How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities

Journal of Arboriculture

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 28-35

  Lohr, Virginia I ^a   Pearson Mims, Caroline H ^a   Tarnai, John ^a   Dillman, Don A ^a  

^a WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Benefits of trees; Community forestry; Survey; Urban forest

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; FOREST MANAGEMENT; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; URBAN FORESTRY;

CALIFORNIA; DAVIS; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0942269578     PISSN: 02785226     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Austin, M.E. 2002. Partnership opportunities in neighborhood tree planting initiatives: Building from local knowledge. J. Arboric. 28:178-186.
2. Barro, S.C., P.H. Gobster, H.W. Schroeder, and S.M. Bartram. 1997. What makes a big tree special? Insights from the Chicagoland Treemendous Trees program. J. Arboric. 23:239-249.
3. Coder, K.D. 1996. Trees and humankind: Cultural and psychological bindings. Publication FOR96-46, University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Forest Resources Unit. Athens, GA. 10 pp.
4. Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. Wiley, New York, NY. 325 pp.
5. Dwyer, J.F., E.G. McPherson, H.W. Schroeder, and R.A. Rowntree. 1992. Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. J. Arboric. 18:227-234.
6. Dwyer, J.F., D.J. Nowak, and G.W. Watson. 2002. Future directions for urban forestry research in the United States. J. Arboric. 28:231-236.
7. Dwyer, J., H. Schroeder, and P. Gobster. 1991. The significance of urban trees and forests: Towards a deeper understanding of values. J. Arboric. 17:276-284.
8. Groves, R., and M. Couper. 1998. Nonresponse in household interview surveys. Wiley, New York, NY. 344 pp.
9. Hull, R.B. 1992. How the public values urban forests. J. Arboric. 18:98-101.
10. Lohr, V.I., and C.H. Pearson-Mims. 2002. Childhood contact with nature influences adult attitudes and actions towards trees and gardening, pp 267-277. In Shoemaker, C.A. (Ed.). Interaction by Design: Bringing People and Plants Together for Health and Well-Being: An International Symposium. Iowa State Press, Ames, IA.
11. Nowak, D.J., M.H. Noble, S.M. Sisinni, and J.F. Dwyer. 2001. People and trees: Assessing the U.S. urban forest resource. J. For. 99(3):37-42.
12. Sommer, R., F. Learey, J. Summit, and M. Tirrell. 1994. The social benefits of resident involvement in tree planting. J. Arboric. 20:170-175.
13. Stiegler, J.H. 1990. Public perceptions of the urban forest, pp 40-45. In Rodbell, P.D. (Ed.). Make Our Cities Safe for Trees: Proceedings of the 4th Urban Forestry Conference. American Forestry Association, Washington, DC.
14. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000 Summary File 1: GCT-PH1. Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density. factfinder.census.gov/bf/_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000_SFI_U_GCTPHI_ US10_geo_id=01000US.html (accessed 4/1/03).
15. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. July, 1996. Urban and Community Forestry on Course into the Future: Vital Communities Through Healthy Ecosystems-A Strategic Direction. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Washington, DC. 12 pp.
16. Westphal, L.M. 1993. Why trees? Urban forestry volunteers values and motivations, pp 19-23. In Gobster, P.H. (Ed.). Managing Urban and High-Use Recreation Settings. General Technical Report NC-163. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. St. Paul, MN.