
How Trees Calm Us Down - Vigier
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/what-is-a-tree-worth
======
eggy
I was born and raised in Brooklyn, NY, but moved out to rural NJ in my
thirties. I bought a house on a lake with no motorboats, plenty of black bears
and raccoons and lots of trees. I now live in the rice fields of East Java,
Indonesia, so I guess you can say I love the outdoors.

I do question the science or numbers in the study as much as I believe the
basic premise to be true, however, correlation does not automatically imply
cause. People suffering more after trees are removed can also mean that
urbanization or development brought factories, or unhealthier air, rodents or
any number of other negative factors with it.

I do intuitively relax more, and take great solace in my surroundings, and I
do believe it is better for people. I would like to see more research on this;
there have been a lot of debacles in the past two years in the social sciences
and psychology with statistics and peer review. Some of the studies were taken
for granted and are now under the microscope for being inconclusive or just
wrong.

Yea for trees! And plants, animals and all that entails!

~~~
greggman
As someone who suffers from hay fever being around trees can be weeks of pain
for me every year

~~~
rangibaby
There is a massive, recent hayfever problem in Japan because cedar trees
planted to be used for timber after WWII weren't as construction methods
changed.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hay_fever_in_Japan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hay_fever_in_Japan)

~~~
Ntrails
The thing that always gets me is that when I spent summers in canada I
experienced not an iota of hayfever, but I get pretty significant symptoms in
the UK. I think it's about the only strong draw to emmigration at some point
in the future!

~~~
magic_beans
I'm the same way. I'm from the US and have never had any allergies ever,
though I've spent a lot of time outdoors. I spent a summer in the UK one year,
and the whole time I had horrific allergies. I was basically hopped up on
Benadryl the whole time.

~~~
lttlrck
Opposite for me. I grew up in rural England surrounded by flowers and forests.
Never had a hint of allergies. Lived in Germany on the edge of the Black
Forest for ten years... no problems.

Moved to New England and I had no idea what is wrong with me. It took me three
years to figure out it was tree pollen and not a spring cold... haha

In California now so we will see how it goes.

------
fratlas
I opted for a lower quality apartment this year because all it's windows face
vast green fields or trees. The effects are undeniable - some of my favourite
times this year have been spent just sitting on my balcony admiring the
greenery.

~~~
legohead
Went on my first cruise this year. I'm so glad we got a balcony -- I think I
spent most of the trip just sitting on the balcony enjoying the sound of the
ocean, or watching people at port. The balcony was my favorite part of the
whole vacation...

~~~
cglace
I agree. My favorite time was eating breakfast sitting on the balcony admiring
the ocean.

------
elcapitan
Having trees in the city is nice, and Berlin has an ok level (at least where I
live). But I recently started to do long weekend day hikes in the area around
the city, and the effect is even better. The constant change of natural forms
while moving really frees up my mind and floods it with new impressions that I
don't have on my work days. I used to have a meditative effect from running,
but it has become a bit too much routine in that regard.

There must be something about "natural forms" (as in varying, not changing,
non-rectangular) that creates that feeling.

~~~
purplerabbit
I fully agree. Trees (and plants in general, and rocks) are more fractal, and
contain interesting detail on many levels... There's something pacifying about
being around them vs flat, rectangular urban surfaces.

~~~
bobwaycott
Personally, I've always felt nigh claustrophobic when surrounded by trees.
Give me the flat, wide-open desert, though, and I feel sublime. There's
something pacifying about seeing as far as my eyes can see. Now, I do love
some national parks, such as the Grand Canyon, or Zion, in which you can
become surrounded by trees and mountains and feel utterly awestruck at the
beauty. But I feel my spirits tick up as soon as I hit the vast expanse of
desert again upon exiting the trees.

------
jmarbach
Read more about The Biophilia Effect:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophilia_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophilia_hypothesis)

------
andrewfromx
"Are trees alive?" is the question to ask yourself. They can seem very un-
alive to us humans. But when the wind blows and their leaves move you can see
it. They are literally WAVING at you. Think back to when you were 8 on the
playground and a friendly kid waved at you. Trees just wanna play. But wait
you say, that's just the wind. The tree isn't deciding to move like the 8 year
old kid decided to wave his/her arms. OR DID the tree purposely make its
leaves in a shape to catch the wind and that movement is 100% intentional.
When you see it that way you can stare at trees for hours. Also, every single
one of those trees is naked. When you are bored/depressed/lonely just stare at
trees and giggle.

~~~
exodust
"Trees show the bodily form of the wind" \- 禪林句集

------
mkolodny
From what I've seen living in Toronto, NYC and Montreal, streets with nicer
houses/apartments tend to have more trees. Those neighborhoods also tend to be
quieter.

Take the example of NYC. The Upper East Side and Clinton Hill are two
neighborhoods with a relatively large number of trees. Both of those
neighborhoods are two of the most expensive and quiet neighborhoods in
Manhattan/Brooklyn.

So it could just be that quiet streets and nice houses calm us down. But then
again, maybe having more trees is what causes neighborhoods to be nice and
quiet. As far as I can tell, it could go either way.

~~~
bagacrap
In cases like this, trees are a luxury for the rich. Not being gripped by
poverty might have a calming effect.

~~~
frankquist
The study controls for income & area income, so that calming effect should
already be accounted for.

------
anilgulecha
One hypothesis is that we've also evolved to associate greenery with healthy
land and lifestyle. I can see why these signals from millions of years can
have the 1% quoted effect.

~~~
ObeyTheGuts
I think its obvious, we like rivers, mountains, flowers, greenery as they all
represent fertillity of the land! (Mountains mean that there will be water
even in draughts)

~~~
ghettoCoder
Only if you consider Coors Light, the mountain beer, to be water (which it
is).

Draught is the british (and Canada, other places as well) spelling for draft
as in draft beer. Not trying to be grammar nazi, just thought it was funny
cause the typo was somewhat well placed.

~~~
throwanem
> if you consider Coors Light, the mountain beer, to be water

What did water ever do to you?

------
cantcopy
All of those saying correlation is not causation did not read the article. The
study detected an immediate and neasurable effect from just walking among
trees.

~~~
aninhumer
Now I think this probably _is_ causation, but pointing out that the
correlation is really strong is not an argument against "correlation is not
causation".

~~~
sitkack
Reflexively trotting out "correlation is not causation" is a thought
terminating cliche. It short circuits our thinking. People often stop at the
statement, feeling satisfied in their scientific abilities.

------
aaron695
An office enriched with plants makes staff happier and boosts productivity by
15 per cent.......

[https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2014/09/leafy-green-
bette...](https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2014/09/leafy-green-better-lean)

~~~
stephengillie
This study was limited to "employees from two large commercial offices", and
probably suffers deeply from a Hawthorne Effect[0]. As usual, the rigor is
doubtful.

[0]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect)

~~~
aaron695
Yep. I don't believe the 15% but I think it has value.

Random fact the Hawthorne Effect was BS. Perhaps it's true but the original
'lighting' effect experiment was rubbish.

------
kkylin
Interesting finding, but the article at least leaves one with more questions
than answers (I haven't looked up the original research).

My own personal experience tends to confirm the main point put forth. Indeed,
when we moved to the US Southwest several years ago, I thought I would miss
oceans the most (having always lived on a coast). But no, I really miss seeing
green -- my first time back east after moving here, the impact of seeing all
those trees was really tremendous (& positive).

Having said that, the effect mentioned in the study can also be due to the
amount of attention that a city street demands, and a lot of other factors.
(Walking down Broadway in NYC in the middle of day just isn't the same as
strolling through West Village on a Sunday morning!) Not to mention what other
commenters have pointed out, e.g., correlation != causality. Quite likely the
researchers have thought about this; I would be interested in what they found.

------
jrcii
I remember an explanation for the calming effect of nature by David Allen of
Getting Things Done fame. He claims that the environment is too complex so
your mind "lets go" he repeats some of that here
[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20121027044918-402563-david-a...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20121027044918-402563-david-
allen-explains-it-all) I'm not sure what the basis of that analysis is, but he
could be right. I contrast that with the jail from THX 1138 which doesn't seem
like it would be relaxing [http://nightflight.com/wp-
content/uploads/THX-1138-6.jpg](http://nightflight.com/wp-
content/uploads/THX-1138-6.jpg)

------
et-al
National Geographic had a similar article earlier this year if you'd like to
read more:

"This Is Your Brain on Nature"

[http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/call-to-wild-
text](http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/call-to-wild-text)

------
kevindeasis
Anyone notice that the sound and atmosphere contributes to their well-being?

------
patrickk
I recently visited an abbey in Killarney, Kerry in Ireland. The monks build an
enclosed walkway around a very old yew tree, it was fascinating:
[http://www.killarney.co/muckross-abbey-
killarney.html](http://www.killarney.co/muckross-abbey-killarney.html)

Perhaps inspired by a similar line of thinking.

~~~
keithpeter
Skipton Castle, Yorkshire, Conduit Court yew tree, planted in 1659.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skipton_Castle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skipton_Castle)

------
jcl
_Some of the walks took place in June, whereas others took place in January;
most people didn’t particularly enjoy trudging through the harsh Michigan
winter, but their scores jumped just as much as in the summer trials._

I found this the most interesting point in the article. I would have assumed
that any psychological effect of viewing trees would be largely due to their
greenness, since that is their dominant visual aspect. But, assuming a largely
deciduous environment, naked trees in winter would seem to have the same
effect. So the effect must be stimulated by something deeper than just raw
color.

------
DennisP
"Berman and his colleagues have zeroed in on the “low-level” visual
characteristics that distinguish natural from built environments. To do this,
they broke down images into their visual components: the proportion of
straight to curved edges, the hue and saturation of the colors, the entropy (a
statistical measure of randomness in pixel intensity), and so on."

I wonder whether these principles could be incorporated into architecture and
interior design, so we feel like we're in a natural setting even when indoors.

(Even better with trees visible through the windows, of course.)

------
ilaksh
Plant fruit and nut trees. This is vastly more useful than trees for the sake
of calm.

See permaculture, food security, urban farming, distributed production,
decentralization.

Trees for some zen or aesthetic cause is an elitist and ignorant perspective.
Land use in suburban environments is extremely poor. Food sustainability is
very poor.

Trees are a good starting point to start researching. But there are much more
serious reasons than a warm fuzzy feeling.

------
nichochar
I can never show this to my mother, she was right all along!

~~~
sitkack
Quite the opposite, she would be thrilled!

------
ianai
You mean I don't have some mystical connection to the trees and that it's
simply burned into my synapses from eons of evolution?!

------
JustSomeNobody
Interesting. I love walking among the southern live oaks around where I live.
They're just amazing trees. There was one that got hit by lightening a couple
weeks back and split down the middle. I actually felt empathy for it. These
trees are usually hundreds of years old.

------
wodenokoto
A tree on a street is incredibly expensive to maintain. The tree itself need
maintaince from a gardner and the surrounding road and sidewalk needs extra
maintenence too.

~~~
hyperdunc
The price is worth paying, and planting more trees will bring the cost per
tree down.

~~~
wodenokoto
> The price is worth paying

I looked up prices as I was initially in doubt if this was a good cost-
benefit. This article claims that New York Cty trees have a lifetime cost of
~3,500 USD (in gardening). I was under the impression of a much higher
_annual_ cost, so I was way off in my initial reasoning.

This report puts annual gardening costs of Portland trees at around 40usd [1]

These numbers do not include added road, curb and sidewalk maintenance
incurred by the tree, as far as I can tell.

[0][http://scienceline.org/2013/10/the-high-cost-of-carbon-in-
ci...](http://scienceline.org/2013/10/the-high-cost-of-carbon-in-city-trees/)
[1]
[https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/514095](https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/514095)

------
hyperpallium
> twenty per cent better ... on tests of memory and attention

> five times bigger in people who have been diagnosed with clinical depression

~~~
gabemart
In this case the ellipsis is extremely misleading.

> Those who had taken the nature walk performed about twenty per cent better
> _than their counterparts_ on tests of memory and attention

~~~
hyperpallium
In a randomised trial, how is that misleading?

~~~
gabemart
Ah, you're correct, I'm wrong

------
dgudkov
Claude Monet clearly new something about it.

------
amelius
I can see a market for a VR movie/game which allows the user to walk/drive
through (or just sit in) a forest :)

~~~
sw00
Such a typical tech reaction/sentiment: what's better than real trees? A VR
simulation of trees! :)

~~~
Jaruzel
For those people where getting out and about to real woodland is impractical,
then yes I see a good market for VR solutions such as this.

Housebound or otherwise infirm people would benefit from VR simulations of
peaceful locations.

Likewise so would all us shut-in techies that live in our basements...

~~~
7952
It could work quite well as the new tab screen in a browser. Slowly move the
camera through the woodland so that the view changes. That would keep the view
incidental whilst keeping some novelty.

~~~
vwcx
Sounds like the trend of slow television:
[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873249040045785391...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324904004578539110228634592)

------
known
Oxygen?

------
tedks
Correlation is not causation.

Houses on streets with trees are more expensive. People that can afford to
live there are healthier for obvious reasons.

Likewise, people that are put into better hospital rooms are probably just
patients the hospital is willing to expend more energy on, because they have
deeper pockets/are the right ethnicity/are "respectable people" etc..

Is there any non-depressing source of science journalism left in the world?

~~~
frankquist
While the study doesn't seem to have taken into account the houses' values, it
has taken into account income (as the article states) and area income (the
article doesn't state this). I do not know if that's enough to correct for
housing costs. But I do assume that accounting for area income should go a
long way to counter your example regarding affording houses. That said, of
course correlation isn't causation.

~~~
tedks
Most of us don't buy houses on our income, but on our credit. This speaks to
class, not to wealth; someone with good credit, from a background that grants
them that status, is more likely to have a job with good benefits, health
insurance, a family that can recommend good doctors, etc.. They're also less
likely to live in a food desert, more likely to be able to afford fresh fruits
and vegetables, etc..

Income speaks only partially to this. Systematic racism is still very strong
in housing; people that live in these houses are more likely to have white
privilege and to not have the chronic stressors of racial inequality nagging
at their health either.

But I'm sure we're "wired" to "enjoy green spaces." The dryads no doubt
protect us when we can afford to be near them.

~~~
frankquist
You seem quite certain that the research is invalid and quite certain of your
systemic racism hypothesis. I would invite you to find evidence for your
hypothesis in the actual study results.

For your hypothesis that the study results are skewed by white privilege at
least the following things would have to be true: 1\. Neighboorhoods with more
citizens from lower classes would need to be less green than neighboorhoods
with less citizens from lower classes. (At least where I live, in Amsterdam,
that would presumably not be the case as the Bijlmer, one of the largest and
poorest neighboorhoods is very probably the greenest one. As an aside, the
amount of trees is sometimes seen as a problem for that neighboorhood due to
the combination with high crime rates, as foilage provides cover for people
with criminal motives, makes the area darker (less light getting through) and
makes it feel less safe when combined with the sight of huge high-rise flats).
This only adds to problems for the people living there and the stereotyping by
those not living there :/).

2\. The correlation between house prices and area income would need to be
lower than expected but there would need to be a significant correlation
between house prices and class (f.ex. credit score)

Contrary to your statement, I do think there's a large correlation between the
first two, but I haven't checked with housing data for Toronto. For one,
there's also the option to rent a house so the correlation between income and
housing quality will be higher, as people with higher incomes can afford
higher rent. If I read this report correctly, around 30% of Toronto apartments
are rental ones
[http://www.trebhome.com/market_news/rental_reports/pdf/renta...](http://www.trebhome.com/market_news/rental_reports/pdf/rental_report_Q1-2016.pdf).
With rental homes, surely there's a large correlation between income and
housing cost. Secondly, while I do agree that income and class won't
necessarily be correlated at the individual level, I would assume it evens out
on the neighboorhood level. Neighboorhoods where people have good credit,
income stability, good status, a good job, good medical contacts and access to
good food, will surely have a higher average income. And actually, income does
seem to matter when buying a house in Canada
([http://globalnews.ca/news/985258/to-rent-or-to-
buy-8-questio...](http://globalnews.ca/news/985258/to-rent-or-to-
buy-8-questions-canadians-should-ask-before-taking-the-plunge/))

So I am sympathetic to your argument that systemic racism makes it more likely
that one lives in bad housing, but don't buy that this will explain the
study's results. I do wish they would have worked with housing costs/rent.

You did make me investigate Toronto a bit. It has quite a lot of food deserts
[http://www.ehatlas.ca/built-environments/food-
deserts](http://www.ehatlas.ca/built-environments/food-deserts), and
apparently its child poverty rate is quite high. I'm often confounded by how
cities and economies are built in that part of the world. In the Netherlands,
cities are littered with supermarkets and the overall availability of bikes
and scooters makes it even easier to get to one. Credit scores are much less
of a thing here, too. Whether you can buy a house is based on income and
income stability.

Btw, you do seem to be assuming the american(?) situation to some extent.
Canada has universal health insurance and putting patients with deeper pockets
in better rooms seems to be an odd explanation then, too.

