as a social The lawn and cultural phenomenon in Sweden Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

(1)

Contents lists available atScienceDirect

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / u f u g

The lawn as a social and cultural phenomenon in Sweden

Maria Ignatieva

^∗

, Fredrik Eriksson, Tuula Eriksson, Per Berg, Marcus Hedblom

SwedishUniversityofAgriculturalSciences,P.O.Box7012,Uppsala75007,Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o

Articlehistory:

Received21July2016 Receivedinrevisedform 15November2016 Accepted1December2016 Availableonline31December2016

Keywords:

Conventionallawns

Environmentallyfriendlyandcost-effective lawns

Lawncover

People’sperceptionsanduseoflawn

a b s t r a c t

Lawnshaveasigniﬁcantinﬂuenceonthecityscapeasoneoftheessentialelementsofgreenspacesandan importantpartofpeople’severydaylives.MostpeopleintheWesternworldviewlawnsasacompulsory elementoftheurbanlandscape,almostanicon,withoutquestioningtheirsocial,symbolic,ecological oraestheticvalues.Thisresearchisapartoftheconceptualframeworkandmethodologicalapproaches thatarebeingusedinanongoingtransdisciplinarycollaborationprojecttostudylawnsinSwedenasa socialandecologicalphenomenon.

Theoverallaimofthisstudywastoinvestigatesocialandculturalperceptionsoflawns,aswellas motivesbehinddecisionsabouttheestablishmentandmanagementoflawnsinSweden.Twomulti- familyhousingtypologies,the‘MillionProgramme’and‘People’sHomes’,wereexaminedduetotheir dominanceinSwedishcities.Wealsostudiedhowanalternativevisionofconventionallawnscanbe appliedandacceptedbyurbanresidents.Weestimatedlawncoverinmulti-familyhousingareasandlinks topeople’sperceptionanduseoflawns.Questionnaires,semi-structuredinterviewsandobservational studieswereused(N=300).Ourresultsshowedthatpeoplelikelawnseveniftheydonotalwaysdirectly usethem.Lawnscoverthemostsigniﬁcantamountofoutdoorspacesinallmulti-familyresidentialareas andaccompanypeopleeverywherefromthehousetotheschoolyardorpark.Thetotallawncoverinthe studyareaswas27.8%.Lawnswereparticularlyvaluedasimportantplacesfordifferentoutdooractivities (playing,resting,picnicking,walking,socialising)andenjoyingthegreencolour.Howeverpeopledonot wanttouseavastmonotonouslawn,butavarietyofspacesthatprovidegoodconditionsfordifferent senses(sound,smell,touchandsight)andactivities.Alternativelawnswerealsoappreciatedbymany citizens,politicians,plannersandmanagers.Theimplementationofnewtypesoflawnsrequiresspecial planninganddesignsolutionsadjustedforeachparticularneighbourhood.

1. Introduction

Lawnsoccupyasignificantproportionofgreenspacesinmany citiesworldwidetoday(Stewartetal.,2009).Accordingtothemost recentEUstudy“GreenSurge–Atypologyofurbangreenspaces, ecosystemprovisioningservicesanddemands”(Braquinhoetal., 2015), green spaces are defined as “any vegetated areas found intheurbanenvironment,includingparks,forests, openspaces, lawns,residentialgardens,orstreettrees”.In44identifiedtypes ofurbangreen areas,thelawnis oneofthemostcommonele- ments,forexampleinlargeurbanparks,botanicalandzoological gardens,historicparks/gardens,institutionalgreenspaces,green playground/schoolgrounds,streetgreenorgreenvergesandhouse

∗ Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddresses:maria.ignatieva@slu.se(M.Ignatieva),

fredrik.mattias.eriksson@gmail.com(F.Eriksson),tuula.s.eriksson@gmail.com (T.Eriksson),per.berg@slu.se(P.Berg),marcus.hedblom@slu.se(M.Hedblom).

gardens.Thecomplexcharacterofurbangreenareasiswellrecog- nisedandthereisagrowingbodyofresearchinvestigatingtheroles ofgreen spaces insocial,economic, culturaland environmental aspectsofsustainabledevelopment(Haq,2011).Eveniflawnsare oneofthemostdominantelementsingreenareasinallcountries (irrespectiveofclimaticdifferences),thisphenomenonitselfisnot wellresearched,andespeciallynotitssocio-culturalcomponent.At atimeofclimatechangeandthesearchforasustainableurbanenvi- ronment,thereisanurgentneedtohaveinterdisciplinaryempirical quantitativeandqualitativestudiesonlawns:thevaluesofdiffer- entlawnsarerevealedandconclusionsdrawnabouttheirnegative and/orpositiveenvironmentalimpact(Ignatievaetal.,2015).

Therearemanydifferentdefinitionsof‘lawn’,butwe define it here as an artificially created or modified plant community (phytosociologicalcomposition)consistingpredominantlyofgrass (more technically graminoids), but it may have spontaneously occurringherbaceousspecies(whicharealsocalled‘lawnweeds’).

Lawnsareusedforrecreationandsports,andasapleasantgreen backdropfordisplayingotherplantsorfunctional(playgrounds)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.12.006

4.0/).

(2)

and decorative elements(pieces of art, fountains, benches and pavilions).Oneofthemaincharacteristicsoflawnsistheircon- structiontechnique (preparationofsoilandseedmixtures) and managementregime(mowing,herbiciding,fertilising,watering) aimedatmaintaininggrassspecies,controllingweedsandmosses, andkeepingacertaingrassheight.

Thelawnisquitearecentecologicalandculturalphenomenon.

Lawnsareanartiﬁciallycreatedgrass-dominatedplantcommu- nitydesignedmostlyforpleasureand/ordecorativepurposes.It mostprobablyappearedinmedievaltimesinEurope(Fort,2000;

Ignatieva,2011).Abroaderuseoflawnsisconnectedtothedevel- opmentofthemostinﬂuentiallandscapearchitecturalstyles,such aspicturesqueandgardenesque(18th−19thcenturies),inEurope, theUS,AustraliaandNewZealand.The20thcenturyModernism movementusedlawnsasamassiveprefabricatedelementinall greenareas(publicandprivate).Lawnstodayareseenasasymbol ofglobalisationandthemarketeconomy(Ignatieva,2010).

Anecologicalcomponentassessmentoflawns(ﬂoristicaland phytosociologicalcomposition,urbanbiotope)hasbeenaprimary subject in lawn research since the 1990s in Germany (Müller, 1990)andlaterinEngland(Thompsonetal.,2004),NewZealand (Ignatievaetal.,2000;Stewartetal.,2009)andrecentlyinother countries(Bertocinietal.,2012;Pooyaetal.,2013).

TheUS and UKare tryingtoraise awareness ofbroad-scale research–anestimationoflawncoverincities(Milesietal.,2005;

Gastonetal.,2005;Edmondsonetal.,2014)becauseofthedom- inantroleoflawnsinsuburbanprivategardensandpublicgreen spaces.Forexample,thecombinedareaoflawn(turfgrass)repre- sentsanestimated23%ofurbanlandcoverintheUSA(Robbinsand Birkenholz,2003).Intheearly1990stheareacultivatedwithlawns intheUSwasuptothreetimesgreaterthanthatofirrigatedcorn crops.Awarenessoftheenvironmentalimpactofintensivelyman- agedlawnsinUSsuburbiaresultedinarisingnumberofscientiﬁc andpopularpublicationsonthehistoryofAmericanandEnglish lawnsandananalysisofsocio-culturalandeven anthropogenic reasons(speculationthatpeoplelovelawnsbecauseoftheevolu- tionofhumansinsavanna-likelandscapesinEastAfrica)behindan obsessionfortheperfectshort-cutgreenlawninmodernsociety (Schultz,1999;Teyssot,1999;Fort,2000;Macinnis,2009).Inrecent years,particularlyintheUS,EnglandandGermany,thereisagrow- ingnumberofpapersdiscussingthe‘evils’ofmodernmonotonous andhomogenouslawnsandtheneedforalternativesustainable solutionsaswellastheeducationoflocalcitizensinfavourofa newvisionoflawnsinurbannature(Bormanetal.,2001;Pollan, 1991).

Thesocialnormsandpsychologicalandsocialpredictorsoflawn fertiliserapplicationhavebeenstudiedintheprivategardensof Americansuburbia(KaufmanandLohr,2002;Carricoetal.,2012).

However,therearestillveryfewproperempiricalsocialstudieson perceptions,normsandaestheticvaluesofcurrentuseandman- agementpracticesoflawns,especiallyinnon-Americancountries.

Swedishcitiessharethesamelawnpatternasmanyothercities aroundtheworld.Lawnsarewidelyadvertisedbyurbanplanners, landscapearchitects,developersandmassmediaasaveryuseful consumerproductforthemarket.Itisthedominantcomponent ofgreenareasinmulti-familyhousing,publicparksandgardens, streetvergesandcemeteriesaswellasinprivategardensandon golfcourses.However,nostudiesofthebiodiversity,environmen- talimpactorpublicuseoflawns,forexample,havebeenconducted inSweden(Ignatievaetal.,2015).

Theoverallaimofthisstudywastoinvestigatesocialvisionsand perceptionsoflawnsandmotivesfordecisionsabouttheestab- lishmentand management of lawns in commonhousing areas inSwedishcities.Themainresearchquestioninvolvedstudying lawnsfromdifferentperspectives.Thisalsoincludedanexami- nationofhowsustainable(alternative)designandmanagement

of lawnscouldbeappliedand accepted byurbanresidents, an estimation oflawn cover in typicalmulti-familyhousingareas, andpeople’sperceptionanduseoflawns.Withoutunderstand- ingthesocialmotivesbehindthestrongattachmentofmodern westernsociety(includingSweden)tolawns,itisimpossibleto introducepotentialalternativesolutionsandchangeconventional managementroutines.Thetransdisciplinaryapproach(inthispar- ticularcase betweendataonlawncover inSwedishresidential areasandvisionsoflawnsbylocalresidents)allowsustoexchange knowledge between scientiﬁc disciplines and achieve a multi- dimensionalunderstandingofthelawnasaphenomenon.

2. LawnsinSweden

ThehistoryoflawnestablishmentinSwedenissimilartothat inmanyotherEuropeancountries.Grazedmeadowshaveexisted formillenniaandduringtheIronAgeitbecamepossibletohar- vest hay in larger amounts. It is difﬁcult to say exactly when grass-dominated plots (lawns) for entirely decorative purposes appearedinEuropeangardens,includingSweden(Ignatievaand Ahrné, 2013).In Medieval Europeangardens of the 12th–15th century,cutturffrommeadowswiththeirvariousgrassandherba- ceousﬂoweringplantswasusedinmonastery(andcastle)gardens.

LawnswereﬁrstusedinSwedenasentirelydecorativeshort-cut grassareasduringRenaissanceandBaroquetimes(1600–1750s).

Theestablishmentandmaintenanceoflawnswasexpensiveand resource-consumingandlawnswereinitiallyusedonlyinlimited amountsasaparterreelementortapisvert(greencarpet)inthe grandparksofroyaltyandthenobility.DuringtheEnglishland- scapeparkera(1750s–1840s),ratherlargeundulatinglawnswere stilltheprerogativeofthenobles.Publicparksﬁrstemergedinthe secondpartof19thcentury,markinganeweraofSwedishlawns.

Theystartedtobeanimportantdecorativeandrecreationalele- mentandservedtheneedsofthecommonpeopleratherthanthose oftheprivilegedhighersocialclasses.Swedishparksatthattime werevaluedasplacesforgoodhealthand‘moraleducation’.They providedapleasantenvironmentforstrengtheningthefamily‘by takingpeople’smindsawayfromdrinkingandgambling(Wärn, 2013).

From the second part of the 19th century, the process of transformationof anagrariancountrytoahighly industrialised nationbegan,resultinginacceleratedurbanisation.AftertheSec- ondWorldWar,Sweden’sundamagedindustryneededevenmore urbanlabourtoproducegoodsforthedestroyedEurope.Newurban developmentplansandanewgenerationofhousingareaswith apartmentblockswerebuiltalloverSweden.Theplanningstruc- tureofSwedishcitiesbeforeandafterthewardirectlyreﬂected theeconomicandpolitical situationand wereconnectedtothe

“SwedishModel”implementedbytheSocialDemocraticParty(in powerfrom1932to1976)withtheaimofcreatingamoreequal society.This policyresultedin creatingtheprogressivewelfare state.Oneconcretegoalwastoprovidesimple,butgood-standard apartmentsand healthy outdoorenvironmentsfor theworking class(Dahlberg,1985).Inﬂuencesalsocamefromtheinternational functionalism movement, strongly expressed in the Stockholm Exhibitionin1930.Thebasicideawasthatformordesignshould followthefunctionofdwellingbothindoorsandoutdoorsinnew housingareas.Functionalistic planningand architectural values andpoliciesincludedequalaccesstohigh-qualitypublicspaces andprovisionofsun,lightandairandanimprovementinthepop- ulation’shealth.Asaresult,functionalisticmulti-familyhousing areas–“People’sHomes”(Folkhemshusen)in1940–1959andthe

“MillionProgramme”(Miljonprogrammet)in1960untilthemid- 1970s –wereestablishedall over Sweden.500,000apartments werebuiltin15yearsduringthePeople’sHomeprogrammeand

(3)

Fig.1. ThePeople’sHomesareaofTunabackarinUppsala,withbrightlushinnercourtyardscoveredbylargepubliclawns.(Photo:PerGBerg).

900,000homesin10yearsforanationwithapopulationofseven million.Inbothformsofhousing,lawnscoverlargeareas.Following theideologicalandsocialgoalsofprovidingacheapandfunctional space,lawnswereseenasanexcellentoutdoorelementforplay, walkingandrecreation.Lawnswereastandardelementthatﬁt- tedwellintofunctionalisticaestheticsofasimpliﬁed,rationalistic (prefabricated)stylewithlimitedvariationindesignschemes.

2.1. People’sHomesandtheMillionProgramme

ThePeople’sHomesprojectoriginallyconsistedofmostlyrented apartmentsinthree-storeyhousesinnaturalsettingsorinclosed blocksaroundlushinnercourtyards(Fig.1).Lawnswereinitially usedtocoverlargespacesnexttothehousesbecauseoftheirsimple andcheapmaintenance.

Greenresourcesthenbecame commonin courtyards,witha plethoraofgardenrooms,largetrees,pergolas,lushplaygrounds and appropriatedground-floor gardens. Theinitial ideafor the lawnswastoconstitutethegreenflooroftheindividualcourtyards andthecoreoflargercommongreenparks(PerssonandPersson, 1995).Inmanycases,lawnswerebuiltonformeragriculturalor meadowland.Playgrounds,flowerbeds,pathways,streetfurni- ture,gravelballparks,shallowpaddlingpoolsand,inlaterdecades, picnicplaceswereallsurroundedbylawns.

DuringtheMillionProgrammemosthouseswereinitiallylow- rise,butlatercomprisedlarger-scalehigh-riseareas.Thestrongest

green-blueinfrastructurevaluesfortheseareaswereconsidered tobetheirclosenesstonatureintheperiphery(urbanfringe)of thecity.Forestpatchesandlargerlawnareasweresuggestedas an assetin the Million Programmeas well,but the courtyards betweenbuildingshad onlysmallpatchesoflawn. Largerlawn areaswerethereforeestablishedinlarge-scaleresidentialparks and adjacent groves, meadows and garden plots. The weakest expressionofgreenplanningintheMillionProgrammewasinner courtyardsplantedwithexoticstandardplantmaterial(Berberis andDasiphora)growingonverythintopsoilwithinmonotonous lawnareas.

3. Methodology 3.1. Casestudies

Ourresearchwasconductedinthreecase-studycities(Göte- borg,Malmö,Uppsala,seeFig.2)in2013–2016.Göteborg,onthe south-westcoast,isthesecondlargestcityinSweden,withapop- ulationof533,000(1January2015).Thetopography,withrough, barrenrockyoutcropsandcliffs,hasinfluencedthecity’sspatial development.MalmöisthethirdlargestcityinSweden,withapop- ulationofabout319,000(1January2015).UnlikeGöteborgwith itshillylandscapeandremnantsofnaturalvegetation,Malmöhas plaintopographyandmanyofMalmö’sneighbourhoodshavearti- ficialturfedgreenhillstofillthistopographical‘gap’.Uppsalaisthe

Fig.2. LocationofthecasestudycitiesinSweden.

(4)

Fig.3. TheMillionProgrammeareaEriksbo(1967–1971)inAngered,Göteborg.Lightgreenislawn(andsmallamountofmeadowsorsportslawn)anddarkgreenistrees, shrubsandanall-weathersoccerpitch.Thereddishandwhitishblocksareroofsandthegreyisroadsorparkinglots.Housesandoutdoorspaceswererenovatedandpartly rebuiltin1985–1990.

fourthlargestcityinSweden,withapopulationofaround207,000 (1January2015).Thecityhasmanyremnantsofforests, which havemostlybeentransformedintoaccessiblerecreationalspaces.

Thecitycovers48.8km²,ofwhich10.5km²arecoveredbynatural plantcommunities(ParkplanforUppsalaCity,2013).

Thecasesineach citywerestrategicallyselectedfromwell- researched(Berg, 2004;Berg etal., 2010)dominanttownscape types(MillionProgrammeandPeople’sHomesareas)represent- ingordinaryhousing(Johansson,1991;Reppenetal.,2012)forup toathirdoftheSwedishpopulation–areaswherelawnsinsideand adjacenttohousingareasarestilldominantelementsinthegreen spaces(PerssonandPersson1995).Thecitiesrepresentsomeof Sweden’smajorurbanregions,butinvariouslandscapesettingsin differentpartsofSweden.

Ineachcity,westudiedonePeople’sHomesareaandtwoMil- lionProgrammeareas:Kyrkbyn,EriksboandAngeredinGöteborg, Augustenborg,HolmaandRosengårdinMalmöandTunabackar, GottsundaandEriksberginUppsala.Theseparticularneighbour- hoodswereselectedbasedonconsultationswithstakeholdersfrom municipalitiesinvolvedintheLAWNtransdisciplinaryprojectwho hadpronouncedinterest ofknowingmore abouttheseareas in particular.Downtownandindustrialareasofthecitieswerenot includedintheanalysis.

3.2. Typesoflawns

TherearetwotypesoflawnsofficiallyidentifiedbySwedish municipalities(HellenerandVilkénas,2014).Themajorityare‘con- ventional’lawns,which arecutat least10 timesperseasonto a height of 4–10cm according to official municipaldefinitions (AnderssonandBergbrant,2015).Theothertypeis“meadow-like”

lawns,whicharecutonceortwiceperseason.Meadow-likelawns currentlycoveronlya tinyareaand aremostly locatednextto remnantnaturalvegetationontheoutskirtsofneighbourhoodsor withinpublicparks.Therearealsosportslawns,suchasfootball ﬁelds,whichareoftenmoreintensivelymanaged.Theyrepresent asmallproportionofthetotalurbanlawns.

To estimatelawn cover we used aerial photos and ArcMap backgrounddatafromMay2015formanualmapping.Theouter borderofeachspeciﬁchousingtypewasstrategicallychosen,which

affectedlawncover,sinceitwasestimatedbydividingareaoflawn bytotalarea.TheouterbordersofPeople’sHomeswereeasyto detect,whilethebordersoftheMillionProgrammehousingareas weremoredifﬁculttodeﬁneastheseareasoftenlieontheurban fringeofcitiesadjacenttonature,makingtheborderslessdistinct.

Furthermore,vastgreenareasarepresentinthesurroundingsand itisdifﬁculttoseewhetherthesebelongtothehousingareasor thesurroundinglandscape(Fig.3).Ineachlocation,thetotalarea oflawn,meadow,sportslawn,trees,shrubs, gravel(mainlyall- weathersportspitches),barerock(rockyoutcrop,verycommon inGöteborg),baresoil,waterandagriculturalﬁeldswasmapped (Fig.3).Roads,parkinglotsanddwellingswerenotincluded(but wereindirectlyestimatedwheneverythingelsewasremoved).

Forthesocialpartofthisstudyoflawns,weusedquestionnaires, semi-structuredinterviewsandobservationalstudies(Sjobergand Nett,1968)at10sitesinthecase-studyneighbourhoodsin our threecities.Ourfocuswasparticularlyonlawnsandthespeciﬁc qualitiesprovidedbylawns.Lawnsarethedominantelementof greenareasinalltheresearchedneighbourhoods.Greenareashere consistoflawnswithscatteredgroupsofshrubsandtrees,with theintrusionofﬂowerbedsandplaygrounds.Designedpedestrian pathsandcyclewayswerealsotypicallysurroundedbylawns.

Westartedourresearchwithapilotstudyin2013inUppsala andtestedthequestionnaire.Tenquestionswererelateddirectly tothemainresearchquestionsonlawns(perception,expectations, useoflawns,theirmanagementandattitudestowardsusingsome alternativestoconventionallawnswithmorebiodiverseandless resource-intensiveoptions)andthelast question(11)aimedto connectlawnsasaphenomenontothewidercontextofgreenarea qualities(Table1).Weaskedrandomlyselectedpeople(whowere passingbyorsittingonlawns,playing,sunbathingorrelaxing,or sittingonthebenchesnexttolawns)toanswerquestions(Somekh andLewin,2005).Wetriedtocoverpeopleofdifferentculturaland ethnicbackgrounds,agesandgenders. Beforestartingtheinter- view,weaskedpeoplewhetherornottheylivedinthevicinityof thesite.Interviewswereperformedinthelatespringandsum- mermonths(duetothenatureoftheSwedishclimateanduseof lawns)onweekdaysandattheweekends,atdifferenttimesofday (morning,afternoons,lateafternoons),aimingtocoverasmanycat- egoriesoflocalresidentsaspossible.Wealsoaskedtherespondents

(5)

Table1

Questionsonsocialactivitiesinhousingareas.

1 Howdoyouperceivethevalueofhavingaccesstoa lawn/grassareasinyourneighbourhood?

2 Aretherelawnshereornearbythatyouusuallyvisit?Ifyes, thenwhichone/ones?

3 Whatdoyouthinkaboutthemaintenanceofgrassareasin yourneighbourhoodingeneral?

4 Whatdoyouthinkaboutlawnsthatarecutonly1–2timesper year(forexamplemeadow-likelawns)?

5 Whatdoyouthinkaboutalternativelawns(suchas ﬂower-richlawns,meadowswithperennialsorannual pictorialmeadows?

6 Ifyoucoulddecide,howwouldyouliketodesigngrassareas inyourneighbourhood?

7 Howwouldyouratethefollowingstatementsregardingthe grassareainthisneighbourhood(ratingfrom1-disagreeto 5-agree):wellmaintained,safeplaceforchildrenandadults, beautifulandfriendlyplace,suitableforleisureactivities,a greatplaceforrestandrecreation,animportantplacefor socialisingwithneighboursandfriends?

8 Doyouthinkthatlawnsgenerallycreateagoodhabitatfor livingcreatures,suchasinsects,birdsandmammals?

9 Howoftendoyouuselawnsfordifferentpurposes(rating from1-disagreeto5-agree):exercise/sports,sit/rest,social activitieswithneighbours/friends/family(party,meal, barbequeetc.),togettootherareas(shortcut),toexperience nature,tolookat(aestheticvalue),other?

10 Inwhichseasondoyouuselawnsmost?

11 Isthereanythingyouwouldliketoaddconcerninglawnsand greenareas?

howlongtheyhadlivedintheneighbourhood,theiroccupationand theirtypeofhousehold(singleorfamilywithchildren).Allanswers werewrittendownbytheinterviewersonprintedquestionnaires.

Ateachofthe10sites,weconducted30interviewswithresidents (300interviewsintotal).

Theﬁelddatacollectionwasbasedontheprinciplesthat50%of therespondentsinthesixsitesshouldbefemaleand50%male.We aimedtohave30respondentsateachsitewhowereequallyspread amongthefollowingagecategories(15–24,25–50,51–65and66+).

Peoplewereaskedtoanswerquestionsrelatedtoalternativelawns, illustratedbypictures(suchasﬂower-rich/grass-free)lawnswith low-growingherbaceousplants,meadowswithperennialsthatare framedbyconventionalshort-cutlawns,ormeadowswithannuals (pictorialmeadow)(Fig.4).

Observationstudieswerecarriedoutinplaceswherewecould observepeople’smovements.Ateach site,weconductedobser- vationstudiesinthreedifferentspots.Werecordedactivitiesand theirfrequencyfor10minonselecteddaysinJune,JulyandAugust.

Datawerecollectedbyusingapre-codedscheduleinwhichdiffer- entkindsofactivitieswerelisted,suchaswalking/passingthrough, walkingwithadog,cycling,picnicking(andsocialgathering),playing,sittingandexercising(Whyte,1984).Wealsowroteadditional notesabouthowlongpeoplestayedineachsiteandiftheywere aloneorincompany.Wealsorecordedweatherconditions(sunny, cloudy,rainy,cold,andwarm).Theaimwastodiscernandidentify usagepatternslinkedtothecharacteroflawnsinthedifferentcase studysites.

Politicians, municipality managers, city planners, landscape architectsandpropertymanagerswereinterviewedaboutpolicies, lawnmanagementandbiodiversity(atotalof23interviews).We alsoaskedabouttheirlevelofeducation,theirresponsibilityinthe particularmunicipality,plansandresources(budget,staffavail- abilityetc.)forlawnmanagement,theirunderstandingoflawns andtheirroleinmodern greenareas,andtheopportunitiesfor environmentally-friendlylawnsandthepresenceofwildlife,such asbeesandbutterﬂies.Furthermore,wesoughttodeterminethe

‘perfect’lawnfromthestakeholders’pointofview.Thequalita- tivedatafrominterviewswereanalysed by:1)sorting thedata

intothemes and codes, 2)countingthenumber of occurrences ofthethemesandcodes,and 3)selectingstatementsthat were representativeofthemajorityandminorityofinterviewees.

4. Results 4.1. Lawncover

Inallourcasestudieslawnsoccupiedquitesigniﬁcantareas.

Thetotal lawncover rangedbetween17.7%and 47.7%(average 27.8%)inthemulti-familyareas(bothMillionProgrammeandPeo- ple’sHomes)(Fig.5).TheMillionProgrammeareasinallcitieshad onaverage24.8%lawn(lawns,meadowsandsportsareas),18.7%

forestand shrubsand 49.9%infrastructure.The People’sHomes areashadonaverage33.1%lawn,12.4%forestandshrubsand54.4%

infrastructure.

*Sportlawnswerenotconsideredinthesocialstudybutmapped asoneofthelawntypesexistingincities.

4.2. Socialstudy

Wesucceededinobtainingtheplannedbalance(50%maleand 50% female) and age distribution in all six case studies. Since humansoftenhaveacomplexpersonalityanddifferentlifestyles theyneeddifferentspacesfordifferentactivitiesdependingonthe weather,timeofthedayandevenindividualmoodsataparticular moment.

Wecouldnotfindanyspecificpatternsbetweentheanswersof malesandfemalesinourdata.Inallthreecities,peopleappreciated lawnsintheirresidentialareasandsurroundings.Therewasnosig- nificantdifferencedependingonage,buttherewasatendencyfor younger(5–15years)andelderlypeople(65+)tohavemoreopin- ionsandexpectationsconcerninglawnsandalsothegreenoutdoor environment.Themajority(morethan70%)oftheyoungestand eldestrespondentsinourstudywhocommentedonlawnsalso hadmanyopinionsabouthowlawnscouldbemoreattractive.

Households with small children also had many suggestions abouthowlawnsandthegreenspacesbetweenbuildingscould beusedmuchmoreefficiently.Householdswithmiddle-agedpeo- ple(whohavefull-timework)andwhohadnochildrenorolder children(thatmainlystayathome)didnot,inmostofthecases, mentionanythingspecificthattheywouldliketochange.They seemedtobesatisfiedwiththeexistingconditionsoflawns.Parents ofsmallchildrenandtheelderlyoftenstressedtheimportanceof accessibility,closenessandfunctionalityofplaygrounds,benches andotherelementslocatedonlawns.Peoplefromallkindofhouse- holdsmentionedtheimportanceofhavinganextra“outdoorspace”

closetohome.

Oneoftheveryﬁrstimpressionsinthestudywasverygood familiaritywithlocallawnareasamongrespondents.Peoplewere actuallyevensurprisedtobeaskedaboutlawns,sincealltheirlife ithasbeenoneofthemostfamiliarandcommonlyseenelements oftheiroutdoorenvironment.Thelawn coverestimateforeach neighbourhoodstudiedcorrespondedwithoursocialdatareport- ingthatlawnssurroundresidentseverywhere.AsoneofKyrkbyn’s residentssaid:“Iseeitasagivenelement.Iwouldmisslawnsifthey werenothere”.Respondentsoftenassociatedlawnswithsummer andmostlawnsweredesignedforsummeractivities.

Whenweaskedaboutthevalueofhavingaccesstolawnsin outdoorspaces,themajorityofintervieweesrespondedthatsuch accessis“veryvaluable”and“veryimportant”.Oneresidentsaid that lawns“become more important asyou get older”and are

“especiallyimportantforthosewhohavenoopportunitytogoto othergreenplacesoutsidetheirhouse”.Lawnsseemtobeappreci- atedfortheiraestheticvalue,eveniftheyarenotdirectlyusedfor

(6)

Fig.4.Threealternativeoptionsforlawnspresentedtorespondentsthatwerelinkedtoquestion5inTable1.(Pictures:J.VilkenasandA.Helner,2014).

47.7

33.5

13.6 18.5

23.4 31.8

19.7

11.0 21.9

27.3

18.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

% Lawn % Meadow % Sport lawn

Fig.5.Totallawncoverbylawn,meadowandsportslawnineachofthestudyareas(G=Göteborg,M=Malmö,U=Uppsala).Twooftheareaswereseparatedintotwounits (KyrkbynIandIIinGöteborgandRosengårdNandSinMalmö)toillustratethepotentiallylargedifferencesinmeadowareasandwithinareas.

activities.Oneintervieweesaid:“SinceIuseawheelchairIamnot outdoorsthatoften.ButIenjoytheviewfrommybalcony”.

Lawnenthusiastsarguedthatlawnsare“importantplacesto meetfriends”,“importantfordifferentkindofactivities”and“espe- ciallyimportantforfamilieswithchildren”.Urbanresidentsatall sitesvaluedwell-maintained lawnsintheirneighbourhoodand weresatisﬁedwithmunicipalmanagement oftheirgrassareas.

Onlyafewrespondentswereunhappywithnoisefromamoweror withrubbishleftonthelawn(Fig.6).

Inallourresearchareas,lawnswereusedfordifferentkindsof outdooractivitiesduringthesummer:walking/passingthrough, playing, sitting, sport, meeting friends, sunbathing and family partying/barbequing.Theuseoflawns(theparticularactivityper- formedmost)variedinthedifferentcasestudiesdependingonhow thelawnswerevalued.

Peoplegreatlyappreciatedlawnsfordifferentkindsofpastimes (Fig.7).Wefoundthatpeoplelivinginsiteswithhugeopenlawns closetothebuildingsdidnotusetheselawnsforanykindofactiv- ity,butlikedthemasaviewingspace.Thisisnotsurprising,since peopleseetheseopengreencarpetsonadailybasis.Manypeople preferredtohavegreenplacesincloseproximitytotheirhouses, orlawnswitha“cosy”or“lush”character.

Observationalstudiesconﬁrmedthequestionnairedataonthe useoflawnsforoutdooractivities(Figs.8and9).Peoplemostly passedthroughorcycledonpathwaysalongsideorthroughlawns

thathadnospeciﬁcattractionssuchasbenches,playgroundsor ﬂowerbeds.

Theresultsshowedthatpeopleoftenusethelawnsaspassages.

Somelawnswerealsooften usedfor walks(especially popular among dog owners).The time citizens spentdirectly onlawns dependedonthequalityofthegrassandweatherconditions.“Pop- ular”lawnsallhadspotswherepeoplewereprotectedfromthe windorsun(Fig.10).Socialactivitiesweremorefrequentingood weather.

Theobservationstudiesalsoshowedthatresidentspreferred placeswheretheyhadaniceview,socialactivitiesorsomething overandabovejustplainlawn,forexampledecorativeperennials, shrubsorwaterfeatures.

Inthedaytime,familieswithchildrenoftenusedlawnsbetween 10.00and15.00.Childrenwereoutafterschoolandattheweek- ends.Dogownerswereseenquitefrequentlyfromearlymorning tolateevening.Elderlypeopleover65usedgreenspacesduring thedaytime.Theweatherconditionswereimportantevenfordog owners(inbadweatherthelawnswereusedforaveryshortwalk).

Therewereseveralquitesimilarpatternsinobservationstudiesin allcasestudiesintheMillionProgrammeandPeople’sHomessites inallthreecities.

Lawnsweremostlyusedinlatespringandsummerbecauseof theSwedishclimatewithitsdeﬁnedwinterandsummerseasons.

Thequestionnairedatasupportedthisﬁnding.Quiteafewpeople

(7)

1 2 3 1

4 4

2 1 1

6 6 5

2

11 11

2

4 5 11

17

19

25

8 7

14

9 10 13

6 6 3

7 8

11

14

9

2 0

5 10 15 20 25 30

Number of respondents

Residenal area

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree No answer Fig.6.Importanceofwell-maintainedlawnsinmultifamilyhouses(MillionProgrammeandPeople’sHomes).

2 2 2 4 1

4 4 2 1 8 7

3 7

5 5 3

9

2 14

18 19 19

10 10 13

8 7 7

5 8

4

9 9 10 12

17

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Residenal area

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree No answer Fig.7. Thevalueofthelawnsasasuitableplaceforleisureactivities.

mentionedtheimportanceoflawnsonhotsummerdaysinpartic- ular,butsomepeoplesaidthattheyusedthelawn“allyearround iftheweatherisgood”andinplaceswheretheycanenjoythesun andalsogetsomeshade.Somerespondentssaidthattheyavoided placesthat arewindy,noisy,unattractive,lesswellmanagedor containing“unpleasantpeople”.

Whenaskedaboutlawnsasanimportantaestheticplace,most respondentsreallyappreciatedlawnasan“enjoyable”and“beau- tifulplace”(Fig.11).

Manyofthespontaneouscommentsalsoconﬁrmedthatpeople likewell-maintainedgreenplacesbetweenandaroundbuildings.

Whenweaskediflawns generallycreate agood habitatfor smallcreatures,suchasinsects,birdsandmammals,manypartic- ipantsrepliedthatlawnsdonothavemuchvalueforbiodiversity and arenot agood placefor many livingcreatures. Oneofthe

participants said that thelawn “is not a place for nature, it is cuttoooften”,anothersaiditwas“toosterileanenvironment”

and“toomonotonous”.Otherssaidthatthewell-managedlawn isnicebecauseyoucanhavea goodlineofsight.Aestheticval- ueswereoften highlyappreciatedand placeswithsuchvalues werefrequentlyusedorvisited.Thegreencolouroflawnswasalso mentionedbypeopleasavaluablefeature.

We couldseenosigniﬁcantdifferences in answers between cities aswe researchedtwo similarhousingtypes ineach city.

Howeverweobservedsomeparticularattitudestolawns inPeople’sHomeareasrelatedtoparticularlocalgeographical ordesignfeatures.Forexample,Augustenborg(Malmö)isoneof thebestexamplesoftheurbaneco-concept,withtheinstallation of stormwater management devices such rain gardens, deten- tion ponds, green walls and green roofs. Green areas between

(8)

1

5

4

9

8

7 6 6

3

1 1 6

4

1 10

9

12

3 3 4

10

4 14 14

10 10 10

6

3 3 1

4

11 12

5 5 14

1 0

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Residenal area

Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very frequently No answer Fig.8. Usageoflawnsasapassageinmultifamilyhousingareas.

44 39%

1 3 1%

3%

7 6%

32 28%

11 10%

15 13%

Angered

Walk Walk with dog Bicycle Picnic/ coﬀee Playing Si g

Jogging/ exercising

23 37%

5 8%

11 18%

2 3%

14 23%

4 6%

3 5%

Holma

Walk Walk with dog Bicycle Picnic/ coﬀee Playing Si g

Jogging/ exercising

Fig.9.TwoexamplesoftypicalactivitiesonasunnysummerdayinthetwoMillion ProgrammeareasinMalmö.Peopleoftenpreferred‘mobile’activitiesonorbeside thelawn(pathways).

houseshavesmallponds.Localdwellerswereveryproudoftheir neighbourhoodhavingsuchan“eco”statusandtheyenjoyedand especiallyactivelyusedthoselawnsleadingtotheponds.InKyrk- byn(Göteborg)peoplewereparticularlyconcernedaboutlosinga speciﬁclawnadaptedtothelocalnature,suchasaspot(located onanelevatedrock)whichwasabouttoberemovedduetothe constructionofanewbuilding(densiﬁcation).

Fig.10.‘Direct’useoflawn;relaxedreaderinAugustenborg(People’sHome, Malmö)onawarmdayinAugust2015.

InMillionProgrammeareas,duetotheirplanningcharacter, therearealotofunusedmonotonouslawns(morethaninthePeo- ple’sHomeareas)andevensome“dangerous”lawnswhichpeople avoidusingbecauseof“suspiciousactivity”.

Themostattractiveandactivelyusedlawnswerethosewith topographicvariationHolmaHills(inMalmö)coveredwithacon- ventionalshort-cutlawn or thoseturnedintoa neighbourhood attraction(fountainorplaygroundasinAngered(Göteborg)).In residentialareas,lawnswith‘attractions’(organisedor planned foractivitiesorforthesenses)wereusedmuchmoreactivelyfor recreation.

Regardingtheanswerstoquestion5(Fig.4)aboutalternative lawns,people had quitea range of opinions.Therewere some natureenthusiastswhowouldliketoseeﬂower-richmeadowsand saidthat“itiscertainlygoodfortheenvironment”and“itcouldsave moneyandisworthhaving”,butmanypeoplestillpreferredmore tidy,conventionallawnsbutalsoarguedthatmeadowscouldbe

“verygoodinsomeplaces”.Somerespondentsbelievedthatsuch placeslookeduntidyandsomewereevenafraidofsnakesorticksin tallgrassclosetobuildings.Thisopinioncanprobablybeexplained bythefactthatresidentshadnotpreviouslyconsideredorseen suchalternatives.

(9)

1 1

1 1 2 2

1 1 2 3

6

12

5

7 7 7 10

5 14

17

12

19

9 10 10

7 6 12

7

5 6

12 11 11

10

16

1 1 0

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Residenal area

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree No answer Fig.11. Aestheticvalueoflawnsinmultifamilyhousingareas.

Manypeoplefoundgrass-freelawns(lawnswithlow,flower- ingnativeherbaceousspecies)“amazinglybeautiful”(forexample 19 of 30 respondents in Kyrkbyn, Göteborg).However, people expressedafearaboutwalkingonsuchlawnsbecauseofpossi- bledamagetoplantsandaboutpickingtheflowers,whichcould destroythebeautifulfloweringcarpet.Onereasonforthisreaction couldbealackofinformationorthenoveltyofthiskindof‘lawn’.

Formanyrespondents,thesekindsofﬂowerylawnsweresimilar toﬂowerbeds.

Perennialmeadowsframedbymowngrassareasreceivedpos- itivefeedback fromrespondentsinmany cases.For examplein Kyrkbyn,22outof30respondentswerepositiveaboutthisdesign andsaidthatitwouldbegoodtohavesuchameadowsince“we havealargeareathatisnotused”.Theymentionedthat“mead- owscanbegoodforchildren;Ithinkmorepeoplewouldbeableto appreciateit”.

Our third alternative scenario of pictorial annual meadows receivedlessenthusiasticfeedback.Respondentsthoughtthatthis type would be good to use “inlarge areas not used for other activities”or“outsideresidentialareas”.Onecommentfrommany peoplewasthattheydidnotwanttohavesuchmeadowscloseto buildings.

Whenweaskedwhatpeoplewouldliketosuggestforimproving greenareas,theymentioned“havemoreSwedishﬂowers”,“more colour”,“opportunitiestohaveniceseatingareaswithtablesand benches,piecesofart,moretreesandwaterfeatures”.

4.3. Managers’anddecision-makers’visionoflawns

Managersinallthreemunicipalitieshadquitesimilarvisionsof lawnmanagement.ThemajorityoflawnsinSwedenareconven- tional,regularly-cutgrasscommunities,cut12–20timesperseason toaheightof4–10cm(Andrén,2008).However,eachmunicipal- itysurveyedhaditsownsubcategoriesofconventionallawnsand meadow-likelawns,dependingonthemanagementregime(num- berofcutsandremovingorleavingclippingsonthesurface).

Swedishmunicipalitiesnormallydonotuseherbicidesorpesti- cidesintheirmanagementoflawns.Duetotheorganisationaland bureaucraticpeculiaritiesofSwedishmunicipalities,itwasdifﬁcult toobtaindetailsaboutthemanagementandmaintenanceoflawns.

Constructionandmanagementwereperformedinseveralstagesby

numerouscontractorsthatoftendidnotfollowmanagers’instruc- tionsexactly.A commonﬁndingin ourinterviewswithgarden managerswastheirconcernabouthighcostsrelatedtolawnman- agement(veryfrequentmowingofconventionallawns).Allthree municipalitiesspenttwiceasmuch moneyperunitareaonthe managementofconventionallawnscomparedwithmeadow-like lawns,whichwaswhymanagerswerequiteopentoconsidering alternativestotraditionallawns.

Many professionalstakeholders interviewed, includingland- scapearchitectsandparkmanagers,believedthatresidentswant to have short, manicured lawns (Eshraghi, 2014). Managers in Swedishmunicipalitieshaveaquitepracticalmaintenance“think- ing”.Forexampleshrubs,trees,rocksandbencheswereseenas

“obstacles”tomowinglawnswithwaterfeatures,suchasponds, requiringgreatmaintenanceefforts.Thedichotomyisthatonthe onehand,peopleinmulti-familyareaswanttohavemoretables andbenchesonthelawns,butlawnkeepersoftendonotlikeres- identseatingontheselawnsandleavingfoodleftovers,sincethis attracts“undesired”wildlifesuchasrats,rabbitsandwasps.Onthe otherhand,somestakeholdersstressedthatpeopleareinterested inplaceswheretheyliveandwouldliketoparticipateinimproving them.

Thepoliticiansinterviewedwereincomplete solidaritywith themanagersandprofessionals;theirdeﬁnitionandunderstand- ingofaperfectlawnwasasmoothgrasssurfacelookingperfectly

“green”and“good”.“Wehavetohavelawns.Theyhavebeenhere forhundredsofyears”.However,someoftheintervieweesinUpp- salastatedthatplainlawnscanbeboringanditwouldbeniceto enrichthemwithotherelementssuchﬂowersandtrees(Eshraghi, 2014).Allpoliticiansandprofessionals(involvedinlawnplanning, designandmanagement)stronglybelievedintherecreational,aes- thetic,physicalvaluesoflawnsanditsmentalhealthvaluesfor citizens.Itwasalsorevealingthatthemajorityofpoliticiansand evenprofessionalsinterviewedwereawareoftheenvironmental issuesthat conventionallawnscancause,butwouldstill prefer

“familiar”conventionallawns.

5. Discussion

Oursocialstudiesshowedthatpeoplelikelawnseveniftheydo notalwaysdirectlyusethem.Forthemajorityofpeople,lawnsare

(10)

Fig.12.“Cuestocare”inthePortlandneighbourhoodinLondon,UKwheremeadow isframedbytraditionallawnthatisactivelyusedbylocalresidents(May2015).

justagivenelementofgreenareas.Lawnscoverthemostsigniﬁ- cantamountofoutdoorareainmostmulti-familyresidentialareas andaccompanypeopleeverywhere.Thisconclusioncorresponded withthemainoutcomeofresearchbyKaufmanandLohr(2002)on socialnorms(andthereasonsbehindit)ofwell-maintainedlawns infrontgardensincentralIowa.WhentheIowaTurfgrassIndustry wasaskedaboutthepercentageofhomesthathaveafrontlawn,the answergivenwasthatitisauniversalphenomenon.Despitedif- ferencesintheplanningstructureofUSandSwedishcities,lawns areapartofthemodernurbansocialpsyche.KaufmanandLohr alsoarguesthatfromasocialpointofview,grass“withitsaes- theticallypleasingcolouranduniformtexture,fostersasenseof well-being”(KaufmanandLohr,2002p.293).Anotheroutcomeof thisUSresearchcanbealsocorrelatedwithourconclusionthat havingawell-maintainedlawnisconsideredtobethe“normative”

practice.Itisparticularsupportedbytheresultsofourinterviews withpoliticians,urbanplannersandgardenersinSweden.Theonly differenceisthatprivatehomeownersintheUSdominateresiden- tialareasandkeeptheirlawnswellmaintained.Thedominancy ofthewell-keptgreencarpetcanmostlikelybeexplainedbycom- monknowledgeconveyedinthemassmediaandnationalandlocal guidelinesongreenareasplanning,designandmanagement.

AnotherinterestingparallelbetweentheUSandSwedenisthat notallpeopleadheretothe‘norms’ofamanicuredlawn.Theyare calledconformistsandnonconformists(KaufmanandLohr,2002), In ourstudy, whenasking questionabout differentoptions for alternativesolutionstolawns,ineachcasestudywehad‘nature enthusiasts’whopreferredmorenature-like‘messy’lawns.

Thequestionofintroducingandestablishingalternativelawns intheurbanenvironmentis beingdiscussedtodayin Germany, Switzerland, France, Austria and Sweden (Ignatievaand Ahrné, 2013), England (Woudstra and Hitchmough, 2000; Smith and Fellowes,2014),AustraliaandNewZealand(Ignatieva,2010).In theUSA, thesearch for an alternativesolution tofront garden lawns is especially acute in states such as California, Arizona andFloridawiththeirshortageofwater(TheFloridayardsand neighborhoodshandbook,2015).InSweden‘pictorialmeadows’

withannualplantsandmeadowswithnativegrassesandperen- nialsareestablishedinafewpublicparksand trafﬁcislands.In ourresearch,alternative lawnswere appreciatedbymany citi- zensaswellaspoliticians,plannersandmanagers.However,the implementationofnewapproachesrequiresspecialplanningand designsolutionsadjustedforeachparticularneighbourhood.For example,theresidentsinterviewedherebelievedthatmeadows deﬁnitelyhadaestheticandbiodiversityvalues,butwerenotuse- fulforsomeactivitiesandshouldbelocatedontheperipheryofthe gardenorgreenarea.However,somepeoplewerekeentoknow moreaboutalternativeoptionstoconventionallawns.Thereisa paradoxhereinpeople’sperceptionoflawns(“essential”,“norm”

feature)andtheuseoflawnsinreality.Thepreferenceforthemid- dlechoiceinFig.4(Image2)outofthethreealternativesclearly showstheimportanceofthe‘cuestocare’approachwhenthere isaclearindicationofthepresenceofdesignandhumancarein meadow-likelawnsin residentialneighbourhoods(Fig.12).The

‘cuestocare’approachwasintroducedbyJ.Nassauerasoneofthe possiblesolutionsforsuburbanAmericanfrontgardens(Nassauer, 1995).

Therewasquitesurprisinginterestandapositiveresponsefrom Swedishresidentstograss-free(tapestry,low-growingﬂowering perennialherbs)lawns,possiblybecausemodernpeoplearehun- gryforcolourandvarietyintheircities.Anotherexplanationisa growingawarenessandgradualacceptanceof‘wild’urbannature (Weberetal.,2014)insomeEuropeancountries.

Fig.13.SuggestionforlawnmodiﬁcationinaPeople’sHomesareainGöteborg,withshadedmeadowsandpictorialannualmeadows(AnderssonandBergbrant,2015).