ancient cities

of the potential dangers of repeated applications
of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers, they continue
to apply them. This points to a complicated
relationship among the needs of the lawn itself,
the exigencies of capitalist production, and the
social, cultural, political, and economic contexts
of individual lawn owners. Lawn product manufacturers
and lawn care companies have a stake in
maintaining and strengthening markets in the face
of environmental lobbies and competition. To
that end, they work to continue to convince consumers
that inputs are necessary for a good lawn
and, therefore, for good families and communities.
But in so doing, they also download the risk
of using these products to consumers who have at
least some knowledge of commensurate environmental
and personal risk.
There are two strands of such risk. First, consumers
become responsible for their own decisions
regarding chemical use. Despite knowing something
of the hazards of chemical application, many homeowners
seem unwilling to change behaviors. This is
may be explained by a second strand of risk. That is,
consumers are also well aware of the financial (fines
and falling real estate values) and socioeconomic
(fall out with neighbors) costs of deviance.
The Lawn as Ecology
The lawn, because of its ubiquity and density in
urban spaces, is at the center of intense debates
over its ecological implications. Lawn critics suggest
that the lawn and its related maintenance
have a number of negative environmental consequences.
First, critics suggest that the propagation
of monoculture crops of introduced species erases
local flora and fauna and thereby overcomes the
ecological diversity of local areas. This leads to
concerns over air, soil, and water quality as well
as environmental health generally.
Second, critics maintain lawn care practice is
environmentally deleterious. Some authors point
to the vast amount of fossil fuels that lawn equipment
consumes. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), for example, contends that in the
United States alone, lawn owners consume 800
million gallons of gasoline annually to power
lawn mowers. EPA also states that Americans use
about 7 billion gallons of water per day for lawn
and garden use.
Lawn
443
Third, critics also point to the pollution that is
produced through the operation of powered lawn
care equipment and the application of chemicals;
both are important sources of air, water, and soil
pollution. By extension, several authors point to
potential links between the use of gas-powered
lawn equipment and chemicals and reproductive
complications, neurological problems, and certain
kinds of cancer. Children who play on treated
lawns are at particular risk.
In answer to these allegations, lawn proponents
claim that turf is an environmental asset. First, a
healthy lawn makes positive contributions to the
atmosphere. A lawn can play a large role in cooling
urban environments. It also serves to generate oxygen
as well as to sequester carbon dioxide. In fact,
research suggests that the carbon dioxide output
from a gas-powered mower is more than offset by
the lawn’s ability to use it. The conclusion is that
homeowners who carefully manage their lawns do
more for the environment than those who do not.
Second, proponents contend that a lawn can
improve local water and soil quality. A healthy
lawn should trap dust and pollutants. Constant
microbial activity in the lawn breaks them down
into harmless components before they can dissipate
into the wider soil and water systems. The lawn also
contains storm runoff and minimizes potential damage
caused by erosion. Finally, the annual cycle of
growth and decay contributes organic material to
the soil, thereby contributing to its health.
Both sets of arguments lie at the heart of a mass
of material that describes how the lawn might
become even more environmentally sustainable.
Indeed, a 2008 Internet search for key words lawn
and environment generated nearly 30 million hits.
Most of these outline environmentally friendly lawn
care advice. Few, however, question whether or not
there might be alternatives to the lawn. Lawn equipment
and chemical companies and lawn care companies
also contribute to the debate. In response to
the stresses of another wave of environmental concern,
most companies will make claims to using safe
products and processes. But they have also become
active lobbyists that attempt to thwart bans on
chemicals, restrictions on noise, and/or other threats
to the lawn. In the end, consumers must contend
with a barrage of information with a dizzying variety
of research outcomes provided by both environmental
advocates and corporations.