54 are a better means of capturing at least some of the psychosocial and ecological Ordóñez et al.: Determining Public Values of Urban Forests themes urban residents consider important in urban forests. More research may also be needed to understand why people seem to have a lack of understanding of the economic and health value of urban trees. CONCLUSION While some environmental and aesthetic value themes can be readily elicited from the public, the results here indicate that Canadian urban in- habitants in Fredericton, Halifax, and Winnipeg also associate psychological, social, and ecologi- cal values with urban trees when their answers are unprompted. This study also suggests—based on what people say they value about urban forests— urban forest managers could strive for an en- hancement of sensory experiences by increasing the naturalness and ecological quality of urban forest spaces and increasing their environmental benefits, such as adding more shade. Ultimately, only a combination of methods can help research- ers come closer to a deep understanding of what the general public values about the trees in their cities. The method used here has certainly proved useful in eliciting some value themes that are not usually found in the literature. The study authors deduce that methods intent on capturing the val- ues people assign to the urban forests will be strengthened by enhancing the direct experi- ence between them, since many value themes are not just associated with respondents’ intellectual awareness of their environmental and economic importance but also with their psychological states. Acknowledgments. We wish to thank the following people for their help in the collection and preliminary analysis of the data of this study: in Fredericton, Tom Beckley’s students; in Halifax, James Bar, Erin McWilliam, and Alexandra van der Pol; and in Winnipeg, Natasha Szach. LITERATURE CITED Arnberger, A., and R. Eder. 2012. Exploring coping behaviours of Sunday and workday visitors due to dense use conditions in an urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11(4):439–449. Balram, S., and S. Dragievi. 2005. Attitudes toward urban green spaces: Integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements. Landscape and Urban Planning.71(2–4):147–162. Bengston, D.N. 1994. Changing forest values and ecosystem man- agement. Society & Natural Resources 7:515–533. Budruk, M., H. Thomas and T. Tyrrell. 2009. Urban green spaces: A study of place attachment and environmental attitudes in India. Society & Natural Resources 22(9):824–839. Chiesura, A. 2004. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning 68(1):129–138. Clark, J.R., N.P. Matheny, G. Cross, and V. Wake. 1997. A model of urban forest sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture 23(1):17–30. Conway, T., and J. Hackworth. 2007. Urban pattern and land cover variation in the greater Toronto area. The Canadian Geographer/ Le Géographe Canadien 51(1):43–57. Dietz, T., A. Fitzgerald, and R. Shwom. 2005. Environmental values. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30:335–372. Dietz, T., P.C. Stern, and G.A. Guagnano. 1998. Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Envi- ronment and Behavior 30(4):450–471. Donovan, G.H., and D.T. Butry. 2010. Trees in the city: Valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon. Landscape and Urban Plan- ning 94(2):77–83. Dutcher, D.D., J.C. Finley, A.E. Luloff, and J.B. Johnson. 2007. Con- nectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environment and Behavior 39(4):474. Dwyer, J.F., E.G. McPherson, H.W. Schroeder, and R.A. Rowntree. 1992. Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Jour- nal of Arboriculture 18(5):227–227. Dwyer, J.F., H.W. Schroeder, and P.H. Gobster. 1991. The signifi- cance of urban trees and forests: Toward a deeper understand- ing of values. Journal of Arboriculture 17(10):276–284. Fisher, R.K., R.K. Turner, and P. Morling. 2009. Defining and clas- sifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics 68(3):643–653. Flannigan, J. 2005. An evaluation of residents’ attitudes to street trees in southwest England. Arboricultural Journal 28(4):219–241. Fraser, E.D.G., and W.A. Kenney. 2000. Cultural background and landscape history as factors affecting perceptions of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 26(2):106–113. Getz, D.A., A. Karow, and J.J. Kielbaso. 1982. Inner city preferences for trees and urban forestry programs. Journal of Arboriculture 8(10):258–263. Giles-Corti, B., and R.J. Donovan. 2002. The relative influence of individual, social, and physical environment determinants of physical activity. Social Science & Medicine 54(12):1793–1812. Gobster, P.H., and L.M. Westphal. 2004. The human dimensions of urban greenways: Planning for recreation and related experi- ences. Landscape and Urban Planning 68(2–3):147–165. Gorman, J. 2004. Residents’ opinions on the value of street trees de- pending on tree location. Journal of Arboriculture 30(1):36–44. Grove, M., A.R. Troy, J.P. O’Neil-Dunne, W.R.J. Burch, M.L. Cade- nasso, and S.T.A. Pickett. 2006. Characterization of households and its implications for the vegetation of urban ecosystems. Ecosystems 9(4):578–597. Heberlein, T.A. 2012. Navigating environmental attitudes. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, U.S. 240 pp. Hull, R.B. 1992. How the public values urban forests. Journal of Arboriculture 18(2):98–101. Hunter, I.R. 2001. What do people want from urban forestry?— The European experience. Urban Ecosystems 5(4):277–284. ©2016 International Society of Arboriculture
January 2016
| 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
