← Risk register SOC 37-1012 · reviewed 2026-08-11

First-Line Supervisors of Landscaping, Lawn Service, and Groundskeeping Workers

130,760 US workers · median $58,430/yr · Facilities

EXPOSED

The core of this job is standing on a property directing crews, inspecting cut quality and plant health, fixing a broken mower deck, and rerouting the day when rain or a client complaint blows up the schedule — none of which AI touches. What is exposed is the paperwork half: route and crew scheduling, estimating and bidding, material ordering, timesheet and safety-log entry, and customer follow-up emails are all being absorbed by landscape management software with AI scheduling. Pesticide applicator certification (legally required in every state for commercial application) plus crew supervision liability gives a real but partial shield.

10-year outlook: Headcount holds because someone must be on the property directing people and equipment, but the estimating-and-scheduling portion of the job shrinks, pushing supervisors toward more field time, more licensed chemical work, and more direct client contact.

US employment, 2019–2025+26.2%
103,580130,760 workers

Headcount grew steadily across the period.

Median pay $49,370 → $58,430 -5.3% in real terms (nominal +18.4%, less ~25% US inflation over the period)

The job count is not the verdict

This line is counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the one figure on this page that isn't a judgement of ours. Headcount moves on demand, offshoring, demographics and the business cycle, and automation is one term among several, often not the loudest.

So a falling line is not evidence that AI did it, and a rising one is not evidence that it won't. Both happen in this register: some occupations resist automation and shrink anyway, others are highly automatable and keep growing. The marked year is 2020.

BLS projection, 2024–2034

+2.3%

Percentage only. The projection counts a different population from the 130,760 above — it includes self-employed workers, which for this occupation is most of them, so the two headcounts are not comparable.

Growing, and only partly exposed

The BLS expects +2.3% more of these jobs by 2034, and at 62/100 the work is only partly exposed — some tasks are automatable, the core of the job is not. Nothing here is in tension.

Different clocks. The score is what current AI could do to this work today. The projection is how many of these jobs will exist in 2034. Everything between the two — how fast employers actually adopt, whether demand grows in the meantime — is why they can point opposite ways without either being wrong.

~23,200 openings a year on average, including replacing people who leave.

One email if this score changes. Watch as many occupations as you like from the same address — no account, and nothing is sent on a schedule, only when a verdict actually moves.

Also known as — 24 job titles this covers

Titles reported by people doing this work, from the US Department of Labor's O*NET survey. If your job title is here, this page is about your work even though the name doesn't match.

Turf ManagerField ManagerGrounds ForemanGrounds ManagerPark SupervisorService ManagerGardening ManagerLandscape ForemanLandscape ManagerGrounds SupervisorNursery SupervisorEnhancement ManagerGolf Course ManagerLandscaping ForemanLandscaping ManagerArborist Crew LeaderGardening SupervisorLandscape SupervisorGreens SuperintendentLandscape Crew LeaderLawn Services ManagerGround Crew SupervisorGrounds SuperintendentLandscaping Supervisor

Score — 62/100 resistance

Holding it up: embodiment (17/20). Weakest point: liability shield (7/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 14 + 17 + 7 + 11 + 13 = 62. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 14/20

Tasks largely resist digitisation Diagnosing why a bed is failing, walking a property to judge whether the crew cut clean or scalped the turf, and hand-pruning to a shape a client will accept are tasks that can't be specified in advance, which is what holds this at 14 rather than higher — the bidding math, route sequencing, and daily crew assignments underneath all that are already being generated by Aspire, LMN, or Jobber.

Embodiment 17/20

Hands-on in uncontrolled environments You are outdoors in heat, mud, and pollen most of the day, climbing on and off trucks, loading a trailer, backpack-spraying a slope, and troubleshooting hydraulics on a zero-turn in a client's driveway; it's 17 rather than 20 only because a meaningful share of the week is estimating, scheduling, and client calls done sitting down.

Liability shield 7/20

Certification preferred, not legally required A commercial pesticide applicator license is legally mandatory and your name is on the application record — a misapplication that kills a neighbor's ornamentals or drifts onto a school is enforced against you personally by the state ag department — but the supervisory role itself needs no license, most states let a certified applicator cover uncertified crew under direct supervision, and hiring is by experience and driving record, which caps this at 7.

Trust premium 11/20

Some relationship component On residential and HOA accounts you are the face the property manager calls when the irrigation zone fails or the crew wakes someone at 6 a.m., and contracts get renewed or dropped on that relationship, but the actual product is mowed turf and healthy beds — a competitor undercutting the bid by fifteen percent takes the account regardless of how well the board likes you.

Judgment & accountability 13/20

Meaningful discretion Calling whether to pull crews off a site because the ground is too saturated to mow without rutting, deciding to eat the cost on a redo versus arguing the scope, and judging when a leaning limb over a walkway becomes a hazard you stop work for are all your calls made in minutes without a supervisor on site; it sits at 13 rather than 16 because label rates, spec sheets, and the contract scope constrain most of what you decide.

Confidence: high · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works

What this job involves — and which parts are yours

The verdict above describes this occupation as a whole. Almost nobody does the typical version of a job — tick what's actually in your week and see how your own mix sits.

AI already does these at usable quality

These still need a person

Active moats on the surviving side: embodiment, licensure, judgment

How to future-proof this job

Training paths for your skill gaps: Khan Academy — reading and vocabulary, all levels, free free · Coursera — customer service and client-facing skill courses free to audit · Coursera — communication and interpersonal skills free to audit · Apprenticeship.gov — industrial maintenance and millwright programs paid to train · Coursera — engineering and procurement courses, auditable without paying free to audit

All 35 skills ranked by how many jobs they open →

Where this experience transfers — occupations you could move toward

Computed from U.S. Dept. of Labor O*NET skill and knowledge profiles: high overlap with what you already do, a materially higher resistance score, no large jump in required training, and no licence you would have to start a new pipeline to get. Targets that pay meaningfully less, that are themselves COOKED, or whose own headcount is falling are excluded — a move into a shrinking trade is not an escape.

First-Line Supervisors of Firefighting and Prevention Workers SAFE · 80/100 · you already have ~78% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Reading Comprehension, Service Orientation, Social Perceptiveness

First-Line Supervisors of Construction Trades and Extraction Workers SAFE · 73/100 · you already have ~78% of the skill profile

Firefighters SAFE · 79/100 · you already have ~62% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Equipment Maintenance, Equipment Selection, Service Orientation

What would move this back up — beyond any one person

The moves above are yours to make. This is the other half: what would have to change in the world for the occupation itself to score higher. None of it is in any one person's gift, but it is where the floor actually comes from. Scores here are not a one-way ratchet. Only two of the five dimensions — task resistance and embodiment — track what machines can do. The other three track law, what buyers will pay for, and who is answerable, and those move in both directions, often in response to the same pressure AI creates. If every lever below landed, this occupation would score around 76/100 — SAFE.

5 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening liability shield +3

    Expansion of state landscape-contractor licensing (as in California's C-27 license and Florida's local irrigation/limited landscape licenses) to require a licensed, named qualifying individual on site for irrigation backflow certification, tree work near utility lines (ANSI Z133 / OSHA line-clearance qualified arborist requirements), and stormwater/erosion-control plan compliance under MS4 permits — each attaches a signature and personal exposure to a specific human.

  • already happening task resistance +2

    Task-mix shift: this job genuinely has two tiers. If estimating, routing, timesheets and client email are fully automated, what remains is diagnosis in ambiguity — reading plant stress and disease, judging soil and drainage, deciding a bid is unwinnable, retraining a crew member who cuts scalped lines — none of which software performs without a person on the ground. Watch for the routine tier disappearing while headcount holds.

  • plausible liability shield +4

    State pesticide regulators tightening the 'direct supervision' rule so a certified applicator must be physically present (not merely reachable) for every commercial application — EPA's revised Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule (40 CFR 171) already sets minimum age and supervision standards that states may exceed; several states (CA DPR, NY DEC) run stricter presence and record-signing requirements. Add mandatory named-supervisor sign-off on application records and personal liability for drift/off-target damage.

  • plausible judgment accountability +3

    Once AI scheduling and bidding software absorbs the routine tier, the remaining supervisor role concentrates in the calls that carry consequence: heat-illness stand-down decisions under California/Oregon/Washington and the pending federal OSHA heat standard, tree-failure and struck-by risk judgments, and deciding whether to spray adjacent to a school or waterway. If OSHA finalizes the heat rule with a designated on-site supervisor duty, the accountability sits explicitly on this role.

  • plausible trust premium +2

    Buyers paying specifically for a credentialed human on site: adoption of certification-linked procurement, e.g. municipal and HOA contracts requiring an NALP Landscape Industry Certified Manager, ISA Certified Arborist, or Audubon/GCSAA-certified superintendent as the named on-site supervisor; also Sustainable SITES or organic-land-care program requirements that name an individual practitioner.

The limit. The embodiment score is already near its top and cannot meaningfully rise. The realistic ceiling here is roughly 70-74: the shield and accountability levers are real but attach to specific activity types (pesticides, tree work, irrigation backflow, heat), not to the whole occupation, so a supervisor whose crews only mow and edge gains almost nothing from them. Trust premium stays modest because most commercial and residential buyers purchase a price per visit, not a named person.

These are conditions, not forecasts — what would have to happen, not what will. Specific rules, cases and bills are named so you can go and check whether they exist and where they stand; verify before relying on any of them. Nothing here is legal or financial advice.

Where this work is, and what it pays there

BLS metro figures for 334 areas. The verdict above does not change by city — the rubric judges what the work involves, not where it happens — but pay and headcount do, and the national median hides a very wide range.

Most of these jobs

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ 6,100 $74,610 +28%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 4,220 $61,350 +5%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 3,560 $47,850 -18%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 2,960 $51,340 -12%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 2,800 $58,960 +1%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 2,690 $60,460 +3%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN 2,530 $52,470 -10%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 2,300 $62,230 +7%

Best paid

Salinas, CA 230 $78,730 +35%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 1,570 $76,990 +32%
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA 600 $76,910 +32%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $58,430. Counts are jobs in that metro, not vacancies. Metros where the BLS suppressed the cell are absent rather than shown as zero.

Who is actually doing this — nobody, on the record

We have no reported case of a named organisation automating this occupation. Not one deployment, not one announcement.

That is worth saying out loud next to a score of 62. The verdict above is about what the work exposes — what current AI could do to these tasks. It is not a claim that anyone has done it. For this occupation those two things have come apart completely: the capability argument is on this page, and the evidence column is empty.

Read that as a gap in the reporting we can see, not proof of absence — the dispatch runs on English-language feeds and misses plenty. If you know of a case, tell us, or add a field report from inside the job.

Quick take — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work? One tap, anonymous, and the running tally is public. Nothing else is asked of you.

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

Field reports — what people say has changed

No field reports yet. A written account takes a paragraph rather than a tap, goes to an editor before it appears, and is the one thing on this page the rubric cannot produce on its own.

File a field report

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.

Watch this verdict
Kept current

Rather than check back: get the digest and we'll tell you what changed — or watch a single occupation from its own page.