 |
| Trees can add needed shade to a desert environment but is one this large needed for shade? |
Appropriate tree selection can provide valuable wildlife habitat and protect the species diversity to urban dwellers. In most developed countries urban forests were considered almost entirely on the basis of aesthetics. More recently, environmental and economic benefits that these urban forests provide are being given closer scrutiny. In other parts of the world factors may drive plant selection such as the need for food, fuel, cultural heritage and shelter.
Historically the role of forestry was seen as guaranteeing a supply of industrial wood products for a variety of uses that was harvested much like an agricultural crop. But the role of forestry has broadened dramatically over the past few decades to help address a variety of environmental issues such as biological diversity and amelioration of global climate change as well as a new area of forestry coined ‘social forestry”.
Our cultural heritage may play a large role in how we view urban forests, plant selection and the composition of our urban forest. In a recent research article Canadian researchers surveyed community members representing three different cultural heritages; British, Mediterranean and Chinese; to find out how much actual influence cultural heritage has on the in residential component of Toronto’s urban forest.
Researchers found dramatic differences in residential components of Toronto’s urban forest and influenced by cultural ancestry. In order to understand where these differences emerge from it is important to understand their historical and cultural evolution.
Residents of Toronto from British origins valued primarily aesthetic landscapes composed of large trees. The researchers proposed that this was primarily due to Britain’s demand for English oak used to build wooden ships for their military navy and merchant marine. British landowners also supplied lumber for firewood and maintained their properties for producing wild game for the privileged.
Prior to the industrial revolution, wood produced for shipping was valued and grown on properties owned by the aristocracy. This wood was harvested, sold to the government and provided a significant revenue to these landholders. Large trees were viewed as a sign of wealth, power and prosperity.
Wealthy industrialists emerging later in Britain’s history viewed the landscape aesthetics of large mature trees as a sign of wealth and status. This was coupled with a backlash reaction to the industrial revolution that romanticized the world of nature. These views influenced the English school of landscape architecture toward greenspace planning and heavily influenced the evolution of the Garden City Movement in Britain and the United States.
The Garden City Movement was founded in 1898 by Sir Ebenezer Howard in the UK. In his view, garden cities were to be planned and self-contained communities surrounded by greenbelts with a careful balance between residential, industrial and agricultural development. The Garden City Movement had an impact on the landscape development of New York’s Central Park and the downtown central core of Washington, DC among others.
Much of the native vegetation in the Mediterranean region has been lost or dispersed for centuries and replaced by small scale agriculture. Cities in the Mediterranean region, beginning in the middle ages, lacked greenspace and forests but were surrounded by small scale intensive agriculture focused on the growing of fruit trees, grapes and vegetables. The Renaissance villa was intended to be an agricultural center owned by wealthy landlords. From this villa rich landlords could view the pastoral countryside and visitors could admire well manicured gardens.
Villas weren’t renowned for their self-sufficiency where owners drank their own wine and pressed their own olive oil. Later the term villa was extended to describe any freestanding suburban home surrounded by a landscape, much of it secured for the growing of food. Mediterranean immigrants continued this agricultural tradition in their new homes of North America which was dominated by the emerging northern European aesthetic of urban forests.
Very little greenspace existed in Chinese cities and what did exist was under the control of the government. Chinese citizens had very little direct influence on urban landscapes outside of their own home. The typical Chinese home, which has changed little in 3000 years, generally consists of several buildings belonging to an extended family. These buildings would all face one or more courtyards separated by family dining areas and communal gathering spots.
This communal home was typically surrounded by a wall which closed the family off from the rest of society and was also used to bring the outdoors into the family’s private compound. Inside the compound landscape design was abstract and featured primarily water, stone and buildings with trees playing a less significant role. North American parks with large trees and expansive lawns might seem uninteresting to a Chinese immigrant.
Researchers point out that three concepts play the largest and role in Chinese landscapes: private courtyards, abstract designs with little emphasis on plants, and a lack of involvement in landscape design outside of their courtyards.
It was not surprising then that those surveyed who are from British origin were the most likely to plant shade trees while the Italian, followed by the Portuguese, had or would plant the most fruit trees. Chinese favored the least number of trees. When shown computer generated images of urban landscapes, the British reacted more favorably toward landscapes dominated by trees and shrubs while Chinese tended to favor brick and lawn dominated landscapes.
In backyards, Mediterranean respondents tended to have the largest vegetable gardens while British had the smallest. In the Mediterranean group, Italians tended to plant more fruit trees in backyards than Portuguese which was still more than British which favored shade trees. Chinese was the only group which included untended space in backyard designs.
In front yard designs the researchers found no significant differences in the proportion of vegetable gardens, lawns, flower gardens and patios and driveways or the types of trees. However, those surveyed from the Mediterranean community did not like landscapes dominated by trees which concealed the front of the house while those of British origin preferred it because it had greater privacy than more open landscapes.
Culture also influenced preferences in urban park design. All three groups favored playing fields but differed in recreational use and aesthetics. As would be expected, those from a British background was alone in favoring hiking trails while the other groups or more receptive to flower gardens.
The largest percentage of trees in North American cities grow on private property. Cultural heritage plays a huge role in the selection of plant materials and designs that impact our urban forest. The British were far more interested than other groups in the planting of large ornamental shade trees. The Mediterranean and community, with its history intertwined with agrarian society com was far more interested in producing food in our urban landscapes than aesthetics.