| Title |
Residents’ Yard Choices and Rationales in a Desert City: Social Priorities, Ecological Impacts, and Decision Tradeoffs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Management, September 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00267-009-9353-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kelli L. Larson, David Casagrande, Sharon L. Harlan, Scott T. Yabiku |
| Abstract |
As a dominant land use in urban ecosystems, residential yards impact water and other environmental resources. Converting thirsty lawns into alternative landscapes is one approach to water conservation, yet barriers such as cultural norms reinforce the traditional lawn. Meanwhile, the complex social and ecological implications of yard choices complicate programs aimed at changing grass and other yard features for particular purposes. In order to better understand individual landscape decisions, we qualitatively examined residents' rationales for their preferred yard types in the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. After briefly presenting landscape choices across two survey samples, the dominant reasons for preferences are discussed: appearance, maintenance, environment, recreation, microclimate, familiarity, and health/safety. Three broader analytical themes emerged from these descriptive codes: (1) residents' desires for attractive, comfortable landscapes of leisure encompassing pluralistic tastes, lifestyles, and perceptions; (2) the association of environmental benefits and impacts with different landscape types involving complex social and ecological tradeoffs; and (3) the cultural legacies evident in modern landscape choices, especially in terms of a dichotomous human-nature worldview among long-time residents of the Phoenix oasis. Given these findings, programs aimed at landscape change must recognize diverse preferences and rationalization processes, along with the perceived versus actual impacts and tradeoffs of varying yard alternatives. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 12 | 6% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Puerto Rico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 187 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 55 | 27% |
| Student > Master | 36 | 17% |
| Researcher | 33 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 28 | 14% |
| Unknown | 30 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 65 | 32% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 29 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 27 | 13% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 9 | 4% |
| Engineering | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 26 | 13% |
| Unknown | 43 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 August 2013.
All research outputs
#2,090,808
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#126
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,575
of 106,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 106,119 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.