|
Forestry Report R8-FR 56 - January 1996
Written by:
W. C. Sullivan & F. E. Kuo Human-Environment Research Laboratory Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Sciences University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Cities are characterized by a whole host of social ills--from anonymity, to incivility, to
outright violence--that are strikingly less prevalent in rural areas. Why is this? The
physical environment a person lives in has profound effects on their social behavior.
Social psychologists have shown that people in cities behave differently from people in
rural areas in part because they live in crowded, noisy places, or in places that lack
open space. But cities differ from rural areas in another important way as well - rural
areas have something that's often lacking in urban areas - nature. Cam part of the
unsociableness of city dwellers be traced to the lack of plants in their everyday
surroundings?
With support from the National Urban Community Forestry Advisory Council, we set out to
answer these questions in one of the grimmest of urban settings--public housing in a major
city.
As these pictures show, the number of trees immediately outside each of the 28
buildings at Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago vary considerably. Some buildinrs are
surrounded only by concrete and asphalt, while others have trees, grass, and even flowers.
Using aerial photographs an on-site analyses we chose 10 buildings with trees and 8
buildings without trees. We then interviewed 75 African-American women living in those
buildings about their social behavior and compared the answers from women living in
different buildings.
While the amount of plant life varies from building to building, very little else does.
The buildings are architecturally identical. There are no systematic differences in the
groups of people living in one building or another, perhaps because residents have very
little choice in the specific apartment they are assiglled. This gives us some confidence
that differences we find in social behavior of people living in buildings with and without
trees are really due to the trees - not differences in crowding, noise levels, or
availability of open space, not differences in race, economic status, or even nature
preferences in the people living there.
Do people who live in buildings with trees get along and treat each other better than
people living in buildings without trees? The results of these interviews are not only
interesting; they also provide new arguments in support of urban forest programs. Let's
look at some of the highlights.
DO TREES STRENGTHEN URBAN COMMUNITIES?
For some time there have heen stories about community gardens revitalizing inner
city urban neighborhoods (Francis, Cashdan & Paxson 1984;Lewis 1972, 1979). Until now,
however, no one has systematically examined the effect of trees on relations among
neighbors.
We are finding signs of stronger communities where there are trees. In buildings with
trees, people-report significantly better relations with their neighbors. In buildings
without trees, people report having fewer visitors and knowing fewer people in the
building. In buildings with trees, people report a stronger feeling of unity and cohesion
with their neighbors; they like where they are living more and they feel safer than
residents who have few trees around them.
Why might trees contribute to better relations among neighbors? In 100 observations of
outdoor common spaces in two public housing developments, we are finding that outdoor
spaces with trees are used significantly more often than identical spaces without trees.
We suspect that in urban areas, trees create outdoor spaces that attract people. When
people are drawn to spaces with trees, they are more likely to see and interact with their
neighbors, more likely to get to know each other and become friends.
Stronger ties among neighbors may be a good thing, but it becomes an even more
convincing reason to support urban forests when you consider what neighborhood ties mean
for residents' functioning. There is evidence that people with strong neighborhood ties
are more physically healthy (Cassel 1976; Cobb 1976), more mentally healthy (Gottlieb
1983.), less likely to neglect or abuse their children (Garbarino & Sherman 1980), and
less likely to rely on costly social services in times of need (Biegel 1994; Gottlieb
1983;Collins & Pancoast 1976). In other words, these findings suggest that by
investing in urban forests, a city might reap such dividends as a lowered incidence of
child abuse, and decreased demand on social services.
DO TREES REDUCE VIOLENCE?
Two studies have shown a connection between trees and lower levels of violence
(Mooney & Nicell 1992; Rice & Remy, in press). But these studies involved prison
inmates, and Alzheimer patients living in nursing homes. What about people who are not
living in institutional settings?
We are finding less violence in urban public housing where there are trees. Residents
from buildings with trees report using more constructive, less violent ways of dealing
with conflict in their homes. They report using reasoning more often in conflicts with
their children, and they report significantly less use of severe violence. And in
conflicts with their partners, they report less use of physical violence than do residents
living in buildings without trees.
Why might trees contribute to less violence in the home? Imagine feeling irritated,
impulsive, about ready to snap due to the difficulties of living in severe poverty. Having
neighbors who you can call on for support means you have an alternative way of dealing
with your frustrations other than striking out against someone. Places with nature and
trees may provide settings in which relationships grow stronger and violence is reduced.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR URBAN FORESTRY?
In times of tight budgets, public officials look to reduce costs, and in doing so
it is reasonable that they eliminate amenities. Trees have often been considered
amenities. But what if urban foresters could report to city officials that trees help
lower social service budgets, decrease police calls for domestic violence, strengthen
urban communities, and decrease the incidence of child abuse in a city? Would the urban
forest be considered an amenity then?
In this study, we are finding that urban forests help build stronger communities, and
in doing so, they contribute to lower levels of domestic violence. Although no strong
conclusions can be made from a single study, these findings are encouraging and exciting.
At a time when the nation's attention is focused on issues such as crime prevention,
health care, and the plight of single mothers, these findings suggest that trees can help
address some of the most important problems in society today. We believe that urban
forests are not mere amenities - that they are a basic part of the infrastructure of any
city, as necessary as streets, sewers, and electricity.
REFERENCES
Biegel, D.E. 1994. Help seeking and receiving in urban ethnic neighborhoods: strategies
for empowerment. Prevention in Human Services. 3 (2-3): 119-143.
Cassel, J. 1976. The contribution of the social environment to host resistance.
American Journal of Epidemiology. 104(2): 107-123.
Cobb, S. 1976. Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine.
38(5): 300-314.
Collins, A.H.; Pancoast, D.L. 1976. Natural helping networks: a strategy for
prevention. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.
Francis, M.; Cashdan, L.; Paxson, L. 1984. Community open spaces: greening
neighborhoods through community action and land conservation. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
Garbarino, J.; Sherman, D.1980. High risk neighborhoods and high risk families: the
human ecology of child maltreatment. Chiid Development, 51(1): 188-198.
Gottlieb, B.H. 1983. Social support as a focus for integrative rsearch in psychology.
American Psycchologist. 38(3). 278-285.
Lewis, C.A. 1972. Public housing gardens: landscapes for the soul. In Landscape for
living. Washington DC: United States Department of Agriculture Yearbook of Agriculture.
Leuis, C.A. 1979. The sprouting of the inner city. Psychology Today. 13(1): 12-13.
Mooney, P.; Nicell, P.L. 1992. The importance of exterior environment for Alzheimer
residents: effective care and risk management. Gestion des soins de sante. Health Care
Management forum: 5(2): 23-29.
Rice, J.S.; Remy; L.L. (in press). Cultivating self development in urban jail inmates.
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation.
This builetin is also available in an electronic format on the Southern Region Urban
Forestry home page: http://WWW.uga.edu/-soforext/usdafsr8/spf/coopfor/urb/urbfor.htm.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) alternative means for communication
of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA
Office of Communications at (202 ) 720-5881 (voice) or (202) 720-7808 (TDD). To file a
complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
DC 20250, or call (202)720-7327, (voice)or(202)720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment
opportunity employer. Please call 706/546-3203 for more information on the Technoloqv
Bulletins.
Forestry Report R8-FR 56 January 1996
JANUARY 1996 FORESTRY REPORT R8-FR 56 USDA FOREST SERVICE / SOUTHERN REGION, 1720
PEACHTREE RD., NW ATLANTA, GA 30367, SOUTHERN RESEARCH STATION, 320 GREEN STREET, ATHENS,
GA 30602
Printed on recycled paper.
|
