ARTICLE IN PRESS

0272-4944/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.je

�Tel.: +1 330

E-mail addr

Journal of Environmental Psychology 27 (2007) 215–224

www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

Domesticated nature: Motivations for gardening and perceptionsof environmental impact

Susan Clayton�

Department of Psychology, The College of Wooster, 930 College Mall, Wooster, OH 44691, USA

Available online 29 June 2007

Abstract

Gardening is a popular pastime in the United States, worth investigating because of its potential for important effects on the individual

as well as on the ecosystem. The present study was designed to investigate motivations for gardening and their relationship to attitudes

toward nature and to gardening practices. Understanding such motivations may inform attempts to promote more sustainable gardening

practices. One hundred twenty-six visitors to a garden center completed a survey about benefits from gardening, uses of their yard and

concerns underlying their gardening practices. Results suggested that appreciation for nature was a significant motivation for gardening,

but that social concerns and uses were also important. Both nature uses and social uses of the yard were associated with satisfaction. In

general, respondents did not make a strong connection between their own private yards and the natural environment. Using the yard to

appreciate nature, though, was associated with ecological considerations and concerns. A concern with practical issues like cost and ease

of maintenance was negatively correlated with using the yard to appreciate nature, and was unconnected with satisfaction. Implications

for encouraging sustainable gardening practices are discussed.

r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Gardening; Conservation; Nature; Attitudes; Identity

1. Introduction

Gardening is an important activity for many Americans.A 2003 survey by the National Gardening Associationfound that 78%, or 84 million, of US householdsparticipate in some do-it-yourself lawn and gardenactivities (Butterfield, 2006). It is one of the principal waysin which they experience nature. Yet the gardening andyard care practices of homeowners can have a significantnegative impact on the natural environment (Steinberg,2006). Such practices include planting invasive non-nativespecies, which can have harmful effects on the localecosystem; heavy use of water, which can be in shortsupply; and the application of toxic chemicals, which canhave a negative effect both locally and farther afield(National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides,2006). For example, 74% of US households used industrialpesticides and fertilizers in 2001, approximately 16 million

e front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

nvp.2007.06.001

263 2565; fax: +1 330 263 2276.

ess: sclayton@wooster.edu

kg annually (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2006).Thirty-seven percent of species listed as endangered are atrisk from the use of pesticides (Robbins, Polderman, &Birkenholtz, 2001). Homeowners are more likely to overusepesticides than are professionals (Pimentel, 1991). It isestimated that 7 million birds die each year due to lawnpesticides (National Audubon Society, 2006).Alternatives are available. A number of initiatives exist

to encourage home gardeners, even in urban settings, toadopt practices that make their gardens more hospitable tonative wildlife. Such practices include using native speciesof plants, reducing pesticide use, and installing ecologicallydiverse landscapes that provide food and shelter forwildlife. The Audubon Society has its Audubon at Homeprogram; the National Wildlife Federation (2006) willcertify yards through its Backyard Wildlife Habitatprogram. In the United Kingdom, the Royal HorticulturalSociety is conducting a Wild About Gardens campaignwith the Wildlife Trusts (Winterman, 2005).If protecting the environment is a goal, it is worth paying

attention to individual residences. Not only do they

ARTICLE IN PRESSS. Clayton / Journal of Environmental Psychology 27 (2007) 215–224216

represent a significant proportion of US land and asignificant source of herbicide and pesticide use; theyconstitute a setting in which changes can be made withoutintervening bureaucracy. Encouraging more environmen-tally sustainable landscape care, however, requires under-standing the motives behind home gardening practices.

2. Motivations for gardening

Why is gardening so popular? Yard care clearly has aneconomic element. For many homeowners, keeping theproperty looking nice is simply an investment in capital(Robbins et al., 2001). Yards that are allowed to run wildare considered to damage the value of not only thatproperty, but neighboring ones as well. Many localitieshave laws enforcing certain standards of lawn care, andfailure to uphold those standards may lead to complaintsfrom the neighbors followed by fines or other legal action.However, the care of private yards is also affected by morepsychological motives. Yards are a very public demonstra-tion of personal values, and can be a significant source ofsatisfaction and of connection to the community. Somepeople take pride in demonstrating their expertise, whileothers may focus on demonstrating their conformity tosocial norms (Nassauer, 1988).

Belonging, or ‘‘fitting in’’ to the local community, can bean important determinant of gardening practices. WhenRobbins et al. (2001) interviewed Ohio residents aboutlawn care practices, they found that many of thoseinterviewed described having discussed their neighbors’yards with a third party. These respondents said caring forthe lawn was a sign of respect for the neighborhood. In anunpublished study by Frahm (cited in Werner, 2003), 68%of homeowners reported maintaining their lawns in orderto be good neighbors and to have the ‘‘proper’’ appear-ance. Social pressures may be extreme. Life magazine said,in 1969, that America ‘‘judges the moral fitness of citizenson the basis of lawn mowing’’ (Zinsser, 1969, p. 10, quotedin Jenkins, 1994). Lawn mowing may not reflect moralfitness, but it does reflect something about the way a personrelates to his or her community. In a study by Harris andBrown (1996), observers were able to infer homeowners’commitment to their locale by observing the exteriors oftheir homes; two of the four most cited cues were yardmaintenance and quality of lawn.

Gardening practices can describe more generalizedaspects of social identity; traditionally, a well-kept lawnwas a sign of higher social status (Jenkins, 1994). Byserving as a locus for social interaction, gardening can notonly reflect, but also create social connections. Some in theRobbins et al. (2001) sample described enjoying lawn workand said it contributed to their sense of community.Similarly, Lewis (1990) notes that gardening, as an activitythat occurs in a publicly visible setting and with publiclyvisible results, presents an opportunity to socialize. At atime when Americans purportedly are feeling increasinglyisolated from others (Putnam, 2000), a garden on public

display can provide the occasion for a compliment to aneighbor or a discussion based on shared interest in a neatlawn or an attractive flowerbed.In addition to affecting one’s social identity, by

demonstrating conformity with local norms and byencouraging community ties, the home landscape can havea connection to core personal identities. Twigger-Ross andUzzell (1996) state that ‘‘all aspects of identity will haveplace-related implications’’ (p. 206). As they demonstratedin interviews with people about their residential commu-nities, physical places that are important to people will beused to construct and maintain identity. Francis (1990)notes that ‘‘we use our gardensy to communicate toothers’’ our own status, personality, and values (p. 206).Based on interviews with California homeowners, Grampp(1990) identified the ‘‘expressionist’’ as one of three maintypes of garden.A substantial literature examines the importance of place

attachment, which can be defined as a sense of identity orconnection as well as dependency to a physical environment.Place attachment is typically (though not always; see Manzo,2005) conceptualized in terms of residential settings. A gardenattached to a residence can provide the significance to identityoften associated with the home as well as the significance andbenefits associated with the natural environment (cf. Kellert& Wilson, 1993; Wilson, 1984).Based on interviews with people about places that were

important to them, Gustafson (2001) found three broad(and overlapping) themes that provided the basis formeaning: Self, others, and environment. With respect to agarden, the self-related factors can be found in things likeactivities in the garden as well as self-identification as agardener. Factors related to others can include the socialrelationships facilitated by gardening as well as the socialimplications of being associated with an attractive place.Environmental meaning comes from the physical featuresof the garden and from its symbolic significance.Whereas Gustafson (2001) focused on attributes of a

place that contribute to identity, Twigger-Ross and Uzzell(1996) were more interested in the aspects of identity thatare affected by the place. They describe the way in which aphysical environment can contribute to a person’s sense ofdistinctiveness, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and continuity. Itis easy to see how a yard or garden can be used to constructa positive identity: It can contribute to distinctiveness (bylooking different), self-esteem (by looking good), self-efficacy (by reflecting the effects of the resident’s time,money, or judgment), and even continuity (because of thetemporal dimension of gardening). Francis (1990) alsonotes that gardens can provide a place to be creative, to beproductive, and to develop over time.Beyond its resonance for identity, gardening may also be

popular purely because of its benefits, which can includesatisfaction from the garden experience, tangible benefitslike food production, or more indirect effects on personalwell-being (Kaplan, 1973; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1990). Thereis increasing evidence that gardening can have a positive

ARTICLE IN PRESSS. Clayton / Journal of Environmental Psychology 27 (2007) 215–224 217

impact on mental health (e.g., Gigliotti & Jarrott, 2005;Stuart, 2005). This effect may be partly due to exercise orto increased social interaction (Von Hassell, 2005), but mayalso result simply through the exposure to nature (Kaplan,2001; Kuo & Taylor, 2004; Sullivan, 2005; Taylor, Kuo, &Sullivan, 2002; see also Ulrich, 1984). Rachel and StephenKaplan (Kaplan, 1973; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1990) havedeveloped the argument that the garden constitutes arestorative environment based on its ability to fascinate, itsextent in space and time, its status as a ‘‘break’’ or ‘‘timeout’’ from the typical daily activities, and its compatibilitywith the gardener’s goals.

Although rigorous empirical studies are still rare, there isa growing acceptance of the idea that gardening can have atherapeutic effect (see Health Council of the Netherlands,2004; Semprik, Aldridge, & Becker, 2003). Gardening ispositively correlated with neighborhood satisfaction, andthe view of a garden increases community satisfaction, evenif that garden belongs to someone else (Kaplan & Kaplan,1989; see also Kearney, 2006). Thus, another significantquestion is whether the benefits of gardening stem from theprocess, or whether they can also be seen when one payssomeone else to garden. Although the current study doesnot allow analysis of non-gardeners, it does allowcomparisons between those who use a lawn service andthose who do not.

In considering gardening activities as a way in whichpeople have an impact on the ecosystem, one question ofinterest is the extent to which the home landscape isactually considered to be a part of nature. Advertisers havetried to portray the front yard as an extension of the home;lawns are described as ‘‘carpet-like’’ (Jenkins, 1994). InGrampp’s (1990) typology of gardens, one was the ‘‘livinggarden,’’ essentially an outdoor room complete with floors,walls, and furniture. The transformation of the naturallandscape into the home garden symbolizes the successfulcontrol over nature. Weeds are resented not only becauseof their perception as unsightly but also because they areuninvited and unauthorized trespassers. This distinction isparticularly noticeable in the case of plants that may ormay not be defined as weeds according to whether they arewanted or unwanted, such as dandelions, violets, and otherwildflowers. Wildflowers may be appreciated in the wildbut painstakingly rooted out when they appear in thecarefully planned lawn or flowerbed.

This definition of wild vs. domestic is worth examining inpart because it reflects the ambiguity of how we definenature in general: Is nature defined, for example, as thatwhich is unaltered by humans (cf. Clayton & Opotow,2003; McKibben, 1989)? Such a dichotomy between what ishuman and what is natural can have serious consequencesfor the ways in which we treat ‘‘wilderness’’ (e.g., by tryingto remove any evidence of humans) as well as for theways in which we treat urban settings (e.g., by neglectingto incorporate opportunities for non-human nature toexist in such settings). The present study will investigatewhether the home landscape is primarily considered to be

similar to other parts of the home, i.e. a place to relax andentertain friends, or whether it is also valued as a part ofnature.In sum, gardening is a pastime on which many

Americans spend significant amounts of time and moneyand which is important to both social and personalidentities. It has the potential to have a positive impacton the individual, but as currently practiced, it often has anegative effect on the ecosystem. The present paper reportson a survey of home gardeners which investigated threequestions. First, what are the motivations for gardeningand yard care in general, and which emerge as the mostinfluential? Second, is the yard seen a part of nature orprimarily as part of the home? Finally, how do thesemotivations and perceptions relate to decisions aboutlandscape practices?

3. Study method

3.1. Participants and procedure

People visiting a private nursery and garden center wereapproached in the parking lot or on the grounds and askedto complete a survey about their attitudes toward garden-ing. Those completing the survey were entered into a rafflefor a $50 gift certificate from the garden center. Thesurveyor remained nearby in order to answer anyquestions. Surveying was conducted for several hours aday over 4 consecutive summer days. Precise statisticsabout response rate were not recorded but approximatelyone-third of those approached agreed to participate. Allsurveys were anonymous. One hundred and twenty-sixsurveys were completed, 100 by women, 22 by men, and 4with sex unspecified.

3.2. Survey instrument

The survey was designed to assess motivations forgardening, ways in which the respondents used their yard,perceptions of the home landscape as a part of nature, andmotivations for landscape practices. The principal ques-tions were each followed by a list of possible responses(shown in Table 1) which had been defined, based onprevious work (e.g., Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) and ondiscussions with other professionals knowledgeable aboutgardening practices, to reflect factors tied to personalidentity (e.g., demonstrating expertise), social identity(meeting neighborhood standards), protection of nature(minimizing resource use), practical issues (cost, safety),and tangible and intangible benefits (food production,relaxation). At the end of each section, participants weregiven space to write in other responses that did not fit intothe given categories.The question, ‘‘How important to you are the following

benefits of gardening?’’ was followed by a list of 9 items.‘‘Thinking about the ways in which you use your yard, howimportant is each of the following?’’ was followed by 5

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Descriptive statistics for quantitative items on gardening survey

Item N Mean SD

Different benefits of gardening

Spending time outdoorsa 125 4.43 .73

Observing nature and natural processes at worka,b 121 4.21 .83

Relaxationa,b 124 4.15 .97

Controlling the appearance of the gardenb,c 125 3.98 .85

Working with my handsc 126 3.69 1.09

Novelty, e.g. trying new plantsc 124 3.59 1.03

Producing food or herbsd 121 3.05 1.30

Demonstrating my effortd,e 122 2.87 1.13

Demonstrating my gardening expertisee 122 2.47 1.17

Ways of using yard

A place of beautya 125 4.34 .74

A place to observe nature (e.g., birds, butterflies, wildlife)a 124 4.03 1.06

A place to socialize with friendsb 124 3.65 1.00

A place for recreationb 123 3.37 1.15

A place to promote natural biodiversityb 119 3.31 1.17

Important concerns in gardening practices

Colorful appearance (e.g., flowers)a 122 4.39 .69

Safety (avoiding exposure to toxic chemicals)a,b 120 4.10 .98

Reducing or eliminating weedsb,c 120 3.83 1.03

Maintaining a healthy ecosystemb,c 118 3.80 .97

Enhancing your property valueb,c 122 3.67 1.07

Ease of maintenancec 121 3.60 1.00

Demonstrating your care for your yardc 118 3.59 1.05

Minimizing resource use (e.g., water and/or fertilizer)c 120 3.56 .96

Low costc,d 119 3.29 1.04

Using native plantsd,e 116 2.98 1.24

Meeting neighborhood standardse 117 2.74 1.35

Individual items

How satisfied are you with the appearance of your yard? 117 3.38 .93

Do you think of your yard as part of the natural world? 122 2.90 1.05

Are violets weeds or flowers? 120 4.18 1.22

Are dandelions weeds or flowers? 122 1.75 1.19

Do you think your landscape practices affect the local ecosystem? 120 2.90 1.04

Note: Responses are on a 1–5 scale, where 5 is more important, more satisfied, more like flowers, or more impact.

Within each question, means sharing a common subscript were not significantly different.

S. Clayton / Journal of Environmental Psychology 27 (2007) 215–224218

items. ‘‘In thinking about the practices you use in takingcare of your yard (whether you do it yourself or hire aservice), how important is each of the following?’’ wasfollowed by 11 items. The importance of each item wasrated on a 1–5 scale, with a higher number indicatinggreater importance.

Participants were also asked to rate their satisfactionwith the appearance of their lawn or garden, and severalquestions concerning the relationship between their yardand nature:

�

Whether they thought of the yard as an extension oftheir house or part of the natural world � Whether they thought of violets as weeds or flowers � Whether they thought of dandelions as weeds or flowers � Whether they thought their landscape practices had an

impact on the local ecosystem.

Each of these questions was rated on a 1–5 scale, with ahigher score indicating a greater integration between their

yard and nature.Participants also indicated whether or not they had

ever received a complimentary or concerned commentabout their yard from a neighbor. Finally, they were askedwhat they considered to be environmentally beneficialgardening practices, where they would go for informationabout such practices, and what some of their own practiceswere.

4. Results

4.1. Motivations for gardening

Means for all of the quantitative items are shown inTable 1. The benefits of gardening were rated from most toleast important as follows: Spending time outdoors,

ARTICLE IN PRESSS. Clayton / Journal of Environmental Psychology 27 (2007) 215–224 219

observing nature, relaxation, controlling the appearance ofthe garden, working with my hands, novelty (e.g. trying outnew plants), producing food or herbs, demonstratingmy effort, and demonstrating my gardening expertise.A repeated-measures ANOVA showed that there was asignificant difference among the means for the nine benefits(F[8, 936] ¼ 16.05, po.001, Z2 ¼ .36). Post-hoc compari-sons were calculated to see which means differed signifi-cantly from each other; significant differences are indicatedwith subscripts in Table 1. Broadly, spending timeoutdoors, observing nature, and relaxation were rated assignificantly more important than all other benefits.Demonstrating expertise, demonstrating effort, and produ-cing food or herbs were rated as significantly less importantthan other benefits.

The ways in which people use their yard were as follows,from most to least important: A place of beauty, a place toobserve nature, a place to socialize with friends, a place forrecreation, a place to promote biodiversity. All of thesewere considered at least ‘‘moderately important’’. Notethat ‘‘observing nature’’ appears, in slightly different form,as a response to both questions, first as a benefitaccompanying the activity of gardening and then as away of using the yard. A repeated-measures ANOVAfound that there was a significant difference among means(F[4, 464] ¼ 32.80, po.001, Z2 ¼ .22). ‘‘A place of beauty’’and ‘‘a place to observe nature’’ were rated as significantlymore important than the other three uses. A substantialminority of 39 respondents listed other benefits of garden-ing or uses of their yard, though no single category wasdescribed by more than 9 people. These responses areconsistent with the idea that the garden is appreciated forthe opportunity to enjoy nature, for its health-relatedbenefits, and for the opportunity to socialize. Categoriesthat were listed by multiple respondents are described inTable 2.

Table 2

Frequencies for ‘‘other’’ benefits and uses (responses to open-ended

questions)

Response N Example

Different benefits of gardening

Aesthetic 9 Enjoying the beauty of flowers

Stress relief/mood 7 Quiet, peacefulness

Exercise 6 Good exercise

Growing own plants 6 Growing your own vegetables—you

know what’s on them

Socializing 2 Seeing people and talking with them

about gardening

Connecting to nature 2 Feeling connected to my

surrounding landscape

Other 7

Different uses of the yard

Promote wildlife 5 Would like to have a backyard for

wildlife

Other 3

Note: Although most respondents gave only one answer, a few gave more.

4.2. Perceptions of the yard

Respondents thought of their yard both as an extensionof their house and as part of the natural world, but slightlymore as part of their home. They thought their landscapingpractices had slightly less than a moderate impact on thelocal ecosystem. They perceived violets more as flowersthan as weeds but dandelions as weeds more than asflowers (Table 1). Most people were at least moderatelysatisfied with the appearance of their lawn or garden.A large majority (105) reported that they had received acomment on their yard from a neighbor (16 reported theyhad not), and almost all (98) said it had been a compliment(2 said they had received a complaint, and 5 said both).

4.3. Gardening practices

Factors affecting the practices used in caring for the yardwere ranked as follows, from most to least important:Colorful appearance, safety, reducing or eliminating weeds,maintaining a healthy ecosystem, enhancing propertyvalue, ease of maintenance, demonstrating care for yard,minimizing resource use, low cost, using native plants, andmeeting neighborhood standards. A repeated-measuresANOVA found a significant difference among means(F[10, 1040] ¼ 29.96, po.001, Z2 ¼ .21). The results ofpost-hoc comparisons are shown in Table 1.Responses about environmentally beneficial practices

and sources of information were coded; frequencies areshown in Table 3. Respondents seemed to have goodsources of information, and a fair number of them had atleast some sense of environmentally beneficial practices.A large minority, though, reported using pesticides orherbicides in their gardens. Most of them were unable, orchose not, to respond to the question about the practices oftheir lawn care company.Of those who answered the question, 26% reported using

a lawn service. This is consistent with the findings of otherresearchers, who have reported rates such as 16%, in arandom Ohio sample (Robbins et al., 2001) or between20% and 43% in North Carolina communities (Osmond &Hardy, 2004). A MANOVA comparing those who used alawn service with those who did not found no overall effect,and only one variable showed a significant differencebetween groups: Those who used a lawn service rated costas significantly less important. The mean for service userswas 2.79 (SE ¼ .18) and for non-users it was 3.43(SE ¼ .10); t (109) ¼ 3.08, p ¼ .003, Z2 ¼ .08.

4.4. Factor analyses

In order to reduce the number of items used in furtheranalyses and to uncover the general factors underlying theindividual items, maximum likelihood factor analyses withvarimax rotation were conducted on the following threegroups of variables: Benefits of gardening; uses of the yard;and factors affecting gardening practices. (Note: Similar

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

Frequencies for open-ended questions about gardening practices

What are environmentally beneficial practices?

No answer 41

Natural, do not use chemicals 36

Organic products 20

Create wildlife areas 17

Mulching 6

Other 18

Source of gardening information

No answer 22

Internet 33

Garden center/nursery 27

OARDC 26

(The Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, a nearby center

for agricultural research associated with the Ohio State University)

Library/ books 24

Other 28

What treatments does the lawn service apply to your yard?

Fertilizer 7

Weed control 5

None 4

Insecticide/pesticide 2

Organic 2

Other 2

Don’t know 3

No answer 102

What treatments do you apply?

Fertilizer 39

Weed control 35

Feed 18

Insecticide/pesticide 15

Mulch 9

Manure 6

Organic 4

Other 30

Note: Although most respondents gave only one answer, a few gave more.

S. Clayton / Journal of Environmental Psychology 27 (2007) 215–224220

results were found with oblimin rotation, so a rotation thatled to uncorrelated factors was used for ease of interpreta-tion.) Factor loadings are shown in Table 4.

For benefits, two factors with eigenvalues greater than1.0 emerged. A scree test also supported the use of twofactors. Together they explained 52.22% of the variance.The first factor loaded primarily on spending time out-doors, relaxation, observing nature, and working withone’s hands. This could be described as ‘‘benefits fromnature’’.

The second factor showed high loadings on demonstrat-ing expertise and demonstrating effort. This could beconsidered ‘‘benefits from others’’.

For uses of the yard, two factors also emerged,accounting for 68.6% of the variance. Factor one showedhigh loadings on observing nature and promoting biodi-versity, and seemed to represent using the yard as a proxyfor nature overall. Factor two showed high loadings onsocial uses and recreation, and could be said to representuses of the yard for functions unrelated to nature. Usingthe yard as a place of beauty loaded on both factors, which

may suggest that beauty has both intrinsic and extrinsicvalue.Three factors emerged as important to understanding

gardening practices, accounting for 58.75% of variance.(Three factors had eigenvalues greater than 1.0. The screetest was somewhat ambiguous, indicating between 2 and 4factors, but 3 seemed easily interpretable.) The first factorsuggested awareness of the ecological impacts of yard care.The second was focused on the social implications. Thethird comprised the most practical concerns.Correlations among factor scores, shown in Table 5,

were calculated to examine the relationships amongperceived benefits of gardening, uses of the yard, and inparticular the concerns determining gardening practices.The benefits from others factor correlated with both usefactors, and with ecological and social concerns, thoughthe correlations were higher with the social uses and socialconcerns. The benefits from nature factor correlated withboth use factors, more strongly with nature uses than socialuses, and with social concerns. That is, both types ofbenefits were associated with both types of uses, perhapsshowing that people inclined to rate any gardening benefitsas important were more likely to actively use their yards.Both types of benefits were also associated more stronglywith attention to social concerns than to other types ofconcern as a basis for gardening practices; this mayindicate that practical and ecological concerns are primar-ily based on factors other than the perceived benefits ofgardening.The nature uses factor correlated with ecological

concerns and negatively with practical concerns, while thesocial uses factor correlated only with the social concerns.The connection between a particular type of use and thecorresponding determinant of gardening practices providesreassurance that the survey tapped some consistentindividual differences in the way the yard is viewed.There were no significant differences between people

who did not use a lawn service and those who did on any ofthe factors.

4.5. Correlates of satisfaction and attitudes toward the yard

Factor scores were tested for their association withsatisfaction and with perceptions of the yard as nature.Correlations are shown in Table 6. Satisfaction wassignificantly correlated with both benefits factors, bothuse factors, and social concerns. That is, a strongrecognition of any of the benefits from gardening, or ahigh importance given to any way of using the yard, wasassociated with satisfaction with the yard. Those who ratedsocial factors as important in determining practices werealso more satisfied.A perception of the yard as part of nature was positively

correlated with the nature use factor; the correlation withagreement that gardening practices have an impact on theecosystem was close to significant (r ¼ .18, po.06). Thisshows that the cognitive recognition that one’s yard is part

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 4

Factor loadings for gardening benefits, uses, and concerns

Benefits of nature Benefits from nature Benefits from others

Working with my hands .48

Novelty, e.g., trying new plants .44

Spending time outdoors .76

Producing food or herbs

Demonstrating my gardening expertise .84

Demonstrating my effort .86

Controlling the appearance of the garden .44 .40

Relaxing .54

Observing nature and natural processes .51

Uses of the yard Nature uses Social uses

A place for recreation .48

A place to observe nature .91

A place to socialize with friends .85

A place of beauty .41 .52

A place to promote biodiversity .53

Concerns about practices Ecological Social Practical

Ease of maintenance .69

Low cost .55

Safety .63

Colorful appearance

Reducing or eliminating weeds .44

Minimizing resource use .65

Meeting neighborhood standards .40

Maintaining a healthy ecosystem .86

Using native plants .61

Enhancing property value .70

Demonstrating my care for the yard .76

Note: Only factor loadings of .40 and above are shown.

Table 5

Correlations among benefit, use, and concern factors

Nature benefits Other benefits Nature uses Social uses Ecological concerns Social concerns

Benefits from nature 1.0

Benefits from others .09 1.0

Nature uses .45��� .22� 1.0

Social uses .30�� .33��� .08 1.0

Ecological concerns .11 .23� .32�� .13 1.0

Social concerns .25� .39��� .04 .23� .11 1.0

Practical concerns �.11 .13 �.32�� .11 �.02 .10

�po.05.��po.01.���po.001.

S. Clayton / Journal of Environmental Psychology 27 (2007) 215–224 221

of nature was related to using the yard to enjoy nature andwith recognizing that things that affect the yard affectnature. A perception that violets were flowers wassignificantly correlated with ecological concerns and witha perception that dandelions were flowers (r ¼ .28, po.01).Rating dandelions as flowers, similarly, was correlated withecological concerns and also with agreement that garden-ing practices have an impact on the ecosystem (r ¼ .26,po. 01). Finally, the nature use factor and the ecological

concerns factor were both associated with agreement thatgardening practices have an impact on the ecosystem.

5. Discussion

5.1. Motivations for gardening

Lawns and gardens can be seen to serve many functions,including practical concerns like enhancing property value,

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 6

Correlates of satisfaction with one’s yard and of perceiving the relationship between the home landscape and nature

Satisfaction Yard is nature? Violets are flowers? Dandelions are flowers? Yardcare has impact?

Benefits from nature .21� .12 .05 �.03 .10

Benefits from others .40��� .10 .05 .16 .02

Nature uses .31�� .28�� .09 .22� .30��

Social uses .34��� �.02 .06 .03 �.02

Ecological concerns .16 .11 .30�� .28�� .27��

Social concerns .39��� .03 .16 �.18 .05

Practical concerns �.06 �.02 .13 �.06 .04

�po.05.��po.01.���po.001.

S. Clayton / Journal of Environmental Psychology 27 (2007) 215–224222

tangible benefits like relaxation, and the opportunity tosocialize with others. They also serve more subtle functions.Jenkins (1994) described front lawns as ‘‘a symbol of man’scontrol of, or superiority over, his environment’’ (p. 185). Inthe present study, control over the appearance of the yardwas rated as an important benefit and as a concern guidinggardening practices. In this way, people can use gardening tohelp satisfy a desire for self-efficacy.

Gardens may also be a significant locus for socialjudgments concerning the adequacy of the care peopleshow for their lawn, and home landscapes are evaluated byneighbors for the presence of ‘‘cues to care’’ (Nassauer,1988, 1992). Demonstrating care was moderately impor-tant in this study, but meeting neighborhood standards anddemonstrating effort or expertise were not rated asparticularly important. This may reflect the fact that thisgroup of committed gardeners has already exceededneighborhood standards, on average; or it may reflectpeople’s unwillingness to acknowledge, even to themselves,the importance of social norms. In any case, it does notsuggest that self-presentation was the most important issuefor these home gardeners. The high number of compli-ments as opposed to complaints received by respondentsindicates, though, that there were social rewards togardening. Thus, gardening may contribute to a sense ofcommunity belonging as well as to self-esteem.

The set of motivations identified as most important inthe present research centered on an appreciation of nature.The benefits that gardeners get and the ways they use theiryards reflect a value for experiencing nature, and the yardis a significant source of satisfaction as well as socialapproval. This is similar to the findings of Kaplan andKaplan (1989). In a survey of over 4000 members of theAmerican Horticultural Society, they found that sensorybenefits (colors, smells, beauty), peacefulness and tranqui-lity, and fascination with nature were rated as the mostimportant benefits of gardening. As in the present study,these benefits outranked novelty, producing tangiblebenefits, control, and achieving a neat and tidy appearance.Given the different nature of the sample, this partialreplication of Kaplan and Kaplan’s results after almost 20

years suggests some stability to the findings. Although thepresent study cannot explain why people find value inobserving and spending time in nature, it adds to the bodyof evidence that people do experience such value, consistentwith the predictions of the biophilia hypothesis thathumans have a genetically based predisposition to affiliatewith nature (Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Wilson, 1984).Results of the present factor analyses suggest two

distinct sets of motivation for gardening: One involvingsocial benefits and functions and one involving benefitsintrinsic to nature. There is no evidence that the two typesof motivation are incompatible. Both are positivelycorrelated with satisfaction and in some cases with eachother. It is worth noting that, in Kaplan and Kaplan’s(1989) study, gardening was positively correlated withneighborhood satisfaction as well, and that the view of agarden, even if someone else’s, was also correlated. Thus,the satisfaction that comes from gardening may generalizebeyond the individual, and the social and nature-basedbenefits may be mutually reinforcing. Each type of use,however, is associated with its own set of concerns thatdrive gardening practices.Noteworthy is the third set of concerns that affect

practices: The practical considerations of ease, cost, andweed reduction. These concerns were rated as moderatelyimportant determinants of gardening practices. An em-phasis on this factor was negatively correlated with usingthe yard to enjoy nature. This may highlight the majorconflict between gardening and environmental sustainabil-ity: The latter tends to require accepting a few weeds (seeBeck, Heimlich, & Quigley, 2002). It is telling thatecological concerns and using the yard to enjoy naturewere positively correlated with accepting that dandelionscan be flowers.

5.2. Implications for promoting sustainable practices

Although nature was important, protecting naturethrough sustainable practices did not seem very salient torespondents. The yard was not clearly seen as part of theecosystem, and people who use a lawn care service did not

ARTICLE IN PRESSS. Clayton / Journal of Environmental Psychology 27 (2007) 215–224 223

greatly concern themselves with the practices used by thatservice. Notably, there was no significant correlationbetween an appreciation of the nature-related benefits ofgardening (such as spending time outdoors, or observingnature) and concern for the ecological implications ofgardening practices (e.g., minimizing resource use, main-taining a healthy ecosystem).

There may be an opportunity to change the perceptionof the yard and of gardening practices. Education isnecessary: Previous research has shown that a perceptionof a landscape as ‘‘natural’’ was negatively correlated withperceiving it as ‘‘neat’’, while ‘‘relaxing’’ and ‘‘sustainable’’were also negatively correlated (Beck et al., 2002). With theaesthetic value of a landscape predicted by ratings of‘‘neat’’ and ‘‘relaxing’’, people will have to be convincedthat a natural landscape will fulfill their goals. As Nassauer(1997) stated, we need to consider cultural sustainability aswell as ecological sustainability: People will not care forlandscapes that they do not appreciate.

In the present study, recognition that the yard is part ofthe natural world and that gardening practices have animpact on the natural world was associated with using theyard to enjoy nature and with giving consideration toecological concerns when choosing gardening practices. Thebenefits and uses that people most valued would either beenhanced by, or are not incompatible with, efforts to protectthe environment; in fact, educational materials could bedesigned to enhance gardeners’ feelings of self-efficacythrough their ability to take care of nature. Some lawn careorganizations already do this, encouraging customers(misleadingly) to believe they are protecting the environmentby caring for their lawn (Lawn Institute, 2006).

A possible exception to the consistency between protect-ing the environment and the motivations that drive peopleis that people want their yard to be ‘‘a place of beauty’’.Although a healthy environment can certainly be beautiful,it may not be perceived that way (Beck et al., 2002). Thepromotion of a cultural norm, through mass media andmarketing material, that focuses on the desirability of aneat and weed-free lawn rather than a beautiful outdoorlandscape, is almost certainly responsible for yardcarepractices that not only threaten the environment but alsoreduce homeowners’ abilities to enjoy the benefits ofnature. Educational material should emphasize the beautyas well as the health of a sustainably managed landscape.

Werner (1999) has suggested that interventions toimprove sustainability need to consider five factors:Awareness of the problem, knowledge about behavioralsolutions and motivation to engage in them, forces thatmake the motivation salient, opportunities to engage in thebehavior, and skill and perceived competence to engage inthe behavior correctly. Although more targeted research isneeded, the results of the present study suggest thatopportunities, motivation and skills to practice environ-mentally sustainable gardening are present to a highdegree; even knowledge is not completely absent. What isneeded is social awareness about the problem of environ-

mental degradation and its link to gardening practices. Thegarden seems to be seen as part of the domestic world—albeit one in which nature can be observed—rather than aspart of wild nature, with connections to the largerecosystem. People need to be informed or reminded thattheir appreciation for nature can and should affect thepractices they choose.The present study does not, for the most part, suggest

that the benefits of gardening are limited to those who doall their own work. Few differences between those who didand who did not use a lawn care company were observed,and these were in concerns rather than in benefits orsatisfaction.It has to be acknowledged that by recruiting customers

at a specialized garden center, this study tapped a selectivesample rather than one that is representative of the generalpopulation. However, gardeners may be a valuable groupto target for conservation initiatives because the topic isalready salient to them. For those who do not do their owngardening, initiatives aimed at the landscaping profes-sionals may be more appropriate. Home landscapes mayrepresent an important option for the preservation ofbiodiversity. Initiatives to educate home gardeners aboutthe environmental impacts, both negative and positive, oftheir gardening practices may strike a receptive chord ingardeners who already value nature and devote both timeand money to it.Gardening serves a variety of functions for the gardener,

from improving property value and promoting socialconnections to enhancing perceived control and reducingstress. In addition to these practical aspects, many seem toappreciate it simply as an opportunity to observe,experience, and appreciate nature. Increasing evidence thatgardening may promote health (Health Council of theNetherlands, 2004) should enhance recognition thatgardening can be an important part of human life andencourage further research into its psychological signifi-cance. Increasing awareness of the potentially detrimentalimpact of gardening practices on the environment (Stein-berg, 2006) should prompt efforts to encourage people toprotect the part of nature that they enjoy.

References

Beck, T. B., Heimlich, J. E., & Quigley, M. F. (2002). Gardeners’

perceptions of the aesthetics, manageability, and sustainability of

residential landscapes. Applied Environmental Education and Commu-

nication, 1, 163–172.

Butterfield, B. (2006). Press release: NGA announces lawn and garden

market statistics for 2003. Retrieved September 8, 2006, from /http://

www.garden.org/articles/S.

Clayton, S., & Opotow, S. (2003). Introduction: Identity and the natural

environment. In S. Clayton, & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the

natural environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 1–24).

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Francis, M. (1990). The everyday and the personal: Six garden stories. In

M. Francis, & R. T. Hester Jr. (Eds.), The meaning of gardens

(pp. 206–215). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

ARTICLE IN PRESSS. Clayton / Journal of Environmental Psychology 27 (2007) 215–224224

Gigliotti, C. M., & Jarrott, S. E. (2005). Effects of horticulture therapy on

engagement and affect. Canadian Journal on Aging, 24, 367–377.

Grampp, C. (1990). Social meanings of residential gardens. In M. Francis,

& R. T. Hester Jr. (Eds.), The meaning of gardens (pp. 178–183).

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gustafson, P. (2001). Meanings of place: Everyday experiences and theoretical

conceptualizations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 5–16.

Harris, P. B., & Brown, B. B. (1996). The home and identity display:

Interpreting resident territoriality from home exteriors. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 16, 187–203.

Health Council of the Netherlands. (2004). Nature and health: The

influence of nature on social, psychological, and physical well-being. The

Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands and RMNO. Publication

number 2004/09E, RMNO publication number A02ae. Available at

/www.healthcouncil.nlS.

Jenkins, V. S. (1994). The lawn: History of an American obsession.

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Kaplan, R. (1973). Some psychological benefits of gardening. Environment

and Behavior, 5, 145–162.

Kaplan, R. (2001). The nature of the view from home: Psychological

benefits. Environment and Behavior, 33, 507–542.

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological

perspective. New York: Cambridge.

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1990). Restorative experience: The healing

power of nearby nature. In M. Francis, & R. T. Hester Jr. (Eds.), The

meaning of gardens (pp. 238–243). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kearney, A. R. (2006). Residential development patterns and neighbor-

hood satisfaction: Impacts of density and nearby nature. Environment

and Behavior, 38, 112–139.

Kellert, S., & Wilson, E. O. (Eds.). (1993). The biophilia hypothesis.

Washington, DC: Island Press.

Kuo, F. E., & Taylor, A. F. (2004). A potential natural treatment for

attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder: Evidence from a national

study. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 1580–1586.

Lawn Institute. (2006). How the environment benefits from a well-

maintained lawn. Retrieved December 20, 2006, from /http://

www.turfgrasssod.org/lawninstitute/environmental_benefits.htmS.

Lewis, C. A. (1990). Gardening as healing process. In M. Francis, & R. T.

Hester Jr. (Eds.), The meaning of gardens (pp. 244–251). Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Manzo, L. C. (2005). For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions

of place meaning. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 67–86.

McKibben, B. (1989). The end of nature. New York: Random House.

Nassauer, J. I. (1988). The aesthetics of horticulture: Neatness as a form of

care. HortScience, 23, 973–977.

Nassauer, J. I. (1992). The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of

policy. Landscape Ecology, 6, 239–250.

Nassauer, J. I. (1997). Cultural sustainability: Aligning aesthetics and

ecology. In J. I. Nassauer (Ed.), Placing nature: Culture and landscape

ecology (pp. 65–83). Washington, DC: Island Press.

National Audubon Society. (2006). Reduce all pesticides but eliminate

those used on lawns. Retrieved January 23, 2006, from /http://

www.audubon.org/bird/at_home/ReducePesticideRisk.htmlS.

National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides. (2006). Lawn

pesticide facts and figures. Retrieved December 7, 2006, from

/www.beyondpesticides.org/lawn/factsheets/facts&figures.htmS.

National Wildlife Federation. (2006). Backyard wildlife habitat. Retrieved

January 23, 2006 from /http://www.nwf.org/backyardwildlifehabitat/S.Osmond, D. L., & Hardy, D. H. (2004). Characterization of turf practices

in five North Carolina communities. Journal of Environmental Quality,

33, 565–575.

Pimentel, D. (1991). Environmental and economic impacts of reducing US

agricultural pesticide use. In D. Pimentel (Ed.), Handbook of pest

management in agriculture (2nd ed., pp. 661–685). Boca Raton: CRC

Press.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Robbins, P., Polderman, A., & Birkenholtz, T. (2001). Lawns and toxins:

An ecology of the city. Cities, 18, 369–380.

Semprik, J., Aldridge, J., & Becker, S. (2003). Social and therapeutic

horticulture: Evidence and messages from research. Loughborough:

Loughborough University. Available at /www.growingtogether.

org.ukS.

Steinberg, T. (2006). American green. New York: Norton.

Stuart, S. M. (2005). Lifting spirits: Creating gardens in California

domestic violence shelters. In P. F. Barlett (Ed.), Urban place:

Reconnecting with the natural world (pp. 61–88). Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Sullivan, W. C. (2005). Forest, savanna, city: Evolutionary landscapes and

human functioning. In P. F. Barlett (Ed.), Urban place: Reconnecting

with the natural world (pp. 237–252). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2002). Views of nature and

self-discipline: Evidence from inner city children. Journal of Environ-

mental Psychology, 22, 49–63.

Twigger-Ross, C. L., & Uzzell, D. L. (1996). Place and identity processes.

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 205–220.

Ulrich, R. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from

surgery. Science, 224, 420–421.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Pesticide

producers and users. Retrieved December 6, 2006, from /http://

www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/01pestsales/producers_users2001.

html#4_1S.

von Hassell, M. (2005). Community gardens in New York City: Place,

community, and individuality. In P. F. Barlett (Ed.), Urban place:

Reconnecting with the natural world (pp. 91–116). Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Werner, C. M. (1999). Psychological perspectives on sustainability. In E.

Becker, & T. John (Eds.), Sustainability and the social sciences

(pp. 223–242). New York: Zed Books.

Werner, C. M. (2003). Changing homeowners’ use of toxic household

products: A transactional approach. Journal of Environmental Psy-

chology, 23, 33–45.

Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia: The human bond with other species.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Winterman, D. (2005). Suburban paradise. BBC news magazine, Retrieved

May 27, 2005, from /http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/magazine/

4579333.stmS.