Public Perceptions of the Value of Urban Trees in the River Rouge Watershed

Abstract

This study examines attitudes toward urban green space among homeowners in the River Rouge Watershed of southeast Michigan. Trees play a significant role in urban areas by providing numerous environmental, economic and social benefits to community residents. But public attitudes toward trees are not well understood. Through survey research we found that residents are most likely to value trees for personal benefit (like shade) but that social reasons are also valuable (improving the neighborhood). We also illustrate that cost is not an impeding factor in willingness to plant trees. Finally, our study reveals that homeowners felt tree planting is both an individual responsibility as well as a government responsibility. On the basis of these findings, we recommend that urban forestry policy should focus on education and outreach in an attempt to marry tree-planting initiatives to the individual benefits of trees as well as the community benefits of urban green space.

Greening Sydney: attitudes, barriers and opportunities for tree planting

“…With respect to the functional values, planting trees because they provide shade and privacy are the most popular reasons from both LGA residents. This outcome is consistent with Olive, Rusch and Ayers (2013) in that residents value trees because of a personal benefit, such as shade and property values, both functional aspects of trees (Kirkpatrick, Davison & Daniels 2012). Likewise, Summit and McPherson (1998) highlight the functional (shade) and the aesthetic (beauty) as a priority for residents' tree planting.…”

“…The connection to nature may be also related to differences in attitudes due to tree location as found in this study as residents may feel a direct impact from immediate trees within their properties (Olive, Rusch & Ayers 2013). Predictors of tree removal are more to do with constraints than the perceived benefits from trees (Tenneson 2013) and the fear of trees being related to social and inherited backgrounds (Skar 2010).…”

“…High levels of income are related to stronger aesthetic values towards trees in terms of beauty (Kirkpatrick, Davison & Daniels 2012, Head & Muir 2005 and it is the preferred value for gardening purposes (Clayton 2007). However, other studies demonstrate that income is not a barrier for tree planting in residents (Olive, Rusch & Ayers 2013) as will be discussed in the following section. The theory about the selection of the aesthetic value of trees by residents is discussed in Section 5.4.…”

“…In fact, community groups that volunteer in planting activities have high environmental values and it is one of their priorities for participating (Dhakal & Paulin 2009) who find themselves 'in-line with their mission' (Jack- Scott et al 2013 p.189) having the intention for socialization and community building (Austin 2002, Westphal 2003, Lohr et al 2004. Olive, Rusch and Ayers (2013) also comment that this group value trees more than the rest of the community and their attitudes towards tree planting do not involve a 'personal benefit'.…”

“…The distribution of nature, for example varies according to socio-economic gradients of the same locality within private or public land (Shanahan et al 2014) and is important to highlight in tree policies and planning as tree density is higher in parks and households of high income suburbs (Shanahan et al 2014). In addition, Olive, Rusch and Ayers (2013) noted that the difference in attitudes between residents in separate councils may vary because of the number of green spaces available for tree planting.…”