11.8 Krro The Role of :irhonculttirc in a tfealtllr- Social Ecolt3g~l ccr 0 2 Social Aspects of Urban Forestry .1 G 6 3 '6 .a THE ROLE OF ARBORICULTURE IN A HEALTHY

4-3 a tw SOCIAL ECOLOGY 2 s Ei by Frances E. Kuo -ftZ

Abstract. In urban communities, arboriculture clearly substantially influence patterns of inforinal contact among

3 CJ contributes to the health of the biological ecosystem; does it neighbors and informal surveillance. Contact arnong 3 'g contribute to the health of the social ecosystem as well? neighbors and informal surveillance are, in turn, known to Evidence from studies m inner-aty Chicago suggests so In a be linked to strength of community and levels of crime (see 3 series of studies involving over 1,300 person-space obser- Taylor 1988 for review). Although not all interventions ? vations, 400 interviews, housing authority records, and 2 based on DS theory have been successful (Cisneros 1995), the promise embodied in its sometimes spectacular suc- 8 .' cy% years of police cnme reports, tree and grass cover were 3 systematically llnked to a wide range of social ecosystem cesses has led the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 3-e indicators These indicators included stronger ties ainong Development (HUD) and others to invest millions of dollars f"( .$ +..m neighbors, greater sense of safety and adjustnxnt, more in rehabilitating public housing and other neighborhoods in supervision of children in outdoor spaces, healthier patterns line with DS guidelines (U.S. HUD 1998; Neuman 1996). of children's play, more use of neighborhood cominon If defensible space theory is correct, then vital, well-used spaces, fewer incivilities, fewer property crinles, and fewer residential outdoor spaces should play a cnicial role in violent crimes. The link between arboriculture and a strengthening community and deterring crime. Although healthier social ecosystem turns out to be surprisingly defensible space theory says very little about vegetation per simple to explain. In residential areas, barren, treeless se, the theory clearly has implications for natural, as well as spaces often become "no man's lands," which discourage built, features of residential outdoor spaces. If the presence resident interaction and invite crime. The presence of trees of trees and grass in these spaces encourages residents' use and well-maintained grass can transform these no man's of these spaces, perhaps these features too can play a role in lands into pleasant, welcoming, well-used spaces. Vital, well- strengthening community and deterring criine. used neighborhood common spaces sen7eto both Does arboriculture, in fact, contribute to the health of strengthen ties among residents and deter crime, thereby the social ecosystem? In an urban neighborhood, we might creating healthier, safer neighborhoods. approach this question in a variety of ways. LVe might ask Key Words. Social ecology; strength of community; whether trees play a role in the patterns of interrelation crime; social benefits; residential. among different resident subpopulations. We might ask whether trees affect patterns of territory within the neigh- borhood or patterns of resource exchange. And we might ask whether trees enhance resident populations' capacity to In urban communities, arboriculture plays .an important role resist incursion or outside threats. To the extent that In the health of the biological ecosystem It provldes habitat arboriculture contributes to a healthy social ecosystem, we for wildlife and creates a more hospitable setting for many would expect otherwise similar urban areas with and species (for a review of environmental Impacts of urban without trees to differ in some or all of these respects. forestry, see Dwyer et a1 1992) Does arbonculture contrib- This article reviews findings from a line of investigation ute to the health of the social ecosystem as well? addressing precisely these questions. A series of large-scale Before examining whethet trees contribute to a healthy studies conducted in inner-city Chcago, Illinois, U.S.,systemati- soc~alecology, it might be reasonable to ask how they might cally compared buildings and spaces with varying levels of tree do so One poss~bleanswer comes from a body of work that and grass cover while controlling for numerous social and has traditionally had nothing to do ~7thtrees the literature environmental factors. "Greener" settings were compared to on "defensrble space " Defensible space (DS) theory suggests architecturally comparable or identical counterparts in ternls that the phys~calfeatures of a residential neighborhood can of their perfc~rrnanceon a %%,siderange of ecosystem indicators. have miportant impacts on strength of community and rates of cnme 111 that neighborhood (ru'ewn~an1972) Defensible GENERALMETHOD space theo13 posits, among other thing\, that the architec- A varlet). of nleasures, research clesigns, and stattst~caltools tural features and physical l,~youtof resiciential bulidings lvere used in this I~neof work, the particulars of different Jottrnal of :2rbor1cultrire 291 3) hlc3) 2003

studies \it~thinthis line of in\restigatio~ldiffered considerably and resrdents have no influence over the location or For the purpose of this re\;letv, only a brief overvlew of Ixlalntenance of trees or grass at elther del, eloprnent Thus, methodology is prowded here Deta~leddescnptions of the throughout th~sreview, all comparisons between "greener" methodology for the constituent studies may be found in the and "less green" settings refer to settings x-hich are either onginal journal articles Similarly, the specific statistical roughly rnatched or identical in a host of architectural emdence underlying each link reported here can be found In charactenst~csand resident characteristics the orignal journal articles. In many cases, a l~nkbetween It should be noted that, in the studies reported here, tree cover and an outcome is documented not only by ratings of "greenness" and "green cover" may be regarded statistical ewdence of a relationship but also by mediation as roughly equivalent to ratings of "tree cover " Although tests examining the proposed mechanism and by numerous, "greenness" and "green cover" were defined to include grass sometimes dozens of, statistical tests for potential confound- cover, the amount of tree cover In a scene is a very strong ing factors. While all findings reported here were statistically predictor of overall judgments of greenness, by contrast, the significant, it should be noted that both effect sizes and amount of grass cover appears to contnbute little to ratings certainty levels vaned across different analyses and different of greenness. studies The purpose of this review is to intro- duce the commonalities of the work as a whole i

independent of other factors likely to affect the social ecology. Ideally, any neighborhoods we studied would meet four cntena First, a potential research setting had to have vanation in the amount of green cover immediately outside residences-from places that \yere frill of plants to places that were barrrn of plants Second, environmental features other than vegetation should be held constant across residences Third, residents should be randomly assigned to I 1 residences or assigned irrespective of the amount Figure 1. Apartment buildings at Robert Taylor Homes (top) and Ida of green cover Finally, residents should have no B. Wells (bottom), without trees (left) and with trees (right). influence over the maintenance of the vegetation near their home. RESULTS We found two publ~chousing developments in Chicago Welcoming Residents Outdoors that met these critena. Robert Taylor Homes and the Ida B A quarter-century of research (for review, see Kaplan and Wells housing development Each develop~nenthas pockets Kaplan 1989) has indicated that, in general, urban outdoor of trees and grass as well as expanses of barren area (Figure areas with trees are substantially more preferred than 1) ~achdfvelo~ment is strikingly consistent in architecture slnxilar settings ~r,~thouttrees Some housing authority At the time of our studies, Robert Taylor Homes consisted of managers, however, have the belief that low-~ncomeAfrican 28 identical 16-story apartment buildings laid out m single Americans don't value trees-that trees are a middle-class file along a 4 8-km corndor Each bullding at Robert Tsylor preference h4oreover, in poor ~nner-cltyneighborhoods Homes was bordered on the west by a11 interstate highway there 1s the concern that trees redrice vis~bllitj:Ho~ising and railroad tracks and on the east by a six-lane municipal authority managers and pollcce suggest th~ttrees rnake thoroughfare and wide sidewalk The Ida B Wells devclctl7- residents feel unsafe, if so, the presence of trees 111 this rnent included 124 lox-nse (2- to +-story) apartment setting might acturtlly make outcioor sp'lces less Itttrclctive buiIdings laid out on a typical gnd pattern Chicago Housing md less usable How do pctor tirblin rrbidents respond to Authority policles result In de iacto r,indom assignment of trees? tiVc7~ililthe presence of trees in outcloor 'trcas have no res~dentsto apnrtment buildings for hot11 clevelopn~ents. effect or even i-l~akethese areas les G~ttractiveto rcsldsnts? 150 Kutl- The Role of .21bortcr_rItrtrern a Ilealthy Social Ecolom

Our findings suggest that, in fact, res~dents'response to m children? beha\;xors in greener versus less green spaces trees is extremely positrve (Kuo et at 1998) One hundred Ch~ldrenIn green spaces were more llkely to be found residents of a Chicago publlc housing development were engaged in play actimtles than other kinds of activlties, and asked to respond to imdges (photos~mulations)dep~cting there was also increased creattve play in green spaces thelr courtyard with and without trees, with other factors (Faber Taylor et a1 1998) (ligllting, weather, people rn the courtyard, etc ) held In these studies, both adults' and children's terntonal constant Residents strongly preferred images wth trees- patterns were found to be systematically related to the extent and the more trees, the stronger therr preference Mean of green cover Presumably healthier patterns of terntonality- rating for the high tree density images (54 trees per ha) greater use of outdoor spaces by adults, greater use of were 6 standard devlatrons hlgher than the mean ratlngs for outdoor spaces by ch~ldren,and increased play m children- treeless images (Ms 3 1 versus 0 2 on a 0 to 4 scale, from were associated with greener neighborhood spaces. In "not at all" to "very much7') Further, approximately one- drawng res~dentsoutside, might trees also increase the time third of residents surveyed claimed that they would use residents spend in proximity to one another, thereby promot- thelr courtyard more ~f trees were planted. ing social interaction among neighbors? These findings suggest that, in urban neighborhoods, trees might play a pivotal role in drawing resrdents outside Resident Interaction Outdoors They further suggest a way in which arbonculture might Our findings suggest that green cover is indeed related to contribute to a healthy social ecosystem-by enhancing the amount of social interaction in residential outdoor residents' use of the spaces just outside their buildings, spaces. Green cover was reliably linked to the number of thereby promoting informal contact among neighbors and individuals simultaneously present in areas just outside introducing informal surveillance apartment buildings (Coley et al. 1997). More detailed observations further suggest that the number of explicitly Adults9Use of Outdoor Spaces social activities (e.g., talking, playlng cards together, working Photosimulations, however, are approximations of reality, on a car repair together) occurring in residential outdoor and predictions of use are merely predictions. To what spaces is linked to green cover (Sullivan et al., in press). We extent were inner-city residents accurate in predicting that found 73% more individuals involved in social activities in they would use "greener" outdoor spaces more often? spaces with high levels of green cover than in spaces with Quite accurate, it would appear. Findings from three low levels of green cover (Sullivan et al., in press). The different studies indicate that greener residential outdoor pattern was strongest for adults: Compared to more barren spaces receive more use from adult residents than their spaces, there were 100%more adults engaged in social barren counterparts. In one study, residents living in greener activities in green spaces. high-rise apartment buildings reported significantly more use of the area just outside their building than did residents living ChildrenpsAccess to Adults Outdoors in buildings with less vegetation (Kuo et al. 1998). In two The more social nature of residents' activlties outside their other studies, adult use of residential spaces was found to be buildings appears to extend not only to adult-adult interac- disproportionately concentrated in greener versus more tions but to adult-child Interactions as well In one study, barren spaces (Coley et al. 1997; Sullivan et al., in press). In the presence of trees consistently predicted greater use of the Coley et al. study, the greater the number of trees found in residential spaces by mixed-age groups of youth and adults a space, the greater the number of people who used the space (Coley et a1 1997) In another, we found systemat~cally simultaneously hdoreover, the closer trees were to apartment higher levels of access to adults for chlldren in greener buildings, and thus the more visually and physically accessible versus less green spaces (Faber Taylor et a1 1998) they were, the more people spent time outside near them. In Thus far, we have seen that trees and grass attract people the low-rise development studied, no adults at a11 were to use ~nner-cityne~ghborhood spaces and that in greener observed in areas devoid of trees. spaces there is more social contact among neighbors than in comparable barren spaces We've also seen that the proximrty Children's Use of Outdoor Spaces of the trees to apartment bulldings matters-when trees are We also found differences In children's use of outdoor closer to bnrldings, people use the outdoor spaces more It spaces as a funct~onof tree cover Children's use of res~den- appears that trees contribute to systematically healthier tlal outdoor spaces was disproportionately concentrated rn patterns of ~nterrelat~onamong adults and children outdoors greener versus less green spaces-a statistically significant These findings are exciting because access to adults plays finding In one study (Cole)- et a1 1997) and a marg~r-zally such an important role rn healthy child development significant one in another (p = 07, Sullivan et a1 , in press) Children are s~ci~~l~zedInto the mores and standards of a In addition, more cletalled obser va trons revealed d~fferences culture through ~III~tation of adults, explanations fro111 Jtxxn,il of Arboriculture 2913)- May 20t.13 151

adults, and, last but not least, corrective feedback from green buildmgs (Brunson 1949), no significant dtfferences adults (e g , Miller and Sperry 1987; Ochs and Schieffelin mere found in the number of neighbors ~7thwhom resldents 1984). Further, adult supervision is pivotal in preventing reported having strong ties. It rnay be that shared use of misbehavior, indeed, "lack of parental supervision is one of common spaces contributes only to the development of the strongest predictors of the development of conduct strong ties wth one or two neighbors, as opposed to fostenng problems and delinquency" (APA Commission on Violence a strong network of tles as in a village or small town and Youth 1983, p 19) To the extent that greener residen- It is also iinportant to note that one component of tial spaces promote adult supervision, then, we might expect neighborhood social ties in this work was the sharing of fewer delinquent behaviors in these spaces resources between neighbors For individuals who live in intense poverty, neighborhood social ties are more than a Neighborhood Social Ties, Resource Flows pleasant feature-they are the foundation of an important Thus far in this revlew, we have focused on outcomes survlval strategy Social ties among neighbors provlde a speclfically related to residentla1 outdoor spaces-residents' conduit through whlch mdimduals share resources (Belle use of these spaces, their activities in these spaces, the 1982, Stack 1974) In poor communities, soc~alties among amount of socializzng in these spaces, children's play In these neighbors are the first llne of defense against the ravages of spaces, etc Do trees go beyond simply enhancing the vltallty poverty By contributing to stronger ties among neighbors, of residential outdoor spaces? Here, we turn toward social trees rnay enhance residents' resilience in the face of sudden ecosystem variables that do not pertaln specifically to financial setbacks and emergencies residential outdoor space The question here is whether, by To summarize thus far, our Lindings suggest that in poor making residential outdoor spaces more vrtal, trees contnb- inner-city neighborhoods, trees not only enhance patterns ute to the healthy functioning of a community in general of resident territoriality but also contribute to healthier, There is substantial ewdence to suggest that opportunz- more supportive patterns of interrelations among residents, ties for casual social Interaction provide a nch matrix from including greater shanng of resources which social ties among neighbors develop (e g , Ebbesen et a1 1976, Perkins et a1 1990) Opportunities for casual social Sense of Safety contact, in turn, are greater when neighborhood resldents At the beginning of this review, we addressed the concern spend more time in the outdoor spaces around their homes that trees might decrease v~sibilityand thereby reduce either (Cooper 1975, Gans 1967, Talbot et a1 1987) If informal actual safety or residents' sense of safety Here, we come full social contact among neighbors is a key f;lctor in the develop- circle and address the link between trees and safety directly ment of social ties among nelghbors, and trees are a key Prevlous research indicates that neighbors who have factor in informal social contact, perhaps trees can ultimately strong social ties form more effective social groups (e.g., affect the development of neighborhood social ties. Greenbaum 1982; Warren 1981). For instance, compared A number of findings suggest that trees do in fact help to communities in which neighbors had weaker soc~alties, strengthen neighborhood social tles In a study of 145 public those wlth stronger social tles were more capable of housing residents randomly assigned to arch~tecturally building consensus on values and norms (Dubow and identical buildings wth varying levels of vegetation, the Emmons 19811, monitoring behavlor, intervening if problem greener the build~ng,the stronger the neighborhood social behaviors occur (Taylor 19881, and defending their neigh- ties (Kuo et a1 1998) Compared to residents livlng in borhoods against crime (e g , Perkins et al. 1990) If stron- relatively barren build~ngs,lndivlduals livlng in greener ger social ties among ne~ghborsare key to creating more buildings reported more social activltles and more visitors, effective, safer neighborhoods, and treed spaces help knew more of their nelghbors, reported their neighbors were promote ties among neighbors, perhaps the greenness of more concerned wth helping and supporting one another, neighborhood landscape ultimately affects Ievels of safety and had stronger feelings of belonging Further, statistical and securlty in a neighborhood mediation tests indicated that the link between vegetation and In znner-city neighborhoods, do treed spaces influence neighborhood social ties is explained by residents' greater use neighborhood safety and security? It seemed plausible that of outdoor spaces (Kuo et a1 1998) Together, these findings residents might feel safer in a setting lf they knew, trusted, suggest that by Increasing the opportunities for residents to and could count on their neighbors-in other words, lf they meet and Interact, greener common spaces facilitated the had strong social ties \nth thelr nelghbors At the sanle time, development and maintenance of neighborhood social ttes ~t seemed possible that even the high-canopy trees charac- Th~sgeneral pattern of findings has been replicated in a study teristlc of pub11c housing m~ghtreduce visibil~ty,thereby of senlor c~t~zens(Kweon et a1 1998) reducrng resident\' sense of safety It is 1mpo1tant to note that in another study coniparing Our find~ngssuggest that, 111 fact, resldents living in nelghbol hood social tles for residents of greener versus less greener bulldlngs feel sign~ficantlysafer than do their 152 Kuo The Role of A~honculturr111 a Health!- Soclal Ecology

counterparts lic~ngin more barren bu~ldmgsFurther, our found systematically negattve relationships between the finding suggest that residents of greener build~ngsfeel greenness of the landscape and the number of cnrnes per more conlfortable or adjusted In thelr surroundlngs in buildlng reported to the police The greener a bullding's general. We asked 145 publlc housing residents How safe surroundmgs, the fewer total cnmes; moreover, thls relatio11- do ?ou feel living here?" and "How well have you adjusted to shrp extended to both property crimes and nolent crlmes. llvlng here?" JVe then compared the responses for residents assigned to relatively green versus relatively barren build- DISCUSSION ings As predicted, indimduals hwng adjacent to greener The role of the urban forest in the biological health of cities common spaces reported that they felt both safer and better is well established; could the urban forest play a pivotal role adjusted than dld their counterparts living adjacent to in healthy social ecosystems as well? The findings reviewed relatively barren spaces (Kuo et al. 1998). here suggest so. In a series of large-scale, highly controlled field studies, "greener" buildings and spaces were consis- Graffiti and Other Signs of Disorder tently characterized by better performance on a wide range Findings from another study suggest that not only do of social ecosystem indicators. Trees and grass cover were residents in greener settings feel safer but also that they linked with greater use of residential outdoor spaces by experience systematically fewer "incivilities"-the nuisances adults and children, healthier patterns of children's outdoor and petty crimes that signal the breakdown of normal activitx more social interaction among adults, healthier territorial functioning. We asked 90 residents of an inner- patterns of adult-child interaction and supervision, stronger city neighborhood to report on the incidence of graffiti and social ties and greater resource sharing among adult other so-called incivilities in the spaces adjacent to their residents, greater sense of safety and adjustment, lower apartment building. Residents of greener buildings reported levels of graffiti and other signs of social disorder, fewer systematically fewer incidences of vandalism, graffiti, and property crimes, and fewer violent crimes. litter than their counterparts assigned to more barren When these findings are reframed in the traditional buildings (Brunson 1999). Moreover, greener buildings were terms used to describe biological ecosystems, interesting subject to significantly fewer "social incivilities"-noisy, parallels emerge. Specifically, green spaces may have a dismptive individuals; strangers hanging around; and illegal substantial impact on each of the following facets of activities. ecosystem functioning: territorial patterns within an There are a number of possible explanations for the link ecosystem (greater use of space, different use of space by between trees and a lower incidence of incivilities. The children), interrelationships among different resident presence of trees and grass may signal a more well-cared for subpopulations (adult-child interaction, social interaction, space and, therefore, a higher likelihood of perpetrators and social ties), patterns of resource flow within an ecosys- being noticed (Brown and Altman 1983). Alternatively, the tem (greater resource sharing), and residents' capacity to greater use of greener spaces may introduce more "eyes on resist incursion and outside threats (reduced graffiti and the street" (Jacobs 1961). Yet another explanation may lie in crime, greater sense of safety). the greater social cohesiveness around greener spaces- At present, the most ready explanation for a connection perhaps residents who know and trust each other are more between trees and social ecosystem health lies in a straightfor- effective in instituting "local social control" over what goes ward extension of defensible space theory Defensible space on in the spaces outside their homes (Greenberg et al. theory suggests that vital, well-used residential spaces are key 1982). Any and all of these factors might contribute. In any to the development of neighborhood social ties and the case, it appears that the presence of trees in residential discouragement of potential perpetrators because they outdoor spaces is linked with more successful territorial provide opportunities for informal social contact among functioning. Treed spaces appear to be less vulnerable to neighbors and introduce informal surveillance (Newman incursions and minor outside threats. 1972). Our findings suggest that the presence of trees can be a decisive factor in the extent to which residents actually use Property Crimes, Violent Crimes and "take ownership of' residential outdoor spaces. In other To the extent that trees confer some protection against words, successful residential outdoor spaces are pivotal in the mcursions, it seemed possible that they might provide some healthy social ecology of a community and trees are a key measure of defense agalnst more slgnlficant threats as well elenlent in creating successful residential outdoor spaces. To examine th~squestion, we collected 2 years of police To what extent might a connection between trees and crime reports for 98 apartment bu~ldrngsIn one ~nner-city social ecosystenl health extend to contexts other than those i~righhorhoociand used the extent of tree and grass cover studied herel The signs are unsystematic but encouraging. outsttie each apartment build~ngto pred~ctthe number of The lore on the value of community gardens in mending the crlmes reported for that building (Kuo and Sulltvnn 2001) We social falsric of poor neighborhoods is impressively consistent and extenslt7e(Brunson 19991, and the first systematic data greater capacity for self-discipline (Faber Taylor et 31. 2002). on this question echo the lore (Glover et a1 20021 Moreover, Together, the esldence reviewed here suggests a vital role there is some indication that a tle between green resldentlal for trees in the healthy functioning of not only ~ndlvlduals, spaces and strength of coinmunrt);.is not exclusive to poor but neighborhoods as well neighborhoods An article in Phc Atlanlt~MonthLv (Drayton More generally, the find~ngsrevtewed here complement 2000) lauds the growng movement toward "community and extend the larger lrterature documenting the functions greens," shared parks tucked away on the lnside of resldent~al trees provlde in urban communities Together with the blocks blast of these community greens have been devel- evidence linklng trees and other vegetation to clean air and oped in middle- or upper-income neighborhoods-houses on clean water, thls new evidence linking trees to healthier a community green in New York City's Greenwch Village sell patterns of indirqdual and neighborhood functlontng points for several million dollars apiece Yet the pattern of neighbor- to a much larger theme-trees and public health Far from hood tles developing from the shared use of these common being an amenity, then, it appears that trees play multiple, green spaces exactly mirrors our findlngs from some of the fundamental roles in the continued health of urban commu- poorest communities m the United States, moreover, this nities and should be regarded in the same light as other pattern appears across different community greens wth urban infrastructural elements. stnking consistency Clearly, the extent to whlch trees In linking trees with some of our most challenging and promote healthy social ecosystems In diverse settings and important civic goals, this work contributes a new and populations bears further lnvestigatlon politically compelling addition to the arguments for urban Regardless of how widely trees are linked to social forestry While providing cleaner air, cleaner water, and ecosystem health, it is important to note that the context of other environmental benefits is obviously important and these studies-poor urban neighborhoods-1s precisely the valuable, the fact remains that few urban politicians view context where social ecosystem health is at greatest risk and these issues as central to their agendas. Stronger communi- where urban trees are least present While poverty is not ties, reduced crime rates, and healthier, more vital neighbor- synonymous wth alienation and risk of cnme, too many hoods-these are outcomes that mayors and city councils poor urban neighborhoods are charactenzed by high levels of strive for, often with little or no success. The findings here mistrust, isolation, graffiti, property cnme, and vrolent cnnze It suggest that urban forestry helps address some of our most may be that the greatest benefits of urban forestry accrue to recognized and most challenging societal needs. some of its hlstoncally most underserved constituencies The findings here have a number of implications for Tighter Integration into the Residential Urban arbonculture and urban forestry Flrst and foremost, they Fabric reinforce the growing recognition of the vital role trees play One striking implication of this body of work is that the in the ecological, social, and economlc health of our location of trees matters at a surprinngly fine-grained scale. communities. Second, they argue for a much tighter Participants In these studies all have ready access to lntegration of the urban forest into the residential urban neighborhood green spaces and live wthin a few miles of fabnc Third, the findings suggest that arbonst-resident one of the most extenslve examples of urban nature in partnerships may be an important factor in fully reaping the North Arnenca-Lake M~chiganand the parks along healthy social ecosystem benefits of trees. Chicago's Lake Shore Drive Further, the participants in each study live wthin the same neighborhood, wth the same Vital Wlunicipal Functions overall level of tree canopy Yet in study after study, the These findings broaden our understanding of the functions ftnding is that having trees directly outside one's own trees serve in urban communities At present, the role of building 1s different than having those same trees just arbortculture in urban ecosystems is prlmanly conceptual- outside neighborhood bulldings To fully reap the social ized in terms of the aesthet~c,environmental, and wldlrfe benefits of trees then, the urban forest may need to be habltat functions trees serve The findings reviewed here substant~allymore tightly integrated Into the residential suggest a substantially expanded conceptualization may be urban fabrlc than 1s currently recommended rn order Arboricufture may be vastly undervalued relative to its contributions Working with Citizens Wrthin the literature on the social benefits of urban The focus of this reww has been on the ph);.stcaI products of forests, this work reinforces and extends the research on arboriculture, but the process of arborlculture surely has trees and healthy human functioning. Recent et idence links impacts on the social ecosystem of a community as well. That green res~dentialsettlngs to reduced aggression (Kuo and is, urban forestry programs can be structured such that they Stlliivan 20011, enhnn~edcogixtir t functioning, life frrnc- promote-or ~lndermir-te-resdents' appropriation of their tionlng, ;tnd well be~ng(e g , Kuo 2001, Kaplan 2001 1, and neighborhood outdoc)r spaces To the extent that greeilmg 1s 15-4 Kuo: Phe Role of Arboricnlture ln a Healthy Soc~alEcology

carrled out in a way that respects resrdents' cholces and Glover T., K. Shine'iv?and D. Parry 2002. Race and its valr~eswith respect to the public and pnvate spaces In their relationship to the benefits of community gardening in neighborhood, it seems more likely to foster the kinds of local St. Louis. Canadian Congress on Leisure Research soclal control so effective 111 deternng cnme Slmllarly, by Annual Book of Abstracts 10:127-130. inb~tingand reyuinng residents' part~cipation,urban forestry Greenbaum, S.D. 1982. Bridging ties at the neighborhood rnay be carned out in a way that helps transform a mere level. Soc. Networks 4:367-384. collection of neighbors Into a real, funct~onrngcommunity- Greenberg, S.W , W.M. Rohe, and J.R. Williams. 1982. Safety in watching out for each other, each other's property, and each urban neighborhoods-A comparison of physical other's children, hefptng out in times of need; hamng barbe- characteristics and informal territorial control in high- and cues and block pames; exchanpg gardening tips and life low-crime neighborfioods. Popul. Environ. 53:141-1 65. stones; working together to improve the community Jacobs, J. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House, New York, NY. LITERATURE CITED Kaplan, R. 2001. The nature of the view from home- APA Commission on Violence and Youth. 1983. Violence Psychological benefits. Environ. Behav. 334:507-542. and Youth: Psychology's Response. American Kaplan, R., and S. Kaplan. 1989. The Experience of Nature: Psychological Association, Washington, DC. A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Belle, D.E. 1982. The irnpact of poverty on social networks Cambridge, UK. and supports. Marriage Family Rev. 54:89-103. Kuo, EE. 200 1. Coping with poverty: Impacts of environment Brown, B.B., and I. Altman. 1983. Territoriality, defensible and attention in the inner city. Environ. Behav. 33 1:5-34. space and residential burglary: An environmental Kuo, EE., M. Bacaicoa, and WC. Sullivan. 1998. analysis. J. Entiron. Psychol. 33:203-220. Transforming inner-city neighborhoods: Trees, sense of Brunson, L. 1999. Resident appropriation of defensible safety, and preference. Environ. Behav. 30 1: 28-59. space in public housing: Implications for safety and Kuo, EE., and WC. Sullivan. 2001. Environment and crime in community. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime? Environ. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL. Behav. 333:343-367. Cisneros, H.G. 1995. Defensible Space: Deterring Crime and Kuo, EE., WC. Sullivan, R.L. Coley, and L. Brunsctn. 1998. Building Community U.S. Department of Housing and Fertile ground for community: Inner-city neighborhood Urban Development, Washington, DC. common spaces. Am. J. Community Psychol. 266822-85 1. Coley, R.L., FE. KUO,and W.C. Sullivan. 1997. Where does Kweon, B.S., W C. Sullivan, and A. Wiley. 1998. Green community grow? The social context created by nature common spaces and the social integl-ation of inner-city in urban public housing. Environ. Behav. 294:468-492. older adults. Environ. Behav. 306:832-858. Cooper, C.C. 1975. Easter Hill Village: Some Social Miller, PJ., and L.L. Sperry. 1987. The socialization of anger Implications of Design. The Free Press, New York, NY. and aggression. Merrill-Palmer Q. 33: 1-3 1. Drayton, W. 2000. Urban planning: Secret gardens. The Newman, 0. 1972. Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Atlantic Monthly 285(6): 108-1 1 1. Through Urban Design. Macmillan, New York, NY. Dubow, E, and D. Emmons. 1981. The Community . 1996. Creating Defensible Space. U.S. Department Hypothesis. In Lewis, D.A. (Ed.). Reactions to Crime. Sage of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Publications, Beverly Hius, CA. Development and Research, Washington, DC. Dwyer,J.E, E.G. McPherson, H.W Schroeder, and R.A. Ochs, E., and B. Schieffelin, 1984. Language acquisition and Rowntree. 1992. Assessing the benefits and costs of the socialization: Three developmental stories and' their urban forest. J. Arboric. 185:227-234. implications, pp 276320. In Schweder, R., and R. Levine Ebbesen, E.B., G.L. Kjos, and '1,":J.Konecni. 1976. Spatial iEds.1. Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self and ecology: Its effects on the choice of friends and enemies. Emotion. BrunnerlMazel, NY. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 12:505-518. Perkins, D.D., I? Florin, R.C. Rch, A. ?Yandersman, and D.M. Faber Taylor, A,,EE. Kuo, and WC. Sullivan. 2002. Views of Chavis. 1990. Participation and the social and physical nature and self-discipline: Evidence from inner-city envlronnleIlt of res~dentralblocks Cnme and communlty children. J. Environ. Psycho!., Special Issue: EnT;ironment context L4mJ Communt ty Psychol 181 83-1 15 and Children 22:49-63. Stack, C B (Ed ) 1974 All Our Kin Strategies for Sunlval in Faber Tiiylor, A,.A. Wiley, EE. Kuo, and WC. Sullivan. 1998. a Black Community Harper & Row, New York, NY Growing up in the inner city: Green spaces as places to Sulll\~an,LYC , FE Kuo, and S DePooter ln press The fruit of grow. Environ. Reha\: 30 1 : 3-27. urban nature Vital ne~gborhoodspaces Envlron. Behav Gans, W. 1967. The Le\ittowners. Pantheon Books, New Talbot, J F, L V Brtrdwell, and R Kaplan 1987 The functions York, NY. of urban nature tJses and values of different types of urban nature settlngs J Architect Plann Res 41 47-63 T~ylor,K B 1988 Human Territorial Furictioning 1111-1tants et utllises De plus, les espaces publrcs bier1 util~ses Cambridge Untversity Press, New York, NY. par le voisinage favorisent le renforcenlent des hens entre U S. Department of Houstng and Urban Development 1998. les resldants et detourne le cnme, ce qui cree un milieu plus Crime Prevention Through En.;ironmental Design. http // sain et seeuntaire pour le voisinage www.hud goviprogdesclcpted html Zusammenfassung. In Stadten und Kommunen tragt die Warren, D 1 1981 Helping Networks. University of Notre Baumpflege eindeutlg mr Gesundheit des Okosystems bei, 1st Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN es aber auch relevant fur die Gesundheit des sozialen Cikosystems? Die Ergebn~sseeiner Studie aus dem Zentrum Acknowledpents, Space limitations preclude thanking von Chicago zeigen dies In einer Stud~enlit uber 1300 each of the many indiv~dualsand institutions that played key Personenbeobachtungen, 400 Intennews, Benchten von roles in this work Special thanks go to Andrea Faber Taylor Hausgesellschaften und 2 Jahre Polizeibenchten,wurden die for leading the work on children, to Wi111am Sullivan for Baume und Grunflachen systematisch verbunden mlt einer access to the site and help m slte analysis, to Rebekah Levine Reihe von Sozialokosystem-Indikatoren Diese Indikatoren Coley and Esther Dams for their roles in lntervlevnng, to the beinhalten starkere Verbindungen mt den Nachbarn, gr6tSerer Chicago Housing Authority and residents for their support Sinn fur Sicherheit und Anpassung, mehr Beaufsichtigung der and cooperation throughout, and to the National Urban and Kinder draussen, gesunderes Spielverhalten von Klndern, mehr Community Forestry Advlsory Council, the U S Forest Gebrauch von koinmuneelgenen Grunflachen, weniger Sennce, U S Department of Housing and Urban Develop- Straftaten, weniger Eigentumsdelikte und wenlger ment, ~tndthe Cooperative State Research, Extension and Gewaltverbrechen Die Verbindung zwschen Baumpflege und Education Service for funding the research gesrinderem sozialen Okosystem 1st erstaunlich einfach zu erklaren In bewohnten Gebieten werden aufgelassene Flachen leicht Niemandsland, was die Anwohner entmutigt zu Assistant Pn-qfessor- agieren und es ladt zu Verbrechen ein Die Anwesenheit von Human-Environment Research Laboratory Baumen und gepflegten Grunanlagen kann diese I 103 South Dol-ner Drive Niemandsbereiche In erfreuliche, vnllkornmenhelgende, liTniversity ojIllinois at Urbanu-Champaign genutzte Flachen urnwandeln Und vitale me1 genutzte Urbana, IL 61 801, U.S. Gemelnflachen sorgen fur eine positive Verbindung unter den f -kuo@uiuc. edu Nachbarn und verh~ndernvlele Verbrechen Resurnen. En las cornunldades urbanas, la arboricultura claramente contribuye a la salud de 10s ecosisterrlas biologicos, Llohace tambien con el ecosistema social? La Rksume. Dans les communautQ urbaines, l'arbonculture evldencia de 10s estudios en la ciudad de Chicago as1 lo contnbue clairement a la sante de l'ecosysteme biologque, sugiere En una sene de estudios con 1300 observaciones mals contnbue-t-elle egalernent a la santi: de l'ecosysteme espacio-persona, 400 entremstas, registros de autondades y social? Des faits provenant d'etudes intrenes de la mlle de dos anos de repartes criminales de policia, las coberturas de Chicago suggkrent cela. Dans une sene d'etudes lrnpliquant 10s &boles y pasto fueron sisternaticanlente ligadas a un plus de 1300 observat~ompersonnes-milieu, 400 entrevues, rango amplio de lndicadores del ecosistema social Estos des donnkes-maison des autontirs et des rapports de police de indicadores incluyeron ligas fuertes entre vecinos, $ran deux annees, 11 apparait que le couvert arbore et gazonnir etait sent~dode seguridad y replacion, mayor supen-is~onde 10s systemat~quement13 a un vaste nombre d'indicateurs sociaux ninos en espacios abiertos, patrones de juegos mas Parmi ces indicateurs, on retrouvait: un lien de valsinage plus saludables de 10s ninos, mayor uso de 10s espacios comunes fort, un plus grand sens de secunte et &adaptation. plus de por los vecrnos, menores faltas civicas, pocos crimenes a la surveillance des enfants a I'exteneur de la maison, des milieux propledad y pocos crimenes vlolentos La liga entre la de jeux plus sins pour les enfants, plus d'utllisation des espaces arboncultura y un ecosistema soclal saludable es facil de communs du voisinage, moms de componements non cimlist?~, explicar En areas resrdenc~ales,10s espacios arldos, sin moms de cnrnes contre la propnett, et moms de cnrnes arboles, con frecuenc~ase convierten en "t~errasno- molents Le lien entre l'arbonculture et un ecosysteme social humanas", las cuales no animan la interacclon de 10s plus sain est devenu de faqon surprenante facile 2 expliquer residentes e invitan a1 cnmen La presencia de arboles y Dans les ml1ieu.x residentiels, les zones stenles et sans arbre cespedes bier1 manteniclos puede transformar estas tierras devtennent souvent des (4 no mans lands H, ce qut dtcourage "no-humanas" en espacios hen usados y placenteros. Y 10s les interactions avec les residants et mvite au crime Lrr espaclos comunes, b~enutillzados, slnren tanto para presence d'arbres et de gazon blen entretenus peuvent cstrec11;tr 13s ligas en el .~~ecii~dar~ocomo para detener el tr'insformer ces no mans lands en espaces plaisants, cnmen, creando comni~icladesmas seguras j saludables

Journal of Arboriculture Volume 29: Number 3, May 2003

SOCIAL ASPECTS OF URBAN FORESTRY: SPECIAL SECTION KATHLEEN L. WOLF Public Reponse to the Urban Forest in Inner-City Business Districts ...... 117 KATHLEEN L. WOLF Freeway Roadside Management: The Urban Forest Beyond the White Line ...... 127 LWNE M. WESTPHAL Urban Greening and Social Benefits: A Study of Empowerment Outcomes ...... 137 FRANCES E. KUO The Role of Arboriculture in a Healthy Social Ecology ...... 148

RICHARD £4. YAHNER, RUSSELL J. HUTNIK, and STEPHEN A. LISCINSKY Long-Term Trends in Bird Populations on an Electric Transmission kght-of-Way ...... 156 KEN JAMES Dynamic Loading of Trees ...... 165 JEFF SHATFORD, DAVID HIBBS, and LOGAN NORRIS Identifying Plant Communities Resistant to Conifer Establishment Along Utility lbghts-of-Way in Washington and Oregon, U.S...... 172 ArboriculturaI Abstracts ...... 177 Conversion Chart (Metric to English) ...... 179

International Society of Arboriculture P.O. Box 31 29 Nonprofit Champaign, IL 61 826-3129 Organization U.S. Postage

Champaign, It Permit No. 328