Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

What’s in a yardscape? A case study of emergent ecosystem services and disservices within resident yardscape discourses in Minnesota

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Residential yardscapes are at the forefront of human interaction with nature for those living in urban areas across Europe and North America. In recent years a significant amount of research has investigated urban green spaces using the ecosystem services framework (ES) along with ecosystem disservices (ED) and how such spaces deliver urban ecosystem services (UES). However, a gap exists in understanding how ES and ED manifest themselves in the more specific context of residential yardscapes. Specifically, do homeowners conceptualize ES and ED when talking about their yards without specific prompts to reflect services and disservices? The current work presents a case study of homeowners in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area in Minnesota, United States. We used two associated surveys to elicit responses related to homeowners’ yards. Without prompting, homeowner conceptualizations of their yardscapes reflected all ES categories with cultural (CES) (e.g., family recreation) and provisioning (PES) (e.g., vegetable cultivation) services cited most often. Homeowners also mentioned ED associated with their own or a neighbor’s yard (e.g., attraction of nuisance wildlife). Their plans for yardscapes indicated largely incremental changes (e.g., putting in a new planting bed) vs. drastic shifts (e.g., complete replacement of turfgrass with alternative vegetation). This case study illustrates that the homeowners’ conceptualizations of their yards do indeed reflect current ES & ED frameworks without specific prompting. The ES framework, combined with the identified leverage points, can be a fruitful approach for enhancing UES and minimizing ED within residential yardscapes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J, Newig J, Schomerus T, Vilsmaier U et al (2017) Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46:30–39

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aerts R, Dewaelheyns V, Achten WMJ (2016) Potential ecosystem services of urban agriculture: a review. PeerJ Preprints. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2286v1

  • Armstrong GP, Maitland C, Lester L, Trost SG, Trapp G, Boruff B, Al Marzooqi MK, Christian HE (2019) Associations between the home yard and preschoolers’ outdoor play and physical activity. Public Health Res Pract 29(1):e2911907

    Google Scholar 

  • Azmy MM, Hosaka T, Numata S (2016) Responses of four hornet species to levels of urban greenness in Nagoya city, Japan: implications for ecosystem disservices of urban green spaces. Urban For Urban Green 18:117–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Belaire JA, Westphal LM, Whelan CJ, Minor ES (2015) Urban residents’ perceptions of birds in the neighborhood: biodiversity, cultural ecosystem services, and disservices. Condor 117(2):192–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertram C, Rehdanz K (2015) Preferences for cultural ecosystem services: comparing attitudes, perception, and use. Ecosyst Serv 12:187–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Beumer C, Martens P (2015) Biodiversity in my (back)yard: towards a framework for citizen engagement in exploring biodiversity and ecosystem services in residential gardens. Sustain Sci 10(1):87–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Beumer C, Martens P (2016) BIMBY’s first steps: a pilot study on the contribution of residential front-yards in Phoenix and Maastricht to biodiversity, ecosystem services and urban sustainability. Urban Ecosyst 19(1):45–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanco J, Dendoncker N, Barnaud C, Sirami C (2019) Ecosystem disservices matter: towards their systematic integration within ecosystem service research and policy. Ecosyst Serv 36:100913

    Google Scholar 

  • Calderón-Contreras R, Quiroz-Rosas LE (2017) Analysing scale, quality and diversity of green infrastructure and the provision of urban ecosystem services: a case from Mexico City. Ecosyst Serv 23:127–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvet-Mir L, Gómez-Baggethun E, Reyes-García V (2012) Beyond food production: Ecosystem services provided by home gardens. A case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain. Ecological Economics 74:153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.12.011

  • Cameron RWF, Blanuša T, Taylor JE, Salisbury A, Halstead AJ, Henricot B, Thompson K (2012) The domestic garden – its contribution to urban green infrastructure. Urban For Urban Green 11(2):129–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrico AR, Fraser J, Bazuin JT (2013) Green with envy: psychological and social predictors of lawn fertilizer application. Environ Behav 45(4):427–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavender-Bares J, Cubino JP, Pearse WD, Hobbie SE, Lange AJ, Knapp S, Nelson KC (2020) Horticultural availability and homeowner preferences drive plant diversity and composition in urban areas. Ecol Appl

  • Ciftcioglu GC, Ebedi S, Abak K (2019) Evaluation of the relationship between ornamental plants - based ecosystem services and human wellbeing: A case study from Lefke Region of North Cyprus. Ecological Indicators 102:278–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.02.048

  • Church SP (2015) Exploring green streets and rain gardens as instances of small-scale nature and environmental learning tools. Landsc Urban Plan 134:229–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Cubino JP, Avolio ML, Wheeler MM, Larson KL, Hobbie SE, Cavender-Bares J et al (2020) Linking yard plant diversity to homeowners’ landscaping priorities across the U.S. Landsc Urban Plan 196:103730

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahmus ME, Nelson KC (2014a) Nature discourses in the residential yard in Minnesota. Landsc Urban Plan 125:183–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahmus ME, Nelson KC (2014b) Yard stories: examining residents’ conceptions of their yards as part of the urban ecosystem in Minnesota. Urban Ecosyst 17(1):173–194

    Google Scholar 

  • De Lacy P, Shackleton C (2017) Aesthetic and spiritual ecosystem services provided by urban sacred sites. Sustainability 9:1628

    Google Scholar 

  • Dou Y, Zhen L, De Groot R, Du B, Yu X (2017) Assessing the importance of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas of Beijing municipality. Ecosyst Serv 24:79–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn RR (2010) Global mapping of ecosystem disservices: the unspoken reality that nature sometimes kills us. Biotropica 42(5):555–557

    Google Scholar 

  • Escobedo FJ, Kroeger T, Wagner JE (2011) Urban forests and pollution mitigation: analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environ Pollut 159(8–9):2078–2087

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fielding KS, van Kasteren Y, Louis W, McKenna B, Russell S, Spinks A (2016) Using individual householder survey responses to predict household environmental outcomes: the cases of recycling and water conservation. Resour Conserv Recycl 106:90–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer J, Riechers M (2018) A leverage points perspective on sustainability. People Nat 1:115–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca DM, Unlu I, Crepeau T, Farajollahi A, Healy SP, Bartlett-Healy K, Strickman D, Gaugler R, Hamilton G, Kline D, Clark GG (2013) Area-wide management of Aedes albopictus. Part 2: gauging the efficacy of traditional integrated pest control measures against urban container mosquitoes. Pest Manag Sci 69(12):1351–1361

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gao Y, Babin N, Turner AJ, Hoffa CR, Peel S, Prokopy LS (2016) Understanding urban-suburban adoption and maintenance of rain barrels. Landsc Urban Plan 153:99–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner MM, Prajzner SP, Burkman CE, Albro S, Grewal PS (2014) Vacant land conversion to community gardens: influences on generalist arthropod predators and biocontrol services in urban greenspaces. Urban Ecosyst 17(1):101–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Baggethun E, Barton DN (2013) Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol Econ 86:235–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young R, Potschin MB (2018) Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES) V5.1 and guidance on the application of the revised structure. https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2018/01/Guidance-V51-01012018.pdf

  • Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57(2):209–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbie SE, Finlay JC, Janke BD, Nidzgorski DA, Millet DB, Baker LA (2017) Contrasting nitrogen and phosphorous budgets in urban watersheds and implications for managing urban water pollution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114:4177–4182

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hossu CA, Iojă I-C, Onose DA, Niță MR, Popa AM, Talabă O, Inostroza L (2019) Ecosystem services appreciation of urban lakes in Romania. Synergies and trade-offs between multiple users. Ecosyst Serv 37:100937

    Google Scholar 

  • Hugie KL, Watkins E (2016) Performance of low-input turfgrass species as affected by mowing and nitrogen fertilization in Minnesota. HortScience 51(10):1278–1286

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurley PT, Emery MR (2018) Locating provisioning ecosystem services in urban forests: Forageable wood species in New York City, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 170:266–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.025

  • Ignatieva M, Eriksson F, Eriksson T, Berg P, Hedblom M (2017) The lawn as a social and cultural phenomenon in Sweden. Urban For Urban Green 21:213–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen JD, Christensen T, Denver S, Ditlevsen K, Lassen J, Teuber R (2019) Heterogeneity in consumers’ perceptions and demand for local (organic) food products. Food Qual Prefer 73:255–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabisch N, Haase D (2013) Green spaces of European cities revisited for 1990–2006. Landsc Urban Plan 110:113–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadlec T, Benes J, Jarosik V, Konvicka M (2008) Revisiting urban refuges: changes of butterfly and burnet fauna in Prague reserves over three decades. Landsc Urban Plan 85:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamiyama C, Hashimoto S, Kohsaka R, Saito O (2016) Non-market food provisioning services via homegardens and communal sharing in Satoyama socio-ecological production landscapes on Japan’s Noto peninsula. Ecosyst Serv 17:185–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman AJ, Lohr VI (2002) Does plant color affect emotional and physiological responses to landscapes? In XXVI International Horticultural Congress: Expanding Roles for Horticulture in Improving Human Well-Being and Life Quality 639:229–233

  • Keeler BL, Dalzell BJ, Gourevitch JD, Hawthorne PL, Johnson KA, Noe RR (2019) Putting people on the map improves the prioritization of ecosystem services. Front Ecol Environ 17(3):151–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Knuth M, Behe BK, Hall CR, Huddleston PT, Fernandez RT (2018) Consumer perceptions, attitudes, and purchase behavior with landscape plants during real and perceived drought periods. HortScience 53(1):49–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Kong L, Shi Z, Chu LM (2014) Carbon emission and sequestration of urban turfgrass systems in Hong Kong. Sci Total Environ 473-474:132–138

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer P, Hamstead Z, Haase D, McPhearson T, Frantzeskaki N, Andersson E et al (2016) Key insights for the future of urban ecosystem services research. Ecol Soc 21(2):29

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuittinen M, Moinel C, Adalgeirsdottir K (2016) Carbon sequestration through urban ecosystem services: a case study from Finland. Sci Total Environ 563-564:623–632

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kurz T, Baudains C (2012) Biodiversity in the front yard: an investigation of landscape preference in a domestic urban context. Environ Behav 44(2):166–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang U (2014) Cultivating the sustainable city: urban agriculture policies and gardening projects in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Urban Geogr 35(4):477–485

    Google Scholar 

  • Langemeyer J, Camps-Calvet M, Calvet-Mir L, Barthel S, Gómez-Baggethun E (2018) Stewardship of urban ecosystem services: understanding the value(s) of urban gardens in Barcelona. Landsc Urban Plan 170:78–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen L, Harlan SL (2006) Desert dreamscapes: residential landscape preference and behavior. Landsc Urban Plan 78(1):85–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson KL, Brumand J (2014) Paradoxes in landscape management and water conservation: examining neighborhood norms and institutional forces. Cities and the Environment 7(1):6

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(5):921–937

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(6):747–761

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson KL, Wiek A, Withycombe Keeler L (2013) A comprehensive sustainability appraisal of water governance in Phoenix, AZ. J Environ Manag 116:58–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson KL, Nelson KC, Samples SR, Hall SJ, Bettez N, Cavender-Bares J, Groffman PM, Grove M, Heffernan JB, Hobbie SE, Learned J, Morse JL, Neill C, Ogden LA, O’Neil-Dunne J, Pataki DE, Polsky C, Chowdhury RR, Steele M, Trammell TLE (2016) Ecosystem services in managing residential landscapes: priorities, value dimensions, and cross-regional patterns. Urban Ecosyst 19(1):95–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson KL, Hoffman J, Ripplinger J (2017) Legacy effects and landscape choices in a desert city. Landsc Urban Plan 165:22–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerman SB, Milam J (2016) Bee fauna and floral abundance within lawn-dominated suburban yards in Springfield, MA. Ann Entomol Soc Am 109(5):713–723

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lerman SB, Contosta AR, Milam J, Bang C (2018) To mow or to mow less: Lawn mowing frequency affects bee abundance and diversity in suburban yards. Biol Conserv 221:160–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin BB, Philpott SM, Jha S (2015) The future of urban agriculture and biodiversity-ecosystem services: challenges and next steps. Basic Appl Ecol 16(3):189–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu C, Li X (2012) Carbon storage and sequestration by urban forests in Shenyang, China. Urban For Urban Green 11:121–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone SW, Cadotte MW, Isaac ME (2018) Ecological engagement determines ecosystem service valuation: a case study from rouge National Urban Park in Toronto, Canada. Ecosyst Serv 30:68–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyytimäki J, Petersen LK, Normander B, Bezák P (2008) Nature as a nuisance? Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. Environ Sci 5(3):161–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Martini NF, Nelson KC (2015) The role of knowledge in residential lawn management. Urban Ecosyst 18(3):1031–1047

    Google Scholar 

  • Martini NF, Nelson KC, Dahmus ME (2014) Exploring homeowner diffusion of yard care knowledge as one step toward improving urban ecosystems. Environ Manag 54(5):1223–1236

    Google Scholar 

  • Martini NF, Nelson KC, Hobbie SE, Baker LA (2015) Why “feed the lawn”? Exploring the influences on residential turf grass fertilization in the Minneapolis−Saint Paul metropolitan area. Environ Behav 47(2):158–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell JA (2010) Using numbers in qualitative research. Qual Inq 16(6):475–482

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows D (1999) Leverage points: places to intervene in a system. The Sustainability Institute, Hartland

    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. Environ Manag 36(3):426–438

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller SM, Montalto FA (2019) Stakeholder perspectives of the ecosystem services provided by green infrastructure in New York City. Ecosyst Serv 37:100928

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohri H, Lahoti S, Saito O, Mahalingam A, Gunatilleke N, Ihram A et al (2013) Assessment of ecosystem services in homegarden systems in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. Ecosyst Serv 5:e214–e136

    Google Scholar 

  • Monteiro JA (2017) Ecosystem services from turfgrass landscapes. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 26:151–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.04.001

  • Morera MC, Monaghan PF, Dukes MD (2019) Determinants of landscape irrigation water use in Florida-friendly yards. Environ Manag 65(1):19–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI (1995) Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landsc J 14(2):161–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI, Wang Z, Dayrell E (2009) What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landsc Urban Plan 92(3):282–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak DJ, Greenfield EJ, Hoehn RE, Lapoint E (2013) Carbon storage and sequestration by trees in urban and community areas of the United States. Environ Pollut 178:229–236

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Palta MM, Grimm NB, Groffman PM (2017) “Accidental” urban wetlands: ecosystem functions in unexpected places. Front Ecol Environ 15(5):248–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E, Bieling C (2013) Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33:118–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Pooya ES, Tehranifar A, Shoor M, Selahvarzi Y, Ansari H (2013) The use of native turf mixtures to approach sustainable lawn in urban landscapes. Urban For Urban Green 12:532–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulsen MN, Hulland KRS, Gulas CA, Pham H, Dalglish SL, Wilkinson RK, Winch PJ (2014) Growing an urban oasis: a qualitative study of the perceived benefits of community gardening in Baltimore, Maryland. Cult Agric Food Environ 36(2):69–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Publications Office of the European Union (2016) Urban Europe: statistics on cities, towns and suburbs: 2016 edition. Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2785/594675

  • Ramer H, Nelson KC, Spivak M, Wakins E, Wolfin J, Pulscher M (2019) Exploring park visitor perceptions of ‘flowing bee lawns’ in neighborhood parks in Minneapolis, MN, US. Landsc Urban Plan 189:117–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond CM, Frantzeskaki N, Kabisch N, Berry P, Breil M, Nita MR, Geneletti D, Calfapietra C (2017) A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ Sci Policy 77:15–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Riechers M, Barkmann J, Tscharntke T (2016) Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green. Ecosyst Serv 17:33–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Riechers M, Strack M, Barkmann J, Tscharntke T (2019) Cultural ecosystem services provided by urban green change along an urban-periurban gradient. Sustainability 11:645

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins P (2007) Do Lawn people choose lawns? In Lawn people how grasses, weeds, and chemicals make us who we are. Temple University Press, pp 96–116

  • Ruckelshaus M, McKenzie E, Tallis H, Guerry A, Daily G, Kareiva P, Polasky S, Ricketts T, Bhagabati N, Wood SA, Bernhardt J (2015) Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol Econ 115:11–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo A, Escobedo FJ, Cirella GT, Zerbe S (2017) Edible green infrastructure: an approach and review of provisioning ecosystem services and disservices in urban environments. Agric Ecosyst Environ 242:53–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Shackleton RT, Angelstam P, van der Waal B, Elbakidze M (2017) Progress made in managing and valuing ecosystem services: A horizon scan of gaps in research, management and governance. Ecosystem Services 27:232–241

  • Scholz T, Hof A, Schmitt T (2018) Cooling effects and regulating ecosystem services provided by urban trees – novel analysis approaches using urban tree cadastre data. Sustainability 10:712

    Google Scholar 

  • Seamans GS (2013) Mainstreaming the environmental benefits of street trees. Urban For Urban Green 12(1):2–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Sisser JM, Nelson KC, Larson KL, Ogden LA, Polsky C, Chowdhury RR (2016) Lawn enforcement: how municipal policies and neighborhood norms influence homeowner residential landscape management. Landsc Urban Plan 150:16–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Soumare MKF, Cilek JE (2011) The effectiveness of Mesocyclops longisetus (Copepoda) for the control of container-inhabiting mosquitoes in residential environments. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 27(4):376–383

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Straus J, Chang H, Hong C (2016) An exploratory path analysis of attitudes, behaviors, and summer water consumption in the Portland metropolitan area. Sustain Cities Soc 23:68–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Tengberg A, Fredholm S, Eliasson I, Knez I, Saltzman K, Wetterberg O (2012) Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosyst Serv 2:14–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomczyk AM, White PCL, Ewertowski MW (2016) Effects of extreme natural events on the provision of ecosystem services in a mountain environment: the importance of trail design in delivering system resilience and ecosystem service co-benefits. J Environ Manag 166:156–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuiten W, Koenraadt CJM, McComas K, Harrington LC (2009) The effect of West Nile virus perceptions and knowledge on protective behavior and mosquito breeding in residential yards in upstate New York. EcoHealth 6(1):42–51

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turner VK, Stiller M (2020) How do homeowners associations regulate residential landscapes? J Am Plan Assoc 86(1):25–38

    Google Scholar 

  • University of Minnesota Extension (2019) Master gardener volunteer program 2019 annual report

  • van den Berg AE, van Winsum-Westra M (2010) Manicured, romantic, or wild? The relation between need for structure and preferences for garden styles. Urban For Urban Green 9(3):179–186

    Google Scholar 

  • von Döhren P, Haase D (2015) Ecosystem disservices research: a review of the state of the art with a focus on cities. Ecol Indic 52:490–497

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins E, Gardner DS, Stier JC, Soldat DJ, St. John RA, Christians NE, Hathaway AD, Diesburg KL, Poppe SR, Gaussoin RE (2014) Cultivar performance of low-input turfgrass species for the north Central United States. Applied Turfgrass Science 11. https://doi.org/10.2134/ATS-2013-0101-RS

  • Wheeler MM, Neill C, Groffman PM, Avolio M, Bettez N, Cavender-Bares J et al (2017) Continental-scale homogenization of residential lawn plant communities. Landsc Urban Plan 165:54–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler MM, Larson KL, Andrade R (2020) Attitudinal and structural drives of preferred versus actual residential landscapes in a desert city. Urban Ecosyst 23:659–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00928-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widows SA, Drake D (2014) Evaluating the National Wildlife Federation’s certified wildlife habitat™ program. Landsc Urban Plan 129:32–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Stewart TW, Thompson JR, Kolka RK, Franz KJ (2015) Watershed features and stream water quality: gaining insight through path analysis in a Midwest urban landscape, U.S.a. Landsc Urban Plan 143:219–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Yabiku ST, Casagrande DG, Farley-Metzger E (2008) Preferences for landscape choice in a southwestern desert city. Environ Behav 40(3):382–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (1994) Case study research: design and methods, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng B, Zhang Y, Chen J (2011) Preference to home landscape: wildness or neatness? Landsc Urban Plan 99(1):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Zirkle G (2011) Modeling carbon sequestration in home lawns. Hort Sci 46(5):808–814

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to National Science Foundation Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems Program (BCS-0908998) and National Institute of Food and Agriculture McIntire-Stennis 1000343 MIN-42-069 for research support. We thank our research colleagues L. A. Baker (PI), S.E. Hobbie, J.Y. King, and J.P. McFadden (Co-PIs) as well as A. Woodside, K. Will, and L. Dorle for data management support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, St. Paul, MN, USA

    Michael R. Barnes & Kristen C. Nelson

  2. Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, St. Paul, MN, USA

    Kristen C. Nelson

  3. Sustainable Communities Partnership, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN, USA

    Maria E. Dahmus

Authors
  1. Michael R. Barnes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristen C. Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria E. Dahmus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael R. Barnes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barnes, M.R., Nelson, K.C. & Dahmus, M.E. What’s in a yardscape? A case study of emergent ecosystem services and disservices within resident yardscape discourses in Minnesota. Urban Ecosyst 23, 1167–1179 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-01005-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-01005-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation