Our Future Environment

To begin a discussion of where and how Crown Heights residents engage in their neighborhood we will consider how sidewalks are “third places” of interaction and social gatherings. Home and work places can be thought of as first and second places. Third places are defined as “public spaces that host the regular, voluntary, informal, and happily anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realms of home and work” (Oldenburg 1989, 16). Interaction in these third places is a way residents make the city manageable and meaningful. However, interaction in third places such as sidewalks is not just about the social environment. Urban ecologists, past and present, have steadily built a sociological study of urban aesthetics and social interaction. Lofland (1998), building on Erving Goffman, Jane Jacobs and William H. Whyte, has described the important interaction of face-to-face interactions in public and the visually, physically, and emotionally ‘enticing’ elements of urban places. These qualities of a public space can enhance or decrease the social experience urban residents may have.
To examine the physical, visual and emotional elements of the “treescape”, a landscape with trees integrated to serve multiple functions, we will consider how trees benefit us and how we perceive that benefit.
Trees provide the visible and tangible means by which residents interact with the natural environment. New York City has planted trees in all five boroughs to not only decorate the urban environment but also to separate and define spaces, improve the local urban microclimate, and abate air pollution (Bradshaw, Hunt, and Walmsley 1995). Trees in urban spaces improve quality of life by not only reducing air pollution but also through ‘fighting’ an overabundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Trees act as a carbon sink when removing carbon from carbon dioxide and storing it as cellulose in the trunk while releasing the oxygen back into the air. A healthy tree stores about 13 pounds of carbon annually (USDA 2007). Trees also reduce energy costs by shading our homes and office buildings thus reducing air conditioning costs and the amount of fossil fuel burned to produce electricity. Trees also increase groundwater recharge that is significantly reduced by paving and they provide a place for diverse wildlife and plants. Especially important for New York City is the increased economic stability correlated with attracting businesses and tourists and encouraging people to linger and shop longer along tree-lined streets (USDA 2007). In Crown Heights, as well as most New York City neighborhoods, reducing noise pollution is a major concern. Urban trees address this issue by absorbing and blocking honking horns, loud discussion, and any other noise New Yorkers can create (USDA 2007).
How residents perceive the physical benefits of trees is similar to what trees actually provide. And, it is interesting to also consider the visual and emotional benefits residents attribute to urban trees. A nationwide United States telephone survey to assess participants understanding and appreciation of urban trees found an overwhelming agreement on all seven of possible reasons to have trees in cities (Lohr, Pearson-Mims, Tarnai, and Dillman 2004). The highest ranked reason was the importance of shading and cooling. The other statements which participants agreed with, in order, are as follows: ‘Trees in cities help people feel calmer’, ‘Trees should be used in cities because they reduce noise’, ‘Trees in shopping areas make people think the stores care about the environment’, ‘Trees should be used in cities because they make interesting sounds as their leaves rustle’, and ‘Trees should be planted in cities to attract wildlife’.
This survey also asked urban resident participants to agree or disagree with eight statements regarding problems with urban trees. Participants largely disagreed with all statements and did not feel that any of the problems listed were valid reasons not to plant trees in cities. Some example statements are as follows: ‘Trees are a problem in cities because they cause allergies’, ‘Trees should not be used in business districts because they block store signs’, ‘Trees should not be planted because their roots crack sidewalks’, and ‘Trees should be removed from cities because they can fall across power lines’.
This survey also considered participant demographic characteristics and any potential correlation. Most respondents, 83%, strongly agreed with the statement, ‘You consider trees important to your quality of life’ regardless of their demographic characteristics. However, responses did somewhat vary according to ethnic background. Respondents who did not strongly agree that trees were important were more likely than expected to be young or to be African-American, but 70% of all young respondents and 66% of African Americans did still strongly agree that trees were important to their quality of life. This fairly high percentage of agreement despite ethnicity is an important element to consider since our area of interest, Crown Heights, is 78% African American.

Filed under: natural landscape, social justice, environmental planning on April 4th, 2008