The article discusses the value and importance of urban trees and factors that significantly influence public support for protecting them. These factors were identified by examining mail survey data obtained from a representative sample of 800 homeowners living in a rapidly urbanizing area within Southern Appalachia. A series of multiple regression analysis tested an Integrated Model of Urban Tree Support that combines measures of attitudes, beliefs, values, and sociodemographic variables to predict homeowner support for local urban tree protection. The findings lend support to many features of the model and revealed that homeowners who have stronger protree attitudes, have greater environmental concerns, place more importance on trees when looking for a new place to live, attribute symbolic value and meaning to them are more supportive. Women and Democrats are also more supportive. Recommendations are offered for future research and policy.
American Forests. (2002). Urban ecosystem analysis, Knox County, Tennessee. Washington, DC: Author.
4.
American Forests. (2006, June22). Annual report: American forests 2005; The path to recovery. Washington, DC: Author.
5.
AndersonL. M.CordellH. K. (1988). Influence of trees on residential property-values in Athens, Georgia (USA)—A survey based on actual sales prices. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15, 153-164.
6.
BalramS.DragicevicS. (2005). Attitudes toward urban green spaces: Integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements. Landscape and Urban Planning, 71, 147-162.
7.
BarretoM. A.MarksM. A.WoodsN. D. (2007). Homeownership—Southern California’s new political fault line?Urban Affairs Review, 42, 315-341.
8.
BarroS. C.GobsterP. H.SchroederH. W.BartramS. M. (1997). What makes a big tree special? Insights from the Chicagoland treemendous trees program. Journal of Arboriculture, 23, 239-249.
9.
CarreiroM. M.ZippererW. C. (2008). Urban forestry and the eco-city: Today and tomorrow. In CarreiroM. M.SongY.-C.WuJ. (Eds.), Ecology, Planning, and Management of Urban Forests: International Perspectives (pp. 435-456). New York, NY: Springer.
10.
ChiesuraA. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68, 129-138.
11.
ClendenningG.FieldD. R.KappK. J. (2005). A comparison of seasonal homeowners and permanent residents on their attitudes toward wildlife management on public lands. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 10, 3-17.
12.
CoderK. (1996). Cultural aspects of trees: Traditions and myth. Athens, GA: Cooperative Extension Service, Forest Resources Unit, University of Georgia.
13.
ConnellyN.BrownT. L.DeckerD. J. (2003). Factors affecting response rates to natural resource-focused mail surveys: Empirical evidence of declining rates over time. Society & Natural Resources, 16, 541-549.
14.
CottrellS. B. (2003). Influence of sociodemographics and environmental attitudes on general responsible environmental behavior among recreational boaters. Environment & Behavior, 35, 347-375.
15.
DavisK. L. (2011). The role of sense of place: A theoretical framework to aid urban forest decision-making (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.
16.
DickersonS. D.GroningerJ. W.MangunJ. C. (2001). Influences of community characteristics on municipal tree ordinances in Illinois, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture, 27, 318-325.
17.
DietzT.FitzgeraldA.ShwomR. (2005). Environmental values. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 335-372.
18.
DillmanD. A. (1999). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY: John Wiley.
19.
DunlapR. E.JonesR. E. (2002). Environmental concern: Conceptual and measurement issues. In DunlapR. E. W. M. (Ed.), Handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 482-524). Westport. CN: Greenwood.
20.
DwyerJ. F.McPhersonE. G.SchroederH. W.RowntreeR. A. (1992). Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture, 18, 227-234.
21.
DwyerJ. F.NowakD. J.NobleM. H.SisinniS. M. (2000). Connecting people with ecosystems in the 21st century: An assessment of our nation’s urban forests (No. A 13.88:PNW-GTR-490). Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
22.
DwyerJ. F.SchroederH. W.GobsterP. H. (1991). The significance of urban trees and forests: Toward a deeper understanding of values. Journal of Arboriculture, 17, 276-284.
23.
HansenM. C.StehmanS. V.PotapovP. V. (2010). Quantification of global gross forest cover loss. Proceedings of the National Academy of Scientists, PNAS Early Edition, 1-6.
24.
Hansen-MollerJ.OustrupL. (2004). Emotional, physical/functional and symbolic aspects of an urban forest in Denmark to nearby residents. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 19, 56-64.
HeynenN.PerkinsH. A.RoyP. (2006). The political ecology of uneven urban green space—The impact of political economy on race and ethnicity in producing environmental inequality in Milwaukee. Urban Affairs Review, 42, 3-25.
27.
HungerfordH. R.VolkT. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21, 8-21.
28.
IgnatowG. (2006). Cultural models of nature and society. Environment & Behavior, 38, 441-461.
29.
JensenR.GatrellJ.BoultonJ.HarperB. (2004). The urban environment, socioeconomic conditions, and quality of life: An alternative framework for understanding and assessing environmental justice. In JensenR. R.GatrellJ. D.McLeanD. D. (Eds.), Geo-spatial technologies in urban environments (pp. 63-72). New York, NY: Springer.
30.
JohnstonM. (1996). A brief history of urban forestry in the United States. Arboricultural Journal, 20, 257-278.
31.
JonesR. E.DunlapR. E. (1992). The social bases of environmental concern: Have they changed over time?Rural Sociology, 57, 28-47.
32.
JonesR. E.FlyJ. M.CordellH. K. (1999). How green is my valley? Tracking rural and urban environmentalism in the Southern Appalachian Ecoregion. Rural Sociology, 64, 482-499.
33.
JonesR. E.FlyJ. M.TalleyJ.CordellH. K. (2003). Green migration into rural America: The new frontier of environmentalism?Society & Natural Resources, 16, 221-238.
34.
KaltenbornB. P.BjerkeT. (2002). Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, 1-11.
35.
KaplanR. (1992). Urban forestry and the workplace (No. NC-163). Chicago, IL: USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.
36.
KaplanR. (2001). The nature of the view from home—Psychological benefits. Environment & Behavior, 33, 507-542.
37.
KaplanR.KaplanS. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38.
KellertS. R.WilsonE. O. (1993). The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press/Shearwater Books.
39.
KielbasoJ. J. (2008). Management of urban forests in the United States. In CarreiroM. M.SongY.-C.WuJ. (Eds.), Ecology, planning, and management of urban forests: International perspective (pp. 240-258). New York, NY: Springer.
40.
Knoxville-Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission. (2007). The Knox County Tree Conservation & Planting Plan. Metropolitan Planning Commission of Knoxville-Knox County. Knoxville, Tennessee.
41.
KonijnendijkC. C. (2003). A decade of urban forestry in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics, 5, 173-186.
42.
KrusD. J.WilkinsonS. M. (1986). Demonstration of properties of a suppressor variables. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 18, 21-24.
43.
KuoF. E. (2003). The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology. Journal of Arboriculture, 29(3), 148-155.
44.
KuoF. E.BacaicoaM.SullivanW. C. (1998). Transforming inner-city landscapes—Trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment & Behavior, 30, 28-59.
45.
KuoF. E.SullivanW. C. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime?Environment & Behavior, 33, 343-365.
46.
LinS. (2007, December21). Step away from the clippers: New laws to protect trees complicate homeowners’ lives: Saving the persimmon. The Wall Street Journal, p. W14.
47.
LohrV. I.Pearson-MimsC. H. (2005). Children’s active and passive interactions with plants influence their attitudes and actions toward trees and gardening as adults. Horttechnology, 15, 472-476.
48.
LohrV. I.Pearson-MimsC. H.TarnaiJ.DillmanD. A. (2004). How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. Journal of Arboriculture, 30, 28-35.
49.
LorenzoA. B.BlancheC. A.QiY.GuidryM. M. (2000). Assessing residents’ willingness to pay to preserve the community urban forest: A small-city case study. Journal of Arboriculture, 26, 319-325.
MallerC.TownsendM.PryorA.BrownP.St. LegerL. (2006). Healthy nature healthy people: “Contact with nature” as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promotion International, 21, 45-54.
52.
MansfieldC.PattanayakS. K.McDowW.McDonaldR.HalpinP. (2005). Shades of green: Measuring the value of urban forests in the housing market. Journal of Forest Economics, 11, 177-199.
53.
McPhersonE. G. (1994). Using urban forests for energy efficiency and carbon storage. Journal of Forestry, 92, 36-41.
54.
McPhersonE. G. (1995). Net benefits of healthy and productive urban forests. In BradleyG. A. (Ed.), Urban forest landscapes: Integrating multidisciplinary perspectives. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
55.
McPhersonE. G. (2006). Urban forestry in North America. Renewable Resources Journal, 3, 8-12.
56.
McPhersonE. G. (2007). Benefit-based tree valuation. Journal of Arboriculture, 33, 1-11.
57.
McPhersonE. G.RowntreeR. A. (1993). Energy conservation potential of urban tree planting. Journal of Arboriculture, 19, 321-331.
58.
McPhersonE. G.SimpsonJ. R.PeperP. J.XiaoQ. (1999). Benefit-cost analysis of Modesto’s municipal urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture, 25, 235-248.
59.
Metropolitan Planning Commission of Knoxville/Knox County. (2005). The Knox County tree conservation & planting plan. Knoxville, TN: Author.
60.
MilesI.SullivanW. C.KuoF. E. (1998). Ecological restoration volunteers: The benefits of participation. Urban Ecosystems, 2, 27-41.
61.
MobleyC.VagiasW. M.DeWardS. L. (2010). Exploring additional determinants of environmentally responsible behavior: The influence of environmental literature and environmental attitudes. (2010). Environment & Behavior, 42, 420-447.
62.
MoralesD. J.MichaF. R.WeberR. L. (1983). Two methods of valuating trees on residential sites. Journal of Arboriculture, 9, 21-24.
63.
NowakD. J.WaltonJ. T. (2005). Projected urban growth and its estimated impact on the U.S. forest resource (2000-2050). Journal of Forestry, 103, 383-389.
64.
O’BrienE. A. (2006). A question of value: What do trees and forests mean to people in Vermont?Landscape Research, 31, 257-275.
65.
OrlandB.ViningJ.EbreoA. (1992). The effect of street trees on perceived values of residential property. Environment & Behavior, 24, 298-325.
66.
ParsonsR. (1991). The potential influences of environmental perception on human health. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 1-23.
67.
PauleitS. (2003). Urban street tree plantings: Identifying the key requirements. Municipal Engineer, 156, 43-50.
RiesP. D.ReedA. S.KresseS. J. (2007). The impact of statewide urban forestry programs: A survey of cities in Oregon, U.S. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 33, 168-175.
71.
RivalL. (1998). The social life of trees: Anthropological perspectives on tree symbolism. Oxford, UK: Berg.
72.
RolstonH. (1988). Human-values and natural systems. Society & Natural Resources, 1, 271-283.
73.
RoutheA. S.JonesR. E.FeldmanD. L. (2005). Using theory to understand public support for collective actions that impact the environment: Alleviating water supply problems in a non-arid biome. Social Science Quarterly, 86, 874-897.
74.
SasidharanV.ThapaB. (1999). Ethnicity and variations in wildlife concern: Exploring the socio-structural and sociopsychological bases of wildlife values. Paper presented at the 4th International Urban Wildlife Symposium, Tucson, AZ.
75.
ScarlettL. (2010). Green, Clean, and Dollar Smart Ecosystem Restoration in Cities and Countryside. New York, NY: Environmental Defense Fund.
76.
SchoenJ. L.DeSimoneJ., AJamesL. R. (2011). Exploring joint variance between independent variables and a criterion: Meaning, effect and size. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 674-695.
77.
SchroederH. W. (1988). Visual impact of hillside development: Comparison of measurements derived from aerial photographs and ground-level photographs. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15, 119-126.
78.
SchroederH.FlanniganJ.ColesR. (2006). Residents’ attitudes toward street trees in the UK and U.S. communities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 32, 236-246.
79.
SimpsonJ. R.McPhersonE. G. (1996). Potential of tree shade for reducing residential energy use in California. Journal of Arboriculture, 22, 10-18.
80.
SommerR.GuentherH.BarkerP. A. (1990). Surveying householder response to street trees. Landscape Journal, 9, 79-85.
81.
SorensenS.HayesJ. G.MarinaM. (2000). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED): Workbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
82.
SummitJ.SommerR. (1998). Urban tree-planting programs—A model for encouraging environmentally protective behavior. Atmospheric Environment, 32, 1-5.
83.
TaylorA. F.KuoF. E.SullivanW. C. (2001). Coping with ADD: The surprising connection to green play settings. Environment & Behavior, 33, 54-77.
84.
TennessenC. M.CimprichB. (1995). Views to nature—Effects on attention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 77-85.
85.
TreimanT. (2006). Are residents willing to pay for their community forests? Results of a contingent valuation survey in Missouri, USA. Urban Studies, 43, 1537-1548.
86.
TreimanT.GartnerJ. (2005). What do people want from their community forests? Results of a public attitude survey in Missouri, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture, 31, 243-250.
87.
TyrväinenL.MäkinenK.SchipperijnJ. (2007). Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(1),5-19.
88.
UlrichR. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychophysiological effects. Environment & Behavior, 13, 523-556.
89.
UlrichR. S. (1991). Effects of health facility interior design on wellness: Theory and recent scientific research. Journal of Health Care Design, 3, 97-109.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). Population and housing narrative profile: 2006-2008. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
92.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. (2003). Benefits of urban trees: Urban and community forestry: Improving our quality of life. In Southern Region (Ed.), Urban forestry manual. Athens, GA: Author.
93.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. (2004). Urban forestry manual—Benefits and costs of the urban forest. Athens, GA: Author.
94.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service–Northern Research Station. (2011). Urban trees canopy analysis helps Urban Planners With Tree Planting campaigns. NRS Research Review, 13(Summer), pp. 1-5.
95.
WolfK. L. (1998). Enterprising landscapes: Business districts and the urban forest. In KollinC. (Ed.), Cities by nature’s design: Proceedings of the 8th national urban forest conference. Washington, DC: American Forests.
96.
WolfK. L. (1999). Grow for the gold: Trees in business districts. Olympia: Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
97.
WolfK. L. (2003). Introduction to urban and community forestry programs in the United States. Landscape and Planning and Horticulture (Japan), 4, 19-28.
98.
WolfK. L. (2004). Economics and public value of urban forests [Special Issue on Urban and Periurban Forestry]. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 13, 31-33.
99.
WolfK. L. (2005). Trees in the small city retail business district: Comparing resident and visitor perceptions. Journal of Forestry, 103, 390-395.
100.
WolfK. L. (2006). Roadside urban trees: Balancing safety and community values. Arborist News, 56-57.
101.
WolfK. L. (2007). City trees and property values. Arborist News, 34-36.
102.
YoungentobK.HostetlerM. (2005). Is a new urban development model building greener communities?Environment & Behavior, 37, 731-759.
103.
ZhangY.HussainA.JinyangD.LetsonN. (2007). Public attitudes toward urban trees and supporting urban tree programs. Environment and Behavior, 39, 797-814.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
