Savage Gardens: Balancing Maintenance, Aesthetics, and Ecosystem Services in the Biodiversity Crisis Era

Abstract

The escalating biodiversity crisis, coupled with the increasing frequency of droughts and anticipated water shortages due to climate change, necessitates a shift towards biodiversity-led landscape architecture, including domestic gardens. Traditionally viewed as high-maintenance spaces emphasising tidiness, domestic gardens can significantly impact urban green infrastructure and species richness. This paper explores the concept of ‘savage gardens’—untamed and natural spaces representing a fourth nature approach, incorporating wild gardens and neglected areas. Despite potential challenges in public appreciation, it is argued that savage gardens offer substantial benefits, such as reduced maintenance, increased biodiversity, and enhanced resilience to climate change. By reframing the perception of ‘savage’ from biophobic to a reconnection with nature, savage gardens are proposed as a viable solution for balancing aesthetics, maintenance, ecosystem services, and biodiversity in domestic landscapes, promoting a more sustainable future in the face of the biodiversity emergency.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Environmental Crisis

The intertwined emergencies of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution significantly impact all individuals but disproportionately burden disadvantaged and vulnerable populations [1]. These emergencies pose an even graver threat to current youth and future generations [1]. In response to this environmental degradation, governments have been impelled to take exceptional measures [1]. However, many international societal and environmental goals, including those enshrined in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, are in danger of failing [2]. Current trajectories reveal rapid declines in biodiversity, ecosystem functions, and the contributions that nature makes to people [2]. Consequently, achieving these goals will be extremely challenging [2]. Furthermore, these declines threaten other objectives such as the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity and the Paris Agreement under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change [2].

1.2. The Urban Biodiversity Challenge

These challenges are particularly pronounced in urban areas, where the loss of vegetation can exacerbate the urban heat island effect [3], increase runoff and pollution, and reduce the natural infiltration capacity [4]. Moreover, urbanisation and future urban expansions contribute to biodiversity loss by causing habitat destruction, degradation, fragmentation, and species extinction [5].

The biodiversity crisis is especially alarming because it is occurring at an unprecedented rate [6]. Biodiversity, which includes the diversity of ecosystems, species, and genetic variation, is disappearing faster than ever before in human history [6].

One major driver of this crisis is urban land conversion [7]. As the world’s urban population is predicted to increase by 2.5 billion people over the next 30 years, this trend is expected to become an even more significant cause of habitat and biodiversity loss [7]. The significant disruptions caused by urban expansion not only eliminate the habitats of native species but also facilitate the establishment of a limited number of species that can thrive in urban and suburban environments [8]. This shift from local native species to more prevalent non-native species contributes to biotic homogenisation across various spatial scales [8,9].

While cities around the world are taking positive steps by greening their urban spaces and increasing canopy cover [10,11], local governments need to explicitly prioritise biodiversity [12]. Only then can their efforts make a meaningful contribution to preventing the catastrophe of biodiversity extinction [12].

Crucially, urban biodiversity conservation efforts must be developed in a way that complements, not replaces, international conservation initiatives [13].

Given the considerable direct and indirect implications of urban areas on biodiversity, both in the past and future [14], the biodiversity crisis calls for a paradigm shift towards biodiversity-focused landscape architecture.

1.3. Domestic Gardens as Vital Urban Ecosystems

Domestic gardens represent a significant component of urban green infrastructure [15,16]. As urban areas expand and biodiversity declines, maximising the positive benefits of domestic gardens for biodiversity becomes increasingly crucial [17]. Enhancing biodiversity at every spatial scale, including the domestic garden, is essential for the provision of multiple ecosystem services [18].

Previous research demonstrated the value of domestic gardens in supporting urban green infrastructure and ecosystem services, conserving and improving urban biodiversity, enhancing human health and wellbeing, and fostering a sense of connection between people and the natural world [16,19,20,21,22]. In addition, the provision of ecosystem services highlights the role of domestic gardens in climate change adaptation [23].

The biodiversity found within these gardens can also vary significantly between front and back spaces [24]. This difference is often due to the design choices made for each space. For example, a study in Chicago found that backyards tend to have more wildlife resources than front yards because they often incorporate plant species that provide food sources, such as fruits and berries [24]. Additionally, backyards typically feature a higher proportion of vegetation specifically selected to attract birds [24].

In contrast, front gardens are frequently designed for aesthetic appeal and may prioritise manicured lawns and ornamental plants, which can limit biodiversity.

A study conducted in Basel, Switzerland investigated the potential of domestic gardens as refuges for invertebrate biodiversity within an urban landscape [25]. The findings documented the species richness of seven invertebrate taxa across 35 gardens, revealing a high species diversity within these domestic green spaces. These gardens harboured a considerable proportion of Switzerland’s overall invertebrate fauna, making a valuable contribution to regional biodiversity [25].

1.4. Health and Wellbeing Benefits

Domestic gardens also play a crucial role in urban food security by providing provisioning services through the cultivation of fruits and vegetables [26,27,28,29].

Research on the health benefits of domestic gardens is still conflicting and incomplete, but it appears that garden size has an impact on overall health [30].

Research indicates that regular home gardening, defined as at least 2–3 times per week, is associated with the greatest perceived health benefits [31]. An increased frequency of gardening is linked to lower levels of stress, higher subjective wellbeing, and elevated self-reported physical activity [31]. Although enhancing health was not the primary motivation for gardening, individuals derived significant pleasure from the activity [31]. Furthermore, evidence suggests that an increase in vegetation correlates with greater satisfaction with front gardens and more time spent in them [31]. The scientific literature demonstrates that urban form and socioeconomic factors significantly influence the potential ecosystem service benefits derived from private yards [32]. These benefits, including passive services such as climate regulation and active services like recreation, are differentially distributed, with individuals possessing higher socioeconomic status and a stronger connection to nature experiencing greater advantages [32].

1.5. Challenges Associated with Traditional Garden Design

Despite the ecosystem services provided by domestic gardens, aesthetically focused designs, often featuring manicured lawns and geometric shrubs, can increase maintenance requirements, reduce biodiversity, and contribute to water consumption [15,33].

Such planting styles are common in residential landscapes across the United States, the UK, and Australia, demanding high levels of maintenance that contribute to carbon emissions, noise pollution, and water scarcity.

While domestic gardens provide various ecosystem services and contribute to wellbeing, non-ecological designs driven by aesthetics and inappropriate plant selection can lead to ecosystem disservices and further reduce biodiversity. For example, typical residential areas in the United States often feature large, open lawns [34] alongside foundation planting with shrubs arranged in geometric shapes, which are frequently trimmed to maintain appearance [34].

These manicured spaces require extensive maintenance, including watering, fertilisation, and pruning. Research has indicated that landscape irrigation constitutes a significant proportion of residential water usage, particularly in relation to lawns and landscaping [35]. This usage often peaks during the summer months [35]. Furthermore, studies conducted in arid regions of the United States have demonstrated that lawns can account for as much as 75% of the total annual household water consumption [36,37]. Additionally, the reliance on petrol-powered equipment for maintenance further contributes to carbon dioxide emissions and noise pollution [15]. Reducing inputs to landscapes—such as fertiliser, herbicides, and irrigation—that could harm the environment is achievable through thoughtful residential landscape design and the application of water conservation best management practices (BMPs) [38,39].

Given these challenges, exploring alternative design and management approaches is essential in the context of climate change and the biodiversity crisis. This paper introduces the concept of ‘savage gardens’—untamed and natural gardens—as a sustainable alternative (Figure 1).

1.6. The Focus and Objectives of This Paper

This perspective paper builds on the literature surrounding wild gardens, wildness, wildscapes, and rewilding landscapes [40,41,42,43,44,45]. In particular, the concept of ‘savage gardens’ is explored within the broader framework of designing novel wild urban ecosystems, classified under the concept of the fourth nature in domestic garden settings [46].

This work offers a novel contribution to urban ecology and landscape architecture by challenging prevailing design norms and advocating for a more sustainable and ecologically focused approach. It highlights the benefits of savage gardens in enhancing ecosystem services and biodiversity while addressing the challenges related to the public appreciation of these spaces. Finally, this paper provides recommendations for overcoming these challenges and identifies areas for future research.

2. The Savage Garden Concept: A Controversial Approach

2.1. The Development of the Savage Garden Concept

The concept of the ‘savage garden’ emerged in the 18th century as a counterpoint to the formal gardens of the era. Coined by Horace Walpole, he categorised gardens into three main types: gardens connected to a park, ornamented farms, and savage gardens [47]. Walpole referred to these gardens as ‘alpine scenery’, characterised by vegetation such as pines, firs, and a few birches, to create an effect of savage mountains and landscapes [47]. However, the term ‘savage’ is often considered problematic due to its historical connotations, which carry colonial associations [48]. Therefore, the usage of the term in this paper does not reflect the intentions or associations of the 18th century [48]. Instead, it aims to explore a contemporary understanding of wildness in urban contexts, as in recent years, the literature on urban ecology has increasingly explored the design of novel wild urban ecosystems [46]. Thus, the concept of ‘savage gardens’ needs to be examined within this broader framework, particularly in relation to the idea of the fourth nature in domestic garden settings.

2.2. The Fourth Nature Framework

The concept of the fourth nature, developed by Professor Kowarik in the ‘Four Natures approach’ [46], categorises the diverse stages of transformation in urban environments into four primary types [46]. Distinguishing these categories based on the degree of human influence [49], the framework identifies Nature 1 as remnants of pristine ecosystems (e.g., wetlands and forests), Nature 2 as lands for agriculture or silviculture (e.g., fields and managed grasslands), Nature 3 as designed urban green spaces (e.g., parks and gardens), and Nature 4 as novel urban ecosystems emerging from disturbances to the natural order (e.g., wastelands and vacant plots) [46]. This categorisation sets the stage for understanding how ‘savage gardens’ fit within these evolving landscapes.

2.3. The Shift Toward Nature 4

Traditionally, domestic gardens are classified under Nature 3, reflecting their designed and maintained nature in line with aesthetic principles of order and neatness. However, Bakshi and Gallagher’s (2020) study advocates for a fourth nature approach to landscape design, which contrasts with typical landscape architecture, restoration ecology, and heritage management approaches [50]. It is important to integrate Kowarik’s fourth nature concept into a framework for designed landscapes that values spontaneity and the wild while also accommodating more regulated landscape forms and processes [50]. This method should be well connected with the history of landscape design and the traditions that have emerged in recent decades. Essentially, this approach sets up the landscape for unanticipated outcomes [50]. It critiques the current emphasis on static, idealised landscapes and promotes a dynamic, process-oriented framework that incorporates unforeseen ecological changes [50]. By blending ecological principles with cultural legacy and human use, it challenges the notion of “pure” nature and emphasises the importance of unique ecosystems [50]. This strategy aims to develop landscapes that are resilient, flexible, and sensitive to the challenges of the Anthropocene [50].

2.4. Biophobia and the Wild Aesthetic

This paper argues that ‘savage gardens’ represent a shift towards Nature 4. These gardens represent a wild aesthetic that diverges sharply from the tidiness and control associated with traditional gardens. This new aesthetic may not always be readily appreciated by those accustomed to the manicured appearance of conventional residential gardens and might provoke biophobia—a term for the growing negative emotions and attitudes towards nature [51]. While biophilia highlights one aspect of our relationship with nature, biophobia is increasingly recognised as a significant concern, particularly in more developed and urbanised societies [51]. Current evidence suggests that biophobia is both widespread and on the rise, and it can adversely impact human health and wellbeing [51].

Increased biophobia may lead to symptoms such as anxiety, worry, and avoidance, which can negatively affect various aspects of life including work, leisure, and overall quality of life [51]. Biophobia includes not only severe psychological issues, like anxiety and panic attacks, but also a broader spectrum of negative feelings towards nature, such as fear and disgust [52]. This phenomenon can manifest in specific phobias, including entomophobia (fear of insects), arachnophobia (fear of spiders), and ophidiophobia (fear of snakes) [52,53]. The fear of death, often associated with certain natural elements like snakes and spiders, contributes to a deeper level of biophobia. This connection is particularly relevant when considering the Western mindset’s tendency towards death anxiety (i.e., thanatophobia) [54]. The term ‘savage gardens’ is not only used to describe a departure from traditional garden aesthetics but also to emphasise the biophobia potential of the wild aesthetic, as it can provoke fears that unseen creatures, such as spiders or snakes, may be present. It serves as an umbrella term for concepts such as wildness, rewilding, wild by design, wildscapes, and messy landscapes [40,41,42,43,55]. These approaches represent a broader movement towards integrating nature in a more natural, less controlled form, highlighting the potential for a deeper, more instinctive connection with nature that contrasts with the controlled and manicured appearance of traditional gardens.

2.5. Diverse Perspectives on Savage Gardens

Despite its radical nature, the concept has garnered both ardent supporters and staunch critics. Proponents argue that this new aesthetic, requiring less maintenance, can significantly enhance biodiversity and support wildlife. Conversely, critics often view these spaces as neglected or lacking in aesthetic appeal.

This dichotomy is exemplified by the contrasting views of renowned gardening experts such as Monty Don and Alan Titchmarsh [56]. Don, for instance, has criticised the ‘wild garden’ trend, asserting that an untouched patch of ground does not constitute a garden [56]. He emphasises the importance of human intervention and the aesthetic value of cultivated spaces [56].

In contrast, the Chelsea Flower Show has featured exhibits that embrace wilder aesthetics. This is exemplified by Lulu Urquhart and Adam Hunt’s ‘A Rewilding Britain Landscape’, which won the show in 2022 and represents a departure from traditional gardening norms [56].

3. Savage Gardens vs. Neater Gardens: Balancing Aesthetics, Biodiversity, and Public Perception

3.1. Garden Characteristics and Biodiversity

Loram et al. (2011) revealed that garden use and management shape domestic garden characteristics [19]. While conventional gardens with a ‘neater’ appearance often rely on regular upkeep to preserve their manicured appearance, the concept of savage gardens includes all approaches with less intensive labour and fewer resources, such as pesticides and fertilisers, which supports sustainability goals. This shift can be both a benefit and a challenge.

Reduced maintenance can lead to cost savings and a lower environmental impact. According to a literature review, different garden management practices, such as regular grass mowing, applying fertiliser and pesticides, and creating a more formal, ‘neater’ garden look, are frequently linked to lower biodiversity [17]. Conversely, savage gardens can increase biodiversity and offer an opportunity for wildlife gardening activities, facilitating urban residents to support native species as well as other flora and fauna right in their own backyards [57]. Wildlife gardening also provides human benefits, such as a sense of purpose, self-development, and connections to nature, locality, and community [57]. Ecological benefits include increased habitat for and the persistence of various species [57].

In addition, savage gardens can play a pivotal role in urban conservation gardening by cultivating declining native plant species [58].

3.2. Challenges and Socio-Cultural Influences on Public Perception

Despite these advantages, savage gardens may face challenges related to public perception and aesthetic ecosystem services [59]. While certain ecosystem characteristics enable the experience and appreciation of natural beauty, there can also be negative effects—often referred to as ‘aesthetic disservices’ [59]. Since landscape attractiveness is heavily influenced by perceptions of care—where neatness is generally recognised as an indicator [60]— the wild, less controlled appearance of savage gardens might be perceived by some stakeholders as unkempt or neglected, potentially leading to resistance or criticism. Additionally, native plantings are typically viewed as unappealing in urban environments [39,61,62].

This is particularly true for public-facing landscapes (i.e., front gardens), which are often seen as a signature of cultural identity [63]. Several socio-cultural forces influence public-facing landscapes, including aesthetics, norms, reference group behaviour, institutions, socioeconomics, and identity [63]. Front garden land use and decision-making processes are especially significant as these spaces are frequently viewed as visual expressions of long-standing neighbourhood identity and communal areas to be maintained to a ‘perfect lawn’ standard [63].

3.3. Visual Perception and Landscape Preferences

Resident interactions in relation to adjacent front gardens demonstrate a strong mimicry in the residential management of the urban front yard landscape [64]. Proximate front yards share more traits with each other than those further apart [64]. At a local scale, the distribution and structure of front yard vegetation represent the culmination of this mimicking process [64]. This strongly implies that the vegetation choices of nearby residents significantly influence the planting decisions of those living on the same street [64].

Several studies on the visual perception of landscapes suggest a possible correlation between a landscape’s aesthetic appeal, consumers’ perceptions of its maintenance requirements, and their level of knowledge [38]. These studies consistently demonstrate a preference for landscapes that adhere to specific aesthetic criteria [38]. Research indicates that landscapes incorporating a harmonious blend of ornamental plants and turfgrass tend to garner the highest scores for visual appeal [38]. Regardless of whether the primary focus is on aesthetics or maintenance, ornamental plants typically command the most visual attention [38].

3.4. International Perspectives on Garden Preferences and Challenges

In North America, Feagan and Ripmeester (2001) conducted a comparative analysis of divergent perspectives on residential lawn care. Their study examined two primary groups: lawn keepers and lawn dissidents [65].

Lawn keepers believed that a well-maintained lawn was the ideal organisation of private green space [65]. They viewed unkempt lawns as messy, disorderly, and out of place in a neighbourhood, associating alternative lawns with nature, wilderness, and even pollution. Lawn dissidents saw lawns as a symbol of conformity and environmental degradation preferences [65].

They promoted naturalisation, replacing lawns with native plants and restoring ecological features. They believed this benefited the environment and fostered a sense of community preferences [65].

The study concluded that there was little progress towards the acceptance of alternative lawns. People resisted change and viewed unkempt lawns negatively. However, the study acknowledged that this might have been a short-term reaction, and alternative lawns might eventually have been accepted. The study also suggested that social class influences lawn preferences [65].

In Florida, K. A. Russo et al. (2024) investigated how human perception and management practices influence plant diversity patterns in residential landscapes [66]. By comparing lawn and non-lawn plant species, researchers found that homeowners primarily focus on larger, ornamental plants, leading to a skewed perception of plant richness [66]. Moreover, non-lawn plant diversity exhibited more rapid increases and greater compositional variation across spatial scales compared to lawn plants, revealing a divergence in ecological patterns driven by human-induced factors such as selective plant awareness disparity [67] and differential management practices [66].

A study conducted in southeast Michigan explored homeowner preferences for residential landscapes varying in tree cover. By examining preferences for different front and rear garden styles, the researchers sought to identify desired landscape characteristics and their correlation with individual yard management practices [68]. Homeowners exhibited heterogeneous preferences for residential landscapes ranging from heavily wooded to predominantly turfed. While neatness, rear garden privacy, and conformity to neighbourhood aesthetics were universally valued, specific preferences diverged. Those favouring more wooded gardens often prioritised front garden privacy and were less concerned with rear garden orderliness [68]. Conversely, individuals preferring less wooded landscapes were less likely to value shade and wildlife habitat [68].

In Perth, Western Australia, Kurz and Baudains (2012) investigated the factors influencing human preferences for high- versus low-habitat-providing garden landscapes [69]. They surveyed residents about their preferences for garden photos, general environmental concern, attitudes toward native plants and urban biodiversity, and current gardening practices [69]. The results indicate that the residents slightly preferred high-habitat gardens, and this preference was most strongly related to attitudes toward native plants [69]. Additionally, their preferences were influenced by local gardening norms [69].

3.5. Addressing Biophobia, Crime Concerns, and the Cues to Care (CTC) Framework

These international findings highlight the importance of addressing the aesthetic and maintenance concerns associated with less conventional garden designs, like savage gardens. However, other challenges are that this new aesthetic may be more attractive to rats, spiders, and snakes [70]. This could increase biophobia among garden users. More research is needed to determine how garden tidiness affects snake populations in urban areas [70]. In addition, education can play a big role in combating biophobia and presents an opportunity for savage gardens, as a form of ‘fourth nature’, to connect people with nature in the domestic sphere. Finally, the challenge with savage gardens can extend to the depreciation of house values and an increase in crime. The presence of small trees in front of or next to the property, the desiccation of the lawn, and the absence of lawn mowing were all factors positively correlated with crime according to a study in Baltimore City and County [71]. A growing body of research suggests that while these factors do not prove causation, they raise the possibility of several mechanisms through which environmental design may reduce crime: more attractive landscaping increases the number of ‘eyes on the street’, which deters criminal activity; ‘cues to care’, the opposite of the ‘broken window’ hypothesis, can reduce crime by signalling to offenders the existence of social capital and the active involvement of neighbours in community spaces [71].

Given these considerations, it is crucial to design savage gardens using Nassauer’s concept of ‘cues to care’ (CTC) [55,60,72]. This framework could improve the acceptance of savage gardens, demonstrating that their wild aesthetics are not at odds with effective maintenance but are a deliberate choice that supports ecological goals. CTC refers to design elements that signal to the public that an area is being actively managed, even if its appearance is less conventional [55,60,72,73]. These cues can help bridge the gap between the wild aesthetic of savage gardens and the public’s expectations for maintained spaces. Key CTC strategies vary with culture and landscape context but can include elements such as well-defined pathways, clear signage, and strategic plant placement that indicates areas of intentional design [55,60,72,73].

These features can reassure the public that the garden is not simply neglected but is part of a carefully considered design approach.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

In this perspective, the concept of savage gardens is examined as a representation of a fourth nature approach—a more ecological strategy for designing and maintaining domestic gardens. This approach addresses the urgent need to tackle the biodiversity crisis in urban environments while challenging deeply ingrained cultural norms that equate neatness with care and value.

The transition to this new landscape paradigm is not without its difficulties. Public perception, influenced by long-standing aesthetic and social expectations, may resist the untamed appearance of savage gardens. This resistance highlights a significant barrier to the widespread adoption of more ecologically beneficial gardening practices. However, recent trends in garden design and public exhibitions indicate a growing acceptance of wilder, more naturalistic aesthetics. To foster this acceptance, ongoing education and community involvement are essential. Promoting the ecological benefits of savage gardens—such as increased biodiversity, enhanced ecosystem services, and reduced maintenance—can help shift public opinion. Additionally, incorporating cultural and historical context, as seen in the fourth nature framework, can bridge the gap between traditional and contemporary landscape aesthetics [50].

Addressing concerns related to biophobia is also crucial [51]. The ecological benefits of savage gardens may lead to apprehension among some community members regarding wildlife. Education about the ecological role of these species can help mitigate fears and promote acceptance [51]. Understanding the potential impacts on property values and crime rates is vital; research suggests that well-maintained landscapes can deter criminal activity [71] by fostering community engagement, indicating that properly designed savage gardens can both beautify and secure neighbourhoods. Therefore, future research is needed to investigate these relationships. Moreover, future research should focus on identifying systemic barriers that impede the adoption of savage garden practices, including the financial flows and political structures that render these practices less visible. It is imperative to explore the role of local governments, nonprofit organisations, and community groups in either promoting or limiting these practices. Recommendations should advocate policy changes that support inclusive and ecologically focused gardening approaches, such as incentives for homeowners to adopt savage gardening techniques and the highlighting of successful case studies that challenge existing norms.

Furthermore, urban and regional planners can play a key role in raising public awareness of the mental models surrounding care and aesthetics. By encouraging citizens to reflect on their motivations—whether driven by social control or genuine concern—planners can foster a more inclusive dialogue regarding the values that shape landscape design and community involvement. This perspective also demands a critical examination of the aesthetic cues that reinforce social control and the implications of such dynamics within urban planning. Moreover, recognising that this discussion primarily represents a Western viewpoint highlights the need for future studies to investigate these concepts across diverse cultural contexts.

Additionally, as climate change intensifies, bringing more frequent and severe droughts across various regions globally, the necessity for adopting drought-resistant landscapes has become increasingly clear [74,75].

It is essential to move away from the traditional ideal of tidy lawns and explore alternative approaches, such as savage gardens. Savage gardens, featuring native plants, can be implemented as a water conservation best management practice (BMP) [39]. Wheeler et al. (2022) found that even though native plants in Phoenix’s arid environment are adapted to low-water conditions, residents who prioritised low-water usage in their plant choices still had fewer native plants [76]. This finding suggests an opportunity for promoting native plants more effectively to increase their presence in residential areas [76]. However, while educational efforts aimed at increasing resident awareness of native plant identification and maintenance are important, they alone may not be sufficient to boost the abundance of native plants in residential landscapes [76].

Moreover, although knowledge and education about BMPs are crucial for increasing acceptance of drought-resistant landscapes, they are not the only factors influencing behaviour [39]. Even individuals who are aware of water conservation best practices may choose not to conserve water if it means sacrificing aesthetics [39]. Therefore, it is important to leverage this existing awareness to establish new aesthetic standards that integrate water conservation BMPs [39]. To support these changes, future research should compare the water consumption of ‘savage gardens’ with that of traditional lawns.

In conclusion, education and future research can play an essential role in helping society adapt to this new aesthetic, which can enhance ecosystem services, increase biodiversity, and further reduce water consumption.