Residents' beliefs about responsibility for the stewardship of park trees and street trees in New York City

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 120, Issue , 2013, Pages 85-95

  Moskell, Christine ^a   Allred, Shorna Broussard ^a  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

Environmental governance; Stewardship; Urban forest management

Indexed keywords

AIR QUALITY; REFORESTATION;

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION; ECONOMIC BENEFITS; ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCES; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; NON PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS; PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS; STEWARDSHIP; URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT;

NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION;

AIR QUALITY; FOREST MANAGEMENT; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; NEIGHBORHOOD; NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION; PARK MANAGEMENT; PARTNERSHIP APPROACH; PROFITABILITY; RESIDENT POPULATION; SURVIVAL; URBAN PLANNING;

NEW YORK [NEW YORK (STT)]; NEW YORK [UNITED STATES]; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84886553064     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.08.002     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Austin M.E. Partnership opportunities in neighborhood tree planting initiatives: Building from local knowledge. Journal of Arboriculture 2002, 28(4):178-186.
2. Boyce S.E. It takes a stewardship village: Is community-based urban tree stewardship effective?. Cities and the Environment 2011, 3(1). Article 3.
3. Braverman I. Everybody loves trees: Policing American cities through street trees. Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum 2008, 19:81-118.
4. Allred S., Ferenz G., Jena N., Lambert V., Tse C., Loria K. Community Views of Urban Forests in the South Bronx, New York. Human Dimensions Research Unit Outreach Series 10-1 2010, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
5. Center for Urban Research City University of New York 2012, The Open Accessible Space Information System: Stewardship Organization Search. http://www.oasisnyc.net/stewardship/stewardshipsearch.aspx. [accessed 5.11.2012.].
6. Dai D. Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: Where to intervene?. Landscape and Urban Planning 2011, 102:234-244. 2011.
7. Eagly A.H., Chaiken S. The psychology of attitudes 1993, Harcourt-Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, Fort-Worth, TX.
8. Elmendorf W. The importance of trees and nature in community: A review of relative literature. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2008, 34(3):152-156.
9. Fraser E.D., Kenney W.A. Cultural background and landscape history as factors affecting perceptions of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 2000, 26(2):106-113.
10. Gooberman S. Executive Director of TreesY. Personal communication 2010 July.
11. Gorman J. Residents' opinions on the value of street trees depending on tree location. Journal of Arboriculture 2004, 30(1):36-44.
12. Grove J.M., O'Neil-Dunne J., Pelletier K., Nowak D., Walton J. A report on New York City's present and possible urban tree canopy 2006, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, South Burlington, VT.
13. Haddock G., Maio G.R. "Attitudes". Encyclopedia of Social 2007, 68-70. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA. 10.4135/9781412956253.n.37. R.F. Psychology, K.D. Baumeister, Vohs (Eds.).
14. Heberlein T.A. Navigating environmental attitudes 2012, Oxford University Press, New York.
15. Heimlich J., Sydnor T.D., Bumgardner M., Brien P.O. Attitudes of residents toward street trees on four streets in Toledo, Ohio, US before removal of ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) from Emerald ash borer (Agrillus planipennis). Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2008, 34(1):47-53.
16. Kocak J. New York City department of parks and recreation employee. Personal communication 2011 September 1.
17. Konisky D. Public preferences for environmental policy responsibility. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 2011, 41(1):76-100.
18. Konisky D., Milyo J., Richardson L.E. Environmental policy attitudes: Issues, geographical scale, and political trust. Social Science Quarterly 2008, 89(5):1066-1085.
19. Kuo F.E., Sullivan W.C., Coley R.L., Brunson L. Fertile ground for community: Inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology 1998, 26(6):823-851.
20. Kuo F.E. Coping with poverty: Impacts of environment and attention in the inner city. Environment and Behavior 2001, 33(1):5-34.
21. Larsen L., Harlan S.L. Desert dreamscapes: Residential landscape preference and behavior. Landscape and Urban Planning 2006, 78(1):85-100.
22. Lemos M.C., Agrawal A. Environmental governance. Annual Reviews of Environment and Resources 2006, 31:297-325.
23. Lohr V.I., Pearson-Mims C.H., Tarnai J., Dillman D.A. How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. Journal of Arboriculture 2004, 30(1):28-35.
24. Lorenzo A.B., Blanche C.A., Qi Y., Guidry M.M. Assessing residents' willingness to pay to preserve the community urban forest: A small-city case study. Journal of Arboriculture 2000, 26(6):319-325.
25. Lovasi G.S., Quinn J.W., Neckerman K.M., Perzanowski M.S., Rundle A. Children living in areas with more street trees have lower prevalence of asthma. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2008, 62(7):647-649.
26. Lu J.W.T., Svendsen E.S., Campbell L.K., Greenfeld J., Braden J., King K.L., Falxa-Raymond N. Biological, social and urban design factors affecting youth street tree mortality in New York City. Cities and the Environment 2010, 3(1). Article 1.
27. Miller K.W., Wilder L.B., Stillman F.A., Becker D.M. The feasibility of a street-intercept survey method in an African-American community. American Journal of Public Health 1997, 87(4):655-658.
28. MillionTreesNYC. http://www.milliontreesnyc.org [accessed 11.5.12.].
29. Moskell C., Broussard Allred S., Ferenz G. Examining motivations and recruitment strategies for urban forestry volunteers. Cities and the Environment 2010, 3(1). Article 9.
30. New York City Department of Parks and Recreation Park cut ribbon on improvements to Canarsie Park 2009, www.nycgovparks.org/parks/B018/pressrelease/20841 [accessed 9.12.11.].
31. New York City Department of Planning Brooklyn Community District 18 Profile 2010, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/lucds/cdstart.shtml#sfl [accessed 9/12/11.].
32. New York City Department of Planning 2006-2009 Comparison Demographic Profile 2010, www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/census/popacs.shtml [accessed 9.12.11.].
33. New York City Department of Planning Queens Community District 12 Profile 2010, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/lucds/cdstart.shtml#sfl [accessed 9.12.11.].
34. Pincetl S. Urban ecology and nature's services infrastructure: Policy implications of the million trees initiative of the city of Los Angeles. urbanization and sustainability: Linking urban ecology, environmental justice and global environmental change 2013, 61-74. Springer Netherlands Science+Business Media, Dordrecht. C.G. Boone, M. Fragkias (Eds.).
35. Pincetl S. From the sanitary city to the sustainable city: Challenges to institutionalizing biogenic (nature's services) infrastructure. Local Environment 2010, 15(1):43-58.
36. Pincetl S. Implementing municipal tree planting: Los Angeles million-tree initiative. Environmental Management 2010, 45(2):227-238.
37. Rae R.A., Simon G., Braden J. Public reactions to new street tree planting. Cities and the Environment 2010, 3(1). Article 10.
38. Schroeder H.W., Ruffolo S.R. Householder evaluations of street trees in a Chicago suburb. Journal of Arboriculture 1996, 22(1):35-43.
39. Smoak N.D. "Beliefs". Encyclopedia of social psychology 2007, 111-112. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA. 10.4135/9781412956253.n.37. R.F. Baumeister, K.D. Vohs (Eds.).
40. Sommer R., Learey F., Summit J., Tirrell M. The social benefits of resident involvement in tree planting. Journal of Arboriculture 1994, 20:170-176.
41. Straka T.J.M., Childers A.P., Christopher J. Individual characteristics affecting participation in urban and community forestry programs in South Carolina, US. Journal of Arboriculture 2005, 31(3):131-137.
42. Svendsen E.S., Campbell L.K. Urban ecological stewardship: Understanding the structure, function and network of community-based urban land management. Cities and the Environment 2008, 1(1). Article 5.
43. Swyngedouw E. Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Studies 2005, 42(11):1991-2006.
44. Thompson L., Elling R. Let them eat marblecake: The preferences of Michigan citizens for devolution and intergovernmental service-provision. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 1999, 29(1):139-154.
45. Treiman T., Gartner J. What do people want from their community forests? Results of a public attitude survey in Missouri, US. Journal of Arboriculture 2005, 31(5):243-250.
46. Westphal L. Urban greening and social benefits: A study of empowerment outcomes. Journal of Arboriculture 2003, 29(3):137-147.
47. Wolf K., Blahna D.J., Brinkley W., Romolini M. Environmental stewardship footprint research: linking human agency and ecosystem health in the Puget Sound region. Urban Ecosystems 2013, 16:13-32.
48. Young R.F. Planting the living city. Journal of the American Planning Association 2011, 77(4):368-381.
49. Young R.F., McPherson E.G. Governing metropolitan green infrastructure in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning 2013, 109(1):67-75.
50. Zhang Y., Hussain A., Deng J., Letson N. Public attitudes toward urban trees and supporting urban tree programs. Environment and Behavior 2007, 39(6):797-814.
51. Zhang Y., Zheng B. Assessments of citizen willingness to support urban forestry: An empirical study in Alabama. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2011, 37(3):118-125.