268 Dilley and Wolf: Homeowner Interactions with Residential Trees in Urban Areas ability (Clark et al. 1997) continues to be used as the basis for strategic urban forest planning and management (Kenney et al. 2011) and is organized into three components: vegetation, re- source management, and community frameworks. Clark’s model acknowledged the importance of human dimensions in urban for- estry, as the future of any city’s urban forest is intertwined with the actions and support of human populations. Other researchers have also highlighted the importance of working within the so- cial context of a city in order to achieve natural resources ob- jectives (Dwyer 2003; Wolf and Kruger 2010; Wolf et al. 2013). Human Dimensions and Urban Forestry The term human dimensions refers to how and why humans value natural resources, how humans want resources managed, and how humans affect or are affected by natural resource man- agement decisions. The concept incorporates a variety of ideas and practices, including cultural, social, and economic values; individual and social behavior; psychological responses, such as preferences and perceptions; socio-demographic variability; legal and institutional frameworks of management; communication and education; and decision-making processes of management (Decker et al. 2001). Human dimension inquiries strive to under- stand some aspect(s) of these social dynamics and how to inte- grate that understanding into management planning and actions. Resource managers and decision makers typically address natural systems yet often encounter the human dimensions of complex and competing values, perceptions, and actions at multiple jurisdictional and societal scales (Pickett et al. 2011). The heterogeneity and complexity of natural systems in cities (Cadenasso 2007; Pickett and Cadenasso 2009) is due to the influences of ecological fragmentation, soils and hydrology disturbance, patchy biodiversity, and microclimate effects. Society, with its multiple jurisdictions, stakeholders, values, interests, institutions, capacities, and vulnerabilities, is simi- larly diverse and complex (Flint et al. 2009). Specific social challenges for urban forest planning and management in- clude fragmentation of urban forest ownership, inadequate public support of funding, and a lack of knowledge about landscape objectives of urban landowners (Dwyer 2003). Human dimensions can be expressed (and studied) at dif- ferent scales, from individuals, to neighborhoods, to cities, and increasing in scope to include entire nations or continents. Increases in canopy cover, and the concurrent increases in benefits provided by urban forests, are dependent on the ac- tivities of both private and public property owners across city parcels, large and small. However, residents on single-family parcels may have the largest impact on urban forests because single-family properties currently make up the majority of the land base in most large cities in the United States. The aver- age U.S. city is 40% residential land, 24% vacant and wild- land, 13% commercial and industrial areas, 12% other (such as agriculture, orchards, and transportation), 6% institutional, and 5% parks (Dwyer et al. 2000). Individual residential par- cels tend to be small; the tree planting and care activities of a single household may have little impact on the overall urban forest. Yet collectively, single-family homeowners can make major contributions to increasing overall canopy cover. Urban forest managers who wish to increase canopy cover must include policies and programs that encourage residents to plant, retain, and maintain trees on their properties. ©2013 International Society of Arboriculture Homeowner Response to Street and Yard Trees Interactions between resource managers and local stakehold- ers are needed to facilitate the identification of management priorities (Flint et al. 2009). What do researchers currently know about the human dimensions of homeowners and urban trees? General public attitudes about trees are a starting point. A national survey found that Americans ranked shade and cool- ing benefits as the most important reasons to have urban trees, and allergies and blocked views of business signs as the most significant problems (Lohr et al. 2004). Attitudes can also be sampled on a statewide level. Zhang et al. (2007) tested for demographic traits and support for urban forestry programs in Alabama, finding that factors associated with greater will- ingness to donate money or time to urban forestry efforts in- cluded awareness of forestry-related programs, full-time em- ployment, being of middle age or younger (less than 56 years old), and having an annual income greater than USD $75,000. More research efforts have addressed residents’ perceptions of street trees, such as visual comparisons of different species (Sommer et al. 1989) and response to species, form, size, and diversity (Schroeder and Ruffolo 1996). The single largest factor determining the attractiveness of street scenes was the size of trees, with residents reporting that streets were espe- cially attractive when larger trees canopied the street (Schro- eder and Ruffolo 1996), a sentiment shared by residents facing tree loss due to emerald ash borer (Heimlich et al. 2008). Per- ceptions of overall satisfaction with street trees are associated with greater appreciation of benefits over annoyances (Sommer and Sommer 1989; Sommer et al. 1990). A cross-cultural comparison between U.S. and UK residents found that over- all opinions about visual character and benefits of nearby street trees did not differ much between nations (Schroeder et al. 2006). Results are consistent with a study in southwest England where residents had a good overall opinion of nearby street trees, rating visual attractiveness as the highest benefit, yet indicating a preference for smaller trees (Flannigan 2005). Tree surveys usually report stated preferences (what people claim to prefer or do). Revealed preferences (or actual behaviors) can be derived from economic exchange or purchases. Such stud- ies reveal that people don’t simply claim to want trees, but act on their preferences by spending money on homes with existing trees. Tree cover in and around housing parcels (up to 40%–60%) had a positive effect on average home sale price in two Midwest U.S. counties (Sander et al. 2010), findings that are consistent with other hedonic studies of trees and market values (as summarized in Donovan and Butry 2010). In Portland, Oregon, U.S., trees had positive effects on home sales price and time on market, as well as rental prices of single-family homes (Donovan and Butry 2010). Of interest in this study were residents’ attitudes and be- haviors concerning all trees associated with their property, both yard and street trees, as residential tree planting behav- ior across an entire parcel is important to reach canopy cover goals. Homeowners’ commitment to care for street trees has been studied. Surveyed residents having a street tree in front of their home were more likely to think that such trees were important than were residents without a street tree; of those having nearby street trees, 37% either cared for the tree them- selves or paid someone else to care for the tree (Gorman 2004). Concerning homeowner tree planting, Summit and McPherson (1998) found that 68% of the surveyed residents
November 2013
| 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
