fertilization, and pesticide application. Consistent with best practices in multi-level modeling we first specified a three-level null model for each of the three dependent variables. The null model parses the variation in each household-level dependent variable across the higher-level neighborhood, and metropolitan regional scales. If the null model indicates that the responses appear to cluster by scale, then a more comprehensive model needed (56). Measures of household-level independent variables were subtracted from their grand means to improve interpretation (56). This approach first tests if a multi-level model is warranted or not. The null model is: (eq. 1) where π is the response from household i in Census block group j in metropolitan k, and is the household-level intercept in level-two (block group) j in level-three (metropolitan region) k. Because the response variables are binary, the log odds of were modeled instead. In Equation 1, v00k ~ N(0, ), u0jk ~ N(0, ), eijk ~ N(0, ). No slopes are specified in equation 1. is decomposed and estimated as a hierarchically nested set of regression equations: at Level 2 (Census block group): (eq. 2) at Level 3 (metropolitan region): (eq. 3) where represents a neighborhood-scale random effect, is a metropolitan regional-scale random effect, and eijk is the household-scale residual error term. Here random means
Lerman, Susannah B., Victoria Kelly Turner, and Christofer Bang. 2012. “Homeowner Associations as a Vehicle for Promoting Native Urban Biodiversity.” Ecology and Society 17 (4). doi:10.5751/ES-05175-170445. Locke, Dexter H., Shawn M. Landry, J. Morgan Grove, and Rinku Roy Chowdhury. 2016. “What’s Scale Got to Do with It? Models for Urban Tree Canopy.” Journal of Urban Ecology 2 (1): juw006. doi:10.1093/jue/juw006. Dexter H., Colin Polsky, J Morgan Grove, Peter M. Groffman, Kristen C. Nelson, Kelli K. Larson, Jeannine Cavender-Bares, Jim B Heffernan, Rinku Roy Chowdhury, Sarah E. Hobbie, Neil Bettez, Christopher Neill, Laura A Ogden, Jarlath P. M. O’Neil-Dunne. In Review. Heterogeneity of practice underlies the homogeneity of ecological outcomes of United States yard care in metropolitan regions, neighborhoods and households. Submitted to PLoS ONE on December 22, 2016. Milesi, Cristina, Steven W Running, Christopher D Elvidge, John B Dietz, Benjamin T Tuttle, and Ramakrishna R Nemani. 2005. “Mapping and Modeling the Biogeochemical Cycling of Turf Grasses in the United States.” Environmental Management 36 (3): 426–38. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-0316-2. "mullet, n.9." OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2015. Web. 17 June 2015. Nassauer, Joan Iverson. 1988. “The Aesthetics of Horticulture: Neatness as a Form of Care.” HortScience 23 (6): 973–77.
Nassauer, Joan Iverson. 1995. “Messy Ecosystems, Orderly Frames.” Landscape Journal 14 (2): 161–70. doi:doi: 10.3368/lj.14.2.16. Nassauer, Joan Iverson, Zhifang Wang, and Erik Dayrell. 2009. “What Will the Neighbors Think? Cultural Norms and Ecological Design.” Landscape and Urban Planning 92 (3–4): 282–92. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.010. Pierce, Joseph, and Mary Lawhon. 2015. “Walking as Method: Toward Methodological Forthrightness and Comparability in Urban Geographical Research.” The Professional Geographer 124 (July 2015): 1–8. doi:10.1080/00330124.2015.1059401. Polsky, Colin, J. Morgan Grove, Chris Knudson, Peter M. Groffman, Neil D Bettez, Jeannine Cavender-Bares, Sharon J. Hall, et al. 2014. “Assessing the Homogenization of Urban Land Management with an Application to US Residential Lawn Care.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (12): 4432–37. doi:10.1073/pnas.1323995111. Robbins, Paul, Annemarie Polderman, and Trevor Birkenholtz. 2001. “Lawns and Toxins: An Ecology of the City.” Cities 18 (6): 369–80. Robbins, Paul, and JT Sharp. 2003. “Producing and Consuming Chemicals: The Moral Economy of the American Lawn.” Economic Geography 79 (4): 425–51. . Roy Chowdhury, Rinku, Kelli L. Larson, J. Morgan Grove, Colin Polsky, and Elizabeth M. Cook. 2011. “A Multi-Scalar Approach to Theorizing Socio-Ecological
1.1.1 Theoretical underpinnings Reference group behavior theory is the idea that individuals seek membership in social groups they perceive as desirable, and therefore adopt the values, judgments, standards, and/or norms of those social groups (Hyman 1942; Merton and Kit 1950). Pioneering work on the production of the American lawn asserts that multi-national petrochemical companies helped craft an idealized image of lawns (Robbins 2007). The apparently well-maintained lush front lawn required many resource inputs such as water, fertilizers, and pesticides that “lawn people” would need to purchase in order to reproduce the “industrial” lawn (Bormann et al 2001; Robbins 2007; Groffman et al 2014). Other factors were important too. Declining maintenance costs, changes in the global non-lawn-related chemical market, and the growing popularity of larger suburban housing lots also played a role in the widespread adoption and proliferation of the quintessential and iconic front lawn (Robbins and Sharp 2003; Robbins 2007). Nevertheless, a collective culture of obligation among a community is often created, and termed a “moral economy”. The moral economy explanation of the lawn care suggests that members of households will feel ashamed and as though they have let down their neighbors if they do not properly maintain a particular lawn appearance. Recent evidence from the cognitive sciences support the theory that shame is an evolutionarily advantageous emotion - while unpleasant, like pain - that is designed to defend against devaluation in one’s social ecology (Sznycer et al 2016). Fear, anxiety, shame, and/or guilt motivate people into adopting practices that allow them to mimic their neighbors’ visible lawn care practices (Robbins 2007).