Urban grass might be greener, but that doesn't mean it's "greener"

Bloggers,

I just finished my Micro-Essay #3 assignment and I wrote it on an essay in our "Nature, Aesthetics, and Environmentalism" textbook. The essay was about cultural sustainability and how we need to align our idea of aesthetics with ecologically healthy practices. It really intrigued me when the author wrote, "the picturesque appearance of a landscape can distract us from asking questions about how humans have affected it" (p. 370). 

The essay went on to talk about a Phalen Watershed project that is designed to show people in the community what an ecologically healthy environment looks like and how it can be taken care of intelligently. It is almost like a urban ecology center where children, students, and adults alike will be able to see that an environment can be both aesthetically pleasing and ecologically healthy just by seeing it and immersing themselves in it. 

After reading about this project, I researched a little about ecological efforts in Cincinnati. I found an article by the title, "Urban grass might be greener, but that doesn't mean it's 'greener'". The full article can be found here: http://esciencenews.com/articles/2013/04/09/urban.grass.might.be.greener.doesnt.mean.its.greener

This article describes a study done by a professor at UC. Amy Townsend-Small studied the effects of lawn management techniques on the production of greenhouse gas. The carbon uptake and storage in the soil of lawns in Los Angeles and Cincinnati was monitored. The research showed that "while having a well-cared-for lawn will improve its carbon-quelling capacity, intensive lawn care isn't worth the atmospheric side effects." 

This research really reiterates the argument in our textbook that although a landscape may be aesthetically pleasing, it may not be ecologically healthy and its care may not be producing ecologically healthy effects.