42 Plant and Kendal: Resident Tolerance for Mixtures of Tree Species Within Streets (Heimlich et al. 2008). In less emotive circumstances, residents of Dresden and Cologne approved of more “wild” herbaceous streetside vegetation amongst tree- lined streetscapes, but still preferred planted and maintained vegetation (Weber et al. 2014), and house sale prices in Portland were higher when the nearest “green street stormwater facilities” contained more trees of mature age and diverse taxa (Netusil et al. 2014). Yet symmetrical, orderly, and homogenous street- scapes have been rated as more attractive (Weber et al. 2008) and both physically (van Dillen et al. 2012; de Vries et al. 2013) and psychologically more restor- ative (Lindal and Hartig 2015) in other cities. In contrast, resident preferences for individual street tree characteristics have been widely reported in both stated and revealed preference research (Williams 2002; Todorova et al. 2004; Schroeder et al. 2006; Pandit et al. 2013; Camacho-Cervantes et al. 2014; Escobedo et al. 2015a; Ng et al. 2015). In survey responses, res- idents have often stated their preferences for aestheti- cally pleasing street trees over functionally beneficial ones and always over trees associated with excessive debris or perceived to be damaging to property or of risk to people (Schroeder et al. 2006). What is pleas- ing at an individual tree scale can depend on whether respondents have a street tree on their frontage (Gor- man 2004) and varies between tall, leafy, shade trees in Morelia, Mexico (Camacho-Cervantes et al. 2014), and southern California (Avolio et al. 2015); small, slower-growing street trees in cool, cloudy climates of North Somerset, UK (Schroeder et al. 2006); large, spreading street trees rather than columnar trees in Chicago (Schroeder and Ruffolo 1996) and Germany (Gerstenberg and Hofmann 2016); medium-sized, globular street trees in Melbourne, Australia (Wil- liams 2002); broad-leaved trees (not palms) on foot- path frontages in Perth, Australia (Pandit et al. 2013); large hardwood species (not conifers) in Athens, Georgia (Anderson and Cordell 1988); and large, hardy, shady, and symbolic Ficus species in Kuala Lumpur (Sreetheran et al. 2011), Bangkok (Thaiutsa et al. 2008), and southern China (Jim and Liu 2001). Likewise, few studies to date have specifically explored the influence of temporal, socio-economic, and demographic factors on tree species diversity within streetscapes. At the city-wide scale, we know such factors influence street tree abundance and private garden species diversity (Landry and Chakraborty 2009; Kendal et al. 2012). Socio-economically ©2019 International Society of Arboriculture advantaged residents and those with greater knowl- edge of trees or positive experiences with trees/land- scapes are more likely to already live in leafy suburbs, support tree-planting programs (Jones et al. 2013), and rate trees as important to their quality of life (Lohr et al. 2004). But it is not clear whether socio-economic status is a good predictor of tolerance for species diversity within local streetscapes. Esc- obedo et al. (2015) found greater species diversity across an aggregated inventory of public tree popula- tions in the richest socio-economic areas of Bogota, and likewise Pedlowski et al. (2002) in street tree populations of nine districts of Rio de Janiero. House- hold income was also found to be the best discrimina- tor of the seven attitude syndromes of residents, which were identified across suburbs in six Australian cities (Kirkpatrick et al. 2012), as strong predictors of tree planting and removal behaviours that directly influ- enced abundance and diversity of trees on private property as well as streetscape preferences. However, Avolio et al. (2015), Kendal (2012), and Luck et al. (2009) found stronger relationships between educa- tion levels and public tree diversity. Few studies have explored interactions between education and income on street tree preferences. Municipalities would benefit from insights into local resident preference for mixtures of species within streets, either to incorporate alternative species as replacements for pest/drought-affected or vulnerable street tree species, or to evaluate shifts in streetscape design and functionality toward a mixed array of trees. This study explores resident preferences inferred from the effects of a range of street tree fea- tures, including species richness, on house sale prices in the city of Brisbane, Australia. METHODS This study used hedonic price modelling to measure home-buyers’ preferences for street tree features. Hedonic pricing is based on the assumption that people choose their consumption of environmental qualities through their selection of a private-good consumption bundle (Freeman III et al. 2014) such as the purchase price of a house. Residential housing prices (the dependent variable in the hedonic model) provide a market value of a bundle of goods and can be broken down into both attributes of the house and land and locational characteristics, including environmental features (the explanatory or independent variables in
March 2019
| 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
