A lot of it is people misunderstanding the logic of “maintaining a lawn is horrible for the environment”. They think that, because they won’t be wasting thousands of gallons of water a month on their lawn that they should pave over it.
Which is a nice intent but mostly shows a misunderstanding of how grass/lawns (should) work. in moist climates you generally don’t actually need to water anything. You might have more weeds or some patchy grass, but natural rain will keep everything alive. And in more arid climates: you just don’t get Kentucky Bluegrass and instead get grass/clover/whatever seeds that make sense for your climate. Those generally need a bit of water to get started and then are fine until the end of time. They might not look like Leave it to Beaver’s yard, but you have roots to prevent soil erosion and it still looks pretty nice.
there’s a common misunderstanding in texas, as well, about cedar trees.
a while back, a ranch owner with ALOT of land, who was considered a great steward of trees, was interviewed for an article and stated that new cedars used too much water and that he tears them all out of areas where he wants to maintain a forest of alternate trees (i.e. oak, elm, whatever, idk)
everyone took that to mean tear out all cedar trees whether there was a forest of other trees or not, no matter how much land you have. they completely overlooked the qualifiers to practice this type of land management. (obviously owning cows are a different story, but almost none of these people own cows)
a ridiculous amount of land in Central Texas (esp the hill country) now is barren save the 1 or 2 odd scraggly oak trees here and there. anytime someone buys land (even a couple of acres) the first thing they do is clear cut the damn place, causing unnecessary erosion, bringing in uneeded heat, and in general, killing the ecosystems that made that area special in the first place.
Never understood homes that pave/block out all the greenery; makes the home depressing af all for saving some 30min of upkeep per week.
A lot of it is people misunderstanding the logic of “maintaining a lawn is horrible for the environment”. They think that, because they won’t be wasting thousands of gallons of water a month on their lawn that they should pave over it.
Which is a nice intent but mostly shows a misunderstanding of how grass/lawns (should) work. in moist climates you generally don’t actually need to water anything. You might have more weeds or some patchy grass, but natural rain will keep everything alive. And in more arid climates: you just don’t get Kentucky Bluegrass and instead get grass/clover/whatever seeds that make sense for your climate. Those generally need a bit of water to get started and then are fine until the end of time. They might not look like Leave it to Beaver’s yard, but you have roots to prevent soil erosion and it still looks pretty nice.
Not to mention that portland cement has severe environmental impacts of its own.
there’s a common misunderstanding in texas, as well, about cedar trees.
a while back, a ranch owner with ALOT of land, who was considered a great steward of trees, was interviewed for an article and stated that new cedars used too much water and that he tears them all out of areas where he wants to maintain a forest of alternate trees (i.e. oak, elm, whatever, idk)
everyone took that to mean tear out all cedar trees whether there was a forest of other trees or not, no matter how much land you have. they completely overlooked the qualifiers to practice this type of land management. (obviously owning cows are a different story, but almost none of these people own cows)
a ridiculous amount of land in Central Texas (esp the hill country) now is barren save the 1 or 2 odd scraggly oak trees here and there. anytime someone buys land (even a couple of acres) the first thing they do is clear cut the damn place, causing unnecessary erosion, bringing in uneeded heat, and in general, killing the ecosystems that made that area special in the first place.