154 unhealthy natural environments, or phrased differently, healthy natural environments that are not freely accessible to all people. Social ecologists and other authors argue that healthy and accessible natural environments provide opportunities for people to interact and generalize across interest lines. These opportuni- ties help develop community, places characterized by shared spatial experiences and concern (Wilkinson 1991). Promoting the development of technology and economy, the interaction of people, and healthy environmental surroundings are all crucial for community. An active interdependence characterizes the re- lationship between productive community life and healthy and accessible environmental surroundings (Ahern and Fabel 1988). USING TREES AND NATURE FOR COMMUNITY CAPACITY Community capacity is simply defined as the strengths and as- sets of community members both individually and collectively brought to a cause. It is related to the term organizational ca- pacity, or the ability to do meaningful work. Frank and Smith (1999) described community capacity this way: . . . It is the ways and means needed to do what has to be done. It is broader than simple skills, people, and plans. It includes commitment, resources, and all that is brought to bear on a process to make it successful (p. 26). Building community capacity, or the ability of the people of a place to work together toward common goals, is one critical stepping stone in community. As has been discussed, interaction and participation in are essential parts of positive community change. As people’s public activity and experience increase, so do the levels of community capacity (Wilkinson 1979; Cottrell 1983; Ayers and Potter 1989). Whether they realize it or not, arborists and urban forest- ers find themselves involved in building community capacity, especially when they are working with participatory and educa- tional programs and projects. The degree to which community members identify with and enjoy nature and interact in the plan- ning, maintenance, and use of trees and public landscapes is one of the interrelated factors important in building community ca- pacity. First, public landscapes and parks are more effective in meeting local people’s needs if they are very involved in plan- ning, decision-making, and building. Second, highly participa- tory environmental projects can promote social structure and organization even in the most deteriorated neighborhoods by building interaction and capacity through block clubs, neighbor- hood organizations, church groups, and public and private part- nerships (McDonough et al. 1991). The degree to which people are educated and involved in docent programs, tree plantings, environmental restoration projects, and other environmental vol- unteer and educational work can increase positive identification with a locale; increases the quality of relationships among people and between organizations; increases public knowledge, net- working, and experience; increases community capacity; and helps the development of community to occur (Rudel 1989; Lip- kis and Lipkis 1990; Maslin et al. 1999). Many case studies of inner-city projects in which arborists and urban foresters are closely involved support using the natural environment as a vehicle to build community capacity in the ©2008 International Society of Arboriculture Elmendorf: Importance of Trees and Nature in Community development of community (Shutkin 2000). These descriptions of practical endeavors agree that planning for, maintaining, and managing trees and public landscapes does build community capacity, which supports community development. In addition to supporting healthy neighborhoods and communities, tree plant- ing and other environmental projects have been repeatedly used by organizations such as Philadelphia Green, TreesAtlanta, Friends of the San Francisco Urban Forest, Los Angeles Tree- People, and New York GreenGorillas to rebuild the sense and capacity of community and ameliorate the effects of drugs, crime, violence, apathy, and despair in often seemingly hopeless neighborhood settings: Planting a tree enables a person to have an immediate, tangible, and positive effect on their environment. It fos- ters community pride and opens channels for individuals to meet their neighbors, tackle community problems, and build neighborhood associations (Kollin 1987, p. 96). Tree planting fosters community spirit and pride, bringing people together for meaningful purpose that can build the bridges and promote the understandings that bring the neighborhood together. The initial efforts of the tree plant- ers compound themselves as others find in the trees a deeper appreciation of the community as well as natural beauty. It is the beginning of the formation of new values that is the foundation for city-wide transformation. The newly organized group can further push for bike paths, improvements in public transportation, and changes to make the area less congested, less polluted, and more livable (Lipkis and Lipkis 1990, p. viii). Planning and completing tree planting, urban gardening, and other types of green projects inspires neighborhood and community groups to change the environment of their streets (neighborhooding), giving a new understanding of and character to their neighborhood and to the city as a whole (Schrieber and Vallery 1987, p. 14). The simple act of planting a tree, along with the more compli- cated projects of civic environmental restoration, has positive effects on the economic, social, and environmental elements of community. These types of actions are especially important in ignored and disenfranchised places where the battle cry of com- munity capacity is “celebrate any success.” CONCLUSION Environmental projects are increasingly being completed for so- cial objectives and the language of empowerment is often used by practitioners to describe the benefits provided from them (Westphal 2003). Some authors believe that practitioners often overstate the social benefits provided from environmental projects. As a result, they have reviewed the indicators of em- powered or empowering (increased skills, access to resources, networking) and their role in both projects and community. They have also divided the benefits of civic environmental projects into individual, organizational, and community-level, question- ing whether benefits derived by individuals and organizations always provide the public good of community (Westphal 2003). Other authors argue that collective actions and experiences by groups of people working toward common goals fundamentally increase community capacity (Wilkinson 1979). The study of
May 2008
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
