Valuing Urban Forest: Lessons to Learn from Hurricanes*
R Bruce Hull, Virginia Tech (hullrb@vt.edu)
*This chapter is an updated and revised version of a previously published paper in the Journal of
Arboriculture 18(2): March 1992. Used by permission (about 50% the same material, Tidball is
seeking permission?).
Angel Oak may be over 1,400 years old, and thus one of the most ancient living things east of
the Mississippi River. Like most Live Oaks, it grows out, not up. Only 65 feet tall, its massive
limbs sprawl over 17,100 square feet of earth near Charleston, South Carolina. Locals call it
“The Tree.” Its value, like the value of all urban forests, cannot be captured by the common
denominator of money. The Tree reminds residents of their history, linking them back to the
earliest land grants of the area, dated 1717. It has value to the Judeo-Christian God, who created
trees and other vegetation on the 3rd day and declared them “good.” It is habitat to countless
insects, bacteria, and other forms of life, as well as being woven into the ecology of a much
larger area. It has economic value for the wood that could be used to build houses and for the
heat it could produce if burned. It retains water, sequesters carbon, purifies air, and performs
countless other ecological services that support human society. It may host genes or chemicals
that cure debilitating diseases. It evokes awe and humility in most that see it. It is photographed
and commemorated in countless family albums. People sit beneath its branches and ponder deep
thoughts about life, ecology, and their place in the universe. They search for lessons about how
to live a worthy life. Moreover, it is alive. It grows. It seeks resources. It resists infections. By
these actions it demonstrates a will to live. Perhaps this willfulness to survive has value in and
of itself because it is a property inherent to all life. Angel Oak illustrates the plurality of value
associated with urban forests, a plurality we must respect, for it motivates people to care, act, and
recover from disaster (Hull 2006).
One hundred and thirty-five mile and hour winds battered Angel Oak and the rest of Charleston
around midnight on September 21, 1989 when Hurricane Hugo made landfall. The 20 foot storm
surge was the highest ever recorded on the East Coast. One of the most intense hurricanes to
strike U.S. this century, Hugo killed 82 people, caused over $7 billion of property damages
including countless roofs, church steeples and whole buildings, and toppled much of
Charleston’s treasured urban forest. Angel Oak was damaged, but survived.
The purpose of this chapter is to identify the values residents of Charleston, South Carolina
ascribed to their urban forests after Hugo blew down much of it. Numerous scientific studies
document these values, which include aesthetics, community identity, human stress reduction,
energy and water conservation, wildlife habitat, enhanced property values, improved commerce,
and much more (Mole and Ebenreck 1989, Nowak and Dwyer 2007, McPherson et al. 2005,
Smardon 1988, Wolf 2005). Since there was considerable damage to Charleston’s forests, we
expected residents to be acutely aware of what they had lost. For the purposes of this chapter we
focus particularly on the symbols and meanings that make a place special and contribute to place
and self-identity.
Self-identity is rooted in many facets of daily life: the roles we play (i.e. mother, teacher,
Colonel, son), the groups to which we belong (church, democrats, USA), the things we wear
(trendy clothes, perfume, hair style), the items we purchase (fast, sexy and expensive
automobiles, nice homes in high status areas, books, art, landscaping), and the places we
frequent or remember (home town, historic church, commercial district, wilderness area)(Belk
1988; Sack 1988). “Place identity” refers to the contribution place attributes make to one’s
self-identity (Shumaker and Taylor 1983, Proshansky et al. 1983, Rivlin 1987, Korpela, 1989).
Places, and the meanings and values symbolized by place features, contribute to self-identity.
Stokols (1981) refers to these place-based meaning as the “glue” that binds people to place. They
tell us something about who we are and who we are not, how we have changed and into what we
are changing (see also Lynch 1972, Tuan 1980). Importantly, these sorts of identity enhancing
qualities foster resilience following crisis and disaster (Tidball et al.). To the extent that the
urban forest significantly contributes to place identity and thus self-identity, it should also
contribute to the resilience and capacity of people to respond to life disturbances such as
Hurricane Hugo.
<A> Methods
Several months after Hugo hit Charleston, a research team from Texas A&M University
completed 185 telephone interviews with residents in ten neighborhoods of Charleston. A
neighborhood was defined as approximately 100 residential units located within a four to five
contiguous street block area. An attempt was made to select neighborhoods that were
approximately equal in the type of damage caused by Hugo (but not in cost of damage), and were
homogeneous within themselves but varied from one another in socioeconomic status, age of
buildings and density of houses. All neighborhoods had some forest canopy prior to Hugo.
Approximately one-third of the residents from each neighborhood were randomly selected from
a city directory and mailed a letter explaining that they would be contacted by phone with
regards to this study. In total, 346 households were telephoned; 63 refused to participate, 185
fully participated. The balance (98) were businesses or people that had moved or could not be
reached even after 15 recalls. Thirty three percent of the respondents were male. Three trained
interviewers conducted the twenty minute interview. The interview consisted of an introduction,
questions about evacuation, recovery, socioeconomic status, place attachment, and several open
ended questions about the values associated with physical features damaged or lost due to Hugo.
The latter questions generated the data reported in this chapter.
Residents were asked during the interview to identify a physical feature of Charleston damaged
by Hugo that was special to them. They were also asked to explain why it was special. The
interview was designed to elicit the values people associated with physical features, i.e., Why
was it special? What did it mean to you? How did it make you feel? There were 2,213
responses. These were categorized by three persons guided somewhat by a similar study by
Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981). Intercodal agreement was 87%. See Hull et al.
(1994) for discussion of other findings from this study.
<A> Results and Discussion
Any mention of trees, forested parks, or urban forests were combined into a category called
"urban forest." Thirty percent of residents mentioned damaged urban forest as being the thing
damaged by Hugo that mattered the most to them. This figure itself is remarkable, given the
extent of damage to buildings and other places of value. The remainder of people said they were
most concerned about damage to architectural elements such as churches (27%), their own
homes (13%), public buildings (6%), historic structures (6%), retail structures (5%), homes of
friends or neighbors (3%; this despite approximately 80% of roofs needing repair of some type),
places of employment (1%), and a general "other" category that included cars (8%).
Respondents identified more reasons for why they valued urban forests than for why the valued
other damaged aspects of the urban fabric. Even though forests were identified as the damaged
object of concern by 30%, over 44% of all codeable explanations about why a damaged object
was valued were ascribed to urban forests, almost double the next category historic structures
(23%) and churches (16%). Over 10% of respondents mentioned that they had previously taken
for granted how much they valued the urban forest. Interestingly, no one said that they took for
granted the values and benefits associated with any other feature. Taken together, these findings
suggest that trees are a valued component of Charleston and that the extensive damage to the
urban forest made residents aware of these values.
What follows is a discussion of the reasons residents gave for valuing urban forests (Table 1).
Reported is the number of responses that fell within the scope of each category. Also reported is
the percentage that this number represents of the total 2,213 reasons offered for why respondents
valued things damaged by the hurricane.
[Insert Table 1: Values Associated with Urban Forests]
Positive feelings or emotions associated with urban forests were mentioned 257 times, or 11 % of
the total responses generated by our questions. These descriptions of feelings were categorized
based upon the scheme offered by Shaver et al. (1981): love (2.4%) delight (4.4%) relaxed or
reflective (3%) other positive feelings (1.8%). Negative feelings were mentioned only twice and
these were concerns about safety. These findings support other research which suggest that
nature evokes positive and relaxing emotions, even in urban areas (Hull and Michael 1994, Hull
et al. 1996). For example, exposure to nature has been found to reduce symptoms of stress and
affects length of hospital stay (Ulrich 1984).
Respondents also mentioned that trees were special because they provided economic or energy
related benefits. The number of responses in this category (139) represents 6.4% of all reasons
given. Specific examples included shade, temperature moderation, savings in cooling costs,
raising of property values and general economic reasons, such as bringing in tourists. These
findings are consistent with those reported by McPherson et al. (2005).
Respondents mentioned that the urban forest was special because it contributed to the general
environmental quality of Charleston. The number of responses in this category (75) represents
3.4% of all reasons given. Responses in this category included statements about a healthy
environment, ecology, clean air and wildlife habitat. Again, these public perceptions of value are
consistent with findings from scientific research (McPherson et al. 2005).
Urban forests are also valued because they provide opportunities for leisure and escape from city
pressures. More specifically, urban forests were valued as being places for picnicking and
socializing, for contemplation, and for exercise. There were 52 responses in this category
representing 2.3% of reasons given.
Respondents also mentioned that trees were special because they provided some functional
benefits such as reducing perceived noise and increasing privacy. The number of responses in
this category (21) represents 1% of all reasons given.
The remainder of the responses seemed to have some bearing on place identity. More
specifically, respondents explained that the urban forest mattered because it (a) made their place
distinctive, (b), symbolized something spiritual, (c) symbolized endurance, (d) provided
connections to other people, (e) connected them to local history, and/or (f) evoked memories of
their personal past. The remainder of this chapter drills deeper into these responses, the
relationship to place identity, and perhaps the inspiration of resilience.
More specifically, respondents mentioned that the urban forest was special because it served to
characterize, differentiate or beautify space and create a distinct community image. The number
of responses in this category (211) represents 9.5% of all code responses. Responses in this
category included beauty, scenery, charm and symbol of Charleston. Community image is
important because it helps differentiate one place from another by defining a visual character
(Hull 1992, Lynch 1960). Clearly demarcated territory promotes feelings of membership and
increases awareness that one belongs. These qualities of place also may promote a sense of
community (McMillan and Chavis 1986).
Reasons associated with one’s spiritual belief or hope were mentioned 11 times, which
represents less than 1% of all reasons given, but also occurred during some our most poignant
interviews. Examples include salvation, something to live for, hope, beauty of life, God's work,
and it symbolizes that nature nourishment of soul.
Respect for things that have endured occurred in 1 % of all reasons. A tree is considered special
because it has endured and survived storms and time, while other things have faded and are
forgotten. Example statements include: rare, lasted a long time, survived storms, and it did not
give up. Respondents specifically mentioned that they valued the urban forest because it has
been preserved or symbolized that preservation had taken place.
Jacobi and Stokols (1983) suggest that things are valued because they provide connections with
the past. Responses of this type were mentioned 21 times, less than 1 % of all reasons given.
Example statements include: early American way of life, George Washington was there, black
history, and represents early Charleston. No one mentioned Angel Oak, perhaps because it was
not in one of the neighborhoods sampled. In fact, most of responses referred to parks and
gardens rather than to particular trees.
Residents also valued trees because of the personal memories that they symbolized. Some
respondents were moved to tears by thinking about memories of trees damaged by Hugo. Trees
were associated 29 times (1 %) with family gatherings, with parents or grandparents who had
planted them, and with the long investment of the property owner who cared for them. One
particularly potent memory, recounted by a middle-aged man, is paraphrased below:
That damn storm! My father planted that tree before I was born. He watered it. Cared
for it. Mowed around it. Taught me to climb it. Put a swing in it. That was his tree. I use
(sic) to sit in it and think about things when I was a kid. He died a few years back, but
every time I saw that tree, I remembered him. That damn storm: it took my father from me
a second time.
<A> Conclusions and Implications
Over 30% of respondents identified some aspect of the urban forest as being the most significant
physical features of Charleston damaged by the hurricane, an impressive statistic given that these
same people also had first hand experiences with damage to their churches, local historical
structures and even their own homes (Hull et al 1994). Also impressive are the depth and breadth
of values associated with the urban forest. People valued urban forests for a plurality of reasons,
many reasons were mundane, instrumental and interchangeable (such as lost cooling effects and
higher air-conditioning bills), but other reasons were deeply personal, highly motivating, and
non-substitutable—values contributing to identity.
The role of urban forests as symbols of cherished meanings and memories needs greater
attention, especially in post-disaster contexts. According to Tidball et al. (20??) “interacting with
plants (e.g., through gardening, tree planting) appear to aid in resistance and resilience not only
through psychological therapeutic effects, and also through eliciting memories, sharing of
knowledge, and learning.” The symbols urban forests represent can be valued and powerful
sources of meaning as people draw strength in attempts to rebound and recover from the
disturbance of a damaging hurricane. Research is needed to better understand how the urban
forest should be managed to realize these essential values, and to better enable planners and
policy makers to include urban forestry in pre- and post-disaster planning.
<A> References
Czikszentmihalyi, M., and E. Rochberg-Halton. 1981. The Meaning of Things: Domestic
Symbols and the Self. Cambridge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hull, R.B. 1992. Image congruity, place attachment and community design. Journal of
Architecture and Planning Research 9:181-192.
Hull, R.B. 2006. Infinite Nature. Chicago University of Chicago Press.
Hull, R.B., M. Lam, and G. Vigo. 1994. Place identity: symbols of self in the urban fabric.
Landscape and Urban Planning 28:109-120.
Hull, R.B., and S.E. Michael. 1994. Nature Based Recreation, Mood Change, and Stress
Restoration. Leisure Sciences 17:1-14.
Hull, R.B., S.E. Michael, G.J. Walker, and J.W. Roggenbuck. 1996. Ebb and flow of brief leisure
experiences. Leisure Sciences 18:299-314.
Jacobi, M. , and D. Stokols. 1983. The role of tradition in groupenvironment situations. In
Environmental Psychology: Directions and Perspectives, edited by N. F. a. E. S. Geller.
NY: Prager Press.
Korpela, K.M. 1989. Place-identity as a product of environmental self-regulation. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 9:241-256.
Lynch, K. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
———. 1981. Good City Form. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.
McMillan, D.W., and D. Chavis. 1986. Sense of a community: a definition and theory. . Journal
of Community Psychology 14 (1):6-23.
McPherson, E.G., James R. Simpson, and Paula J. 2005. . Peper. 2005. Municipal Forest
Benefits and Costs in Five US Cities. Journal of Forestry:411-416.
Mole, G. , and S. Ebenreck. 1989. Shading Our Cities: A Resource Guide for Urban and
Community Forests. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Nowak, David J. , and John F. Dwyer. 2007. Understanding the Benefits and Costs of Urban
Forest Ecosystems In Urban and Community Forestry in the Northeast, edited by J. E.
Kuser: Springer Netherlands.
Proshansky, H.M., A.K. Fabian, and R. Kaminoff. 1983. Place Identity: physical world
socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology 3:57-83.
R.W., Belk. 1988. Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research 15:139168.
Rivlin, L.G. 1987. The neighborhood, personal identity, and group affiliations. In Neighborhood
and Community Environments, edited by I. Altman and A. Wandersman. NY: Plenum
Press.
Sack, R.D. 1988. The consumer's world: place as context. Annals of Association of American
Geographers 78:642-666.
Shaver, P. , J. Schwartz, D. Kirson, and C. O'Connor. 1987. Emotion knowledge: further
exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
52:1061-1086.
Shumaker, S. A. , and R.B. Taylor. 1983. Towards a clarification of people-place relationships: a
model of attachment to place. In Environmental Psychology: Directions and
Perspectives, edited by N. R. Feimer and E. S. Geller. NY: Prager Press.
Smardon, R.C. . 1988. Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: review of the role of
vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning 15:85-106.
Stokols, D. 1981. Group x place transactions: some neglected issues in psychological research on
settings. In Towards a Psychology of Situations: An Interactional Perspective, edited by
D. Magnusson. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tidball, and et al. in press.
Tuan, Y.. 198-. The significance of artifact. The Geographical Review 70:462-472.
Ulrich, R.S. 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science
224:420-421.
Wolf, Kathleen L. 2005. Business District Streetscapes, Trees, and Consumer Response. Journal
of Forestry 8 (December):396-400.