Abstract
Residential landscaping decisions can have important implications for water use and conservation in urban areas. Yard preferences are generally closely related to actual yard landscapes, but differences in the drivers of and constraints on preferences relative to actual landscaping have not been well explored. In this study, we conducted a resident survey to consider the relationship between preferred and actual yard grassiness in the desert city of Phoenix, AZ, where outdoor water use makes up over two-thirds of residential water consumption. Using a robust theoretical approach including both attitudinal and structural drivers, we examined the relative importance of various attitudes as well as social and parcel attributes as drivers of preferred and actual yard grassiness. We found that nearly half of surveyed residents had less grass than they would prefer, and that existing yard grassiness is best explained by structural characteristics out of the variables we considered. Yard preferences, however, were better explained by attitudinal and social characteristics. The mismatch between actual and preferred yard grassiness revealed a latent demand for grass in this arid city, which could lead to shifts in water-conserving landscaping if structural constraints on landscaping behavior change. Additionally, the relative importance of structural constraints in determining actual yard grassiness, and the differences in important predictors of yard preferences as opposed to actual yards, suggest that appeals to resident attitudes and values are unlikely to shift yard landscaping.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References
Andrade R, Larson KL, Franklin J, Hondula DM (2019) Social-spatial analyses of attitudes towards the desert in a Southwestern U.S. city. Ann Am Assoc Geogr: In Press. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2019.1580498
Avolio ML, Pataki DE, Trammell TLE, Endter-Wada J (2018) Biodiverse cities: the nursery industry, homeowners, and neighborhood differences drive urban tree composition. Ecol Monogr 88:259–276. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1290
Balling RC, Gober P, Jones N (2008) Sensitivity of residential water consumption to variations in climate: an intraurban analysis of Phoenix, Arizona. Water Resour Res 44:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006722
Beard JB, Green RL (1994) The role of turfgrasses in environmental protection and their benefits to humans. J Environ Qual 23:452–460
Behrendt S (2014) Lm.Beta: add standardized regression coefficients to lm-objects. R package version 1.5–1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lm.beta
Belaire JA, Westphal LM, Minor ES (2016) Different social drivers, including perceptions of urban wildlife, explain the ecological resources in residential landscapes. Landsc Ecol 31:401–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0256-7
Bhatti M (2006) “When I’m in the garden I can create my own paradise”: homes and gardens in later life. Sociol Rev 54:318–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00616.x
Bhatti M, Church A (2000) ‘I never promised you a rose garden’: gender, leisure and home-making. Leis Stud 19:183–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614360050023071
Bigsby KM, McHale MR, Hess GR (2014) Urban morphology drives the homogenization of tree cover in Baltimore, MD, and Raleigh, NC. Ecosystems 17:212–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9718-4
Blaine TW, Clayton S, Robbins P, Grewal PS (2012) Homeowner attitudes and practices towards residential landscape management in Ohio, USA. Environ Manag 50:257–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9874-x
Burr A, Hall DM, Schaeg N (2018) The perfect lawn: exploring neighborhood socio-cultural drivers for insect pollinator habitat. Urban Ecosyst 21:1123–1137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0798-y
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-011-0197-0
Core Team R (2019) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna https://www.R-project.org/
Cubino JP, Subirós JV, Lozano CB (2014) Maintenance, modifications, and water use in private gardens of Alt Empordà, Spain. Horttechnology 24:374–383
DeOreo WB, Mayer P, Dziegielewski B, Kiefer J (2016) Residential end uses of water, version 2. Denver, Water Research Foundation
Drescher M, Warriner GK, Farmer JR, Larson BMH (2017) Private landowners and environmental conservation: a case study of social- psychological determinants of conservation program participation in Ontario. Ecol Soc 22:44. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09118-220144
Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Jones RE (2000) Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J Soc Issues 56:425–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176
Feinberg M, Willer R (2013) The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychol Sci 24:56–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612449177
Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An R companion to applied regression, Second Edition. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. URL: http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion
Francis RA (2018) Artificial lawns: environmental and societal considerations of an ecological simulacrum. Urban For Urban Green 30:152–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.02.002
Fraser ED, Kenney WA (2000) Cultural background and landscape history as factors affecting perceptions of the urban forest. J Arboric 26:106–113
Frost D (2016) An eye on every drop. Am. Plan. Assoc. Mag
Gober P, Middel A, Brazel A et al (2012) Tradeoffs between water conservation and temperature amelioration in Phoenix and Portland: implications for urban sustainability. Urban Geogr 33:1030–1054. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.33.7.1030
Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG (2009) Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol Evol 25:90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
Grove JM, Locke DH, O’Neil-Dunne JPM (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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0310-2
Grove JM, Ogden L, Pickett STA et al (2017) The legacy effect: understanding how segregation and environmental injustice unfold over time in Baltimore. Ann Am Assoc Geogr 108:524–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1365585
Hayden L, Cadenasso ML, Haver D, Oki LR (2015) Residential landscape aesthetics and water conservation best management practices: homeowner perceptions and preferences. Landsc Urban Plan 144:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.08.003
Hirt P, Gustafson A, Larson KL (2008) The mirage in the valley of the sun. Environ Hist 13:482–514
Hope D, Gries C, Zhu W, Fagan WF, Redman CL, Grimm NB, Nelson AL, Martin C, Kinzig A (2003) Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:8788–8792. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73412-5_21
Iverson LR, Cook EA (2000) Urban forest cover of the Chicago region and its relation to household density and income. Urban Ecosyst 4:105–124. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011307327314
Ives CD, Kendal D (2014) The role of social values in the management of ecological systems. J Environ Manag 144:67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.013
Jenkins VS (1994) The Lawn: a history of an American obsession. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Keys E, Wentz EA, Redman CL (2007) The spatial structure of land use from 1970-2000 in the Phoenix, Arizona, metropolitan area. Prof Geogr 59:131–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9272.2007.00596.x
Kinzig AP, Warren PS, Martin C et al (2005) The effects of human socioeconomic status and cultural characteristics on urban patterns of biodiversity. Ecol Soc 10:23–36
Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people behave environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour. Environ Educ Res 8:239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462022014540
Kurtz T, Baudains C (2012) Biodiversity in the front yard: an investigation of landscape preference in a domestic urban context. Environ Behav 44:166–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916510385542
Larsen L, Harlan SL (2006) Desert dreamscapes: residential landscape preference and behavior. Landsc Urban Plan 78:85–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.06.002
Larsen L, Swanbrow L (2007) Postcards of Phoenix: images of desert ambivalence and homogeneity. Landsc J 25:205–217. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.25.2.205
Larson KL, Brumand J (2014) Paradoxes in landscape management and water conservation: examining neighborhood norms and institutional forces. Cities Environ 7:6
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. Environ Manag 44:921–937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9353-1
Larson KL, Gustafson A, Hirt P (2009b) Insatiable thirst and a finite supply: an assessment of municipal water-conservation policy in greater Phoenix, Arizona, 1980–2007. Journal of Policy History 21:107–137. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898030609090058
Larson KL, Cook E, Strawhacker C, Hall SJ (2010) The influence of diverse values, ecological structure, and geographic context on residents’ multifaceted landscaping decisions. Hum Ecol 38:747–761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-010-9359-6
Larson KL, Wutich A, White D et al (2011) Multifaceted perspectives on water risks and policies: a cultural domains approach in a Southwestern City. Hum Ecol Rev 18:75–87
Larson KL, Andrade R, York A et al (2017a) The Phoenix area social survey IV: linking social and biophysical dynamics in urban neighborhoods. A report from the Central Arizona–Phoenix long-term ecological research (CAP LTER) project. Tempe, Arizona
Larson KL, Hoffman J, Ripplinger J (2017b) Legacy effects and landscape choices in a desert city. Landsc Urban Plan 165:22–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.04.014
Law N, Band L, Grove M (2004) Nitrogen input from residential lawn care practices in suburban watersheds in Baltimore county, MD. J Environ Plan Manag 47:737–755. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964056042000274452
Leong M, Dunn RR, Trautwein MD (2018) Biodiversity and socioeconomics in the city: a review of the luxury effect. Biol Lett 14:20180082. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0082
Loram A, Tratalos J, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Urban domestic gardens (X): the extent & structure of the resource in five major cities. Landsc Ecol 22:601–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-9051-9
Martin CA, Peterson KA, Stabler LB (2003) Residential landscaping in Phoenix, Arizona, US: practices and preferences relative to covenants, codes, and restrictions. J Arboric 29:9–17
Mayer PW, DeOreo WB, Opitz EM et al (1999) Residential end uses of water. A report published by the AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association
Monteiro JA (2017) Ecosystem services from turfgrass landscapes. Urban For Urban Green 26:151–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.04.001
Mustafa D, Smucker TA, Ginn F et al (2010) Xeriscape people and the cultural politics of turfgrass transformation. Environ Plan D Soc Sp 28:600–617. https://doi.org/10.1068/d13108
Nassauer JI, Wang Z, Dayrell E (2009) What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landsc Urban Plan 92:282–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.010
National Climate Data Center (2019) Data Tools: 1981–2010 Normals. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/normals. Accessed 18 Apr 2019
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2019) Extreme Temperature Facts for Phoenix and Yuma. https://www.wrh.noaa.gov/psr/climate/extremeTemps.php. Accessed 18 Apr 2019
Ossola A, Locke D, Lin B, Minor E (2019) Greening in style: urban form, architecture and the structure of front and backyard vegetation. Landsc Urban Plan 185:141–157
Peterson MN, Thurmond B, McHale M et al (2012) Predicting native plant landscaping preferences in urban areas. Sustain Cities Soc 5:70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2012.05.007
Revelle W (2018) psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych Version = 1.8.4
Robbins P (2007) Lawn people: how grasses, weeds, and chemicals make us who we are. Temple University Press, Philadelphia
Roman LA, Pearsall H, Eisenman TS et al (2018) Human and biophysical legacies shape contemporary urban forests: a literature synthesis. Urban For Urban Green 31:157–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.03.004
Roy Chowdhury R, Turner BL (2006) Reconciling agency and structure in empirical analysis: smallholder land use in the southern Yucatán, Mexico. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 96:302–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00479.x
Smetana SM, Crittenden JC (2014) Sustainable plants in urban parks: a life cycle analysis of traditional and alternative lawns in Georgia, USA. Landsc Urban Plan 122:140–151
Smith LS, Fellowes MDE (2013) Towards a lawn without grass: the journey of the imperfect lawn and its analogues. Stud Hist Gard Des Landscapes 33:157–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/14601176.2013.799314
Smith VK, Harlan SL, McLaen M et al (2016) Using household surveys to implement field experiments: the willingness to donate to food banks. Appl Econ Lett 23:969–972. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2015.1125423
Spinti JE, St Hilaire R, VanLeeuwen DM (2004) Balancing landscape preferences and water conservation in a desert community. Horttechnology 14:72–77
St. Hilaire R, VanLeeuwen DM, Torres P (2010) Landscape preferences and water conservation choices of residents in a high desert environment. Horttechnology 20:308–314
Stern PC (2000) New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56:407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
Sullivan A, White DD, Hanemann M (2019) Designing collaborative governance: insights from the drought contingency planning process for the lower Colorado River basin. Environ Sci Pol 91:39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.10.011
U.S. Census Bureau (2017) 2013–2017 American community survey 5-year estimates, Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale AZ Metro Area Total Population. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_17_5YR_B01003&prodType=table. Accessed 4 Feb 2019
U.S. Census Bureau (2018a) Annual estimates of the resident population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=PEP_2017_PEPANNRES&src=pt. Accessed 4 Feb 2019
U.S. Census Bureau (2018b) Estimates of the components of resident population change: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=PEP_2017_PEPTCOMP&prodType=table. Accessed 4 Feb 2019
van Heezik Y, Freeman C, Porter S, Dickinson KJM (2013) Garden size, householder knowledge, and socio-economic status influence plant and bird diversity at the scale of individual gardens. Ecosystems 16:1442–1454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9694-8
Vaske JJ, Donnelly MP (1999) A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Soc Nat Resour 12:523–537
Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, Fourth edn. Springer, New York
Vickers A (2006) New directions in Lawn and Landscape water conservation. J Am Water Works Assoc 98:56–61
Warren PS, Lerman SB, Andrade R et al (2019) The more things change: species losses detected in Phoenix despite stability in bird-socioeconomic relationships. Ecosphere 10:e02624. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2624
Yabiku ST, Casagrande DG, Farley-Metzger E (2008) Preferences for landscape choice in a Southwestern Desert City. Environ Behav 40:382–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916507300359
Zmyslony J, Gagnon D (1998) Residential management of urban front-yard landscape: a random process? Landsc Urban Plan 40:295–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00090-X
Zube EH, Simcox DE, Law CS (1986) The oasis image in two desert cities. Landsc Res 11:7–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426398608706205
Acknowledgements
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number DEB-1832016 (Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research Program, or CAP LTER), grant number SES-1462086 (Decision Center for a Desert City), and grant number EF-1638725 (Alternative Futures for the American Residential Macrosystem).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
This work was carried out under the supervision of the Arizona State University Institutional Review Board.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 63 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wheeler, M.M., Larson, K.L. & Andrade, R. Attitudinal and structural drivers of preferred versus actual residential landscapes in a desert city. Urban Ecosyst 23, 659–673 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00928-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00928-0
Keywords
- Turfgrass
- Landscape preferences
- Yard choices
- Urban ecology
- Environmental attitudes