Lawns Are The Worst
Lawns have their roots in classist and colonial origins, they are difficult and expensive to maintain, and they are an ecological nightmare. Let’s rethink lawns.
A Brief History of Lawns
The idea of a “lawn” first emerged in the 16th century in Europe, although it did not take today’s impractical form until the 17th century.
Before the 16th century, areas around castles were kept clear of trees to keep an eye out for approaching enemy attack. Besides this, trees were usually removed to get lumber or build something in the area. (Logical enough, moving on.)
In the 16th century, the wealthy kept lawns clear of trees as a symbol of status (pretentious) but they were usually planted with chamomile or thyme rather than grass, which are useful plants and more likely native to the area than “lawn grass” (acceptable).
However, during the 17th century, grass lawns became popular in England for wealthy landowners. Sometimes sheep were allowed to graze on these lawns, but landowners usually requested that humans upkeep the grass closest to the home. This became a common symbol of status and wealth, since most people could not afford to pay workers to tend the lawns.
When white Europeans invaded North America, the cattle they brought with them quickly ate their way through the native grasses they found in the northeast. At this point, cattle began to starve without a reliable food source; Europeans shipped in grass seed from Europe to grow for the survival of their livestock. Since the grass seed originated in Europe, it was clearly not native to North America; however, the grass (and at least 22 species of European “weeds”) quickly spread throughout the continent. Grass became an agricultural product and was in high demand by farmers.
Since European art, architecture, and design were the primary influences for towns in the US, as wealthy Europeans adopted lawns, so did wealthy Americans. Thomas Jefferson, who had seen the new style of lawn firsthand in France, was one of the first to implement the style in the US. He was followed by George Washington and increasingly more and more wealthy Americans looking to replicate the newest trend.
However, in the mid-19th century, most American houses were still small, rather cramped, and had small, fenced back gardens rather than front lawns. What changed? Cars. With the introduction of the car came the development of the suburbs, and with it, the idea of “curb appeal.” Homeowners now felt compelled to keep the front of the house, generally the road- or- train-facing part, aesthetically pleasing. This was generally still a concern for wealthy Americans, as they were the ones who could afford the move out of the cities and into the suburbs.
Lawns finally reached their modern-day status in the US after the Civil War, when the North experienced economic growth and people began looking for ways to showcase symbols of their wealth, which meant more lawns.
Although most of us unthinkingly plant and maintain lawns, they have their roots in classist and colonial ideas.
Does this mean we shouldn’t have lawns? Not necessarily - but we need to update the idea of what a “lawn” is.
What Is a Lawn?
As described by Krystal D’Costa in Scientific American, a lawn is…
“…a patch of green grass of a singular type with no weeds that is attached to your home. It should be no more than an inch and a half tall, and neatly edged. This means you must be willing to care for it. It must be watered, mowed, repaired, and cultivated. Lawns are expensive—and some regard them as boring in their uniformity—but they are a hallmark of homeownership.”
Lawns are now so ingrained in American homeownership that in many suburban neighborhoods, it is not only a cultural norm but a requirement to plant and maintain your lawn; not doing so can result in fines (plus the judgement of your neighbors). This is part of most Homeowners Associations, which I’ll probably be discussing in a future blog.
Ecological Impacts of Lawns
Kentucky Bluegrass. Photo Source
As previously discussed, most lawns are made up of non-native European grass. The most popular in the US is Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), usually chosen for its “cold tolerance,” “low maintenance requirements,” and “resilience.” These terms are all in quotes because compared to your region’s native grasses, Kentucky bluegrass loses in every one of these categories.
Native grasses vary based off where you live, but something they have in common is that they are adapted to survive in your region with little to no human intervention.
Lawn Maintenance
In addition to being time consuming and annoying, running all these lawnmowers, lawn edgers, and other outdoor equipment uses tons of fuel.
Photo Credit: Daniel Watson, Unsplash
To be specific, it takes about 800 million gallons of gasoline annually to run our lawn equipment (with an additional 17 million gallons spilled). In the case of some equipment without an independent lubricant system, fuel and oil are mixed; this means about 30% of the fuel does not completely combust, and releases toxic gases into the air.
That’s a ton of fuel (meaning we need to extract it, which furthers the impacts of climate change) and a ton of toxic gas (again, not great for climate change and definitely detrimental to our health).
Water Usage
In addition to using tons of fuel resources, lawns also require water. According to the EPA,
30 to 60 percent of urban fresh water is used on lawns. Much of this water is also wasted due usage and timing.
Photo Credit: Anthony Lee, Unsplash
In the US alone, lawn and landscape irrigation totals nearly 9 billion gallons per day. That is so much water. That’s almost twice as much water as the volume of Florida’s Lake Parker, used in one day.
Native grasses generally have deeper roots, so they hold soil in place better than other grass lawns.
Pollination
Native pollinators rely on native grasses and plants. Putting in a grass lawn removes precious habitat for these pollinators, ultimately making their survival that much harder.
Photo Credit: Jean and Fred Hort, Flickr
Native bees alone pollinate 80% of flowering plants around the world, including foods like cherries, blueberries, and cranberries. This isn’t even counting other native pollinators, like butterflies, beetles, flies, hummingbirds, and bats!
In addition to providing services like pollination, the presence of native pollinators (and native plants) contributes to the biodiversity of an ecosystem. Why does that matter? The more biodiversity an ecosystem has, the more resilient it is to climate change.
Fertilizers
To get lawns to grow quickly and stay bright green, without any pesky “pests,” homeowners tend to apply lots of fertilizers and pesticides.
Photo Source: CDC, Unsplash
Pesticides are clearly an issue because they kill a lot more than advertised. They are highly detrimental to insects (including pollinators), and as discussed above, this is a big problem for our ecosystems. But what about fertilizers?
According to a publication by North Dakota State University:
“[The unmanaged use of fertilizers] can cause algae blooms causing the depletion of oxygen in surface waters, pathogens and nitrates in drinking water, and the emission of odors and gases into the air.”
Gross. Also, excessive use of fertilizers can lead to nutrient losses in the environment, eutrophication (excessive nutrients in water that causes organism death from lack of oxygen) of freshwater ecosystems and coasts, and damage of human health due to unsafe storage and application.
How bad is the problem, really? According to Lakis Polycarpou for Columbia Climate School’s State of the Planet:
“Homeowners spend billions of dollars and typically use 10 times the amount of pesticide and fertilizers per acre on their lawns as farmers do on crops; the majority of these chemicals are wasted due to inappropriate timing and application. These chemicals then runoff and become a major source of water pollution.”
So if the amount of environmental damage caused by fertilizers and pesticides isn’t enough to discourage their use, the practice also crazy-expensive.
Carbon Sinks
A carbon sink, or reservoir, is an ecosystem, or part of an ecosystem, that holds carbon rather than releasing it (aka, carbon sequestration).
Photo Credit: Matt Lavin, Flickr
These generally include the ocean, forests (particularly the rainforest and boreal forests/peatlands), and grasslands. However, lawns could potentially act as carbon sinks too - they just usually don’t due to the way we maintain our lawns.
According to a University of California-Irvine study, greenhouse gas emissions from lawn care and maintenance are four times more than the amount of carbon sequestration by grass lawns. Our lawns in their current form are doing far more harm than good. However, planting low-maintenance native plants, or implementing an alternative style of lawn, can help solve this problem.
What Should a Lawn Be?
If we want to plant a lawn without fertilizers, pesticides, and routine maintenance - that also supports soil and pollinators - what does that leave us with? Alternative lawns.
This will not be feasible for everyone, mostly due to financial considerations or other social factors. And, in some places such as the American East Coast, a grass lawn may be way more feasible. But if possible, even if it’s a small step, try to rethink your lawn. Here are a few options:
If you are using a screen reader, please click here for a description of the following section.
What changes will you make to your lawn? What other solutions have you seen? Let me know!
More resources:
🌱 Watering Established Lawns by Colorado State University. If you do have an established Kentucky bluegrass lawn, read this for best practices to reduce environmental and economic impacts of your lawn.
🌱 Lawn Maintenance and Climate Change by Jiahn Son. This is a really informative article that goes more in-depth about issues of climate and lawns.
🌱 Why grass lawns are burning your pockets and our planet by Harper Johnston. This is a great opinion piece on the issue with lawns.
