The World’s First Tree Preservation Order
1st December 2014Nemophilist: One who is fond of the forest; a haunter of the woods.
10th February 2015I like trees, but…
Urban trees have many objective benefits to people, the economy and the environment; with much research and policy supporting this. However, it’s less clear if the public’s perception corresponds with such research and policy. Increasingly, arboriculturists involved in public liaison have questioned whether the public are aware of, or agree, that urban trees provide such benefits. Yet without public support, there is little hope of sustainable urban tree cover.
When assessing public perspectives towards urban trees, a wide spectrum of views can be observed. For some people, trees are wholly positive, they seem to regard them as a remedy to almost all of society’s ills, and think that increased tree cover is pivotal if society is to progress. Trees in the urban environment are seen as synonymous with humanistic and economic progress, while simultaneously adhering to spiritual principles and the ethics of deep ecology. Yet any urban tree professional who deals with the public will be aware of the obvious discontent trees can cause. There are those who seem to view urban trees as a very real threat; to their property, wealth, health and even life. From death, by a giant limb smashing through their home while they and their loved ones sleep, or the fear of this event increasing stress levels, they see themselves as being under siege. Persecuted by an incessant threat and nuisance, they view urban trees as an uninvited wilderness, symbolic of a breakdown of civil society.
These perspectives are extreme, yet negative perceptions towards urban trees undoubtedly exist, even if they seem unwarranted when considered against the wealth of evidence of the objective benefits they provide. Is it just misinformation and public ignorance that induces the view of urban trees as, at best, an irrelevant and dispensable aspect of urban life and, at worst, a fear inducing liability?
People’s urban environments are subjective creations of their individual perceptions; so any landscape is composed of not only what lies before our eyes but also what lies within our heads. The landscape author Richard Muir details differences between what he called the real landscape and the perceived landscape, which is a selective impression of what the real landscape is like. The impression may be very close to the real landscape or it might contain important misconceptions. From this we can see that many of the objective benefits, as they relate to trees as material objects, are within the “real landscape”, yet they still have to be interpreted by the public individual, whose reality of living in close proximity to trees may be far removed from what research and government reports are claiming. Different individuals will therefore perceive the same tree completely differently. Filtered by cultural input, public attitudes towards urban trees are both diverse and malleable, so it’s important to have an understanding of negative public reactions to trees and the implications this may have for those responsible for managing the urban forest.
While an individual’s complaint regarding a tree may vary, the underlying theme of most seems to be the perception of urban trees as representing loss of control over the individual’s local environment. In order to dispel such views, it’s important for the public to be aware that urban trees are not simply an encroaching wilderness, but that they are being actively managed (which, of course, includes removing trees when needed). Similarly, informing the public about the myriad of benefits urban trees offer and reducing the misconception of trees as significant threats, would help enable the individual’s interpretive filter to perceive urban trees as the real assets they surely are.