QUICK DESIGN GUIDE (--THIS SECTION DOES NOT PRINT--)

This PowerPoint 2007 template produces a 48”x96” professional

poster. It will save you valuable time placing titles, subtitles, text,

and graphics.

Use it to create your presentation. Then send it to

PosterPresentations.com for premium quality, same day affordable

printing.

We provide a series of online tutorials that will guide you through the

poster design process and answer your poster production questions.

View our online tutorials at:

http://bit.ly/Poster_creation_help

(copy and paste the link into your web browser).

For assistance and to order your printed poster call

PosterPresentations.com at 1.866.649.3004

Object Placeholders

Use the placeholders provided below to add new elements to your

poster: Drag a placeholder onto the poster area, size it, and click it to

edit.

Section Header placeholder

Use section headers to separate topics or concepts within your

presentation.

Text placeholder

Move this preformatted text placeholder to the poster to add a new

body of text.

Picture placeholder

Move this graphic placeholder onto your poster, size it first, and then

click it to add a picture to the poster.

RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2011

www.PosterPresentations.com

QUICK TIPS

(--THIS SECTION DOES NOT PRINT--)

This PowerPoint template requires basic PowerPoint (version 2007 or

newer) skills. Below is a list of commonly asked questions specific to

this template.

If you are using an older version of PowerPoint some template

features may not work properly.

Using the template

Verifying the quality of your graphics

Go to the VIEW menu and click on ZOOM to set your preferred

magnification. This template is at 50% the size of the final poster. All

text and graphics will be printed at 200% their size. To see what your

poster will look like when printed, set the zoom to 200% and evaluate

the quality of all your graphics before you submit your poster for

printing.

Using the placeholders

To add text to this template click inside a placeholder and type in or

paste your text. To move a placeholder, click on it once (to select it),

place your cursor on its frame and your cursor will change to this

symbol: Then, click once and drag it to its new location where

you can resize it as needed. Additional placeholders can be found on

the left side of this template.

Modifying the layout

This template has four different

column layouts. Right-click your

Mouse on the background and

click on “Layout” to see the layout

options. The columns in the provided

layouts are fixed and cannot be moved but advanced users can modify

any layout by going to VIEW and then SLIDE MASTER.

Importing text and graphics from external sources

TEXT: Paste or type your text into a pre-existing placeholder or drag

in a new placeholder from the left side of the template. Move it

anywhere as needed.

PHOTOS: Drag in a picture placeholder, size it first, click in it and

insert a photo from the menu.

TABLES: You can copy and paste a table from an external document

onto this poster template. To make the text fit better in the cells of

an imported table, right-click on the table, click FORMAT SHAPE then

click on TEXT BOX and change the INTERNAL MARGIN values to 0.25

Modifying the color scheme

To change the color scheme of this template go to the “Design” menu

and click on “Colors”. You can choose from the provide color

combinations or you can create your own.

© 2011 PosterPresentations.com 2117 Fourth Street , Unit C Berkeley CA 94710 posterpresenter@gmail.com

Student discounts are available on our Facebook page.

Go to PosterPresentations.com and click on the FB icon

The Effects of Formal and Informal Institutions on Residential Land Management

in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area

We conducted 12 semi-structured interviews across 3 neighborhoods

(n=4 per neighborhood) to understand how institutions affect land

management decisions in diverse contexts. We coordinated with

other LTER sites in Boston (PIE), Miami (FCE) and Baltimore (BES).

Our study compares 3 case study neighborhoods, which were

defined by census tracts and chosen because of their varied

landscaping characteristics and social institutions across the City of

Phoenix, including 1 older, downtown neighborhood and 2 newer

areas located to the north and south.

Interviewees from each neighborhood were selected to represent

diverse landscaping patterns and demographic characteristics based on

a survey conducted in 2008. In order to capture the variety of

landscaping choices within and across neighborhoods, participants

were selected first based on varying groundcover types—mesic grass,

xeric rock, or mixed oasis—and then by intensity of chemical usage

(no to heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides).

Jaleila Brumand and Dr. Kelli L. Larson School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning; School of Sustainability; Central Arizona-Phoenix Long Term Ecological Research

What are institutions?

According to Paul Robbins (2007), residential landscape chemical

application rival toxins applied at industrial agricultural proportions.

Coupled with substantial water inputs, yard management impacts

urban sustainability in America and elsewhere.

In order to take steps toward a more sustainable future, we must

first understand the underlying mechanisms that drive landscaping

practices—such as water and chemical usage—in residential settings

where people live and interact with their local environments.

This study explores the effects of 2 types of institutions—formal

rules and informal norms—on residents’ land management

practices in Phoenix neighborhoods through 2 basic questions:

Q1: Do landscaping practices and norms in HOA neighborhoods

reinforce conformity in groundcover types or other landscaping

practices more than in non-HOA areas?

Q2: How do institutional drivers of landscape management vary

across different socio-spatial (neighborhood) contexts?

Interview-based Research Methods

(from Cook et al, 2011)

We focus on the interplay of formal institutions, social norms and

legacy effects (indicated in red boxes) as important drivers of

landscaping decisions and consequently ecosystem services.

The majority of the groundcover in this neighborhood is lush and

green, dominated primarily by lawns and palm trees.

No HOAs govern this neighborhood. Residents are bound by very few

municipal (formal) regulations through city maintenance of common

areas and citations for hazards (e.g. abundance of weeds as fire

hazard, etc). The neighborhood has historic society, but it is more

focused on maintaining historic architectural integrity.

Social norms and the legacy effect of historically verdant

landscapes were strong drivers of land management for residents.

“We are in a city park environment and so I think that if you stay

and respect the fact that it’s a city park that’s the natural

environment here. If you respect that, that’s what you’re going to

have in your yard.” (186b)

“Everyone in the neighborhood pretty much believes in grass

because they have irrigation…and I’m kind of an outcast [without

grass].” (178b)

Conceptual Framework: Yard Management Drivers, Outcomes & Feedbacks

Overall Findings Our findings suggest that there is social acceptance for a variety of

landscapes types despite the traditional ”lawn norm,” with a

common emphasis on well-manicured landscapes.

Q1: Regardless of HOA or non-HOA context of neighborhoods, social

norms reinforce the desire for neatness rather than dictating

particular groundcover choices (e.g., mesic lawns or xeric rock-

based yards).

Q2: Participants in the study neighborhoods appear to have a ‘live

and let live’ mentality—including in HOA areas—whereby

interviewees were willing to tolerate varied landscape types, as

long as neighbors keep plants trimmed and the yard free of

excess plant litter—or, in other words, neat.

Formal institutional rules appear relatively insignificant overall for

yard management due in part to a lack of awareness of actual rules.

Instilling and reinforcing norms appears to be a more powerful way

to encourage desirable (i.e., sustainable) landscaping practices

regardless of HOA context as framed in Nassauer’s “cues of care”

theory. This is because normative beliefs and pressures were more

strongly invoked as influences on residents’ management decisions.

References

Adger W.N., K. Brow, J. Fairbrass, A. Jordan, J. Paavoli, S. Rosendo, G. Seyfang. 2003. Governance for sustainability:

toward a thick analysis of environmental decision-making. Environment & Planning. 35: 1095-1110.

Cook, E. M., S. J. Hall, and K. L. Larson. 2011. Residential landscapes as social-ecological systems: a synthesis of

multi-scalar interactions between people and their home environment. Urban Ecosystems.

Nassauer, J. I., Z. Wang, and E. Dayrell. 2009. What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design.

Landscape and Urban Planning 92 (3-4):282–292.

Robbins, P., A. Polderman, and T. Birkenholtz. 2001. Lawns and toxins: An ecology of the city. Cities 18 (6):369–380.

Acknowledgements Thank you to Dr. Kelli Larson who was a paragon of guidance and support and to Jesse Sayles, Hannah La Luzerne,

Elizabeth Cook, and Kelly Turner who were all instrumental in the research process. This work was supported by the

National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. DEB-0423704, Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological

Research (CAP LTER). Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendation expressed in this material are those

of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the CAP LTER.

Formal institutions entail legally enforceable, codified rules (Adger

et al., 2003). Here, they are embodied in homeowner’s association

(HOA) restrictions in neighborhoods, while other formal rules (e.g.,

municipal ordinances) are considered secondarily. HOAs are

generally created to maintain property values and other shared

values, and as such, they are potentially a standardizing force for

residential landscapes in particular neighborhoods.

Informal institutions encompass social norms, customs or traditions

that are not codified in law, but rather are followed through

implicit, social obligations or expectations to conform (Adger et al.,

2003). Social norms are often harder to identify, but may be learned

through social interactions with neighbors as well as visual cues

manifested through actual management practices.

Joan Nassauer’s notion of cultural sustainability emphasizes the

design of landscapes that are environmentally valuable as well as

aesthetically and socially valued in ways that elicit and maintain

peoples’ interests and preferences over time (Nassauer, 2009).

“Cues of care” are one such mechanism to enhance the cultural

sustainability of ecologically functioning landscapes, especially those

that are commonly seen as undesirable to people (such as wetlands)

(Nassauer, 2009). Since naturalistic landscapes (e.g., bushier and

thicker) tend to be messier, they are often viewed as poorly

managed and undesirable even though they may be critical for

wildlife and the health of water resources, among other factors.

Landscaping in this neighborhood is mainly a mix of xeric rock with

some grassy patches. Many residents also have pools in backyards.

Formal rules are present in the area, but social pressures for

neatness appear to drive land management more than formal rules.

3 distinct HOAs govern the neighborhood and none of them allow for

completely bare desert in the front yards. All have stipulations about

well-trimmed landscaping regardless of groundcover type.

However, interviewees were largely unaware of these regulations

and only 1 participant mentioned an HOA citation. While

interviewees did not express any pressure to follow certain

groundcover types, all participants stressed a general expectation

for neat, “well-trimmed” yards (as in comments below).

“I don’t think there’s an expectation for desert landscaping or

grass or for you to have palm trees or not… beyond just neat,

trim, and well maintained.” (391d)

“[Landscaping] needs to be appealing and kept up. If it isn’t

[neighbors are] going to report it to the association.” (462d)

The landscaping in this neighborhood is generally xeric, rock cover.

The neighborhood spans 2 independent HOAs, both of which have

“well-trimmed landscapes” codified in their rules.

Participants in this neighborhood were unique because they did

not have a distinct or consistent sense of HOA responsibilities.

One resident falsely believed that his HOA had been disbanded.

Overall, social pressures dictated a well-trimmed, neat yard.

“People don’t have to be totally into [their landscaping] and

spend a lot of money. Just groom it. Make it look halfway

appropriate.” (331c)

“We had [an HOA] in the very beginning, but after about four

years, we shut it down, after the developer left…” (253c)

Wealthy Mountain Oasis Neighborhood

Historic Mesic Palms Neighborhood

New Xeric Tracts Neighborhood

The Role of Social Institutions:

Formal Rules and Informal Norms

Diversity in Ecologically and Socially Sustainable Landscapes

Socially

managed

landscape with

neat, orderly

features

Ecologically

managed

landscape with

naturalistic

features

Effects of Landscaping Decisions

on Urban Sustainability

ECOLOGY of Residential Landscapes

MULTI-SCALAR HUMAN DRIVERS

a. Ecological Properties

Groundcover

Plant and faunal species composition

Soil physical & chemical characteristics

Climate

b. Ecological Function

Evapotranspiration

Trophic dynamics

Gas fluxes

Nutrient cycling

Plant growth

Leaching & runoff

c. Ecosystem Services

Regulating: Carbon sequestration, microclimate

Supporting: Air & water quality, water runoff

Provisioning: Habitat, biodiversity

Cultural: Aesthetics, recreation, sense of place

g. Municipal-Regional Scale Governance & political economy

Government ordinances & policies

Markets & economic influences

f. Neighborhood Scale Formal & informal institutions

Codified rules & restrictions

Social norms & customs

e. Household Scale Attitudinal & structural factors

Values & human cognition

Household & property structure

h. LEGACY EFFECTS

Previous landscaping decisions

Prevailing development patterns

Pre-existing urban form

Historic land uses

d. MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

Maintenance (mowing, pruning)

Land/vegetative-cover choices

Fertilizer & pesticide inputs

Water use & irrigation technology

Conclusions and Recommendations

Varied landscapes are the key to urban sustainability