Growing Power: Social Benefits from Urban Greening Projects

GROWING POWER?:
SOCIAL BENEFITS FROM URBAN GREENING PROJECTS
BY
LYNNE M. WESTPHAL
B.A., University of Wisconsin, 1982
M.A., Northeastern Illinois University, 1992
THESIS
Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
Public Policy Analysis-Urban Planning and Policy
in the Graduate College of the
University of Illinois at Chicago, 1999
Chicago, Illinois

i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There is an irony in doing a dissertation: it is a very lonely process, but you don’t
do it alone. There are so many people to thank, people who have genuinely and generously
helped me through this. At the risk of sounding like the Academy Award winner for best
sound techniques in a film you’ve never heard of, I want to thank them all.
Many thanks to the 55 people who allowed a total stranger knocking on their door
into their homes and their lives. My respondents’ insights and heartfelt answers to my
questions made my own task not only easier but a pleasure.
Suzanne Malec, Assistant Commissioner of the City of Chicago Department of
Environment, and creator of the Green Corps program, has been the perfect researcher’s
ally. Eternally curious and striving to re-create her programs to make them better and
better, Suzanne helped me think through quandaries in the data, and answer the pesky “so
what?” question. Other Department of Environment staff were also of great help. Many
thanks to Ellen Gibson-Kennedy, Kevin Carroll, DeAnna DeChristopher, and Richard
Dobbins.
I had a great committee. I benefited greatly from George Hemmens, my advisor,
and his experience ushering students through the dissertation process. Roberta Feldman
introduced me to several mother loads in the literature, and helped me hone my analytic
skills. Joanne Vining, Steve Warner, and Curt Winkle each lent valuable guidance and
camaraderie. I can see each of you in this work, although, as they say, the goofs are mine
and mine alone. Many, many thanks.

ii
I have been quite fortunate in the level of support from my employer, the USDA
Forest Service North Central Research Station. John Dwyer gave me the freedom to focus
on the research and fostered my interest in the field since I walked through the door as a
part time master’s student almost 10 years ago. My colleagues Herb Schroeder, Susan
Barro, Susan Stewart, Paul Gobster and Gina Childs provided intellectual camaraderie and
friendly support. Each gave me feedback when I needed it, and left me alone when I
needed that. Many thanks. And, yes, John, lunch is on me.
The QSR Nudist listserve members provided answers to specific questions and
insights into the analysis process. Specifically, Pat Bazeley was helpful at a critical stage
early in the analysis with her insights into structuring the index tree in N4.
And then there are my family and friends. Paul, you could give lessons in being a
supportive spouse! I’m lucky to be living my life with you. Kim, your help, in all its forms,
was critical. Alice, among other things, thanks for proof reading the damn thing! Thanks
also to Ken, Mary, Pat, Elaine, Janet, Jana, Pam, Pamela, Betty, Judy, Dave, Mark,
Francesca, Katy, Frank, Pat, Ming Jie, Dad, and all my other tai chi buddies you all lent
support and nurturing that kept me going.
And to the person from whom I learned the most these past few years, thank you
Peter.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................................I
TABLE OF CONTENTS .....................................................................................................................................III
TABLE OF TABLES...........................................................................................................................................V
TABLE OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................VI
SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................................VII
INTRODUCTION: THE CLAIMS OF SOCIAL BENEFITS OF URBAN GREENING PROJECTS.........1
Urban Greening for Social Well-being: Historical Perspective ..............................................................2
The Urban Greening Movement...............................................................................................................3
Urban Greening for Social Well-being: Current Observations...............................................................5
The Federal Government Buys In ..........................................................................................................12
Urban Greening as Empowering ...........................................................................................................14
Social Science Perspectives....................................................................................................................15
This Study...............................................................................................................................................33
RESEARCH DESIGN, METHODS, DATA ANALYSIS..........................................................................40
Research Design.....................................................................................................................................40
Methods..................................................................................................................................................41
Procedures .............................................................................................................................................48
Data Management and Analysis ............................................................................................................59
Summary of Design, Methods, and Analysis..........................................................................................68
RESULTS: STORIES FROM THE FIELD....................................................................................................69
Block Satisfactions and Attachment .......................................................................................................69
Block Stories...........................................................................................................................................74
Block Stories Reprise ...........................................................................................................................132
EMPOWERMENT..........................................................................................................................................134
Multiple-Level Empowerment Indicators.............................................................................................135
Individual Level Empowerment............................................................................................................151
Organizational Level Empowerment....................................................................................................152
Empowered Outcomes and Empowering Processes ............................................................................156
Summary...............................................................................................................................................158
CLEAN AND GREEN: A NEW MEANING OF URBAN GREENING PROJECTS .......................................................161
Prevalence and Meanings of Clean......................................................................................................165
Dirty Deeds ..........................................................................................................................................166
Clean and Green ..................................................................................................................................168
Cleaner than Clean: Beauty.................................................................................................................169
Beauty and Self Identity........................................................................................................................170
Nice and Decent Places to Live............................................................................................................171
Clean and Dirty in the Context of Social Science ................................................................................173
Weeds = Dirt: The Importance of Maintenance ..................................................................................177
Negative Evidence: Dirt Don’t Hurt ....................................................................................................180
Summary: Clean and Green.................................................................................................................181
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................183
Are Greening Projects Empowering? ..................................................................................................183
Reflections on Empowerment Theory...................................................................................................186
Clean and Green: A New Meaning of Urban Green Space .................................................................191
Lessons for Greening Practitioners .....................................................................................................194
Limitations of the Study........................................................................................................................199
Future Studies ......................................................................................................................................201
LITERATURE CITED.....................................................................................................................................203

iv
APPENDICES ..........................................................................................................................................213
APPENDIX 1: Interview Guide............................................................................................................214
APPENDIX 2: Contact Letter ..............................................................................................................223
APPENDIX 3: Jefferson Homes “Delay” Letter .................................................................................225
APPENDIX 4: Jefferson Homes Goodbye Letter.................................................................................227
APPENDIX 5: Neighborhood Experts Interview Guides..................................................................... 229
APPENDIX 6: Project Index Tree (Coding Structure) ........................................................................232
VITA....................................................................................................................................................242

v
TABLE OF TABLES
TABLE 1. PRACTITIONERS’ MODEL OF EMPOWERMENT THOUGH URBAN GREENING
PROJECTS.............................................................................................................................................36
TABLE 2. CENSUS TRACT DEMOGRAPHICS BY SITE...........................................................................50
TABLE 3. HOUSEHOLDS AND INTERVIEWS BY SITE ...........................................................................52
TABLE 4. INTERVIEWS AND REFUSALS BY SITE.................................................................................53
TABLE 5. SATISFACTION AND BLOCK ATTRIBUTE RATING COMPARISONS BY SITE.................70
TABLE 6. SATISFACTION AND BLOCK ATTRIBUTE RATING COMPARISONS BY PARTICIPANT
STATUS ........................................................................................................................................71
TABLE 7. SATISFACTION AND BLOCK ATTRIBUTE RATING COMPARISONS BY SUCCESS
/FAILURE..............................................................................................................................................71
TABLE 8. BLOCK ATTACHMENT ACROSS COMPARISON GROUPS...................................................72
TABLE 9. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................................................77

vi
TABLE OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. HALSTED. ...................................................................................................................................77
FIGURE 2. ASHLAND. ..................................................................................................................................91
FIGURE 3. PULASKI. ..................................................................................................................................109
FIGURE 4. JEFFERSON HOMES. ...............................................................................................................121

vii
SUMMARY
In this study I investigated practitioners claims for social benefits of urban greening
projects (e.g., tree planting, community gardens). Practitioners’ claims of increased
neighborliness, reduced drug dealing and other social benefits have led to interest in using
greening projects specifically to achieve these ends.
Four sites that participated in a City of Chicago sponsored greening program in
1995 were selected for the study: two were sites where practitioners thought there were
social benefits from the project, two were sites where practitioners thought there were no
such benefits. Photo-elicitation and interview techniques were used to assess each site,
including the greening projects. Project participants and nonparticipants were interviewed.
Empowerment theory and the empirical literature on the meanings of urban green space
structure the investigation and analysis.
Practitioners assessments of the benefits received modest support, but through lack
of awareness of the full story on each block their assessments were not entirely accurate.
Empowerment theory was helpful in understanding some of the outcomes. The
concepts of empowering processes versus empowered outcomes were particularly helpful.
The postulation from empowerment theory of three levels of empowerment—individual,
organization, and community—were problematic with these data. The empowering nature
of each site’s greening project and the organizing history of the block were important to
achieving empowerment outcomes.
Metaphoric meanings of “clean” and “dirt” were found to be important to residents
and a source of positive self- and group-image.

1
INTRODUCTION: THE CLAIMS OF SOCIAL BENEFITS OF URBAN
GREENING PROJECTS
Many neighborhoods in cities across America are beleaguered by a myriad of
problems: poverty, dilapidated housing stock, poor schools, lack of jobs, drug use and
street level drug sales, gangs and violence. Neighborhood residents and others interested in
solving these problems (e.g., academics, politicians, social and governmental agencies) are
in search of simple, effective tools to build upon community strengths and combat these
serious problems.
One group says it has just such a tool: urban greeners. Urban greening practitioners
organize their own projects or assist others to plant trees, create gardens on empty lots, and
add vegetation to urban areas in other ways. These practitioners report dramatic social
benefits for participating neighborhoods. Greening practitioners believe their projects can
be:
used to improve the local environmental conditions and, more
importantly, to utilize community tree care and stewardship as tools
for community development, neighborhood empowerment, and
social reform (Phillips & Garcia, 1994, p. 154)
This dissertation reports on research to investigate these claims and the potential
usefulness of urban greening projects for revitalizing communities.

2
Urban Greening for Social Well-being: Historical Perspective
The idea that nature in cities is important for social well-being is not new. The Reform and
City Beautiful movements both argued in favor of open space for city dwellers
(Cullingworth, 1997). To Frederick Law Olmstead, the leading landscape architect of the
era, nature in cities provided not only fresh air for urban dwellers breathing in the smoke
and soot of late 19th
century American cities, nature also provided a revitalizing release
from the stress of the work-a-day world and was a supportive moral force (Lewis, 1996). It
was in the 1880’s, during the “zenith of the City Beautiful movement” that Arbor Day
began to be observed throughout the country (Foster, 1987, p. 4), encouraging individuals
and civic organizations to plant trees.
These ideas are reflected a century later in two presidential actions: the Johnson
administration’s White House Conference on Natural Beauty and the Reagan
administration’s Commission on Americans Outdoors. In a message to the Congress
announcing the White House Conference on Natural Beauty, Johnson said:
…some things we do know. Association with beauty can enlarge
man’s imagination and revive his spirit. Ugliness can demean the
people who live among it. What a citizen sees every day is his
America. If it is attractive it adds to the quality of his life. If it is
ugly it can degrade his existence. (Johnson, 1965, p. 2)
In the Commission report recreation in general, and access to nearby natural
settings in particular, are espoused as supportive of family strength, and of individual and
community well-being (Commission, 1987).

3
It is culturally accepted—some say a cultural myth—that nature is good for the
human psyche and spirit (Schmitt, 1990). The influence of this idea can be seen in not only
in the examples above, but also in the latest resurgence of the urban greening movement
these past three decades.
The Urban Greening Movement
There has been a resurgence of practitioner evidence of the potentially dramatic
effects of nature in cities. There is also a new twist. Today’s advocates see social well-
being enhanced not only by the presence of nature—specifically trees and other plants—
but also by citizens’ active involvement in planting, maintaining, and even harvesting
plants in their neighborhoods.
There are two primary branches of the urban greening movement: urban and
community forestry, and community gardening/open space. Although these two subgroups
overlap a bit, they also differ in important ways.
The Urban and Community Forestry Movement
Urban and community forestry was a product of two forces in the 1970s: increasing
environmental concern and severely decreasing municipal budgets (e.g., Karp, 1973;
Lipkis & Lipkis, 1990). Local volunteers and organizers pressed for increased city urban
forestry budgets, helped city staff with outreach, created tree councils, wrote tree
protection and landscape ordinances, and, of course, planted trees. The movement found
support in American Forests, a national nonprofit group with the motto “People caring for
trees and forest since 1875.” American Forests supported and, to a certain extent, steered

4
the fledgling urban and community forestry movement. Although some groups were active
at the local block level from the start, most groups began to recognize the importance of
working at the block or neighborhood level in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The urban
and community forestry movement is thought of as grassroots by the USDA Forest
Service, as the movement is based by and large in municipality-wide organizations rather
than federal, state, or municipal government (Lyons, 1986; Vento, 1994).
The Community Open Space Movement
The community open space movement started as more of a grass roots movement,
in local response to disenfranchisement and abandonment of city neighborhoods (Francis,
Cashdan, & Paxson, 1984). These urban greeners took all-too-available vacant land in
cities and put it to good use. Community open space often incorporated food production
(i.e., gardens or orchards) on individual or communal plots. A national level group, the
American Community Gardening Association, was formed in 1984 to foster an exchange
of ideas between community garden groups across the country (Francis et al., 1984).
In 1991, a definition of community greening was proposed that brings these various
strands together.
[Community greening] has a social and political context. It is an
essential, often grassroots activity that derives from and bridges the
environmental, civil rights, and horticultural movements of the
1960s. It is undertaken, in part, to encourage feelings of
empowerment, connectedness, and common concern among the
settlement’s human residents and visitors (Breslav, 1991, p. 9).
Community organizing principles and community development ideas came sooner
to the community open space movement than to the urban and community forestry

5
movement. Both movements, however, are committed to the idea that enhanced access to
nature for urban dwellers is good and worthwhile, capable of bringing many benefits to
city residents.
Urban Greening for Social Well-being: Current Observations
Let’s begin our look at the current claims of social benefits from urban vegetation
with a story of one tree planting event.
Planting Community Spirit1
In a low-income area not known for its trees, Global ReLeaf is
helping residents plant a greener tomorrow.
City employees cut the concrete and dug the holes; East Side
residents planted the trees. A state representative bought sodas for
all the children, while longtime-resident Bertha Hill shouted
instructions from her balcony. Hanibals, a local restaurant, provided
fried fish, rice, and corn bread for lunch. There was even a minister
to bless the newly planted trees.
This home style tree planting on America Street in Charleston,
South Carolina, is a lesson in “standard sociology,” to use the words
of Danny Burbank, the city’s superintendent of grounds
maintenance and urban forestry. Because the event was organized
and implemented entirely by members of Charleston’s East Side
neighborhood, a low-income area with high crime rate, the new
street trees live happily in the ground as well as in the hearts of the
planters.
“Just 10 minutes ago I came down America Street and I said to
myself ‘look at all those healthy trees!’” says Carolyn Brown, an
East Side resident who was Charleston’s citizen-participation
director at the time of the planting. “The residents still talk about
that day. They keep asking me, ‘when we going to plant more
trees?’”
1
Reprinted with permission from Urban Forests 12(5), p. 16

6
Not only are the trees lifting community spirit and pride, they’re
beautifying the street, improving neighborhood property values, and
cooling the homes, most of which did not have air conditioning.
The momentum started to build early in the day and kept growing,
allowing organizers to finish the plantings two hours earlier than
expected. There were more volunteers than expected, and many
participants lured passers-by off the street and put shovels in their
hands; they can take partial credit for the high turnout. But perhaps
even more credit should go to those who called each of the 160
volunteers early in the morning to remind them of the day’s event.
This kind of dedication—coming from within the community—is
the secret to a successful tree planting. So says Lydia Evans,
Executive Director of Lowcountry ReLeaf, which, along with the
Parks Department and a Global ReLeaf grant from Texaco, helped
put the event together.
American Forests President Charlie Tarver represented Global
ReLeaf at the event. The event was so successful, he says, because,
“It was the community’s project—it was their deal—and that was so
refreshing.”
At the event, Tarver spoke with a local politician whose motorcycle
“gang” had become known as a do-good “club.” Before they
finished talking, members of the two local clubs—the
Thunderguards and the Lowcountry Travellers—arrived with a
rumble on their Harley-Davidsons. Club members quickly put their
muscle power to work, helping residents plant tree after tree.
East Side residents have taken responsibility for watering the trees,
and for the first time in a long while, trees are blooming in their
neighborhood. “We’ve been showing off,” says Carolyn Brown.
“Now other neighborhoods want to know how they can do similar
projects.”
More power to them. (Wright, 1992, p. 16)
This story states or hints at a number of the overlapping social benefits of greening
projects: involvement, working together, getting to know neighbors, sense of

7
accomplishment, reducing crime and the effects of drug use and trade, new contacts,
access to resources, and transformation of space. I will outline these observations, as
represented in the practitioners’ literature.
Involvement
Encouraging active volunteer participation enables people to have a
tangible stake in how they and their community thrive (Eber-
Schmid, 1994, p. 157).
The social benefits all start with people getting involved in local projects.
Community greening offers an easy, most-anyone-can-do-it project, and hence these
projects may foster involvement where other projects may not. In the story above, East
Side participants recruited others throughout the day. This happens often: people see the
bustle and activity and come to join in.
Through this involvement, people who start with a greening project out of the love
of gardening develop into neighborhood leaders on other issues. Because of the greening
projects’ relatively manageable size, people can learn the leadership role in a comfortable,
known environment of gardening or tree care and then branch out into new areas. Some
practitioners contend that in greening projects everyone on the block can be heard, and
everyone’s voice counts (Lewis, 1996). This, too, fosters new leadership.
Getting to Know Neighbors and Working Together
A year ago we didn’t even know each other to speak to by name, an
now we are all neighbors working together (greening project
participant quoted in Bush-Brown, 1969, p. 32).

8
By becoming involved, people get to know each other. When that happens, other
changes can follow—some as simple as borrowing a tool from a neighbor. Practitioners
also report that with getting to know people on the block comes an opportunity to share
knowledge, often across generations (Sneed, 1998, ix).
Other urban greeners highlight the ability of different racial and ethnic groups to
build relationships over tree planting and community gardening (Eber-Schmid, 1994;
Matz, 1994).
Pride, Ownership, and Sense of Community
Reaching out to these troubled neighborhoods to create
opportunities for pride and ownership can be an important mission
of volunteer-based tree programs. Community tree planting along
neighborhood streets, parks and schools brings people together to
build a sense of community. (Berry, 1994, p. 228).
Pride and ownership come up again and again in the practitioners literature
(Bethea, 1979; Bush-Brown, 1969; Kollin, 1986; Lewis, 1986 ; Matz, 1994; Ramsay,
1994). As the quote above makes clear, this pride and ownership is thought to foster an
increased sense of ability, efficacy, and sense of community, and it is the basis of many of
the social benefits identified by practitioners.
Sense of Accomplishment and Efficacy: Taking on Other Problems
Tree planting fosters community pride and opens channels for
individuals to meet their neighbors and then tackle other community
problems (Kollin, 1986, p. 96).

9
Growing plants is relatively easy, planting trees is relatively fast, and both provide
a sense of accomplishment. From this initial success comes an increased sense of efficacy,
and people start to take on new problems. One of the first reflections of this is a general
“spiffing-up” of blocks after greening projects as people do things like paint the trim on
their houses. Practitioners also report residents organizing neighborhood watch programs
as a common next step (Bush-Brown, 1969; Lewis, 1996). From the increased sense of
efficacy, still greater things can happen for the neighborhood. Some neighborhoods then
take on larger projects, like job training (Riddell, 1993).
Reducing Crime and Drugs
Trees are not going to produce miracles of safety in our violent
society, but their presence is important. They are a statement of
caring. Their absence is a testament to neglect. The residents do get
the message. Anthony Bouza, former Police Commander, New York
City (Bouza, 1989)
The effects on crime are only hinted at in the story of the East Side neighborhood
in Charleston (above). Some practitioners report reduced crime and drug dealing on blocks
after tree planting, although they rarely do so in print (personal communication with Susan
Phillips, formerly with Philadelphia Green). There are several reasons why greening
projects might reduce crime.
The new gardens and trees lead to people being outside more, sitting on their
porches, talking with neighbors, working in the garden—and more eyes to see the negative
things on the block. This presence also provides social pressure against illegal activities.
Sometimes the police or firefighters join in the greening projects (Ricard, 1994).
By working together planting trees, residents and police come to know each other as

10
people rather than as perpetrators and aggressors, which can lead to cooperation in efforts
to reduce crime in the affected neighborhoods. It can also work against ‘profiling’—a
procedure of guessing who is likely to be engaged in criminal activity based on external
characteristics like race and gender.
Finally, trees and gardens are thought to create a higher quality neighborhood,
which, in turn, fosters more civil behavior. Anthony Bouza (quoted above), as a police
captain in Harlem, planted trees in front of the police station houses. Asked by an officer
why they were planting trees, Bouza replied “’Because I want the [residents] to have
beauty and nature…They lead to civilized behavior” (Kostouros, 1989).
Connections and Resources
The neighborhoods assess their own needs, and plant their own
solutions. In doing so, interesting things happen. The communities
involved formed their own group, the Trident Neighborhood
Coalition, so that they could continue to get together and share ideas
and creative solutions. Through this process, they have also had an
opportunity to meet with folks from North Carolina, South Carolina,
and other parts of the country (Evans, 1994, p. 248).”
The East Side residents in Charleston not only came to know each other better, but
also got to know city employees, a State representative, an Executive Director from a
nonprofit group, members of two motorcycle clubs, and a member of the clergy who were
all there to help them on the planting day. The contacts developed through a tree planting
project may continue after the planting day, facilitating access to additional resources
needed to address other problems identified by block residents.

11
Contacts and resources can be equally important for the greening program. More
and more, greening programs partner with existing organizations aimed at community
development, health care, and education (Bisco Werner, 1995; Evans, 1994; Hynes, 1995).
Through these partnerships, greening groups are better able to address a wide array of
social problems, bringing a broader set of resources to communities they work with.
Transforming Space
“This was the most dumpified place I ever had seen. … Now it even
smells good” (greening project participant quoted in Bush-Brown,
1969, 27).
Trees and gardens often transform a place. With the transformation of the space,
the greening projects become places for community activity. Greening project sites
become places for picnics, community meetings, even weddings (Bush-Brown, 1969;
Lewis, 1996). This transformation also fosters some of the elements already mentioned,
including pride and sense of community.
Job Training
Bernadette Cozart, the Director of The Greening of Harlem, sees
community and market gardens as both open space and economic
opportunity. ‘I see vacant lots as sources of jobs.’ …says Cozart
(Hynes, 1995, p. 114).
Some projects become job training projects as well as greening projects. Some are
designed as such, working with area youth, ex-offenders or others to provide job skills and
training (Riddell, 1993). Sometimes job training is more informal where volunteering at a

12
garden leads to employment (e.g., with the nonprofit greening group providing technical
assistance) or a reference as a participant is searching for a job.
Meaning of Vegetation
Somewhere during those days spent quietly working the earth,
seeing a previously unknown cycle of growth and renewal, nurturing
and persistence, something is released and something changes.
People ask me what I tell young people to inspire and support them.
I say, I don’t—it’s working with green things that does that (Sneed,
1998, ix).
The East Side residents had a member of the clergy at their planting day who
blessed the trees. This is one of many indications of the meaning that many people
attribute to plants, trees, and gardening. Practitioners report that working the earth,
planting seeds and harvesting tomatoes, nurturing something and watching it grow, all
seem to have an effect of calming, centering, and healing (Bush-Brown, 1969; Lewis,
1996; Lipkis & Lipkis, 1990; Riddell, 1993; Sneed, 1998). Growing plants gives chances
for solitude while also creating stronger ties to family and neighbors (Hassler & Gregor,
1998). Trees live a long time, and this has value for many people. Through their long life
span, trees bridge the generations and foster a connection to past and future (Lewis, 1996;
Lipkis & Lipkis, 1990).
The Federal Government Buys In
The evidence from practitioners and participants about the possibilities of social
change from urban greening projects has reached the federal government. It is reflected in
the language of the Urban and Community Forestry Act (a part of the 1990 farm bill)

13
which states that “forest lands, shade trees, and open spaces in urban areas and
communities improve the quality of life for residents” and “efforts to encourage tree
plantings and protect existing open spaces in urban areas and communities can contribute
to the social well-being and promote a sense of community in these areas”
(Representatives, 1990, p. 183-184). The federal government spends over $20 million
annually on urban and community forestry projects, up from $2 million in the mid-1980s.
Additional funds are spent to support community gardening and other community greening
activities as well (Lyons, 1986).
The federal government’s support for community greening as a force for positive
social change was perhaps most clearly stated in a speech given by James Lyons, USDA
Under Secretary for Natural Resources, at the Sixth National Urban Forest Conference in
1993. Excerpts include:
…trees, forests, open space, rivers and streams, and associated
natural resources…improve our quality of life, provide us with a
sense of community, help improve our individual and community
self-esteem, and promote our physical and mental well-being. …
… People who live in healthy ecosystems are healthier themselves.
People who view themselves as part of that ecosystem and are
actively involved in its protection, care, and restoration, develop a
sense of empowerment and ownership over their lives that translates
into socially, culturally, and economically stronger cities,
communities, neighborhoods and society as a whole. …
…Urban ecosystem management can bring … opportunities
for…the rebuilding of individual and community self-esteem, self-
worth, and social stability. It can bring diverse cultures together to
facilitate the healing of community spirit through shared planning
and sweat equity as people create their own sustainable urban
environment. (Lyons, 1994, p. 111)

14
Many projects funded through Federal appropriations plan for social benefits as a
project outcome. For instance, after the unrest in Los Angeles caused by the Rodney King
verdict, the USDA Forest Service joined the Rebuild LA efforts with a grants program for
greening projects. The goals included promoting “an empowered and responsible
citizenry” and “models for sustainable communities that address the underlying causes of
racial and ethnic strife” (USDA Forest Service, No date).
Urban Greening as Empowering
As indicated in the above excerpts from Under Secretary Lyon’s speech, greening
practitioners use empowerment language as they outline the benefits of urban greening
projects. Some definitions of empowerment used by greening practitioners include:
Empowerment means that you lead by helping your customers first
to obtain knowledge and then to establish networks, secure
resources, and take action. By empowering your customers to attain
skills and play major, creative roles in your program, you can mine a
‘mother lode’ of support from people who want to contribute to their
environment (Giedraitis, 1994, p. 41).
I think the definition of empowerment is ability, knowledge,
possessing the authority and ability to govern, in short, self-
determination. … I think there are three definite steps to
empowerment:
1. Obtaining knowledge
2. Establish networks
3. Acquiring access to resources
Once all this information has been synthesized, the community acts
upon it, and then attempts to affect change, they are empowered
(Evans, 1994, p. 248, emphasis in original).

15
Empowerment was also thought to be fostered by information dissemination
(Murray, 1994), and to be based on economic benefits (Toups, 1992).
Empowerment then, to greening practitioners, is good for both the residents and the
greening program. It captures many of the social benefits discussed earlier: involvement,
efficacy, resources and contacts, and taking action to address problems. Practitioners do
not have a codified approach to empowerment practice. A few practitioners are eloquent
and even thoughtful about how empowerment outcomes may be derived from greening
projects, but most use the concept loosely and do not specifically shape their programs to
be as empowering as possible.
Social Science Perspectives
Collectively, these observations build a compelling story about these potential
social benefits of urban greening projects. What does social science tell us about these
expectations and observations? Do sociology, psychology and other fields have theories
that help us make sense of these claims? Several areas do support the claims made by
practitioners. These include empowerment theory, neighborhood satisfaction studies, and
the results of empirical studies about the interaction between people and urban vegetation.
But the social science literature also provides some cautionary evidence.
Empowerment Theory
Empowerment theory explicates the development within individuals and groups of
a greater ability to address problems, a greater competency to act on one’s own or one’s
group’s behalf (Kieffer, 1984; Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995; Rappaport, 1993 ;

16
Zimmerman, 1995). The empowerment literature draws on many constructs, from locus of
control to sense of community to class action (Bookman & Morgen, 1988; Kieffer, 1984;
Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995). But there are several problems with the developing
empowerment theory. Several concepts are drawn on so heavily that empowerment is
almost synonymous with them. Participation and sense of community are primary
examples. Empowerment has become trendy and has been co-opted into policy and
ideology language on all sides of the political spectrum. This wide use of “empowerment”
and empowerment’s overlap with other constructs complicates the already difficult process
of trying to carefully develop and analyze a multi-faceted construct (Kieffer, 1984; Perkins
& Zimmerman, 1995).
Roots of Empowerment Theory
Community Psychology has made the largest contribution to developing
empowerment theory. Feminist scholars and, lately, a few business researchers have also
made valuable contributions (Bookman & Morgen, 1988; Hardy & Leiba-O'Sullivan,
1998; Riger, 1993). In general the empowerment push in business has come from a
different perspective: attention to the bottom line (Hardy & Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998).
In community psychology, empowerment has grown from a recognized need to
change the paternalistic outlook on the part of service providers in various fields. This has
meant a change from illness- or needs-based interventions where the practitioner is the
expert aiding patients to an approach of collaboration where an individual’s or group’s
strengths are recognized and developed (Rappaport, 1981; Zimmerman & Warschausky,
1998). The research and theoretical development of community psychology’s

17
empowerment theory to date has been strongest at the individual level, often looking at
physical and mental health issues.
Feminist scholar’s approach to empowerment theory is slightly different. Their
attention is more often on the group level, on women’s struggles to obtain control of
resources needed to improve their and their families lives. For instance, Bookman and
Morgen’s edited volume focuses on working class women’s struggles to gain control of
local schools, clinics, labor unions, and other organizations (Bookman & Morgen, 1988).
The individual may benefit from empowerment outcomes, but the analytic focus is an
organization or institution.
The business literature, on the other hand, uses empowerment as a new tool to
increase the bottom line (Hardy & Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998). Applied unevenly and with no
political intent whatsoever, the business use of empowerment often bears little
resemblance to its use in the social sciences (Hardy & Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998).
Multiple Definitions of Empowerment
These various strands of empowerment theory and the relative youth of the theory
has led to multiple, even competing, definitions. These include:
[Empowerment is] an intentional ongoing process centered in the
local community, involving mutual respect, critical reflection,
caring, and group participation, through which people lacking an
equal share of valued resources gain greater access to and control
over these resources (Cornell Empowerment Group cited in Perkins
& Zimmerman, 1995, p. 570).
Empowerment is not only an individual psychological construct, it is
also organizational, political, sociological, economic, and spiritual.

18
(p. 130). Empowerment is also multi-level (p. 133). (Rappaport,
1987 )
Empowerment refers to processes and outcomes relating to issues of
control, critical awareness, and participation (Zimmerman &
Warschausky, 1998, p. 4).
We use the term empowerment to connote a spectrum of political
activity ranging from acts of individual resistance to mass political
mobilizations that challenge the basic power relations in our society.
… Fundamentally, then, empowerment is a process aimed at
consolidating, maintaining, or changing the nature and distribution
of power in a particular cultural context. (Morgen & Bookman,
1988, p.4)
Empowerment is “any process by which people’s control over their
own lives is increased.” (Somerville, 1998, p. 1)
To empower means to give power. Power, however, has several
meanings. … power can also mean energy. Thus to empower can
mean to energize (Thomas and Velthouse cited in Hardy & Leiba-
O'Sullivan, 1998, p. 471, emphasis in the original).
In these definitions, empowerment can be anything from a caring relationship to
mass political action, or even simply energizing employees. Still, there is general
agreement that empowerment relates to control over one’s life, an ability to take action to
improve one’s life or one’s community.
Power and Empowerment
Inherent in empowerment is power. As obvious as this is, there has not been a full
discussion about power in the empowerment literature. This may be because the literature
on power is even more complex and contentious than that on empowerment, and for that
reason it is not my intent to launch into a full-fledge discussion of power here. But because

19
empowerment theorists often equate a feeling of power with empowerment, some
discussion of power is necessary.
Definitions of power abound. Within the empowerment debate, several approaches
to power have been used. To date, Riger (1993) and Hardy and Leiba-O’Sullivan (1998)
have given the most careful attention to the power behind empowerment.
Riger (1993), uses Hollander and Offermann’s conception of power as having three
primary forms: power over, power to, and power from. Power over is “dominance.”
Power to is the ability to use power to act more freely. Power from is an ability to resist
the power of others (Riger, 1993, p. 282).
Hardy and Leiba-O’Sullivan detail four dimensions of power, the first three of
which are based on Lukes. The first dimension focuses on the “management of resources
dependencies” (Hardy & Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998, p. 462). The second dimension focuses
on the management of the decision making process. The third dimension addresses the
“management of meaning,” or the ability of those with power to obscure the lack of power
of certain groups (Hardy & Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998, p. 462). Hardy and Leiba-O’Sullivan
add a fourth dimension based on postmodernist ideas. In this dimension, there is
nonmanagement of power, instead power is “embedded in the system” (Hardy & Leiba-
O'Sullivan, 1998, p. 462). Empowerment theory to date has dealt within the first three
dimensions. In the first dimension, acquiring and mobilizing resources is most important.
In the second, gaining access to the decision making process is most important. And in the
third dimension, gaining critical consciousness is most important. Hardy and Leiba-

20
O’Sullivan theorize that in the fourth dimension, empowerment will reflect a freedom from
power (Hardy & Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1998, p. 462).
Zimmerman’s Empowerment Theory
Marc Zimmerman, a community psychologist, has made the largest single
contribution to explicating empowerment theory (Zimmerman, 1990; Zimmerman, 1995;
Zimmerman, in press; Zimmerman, Israel, Schulz, & Checkoway, 1992; Zimmerman &
Warschausky, 1998). He has theorized that empowerment occurs at three levels: the
individual level or psychological empowerment, organizational empowerment, and
community empowerment. Of the three, psychological empowerment is the most carefully
delineated. He has further theorized a difference between empowered outcomes and
empowering processes (Zimmerman, 1995).
Levels of empowerment. Psychological empowerment is differentiated from
individual empowerment because, rather than considering solely internal processes,
psychological empowerment takes the context of the individual into account (Zimmerman,
1995). Psychological empowerment has three interrelated domains: the intrapersonal
component, the interactional component, and the behavioral component. The nature of
empowerment varies for each component. The intrapersonal component is focused on
effects at the individual psychological level; the empowerment changes include self-
efficacy and control. The interactional component is concerned with perceptions of an
individual in a setting; empowerment is focused on critical awareness and resource
mobilization. The behavioral component looks at actions on the part of an individual;
community involvement and coping behaviors are important aspects of empowerment

21
(Zimmerman, 1995). Therefore, psychological empowerment is typified by an increased
sense of efficacy and control, and participation in organizations or processes (e.g. local
politics) in order to improve one’s life. But Zimmerman does not feel that actual power,
defined by him as authority (Zimmerman, 1995), is necessary for empowerment to occur.
Theory for the organization and community levels of empowerment is still
relatively undeveloped in Zimmerman’s descriptions specifically and community
psychology generally. Organizational empowerment is reflected in goal achievement,
leadership development, effective resource acquisition, policy leverage, and pluralism
(Zimmerman, in press). These organizations may be small (a neighborhood association) or
large (a regional nonprofit). Community level empowerment is reflected initially in efforts
to improve the community, by opportunities for citizen participation, and by accessible
resources like government and media (Zimmerman, in press). This is often achieved
through coalitions of larger scale organizations working effectively together (Speer &
Hughey, 1995; Zimmerman, in press).
Empowering processes and empowering outcomes. Empowering processes and
empowered outcomes (Zimmerman, 1995) differentiates between processes that help foster
empowerment and actions that reflect an empowered stance. An organization that is not
empowered may still be empowering if it provides opportunities for shared leadership and
decision making within its structure. An organization may be able to do this even if its
efforts to exert control or effect change are thwarted. If, however, its efforts to effect
change are successful but its internal processes are autocratic it may be an empowered
organization but not empowering. This distinction between empowered and empowering
can also be made at the individual and community levels.

22
Empowerment Indicators
Zimmerman argues that empowerment measures must be situation specific because
empowerment is a “dynamic contextually driven construct” and not a “static,
intrapersonal” trait (Zimmerman, 1995, p. 596). Nonetheless, it is possible to derive a
general set of empowerment indicators from Zimmerman’s explication of empowerment
theory. These indicators follow the individual, organization, and community levels of the
theory.
Indicators at the individual level include efficacy, mastery, control (including
perceived control and efforts to exert control), new resources, participation, increased
skills, becoming a problem solver and/or decision maker, proactive behavior, critical
awareness, and a sense of competence.
Indicators at the organizational level include participation, shared leadership,
effective resource acquisition/mobilization, understanding socio-political environment,
giving opportunities to develop skills or a sense of control, meeting organizational goals,
developing ways to enhance effectiveness, becoming key brokers in policy decisions,
having an impact on policy, extending the influence of the organization (e.g., wider
geography/more diverse audience).
Indicators at the community level include connections to other community groups
and organizations, coalitions that are both empowered and empowering, accessible
community resources (government, media), pluralism, initiating efforts to improve
community, responding to threats to quality of life, providing opportunities for citizen
participation, and a critical awareness among residents.

23
Summary of Empowerment Theory
Empowerment theory is still in its infancy. There is no shared definition of
empowerment, but most definitions include control and efficacy, an ability to exert some
control over one’s life. Empowerment theory looks somewhat different in different fields.
In community psychology, the focus to date is on empowerment at the individual level. In
feminist research the emphasis is more often on group and organizational issues, with a
clear call for actual changes in power structures. In business, empowerment has been more
a matter of lip service, with business leader’s attention firmly focused on the bottom line.
Marc Zimmerman, a community psychologist, has most clearly outlined the basics
of a theory of empowerment. He theorizes empowerment at three levels: individual,
organization, and community and discusses the difference between empowering processes
and empowered outcomes.
Evidence of Effects of Urban Vegetation on Social Well-being
The existing social science literature is rich with sources to better understand the
potential for social benefits from urban greening projects. First, some research has been
done specifically looking at urban greening programs and the social benefit outcomes of
these projects. Additional contributions from environmental psychology, sociology,
planning, and social theorists and critics are also helpful in understanding the potential for
social benefits of urban greening. These fields also offer some cautionary ideas.
Studies of Community Gardening and Tree Planting

24
Several studies have investigated tree planting and community garden projects
directly. These investigations are largely qualitative, primarily using interviews with
participants. These studies have generally been done on or near the planting day and/or in
the garden. A few studies have included surveys in their research design (Hlubik, Hamm,
Winokur, & Baron, 1994; Sommer, Learey, Summitt, & Tirrell, 1994 -a; Sommer, Learey,
Summitt, & Tirrell, 1994 -b).
Residents reported getting to know their neighbors through participation (Francis et
al., 1984 ; Learey, 1994; Sommer et al., 1994 -a; Sommer et al., 1994 -b). Sometimes
residents who were not involved in the planting activities still took part in the other social
activities—like a potluck—surrounding the event (Learey, 1994). “Its so nice to see the
neighborhood working together” was a frequent comment from neighborhood residents
(Learey, 1994).
Resident involvement was shown to have a positive impact on neighborhood
attachment, including how much residents liked the trees and their location, as well as
having a positive impact on how residents perceived the neighborhood (Sommer et al.,
1994 -a; Sommer et al., 1994 -b). In at least one study, participants reported liking their
neighborhoods better than the non-participants did (Sommer et al., 1994 -b).
Other research projects have found a variety of issues important to participants.
Economic and subsistence benefits are often important to community garden participants
(Francis et al., 1984 ; Mattson, Merkle, Hassan, & Waliczek, 1994; McDonough, Vatcha,
Funkhouser, & Gieche, 1994 ; Patel, 1992 ; Rymer, 1997). Fostering stronger social ties
was also either an aim of organizers or an observed outcome of several projects (Francis et

25
al., 1984 ; McDonough et al., 1994). Other benefits include political awareness and ties to
community resources, a sense of ownership, and the instigation of other changes in the
neighborhoods by residents (Ames, 1980 ; Francis et al., 1984).
There is some evidence that reported importance of benefits varies with race and
ethnicity (Rymer, 1997). African American community gardeners reported greater
importance of a broad range of benefits: working outdoors, with the soil, with nature, and
with one’s hands; feeling safe in the garden; helping others in the garden, beautifying the
neighborhood, sharing produce; taking pleasure in producing one’s own food, feeling good
about abilities; and teaching gardening to children (Rymer, 1997).
Francis et al. (1984) found several other benefits from efforts to create community
open space in New York City, including conserving neighborhood open space, providing
recreation opportunities, promoting competence and environmental learning, providing
ecological benefits, developing control, improving resident satisfaction with the visual
character of the neighborhood, improving the image of the neighborhood, and motivating
residents to further neighborhood improvements.
These studies have some weaknesses. In some cases, the severely limited reporting
of methods diminishes the trustworthiness of the findings (Ames, 1980; Ames, 1980; Patel,
1992). In other studies, the lack of pre-planting data limits the ability to determine
direction of effects, and hence to determine if those who participated did so out of stronger
ties to the neighborhood, if their ties grew from participation, or both (Sommer et al., 1994
-a; Sommer et al., 1994 -b). In most studies the effects were measured on or near the
planting day, during the glow of the event, before the day-to-day management of the site

26
became a reality (Ames, 1980 ; Ames, 1980; Learey, 1994). This is particularly true for
studies investigating urban and community forestry projects. Finally, all of these studies
may have suffered from reactivity because each presented the study as an investigation of
the greening projects. This runs the risk of steering respondents’ behavior and reports to
the researcher and, hence, the research results (Lofland & Lofland, 1995).
The Effect of the Environment on Psychological Functioning
The physical environment has been shown to have a significant effect on the
psychological functioning of individuals. Trees and vegetation in urban areas have been
shown to reduce stress and mental fatigue, improve mood, and decrease domestic violence
(Hull, 1992 -a; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Kuo & Sullivan, 1996). Views of green space out
a hospital window can support and speed healing (Ulrich, 1984). These findings have led
to suggestions to use vegetation or nature images in highly stressful environments in order
to lessen their fatiguing impact (Kuo, 1992; Ulrich & Parsons, 1992).
Neighborhood Assessment and Identity
At the neighborhood level, trees and other natural elements are know to have a
significant positive impact on residential satisfaction (Fried, 1982), and there is evidence
that street trees give a perception of a higher level of quality of life in a neighborhood
(Sheets & Manzer, 1991).
The physical environment has been shown to be as important to psychosocial
health as the sociocultural environment (Brogan & James, 1980). An example of this is the
finding that neighborhood trees and grass may increase the creativity of children’s play as

27
well as the level of adult supervision and that they may help to reduce the incidence of
domestic violence (Coley, Kuo, & Sullivan, 1997; Kuo, 1992; Kuo & Sullivan, 1996;
Taylor, Wiley, Kuo, & Sullivan, 1998).
Community Theory and Sense of Community
“Planting trees increases sense of community” urban greeners say. Just what is a
“sense of community”? The answer to this question has been debated for centuries, and we
are certainly not going to answer it here. Still, it is important to consider “community” at
least briefly.
A fundamental question in the debate on “community” has been whether or not a
community must be place-based (Wellman & Leighton, 1988). This is the traditional view
of community, one challenged by the conception of communities of interest (e.g., the les-
bi-gay community). Urban greeners use the traditional, place-based definition of
community:
a group of persons living in close proximity, under the same
government and often working together in self-defined community
organizations to address common goals and interests (McDonough
et al., 1994, p. 32).
Roland Warren suggests that one structure of a strong community, specifically a
hierarchically structured place-based community, is its vertical and horizontal ties
(Warren, 1988). Vertical ties are between levels in a community, like a school and the
District office. These ties can also be between a neighborhood and civic groups. Horizontal
ties are between groups at a similar level of a hierarchical system; a network of school

28
principals is one example, a coalition of neighborhood homeowner associations is another.
The vertical ties strengthen a community while the horizontal ties create its stability
(Warren, 1988). These systems of vertical and horizontal ties can be writ large or small; a
smaller level example pertinent to urban greening might be horizontal connections
between block residents as they form a block club and their vertical ties to a greening
nonprofit organization or the Alderman’s office.
“Sense of community” as a psychological construct, is argued by Sarason to be the
primary raison d’être of community psychology (Sarason, 1974). McMillian and Chavis
(1986) operationalize the psychological sense of community with four domains:
membership, influence (both the individual on the group and visa versa), integration and
fulfillment of needs, and shared emotional connection. Urban greening projects could
conceivably have an impact on each of these domains.
Participation and sense of community are intertwined (Chavis, Hogee, McMillan,
& Wandersman, 1990; Wandersman & Giamartino, 1980). Sense of community is
hypothesized to play “a catalytic role” for participation (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990, p.
56). The direction of the connection has tested positively in a path analysis as an effect of
sense of community on level of participation; these tests also show an interdependence
between the two constructs (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). Increasing participation, then,
may also contribute to a stronger sense of community.
There is also evidence from urban forestry research that trees play an integral role
in community. Trees “create a strong sense of community and something to belong to” said
an urban forestry volunteer in Chicago as she commented on what she likes about trees in

29
her neighborhood (Westphal, 1993). Other research has also documented the role trees
play in creating community. Respondents in Charleston, SC, interviewed after the
devastation of Hurricane Hugo cited trees as the greatest loss from the hurricane damage.
This loss was more important than the loss of house or place of worship, and the reasons
given indicated that trees made Charleston home (Hull, 1992 -b; Hull, Lam, & Vigo,
1994). Respondents have also reported moving because of the loss of trees to Dutch elm
disease−home wasn’t home anymore with the trees gone (Dwyer, Schroeder, & Gobster,
1992).
The Environment as a Social Symbol
Respondents have told us that trees and vegetation are important to community, but
why is this so? Appleyard (Appleyard, 1979; Appleyard, 1979) discusses “the environment
as a social symbol” saying “sociologists and social planners should begin to appreciate that
aspects of the physical environment play a significant role in the social lives of citizens”
(p. 152). Proshansky, in discussing space appropriation, also sheds light on the role of the
meaning of physical space for creation of individual and group identity. He says “there are
no physical settings that are not by definition also social settings” and that individuals “not
only project [their identity onto space] but introject” (Proshansky, 1976, p. 37). There is
evidence that we select residential community types based on our definitions of ourselves
(Feldman, 1990; Feldman, 1996). Hull et al. (1994) suggest that these meanings were
behind the importance of the loss of trees in Charleston.
Gardens and landscape projects are signs of human intent. In the context of
restoration and conservation efforts using native plant species, these signs of intent,

30
dubbed “cues to care,” like edging, fences, and bird feeders have raised the acceptance of
the vegetation and lent a sense of order to what is commonly thought of as messy
(Nassauer, 1995; Nassauer & Westmacott, 1987). It is possible that gardens act as “cues to
care” in distressed neighborhoods, and hence have a positive social impact.
Gardens may also be acts of resistance and as such an act of power (Hooks, 1994;
Morgen & Bookman, 1988). Many people do not have choice in their residential
environments. Poverty and other social factors limit their options when seeking shelter.
Yet homespace is a powerful need, a critical refuge—particularly for those facing
discrimination in our society (Hooks, 1990). Even without choice in the setting, people
create homespace. And in these situations gardens may be a small act of resistance. Alice
Walker eloquently describes her mother’s gardens:
…my mother adorned with flowers whatever shabby house we were
forced to live in. And not just your typical straggly country stand of
zinnias, either. She planted ambitious gardens—and still does—with
over fifty different varieties of plants… before she left home for the
fields, she watered her flowers, chopped up the grass, and laid out
her new beds. When she returned from the fields she might divide
clumps of bulbs, dig a cold pit, uproot and replant roses, or prune
branches from her taller bushes or trees—until night came and it
was too dark to see. …
I notice that it is only when my mother is working in her garden that
she is radiant, almost to the point of being invisible—except as
Creator: hand and eye. She is involved in work her soul must have.
Ordering the universe in the image of her personal conception of
Beauty. …
For her, so hindered and intruded upon in so many ways, being an
artist has still been a daily part of her life. This ability to hold on,
even in very simple ways, is work black women have done for a
very long time (Walker, 1983/1974 , pp. 241-242).

31
What Alice Walker describes is a subtle, yet clear act of resistance. Planting
flowers and trees was an act of resistance against a society that did not allow Mrs. Walker
choices for her life (Walker, 1983/1974). Her resistance was in your face, beautifully.
Small Wins
Just as the environment may have important symbolic meanings, the success (or
failure) of a specific project may also have important meanings. A successful project may
indicate what can be accomplished by working together. In this sense, projects may be
modest victories or small wins−important first steps that help galvanize further action by a
group (Feldman and Stall, 1994; Weick 1984).
Crime
Studies have shown that trees and vegetation can increase a sense of safety (Kuo,
Bacaicoa, & Sullivan, 1998). Perhaps because “presence of dis-order related cues engender
perceptions of social and crime problems” (Perkins, Meeks, & Taylor, 1992, p. 21). Trees,
gardens, and other landscape features may be a part of defensible space, thereby having an
impact on crime and safety (Newman, 1972; Perkins, Wandersman, Rich, & Taylor, 1993).
Besides being a part of a supportive physical environment, the social networks
strengthened through the projects may have crime fighting benefits. Recent studies have
shown the importance of informal social networks in minimizing crime, particularly by
exerting social controls on marginal offenders (Rose & Clear, 1998). If urban greening

32
projects do indeed foster stronger local social networks, then they may also have an impact
on crime as these social networks exert influence over residents.
Cautionary Tales from the Social Science Literature
The social science literature provides positive support for the claims of urban
greeners, but it also sounds cautionary notes.
I outlined above the empirical research about the deep, positive meanings that
vegetation can have for urban residents. But trees and vegetation do not carry only positive
meanings. Tree planting can be seen as impending gentrification (Appleyard, 1979) or
“gilding the ghetto” (Hester, 1987, p. 292). Trees can symbolize lynching, as in Billie
Holiday’s (Holiday, no date) powerful song “Strange Fruit”:
Southern trees bear strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.
Although some projects may be a small win and symbolize the possibilities for
positive change, other projects may symbolize that certain neighborhood subgroups got
their way over the general interests of the neighborhood. In these situations, the projects
limit the possibility of social benefits.
The process of empowerment is a delicate one and done poorly disempowement is
a distinct possibility (Crowley, 1999). Token involvement in all its forms can be
disempowering. Arnstein’s “Ladder of Participation” (1969) is useful in understanding
this. At the lower rungs of the ladder, where participation is merely being informed of a

33
pending project, participation is little more than lip service. At the higher rungs of this
ladder, participants are a part of the decision making process, with real input. McDonough
calls this “true” participation, where residents have veto power over projects and ideas
(McDonough et al., 1994). Empowerment can be thought of in a similar way (Rocha,
1997). In a truly empowering process, people will develop the means by which they can
achieve self-defined desired ends.
This Study
Urban greening practitioners make a compelling case for the social benefits of
urban greening projects, one that is being listened to everywhere from local neighborhoods
to the White House. Various elements from the social science literature provide some
potential support for these claims. Yet there is little research to guide efforts to enhance
these interactions and any resulting benefits. A full understanding of community
revitalization benefits of urban greening projects requires study at the individual,
organizational, and community levels. Research to date has focused largely on individual
benefits from passive involvement with vegetation (i. e., views through a window) or
perceptions of vegetation (i. e., street tree preference studies). Little research has focused
on the ties between the benefits from passive involvement and changes in people—changes
in attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Researchers have found that people have strong
perceptions and beliefs about the vegetation around them, but they have not found yet
whether changes in the vegetation can lead to changes in these perceptions and to social
changes as a result.

34
Compounding this lack of information is our inability to extrapolate from
individually based benefits because community benefits are not simply the sum of
individual benefits. A community benefit has the fundamental qualities of a public good: it
is available to all community members and it is inexhaustible (non-exclusive and non-
rivalrous). A lowered crime rate is an example of a community benefit. It may result from
a strong neighborhood watch program, a police crackdown, or some other means. But its
benefits are enjoyed whether or not one puts a neighborhood watch sticker in one’s
window, plants a tree, or advocates for more police funding. Some social benefits from
urban greening projects reported by practitioners fit these criteria, others do not.
Urban Greening for Social Well-being: The Practitioners’ Model
Greening practitioners talk a lot about social benefits, and they use empowerment
language to do so. However, they have not developed a protocol to foster empowerment
outcomes. Rather, most practitioners work by instinct and gather successful ideas from
colleagues. Most practitioners do not think about how and why urban greening projects
may be empowering. Rather, they are aware of the outcomes.
Still, a working model of how greening practitioners think of empowerment can be
gleaned from the literature outlined earlier in this chapter. Combining the practitioners
literature and empowerment theory I developed an “ideal type” of empowerment outcomes
to structure this investigation and analysis. Ideal type analysis is a process in which the
“pure” form or structure of a concept is outlined (Lofland & Lofland, 1995, p. 128)2
. Table
2
It is worth noting that my source for ideal types is a methods book, not Weber. I am using the ideal type as
a tool to structure the analysis and am not drawing on its rich history and development from Max Weber

35
1 presents the empowerment indicators with the ideal type of social change from urban
greening projects as drawn from the practitioners’ literature. The model will be discussed
in more detail in Chapter 4, the Empowerment Discussion chapter. The additional social
science literature cited above provides a useful context for the investigation and analysis.
The deep meanings of vegetation in urban areas may be particularly fruitful. Clarifying
whether or not these meanings play a role in social change is an important next step. If we
can make this tie we will have a new understanding of how the importance of trees and
vegetation in city neighborhoods can have an impact beyond beautification.
forward. Instead, it offers a clear means to first structure the ideas floating in the practitioners’ literature and
then test these ideas against findings in an empirical study.

36
TABLE 1
PRACTITIONERS’ MODEL OF EMPOWERMENT THOUGH URBAN GREENING
PROJECTS
Individual level Practitioners’ Model
Efficacy Will increase as residents achieve a small
win by addressing a block problem.
Mastery May be increased as they learn gardening
and project management skills.
Control (perceived, situation specific,
efforts to exert)
Will gain control of at least the garden site,
perhaps the block. This is important for
reducing drug dealing and dumping.
Personal control Will increase either in relation to plants in a
garden lot or for the tree in front of their
house, and then radiate out from that to a
wider circle of control. This feeds into the
block level control above.
New resources Will get resources through the program.
Participation Will increase as the project goes on.
Participation continues in the maintenance of
the garden and may extend to new projects or
behaviors (e.g., voting, calling police).
Increase skills, become problem
solver, decision maker
Some will learn to be decision makers and
problem solvers; the more that do the better.
Many will also increase a range of skills
from gardening to organizing.
Proactive behavior The block group will instigate projects to
solve other problems on the block on their
own rather than wait for outside others (e.g.,
neighborhood watch groups).
Critical awareness among residents Not a component of the practitioners’ model.
Sense of competence Increases due to success with the garden.

37
TABLE 1, CONT.
PRACTITIONERS’ MODEL OF EMPOWERMENT THOUGHT URBAN GREENING
PROJECTS
Organizational level (local
organization, not practitioners’
organization)
Practitioners’ Model
Participation Participation increases on the block because of
the formation of block club groups.
Shared leadership Is not a component of the practitioners’ model.
Effective resource
acquisition/mobilization
Participants learn where to get additional
resources as well as fully using what is
available from the greening program.
Understanding socio-political
environment
Emphasis is on understanding this in
environmental terms.
Give opportunity to develop
skills/sense of control
The block level organization is inclusive and
therefore allows residents to learn things and
gain from the project.
Meet organizational goals The organization is successful, hence it meets
its original goals from the garden and then sets
new goals.
Develop ways to enhance effectiveness Participants develop ways to enhance the
greening project specifically and the
neighborhood generally.
Key brokers in policy decisions; impact
on policy
Participants learn to have a voice in local
government, particularly as it effects their
neighborhood and the environment.
Extend influence: wider
geography/more diverse audience
Block level groups may join with others in
regional greening activities.

38
TABLE 1, CONT.
PRACTITIONERS’ MODEL OF EMPOWERMENT THOUGHT URBAN GREENING
PROJECTS
Community level Practitioners’ Model
Connection to other community
groups and organizations; coalitions;
coalitions that are both empowered
and empowering.
This is not a priority in the practitioners’
literature.
Accessible community resources
(government, media)
Access to media is important and
developed among the participants. Access
to government is increased through
contacts with police and city departments
in the course of the project.
Pluralism Residents may be more involved in
politics, but pluralism per se is not a factor
in the practitioners’ model.
Initiates efforts to improve community The beginning point of greening projects.
After the project, other efforts to improve
the community are easier to begin.
Responds to threats to quality of life Often the beginning point of greening
projects. After the project, responding to
future threats is easier.
Provides opportunities for citizen
participation
With the greening project and subsequent
projects, there are more opportunities for
participation.
Critical awareness among residents Not a component of the practitioners’
model. In fact, sometimes practitioners’
view is that bootstrapping is necessary for
the neighborhood and the greening project
is a part of this.

39
Research Question
To meet the high expectations of urban greening’s contribution to community
revitalization, we must improve our understanding of how interactions with vegetation
through urban greening projects benefit communities, and what planning and management
tools can most effectively enhance those benefits. An initial investigation of benefits from
greening projects at two levels−individual and neighborhood organization−will lay the
groundwork for subsequent studies at the agency, organization and community levels.
Towards this end, this project will:
• investigate claims of social benefits by comparing neighborhood greening project
sites where practitioners thought there were benefits to sites where they thought
there were no benefits;
• determine the social benefits and problems perceived by neighborhood residents,
both participants and nonparticipants;
• gain an understanding of these benefits and problems at the individual and
neighborhood organizational levels; and
• explore the usefulness of empowerment theory and empirical findings regarding the
meanings of urban green space to understand these benefits.

40
RESEARCH DESIGN, METHODS, DATA ANALYSIS
Research Design
To investigate the potential of social benefits from urban greening projects, I
conducted a comparative case study with four residential blocks that participated in a local
greening program, the City of Chicago’s Green Corps Chicago. This program provides
technical assistance to neighborhood groups interested in starting community gardens,
planting street trees, or other urban greening projects. I selected blocks where program
practitioners perceived varied social benefits as outcomes of the project: two were sites
where practitioners thought there were social benefits, two were sites where practitioners
thought there were no social benefits (or perhaps even negative consequences) from the
project. I also interviewed aldermanic staff, police, letter carriers—nonresidents with
special knowledge of the neighborhood and the impact of the project. This created three
sets of comparisons: participant/nonparticipant; failure/success sites; and across all four
sites. The interviews used several protocols designed to elicit detailed information about
the site, the project, and the process. Photo-elicitation methods formed the basis for the
interviews. The interview guide included open-ended questions based on empowerment
theory and the meanings of urban green space, along with two structured instruments to
measure perceptions of change of block attributes and sense of community.

41
Methods
Site Selection Criteria
I selected 1995 as the project year to avoid potential problems associated with new
projects. The goal was to find projects where the interview year (1997) was not the first
spring the project is in place. This was a concern because a new project may have been
overwhelming or underwhelming. Flowering crab apples could have been so pretty and
new that this could have affected responses. Or a warm period in February followed by a
hard freeze could have damaged the buds, causing poor flowering. If people had been
anxiously awaiting these new spring flowers—the fruits of their labors—the
disappointment could have affected their responses as well. Selecting 1995 projects meant
that the project had been around longer and therefore avoided some of these potential
problems. Having more than a year gone by since planting also allowed the impact of the
project on the block to be assessed and assimilated by residents, even if this was not at a
conscious level. The 1995 projects fulfilled these goals.
Green Corps had 95 projects in 1995. Of these, 25 were potential sites for this
study. Sites were eliminated from the potential pool if they were school or other
institutional projects (e.g., hospitals or libraries), were implemented by aldermanic staff,
were implemented by people from outside the neighborhood, or were in neighborhoods
where I would be in serious danger. I also eliminated projects in neighborhoods with other
major events or projects (e.g., one area was in the midst of a major police scandal, another
was experiencing demolition of public housing).

42
Respondent Criteria
It was important that respondents had lived in the neighborhood for several years.
Otherwise, they could not assess any impacts of the greening projects. It was also
important to have a wide range of block residents as possible participate in the study—
those who had participated in the greening project and those who had not; the organizers of
the project; block cheerleaders and block curmudgeons—and as representative a
demographic mix as possible. Ideally, each household would be represented in the sample.
Given considerations of the University of Illinois Institutional Review Board, respondents
were required to be at least 18 years old (i.e., adults).
Measures
Photo-elicitation
Photographs have been used in research for a wide range of purposes. Researchers
have given cameras to hikers and canoers asking them to photograph important scenes and
views as they hike or paddle. These photos were subsequently analyzed to identify
important views and places along a given trail or river (Chenoweth, 1984 ). Collier and
Collier used photographs in interviews as a component of a project investigating mental
health among rural Arcadian residents in Canada (Collier & Collier, 1986 ). Photographs
are used in participatory design and planning to gather information about settings that are
critical to preserve and nurture as well as those that are critical to mend and change
(personal communication, Dr. Kenneth Reardon, Regional Planning, University of Illinois
at Urbana, spring 1996).

43
Photo-elicitation techniques in this study Through photographs, we can get at the
salience of specific changes, the meaning of spaces and changes in those meanings, and
changes in individuals and groups brought about by changes in the physical environment.
Collier and Collier (1986) report on various techniques using photographs in interviews. In
an interview, photographs can often get people talking, and keep them talking, providing
more in-depth information. The photographs can become the focus of the interview,
thereby minimizing differences between the interviewer and interviewee. Went the
respondent is talking about their own photos, there is an added excitement, even fun, in
participating in the research project. These combine to make photo-elicitation a promising
research tool.
Respondents were given single-use cameras and asked to “please take 10 pictures
of changes for the better or worse on your block in the last five years. Please take pictures
of what is important to you” (the camera was also labeled with the instructions and my
phone number).
Many people were pleased to take photographs of their block, even excited about it.
But not everyone was comfortable with the idea. Some had physical difficulties that made
getting out and about in their neighborhood hard. Others did not say exactly why they did
not want to take photos, but shyness seemed to play a role. Whatever the reason, I
interviewed those who wished to participate but not take photographs using a subset of the
photographs from their neighbors. This subset was made up of photographs of block
changes common to most, if not all of the respondent photograph sets (each site had two to
four common block changes). In each case, I included the greening project in the
discussion.

44
Interviews
After the respondents took photographs, we met again for a one-on-one, face-to-
face interview (there was one exception where I interviewed two people at once, twin
sisters that organized one of the projects). Interviews were conducted between late July
and early October 1997. By interviewing during these months, seasonal changes were kept
to a minimum.
The interviews used respondents’ photographs as a basis for discussion (or a subset
of neighbors’ photographs as discussed above). The interview began with general
questions about each photograph and why the respondent took it. I then probed more
deeply into one or more changes, always covering the greening project in these in-depth
questions. This semi-structured approach allowed respondents to fully discuss their issues
and interests, which in turn provided detailed information about the site and its social
workings. At the same time, I was able to probe specifically for details on the garden
project and theoretical issues pertinent to the study.
Two structured instruments were modified for use in the interview. One measured
people’s ratings of block attributes and their reported changes over time. The other
measured sense of community. I asked about activities the respondents participated in, and
I asked basic demographic questions (Appendix 1 contains the interview guide). Details
about the block attribute and sense of community questions follow.
Block Attributes and Sense of Community Questions

45
Perceptions of changes in block attributes were measured with a general
satisfaction question and a set of semantic differentials. These block attribute questions
were asked twice. First, the respondents were asked how they felt about their block at the
time of the interview. The second time, the respondents were asked to think back five
years and answer the set of questions based on their memory of how they felt at that time.
This set opened with a general satisfaction question: “All things considered, how
satisfied or dissatisfied are you with this block as a place to live (today/five years ago),”
with a five-point Likert scale from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. Then respondents
were asked to rate their block with a set of semantic differentials on a seven-point scale.
The semantic differentials were introduced with the example “good” to “bad.” All but one
of the semantic differentials were chosen from those used by Feldman (Feldman, 1990).
These were: unsafe to safe, high crime to low crime, unfriendly to friendly, poorly
maintained to well maintained, little greenery to much greenery, and stressful to not
stressful. I added unattractive to attractive. Attractiveness was included in Feldman’s study
but had been asked in a different, architecturally specific way.
After asking both sets of general satisfaction and semantic differential questions, I
reviewed the similarities and differences between their “then” and “now” ratings and asked
respondents their reasons for any differences.
Sense of Community The sense of community questions were based on a
Neighborhood Cohesion scale developed by Buckner and modified by Brunson (Brunson,
Kuo, & Sullivan, submitted; Buckner, 1988). I selected a subset of the items in Buckner’s

46
scale and followed Brunson’s adaptation of the questions to ask about “block” rather than
“neighborhood.”
Buckner’s full scale has 18 items. Nine of these make up a subscale on sense of
community. The length of the interview required that I cut where possible, so I asked five
of these nine questions. I selected the subset based on Brunson’s having used them and
their correlation coefficient in Buckner’s study (each was .70 or greater) (Buckner, 1988).
The questions were used to support analysis of the interview data rather than as a variable
in statistical analysis. I needed previously tested questions, not previously tested scales in
this study. These questions were: How much would you say that you have a sense of
belonging with the people on this block? How much would you say that the friendships
and associations you have with other people on this block mean a lot to you? How much
would you say that, if the people on this block were planning something, you’d think of it
as something “we” were doing together rather than something “they” were doing? How
much would you say that you feel loyal to the people on this block? How much would you
say that you get a sense of community from living on this block? The answer set was “not
at all,” “a little,” “a medium amount,” “quite a lot,” or “very much.”
Activities A final open-ended question was included after the structured
instruments and before the demographic information. I asked respondents to tell me what
activities they participated in and then “Which of these activities do you think of as
neighborhood related?”
Demographics Respondents were asked a set of questions about their household
and other demographic information. Questions included race/ethnicity, gender, age,

47
number and ages of children, how long they had lived in their current home (and where
they had moved from if they were relatively new to the block), whether they own or rent (I
noted home/apartment and floor), members of the household, level of education, work
status, and household income. Some of these items were obvious and therefore I did not
ask them (e.g., race, gender).
Wrap up Each interview ended with a chance for the respondents to ask me
questions. I also asked most respondents if I could be in touch in the future if I had
additional questions. Each respondent received another single-use camera as a thank you.
As a further thank you, Green Corps provided labor and plant materials to each
block in the study (about $300 in plants and a four-person work team for one day). This
was mentioned to the block residents after I completed interviews on the block.
Institutional Review Board Approval I received University of Illinois Institutional
Review Board approval for the research project (IRB No. H-97-560). The project did not
need formal IRB review because it posed minimal risk and did not include protected
classes of respondents.
Pilot test I pilot tested the photo-elicitation and interview process in three
interviews with individuals similar to residents in the study neighborhoods. Two of these
individuals took pictures of changes on their block. The third was interviewed using a
subset of these photos. Minor modifications to the guide were made to clarify the
meanings of questions based on the pilot test results.

48
Procedures
Site selection
All Green Corps projects completed in 1995 by neighborhood-based groups were
included in the potential sample pool. I discussed each of these sites with Green Corps
staff members, asking them to tell me which sites they thought had social benefits from the
projects and which had had negative consequences from the project. The Green Corps staff
involved in these discussions were in project manager roles for the projects, and knew
about each project from beginning to end. We met once for two hours and had subsequent
follow up phone conversations. From this discussion, we developed a list of 25 sites that
were significant in terms of social benefits and that met the other study criteria.
The list of 25 sites was explored in more detail. Demographic information
including percentage of low to moderate income residents and race was examined for the
census tract of each site. The sites were also categorized based on Green Corps staff
assessments as a grassroots/neighborhood project, a nonprofit group project, or a project
that was a “one person wonder”—spearheaded by one local individual (as opposed to a
neighborhood group like a block club).
After visiting the 25 sites, I further narrowed the lists to four success sites and two
failure sites. The sites were selected because they were in neighborhoods with a narrower
range on demographic variables (to reduce the number of intervening variables; Table 2),
each project was on an empty lot, and all but one project site was within the residential
block. The exception to this was a site where I had already gained entree through previous

49
field work (this previous field work was not greening related). This garden project was
across a busy street from where respondents lived. Already having a relationship with
respondents outweighed potential problems due to the location of the project site.
From this short list, I selected the final four sites, based on my success gaining
access to the sites. I already had access to one of the failure sites. I began to try to gain
access to the success sites by calling the greening project organizers one at a time until I
gained access to two sites. I did not gain access to the first success site I tried, and
followups on initial contact also failed. At two of the other success sites, initial phone calls
to the garden organizers were enthusiastically received and I proceeded to work with these
blocks. Organizers were told only that I was interested in block change and that I had
gotten their numbers from Green Corps. I also called and spoke with my contacts at the
failure site where I was already known. An exception to my pattern of calling the organizer
first was with the second failure site. In this case, I chose to first make contact with block
residents because the organizers were reported to be “political brutes.” I was concerned
that my credibility and ability to gain access would be jeopardized if I was seen to be
associated with the garden organizers. I approached this site last, after developing my
approach methods in the other three sites.

50
TABLE 2
CENSUS TRACT DEMOGRAPHICS
BY SITE
HalstedAshlandPulaski
19801990198019901980199019801990
Totalpopulation
a
65175391272124526560779822331479
%Male4745474350484438
%Black100989499665100100
%13yearsoldorunder2219343222293232
%Familieswithfemaleheaded
household2335415514356798
Medianfamilyincome$24,508$26,464$11,109$18,750$20,621$30,389$9,052$5,625
%Belowpoverty1911393110194588
Populationperhousehold3.93.63.64.22.83.73.92.8
%Owneroccupied898939465149110
NOTES:
a
Source:(Consortium,1995)b
Thechangesbetween1980and1990likelyreflectthedestructionofsinglefamily
homesinthecensustractratherthanchangesinthepopulationoftheJeffersonHomesdevelopment.
JeffersonHomes
b

51
The final four sites were located on the south, west, and northwest sides of the city.
I have named them with a nearby major street, except for the public housing development
that I have given a fictitious name. The sites are Halsted (on the far south side), Ashland
(on the south side),
Pulaski (on the northwest side), and Jefferson Homes (on the west side). At each site I
interviewed on the specific block where the greening project took place. The exceptions
were Jefferson Homes, where the project was not within the development, and Pulaski
where some garden participants lived one block away. I worked at the block level for two
main reasons. First, the greening projects were all relatively small and a part of the day-to-
day landscape for the blocks, not the neighborhood. Second, the program was designed to
work at the block level, and, with the exception of institutional projects, most were
instigated by block groups. Working at a larger scale would have diluted the likelihood of
capturing effects of the project.
Respondent Selection
I had hoped that work day sign-in sheets and other materials would be available for
each project, but they were not. Therefore, I found respondents by going door to door in
each neighborhood. After initial phone contacts with the organizers (except for the Pulaski
failure site), I visited each block and went door to door trying to meet someone in every
household (Table 3 and Table 4 detail information of households contacted, and refusals
and acceptances for participation). I carried letters of introduction explaining the study and
my presence on the block. I left one at every household, whether or not I made contact in
that first visit (a copy of this letter is in Appendix 2).

52
TABLE 3
HOUSEHOLDS AND INTERVIEWS BY SITE
Site # Occupied
Households
a
# Empty or
Abandoned
Households
Total #
Households
# Interviews
Completed
# Households
Interviewed
Halsted 39b
6 45 10 9
Ashland 18 2 20 9 7
Pulaskic
50 2 52 9 6
Jefferson Homesd
112 2 114 23 19
a
Two flats with one family are counted as one household.
b
Includes an apartment building of approximately 10 units I was warned not to enter and one
house that was not technically lived in. This house had people coming and going from it, and I
was warned to stay away from it as well. My instincts supported both of these warnings.
c
Interviewed three households on adjacent blocks because they were the project organizers and
main participants. They are included in the number of interviews column, but not in the number
of households interviewed column.
d
Interviewed three additional people who had been involved in greening projects but did not
live in these two sets of units. They are included in the total number of interviews column, but
not in the households interviewed column.

53
TABLE 4
INTERVIEWS AND REFUSALS BY SITESiteNo
Yes,butdid
notcomplete
Couldn’t
makecontact
Warnedto
ignore
Didn’tmeet
criteria
Completed
butdeleted
fromdataset
#Interviews
completed
Halsteda
439112112
Ashland12402010
Pulaski6620012110
JeffersonHomes20155103123
TOTAL3126841119355
a
Iwaswarnedawayfromenteringoneapartmentbuildingwithabout10unitsandonehousethatwasostensiblyvacant.

54
I visited each household on each block at least three times, varying my visits by time and
day to accommodate different working schedules. This was to avoid potential biases like
missing all 9-5ers and to increase the number of respondents on each block. My varied
visits resulted in a purposeful sample with participants, nonparticipants, block cheerleaders
and curmudgeons, and young and old in each sample. A mix of men and women was
harder to achieve; in two sites my respondents were mostly female (this will be discussed
in more detail later).
Jefferson Homes needed additional consideration about selecting respondents.
Because there are over 400 units in 37 buildings, I needed to select a subset of the
Jefferson Homes residents from which to recruit for the study. Jefferson Homes is
organized into seven “blocks”3
or sets of three to five buildings. I talked with the primary
organizer at Jefferson Homes (who was also the garden organizer) to find out who had
been involved in the greening project. After this discussion I selected two blocks at
Jefferson Homes as the subset of units from which to sample. Some of the garden
organizers lived in these two blocks. The blocks also reflected the two architectural styles
in the development: row houses and three-story walk-ups. I also interviewed three key
Jefferson Homes residents who did not live in these two blocks.
When I made contact with a potential respondent, I introduced myself and my
study. I explained that I was interested in changes on the block. I did not mention the
garden. Sometimes I used the organizer’s name as I made initial contact, but more often
not. If the person seemed interested, I verified that they met the respondent criteria and
3
Although these are not residential blocks, residents use the term for subgroups of buildings at Jefferson
Homes.

55
asked if they were willing to participate in my study. If they said yes, I gave them each a
camera and instructions on its use and what I wanted them to photograph. We then
arranged a good time for me to return and pick up the camera to have the photographs
developed. When I picked up the camera, we made a third appointment for the interview
itself. This data collection procedure was very labor intensive because each interview
required a minimum of three successful contacts with each respondent.
Again, Jefferson Homes needed additional consideration. The sample population
was significantly larger than at the other sites, and it was difficult to find people at home so
that I could pick up cameras and conduct the interviews. This slowed down my
interviewing. I did not want people wondering what had happened to me, so I distributed a
second letter explaining that I was still interested in the interview and would be contacting
them soon (Appendix 3). I also stopped interviewing at Jefferson Homes with several
interviews left uncompleted. I had already conducted a sufficient number of interviews,
and I was having no luck reaching the remaining potential respondents. I left a third letter
for these respondents, thanking them for their interest, but letting them know that I needed
to move on to another site to interview (Appendix 4).
I interviewed 58 people in 57 interviews and deleted three respondents from the
sample, resulting in 55 respondents. Two of the three people dropped from the sample
turned out to be too new to the block. The third respondent was deleted for several reasons.
She had her 13-year-old daughter take the pictures and therefore did not understand why
various pictures had been taken. She was not comfortable having the interview taped.
Finally, because English was her second language and her command of it was limited, she
had another daughter translate most of the interview questions into Spanish. Because I do

56
not speak Spanish, I could not be sure of the translation and any possible
misinterpretations of my meaning. For these reasons, I removed her from the data set.
I also interviewed people knowledgeable about each neighborhood like police,
letter carriers, and aldermanic staff. These people were in a position to see any changes
that took place because of the project, and the interviews focused on those changes. Many
of these were telephone interviews. The guide for these interviews is in Appendix 5.
I interviewed several Green Corps Chicago staff members about each project and
the types of social benefits they saw coming from the greening projects. Specifically, I
interviewed Assistant Commissioner for Natural Resources, Suzanne Malec; and
Horticulturists Deanna DeChristopher and Kevin Caroll. These staff members were most
closely associated with the projects throughout the program.
Procedures at Interview
Once I had the respondents’ photographs, we conducted the interview. The
interview began with a brief review of the purpose of the study: an investigation of change
in residential blocks in Chicago. The greening project was not mentioned as a focus of the
study.
The interviews lasted between 25 minutes and two hours, with an average length of
about 45 minutes. Most interviews took place at the respondents’ homes, many on front
porches or stoops.
When a respondent had not taken photos, I began the interview by asking them
what they would have photographed if they had taken pictures. Their answers usually

57
matched what their neighbors photographed and gave me the opportunity to bring out the
set of photos and get the respondents’ views on those changes.
After a review of the full set of photographs, I would select two of the changes to
go into in more depth: the greening project and one other change. After the open-ended
questions about block changes, I asked the structured instrument items on block attributes,
sense of community, activities, and demographics.
Respondents often asked for clarification or showed confusion with one of the
questions: “How did this affect the appearance of your block?” I learned to re-phrase this
as “Did this make your block look better or worse?” For consistency, I continued to use the
“appearance” version of the question, but followed more quickly with the alternate
phrasing.
During the wrap up, respondents handled the opportunity to ask me questions
differently. Occasionally the respondent asked me many questions: did I have children,
where did I live, etc. But the most common question was how the project might help their
neighborhood. I replied honestly that the project would have minimal impact on their
neighborhood, that its main impact was in helping me graduate, but that I hoped to develop
information that would help city government and non-profit groups help neighborhoods
like theirs. I added that if I could help them in some way to please let me know.
Some block residents asked me for information about finding jobs with the
University or for information about GED and other training opportunities. This happened
during the interview itself as well as during the recruitment phase, or when they saw me
walking around their block. I therefore carried with me a sheet on how to contact the

58
University for jobs and the civil service test applicants needed to take. I also found and
distributed information for nearby adult education programs with good reputations (e.g.,
The University of Chicago’s Blue Gargoyle Adult Learning Program). At least one
respondent acted on this information and enrolled in an adult learning program between
our second and third contacts.
When the interview was completed, I gave the respondent their copy of the
photographs, asked if I could be in touch again if I had additional questions. I also gave
respondents another camera as a thank you.
Post Interview
After the interview, I tape recorded field notes for subsequent transcription and
listening. The interviews themselves were transcribed by a transcription service. Because
the interviews were often conducted outdoors the considerable background noise made
some of the tapes difficult to understand. I checked each transcript completely and was
able to fill in at least 90% of the segments the transcriber could not understand. I inserted
pause and emphasis indicators throughout the interviews. A “p” indicated a pause at
roughly one “p” per second. A “+” indicated emphasis (the software package used for
analysis works with ASCII files so bold and italics would not work for emphasis). Any
time I surmised or guessed what a respondent said, I put the text in brackets.

59
Protecting Human Subjects
The respondents were guaranteed confidentiality before the interview. To maintain
this, all reports use fake names for both respondents and sites. I have the respondents’
names on file and have maintained an archived set of tapes.
Data Management and Analysis
The primary data in this study are the interviews in transcribed form. This provides
largely qualitative data, with some quantitative data from the structured instruments. The
photographs taken by respondents; my field notes; interviews with aldermanic staff, letter
carriers and the like are secondary data. Data for the greeners’ model of social benefits
were collected from conference proceedings, books, and other secondary sources, as well
as from personal discussions with practitioners from across the country.
Interview transcripts were imported into QSR NUD*IST version 4 for Windows
(N4) for data management and analysis (Qualitative Solutions and Research, 1997). N4 is
a software package designed for analysis of text data. It allows the researcher to code and
categorize data and then search the data by document and/or by category, from simple
searches to searches that answer complex questions of the data. Data can be summarized in
text and numerical reports.
The researcher must decide what to use as the text unit in N4: a line? A paragraph?
Some other unit? I chose to use each exchange as the text unit. Line-by-line analysis has
advantages, particularly by facilitating fine grained coding. But I wanted to keep the
thoughts of my respondents intact, so I chose the paragraph as text unit. In a few instances,

60
I separated very long speeches by respondents into two or more text units. In some other
instances, I condensed an exchange into one paragraph. This was done when little of
substance took place in a series of exchanges.
Quantitative data was entered in SPSS for Windows, version 7 (SPSS, 1996). The
SPSS file was used for automatically coding part of the qualitative data (e.g., with
demographic information for each interview).
Data Coding and Categorization
I followed a thematic process for the coding and categorization. In this process, the
themes relevant to the purpose of inquiry are marked and coded. One level of
categorization focused on the probes and a priori issues that I built into the interview guide
(e.g., “appearance”). Other themes emerged from the data as the analysis progressed (e.g.,
“clean” and “fences”).
Initial Coding
I began the coding process by coding line-by-line the garden data for two sites. The
garden data were the section in each interview where we discussed the greening project. I
developed a beginning set of codes and categories based on the issues as represented in the
interview guide: appearance, safety, control, etc. I read the section of each interview that
dealt with the greening project, coding text to my a priori categories and creating new
coding categories to capture emergent issues.
The coding structure is represented in N4 in the “index tree,” and each category is
called a “node” (Qualitative Solutions and Research, 1997). Often hierarchically arranged,

61
the index tree is fluid and easy to rearrange as ideas develop and change. Early in the
analysis process, I quickly went through three index tree structures as I grappled with the
data and my interpretation, as well as learned the software itself. Each restructuring
brought me one step closer to a sound, defensible analysis of the data. The final tree is in
Appendix 6.
Using Text Search in Coding
After the line by line coding of garden data from two sites, I developed a text
search routine and applied this to all data. I reviewed the categories already developed and
looked for the words respondents used to talk about the issues. Sometimes these were
obvious. For instance, the search criteria for “fences” was “fence, fenced, fences, lock,
locked, gate.” Others were more complicated or abstract. For instance, the search criteria
for appearance included “appearance,” “beauty” (and its variants), “eyesore,” “looks,”
“terrible,” “ugly,” “awful,” “pretty,” “brings out,” and others. I was able to develop search
criteria for all of the concepts in the interview guide and most of the emergent concepts.
After stipulating the search criteria, I wrote a command file for N4 to search all the
interview data and create new nodes for each search result. Reading and refining the
results of these searches allowed me to look at all data from all interviews by concept.
This style of coding and review saved time and, more importantly, allowed
different perspectives on the data. While reviewing the results of each text search, I could
still interactively code for other concepts, and I could run additional searches and add them
to existing search results. This approach also coded the entire interview for each
respondent, not just the garden section.

62
Further Line-By-Line Coding
After the text search results were compiled, I continued the line-by-line analysis of
all the garden data. When new concepts emerged, if I could create applicable search terms,
I would run a new text search. In this way I conducted a thorough, detailed analysis of the
data most relevant to my study—the garden data—and captured major themes from the
remaining sections of the interview data.
Auto Coding
The SPSS file was used to code the qualitative data for demographics and
responses to the structured interview questions. This allowed me to analyze the coded text
data by gender, age, level of community satisfaction, and other variables.
Memoing
Memoing is a basic element of qualitative analysis (Charmaz, 1988; Lofland &
Lofland, 1995). Researchers can use memos to develop their ideas about the data, writing
about what is interesting, confusing, and surprising in the data and why. Memos can
become data themselves, documenting the researcher’s analysis. Memos can be used to
track the development of a particular code, to create an analysis log or audit trail.
N4 supports memos on nodes and documents. Text can be copied from the data set
into the memo, keeping track of the source of an idea and keeping the research grounded in
the data. N4 also makes automatic memo notations any time a node is moved from one
location to another on the index tree.

63
I wrote many memos, occasionally creating a node—before there were specific
data to code to the node—just to keep track of an idea. I wrote memos for the nodes, not
documents. I noted how I used a specific node, developing my decision criteria for its use.
I also wrote stream-of-consciousness notes about the data. I copied quotes from the
interviews that seemed particularly illustrative of the category or concept.
Management of Quantitative Data
Some minor statistics were calculated with the quantitative data. These were
limited to descriptive statistics like means and ranges; a few t-tests were also run on the
block satisfaction data. I ran a reliability check on the survey instruments. The data did not
support analysis beyond these simple procedures.
Checks on Analytic Rigor
Qualitative researchers are still grappling with how to best judge qualitative work
in terms of validity and reliability issues. Many scholars reject quantitative research’s
labels and underlying constructs of internal validity, external validity, and reliability,
choosing instead to create new terms more specific to and reflective of issues in qualitative
research (Guba, 1981; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Some reject these issues altogether, usually
on the grounds that socially constructed meanings belie any possibility of “truth” (Guba &
Lincoln, 1994).
But most scholars see the need for reliability and validity issues to be addressed
carefully in qualitative research (Dey, 1993; Guba, 1981; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles &
Huberman, 1994; Silverman, 1993; Wolcott, 1994). Many approaches and tactics to

64
increase rigor have been developed, as researchers present their individual approaches to
the scholarly community. The growing list of tactics for trustworthiness in qualitative
research is helpful, but dizzying. With so many tactics and variations, what’s the novice
researcher to do? I came to realize that I cared most that I:
• not overlook something,
• not overrate something,
• apply my codes consistently and clearly,
• can support my claims and findings with traceable data,
• have coherent analyses and findings that contribute to theory,
• have findings that are cogent to practitioners,
• reflect relatively accurately the slice of life I saw and heard.
Using these concerns as a guide, I reviewed the tactics in the qualitative literature
and selected the following as tools to increase the trustworthiness of my interpretations. It
is worth noting that having my data online in N4 helped considerably in implementing
these tactics. Tactics that were easier because of computerization include (but are not
limited to) searching for negative evidence and rival explanations, and intra-coder checks
(Charmaz, 1988; Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Dey, 1993; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Lofland &
Lofland, 1995; Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Tactics to Guard Against Overlooking and Overrating Data
Second readers, following random paths through the data, searching for negative
cases and evidence, searching for rival explanations, and using data displays can all help to

65
ensure that I appropriately interpreted the data (Dey, 1993; Huberman & Miles, 1994;
Miles & Huberman, 1994).
To corroborate my reading and interpretation of the interviews, it was particularly
important to review the ground-up analysis. I had some concrete top-down issues that I
asked about in the interview, and these were relatively easy to categorize and interpret. For
example, when I ask about appearance and the respondent tells me about appearance, it is
logical to categorize this exchange under “appearance.” But the data were rich and I was
not just interested in the face value of answers to specific probes. It was in this area that I
was more concerned about verifying my interpretations and analysis. To this end, two
separate readers reviewed a subset of interviews selected at random, with two interviews
per site. This is 15% of the interviews.
I gave the readers an excerpt from my dissertation proposal and a copy of the
interview guide so that they would know the basic issues that were of interest to me (for
instance, it is possible to read my data for satisfaction with city services, the importance of
religion, or family coping strategies, but these are not directly relevant to my substantive
interests). These readers did not have my coding structure for the data. I asked them to note
the themes and issues that seemed important or significant to them. I compared their
interpretations with my own. Our interpretations were similar. Mine were, of course, more
detailed. My second readers both have training in psychology and were more likely to
describe the emotional content of the data than I was. The second readers did not uncover
important points in the data that I had overlooked.
Tactics to Guard Against Inconsistent and Unclear Coding

66
I conducted intra-coder reliability checks, used random paths through the data, and
defined each node with a description of its development and final decision rules for its
application (Dey, 1993; Miles & Huberman, 1994).
When I felt nearly done with the coding, I codified my decision rules for each
category and conducted the intra-coder tests. My code memos were invaluable in tracing
the development and final meaning of each code. Then I re-coded garden data from four of
the interviews reviewed by the second readers and compared the second coding to the first.
I had an intra-coder reliability level of 94%. While I applied the codes uniformly, the
process did uncover some redundant nodes which I combined or deleted.
Tactics to Guard Against Insupportable Claims and Findings
I used thick description and a contextual presentation, and searched for negative
cases/evidence and rival explanations (Dey, 1993; Guba, 1981; Lofland & Lofland, 1995;
Miles & Huberman, 1994).
I use quotes and some pictures taken by respondents to provide the thick
description and context in this report. Negative case analysis and rival explanations are
also reported, sometimes with supporting quotes.
I tried developing an audit trail and analysis log as outlined by Miles and
Huberman and Guba and Lincoln (Guba, 1981; Huberman & Miles, 1994; Miles &
Huberman, 1994). I found the process time consuming in the extreme and somewhat
duplicative of features in N4. Huberman and Miles (1994) acknowledge this and suggest
that audit trails are more appropriate for high-stakes studies. N4 tracks some audit trail
information. Text search results are saved as separate nodes, with a date and time stamp.

67
When nodes are merged, N4 notes this in a node memo, again including the date and time
the nodes are merged. I also used the node memos to track my train of thought about the
data I coded to a particular node. These features allow a researcher to trace the
development of the analysis, the primary function of an audit trail. For these reasons, I
stopped creating a separate, detailed analysis log.
Tactics to Guard Against Incoherent Analyses and Findings that are Disconnected from
Theory
In the literature, the tactics presented in this area are more declarative: one should
be sure one’s conclusions are linked to theory. How to be sure one’s conclusions are linked
to theory is left unclear. This is somewhat resolved in my current study because I built
some of my questions and probes around empowerment theory and the meanings of green
space. To expand on this in the analysis, I reviewed data for examples of empowerment
variables and meanings of green space and for potential new variables and meanings
related to these theoretical domains.
Tactics to Guard Against Findings that are not Cogent to Practitioners
I reviewed findings with practitioners from Green Corps and with other Forest
Service colleagues. This took place during the analysis and writing phases of the project.
Discussions with Suzanne Malec, the creator of Green Corps and research ally, were quite
useful in designing the study, understanding preliminary findings, and developing the
practitioner's model.

68
Summary of Design, Methods, and Analysis
In summary, this study used primarily qualitative methods of photo-elicitation,
interview, and thematic analysis to investigate the claims of social benefits arising from
participation in urban greening projects. Residents of four blocks in Chicago were
interviewed. The blocks were selected from all the residential blocks participating in the
1995 Green Corps Chicago program. Two of the sites were thought by Green Corps
practitioners to have had social benefits from the project and two were thought to not have
had such benefits. Both participants and nonparticipants on each block were interviewed.
This created a set of comparative cases: success and failure sites, participants and
nonparticipants, and across all four sites. The final, purposive, sample included 55
respondents in 54 interviews across the four sites.
Respondents were asked to take ten photographs of changes for the better or worse
in their neighborhood over the past five years. These photos were used in interviews with
each respondent. We discussed the changes and their impacts on the individual and the
block. The transcripts of the interviews were analyzed; QSR’s NUD*IST version 4 was
used both for data management and to assist in-depth analysis. A priori and emergent
themes were explored in an iterative, interactive coding and analysis process.
Trustworthiness techniques including second readers and intra-coder reliability checks
were used to ensure the rigor of the analyses.

69
RESULTS: STORIES FROM THE FIELD
In this chapter, I will present the interview results: the closed-ended question
responses and the story of each block. While this is largely a results section, analysis of
each site individually and in comparison to others shapes the telling of each block’s story.
Two discussion chapters follow. The first examines empowerment theory and
empowerment outcomes at each site and across sites. The second discussion chapter is a
preliminary investigation of the subtle impacts of “clean” and “dirt” on social outcomes of
greening projects. These two discussion chapters build on the stories told here.
Block Satisfactions and Attachment
Before telling the story of each site, let’s take a quick look at the results of closed-
ended questions on general block satisfaction, ratings of block attributes, and block
attachment. These results are summarized in Tables 5-8. I ran simple statistical analysis on
these data to support the qualitative analysis of the interviews. Given the nature of these
data (self-report, small sample sizes, and categorical), the statistical tests should not be
given too much weight.
Satisfaction and Attribute Ratings
The success site respondents (those from Ashland and Halsted) generally reported
higher satisfaction and more positive changes on their blocks than did respondents on
failure sites (those from Pulaski and Jefferson Homes). The Ashland respondents reported
the most positive change. They rated everything as better, particularly safety and crime. At
the Halsted site, respondents

70
TABLE 5
SATISFACTION AND BLOCK ATTRIBUTE RATING COMPARISONS
NOW VERSUS FIVE YEARS AGO
BY SITE
HalstedAshlandPulaskiJeffersonHomes
Attributesratedthennowchangethennowchangethennowchangethennowchange
Generalblock
satisfactiona
3.082.67-0.41+4.202.70-1.50++**2.182.910.73-2.382.21-0.17same
Unsafe…safe3.505.251.75++***2.304.702.40++***5.363.91-1.45--**4.885.130.25same
Unattractive…
attractive4.174.250.083.104.501.40++5.823.91-1.91--***4.504.710.21same
Highcrime…low
crime5.256.080.83+1.903.902.00++***6.274.09-2.18--***4.925.630.71+*
Unfriendly…friendly5.005.170.17+4.405.601.20++*5.645.640.005.135.330.20+
Poorlymaintained
…wellmaintained4.254.420.17+3.405.001.60++**5.733.55-2.18--***4.133.67-0.46-
Littlegreenery…much
greenery3.335.332.00++***3.305.402.10++**5.454.64-0.81-3.794.881.09++**
Notstressful...stressful5.004.50-0.50-2.603.801.20++*5.824.36-1.46--**4.294.09-0.20same
NOTES:a
Thisquestionwasaskedwithareversescale.*significantatthe.1level.**significantatthe.05level
***significantatthe.01level

71
TABLE 6
BY PARTICIPANT STATUS
Participants Nonparticipants
Attributes rated then now change then now change
General block satisfactiona
2.95 2.68 -0.27 same 2.79 2.45 -0.34 +
Unsafe … safe 3.91 4.77 0.86 +*
4.30 4.85 0.55 +
unattractive … attractive 4.59 4.91 0.32 + 4.33 4.06 -0.27 same
high crime … low crime 4.86 4.95 0.09 same 4.39 5.06 0.67 +*
unfriendly … friendly 5.50 5.59 0.09 same 4.70 5.18 0.48 +
poorly maintained …well
maintained
4.73 4.23 -0.50 - 4.09 3.94 -0.15 same
little greenery … much greenery 3.86 5.45 1.59 ++ **
3.91 4.70 0.79 +*
not stressful ... stressful 4.16 4.47 0.31 + 4.18 4.06 -0.12 same
NOTES: a
This question was asked with a reverse scale. *
significant at the .1 level. **
significant at the .05
level
***
significant at the .01 level.
TABLE 7
BY SUCCESS/FAILURE SITE
Success sites Failure sites
Attributes rated then now change then now change
General block satisfactiona
3.59 2.68 -0.91 +**
2.36 2.45 0.09 same
Unsafe … safe 2.95 5.00 2.05 ++***
4.94 4.70 -0.24 -
Unattractive … attractive 3.68 4.36 0.68 + 4.94 4.42 -0.54 -
High crime … low crime 3.52 4.95 1.43 ++***
5.24 5.06 -0.18 same
Unfriendly … friendly 4.73 5.36 0.63 + 5.21 5.33 0.12 same
Poorly maintained …well
maintained
3.86 4.68 0.82 +*
4.67 3.64 -1.03 --**
Little greenery … much greenery 3.32 5.36 2.04 ++***
4.27 4.76 0.49 +
Not stressful ... stressful 3.50 4.40 0.90 + 4.59 4.09 -0.50 -
NOTES: a
This question was asked with a reverse scale. *
significant at the .1 level. **
significant at the .05
level
***
significant at the .01 level.

72
TABLE 8
BLOCK ATTACHMENT ACROSS COMPARISON GROUPS
BlockSuccess/failureParticipantstatus
Blockattachmentquestiona,b
meanmin/max.meanmin/max.meanmin/max.
Ihaveasenseofbelongingwiththepeopleonthisblock.
Halsted3.422-5Success3.271-5Part.*3.682-5
Ashland3.101-5Failure3.331-5Nonpart3.061-5
Pulaski3.552-5
Jefferson3.291-5
Friendsandassociationsontheblockmeanalottome.
Halsted3.582-5Success*3.772-5Part.*3.772-5
Pulaski3.001-5
Jefferson3.251-5
Ithinkthatweplanthingstogetherratherthantheyplanthings.
Halsted3.421-5Success3.321-5Part.**3.821-5
Pulaski3.552-5
Jefferson3.291-5
Ifeelloyaltothepeopleontheblock.
Halsted4.001-5Success*3.861-5Part.**3.951-5
Pulaski3.362-5
Jefferson2.961-5
Igetasenseofcommunityfromlivingontheblock.
Halsted3.671-5Success3.551-5Part.*3.771-5
Pulaski3.091-5
Jefferson3.331-5
NOTES:
a
Questionswereansweredonafivepointscale:(1)notatall,(2)alittle,(3)amediumamount,(4)quitealot,and(5)verymuch.
bTheseitemshadaCronbach’salphaof.88.*Significantacrossthiscomparisongroupat.1.**Significantacrossthiscomparisongroupat.05

73
reported positive change as well. Safety was rated higher, as was greenery. The Jefferson
Homes respondents reported the least change, although they reported somewhat less crime
and more greenery. Pulaski respondents reported a significant worsening of their block.
Every indicator was rated worse now than five years ago, with attractiveness, crime, and
maintenance rated much worse. Analysis by success/failure blocks reflected these
differences. Analysis by participant/nonparticipant status showed no significant differences
in their ratings.
Block Attachment
The block attachment questions were:
• How much would you say that you have a sense of belonging with the people on
this block?
• How much would you say that the friendships and associations you have with other
people on this block mean a lot to you?
• How much would you say that, if the people on this block were planning
something, you’d think of it as something “we” were doing together rather than
something “they” were doing?
• How much would you say that you feel loyal to the people on this block?
• How much would you say that you get a sense of community from living on this
block?
The response scale was (1) not at all to (5) very much.
Although the respondents within each site ranged from negative to positive, the
overall response to the block attachment item was generally positive (Table 8). The major
differences in respondents’ block attachment show up in the participant status analysis.

74
Participants reported more attachment to the people on their block, with a significant
difference in their responses for all the questions, but particularly in feeling that we plan
things on the block and in their sense of loyalty to people on the block.
Block Stories
Halsted
“Girl, do you know where you are?” the letter carrier asked me my second time on
the block. He had made a beeline for me from across the street as I was going door to door
late one morning. I assured him that I did know where I was, but he pressed on: “No, do
you know where you are? Where are you from?” He relaxed, though, when I told him that
I was interviewing people on this block and only this block of Halsted. “Oh, OK then. If
you’re on this block, you’ll be OK.” He was insistent that I would not be OK if I were one
block north, east, or west, but that “this block is different.” And it is. This block has a
group of determined residents working to “improve the community and make it a better
place to live.” I was safe on this block, although I followed the letter carrier’s advice and
did not go into one particular apartment building. People on the block came to know who I
was, and several kept an eye out for me. Usually this was in a positive way, but others
were interested in my presence, too. Once as I climbed out of my car, a young man walked
through the neighborhood shouting “Federal agent alert! Federal agent alert!” acting the
town crier, notifying others to beware my presence.

75
Setting
This block of largely residential homes is worn. Frame and brick two-flats with occasional
single family homes line each side of the street (Figure 1A, unless otherwise indicated all
photographs were taken by respondents as a part of the photo-elicitation exercise). There
are a few empty lots, but they do not dominate the block. One larger apartment building
(the one I was warned away from) sits next to the garden lot. The street intersects with a
busy, commercial and industrial through street to the south and a residential street on the
north. On one corner of the northern intersection is a small commercial building that
houses a church. Kitty corner from the church is a boarded up, mixed residential and
commercial building. Small, neat, single family, brick ranch houses are on the other two
corners of this intersection. More storefront churches are on the commercial street on the
south end of the block.
The street is lined with large, old trees, mostly silver maples. As is customary with
this species, the roots are at the surface, making a lawn difficult, if not impossible, to
maintain. Many backyards have towering cottonwood trees. A few residents have planted
flowers in front of their houses. Signs of the residents’ interest in improving the block
abound: “adopt a block” signs hang on the street poles, a block club sign outlining the
block rules sits on the corner. Those rules are: no littering, no loud radio playing, no
working on cars.
Residents and Actors

76
Several residents are active in the block and the block club (sample characteristics
are summarized in Table 9). Some residents cite three older women as the core of the
1A BLOCK
1B GARDEN

78
TABLE 9
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
SuccessSitesFailureSites
HalstedAshlandPulaskiJeffersonHomes
Racial/ethniccompositionBlack
a
BlackmixedBlack
Gender7E,5G7E,3G11E,0G23E,1G
Averageage47413446
Averagenumberofchildren3.12.41.83.7
Averagehouseholdsize3.23.44.23.1
Averagelengthofresidency(years)1715.413.418
%Homeowners6760640
Education(%witheducation/trainingpastHigh
School)
50708254
Workstatus(%employed)668010042
Income58%under25,000
(25%<15,000)
economicmix:33%
under15,000;44%
over40,000
economicmix:44%
under25,000(18%<
15,000),27%over
25,000
alllessthen25,000;
54%under15,000.
Averagenumberpicturestaken1815715
%Respondentsthatphotographedthegarden75%44%71%never
Picturesofothergreeningprojects?noyesnoyes,overhalf
Howmanyparticipantsinthese?NoneseveralNAalmosthalf
Note:
a
Iusetheterm"Black"ratherthan"AfricanAmerican"becausewhenIaskedrespondentshowtheywantedtheirraceand
ethnicityidentified,mostsaid"Black"or"Idon’tcare."

79
block: Harriet, Sharon, and Veronica. Harriet, although not currently the block club
president, is the leader of the block. She is their connection to the outside world, the one to
call the Alderman or other city offices. A woman in her late forties, she is articulate and,
with a bachelor’s degree, more educated than most block residents. Harriet is also very
active in her church, the neighborhood homeowners association (a community-wide
organization), and CAPS (community policing in Chicago). She has lived on the block for
20 years. She is determined to make a better block:
[I] still feel that one day this will be a better block or a beautiful
block. That it can be done. All it takes is for people to care, uh,
maintain their property and up keeping their lawn and keep our area
clean.
Sharon is equally active. Designated as the one who knows about flowers, she
designed the garden plantings. Limited by arthritis, gardening is becoming difficult for her.
Sharon has lived on the block for 15 years, is quite vocal about the change they are trying
to make on the block, and catches grief for it. She acknowledges this, telling me:
And I wouldn’t have to walk down the block and [hear them] say
“there come Miss nosy Samuels trying to tell us what to do,” you
know. You don’t want to tell grown people what to do. You want
them to do what they got to do. You know, to clean up in front of
their own front door. All I can say, clean up in front of your front
doors.
She has planted many flowers in her yard, her parkway, and in her neighbor’s yard.
She has hanging plants on her front porch. She cleans up the block regularly, often
enlisting the help of other block residents to do so. Sharon is in her mid fifties, educated
through grade school. She has four adult children who help her out financially. She is

80
interested in starting a home day care but unsure how to go about it. She was unsure of
herself in the interview, worried that I wouldn’t understand her and anxiously trying to
speak as properly as possible.
Veronica is the current block club president. She lives with her “old man” in a
house they bought 20 years ago. A high school graduate, Veronica is quiet, even laconic,
and listless. She saw things in a negative light compared to others’ positive interpretation
of events on the block. Still, she was active in the garden project, often going down to pick
up bottles and trash, and chase the children out of the garden lot.
Doc Martin is somewhat itinerant, but a firm fixture on the block. His aunt owns a
home and his sister rents on the block. He stays with each of them, or off the block. Doc
Martin is very active, sweeping and cleaning up and down the block. Sometimes he is
asked to do this by Sharon; other times he just does it. In his forties he has six children and
was job hunting while I was on site. Doc Martin is jovial, smiles a lot, but seemed uneasy
with his lack of property.
Mr. Nichols is a retired man who has lived on the block for nine years. A bricklayer
by trade, his neat brick ranch is carefully maintained. Flowers abound in front, courtesy of
Sharon. Mr. Nichols participated in the garden project and then took the ideas to his
church. The church members cleaned up a lot across the street from it. Mr. Nichols says
that a neighbor of that lot now keeps it clean and mowed. Mr. Nichols is determined to
make his block a better place. He did not take photographs for me and returned the camera.
When I asked what he would have taken photos of, he said the drug dealers so that he
could show the photos to the police. I gave him the camera back.

81
Doug, Thomas, and Charles hang out together a lot. Doug and Charles are relatives
and live in the same home, a brick bungalow. Thomas lives one block north, but is so
much a part of the block that I included him in the sample. Doug is a quiet young man, at
least when around me. His pet pit bull, Diamond, sat in my lap for much of the interview.
Doug reports being self-employed as a car mechanic. He had been incarcerated, but did not
tell me for what. He helped with the garden, mostly by hauling wood chips. Doug’s mother
used to be the president of the block club but is no longer active in the club. Charles has
some college and is employed. He did not participate in the garden project, and participates
minimally in the block party.
Mrs. Robertson is a visiting nurse. She has lived on the block the longest of those
that I interviewed. She is not a part of the block club and feels somewhat excluded by the
club’s activities. She has a well-maintained yard with flowers in a tire planter and around
the base of a tree. She shares her modest home with her husband and one of her eight adult
children.
Shirley is in her early sixties and another long-term resident of the block. She is
active in the block club and sums up her role this way:
I am not the leader, I’m a follower so, whatever decisions that they
made and whatever need to be done I’m there to help to do it. So, I
help them with everything they do.
And help she does, with the garden, the block party, and with cleaning up the block
on a regular basis. She lives with her husband on the first floor of a worn frame two-flat.
Her daughter rents the upstairs apartment.

82
There were several residents who either declined to be interviewed or I was unable
to catch. Carmen is a young woman who lives on the block and works with the children.
Sharon and other residents chip in whatever money they can so that Carmen can take the
kids places. She worked with the girls on a dance routine for the block party. Other
residents definitely did not want to talk to me. None were rude. In some cases it seemed
that I was too much of an unknown. In other cases, people were too busy or simply
uninterested.
I was able to interview the letter carrier as well as the pastor of the church on the
corner and the chief of staff for the Alderman’s office. The aldermanic staff member was
aware of the garden; the pastor was not.
History of the Block
This block had previously had a block club, but it became inactive. What brought it
back to life was the act of signing petitions to prevent a tavern from reopening on the
block. A tavern had been located on the residential corner of the block, but it was closed
because of frequent fights and a murder in front of the tavern. When another tavern wanted
to open in the same building, the precinct captain brought petitions around to the
neighbors. The residents signed against a tavern. A little while later, a church was
interested in opening in that building. Again, the precinct captain came around with
petitions, and the residents signed in favor of the church. This small amount of activity—
signing the petitions—spurred people on to want to do more. They had had an impact on
their block, and now wanted to take the next step. They resurrected the block club, started
to meet more regularly. Together they tried to address other block problems: prostitution,

83
abandoned buildings, drug dealing, guys hanging out and sometimes running through their
block to get away from police. The new block club operates democratically: they vote on
issues after a discussion period. They have a president and vice president, and the people
in these positions change regularly.
Another block club effort has been to encourages rental property owners to do
more to keep up their buildings. One uncooperative target has been the owner of the
garden lot. He also owns a rundown house on the lot next to the garden. The yard has not
been mown and the garage door is falling off. Harriet said they try to get the owner to fix
up the property, sometimes they do some work themselves, and sometimes they get some
help from the Streets and Sanitation Department when the situation gets out of control.
The changes instigated by the block club have not all gone smoothly. The young
men on the block reported mixed feelings about the block club. Some credit the club with
making some good changes, some felt excluded from the group, and some called the block
club leaders “nosy bitches.” One of the changes that the club instigated was a ban on auto
repair in the street. One day Sharon called the police about some of the guys working on
their car. The police came and intervened. That night the guys congregated outside
Sharon’s house. A neighbor tells it:
Oh honey they had a, you might say they had a disco party going on
in the middle of the street and they was playin’ all kinds of music
and they was dancing and partyin’ and saying ‘call the police you
bitch’ you know.
The young men are not the only ones to feel excluded. Most of my respondents
belonged to the block club. Mrs. Robertson was an older woman, a long-term homeowner

84
on the block, who was not a block club member. She, too, felt excluded from the block
club. She agreed with many of the aims of the block club members, but felt that their style
was too dictatorial. She had two separate encounters with the club that left a sour taste.
First, the block club was working on getting yard lights into everyone’s front yard. Those
without the resources would be helped by a kitty. Mrs. Robertson was under the
impression that the costs for installing the lights would be paid for out of the kitty:
From what source? I don’t know, the precinct? I don’t know. But
they came from someplace! … They said they was gonna reimburse
us for having our lines run and all this. Which they never did. And
um, you know, it seem like we was just, we had to do it all on our
own. You know, we had to do it all ourselves. Which we really
didn’t mind, it was the idea why did they get theirs free and we had
to buy ours and sit it out there?
Her next encounter happened when she came back from a trip in late October. She
found her yard light decorated for Halloween. Mrs. Robertson does not like Halloween:
so I had to tell [the block club members] about it and I think they
got pretty upset with me about it. I told them don’t ever do it. I said
do not put those things in my yard. They said ‘our lights.’ What
lights? That’s my light. I brought those lights. I brought those lights
and put that there so, ask me if at least if I want it in my yard.
The block club also encourages people to clean up around the fronts of their
houses. Mr. Nichols said there was some pressure not to cooperate and some garbage
tossed into front yards. Mrs. Robertson sums up the need this way:
I think, um, a lot of this stuff would be eliminated if they just try to
ease they self into a situation where you talk to the younger people
and you can really make a lot of sense that way. You can really get
through to people if you go talk to them in the right way instead of
pushing. Its um, I used to hear this saying ‘you can lead me with a
[kite string] but you can’t drive me with a 45’.

85
Harriet, however, felt that one of the strong points of the block club was that they
had made communication with the young men better, not worse:
I think the project brought us closer together uh, it made us become,
uh, concerned, really being more watchful, um, treating each other
better uh, as neighbors. Because we even worked with, you know
some of the young mens, they are in their early twenties and early
thirties, some of them even came out to help and it sort of opened up
a line of communication with the older people on the block and the
young adults. And we even, even some of the children, just kind of
open up the lines of communication that we all care and let’s all just
try to show love and be concerned about each other. So, I think it
helped us, because we do now. We didn’t have that closeness um,
and the garden really helped to develop that and bring us closer
together.
And some of the young men corroborate this:
L: OK. Do you think that the project changed how the neighbors
worked together?
Charles: Yeah.
L: How’d it do that?
Charles: Getting more communication.
The new church was well liked. The programs for the children were particularly
appreciated. These included a summer lunch program, winter coat drives, and a children’s
choir. The pastor was not aware of the garden and attributed the positive changes on the
block to his church’s activities on behalf of the block.
The Garden
After the church opened, residents turned to try and find what else they could do to
improve their block. An empty lot was a prime target. It was “a garbage dump” with old

86
tires, bottles, and abandoned cars. The kids played on the lot amid the garbage, doing flips
and other tricks. Guys would hang out there, “drinking, playing loud music, it was really,
really filthy, I mean really filthy.” The block wanted to make a play lot for the kids, and it
was with this idea that they approached the Alderman.
The Alderman’s office told the block club about Green Corps. Harriet contacted
Green Corps, and their block was selected for the 1995 classes. They went in with the idea
of creating a play lot, but the lot’s owner wouldn’t go along with that due to liability fears.
The group decided to go ahead with a flower garden instead of the play lot (Figure 1B).
Word of this change and the reasons for it did not get disseminated widely on the block.
Some people knew what happened, but some felt betrayed by the change:
All right. It looks good. And it made the [block?] look better, but
before that yard was there … you could play in there. Used to do
their little flips and everything. And as I was saying, keep the kids
off the street … Now the kids’ll run up and down the street.
The block club divvied up responsibilities based on residents’ skills. Sharon
designed the garden. Harriet went to the Green Corps courses. Mr. Nichols supplied
cheerful hard work, as did Doc Martin and others. The guys helped to clear the lot and to
haul the wood chips.
Since the garden went in, the block club has had to police it to keep the kids out.
Harriet:
We would let them play there if a parent would supervise them. Last
summer they were playing on the lot and they broke a window out
of the apartment building and the person who owned the apartment
building had to pay for the window … so, the community said ‘no

87
there will be no baseball or football playing because you are subject
to breaking the woman’s window.’ …
The garden is at least moderately well maintained. The garden had clearly been
weeded at least once in the summer of 1997 (two years after the garden had been
installed), because there were so few weeds the work day I was there. Sharon and Veronica
talk about getting in there to clean up. But the gate on the garden lot is locked, with a
three-foot-high chain link fence. The block club also installed a fence along the alley
behind the garden lot. This helps to stop guys from running through the lot and from
hiding in the back of it.
Everyone I spoke with felt the garden made the block look much better. This was
true of the ardent block club members and the people who were not active in the project or
the block club:
Mrs. Robertson: …Well it’s improved because of the flowers and
they put in and try to beautify it and everything. It looks better.
L: … did this change how you feel about your block?
Mr. Nichols: Yes, Ma’am. It did. Because like I say, like the
flowers, you walk by that and you see the flowers on the block and
you can look here and compare it to what it used to be. You know,
and you would say ‘well, I never would have thought this could be
like this’. You know, especially here and then something you took
part in you know it too, it just makes you feel warm on the inside.
You know, like they say you know that would make the community
look better, it’s better to be looking across and see flowers than
seeing old couches and chairs, bottles and things over there. So that
you know, it looks a whole lot better. Like I said, to me it just bring
life more to the neighborhood.

88
The garden was felt to have made the block safer in terms of accidents. Crime and
related issues (e.g., safety from attack) were not considered to have been major problems
before the garden, so there was no impact from the garden. Guys hanging out, dumping on
the lot, drinking, working on cars, abandoned cars, were all considered to have been major
problems before the garden, and ones that the garden helped to alleviate.
The garden was also thought by some to have had an impact on the maintenance of
the block as a whole. Mr. Nichols put it this way:
I do think that’s a greater effect there in the peoples taking care of
their houses and things. They seen that because, you see, that just a
vacant lot out there and they saw that peoples was laboring out in
that vacant lot you know to get it to look like it is looking now and
what, what about your home? I know since then people sometime,
every morning you get up you see somebody out there with a broom
pushing it, not just only in front of their house you know, down the
next houses and start me, started me to cutting this guy, cutting these
here houses ...
Whether or not the garden was the inspiration for increased block maintenance,
residents report that people are taking better care of their houses. There has been an effort
to get more people to plant grass in front, and people have been doing this. I asked Sharon
why grass is important. She told me, in a tone of voice like I was nuts:
Why? It make it beautify your block more. It make it look like
someone live there. You know, you don’t just have to go down this
dirt road with no grass.
According to the aldermanic staff member I interviewed, the Alderman was very
impressed with this block. “If they can do it, anyone can do it.” The Alderman extended a

89
proposed Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district boundaries to include the block so that
residents could take advantage of any benefits available from the TIF designation. This
was the only Alderman specifically aware of the garden projects.
Halsted Summary
Halsted residents were excited at the prospect of improving their block. They had
participated in the successful fight to keep a tavern from re-opening on their block and
were looking for the next step. The Alderman’s office got them in touch with Green Corps,
and they pursued the project.
The revived block club managed the project, led by three women. They delegated
work based on people’s skills, and voted at meetings to make decisions about what to do
with the garden and other block issues. The garden has been maintained, and was
appreciated by most block residents, whether or not they participated in the garden project.
There were some problems on the block, particularly in tense relationships with the
young men. They felt blamed for any problem in the garden and felt that their interests
were ignored. Still, the garden project helped several residents feel better about themselves
and their block, more in control of their neighborhood, and the project also brought them
to the attention of their Alderman who included their block in a TIF district.
Ashland
Each block had its own flavor as I made my way into the social network and started
interviewing residents. Ashland, in the Englewood neighborhood, felt like old home week.

90
It was August and people were outside working on their lawns, sitting on the front stoop
braiding their children’s hair, sweeping up, saying hello as they came and went from
errands. Children were out playing, riding bikes, jumping rope, just about every time I was
on this block.
Setting
The Ashland site is a residential block with two-flat greystone and brick buildings
(Figure 2A). There are two single family homes on the block and larger apartment
buildings (approximately 10-15 units) on some of the corners. Nine lots on the block are
empty.
There are many long-term residents on this block, and families living in the two-
flats, with different generations taking each apartment. About one-third of the residents
have iron or chain link fences around their front yards. Most residents keep up the front of
their houses at least minimally; some work hard, planting, mowing, putting up decorative
fences, painting the trunks of the mature street trees. The street trees are primarily on the
southern half of the block. The mature catalpa, American elm, and Norway maple are quite
large.
One resident on the block has built fences of found materials to enclose empty lots
on either side of her house. These lots have been planted with a variety of shrubs and trees,
some reportedly appropriated from nearby street and park tree plantings. Odd bits of
furniture and statuary also decorate these lots, along with over 30 big red bows on many of
the shrubs and trees.

91
2A BLOCK
2B MARTHA’S GARDEN
2C CORNER GARDEN
FIGURE 2. ASHLAND.

92
There are several very strong personalities on this block (sample characteristics are
summarized on Table 9, page 77). Martha Martin is the garden organizer and one of the
block leaders. She used to be president of the block club. She is dealing with serious health
problems these days, but reports a lot of activism in the past, including trips to protest in
Springfield. Darius, a young man in his early twenties and the junior block captain, had
this to say about Martha:
That’s Mrs. Martin. She’s another very important person in the
block. She, … my grandmother and maybe a few other people,
maybe before my time, actually got the block together, sort of
organized the block, have some unity. …
Kanisha Martin, Martha’s daughter, is a headstrong woman in her late twenties.
She also worked on the garden. She is active in the block: she used to be an officer in the
block club and the primary organizer of the block back-to-school parties. Kanisha reported
several altercations with neighbors, and I witnessed one. Exactly what the arguments were
about wasn’t always clear to me, but they were loud and had lasting repercussions with the
relationships on the block. Kanisha cares fiercely about the neighborhood and cares even
more about raising her kids:
…I care, I am one of those parents that care. I’m not strung out on
drugs and I don’t drink. I’m the one that cares. So I’m not going to
see my son out there doing something wrong and I’m sittin’ there
watching. I see parents out there seein’ they kids doin’ something
wrong and won’t say nothin.

93
The current president of the block club is Hettie Campbell. She was not home when
I first stopped by, so I left my letter of introduction. She called me the minute she got my
letter—the only person to do this—eager to talk to me and tell me the story of her block.
She is a fairly new resident, having moved to the block about five years earlier. She
became an organizer, and now is very active in CAPS. She has received local and national
awards for her efforts in that program. She is a forceful yet gentle woman, with a fierce
devotion to God, the Virgin Mary, and her family. About Hettie, Darius said:
… she just had the power that the block needs. She’s resourceful,
you know, she knows the system, she has friends. If you ever need
something, like the garbage is not being picked up, you know, you
can call her and she’ll get someone out here to pick up the trash. …
Miss Eva is the woman who built the makeshift fences around the empty lots that
surround her house, decorating them with Christmas bows. She was sweeping the street
when we were introduced. We did not have a formal interview (she did not want to have
one), but did talk a time or two on the street. Other residents reported that she would start
to tear down the houses next to her when they were vacant, thereby forcing their
demolition by the city. Then she would appropriate the lots, fencing them in with
makeshift fences.
Darius is a member of one of the long-time families on the block. His grandmother
and Martha are good friends. He is active in projects and activities on the block, buying
supplies for block parties and other events. He is working and going to college, and is
proud of his cherry red, Mustang convertible. Children from the block came to the door
several times during our interview, calling for Darius to come and do things with them.

94
Darius’s mother, Etta Jones, works for the government in a specialized clerical
position. She has stayed in the neighborhood because her mother is here and wants to stay.
She says it would not be where she would choose to live:
…It’s just too many vacant houses here. You know it looks like, ya
know well, what do these people do all day? If everyone is home
then that means that no one is working, so what’s going on in that
neighborhood? Not for one that I would want to live in, not to buy,
not to buy now.
Etta is not the only one who has problems with the block. Joyce lives in a
bungalow on one of the block’s corners. Her main problem is the young men that
congregate and hang out on the corner, victims and perpetrators of many shootings. The
first time we met, she showed me the gun shot holes in her living room and dining room
walls and in her car:
This [the street outside her house], I call, this strip here, Murderer
Row. That’s my own name for it. I have had to watch them scrape
so many young boys up off these corners. I have become almost
immune to gun shots. It is, [pause] It’s sad.
Joyce clears the corner by blasting church music from inside her house, walking
out and starting to preach “Now that we are gathered together in His name...” She is
currently the block club vice president and got a job the day we set up an interview time.
She had been going to school for her master’s in education and landed a job at a nearby
school. She was ecstatic to get the job, then exhausted by it when it started.
Other block residents include Albert, a single man in his middle years. Albert
mowed the lawns on the parkway for awhile, and he and Darius considered getting a
school bus to fix up and use to take the block kids on trips and to school. Still, he

95
complains that there are “too many kids” on the block. Jerry lives with his sister and her
kids in a brick two-flat. He is under-employed and says he is willing to help in block
projects but currently does not actually get involved. Christine lives with her mother and
daughter in one of the greystone two-flats. Said by others on the block to be a drug user,
Christine loves babies and helps a little bit with block activities. Patricia rents an apartment
on the block. A newer resident, she is job hunting and trying to figure out what to do with
her son when he gets out of prison. Mrs. Sheron and her 20-something daughter were
packing to move, anxious and excited about having bought a house and at the same time
sad about leaving her friends on the block where she had lived for 15 years or more.
There are many old, strong friendships on the block, and in many ways the
residents embody the “it takes a village” approach to the children on the block. At the
same time, there are tensions. The strongest is between Martha and Hettie. The two women
do not like each other, and their antipathy affects the entire block. Martha feels usurped by
Hettie. Hettie feels Martha is selfish and mean spirited. Kanisha says of the block:
I mean like towards like strangers, you know like you, they’re
friendly. But neighbors, it’s something about us, just us. Everybody
else get along. But us, they don’t like us. [laughs] I don’t know why
they don’t like us, but they don’t.
Aside from not liking each other, Martha and Hettie have different contacts outside
the neighborhood. Hettie’s are with the police and city administrative departments (e.g.,
housing). Martha generally works through the Alderman’s office, reportedly attending his
Wednesday open office sessions frequently.

96
A second major tension on the block is with Miss Eva and her appropriation of the
empty lots. People resent losing solid housing stock to her demolition and particularly
dislike the red bows. Her appropriation of the lots is a problem now that the block has
become a Super Model Block. This will be discussed more in the following section.
This block is relatively stable. People move on and off the block, but many are
long-term residents of 10, 20 years or more. The residents remember a vital community
with many services needed for day-to-day living as well as social support:
… when we moved over here, we had a Kroger [grocery store], we
had a 5 and 10, a meat market, we had ________, we had a nice
hardware, we used to have a little [family] owned restaurant where
you could sit and drink sodas, we had all that stuff. (Martha)
Many of the empty lots were photographed as changes on the block. Darius
remembers the tearing down of the neighborhood as a child:
… You see so much being torn down over the last years. I mean I
was young. … Miss Eva’s, her yard actually was two homes there,
they were built there and they were torn down when I was a young
kid. And then they recently tore a building over here down, they tore
this one down. Before that, they tore the laundromat down and they
tore this down and like, OK, well, what’s next? They really tear
everything down and we won’t have a block. The block’s going to
look like little spots here and there with people living in it and it
looks kind of, kinda, kinda, rugged. Not to have every home sitting
up looking nice, like someone living in it and someone taking care
of it. So, we try to do our best. …

97
This block is near one of Chicago’s boulevards. Several residents photographed the
recent plantings the City put in on the boulevard. The trees and flowers are appreciated by
many residents. The boulevard is a place for hanging out as well. Residents photographed
the bottles that littered the ground. As Hettie put it as she described her photograph:
Flowers on [the Boulevard]. But next to the flowers is bottles,
whiskey bottles, trash and garbage. But this is a beautiful boulevard.
And the city just, this is the second year that I requested those
flowers. They started out with one and now there are three little
patches of these flowers up there in just that picture.
Hettie is the resident responsible for bringing an active CAPS organization to the
block. She says when she first moved to the block:
… I got tired of running home every night when it get dark. I
couldn’t work oh, I was, ‘I gotta get home, I gotta get home’. And
then I was like ‘shit, nobody should have to live like this’ Not 24-7.
Lord, what can I do, I walked, I ______. Oh, Lord, what can I do?
Write the Commander [said like an answer to prayer, sign from
God]. I never did this before in my life. Called once. ‘Where am I?’
‘You’re in the 7th
district.’ ‘Who, who’s the commander?’ ‘Ronnie
Watson.’ ‘OK. What’s the address?’ I told him everything: the
killings, the shooting, the dope dealing. … He heard me with his
heart. Honey, he sent so many police. … about two strong ones they
were locking up everybody, honey. Oh, good, gracious alive. Police
were everywhere. And after two good weeks, then the neighbors
would come out. Start working on the cars. Stand around talking to
each other, but they were still suspicious of me. They didn’t know
what my motives were. … After two weeks, then I wrote Ronnie
Watson, a thank you letter. ‘Do you hear any hallelujahs? Have you
heard any Thank you, Jesus? Cuz it’s all out here.’ Then I just
described how it had changed. Then I asked him, ‘what can I do?
Since you have done all this for me, somebody, you don’t even
know. What can I do, how can I help?’ That’s how I got involved
with CAPS.

98
Hettie writes the area CAPS newsletter on a computer given to her by the police
department. She is the main CAPS participant on the block. Others active in the program
live on neighboring blocks. Some residents on Ashland didn’t know the acronym “CAPS.”
Hettie is not the block’s only organizer. Martha talks of sit-ins in Springfield and
other protests and activities to support the neighborhood’s needs for good schools and
other services. At some point Martha made contact with a greening group (before the
Green Corps project). She could not remember the group’s name, but I think it was the
Resource Center in Kenwood. Working with this group, the block residents built a raised
bed on the intersection Joyce called “Murder’s Row” (Figure 2C). I call this the “corner
garden” to differentiate it from the Green Corps garden project. Hettie participated in this
project, purchasing a statue of the Virgin Mary for the box:
… We were looking for Jesus but we couldn’t find a Jesus. And
most of these people either Baptist, or Sanctified or something like
that but they’re not Catholic. But I’ve got some Catholic
background, from a child, So, when I saw Mary is like praying,
cause it’s mostly all women over here anyway. The women are the
doers, they’re the movers, they’re the shakers. They make the
biscuits, they handle everything. They do the work. So when I find
Mary’s, like perfect. And then all of us got together, we put cement
in there, and everything to anchor it. They kept saying ‘they’ll steal
it’ and I said ‘anybody steal Mary, they need to have her. Let that
go. We would not file a police report on that.’ And then everybody
would chip in. Some people that drink a lot, they bought flowers,
um, they would send $5.00 or $2.00 and so we just kept Mary up.
And that was a bad corner. [pause] um We have a lot of killings and
stuff on that corner, but it’s not anymore.
Martha and Kanisha (perhaps others) plant the flowers in the raised bed. A sign
post for a welcome-to-the-block sign stands behind it, waiting for the sign.

99
This long history of organizing, Hettie’s more recent work with CAPS, and perhaps
to a limited extent, the gardens, led the local police commander to designate the block a
Super Model Block. Martha tells me why they were chosen for the program:
Martha: … You know why we was chosen a super model block,
right?
L: No, I don’t, why were you?
Martha: We always have kept our block up. And the reason that
they chose us as a super model block, is, OK, because of the people,
OK, its just like a high crime area, that’s the way the mayor look at
it. If you have a rebirth of a community and you go in there and put
something in there for these people that’ll bring the community
up…I don’t care what nobody tell you, this is what Commander
Evans say.
Commander Evans was not aware of Martha’s garden project. Hettie is his main
contact on the block. With the Super Model Block comes both problems and opportunities.
Miss Eva’s lots are prime for the promised new development of homes and tot lots. But she
considers the lots hers and does not want to give them up. Some residents went to the
housing department to try and force her to take down the bows and fences. Miss Eva
retaliated by going to the Alderman, who issued a command to housing to leave Miss Eva
alone. The tensions between Martha and Hettie are fueled by the Super Model Block
program, too. Still, residents are cautiously hopeful that positive changes are on the way.
As Etta told me: “They said to be patient, that this was more than a year program.” The
hopes are high—for houses, a field house or other youth center, new wrought iron fences
for each house, and other major improvements to the built environment.
The Garden

100
It is in this context—a deteriorating neighborhood with residents prepared to fight
for their homes—that the Green Corps garden project took place.
The lot where the garden went in once had a two-family building on it. This
building was owned by Martha’s friend Alonzo. The lot is right behind Martha’s and
Sandy’s house, facing onto a side street (Figure 2B). There was a fire and the burned out
shell of the house remained for several years. During this time, people hung out at the
building, drinking and doing drugs. Joyce called the Alderman’s office frequently to
complain:
Oh, listen, listen, I was practically on a first name basis with the
[Alderman’s] secretary for a while. I went from one extreme to
another tryin’ to get that building torn down, and it was not until I
said “Don’t you dare ring my bell and ask me to sign a damn thing
for this man when re-election comes up ‘cause I’m gonna ask him
what the hell has he done for me lately?” It takes more than
barbecue bowl and a slice of watermelon to pacify me. … And then,
low and behold, who knocked on my door? Alderman [_____]. It
was like, I’ll be damned.
When the building was slated for demolition, Martha applied to Green Corps. Her
motivation was, in part, to make something good for the block. But her motivation was
also to keep the lot from Joyce, something Alonzo was probably in on. In her daughter’s
words:
Kanisha: … the man that use to live there, he was having problems
with the lady next door. She didn’t like him either… Now if she
[Joyce] would have took over it, it would have been [a horrible
mistake] I believe that she wanted that property. And she probably
still do _________. But we had signed a contract4
, we got
permission from the owner saying that we could use that lot when it
4
A reference to Green Corps’ requirement for written permission from the lot owner before the garden is
installed.

101
was torn down to build the garden. We did this before the building
got tore down. We knew the building was gonna be tore down
because it was on the demolition list. It so happen that we was, um,
Martha knew Kristin [from the Resource Center], and Kristin knew
something about Green Corps, and they was having money funding
for the garden, if it was a block program. So we looked into it and
that’s what we did. When they tore down the building we went to
the next garden class and then we got it started. So they was tearing
it down, and ____________. Permission from the owner and
everything and he said you all can use it indefinitely, as long as she
don’t have it, I’ll be happy [laughs].
This conflict over the lot is recognized by many of the block residents I talked with,
both garden participants and nonparticipants.
The decision to put in the garden was made by Martha. She went door to door in
the neighborhood talking with residents, but she made the decision. She created the name
“Concerned Residents of Ashland” as the block club name, formalizing what had been an
informal network. There were no meetings or discussion about which lot to use for the
garden. This is problematic because several other possible sites were more central for the
block. The garden site is behind Martha’s house; as one resident put it: “It’s around the
corner. It’s not even on this block.”
Martha and Kanisha went to “school”—Green Corps—to learn how to plan and
implement the garden project. Several block residents helped, particularly Darius. Albert
also helped, although not with great enthusiasm: “I didn’t like doing nothing when I got off
work. But I was pushin’ myself going back there to help her so she leave me alone.” But
he also reports that “we had, it was quite a—woooo—we had all kind of people out there
doin’ that stuff, little kids, old and young.” But in my interviews it became clear that the
primary participants were the Martin clan. Albert and Darius notwithstanding, this was not

102
a major block effort, but a major extended family effort. This included Martha’s sister and
other relatives who lived in an apartment building across the street from—and with a full
view of—the garden lot. These family members have since moved. A potential exception
to this is the block’s children. Both Martha and Kanisha say that they involved the
children. Darius corroborates this:
… a lot of kids had a lot of input into how things were going to be
matched up and how it was going to be, the whole layout. So kids
had a little bit of influence on how they wanted it to look, so. It’s
kind of like a learning experience for the kids, well, I have a little
control over how I want it to look, so, hey, it gave them the initiative
to come out and help.
The garden has several raised beds with small to moderate perennials and shrubs
planted around the garden perimeter (Figure 2B). The space between the raised beds is
mulched with wood chips. The center, octagonal raised bed has a set of sculptures of the
Virgin Mary, Joseph, and Baby Jesus. There are also two raised beds on the parkway in
front of the garden. The plants Martha chose have biblical meanings:
You know the story of the burning bush right? To show strength.
Strength and power. Then we had Jacob’s ladder in there, and that
shows determination. Every tree in there, it means something. That’s
the way the garden is set up. It means something. Symbolically,
naming, in the biblical sense. Because it’s strength and hope. My
goal was, like a lot of people came through here. Some people be
down and depressed. They stand there and they just look and a smile
come on their face, it uplifts.
Martha did have the altruistic goal of creating an uplifting space in the
neighborhood. At the same time (as mentioned earlier), she had the goal of keeping the
space out of the hands of her neighbor Joyce. Like the conflicting motivations for the
garden, Martha had conflicting motivations in her decision to build a fence around the

103
garden. She explains the motive as protecting the children. She was concerned that they
were finding hypodermic needles and used condoms on the lot when they would help her
clean it up. I found supporting evidence for these concerns. When I helped on a work day,
I found several crack cocaine bags in the garden. At the same time, Martha was interested
in securing the back of her house. Martha asked Green Corps for help with a fence and got
it. She installed a six-foot-high fence around the garden and put a padlock on the gate.
Martha and Kanisha are the only residents with a key. Residents of the block view the
fence with, at best, skepticism. Darius said:
…One thing I don’t like about it, I love this part [the plants], but I
don’t like the big fence. The big fence takes away from the beauty
but they say we have to protect it. Can’t be open. I prefer a little
fence, maybe 3,4, maybe 2-3 feet high. It would look more pleasant.
This looks like we’re just trying to protect something instead of
having it you know be there for the public to see and utilize. Maybe
you want to sit around and just look at it, and just feel comfortable.
This is Miss Johnson’s idea, the big six-foot fence put around it. I
was against it, she was for it and you know who won out. …
Hettie and I had the following exchange:
L: Do you have any idea why they put the fence up?
Hettie: [pause] ownership.
And from Etta:
I think the intentions were good. But I think it’s over processed then
it’s roped off and only one person has access to this. And that’s Miss
Martin. So if it were something being done for the community, the
community has no access! … why just take the small parcel and you

104
know fence it off and say well this _______, it’s right behind your
house and it makes it look awful nice.
Still, not everyone had just negative things to say about the fence. Jerry thought
there were some positives because the fence reduced hanging out. Joyce, Martha, and
Kanisha recognized positive benefits for their homes. The fence keeps trash from blowing
into their yards, but more importantly it protects them from break-ins. Other residents also
recognized these benefits to Martha’s and Sandy’s homes.
The garden is not open for residents to sit or play in it, or to maintain it. This is due
in large part to Martha’s putting up the fence, but it did not sound like the garden was
heavily used before then. Albert spoke of going there a couple of times “but there ain’t no
peace.” Still, the garden has had an impact on the appearance of the block. Darius said:
Oh, it looked much more beautiful, much more attractive. You see
so much being torn down over the last years. ...
...It beautifies the block. As far as anything else that’s happening, as
far as all the other buildings being torn down, it becomes, not a
disgrace, but uhh, something unpleasant to look at. It kinda like, you
know hey, this is something different, this is something no one has
ever thought about, you know, having a garden that most of us have
grass, with shrubs and trees, something different. ...
Other residents had this to say about the effect of the garden on the appearance of
the block:
Martha: It made it more beautiful. Some beauty, color than just a
plain, dirt yard makes a great difference. It enhanced a lot of
positive thinking by that garden being there, you know. ...

105
Albert: Ah, in a sense, cause when you drive up in the alley you see
all, how everything look all raggedy and this like a bright light at the
end of the rainbow. [chuckles]
Joyce: ...it certainly looks better, when it’s kept up. It looks better
than it would if it were just a, you know, vacant lot, and umm, I
don’t worry so much about the vagrants, you know, they used to
hang out in that buildin’ even though it was unsafe, you know. It
was a place they could go and do their dirty deeds.
As is hinted at in the quotes above, maintenance was a major issue. People want the
garden to be better maintained. But, since it is perceived as Martha’s alone, and no one can
get in there without her, the maintenance is up to Martha and her family:
Christine: This is what I was talkin’ about where they had planted
the trees and stuff. It was, it used to look better than that. I don’t
know what happened to Miss Martin and her daughter. They used to
keep the, they got the keys to the gate and stuff. They used to keep it
up but now it just lookin’ like a forest or somethin’. Too many
weeds and stuff.
Martha and Kanisha thinks no one on the block will help:
Kanisha: … Cause we need help. See this is a project where the
whole block is supposed to get involved. The whole block don't
want to get involved. That's why it look like that. Me and my mom
[get together ] you know, she not able to do all the stuff and I get
tired doing it by myself. So it looks like that. _____ We gonna have
to call some city help on this. I mean it was a good project and
looked real nice. But you gotta keep it up and you have to have
volunteers help keep it up. …
The end result is resentment all around. Martha and Kanisha feel put upon with the
garden maintenance while many other block residents feel both shut out of the garden and
frustrated that Martha and Kanisha are not taking better care of it.

106
Green Corps staff, Martha, and Darius report that people from neighboring blocks
liked the garden and instigated similar projects on their own blocks. According to Green
Corps horticulturist Deanna DeChristopher, three to five other projects began on nearby
blocks after residents saw the Ashland garden project. Darius said residents of neighboring
blocks gave them kudos for their work:
… the Hermitage Street Block, [said] ‘you guys are doing a nice job
of renovating when a building was torn down,’ ‘looked like an
eyesore,’ ‘do something different with this so it looks a little bit
better.’ So they really kinda like gave us a pat on the back for our
initiative.
Ashland Summary
Ashland was not quite the success that Green Corps staff members thought it was.
Led by Martha, an indomitable woman, most participants were in her extended family.
Green Corps staff through that the level of participation was broader than this. But block
residents thought of the project as Martha’s, particularly since it was behind her house and
“not really on this block.”
But residents from nearby blocks saw the garden as it was going in. Several acted
on their interest and Martha’s information on how to get in the program and contacted
Green Corps to begin their own greening project. This was the other primary evidence to
Green Corps staff of the social benefits of this project.
Martha’s garden is not the only project on Ashland. Before Martha’s garden, the
residents worked together to put in a garden on a corner of the block. This garden was
important to more of the block residents and is visible as residents and visitors turn onto
the block. After the Green Corps project, the block was chosen as a Super Model Block.

107
However, this was not due to the garden. Instead, this project came to the block because a
rival block leader, Hettie, was very active in CAPS. Martha laid the foundation of the
block club when she did the garden project, and the Super Model Block program has built
on this foundation.
Pulaski
“They might get me,” worried one older woman as she explained why she would
not talk to me. She was not alone. I got this response directly from another woman,
perhaps indirectly in the number of unanswered doors. Pulaski was the only block where
people were scared to talk with me.
This neighborhood has been undergoing many demographic changes as reflected in
the 1980 and 1990 census figures (Table 2). The block has shifted from predominately
White to majority Black, with Hispanics as the second largest racial/ethnic group. There
are very few white households remaining in the neighborhood as a whole and only one on
the block where I interviewed. Racial issues came up on this block as on no other. It was
the only site where I felt edgy; I paid much more attention to my own safety here than at
any other site.
Setting
The block is primarily single family homes that were converted to two- and three-
unit buildings, perhaps after World War II (Figure 3A). There are standard two-flats, but
no larger apartment buildings on this block (although nearby blocks do have larger

108
apartment buildings). Many of the houses have wrought iron or chain link fences around
the front

109
3A BLOCK
3B GARDEN
FIGURE 3. PULASKI.

110
yards. Several front gates were locked. One corner had a small, “raggely” store that
sold chips, pop, and some groceries.
The block has some large, older trees and some moderate size Norway maples
(probably planted after the Dutch elm disease epidemic in the 1960s and 1970s). Several
houses had small, recently planted trees in the parkways. The north end of the block had
few trees and many open parkway planting spots.
This neighborhood had been hard hit by the flash flood the summer of 1997. People
thought I was with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and in fact, FEMA
representatives were around the neighborhood while I was interviewing.
Several of the actors in this story do not live on the Pulaski block (sample
characteristics are summarized on Table 9, page 77). These include the garden organizers,
Jill and Jane, and the two main garden participants, Ellen and Jolanta.
Jill and Jane raise eyebrows. A Green Corps staff member described them as
“political brutes.” A block resident described Jill, the precinct captain, as “pushy.” Jill and
Jane are twins. White women, they live a block away from the garden site. They work
together on the garden, on other projects in the neighborhood, and in their business. They
run the beat meetings together. They finish each others sentences. They are very well
connected with city politicians and staff. At a celebration for the first Super Model Block
on Harding, they introduced me to the district police commander and then gave me his
direct line to call and set up an interview. They also introduced me to the Alderman for the
Harding Super Model Block and other community activists. They are resourceful,

111
scrounging materials and plants for the garden. Jill and Jane know that they are not liked
by neighborhood residents. They are not entirely sure why, but attribute some of it to race:
Jill: A lot of people don’t like us, if we aggravate you because we
try to do the correct thing,
Jane: It’s not the white thing, it’s the right thing like I always say.
It’s not a black and white issue but if you want to make it one we
can, uh, we can do it that way. Umm. [pause] That’s why we know a
lot of people [don’t like us].
Ellen lives one block south of Pulaski. A Black woman in her late thirties, Ellen
organizes the block cleanups and parties. She has gone door to door with flyers and sign-
up sheets, trying to get residents of the Pulaski block involved in block activities. She has
had little luck and resents people coming to her later complaining that they hadn’t heard
about an event:
… They always say ‘I didn’t get flyer’, or ‘no one told me’. It kind
of makes you upset, knowing that you done left a flyer at this door,
and knowing you done talked to this person. Then when they come
up and when they take place, ‘I didn’t know anything about it.’
Jolanta is also active in neighborhood activities. She also works with the boys on
her block, trying to create activities for them. Jolanta is active in CAPS and proud of her
certificate of achievement for her involvement. She started gardening at her apartment
after the garden project, raising vegetables and some flowers.
On the block itself, I spoke with several young women and a couple of older adult
women. I had an informal interview with a man on the block, but had no other luck in
interviewing male residents.

112
Emily, Morgan, Tarina, and LaShandra were all young women in their late teens to
mid-twenties. Each has one child, and varying levels of education. They are either
employed, in school, or both. All lived with their families, some in their own apartments
within the family house. They spoke of gangs, drug dealing, and drug use as problems on
the block. LaShandra was about to move back down south with her family. Her mother
didn’t like living in the city.
Patricia is in her late forties. On disability, she is taking care of two foster children
from another branch of the family. Patricia has been having a hard couple of years, with
divorce, the foster children, and the flood damaging meaningful possessions in her home,
including the photos of her kids as they were growing up. She has lived on the block for 12
years and does not want to move although she is concerned about the empty lot:
Then the value of the property is going to start going down. Who
wants to buy a house on a block where you have a lot of empty lots?
That’s number two then we’ll have three, [pause] then after a while
we’ll look like Roosevelt Road, 15th
Street. You know what I’m
saying. You can stand on one corner and look five blocks down.
There is nothing but vacant lots, you know where the property used
to sit. Then I’m still fightin not selling, because I like it here. I hate
change.
Mrs. Hale is a fairly new resident. She and her family have been living on the block
for three years. In her early forties, she has two small children at home and three more
grown and out of the house. She keeps an eagle eye on her kids. She is willing to donate to
neighborhood events, but does not participate much. Her husband volunteered with the
garden, and she did too to a limited extent. They allowed garden materials to be stored in

113
their garage before the garden went in. She is particular about how the block should be
kept up and dissatisfied with her neighbors and the litter on the block.
Residents reported decreased maintenance of the block and an increase in gangs,
drugs and related problems:
Morgan: … little thugs, on the street, runnin’ up and down the in the
block, gangs … it is a problem. They are a problem around here.
That was not around here when I first moved around here so, as far
as like the gang violence and people hanging out, … It is a big
problem. I mean within this past month, um, [pause], four people
have been shot around here.
LaShandra: [They started hanging out] last summer. Just really
hangin out on the corners and stuff.
L: Why do you think they started hangin out then?
LaShandra: ‘Cause they know they can do it. The police, it’s one
live across the street. That’s another thing, that police now. But
before that they never like came over here because the neighborhood
was quiet. They really never were around and they know they can
do it, they know they can hang on the corner and sell drugs, or
whatever, and gang bang. They know they can do it, they know they
can get away with it, that’s why they do it.
Most residents were concerned that grass and yards were not kept as well. Litter
and garbage were seen as an increasing problem:
Morgen: Oh! Their yards. Everyone yard _____ was, I don’t know if
it’s like a little rain. But everyone’s yard was much better. They
would mow their yards and trim and people had like little flowers
out. It was like real nice. Now, I guess people just don’t care. It’s
like how they use to be like trimmed, and people keep their little
parts, you know, the outside clean, mowed, and now they just don’t
care. Pick the paper up, and pick it up in front of other peoples

114
yards. They’ll go so far as to put it inside your yard. And we have a
gate! So I don’t understand how the papers get there.
But not everyone felt that the block was less well maintained:
L: How about how people take care of their buildings?
Patricia: You know what? We all pretty much take care of it, you
know, I mean. … Even the burnt out building, the lady that lives
next to it at 936, um . . . Her grandson has cleaned in the front of
that yard. He did it before the fire and he done since the fire. This is
one of the grandsons of the other house.
The burned out house she mentions still stands. Reportedly the fire started from
crack users falling asleep with their pipes still lit. Residents thought that the shell was
dangerous, that drug dealers and users could and did still use it, that kids could get in to the
remains of the house and get hurt, that it brought the property values down:
Tarina: I think they should have been done did something about it.
Cause it’s been up there for a few months, lot of people on the block
been calling the people about it and you know it looks bad, it really
look bad. Then you know there is a lot of drug addicts and stuff
around and sometime they might go in there. Or sometime, you
know, somebody can get raped, you know. …
There had been one other fire on the block. Most block residents say it was an
electrical problem that caused the fire. Jill and Jane attribute it to “squatters” and “dope
heads.” The house was in particularly bad shape after the fire. Jill and Jane went to housing
court to get the house torn down quickly. This was the first empty lot on the block and the
one where the garden was installed.
Although there is no block club for this specific block, there is a neighborhood
organization. Jill and Jane ran the block club meetings, which evolved into beat meetings.

115
The meetings are held at a local school for developmentally disabled people. Some of the
residents are unclear about this organization, thinking that it is affiliated with the school
itself. No one I spoke with on Pulaski currently goes to the beat meetings. Some reported
that before the garden project, some residents did go to these meetings.
The Garden
The garden was Jill and Jane’s idea (Figure 3B). They wanted the garden to limit
fly dumping on the lot and:
Jill: … we thought it would bring people out to work on it,
remember, and ‘oh, well you got something interesting going on her
let’s all work on it.’ Nobody’s done anything for it. Everybody
wants you to do everything for em. …
Jane: Well the other thing was the thing that we thought that we
were gonna do, put the garden there, is like, what’s going to end up
happening today on Harding. The Mayor’s gonna come out,
rejuvenate the block, that they’ve worked on with the … old police
commander that was transferred.
Jill: And the whole community.
Jane: And the whole community. Everybody get together and
neighbors start, neighbors helpin’ neighbors, …
This did not happen. Jill and Jane presented the idea to do something with the lot at
the beat meetings. Pulaski residents reported that they and other neighborhood residents
wanted a play lot but were told no by the “head people” (probably Jill and Jane, perhaps
the police at the beat meetings?):
Emily: Oh, everybody was saying it should be a playground. But
then they said ‘no’ that if we make it a playground, then it invites
gangs for them to sell drugs over there. … They were either going to
make it a playlot or a that. So that’s what they came up with. That’s

116
what the head people came up with. Everybody said make it a
playground for the kids.
Jill and Jane passed a sign up sheet around the beat meetings and got several
signatures of people interested in working on the project. None of them lived on the block
where the garden was installed. Some residents did help with the garden, but not many.
Mr. Hale worked on it; Mrs. Hale passed out flyers a time or two. They stored garden
materials in their garage. Jill and Jane mentioned a young man who had helped, but who
also stole things from the garden. I spoke briefly with another man who said he had
worked on it but “oh no, I won’t talk about that.”
Jill and Jane, Ellen, and Jolanta planted the garden several times. Each time, the
plants were taken:
L: So you’ve said you’ve done that like four times, tried to put them
in.
Jane: Yeah. Three or four times, yeah!
Jill: At least three times. The minimum was at least three times that
we’ve put in there.
Jane: Plus we had a lot of help from the kid upstairs.
Jill: He was [demonous] guy.
Jane: He was steady out there doing everything rippin things out.
Jill: just going there and ripping stuff out of the ground...
Jane: ...The trellis he broke it off, [both] all the lattice work.
L: Wait, did I miss something, did you tell me that he did help and
he tore the place up?
Jill & Jane: Yeah.
L: Both.
Jill & Jane: Both.

117
Jill and Jane were quite resourceful with the garden. The salvaged a fence to put up
across the garden and scavenged more plant materials. They were personally resourceful,
but the process did not allow others input. In fact, they managed to alienate and anger the
one participant I talked with. Mrs. Hale tells of the day that Jill and Jane came to get the
stored materials out the Johnson’s garage. According to Mrs. Hale, Jill and Jane forced
their way into the garage. Mrs. Hale felt they should have waited until they made contact
with her, preferably by calling before coming over. The story reflects Jill and Sandy’s
rather bullish approach:
Mrs. Hale: Furthermore, get [the materials] out. I don’t want it in
there no more. If you can’t come to me like a lady should, you
know. That’s the only thing that I got upset about because uh, even
though you give me permission the first time, the second time I’m
gonna find out if you’re not going to be there then you tell me to just
go on in. Yeah, but she had after that, before she pushed her way
into the garage. My husband had fixed the door and I know you
couldn’t just push it and go in. She had to put force against it to get
in and that just made me mad you know I got on her case and then
my husband came in and I got on his case, …
L: Did she ever, did she see your point?
Mrs. Hale: I don’t know, she just walked away.
Jill and Jane, Ellen, and Jolanta resented not getting help from block residents.
Ellen spoke for all the participants when she said:
Ellen: The [garden] down there? It looks terrible. It looks terrible.
L: Does that have any impact on how you feel about the block,
either that block or your own?
Ellen: [pause] That block.
L: How is it, what’s different?
Ellen: Because the people don’t care. They don’t care. You know,
we hadn’t did anything this year, we went down there I think one or

118
two times and cleaned up. When you feel that the peoples, we feel
were doing it to their block. OK? After you feel that nobody came
out in two or three years, to help do anything with theirs, that they
helped let it help go down. They don’t care. They don’t care. They
don’t care at all. But then we do something on our block or Kedvale
or, they why know why they wasn’t notified, or why they, no one
came down there. After you go down there and do so much and
nobody get involved. Why you wants to get involved with other
things, when you can do the same thing for your block.
But the garden did have some modest support on the block. Several residents
conceded that it was at least better than the burned out house. Some felt that it did quite a
bit to keep the lot from becoming a dump and to keep gang bangers from running through
the yard:
Mrs. Hale: … like I said, [if it] wasn’t then it would be just dumping
and there would be probably lots rats around [pause] that would give
the drug dealers uh, another leeway of going, if the fence wasn’t
there they could cut through there or go whatever you know or if
running from a police or something they wouldn’t have to worry
about trying to jump a fence. They know if they go through there
they got to climb a fence and everything and that’s going to give
them lesser time to get away cause you got to climb the fence.
Other residents dispute this last part, feeling that it was used as a thoroughfare by
gang members escaping each other or the police:
Emily: … her grand kids, and they’re like teenagers or stuff, and I
guess they had gotten in a feud with someone around the corner and
by that lot, they accessed the rest of the alley, and you know,
shooting at them, and run back. So its like a get away, an easy get
away. If the police were to chase somebody, they go right through
there. Or if somebody want to come and get somebody, they see
somebody over here that they want to shoot, they just come right
through there. And go right through there. It don’t have no purpose.
You know, its weeds over there. I could see if it looked decent, but it
don’t.

119
Pulaski Summary
Pulaski has the hallmarks of urban renewal projects in miniature. Jill and Jane, the
organizers, did not live on the block where the garden was to go in. They thought that the
project would be good for the block and they went ahead with it, regardless of block
residents’ opinions. The garden failed. The organizers and other participants (all from
adjacent blocks) were frustrated by the lack of interest on the block. Block residents were
angry that their interest in a play lot was ignored. Some residents took plants from the
garden, perhaps in resistance to having the project foisted on them.
Still, even in this problematic situation, some residents had good things to say
about the garden. Some felt that it limited the dumping that would otherwise have taken
place on the lot. Others felt that it made the area safer. For most, it was at least better than
a burned out shell of a house—exactly what was there before the garden.
Jefferson Homes
Jefferson Homes residents say Jefferson Homes is the “Pill Hill” of the CHA. Pill
Hill is a middle to upper middle class Black neighborhood in Chicago. Many Jefferson
Homes residents are proud of their development:
Mrs. Wells: I always tell everybody Jefferson Homes is the cream
of the crop. Out of the 19 CHA developments come to Jefferson
Homes. There was a time when Miss Thompson used to say that
Jefferson Homes was the forgotten development within CHA.
Because it was always so quiet. You never heard anything on the
news about it. Or anything like that. So, uh, I just think this is a nice
place. It could be nicer, but it's nice. …

120
The development is in the midst of change, however. Several years ago nearly half
of the development was reportedly threatened and almost all nearby shopping was lost to
expansion of a professional sport facility. Because of the demolition of other CHA
developments, CHA is sending an influx of new residents to Jefferson Homes, much to the
consternation of Jefferson Homes resident leaders. These leaders are in the process of
taking over management of Jefferson Homes, and screening new tenants is one of their
primary goals.
Setting
Jefferson Homes is a development of row houses and three-story walk-ups (Figure
4A). The center of the development is a park with a small CHA office and Chicago Park
District field house. According to residents, the park was built at the same time as the
sports facility redevelopment, reportedly to appease residents.
The grounds vary considerably, particularly around the row houses. Some residents
put a lot of work into their yards as well as the interior of their apartments. Decorative
fences, lattice work, flower gardens, and painted facades are common in some areas.
Others are virtually bare, with minimal lawns or bare dirt. There are some mature trees
around Jefferson Homes, but also open, deteriorated courtyards.

121
4A BLOCK
4B LOT WHERE GARDEN WAS TO GO
(photo not taken by respondent)
4C CORNER GARDEN
(photo not taken by respondent)
FIGURE 4. JEFFERSON HOMES.

122
There is a core of long-term resident activists at Jefferson Homes (sample
characteristics are summarized on Table 9, page 77). I interviewed some of these women
and other residents in the development.
Mrs. Thompson, Mrs. Weston, Mrs. Tipple, Mrs. Wells, Betty Addis, Nell Luskin,
Mrs. Bonner, and Adeline Collins who have all been involved in Jefferson Homes
activities, some for decades.
Mrs. Thompson is perhaps the most important of the organizers. Everyone who knows her
respects her and will do what she asks of them, even those with hard feelings towards the
resident organizers. In her mid seventies, Mrs. Thompson is soft spoken, genuinely caring,
with an iron core. She is the Resident Management Corporation (RMC) president, but her
organizing activities started back in the 1960s with the development of Head Start-like
programs for the children in the development.
Mrs. Weston is the Local Advisory Council (LAC) president and the vice president
of the RMC. Also a long-time activist and critical to organizing at Jefferson Homes, Mrs.
Weston is insistent that by working—fighting—together, residents can make a better
Jefferson Homes. Some residents view her (and others of the RMC and LAC leaders) with
skepticism, even cynicism. Residents think that Mrs. Weston and others focus the
incoming resources and opportunities to their own family and friends. Diane:
Well, you know what? When things are issued out, or someone
contributes or you get a grant, … [i]t’s the same people that pass
out anything, it’s arguing, who’s getting what, how much is so and
so getting.

123
Mrs. Luskin is a quiet, older woman active in LAC and RMC activities. She is
more of a follower than leader. Mrs. Collins is Mrs. Luskin’s opposite. Brash and in-your-
face, Mrs. Collins is also the contact with the outside world. She knows the Alderman, a
County Commissioner from a nearby neighborhood, and officials with the sports facility
by name. She contacts them frequently with requests for donations to help Jefferson
Homes. Mrs. Tipple, the local gardener, has chaired the gardening committee and has
gardened yearly in a small vegetable garden in her courtyard area. She grows roses around
her apartment. Mrs. Clark chairs the RMC’s education committee and is active in other
Jefferson Homes activities. Mrs. Wells is another ardent gardener. She is also active in the
LAC and considered by some to be the real, if behind the scenes, leader at Jefferson
Homes. Mrs. Bonner is at the periphery of this group. A preacher, she heads the spiritual
committee and is called on for opening prayers at Jefferson Homes events. Finally, Betty
Addis is one of the few leaders at Jefferson Homes to be of a younger generation. She sits
on the RMC board and runs the local laundromat.
Mrs. Jordan used to be in this group, but pulled completely out of RMC and LAC
activities after a decade of volunteering because she did not get a job when money became
available to hire people for RMC organizing. She felt that after her years of volunteering
she should have been at the top of the list for the job. She stopped participating in activities
at the development in protest. She is angry and bitter over this turn of events.
I interviewed several women of the “younger’ generation, women in their twenties
and thirties. Some are moderately active, particularly in tenant patrol. Other residents are
not at all active, some specifically choosing to not participate in response to what they feel

124
is a clique on the part of the primary organizers. Betty, Rhonda, Monique, Celine, and Lisa
all live near the RMC. They see their issues as different from those of the older generation.
Two of the younger women, Diane and Judy, are daughters of organizers. They, too, are
active in Jefferson Homes. Diane has become less involved as she has been going to
school. Her involvement has also been more at her own instigation. Judy, on the other
hand, is involved because her mother, Mrs. Weston, expects her to be. Judy likes to play at
being community leader. Bonnie Addis, Betty’s sister, is one of the residents who avoids
Jefferson Homes activities in reaction to what she perceives as a nepotism-ridden clique.
Her son Robert shares her views, but is willing to help if called upon.
Finally, other residents are outside the involvement circle. Lucy helps occasionally
with activities right around her apartment but is not an organizer. Mrs. Taylor, too, will
help clean up near her apartment but is not involved at all beyond this. Earline lives quietly
in her apartment, getting ready for long-distance trucking school and hoping to move out
of Jefferson Homes. Eloise lives in a row house, recently completed a professional training
program and is job hunting. She loves the garden she has planted in her front yard.
Jefferson Homes was built in 1945 to provide safe and decent housing for low
income families. A core of resident activists that have been pressing for residents’ issues
and needs since the mid-sixties. They have been successful with many of the activities,
including protesting to save the field house from demolition, starting and maintaining a
laundromat and store on site, planting several vegetable gardens, and finally organizing for
resident management (Feldman & Stall, 1994).

125
Like all public housing in the United Sates, Jefferson Homes suffers from
disinvestment and poor management (Feldman & Stall, 1994). Residents remember
Jefferson Homes in its prime. Mrs. Weston:
… it was such a beautiful place. It was beautiful, you hear what I’m
sayin’? Yes. And the peoples was strict then. They was keepin’ it
beautiful. CHA, they janitors honey was on the ball here. Then all at
once they just pulled ‘em all out, change things, did things different.
…
Now some of the residents feel the need to fight for their homes. Mrs. Weston:
… if we sit here and just say and not do nothin’, to try to make the
place look good, or clean it up or do something, what they gonna
say, ‘oh those people there ain’t tryin to do nothin’. Look at the
ground, look around and just look. They don’t care nothin’ about
where they live.’ That’s what they gonna do, and say. So we tryin to
save our place, where we live.
Residents have been active for some time, but a major challenge came when a
sports facility that bordered the community wanted to build a new sports complex. The
original plans were perceived as a major threat to Jefferson Homes, and the women
protested. Mrs. Weston again:
You know we had to fight to keep this community when the [sports]
park was in development. … They sent us the drawin to let us know
how far they were going. I said now how is they gonna cut that
building in half there? … So we got out there and we got our little
picket signs, we got our bull horns, and we was going through here
screamin and hollerin at these people, that we better come on out of
here, you fixin to be moved. People sit up there, ‘yall crazy’. They
don’t believe nothin. Then they did turn around and say that was our
[the LAC] job to do it, not theirs.

126
As a part of the struggle, the residents formed a coalition with neighboring private
homeowners. This coalition took the sports facility to court. This court battle was long,
often delayed. Still, the community pressed on with it and developed plans for the money
they hoped to receive as a settlement. Working with faculty and students at the University
of Illinois at Chicago, the community drafted plans for a strip mall on empty Archdiocese
land adjacent to the community—land sometimes used by Jefferson Homes residents for a
vegetable garden. Eventually the community lost the court case, but they continue to
pursue other means of financing for the mall project (e.g., Empowerment Zone and other
funding).
Another major struggle occurred about the same time as the sports facility fight.
Jefferson Homes began organizing for resident management. The RMC was formed, and
many of the activist women on the board were those who had been involved with the
previous struggles and projects. The process of moving to resident management has been
long, detailed, and difficult, requiring paperwork, meetings, training, and more paperwork.
It has taken the attention of the activists, particularly Mrs. Thompson, over the past several
years. At the time of my interviews, the residents of Jefferson Homes were beginning to
operate under their dual management contract with the CHA.
In the midst of these two major projects, other projects and activities have
continued. Because Jefferson Homes is an institutional setting, many resources and
projects are offered to the residents, although not always what they need or want, or in a
timely fashion. This, combined with a lack of day-to-day management skills on the part of
some of the activists, leads to some problems. Diane:

127
… We have a problem around here, everything is always the last
minute. You know it’s only certain things that you be aware of and
that you learn about it. You know then when they really get in a
bind, they really need your help. That’s when they’ll call you. But
things that they think they can take care of they just go on and do it.
…
Some residents feel that the resident leaders are a clique, and that they have lost
touch with the needs of the younger residents:
Betty: You know, is this going over towards this way, or is this
going up, sorta always wrong. … You know, like they say, it’s still,
well the LAC gets everything, and everything has to come down to
the LAC and, once it gets to the LAC you can forget it. That’s the
way the residents feel. … I keep trying to tell [the RMC Board],
when we have our meeting at the RMC, the people outside know
what’s going on. They know, you can’t fool them. When you all,
like when you come in and do certain things to have activities and
things that have everybody acting like they love one another, you all
know, you all know better. You know what I’m saying. The
alderman even knows things now!!
Some of the projects that residents have worked on include several greening
projects done both before and after the garden I was specifically investigating. The
Archdiocese land that residents hope to develop as a strip mall has been used as a
community vegetable garden (and was the site of the project I was looking into). The
residents first worked with the Chicago Botanic Gardens to establish a garden on the site.
It was a successful, productive garden:
Mrs. Thompson: … A couple of years we had a very, very
successful garden. Rows and rows of cabbage. Rows and rows of
collards, string beans, oh boy that was so beautiful! Then we worked
and then we had harvest time and bagged the stuff up and sold it to
the community. Oh, it was real nice, real nice. The main thing just
to watch it grow.

128
Another greening project took place on the corner of the development with the
“Welcome to Jefferson Homes” sign, a corner that had had a much-loved landscape lost to
lack of maintenance of the development (Figure 4C). In its prime, this corner had a small
pool—called a wishing well by the residents—with a bridge and a dense planting of
annuals. In the project that went in later—also a Green Corps project—the residents
wanted to recreate this landscape. A CHA employee on site made many promises about
being able to dig out the wishing well, but was not able to make this happen. This
particular employee made these kinds of promises frequently and just as frequently did not
come through. The project that finally went in was based on an aesthetic different from
that preferred by many of the Jefferson Homes residents. The design included many
perennials that looked sparse at first planting but would become more dense as they
became established. Many of the plants were native varieties and less known to residents.
The landscape did not get maintained and became weedy:
Celine: Because, um, years ago they had wishin well there and I
thought the wishin well looked way better than that. That look
messy and junky. The wishin well it had Mr. Belmont built it. It
was, I can’t explain it unless they had a picture of it. It was so pretty.
Mrs. Wells: I don’t know what happened. It was sometime after I
moved in here, just one day I looked and it wasn’t there anymore.
[chuckles] It just became like a bare hill there until Green Corps
decided to invest a few dollars in it. … So the weeds will exceed the
flowers if you don’t keep them down. So this just kind of got out of
hand because the residents just didn’t take care of them. Let’s face it
they didn’t do their job.
Mrs. Weston did not think that the residents would maintain the landscape:

129
No, residents is not gonna do it. Well it’s because they figure, it’s
that I’m rentin. I’m payin my rent and everything else is CHA job.
They don’t understand like me, after I figure out that CHA wasn’t
gonna do nothing, if you don’t get out there and say something, and
holler and scream at CHA. You ain’t gettin nothing. …
The same year that the corner landscape was put in, other residents worked on
planting flowers and shrubs throughout the development. The local sport facility donated
several thousand dollars to purchase materials. The organizers got donations from other
sources as well. They planted annuals in circles in the grass and in flower boxes that had
stood empty. This project built on a HUD/CHA “healthy communities” program begun the
previous year.
More people liked the flower circles and other plantings than liked the corner
landscaping. These flowers went in in more neutral places and were more conservatively
arranged:
Mrs. Jordan: I like [the flower circles] because the flowers have
some kind of organizations. … The flowers up there on that corner
is not coordinated. See you put the same kind of flowers together.
You know they got them in a circle and they got the same kind
going round and round and round. They look good because of the
way they got em coordinated. Those up there on that end, like I say
I’m not just saying that because Mrs. Weston did it, I’m just sayin
she didn’t do a good job of it. She didn’t know how to coordinate it.
A lot of people don’t know how to organize stuff. …
The Garden
The 1995 Green Corps project took place inbetween the successful vegetable
garden in the early 1990s and the corner landscaping and flower circle projects of 1997.
But while these two projects were at least somewhat successful, in 1995 the garden project

130
failed (Figure 4B). It simply never went in. Green Corps staff consider it a total,
unequivocal failure.
Mrs. Thompson received a Green Corps application in the mail (they went to all
CHA developments), filled it out, mailed it in, and promptly forgot about it as she moved
on to the next task. Mrs. Weston again:
In the first place, Lynne, I didn’t even know we were having that
[grant, program] [lowered her voice]. See Ms. Amie’s movin so fast,
sometime she don’t even know what where she goin and what she
doin unlessin I’m there, to say ‘help me we got to this and we got to
do that. But, Ms. Thompson, they say we suppose to do it you
know.’ But I didn’t know she had did it. … So all we got was the
tools. The little tools and things that she had brought. Rakes and
stuff like that. Those were the things that we used this year, with the
one we did up there on the corner. This garden spot it pays off.
Mrs. Thompson admits that “[We] ran out of time again.” Diane put it this way:
Well sometime you have the same people workin on the same, you
know they can only limit, they can only do so much work. They can
only be in so many places, you know. Once that started I don’t think
they really could get anybody to finish it up. So you know or take it
over each summer. It always end up being the same people. You
know we have a lot of other things going on. We’ve been having a
lot things going on in the last two or three years. Like we had this
resident management that’s coming up … You know, gardening is
time consuming. You can’t just put it out there and expect for the
rain to help it grow, it needs to be taken care of, overseen.
Betty put it more succinctly:
…One year she had so much stuff to do, she [Mrs. Thompson]
doesn’t have time for a garden. Trying to get, she’s involved in too
many things. …

131
But lack of time was only a part of the reason for the failure. In the summer of 1995
a brutal heat wave that killed over 400 Chicagoans. It was also Green Corps’s first year in
operation, and they were getting the kinks worked out of their system. One of the kinks
was their being late in delivering plant materials to the projects. Because of this, Jefferson
Homes got their plants in the midst of the heat wave. Cecelia Tipple:
Yeah that year it was hot. It was really hot. When they delivered the
plants I was one of the ones out there taking them off the truck and
trying to put them under the shade bushes. It was so hot that they
didn’t never get the water out there right. So we couldn’t just sit
them in that dry dirt. Cause we had like a 1000 plants.
There was one final reason that might have contributed to the garden’s failure that
year. Not only is Mrs. Thompson (along with the other organizers) very busy, but she has a
particular style of organizing. She is uncomfortable delegating; rather, she wants to be able
to be a part of any activity she asks someone else to do:
… Then I got busy too, I wouldn’t put it all on that. Because if you
get somebody to work with you, you have to be out there with them.
… [one of] the neighbors here in the yard. He helped us a lot. He
said “I would get over there,” but I didn’t want to send anyone over
there to do any work and I wasn’t available to go over there, at least
to get them started. …
This interest in being a part of every activity could be explained in many ways,
from a well-hidden controlling nature or, more likely, a discomfort being in a position that
could be interpreted as having power over people. Still, there were residents ready to help
who could have made the garden more of a success that year:
Robert: … I was supposed to be involved in some of this. If they
would have followed through with it, and told us when they wanted

132
to do and what they wanted to do, I would have helped. But of
course nothing ever happened with any of this stuff. …
Jefferson Homes Summary
This garden project did not succeed, by either Green Corps or Jefferson Homes
organizers’ standards. There were multiple reasons, from organizing styles to the rough
workings of Green Corps’s first year. The heat and ongoing organizing activities—
particularly the resident management—sealed the fate of the project that year. The garden
simply didn’t go in.
Other greening projects at Jefferson Homes were important to residents. They
photographed these other projects and thought them important to the development.
Block Stories Reprise
These four sites were chosen based on greening practitioners’ assessment that there
were or were no social benefits from the greening project. The “success” sites were
Halsted and Ashland. The “failure” sites were Pulaski and Jefferson Homes. The data raise
some questions about these assessments.
Halsted was, indeed a success. There were noticeable, if modest, social benefits
(these will be discussed more fully in the next two chapters). But Ashland was not the
success that practitioners thought. Rather than being an inclusive project, it was divisive. It
was not a total failure, but it was not the glowing success that at least one Green Corps
staff member thought.
The failure sites were likewise not so easy to assess. There were certainly problems
with both gardens, serious problems. But some residents saw positive outcomes of the

133
Pulaski garden. And the Jefferson Homes residents were too busy working on larger issues
at the development to pay much attention to planting a garden in the middle of a heat
wave.
These issues will be discussed more fully later, but the general distinction between
“success” and “failure” in terms of social benefits is more complex, and related to more
than the success or failure of the plants, than greening practitioners may realize.
In the next two chapters, I will examine these findings in the light of empowerment
theory and the practitioner's model, and in the context of the meanings of urban green
space.

134
EMPOWERMENT
Now that I have some data to work with, I’ll return to the discussion of
empowerment and the practitioner's model that I outlined in the introduction. I only
sketchily introduced my conception of the practitioner's model there. Here I will fill it out
more completely and compare the events at each site to the expectations in the model.
The discussion is organized by empowerment indicator. For each indicator I will
briefly discuss it’s role in the practitioners’ model and then discuss how the model and the
data intersect or diverge. Ties to empowerment theory will be made in either section as
appropriate.
The indicators are based largely on Zimmerman’s explication of empowerment
theory outlined in the introduction. He theorized three levels of empowerment: the
individual, organization, and community (Zimmerman, in press). The indicators for these
levels of empowerment overlap considerably, particularly the major indicators such as
participation and control. I will discuss these shared indicators across the three levels and
then discuss the remaining empowerment indicators that are unique to a specific level of
empowerment5
. Finally, I will discuss how Zimmerman’s concept of empowered outcomes
and empowering practices intersects with the impact for social benefits from urban
greening projects (Zimmerman, 1995).
5
One community-level indicator, pluralism, will not be discussed. The other community level indicators will
be discussed in the context of related indicators at the other levels. Pluralism does not have related indicators
at the other level, is not relevant in the practitioner's model, and does not relate to the data.

135
Multiple-Level Empowerment Indicators
Proactive Behavior, Initiates Efforts to Improve Community, and
Responds to Threats to the Community
Practitioner's Model
“Proactive behavior” is theorized to be a trait of empowered individuals, while
“initiates efforts to improve the community” and “responds to threats to the community”
are community level indicators of empowerment. Zimmerman and other theorists have not
proposed an analogous organization level indicator. Still, proactive behavior works more at
the organization level in the practitioner's model: individuals will form a block group and
together residents will start to take steps to solve other problems on the block (e.g. forming
neighborhood watch groups to handle a crime problem). This will be possible because of
the organizing around the greening project. At the community level, in the practitioner's
model, the greening project is a first effort that makes later efforts to improve the
community easier to begin and sustain; from these the entire community benefits.
Evidence in the Data
The greening projects themselves are the clearest sign of proactive behavior at each
site. But the greening projects were not the starting point for organizing on these blocks as
suggested by the practitioner's model. Rather, they were the second or third (or more) step
in the residents’ efforts to improve the community. Still, improving the community was a
goal of each project organizer, regardless of other motivations (like Martha’s desire to

136
control the lot behind her house) or the failure of the project to actually improve the
community, as at the Pulaski site.
Ashland and Jefferson Homes have both continued with projects aimed at
community improvement, but the particular greening projects under investigation were not
stepping stones to these other efforts. The corner garden project on Ashland did help with
the organizing efforts there. The corner garden was important to most residents I
interviewed, and it symbolized for them their efforts to improve their block, to show their
block as a “decent place”:
It uh, it kinda makes you feel, when you first turn this corner, makes
you feel kinda comfortable. ‘All right, this is a nice neighborhood.’
Makes you feel more at least, well I see all the guys out here, but
somebody really cared about the block to have something that looks
nice.
Related to “efforts to improve the community” is the community level indicator
“respond to threats to quality of life.” There were no actual threats to the blocks that
instigated the greening project. Instead, the projects were responding to a chronic problem.
Jefferson Homes residents did respond to a threat when they organized against the
expanding sports facility. As mentioned earlier, the greening project under investigation
did not play a role in spurring or sustaining these efforts.
Participation

137
Participation was an important indicator at all levels of empowerment. In the
practitioner's model, participation continues after the initial garden installation as the
residents maintain the site, and it will, in an ideal situation, extend to new projects or
behaviors. Residents form block clubs, which provide opportunities for participation, and
with the greening project and subsequent projects, bring additional opportunities for
participation. From participation comes increased skills, efficacy, and other social benefits
for individuals and groups.
The Halsted site most closely matched the practitioner's model. There was a
reported resurgence of participation as the block club re-formed around the tavern-to-
church issue, and then residents took on additional projects like the garden. Mr. Nichols
describes the increasing participation this way:
Yes, like I say, I have to give all the credit to those three people,
Miss. Samuels, Mrs. Lewin and Miss. Fisher. How they had to, they
motivated us. You know, practically everybody on the block, they
motivated us and I mean, they was there everyday, four to five hours
every day, it was no one time thing, they was at it every day.
Sometime we had a block club meeting just those three, and maybe,
I didn't go all the time, and sometimes it just be those three but they
didn't stop. They kept going pretty soon they started to getting a few
more, a few more, a few more. And it's not where it is suppose to be
at yet, but it's better than it was when it first started.
But the other sites did not show a similar increase in participation. At Pulaski
repeated invitations to join the greening project group were rebuffed and participation in
neighborhood activities may have decreased. At Ashland, there was a general ethos that
favored participation. Albert said:

138
Anytime anybody want to start something, let's say they want to do
that vacant lot over there. So they just want to make a nice garden
out of it … they will come out and help you.
There is no evidence that participation increased as a result of this project. In fact,
Martha badgered Albert and others into participating in the garden: “Well she had
mentioned, the lot around the corner for the longest. So I told her “well, I'll give you hand,
so you quit buggin me. If I don't, you won't.'”
Technically all four projects provided opportunities for participation. But how real
were these opportunities? At Pulaski, block residents were invited to participate in the
work, but not in the decision about what to do with the lot. Ashland followed a similar
pattern: residents could participate in the labor, but not the decision making. At Jefferson
Homes, residents were invited to participate, but the project fell victim to several
problems, including an organizing style that relied so heavily on one person that it
sabotaged the possibility for successful projects. Halsted was the most inclusive in its
opportunities for participation, but even here the young men and some other residents felt
excluded.
These issues are reflected in participation theory. Public participation is mandated
in many government programs (Feldman & Westphal, forthcoming). These public
participation efforts have been critiqued as being co-opted, not truly participatory, or so
heavily bureaucratized as to be meaningless (Day, 1997; Feldman & Westphal,
forthcoming; Hester, 1996; McDonough et al., 1994 ). Arnstein’s “ladder of participation”
is helpful in understanding successful participation (Arnstein, 1969 ). At the bottom rung
of this ladder, participators are merely recipients of information. At the upper rungs,

139
participators have decision making power in the planning (or other) process (Arnstein,
1969 ). The stories of these four blocks clearly make the point that this same ladder needs
to be climbed at the most local of levels: the residential block. Top-down implementation
of a decision made by some without the input and concurrence of many of those affected
by the project is no more likely to succeed at the block level than at the regional level. In
fact, this sort of implementation can seriously jeopardize the projects, however well
intentioned. Pulaski clearly shows this possibility.
Control
Control is the basis of many definitions of power (Hardy & Leiba-O'Sullivan,
1998) and hence is critical to empowerment. Control is also important in the practitioners’
model. Control, at least of the lot or site itself, will increase with empowerment but in the
best circumstances control of the block, even neighborhood, will increase as well.
Although this control may be the result of group activity, it will be felt by individuals on
the block. This is an important component of reducing drug dealing, dumping, and other
social ills on the blocks; through increased control, the residents can stop these behaviors
and activities from occurring near their homes.
The levels of personal control changed significantly at Ashland and Halsted. At
Pulaski control may have been exerted, but not in the way anticipated by the practitioners’
model. Jefferson Homes showed no real evidence of changes in control from the garden.

140
Martha gained nearly absolute control over the Ashland garden lot. Her neighbor
Sandy lost some control over the same lot. Martha’s control worked against her and block-
level empowerment as other block residents resisted the project due to her sole control of
the garden.
Residents at Pulaski may have exerted control by not participating. Given that the
project was organized by the precinct captain, someone they were not comfortable with in
the first place, and that the wishes of at least some of the residents were ignored in the
process of starting the garden, the decision to not participate may have been a way to exert
control. In a small way, this was exerting “power from,” or power against the dominating
precinct captain (Riger, 1993). The residents were not only uncooperative in the project,
but they also worked against it, appropriating plants for their yards. They resisted.
At Jefferson Homes the issue of control takes on another dimension. The resident
organizers already had control of the lot in question. They had had a successful garden
there in the past and were making plans to purchase the land for use as a mini-mall. Their
need for control over the land was moot—they already had informal control and there was
no threat to this. What they needed at that point were the resources to gain formal control
and take the next development steps; the Green Corps program was not designed to
provide these resources.
At Halsted, the control of the lot was won at the cost of another group losing
control. It is easy to think of this as upstanding citizens versus nasty gangbangers, but the
situation is more complex. Some of the young men who live on Halsted may be gang

141
members. They may deal drugs. But they also expressed concern with how they were
perceived, and their loss of use of the lot:
L: But even though this one woman, who was one of the organizers,
you don't get along with real well, you still worked on the garden?
Doug: We got along then, but now, it's been changed since then.
L: What happened? If it's any of my business, you don't have to tell
me.
Doug: Just, I guess maybe it's my appearance you know, some
change, my appearance. Your appearance you know a lot of people
judge you by your appearance. I'm [mumble]
L: Did the change from it being the lot to the yard and cleaned up in
there now, did that have any effect on you on feeling you had
control over something or losing control over something?
Thomas: Well, I guess that would be losing control.
L: How?
Thomas: Like if they turned to their own little personal property
and put chains on the gates.
The block club members made it clear that indeed they did feel, individually and
collectively, that they had the right to start telling people how to behave because of the
work they put into the garden:
Mr. Nichols: … because like you say you get a sense of feeling if
somebody is over there doing something that they aren't suppose to
be doing you have a right to tell them not to do it. Why? Because we
did this for this particular thing to get it like it is and now we want
to keep it like that, you know. So that, it give you the authority to
run somebody out of there or talk to 'em about getting out of there if
they are doing something against, against the grain. If I had did
nothing, nothing, but hadn't participated then I wouldn't have had
that type of feeling. …

142
Harriet: … prior to that becoming garden I, I didn't have any control
over the guys standing out there but after we developed it into a
flower garden then we had control because they were no longer
allowed to stand out there and do what they wanted to do. It was the
community garden, you just respect it ...
But gaining of control by one group at another’s expense may have some very real
ramifications. To date, the block club on Halsted has not effectively dealt with issues that
face the young men on the block. Their action may have even exacerbated some of these
problems (like the young men’s relationships with the police). Riger foretold problems like
these when she asked “What’s wrong with empowerment?” (Riger, 1993). She raised
concerns that empowerment could lead to fighting between newly empowered groups over
a small amount of new power. The problem here is slightly different, although related. The
overall effects of empowerment may not always be positive and may create new problems
in its wake. Control breeds resentment; this can be seen at each site. If control is a primary
indicator of empowerment and key to the practitioner's model, what of the people
disempowered through loss of control? This needs to be clarified in theory and on the
ground.
Resources
Resources are important in empowerment theory. They are integral to moving
beyond feelings of power to exerting power and control over one’s circumstances. In the
practitioner's model, project participants learn where to get additional resources as well as

143
how to fully use what is available from the greening program. Both individuals and the
block organization gain these resources and skills. Empowerment theory postulates that
resource issues at the community level are reflected in accessible government, media or
other resources.
Each site in this study has at least one resourceful person, but resource acquisition
at the organizational level is weaker. For instance, at Jefferson Homes, there is one woman
primarily responsible for contacts with the local politicians and the sports facility. Should
she become unable or unwilling to make these contacts, the relationship between the
Jefferson Homes resident organization and these outside entities would suffer. There are
residents who could likely take over these contacts and redevelop them, but at least in the
short term the relationships would be weakened. Halsted and Pulaski also have a single
person (or duo) with skills in obtaining outside resources.
Ashland is an exception. Several people there have outside contacts: Miss Eva, Etta
Jones, Martha, and Hettie all were effective at resource acquisition. Each of these women
had these skills before the Green Corps project. Do several individuals within an
organization equal organizational level results? Perhaps, if the block organization has
access to these skills. But this assumes an organization-wide awareness of these skills, a
willingness of each resident to bring them to the organization, and, ideally, a willingness to
teach others how to obtain resources, too.
Resources from Green Corps were generally not identified as such by most of the
respondents. Some people were aware that Green Corps gives up to $3000 for supplies and

144
materials, but most were not. Those who did recognize the funds from Green Corps did not
seem to have a sense of them as necessary to achieve their goals. Instead, they were an
opportunity to take advantage of. Other things were identified as resources needed to
achieve certain personal or collective goals: cars to get to suburban jobs, money for a
security deposit to move from public housing, the cameras I gave out as a tool in fighting
drug dealing. The garden materials not being identified as significant in this way may
indicate that the program was only minimally meeting resource needs for empowerment at
these sites.
The primary exception is Martha’s fence. It consummated her control of the site,
and she pressed hard to get it, even though she was beyond the limit on materials she could
get from Green Corps. Martha was also the one who chose the plants, she and her daughter
designed the garden, and they keep the tools in their home. Then she enclosed and locked
the garden. There was a similar phenomenon at Pulaski, as Jill and Jane had control of the
resource from Green Corps and the resources that they scrounged and scavenged from
other sources. One way that the Pulaski residents expressed their displeasure was by taking
these resources for themselves.
Resources, then, can be problematic as well as empowering. In two of four cases,
the new resources were actually disempowering. At Halsted the resources were necessary
to achieve the transformation of the lot, but were not seen by the residents as an influx of
raw materials for them to mold and shape with their new found power. And Jefferson
Homes residents were used to receiving materials from outside well-wishers and using
them to the best of their ability. Still, resources were important for these blocks. They set
the stage for change, and at one site this change fit the practitioner's model.

145
Access to the local government and media is a related indicator, theorized to be
important at the community level. Access to the local government was increased for
Halsted residents because of the garden. In fact, the Alderman changed proposed TIF
District boundaries to include the Halsted neighborhood so that residents could benefit
from the program and any resources available from it. The Alderman’s chief of staff knew
the block and recognized the greater effort and organization on this block compared to
other nearby blocks. Likewise, some of these residents had close contacts with the police.
One of the young men on the block said they “always had their little neighborhood cops,
their own personal little police officer to come by down …”.
Access to government was delicate at Pulaski. Jill and Jane were, unofficially, no
longer the precinct captain. They did not have good feelings about the Alderman, and the
Aldermanic office staff seemed to feel the same about Jill and Jane. Jill and Jane were sure
that their Alderman would eventually be indicted under the Silver Shovel6
investigation,
and, indeed, he was. Access to government for the residents of the block might, then, have
been enhanced by avoiding Jill and Jane rather than working with them on the garden or
other projects. Jill and Jane worked closely with the local police, but their supportive
feelings for the police were not shared by the other participants. Ellen felt the police were
not following through on their promises or responding to neighborhood problems.
Ashland showed strong connections with various parts of the government. Their
Alderman, too, was indicted as a part of the Silver Shovel investigation. But Martha and
some of the other residents had a close working relationship with the Alderman. Other
6
Silver Shovel was a federal investigation of Chicago Aldermen for allegedly accepting bribes to allow
illegal dumping in their wards.

146
residents also had good connections with the city government. Hettie excelled in this,
writing letters and calling the city citizen request number regularly. These contacts became
a part of a duel between different groups in the block. In this context, the connections do
not reflect a community level benefit. They are far from nonrivalrous. In this conflict,
these contacts were not affected by the garden project. In fact, the Alderman and the Police
Commander were familiar with the block, but neither was aware of the garden.
Efficacy and Competence
There are several issues related to efficacy in the empowerment literature.
Individuals are thought to increase their sense of competence and efficacy while
organizations develop ways to enhance their effectiveness. A sense of competence is a
belief that one is able to take on projects and handle them adequately; efficacy is actually
doing so. Organizational effectiveness deals with a group’s ability to get things done (and
is closely related to meeting organizational goals, which will be discussed later).
In the practitioner's model, sense of competence and efficacy will increase as
residents have a successful project under their collective belt, and this will support their
efforts to take on new, and perhaps larger, block issues. At the organization level, the
emphasis of the practitioners’ model is on the effectiveness of the greening project; a
secondary issue is effectiveness in other block issues or projects. Effective volunteer
recruitment and maintenance are primary organizational issues for the ongoing success of a
greening project.

147
An increase in efficacy happened most clearly, although modestly, at Halsted.
Participants, be they core or peripheral, felt good about the lot and the change they had
created:
Doc Martin: It was beautiful. It was the first change on the block
that the block club start.
Harriet: Yes, it made me feel like, still feel that one day this will be
a better block or a beautiful block. That it can be done. All it takes
is for people to care, uh, maintain their property and up keeping
their lawn and keep our area clean. So, like I said earlier, we have
made some improvements, we're not a hundred percent where we
want to be but we have made progress and I feel we will continue to
make progress that this will, one day you will come to this block,
you won't remember it [laughs] that it will look so different.
On the other blocks, however, there were fewer, if any, efficacy effects from the
greening project. There was evidence at Ashland of increased efficacy, but not brought
about by the garden. Rather, the corner garden was an initial small success, and block
residents’ involvement led to being chosen as a Super Model Block. But the garden that
resulted from the Green Corps program was only minimally effective and did not
contribute significantly to the current block activities, like the Super Model Block.
At Pulaski, the block’s efficacy was reduced. The garden didn’t work and some
residents on the block reported feeling excluded from (or uninterested in) the decision
making process. At Jefferson Homes, efficacy wasn’t enhanced or decreased. The project
came and went with few involved and few expectations of the project. There was no
change in the individual’s or the organization’s efficacy.

148
Understanding Socio-Political Environment
& Critical Awareness Among Residents
Understanding the socio-political environment (organizational level) and
developing a critical awareness (community level) are related indicators, both aimed at
gaining an understanding of the big picture—the power structure and how to work within
and/or against it. In the practitioner's model, the emphasis is on understanding this in
environmental terms, which is particularly true for the urban and community forestry
branch of the greening movement. Community gardeners have been more focused on
community development and, therefore, on an understanding of the socio-political
environment. Developing a critical awareness, in the sense of class consciousness or a
critique of local power structures, is not a significant component of the practitioner’s
model.
I did not ask questions specifically to probe these issues, so I have limited evidence
of changes in this area. One socio-political reality that many of my respondents seemed to
be aware of was that solving a gang or drug dealing problem on their block was “a Band-
Aid on cancer.” Even if they rid their block of the problem, it really only moves it to the
next block or neighborhood; it did not actually solve the larger problem:
Mr. Nichols: … I found out, see, when they got here they started
moving to the next block. But that next block had the same thing
then they had to, they got to keep moving you see, keep them on a
move. That's what we trying to do, keep them on the move. …

149
But the greening project did not enhance residents’ socio-political understanding.
Rather, the garden was a means to a particular end, within the level of socio-political
understanding the block already had.
Development of critical awareness is described by DeSena as she tells the story of
New Yorkers who organized to get government attention to their neighborhood’s needs
(DeSena, 1998). The groups came to realize that without serious agitation and
demonstration their needs would be ignored. Therefore, they developed savvy political and
media skills and won several important local battles with City Hall (DeSena, 1998).
None of the blocks I interviewed on were critically aware to the extent of the
neighborhoods described by DeSena (DeSena, 1998). Closest was Jefferson Homes and
their efforts to develop a mini mall, and to fight the sports facility in court and on the
streets (Feldman & Stall, 1994 ). Unfortunately, to date, the residents of Jefferson Homes
have met with little success at this level of community organizing. More important for this
particular investigation, the garden was not a part of these struggles.
Ashland also had a certain level of critical awareness, but it was an awareness of
individuals and of what is lacking in the community rather than a deep understanding of
the social forces that had such a strong impact on their neighborhood. Although residents
were glad to see some development returning to their community, no one indicated in our
interview that they had an understanding of why the community had been abandoned in the
preceding decades. It is this sort of understanding that is basic to critical awareness.

150
Neither Pulaski nor Halsted showed any significant level of critical awareness of the larger
social forces that impact their lives.
Extend Influence and
Connecting to Other Community Groups; Coalitions
In empowerment theory, extending influence is a sign of greater organizational
empowerment as organizations begin to have a broader area of impact and influence. At
the community level, this is expressed in building coalitions. Often, greening practitioners
do not see extending influence or broader coalition building as a part of the social benefits
available from the greening project, although some groups have made a point that this
level of coalition building is important.
None of the block organizations extended their influence by joining with other
groups, building coalitions and the like. The greening projects themselves had some
influence or were themselves influenced by other greening projects, but the block
organizations did not extend their influence beyond their blocks in a coordinated, ongoing
way. The Ashland project had a little influence as a number of neighboring block groups
saw the Ashland greening project and then implemented greening projects of their own.
This was a primary factor in the Green Corps practitioners’ appraisal of Ashland as a

151
success site. The Pulaski site was, in fact, the result of the extending influence of the
nearby Super Model Block and its garden project:
Jane: Well the other thing was the thing that we thought that we
were gonna do, put the garden there. Is like, what's going to end up
happening today on Harding. The Mayor's gonna come out
rejuvenate the block, that they've worked on with the command, the
old police commander that was transferred.
Individual Level Empowerment
One indicator is theorized primarily at the individual level: increasing skills,
problem solving, and decision making.
Increase Skills, Problem Solving, and Decision Making
In empowerment theory, increasing skills, problem solving, and decision making
are outcomes of the empowerment process. Those empowered gain new skills and use
these in making decisions and solving problems. These lead to further empowerment. In
the practitioner's model, some people will learn to be decision makers and problem solvers
through the project, and the more that do the better. Many will also increase their range of
skills from gardening to organizing. Decision making will be democratic, if not consensus
based.

152
Although the garden itself was being used as a problem solving strategy by most
organizers, outcomes of these projects were not strong in terms of increased skills and
problem solving capability. Because of the limited participation and shared decision
making on Ashland, increased skills and problem solving were not benefits. At Halsted,
the need for play space for the children was the impetus for the project and remains a
problem for the residents to this day. Participation was a problem at Pulaski, one that the
organizers did not have the skills to solve. And at Jefferson Homes, the familiar problems
of lack of time and limited involvement remained. No one became great problem solvers.
Not only were the organizers not skilled at problem solving, they were not always skilled
at problem identification. This was particularly clear at Ashland and Pulaski where the
lack of participation or resistance to the project was not analyzed or understood by
participants.
Organizational Level Empowerment
The nature of the organizational level in this study is the block group. Two sites
had full-fledged block organizations: Halsted and Jefferson Homes. There was an
organization on Pulaski, at least for the neighborhood. But no one from the greening
project block was involved in this group, and it was largely a two-woman show, that of Jill
and Jane. Martha’s formalizing the block club on Ashland did lay the ground work for the
organization at work now as a part of the Super Model Block, but at the time Eloise simply
named an informal network—there was not an organization per se.
The empowerment indicators that are specific to the organization level (and
therefore not discussed in the previous sections) are sharing leadership, meeting

153
organizational goals, and becoming key brokers in policy decisions or having an impact on
policy.
Meet Organizational Goals
Meeting organizational goals is, like building effectiveness discussed earlier,
critical to creating actual change, and hence is fundamental to empowerment. In the
practitioner's model, the organization is successful, so it meets the organizational goals
from the garden. The next step is the organization’s setting new goals and achieving these
as well.
The first question in the context of this study is whether the residents had
organizational goals. This reflects the discussion above about the nature of the
organizations at each site. Halsted and Jefferson Homes had more concrete organizations
and had organizational goals. At Ashland and Pulaski, the organizations were dominated
by one or two people, and hence the goals reflected their personal goals and were not
organizational goals as such.
Halsted met their fundamental organizational goal: improving the block. Their first
objective, however, had been to provide play space for the children. This goal was not met
by the Green Corps project or other block activities at that time. Providing safe, accessible
play space for the smallest children was a consistent priority across the sites, one not being
met by city or nonprofit programs.

154
Jefferson Homes’ goals were for an improved development, but they had moved
past the point of expecting a garden project to contribute greatly to this. The primary focus
of the resident organizers was resident management of the development. This was the
effort that would best help them meet their fundamental goal of a better Jefferson Homes,
and the garden was ancillary to this goal.
Shared Leadership
In empowerment theory shared leadership is important to increase empowerment
for as many people as possible and to increase organization viability. It is also important to
ensure that local groups and organizations don’t recreate a top-down autocratic structure
that may have created the need for empowerment in the first place (Somerville, 1998).
Shared leadership is not a component of the practitioner’s model. Many greening project
are begun by a single, determined individual. Subsequent failure of these projects due to
burn out and other problems has only recently been recognized as a serious issue in the
urban and community forestry movement.
Is there any evidence from this study that shared leadership should be a part of the
practitioner's model? The block with the strongest level of social benefits, Halsted, shared
leadership. Shared leadership on Pulaski could potentially have diluted the effects of Jill
and Jane. Shared leadership is, perhaps, a necessary but not sufficient ingredient for long-

155
term growth and sustainability of local organizations. Jefferson Homes is a case in point.
There are growing concerns about what will happen at Jefferson Homes when Mrs.
Thompson is no longer able to be an active organizer. More effectively shared leadership
might facilitate a smooth transition and ongoing success.
Key Brokers in Policy Decisions; Impact on Policy
Related to extending influence, empowerment theory suggests that empowered
organizations will evolve to have a noticeable impact on policy. In the practitioner's model,
participants learn to have a voice in local government, particularly as it affects their
neighborhood and the environment.
None of the individuals or groups I interviewed had a strong motivation to help the
environment. Instead, their focus was primarily on the social setting of their neighborhood.
Jill and Jane began their organizing in response to a junk yard in their neighborhood, one
they were convinced accepted illegal materials and released polyfluorocarbons from old
refrigerators. But their outrage was in having to live near such a site, they were not
interested in saving the environment.
Jill and Jane were also the most adept at local government. They testified at budget
hearings and got to know city staff in many city agencies. They describe their relationship
with the Commissioner of the Department of Environment this way:

156
Jane: …. but then you had to be friendly to him to get the garden. So
we had to . . .
Jill: Kick their ass in private and praise them in public. Then and
Henry knew that we were serious about you know, trying to take
care of things in the neighborhood. So we just stayed on him. Then
we just got to be like friends, right.
But Jill and Jane are individuals, and the organization from that neighborhood as a
whole did not share in their skills or influence. They represented themselves and their
conception of their neighborhood, but they did not represent the organization.
Jefferson Homes organizers were active in CHA government and management. A
few respondents reported going to CHA monthly meetings where residents could speak
directly to Joseph Shuldiner, then Executive Director of CHA, or organizing protests of
planned demolition of part of the development:
Mrs. Weston: … So we got out there and we got our little picket
signs, we got our bull horns, and we was going through here
screamin and hollerin at these people, that we better come on out of
here, you fixin to be moved. …
But, again, these activities are not related to the garden. Earlier gardens may have
played a role in the organizers developing ways to increase effectiveness, but the current
project did not.
Empowered Outcomes and Empowering Processes
Along with the three levels of empowerment, Zimmerman theorizes that there are
empowered outcomes and empowering processes. An empowered individual or
organization is able to use power, skills, and resources to achieve desired ends. An

157
empowering individual or organization helps others to become empowered. Individuals
and organizations can be both empowered and/or empowering. This concept is critical to
understanding the social benefits of these greening projects.
Each project fulfilled one of the indicators of an empowered community: each was
an effort to improve the community, to preserve or protect the quality of life in the
neighborhood. On Ashland, Halsted, and Pulaski, the threat was from dumping, drug
dealers, gangs, and violence. The garden organizers were responding to these threats. At
Jefferson Homes, the desire was to improve the community by providing activities and
subsistence. The decision to pursue the garden project also reflected at least minimal skills
in resource acquisition, and proactive behavior. Overall, the decision to enter Green Corps
was itself an empowered decision. Although the indicator “improving the community” is
theorized to be at the community level, it was in fact the efforts of individuals in
disempowered communities that led to the greening project.
The decision to join Green Corps was empowered. But was it empowering? This
varied by site. At Halsted, the decision making process about the garden was relatively
inclusive, and Harriet and the other organizers were at least somewhat empowering. Some
residents felt excluded from the process, but the decision was not made by one person and
then presented to the block as a done deal. This is what happened on Ashland, Pulaski, and
at Jefferson Homes. On Ashland, Martha decided on the project, then created an official
block club because that was needed to get into Green Corps. Creating the block club was
not total fiction; there was an informal organization on the block, one aimed primarily at
helping the younger children. But it was not a formalized group and no one in it had input
in the garden decision. If they had, they might have suggested a different lot be used, one

158
more accessible to the entire block. On Pulaski, there was some discussion of the project at
the beat meetings, but the decision had already been made—it will be a garden, anyone
interested should sign up. Interest in a play lot was dismissed. At Jefferson Homes, the
decision happened the way many do; a primary organizer says yes to just about any offer
of resources or assistance that comes along. Many good things get done, but some also fall
through the cracks due to neglect and/or lack of time. But in this setting, the decision
making was not done in a collective manner. One person decided on the garden project.
The decision making process at each site is reflected in the level of social benefits and
empowering processes these blocks experienced from the greening projects: Halsted was
empowering, the other sites were not.
Summary
In this study, I used empowerment theory in three ways. First, I used empowerment
theory to create the practitioner's model, drawing on the urban greening literature and
turning the shared thoughts of practitioners into a working model of empowerment practice
through urban greening projects. Second, I used this practitioner’s model to assess
greening practitioners’ assessments of empowerment outcomes in four greening projects in
Chicago. Finally, I tested empowerment theory itself by using it in an empirical
investigation, something necessary to its further development and refinement (Perkins &
Zimmerman, 1995; Zimmerman & Warschausky, 1998).
In this chapter, I discussed each indicator from empowerment theory in the
practitioner’s model, building in evidence from this study that supports or refutes the
indicator and/or practitioners’ assumptions. Empowerment theory fit the practitioners’

159
literature well. Many of the sources of social benefits from the practitioners’ literature (and
outlined in the introduction) fit with indicators theorized by community psychologists and
others to be relevant to empowerment.
Empowerment and the Sites
The support in the data for practitioners’ empowerment claims was modest, but
there. Halsted, one of the success sites, most closely followed the practitioner's model.
Residents there were relatively inclusive in the decision making process, interested in
improving their block and community, and participation in the block club increased
somewhat. The greening project led to both participants and nonparticipants feeling better
about their block, that it was cleaner and more beautiful. The greening project led to a
change in control of the lot where the garden was planted. This had some positive impacts,
but also led to some resentment of the block club members. The resources from Green
Corps were appreciated, but not perceived as central to meeting block goals. The
Alderman was impressed with the residents’ initiative and changed TIF District boundaries
to include this block so that the residents could take advantage of any TIF District benefits.
Some block residents worked together, made some positive changes, and felt more capable
of transforming their block—the project was modestly empowering.
The second success site and both of the failure sites did not follow the practitioner's
model. At the second success site, Ashland, the organizer monopolized the process,
creating resentment instead of empowerment. At the failure sites, the projects failed for
two very different reasons. At Pulaski, the project was not empowering because the
organizers were domineering. Efforts at inclusive decision making were lip service only.

160
What the organizers decided was done. At Jefferson Homes, the residents had moved
beyond gardens in their organizing efforts; they were focused on resident management. At
one failure site, they were not yet ready for a greening project; at the other the active
residents were past the need for organizing benefits such projects offer. Although Ashland
did have a positive impact on neighboring blocks, these projects were not particularly
empowering; in fact, there were some disempowering outcomes.
Empowerment Theory
The levels of empowerment theory did not fit the data well. Several indicators
theorized to be relevant to one level were exhibited at another. “Initiates efforts to improve
the community” is one example—while theorized as a community level benefit, it was
evident at the individual level in this study.
Some empowerment indicators were not central to the practitioner's model or in the
data. These include pluralism, access to government and media, understanding the socio-
political environment, critical awareness among residents, extending influence, building
coalitions, key brokers in policy decisions, and impact on policy.
Empowering processes and empowered outcomes was a more useful component of
empowerment theory in analyzing these data. As discussed above, the empowering nature
of the greening project organizers most determined the empowered outcomes of the
project.

161
CLEAN AND GREEN: A NEW MEANING OF URBAN GREENING PROJECTS
In the introduction I outlined empirical data about the meanings of urban green
space that might play a role in explaining the social effects of greening projects on city
neighborhoods. These meanings of urban green space developed from studies of
neighborhood assessment and identity, the environment as social symbol, and the
importance of small wins. What emerged from this study regarding meanings people
associate with trees and landscape changes draws on some of these earlier findings and
theories, but at its core the findings here give us a new meaning in human/plant
interactions: the importance of the greening project in the cultural metaphor of cleanliness.
To start this discussion, consider this brief paper delivered by Mr. Ron Pauline,
Executive Director of the Aurora/St. Anthony area block club in Minneapolis, at the 1993
Urban Forest Conference:

162
Greening, neighborhood pride and sense of place7
Ronald Pauline, founder, president and Executive Director
Aurora/St. Anthony area block club.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Abstract: Ron Pauline is the founder, president, and Executive Director of the Aurora/St. Anthony
Block Club, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, an organization formed to provide a wholesome neighborhood
in all respects. The group tutors children, buys, renovate, and sells vacant homes, distributes home
improvement grants, and fights crime.
7
Reprinted from Proceedings of the Sixth National Urban Forest Conference. C. Kollin.
Washington DC, American Forests: 125.
Residential areas in the urban environment
are plagued by a number of challenges. There
is a high rate turnover in residency. This is
due to many factors, such as unstable
families, lack of a sense of direction for
people, and problems associated with
extreme poverty.
The environment plays an important role in
the attitude in conduct of the residents. Brick
and mortar, asphalt and concrete, wood,
vinyl, and aluminum are hard surfaces that do
not lend themselves to life changes.
Trees, shrubbery, grass, and flowers are soft
and lend themselves to the growth and
changes that we as human beings witness.
They also take on different shapes and some
different functions.
Trees and greenery provide shade, they
soften the environment, and bring in artistic,
aesthetic appeal to a neighborhood. Even
during winter with the snow and ice, trees
frame the natural environment and make our
neighborhoods friendlier.
The care and manicuring of landscapes
indicate people's pride, their sense of place,
and it dictates how people conduct
themselves. People behave differently in an
area that is obviously cared for.
About 18 years ago, the Twin Cities Tree
Trust donated trees for private property
planting in our neighborhood. Three to five
hundred trees were planted and they have
thrived and grown. Today, as you drive in
my neighborhood, there is real feelings of
urban warmth from those trees, planted by
the residents.
The Dutch elm disease enlightened many
residents to the importance of trees,
especially aesthetically. People no longer
take trees for granted. We learned from this
crisis, and now we water, prune and fertilize
our trees, grass, and flowers.
We now recognized and reward residents
who plant and care for their landscapes. This
competition for beautiful yards and
landscapes has bred and escalated pride in
the neighborhood.
There are two major points to be learned
from this experience: cleanliness is next to
Godliness, and Mother Nature is soothing.

164
I heard Mr. Pauline present this paper in 1993 and have read it many times since
then. I have never understood the final line: “There are two major points to be learned
from this experience: cleanliness is next to Godliness, and Mother Nature is soothing.”
“Mother Nature is soothing” makes sense to me; I have heard it before. In his paper, Mr.
Pauline mentioned how Mother Nature soothes him and his neighbors: trees and other
vegetation support life changes, they are “friendly.” The research literature also supports
this part of Mr. Pauline’s closing statement by documenting of the deep meanings trees
have for some city dwellers, the potential for stress reduction from interaction with
vegetation, and other factors (Dwyer et al., 1992; Francis et al., 1984; Kaplan & Kaplan,
1989; Kuo, 1992; Schroeder, 1989). But “cleanliness is next to Godliness”? Mr. Pauline
did not mention anything about cleanliness in his paper, and I do not remember it in his
presentation. The comment has been an enigma to me for several years. Now, however, I
am beginning to understand what he meant: the powerful effect of greening projects in
creating cleanliness, and the fundamental importance of cleanliness in building and
sustaining strong individual and group identity.
This chapter outlines the evidence from this study on the importance of “clean” and
“dirt” in urban greening. First I will look at general meanings in these data of “clean” and
“dirt,” then look at the issues in the context of the greening projects. Then, I will place
these issues in the context of the social science literature. Next, I will present a final
connection between “dirt” and greening projects, and finally I will discuss the negative
evidence on the issues of “clean” and “dirt.’

165
Prevalence and Meanings of Clean
Early on in the data coding process it was obvious that cleanliness was important to
the respondents. Nearly every respondent mentioned cleanliness in some way, and about
half of these comments were related directly to the greening projects. Here is a
representative set of comments about “clean” or “cleaning up’:
Bethany (Pulaski, describing a photograph): Oh, that is a neighbors
yard and they don't keep their yards up. They're not clean, ...
Shirley (Halsted): What do I do? I help with everything that has to
be done. We have block club meeting, and uh, I help like with the
flower garden, help keep it clean. Help with the block, help keep it
clean, and keep all the litter and stuff from in the streets, we keeps
that clean, mm hmm. …
Darius (Ashland): … Albert is a good guy. He is my confidante and
my friend. If I need him, you know, very resourceful, knows a lot
about cars. He cuts lot of grass on the block. He's very good, he's
good at maintenance. Keeping a house lookin clean, keepin the front
of the house looking clean. Always cuts the grass for the block
party. Every year. He's always cut the grass.
Mrs. Weston (Jefferson Homes): ... As of now we are not on the
trouble list to be torn down. The way I heard ‘em say that Jefferson
Homes probably would be the last one if they was thinkin about it.
But I won't take no chances, because if we sit here and just say and
not do nothin, to try to make the place look good, or clean it up or
do something, what they gonna say, ‘oh those people there ain’t
tryin to do nothin. Look at the ground, look around and just look.
They don't care nothin about where they live.’ That's what they
gonna do, and say. So we tryin to save our place, where we live.
There are a number of themes here. Responsible, respectful, good people are clean.
They clean up around their homes. Good blocks are also clean, and keeping them so is a
group activity. Keeping clean is a way to show that you care about where you live and that

166
you deserve care in return. Mrs. Weston made this clear: keeping clean is a way to try and
“save our place, where we live.”
Dirty Deeds
Not only did residents talk of “clean” and “cleaning up” often, but they had specific
meanings of “dirt’. “Dirt” was “just dirt,” empty, and dead. “Dirt” also referred to illegal
activities and dirty deeds (Ashland respondents in particular used the word this way). And
“clean” and “dirt” separated “us” from “them.” Here are some representative quotes:
Just Dirt
Emily (Pulaski): No. They wasn't no grass, it was just dirt. They
just made it into a empty lot of dirt. They couldda put a playground
right there, woulda looked better. At least the kids would have
somewhere to go.
Judy (Jefferson Homes): ... there were wood chips that were
supposed to stop the grass. But it seem like when the grass came, it
made a little more, wood chips up there like it was green instead of
just lookin dead. You know at first it was like, just dirt, dead, …
Dirty Deeds
Jerry (Ashland): ... The main thing was about that over half the guys
hanging out over here didn't even live over here. They would come
over here and do their dirt, ...
Darius (Ashland): ... Most of the guys who do anything around
here, don't live here. They do the dirt, they go home. Our block is
hard. We have to bear the burden from the police, the crime and
everything. When things go down, they go home. It leaves us with
the burden of worrying about the police or the other gangs that may
want to retaliate against this block because they literally, threw their
dirt here. So its kinda hard.

167
Us and Them
Darius’ quote above depicts both the “dirty deeds” meaning of dirt and the
distinction of those who belong and those who don’t, or “us and them.” There is additional
evidence of the “us and them” concept:
Etta (Ashland): …If there's the fence there, they sit [on it] and pitch
[garbage]. You sit there all night. You eat, you drink, and everything
you do you sit and pitch. Sit and pitch. Then if we don't go down
there, and clean up the mess, debris, probably as tall as the trees. But
for 25 years we've been cleaning that lot down there.
Sharon (Halsted): It make it looks a lots better. All we have to do is
go over there every day and pick up their bottles out of the garbage
you know from there and the paper and stuff that they throw out
there every night. And they think you, like they say I know they go
get it up, so we're going to do it. ...
And, in this instance, Thomas and his friends clean up in order to show that they
do, indeed, belong on the block, that “them” is somebody else:
Thomas (Halsted): And we usually get out early in the morning.
We'll clean the yard up, the bottles in there and that, 'cause
sometimes somebody in the crowd might do it, but we'll clean it up.
So they [i.e. Sharon] come now just blame us for everything over
there.
Summary: Clean and Dirty
Dirt is empty and lifeless. It is illegal and anti-social. It separates people, marking
who belongs and who does not. Cleaning is an act that residents can take up in the face of
dirt. It strengthens bonds between residents as it delineates who belongs on the block.
Residents show their self respect and respect for the community by keeping their homes

168
clean. Those who are particularly good neighbors clean beyond their homes, keeping the
entire block clean and respectable.
“Clean” and “dirt” metaphors are clearly present in the data, although their
relevance differs from site to site. Dirt is particularly important and clearly stated as an
issue at Ashland. Halsted and Pulaski residents were less direct in their statements, but the
idea is still clearly present. Evidence of the metaphoric meaning of clean and dirt is
weakest at Jefferson Homes. Still, many respondents hold these views strongly; this is
closely tied to the potential for social benefits from urban greening projects.
Clean and Green
Half of the comments about cleanliness were made in the context of the greening
projects. This is not surprising because the greening projects are acts of cleaning up and
are often done in response to dirt. Dirt may be in the form of trash in the lot as in the
garden on Halsted, or in the form of outsiders doing “dirty deeds,” as was the case in the
corner garden at Ashland. Cleaning is often literal, particularly in the cases where debris
and garbage is cleared from a lot before planting. Many residents spoke of the gardens’
making the block look better:
Eloise (Halsted): [The garden] make the block look better.
L: It does? How, how does it do that?
Eloise: Cleaner.
Mr. Nichols (Halsted): Yes, I like it. … See cause this here place
here was all full of bottles and cans and you know beer bottles and
whiskey bottles and all kind of things they were throwing out there.
Old clothes, shoes and all that stuff you know just, you know it was
just bad out there.

169
Respondents made the connection between the greening project and cleaning quite
clear. With a few exceptions, when people spoke of working in the gardens, they spoke of
“cleaning” the gardens. They did not talk of weeding them or of planting anything. They
cleaned. Granted, literal cleaning—removing litter and debris—was a part of each project.
Still, the residents did not often distinguish between cleaning and planting and weeding. It
was all one activity:
Jane (Pulaski, about the garden that failed): … Hopeful next week or
sometime in October, I should say when it gets a little colder, we're
gonna go out there and clean it up and try again.
Ellen (Pulaski): … We was mostly doing they work, that's because
we cleaned the garden, …
Sharon (Halsted): … I made a lot of changes here, in this area, in
this here, as far as cleaning up, putting flowers out, put trees out, I
like that. You know I got flower pots all down the stairs and
everything. I just love flowers, OK? So I work hard to try to keep
clean. …
Up to this point, the project could be a lot cleanup without anything planted and
most likely have the same meaning for respondents. What, then, do the plants do?
Cleaner than Clean: Beauty
There is evidence that the gardens go beyond “cleaning up.” Ron Pauline hinted at
it in his paper: “Trees, shrubbery, grass, and flowers are soft and lend themselves to the
growth and changes that we as human beings witness (Pauline, 1993).” Residents in my
study talked of the gardens as “more than just plain dirt”; they bring “life,” “color,” and
“beauty”:

170
Martha (Ashland): [The garden] made it more beautiful. Some
beauty, color than just a plain, dirt yard makes a great difference. It
enhanced a lot of positive thinking by that garden being there, you
know. …
Mr. Nichols (Halsted): Yes, I like it. I definitely like it because it's
life there. It was, I'm talking about flowers and things you know, it
is a bit of scenery. …
Harriet (Halsted): Yes, it made me feel like, still feel that one day
this will be a better block or a beautiful block. That it can be done.
All it takes is for people to care, uh, maintain their property and up
keeping their lawn and keep our area clean. So, like I said earlier,
we have made some improvements, we're not a hundred percent
where we want to be but we have made progress and I feel we will
continue to make progress that this will, one day you will come to
this block, you won't remember it [laughs] that it will look so
different.
The gardens add to the block, they make it beautiful. Not only have residents
removed the whiskey bottles and tires, but they have added color, beauty, and life to their
blocks through the gardens. They have taken a part of their physical environment past
clean to beautiful.
Beauty and Self Identity
Why does it matter that the greening projects do more than just clean the blocks,
that they make them beautiful? The respondents in this study made it clear that the
environment is important and that it is integrally linked to sense of self. Mrs. Weston
(Jefferson Homes) was eloquent about this:
Mrs. Weston: [Landscaping is] important because where you live
reflect on you. If it looks bad, then you feel bad. You gonna do
everything bad, and you ain’t gonna have nothin. But if you got a
beautiful place where you live, then that makes you wants to do

171
better and do things better, and it's a reflection on you. Like I say
when I first moved here, before I even moved here, I use to live
right down here, by the church. I use to pass here … This was such a
pretty place, and I use to stop and look at it and say ‘oh, I wish I
could live there.’ Then I say ‘I know I'd never live there, so let me
keep on walking.’ I never thought I would live here it was such a
beautiful place. It was beautiful, you hear what I'm sayin. Yes. And
the peoples was strict then. They was keepin it beautiful. ...
In its heyday, the development was too beautiful for Mrs. Weston to feel worthy of
it. She knew she’d never live someplace so beautiful. The landscape not only gives clues
about the character of the people who live in a place, but a good landscape also “makes
you want to do better.” There is a relationship between the people and the landscape, each
reflecting and supporting the other. Beauty, beyond clean, is important in sustaining this
relationship; many of my respondents would agree with President Johnson’s comment:
Association with beauty can enlarge man’s imagination and revive
his spirit. Ugliness can demean the people who live among it. What
a citizen sees every day is his America. If it is attractive it adds to
the quality of his life. If it is ugly it can degrade his existence
(Johnson, 1965, p. 2).
Nice and Decent Places to Live
Mrs. Weston’s comments above speak to the importance of place to self-esteem.
They also hint at the relationship between place and group identity. Other respondents
made comments that further support this connection between landscape and a group-level
sense of self:
Mr. Nichols (Halsted): You see, you know, see there can be a
change if you can put something into it, you got to put something
back into it to make it look presentable, look decent you know, but
once you just let it go, then uh, it deteriorates the neighborhood,
your property and everything else. Everybody looking for something

172
nice you know, but if you don't keep it up it ain't going to be nice.
That's right. … Because like I say, like the flowers, you walk by that
and you see the flowers on the block and you can look here and
compare it to what it used to be. You know, and you would say
'well, I never would have thought this could be like this'. You know,
especially here and then something you took part in you know it too,
it just makes you feel warm on the inside. You know, like they say
you know that would make the community look better, it's better to
be looking across and see flowers than seeing old couches and
chairs, bottles and things over there. So that you know, it looks a
whole lot better. Like I said, to me it just bring life more to the
neighborhood.
Shirley (Halsted): Oh, it affected it quite well 'cause it by it being
clean and turn it into something, it was much better than uh, the
weeds and stumps and the bushes and you know, it made it much
nicer, made the block look better.
Darius (Ashland): [The corner garden] is vigil for a young woman
who died on our block. … It uh, it kinda makes you feel, when you
first turn this corner, makes you feel kinda comfortable. All right,
this is a nice neighborhood. Makes you feel more at least, well I see
all the guys out here, but somebody really cared about the block to
have something that looks nice.
Robert (Jefferson Homes): This the front the very front. I think
that's a change for the worse. Because they put up the flowers but
they didn't maintain them. As you can see in this picture there are all
kinds of weeds and everything up there. It just makes it look worse
when they do stuff like that. If they would keep the flowers up then
it would look better. Even if they didn't put up the flowers at all, and
just had grass grow there, and cut the grass every once in while it
would look better. But I don't think it looks good at all with the
flowers. I mean everybody that comes to [the sports facility] or
anyplace else, comes through [_______] Street and turns the corner
and you see all that sittin there. If I was to see it and I wasn't living
over here, I would think that this was you know, …
Not only does a garden make the environment clean, it makes it beautiful,
colorful—it brings life. This, in turn, speaks to people about who they are as individuals

173
and as a group. When the environment is “nice” and “decent,” they are nice, they are
decent. The landscape indicates this good character to residents, visitors, and passersby.
Clean and Dirty in the Context of Social Science
In the introduction, I outlined several discourses that address the meanings of urban
green space, or people/environment interactions more generally. These can help us to more
fully understand the ideas of “clean” and “dirty” and their importance to urban greening
projects. An additional discourse from anthropology on concepts of pollution and taboo is
particularly helpful. This literature has yet to be applied to urban greening, but may
explain important aspects of the social outcomes of greening projects.
The Physical Environment, Sense of Self and Sense of Community
Mrs. Weston’s comments about being sure that she would never live in such a
beautiful place indicates poignantly what environmental psychologists have suggested
about the meanings of place identity and space appropriation. Mrs. Weston’s comments
gave life to Harold Prosahnsky’s presentation on space appropriation:
In the appropriation of space the individual does not only project he
introjects. He not only expresses his individuality in the way he
defines and arranges his physical environment; he in turn creates
this individuality by incorporating selected aspects of the form and
substance of his environment (Proshansky, 1976, p. 38).
Environmental psychologists have also spoken about the importance of place in
people’s conceptions of themselves and their community (Hummon, 1992). People identify
with a type of residential environment as, for instance, a city person or a country boy
(Feldman, 1990; Feldman, 1996). When self-conception changes, often the type of

174
residence deemed appropriate also changes (e.g., leaving the suburbs after divorce)
(Feldman, 1996). This indicates a give and take between a person’s self-image and the
image of their residential environment, with the physical environment supporting and
reinforcing the self-image. Others have also shown that vegetation (and trees in particular)
is important in creating a sense of community and home; vegetation plays a special role in
the creation of, and attachment to, place (Dwyer et al., 1992; Fried, 1982; Hull, 1992-b;
Hull et al., 1994; Westphal, 1993).
Mrs. Weston’s comments indicate that she does not feel herself to be good enough
for a beautiful residential environment. This shows that negative reinforcement is also
possible between individuals and their environment. Mr. Nichols shows us another aspect
of this interaction in his amazement that where he lived could look nice:
Because like I say, like the flowers, you walk by that and you see
the flowers on the block and you can look here and compare it to
what it used to be. You know, and you would say 'well, I never
would have thought this could be like this'. You know, especially
here …
His residential environment changed for the better. With this change in
environment comes the possibility of an improved self-image as well. Proshansky again:
If we accept the validity and viability of the concept of place
identity, then it is clearly evident that the appropriation of space
becomes a critical process for understanding the development of
changes in personality of the person over the entire life-cycle
(Proshansky, 1976, p. 38).
What is less developed in Proshansky’s discussion of place identity and space
appropriation is that changing the place has repercussions for the person. This is the logical

175
extension of the interaction between humans and the places they create. What might be
happening here is a subconscious shift in how people see themselves reflected in the world
around them. The environment is different, and they have new information that they use as
they introject about who they are. By changing the environment, it is possible to change a
sense of self at the individual and group level. It is possible to shift from feeling unworthy
to worthy of respect and dignity. This is no small change.
Marc Fried’s study on residential attachment sheds some light here (Fried, 1982).
In this study, Freid found that objective features are integral to residential satisfaction. This
is true across an urban to suburban continuum and across class lines. "Variations in
residential satisfaction associated with status inequities can largely be traced to inequalities
in the objective residential environment that result from these status inequalities (Fried,
1982, p. 117)." And, "Surprisingly, the single strongest predictor was the neighborhood
attribute, ease of access to nature” (Fried, 1982, p. 114). Thus, vegetation plays an
important role in both residential attachment and the perception of residential
neighborhood quality.
Environment psychologists have established that there is a tie between people and
place—place identity and space appropriation—through which people and groups define
themselves. What can social science tell us about clean and dirt?
Pollution: Cultural Meanings of Dirt and Clean
The seminal work on the role of ritual or social pollution (rather than pollution as
chemical contamination) is Mary Douglas’ Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concept
of Pollution and Taboo (1966). Others have used her basic understanding to examine social

176
relations in a number of settings from slums (Marris, 1979) to traveling Gypsies (Okely,
1983).
Douglas’ work carefully analyzes the role of “dirt,” or pollution in human society.
Douglas outlines how concepts of “dirt” (and hence, “clean”) are used by cultures to define
who belongs (e.g., to the culture as a whole or to a specific clan or lineage within it), what
behavior belongs, what behavior does not, and how power is created in the manipulation of
the boundaries between “dirt” and “clean” through ritual practice (Douglas, 1966).
Dirt is Matter Out of Place
Douglas defines “dirt” as “matter out of place.” This definition makes “dirt”
relative: what is “dirt” to some is not “dirt” to others. A shared definition of “dirt” also
means a shared definition of what belongs. Space is inherent in this definition of “dirt”—it
is out of place—and this is important in the context of urban greening projects.
The examples Douglas provides are largely symbolic. The act of cleaning up in the
creation of greening projects is both symbolic and literal. Dirt, in the sense of people who
do not belong, are removed from the space, bodily barred from it (physically by use of a
fence, or symbolically with a statue of the Virgin Mary). Dirt in its literal sense is also
removed from the space, and, because this dirt is often symbolic of the people who do not
belong (hypodermic needles, used condoms, whisky bottles, old tires), it is one more
statement that the space is no longer theirs.
Clean Power

177
It is in this cleaning, the removing of matter out of place, that people create power.
Douglas outlines many rituals from cultures around the world in which the act of purifying
rectifies problems, be they personal (e.g., infertility), cultural (e.g., war), or physical (e.g.,
drought) (Douglas, 1966). These cleansing rituals are important and create the means by
which people fix their worlds—a powerful act. Greening projects may work in similar
ways. In this context, by cleaning up a vacant lot, residents create power to change their
neighborhoods in both literal and figurative terms. Of course, we have seen that this power
does not always materialize as is evident in the greening project on Pulaski. But we have
also seen evidence that it does sometimes materialize in the changes in places such as
Halsted and, to a lesser extent, Ashland. Cleaning is not only a metaphor, it is also an
empowering metaphor, a form of space appropriation that may foster positive individual
and block level change.
Weeds = Dirt: The Importance of Maintenance
One more chapter to the story from these data about dirt and clean relates to weeds
and maintenance. Maintenance, or more accurately lack thereof, is a major theme in urban
greening. In the practitioner’s literature (at least in urban and community forestry), the
emphasis is often on the impact of lack of maintenance on the trees and other vegetation:
without watering they die or without pruning they are more susceptible to storm damage.
But there is another reason to be concerned about maintenance, and that is the impact on
social benefits from these projects. People are often quite emotional about maintenance.
One example is from Betty at Jefferson Homes:
[It’s] sick. Sick, do you hear me? And they're not _____ and OK.
You, you, you put so much into it, but no one come back to attend it

178
anymore. You know what I'm saying. What's the purpose of
beautifying something you are not going to keep it up? The upkeep.
It's just like Mr. Belmont. He only did what he was suppose had
done, when he was asked to do it, that was it. That is he was taken
away from here. He planted some flowers out there but the upkeep
behind it, the grass grew all over, the weeds and stuff, what is, what
sense does it make to plant something you're not going to care for it?
That's why I said it's a lot of money being spent, just a bunch of bull.
That's all. It was a bunch of bull. Because why would you have so
much money to put out that you are going to beautify something, but
you are not going to keep it up. I don't understand that, I don't
understand, I don't get any reasoning behind that. So, it's a bunch of
bull.
Betty’s diatribe is stronger than most, but is not uncommon when people talk about
the lack of maintenance of greening projects (this may be particularly true for
nonparticipants). Why is lack of maintenance so vehemently felt? Weeds. Weeds are often
defined by greeners as “plants out of place.” Weeds, then, are very much like dirt and can
carry many of the pollution and danger cultural meanings that dirt carries in our society.
If the greening projects created a change at a metaphoric level for the block and the
individual, and the change was instigated by a removal of dirt, then weeds cropping up in
the garden is a return of the dirt. Gang bangers might not be hanging out in the garden, but
weeds might be symbolic of their return. The lack of maintenance is, at least in part,
“messing” with the metaphor. It is a step backwards, even if the lot looks better than it
might have without the greening project.
The connection between weeds and people who don’t belong (e.g., gang bangers or
new residents) can be seen in these quotes:
Mrs. Weston (Jefferson Homes): Mr. _____ [ a CHA employee],
right, he said that right now they have started to try to weed out the
bad. But after he said that then they sent all of [residents from

179
another CHA development], just about over here, and we didn't
know nothin about it. Before we knew anything they fixin up this
apartments for the people there. Now how is that given us some
consideration? It wasn't. ...
Emily (Pulaski): Yeah, because, its easy, one day, one thing did
happen. … they're like teenagers or stuff, and I guess they had
gotten in a feud with someone around the corner and by that lot [the
garden lot], they accessed the rest of the alley, and you know,
shooting at them, and run back. So its like a get away, an easy get
away. If the police were to chase somebody, they go right through
there. Or if somebody want to come and get somebody, they see
somebody over here that they want to shoot, they just come right
through there. And go right through there. It [the garden] don't have
no purpose. You know, its weeds over there. I could see if it looked
decent, but it don't.
Mr. Nichols (Halsted): Yes, ma'am by that, you know it give you a
safety, more safety feelings. Because like it will grow up there like
weeds and things out there, and peoples could hide behind it and do
devilish things behind it you know. But now there's a clear view you
can see from the alley to the streets you know it give you a more
view, you can see what's going on. They used to run from the
policemens and all back through there and hide in the weeds but
now there is nowhere for them to hide at in there.
Weeds, then, are related to dirt. If they start to grow in the garden, they can
represent the same things as dirt: people and actions that don’t belong; matter out of place.
If the garden was a positive change that had a positive (if unconscious) impact on people’s
self-images, the presence of weeds in the lot may have a negative impact on their newly
enhanced self-images. We all know that new skin is more tender than old, and therefore a
newly, and subtly, enhanced self-image may be more subject to damage and undermining
than a firmly established positive sense of self. Hence, weeds in garden may have a
negative impact on social changes due to urban greening projects.

180
Negative Evidence: Dirt Don’t Hurt
Although much of the discussion of dirt supports my argument, I did get one clear
piece of contradictory evidence. Mrs. Collins said of dirt: “now, dirt don’t hurt”:
Mrs. Collins: I love gardening. I love greenery. I love to work in the
garden, because it's healthy. You get your hands dirty in the garden,
in the fields, wherever … . My kids were all born in Mississippi, but
one. I never had to take them to the doctor. They don't be sick now,
a whole lot. Because they're used to the dirt and the outside. Because
dirt don't hurt. God made dirt, and dirt don't hurt. My older brother
told me one time it don't hurt to eat some dirt. Because it makes you
stronger. I don't know how true that is, but it's all right. I know
people eat dirt a lot of dirt down south, they say it's sweet. I don't eat
dirt, [laughs] I can't stand grit.
Dirt does not only mean matter out of place. Mrs. Collins refers to another
meaning: good earth, dirt as nurturing, building character. Although dirt may be nurturing,
Mrs. Collins’ tone is almost defensive in her declaration in support of dirt, perhaps tacitly
recognizing that dirt is also taboo.
Respondents also recognized that dirt can be worked with, that it is necessary for
growing things. Their view of dirt in the context is instrumental. For instance, some
lamented that the city puts sand down instead of dirt when a building is demolished. When
they have dirt, they can work with it:
Darius: that other lot, we did that. We got the grass, they brought out
some dirt. We spread out the dirt. … But we planted the grass, a
walkway and everything. …
Monique: Oh yeah. OK. Uh the summer workers did this for the
MET program. They had delivered dirt, and they bought truck loads
of flowers and they dug up the old dirt, and put in new dirt, then he
planted the flowers into the dirt. Then everyday the workers had to
water the flowers to make sure they don't die.

181
Summary: Clean and Green
There is evidence that the greening projects can be metaphors for the
transformation of the block. By cleaning up a vacant lot and then adding plants, residents
made the blocks not only physically cleaner—obviously an important step—but also more
beautiful. This change speaks to residents on an individual and group level. At the
individual level, there can be an increase in sense of self-worth, as indicated by
respondents’ comments that they don’t expect where they live to be beautiful, that they
know they would never live in a beautiful place. When the environment becomes beautiful,
this beauty may echo inside, changing their sense of self. Residents might, as Proshansky
puts it, introject from their newly beautiful environment and change their sense of self.
At the group level, the cleaner, more beautiful blocks indicate that the place and its
inhabitants are “nice” and “decent.” This message is sent both to visitors and residents:
good people live here. Cleaning up is seen as a way to reclaim space or to save it from
outsiders who may threaten the viability of the community. Weeds in a garden may
symbolize these outsiders or problems, and as such, take the block back to the “old days”
of dirty deeds and ugliness.
These ideas are preliminary. The concepts of “clean” and “dirt” has not been
examined in any other greening context, and will need considerably more study before
firm conclusions can be drawn. However, the concepts of “clean” and “dirt” explain a
number of the impacts of urban greening projects, and begin to explain some enigmas like

182
Mr. Pauline’s comment: “There are two major points to be learned from this experience:
cleanliness is next to Godliness, and Mother Nature is soothing (Pauline, 1993, 125).”

183
CONCLUSIONS
I began this study with questions about the social benefits of urban greening
projects. Were practitioners’ claims justified? Did both participants and nonparticipants
receive any benefits? Were there problems from these projects as well as benefits? The
practitioners spoke of these projects as empowering. Are they? The social science
literature spoke of the effects of vegetation in urban areas: stress reduction and health
benefits, deep meanings of trees and other vegetation that seem to tie to place identity and
sense of place. Do these findings help to us to understand the effects of greening projects?
In this chapter, I will look at how well I can answer these questions and discuss the
implications of these study findings for empowerment theory, for researchers interested in
the meanings of urban green space, for urban greeners who want to be empowering
practitioners, and for future research. I will also discuss the limitations of my study.
Are Greening Projects Empowering?
Are greening projects empowering? The answer is an unequivocal “it depends.”
Greening projects certainly have the potential to be empowering, and Halsted is an
example of this. There, residents largely fulfilled the practitioner's model: working
together to create changes on their block, creating a better place to live. They increased
participation in the block club, and by taking control of a vacant lot and transforming it
from a dump to a garden, they were also able to change how people behaved on the block.
But not all of the greening projects worked this way, and even on Halsted there
were signs of potential problems. One person or group gaining control generally means

184
some other person or group—usually project nonparticipants—losing of control.
Sometimes the loss of control is exactly what the greening project organizers had in mind,
for instance if they are trying to rid a certain corner of drug dealers. But the effects of a
change in control are not always so cut and dried. The experiences of Halsted residents is
one example. The young men on the block (and some of the other long-term residents) felt
put off by the greening project, and resentful that their needs and wishes were not being
taken into account by the garden organizers. On Ashland, Martha’s near total control of the
lot reduced the empowering benefits of that project. To the other block residents, the lot
was Martha’s, her responsibility and her problem. Control can be of the lot itself or of the
decision making process. The story at Pulaski makes this clear, as does, to a lesser degree,
the story at Ashland. Changes in control, then, are seen quite differently by participants
and nonparticipants. What is empowering for some can be disempowering for others.
The timing of a project in the organizing of a block was important to empowerment
outcomes. The two sites where the greening project failed completely, Pulaski and
Jefferson Homes, were at very different stages of organizing. Pulaski was just starting to
organize as a group, and this is particularly true on the garden block. The area was also
changing dramatically in population. Although they had some successful block parties,
even these were marred with some degree of bickering and antagonism. Organizing and
sustaining a project may have been beyond the neighborhood’s collective skill level.
Jefferson Homes residents, on the other hand, were old hands at organizing projects large
and small. They were past needing a small, manageable project like a garden; they were
successfully organizing for resident management of their development. If something was
going to be lost in the time crunch, it was the greening project.

185
Halsted was in-between these two sites in terms of organizing. Halsted residents
had signed petitions against a tavern re-opening on their block and then they revived their
block club by actively participating in it. A greening project was the right size project for
them to take on, complete successfully, and learn from. Therefore, the timing of a greening
project in the organizing development of a block may prove to be critical in the level of
empowerment benefits that will be derived from that project. Too much, too soon and the
greening project and any potential empowerment from it may fail. Too little, too late and
the project may fail for lack of interest or that it no longer meets residents needs.
The empowering nature of the people who started the projects was key to
empowerment outcomes. While all the organizers were empowered to at least a minimal
degree simply to start the greening project, it was their empowering nature (or lack thereof)
that was most important for the overall empowerment outcomes of the project. If the
organizer was empowering, the project was more likely to be empowering. Harriet from
Halsted exemplifies the positive side of this equation, while Jill and Jane from Pulaski
exemplify the negative.
Summary
There is evidence in this study that, yes, greening projects can be empowering. But
empowerment outcomes depend on many things—the nature of the local organizer, the
timing in the block’s organizing history, the level of participation in the project.
Empowerment is by no means an automatic outcome of greening projects.

186
Reflections on Empowerment Theory
Empowerment theory proved to be a useful framework for structuring the ideas
prevalent, but not codified, in the practitioners’ literature. Although not every aspect of the
theory was relevant to the practitioner’s discussions of empowerment through urban
greening projects, the fit was good. But some problems emerged in the fit of the data to the
theory. These dealt primarily with the theorized levels of empowerment indicators. Other
aspects of the theory were supported and proved to be particularly useful to the analysis.
These included the concept of empowering processes and empowered outcomes and the
cyclic nature of empowerment. I will also briefly discuss the nature of participation in the
context of empowerment.
Developmental Stages of Empowerment
Would empowerment theory have predicted the outcomes I found at each site? The
degree and type of participation at three of the sites (Halsted, Ashland, and Pulaski) would
have led many empowerment theorists to expect the outcomes at each site. But one site,
Jefferson Homes, would have been a surprise. While the nature of participation and
leadership at Jefferson Homes was important to the project’s failure, equally important to
the outcome was the stage of organizing at the site. The concept of empowerment
developmental stages needs to be incorporated in empowerment theory.
Developmental stages of empowerment incorporates the concept of small wins and
modest victories (Feldman & Stall, 1994; Weick, 1984) into empowerment theory.
Developmental stages of empowerment also emphasizes the cyclic nature of
empowerment. Even at Pulaski, the site where the garden was disempowering for block

187
residents, there are still some empowered individuals, some skills and strengths to build
upon in future projects. At Jefferson Homes these skills are more developed and the input
needed to further empowerment goals is quite different. The same issues might be in play
in other settings where empowerment has been brought to bear, from individuals dealing
with mental or physical illness to neighborhoods actively engaged in incumbent upgrading
and redevelopment.
Empowerment Can Create Disempowerment
At the same time that empowerment theory needs to consider the stages of
empowerment and more actively include the cyclic nature of empowerment, it must also
address the potential for disempowerment from actions that at the same time empower
some people. Two empowerment theorists have begun to ask these questions:
One of the primary tasks for community psychology, then, is to
articulate the relationship between empowerment and community.
Does empowerment of disenfranchised people and groups
simultaneously bring about a greater sense of community and
strengthen the ties that hold our society together, or does it promote
certain individuals or groups at the expense of others, increasing
competitiveness and lack of cohesion? (Riger, 1993, p. 290).
All too often, national and local policy has tended to favour the
cultivation of an elite of well-informed, skilled residents, who will
act on behalf of all the other inhabitants of an area. This is, however,
precisely the model of representative democracy which gives rise to
the problem of disempowerment in the first place. The irony is that
it is only the elites at national and local level who do not need
empowerment, so the creation of yet more elites (albeit at lower
levels) cannot possible bring about a solution to the
disempowerment problem (Somerville, 1998, p. 16).

188
There is evidence in my data to support both of these concerns. At each site some
people did, indeed, feel that certain individuals and organizations were promoted at the
expense of others. And at Jefferson Homes, and perhaps the other sites as well, a local elite
was in the making, one that created a sense of disempowerment for some residents.
How can empowerment theory account for these disempowerment outcomes? One
step is to address the issue more carefully in empirical studies. Are there examples of
empowerment with out a mirroring disempowerment? What is different in those situations
that can inform empowerment practices and theory? When is the disempowerment socially
sanctioned (as when drug dealers are forced off a block), and when is it not?
Problems with Levels of Empowerment
The levels theorized by Zimmerman were problematic in the light of my data. This
could indicate problems in the theory and/or problems in my data. For example, both
“extends influence” and “key brokers in policy” are theorized to be organizational level
indicators. But both presented themselves in these data at the individual level,
characterizing empowered individuals rather than empowered organizations. Consider Jill
and Jane on Pulaski, Martha and Hettie on Ashland, and, to a lesser extent, Harriet on
Halsted. Each personified her block organization, in one case (Ashland) leading to tension
between two block leaders. One community level trait was also exhibited by individuals
rather than at a community level: “initiates efforts to improve the community” was
something done by individuals. Each project organizer was motivated to improve the
community, although some had other motivations as well.

189
The lack of clarity between the individual and organization levels in my study may
have compounded the lack of clarity between the levels in empowerment theory. In the
context of this study, the nature of the organizations is the culprit. These block clubs are
not distinct from the individuals who created them and are members of them. Martha from
Ashland called herself an organization, although she did not really have a block
organization behind her. Halsted and Jefferson Homes each had block clubs or tenant
organizations, but both could also be analyzed clearly in terms of the relatively few
individuals who make up those organizations. None of these groups interacted with other
organizations as organizations themselves. Still, even as fledgling groups, they were
identified as groups by others on each block. The nebulous nature of the groups made
analysis by individual and organization levels difficult. The gray area between individual
and organization may need clarifying in empowerment theory, but certainly needs to be
kept in mind when assessing the findings of this study.
Different contingents of empowerment theorists might well have different takes on
these problems. Empowerment theorists from community psychology have more strongly
developed the theory at the individual level. Given the general perspective of these
scholars—the psychological health of individuals—this is not surprising. Feminist, activist
scholars come to empowerment theory from a group level. The authors in Bookman and
Morgen’s 1988 collection typify these scholars (Bookman & Morgen, 1988). Here the
focus is on struggles to change societal power structures. As such, the focus is on
organizations and groups with benefits redounding to individuals as a byproduct of
empowerment. Empowerment theorists in Zimmerman’s line would likely be more
satisfied with the indications of individual empowerment in these data. Empowerment

190
theorists from Bookman and Morgen’s line would likely be less satisfied with these
indications of individual empowerment, looking instead for larger changes in the
neighborhood and city power structures. Riger, in the quote above, sums up this question:
are certain people becoming empowered at the expense of the local community? To answer
this question we need more research. A longitudinal study would help. Through this we
could examine the effects of newly empowered individuals on the block organization over
time: how often does an empowered organization grow from the work of empowered
individuals?
Empowered Outcomes and Empowering Processes
The distinction made in empowerment theory between empowered individuals and
organizations and empowering individuals and organizations was very useful while
looking at empowerment at the block level. This, rather than the levels of empowerment,
leads to a more fruitful understanding of the empowerment process. I have discussed this
in other places and will not belabor the point here.
Participation and Empowerment
The amount of participation in the project at Halsted was one of the hallmarks of
that project and may be what led to the empowerment outcomes there. The symbiosis
between participation and empowerment needs further investigation. To date, some form
of participation has been integral in empowerment case studies (DeSena, 1998; Feldman &
Westphal, forthcoming; Gruber & Trickett, 1987; Kieffer, 1984; Kroeker, 1996; Morgen &
Bookman, 1988; Reardon, 1998; Saegert & Winkel, 1996). Participation is, basically, a
chance to do something, and you have to do something to bring about change (this can, of

191
course, include stopping doing something). And because change is integral to
empowerment, participation is integral to empowerment as well.
But participation is not synonymous with empowerment. What about the
community level benefits that people receive whether or not they lift a finger for some
neighborhood project? In the introduction, I used a lowered crime rate as an example of
such a community level benefit. One such benefit from the study would be the TIF District
benefits that residents of Halsted will receive regardless of their status as participant or
nonparticipant. Are they empowered by the greening project? If the TIF District provides
resources with which all block residents can make positive changes they could not
otherwise have made, and if the TIF District has some impact on their sense of self and/or
sense of community, there may be some empowerment outcomes from the District
designation. Without the change in sense of self or community, the TIF District may be a
good opportunity, but not empowering.
Clean and Green: A New Meaning of Urban Green Space
In the introduction, I said that if a tie can be made between meanings of green
space and social change, “we will have a new understanding of how the importance of
trees and vegetation in city neighborhoods can have an impact beyond beautification.”
What I have found instead is how “beautification” itself may be critical to healthy
neighborhoods. This is a new meaning that green space can have for residents: that of the
metaphor of cleanliness, and then beauty, that speaks to people as individuals and groups.
The desire to “have an impact beyond beautification” stems from a view that sees
aesthetics as of secondary importance, as an amenity and as such nice, but hardly

192
necessary. This view is perhaps epitomized in the address, “Beautification be Damned,” to
the Urban Forestry conference by Don Willeke, then President of the National Urban and
Community Forestry Advisory Committee. In this presentation, he called for quantifying
the benefits of the urban forest, preferably in dollars, as the only information policy makers
take seriously.
This study, however, provides evidence that beautification matters, perhaps
critically, to individual and group self image. An ugly environment may, indeed, “demean”
as President Johnson put it over 30 years ago (Johnson, 1965). This evidence began to
build with the predominance of “clean” as an issue to respondents. Responsible neighbors
were clean. Irresponsible people were “dirt”—they did dirty deeds and “threw their dirt
down” in these neighborhoods. This use of “clean” and “dirt” is a common metaphor in
many cultures: “dirt” and “clean” defines who or what belongs (Douglas, 1966). In this
case the distinction is made between “nice” and “decent” residents who live solid,
respectable lives and people, often from off the block, who act in undesirable, sometimes
illegal ways (e.g., dealing drugs). The greening projects, by cleaning up the lot, sometimes
worked symbolically to cleanse the blocks of dirty deeds and those who do “devilish”
things.
Cleaning up the lots was the first step, but one that could have simply been a block
cleanup project. The greening projects took this one step further by bringing “beauty,”
“color,” and “life” to the blocks. There is a tie between the beauty of the block and how
residents feel about themselves and the block. The respondents said that a beautiful
environment makes you “want to do better.” They made it clear that a “nice” and “decent”

193
looking neighborhood indicated that “nice” and “decent” people lived there. This message
was sent both to those who live on the block and to visitors to the area.
With this interpretation of the data, the intensely felt reactions to weeds and
maintenance problems at greening project sites makes more sense. Weeds are like dirt:
they are plants, rather than matter, out of place. As such, they can represent the return of
people or activities that do not belong, that violate the sense of self and block as “nice” and
“decent.”
Beauty, however, is a tricky area. Practitioners must keep an eye out for the
cultural myths of the power of nature and ideals of beauty, and avoid “guilding the ghetto”
(Hester, 1987, p. 292). The City Beautiful movement at the beginning of this century and
the urban and community forestry movement today both have strong ideologies about
nature and beauty. These ideals reflect a narrow range of the various other concepts of
beauty and nature that abound, be they other examples from a European heritage or those
of non-European heritage. Two examples, one from this study, one from personal
communication with an urban forestry colleague:
• At Jefferson Homes, the corner greening project did not follow the aesthetic of the
residents. The corner in its heyday had been densely planted with bright annuals.
The greening project that went in on the corner was more widely space perennials.
Over time they would have formed a dense bed of color, but in the meantime
residents thought they were “uncoordinated,” that flowers should be arranged in
concentric circles of similar colored flowers, not a more free-form arrangement
with wood chips between the plants.
• In San Francisco, urban forestry workers realized they were having little to no
participation from residents in predominately Chinese neighborhoods. They

194
decided to investigate and found that the traditional tree planting site—smack in
front of the house in the parkway area—was a problem in terms of feng shui
(arrangement of physical things to enhance energy flow). The foresters changed the
suggested planting location and participation in Chinese neighborhoods
skyrocketed (personal communication, Cheryl Kollin, 1992).
These two stories highlight the problems that can come from cultural differences in
the concept of nature and beauty. An understanding of the importance of beauty in a
neighborhood, then, must be tempered with an understanding of the wide-ranging
conceptions of beauty and nature. Acting from pre-conceptions in this regard could lead to
unintended, negative outcomes, even disempowerment.
Providing trees and shrubbery but no other real changes to a block could also have
negative ramifications. The garden on Halsted may not have had its empowered outcomes
if there had not also been a supportive Alderman, growing partnerships with the police,
and other means by which residents could make additional improvements in their block.
Lessons for Greening Practitioners
Findings from this study raise several considerations for practitioners, including the
accuracy of practitioners’ assessments of social benefits, suggestions that may help
greening projects achieve empowerment outcomes, and implications from the cleanliness
metaphor. There is evidence from this study that greening projects can, indeed, be
empowering. This is not a given, however, so understanding the nature of empowerment
and how to foster it is important to meeting greening practitioners’ empowerment goals.

195
Practitioners’ Assessments of Success and Failure
The practitioners’ assessment of the empowerment outcomes on the sites was not
completely accurate, for either the success sites or the failure sites. The practitioners’
assessments were not completely inaccurate either, but they lacked significant chapters in
each story that had direct implications for empowerment outcomes at each site.
Ashland, a site thought by Green Corps staff to be a huge success in terms of social
benefits, proved limited in its long-term positive impact. Participants in the project were
largely members of one extended family, many of whom subsequently moved. The
sometimes testy relationship between Martha, the organizer, and the other block residents
was not noticed by the practitioners. The domination of the project by Martha was the
primary feature of the project to the other block residents, evidenced in part by the
relatively few people who took photos of the garden as either a positive or negative change
on their block. The inspirational impact of the project on nearby blocks, however,
remained.
The failure of Jefferson Homes was a real failure of that particular project. But the
context in which this failure happened mitigates the overall effect of the garden project’s
total lack of success. Because there was an ongoing organization working for the
betterment of Jefferson Homes, the lack of benefits from this particular project was not a
major loss for the community.
Pulaski was a failed project. The assessment of this site was on target: the
organizers were “political brutes,” and the block completely uninterested in the greening
project.

196
The practitioners’ assessment of Halsted was also fairly accurate. The residents on
this block did experience some positive social benefits from the greening project. What
was missing in the assessment was knowledge of other important changes on the block,
most notably the tavern becoming a church. The church pastor was not aware of the
greening project and was as ready to ascribe all the positive change on the block to his
church’s activities as the greening practitioners were to ascribe them to the garden. Both
changes were important to improving the block.
It is not reasonable to expect greening practitioners to fully understand every site in
which they work, certainly not that they should know the changes in dynamics a year or
more after the project. However, these fuller stories are important to the social benefits that
occur because of the greening projects. The upshot for greening practitioners is to be
cautious in their claims and recognize that positive change on a block is multifaceted and
can change over time. What began as a positive project may sour, as was the case on
Ashland. It may also be possible (although not directly supported by my data) that what
begins on a sour note may turn sweet over time.
Creating Empowering Programs
Many greening projects are being implemented with empowerment outcomes as a
stated goal, but many greening practitioners have not thought carefully about how greening
projects may be empowering for residents. Findings from this study point to several issues
to strengthen the empowerment potential of greening projects.
First, the cyclic nature of empowerment means that no greening project will start
with a group that is totally unempowered. In empowering practice, it is critical to

197
recognize the skills and knowledge that residents will bring to the project (Feldman &
Westphal, 1999). These may include knowledge about the owner of the lot, about the local
tavern becoming a church with a pastor that might help the greening project, or other
useful information. Greening practitioners need to be fully aware of this, and they need to
view projects as collaborations in which both they and the participants both bring critical
knowledge and skills to the projects.
The cyclic nature of empowerment poses one of the dilemmas that emerged from
this research. The gardens began with an empowered act of an individual or group on the
block choosing to approach the greening practitioners for help with the project. Much of
the potential for empowerment outcomes seems to hinge on this decision, on how and by
whom it was made. How, then, can greening programs support empowering activities on
the block when the die was cast before they came on the scene? One possible answer is for
greening practitioners to actively lead some groups in effective organizing. Perhaps
revisiting the decision making process after the block is enrolled in a greening program
could undo previous disempowering actions. For instance, on Pulaski, Green Corps
practitioners might have discovered that at least some block residents wanted a play lot
and might have been able to help the greening project fulfill this need. To effectively assist
neighborhood groups in organizing, some greening practitioners will need to gain more
organizing skills themselves.
Another aspect of the cyclic nature of empowerment is the need to be able to build
again and again on past successes (and even failures) to meet further individual or group
goals. For some respondents in this study, those at Halsted in particular, it was hard to
identify the next step to take after the garden. Empowerment-oriented greening

198
practitioners could help in situations like this by building coalitions with empowerment-
oriented practitioners in other areas like housing, recreation, and employment. Through
these coalitions, greening practitioners may be able to help connect client groups with
other program opportunities and thereby help residents continue the cycle of
empowerment.
With these coalitions, greening practitioners may also be able to use greening
projects as a barometer of a block, its level of organizational skill and its needs. At both
Jefferson Homes and Pulaski the greening projects failed, but for different reasons. The
type of assistance each block needed was quite different. A little investigation of failed
projects might reveal other needs that other empowerment-oriented practitioners might be
able to fill. For instance a group that could help with communication and basic community
organizing might have been useful at Pulaski.
Implications of the Cleanliness Metaphor
The cleanliness metaphor indicates how visual changes in the block, increased
color and beauty, may have important impacts on individual and group self-images.
Advocates of tree planting have often used community pride as an argument to gain
governmental support for their activities. If the cleanliness metaphor holds up to further
study, it may indicate just how important these changes are in fostering a healthy,
productive, happy citizenry. Simple beauty may be more than an amenity, it may be an
important component of a healthy human ecosystem. It may, therefore, be a new talking
point for advocates to use.

199
As I discussed earlier, some caution is also in order. Beauty is a culturally based
ideal, and therefore greeners need to pay attention to the aesthetic ideals of the
neighborhood as they work on greening projects. Beauty is an important part of the
cleanliness metaphor, making it critical to understand the aesthetics of the people who will
live around the project. Planting a garden that is appealing to the practitioners but ugly to
the residents may defeat the potential of the cleanliness metaphor.
Limitations of the Study
There are several limitations of this study to bear in mind. Some are inherent in the
design of the study, some emerged as the study progressed. First, this study has the
limitations of any qualitative study in that I cannot make generalizations to populations
beyond those interviewed. The sample, while theoretically driven, was still self-selected.
Participators participate, be it in a garden project or in a research project. I did interview at
least two people critical of the project at each site, but still may have missed important
views of nonparticipants. The block as a unit of analysis has limitations in looking for
group level empowerment outcomes. Individual level benefits are possible and easier to
determine at this scale.
There was a strong possibility of reactivity for two reasons. First, I am not of the
same race and class background as most of my respondents. A few respondents clearly
tried to change their speaking patterns when they talked with me, but I can only guess how
many edited what they actually told me. The second potential for reactivity is the photo
elicitation process. Suddenly there were a dozen or so people on each block taking pictures
of good and bad changes.

200
One site in particular underwent dramatic changes in the population in the decade
preceding the study. Pulaski changed from majority European-American to majority Black
and Hispanic. These changes may have exacerbated tensions on the block and skewed
results of my interviews at this site.
Another limitation of this study potentially limits the test of practitioners’ claims.
This limitation struck me as I looked at the photographs my respondents took. Chicago has
a largely healthy, mature urban forest. Each site, and for that matter most Chicago
neighborhoods, have at least some mature trees. But greening practitioners that have made
the strongest claims of social benefits from urban greening projects are in cities where the
urban forest is less ubiquitous. Philadelphia is a prime example. The neighborhoods where
Philadelphia practitioners observe these changes are blocks of row houses and empty lots,
on narrow streets with little planting room. The streets were virtually bare of trees and
shrubs. The visual effect of planting trees in areas with less vegetation may be more
dramatic than planting a garden on a lot that sits under large old cottonwood trees, elms,
and silver maples. This will have a particular impact on benefits that derive from
interaction with trees and other vegetation, like stress reduction and its potential for
associated benefits. The cleanliness metaphor may have a stronger impact in areas where
the visual change is more significant.

201
Future Studies
This study suggests several avenues for future research. One step is to replicate the
study in cities with a less established urban forest and in cities where greening
practitioners have been more vocal about social benefits. I may be able to work with
master’s students in these cities to gather data on one or more project using the methods I
developed for this study. I could then conduct a meta analysis on these data.
Another option for future studies could include a pre-post quantitative study of
incoming block groups to Green Corps. If I could get sufficient data from nonparticipants,
I might be able to trace more carefully the effects of the projects on sense of community,
participation, and other issues related to empowerment.
Another study possibility would be a nationwide assessment of structures and
processes used by greening groups vis á vis empowerment at the individual and
organization level. This study would look more at the greening organizations and less at
the project participants.
Finally, the cleanliness metaphor deserves more investigation. In two studies in a
row now, I have found concepts of “clean” to be at the heart of the data. First in People
and the River, I found that images of what a clean river looks like might affect whether or
not people saw progress in cleaning up the Chicago River (Westphal, 1995). In this current
study, cleanliness is important to understanding the potential for social benefits from urban
greening projects. Both times I was surprised by the findings. Now I need to develop a
research program to investigate more fully the role of our ideas of clean and dirt as it
relates to natural resource management. I will begin this with a more complete literature

202
review and a meta analysis of existing data sets (e.g., Chicago Rivers, TreeKeepers, and
other data sets we have in house) and the role of cleanliness in these other data sets.
But first, I rest

203
LITERATURE CITED
Ames, R. (1980). The sociology of urban tree planting. Journal of Arboriculture , 6, 120-
123.
Ames, R. G. b. (1980). Urban tree planting programs: a sociological perspective.
Hortscience, 15(2), 135-137.
Appleyard, D. (1979). Urban trees, urban forests: What do they mean?, Proceedings of
the National Urban Forestry Conference (pp. 138-155). Syracuse, NY: State University
of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry ESF publication number
80-003.
Appleyard, D. (1979). The environment as a social symbol: Within a theory of
environmental action and perception . Journal of the American Planning Association ,
45(2), 143-152 .
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation . Journal of the American
Institute of Planners , 35(4), 216-224.
Berry, R. (1994). Nature and culture: Building community from the ground up. In C.
Kollin, J. Mahon, & L. Frame (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth National Urban Forest
Conference (pp. 226-228). Washington DC: American Forests.
Bethea, J. M. (1979). Welcoming Remarks, Proceedings of the National Urban Forestry
Conference (pp. 6-9). Syracuse, NY: State University of New York, College of
Environmental Science and Forestry ESF publication number 80-003.
Bisco Werner, J. (1995). New Jersey ReLeaf: Empowering people to action. In C. Kollin
& M. Barratt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th National Urban Forest Conference (pp. 144-
147). Washington DC: American Forests.
Bookman, A., & Morgen, S. (Eds.). (1988). Women and the Politics of Empowerment .
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Bouza, A. V. (1989). Trees and crime prevention. In P. D. Rodbell (Ed.), Proceedings of
the Fourth Urban Forestry Conference: Making Our Cities Safe for Trees (pp. 31-32).
Washington DC: American Forests.
Breslav, M. (1991). The common ground of green words: one author's search for a
definition of community greening. Community Greening Review, 1(1), 4-9.
Brogan, D. R., & James, L. D. (1980). Physical environment correlates of psychosocial
health among urban residents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 8(5), 507-
522.
Brunson, L., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (submitted). Sowing the seeds of community:
Greening and gardening in inner-city neighborhoods. American Journal of Community
Psychology.

204
Buckner, J. C. (1988). The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood
cohesion. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16(6), 771-791.
Bush-Brown, L. (1969). Garden Blocks for Urban America. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons.
Charmaz, K. (1988). The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In
R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary Field Research . Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland
Press, Inc.
Chavis, D. M., Hogee, J. H., McMillan, D. W., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of
community through Brunswik's lens: A first look. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 18(1), 24-40.
Chavis, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of community in the urban
environment: A catalyst for participation and community development. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1), 55-81.
Chenoweth, R. (1984). Visitor employed photography: A potential tool for landscape
architecture . Landscape Journal , 3(2), 136-150.
Coley, R. L., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1997). Where does community grow? The
social context created by nature in public housing. Environment and Behavior, 29(4),
468-494.
Collier, J., & Collier, M. (1986). Visual Anthropology . Albuquerque; University of New
Mexico Press.
Commission, P. s. (1987). Americans Outdoors: The Legacy, the Challenge . Washington
DC: Island Press.
Consortium, T. C. F. B. (1995). Local Community Fact Book Chicago Metropolitan Area
1990. Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers.
Crowley, S. (1999, January 22, 1999). Point of View. Memo to Members, 4, na.
Cullingworth, B. (1997). Planning in the USA: Policies, Issues and Process. London:
Routledge.
Day, D. (1997). Citizen participation in the planning process: An essentially contested
concept? Journal of Planning Literature, 11(3), 421-434.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications Inc.
DeSena, J. N. (1998). Low-income women and community power. Sociological
Spectrum, 18, 311-332.
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative Data Analysis: A User-friendly Guide for Social Scientists.
London: Routledge.
Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and
Taboo. London: Routledge.

205
Dwyer, J. F., Schroeder, H. W., & Gobster, P. H. (1992). The significance of urban trees
and forests: Towards a deeper understanding of values . Journal of Arboriculture ,
10(17), 276-284.
Eber-Schmid, B. (1994). Trees address social issues. In C. Kollin, J. Mahon, & L. Frame
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth National Urban Forest Conference (pp. 157-159).
Evans, L. (1994). Empowering people: Local and regional urban forestry organizations.
In C. Kollin, J. Mahon, & L. Frame (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth National Urban
Forest Conference (pp. 248-249). Washington DC: American Forests.
Feldman, R. M. (1990). Settlement-identity: Psychological bonds with home places in a
mobile society. Environment and Behavior, 22(2), 183-229.
Feldman, R. M. (1996). Constancy and change in attachment to types of settlements.
Environment and Behavior, 28(4), 419-445.
Feldman, R. M., & Stall, S. (1994). The politics of space appropriation: A case study of
women's struggles for homeplace in Chicago public housing. In I. Altman & A.
Churchman (Eds.), Women and the Environment (Vol. 13 , pp. 167-199). New York:
Plenum Press.
Feldman, R. M., & Westphal, L. M. (1999). Participation for empowerment: The
greening of a public housing development. Places, 12(2), 34-37.
Feldman, R. M., & Westphal, L. M. (forthcoming). An agenda for community design and
planning: Participation and empowerment practice. In R. Robert (Ed.), Open House
International: Housing, Urban Planning and Sustainable Development. (Vol. 12, pp. 34-
37).
Foster, P. J. (1987). Denver's street trees as civic symbol. Journal of Community
Gardening, 6(2), 4-5.
Francis, M., Cashdan, L., & Paxson, L. (1984). Community Open Spaces: Greening
Neighborhoods through Community Action and Land Conservation. Washington DC;
Island Press.
Fried, M. (1982). Residential attachment: Sources of residential and community
satisfaction. Journal of Social Issues, 38(3).
Giedraitis, J. (1994). City foresters and their customers. In C. Kollin, J. Mahon, & L.
Frame (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth National Urban Forest Conference (pp. 40-43).
Gruber, J., & Trickett, E. J. (1987). Can we empower others? The paradox of
empowerment in the governing of an alternative public school. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 15(3), 353-371.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.
Education, Communication and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75-91.

206
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-117).
Hardy, C., & Leiba-O'Sullivan, S. (1998). The power behind empowerment: Implications
for research and practice. Human Relations, 51(4), 451-483.
Hassler, D., & Gregor, L. (1998). A Place to Grow: Voices and Images of Urban
Gardeners. Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press.
Hester, R. T. J. (1987). Participatory design and environmental justice: Pas de deux or
time to change partners? Journal of Architectural and Planning Research , 4(4), 289-301.
Hester, R. T. J. (1996, 1996). Wanted: Local participation with a view. Paper presented
at the EDRA 27, Montreal.
Hlubik, W. T., Hamm, M. W., Winokur, M. A., & Baron, M. V. (1994, March 24-27
1994). Incorporating research with community gardens: The New Brunswick community
gardening and nutrition program. Paper presented at the Healing Dimensions of People-
Plant Relations, Davis, CA.
Holiday, B. (no date). Strange Fruit [http//wwwbartnl/~ecduzit/billie/songs217html, .
Hooks, B. (1990). Homeplace: A site of resistance. In B. Hooks (Ed.), Yearning: Race,
Gender and Cultural Politics (pp. 41-49): South End Press.
Hooks, B. (1994). Moving into and beyond feminism: Just for the joy of it. In B. Hooks
(Ed.), Outlaw Culture (pp. 207-242). New York: Routledge.
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N.
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 643).
Hull, R. B. I. (1992 -a). Brief encounters with urban forests produce moods that matter.
Journal of Arboriculture , 18(6), 322-324.
Hull, R. B. I. (1992 -b). How the public values urban forests. Journal of Arboriculture ,
18(2), 98-101.
Hull, R. B. I., Lam, M., & Vigo, G. (1994). Place identity: symbols of self in the urban
fabric. Landscape and Urban Planning, 28, 109-120.
Hummon, D. M. (1992). Community attachment: Local sentiment and sense of place. In
I. Altman & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place Attachment (Vol. 12, pp. 253-278). New York:
Plenum Press.
Hynes, H. P. (1995). The greening of Harlem. In C. Kollin & M. Barratt (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 7th National Urban Forest Conference (pp. 114-116). Washington
DC: American Forests.
Hale, L. B. (1965, May 24-25, 1965). Beauty for America. Paper presented at the White
House Conference on Natural Beauty, Washington DC.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Approach .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

207
Karp, J. P. (1973). Citizens groups and conservation organizations. In H. C. Miller (Ed.),
Proceedings: Urban Forestry Conference (pp. 32-36). Syracuse: SUNY: College of
Environmental Science and Forestry.
Kieffer, C. H. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A developmental perspective. Prevention in
Human Services, 3, 9-36.
Kollin, C. (1986). Citizen action and the greening of San Francisco. In A. F. Phillips &
D. J. Gangloff (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third National Urban Forestry Conference (pp.
96-99). Washington DC: American Forests.
Kostouros, J. (1989, September/October 1989). Trees, crime and Tony Bouza. American
Forests, 95, 41-44.
Kroeker, C. J. (1996). The cooperative movement in Nicaragua: Empowerment and
accompaniment of severely disadvantaged peasants. Journal of Social Issues, 52(1), 123-
138.
Kuo, F. E. (1992). Inner cities and chronic mental fatigue: Designs for a fighting chance.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Environmental Design Research Association
Conference, Denver, CO.
Kuo, F. E., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Transforming inner-city landscapes:
Trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior, 30(1), 28-59.
Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1996). Do trees strengthen urban communities, reduce
domestic violence? (Technology Bulletin No. 4, Forestry Report R8-FR 55,). Athens,
GA: USDA Forest Service Southern Region,.
Learey, F. (1994, March 24-27, 1994). Themes of community participation in tree
planting. Paper presented at the Healing Dimensions of People-Plant Relations,
University of California, Davis, Departments of Environmental Design and Horticulture.
Ed. Mark Frances.
Lewis, C. A. (1986). People and Plants: Blessings and Cures. American Horticulturist,
65, 16-21.
Lewis, C. A. (1996). Green Nature/Human Nature: The Meaning of Plants in Our Lives.
Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage
Publications Inc.
Lipkis, A., & Lipkis, K. (1990). The Simple Act of Planting A Tree. Los Angeles, CA:
Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc.
Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing Social Settings. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Lyons, J. R. (1986). Congress and urban forestry. In A. F. Phillips & D. J. Gangloff
(Eds.), Proceedings of the third national urban forestry conference (pp. 264-266).

208
Lyons, J. R. (1994). Urban and community forestry: Partnerships for urban resources. In
C. Kollin, J. Mahon, & L. Frame (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth National Urban Forest
Conference (pp. 110-113). Washington DC: American Forests.
Marris, P. (1979). The meanings of slums and patterns of change. International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research, 3(3), 419-441.
Mattson, R., Merkle, J., Hassan, B., & Waliczek, T. (1994, 1994). The benefits of
community gardening. Community Greening Review, 4, 13-15.
Matz, J. R. (1994). Turning garbage into two million trees. In C. Kollin, J. Mahon, & L.
Frame (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth National Urban Forest Conference (pp. 229-231).
McDonough, M. H., Vatcha, K. E., Funkhouser, S. L., & Gieche, A. L. (1994). Creating
community-forestry partnerships: A participatory approach. East Lansing, MI:
Department of Forestry, Michigan State University.
McMillian, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and
theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morgen, S., & Bookman, A. (1988). Rethinking women and politics: An introductory
essay. In A. Bookman & S. Morgen (Eds.), Women and the Politics of Empowerment (pp.
3-29). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Murray, S. (1994). Urban forestry management techniques in Ecuador: A low-cost, do-it-
yourself approach. In C. Kollin, J. Mahon, & L. Frame (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth
National Urban Forest Conference (pp. 66-69). Washington DC: American Forests.
Nassauer, J. I. (1995). Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal, 14, 161-
170.
Nassauer, J. I., & Westmacott, R. (1987). Progressiveness among farmers as a factor in
heterogeneity of farmed landscapes. In M. G. Turner (Ed.), Landscape Heterogeneity and
Disturbance . New York: Springer-Verlag.
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design. New
York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
Okely, J. (1983). The Traveller-Gypsies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Patel, I. C. (1992). Socio-economic impact of community gardening in an urban setting .
In D. Relph (Ed.), The Role of Horticulture in Social Well Being (pp. 84-87). Portland,
OR: Timber Press .
Pauline, R. (1993). Greening, neighborhood pride and sense of place. In C. Kollin (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Sixth National Urban Forest Conference (pp. 125). Washington DC:
American Forests.

209
Perkins, D. D., Meeks, J. W., & Taylor, R. B. (1992). The physical environment of street
blocks and resident perceptions of crime and disorder: Implications for theory and
measurement. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 21-34.
Perkins, D. D., Wandersman, A., Rich, R. C., & Taylor, R. B. (1993). The physical
environment of street crime: Defensible space, territoriality and incivilities. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 13, 29-49.
Perkins, D. D., & Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Empowerment theory: Research and
application. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25(5), 569-580.
Phillips, S. B., & Garcia, J. (1994). The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society's Philadelphia
Green, Sixth National Urban Forest Conference: . Minneapolis MN: American Forests.
Proshansky, H. M. (1976). The appropriation and misappropriation of space. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the 3rd International Architectural Psychology
Conference, Strasbourg, France.
Qualitative Solutions and Research, Ltd. (1997). QSR NUD*IST (Version 4) [Windows].
Melbourne: Qualitative Solutions and Research.
Ramsay, S. (1994). Special approaches for communities under 50,000. In C. Kollin, J.
Mahon, & L. Frame (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth National Urban Forest Conference
(pp. 61-63). Washington DC: American Forests.
Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over
prevention . American Journal of Community Psychology , 9(1), 1-25.
Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory
for community psychology . American Journal of Community Psychology , 15(2), 121-
148.
Rappaport, J. (1993). Research methods and the empowerment social agenda . In P.
Tolan, C. Keys, F. Chertok, & L. Jason (Eds.), Researching Community Psychology:
Issues of Theory and Methods (2nd ed., pp. 51-53). Washington DC: American
Psychological Association .
Reardon, K. M. (1998). Enhancing the capacity of community-based organizations in
East St. Louis. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17(4), 323-333.
Representatives, House of (1990). Conference Report (to accompany S. 2830): Food,
Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990. In n. s. 101st Congress (Ed.) (pp.
1237). Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
Ricard, B. (1994). The Connecticut youth/mentors/trees project. In C. Kollin, J. Mahon,
& L. Frame (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth National Urban Forest Conference (pp. 126-
128). Washington DC: American Forests.
Riddell, J. (1993, 1993). Beyond gardening: Building strong communities through urban
gardening. Community Greening Review, 3, 4-9.
Riger, S. (1993). What's wrong with empowerment. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 21(3), 279-292.

210
Rocha, E. M. (1997). A ladder of empowerment. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 17, 31-44.
Rose, D. R., & Clear, T. R. (1998). Incarceration, social capital, and crime: Implications
for social disorganization theory. Criminology, 36(3), 441-480.
Rymer, C. (1997, March/April/May 1997). National survey results of community
gardeners. ACGA Multilogue, 14, 6-7.
Saegert, S., & Winkel, G. (1996). Paths to community empowerment: Organizing at
home. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24(4), 517-550.
Sarason, S. B. (1974). The Psychological Sense of Community: Prospects for a
Community Psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Schmitt, P. J. (1990). Back to Nature: The Arcadian Myth in Urban America. (2nd ed.).
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Schroeder, H. W. (1989). Environment, behavior, and design research on urban forests.
In E. H. Zube & G. T. Moore (Eds.), Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design
(Vol. 2,): Plenum Publishing Corp.
Sheets, V. L., & Manzer, C. D. (1991). Affect, cognition, and urban vegetation: Some
effects of adding trees along city streets. Environment and Behavior, 23(3), 285-304.
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text
and Interaction. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications Inc.
Sneed, C. (1998). Foreword. In D. Hassler & L. Gregor (Eds.), A Place to Grow: Voices
and Images of Urban Gardeners (pp. vii-xi). Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press.
Somerville, P. (1998). Empowerment through residence. Housing Studies, 13(2), 233-
257.
Sommer, R., Learey, F., Summitt, J., & Tirrell, M. (1994 -a). Social benefits of
residential involvement in tree planting. Journal of Arboriculture , 20(3), 170-175.
Sommer, R., Learey, F., Summitt, J., & Tirrell, M. (1994 -b). Social benefits of
residential involvement in tree planting: Comparisons with developer-planted trees.
Journal of Arboriculture , 20(6), 323-328.
Speer, P. W., & Hughey, J. (1995). Community organizing: An ecological route to
empowerment and power. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25(5), 729-748.
SPSS. (1996). SPSS for Windows (Version Standard, release 7.5.1) [for Windows].
Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Taylor, A. F., Wiley, A., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Growing up in the inner
city: Green spaces as places to grow. Environment and Behavior, 30(1), 3-27.
Toups, C. (1992, October/November 1992). Giving life to community roots. Urban
Forests, 12, 8-15.
Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery.
Science, 224(27 April 1984), 420-421.

211
Ulrich, R. S., & Parsons, R. (1992). Influences of passive experiences with plants on
individual well-being and health. In D. Relf (Ed.), The Role of Horticulture on Human
Well-Being and Social Development: A National Symposium (pp. 93-105). Portland, Or.:
Timber Press.
USDA Forest Service. (No date). Empowering a Community: The USDA Forest Service's
Role in Rebuilding Los Angeles; USDA Forest Service.
Vento, B. F. (1994). The rise of urban forestry, Sixth National Urban Forest Conference:
(pp. 261-263). Minneapolis MN: American Forests.
Walker, A. (1983/1974). In search of our mothers’ gardens. In A. Walker (Ed.), In Search
of Our Mothers Gardens: Womanist Prose. San Diego: Harcourt Brace.
Wandersman, A., & Giamartino, G. A. (1980). Community and individual difference
characteristics as influences on initial participation. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 8(2), 217-228.
Warren, R. L. (1988). The community in America. In R. L. Warren & L. Lyon (Eds.),
New Perspectives on the American Community (5th ed., pp. 152-157). Belmont, CA:
Wellman, B., & Leighton, B. (1988). Networks, neighborhoods, and communities:
Approaches to the study of the community question. In R. L. Warren & L. Lyon (Eds.),
New Perspectives on the American Community (5th ed., pp. 57-72). Belmont, CA:
Westphal, L. M. (1993). Why trees? Urban forestry volunteers values and motivations
(GTR NC 164). St. Paul: USDA Forest Service.
Westphal, L. M. (1995, 1997). If we can make it work here, we can make it work
anywhere: A case study of urban ecosystem management. Paper presented at the
Integrating Social Science and Ecosystem Management: A National Challenge, Helen,
GA.
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis, and
Interpretation. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications Inc.
Wright, L. (1992, October/November 1992). Planting community spirit. Urban Forests,
12, 16.
Zimmerman, M. A. (1990). Taking aim on empowerment research: On the distinction
between individual and psychological conceptions. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 18(1), 169-177.
Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 25(5), 581- 599.
Zimmerman, M. A. (in press). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational, and
community levels of analysis, Handbook of Community Psychology . New York, NY:
Plenum Press.

212
Zimmerman, M. A., Israel, B. A., Schulz, A., & Checkoway, B. (1992). Further
explorations of empowerment theory: An empirical analysis of psychological
empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20(6), 707-727.
Zimmerman, M. A., & Warschausky, S. (1998). Empowerment theory for rehabilitation
research: Conceptual and methodological issues. Rehabilitation Psychology, 43(1), 3-16.

214
APPENDIX 1: Interview Guide

215
Note: the layout has been altered somewhat for this appendix (extra space
removed). Comments in () indicate the substantive area that lead to my asking the
question. These were not included in the guide as used for the interviews.
Interview with: ________________________ Block: ____________ Date: _____
UNDERSTANDING NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE
Interview introduction:
I am Lynne Westphal, a graduate student at the University of Illinois at Chicago, College
of Urban Planning and Public Affairs.
I am interested in changes in your block over the past five years that are important to you.
There are no right or wrong answers. Thank you for taking the pictures—we’ll talk about
them in a minute.
This interview will take about an hour. I would like to tape our conversation so that I can
concentrate on what you’re saying instead of on taking notes. You may stop the interview
at any time. Is it still OK with you to do this interview?
Photographs
Intro for respondents who took the photos:
I’d like to look at the pictures you took of your block. I’d like you to tell me about each
picture.
Intro for interviewing with photos other people took:
I asked some of your neighbors to take 10 picture of the block, focusing on things that
have changed for the better or worse over the past five years. I told them they could
take pictures on the street, in the alleys, in front and back yards, in parks, school yards or
other places, where ever they chose. Any kind of change was OK to photograph. If I had
asked you to take pictures of recent changes in your block, what would you have
photographed?
Now I’d like to show you some of the photographs your neighbors took. I’d like to know
what you think of these photos.
Intro for Green Corps photos of the garden sites

216
One change that happened a couple years ago that some people have mentioned was the
garden project. I have some photos of that project that I’d like your thoughts on.
All changes
Tell me about each picture…probe
• What change is this a picture of?
• Where is it?
• When did it happen?
• What do you like about this ____(change)____? Why?
• What don’t you like about this ____(change)____? Why?
• What was the cause of this change?
• What was the block like before this change? After?
• What effect is this change having on you? Your block?
• Were you involved? Why/why not?
• What did you do?
In-depth questions — for both project -related and not project-related changes
• How was the space used before this change? After? (greener’s model, empowerment)
• How did _______ effect the appearance of your block? (greener’s model, meanings of
green space)
• Did _______ change how you feel about your block? How? (greener’s model,
empowerment, meanings of green space)
• Did _______ change how you felt about your neighbors? How? (greener’s model,
empowerment)
• Did _______ change how you felt about yourself? How? (empowerment)
• Have you personally had any problems because of the _________ project? If so, what
problems? What about your block? Have these problems been solved? How were they
solved? (greener’s model, empowerment)
• Were you in touch with your Alderman or other politicians about ______ ? Had you
been in touch with them before _______? Have you been in touch since? (greener’s
model, empowerment)

217
• Were you in touch with an organization or agency about __________? Had you been in
touch with them before _______? Have you been in touch since? (greener’s model,
empowerment)
• Did _______ give you control over something you didn’t have control over before?
How about for your block as a whole — do you have more control over this now? Did
it take any control away? (empowerment)
• Did this effect your feelings of safety? How? (greener’s model, meanings of green
space)
• Did this have any effect on crime on your block? How? (greener’s model,
empowerment, meanings of green space)
• Did this change how people take care of their buildings or houses? How? (greener’s
model, empowerment)
• Did ______ have any effect on rents or property values on your block? What effect?
(greener’s model, meanings of green space)
• Did _____ have any economic impacts on your block, maybe bringing grant money
here, or helping people get jobs? (empowerment)
• What else was happening in your neighborhood that summer (block party, CAPS,
weather, etc.)? (greener’s model)
In-depth questions — project-related change
• What was the project about, how did it work (i. e., neighborhood group, work days,
picnic, meetings)?
• Do you know other participants in the project? Who? Probe for whether or not
knowing the participants motivated them to participate or stopped them from
participating. (greener’s model, empowerment, meanings of green space)
• Do you think of the _______ as more of a success or something that didn’t work?
Why? What made it so? (greener’s model)
• What was the organizing group like? were you welcome? how was the group run?
(empowerment)
• Did this project change how the neighbors worked together? How? (empowerment,
meanings of green space)

218
• Did this project get you to participate in other neighborhood programs or projects?
(greener’s model, empowerment)
• Did you learn things from this project that you have, or might, use in other situations?
What? (empowerment)
• Are you aware of other block or neighborhood projects that started after this project?
Did the ________ project help these project get started or be more successful? Did the
__________ project hinder these other projects? Are you involved in any of these
projects? (greener’s model, empowerment)
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Additional questions for organizers:
Tell me about the ___________________ (block or garden group)
When was the group formed? (How old is it?) (greener’s model)
How is your group organized? Formally, with a president or chair, or more
informally? Who would you say is the leader of your organization or group? You?
Someone else? A group? (empowerment)
How do you take care of business, make decisions? (empowerment)
How do you get word out about your project? (empowerment)
How do you get people involved in projects? (empowerment)
Ask of each item above: Has this changed because of the garden project?
Since planting your garden with Green Corps, have you
Had people participate in your community organization who had never participated
before? (greener’s model, empowerment)
Told other community organizations about Green Corps? (empowerment)
Been in contact with any professional organizations other than Green Corps for
help with you garden? If yes, which organizations? (prompt: Chicago Botanic
Gardens, Openlands Project, Green Streets, Urban Resources Partnership)
(greener’s model, empowerment)
Been in contact with the city’s Bureau of Forestry? (greener’s model,
empowerment)

219
Been in contact with Chicago’s Department of Streets and Sanitation? (greener’s
model, empowerment)
Been in contact with other agencies? (greener’s model, empowerment)
Has the garden project tied into any other neighborhood events or activities? (greener’s
model, empowerment)
Have there been any other activities or programs your group tried that worked well? If yes,
what were they? Why do you think your group was able to succeed in that (those)
effort(s)? (greener’s model, empowerment)
Have there been any other activities or programs your group tried that didn’t work so well?
If yes, what were they? Why do you think your group wasn’t able to succeed in that (those)
effort(s)? (greener’s model, empowerment)
Did you get much support from outside the neighborhood for this project? (empowerment)
Has your group hooked up with other organizations as a result of the garden project?
(empowerment)
Has the garden group participated in anything outside the neighborhood—like the green
and growing fair? (empowerment)
What's next for your group? (greener’s model, empowerment)
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
About the block Now I’d like to ask you some questions about how you feel about your
block now and about how you felt about your block about five years ago.
All things considered, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with this block as a place to live
today? show scale on a card: very satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied or dissatisfied,
dissatisfied, very dissatisfied.
(show sample card) I am going to give you a few pairs of words, like good and bad. I
would like you to think about your block and pick a number showing how you feel about
your block. For instance, if you think your block is very bad, you might pick 1. If you
think your block is very good, you might pick 7. If you think your block is in-between, you
might pick 4. OK?
Thinking of your block today is your block:
unsafe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 safe
unattractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 attractive

220
high crime 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 low crime
unfriendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 friendly
poorly maintained 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 well maintained
little greenery 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 much greenery
stressful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not stressful
Now I’d like to know about how you felt about your block about five years ago. Think
back about 5 years. All things considered, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with your
block then? Show card with scale on it: very satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied or
dissatisfied, dissatisfied, very dissatisfied.
If different, Why?
Keep thinking about your block about 5 years ago. I’m going to show you the same pairs
of words and would like to know if you would have rated your block differently about 5
years ago. show each scale again
unsafe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 safe
unattractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 attractive
high crime 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 low crime
unfriendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 friendly
poorly maintained 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 well maintained
little greenery 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 much greenery
stressful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not stressful
If different, Why?
How do you feel about this block
OK, we’re done thinking back about your block. I’ve got one more set of questions about
your block. Thinking about your block today,
show card with response categories: not at all, a little, a medium amount, quite a lot, very
much
How much would you say that you have a sense of belonging with the people on this
block?
How much would you say that the friendships and associations you have with other people
on this block mean a lot to you?
How much would you say that, if the people on this block were planning something, you’d
think of it as something “we” were doing together rather than something “they” were
doing?
How much would you say that you feel loyal to the people on this block?
How much would you say that you get a sense of community from living on this block?

221
Activities
Please tell me that activities you participate in? probe: Church/mosque, block club,
school, civic groups like NAACP, political groups, etc.
Which of these activities do you think of as neighborhood related? (circle)
Demographics
I’d like to ask a few questions about you and your family. Again, your answers are
between you and me—I won’t tell anyone what you say here. After these questions, we’re
done!
Clarify if necessary: How do you identify your race or ethnic background?
Note gender
How old are you?
Do you have children? How many? Ages?
How long have you lived in _____________________? (probe for specifics if answer is
‘all my life’ etc. If a new resident, find out where they moved from: same neighborhood?)
Do you own or rent your [home, apartment, room]?
Note whether they live in a home, apartment, which floor
Please tell me all the people who live with you here. I don’t need names, just relationships,
like spouse, children, parents, friends, others…
Show a card with education levels on it and ask: How much school have you completed?
1) grade school (through 5th
or 6th
grade)
2) middle school / junior high (through 8th
grade)
3) high school / GED
4) technical training or community college
5) some college
6) college degree
7) graduate degree
What is your work status? Retired, not employed, part-time, full time, occasional
What do you do?

222
Show income ranges on a card so that they can point or say the item number
What range includes your household’s total income (before taxes) for last year?
1) less than$15,000
2) more than $15,000 but less than $25,000
6) more than $100,000
Wrap up
• Is there anything else you want to add, questions you think I should have asked that I
didn’t?
• If I have a question or two later this summer or fall, may I give you a call?
• Thank you very much for your time. I greatly appreciate it!

223
APPENDIX 2: Contact Letter

224
(on University of Illinois letterhead)
August 23, 1997
Hello,
I would like to introduce myself. I am Lynne Westphal, a graduate student at the
University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs. I
want to talk with residents on your block about changes in your block over the
past five years—either changes for the worse or changes for the better. I have
spoken with ____(neighborhood contact)____, and they have agreed to help me
with this study. I hope you will, too.
You may hear from me soon, or see me around the neighborhood. Of course,
participation is voluntary! If you have any questions or want to talk with me, feel
free to call me at 312/996-3316 (you can leave a message any time).
Thanks, and I look forward to meeting you in person!
Sincerely,
Lynne M. Westphal
Doctoral Candidate

225
APPENDIX 3: Jefferson Homes “Delay” Letter

226
September 9, 1997
Hello,
I wanted to let you know that I haven’t forgotten about our interview – and I hope you
haven’t either! Many people agreed to work with me at Wentworth, so it is taking me some
time to get back around to everyone. I may have already stopped by your home, but at a
time that you weren’t available.
If you have questions, give me a call at 312/996-3316 (you’ll probably have to leave a
message—I’ll call you back). I hope to see you soon, and I am looking forward to our
interview!
Sincerely,
Lynne M. Westphal
Doctoral Candidate

227
APPENDIX 4: Jefferson Homes Goodbye Letter

228
September 29, 1997
Dear
I’m sorry that I’ve missed you the times I have stopped by. I need to move on to another
neighborhood and so I won’t be able to complete our interview. If I had photos from you, I
have enclosed them in this letter. I am sorry that we weren’t able to talk, but want you to
know that I appreciate your willingness to work with me in this survey.
If you have questions about the survey give me a call at 312/996-3316 (you’ll probably
have to leave a message—I’ll call you back). Again, thank you for your help with this
project—I really appreciate it.
Sincerely,
Lynne M. Westphal
Doctoral Candidate

229
APPENDIX 5: Neighborhood Experts Interview Guides

230
SOCIAL BENEFITS FROM URBAN GREENING PROJECTS
Lynne M. Westphal
UPP
Draft guide community expert interviews8
I am Lynne Westphal, a graduate student at the University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Urban
Planning and Public Affairs. I am talking to people all around Chicago about changes in their
blocks over the past five years—either changes for the worse or changes for the better.
Given your position as ________, you will have important insights into this neighborhood. I would
like to talk with you for a few minutes and get your perceptions of recent changes in this
neighborhood. I am particularly interested in the area around the _______ block of _______.
Would this be a good time, or should we make an appointment for another time?
If now is OK:
I would like to record our conversation, and I may quote you in a paper or report. You may stop the
interview at any time. Is it OK to proceed?
About the block
What have been some of the changes in the _______ block of _______ over the past five
years?
Probe as needed: these may be changes for the better or worse, big changes or small.
Are you aware of the neighbors in that _______ block of _______ working together on any
projects? If so, what projects were those?
If the garden does not come up:
Are you aware of the garden project that some of the residents worked on a couple of years
ago?
If yes:
Overall, what would be your assessment of social benefits from that garden project on the
block? Why?
8
Experts may include aldermanic staff, police officers, postal carriers, nonprofit organization staff, clergy,
civic group leaders, etc.

231
Did the neighborhood learn to work more effectively together because of that project?
Did they ask you for any assistance with that project? If so, was that the first time they had
asked
you for assistance? Have they asked since? What kind of assistance did they ask for?
Have there been other projects that the neighbors worked on together? What were these?
Did these project take place before or after the garden project?
If after, was the garden project at all responsible for this other project?
If not aware of the garden project:
Have residents from that area asked you for assistance with any projects or problems?
What did they ask for? When?
Wrap up
Is there anything else you’d like to add?
Thank you very much for your time.

232
APPENDIX 6: Project Index Tree (Coding Structure)

233
Index Tree
(1)changes on block
(1 1)garden
(1 1 1)story
(1 1 2)what they did for the garden
(1 2)nongarden
(1 2 1)tavern to church
(1 2 2)burned house
(1 2 3)slum lord
(1 2 4)increasing vacant lots
(1 2 5)sm corner garden
(1 2 6)WW greening
(1 2 6 1)ww corner garden
(1 2 6 2)flower circles
(1 2 6 3)other ww greening
(1 2 6 4)park
(1 2 7)super model block
(2)activites on block
(2 1)block club
(2 1 1)block club meetings
(2 2)work on lot
(2 3)recruitment
(2 4)decision making
(2 5)how got involved
(2 6)clean ups
(2 7)block parties
(2 8)other block activities
(2 9)flood
(2 10)all other block activities
(2 11)activities section of interview
(3)people
(3 1)self
(3 2)block or neighbors
(3 3)young men
(3 4)whose idea
(3 5)garden organizers (about)
(3 5 1)Martha
(3 5 2)Hettie H
(3 5 3)Harriett N
(3 5 4)Mrs Samuels
(3 5 5)Jill n Jane
(3 5 9)RMC and LAC + leaders
(3 5 9 2)Mrs Thompson
(3 5 9 3)B Weston
(3 6)aldermen
(3 7)lot owners

234
(3 8)police
(3 10)CHA
(3 11)GC
(3 11 1)GC as school
(3 11 2)problems with GC
(3 12) Sports Facility Team
(4)feelings
(4 1)positive feelings
(4 2)negative feelings
(4 4)control
(4 4 1)increased control
(4 4 2)decreased control
(4 4 3)no change in control
(4 4 4)general control
(5)a priori issues, outcomes
(5 1)perceived
(5 1 2)crime
(5 1 3)worked together
(5 1 5)prop values
(5 1 9)safety
(5 2)community
(5 2 1)particularly community?
(5 4)actual
(5 4 1)participation
(5 4 2)learned stuff
(5 4 3)lot use
(5 4 4)more projects
(5 4 5)appearance
(5 4 5 1)int garden and appreance
(5 4 5 2)nice, decent
(5 4 6)block maint.
(5 4 6 15)lot maintanence
(5 4 7)econ
(5 4 8)garbage & dumping
(5 4 9)got to know people
(5 4 10)participant outreach
(5 4 11)involve 2
(5 4 15)meet org goals
(5 4 16)resources
(5 4 18)contacts
(6)emergent issues
(6 1)they don't like me, us
(6 2)problems
(6 2 1)lack of time
(6 2 3)theft
(6 2 5)vandalism

235
(6 2 6)vice: drugs, gangs, hanging, etc.
(6 2 6 12)hanging
(6 2 7)play space
(6 2 8)racial barriers
(6 2 9)other prejudice
(6 2 10)no problems
(6 2 11)car repair
(6 3)off block
(6 4)fences
(6 5)organizing or new organizers
(6 6)i'm not a gardener
(6 7)conflict
(6 8)didn't know about it
(6 9)cleaning up
(6 9 1)clean: responsibility & respect
(6 9 1 1)clean: social norm
(6 9 2)CLEANING not weeding-planting
(6 9 3)clean: beauty, nice etc.
(6 9 4)clean: us and them
(6 9 6)clean: starting point
(6 9 7)clean: interesting, but where do these go?
(6 10)hard work
(6 11)contradictions
(6 12)kids
(6 13)didn't finish
(6 14)block rejuvination
(6 15)heat
(6 16)dirt
(6 16 1)just dirt, empty
(6 16 2)dirty deeds
(6 16 3)dirt: us & them
(6 16 4)can work wtih dirt
(6 17)proximity
(6 18)more work to do
(6 19)bad soil
(6 20)the way we were
(6 21)Robinson clan
(6 22)other people oughta do something
(6 23)memorials
(6 24)growth
(6 25)permanence, future?
(6 26)religious
(6 27)ownership
(6 28)cultural references
(6 29)transience
(6 30)vacant or abandoned buildings & lots

236
(6 31)communication
(6 32)liability
(6 33)wildlife
(6 34)broken window theory
(7)reasons
(7 1)r for garden
(7 2)r for participation
(7 3)r for not partcipating
(7 4)r for failure (respondent's)
(7 5)r for success (respondent's)
(9)impressions of garden & other changes
(9 1)ts sucess
(9 2)impressions of garden changing with time
(9 3)better than alternative
(9 4)what +I woulda done
(9 5)nothing I +don't like about it
(9 6)don't like anything about it
(9 7)houses are better
(9 8)not better than alternative
(9 9)could've done more
(9 10)that's life there
(9 11)other impressions
(10)cases
(10 1)sites
(10 1 1)HS cases
(10 1 1 2)HS text re garden
(10 1 1 3)HS CASES by name
(10 1 1 3 1)Harriett Lewin
(10 1 1 3 2)Eloise
(10 1 1 3 3)Mr. Nichols
(10 1 1 3 4)Veronica Fisher
(10 1 1 3 5)Shirley
(10 1 1 3 6)Thomas
(10 1 1 3 7)Sharon Samuels
(10 1 1 3 8)Charles
(10 1 1 3 9)Doc Martin
(10 1 1 3 10)Mrs. Robertson
(10 1 1 3 11)Cathy
(10 1 1 3 12)Doug
(10 1 2)ASH cases
(10 1 2 2)ASH text re garden
(10 1 2 4)ASH CASES by name
(10 1 2 4 1)Darius
(10 1 2 4 2)Jerry
(10 1 2 4 3)martha Martin
(10 1 2 4 4)Joyce

237
(10 1 2 4 5)Hettie Campbell
(10 1 2 4 6)Etta Jones
(10 1 2 4 7)Albert
(10 1 2 4 8)Christine
(10 1 2 4 9)Kanisha
(10 1 2 4 10)Patricia
(10 1 3)JH cases
(10 1 3 2)JH CASES by name
(10 1 3 2 1)Celine
(10 1 3 2 2)Robert
(10 1 3 2 3)Lucy
(10 1 3 2 4)Monique
(10 1 3 2 5)Mrs. Johnson
(10 1 3 2 6)Earline
(10 1 3 2 7)Betty
(10 1 3 2 8)Bonnie
(10 1 3 2 9)Lisa
(10 1 3 2 10)Mrs. Clark
(10 1 3 2 11)Mrs. Thompson
(10 1 3 2 12)Rhonda
(10 1 3 2 13)Mrs. Cecelia Tipple
(10 1 3 2 14)Patty
(10 1 3 2 15)Nell Luskin
(10 1 3 2 16)Mrs. Wells
(10 1 3 2 17)Mrs. Jordan
(10 1 3 2 18)Mrs. Collins
(10 1 3 2 19)Mrs. Taylor
(10 1 3 2 20)Diane Luskin
(10 1 3 2 21)Judy Weston
(10 1 3 2 22)Sharon
(10 1 3 2 23)Mrs. Weston
(10 1 3 3)JH text re garden
(10 1 3 10)JH folks know gdn?
(10 1 3 10 1)knew about garden
(10 1 3 10 1 1)didn’t know gdn
(10 1 3 10 1 2)knew gdn
(10 1 3 10 2)knew about mall
(10 1 3 10 2 1)didn’t know mall
(10 1 3 10 2 2)knew mall
(10 1 4)PU cases
(10 1 4 2) jill & jane
(10 1 4 3)PU text minus JnJ
(10 1 4 4)PU cases by name
(10 1 4 4 1)Ellen
(10 1 4 4 2)Morgen
(10 1 4 4 3)Jolanta

238
(10 1 4 4 4)Mrs. hale
(10 1 4 4 5)Patricia
(10 1 4 4 6)Tarina
(10 1 4 4 7)LaShandra
(10 1 4 4 8)Emily
(10 1 4 4 9)Jill and Jane
(10 2)success or failure
(10 2 1)R thought it's a success
(10 2 2)R thought it was a failure
(10 2 3)GC thought success
(10 2 4)GC thought failure
(10 3)particpant status
(10 3 1)participant
(10 3 1 1)organizer
(10 3 1 2)particpant, not organizer
(10 3 2)nonparticipant
(10 4)did they take pictures
(10 4 1)took pictures
(10 4 2)didn't take pictures
(10 5)demographics
(10 5 1)AGE2
(10 5 1 1)under 20
(10 5 1 2)twenties
(10 5 1 3)thirties
(10 5 1 4)forties
(10 5 1 5)fifties
(10 5 1 6)sixties or older
(10 5 2)HHSIZE2
(10 5 2 1)1 in hh
(10 5 2 2)2 in hh
(10 5 2 3)more than 2 in hh
(10 5 3)RACE
(10 5 3 1)Black
(10 5 3 2)White
(10 5 4)GENDER
(10 5 4 1)female
(10 5 4 2)male
(10 5 5)WORK
(10 5 5 1)full time
(10 5 5 2)unemployed
(10 5 5 3)retired
(10 5 5 4)employed part time
(10 5 5 5)self employed
(10 5 5 6)disability
(10 5 5 7)student
(10 5 5 8)homemaker

239
(10 5 5 10)works
(10 5 6)ED
(10 5 6 1)less than HS
(10 5 6 1 3)grade school
(10 5 6 1 5)middle school
(10 5 6 2)high school or ged
(10 5 6 3)more than HS
(10 5 6 3 1)college degree
(10 5 6 3 2)tech or comm col
(10 5 6 3 6)some college
(10 5 7)INCOME
(10 5 7 1)less than 15K
(10 5 7 2)15 to 25K
(10 5 7 3)25 to 40K
(10 5 7 4)40 to 70K
(10 5 7 5)myob or don't know inc.
(10 5 8)KIDS
(10 5 8 1)has kids
(10 5 8 2)no kids
(10 5 8 11)1 kid
(10 5 8 12)2 kids
(10 5 8 13)3 kids
(10 5 8 14)4 kids
(10 5 8 15)5 kids
(10 5 8 16)6 kids
(10 5 8 17)7 kids
(10 5 8 18)8 kids
(10 5 9)OWNRENT
(10 5 9 1)own
(10 5 9 2)rent
(10 5 10)HOWLONG2
(10 5 10 1)lived here 5 yrs or less
(10 5 10 2)lived here 6 to 10 yrs
(10 5 10 3)lived here 10 to 24 yrs
(10 5 10 4)lived here 25 yrs or more
(10 6)text photo data
(10 6 5)text docs
(10 6 6)photos docs
(10 6 7)text data minus L:
(11)physical features of block
(11 1)weeds
(11 2)grass
(11 3)trees
(11 3 1)forest, jungle, woods
(12)block comm attachment
(12 5)block satisfaction

240
(12 5 1)very sat w block
(12 5 2)satisfied w block
(12 5 3)neither sat or dissat w block
(12 5 4)dissatisfied w block
(12 6)block sat 5 yrs ago
(12 6 1)very sat w block 5 yrs ago
(12 6 2)sat wtih block 5 yrs ago
(12 6 3)neither sat or dissat w block 5 yrs ago
(12 6 4)dissat w block 5 yrs ago
(12 6 5)very dissat w block 5 yrs ago
(12 7)block sat change
(12 7 1)much more satisfied w block
(12 7 2)a little more sat w block
(12 7 3)same sat level as 5 yrs ago
(12 7 4)less sat that 5 yrs ago
(12 7 5)much less sat than 5 yrs ago
(12 8)gdn made a diff
(12 8 1)gdn made a diff on block
(12 8 2)gdn didn't make a diff on block
(12 8 3)gdn made a little diff on the block
(12 9)belonging on block
(12 9 1)belongs 'quite a lot'
(12 9 2)belongs 'a med amnt'
(12 9 3)belongs 'a little'
(12 9 4)belongs 'very much'
(12 9 5)belongs 'not at all'
(12 10)friends and asso imp
(12 10 1)friends mean 'quite a lot'
(12 10 2)friends mean alot 'a little'
(12 10 3)friends mean 'very much'
(12 10 4)friends mean a lot 'a med amnt'
(12 10 5)friends mean alot 'not at all'
(12 11)we do things together on this block
(12 11 1)we? very much
(12 11 2)we? quite a lot
(12 11 3)we? not at all
(12 11 4)we? a little
(12 11 5)we? a med amnt
(12 12)if feel loyal
(12 12 1)loyal? quite a lot
(12 12 2)loyal? very much
(12 12 3)loyal? not at all
(12 12 4)loyal? a little
(12 12 5)loyal? a med amnt
(12 13)feel sense of comm
(12 13 1)community? quite a lot

241
(12 13 2)community? very much
(12 13 3)community? a little
(12 13 4)community? not at all
(12 13 5)community? a med amnt
(15)meanings of greenspace
(20)quality control
(20 1)L:
(20 2)I asked
(20 3)intra coder check
(20 4)about me
(20 5)didn't understand my question
(20 6)re taking the photos
(20 7)huh?
(20 8)leading
(20 9)reactivity
(20 10)old text searches and index searches
(20 10 2)crime probe from me
(20 10 3)getting to my probes re safety
(20 10 4)safety minus what I reviewed for 'I asked'
(20 10 6)safety, I asked TUs
(20 10 10)crime that I asked about (this search worked)
(20 11)negative evidence

242
VITA
LYNNE M. WESTPHAL
Education
Ph.D. University of Illinois at Chicago. 1999. Public Policy Analysis (Urban
Planning and Policy).
M.A. Northeastern Illinois University. 1992. Geography and Environmental
Studies.
B.A. University of Wisconsin, Madison, South Asian Studies. 1982.
Professional positions (related to doctoral work)
1996-present Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest
Experiment Station. Conducts original research focusing on the
community revitalization outcomes of urban greening projects.
1992-1996 Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment
Station. Conducts original research (individually and with unit scientists
and cooperators) on the role of vegetation and open space in human well-
being.
1991-1992 Computer Assistant, USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest
Experiment Station. Assist unit scientists in data coding and analysis.
Maintain computer hardware.
1991 Research Assistant, "Integrating Environmental Goals with Product
Design. Household Chemical Products, A Case Study." Project through
the Industrial Design program at University of Illinois at Chicago. John
Kusz and William Becker, Principal Investigators. For US Congress,
Office of Technology Assessment, contract number N3-4740.0.
1988-1989 Staff Assistant, American Medical Association, Office of International
Medicine. Responsible for development and management of 7 figure
annual office budget. Managed public information program and
administrative aspects of cooperative grants in South East Asia.
1986-1987 Technical Researcher III, Project Match, Northwestern University Center
for Urban Affairs and Policy Research. Developed and managed data
bases for research and program service, allowing the tracking of program
participants and the transition from welfare to work. Contributed to
proposals and reports. Managed numerous grants from both private and
public sources.

243
Honors and Awards
University Fellowship, 1996-7, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Merit tuition waivers while pursuing master's degree at Northeastern University.
Research Activities Recent research activities at the Forest Service include:
Assessing the claims of social benefits from urban greening projects (e.g., tree planting
projects and community gardens). Study used photo-elicitation and in-depth interview.
Findings will be disseminated to urban greening practitioners nationwide and will
facilitate strengthening the empowerment outcomes of these projects.
Assessing the current recreational uses and citizen's perceptions of the Chicago River
for the National Park Service/Friends of the Chicago River's ChicagoRivers Project.
Methods included on-site survey, focus groups, and expert interviews. Findings have
been utilized in demonstration projects currently underway, and by managers to assess
and redesign public outreach efforts.
A study of Openlands Project's TreeKeepers—volunteers trained in urban tree care—to
determine their motivations and values regarding the urban forest. Methods included
survey, participant observation, and in-depth interview. Findings were useful to
planners and managers in Chicago and other metropolitan areas.
Publications
Westphal, Lynne M. forthcoming. Increasing trustworthiness of research results: The
role of computers in qualitative text analysis. In: Applications of Computer Aided
Text Analysis in Natural Resources,” ed. David Bengston. St. Paul, MN: North
Central Research Station (as a General Technical Report).
Feldman, Roberta M. and Westphal, Lynne M. forthcoming. An agenda for community
design and planning: participation and empowerment in practice. In: Sustaining
Human Settlements: Economy, Environment, Equity and Health. R.J. Lawrence,
editor. Newcasle-Upon-Tyne, UK: Urban International Press.
Feldman, Roberta M. and Westphal, Lynne M. 1999. Participation for empowerment:
The greening of a public housing development. Places, 12(2), 34-37.
Gobster, Paul H. and Westphal, Lynne M.. eds. 1998. People and the river. Chicago:
USDI National Park Service. (also available on-line at
http://www.ncfes.umn.edu/epubs/
chicagoriver/people/index.html)
Lynne M. Westphal. 1998. Use patterns and user preferences of on-site river
recreationists. IN: Gobster, Paul H. and Westphal, Lynne M., ed. People and the
river (ChicagoRivers Technical Report No. 2) Chicago: USDI National Park
Service and Friends of the Chicago River.

244
Westphal, Lynne M.. 1997. If we can make it here, we can make it anywhere -- A case
study of urban ecosystem management. In Cordell, H. Ken (ed.) Integrating Social
Science and Ecosystem Management: Proceedings. Conference on Integrating
Social Sciences and Ecosystem Management. December 12-14, 1994. Helena,
Georgia. Athens, GA: USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station. General
Technical Report SRS-17.
Westphal, Lynne M. 1996. Birds do it, bees do it, but why do volunteers do it? A look
at motivations. In: The Midwest Oak Savanna Conference. February 20, 1993.
Chicago IL. Proceedings are published on the Internet by the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/oak/westphal.html.
Westphal, Lynne M. 1995. Participating in urban forestry projects: How the community
benefits. pp. 101-104. In: Inside Urban Ecosystems: Proceedings of the 7th
National Urban Forestry Conference, New York, NY. September 12-16, 1995.
Cheryl Kollin and Michael Barratt editors. American Forests, Washington DC.
Westphal, Lynne M. and Paul H. Gobster. 1995. Legacy of the Clean Water Act:
Impacts of water quality on urban river recreation. In: Proceedings of the Fourth
International Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trends Symposium and the 1995
National Recreation Resource Planning Conference, May 14-17, 1995, St. Paul,
MN. Comp. Thompson, J. L., D. W. Lime, B. Gartner, and W. M. Sames. St. Paul,
MN; University of Minnesota College of Natural Resources and the Minnesota
Extension Service. pp. 620-624.
Westphal, Lynne and Gina Childs. 1994. Overcoming obstacles: Creating volunteer
partnerships. pp. 28-32. Journal of Forestry. 92(10). October 1994.
Westphal, Lynne M. 1994. Urban forestry volunteers and effective outreach. pp. 436-
441. Proceedings 1993 Annual Meeting of the Society of American Foresters.
November 7-10, 1993. Indianapolis, IN. Bethesda, MD. Society of American
Foresters.
Westphal, Lynne M. 1993. Why Trees? Urban forestry volunteers values and
motivations. pp. 19-23. In. Gobster, Paul H (ed.). 1993. Managing urban and high
use recreation settings. Selected papers from the Urban Forestry and Ethnic
Minorities and the Environment Paper Sessions at the 4th North American
Symposium on Society and Resource Management. May 17-20, 1992. St. Paul
MN: USDA Forest Service North Central Forest Experiment Station. General
Technical Report NC-163.
Presentation/conferences
Westphal, Lynne M. Social benefits of urban greening: Preliminary results.
International Symposium on Society and Resource Management. University of
Missouri, Columbia. May 27-31, 1998.

245
Westphal, Lynne M. Social benefits of urban greening: Preliminary results. EDRA 29.
St. Louis, MO. March 4-8, 1998.
Westphal, Lynne M. and Roberta M. Feldman. Restoring participatory design and
planning: Incorporating community empowerment as a tool for social justice.
EDRA 28, University of Quebec at Montreal, May 7-11, 1997.
Westphal, Lynne M. Participating in urban forestry projects: How the community
benefits. 7th National Urban Forestry Conference, New York, NY. September 12-
16, 1995.
Westphal, Lynne M. "How People Relate to the River Today". Presentation at the
Northeastern Illinois University Department of Geography and Environmental
Studies Earth Day Program Living with the River in Your Backyard, April 11,
1995.
Westphal. Lynne M. If we can make it here, we can make it anywhere — A case study
of urban ecosystem management. Human Dimensions in Ecosystem
Management Conference, Unicoi State Park (GA), December 12-14, 1994.
Coordinated by the USDA Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
Westphal. Lynne M. Urban forestry volunteers and effective outreach. Society of
American Foresters Annual Meeting. November 7-10, 1993. Indianapolis, IN.
Westphal. Lynne M. Birds do it, bees do it, but why do volunteers do it? A look at
motivations. The Midwest Oak Savanna Conference. February 20, 1993.
Chicago IL.
Westphal, Lynne M. Why Trees? Urban forestry volunteers values and motivations.
4th North American Symposium on Society and Resource Management.
Madison, WI, May 17-20, 1992.
Workshops and Symposia
Urban Ecosystem management: Lessons from the ChicagoRivers Project. Ecosystem
Management Workshop for State Urban Forestry Coordinators. Morton Arboretum,
Lisle, IL, January 12-14, 1995. Coordinated by USDA Forest Service State and
Private Forestry. I presented with Wink Hastings, National Park Service.
Why Trees? Urban forestry volunteers values and motivations. Presented at the
Volunteer Involvement Workshops for State Urban Forestry Coordinators. January 27-
29, 1993, Philadelphia, PA; February 9-11, 1993, Chicago IL; March 9-11, 1993,
Portsmouth, NH.

246
Coordinated the People Communities/Plant Communities Symposium, held at the
Morton Arboretum, November 12-14, 1992. The symposia brought researchers and
practitioners interested in human/nature interactions together to discuss research needs
and approaches.
Professional Membership
Environmental Design Research Associate (EDRA); Nature and Ecology Network
chair
American Planning Association
American Collegiate Schools of Planning
American Psychological Association, Environment and Population Division (35)
American Sociological Association
American Community Gardening Association

Growing Power: Social Benefits from Urban Greening Projects

More Related Content

Similar to Growing Power: Social Benefits from Urban Greening Projects (20)

More from School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Growing Power: Social Benefits from Urban Greening Projects