Needs and Fears: The Response to Trees and Nature in the Inner City

Photograph dimensions

Photograph ratings were processed through dimensional analysis techniques according to methods developed and used extensively elsewhere (Kaplan, 1975). The aim of these data-reduction procedures is to explore the basic structure of groups of variables, and to identify subsets of variables which are responded to similarly. The specific methods used are two programs which employ very different mathematical procedures — the ICLUST hierarchical clustering program (Kulik, Revelle and Kulik, 1970) and the SSA-3 non-metric factor analysis program (Lingoes, 1972). Both procedures have been found to yield stable results when analyzing comparable variables across different groups of subjects. By examining the results of both programs and eliminating inconsistencies between the solutions, the researcher isolates dimensions or factors which are robust and not dependent on the mechanics of any one unique algorithm. Table 2 gives mean preference ratings and Alpha values, a measure of internal consistency (Cronbach, 1951), for each of these perceptual categories.

Local Parks and Walks was the most preferred grouping. This dimension included all of the residential street scenes as well as scenes of small and well-maintained park areas. The park scenes depict very flat and open areas, with buildings usually visible in the background. Although play equipment appears in some photographs, scenes in which swings or other playground features are dominant did not cluster with this dimension.

Both of the less-preferred dimensions depict larger and more densely forested scenes, with buildings appearing in very few of the photographs. The Woods and Path dimension is composed of large natural areas, each of which.includes a pathway or small opening where one could walk through the scene. The Woods and Water dimension consists of similarly large, densely forested areas, with a lake or river in the foreground.

These two latter dimensions were somewhat intercorrelated (r=.48). Other scenes which were similarly unmanicured but which did not include any particularly striking natural features (such as water or a large expanse of trees) were not included in these dimensions.

The fact that the dimension including the residential street scenes was preferred over the dimensions composed of more natural areas is particularly noteworthy. This result is opposite to that of an earlier study with female college students, in which similar residential scenes were rated far below more natural areas (Kaplan, 1978). On the other hand, this result does agree with a recent survey of a broad sample of Detroit residents in which both verbal and photographic ratings reflected higher preferences for trees on neighborhood streets than for larger wooded areas (Getz et al, 1982).

Photograph preferences

Participants were encouraged to use each of the five piles when sorting the twenty-six photographs. While many respondents indicated that they really liked all of the scenes, the sorting task was performed easily and the resultant average ratings cover a broad range. Figures 1 and 2 show the two highest and the two lowest rated photographs in the study.

The eight photographs which received ratings of 4.0 or higher are, like those in Figure 1, parks or neighborhood scenes with both natural and built elements. Most of these highly preferred scenes include a sidewalk or other built pathway, and many also include park equipment like swings and picnic shelters. Each scene is characterized by smooth ground texture and by a generally well-kept appearance. These scenes include five of the seven photographs in the Local Parks and Walks dimension, along with larger parks in which trees are widely spaced throughout fairly open grassy areas.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 1.

Scenes with highest average preference ratings (over 4.5 on 5-point scale).

At the low end of the preference scale, the four photographs with ratings of 2.75 or below are, like those in Figure 2, unmanaged areas with heavy undergrowth. Dense groupings of trees appear in these scenes, but many of the trees shown are scrubby or appear dead. Weeds are sometimes a dominant element, and appear to some extent in all of the non-preferred scenes. Two of the five photographs in the Woods and Paths dimension are included among these lowrated scenes.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 2.

Scenes with lowest average preference ratings (below 2.5).

Examining the contents of photographs at both ends of the preference scale has reiterated the distinctions found among the three dimensions, with well-maintained areas incorporating built features being preferred over natural areas that are relatively untouched. Both neatness and the presence of amenities such as benches and pathways seem to be relevant in these rankings. The built component emerged distinctly in the dimensional analysis. The concern for maintenance is evident both within the dimensions and in examining the relative ratings of individual photographs. Within each perceptual dimension, preferences were lower for the less manicured as opposed to the more trimmed areas. No matter what its specific content, the most preferred scene in each perceptual dimension has a well-manicured character, while scenes with lower ratings appear less orderly. Thus, although the element of neatness does not emerge as a coherent perceptual category in and of itself, it appears to be a critical determinant of preference ratings.

Liked and disliked features

After completion of the sorting task, participants were asked to describe particular aspects of the outdoor areas in the photographs which were especially liked and disliked. The answers to these questions were summarized in categories which are presented in Table 3.

The disliked qualities which were most frequently mentioned reflect general concerns for orderliness, safety, and for the lack of visibility within an area. Disorderliness in a scene was the most frequently mentioned point of concern, and weedy areas were not appreciated. Other disliked features reflect concerns for spaces that are dark and seem closed-in or threatening. The presence of “too many” trees and bushes was frequently mentioned as a specific point of concern.

A much larger number of responses was made when participants were asked what it was that they particularly liked in the scenes. Their answers were quite varied, representing specific themes as well as a more general enjoyment of “pretty” and “parklike” scenes. Particular natural features were noted, such as the trees and water, the suggestion of being a wildlife area, and the natural quality of a scene. In addition, built features including swingsets, picnic shelters, sidewalks, ballfields, and other amenities were pointed out as being especially appreciated. Concerns for neatness and for safety were again expressed, as they were in responses to the question on disliked features. Finally, some residential street scenes were viewed as being “good places to live,” and the appearance of a place to walk or drive through some scenes was particularly liked.

Some of these comments may appear to contradict each other. For example, trees are mentioned as being both especially liked and especially disliked features. Disorderliness is not preferred, but natural beauty in a scene is valued. And it may not be obvious what kinds of areas seem either dangerous or safe to a sample of inner city residents. Again, looking at the specific photographs being referred to in each case is instructive in clarifying these expressions of preference.

The bottom photograph in Figure 2, which shows a small creek heavily lined with scrubby, barren-looking trees, was the most frequently cited example of disliked trees. At the other extreme, a scene dominated by three large evergreens, and two other scenes containing a distinctive willow tree and a line of white birches were frequently pointed out as having trees which were well-liked.

Both photographs in Figure 2 were cited as examples of places that looked weedy, disorderly and dangerous. The unmanicured quality of these two scenes is obvious. At the same time, other unmanaged scenes were described more favorably as being “wildlife areas” or having “natural beauty.” These were rated higher by the sample as a whole, and were among the natural areas with more distinctive features which had clustered into the Woods and Water and the Woods and Paths dimensions. One example is a scene showing a large log next to a rushing river in a heavilywooded area, which was often described as a nice place to go fishing.

The quality of danger may not be readily apparent in the scenes in Figure 2, other than in the extremely rough ground textures evident in both photographs. Some respondents specifically suggested that weedy areas would give muggers a good place to hide in. However, the inference of safety in other scenes seems more straightforward. Two photographs were often described as looking like safe places. Each of these, including the bottom photograph in Figure 1, depict parks with swingsets and other children’s play equipment.

To summarize these findings, many specific features were noted as contributing to the respondents’ preference judgments. Scenes with a few large and/or distinctive trees in an open grassy area were generally preferred. Unmanaged natural areas were appreciated only when they had distinctive physical features rather than just looking like the woods. Smooth ground textures and generally well-kept appearances were especially important to the sample. In their absence, heavy undergrowth strongly suggested the threat of physical danger.

Differences in preferences for areas

Somewhat surprisingly, there were few differences in preferences within the sample, either in the photograph ratings or in the verbal descriptions of preferred and non-preferred outdoor areas. No significant differences in preferences for the three photograph dimensions were found when stratifying the sample according to any of the demographic variables listed in Table 1 (note that levels were collapsed in some categories to assure sufficient sample sizes. The significance criterion used was 0.05).

A few significant results were found when examining the verbal descriptions and the differences in ratings for the best- and worst-liked individual photographs. Respondents who had always lived in cities gave lower ratings to the woodsy creek scene (in Figure 2), and more often said they disliked disorderly scenes and liked park areas, when compared with the rest of the sample. Elderly people reflect nearly opposite distinctions, with higher ratings for this same woodsy creek scene, and less frequent comments about liking park scenes. And people from households with chidren were more favorable to the scene with swings (in Figure 1), less favorable to the creek scene, and less frequently said they liked areas that were just scenic, when compared with the rest of the sample.

The value of nature

In a separate open-ended question, participants were asked what kinds of response they had to outdoor areas, what feelings they gained from being outdoors. Answers to this question, as shown in Table 4, indicate that being outdoors is a positive experience. Being outdoors provides an opportunity to relax, to get away from pressures and worries, to think, and just to enjoy oneself.

While this range of answers is not at all surprising, Table 5 indicates that these opportunities are not seen as trivial by urban Black residents. When asked how important they thought that nature was in their lives, only 18 respondents perceived a relatively low value in their infrequent involvement with nature. Four people said that nature was not extremely important to them, but they still found it a daily interest. The remaining 74 individuals responded that nature was a very important part of their lives, and for the majority of these, it was an everyday pursuit.

Searching for differences within the sample in these perceived values again yielded minimal results. People from households with children more often said that being outdoors gave them time to think. And non-elderly respondents more often described being outdoors as generally enjoyable. Other than these two findings, however, there were no differences in the values that were perceived by the participants in relation to their opportunities to be outdoors or otherwise involved with nature.