Website reflextions

The CFR Washington website provided some interesting perspectives on the importance of trees based on various sociological and psychological studies. The study on office workers and the relationship between the ability to see greenery from their desks and their job satisfaction was pretty suspicious. The study concluded that people who could see green at work felt more relaxed at work and had less sick days. However, there may be another aspect of these people's lives that may affect these issues more than just being able to see the lawn. Generally, office workers that have windowed offices are the upper level employees. These people may have more experience (and thus better coping abilities), higher income ( more comfortable lifestyle) and have probably invested more time in their work (therefore seeing it as more challenging) than those desk workers that do not have office windows.
I hold the rest of the studies about the psychologically beneficial effects of trees in contempt for several reasons. First of all, these fun facts about trees are certainly interesting, but just because they provide the name of the person who conducted the study does not mean that these studies were conducted in a legitimate manner. Secondly, these reports do not give enough information about the methods of the experiments for the reader to judge for herself wheter to believe the findings. Who was asked if they felt less stress/endured less domestic violence/viewed tree-lined streets as safer? What was their economic background? Age? Sex? All these factors and more come into play when evaluating the significance of trees in peoples lives and these details were left out of these reports.
Planning has historically made wealthier areas more beautiful (generally with artful building and landscape design). The studies that talk about reduced domestic violence, reduced stress and reduced feelings of insecurity of areas with many trees seems suspiciously tied to the planning of the area and the type of people that live in those places. More time and effort are put into an area where it is perceived that people and businesses will invest their money. So, if the neighborhoods looked more dangerous because of their lack of trees, perhaps that was because they were indeed less invested in. In my opinion, environment plays a huge role in shaping the opinions of people. Other studies have shown that people brought up in economically disadvantaged families generally suffer from higher stress, poor education opportunities, and as a result of these desperate conditions, more crime. It seems as though the presence of trees is a physical manifestation of the amount of money in the area (both from individual families and from the government). So, while planting more trees in areas that are lacking certainly wouldn't hurt, more trees will not necessarily solve the problems affecting people which are due to greater and more varied causes ( mainly pertaining to economic status).

The Landscape and Human Health Laboratory website seemed to understand the presence of trees in urban life from a more reasonable perspective. Their studies focused on impoverished inner-city adults and children, the elderly, and children with ADHD. This laboratory seemed more to look at whether improving the environment in which these groups lived would make a positive impact in their lives. In other words, whether the existence of urban forestry would improve the lives of these groups over those living with less greenery. There is recognition that it is not JUST the lack of trees in these people's lives that causes social distress.