Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 37(3): May 2011 Table 6. Ordered logistic results and marginal effect for alcohol & tobacco tax. Funds in U.S. dollars. Variables Intercept 1 Intercept 2 Awareness of tree service Family size Child < 18 yrs College Bachelor’s degree White Male Age Income (in thousand $) Employed χ2 Likelihood Ratio z statistically significant at 5% level y 0.99z -1.31y (0.09) (0.92) -0.06 (0.06) 0.05(0.16) -0.05 (0.20) 0.73y 0.56z 1.36 -1.13 1.09 (0.34) (0.33) 0.18 (0.28) 0.29 (0.21) 0.01 (0.008) 0.002 (0.003) -0.002 (0.23) 31.04 14.92 statistically significant at 10% level Note:Values in parenthesis indicate standard error. is to say, people with high education prefer the government to add tax to alcohol and tobacco users and the money can be a source of finance for community tree programs. Similarly, males are more inclined to support financing from alcohol and tobacco tax compared to females based on these findings. Other variables, such as race, age, income, working status, family size, and chil- dren, have no significant impact on support level probability. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS The findings from this study provide further support for the evidence found in previous studies that humans like trees (e.g., Clark et al. 2002; Lohr et al. 2004; Straka et al. 2005; Zhang et al 2007). People like to have trees on their property and in the community, an observation that is not based on their gender, age, race, income, and family background. The most favored amenity of trees is that trees improve the appearance of the communi- ty. Individuals with higher education have a higher tendency to have trees on their property. People with a high concern of the negative impacts of trees, such as the potential damage caused by trees, would be less likely to prefer trees in their community. Further analysis on the characteristics contributing to an individual’s willingness to donate money shed light on the study’s policy implications, as people who have more infor- mation about urban tree programs and forestry services are more likely to donate money. Managers and planners should take more action to help public access to urban tree programs and encourage the public to participate in urban tree activities. Tree agencies also play a role in distributing information and providing technical support. To educate the public on the func- tions of urban tree programs is an important means of gaining their support, especially for small communities (Thompson and Ahern 2000). For example, providing public education and more accessible media information can increase public awareness of urban tree programs. Females and whites have a high tendency to donate money to a fundraiser. Higher family income would significantly lead to larger amount of donation. Therefore, a good economic environment helps in fundraising. While evidence shows that there is significant demand for ur- ban trees, financial support for urban trees does not match the -17.61 -13.58 -4.45 -7.02 -0.26 -0.05 0.06 -0.32 0.27 -0.26 4.16 3.21 1.05 1.66 0.06 0.01 -0.01 -1.04 0.86 -0.83 13.44 10.36 3.40 5.36 0.20 0.04 -0.04 Alcohol & tobacco tax (Y3 Ordered logistic estimate Y3 ) Marginal effect % = low Y3 = median Y3 = high 123 growing demand. This is not surprising since demand would be high if the cost issue is not addressed. In contrast with many studies that primarily focused on the demand side or the attitudes toward urban trees, this study not only investigates public attitudes to trees but also the preferences to financing urban tree programs. While this study has its limitations in sampling size, response rate, and the ques- tions formulated, the insights shed some light on current perceptions of financing urban trees programs, and provide some results for fur- ther investigation. The survey was targeted to citizens, a further investigation to mayors and city managers would be useful. Another limi- tation of the study was that the sample could be potentially biased due to the relatively low response rate. The sample population is from relatively high income, high educa- tion level families as compared to the aver- age income and education levels in Alabama. Acknowledgments. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council Chal- lenge Cost-Share Program (#05-DG-11083150-160), and Urban & Com- munity Forestry Financial Assistance Program. We also thank the support provided by Ms. Yi Pan and Mr. Pengyu Zhu in the survey. The survey instrument was approved by the Auburn University Institutional Review Board. Comments from two anonymous reviewers are also greatly ap- preciated. LITERATURE CITED Arrow, K.J. 1951. Social choice and individual value. Yale University Press, New Haven. Austin, M.E. 2002. Partnership opportunities in neighborhood tree plant- ing initiatives: Building from local knowledge. Journal of Arboricul- ture 28:178–186. Barro, S.C., P.H. Gobster, H.W. Schroeder, and S.M. Bartram. 1997. What makes a big tree special? Insight from the Chicagoland Tree- mendous Trees program. Journal of Arboriculture 23:239–249. Bradley, G. 1995. Urban Forest Landscapes: Integrating Multidisci- plinary Perspectives. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Center for Urban Forest Research. 2003. Urban Forest Research News- letter. Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Spring, 2003. Clark, T.N., R. Lloyd, K. Wong, and P. Jain. 2002. Amenities drive urban growth. Journal of Urban Affairs 24(5):493–515. Deng, J., K.G. Arano, C. Pierskalla, J. McNeel. 2010. Linking Urban Forests and Urban Tourism: A Case of Savannah, Georgia. Tourism Analysis 15(2):167–181. Dwyer, J.E., D.J. Nowak, and G.W. Watson. 2002. Future directions for urban forestry research in the United States. Journal of Arboriculture 28:231–236. 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(5):227–234. Dwyer, M.C., and R.W. Miller. 1999. Using GIS to assess urban tree canopy benefits and surrounding greenspace distributions. Journal of Arboriculture 30(1):102–106. Gorman, J. 2004. Residents’ opinions on the value of street trees depend- ing on tree allocation. Journal of Arboriculture 30(1):36–43. ©2011 International Society of Arboriculture
May 2011
| 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
