Sprawling Green Lawns: More Destructive Than You Think
Posted on 22. Jun, 2010 by Andrea Dumovich in Blog
In an urban environment the desire for green space is evident. But parks and lawns may be causing more harm than good. A recent study conducted by the University of California Irvine concluded that maintaining parks in an urban setting might lead to more carbon upset than reduction.
Sadly, society’s good intentions of preserving Mother Nature are beginning to backfire.
A recent Los Angeles Times article states that researchers in southern California “compared the amount of greenhouse gases absorbed by ornamental turfgrass to the amount emitted in the irrigation, fertilizing and mowing of the same plots,” amounted almost equally to one another. Because 1.9% of America’s land is dedicated to turfgrass—making it the nation’s most commonly irrigated crop—green spaces are helping the environment less than we are lead to believe. But when you think of sprawling front yards composed of finely trimmed lawns, the logic behind today’s madness makes sense—garden plants don’t grow attractively on their own. What goes into maintaining a “natural” green look actually takes a lot of effort; think of all of the fertilizers, pesticides, lawn mowers, gasoline to fuel the mowers, water and irrigation (which leads to eventual erosion, causing disrupted habitats and species’ extinction). The spiral is downwards.
Though, that doesn’t mean that all green space is earth wrecking. Human beings have a need for green spaces. Since the gritty industrial revolution in America, green space has been viewed not only as a humanitarian effort but as a necessity, sustaining the well being of its inhabitants. The ill sanitation that urbanization fostered through overcrowding was offset by the creation of parks to improve public health—socially, mentally, and physically. With Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux’s winning design for Central Park, peoples’ love for open green space was salvaged.
Today, green spaces are greatly recognized as important places for communities to share. Spaces that provide such even ground to all types of user groups should be cherished, maintained and preserved. They are worth having—rather than the likes of individual front lawns or untouched greenbelts—because they offer an exchange, providing a place that is valued by its people and, in return, is purposefully used. By only supplying individual aesthetic-significance, green spaces thus become detrimental to our environment and wellbeing.
What needs to be considered is just what type of green space we should foster. You may think to yourself that having grass is a nicer way of balancing all of that concrete inherent in urban settings. While the sentiment is good, think instead of wiser options that relate to environmental impact. For instance, the heat island effect—excess heat given off by structures such as concrete parking lots—is better mitigated through the planting of trees, which requires less water and trimming than vast ornamental turfgrass.
The problem is not our love for green space but our views as to which greens we perceive as attractive. By greatly emphasizing maintenance to provide a space that permanently looks freshly cut we ultimately hurt ourselves. Instead we should invest our time and money into greens that work for us. Let them grow uncut, unkempt. Plants that are native work well within the ecosystems in which they were born—why not utilize them? Have a rock garden that requires little water and no lawn mower. If there is a community park, we shouldn’t just sit and stare but run wild into the landscape. Isn’t that what it’s there for?
Popularity: 14% [?]
awesome post…