How tree professionals perceive trees and conflicts about trees in Australia's urban forest

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 119, Issue , 2013, Pages 124-130

  Kirkpatrick, Jamie B ^a   Davison, Aidan ^a   Harwood, Andrew ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Arborist; Conflict; Planner; Residents; Trees; Urban forest

Indexed keywords

CLASSIFICATION (OF INFORMATION); COST EFFECTIVENESS; PLANNING;

ARBORIST; CONFLICT; PLANNER; RESIDENTS; TREES; URBAN FORESTS;

FORESTRY;

IDEOLOGY; INFRASTRUCTURE; LAND COVER; MANAGEMENT PRACTICE; RISK FACTOR; SOCIAL CONFLICT; URBAN FORESTRY; URBAN PLANNING;

AUSTRALIA; CONSERVATION; ECOLOGY; FORESTS; PLANNING;

AUSTRALIA;

EID: 84883759110     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.07.009     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Braverman I. Everybody loves trees: Policing American cities through street trees. Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum 2008, 19:81-118.
2. City of Melbourne Urban forest strategy: Making a great city greener 2012-2032 2012, Melbourne, City of Melbourne, www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/Sustainability/UrbanForest/Documents/Urban_Forest_Strategy.pdf (Accessed 01.03.13.).
3. Daniels G.D., Kirkpatrick J.B. Attitude and action syndromes of exurban landowners have little effect on native mammals in exurbia. Biodiversity and Conservation 2011, 20:3517-3535.
4. Fraser E.D., Kenney W.A. Cultural background and landscape history as factors affecting perceptions. Journal of Arboriculture 2000, 26:106-113.
5. Getz D.A., Karow A., Kielbaso J.J. Inner city preferences for trees and urban forestry programs. Journal of Arboriculture 1982, 8:258-263.
6. Head L. Decentring 1788: beyond biotic nativeness. Geographical Research 2012, 50:166-178.
7. Head L., Muir P. Backyard - nature and culture in urban Australia 2007, University of Wollongong Press, Wollongong.
8. Hull R.B.I.V. How the public values urban forests. Journal of Arboriculture 1992, 18:98-101.
9. Hunter I.R. What do people want from urban forestry?. Urban Ecosystems 2001, 5:277-284.
10. Iles J., Vold A.M. Landscape tree cultivar preferences in Iowa, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture 2003, 29:331-336.
11. Johnston M. A brief history of urban forestry in the United States. Arboricultural Journal 1996, 20:257-278.
12. Johnston M. The early development of urban forestry in Britain. Part I. Arboricultural Journal 1997, 21:107-126.
13. Jones R.E., Davis K.L., Bradford J. The value of trees: factors influencing homeowner support for protecting local urban trees. Environment and Behaviour 2013, 45:650-676.
14. Kirkpatrick J.B., Daniels G.D., Zagorski T. Explaining variation in front gardens between suburbs of Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Landscape & Urban Planning 2007, 79:314-322.
15. Kirkpatrick J.B., Daniels G.D., Davison A. Temporal and spatial variation in garden and street trees in six eastern Australian cities. Landscape & Urban Planning 2011, 101:244-252.
16. Kirkpatrick J.B., Davison A., Daniels G.D. Resident attitudes towards trees influence the planting and removal of different types of trees in eastern Australian cities. Landscape & Urban Planning 2012, 107:147-158.
17. Kirkpatrick J.B., Davison A., Daniels G.D. Sinners, scapegoats or fashion victims? Understanding the deaths of trees in the green city. Geoforum 2013, 48:165-176.
18. Kitchen L. Are trees always 'good'? Urban political ecology and environmental justice in the valleys of South Wales. International Journal of Urban & Regional Research 2012, 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01138.x.
19. Konijnendijk C.C., Ricard R.M., Kenney A., Randrup T.B. Defining urban forestry - A comparative perspective of North America and Europe. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2006, 4:93-103.
20. Kuhns M.R., Bragg H.A., Blahna D.J. Involvement of women and minorities in the urban forestry profession. Journal of Arboriculture 2002, 28:27-34.
21. Kuhns M.R., Bragg H.A., Blahna D.J. Attitudes and experiences of women and minorities in the urban forestry/arboriculture profession. Journal of Arboriculture 2004, 30:11-18.
22. Lohr V.I., Pearson-Mims C.H., Tarnai J., Dillman D. How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. Journal of Arboriculture 2004, 30:28-35.
23. McPherson E.G., Nowak D.J., Rowntree R.A. Chicago's urban forest ecosystem: results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project 1994, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Radnor, PA, U.S.
24. Minchin P. Decoda: Database for ecological community data 1990, Australian National University, Canberra.
25. Pearce L., Kirkpatrick J.B., Davison A. Using size class distributions of species to deduce the compositional dynamics of the private urban forest. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2013, 39:74-84.
26. Summit J., McPherson E.G. Residential tree planting and care: A study of attitudes and behaviour in Sacramento, California. Journal of Arboriculture 1998, 24:89-96.
27. Summit J., Sommer R. Further studies of preferred tree shapes. Environment & Behaviour 1999, 31:550-576.
28. Williams K. Exploring resident preferences for street trees in Melbourne, Australia. Journal of Arboriculture 2002, 28:161-170.
29. Zagorski T., Kirkpatrick J.B., Stratford E. Gardens and the bush: Gardeners attitudes, garden types and invasives. Australian Geographical Studies 2004, 42:207-220.
30. Zhang Y., Hussain A., Deng J., Letson N. Public attitudes towards urban trees and supporting urban tree programs. Environment & Behaviour 2007, 39:797-814.
31. Zhang H., Lin S.-H. Affective landscape appraisal of residents and visual elements in the neighbourhood: A case study of an established suburban community. Landscape & Urban Planning 2011, 101:11-21.