Social Aspects of Urban Forestry: Urban Greening and Social Benefits: A Study of Empowerment Outcomes

Who Gets the Benefits?

Benefits can accrue to an individual, an organization, or an entire community. Greater understanding of whether problems and their potential solutions are at the individual, organizational, or community level can help hone the urban and community forester’s approach. This isn’t always easy— problems are usually multifaceted, and benefits that first affect one level can have a ripple effect to other levels.

Take, for example, the Forest Service response to the social unrest in Los Angeles after the 1992 Rodney King police brutality trial. Lack of parks, recreation, and open space has been a chronic concern in Los Angeles, reported as a factor in the Watts unrest of the 1960s (U.S. Kerner Commission 1968) as well as the Rodney King unrest of the 1990s. The Forest Service contributed to rebuilding Los Angeles with a greening and jobs program (USDA Forest Service, no date). Making greening an effective response to social issues requires understanding the subtleties of these problems (in the case of the recent Los Angeles unrest, long-term effects of racism). There are issues at all three levels in this example: individuals facing chronic unemployment and discrimination, organizations struggling with inadequate resources to meet serious local needs, communities beleaguered by years of disinvestment. The Forest Service program directly addressed the individual level by providing short-term jobs and the organizational level by providing resources for local nonprofit groups. If there were community-level impacts, they would have been indirect, resulting from a greener, more cared-for environment and other evidence of investment in the community.

What is truly a community benefit is the most problematic of the three levels. Colloquially, “community” often means something warm, fuzzy, and a little nostalgic. Practitioners often describe any positive social benefit as a “community benefit.” In looking at the impacts of trees and tree planting, it is important to be more precise. Community benefits are those that accrue to people whether or not they were involved in a program or project. In this way, community benefits are public goods, a fundamental concept in economics. A public good is nonexclusive and nonrival in consumption (Amacher and Ulbrich 1986). Public television is a good example of a public good. You can watch the programming whether or not you contribute to your local station (nonexclusive) and no matter how many others watch, too (nonrival in consumption). Therefore, job creation is not a direct community benefit; neither is fostering organizational capacity. These are benefits at the individual and organizational levels.

Empowerment is a word often used to describe the social benefits of tree planting programs, and it is often labeled a community benefit. However, viewed from a public goods perspective, empowerment often is not a community benefit but an individual or organizational one. The new-found power, or new-found exercising of existing power, is developed by a person or group but may not accrue to someone who stayed home and didn’t participate. But changes for one person or group can have a ripple effect. The newly empowered block club might then take action to create a safer block, a benefit enjoyed by that stay-at-home person. This would be a true community benefit. Alternately, a newly empowered individual might take control of a new tree planting project to such an extent that there could be negative ramifications for the block. Individual benefits can add up, or multiply, to create organizational- or community-level benefits. Community benefits might help specific individuals. But clarity about who gets which benefits is important, particularly when designing or gathering support for a program. Promising community benefits when individual benefits are more likely could have negative repercussions for a program. Developing a project aimed at providing individual benefits when organizational benefits are needed could also backfire.

Passive Experience of a Green Environment

There are numerous benefits available to individuals, organizations, and communities from a green environment. Views of green space can have dramatic impacts on people: improved worker productivity (Kaplan 1993b), reduced domestic violence (Kuo and Sullivan 1996), shorter healing times (Ulrich 1984).

Most documented benefits of living, working, or playing in a green environment accrue to individuals. Views of vegetation and water (e.g., rivers or lakes) have been shown to reduce stress, improve healing, and reduce driving frustration and aggression (Ulrich 1984; Parsons et al. 1998; Cackowski 1999). Views of green space from home are also linked to a greater sense of well-being and neighborhood satisfaction (Fried 1982; Kaplan 2001).

Living and playing in green places can be very important to children. Play in places with trees and vegetation can support children’s development of skills and cognitive abilities (Taylor et al. 1998) and lessen the symptoms of Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (Taylor et al. 2001). Living in a green environment can improve school performance (Wells 2000) and reduce reported incidents of domestic violence (Kuo 2003).

Some benefits of green space that accrue to individuals have clear benefits to organizations as well. Workers report greater productivity when they have a view of green space from their place of work, and their supervisors also feel that these workers are more productive (Kaplan 1993a). Business districts with trees are considered more desirable and are thought to have more desirable goods and services (Wolf 2003). These benefits can accrue to a local chamber of commerce and to a municipality.

An example of a benefit of green space at the community level is that greener space can increase perceptions of safety. In a public housing setting, Kuo et al. found that residents reported that they would feel a greater sense of safety in their development if it had well-maintained landscaping including trees and grass (1998). In another study, these researchers found that greener public housing neighborhoods also tend to be safer, with fewer incivilities and reported crimes (Kuo and Sullivan 2001).

Active Involvement in Greening the Environment

Benefits from active involvement with urban and community forestry stem from tree planting and landscaping projects, volunteer tree maintenance, and the organizing that goes into successful projects. Some of these benefits derive from the fact that gardens and tree planting projects are relatively simple and easy when compared, for example, to fighting discriminatory lending practices or to large-scale job creation. This “do-ability” can provide a modest victory or small win which, in turn, sometimes leads to an individual or group taking on more difficult projects (Weick 1984; Feldman and Stall 1994). Benefits that individuals or groups seek can vary from food production to strengthening intergenerational ties to beautification to reducing crime (Bouza 1989; Patel 1992; Pauline 1993; Westphal 1993; McDonough et al. 1994; Westphal 1995).

At the individual level, planting a tree or vegetable garden can provide a sense of accomplishment and/or effectiveness that might otherwise be lacking in a person’s day-to-day life— effectiveness at helping the environment or their neighborhood (Westphal 1993; McDonough et al. 1994). This sense of accomplishment and effectiveness is a component of a modest victory. A garden can also provide food security, a tangible benefit to an individual (Patel 1992).

At the organization level, the benefits of active involvement with urban and community forestry can include more members in a block club or other organization and stronger ties to politicians or agencies. Both of these benefits can then foster greater effectiveness for the organization in meeting its goals. These project goals might be oriented towards the neighborhood, the environment, or both (Westphal 1993; McDonough et al. 1994).

At the community level, the organization’s contacts with agencies and politicians can lead to more external resources. These resources, in turn, can lead to public-goodtype benefits. For instance, if by successfully completing a tree planting project, a neighborhood gets to know their councilperson better, and through the councilperson increases their contact with the police, the neighborhood might become safer. This increased safety would be a community benefit.

Empowerment: A Cautionary Tale

Many practitioners have noticed significant change in neighborhoods and communities from participation in urban greening projects (Kollin 1986; Lyons 1986; Bouza 1989; Evans 1994). These stories are often compelling, even dramatic. Practitioners often use empowerment language to describe these changes, but few studies have investigated these outcomes. This research was designed to fill this gap, investigating practitioner claims of social benefits—such as empowerment—from urban greening projects.

Empowerment is problematic. It is a widely used word, with almost as many meanings as people using it. Even in academia, there are many disciplines that approach the idea of empowerment from different angles. I used empowerment theory as developed in Community Psychology to frame this research (Rappaport 1987; Zimmerman et al. 1992; Perkins and Zimmerman 1995; Zimmerman 2000). In Community Psychology, empowerment grew from a recognized need to change the paternalistic outlook on the part of service providers in various fields. This has meant a change from illness- or needs-based interventions where the practitioner is the expert aiding patients, to an approach of collaboration where an individual’s or group’s strengths are recognized and developed (Rappaport 1981; Zimmerman and Warschausky 1998). The research and theoretical development of community psychology’s empowerment theory to date have been strongest at the individual level.

While definitions of empowerment vary, they all have at their root the ability for an individual, organization, or community to effect positive change. Empowerment indicators will vary because the nature of these changes will be different for different situations. Still, there are some common themes to empowerment indicators, including increased mastery and control, increased skills, access to resources, and ties within and outside community.

Zimmerman articulated an important refinement of empowerment theory—the differentiation between empowered and empowering (Zimmerman 1995, 2000). When people are empowered, they, themselves, show mastery of skills, control over aspects of their environment, and an ability to make changes that lead to a higher quality of life for themselves (and sometimes others). When people empowering, they are able to foster empowerment in others, facilitating changes in another individual or group to make changes in their circumstances. An individual might be empowered, or become empowered, but not be empowering. Likewise, another person or organization might be empowering but not particularly empowered. It is possible to be both empowered and empowering, but it is not a given.

Halsted—”Bring the Block Up”

This block showed the most signs of empowerment and related benefits of the four blocks. In reaction to increased antisocial activity (“devilment”) and an increasing number of abandoned buildings, residents wanted to “bring the block up.” After signing petitions that successfully blocked a tavern from reopening on the block, the reinvigorated block club decided to put in a garden on a vacant lot. The block club held meetings that were well attended; recruited block members to help out, delegating tasks based on residents’ skills; and installed the garden. Since installation, the residents have done a good job at maintaining the project and adding to it. Many houses up and down the block had gardens in the front yard and exhibited other signs of care. The alderman was impressed with the efforts of this block and changed the boundaries of a tax increment financing district to include this block, hoping inclusion would bring additional benefits to the block. In the words of the alderman’s chief of staff, “if they can do it, anyone can do it”—”it” being improving their block. The garden project gave some residents increased feelings of control. In the words of Mr. Nichols, a man in his 60s who participated in the greening project, … because like you say you get a sense of feeling if somebody is over there doing something that they aren’t suppose to be doing you have a right to tell them not to do it. Why? Because we did this for this particular thing to get it like it is and now we want to keep it like that, you know. So that, it give you the authority to run somebody out of there or talk to ‘em about getting out of there if they are doing something against, against the grain. If I had did nothing, nothing, but hadn’t participated then I wouldn’t have had that type of feeling. …

The project was not without controversy, however. The vacant lot had been used by men on the block for car repair and hanging out and by young children for play. Since the garden was constructed, the gate has been locked. It is a low gate, but some block club members patrol the lot and keep the children from playing and the men from hanging out there. Younger men on the block resent the loss of use of the lot and feel blamed for any piece of litter that appears on the lot. They also feel that the children have lost an important play space. This situation has created some ill will on the block.

The block club wanted to continue to improve the block but were unsure what to do next. If they had learned of another program, they probably would have joined. However, they were not aware of other programs and were not sure how to seek them out. Their progress from resisting the tavern to organizing and maintaining the garden was stymied by this lack of future direction.

The strength on this block was the decision-making process and project implementation. The many open meetings fostered participation. There wasn’t total agreement on what to do, but decisions were not made behind closed doors. There were empowerment benefits at the individual and organizational levels, with some evidence of potential community level empowerment.

Ashland—Dream Site?

The greening program staff thought the project on Ashland was a dream site; they thought there was lots of local involvement and lots of local impact. One of the many empty lots was cleaned up and no longer used for drinking and drugs. It was planted with shrubs, flowers, and a few trees. The organizer, Martha, placed a religious statue in the middle of the garden, and many plants had religious significance (e.g., burning bush). Other nearby residents saw the project and signed up for the Greencorps program to do greening projects on their blocks. In general, the block showed a high degree of organization: block parties and clean-ups were regular events, neighbors mowed each other’s lawns, and a small planter box stood on one corner.

What the greening program staff didn’t see was that most of the people involved in this project were part of Martha’s extended family, and many of them moved off the block shortly after the project was done. The garden was just behind Martha’s house, on a lot where a house had recently been razed, and control of the lot was part of a feud between her and a neighbor. Martha’s daughter describes it this way: … the man that use to live there, he was having problems with the lady next door. She didn’t like him either … Now if she [the neighbor] would have took over [the lot], it would have been [a horrible mistake] I believe that she wanted that property. … It so happen that … Martha knew Kristin [from an environmental nonprofit], and Kristin knew something about Greencorps, and they was having money funding for the garden, if it was a block program. So we looked into it and that’s what we did. When they tore down the building we went to the next garden class and then we got it started. … [We had permission] from the owner and everything and he said you all can use it indefinitely, “as long as she don’t have it, I’ll be happy” [laughs].

Martha got extra funds to put up a 6-foot high chain-link fence. Other block residents wanted a shorter fence, one that wasn’t as formidable. Martha and her daughter had the only keys to the lock on the gate. Most residents of the block saw it as Martha and her daughter’s garden, not something for the block. They felt that maintenance was her task and wondered why the garden wasn’t kept weeded. Block residents appreciated Martha’s determination and her knowledge about who to call to solve problems, but didn’t feel that the garden was theirs or had a huge impact on the block. With some neighbors, the garden caused resentment.

The decision-making process and project implementation on Ashland looked open and participatory but was in fact run by one determined woman. What Martha wanted was what happened. The garden was behind her house, “not on this block” to most block residents, and the project caused some hard feelings. The greening program staff didn’t readily see these aspects of the project’s story. The empowerment outcomes were, if anything, negative: Martha was acting on existing skills, so there was no individual empowerment gain. At the organizational level, the project made continued progress in addressing local issues more difficult for residents. The one glimmer of community-level empowerment was in the other block groups that joined Greencorps based on what they saw of Martha’s garden.

Pulaski—Local Dictators

The greening program staff saw the project on Pulaski as an utter failure. The organizers, twin sisters Jill and Jane, lived on an adjacent block and decided to turn an empty lot on Pulaski into a garden. This decision was announced at a local beat meeting (meetings organized by the local police and leaders to address local problems). Residents were asked to sign up to help with the project. Block residents at the beat meeting said they wanted a play lot, but Jill and Jane said “no.” A block resident said, Oh, everybody was saying it should be a playground. But then they [Jill and Jane] said “no,” that if we make it a play ground, then it invites gangs for them to sell drugs over there. … They were either going to make it a play lot or a — that [referring derisively to the garden lot]. …

A couple of people on the block did help with the garden, but most of the volunteers came from neighboring blocks. The block residents who did participate had negative stories to tell about Jill and Jane’s pushiness. After the flowers and shrubs were planted, many were taken overnight and showed up in neighbors’ yards up and down the block. This happened several times as the organizers replanted the garden. No one maintained the lot, and weeds and grass grew high, obscuring the few remaining flowers and shrubs. Jill and Jane put a fence across the back of the lot that limited access from the alley. Some block residents saw this as a positive outcome of the project.

The residents on the block were uncomfortable with the decline of the block. Fear was palpable on this block, more so than in the other locations. Several residents reported that even their block parties were full of squabbles and conflict.

The decision-making and project implementation process on Pulaski was dictatorial, but Jill and Jane didn’t see themselves that way. They felt that their hard work to improve the neighborhood was unappreciated and the block residents should maintain the site. They were proud of their efforts to bring resources to the block and wanted the neighborhood to garner more attention from the city and regional nonprofit groups. Jill: … we thought it would bring people out to work on it, remember, and “oh, well, you got something interesting going on here—let’s all work on it.” Nobody’s done anything for it. Everybody wants you to do everything for ‘em.Jane: Well, the other thing was the thing that we thought that we were gonna do, put the garden here, is like, what’s going to end up happening today on [a neighboring street with a large garden]. The mayor’s gonna come out, rejuvenate the block, that they’ve worked on with the … old police commander that was transferred.Jill: And the whole community.Jane: And the whole community. Everybody get together and neighbors start, neighbors helpin’ neighbors, …

But working together on problems was not something the residents of Pulaski were ready to do. They had retreated inside their houses, and the garden project did not pull them out or pull them together. Jill and Jane might have enhanced their individual empowerment, but for residents on the project block there was no increase in empowerment at the individual level—and potentially negative repercussions at the organizational and community levels.

Jefferson Homes—Long History of Organizing

Jefferson Homes is a low-rise public housing development, described by residents as “the cream of the crop” of Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) developments. With an active core group of organizers, residents of Jefferson Homes maintain numerous projects including a laundromat (proceeds support scholarships), a convenience food store, and children’s activities. Based on these successes and CHA’s continued disinvestment in their community, the core organizers were working toward resident management of their development. It is in this context that the Greencorps project was initiated. But because the residents did not follow through with the project, the Greencorps staff felt it was a failure and that this failure reflected the residents’ inability to organize and carry through on a project.

Mrs. Thompson, a deeply respected resident leader, had planned a vegetable garden on vacant land across a busy street from the development. Residents had a vegetable garden on the site in the past, and Mrs. Thompson and others wanted to resurrect it. Residents also had two communal vegetable plots within the development, and many had gardens in their own yards. Mrs. Thompson decided to sign up for Greencorps, counting on resident support for the project if they were accepted into Greencorps and the plant materials arrived.

Jefferson Homes was accepted in Greencorps and the plants did come, but they arrived late, in the middle of a major heat wave (there were over 700 heat-related deaths during this heat wave). It was already late in the season to plant vegetables, and because of the heat wave, it was unsafe for people to be out doing heavy work. The residents tried to keep the plants shaded and watered, but the ground was too dry to successfully plant the garden.

There were several greening projects that did take place in the development that year, organized by members of the core group. New sod was installed around the perimeter, and numerous circular flowerbeds were planted throughout the development. At the same time, the resident management process consumed most of the core group of active residents. There was a lot going on, in the words of one resident peripherally involved in the projects: Well, sometime you have the same people working on the same, you know they can only do so much work. They can only be in so many places, you know. Once that started I don’t think they really could get anybody to finish it up. … You know we have a lot of other things going on. We’ve been having a lot things going on in the last two or three years. Like we had this resident management that’s coming up …

In some ways, the organizers were good at building on other residents’ strengths, but Mrs. Thompson felt that she couldn’t ask others to do work that she was not a part of: “… Then I got busy, too, I wouldn’t put it all on that. Because if you get somebody to work with you, you have to be out there with them.” In this way, the amount of work that could be done was limited by what a few lead organizers could actively be involved in.

While the core group of organizers accomplished many things, some projects were left undone, including the Greencorps garden, a victim of bad weather. The greening projects that were implemented drew on existing skills. New individual-, organizational-, and community-level empowerment for these residents was coming from the soon-to-be-realized resident management of their development.