This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Yaoqi Zhang Articles by Letson, N. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Public Attitudes Toward Urban Trees and Supporting Urban Tree Programs

Auburn University, Alabama

Anwar Hussain

Mississippi State University, Starkville

Jinyang Deng

West Virginia University, Morgantown

Neil Letson

Alabama Cooperative Extension System, Montgomery

In this article, we analyze survey responses regarding Alabama urban residents' attitudes toward urban trees and the provision and maintenance of urban forest by federal, state, and local governments, as well as personal willingness to volunteer and donate money in support of urban tree programs and activities. Using ordered probit analysis, our results showed that individuals who are aware of forestry-related programs, hold a full-time job, belong in the age group of younger than 56 years, and earn an annual income greater than U.S. $75,000, have a positive relationship with willingness of donating money and voluntarily contributing time toward urban forestry programs and activities. Individual characteristics such as race, gender, and residence were not statistically significant factors in explaining attitudes toward urban forestry programs. In addition, with few exceptions, attitudes toward government financing of urban forestry programs and activities were influenced by similar factors.

Key Words: community participation • urban forestry • willingness to pay

References

• Adamowicz, V., Boxall, P., Haener, M., Zhang, Y., Dosman, S., & Marois, J. (2004). Assessing the impact of forest management on Aboriginal hunters: Evidence from stated and revealed preference data. Forest Science, 50(2), 139-152.[CrossRef]
• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Balram, S., & Dragicevic, S. (2005). Attitudes toward urban green spaces: Integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements. Landscape and Urban Planning, 71, 147-162.
• Bradley, G. (1995). Urban forest landscapes: Integrating multidisciplinary perspectives. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
• Clark, T.N., Iloyd, R., Wong, K., & Jain, P. (2002). Amenities drive urban growth. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24(5), 493-515.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Dwyer, J.F., McPherson, E.G., Schroeder, H.W., &. Rowntree, R.A. (1992). Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture, 18(5), 227-234.
• Dwyer, M.C., & Miller, R.W. (1999). Using GIS to assess urban tree canopy benefits and surrounding greenspace distributions. Journal of Arboriculture, 30(1), 102-106.
• Fraser, D.G.E., & Kenney, W.A. (2000). Cultural background and landscape history as factors affecting perceptions of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture, 26(2), 106-112.
• Gooch, G.D. (1995). Environmental beliefs and attitudes in Sweden and the Baltic States. Environment and Behavior, 27, 513-539.[Abstract]
• Gorman, J. (2004). Residents' opinions on the value of street trees depending on tree allocation. Journal of Arboriculture, 30(1), 36-43.
• Greene, H.W. (2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Delhi, India: Pearson Education.
• Kellert, S.R. (1979). Public attitudes toward critical wildlife and natural habitat issues (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
• Kellert, S.R. (1980). Public attitudes, knowledge and behaviors toward wildlife and natural habitats. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 45, 111-124.
• Liao, F.T. (1994). Interpreting probability models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Lohr, I.V., Pearson-Mims, C.H., Tarnai, J., & Dillman, D.A. (2004). How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. Journal of Arboriculture, 30(1), 28-34.
• Lorenzo, A.B., Blanche, C.A., Qi, Y., & Guidry, M.M. (2000). Assessing residents' willingness to pay to preserve the community urban forest: A small-city case study. Journal of Arboriculture, 26(6), 319-324.
• Manzo, L.C., & Weinstein, N.D. (1987). Behavioral commitment to environmental protection: A study of active and non-active members of the Sierra Club. Environment and Behavior, 19(6), 673-694.[Abstract]
• Martinez, T.A., & McMullin, S.L. (2004). Factors affecting decisions to volunteer in non-governmental organizations. Environment and Behavior, 36(1), 112-126.[Abstract]
• McPherson, E.G., Simpson. J. R., Peper, P.J., & Xiao, Q. (1999). Benefit-cost analysis of Modesto's municipal urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture, 25(5), 235-248.
• Orland, B., Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1992). The effect of street trees on perceived values of residential property. Environment and Behavior, 24(3), 298-325.[Abstract]
• Ozguner, H., & Kendle, A.D. (2005). Public attitude towards naturalistic versus designed landscapes in the city of Sheffield (UK). Landscape and Urban Planning, 74(2), 139-157.
• Pearce, J.L. (1993). Volunteers: The organizational behavior of unpaid workers. London, New York: Routledge.
• Rauwald, K.S., & Moore, C.F. (2002). Environmental attitudes as predictors of policy support across three countries. Environment and Behavior, 34(6), 709-739.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Sanders, R.A. (1984). Estimating satisfaction levels for a city's vegetation. Urban Ecology, 8, 269-283.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Saz-Salazar, S., & Garcia-Menendez, L. (2001). Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in a large city. Environmental and Resource Economics, 20, 103-112.[CrossRef]
• Scott, D., & Willits, F.K. (1994). Environmental attitudes and behavior: A Pennsylvania survey. Environment and Behavior, 26, 239-260.[Abstract]
• Sullivan, W.C. (1994). Perceptions of the rural-urban fringe: Citizen preferences for natural and developed settings. Landscape Urban Planning, 29, 85—101.
• Summit, J., & McPherson, E.G. (1998). Residential tree planting and care: A study of attitudes and behavior in Sacramento, California. Journal of Arboriculture, 22(2), 89-97.
• Tahvanainen, L., Tyrväinen, L., Ihalainen, M., Vuorela, N., & Kolehmainen, O. (2001). Forest management and public perceptions—Visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Planning, 53, 53-70.
• Thompson, R., Hanna, R., Noel, J., & Piirto, D. (1999). Valuation of tree aesthetics on small urban-interface properties. Journal of Arboriculture, 25(5), 225-233.
• Tyrvainen, L. (2001). Economic valuation of urban forest amenities in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 62, 75-92.
• Yen, S.T., Boxall, P.C., & Adamowicz, W.L. (1997). An econometric analysis of donations for environmental conservation in Canada. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 22(2), 246-263.

This version was published on November 1, 2007

Environment and Behavior, Vol. 39, No. 6, 797-814 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0013916506292326


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Yaoqi Zhang Articles by Letson, N. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?