Halifax Tree Project

 Urban Trees and Feelings of Safety and Danger

Shauna Doll, Raincoast Conservation Foundation

2021-06-13

In 2017, English landscape architect and senior lecturer at University of Greenwich Duncan Goodwin published a book entitled The Urban Tree. The first chapter of the book, titled “So what have urban trees ever done for us?” opens with a quote by George Nakashima, a renowned American woodworker and furniture-maker in the early 20th century. Nakashima said:

We are left in awe by the nobility of a tree, its eternal patience, its suffering caused by man and sometimes nature, its witness to thousands of years of earth’s history, its creations of fabulous beauty. It does nothing but good, with its prodigious ability to serve, it gives off its bounty of oxygen while absorbing gases harmful to other living things. The tree and its pith live on. Its fruits feed us. Its branches shade and protect us. And finally, when time and weather bring it down, its body offers timber for our houses and boards for our furniture. The tree lives on.

Unfortunately, despite all the goodness of trees, in developed regions their services can sometimes be dwarfed by their disservices. These include issues like: casting unwanted shade; releasing leaf litter and other debris onto surrounding built infrastructure; interrupting sight lines at traffic stops and pedestrian crossings; and damaging essential infrastructure such as powerlines (canopy interference) and sidewalks (root interference). While these nuisances can often be overcome by improved urban planning—as has been demonstrated by the ongoing series of blog posts undertaken by Halifax Tree Project contributors—more difficult to address are some of the social downsides of urban trees.

While the physical and psychological benefits of urban trees and greenspace have been increasingly well documented over the past several decades, so too has a paradoxical finding: urban forests can evoke feelings of unease and danger. Vegetated areas are often understood to be dangerous because they provide cover, hiding criminal activity from view (Kuo & Sullivan, 2001). Evidence of these perceptions dates back as early as the 12th century when the English King, Edward I, ordered property owners to clear roadsides of trees and shrubs, as it was expected that without vegetated cover instances of attempted highway robberies would diminish (Pluncknett, 1960). These ideas have continued throughout the centuries, most recently marked by periodic studies published throughout the 80’s and 90’s and into the current century.

One such study, conducted in 2000, found that women living in two European cities—Helsinki, Finland, and Edinburgh, Scotland—perceived urban woodlands as dangerous places, particularly at night (Koskela & Pain). Similarly, a UK-based survey undertaken in 2007 found that a significant number of respondents were afraid of “bullying”, “crime”, and “seclusion” in the woodlands area of a local urban park (Jorgenson & Anthopoulou, 2007). The former study argues that efforts to “design out fear” (e.g., installing lights, thinning brush to improve sightlines) are not particularly effective because “fear influences our experience of places, as much as places influence our experiences of fear.”  In other words, those planning solutions that so easily rectify the physical nuisances of urban trees and greenspace may not be as effective when addressing social issues and human perceptions.

Despite these longstanding associations between greenspace and danger/crime, most studies have found that the presence of parks and other green infrastructure within cities actually reduces urban crime (Shepley et al., 2019, Goodwin; 2017, Kuo & Sullivan, 2001). Some studies have even found that “greening” vacant city lots and increasing urban tree canopy can increase perceptions of safety (Mouratidis, 2019; Garvin, Cannuscio, Branas, 2012). So why is it that some people associate urban greenspaces as dangerous places if the research indicates that the opposite is also true?

The answer may be rooted in environmental justice. One American study assessed how the distribution of urban tree canopy might be related to variables such as race, ethnicity, and income in seven major cities across the country including New York, NY, and Los Angeles, CA (Schwarz et al., 2015). While the relationship between urban tree canopy and factors like ethnicity and race varied across cities, one factor was consistent among all seven: lower income neighbourhoods tend to have lower canopy coverage. This finding aligns with the results of a preliminary investigation I undertook, while a master’s student at Dalhousie University, into the correlation between tree planting patterns and wealth distribution in Toronto. Like Schwarz et al. (2015), I found that “money may not grow on trees but…in a way, trees grow on money” (p.13). However, if our argument is that urban greenspace can be perceived as dangerous, but wealthier neighbourhoods tend to have denser urban canopies and more greenspace comparative to lower income neighbourhoods, wouldn’t that mean that wealthy neighbourhoods are seen as more dangerous?

The answer—as may be expected—is no. Lower-income, less-green neighbourhoods are, by and large, perceived as more dangerous than wealthy, tree-lined ones. According to a Norwegian study from 2017, this is due to the perceptible “socioeconomic deprivation often present in such neighbourhoods” (Mouratidis, 2019, p.6). In contrast, the orderly, well-manicured condition of the urban forest found in wealthier neighbourhoods tends to have a compounding effect on the social, emotional, and physical ecosystem services these trees provide, thus eliciting stronger feelings of wellbeing and safety. Taken together, it may be inferred that perceptions of safety may be more tied to the socioeconomic status and resulting urban form of neighbourhoods than the green infrastructure itself.

So, what is the answer? How do we ease fears and reduce perceptions of danger in urban green spaces? A variety of solutions have been examined in the literature, such as the employment of Routine Activity Theory which is rooted in the idea that expected routine activity often reduces instances of crime in any urban area, well-treed or otherwise (Jiang et al., 2018). Others suggest that because of the plethora of social benefits urban greenspace provide, a simple solution is to just plant more trees and invest in more greenspace (Goodwin, 2017). Another significant finding is that education is tied to increased feelings of safety in greenspace (Mourtatidis, 2019).

Mourtadis speculates that the correlation between higher education and increased feelings of safety is likely due to an improved understanding of the benefits of greenspace and their relationship to improving feelings of safety. Similarly, as noted above, community greening initiatives in vacant lots have reduced perceptions of danger in inner-city neighbourhoods (Garvin et al., 2012). These sorts of interventions that invest in the creation of green neighbourhood gathering places tend to enhance social cohesion while also providing educational opportunities. Further, these projects often involve residents in decision-making, strengthening their personal investment in their home neighbourhoods. While it is undoubtedly an oversimplification to explore the safety of urban greenspace without investigating larger systemic issues, providing opportunities for residents to get involved in neighbourhood improvements is one small step toward safer, greener, more equitable cities.

Resources & Additional Reading

Garvin, E.C., Cannuscio, C.C, Branas, C.C. (2012). Greening vacant lots to reduce violent crime: A randomised controlled trial. Injury Prevention, 19 (3), 198-203.

Goodwin, D. (2017). So what have urban trees ever done for us? In The Urban Tree (pp. 1-26). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781315266169

Jiang, B., Li, D., Larsen, L., Sullivan, W.C. (2016). A dose-response curve describing the relationship between urban tree cover density and self-reported stress recovery. Environment & Behaviour, 48 (4), 607–629. DOI:10.1177/0013916514552321 .

Jorgensen, A. & Anthopoulou, A. (2007). Enjoyment and fear in urban woodlands: Does age make a difference? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6 (4), 267–278. DOI:10.1016/j.ufug.2007.05.004

Koskela, H. & Pain, R. (2000). Revisiting fear and place: Women’s fear of attack and the built environment. Geoforum, 31(2), 269–80. DOI:10.1016/S0016-7185(99)00033-0

Kuo, F.E. & Sullivan, W.C. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime? Environment & Behaviour, 33 (3), 343-367.

Mouratidis, K. (2019). The impact of urban tree cover on perceived safety. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 44, 1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126434

Pluncknett, T.F.T. (1960). Edward I and Criminal Law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Shepley, M., Sachs, N., Sadatsafavi, H., Fournier, C., Peditto, K. (2019). The impact of green space on violent crime in urban environments: An evidence synthesis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16 (24), 1-19. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16245119