ORIGINAL RESEARCH

published: 23 April 2020

doi: 10.3389/fevo.2020.00085

Time Is Not Money: Income Is More

Important Than Lifestage for
Explaining Patterns of Residential
Yard Plant Community Structure and
Diversity in Baltimore
Meghan Avolio 1* † , Allison Blanchette 1† , Nancy F. Sonti 2† and Dexter H. Locke 2†
Edited by:
1
Sonja Knapp, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States, 2 USDA Forest
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Service, Northern Research Station, Baltimore Field Station, Baltimore, MD, United States
Research (UFZ), Germany
Reviewed by:
Plant biodiversity is affected by limiting resources such as water, nutrients, and sunlight.
Francesca Bretzel,
Italian National Research Council, Italy In urban settings, such as residential yards, however, limiting resources may also include
Elvia Melendez-Ackerman, the social factors of time and money spent on yard care. To examine the role that these
University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras
Campus, Puerto Rico
precious human resources play in determining plant community structure and diversity,
*Correspondence:
we surveyed homeowners and their yards in 12 neighborhoods across Baltimore City
Meghan Avolio and Baltimore County, Maryland, visiting a total of 96 residential properties. We chose
[email protected]
neighborhoods based on residents’ median income (a proxy for money) and lifestage
† ORCID:
(a proxy for time) as determined by ESRI’s Tapestry dataset [older (>65 and most
Meghan Avolio
orcid.org/0000-0002-2649-9159 likely retired with more free time) versus younger (<65 and most likely working with
Allison Blanchette less free time)]. At each residential yard, we studied four major plant types: lawn
orcid.org/0000-0002-0492-9584
Nancy F. Sonti
species, flowering herbaceous plants (excluding grasses), trees, and invasive species.
orcid.org/0000-0001-8581-8124 For the flowering plants, we documented the number, size, and color of flowers, and
Dexter H. Locke
calculated total floral area. We found that residential yards harbored high plant diversity
orcid.org/0000-0003-2704-9720
with 89 tree species, 82 lawn species, and 80 flowering plant genera. Lawn richness
Specialty section: was not related to the neighborhood-level lifestage of the residents or their income,;
This article was submitted to
rather, all lawns were equally weedy. Consistently, we found that yards in higher income
Urban Ecology,
a section of the journal neighborhoods and larger yards had greater abundance of plants and greater diversity
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution of flowering herbaceous plants, trees, and invasive species, whereas lifestage was rarely
Received: 02 November 2019 associated with plant diversity. Additionally, we found front yards had greater floral area
Accepted: 12 March 2020
Published: 23 April 2020 than back yards, while back yards had greater tree abundance and tree diversity than
Citation: front yards. Finally, we found that residents who spent more time doing yard work
Avolio M, Blanchette A, Sonti NF had more flowering plants, flower colors, and floral genera. Overall, yards in high-
and Locke DH (2020) Time Is Not
income neighborhood, and large yards had the greatest plant biodiversity, indicating
Money: Income Is More Important
Than Lifestage for Explaining Patterns that money is the more precious human resource for creating and maintaining biodiverse
of Residential Yard Plant Community residential yards.
Structure and Diversity in Baltimore.
Front. Ecol. Evol. 8:85. Keywords: urban biodiversity, ESRI Tapestry, residential land management, retired, lawns, city trees, flowering
doi: 10.3389/fevo.2020.00085 plants

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 1 April 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 85

Avolio et al. Time Is Not Money

INTRODUCTION have less time to garden compared with those that are older
and retired. Lifestage contributes to defining a person’s lifestyle;
Residential yards provide an opportunity to study human– lifestyle includes age, employment status, income, race, and
environment interactions in an urban setting. Residential land several other socio-demographic variables (Troy, 2008). Resident
comprises a considerable portion of urban land area, estimated lifestyle has been found to be a good predictor of willingness to
at 41% (Nowak et al., 1996), and provides an important resource participate in tree giveaway programs (Locke and Grove, 2016)
for urban biodiversity (Davies et al., 2009). Given their high and amount of money spent on lawn care (Zhou et al., 2009),
land cover, residential yards have been proposed to play a role and is correlated with tree and vegetation cover (Boone et al.,
in conservation of biodiversity in cities (Goddard et al., 2010; 2010; Grove et al., 2014), as well as lawn greenness (Zhou et al.,
Lerman and Warren, 2011). Indeed, plant diversity in residential 2009). Although links between lifestyle and urban vegetation
yards is often higher than in surrounding natural ecosystems have been explored in previous research, the associations between
(Pearse et al., 2018; Avolio et al., 2019b). While cultivated urban lifestage and patterns of urban residential biodiversity remain
plant biodiversity is controlled, to an extent, by traditional under-investigated.
ecological drivers such as climate (Jenerette et al., 2016; Padullés In addition to residents’ income and lifestage, research has
Cubino et al., 2019b; Pearse et al., 2018) and space availability shown that social norms are an important driver of residential
(van Heezik et al., 2014; Padullés Cubino et al., 2019b), it is land management (Robbins et al., 2001; Robbins, 2007; Harris
also shaped by residents’ preferences and management activities, et al., 2012, 2013). Social norms operate through visibility of
which may be influenced by their learned experience and social the yard, as residents believe that having a socially acceptable
norms (Roy Chowdhury et al., 2011; Cook et al., 2012; Politi yard aesthetic prevents ostracization (or reduces residents’ fear
Bertoncini et al., 2012; Avolio et al., 2018). The management of being looked down upon). Front yards are much more visible
activities of residents depend on the amount of money and time than back yards and, accordingly, the effect of social norms on
they have to spend on their yard. However, to our knowledge, yard management may also be diminished in back yards (Locke
the interaction between these important anthropogenic resources et al., 2018a,b). Indeed, researchers have found different yard
remains under-investigated. management practices between front and back yards (Larsen and
Residents’ median household income has a positive Harlan, 2006; Larson et al., 2009; Locke et al., 2018b). These
correlation with plant species richness (Hope et al., 2003; different management practices result in different patterns of
Leong et al., 2018). One of the potential explanations for biodiversity in front versus back yards. For example, research
this pattern is that wealthier homeowners may have larger has found fewer species of ornamental plants (Vila-Ruiz et al.,
yards that can support more species (Hope et al., 2003). They 2014), and showy plants (Daniels and Kirkpatrick, 2006), but
may also be able to afford more naturally biodiverse land more edible species in back yards (Vila-Ruiz et al., 2014). Overall,
(Hope et al., 2003) and/or avoid contaminated land that may it remains unclear how social norms interact with limiting human
support fewer plant species (McClintock, 2012; Aelion et al., resources such as income and time to determine urban yard
2013). With a higher income, residents have the ability to plant biodiversity.
spend more money purchasing plants, particularly by going Abiotic resources (e.g., yard size), human resources (e.g.,
to nurseries that are more expensive and provide a greater time and money), and social pressures (e.g., front vs. back yard
selection of plants than larger chain stores (Avolio et al., 2018). location) are all important drivers of yard care and biodiversity
In addition, money can buy another important human resource: patterns, but their interacting effects are unstudied. Here, we
time for yard care. ask: what are the relationships between income (a proxy for
There is some evidence that the lifestage of urban residents money available to spend on yards) and lifestage (a proxy for time
may impact the biodiversity found in their yards. Lifestage available for yard work) on patterns of yard plant community
incorporates a person’s age and career stage (for example, structure and diversity? We hypothesized that residents with
whether a person has young children at home and/or whether higher incomes or in a more advanced lifestage would have
they are working or if they are retired). Kendal et al. (2012) found more plants and species in their yards than younger and lower
greater species richness in the garden beds of older residents. income residents. We also hypothesized that we would see an
This may be because lifestage relates to time spent doing yard interaction between income and lifestage, where residents who
work. Gardening has been found to be a common leisure activity did not have time, but could pay for someone to do yard work,
for retirees, who report that it leads to greater life satisfaction would also have more cultivated flower and tree biodiversity, but
(Cheng et al., 2010). Bhatti (2006) found that retired residents fewer lawn weeds and invasive species. Lastly, we hypothesized
spend more time gardening, and that the garden helps older that there would be more plants and species in front versus back
adults maintain a sense of home, self-identity, and independence. yards, and that this pattern would be stronger for higher income
In another study, retired residents nearly made a new career out residents as a result of more intense social pressures in high-
of their yard and garden, spending more time working on it income neighborhoods. We tested these hypotheses across 96
than when they were younger (Gross and Lane, 2007). As for homes in Baltimore City and County, Maryland. In this study we
working residents, Goodness (2018) found that homeowners with also created new measures of floral diversity, because residents
full-time jobs cited a lack of time to do yard work and Loram respond strongly to flowers and floral diversity is not accurately
et al. (2011) noted that homeowners with younger children may captured with traditional measures of biodiversity.

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 2 April 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 85

Avolio et al. Time Is Not Money

MATERIALS AND METHODS City and Baltimore County were selected to represent older
retired residents with more free time, “Senior Styles,” and
Study Area younger working residents with less free time, “Middle Ground.”
Baltimore, Maryland is located in the temperate deciduous forest Residents in the Senior Styles LifeMode are described as “empty
ecoregion and is in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It is a post- nesters” who “prefer print to digital media,” while those in the
industrial city that has suffered from decades of depopulation and Middle Ground LifeMode are described as “thirty-somethings”
economic disinvestment (Boone et al., 2009; Grove et al., 2015). or “millennials” who are “online all the time” (ESRI, 2017).
Baltimore City and Baltimore County, which are administratively We used these two Tapestry derived LifeModes to set up the
distinct and do not overlap, have 602,000 and 828,000 residents, lifestage contrast in our study design, hereafter referred to as
respectively. Residents of Baltimore City are predominantly lifestage. We then used median household income from the
African American (63%) while Baltimore County is mostly 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) to add an income
White (61%). Median household income in 2017 dollars was contrast. We examined the ranges of median household income
much lower in Baltimore City ($46,641) than in the County per neighborhood within each of the two lifestages, and defined
($71,819). Baltimore City is much more densely settled, with a middle-income as between 45 and 56K USD per year and high
population per square mile of 7,671 compared to the County’s income as between 70 and 91K USD per year. Thus, we had
1,345 people per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). For four categories of neighborhoods, Senior Styles—Middle Income,
this study, we determined that in Baltimore City and County, Senior Styles—High Income, Middle Ground—Middle Income,
89.3% of all property parcels are residential, representing more and Middle Ground—High Income (Figure 1A and Table 1).
than 460,000 unique ownerships, which represents a plurality of In each category, we selected three neighborhoods, for a total of
land area (39.2%). 12 neighborhoods. Ultimately, the average median neighborhood
income—based on Census block group data—of the houses we
surveyed was (mean ± SE) $81,601 USD ± 1001 for high income
Study Design and $50,510 USD ± 402 for middle income. The percent of the
In this study, neighborhoods are represented by year 2010 Census population over 65 years of age—again based on Census block
block groups. A market segmentation dataset called “Tapestry” group data—was 31% ± 0.56 in Senior Styles and 14% ± 0.44
was used to select block groups, hereafter neighborhoods (ESRI, in Middle Ground.
2017). Market segmentation datasets use a spatial cluster analysis Because yard plant diversity has been shown to vary by
of Census-derived socioeconomic and demographic variables, residential yard size (Beninde et al., 2015), yard area was
including age, credit card expenditures, magazine subscriptions, calculated for each property in the selected neighborhoods, and
car registration records, and other datasets linked to home neighborhoods were further grouped into yard size categories
addresses to derive consumer categories (Troy, 2008), called (small, medium, large). Using a high-resolution (1 m2 ), high-
market segments or lifestyle groups. In Tapestry, lifestyle groups accuracy land cover map (>90%) building footprints were
are under the umbrella of LifeMode groups, which categorize extracted and vectorized from an existing map of the Chesapeake
lifestyles by broader common experiences, such as being part Bay area (Pallai and Wesson, 2017). These building footprint
of the same generation (ESRI, 2017). Using 2017 Tapestry polygons were then erased from the parcels located within the
data (ESRI, 2017), two LifeMode groups within Baltimore previously selected parcels. The result is a GIS polygon layer of

FIGURE 1 | Examples of the each of the yard types we visited (A) and flower pictures (B). We used the flower pictures to calculate floral area and number of colors.

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 3 April 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 85

Avolio et al. Time Is Not Money

TABLE 1 | Information on neighborhoods visited.

Median % Survey Ave. time Ave. years

income, % Residents Ave. yard response gardening lived at % Pay for
Neighborhood Category USD over 65 size m2 rate hours address yard work

7006, Baltimore City SS—Mid 47,715 32% 46 (S) 17% 2.6 13.1 17.6%
0034, Arlington SS—Mid 47,499 23% 415 (M) 5% 3.1 19.0 64%
1022, Rosedale SS—Mid 55,837 31% 618 (L) 13% 3.0 20.3 33.3%
1003, Baltimore City SS—High 82,922 33% 121 (S) 33% 2.2 16.7 35.7%
7021, Towson SS—High 90,997 31% 523 (M) 17% 2.6 25.7 52.9%
5003, Baltimore City SS—High 89,154 35% 982 (L) 19% 2.4 24.6 55.0%
6002, Dundalk MG—Mid 50,902 11% 71 (S) 2% 1.6 22.3 55.6%
4012, Parkville MG—Mid 50,283 11% 210 (M) 7% 1.5 17.6 23.1%
4011, Raspeburg MG—Mid 50,878 15% 756 (L) 11% 3.3 22.7 18.2%
6003, Parkville MG—High 71,814 14% 101 (S) 5% 1.9 25.7 24%
2002, Catonsville MG—High 75,937 13% 359 (M) 21% 4.4 13.5 4.8%
9001, Towson MG—High 78,782 20% 586 (L) 20% 2.5 18.5 35.0%

SS: Senior Styles, MG: Middle Ground. For yard size: S: small, M: medium, L: Large. Average time spent gardening is for each week.

parcels with holes where buildings are located, the yard area is We define a weed species as one that is not intentionally planted.
then taken as the area of this polygon. To disentangle the effect In the lawns, we found 77 weed species, five of which were also
of income from yard size, we chose neighborhoods with small, invasive (see below).
medium, and large yards for both income groups (Table 1). We
only selected homes that were built between 1910 and 1969, Flowering Herbaceous Plants
because newer yards tend to have lower biodiversity (Avolio et al., All herbaceous plants (excluding grasses) that were in flower at
2018). Lastly, we selected homes where the owner and parcel the time of data collection, hereafter referred to as flowering
address were the same, to ensure resident home ownership. plants, were identified to genus. We did not identify to species
because of the high prevalence of hybrids, intraspecific cultivars,
and interspecific similarities in many genera. We grouped
Data Collection flowering plants by genus, color, and front/back yard location.
In May of 2018, we sent surveys to 100 homes in each
For example, Hosta plants can have white, blue, or purple flowers.
neighborhood. In each household survey, we asked residents
Blue and white Hosta plants were assessed separately in both front
“How much time do you estimate you do yard work each week?”
and back yards. Per flowering plant group, we counted the total
with the possible responses being: 0 h, less than 1 h a week, 1–2 h,
number of individual plants (e.g., four white Hosta plants in the
2–3 h, 3–4 h, or 4+ h. If over 4 h, we asked them to provide the
front yard), total number of flowering stems (e.g., 20 flowering
number of hours. We also asked residents whether they paid for
white Hosta stems in the front yard), and average number of
yard work, including general yard work, weeding, and lawn care.
flowers per three stems (e.g., three assessed white Hosta stems
At the end of the survey, we asked for permission to assess the
had eight, three, and two flowers per stem, x̄ = 4.33). We refer
vegetation on the property. When responses came back to us that
to flower as the single reproductive unit, composed of the petals,
marked the home as vacant, we sent more surveys to new homes
stamen, and carpel. We also photographed a representative flower
until we were sure 100 residents received our letter. We received
of each assessed plant next to a U.S. quarter coin for scale
191 completed responses out of 1,200 mailed (16% response rate;
(Figure 1B), using Sony CyberShot DSC-W800 camera.
Table 1). In the neighborhoods where we did not receive enough
responses, we went door to door, asking residents for permission Trees
to measure their yard plant community structure and diversity. We identified each tree species in a yard (excluding street trees),
We collected plant data at eight homes in each neighborhood, for recorded its front/back yard location, and measured its diameter
a total of 96 homes. Out of the 96 homes, 58 responded to the at breast height (DBH).
survey, permitting us to assess their yards, and 38 were recruited
by going door to door. Invasive Species
In July and August 2018, we collected plant data on front In each yard, we searched for 21 common invasive species
and back yards focusing on four major plant types: lawn species, in Maryland from the Department of Natural Resources
flowering herbaceous plants, trees, and invasive species. (DNR) (Werner and Wixted, 2019). The list contained: Acer
platanoides, Ailanthus altissima, Alliaria petiolata, Ampelopsis
Lawns brevipedunculata, Bambusa vulgaris, Berberis thunbergii,
We assessed species percent cover by using four 1 m2 quadrats Celastrus orbiculatus, Clematis terniflora, Elaeagnus umbellata,
per house, two in the front yard and two in the back. Lawn species Ficaria verna, Hedera helix, Iris pseudacorus, Ligustrum
were identified and categorized as intentional turf grass or weed. obtusifolium, Lonicera japonica, Miscanthus sinensis, Paulownia

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 4 April 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 85

Avolio et al. Time Is Not Money

tomentosa, Persicaria perfoliata, Pueraria montana, Pyrus n = 84 for lawns, n = 82 for flowering plants, and n = 77 for
calleryana, Rosa multiflora, and Rubus phoenicolasius. Finally, trees. Next, to visualize these patterns, we performed a non-
we assessed whether each of these species was growing metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) analysis on the average
spontaneously or was intentionally cultivated. abundance (cover or number) of each species or genera averaged
by neighborhood (n = 12).
Data Analyses Second, we ran separate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)
All statistical analyses were conducted in R (R Core Team, 2019) tests to assess the associations between neighborhood-level
using an alpha of 0.05 and code can be found on github at lifestage (a proxy for time to spend on yard care), neighborhood-
mavolio/BESTimeVMoney. We ran two-way ANOVAs to test for level income (a proxy for money to spend on the yard), yard
the effect of lifestage and income on time spent doing yard work location (front or back yard), and yard size on each plant
and whether a resident paid for yard work. response variable. In these models, lifestage, income, and yard
Within ArcGIS, the sampled parcels were manually cut into location were fixed effects with yard size as the continuous
front and back yards via manual digitizing to accurately calculate covariate. Each visited front or back yard was considered
front and back yard area. Front yards were, on average, 108 m2 a replicate (n = 192). The model allowed for interactions
smaller than back yards. We used the community_strucure() among lifestage, income, and yard location. All plant response
function in the codyn package (Hallett et al., 2019) to calculate variables were log transformed for normality except lawn richness
species richness and evenness using Evar, a measure of evenness and number of invasive species, which included: lawn species
(Smith and Wilson, 1996; Avolio et al., 2019a). evenness, number of trees, tree species richness, average tree
Because we think residents choose plants based on flowering DBH, number of flowering plants, number of flowers, number
traits, we created several new measures of floral diversity. We of flower colors, floral area, and genus richness of flowering
calculated the number of flowers, number of flower colors, and plants. Third, to study the effect of time spent gardening on
floral area for each flowering plant group (grouped by genus, patterns of biodiversity, we correlated the time the resident
color, and yard location) based on field photos and collected spent gardening with each plant response variable. Fourth, to
data. The number of flowers was determined by multiplying the assess how similar various measures of flowering plant diversity
total number of flowering stems by average number of flowers were, we ran correlations among each diversity measure using
per stem. In the case of plants that have a large inflorescence Pearson’s correlations.
with many florets (e.g., hydrangeas), we counted each floret. To
calculate colors, we developed a new method of measuring floral
color diversity by assigning each photographed flower one or RESULTS
two colors, using a standard 12-color wheel. Color choices were
limited to: red, red-purple, purple, purple-blue, blue, blue-green, Resident Yard Practices
green, green-yellow, yellow, yellow-orange, orange, red-orange, Surveyed Baltimore residents spend an average of 2.6 h a
and white. We then calculated floral area of each color in a week doing some form of yard work, and this varied across
yard. If a flower only had one assigned color, then 100% of neighborhoods (min = 1.5, max = 4.4; Table 1). There was no
its floral area was used in the summation. If a flower had two association between lifestage (F = 0.14; p = 0.710) or income
assigned colors, then 50% of the total floral area was applied (F = 0.29; p = 0.592) and time spent gardening, but there was a
to each color for the summation. For floral area, the program significant interaction (F = 4.03; p = 0.046). In the Middle Ground
Image J was used to calculate the area of a single flower of lifestage, higher income residents spent more time doing yard
each plant based on the field photos, using a U.S. quarter work compared with Senior Styles lifestage, where higher income
for scale (Figure 1B). Floral area for each plant group was residents spent less time doing yard work; 34% of residents paid
then calculated by multiplying the number of flowers by this for some form of yard work (weeding, lawn care or general
area. To calculate both the number of flowering plant genera yard work), and this also varied across neighborhoods (Table 1).
found in a yard and the number of unique colors, we used There was an effect of lifestage on whether a resident paid for
commuity_structure(). yard work (F = 6.46; p = 0.012), where Senior Styles residents
To assess whether the community composition of lawns, were more likely to pay for yard work than residents in the
trees, and flowering plants differed by neighborhood-level Middle Ground lifestage. There was no effect of income (F = 0.01;
lifestage and income, we ran permutational analysis of variance p = 0.907) and there was no interaction between lifestage and
(PERMANOVA) based on a Bray–Curtis dissimilarity matrix income (F = 1.99; p = 0.160).
and using the adonis() function in the vegan package (Oksanen
et al., 2019). Next, we tested whether there were greater Species Composition of Yards
differences in plant community composition by performing a Residential yards in Baltimore harbor many plant species. We
test of multivariate homogeneity of group dispersions using the found 82 plant species growing in lawns, of which only five were
betadisper() function in the vegan package based on a Bray– planted turf grass species (Festuca arundinacea, Festuca rubra,
Curtis dissimilarity matrix. For both of these analyses, each yard Lolium perenne, Poa pratensis, and Zoysiagrass), and the rest
was considered a replicate because front and back yard data were of the species found were weeds. The most common weeds, in
combined, n = 96. Because not all yards have a lawn, flowering terms of both number of houses they were found at (frequency),
plants, or trees, sample size was different for different plant types: and their total abundance across all yards were Trifolium repens,

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 5 April 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 85

Avolio et al. Time Is Not Money

FIGURE 2 | Rank abundance curves of the top 10 species in terms of frequency [(A,C,E); the number of yards where the species was found] and abundance
[(B,D,F); the total cover for lawn species or the total number of individuals for flowering plants and trees]. Species abbreviations are as follows: Festuca
arund. = F. arundinacea; Digitaria sang. = D. sanguinalis; Viola pap. = V. papilionaceae; Magnolia grand. = M. grandiflora; Ailanthus alt. = A. altissima.

Cynodon dactylon, and Digitaria sanguinalis (Figures 2A,B). were found in the most yards (Figure 2E), while Ilex opaca was
We found 80 genera of flowering plants; Hydrangea and Rosa the most abundant species (Figure 2F). From our target list of
were found in the most yards (Figure 2C), while Catharanthus invasive species, we found at least one invasive species at 88% of
and Hemerocallis were most abundant (Figure 2D). We also homes visited. Based on our assessment of where the plant was
found 89 tree species; Cornus florida and Lagerstroemia indica found and how it was being managed, the majority of invasive

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 6 April 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 85

Avolio et al. Time Is Not Money

TABLE 2 | Effect of income and lifestage on community composition (permanova) There was no difference in dispersion for flowering plant or tree
and variability of communities (tests of homogeneity of dispersions).
communities (Table 2).
Multivariate test Lifestage Income
Plant Community Structure and Diversity
Lawns (Species Composition differences 1.21 (0.207) 5.83 (0.001)
cover) Dispersion differences 3.08 (0.92) 8.67 (0.006)
in Residential Yards
Flowering plants Composition differences 1.34 (0.098) 2.72 (0.001) We found no differences in lawn species richness or evenness
(Genera number) Dispersion differences 2.43 (0.115) 2.43 (0.109) across yards (Table 3); every lawn was equally weedy with
Trees (Species Composition differences 1.31 (0.119) 1.11 (0.305) an average of 8.5 species ± 0.34 (SE) found in a 1 m2 plot.
number) Dispersion differences <0.01 (0.976) 3.12 (0.068) For all other plant types (flowering plants, trees, and invasive
Shown are F-values and p-values in parentheses and significant values are bolded. species), we found that larger yards had more plants and higher
diversity (Table 3 and Figure 4). We also found consistent
effects of income on plant biodiversity. Higher income yards
had more flowering plants, flowers, colors of flowers, floral area,
and flowering plant genera (Table 3 and Figure 4A). Floral
area was over three times higher in high- versus mid-income
yards (Figure 5), with the most common colors being blues and
purples. Trees were also more abundant, diverse, and larger in
higher income yards (Table 3 and Figure 4B) and there were
more invasive species in higher income yards (Table 3). We
found few effects of lifestage. We only found greater floral area
in the Senior Styles lifestage category compared with Middle
Ground (Table 3 and Figure 4C). For invasive species, we
found an interaction between lifestage and yard size. There was
a much stronger association between yard size and invasive
species richness among yards of residents in the Middle Ground
lifestage compared with yards of residents in the Senior Styles
lifestage (Figure 4D). We found greater floral area in front versus
back yards (Table 3 and Figure 4E), but more trees, more tree
species, and larger trees in the back versus front yards (Table 3
and Figure 4F).
Lastly, regardless of lifestage or income, we investigated
whether self-reported time spent gardening affected plant
diversity (Table 4). We found that more time spent gardening
was correlated with having more flowering plants, flower colors,
and floral general. However, there was no correlation between
time spent gardening and aspects of lawn, tree, or invasive species
community structure or diversity.

FIGURE 3 | NMDS of (A) lawn, (B) floral, and (C) tree communities in mid-
Measures of Floral Diversity
and high-income yards. In this paper, we also present new diversity measures for
flowering plants, focusing on floral characteristics. We found that
these measures, while correlated, are not redundant (r < 0.90),
and each detects a unique aspect of flowering plant diversity
plants we found (75%) were growing spontaneously rather than
(Figure 6). Number of flowering plant genera was strongly
being intentionally cultivated. The most commonly encountered
correlated with the number of colors found in a yard, and
invasive species were H. helix, A. brevipedunculata, A. altissima,
the number of flowering plants and floral area were strongly
and R. phoenicolasius.
correlated with the number of flowers.
The community composition of plants was associated with
income (Table 2). Lawns (Figure 3A) and flowering plants
(Figure 3B) were comprised of different species (lawns) and
DISCUSSION
genera (flowering plants) depending on income, but not
lifestage. The community composition of trees (Figure 3C) was
not associated with income or lifestage (Table 2). In lawns,
Patterns of Plant Community Structure
communities were less similar to one another (greater dispersion) and Biodiversity in Baltimore Residential
in high versus mid-income yards (Table 2 and Figure 3A), Yards
demonstrating that lawn communities in mid-income yards Residential yards are an ecosystem type that collectively makes up
were more similar to one another than in high-income yards. a macrosystem across the United States (Groffman et al., 2017).

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 7 April 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 85

Avolio et al. Time Is Not Money

TABLE 3 | Summary of ANCOVAs.

Plant response variable Lifestage Income Location Yard size Interactions

Lawn Species richness 1.03 (0.313) 0.66 (0.420) 0.01 (0.917) 0.64 (0.426) None
Species evenness 2.03 (0.156) 0.01 (0.922) 0.17 (0.681) 2.02 (0.158) None
Flowers Number of plants 0.926 (0.337) 17.42 (<0.001) 1.38 (0.242) 16.28 (<0.001) None
Number of flowers 3.18 (0.077) 14.54 (<0.001) 1.45 (0.231) 13.53 (<0.001) None
Number of genera 1.65 (0.201) 7.22 (0.007) 0.98 (0.323) 19.92 (<0.001) None
Floral area 4.31 (0.039) 12.74 (<0.001) 4.36 (0.038) 187.17 (<0.001) None
Number of colors 0.94 (0.333) 8.79 (0.003) 1.14 (0.287) 18.4. (<0.001) None
Trees Number of trees 2.91 (0.090) 19.23 (<0.001) 31.41 (<0.001) 81.44 (<0.001) None
Species richness 3.67 (0.057) 20.70 (<0.001) 23.78 (<0.001) 67.73 (<0.001) None
Diameter at breast height 0.95 (0.332) 22.89 (<0.001) 18.20 (<0.001) 62.48 (<0.001) Ls ∗ Loc; 6.72 (0.010)
Inv. Number of species 2.34 (0.130) 4.90 (0.030) NA 16.3 (<0.001) Ls∗ yard size

Separate ANCOVAs were run for each plant response variable with lifestage (a proxy for time to spend on yard care), income (a proxy for money to spend on yard care),
location (front or back yard) as fixed factors, and yard size as a continuous covariate. Shown are F-values and p-values in parentheses. Significant values are bolded.
The model allowed for interactions among lifestage, income, and location, and only significant interactions are noted in the table. For invasive species yard location
was not recorded.

For example, in Baltimore, like many cities, residential yards and planted, demonstrating that yards can be refuges for native
account for 39% of land area. Patterns of urban biodiversity can species in urban areas. The suitability of typical residential yards
be affected by both environmental and socio-economic drivers for native species might vary geographically, however, as Padullés
(Cook et al., 2012; Avolio et al., 2015). Studying four different Cubino et al. (2019a) found more native species in mesic versus
aspects of urban plant biodiversity (trees, lawns, flowering plants, arid cities. In addition to harboring native species, we found
and invasive species), we found that yard area (environmental that residential yards can also be a source of invasive species
driver) and income (socio-economic driver) were consistently (Reichard and White, 2001; Ward and Amatangelo, 2018), as two
associated with greater plant biodiversity. That larger yards had of the most common flowering plant genera we documented,
a higher diversity of plants supports several other studies that Buddleja and Hemerocallis, are actually invasive. In addition to
have shown that area is important for biodiversity in urban spaces cultivated plants that can escape yards, we consistently found
(Thompson et al., 2004; Meléndez-Ackerman et al., 2014; van invasive weedy species at the homes we visited. Our investigation
Heezik et al., 2014; Beninde et al., 2015; Padullés Cubino et al., of invasive species is conservative assessment, as we were only
2019b). However, another socio-economic factor, lifestage, which looking for common invasive species on the Maryland DNR
we considered to be a proxy for time, had a weaker association invasive species list.
with yard biodiversity. When studying self-reported gardening
practices, we found that time spent gardening was correlated with Plant Community Structure and Diversity in
more floral diversity but not with fewer invasive species. Our Residential Yards
findings highlight the importance of residential yards in urban We found consistently strong plant community associations
ecosystems and the role of human resources, such as money, in with income, where yards in higher-income neighborhoods had
managing these areas. higher biodiversity, supporting the luxury effect (Hope et al.,
2003; Martin et al., 2004; Avolio et al., 2018). The community
Species Composition of Yards composition of lawn plant species and flowering plants in our
We found 251 species in 96 yards totaling 3.8 hectares across study was also associated with income. Other studies have
Baltimore City and County. This is a conservative estimate of found that the community composition of residential lands was
the number of plant species because we did not sample all associated with socio-economic variables as well, such as income
plant types in the yard, such as shrubs and food plants, and in Burundi (Bigirimana et al., 2012), housing type in Turkey
for flowering plants we only identified genus of individuals in (Acar et al., 2007), and whether it was a primary or secondary
flower. Residential yards around the world have been shown to home in Spain (Padullés Cubino et al., 2016). Legacies of previous
harbor a high number of plant species, including understudied owners can also affect current patterns of biodiversity (Torres-
areas such as cities in India (Jaganmohan et al., 2012), Burundi Camacho et al., 2016), which we did not assess here. Having
(Bigirimana et al., 2012), Turkey (Acar et al., 2007), China (Wang higher income can result in greater input into lawn care (Zhou
et al., 2015), and South Africa (Lubbe et al., 2011). In Baltimore, et al., 2009) and more purchases of flowering plants, although we
the most common lawn species were non-native turf grasses, did not find an effect of income on tree community composition.
with P. pratensis being found at 83% of homes we visited. We It is important to note that the associations we found with
also found that several species in residential yards, including income were not driven by yard size, which we controlled for
three of the most common lawn species (in terms of either by surveying homes with small, medium, and large yards in
frequency or abundance), were native. Five of the flowering both our high- and mid-income categories. Instead, we think the
plant genera and six of the tree species documented were native effect of income relates to the ability to spend more money on

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 8 April 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 85

Avolio et al. Time Is Not Money

FIGURE 4 | Relationship between yard size and income (A,B), lifestage (C,D), and yard location (E,F) on several measures of community structure and diversity.

plants and yard maintenance resources. We also found higher of incomes as well as explore relationships between income and
income yards were more colorful, adding a new dimension of specific yard care practices.
urban biodiversity to typically used measures. We found no We found few statistically significant relationships between
interaction between neighborhood income and lifestage, which lifestage and plant community structure or diversity, despite the
does not support our hypothesis that those with more money widespread observation that older residents generally spend more
but less time will spend money to have others do their yard time gardening (Gross and Lane, 2007) and have greater species
care. It is possible that our high-income neighborhood category richness in their garden beds (Kendal et al., 2012). We did find
was not high enough to capture residents that frequently pay greater floral areas in the Senior Styles yards, suggesting that
for yard care. Future studies should encompass a broader range the older homeowners learned how to increase the productivity

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 9 April 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 85

Avolio et al. Time Is Not Money

directly results in more biodiversity, or if those that want more

diversity also spend more time gardening. Loram et al. (2011)
also found that time spent doing various aspects of gardening
had more natives and generally more plant species. Time spent
gardening was not correlated with having fewer invasive species,
however. Anecdotally, we found that most invasive species were
in the relatively unmanaged areas of yards, which might explain
why time spent doing yard did not reduce invasive species.
Lastly, we found significant differences for some, but not
all, aspects of plant community structure and diversity between
front and back yards. Social theory predicts that there are more
social pressures for an outward display of conformity in front
yards compared to back yards (Robbins, 2007; Locke et al.,
2018b). Consistent with findings across Australian (Daniels and
Kirkpatrick, 2006) and Puerto Rican (Vila-Ruiz et al., 2014)
neighborhoods, we found that front yards had more floral
area. Greater floral area in front versus back yards suggests
that residents are managing front yards to display a flowering,
FIGURE 5 | Total floral area of mid- and high-income yards. Total area is colorful aesthetic to their neighbors. We also found more
subdivided into the observed colors. trees, more tree species, and larger trees in back versus front
yards, which is consistent with prior field-based research in
TABLE 4 | Correlations between yard biodiversity and time spent gardening each
Syracuse, New York (Richards et al., 1984). Remote sensing-
week. based research in the greater Boston metropolitan region has
documented more tree canopy cover and taller trees in back
Plant response variable Time spent gardening
yards than front yards (Ossola et al., 2019). Yard area may
Lawn species richness 0.01 (0.93) explain our finding of more trees in the back yard versus
Number of flowering plants 0.34 (<0.001) front yards, as back yards were statistically larger than front
Number of flowers 0.15 (0.15) yards. Residents may be more likely to plant smaller ornamental
Number of floral genera 0.43 (<0.001) tree species in front yards or may be more likely to remove
Floral area 0.17 (0.11) and replace trees in the front yard before they grow very
Number of flower colors 0.36 (<0.001) large, whereas trees in the backyard may be larger native tree
Number of trees 0.20 (0.06) species and allowed to reach maturity senescence before they are
Number of tree species 0.20 (0.06) removed. Future research should continue to examine patterns
Number of invasive species 0.08 (0.44) of community structure and diversity in ways that link to the
Shown are r-values and p-value in parentheses. Significant values are bolded.
social processes that drive those patterns, in part by explicitly
sampling front and back yards as distinct components of the
urban ecosystem.
of their flowering plants through years of experience gardening.
The two lifestage groups had a similar number of plants
and species composition in their yards, indicating that actual Methodological Approaches
management of flowering plants is driving the greater flora area. Tapestry LifeMode
Loram et al. (2011) found that residents who had lived at their The lack of a significant lifestage effect in many of our analyses
homes for longer were more likely to dead-head plants, although may be explained by the actual demographic differences between
they did not study the age of residents. We also found that the Tapestry LifeMode groups used in our study design. While
the number of invasive species increased with yard size, but residents in the Senior Styles lifestage were older than those in
that this had a significant interaction with resident lifestage. the Middle Ground lifestage (Senior Styles median age 50, Middle
There was a much stronger association between yard size and Ground median age 37), only 30% of the Senior Styles population
invasive species richness among yards of residents in the Middle was actually over 65, as opposed to 14% in Middle Ground.
Ground lifestage compared with yards of residents in the Senior Tapestry LifeMode categories are based on Census block groups,
Styles lifestage, again suggesting different management practices which can have a lot of demographic variability. Our research
between these lifestages. As most of the invasive plants were focused on individual households, their yards, and the plants they
growing spontaneously in yards, it is likely that invasive plants contain. For example, one of our Senior Styles neighborhoods
were suppressed by residents in Senior Styles yards rather than was partially made up of elderly retirees and partially made
introduced by residents in Middle Ground yards. up of large families with young children. To date, lifestyle
When directly studying the amount of time doing yard work, categories have typically been used for assessing broader patterns
we found that spending more time working in yards did result in of ecosystem structure, such as tree cover (Boone et al., 2010;
higher cultivated plant diversity. It is unclear if more gardening Grove et al., 2014). Researchers should consider how parcel-based

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 10 April 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 85

Avolio et al. Time Is Not Money

FIGURE 6 | Relationship among measures of floral biodiversity. In the upper panel, the r-value from a Pearson’s correlation is displayed and a red asterisk denotes a
significant correlation at p < 0.05.

characteristics may relate to their associated block group, and of flowering plant diversity. Further, we found that floral
within-block group variation when conducting future studies. area was more responsive to lifestage and yard location than
A final consideration of lifestages is that being over 65 may not other flowering plant measures. We suggest future studies
be a good indicator of whether a resident is retired, especially for on yard biodiversity include more resident-perceived diversity
lower income residents. However, given all these difficulties, we measures, such as number of flower colors, in addition to
did find that residents in the Senior Styles lifestage paid for more species richness.
yard work than those in Middle Ground.

Flowering Plant Diversity CONCLUSION

In this study, we introduced several measures of flowering plant
diversity. We studied number of flowers, number of flower Our study adds to a growing body of evidence that residential
colors, and floral area in addition to more common measures of yards harbor high plant biodiversity, including native, non-
flowering plant abundance and number of genera. We focused native, and invasive species. We found that yard size and
on flowering plant diversity because flowers are associated neighborhood-level income were consistently related to
with positive emotions, likely to be cultivated intentionally residential yard plant community structure and diversity,
(Haviland-Jones and Rosario, 2005), easy to identify, and are while neighborhood-level lifestage and yard (i.e., front vs
associated with higher species richness (Southon et al., 2018). back) location were not. Larger yards and yards in higher
Our measure of floral color diversity is a conservative estimate income areas had more plants and more species (or genera)
of the number of colors in yards, because we used a 12-color of plants. Lifestage was related to floral area and number of
wheel to reduce human bias. A different approach might be invasive species, suggesting that plant and yard management
to digitally quantify flower colors using color spaces (Kendal practices do differ between resident lifestages. We also found
et al., 2013), and calculate an average color space of each additional evidence for the influence of societal norms on
yard. However, it is unclear how this would translate to yard plant diversity, with greater floral area in front yards
number of floral colors or other measures of flowering plant than back yards. Overall, our research demonstrates that there
variety. It is important to note that our approach targeted is a complex interaction among environmental conditions
colors as seen by the human manager and did not account and human resources, which shapes patterns of urban
for colors in relation to pollinators. Regardless of method, plant diversity. More research studying the consequences of
these approaches aim to identify colors relevant to human resident management practices on yard plant community
managers and not pollinators. We found that our new measures structure and diversity are necessary to better understand
and more traditional measures of diversity, while correlated, the linkages between resident management actions and
are not redundant, and that each detected a unique aspect urban biodiversity.

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 11 April 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 85

Avolio et al. Time Is Not Money

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT AB contacted homeowners and collected the data with
assistance from NS and DL.
The datasets generated for this study are available on request to
the corresponding author.
FUNDING
ETHICS STATEMENT
This work was supported by the Johns Hopkins University,
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and and Baltimore Ecosystem Study (BES) DEB-1637661 and
approved by the Homewood IRB of Johns Hopkins University. DEB-1855277.
Written informed consent for participation was not required for
this study in accordance with the national legislation and the
institutional requirements.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS The findings and conclusions in this paper are those of the
authors and should not be construed to represent any official
MA conceived of the study, analyzed the data, and wrote USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy. We thank
the manuscript with contributions and input from all co- Preston Betz, Eric Yee, Shasha Jiang, and Siraj Faruqee for their
authors. MA, NS, and DL designed the study. MA and assistance in the field.

REFERENCES Cheng, E. H., Patterson, I., Packer, J., and Pegg, S. (2010). Identifying the
satisfactions derived from leisure gardening by older adults. Ann. Leis. Res. 13,
Acar, C., Acar, H., and Eroğlu, E. (2007). Evaluation of ornamental plant resources 395–419. doi: 10.1080/11745398.2010.9686855
to urban biodiversity and cultural changing: a case study of residential Cook, E. M., Hall, S. J., and Larson, K. L. (2012). Residential landscapes as social-
landscapes in Trabzon city (Turkey). Build Environ. 42, 218–229. doi: 10.1016/ ecological systems: a synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between people and
j.buildenv.2005.08.030 their home environment. Urban Ecosyst. 15, 19–52. doi: 10.1007/s11252-011-
Aelion, C. M., Davis, H. T., Lawson, A. B., Cai, B., and McDermott, S. (2013). 0197-0
Associations between soil lead concentrations and populations by race/ethnicity Daniels, G. D., and Kirkpatrick, J. B. (2006). Comparing the characteristics of front
and income-to-poverty ratio in urban and rural areas. Environ. Geochem. and back domestic gardens in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Landsc. Urban Plan.
Health 35, 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s10653-012-9472-0 78, 344–352. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.11.004
Avolio, M., Carroll, I., Collins, S., Houseman, G. R., Hallet, L. M., Isbell, F., et al. Davies, Z. G., Fuller, R. A., Loram, A., Irvine, K. N., Sims, V., and Gason, K. J.
(2019a). A comprehensive approach to analyzing community dynamics using (2009). A national scale inventory of resource provision for biodiversity within
rank abundance curves. Ecosphere 10:e02881. domestic gardens. Biol. Conserv. 142, 761–771. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.
Avolio, M., Pataki, D. E., Jenerette, G. D., Pincetl, S., Clarke, L. W., Cavender- 12.016
Bares, J., et al. (2019b). Urban plant diversity in Los Angeles, California: species ESRI (2017). Tapestry Segmentation Reference Guide - Esri. Available online at:
and functional type turnover in cultivated landscapes. Plants People Planet 2, https://clermontcountyohio.biz/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/esritapestrysegmen
144–156. doi: 10.1002/ppp3.10067 tation.pdf (accessed June, 2018).
Avolio, M. L., Pataki, D. E., Gillespie, T. W., Jenerette, G. D., McCarthy, H. R., Goddard, M. A., Dougill, A. J., and Benton, T. G. (2010). Scaling up from gardens:
Pincetl, S., et al. (2015). Tree diversity in southern California’s urban forest: the biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 90–98.
interacting roles of social and environmental variables. Front. Ecol. Evol. 3:73. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
doi: 10.3389/fevo.2015.00073 Goodness, J. (2018). Urban landscaping choices and people’s selection of plant traits
Avolio, M. L., Pataki, D. E., Trammell, T. L. E., and Endter-Wada, J. (2018). in Cape Town, South Africa. Environ. Sci Policy 85, 182–192. doi: 10.1016/j.
Biodiverse cities: the nursery industry, homeowners, and neighborhood envsci.2018.02.010
differences drive urban tree composition. Ecol. Monogr. 88, 259–276. doi: Groffman, P. M., Avolio, M., Cavender-Bares, J., Bettez, N. D., Grove, J. M., Hall,
10.1002/ecm.1290 S. J., et al. (2017). Ecological homogenization of residential macrosystems. Nat.
Beninde, J., Veith, M., and Hochkirch, A. (2015). Biodiversity in cities needs space: Ecol. Evol. 22, 1–3. doi: 10.1038/s41559-017-0191
a meta-analysis of factors determining intra-urban biodiversity variation (N Gross, H., and Lane, N. (2007). Landscapes of the lifespan: exploring accounts of
Haddad. Ed). Ecol. Lett. 18, 581–592. doi: 10.1111/ele.12427 own gardens and gardening. J. Environ. Psychol. 27, 225–241. doi: 10.1016/j.
Bhatti, M. (2006). “When I’m in the Garden I Can Create My Own Paradise”: jenvp.2007.04.003
Homes and Gardens in Later Life. Sociol. Rev. 54, 318–341. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- Grove, J. M., Cadenasso, M. L., Pickett, S. T. A., Machlis, G. E., and Burch, W. R.
954x.2006.00616.x (2015). The Baltimore School of Urban Ecology: Space, Scale, and Time for the
Bigirimana, J., Bogaert, J., De Cannière, C., Bigendako, M.-J., and Parmentier, I. Study of Cities. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
(2012). Domestic garden plant diversity in Bujumbura, Burundi: role of the Grove, J. M., Locke, D. H., and O’Neil-Dunne, J. P. M. (2014). An ecology of
socio-economical status of the neighborhood and alien species invasion risk. prestige in New York City: examining the relationships among population
Landsc. Urban Plan. 107, 118–126. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.008 density, socio-economic status, group identity, and residential canopy cover.
Boone, C. G., Buckley, G. L., Grove, J. M., and Sister, C. (2009). Parks and people: an Environ. Manage. 54, 402–419. doi: 10.1007/s00267-014-0310-2
environmental justice inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. Hallett, L. M., Avolio, M. L., Carroll, I., et al. (2019). codyn: Community Dynamics
99, 767–787. doi: 10.1080/00045600903102949 Metrics. Available online at: https://github.com/NCEAS/codyn/ (accessed June,
Boone, C. G., Cadenasso, M. L., Grove, J. M., Schwarz, K., and Buckley, G. L. 2019).
(2010). Landscape, vegetation characteristics, and group identity in an urban Harris, E. M., Martin, D. G., Polsky, C., Denhardt, L., and Nehrig, A. (2013).
and suburban watershed: why the 60s matter. Urban Ecosyst. 13, 255–271. Beyond “Lawn People”: the role of emotions in suburban yard management
doi: 10.1007/s11252-009-0118-7 practices. Prof. Geogr. 65, 345–361. doi: 10.1080/00330124.2012.681586

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 12 April 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 85

Avolio et al. Time Is Not Money

Harris, E. M., Polsky, C., Larson, K. L., Gorvoille, R., Martin, D. G., Burmand, J., Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F. G., Friendly, M., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., McGlinn, D.,
et al. (2012). Heterogeneity in Residential Yard Care: evidence from Boston, et al. (2019). vegan: Community Ecology Package. Available at: http://CRAN.R-
Miami, and Phoenix. Hum. Ecol. 40, 735–749. doi: 10.1007/s10745-012-9514-3 project.org/package=vegan
Haviland-Jones, J., and Rosario, H. (2005). An environmental approach to positive Ossola, A., Locke, D. H., Lin, B., and Minor, E. S. (2019). Yards and home gardens
emotion: flowers. Evol. Psychol. 3, 104–132. doi: 10.1177/2382120519899148 increase connectivity of urban landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 34, 2935–2948. doi:
Hope, D., Gries, C., Zhu, W., Fagan, W. F., Redman, C. L., Grimm, N. B., et al. 10.1007/s10980-019-00923-7
(2003). Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. Padullés Cubino, J., Cavender-Bares, J., Hobbie, S. E., Hall, S. J., Trammell, T. L. E.,
100, 8788–8792. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1537557100 Neill, C., et al. (2019a). Contribution of non-native plants to the phylogenetic
Jaganmohan, M., Vailshery, L. S., Gopal, D., and Nagendra, H. (2012). Plant homogenization of U.S. yard floras. Ecosphere 10:e02638. doi: 10.1002/ecs2.
diversity and distribution in urban domestic gardens and apartments in 2638
Bangalore, India. Urban Ecosyst. 15, 911–925. doi: 10.1007/s11252-012-0244-5 Padullés Cubino, J., Cavender-Bares, J., Hobbie, S. E., Pataki, D. E., Avolio, M. L.,
Jenerette, G. D., Clarke, L. W., Avolio, M. L., Pataki, D. E., Gillespie, T. W., Darling, L. E., et al. (2019b). Drivers of plant species richness and phylogenetic
Pincetl, S., et al. (2016). Climate tolerances and trait choices shape continental composition in urban yards at the continental scale. Landsc. Ecol. 34, 63–77.
patterns of urban tree biodiversity. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25, 1367–1376. doi: doi: 10.1007/s10980-018-0744-7
10.1111/geb.12499 Padullés Cubino, J., Vila Subirós, J., and Barriocanal Lozano, C. (2016). Floristic
Kendal, D., Hauser, C. E., Garrard, G. E., Jellinek, S., Giljohann, K. M., and Moore, and structural differentiation between gardens of primary and secondary
J. L. (2013). Quantifying plant colour and colour difference as perceived by residences in the Costa Brava (Catalonia, Spain). Urban Ecosyst. 19, 505–521.
humans using digital images. PLoS One 8:e72296. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone. doi: 10.1007/s11252-015-0496-y
0072296 Pallai, C., and Wesson, K. (2017). Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership High-
Kendal, D., Williams, N. S. G., and Williams, K. J. H. (2012). Drivers of diversity Resolution Land Cover Classification Accuracy Assessment Methodology.
and tree cover in gardens, parks and streetscapes in an Australian city. Urban Available at: https://chesapeakeconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/
Urban Green 11, 257–265. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2012.03.005 01/Chesapeake_Conservancy_Accuracy_Assessment_Methodology (accessed
Larsen, L., and Harlan, S. L. (2006). Desert dreamscapes: residential landscape June 27, 2018).
preference and behavior. Landsc. Urban Plan. 78, 85–100. doi: 10.1016/j. Pearse, W. D., Cavender-Bares, J., Hobbie, S. E., Avolio, M. L., Bettez, N.,
landurbplan.2005.06.002 Roy Chowdhury, R., et al. (2018). Homogenization of plant diversity,
Larson, K. L., Casagrande, D., Harlan, S. L., and Yabiku, S. T. (2009). Residents’ composition, and structure in North American urban yards. Ecosphere 9:
yard choices and rationales in a desert city: social priorities, ecological impacts, e0215.
and decision tradeoffs. Environ. Manage. 44, 921–937. doi: 10.1007/s00267- Politi Bertoncini, A., Machon, N., Pavoine, S., and Muratet, A. (2012). Local
009-9353-1 gardening practices shape urban lawn floristic communities. Landsc. Urban
Leong, M., Dunn, R. R., and Trautwein, M. D. (2018). Biodiversity and Plan. 105, 53–61. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.017
socioeconomics in the city: a review of the luxury effect. Biol. Lett. 14:20180082. R Core Team, (2019). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.
doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2018.0082 Vienna: R Foundation for statistical computing.
Lerman, S. B., and Warren, P. S. (2011). The conservation value of residential Reichard, S. H., and White, P. (2001). Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant
yards: Linking birds and people. Ecol. Appl. 21, 1327–1339. doi: 10.1890/10- introductions in the United States. Bioscience 51, 103–113. doi: 10.3732/ajb.
0423.1 1300061
Locke, D. H., Avolio, M., Trammel, T., Roy Chowdhury, R., Grove, J. M., Rogan, Richards, N., Mallette, J., Simpson, R., and Macie, E. (1984). Residential greenspace
J., et al. (2018a). A multi-city comparison of front and backyard differences in and vegetation in a mature city: Syracuse, New York. Urban Ecol. 8, 99–125.
plant species diversity and nitrogen cycling in residential landscapes. Landsc. doi: 10.1016/0304-4009(84)90009-3
Urban Plan. 178, 102–111. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.030 Robbins, P. (2007). Lawn People: How Grasses, Weeds, and Chemicals Make Us Who
Locke, D. H., and Grove, J. M. (2016). Doing the Hard Work Where it’s Easiest? We Are. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Examining the relationships between Urban greening programs and social Robbins, P., Polderman, A., and Birkenholtz, T. (2001). Lawns and toxins:
and ecological characteristics. Appl. Spat. Anal. Policy 9, 77–96. doi: 10.1007/ an ecology of the City. Cities 18, 369–380. doi: 10.1016/s0264-2751(01)
s12061-014-9131-1 00029-4
Locke, D. H., Roy Chowdhury, R., Grove, J. M., Martin, D. G., Goldman, E., Rogan, Roy Chowdhury, R., Larson, K., Grove, J. M., Polsky, C., Cook, E., Onested, J.,
J., et al. (2018b). Social norms, yard care, and the difference between front and et al. (2011). A multi-scalar approach to theorizing socio-ecological dynamics
back yard management: examining the landscape mullets concept on Urban of urban residential landscapes. Cities Environ. 4:6.
residential lands. Soc. Nat. Resour. 31, 1169–1188. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2018. Smith, B., and Wilson, J. B. (1996). A Consumer’s guide to evenness indices. Oikos
1481549 76, 70–82.
Loram, A., Warren, P., Thompson, K., and Gaston, K. (2011). Urban domestic Southon, G. E., Jorgensen, A., Dunnett, N., Hoyle, H., and Evans,
gardens: the effects of human interventions on garden composition. Environ. K. L. (2018). Perceived species-richness in urban green spaces: Cues,
Manage. 48, 808–824. doi: 10.1007/s00267-011-9723-3 accuracy and well-being impacts. Landsc. Urban Plan. 172, 1–10. doi:
Lubbe, C., Siebert, S., and Cilliers, S. (2011). Floristic analysis of domestic gardens 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.12.002
in the Tlokwe City Municipality, South Africa. Bothalia 41, 351–361. doi: Thompson, K., Hodgson, J. G., Smith, R. M., Warren, P. H., and Gaston,
10.4102/abc.v41i2.78 J. K. (2004). Urban domestic gardens (III): composition and diversity of
Martin, C. A., Warren, P. S., and Kinzig, A. P. (2004). Neighborhood lawn floras. J. Veg. Sci. 15, 373–378. doi: 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2004.tb02
socioeconomic status is a useful predictor of perennial landscape vegetation in 274.x
residential neighborhoods and embedded small parks of Phoenix, AZ. Landsc. Torres-Camacho, K. A., Meléndez-Ackerman, E. J., Díaz, E., Correa, N., Vila-
Urban Plan. 69, 355–368. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.034 Ruiz, C., Olivero-Lora, S., et al. (2016). Intrinsic and extrinsic drivers of yard
McClintock, N. (2012). Assessing soil lead contamination at multiple scales in vegetation in urban residential areas: implications for conservation planning.
Oakland, California: implications for urban agriculture and environmental Urban Ecosyst. 20, ages403–ages413.
justice. Appl. Geogr. 35, 460–473. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.10.001 Troy, A. R. (2008). “Geodemographic segmentation,” in Encyclopedia of GIS, eds S.
Meléndez-Ackerman, E. J., Santiago-Bartolomei, R., Vila-Ruiz, C. P., Santiago, Shekhar, and H. Xiong (Boston, MA: Springer).
L. E., García-Montiel, D., Verdejo-Ortiz, J. C., et al. (2014). Socioeconomic U.S. Census Bureau, (2019). U. S. Census Bureau QuickFacts. Balitiore County, MD:
drivers of yard sustainable practices in a tropical city. Ecol. Soc. 19:20. U.S. Census Bureau.
Nowak, D. J., Rowntree, R. A., McPherson, E. G., Sisinni, S. M., Kerkmann, E. R., van Heezik, Y. M., Freeman, C., Porter, S., and Dickinson, K. J. M. (2014). Native
and Stevens, J. C. (1996). Measuring and analyzing urban tree cover. Landsc. and exotic woody vegetation communities in domestic gardens in relation to
Urban Plan. 36, 49–57. doi: 10.1016/s0169-2046(96)00324-6 social and environmental factors. Ecol. Soc. 19:17.

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 13 April 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 85

Avolio et al. Time Is Not Money

Vila-Ruiz, C. P., Meléndez-Ackerman, E., Santiago-Bartolomei, R., Garcia-Montile, Zhou, W., Troy, A., Morgan Grove, J., and Jenkins, J. C. (2009). Can money buy
D., Lastra, L., Figuerola, C. E., et al. (2014). Plant species richness and green? Demographic and socioeconomic predictors of lawn-care expenditures
abundance in residential yards across a tropical watershed: implications for and lawn greenness in urban residential areas. Soc. Nat. Resour. 22, 744–760.
urban sustainability. Ecol. Soc. 19:art22. doi: 10.1080/08941920802074330
Wang, H.-F., Qureshi, S., Knapp, S., Friedman, C. R., and Hubacek, K. (2015). A
basic assessment of residential plant diversity and its ecosystem services and Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
disservices in Beijing, China. Appl. Geogr. 64, 121–131. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog. absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
2015.08.006 potential conflict of interest.
Ward, S. G., and Amatangelo, K. L. (2018). Suburban gardening in
Rochester, New York: exotic plant preference and risk of invasion. Copyright © 2020 Avolio, Blanchette, Sonti and Locke. This is an open-access article
Landsc. Urban Plan. 180, 161–165. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018. distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
09.004 The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
Werner, C., and Wixted, K. (2019). Common Invasive Plants Easy ID Cards. original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
Available online at: https://dnr.maryland.gov/wildlife/Documents/Invasive_ publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No
plants_cards.pdf (accessed July, 2018). use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 14 April 2020 | Volume 8 | Article 85