounding areas rather than fostering ecological interconnections across them. We provide recommendations for resident outreach programs based on our findings. Finally, our study presents a challenge to urban ecosystem research to unravel where there are gaps in understandings of urban ecosystems versus where there is resistance to incorporating certain ecological interactions within the residential yard.

Keywords

Urban ecosystem understanding Yard care choices Education Residential yards 

References

  1. Alumai A, Grunkemeyer M, Kovach J, Shetlar DJ, Cardina J, Rimelspach J, Clayton S, Grewal PS (2010) Implementing integrated pest management in professional lawn care: a case study. Urban Ecosys 13(1):37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arcury TA, Christianson EH (1993) Rural–urban differences in environmental knowledge and actions. J Environ Educ 25(1):19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berkowitz AR, Nilon CH, Hollweg KS (2003) Understanding urban ecosystems: a new frontier for science and education. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Blaine TW, Clayton S, Robbins P, Grewal PS (2012) Homeowner attitudes and practices towards residential landscape management in Ohio, USA. Environ Manag 50:257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brossard D, Lewenstein B, Bonney R (2005) Scientific knowledge and attitude change: the impact of a citizen science project. Int J Sci Educ 27(9):1099–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown DL (2000) Yard and garden brief: Creeping Charlie. http://www.extension.umn.edu/yardandgarden/ygbriefs/h510creepingcharlie.html. Accessed 22 August 2012
  7. Buijs AE, Fischer A, Rink D, Young JC (2008) Looking beyond superficial knowledge gaps: understanding public representations of biodiversity. Int J Biodivers Sci Manag 4:65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byrne LB, Grewal P (2008) Introduction to ecological landscaping: a holistic description and framework to guide the study and management of urban landscape parcels. CATE 1(2)Google Scholar
  9. Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA (2008) Urban principles for ecological landscape design and management: scientific fundamentals. CATE 1(2)Google Scholar
  10. Carey RO, Hochmuth GJ, Martinez CJ, Boyer TH, Nair VD, Dukes MD, Toor GS, Shober AL, Cisar JL, Trenholm LE, Sartain JB (2012) A review of turfgrass fertilizer management practices: implications for urban water quality. Hort Technol 22(3):280–291Google Scholar
  11. Clayton S (2007) Domesticated nature: motivations for gardening and perceptions of environmental impact. J Env Psychol 27(3):215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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(1):19–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahmus ME, Nelson KC, Woodside A (2011) Lawn and yard care choices. http://www.tchep.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@tchep/documents/asset/cfans_asset_378868.pdf
  14. Fissore C, Hobbie SE, King JY, McFadden JP, Nelson KC, Baker LA (2012) The residential landscape: fluxes of elements and the role of household decisions. Urban Ecosyst 15(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG (2010) Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol Evol 25(2):90–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goffman P, J Cavender-Bares, ND Bettez, JM Grove, SJ Hall, JB Hefferman, SE Hobbie, KL Larson, JL Morse, C Neill, KC Nelson, J O’Neil-Dunne, L Ogden, D Pataki (2013) Ecological homogenization of urban America. http://www.urbanhomogenization.org/
  17. Grimm NB, Baker LJ, Hope D (2003) An ecosystem approach to understanding cities: familiar foundations and uncharted frontiers. In: Berkowitz AR, Nilon CH, Hollweg KS (eds) Understanding urban ecosystems: a new frontier for science and education. Springer, New York, pp 95–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gustafson P (2001) Meanings of place: everyday experiences and theoretical conceptualizations. J Environ Psychol 21(1):5–16Google Scholar
  19. Herringshaw CJ, Thompson JR, Stewart TW (2010) Learning about restoration of urban ecosystems: a case study integrating public participation, stormwater management, and ecological research. Urban Ecosyst 13:535–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jordan R, Singer F, Vaughan J, Berkowitz A (2009) What should every citizen know about ecology? Front Ecol Environ 7(9):495–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kramp MK (2004) Exploring life and experience through narrative inquiry. In: de Marrais K, Lapan SD (eds) Foundations for research: methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences. LEA, Mahwah, pp 103–121Google Scholar
  22. Krueger RA, Casey MA (2000) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 44:921–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lerman SB, Warren PS (2011) The conservation value of residential yards: linking birds and people. Ecol Appl 21(4):1327–1339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Main MB (2004) Mobilizing grass-roots conservation education: the Florida Master Naturalist Program. Conserv Biol 18(1):11–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin LE, MG Sorice, UP Kreuter (2011) Understanding and influencing urban residents’ knowledge about wildland management in Austin, Texas. Urban Ecosyst Online FirstGoogle Scholar
  27. McDaniel J, Alley KD (2005) Connecting local environmental knowledge and land use practices: a human ecosystem approach to urbanization in West Georgia. Urban Ecosyst 8(1):23–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McIntyre NE, Hostetler ME (2001) Effects of urban land use on pollinator (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) communities in a desert metropolis. Basic Appl Ecol 2:209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Metropolitan Council (2012) http://stats.metc.state.mn.us/profile/detail.aspx?c=02395725. Accessed 22 August 2012
  30. 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. Environ Manag 36(3):426–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morrone M, Mancl K, Carr K (2001) Development of a metric to test group differences in ecological knowledge as one component of environmental literacy. J. Environ Educ 32(4):33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Munson BH (1994) Ecological misconceptions. J. Environ Educ 25(4):30–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nelson KC, Dahmus M, Woodside A (2011) Yard care choices in urban living survey. University of Minnesota, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  34. Nerbonne JF, Vondracek B (2003) Volunteer macroinvertebrate monitoring: assessing training needs through examining error and bias in untrained volunteers. J N Am Benthol Soc 22(1):152–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nielson L, Smith CL (2005) Influences on residential yard care and water quality: Tualatin Watershed, Oregon. JAWRA 41(1):93–106Google Scholar
  36. Nilon CH, Berkowitz AR, Hollweg KS (1999) Editorial: understanding urban ecosystems: a new frontier for science and education. Urban Ecosyst 3:3–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Overdevest C, Orr CH, Stepenuck K (2004) Volunteer stream monitoring and local participation in natural resource issues. Hum Ecol Rev 11(2):177–185Google Scholar
  38. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Groffman PM, Band LE, Boone CG, Burch WR Jr, Grimmond CSB, Hom J, Jenkins JC, Law NL, Nilon CH, Pouyat RV, Szlavecz K, Warren PS, Wilson MA (2008) Beyond urban legends: an emerging framework of urban ecology, as illustrated by the Baltimore ecosystem study. BioSci 58(2):139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ramsey County Historical Society (2012) Highland. http://www.rchs.com/highland.htm. Accessed 22 August 2012
  40. Robelia B, T Murphy (2011) What do people know about key environmental issues? A review of environmental knowledge surveys. Environ Educ Res iFirst ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Rudd H, Vala J, Schaefer V (2002) Importance of backyard habitat in a comprehensive biodiversity conservation strategy: a connectivity analysis of urban green spaces. Restor Ecol 10(2):368–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spence PL, Osmond DL, Childres W, Heitman JL, Robarge WP (2012) Effects of lawn maintenance on nutrient losses via overland flow during natural rainfall events. JAWRA 1–16Google Scholar
  43. Sperling CD, Lortie CJ (2010) The importance of urban backgardens on plant and invertebrate recruitment: a field microcosm experiment. Urban Ecosyst 13:223–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN, Rook DW (2007) Focus groups: theory and practice. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest Resources and Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation BiologyUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations