328 responses (Figure 2). However, communitarian values, such as increases sense of community and “my family will enjoy the tree in the future,” were also popular answer choices. The mean and median values for these questions were always positive (i.e., above the neutral value of 3.5 on the 6-item scale), except for “slows wind” (mean = 3.1, median = 3), so all categories received relatively favorable scores overall. “Slows wind” aside, the medians were always greater than the mean indicating that the distributions are skewed to the left. However, as Figure 2 also shows, the respondents expressed somewhat diverging feelings towards property value, screen views, noise reduction, and slowing of wind, and there are apparent bimodal distributions for those values. Thirty-five participants offered write-in responses to the question about why they value trees. Overall, 21 respondents collectively pro- vided 29 write-in answers that corresponded to one of the existing options. In every case, these survey participants had actually already checked the relevant preset category, and their write-in response merely provided additional Locke et al.: Why Opt-in to a Planting Program? nuance. For example, 15 respondents had write- in comments that were deemed to belong to the original preset category “good for the envi- ronment,” such as “nature friendly,” “retains water,” “produce oxygen,” and “absorbs pollut- ants.” Answers to the write-in option that did not correspond to any of the preset categories are indicative of topics not covered by the ini- tial list of categories. Overall, 28 values were provided by 23 unique respondents that did not resemble the initial categories. The most com- mon write-in responses of that type related to intrinsic values of trees with responses such as “I love trees” and “More trees are just good.” Using EFA to highlight dominant themes across and among the answer choices, three fac- tors explain 50% of the cumulative variation. Three factors were retained, based on the scree plot, the need to keep an appropriate ratio of variables to factors, an examination of the cumulative variance explained, and eigen values >1; these methods are commonly used to determine the most appropri- ate number of factors to retain in EFA (Fabrigar et al. 1999). Average communality was 0.5, with Figure 2. Values attributed to urban trees by tree requesters. Respondents rated each value on a 1 (not at all important) to 6 (very important) rank-item scale. Percentages on the left refer to the sum of scores in the 1–3 range, and the percentages on the right correspond to sum of scores in the 4–6 range. For example, 90% of respondents indicated that they value trees because they “make my home look better” (with rank scale scores of 4 or above). ©2015 International Society of Arboriculture
November 2015
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
