246 Treiman and Gartner: Public Attitude Survey in Missouri Table 4. Estimated willingness-to-pay (WTP) per household by strata, with 95% confidence interval. The overall value is derived from the weighted average values. Strata Less than 5,001 Between 5,001 and 10,000 Between 10,001 and 20,000 Between 20,001 and 50,000 WTP estimate 95% confidence limits $0.27 –7.1714 $4.56 $8.12 $4.55 Between 50,001 and 150,000 $15.47 Between 150,001 and 250,000 $14.02 St. Louis suburbs Kansas City suburbs St. Louis Kansas City Overall $18.86 $13.10 $15.64 $16.81 $11.02 7.7079 –2.5242 11.6349 0.9479 15.2932 –2.1668 11.2662 8.6045 22.3339 7.1761 20.8734 11.6397 26.0708 6.1119 20.0863 6.7245 24.5484 8.7434 24.8706 8.7340 13.3206 note “trust in government” and “other community priori- ties/needs“ (χ2 = 6076.5, DF = 3, P < 0.0001). Survey results were also used to estimate respondents’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) by strata (Treiman and Gartner 2005). Citizens’ WTP for a tree fund is noticeably higher in and around Missouri’s urban areas than in its smaller communities. (Indeed in some of the smaller communities, such as those with fewer than 5,000 residents, we cannot say that WTP is different than zero with a 95% confidence level.) These larger, more metropolitan communities may have more politically active citizens, better informed citizens, or citizens who simply have higher expectations of government services. These citizens seem willing to fund those expectations. Smaller communities may be more used to lower levels of services, or perhaps more used to fixing problems, including problems with trees, without government aid. These results from Missouri can be compared to other efforts to determine the value of urban trees. Lorenzo et al. (2000) found, using different methods, that the plurality of residents of one small city were willing to pay between $6 and $12, which is the same range as for some of the Missouri results. Other authors have estimated residents’ willingness to pay for the recreation benefits that wooded areas provide, and found these values to be greater than zero (see Kwak et al. 2003; Tyrväinen and Väänänen 1998; and Dwyer et al. 1989). Demographics and the Tree Fund Vote Younger respondents (ages between 20 and 35) were more likely to vote for the hypothetical tree fund, with those over 65 the least likely. This may be explained by the long-term nature of forestry. Younger voters may be more likely to see the results of their votes. Similarly, respondents who had lived at their current address for a shorter period were more willing to vote for the tree fund than those who had lived there for more than 25 years. Willingness to support the fund increased with both education and income. The latter is unsurprising, as more wealthy voters have more money to contribute to causes in which they believe. It is in line with ©2005 International Society of Arboriculture Lorenzo et al.’s (2000) results from Louisiana. Men and women voted for and against the hypothetical tree care fund at about the same rate. Lorenzo et al. found, in one small city in Louisiana, that women were more likely to say that they would pay more than men. Those who grew up in suburban areas were most likely to support the fund, with those from rural areas the least likely. Those who now live in suburban or urban areas were the most likely (χ2 = 28.0119, DF = 18, P < 0.0619). Tree Ordinance When asked whether they would vote for a tree preserva- tion ordinance (to protect or replace trees during develop- ment), a majority of respondents chose “yes“ across all strata. Overall, 63% percent said they would vote “yes.” Again citizens in the larger, more urban communities were more likely to “vote” for the ordinance, but it would, hypothetically, have passed in all communities. This difference between metropolitan communities and smaller ones may again be based on differing citizen expectations from government in different sized communities (χ2 = 5449.7, DF = 3, P < 0.0001). Again, respondents were also asked to choose from a list of statements those which most influenced their “vote.” The leading reasons chosen were “property values,” “help with stormwater runoff,” and aesthetics (“trees are nice/pretty”). In other words, respondents saw trees as both a benefit to themselves and to their entire community. “Yes” voters were far more likely than “no” voters to list “property values,” “help with stormwater runoff,” and aesthetics as important reasons. “No” voters were far more likely than “yes” voters to consider “development costs,” “trust in government,” and the clarity of the referendum in their decisions (χ2 = 3, P < 0.0001). = 2963.6, DF Demographics and the Tree Ordinance Vote Women were more likely than men to say that they would vote in support of the proposed tree ordinance, with younger voters also more in favor. Support increased with both education and income (although support by income dropped off a little at the highest income level). Those who had lived at their current address for less than 5 years were more likely to support the ordinance than those who had lived there for over 25 years. Those who owned their own home were also more likely to support the ordinance. Respondents who reported that they had grown up in urban or suburban areas were the most likely “yes” voters (χ2 = 158.9692, DF = 12, P < 0.0001). This may reflect some similarities to Dickerson et al.’s (2001) findings from Illinois that communities with higher income and education levels (such as suburban communities) were more likely to have stronger tree ordinances.
September 2005
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Ai generated response may be inaccurate.
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.
Downloading PDF
Generating your PDF, please wait...
This process might take longer please wait
