National assessment of tree City USA participation according to geography and socioeconomic characteristics

Arboriculture and Urban Forestry

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 120-130

  Berland, Adam ^a   Herrmann, Dustin L ^b   Hopton, Matthew E ^b  

^a BALL STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

Arbor Day Foundation; Community Forestry; Community Size; Geographic Region; Green Infrastructure; Municipal Management; Tree City USA.

Indexed keywords

COMMUNITY FORESTRY; ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION; ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH; GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION; GREENSPACE; INCOME; MINORITY GROUP; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84961730726     PISSN: 19355297     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Arbor Day Foundation. 2014. Tree City USA. Accessed 23 February 2015. www.arborday.org/programs/treecityusa
2. Benjamini, Y., and Y. Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 57:289-300.
3. Berland, A., and M.E. Hopton. 2014. Comparing street tree assemblages and associated stormwater benefits among communities in metropolitan Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13:734-741.
4. Berland, A., K. Schwarz, D.L. Herrmann, and M.E. Hopton. 2015. How environmental justice patterns are shaped by place: Terrain and tree canopy in Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. Cities and the Environment (CATE): 8:Article 1.
5. Bivand, R. 2014. Spatial dependence: Weighting schemes, statistics, and models. Accessed 23 February 2015. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/spdep/spdep.pdf
6. Crain, R.L. 1966. Fluoridation: The diffusion of an innovation among cities. Social Forces 44:467-476.
7. de Oliveira, G., and J.A.F. Diniz-Filho. 2010. Spatial patterns of terrestrial vertebrates richness in Brazilian semiarid, Northeastern Brazil: Selecting hypotheses and revealing constraints. Journal of Arid Environments 74:1418-1426.
8. Diniz-Filho, J.A.F., L.M. Bini, C.M. Vieira, D. Blamires, L.C. Terribile, R.P. Bastos, G. de Oliveira, and B. de Souza Barreto. 2008. Spatial patterns of terrestrial vertebrate species richness in the Brazilian Cerrado. Zoological Studies 47:146-157.
9. Donovan, G.H., and D.T. Butry. 2010. Trees in the city: Valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon. Landscape and Urban Planning 94:77-83.
10. Dormann, C.F., J. Elith, S. Bacher, C. Buchmann, G. Carl, G. Carri J.R.G. Marqua, et al. 2013. Collinearity: A review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36:27-46.
11. Dormann, C.F., J.M. McPherson, M.B. Arao, R. Bivand, J. Bolliger, G. Carl, R.G. Davies, et al. 2007. Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: A review. Ecography 30:609-628.
12. Dwyer, J.F., E.G. McPherson, H.W. Schroeder, and R.A. Rowntree. 1992. Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 18:227-234.
13. Galvin, M.F., and D. Bleil. 2004. Relationship among tree canopy quantity, community demographics, and Tree City USA program participation in Maryland, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture 30:321-327.
14. Grove, J.M., A.R. Troy, J.P.M. ONeil-Dunne, W.R. Burch, Jr., M.L. Cadenasso, and S.T.A. Pickett. 2006. Characterization of households and its implications for the vegetation of urban ecosystems. Ecosystems 9:578-597.
15. Heynen, N.C., and G. Lindsey. 2003. Correlates of urban forest canopy cover: Implications for local public works. Public Works Management & Policy 8:33-47.
16. Kuhns, M.R., B. Lee, and D.K. Reiter. 2005. Characteristics of urban forestry programs in Utah, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture 31:285-295.
17. Landry, S.M., and J. Chakraborty. 2009. Street trees and equity: Evaluating the spatial distribution of an urban amenity. Environment and Planning A 41:2651-2670.
18. Lohr, V.I., C.H. Pearson-Mims, J. Tarnai, and D.A. Dillman. 2004. How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. Journal of Arboriculture 30:28-35.
19. McFadden, D. 1979. Quantitative model for analyzing travel behavior of individuals: Some recent developments. pp. 279-318. In: D.A. Hensher and P.R. Stopher (Eds.). Behavioural travel modelling. Groom Helm, London, UK.
20. McPherson, E.G., D. Nowak, G. Heisler, S. Grimmon, C. Souch, R. Grant, and R. Rowntree. 1997. Quantifying urban forest structure, function, and value: The Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. Urban Ecosystems 1:49-61.
21. Perkins H.A., N. Heynen, and J. Wilson. 2004. Inequitable access to urban reforestation: The impact of urban political economy on housing tenure and urban forests. Cities 21:291-299.
22. R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Accessed 23 February 2015. www.R-project.org
23. Rangel, T.F., J.A.F. Diniz-Filho, and L.M. Bini. 2010. SAM: A comprehensive application for Spatial Analysis in Macroecology. Ecography 33:46-50.
24. Ries, P.D., A.S. Reed, and S.J. Kresse. 2007. The impact of statewide urban forestry programs: A survey of cities in Oregon, U.S. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 33:168-175.
25. Rosenow, J., and M. Yager. 2007. Tree City USA. pp. 419-427. In: J.E. Kuser (Ed.). Urban and Community Forestry in the Northeast. Springer, New York, New York, U.S.
26. Schroeder, H., J. Flannigan, and R. Coles. 2006. Residents attitudes toward street trees in the UK and U.S. communities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 32:236-246.
27. Schwarz, K., M. Fragkias, C.G. Boone, W. Zhou, M. McHale, J.M. Grove, J. ONeil-Dunne, et al. 2015. Trees grow on money: Urban tree canopy cover and environmental justice. PLoS ONE 10: e0122051.
28. Stevenson, T.R., H.D. Gerhold, and W.F. Elmendorf. 2008. Attitudes of municipal officials toward street tree programs in Pennsylvania, U.S. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34:144-151.
29. U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. TIGER/Line with Selected Demographic and Economic Data. Accessed 23 February 2015. www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-data.html.
30. Zhang, Y., and B. Zheng. 2012. Urban trees programs from municipal officials perspective: Evidence from Alabama, U.S. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 38:160-167.