Skip to main content

Modeling Carbon Sequestration in the U.S. Residential Landscape

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Carbon Sequestration in Urban Ecosystems

Abstract

The role of terrestrial carbon (C) sequestration in urban areas is an issue of increasing interest. Therefore, a model was developed to evaluate the potential of sequestration in U.S. residential landscapes. The model contrasted C sequestered by trees, shrubs, lawns, and a forest. The first objective of this model is to document the typical urban landscape in terms of lawn area, number of trees and shrubs, area of landscape and garden beds, hard surfaces, and buildings. The second objective is to estimate the annual rate of C sequestration of the residential landscape based on the percentage of lawns, trees, and shrubs. Urbanized land occupies approximately 40.6 million hectares (Mha) with an average of 41% of this land under residential use. Tree, shrub, and lawn C sequestration rates were estimated based on the typical US residential lot size of 2,000 m2. A typical US home is 93 m2 with a 2-car garage or carport size of 38 m2 and a deck or patio of 38 m2. The house is generally sited in the middle of the lot, with a driveway of 168 m2 and a sidewalk of 122 m2 along the front of the lot, leaving a landscape area of 1,541 m2 Two landscape regimes were modeled, the first involving a minimal area with one landscape bed in the front of the house 13 m long containing 5–10 shrubs approximately 0.6–1.2 m in length and width, 2 trees, and a minimally managed lawn. The second model had the maximum area with several landscape beds 43 m long surrounding the perimeter of the house containing 17–35 shrubs approximately 0.6–1.2 m in length and width, 6 trees, and a highly maintained lawn. The total or gross C sequestration rate is 3.4–5.9 kg C tree−1 year−1 and 0.07–0.23 kg C shrub−1 year−1. The C sequestration rate for lawn is 254–2,043 kg C ha−1 year−1 based on the models described above. A minimal landscape sequesters an average of 25–116 kg C ha−1 year−1 (39–178 kg C yard−1 year−1). Based on the model, residential lawns and landscapes fall within the same range of CO2 sequestration as a forest land. In a minimal landscape, approximately 8.6% of the C is sequestered by trees, 1.3% by shrubs, and 90.1% by the lawn. The maximum landscape model estimates C sequestration at an average rate of 42–191 kg C ha−1 year−1 (65–294 kg C yard−1 year−1) comparising 15.5% by trees, 2.7% by shrubs, and 81.8% by the lawn.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

BMP:

Best Management Practices

C:

Carbon

DIY:

Do-it-Yourself

HCC:

Hidden Carbon Costs

LCA:

Lifecycle Analysis

MI:

Minimal Input

NPP:

Net Primary Productivity

SOC:

Soil Organic Carbon

References

  • Anderson LA, Cordell HK (1988) Influence of trees on residential property values in Athens, Gerorgia: a survey based on actual sales prices. Landsc Urban Plan 15:153–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Augustin BJ (2007) Perception vs. Reality; how much nitrogen do homeowners put on their lawn. Presentation given at the American Society of Agronomy meeting, New Orleans, 269–6, 2 Nov 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Beard JB, Green RL (1994) The role of turfgrasses in environmental protection and their benefits to humans. J Environ Qual 23:452–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce JP, Frome M, Haites E, Janzen H, Lal R, Paustian K (1999) J Soil Water Conserv 54:382–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns MA, Brown S, Helmer EH, Baumgardner GA (1997) Root biomass allocation in the world’s upland forests. Oecologia 111:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casey Trees (2008) Trees and home energy savings. Casey trees. Washington, DC. Available at www.caseytrees.org. Accessed 8 Apr 2009

  • Contant RT, Paustian K, Elliott ET (2001) Grassland management and conversion into grassland: effects on soil carbon. Appl Ecol 11:343–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirr MA (1988) Manual of woody landscape plants, 5th edn. Stipes Publishing, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • England J, Paul K, Falkiner R, Theiveyanathan T (2006) Rate of carbon sequestration in envi­ronmental plantings in north-central Victoria. Veg Futures: the conference in the field procee­dings, 9 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebhart DL, Johnson HB, Mayeux HS, Polley HW (1994) The CRP increases soil organic carbon. J Soil Water Conserv 49:488–492

    Google Scholar 

  • Getz D, Karow A, Kielbaso JJ (1982) Inner city preferences for trees and urban forestry programs. J Arboric 8:258–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull RB (1992) Brief encounters with urban forests produce moods that matter. J Arboric 18:322–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Jim CY (1993) Trees and landscape of a suburban residential neighborhood in Hong Kong. Landsc Urban Plan 23:19–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jo H, McPherson G (1995) Carbon storage and flux in urban residential greenspace. J Environ Manage 45:109–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lal R (2003) Offsetting global CO2 emissions by restoration of degraded and intensification of world agriculture and forestry. Land Degrad Dev 14:309–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lal R (2004) Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 123:1–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Little EL (1979) Checklist of United States trees (native and naturalized). USDA agricultural handbook 541. Forest Service, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin CA, Peterson KA, Stabler LB (2003) Residential landscaping in Phoenix Arizona, US: practices and preferences relative to covenants, codes, and restrictions. J Arboric 29:9–17

    Google Scholar 

  • National Association of Realtors (NAR) (2001) Land use and land loss in the United States: the impact of land use trends on real estate development. The research division of the national association of realtors, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Gardening Association (NGA) (2004) National gardening survey, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak DJ (1994) Atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction by Chicago’s urban forest. In: McOherson EG, Nowak DJ, Rowntree RA (eds) Chicago’s urban forest ecosystem: results of the Cicago urban forest climate project. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, NE-186, Radnor

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak DJ, Crane DE (2002) Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environ Pollut 116:381–389

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak DJ, Rowntree RA, McPherson EG, Sisinni SM, Kerkmann ER, Stevens JC (1996) Measuring and analyzing urban tree cover. Lansc Urban Plan 36:49–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak DJ, Noble MH, Sisinni SM, Dwyer JF (2001) People and trees: assessing the US urban forest resource. J Forest 99:37–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak DJ, Crane DE, Stevens JC (2006) Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban Forest Urban Green 4:115–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Post WM, Izaurralde C, Jastrow JD, McCarl BA, Amonette JE, Bailey VL, Jardine PM, West TO, Zhou J (2004) Enhancement of carbon sequestration in US soils. Bioscience 54:895–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouyat RV, Yesilonis ID, Nowak DJ (2006) Carbon storage by urban soils in the USA. J Environ Qual 35:1566–1575

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Qian YL, Follet R (2002) Assessing carbon sequestration in turfgrass soil using long-term soil testing data. Agron J 94:930–935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qian YL, Follet R (2010) Soil organic carbon input from urban turfgrasses. Soil Sci Soc Am J 74:366–371

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rickman RW, Douglas CL Jr, Albrecht SL, Bundy LG, Berc JL (2001) CQUESTER: a model to estimate carbon sequestration in agricultural soils. J Soil Water Conserv 56:237–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Routaboule D, Asselin V, Eveillard C (1995) Le paysage de l’interier ou experessions paysageres reidentielles dans l’uke de Montreal. Report to the Canadian mortgage and housing corporation

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson JR, McPherson EG (1998) Simulation of tree shade impacts on residential energy use for space conditioning in Sacramento. Atmos Environ 32:69–74

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith TM, Cramer WP, Dixon RK, Leemans R, Neilson RP, Solomon AM (1993) The global terrestrial carbon cycle. Water Air Soil Pollut 70:19–37

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith P, Fang C, Dawson JJC, Moncrieff JB (2008) Impact of global warming on soil organic carbon. Adv Agron 97:1–43

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Swiecki TJ, Bernhardt E (2006) Planning for the future of Rocklin’s urban forest. In: Privately-maintained trees along residential streets, Rockling. Phytosphere Research, Vacaville

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich R (1984) View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 244:420–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Census Bureau (USCB) (2008) Characteristics of new housing for 2007. Manufacturing mining and construction statistics. www.census.gov. Accessed 27 Apr 2009

  • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2006) Assessing urban forest effects and values: Washington, DC’s urban forest. USDA forest service resource. bulletin NRS-1

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2004) Pesticide industry sales and usage 2000 and 2001 market estimates. USEPA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinlove FK, Torla RF (1995) Comparative estimations of U.S. home lawn area. J Turfgrass Manage 1:83–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch DF (1991) Xeriscape:a national perspective. HortScience 29:491

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodbury PB, Smith JE, Heath LS (2007) Carbon sequestration in the U.S. forest sector from 1990 to 2010. Ecol Manage 241:14–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zirkle GN, Lal R, Augustin B (2011) Modeling carbon sequestration in home lawns. HortScience 46(5):808–814

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Zirkle .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zirkle, G., Lal, R., Augustin, B., Follett, R. (2012). Modeling Carbon Sequestration in the U.S. Residential Landscape. In: Lal, R., Augustin, B. (eds) Carbon Sequestration in Urban Ecosystems. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2366-5_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics