The Tyranny of Lawns

After almost nine feet of snow this winter, most residents of my hometown are happy to be greeting spring. Even if the change in season just means trading snow shovels for yard tools, at least tending gardens and grass doesn’t come with the risk of frostbite. Few people, though, will question the convention of having a lawn in the first place. However, given that both time and water are scarce resources, perhaps we should reexamine why we lavish them on our lawns.

In many communities, keeping a tidy patch of grass is written into the rules of the housing association, but that wasn’t always the case. Dr. James B. Beard, a leading expert on turfgrass, notes that shorter grass has been a boon to humans since our days on the African savannah, when spotting predators before they were upon us conferred an evolutionary advantage. For most of settled human history, however, manicured lawns were the purview of the wealthy, with everyone else satisfying themselves with cattle-cropped fields…presumably complete with the associated ordure. Finally, though, the invention of the lawn mower in the 1800s brought the possibility of a neat, grass-covered yard within reach of those who couldn’t afford dedicated landscapers.

As with so many technological advances, though, the lawn mower’s success brought unintended consequences, transforming lawns from an aspirational good into a requirement. Since brown patches are abhorrent in the lexicon of lawns, residential water use focuses on keeping the grass green. According to the EPA, in the US, a third of the water people use at their homes is showered on their grass. In most US communities, water is not free, so people do pay for their choice, but residential use often competes with nearby agricultural and commercial uses. Although we may not realize it, watering our lawns might not only pull money from our pockets but also make our food less nutritious as crops struggle with water shortages.

Keeping lawns green often requires not just water but fertilizer as well, and while farmers are assiduous about applying it with precision, homeowners are less particular. Residential landscaping companies that make money from multiple applications are unlikely to counsel their customers in prudence. Consequently, an estimated 40-60% of the chemicals applied pollute local water sources. This represents not only a waste of money for the people who purchased unnecessary product but also a potential problem both for public health and for the environment.

Some have pointed out that lawns can store carbon that otherwise would have been emitted into the atmosphere, which is meaningful, since lawns in the US cover an area of land about half the size of Texas. However, it is far from clear that growing non-native grasses – most American lawns are seeded with species brought by settlers from other parts of the world – as a monoculture is the best use of such a large swathe of our country. Key parts of the ecosystem, like bees, would do better with more biodiversity. Proponents of lawns often claim that they retain rainwater in the soil rather than letting it overwhelm sewer systems, but the grasses used in most lawns have short root structures; sowing other plants would be more useful for overall soil health and, in some cases, could also be used to supplement incomes or dinner tables.

In addition to the physical ingredients needed for lawn maintenance, time is also essential. According to the American Time Use Survey put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, each American spends about 70 hours annually on average on yardwork, more than the standard workweek. Recently, robotic lawn mowers have introduced the possibility of a huge reduction in that figure, but prices are still high enough to keep the human-operated sort active. Although some of us might view mowing lawns as a nostalgic reminder of our first paid job, many teens now consider studying a better use of their time, and it’s not clear that monotonous work of any sort is appropriate for anyone, particularly if there are alternatives.

An oft-cited reason for wanting a yard covered with grass instead of, for example, a mix of native plants including wildflowers, is to have a place for kids to play outside. While this is an admirable reason, it isn’t clear why the grass in question needs to be the thirsty bluegrass that covers most lawns in the US. Presumably any short variety of plant that grows evenly would suffice. Since it is unlikely that most people will choose to convert their lawns to wildflower meadows, vegetable gardens, or stone plazas, a good compromise would be to seed them with grasses that grow slowly, require less water, and are native to the area. We don’t have to stop enjoying our lawns, but we have enough knowledge to explore ways to do so without so much waste.

Most importantly, just as in other parts of society, we should embrace diversity. Three of the consequences of lawns – water, fertilizer, land – only become a problem in the aggregate, which is fitting, since lawns have evolved largely as a way of conforming with a community. As we devise ways of curtailing waste, we should allow people’s yards to look different from one another’s without negative judgments. Perhaps the tyranny of the lawn will fade naturally as we increasingly spend time in digital realms instead of in our yards, but, before that happens, hopefully we can manage a healthier relationship with our lawns on our own terms.