May 14, 2012
Rethinking Lawns
by Kevin S. Baldwin
Spring has arrived, Summer is just around the corner and once again I must deal with the enigma that is my yard. As I look around town, there is a wide range of lawns spanning from, what Michael Pollan (2001) would call, Apollonian control to Dionysian abandon. Mine is towards the Dionysian end of the spectrum.
This is by choice. I have never understood lawns. What exactly is the point? A uniform swath of green grass seems so contrived and unnatural. As practiced in much of 21st century North America, that monoculture is a triumph of technology. It takes a lot of inputs to maintain such a beast: Regular mowing, herbicides, fungicides, pesticides, fertilizer, and in some areas, water. Perhaps that is the point.
I remember growing up in upstate New York, helping to fertilize the yard, mowing its weekly growth, and then putting the clippings in bags to be taken to the dump. It just seemed wasteful at the time (not to mention that as a fifth or sixth grader, it really cut into my playtime). Now I would probably mulch the grass in place and skip the fertilizer. Later, as a teen in southern California, I had to religiously apply water, herbicide and fungicide to maintain our lawn. Again, it seemed colossally wasteful. I tried to convince my parents to switch to more drought friendly vegetation, but they weren't that enthusiastic about it. As it turns out, I now happen to live in one of the few areas in the country where it is possible to grow lawns without irrigation or fertilization. I mow it when it gets shaggy, and that's about it. I'd rather spend time gardening than trying to achieve a "perfect" lawn.
A few square feet of my lawn resemble the chemlawn ideal (an example of modern Platonic essentialism?), but it is mostly a patchwork of grass, clover, creeping charley, dandelions, and many other species that I have not identified. In the heat of summer, with little rain, the grass will retreat as it is displaced by crabgrass, which is a hot-dry specialist. If the rains return, the grass fights its way back. I enjoy witnessing this tug-of-war. My lawn is diverse and dynamic.
My chemlawn neighbors have these amazingly uniform lawns that look like they would feel nice on bare feet. But, when I walk by after the service has sprayed the lawn, there is that sweet-sour smell that is highlighted by little signs that say to stay off the grass for a few days. The mixed message is curious. I suppose chemicals create new business opportunities: Pet owners can buy booties for their dogs to protect their sensitive paws from lawn chemicals. But there is little encouragement to consider whether the risks of herbicide and pesticide application outweigh the benefits.
I gave up on trying to control dandelions after spending quite a bit of time and effort manually weeding them, tossing them on the compost pile, and then watching over the next few days as the yellow flowers still transformed into fluffy seed bearing heads that dispersed their contents with the slightest puff of wind. Such chutzpah in the face of death was admirable and filled me with wonder. Those so-called weeds are really good at what they do! Who am I to interfere with such an amazingly resourceful species? Eliminating them chemically doesn't seem to be worth the risks to me or my family.
The absurdity of lawns is taken to the limit in drier parts of the west. I hope this is no longer the case, but 25 years ago, lawns in Phoenix were slightly concave and filled with water in the morning and allowed to soak in and evaporate during the day. Las Vegas was also a particularly egregious offender. I don't know if more recent development in these areas has been more sensible, but the reckless use of water is part of the reason why the Colorado River no longer empties into the Gulf of California.
Something like 20% of California's electricity production is used for moving water around the state. Much of this water is used for agriculture, but a substantial fraction is used to maintain lawns in arid and semi-arid regions that really have no business trying to host Kentucky bluegrass. Local conditions are starting to be taken into account with some new developments specifying xeriscaping, but there is a lot of legacy landscaping that demands huge inputs of water.
This is more than simply an academic exercise. Multiply a quarter-acre lot by tens of millions and you are talking about some serious acreage. Lawns collectively comprise the largest irrigated crop in the U.S., covering about 163,800 square kilometers, plus or minus 35,850 square kilometers; Milesi et al. 2005), an area larger than Ohio. Another estimate puts lawn area at more than twice that of cotton (Steinberg 2006).
Given this acreage, it is not surprising that about one fourth to one third of all herbicides are used on lawns (the exact percentage depends on the herbicide). Fertilizer application also tends to heavier than needed, creating nitrate runoff that contaminates drinking water aquifers. Compared to agricultural applications, lawns tend to suffer over-application. Lawns represent a huge contribution to non-point source pollution. Point sources are relatively easy to identify, regulate, and clean up. Non-point sources are by their very nature difficult to do anything about. Simply electing not to use certain products could have a huge impact.
We need to reimagine the entire lawn aesthetic. Variation, diversity, and dynamism need to become acceptable possibilities for lawns (Robbins 2007, Appendix A). More locally appropriate vegetation, greater biodiversity, fewer applications of harmful chemicals and fertilizers make this a win-win opportunity.
References
Lindsey, R. 2005. Looking for Lawns. NASA Earth Observatory: Features. 8 November. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Lawn/lawn.php
Milesi, C., S.W. Running, C.D. Elvidge, J.B. Dietz, B.T. Tuttle, R.R. Nemani. 2005. Mapping and modeling the biogeochemical cycling of turf grasses in the United States. Environmental Management 36(3), 426-438.
Pollan, M. 2001. The Botany of Desire: A Plant's Eye View of the World. Random House, Inc. New York.
Robbins, P. 2007. Lawn People. How Grasses, Weeds, and Chemicals Make Us Who We Are. Temple University Press.
Steinberg, T. 2006. American Green: The Obsessive Quest for the Perfect Lawn. W.W. Norton and Company, Inc. New York.
Posted by ksbaldwin at 12:30 AM | Permalink






















Comments
Good to see the USA begin a debate that started in the seventies in Australia, if only because water is more of an issue.
Posted by: meika | May 14, 2012 5:08:11 AM
I agree with all of this ethically & rationally. My problem is that it's hard to be the one 'lawnvironmentalist' on my street (in suburban Philadelphia -- essentially Chemlawn central).
Posted by: Amardeep | May 14, 2012 6:51:06 AM
I don't see too many perfect lawns in South Africa. Of course it's hard to see them even if they are there as, while the US has open gardens, in SA, everything is behind walls. The grass on the pavement though is quite often replaced with shrubs that don't need looking after or gravel.
Posted by: Jason Bosch | May 14, 2012 9:03:06 AM
As it happens, just yesterday I finally gave in and applied Weed and Feed (24 D) to my lawn. In my defense, most of my quarter acre is in ground cover, trees, bushes, flowers, etc. There is only a narrow path of lawn. But this lawn is problematic. It is vaguely green, but really a kind of yellowish. On close inspection, it is composed more of clover, weeds and moss than grass. In theory, this variety is desirable. In practice, I already have abundant variety and what I want is a nice thick dark green sword of turf. Hence the Weed and Feed. In short, lawns have their place as an element in landscape design, but not as the whole enchilada. What could be more boring than a uniform flat lawn covering the entire property? I will report on my progress if and when I see any.
Posted by: reader | May 14, 2012 10:54:30 AM
"Regular mowing, herbicides, fungicides, pesticides, fertilizer" ...
I have never used herbicides, fungicides, pesticides, or fertilizer, and the lawn, gardens, flowers, trees, and vines do wonderfully.
You work for Monsanto as an Agent Orange salesman or something?
Growing things have been around well before humans have.
Posted by: Dredd | May 14, 2012 12:56:15 PM
Amardeep, I had the same fear, here in "King of the Hill" lawn country, but I took the plunge, and all it took was one season of drought for the rest of the street to go down like dominoes.
Posted by: Zara | May 14, 2012 2:06:50 PM
Completely agree for the need to reimagine lawn aesthetic
Posted by: Ivona Poyntz | May 14, 2012 3:47:33 PM
To a large extent this has already happened, at least where I live on Long Island. Most front gardens are dominated by rhododendrons, trees, ground covers, forsythia, and a large variety of other plants and bushes with an area of lawn as just one element of the design. You still need some lawn, if only to walk around the garden.
Posted by: reader | May 14, 2012 3:57:12 PM
Thank you, Kevin. I have art and books, but I have never had a lawn. Here in Cambridge, MA, people tend not to have big lawns, but many of my neighbors have South-facing front lawns measuring about 10 ft deep by 20 ft wide. I cannot look at them without thinking they could use them for vegetable gardens, May through the end of October, and not for grass. People with a tiny bit of land with the right exposure, but no time for gardening, can use any of several networks to hook up with gardeners who have no land -- everyone can come away with plentiful fresh vegetables.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | May 14, 2012 4:13:00 PM
I wanted to add the nuisance of the lawn mowers, which can make you hate the spring days by breaking the afternoon reverie!
Posted by: Rajdeep | May 14, 2012 4:32:39 PM
I have a tiny bit of yard here in Santa Cruz, CA right on the beach. Everything that isn't planted full of edibles is just one giant dandelion/lawn. A dandylawn? We use em for salads and and they are soft enough to barefoot around on, and right now I have a beautiful yellow and green mini-field that my girlfriend sunbathes on. Just gotta remember to wash the greens after the dogs visit if you are planning on eating 'em for dinner. They have about the same nutritional content as spinach (iron, some vitamin D). Incidentally, I am part of the "Food Not Lawns!" local Santa Cruz chapter.
Posted by: DrunktankDan | May 14, 2012 4:58:36 PM
I love the rationales put forth by the writer, but my yard is in the same state through pure sloth and prospects for change are nill.
Posted by: Erich | May 14, 2012 9:33:25 PM
The decadent good life of Southern California mostly comes from the water from the Colorado River. This valuable, expensive and limited resource is then squandered by the owners of cars and lawns there, who foolishly waste this precious resource for watering and washing lawns and cars with drinking quality water. Much of the water used to water lawns is observed running down the street gutters.
This is not to mention the chemicals sprayed on these lawns, especially in gated golf course communities, polluting the planet all the way to the poles. This decadent practice is repeated now all over the country. Is it any wonder the rest of the world looks upon us as the most wasteful, extravagant fools on the planet, especially when they observe us using furniture made in China but shipped to the USA in huge freighters at enormous waste of fuel, not to mention driving 2+ ton vehicles to drive-in banks, fast food joints and even cleaners because we are too lazy to park the car and walk into the business, wasting enormous amounts of fuel and polluting the air while the engine is idling in line.?
Posted by: WJAbbe | May 14, 2012 10:14:55 PM
The deleterious effects of "lawn care" products (pesticides/herbicides), and the chemical biz forces arrayed against awareness of those effects and action against the products, was the subject of a documentary called "A Chemical Reaction" ( http://pfzmedia.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=53#/images/stories/screen/small/HomeDepot3.jpg ), about the town of Hudson, Quebec, where a local dermatologist noticed a strong correlation between illnesses there and the use of those products, and campaigned, ultimately successfully, for the town to ban them.
On my family's property in coastal New England, in the time since my grandfather bought the place in 1962, we've never used herbicides or fertilizers on the lawns around the house or on the long grasses field out back which we mow down to medium length periodically (otherwise it would rapidly go through the stages of succession from long grasses to bushes to trees, and keeping it in long grasses provides habitat for, well, grassland creatures), except for a brief period when my dad used Roundup on the strip of grass down the middle of the driveway, for which lapse I got mad at him (sadly, he died of an aggressive cancer a couple of years ago - correlation isn't causation, yes, but one naturally wonders.) The previous owners had the place since before WW I, and they never did anything to the lawns either, and the original owners before them (since earliest colonial days) were a founding farm family.
The lawns are a mix of grass types and the usual dandelions, papaya (a kind of broad leaf green, not the fruit), and clover, and various other things, and look just fine with just mowing and the leaving in place of the clippings (which dry rapidly in the summer sun to a tiny fraction of their weight and size, grass being mostly water, and sink back into the soil to recycle their nutrients.) It helps that they rarely need watering because of the proximity of the coast (the beach is a kilometre down the road) and the nightly dews and occasional fogs.
Unlike our land, which has a lot of trees and bushes on it (and a one acre wetland/dense trees & shrubs section at the back which supports local forest wildlife and borders on a never-developed ridge), and on which I had an organic garden when I lived there for a few years, our next door neighbour, who has a similar several acre plot, has a huge unbroken lawn/field (the back acre he lets grow up and has someone come in and harvest the hay) which he's out mowing at least a couple of times a week on his large sit-down mower. I used to mutter about "when is he going to put in the white lines and goal posts?" It seems so pointless, not to mention utterly lacking in any privacy for his backyard, which is easily visible from anywhere on the road.
Posted by: Kai Matthews | May 15, 2012 9:10:43 AM
Add this to the irony of pure lawns: you'll never see just a grass yard (no matter how 'beautiful') in a garden tour.
Posted by: jp | May 15, 2012 12:15:55 PM
True. I once worked in a Rhododendron garden. We had a few grass "oasis" in the garden that looked very nice amid the plants and trees. My own front garden is, at most, 10% grass. Most is in ivy ground cover. Ground cover looks great and you never have to cut it or do anything to it. You just can't walk on it. Large areas of grass may be appropriate for kids playing on, but then there are always parks. The biggest problem with growing vegetables is that they need full sun and the only way to achieve this is to cut down trees. Trees or food - that is the question. Trees have the advantage of providing shade and obviating the need for AC. On the other hand, solar panels are not possible.
Posted by: reader | May 15, 2012 12:32:01 PM
I agree with everything you say. Though I don't currently have a lawn, I would support all initiatives to improve the land use of American lawns. and yet...
...I find the perfect lawn as imagined by American culture so utterly soothing and relaxing I find it hard to describe. So while it lasts, I am going to enjoy it. Hopefully (AP style!) it won't last too long.
Posted by: MNP | May 21, 2012 10:33:33 AM
MNP
You're right. The perfect, lush, dark green lawns my neighbors have are utterly soothing and relaxing. The bastards.
Posted by: reader | May 21, 2012 10:40:25 AM
The downside of not using lawn chemicals:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/marcus-gee/lawn-chemicals-ban-means-torontos-public-spaces-are-going-to-seed/article2437863/
Posted by: reader | May 22, 2012 10:13:22 AM
Post a comment