We aim to serve as the bridge between cutting-edge research and real-world adoption, positioning turfgrass science as a field that embraces social and economic innovation. This research integrates social science methodologies including human behavior modeling, social factors research, and economic analysis to understand how individuals, turfgrass managers, practitioners, and policymakers adopt new and more sustainable practices. Our goal is to measure the economic impact of turf management, identify barriers to innovation, and develop effective outreach and communication strategies that accelerate the integration of scientific knowledge into daily management decisions.
Low-input species adoption
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Specialty Crop Research Initiative under award number 2017-51181-27222 and for K.C. Nelson, NIFA McIntire-Stennis 1000343 MIN-42-069. (2017-2022)
Public land managers at a field day event in Oregon
Background
Urban green infrastructure plays a critical role in city sustainability, with turfgrass dominating public landscapes across North America and Europe. Traditionally, maintaining urban lawns requires significant inputs of water, fertilizer, and labor, putting a strain on municipal budgets and local ecosystems. There has been a push for a shift toward low-input, climate-resilient turfgrasses, such as fine fescues, however the people actually responsible for making these daily decisions have been largely left out of the conversation. Public land managers directly oversee urban vegetation, yet their specific perspectives, needs, and concerns regarding sustainable lawn transitions remained largely unknown. This study was conducted across Oregon, Indiana, and New Jersey to bridge this knowledge gap by exploring what land managers view as the primary opportunities and barriers to adopting low-input turfgrasses in municipal green spaces.
Research questions
- What specific opportunities do public land managers recognize when transitioning from high-input turfgrasses to low-input species such as fine fescues?
- What key barriers and challenges do public land managers perceive regarding the adoption of low-input turfgrasses in urban land management?
Practical implications
Opportunities for transitions:
- Desire for and agreement with stakeholders focused on the reduction of inputs associated with management (e.g., water, fertilizer, herbicide).
- Pressure from municipal authorities to reduce maintenance budgets.
- Compliance with current and anticipated watering restrictions due to future climatic shifts.
- Several potential niches for use such as low traffic, minimal access, and difficult to maintain areas.
Barriers to transitions:
- Confusion about the naming and identification of varieties causes apprehension about seed selection.
- Poor past experiences with older varieties of fine fescues related to establishment, tolerance, and maintenance.
- Specific variety and detailed cost-analyses between low input turfgrasses and traditional turfgrasses are unavailable.
Natural and artificial turfgrass perceptions
Washington Turfgrass Seed Commission (2020-2022)
Soccer players on an artificial turf field.
Background
Over 80% of the U.S. population lives in urban areas, where residents face environmental health risks including cardiovascular disease, asthma, and mental illness. While urban greenspaces help alleviate these issues by lowering stress and boosting physical and mental well-being, researchers still need to pinpoint which specific landscape features drive these positive outcomes.
Natural turfgrass serves as the foundational vegetation for most urban green spaces. Unlike artificial turf, natural turfgrass provides essential ecological advantages alongside distinct social and recreational benefits. While much of the current research highlights trees and pollinator habitats, it is critical to specifically document the health contributions of natural turfgrass. Because urban communities widely value and utilize turfgrass, understanding its precise role is key to creating healthier, more supportive cities.
Research questions
- How do individuals' perceptions of personal well-being (such as relaxation and restoration) and surface utilization compare when directly experiencing natural turfgrass versus artificial turf?
- How does receiving information about the environmental benefits and drawbacks of natural turfgrass and artificial turf influence individuals' attitudes and perceptions toward each surface type?
Practical implications
This project resulted in a series of first of their kind studies to address a deficit in academic research related to non-sports related users perceptions of artificial turf fields. The studies provided user-informed insights to decision makers related to the impacts of artificial turf installations within community settings.