Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(3): May 2008 community development and community continues to be com- plicated and the human side of urban forestry provides excellent opportunities for inquiry. There are concepts that should be considered to better inte- grate environmental projects into the process of community. For people who want to do something about community, Wilkinson (1998) has described a number of these ideas: 1) community development is about the development of a human relationship structure, it is not just about things; 2) community development must reflect and express the values and wishes of the local popu- lation; 3) community requires interaction and interaction re- quires trust, communications, and cooperation; 4) community development requires a commitment beyond selfish gain; and 5) community development requires that attention be given to all areas of local life. He also pointed out the necessity of a high- quality and accessible natural environment for community. In- terestingly, in many ways, these community development con- cepts can be supported by the involvement of arborists and urban foresters in tree plantings and other civic environmental projects. The field of civic environmentalism has been described as a local reaction to topdown regulations and projects. It has been expressed in the context of civic renewal, community problem- solving, and participatory democracy. Additional ideas to help better tie environmental projects into community may be found in this emerging field and include (Sirianni and Friedland 2001): 1) working to increase knowledge and collaboration among local people and between people and organizations, including new skills and experiences, access to resources, and networking; and 2) developing public works projects that directly engage citizens in monitoring, improving, and restoring the places in which they live. A fundamental concept here is that environmental projects, landscapes, and policy imposed on people by outsiders can mean and do little for community. There must be collective participa- tion by local people for increased community development. These participatory ideas should be supported by arborists and urban foresters in tree plantings and other participatory environ- mental projects. From social, human health, and economic standpoints, tree planting, urban gardening, and other collaboratively planned and completed environmental projects are some of the simplest, most rewarding, and most celebrated actions that can be used to build and maintain community. This is especially true in deteriorating and disenfranchised neighborhoods. It is clear that accessible high-quality environments and place-oriented environmental projects help increase the overall quality of a place’s interaction and capacity. In a 2003 study, Kuo notes: The link between trees and a healthy social system turns out to be surprisingly simple to explain. In residential areas, barren, treeless spaces become no man’s land, which discourages residential interaction and invites crime. The presence of trees and maintained landscapes can transform these no man’s lands into pleasant, wel- coming, well used spaces that serve to both strengthen ties among residents and deter crime (p. 154). How much do tree planting and other civic environmental projects do for community development? The long-term answer is whether a critical mass of required community development activities can be completed to move a place forward. This said, by their ability to provide for both healthier environments and 155 community capacity, tree plantings and other environmental projects can be powerful community development tools. How- ever, it should be understood that their use alone will not over- come the immense problems when considering those places faced with drugs, anger, violence, disinvestment, and poverty. LITERATURE CITED Ahern, J., and J. Fabel. 1988. Linking the global with the local: Land- scape ecology, carrying capacity, and the sustainable development paradigm, pp. 1–7. In Proceedings of the Landscape/Land Use Plan- ning Committee of the American Society of Landscape Architecture. American Society of Landscape Architecture, Washington, DC. Alexander, C., S. Ishikawa, and M. Silverstein. 1977. A Pattern Lan- guage: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford University Press, New York. Appleyard, D. 1979. The environment as a social symbol within a theory of environmental action and perception. American Planning Associa- tion Journal. April:143–153. Ayers, F., and H. Potter. 1989. Attitudes toward community change: A comparison between rural leaders and residents. Journal of the Com- munity Development Society 20:1–18. Bender, T. 1978. Community and Social Change in the United States. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. Cottrell, L. 1983. The competent community, pp. 402–412. In Warren, R., and L. Lyon (Eds.). New Perspectives on the American Commu- nity. Dorsey Press, Homewood, IL. Dwyer, J., H. Schroeder, and P. Gobster. 1991. The significance of urban forests: Towards a deeper understanding of values. Journal of Arboriculture 17:276–284. Dwyer, J., E. McPherson, H. Schroder, and R. Rountree. 1992. Assess- ing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 18:227–234. Dwyer, J., D. Nowak, M. Noble, and S. Sisinni. 2000. Connecting People With Ecosystems in the 21st Century: An Assessment of our Nation’s Urban Forests. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. Firey, W. 1947. Land Use in Central Boston. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Frank, F., and A. Smith. 1999. The Community Development Hand- book: A Tool to Guide Community Capacity. Human Resources De- velopment Canada, Quebec, Canada. Greider, T., and L. Garkovich. 1994. Landscapes: The social construc- tion of nature and the environment. Rural Sociology 59:1–14. Hall, K., and G. Porterfield. 2001. Community by Deign: New Urbanism for Suburbs and Small Communities. McGraw Hill, New York. Hester, R. 1990. The Sacred Structure in Small Towns: A Return to Manteo, North Carolina. Small Town (January–February):26–32. Hillery, G. 1955. Definitions of community: Areas of agreement. Rural Sociology 20:111–125. Irwin, E. 2002. The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Economics 38:468–480. Kaufman, H. 1959. Toward an interactional conception of community. Social Forces 38:8–17. Kaufman, H., and K. Wilkinson. 1967. Community Structure and Lead- ership: An Interactional Perspective in the Study of Community. Research Bulletin 13, Mississippi State University Social Science, Starkville. Kollin, C. 1987. Citizen action and the greening of San Francisco, pp. 96–99. In Phillips, A., and D. Gangloff (Eds.). Proceedings of the Third National Urban Forestry Conference. American Forestry As- sociation, Washington, DC. Kuo, F. 2003. The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology. Journal of Arboriculture 29:148–155. Kuo, F., and W. Sullivan. 2001. Aggression and violence in the inner city: Effects of environment via mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior 33:775–795. ©2008 International Society of Arboriculture
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
